streaming Movies and TV daily, click
here for the web player, or
here for the .m3u.
I hate religion everyone who follows any religion must be stupid and easily persuaded they all close their minds and have false hopes and prayers relying on god to help them when they should rely on whats around them like REALITY they burden them selves with guilt and are to afraid of an evil that dont exist to ever give it up and then they defend it like they know more than you!!!!
bull fucking shit!!!
Counterpoint: Meters aren't real.
>when they should rely on whats around them like REALITY
The problem with that is that nobody knows enough about reality to deny any of the claims; if a person believes in their religion with a solid spiritual or (*gasp*) scientific reasoning for their beliefs, then who are you to judge them, or refute them if you yourself don't have as solid base of a reasoning?
Who cares if someone doesn't believe in the same things as you? Variety is the spice of life.
"Would you like to receive the love of God, little boy? All you have to do is bend over and spread those cute little cheeks of yours."
>solid spiritual or (*gasp*) scientific reasoning for their beliefs
Someone who actually thinks there are religions with sound scientific reasoning being their beliefs? That speaks volumes about your astounding lack of understanding of how science works.
Maybe if you spent less time praying to magical fairies and more time in a school of higher learning you could actually cram some legitimate knowledge into that giant sucking sound which exists between your ears.
Thank you i agree
I dont think any religion has a GOOD or logical scientific reasoning behind it.
Extremists in either direction are equally stupid.
i just hate religion for how fake it is and yet people believe it is truth and the only truth and ignore all who oppose it like stupid ignorant animals.
I have never forced my Catholic beliefs on someone else, in fact I tend to see Atheists are pushier with their beliefs, the sort of thing seen in this thread.
So tell me, oh great and wise scientist, if the Big Bang is a correct interpretation of the origin of the universe what caused the Big Bang?
Your question could just as easily be asked about God.
Im no athiest i believe in god just not the religious god.What caused the Big Bang? i dont think anyone will ever know but i believe God could of done it in some way in which way i have no idea.
The big bang happened, whether you want to think "god did it" or "the variables that allowed it to happen were realized and it happened", doesn't matter. It happened, and we can see and hear the echoes of it still echoing across the galaxy.
If you're looking for a place for your ever-shrinking god, then "before" (not that there was a "before") the big bang is a good place to sneak it in, though it doens't make the god concept any less understood or preposterous.
Science isn't what's destroying religion, religion is what is destroying religion. Learn.
ex catholic, ex acolyte, ex lay minister.
In the same time that it took to pull that cliche argument out of your ass, I could do a quick Google search for the answer.
3/10 Science is a result of the works of numerous theists and polytheists (Scientific method, modern theory of evolution).
>a GOOD or logical scientific reasoning
Buddhism has sociology and philosophy behind it.
Have you read how pants-on-head crazy that article is? I'm not saying I give a shit about this topic one way or the other, just that... yikes.
>It doesn't agree with me; it must be crazy!
Here, have a less "crazy" article that I pulled out of my ass in the same search.
http://biologos.org/questions/what-created-god(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
> Science is a result of the works of numerous theists and polytheists (Scientific method, modern theory of evolution).
Ah, the anthropic view yet again.
Science is the result of the natural laws of the universe, and most of mankinds innate curiosity to understand them.
Most of the theists that are successful in the sciences aren't theists for very long, and no one did more to hold science back than the rest of the theists and polytheists. The deists were less of a problem, but most would consider them atheists today anyway. ...because the more you observe nature, the less baseless unnatural "traditional wisdom" from the stupid ages you're inclined to believe. Hence why well over 90% of the scientific community worldwide, even the stodgiest, conservative stuck in the mud types, are still a pile of atheistic progressives compared to the mindless abrahamic dogma drones, who don't even know how to ask a question, much less what questions need asking.
Whenever people take the time to look into the known history of their gods and cults, their days as believers are numbered.
If you like believing in a god or gods (overwhelming odds are, the one you were born into believing, due to childhood indoctrination), don't look into it. Just tune everybody and everything out. There's a reason you're discouraged from questioning too deep or reading outside the sphere.
>Science is the result of...
Science is our understanding of those results. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science definition 1:) "A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences."
>"Most of the theists..."
I will not reply to this primarily because it's a sourceless straw-man argument, along with the rest of the paragraph.
>Just tune everybody and everything out...
Come back when you can use a point that doesn't involve childish belittling. More evidence and suggestions point to the existence of a deity. There is no model of the universe known that does not include God that can justifies Baryon Asymmetry, for instance. But, if you want to bring the same level of intelligence to 7chan that's bred like AIDS in r/atheism, then who am I to stop you?
Did you actually read the article?
What I'm getting at isn't that time before creation can't be explained, what I'm saying is that it's unfair to ask what came before the big bang and to presume out of hand that asking what happened before god created the earth should be common knowledge.
Here, articles on what happened before the big bang:
That shouldn't have been belittling. That was honest advice.
> More evidence and suggestions point to the existence of a deity.
Please, show your work. Not to 7chan, but the entire worldwide scientific community would FUCKING LOOOOOVE to see it. ANY evidence at all, much less MORE. Man, consider /x.
I apologize for presenting the shit article (the second one being a lot better) and pressing the point against an opponent with a vague and unknown-at-the-time agenda, but I do not apologize for using said articles of reasoning to counter such a cliche argument made by an opposing party. (For the future, it is also unfair to present that question to someone who may possibly have an answer while accusing them of ignorance. I didn't see it, but I was expecting it.)
>That shouldn't have been belittling. That was honest advice.
huehuehue I told him to fuck off an said that he shuld. I'm so edgi an hardcour
>Please, show your work.
Kalam Cosmological Argument hasn't had a good denial, rebuttal, or dismissal yet, outside of dismissal of its field when the argument is applied to a vague theism vs. atheism debate. But I guess I have no say in this, because going back to ("That speaks volumes about your astounding lack of understanding of how science works." >>16428
), I guess I'm just stupid for recognizing that science and religion exist as two different facilities of study. But, if you're worried about the actual scientific community, then maybe I should present it to the approximate 50% (http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/do-scientists-really-reject-god) of scientists (I have no idea where you got that 90% figure). Of course, that would dismiss any formal debating between the two parties who've had much more experience in the field (the Lennox vs. Dawkins debate I personally find amusing). I guess you just want me to throw myself into the windows of the UN building while shouting my theistic beliefs and why I have them, stopping everything important and creating controversy over something that the scientific community were working on anyway, because some generic anti-theist failtroll anon on 7chan told me to.
I think that you're presuming that I'm against you... I'm really not. You started the argument of "what happened before the big bang". My entire point was to say that it's that question which is invalid. You turned it against me and began to argue the same point. I'm agreeing with you in that it isn't a valid question for either side to ask. I'm not an opponent, but I am actually pretty curious as to what you think my agenda is. Perhaps there's just a misunderstanding here.
And yes, the second article is indeed better.
I believe in god how he exists i dont know how did he create existence i dont know i do believe what science can tell me i also believe god has something to do with it SO i think i just wanna focus on reality and how to get rid of religion so everyone in the world can be at peace.
You dont like peace?
You think that peace and religion are incompatible? The concepts are fine, it's the medium that refutes peace; as long as there are humans, there will be no peace.
If you're talking about a religion like the Jains or something, then sure, but that's barely even a religion. Its a philosophical school.
If by religion you mean any of the Abrahamic faiths, then no, there cannot be peace, because eternal conflict is woven into their very foundation. They are inwardly tumultuous and outwardly aggressive by their very nature. It's why they survived this long and millions of other cults and gods were absorbed in or faded away in that time.
It's not humanity failing a perfect religion, it's an ancient amalgamation of barbarian religions that is less and less appropriate for society the further we develop beyond the Bronze Age.
...especially now that we've unearthed and learned a great deal about those barbarian religions that became modern day Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Peace is not part of the formula.
then it's a good thing that atheist and evolved secular types are so peaceful
Well peace is another issue we will see what happens when religion is finally forgotten in a thousand years or so because stupid people have a long generation.
In what way are atheists more pushy than religious people? Is it because we ask discomforting questions? Make discomforting comments? That we do both those things almost only when approached by religious people? I'm bombarded by religious bullshit everyday, involuntarily, thank you. I can drive by six churches, three billboards, and two church funded organizations (e.g. AA) in a matter of three minutes where I live. And every time I crack open a news paper or visit a news site, SOMEONE has to be talking about some religious event or story of some kind. And last time I checked, it wasn't atheists coming to my door at nine in the fucking morning asking if I've accepted Jesus as my goddamn lord and saviour.
So sit the fuck down, you Bible-thumping twit.
, not very polite.png
>Is it because we ask discomforting questions? Make discomforting comments?
Anti-theists rarely present their viewpoints as "discomforting" when the terms "slanderous" and "hateful" is more apt.
>when approached by religious people?
This is hardly ever the case; anti-theists and atheists can spew their hatred, bigotry, and prejudice with only the slightest hint of the topic being present (that is, when they DO actually do it in response). I can tell you through my personal experience that more often than not, it's an anti-theist that usually turns a civil discussion into a hateful flame war.
>I can drive by six churches
I drive by eight fast food restaurants daily. That doesn't hinder my diet at all; subjecting to their service is a choice of the individual. A large amounts of churches are present for the large amount of theists that exist (unless you don't recognize the basic laws of Supply-and-Demand). Their presence, if you are an individual with at the slightest amount of willpower, should not be enough to "hinder" your beliefs.
Boy, it's such a good thing that atheists never do this for their beliefs (or something similar like buses that say "[God] probably doesn't exist"), or else this would be a hypocritical moot point.
>In what way are atheists more pushy than religious people?
You anti-theists are a funny bunch. Not only do some of you believe that you're more "evolved" than theists, but some of you go so far as to ignore your own hatred of us for no good reason. Anti-theists hate religion and justify their hatred with blind propaganda. Now-a-days online, no theist is safe from being "challenged" by an anti-theist waging his version of "holy war" (Irl though... well... Lennox vs. Dawkins). Not only do you contaminate everything with your selfish and unjustified hatred, but you are arrogant enough to denounce anyone who has those different beliefs as "unscientific", "stupid", and (hypocritically) "bigots", then spread this message to any poor youth that seeks the self-assertion of intelligence and stroking of ego, encouraging the same corrupted message of something that was once a wise concept into a prejudice-, ignorant-fueled show of lack-of-will. Not only that, but this blind and bigoted hatred is (somehow) accepted into media. Most pro-Christian media supports itself with the message of "accepting God's love is a good thing". Most atheist media conveys the message of "Religious people are stupid and delusional, uncivilized, and stupid." This alone reflects enough about the "rebel without a cause" attitude of most anti-theists. You hate us for no good reason, and nothing that we can say will convince you otherwise, without breaking through the wall of arrogance (seriously, only a fool would believe that atheism is the only religion supported by science).
This. So. Much.
Humanity is full of animals driven by natural selection and selfish desires. We will never experience true "peace and prosperity".
>Anti-theists rarely present their viewpoints as "discomforting" when the terms "slanderous" and "hateful" is more apt.
Because if there's one thing Christian and Muslim religions are known for, it's their complete lack of slanderous and hateful statements.
All those gays who are pedophiles and deserve to die in the fires of hell for all eternity? Well that's just being friendly and factual. Sure, they might not actually have sex with children, and give more to charity, provide more community service, generally be a nicer person to other, etc. than the one making those statements, but that's completely beside the point - they're both pedophiles are going to hell. Remember, friendly & factual! No hate! No slander!
Clearly you've never heard of the Episcopal Church or certain Baptist churches if your argument is "well gay people are hated by some Christians therefore Christianity is hateful!"
So the beliefs of a minority of Christians outweighs the beliefs and actions of a majority of Christians?
It's past time to get our house in order. We're not being victimized, we're not being oppressed, we are - in fact - being fairly judged by the company we not only choose to keep, but also defend.
Its time to rebuke these groups consistently, constantly, and always - always - deny that they are our brethren. Their hearts are not filled with kindness and brotherly love, but are instead twisted by greed and hate. Until we completely disconnect ourselves from them we will never be free of their influence and will be judged by our collective acts.
>So the beliefs of a minority of Christians outweighs the beliefs and actions of a majority of Christians?
I agree completely. The entirety of Christianity should not be judged as having harsh, rash views against gays because of the WBC's campaign.
The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few except the only thing religion needs is to die out and everyone needs that.
Except the WBC represents the views of the many, at least in terms of the majority of Christianity. The majority of Christian faiths, starting with Catholics - the single largest Christian faith - are intolerant of homosexuality. And that's just the start.
Either its time to stop calling ourselves Christians to avoid being lumped in with these heathens, or it's time to start constantly pointing out that their faiths have nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with spewing hatred.
And you, along with nearly every religious person I've spoken to, are very keen on making assumptions. First off, "discomforting" was indeed the word I was looking for, and if you want to base your entire argument off of what happens on Youtube, then you may want to get some more reference points and, for the one you have, look up more videos. In unreasonable amounts, I see both sides of whiny teenager on Youtube thrashing away at each other for no good reason. The video doesn't even have to be related to religion and, still, someone must say "This wouldn't be a problem if there were more Christians" or "This is just proof that God doesn't exist." And I mean ANYTHING. In short don't use Youtube as your base-point, or you will have lost before you've even started. My original point was about real life. I have been harangued by people several times for simply saying I'm an atheist, when they ask what my beliefs are, and several arguments with real people have been started on that basis, and many times, groups of people would get involved to try and gang up on me in, usually, a verbal fashion to get me to admit that I'm either wrong, a filthy sinner, or both. And again, atheists don't bother you at your doorstep.
Second, food and supplies are convenient to any human, not just one sect, whereas religion is unnecessary to begin with, and just causes religious rivalry between groups of different people. In other words, bigotry for no reason. In a twist of the thumb-to-finger analogy, I can easily be friends with you and respect you if you are religious, but there have been dozens of times where that same human decency was not and would not be shown the other way around.
Thirdly, tell me, how many buses have you seen with such ads on them, or even billboards for that matter? Yes, atheists are getting tired of being mistreated and misconstrued on a constant basis and yes, we've finally got a small dose of advertising on our side. Compare that with the army of advertisements that are still present, the number of which is still growing, and we have what, a mediocre 2%? Spare me.
Lastly, and this will be a bit hodgepodge, my hatred for religion is not unjustified. Religions of nearly all stripes try to teach people that people can be inherently detestable for harmless natural qualities they can't control or wouldn't have to control under reasonable circumstances, or should I say, circumstances in which reason is involved (i.e. region, profession of a different faith, sexuality, gender, diet, preferred sex position, identity, culture, etc.). That, in itself is a detestable thing to say. Furthermore, it says things about history or the universe that are explicitly untrue. Now, I'm a big fan of not blatantly lying to people, and if that makes me pushy or bigoted, then so be it. And finally, though you would love to presume that I attack religious people without due ground, YOU entered a thread made for atheists and anti-theists (though admittedly, an immature one) knowing full well that you were going to stir the shit-pot. I'm responding to YOUR comment as I often do with other religious folk. As it happens, I am one of few outspoken internet atheists who, despite being outspoken, still only gets into debates on the matter when spurred by someone else.
Oh, and don't try to toss away the "burden of proof" argument as I've seen you doing. It's still on you.
My grandfather was valedictorian of his high school and he's a Mormon.
, oh you must be kidding.jpg
The thing about a strawman ad hominem attack such as the one you're making is that if you can't deduce enough about your opponent, you miss their point completely. You're talking to a Buddhist here; followers of my religion have rarely caused clashes throughout history until recently (when Muslims started to populate India, but that's because they're sand-nigger-invaders anyway).
>and if you want to base your entire argument off of what happens on Youtube
Facebook, Smogon, ED, FJ, 4chan, 7chan, Gmod, Facepunch... I could go on with a list of sites. The fact that you had to specify Youtube for your argument shows how little of the web you must experience if you ignore such mainstream sources. With just as many angst-filled sources. The ignorant and bigoted users of Youtube though, are not confined to Youtube, so assuming that they contain all of their hatred and stupidity to that community is a risky gambit.
>Second, food and supplies are convenient to any human, not just one sect, whereas religion is unnecessary to begin with
Not only did you miss the point of my analogy, but you presented a double standard here. Excess and greasy food is not necessary. Need I remind you how many Starbucks restaurants exist in the world, when substitute drinks exist outside of over-priced coffee?
>and just causes religious rivalry between groups of different people.
What's your point? Humanity will always fight over the stupidest things, using anything as en excuse (WWI). Religion is an abstract concept, humans fight humans and use crazy concepts to justify their point. Without religion, humanity would still fight, but pin such excuses elsewhere (racism, nationality, etc...)
>getting tired of being mistreated and misconstrued on a constant basis
Yes, because gosh darn it, I went to a Jewish church because they were having a national "Purge Atheists with Hellfire" day. Gosh darn, it must be so hard to be an atheist, constantly denying that God exists. How do you put up with such hardships knowing that you're smarter than about 90% of the world, yet still hated, not because you won't shut up about it, but because you're an atheist?
>the army of advertisements that are still present
The difference is that most pro-Christian advertisements revolve around the establishment of a specific church. Most atheist propaganda revolves about the conversion to "faith of lack of faith".
>circumstances in which reason is involved...sexuality
I laughed harder than I should have there.
>or bigoted, then so be it.
No, you're bigoted because you're classifying almost the entire population (only apatheists and agnostics spared) based on the radical actions of few, not considering the pros of such ideals and looking down on those who believe differently without fully understanding the entire group or even considering if they're correct.
>Furthermore, it says things about history or the universe that are explicitly untrue.
Unless you can explicitly prove otherwise, the possibility of a religion being valid remains. Denial on the grounds of ignorance is no more scientific or valid than the acceptance on the grounds of ignorance.
>Religions of nearly all stripes try to teach people
Yes, religions often are cited to do this ("love thy neighbor" be damned, somebody blew themselves up because of skin color, so hated all religion!), but retreating to a previous point, humanity is composed of animals that must deal with scarcity. Around the time that many religions were formed, death and war were common. Religion tries to teach the workings of the world and humanity, and the reflection of not trusting other groups that could (and most likely would) attack and try to slaughter the follower's people is under no stable grounds one that should be enough to dismiss the ideals completely.
>First off, "discomforting" was indeed the word I was looking for
As stated before, "discomforting" is hardly the word to describe the attitude of such questions when "hateful", "spiteful", "bigoted", and such are more apt for the presentation, attitude, and such. The intent of the message means nothing if the results and impression that it brings is skewered.
>YOU entered a thread
Yes, and OP made the thread knowing the risks of a flame war. The difference is that when I entered (16423), I presented a rational counter-argument which quickly got attacked by fallacy in contrast to the OP's harsh generalization.
>It's still on you.
-Argument from Reason
-There is no model of the universe without God that solves the Thermodynamics dilemma or Baryon asymmetry
You still have a burden of proof that you do not seem to want to address. Prove the multi-verse exists. Prove that an initial clause isn't needed (that the universe can go on forever). Solve Baryon Asymmetry. The belief that no God exists needs just about as much evidence as the assumption that God does exist. (Don't try to throw around that "second definition of atheism" excuse "DEFINITOIN TOO: LAK UF BELIF IN GAWD!" because not only do some skeptics claim that this definition was added for the sole purpose of making the burden-of-proof argument usable, but it's too vague to be applied to one particular group of people).
>What's your point? Humanity will always fight over the stupidest things, using anything as en excuse (WWI). Religion is an abstract concept, humans fight humans and use crazy concepts to justify their point. Without religion, humanity would still fight, but pin such excuses elsewhere (racism, nationality, etc...)
I dont know how to use certain acpects of this website but pertaining to what you said id rather live with wars without religion than wars because of religion.
War... war never changes.
>Humanity will always fight over the stupidest things, using anything as en excuse (WWI).
To be fair WW1 was the result of people attempting to avoid conflict in a giant game of political Jenga, the stakes got higher and the base became more unstable with every political move. Eventually it was going to topple into chaos.
Now, the Soviet/Afghan and Vietnam wars were pointless. They both began as (relatively) benign internal conflicts until one side acquired external support in order to bring resolution and someone else decides to help the losing party 'on principal' of opposing the initial supporters.
You just openly say that you honestly want to kill niggers, don't you?
being valedictorian of a high-school in salt lake city isn't necessarily a good thing.
Whoa religion is a big enough topic lets not dive into racism here bro.
It wasn't in SLC, it was in Massachusetts.
Mormons are everywhere these days.
I suppose that's only one of several reasons the education level across the US is nearly down to third world standards...
Strawman implies I'm giving you argumentative statements you haven't made, which I'm not, and ad hominem implies that I'm attacking you to attack you, which, again, I'm not. I don't really care if you're Buddhist, by the way, as I do indeed despise all religion, including yours. The current Dalai Lama supports nuclear weaponry, regarded the sex lives of many people he doesn't know as deplorable, despite thinking that fucking a prostitute, as long as she's paid for by you, is not misconduct, and proclaimed that Steven Seagal was a "tulku" for an earlier lama. Buddhism advocates giving up your mind, which in itself is stupid because contemplation, retrospection, analyzation, et cetera are the greatest abilities humans have. And I cannot believe that you think Buddhists haven't been as full of shit as other religious people. Lon Nol's Cambodian army was Buddhist, Solomon Bandaranaike, first elected leader of independent Sri Lanka, was assassinated by a Buddhist militant, it was Buddhists who began needlessly attacking Tamils to fire up the communal war that persists in Sri Lanka, and the SLORC, which is a fascist military party that runs Burma, is also Buddhist. So don't give me any of that crap about the Eastern religions.
Allow me to be broad then, since you seem to have missed the point of sarcasm. Any site on which people are known to argue at the drop of a hat will contain limitless religious disputes. And you did't counter the original point.
>your store comparison
Actually, I refuted your point, but you failed to see it. What I'm saying is that food and supplies are human necessities. Religion is not. You do not need religion to live or even to live comfortably; it is utterly useless. So, when you say there is greasy food, you are correct, but it is food, and it is food that can be enjoyed whilst fueling our bodies. Religion cannot do this. You can enjoy it, sure, but it is not necessary and comes with the obligation to continue imbibing its ridiculous claims and regulations. Food stores do not demand further patronage and do not regulate what you consume.
Why is this bad? Are you a fucking moron? It's bad because it doesn't need to happen! If we can eliminate sources of violence and war then out of basic human decency, we should! I'm not pro racism either, and if that could be eliminated, I would gladly try to destroy it, and do still combat it even if it's a losing battle.
>bigotry against atheists
How about former president George Bush who said atheists weren't real citizens, or any church of any sect who, on the right day, do in fact condemn atheists and claim that we collude with Satan, or Fox News' constant slights against us, or ANY RURAL COMMUNITY EVER. And again, you are arguing with us, not the other way about. I'm only attacking you because you came into this thread and caused a ruckus. For someone who hates the strawman fallacy, you sure like to use it.
You didn't refute my point.
>that bit where you seem to imply that sexuality can't be talked about with reason
I'm not entirely sure if that's what you were getting at, but if so, you're an idiot.
>my hatred for religion
Again, I do not hate religious people, I hate what religion tells people to do. You can reference things like "thou shalt do no murder" all you like, but there's still the slew of rulings where it's considered perfectly fine to murder someone and to do so violently. And I'm not just talking about those moments by the way. Any time when religion makes a rule that would otherwise conflict with human common sense or decency, I get pissed. And once more, RELIGION IS UNNECESSARY. We do not need it. It serves no purpose at all.
>proving religion-to-reality inconsistencies
Sure. The Earth was not made in six days, Adam and Eve did not exist, humans are not popped out of the ground from dust or blood, none of the gods that have explicit personalities that are described as constantly watching Earth can be real, as we would have seen some action being explicitly taken by them, most notably by Yahweh or Zeus (they both have incredibly hot tempers), magic humans do not and have not existed, as that would collide with various laws of nature, and so on. That wasn't s hard, was it?
>what religion teaches
It does teach the occasional good rule, and then proceeds to blot it out with the utter nonsense that follows. Just to use your own example (again), "Thou shalt do no murder... unless that bitch was fucking an animal, then kill her and the animal... or if your kid is being a brat, then take him to the edge of town and stone him to death. Oh, and by the way, uh, Moses, could you just go ahead and slaughter countless villages to show people how loving and gracious I am? Spare the kids? PFFFFFFF, NO! HA HA, WHAT ARE YOU, A LOSER?" And again, even it's more unknown inhibitions are wrong, like telling people to avoid contemplation of evil thoughts. People think bad things, and thinking about them can sometimes be incredible stress relief. Telling them to ignore their evil thoughts just turns into them trying to justify how they feel with some religious dogma, and then people fly planes into buildings.
I am being hateful toward you because you offend me, greatly, as a matter of fact. Your arguments tend to be baseless, you trying to paint all atheists as bad people, and then proceed to whine to me about generalizing, and you started the argument. However, my main point in my original comment, if you would, you know, read it, was that I can get shat on by multitudes of Christians (I'm being specific to the area I live in) just for saying "I'm an atheist" when they ask me what religious sect I'm a part of. "Discomforting" is the word I meant to use.
>you entering the thread
So, you're using the fact that a flame war was likely to start as your scapegoat? You're only supporting my point. I did not, and we did not, start an argument with you. This could have been a civil, albeit very whiny and immature thread about religious bigotry, which would have subsided and drifted away with the allowance that each anti-theist could come in and give his/her two cents. But then you showed up. You debated, you provoked, YOU started it. I was initially going to give my two cents and proceed to mention that I thought this thread was full of poor half arguments and advise people to consider their sides a bit more, but you intruded and I found myself offended and awestruck at some of the things you were saying, and now here we are.
>burden of proof
Gee, ya got me. I guess I have to pick a religious pamphlet and devote myself now. Does that phrase sound funny to you? I think it should. You see, you are again assuming that I'm entirely anti-theistic. I'm not. I am an atheist, but I am an agnostic atheist. I am only anti-theistic to the point that I do not think it is a wise practice to devote yourself to a fictitious god, who can clearly be shown to have been made up by man (and it is usually MAN that creates it), follow all the unnecessary stipulations and guidelines, despite having no adverse effects if you do not (this can easily be tested, and is being tested by yours truly), and needlessly hate other people for their also fictitious gods. If a super-dimensional being exists, fan-flippin'-tastic. The moment it's conclusively proven, I'll believe it. Until then, there is no reason to assume any god exists when it does not pertain a single bit to how my life will transpire. I do not claim a super-entity exists, but I do not believe it is impossible. Agnosticism has been inducted to the realm of adjectives. You can be a gnostic-theist (someone like the pope or a redneck), an agnostic-theist (someone who believes but isn't entirely sure), an agnostic-atheist (any reasonable atheist), or a gnostic-atheist (usually, but not always, an anti-theist). In other words, the burden of proof is on you and ANYONE of ANY group who wants to claim that their god is the right one.
Wow, it took you two full days to come up with a reply.
>I refuted your point
No you didn't; you failed to see the point of the analogy.
>subjecting to their service is a choice of the individual. A large amounts of churches are present for the large amount of theists that exist (unless you don't recognize the basic laws of Supply-and-Demand). Their presence, if you are an individual with at the slightest amount of willpower, should not be enough to "hinder" your beliefs.
Just to add in more wood to the fire, I can walk down a neighborhood and spot literally a dozen piles of dog shit. This will not make me a scatophiliac, a furry, or any combination of the two.
>So don't give me any of that crap about the Eastern religions.
WWII was on a Catholic's head, and WWI was on an atheists head. Speaking of which, how about we look at Stalin's kill count (and his own version of the Holocaust) if you want to testimony which belief system had the more moral leaders. Chairman Mao, the man responsible for the most deaths in history, was an atheist. Fidel Castro was an atheist. There hasn't been an atheist ruler that hasn't killed a large number of people.
>do still combat it even if it's a losing battle.
You my friend have no idea of how nature and the human race works if you seriously think that all causes of conflict can be eliminated while still maintaining a human population.
>George Bush... EVERY RURAL POPULATION
The United States Conservative population doesn't give a shit about atheism because they value their traditions and culture. How about we shift the focus to the urban population, where religion is just as frowned upon? How about we shift the focus to every liberal who slams religious establishment with the same dogma and hatred they claim the religious to have?
>You didn't refute my point.
How about this then:
-Christian advertisements: Come to our church
-Atheist advertisements: Religion is a lie and you shouldn't go to any church.
See which one has the most to gain? See which one has the private-institution-benefit of advertising? See which one is the more negatively-targeted to another group?
>it out with the utter nonsense that follows
"These stories offend our moral sensibilities. Ironically, however, our moral sensibilities in the West have been largely, and for many people unconsciously, shaped by our Judaeo-Christian heritage, which has taught us the intrinsic value of human beings, the importance of dealing justly rather than capriciously, and the necessity of the punishment’s fitting the crime. The Bible itself inculcates the values which these stories seem to violate.
The command to kill all the Canaanite peoples is jarring precisely because it seems so at odds with the portrait of Yahweh, Israel’s God, which is painted in the Hebrew Scriptures. Contrary to the vituperative rhetoric of someone like Richard Dawkins, the God of the Hebrew Bible is a God of justice, long-suffering, and compassion.
You can’t read the Old Testament prophets without a sense of God’s profound care for the poor, the oppressed, the down-trodden, the orphaned, and so on. God demands just laws and just rulers. He literally pleads with people to repent of their unjust ways that He might not judge them. “As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live” (Ez. 33.11)." -Dr. William Craig
Not only are you using morals to justify truth, but you're using this argument in such a cliche manner that it's already been addressed. (Plus, I find it funny that you're still attacking Christiany specifically to a Buddhist).
>That wasn't s hard, was it?
Okay, I won't believe in Christianity. <sarcasm>Not that I did to begin with, and not saying that most of those weren't exclusive/famous to the Christian faith, but okay, whatever goes for you makes me happy.</sarcasm>
>I am being hateful toward you because you offend me
>I did not, and we did not, start an argument with you.
The OP knew very well the risks he/she was taking when he/she made the thread. The OP was hateful in his/her speech and bigoted in his/her views. I entered in (16423) with a civil thought that I felt could help bring a legitimate discussion via. introducing a counter-point instead of the usual ego-jerking that usually happens in these threads. I was met with a strawman attack, a flawed argument, and the misinterpretation of two of the most important fields of study in the modern world.
>Your arguments tend to be baseless
I have provided more proof and check-able support in my arguments than most of my opposition here. If you want to keep a confirmation bias, please acknowledge it. Furthermore, you're the one who seems to think that a personal testimonial counts as evidence. What you say and a claim I can make that "I live on the moon with a dead horse who I'm having sex with as I'm typing this" holds the same amount of evidence.
>I'm being specific to the area I live in
"I hate religion becus people nere me r meen n they wont excpt me 4 woo i am..."
Cool story bro. The majority population typically shuns characteristics of a minority (I cite black and Hispanic "ghetto's"). Move if it means that damn much to you.
>you trying to paint all atheists as bad people
>For someone who hates the strawman fallacy, you sure like to use it.
Not only are you a hypocrite, but you're not a very good one. The point presented on my side is that anti-theism and the anti-religious attitude it brings is silly. Yet, your attitude (shown in the smith-work of you sentences and overall tone of the reading) presented hints that you're taking offense to that thought.
>As stated before, "discomforting" is hardly the word to describe the attitude of such questions when "hateful", "spiteful", "bigoted", and such are more apt for the presentation, attitude, and such. The intent of the message means nothing if the results and impression that it brings is skewered.
Not only do many atheists paint religion as evil, but many go out to say that such institutions hinder the advancements of science. The question "Does God really exist?" does not hinder a person of good faith, but the message of "your beliefs are a lie and you're stupid for thinking them" is hateful and bigoted. I don't know how much more clearer I can point this out to you.
>Again, I do not hate religious people, I hate what religion tells people to do.
>Subjecting to their services is a choice of the individual.
Let's say that you're right in that all religions have no validity and are purely man-made. Now, how are those thoughts and ideals passed down? By robots?
>And once more, RELIGION IS UNNECESSARY. We do not need it. It serves no purpose at all.
You really are close-minded.
Religion tries to teach the workings of the world and universe to its followers. Science tries to answer how the universe works, religion tried to answer "why". On what basis do you claim that religion isn't needed?
>Gee, ya got me. I guess I have...
"I don't know which God to believe in..."
"Therefore, I shall not believe in any..."
"And anyone who does take a deductive hypothesis at it must be stupid, ignorant, and close-mindedly hateful."
This is your logic. All I did was paraphrase it to a low denominator.
>In other words, the burden of proof is on you and ANYONE of ANY group who wants to claim that their god is the right one.
The burden of proof is on anyone who claims, period. If you claim that something does not exist, you have to present your own factual/logical evidence to support that claim of denial. To claim that no mystical being can exist because most mystical beings imagined do not exists is purely inductive, thus falls dangerously into the problem of induction.
>There hasn't been an atheist ruler that hasn't killed a large number of people.
Australia: They'll kill you and everyone you hold dear - but none of you will even know you're dead. Until you get on 7chan.
Perhaps he has more going on in his life than talking to you.
Removing people's gods and substituting your own does not make one an atheist leader any more than it did Constantine, when he did it and slaughtered countless fucking millions and whose piss-poor attempt at a united religion of dozens of warring cults you now go to spectacular lengths to accept at face value as somehow relevant or "moral" (a sliding scale you're on the trailing edge of, to be generous).
A lack of a belief system does not mean one becomes a homicidal devaluer of life. Having a belief system that inherently devalues life by decreeing huge demographics of people as not just wrong, but actually evil, so evil that their presence conscripts them, anyone nice to them, or even bystanders to suffer for ETERNITY in fire and agony, with no hope of recourse, does. The abrahamic faiths all have that. You don't need to subscribe to an abrahamic faith to arrive at the same fucked up conclusion that all the [xyz] people need to go, but if you do subscribe to an abrahamic faith, you either will, or you are doing a very bad at following your religion.
When your god is a vengeful god, you will be a vengeful people.
I think we all just need to calm down and take in a breath of the light of the Lord.
Im sorry the lord does interfere with reality in anyway what so ever.
No, I just happen to have a life to live.
It was a poor analogy. My answer to your statement is that you still would rather not have the dog shit there since it's just in the way.
>the wars and the dictators
Yup, Catholics and a Pagan were two really big issues in WWII. That doesn't take away any of what I said about your religion. Now, of the atheist dictators you mentioned, so what? They also had messiah complexes. Anytime someone or some organization wants to claim an absolute rule and dictate other people, they are in the wrong. When Stalin wanted to take over and oppress his people and ruin other nations, it was on his head, but at least he wasn't told to do so by a religious conviction. There are good people who do bad things because of religion. If you wanted to prove all of atheism bad, at its most ideal level, you'd have to find a society that lived by philosophy from people like Socrates, Lucretius, Epicurus, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Payne, and so forth, that is, one that advised people to think for themselves and to act according to what they knew, internally, to be right, not by what some book or leader of any kind said. So yes, there were bad atheists, just as there are good religious people, but bringing in unnecessary influence that serves to cause harm is bad for society.
>fighting for human decency
And not doing anything about it makes you a disgusting and useless individual, or positively harmful. Beating them isn't the point; showing that they are evil and worth fighting against is the point.
In an urban area, multiculturalism is expected so most people keep to themselves about their religion until they're among friends or in their own homes. However, in a rural setting, most everyone is Christian. Jesus is talked about in the streets like regular conversation and, like I said, an atheist in their midst attracts a shit ton of scowling or outright abuse. Urban areas have more atheist meetings, yes, but that is because atheists are allowed to reside in those areas with less hassle. I don't know what you're on about saying that they're just as fervent, because that's a load of crap. Religion is still more pronounced, even in urban settings. A good example is Superbowl time. Go to a big city and count the number of religious people with megaphones or soapboxes. Then count the atheist ones. You'll notice that we're lacking.
Nope, it's more like:
Christian: You still have time to repent! Find Jesus today! Avoid Hell, seek GAWD! Etc.
Atheist: I can be good without God.
>the utter nonsense that follows
I don't know why you think Craig's point defeats me. He's just plain wrong. See, God says a lot of crap about being passive in-between chapters of mass slaughter. He says he feels bad about killing the wicked, but without hesitation, he commands the mass slaughter of men, women, and even fucking children. God doesn't just like killing the "wicked," he gets orgiastic pleasure out of it. And I'm using the Christian branch to make an analogy about the generally two-faced attitude of religion; you don't have to focus on the Christian bits.
I was giving a handful of quick examples. Forgive me if three of those were specific. You sure do miss points a lot, don't you?
Nope, just stating facts, again, as they apply to the situation. I am not attacking you because I want to deliberately offend you, I am attacking you, with debate, because you have offended me.
>your original response
I do not care about what you originally thought. I responded to you when I found that you were directly offending me. Your attachment to whoever else in this thread is not my concern.
>support for arguments
I have not made any remarks that either require checking or that could not be checked in a quick Google search. Any anecdotal evidence ought to be obvious to all and any time I refute you with anecdotal evidence, it will be because you are exaggerating facts to support yourself (i.e. "atheists are just as strong in urban areas as rural Christians"). The statements I consistently find baseless from you are your sentences that usually start with something like "atheists always," which are statements you happen to make a lot.
>being specific to where I live
I meant I was being specific to my area, which is full of Christians (a point which requires specification). I thought you'd pick up on that (that was ad hom).
>the strawman fallacy
I am indeed offended by you, and you are correct in noting so. That is because your original statements were aimed at atheists, as you kept saying "atheists," and not "anti-theists." I am offended by this because not all, in fact I dare say barely any, atheists are confrontational or anti-theistic. There are many atheists (an irritating amount) who actually defend religious people on a consistent basis. Your references are typically internet commentary site-related, which you confirmed when you listed those you most often visit and did not refute that point. As it happens, there is a similar faction of internet religious people who do the exact same thing as the atheists, but for their gods, which is a point you are omitting. My references have been to real people in real life, where the concern is more important, as internet squabbles don't really resolve or conclude anything, which is why I make a point to say "many religious people" or even "many of the religious people I've met," as opposed to "all religious people." I do positively say "all religions" on the occasions when I do in fact mean all religions.
Actually, you're almost completely correct. Anti-theists or anti-theistic inclined people (me) do believe that religion is evil and that religions are stupid things to believe in. Religion does hinder science more often than not because many religions say things which can be directly contradicted by science (on sexuality, food, sex positions, masturbation, and the fucking evolution vs. creationism debate). This hinders the advancement of science and society because one is presented fact which could lead to further knowledge about the universe, the planet, society, or so on, and the other just stands brutishly in the way saying, "God said that isn't true. Stop contradicting God." The question of whether or not a god exists is definitely worth pursuing and I think very well should be sought, but the constant attributes and laws and proclamations given by fake gods are not helping anything.
Nope, by ignorant humans in previous societies who had limited or no access to real science. Since the enlightenment era, their sayings have become obsolete.
>religion talks about why
No, it doesn't. It tries more than anything to command societies under a/many grand dictator(s), and the dictators are the only "why" attempt they've ever made. The rest is religious drivel about how we should obey these mystical beings that we can never seem to get an agreed opinion from, and whose opinions are generally unnecessary.
>all I did was paraphrase it in a low denominator.
And you're still bitching at me about strawman-ing. Ahem, one more time: believing in a super-dimensional entity is not foolish until you ATTRIBUTE UNNECESSARY DETAILS TO IT. I do not have a single problem with deists one way or the other.
Nooooo, that is wrong, at least on an academic level. You see, I do not need to prove that the Tooth-Fairy exists as it is accepted as a logical construct that, since no one has seen a fairy of any sort, and that she has mythical qualities that typically pertain to stories made up by humans, she does not exist. Doubt is the proper position to have because claims that require proof are claims that have not been proven true before, like gods. Grass has been proven true, I have been proven true, as have you, children, cats, and so forth. Gods, fairies, unicorns, and so on have not been proven true, but usually untrue, so it falls to reason that doubting the existence of any more gods is the best position.
Their is no arguing with Religion its more like i explain to you why its wrong then you change your mind and entire beliefs or live a life of false hood and burdens of false evils live a LIE if you don't change your mind i will try again. Religion does little to nothing for the world. I was religious once but then i grew out of it and thought about it more and more till i came to this place to let out my rage and thoughts.
>The United States Conservative population doesn't give a shit about atheism because they value their traditions and culture.
>United States Conservative
>traditions and culture
Racism enforced by institutionalized violence?
Seems like a lot of things that aren't worth defending.
Lol, you don't want to give up, do you boy?
>would rather not have the dog shit
So it must be logical for me then to go on the internet and bitch about dogs shitting, and saying that anyone who lets their dog shit is evil and immoral.
Yet you still don't attack the reasoning for it and avoid the point.
"Religion is bad because some people force their beliefs down other people's throats."
"Atheism isn't bad just because some atheists were bad and forced their beliefs down other people's throats."
>you a disgusting and useless individual
Scenario: Atheism is correct
Meaning: Humanity has no purpose
Ergo: The preservation of the self is more important than the "improvement" of the society
Ergo: A selfish behavior is more apt for survival-of-the-fittest
>they are evil and worth fighting
Scenario: They believe that they are doing good
Meaning: Their opposition is evil
Ergo: You are being evil to them
Ergo: Evil is a selfish perspective
>You'll notice that we're lacking.
Fun fact: Niggers like to argue that because there is a less number of black people on welfare than whites, more niggers should be on welfare.
Nope. Most pro-religion ads are by private churches who wish to get followers. It's no different than an advertisement for a television show or a car.
>Nope, just stating facts, again
"I'm not doing an ad hom, but I am attacking the author saying that he offends me, as I attempt to belittle and demean him."
>I have not made any remarks that either require checking or that could not be checked in a quick Google search.
Swap "require" with "can be subject to" and the point will be agreed.
>obvious to all
I thought it was obvious that horse vagina on the moon smells like peppermint.
>I don't know why you think Craig's point defeats me.
The point is that not only does Western modern morality have roots in religion, but religion being viewed as immoral is a moot point. *Human morality has no impact whatsoever on absolute truth.* You seem to be falling back on this idea (morality) a lot, which is an unstable platform. Morality not only differs by region, but it differs by time period. In a time period where death and war were common, what's a few villages to be killed, when the otherwise would mean the entire wiping out of a people? Craig makes a point later on in this article that outlines this idea.
>people keep to themselves about their religion until they're among friends or in their own homes
"Religious people should do this in urban areas."
"Atheists should be open in rural areas."
Stop making double standards.
>You sure do miss points a lot, don't you?
Only when character limit comes into play.
>you have offended me
If outside ideals and other ways of thinking offend you (and the defense of such ideals offends you), then not only are you presenting yourself as bigoted, but you really need to not only open your mind, but you need to grow the fuck up a little.
>I do not care about what you originally thought.
You make this statement after my explaining of the entry in the "you came here" point. Might I ask why you are so quick to dismiss the point after my explanation and reasoning?
>you happen to make a lot.
I get around. I've seen atheists arguing more than I like, and many of them fall back on similar points.
>There are many atheists
Oh, you mean like the ones on this thread?
>I meant I was being specific to my area
"Religion is bad because some people near me hate me for being atheist."
Up here on the moon, the astronauts shit without wiping themselves. Therefore, all humans do not wipe after they shit.
>and did not refute that point.
Of course I didn't; your point was that whining happens on Youtube, then you proceeded to use the baseless personal-testimonial. You didn't dismiss that atheists start flame wars, nor did you refute that original point I made on the topic. You tried to change the topic.
>which is a point you are omitting.
Of course, because religious people are less inclined to start the flame wars and directly attack the opposition faiths. The point was omitted because it was never presented on my side (more strawman?).
You are close minded if you think that the conflict viewpoint is the only viewpoint of religion vs. science. You're ignoring the dialogue viewpoint, the independence viewpoint, and the integration viewpoint. Science is built on the same principles and methods (faith in a certain outcome, explanation for the world around, et cetera) of religion and exists as a separate field of study.
>My references have been to real people in real life
You have presented no cite-able references. My moon-horse is saddened by this.
>Since the enlightenment era, their sayings have become obsolete.
"The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability."
-Voltaire, great thinker of the Enlightenment.
> It tries more than anything to command societies under a/many grand dictator(s)
I'm sure you've had a hard time seeing the monitor with your tin-foil hat. This would have caused religion to die out in the United States once the first amendment was modified. The implementation of religion in government is an ancient one that holds candle in very few countries today. Besides, that would mean that governments would be eager to support religion. Yet, history has shown many dictators (Hitler, Stalin) try to completely eradicate religion from their countries.
Lol, so religion must be evil because our penises weren't made to combat bacteria from anal? You seem to keep grouping these two concepts (reason and sex) together in the most unusual manners.
>believing in a super-dimensional entity is not foolish unless
It's just as foolish to deny the existence of said attributes without proper evidence of denial.
"Because the tooth fairy is false and can not be proven, and gods can not be proven, gods do not exist."
You are being inductive and hypocritical. You still have a burden of proof to show that such claims are false when you claim such claims are false. The argument that "doubt is the proper viewpoint" falls onto your personal morality and is therefore a selfish perspective that holds no validity (there will always be zealots who believe everything they read. I personally know people who think that Starclan from the Warriors book series exists) because there is no scientific or consistent philosophical basis to support that.
>claims that require proof are claims that have not been proven true before
One flame war I witnessed points out a flaw in this argument: Because it was not witnessed or detectable by the Greeks, Quantum physics must not exist (by using the same logic presented). To judge the future by the past is bigoted and inductive.
>do not exists is purely inductive, thus falls dangerously into the problem of induction.
>Nooooo, that is wrong,
>but usually untrue, so it falls to reason that doubting the existence of any more gods is the best position.
You just confirmed your inductive reasoning.
Please, come back when you have more to fall back on than morality and other selfish crap.
>Racism enforced by institutionalized violence?
>Seems like a lot of things that aren't worth defending.
American Conservatives hardly have a monopoly on these progressive institutional traits
enjoy your pot calling kettle moment, good sir
OP here telling everyone that the thread should stay on topic about religion and its negative effects on the world though racism is a huge part i think hate would be a better subject within the topic.
Well thread, I've followed you for about a week now, but I think it's time to remove you from my watch list.
>Conservatives hardly have a monopoly on these progressive institutional traits
dixiecrats are not progressives
but racism is a core tenet of the progressive worldview
Like religion is the quicksand of progress.
>but racism is a core tenet of the progressive worldview
but having sex with children is a core tenet of the conservative worldview
see i can make nonsensical statements too
>see i can make nonsensical statements too
This thread in a nutshell.
It has been. It's also done a lot of good.
It's tricky. When you have a cultural meme that was really fairly effective at threatening and cajoling many of the worst of humanity to progress beyond slug-brained bloody-mindedness, by appealing to their brutality, well then the effect is appreciated, even if the unsavory means to that end aren't.
However, when that cultural meme in all its forceful rigidity, begins restricting humanities progress, as it has and continues to do for a great many, many people, then neither the means nor the end is to be appreciated.
The trouble is, both of these are always happening at once. It's always giving some poor miserable people hope for a better future, and it's always tying other people's hands, who build that future. Unfortunately, in thousands of years, no ones really figured out a way to run it to have one without the other.
It's an interesting thing, to take the long historical view of.
I want to explain that abandoning religion obviously wont be easy how can i tell you to forget what the bible has taught you here is how by simply saying dont believe it was real some things may be real some things definitely arent real heaven,hell,jesus,satan they are not real sin isnt real demons,angels aren't real what is real is the common sense of it like don't run with scissors that's all you need to learn from it not to actually believe what it tells you about the afterlife no one knows what happens when you die NO ONE.
i believe that all perceived existence reflects of the consciousness of the universe itself acting upon an instinctual will to infinitely redefine its boundaries.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
, Mike Myers.jpg
Nice reference lol
Im gonna have to write a book about why religion should be abandoned.
, full retard.jpg
Good luck with that. I'm sure it will be a bestseller among the abandon-your-faith titles and convert the approximate 70-90% of the world to atheism because brave anon will open the scientific minds of so many strangers.
The fuck did I just read?
To quote Rage Against the Machine, "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!"
, the devil.jpg
Rage Against the Machine is the Devil!
You religious? if so why ignore what im saying acting like i just said non sense. if not why act stupid like you have a problem?
Yes i have problem imagin if all people typed like this blending all ideas into one sentence becuause they were too fucking lazy to use a comma or a period to make it readable ITS NOT THAT HARD GOD ANYONE WHO DOES THIS MUST BE SO FUCKING RETARDED there you happy now that i can type like this too its fun to read isnt it oh wait maybe i need to blend the sentences together without transition like some failed essay i have to do an essay on herpes but that essay can wait because im on the internet having fun did you know that wikipedia has pictures of buttholes,dildos,anal sex both male and female maybe if i didnt look i could do my essay its not that hard but instead i have to tend to my moon horse my moon horse eats carrots and poops golden apples,carrots,and aids that i throw all of them to earth did you know earth is made of dirt your retarded if you didnt know the earth had dirt well nevermind failtroll why dont you go back to niggertits huehuehue.
Fun to read, wasn't it?
You are ignoring the point i don't give a shit what punctuation there isn't in my sentence i am trying to explain here why religion is an abomination to the world and should be forgotten explain to me why it shouldn't instead of ignoring me.
>You are ignoring the point i don't give a shit what punctuation there isn't
I can understand the first part fine, but that's really a fault on you if you fail to state your ideas in a widely accepted manner that makes the transition of said ideas clear. If you don't want to take the time to type properly and make your message readable, then I don't want to take the time to try to translate the text from retardinese.
>i am trying to explain
If you are trying to explain something, why make it nearly impossible for anyone to understand what it is you're trying to say?
Unless you don't give a shit about anything and are just trolling, in which case carry on.
Very good point, you can explain to me that i am not explaining very well in a positive manner. Instead of acting like an ass, no offense to you of course, but i do agree with you.
Philosophers came to the conclusion that all that is came to be from equally explainable and mystical origins before the discovery of steam engines.
This thread is invalid.
then can we talk about steam engines?
so you believe elves exist too?
Why would I give up? Your points are easily refuted.
>still talking about dog shit
Well, on a comparative scale, if we're reducing religion to leaving dog shit on the ground (and I think it's funny that you allow this) then evil can be reduced to a dick move, respectively.
>your poor analogy, again
I've pointed out twice how I've refuted your very point, you just aren't bright.
Atheism is a lack of belief. In other words, we're telling people, "stop doing stupid shit that you know is wrong for a god who doesn't exit." And atheist dictator is the only one to be blamed for his actions; a religious dictator can find all the necessary articles to blame in his religious text.
>your idea of atheism
No, if you knew anything about humans, you'd know that all nature is preservationist and ours in particular, like most apes, is social, so we benefit from maintaining health and improving society. Learn some shit before you type things.
>your perspective of evil
Again, no. Evil is that which is harmful to society without just cause. Weening a baby from a breast from which it finds comfort is not evil because the baby will grow to find better ways to live. Slaughtering an entire society so you can strip away their rights and oppress them like slaves is evil because it does not help or advance humans. Are you a troll or are you really thinking these are arguments?
>another flawed analogy
You compared atheism to the welfare system. I don't know if I should address this because of the non-sequitur. For one things, the lack of atheist ads compared to religious ones is both easily noticeable and factually evident. About 4% of the US population is atheistic, and about 75% are Christian. Again, religion is evil, so if your analogy is to reference causal value, you are still wrong because evil should be fought where it is found, as I've said.
You are still wrong. The church may have its name at the bottom of the billboard, but READ THE BILLBOARD. It doesn't say, "Come to Vermont First Presbyterian. We know God best!" It says, "Have you accepted Jesus in your life? Repent!"
I'm attacking you for a legitimate reason with legitimate arguments. Get a diary where you can whine and moan about how you can't take some mean names on the side. This is the internet.
>check the facts
See above green-text statement.
>obvious to all
You're right. I meant obvious to anyone with a post-grade-five education. I'm so glad you remarked about being condescended to as if you don't deserve it.
Morality is subject to human democracy of conscience. For one thing, all previous morality structures were based on religions, so your reference to old societies is moot. Now that we're civilized, we can agree on a reasonable morality, like don't kill, steal, rape, torture, the obvious stuff. However, even most religious folk think that no sex before marriage is bullshit, many people love drawing (which is condemned), and God's name is consistently taken in vain. My morals are based on what I think is right, not the bible. I break five of the commandments as regularly as I can.
It isn't a double standard. You have no right to complain about atheists talking openly about atheism if you think open religious talk is okay. What I'm saying is that if either are talked about, then no one should be shunned for an opposing view, which Christians LOVE DOING.
Half referred to you. No limit need be called upon.
You having a perspective doesn't offend me. You propagating an incorrect perspective about people like me offends me.
>your reason for being here
My point is that you came here and spouted incorrect perspectives. I don't care why you did it because that does not relate to why I responded to you. Duh.
>you get around
On the internet. As I've said and you agreed to. I know.
>like in this thread
Ahem, as you've said and as I've said, this thread is specifically for whiny inflammation. So no, genius, not like the ones in this thread, more like the ones in REAL LIFE.
>specific to my area
Still just flies right over your head. Amazing.
>you have yet to refute the point
On Youtube and any other comment hoarding site where inflammatory arguments start, and religious people start them nigh as often, so your point is false, as the real problem involves real life and people in the outside world, where the situation is radically different. Cleared up yet?
>religious people are less inclined
Let's not do this. You have to know you're wrong. You have to. Religious people are just as annoying in just as many situations. I will only expand on this if you really think I have to and I really hope you don't.
Wow. No. Science is not nearly based on the same principles. Like failure, which is frequently expected and almost adored in science, is denied in religion. Religion can never be wrong. We may have found dinosaurs, but Adam and Eve were still real. Marriage is a social construct with no actual value to love, but sex before marriage is bad, and divorce, too, even in the wake of abusive habits. Science actually tests its statements and changes its view if it is wrong. Religion says its right and acts like a baby if its been proven wrong.
>no cite-able references
See the "obvious to all" statement. None of my claims are too outlandish to be considered the norm, or unobservable in society.
>your Voltaire reference
"This shall be the law of the leper."
God's law for lepers: Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly away. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally find another pair of birds. Kill one and dip the live bird in the dead bird's blood. Wipe some blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle the house with blood 7 times.
Is the above statement useful to you?
I was referring to the gods of the religious fictions, you nit. The United States still had/has an enormous amount of Christians in it, no matter what the first amendment says, and while they aren't allowed by law to commit any of the horrible crimes recommended by God, they still cling to the old bigotries and racism that the bible recommends. If religion retained its old power in the west, you can bet we'd still have inter-faith war.
>reason and sex
Sexuality is indisputably a matter of reason. Sex positions ca be argued in the same way. Any sex not for procreation and not facing the wife directly is considered unnatural and heretical by many churches. Condoms protect us from all sorts of diseases and viruses, but there are many sects who deny condoms, too.
>just as foolish
No, it isn't. Doubt is the most reasonable position for unjustified claims. Denial of possibility is a different story, but most atheists don't deny the possibility.
>inductive claims that I did not make
"Because gods and fairies maintain similar attributes and both have the same amount of evidence and proof for their existence, it is unreasonable to believe in their existence."
I fixed it for you, again.
>relevance by past experience
I'm referring to official records of existing things. There are no official records of existing gods, and many areas of Quantum Mechanics are still widely disputed in the scientific community, so the Greeks would be more or less justified in not believing in them. I don't believe in fairies, which have not been proven, but I do believe in butter, which has.
The only inductive part is that which I have already explained and expanded on to you many times. Read with attention to the words.
>And atheist dictator is the only one to be blamed for his actions; a religious dictator can find all the necessary articles to blame in his religious text.
see: Stalin, Mao, to lesser extent Hitler for examples of forcing belief, and adherence to belief text as justification
>I've pointed out twice
No you haven't. You're danced around the central point of the idea (subjecting to their service is a choice of the individual. A large amounts of churches are present for the large amount of theists that exist (unless you don't recognize the basic laws of Supply-and-Demand). Their presence, if you are an individual with at the slightest amount of willpower, should not be enough to "hinder" your beliefs.) and you continually avoid the sub-topic. You haven't refuted it at all.
>Atheism is a lack of belief.
Definition 1: The theory or belief that God does not exist.
This definition has been used more often and has been more consistently supported throughout history. (Sauce: http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm)
>And atheist dictator is the only one to be blamed for his actions; a religious dictator can find all the necessary articles to blame in his religious text.
This is a similar argument for gun control, and it's a flawed one for a very simple reason: such blaming does not address the issue at hand, a human is corrupt with power and acting against society. You can pin the blame on what you want, but the fact is that abstract ideas can not have any real control over the actions of an individual. The point was to dismiss your (cliche) testimonial against religion, challenging your biased double-standard. Yes, Stalin killed religious people because he didn't agree with them. Is this enough evidence to commend atheism? The reverse of this argument is as void.
>Learn some shit before you type things
You must have dug deep into your vast depths of intelligence to pull that insult out.
>we benefit from maintaining health and improving society
I'm sure that's why the Communist party is holding such a good hold on the world. The prosperity of the individual is more important and graspable to the individual than for society. Unless there is a *direct or close* benefit to the individual, than there is no real need for the individual to act. Anything extreme, such as a charity to other countries, according to famed biologist and atheist-advocate, is a biological mistake.
>Evil is that which is harmful to society without just cause.
Copy/pasted from Google: Profoundly immoral and malevolent.
>Are you a troll or are you really thinking these are arguments?
>oppress them like slaves is evil because it does not help or advance humans
Lol, because that didn't bring supplies and wealth to the Europeans from the Africans.
>You compared atheism to the welfare system.
You are continually trying to justify with absoluter percentages rather than relative percentages. You continually do this (with no real statistics to boot), despite not justifying the scale (a larger percentage of a small group does as much to represent the group as a small portion of a large group by this flawed method).
>with legitimate arguments
You continually use unstable standards with no real evidence to support a personal viewpoint from an anonymous persona.
>I meant obvious to anyone with a post-grade-five education
"Hurr derr all relijus peple r stupd liek thsi persun."
>My morals are based on what I think is right
>evil should be fought where it is found
Yet you continually blame a irrelevant, abstract concept for the "evil" actions of such unstable individuals.
>READ THE BILLBOARD
Lol, because McDonald's needs to put "We have the best fries, better than Wendy's or Burger King" instead of "I'm lovin' it" in order to attract consumers.
>You propagating an incorrect perspective about people like me offends me.
I could strawman your strawman and say that you're doing the same thing.
>Christians LOVE DOING.
>no one should be shunned for an opposing view
>atheists talking openly about atheism
There's nothing wrong with that. The socially acceptable line is drawn when the discussion turns to bigotry and hatred. "Hey guys, let's talk about XBox!" "Okay, cool, PS3 sucks!" "I'm an XBox fanboy because I hate the Nintendo Wii".
>is denied in religion. Religion can never be wrong.
>If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.
Quoted from the Dalai Lama.
>You have to know you're wrong. You have to.
You have to know that you're making baseless assumptions and bad arguments. You have to.
>you came here and spouted incorrect perspectives
Trying to apply true and false to a subjective concept sure is smart, double triple really...
That's beside the point though, I came here with an "uncomfortable" thought at a thread where there was no guarantee the topic would stay stable and constant.
>because that does not relate to why I responded to you
You seem to be responding out of pride based off of the status-based wording of your statements and attitudes portrayed in the paragraphs. I respond because not only do I get a good laugh out of reading such flawed arguments, but the inner drama-whore in me fuels my debate.
>this thread is specifically for whiny inflammation.
Not only is there no guarantee that the thread will attract the exclusive company of such whining individuals (even my own presence proves this), but well, come on. You know you have to be wrong. You have to. A convenient counter-case is very easy to find nowadays for atheist behavior.
>more like the ones in REAL LIFE
Moonhorse hates Netflix because it doesn't have the movies he wants.
>Still just flies right over your head. Amazing.
It flies right over your head that *because it can not be tested for validity or for factual credibility, a personal testimonial of an unreachable environment by an anonymous entity does not count as evidence*. How much more clearer do I have to make this to you?
>Get a diary where you can whine and moan about how you can't take some mean names on the side.
I could say the same for you. You seem to be more oriented on a personal distress.
>where inflammatory arguments start
No, *inflammatory* arguments start more often than not with an atheist making an attack on a theist. Your only point is "because they do, we can too". If that were the case, then not only does that not make you the better group as you claim, but it shows immaturity on your party as well. That would be the case, though, if it wasn't an atheist who usually "points out" how theists (or, should I say Christians, because rarely does a defined atheist expand their arguments to all faiths outside of the Hebrew-oriented) are "stupid and wrong".
>Science is not nearly based on the same principles
Science is based on the desire to understand the universe and is tested through faith because of the unknown circumstances and results of the experiments. This recognition allowed many great scientists to be theist throughout their lives.
>but Adam and Eve were still real
The possibility of a literal or metaphoric Adam and Eve existing is still a valid assumption as long as no concrete evidence against has been presented (which happens to be the case).
>sex before marriage is bad
Find me a good condom in 1000 B.C. and I'll find you a nigger who doesn't like watermelon. STD's and disease were major threats in the wake of many religions. Abstinence is the only way to completely prevent the spread of STD's to a naturally-healthy individual.
>even in the wake of abusive habits
"But then, again, we’re thinking of this from a Christianized, Western standpoint. For people in the ancient world, life was already brutal. Violence and war were a fact of life for people living in the ancient Near East."
-Craig, from the same article previously mentioned
>Is the above statement useful to you?
You state this after I disprove the Enlightenment's unanimous and pure acceptance of atheism, not only trying to appeal through association (a fallacy, mind you), but you specifically quote to attack a Hebrew-oriented faith upon this to change the topic. To those of other faiths, this is irrelevant.
>If religion retained its old power in the west, you can bet we'd still have inter-faith war
Let me fix it to "If Christianity retained its old power in the west, you can bet we'd still have inter-faith war" because we both know that's what you're really talking about. The whole point seems moot anyway, "because it isn't as bad as it was long ago when war and violence were common, it must be condemned". Personally, I welcome the new generations of Christians who believe practice the peace and love that Jesus taught them, especially since the laws of the Hebrews and Jewish people are null to them (as they were voided with Christ's nailing-of-the-cross).
>racism that the bible recommends
"For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him." -Romans 10:12
"Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness."
-1 John 2:9
"But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors."
Nice strawman, but Christianity itself doesn't indorse racism.
>Sex positions ca be argued in the same way
The act of oral sex is based on the pursuit of pleasure, a feat that I would hardly personally say is "reasonable".
>Condoms protect us from all sorts of diseases and viruses
Lol, so you even know what early condoms were made of?
>Doubt is the most reasonable position for unjustified claims.
Doubt, when no prior experience is implemented, is the most reasonable. What makes this case different is whenever the experiences and understanding of the individual coincide with an unjustified claim, the probability to the individual accepting such claims increase. I presented this as a question when I first entered.
>but most atheists don't deny the possibility
By denying the religion and stating that it is wrong, one does, by extension, null the possibility of accepting the teachings of said religion and assume the possibility of the explanations presented by it are deteriorated. Only an agnostic viewpoint (purely "I don't know") does not deter the other possibilities.
>I will only expand on this if you really think I have to and I really hope you don't.
You're right, I don't care to hear a generic counter-culture rant from someone who I could give less than two shits about.
>I fixed it for you, again.
There exists more evidence for the case of a divine entity than for an imaginary entity with clear point and reason for origin. What amazes me about this is that you do not refute that you make inductive claims, but instead try to skew the statement I make rather than refute it or satire it (using the same tired-out unsupported thought you've pushed in this discussion).
>so the Greeks would be more or less justified in not believing in them.
So by saying that the Greeks could have rationally dismissed the idea on grounds of ignorance, the absolute truth would have been that such an idea was false and could not possibly exist based on their small scope of knowledge?
>inductive part is that which I have already explained
You have failed to prove against the statement that you have not employed inductive reasoning in your statements. When you tried, you confirmed said inductive reasoning with a statement that you included in your justification.
>of the religious fictions, you nit.
Calm down, no need to get butthurt here I get it, you're offended that people think differently than you and see the world with optimism, so you have to supply your own morals and silliness to justify a point that you not only can never actually prove, but apparently do a crap-tastic job as justifying.
ITT: Christfags throwing a hissyfit
ITT: Nigger who tl;dr the thread
>Nice strawman, but Christianity itself doesn't indorse racism.
Unless they're Jewish.
"This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth." Titus 1:13-14
"I know that works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." Revelation 2:9
"Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is anti-christ that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." John 2:22-23
"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Romans 9:13
"But the jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts." Acts 13:50
"The man departed, and told the jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole. And therefore did the jews persecute Jesus, and sougth to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." John 5:15-18
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lust of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye belive me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And,if I say the truth, why do ye not belive me? He that is God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God. Then answered the jews." John 8:44-48
You see what religion has already done to everyone here right? make them hateful.
ITT: One stupid faggot who thinks others don't read threads
Case in point:
>There exists more evidence for the case of a divine entity
Complete disconnect from reality. And paragraph after paragraph after paragraph written on a topic they clearly know very little about.
You can have your faith, and I don't particularly care what you believe one way or the other so long as you don't force me to live my life according to your faith's teachings (like almost every conservative christian in the US does), but saying there's scientific evidence of your faith is complete and utter bullshit. Science and religion do not and should not overlap, and where they do, science always wins.
And that's why they're throwing a hissyfit.
"Herpaderp scians an relijun cent exis toguthr"
"Evry 1 relijus is a kristfag"
"I dun agrE so evidens agens mus be bulshit"
"Thrs no eviduns in ur faeth that iv red so it mus be bulshit"
Cool story bro.
So experiments with repeatable results loses to a book that was cobbled together from a bunch of disassociated messianic cults?
Keep raging, Christfag.
"Le huehuehue i cant dispruv it so it mus be tru"
"lel he so mad huehuehue"
Go back to niggertits failtroll.
In English, child. Or don't you have a point worth making?
Les paroles "Go back to nigger-tits" "he so mad" "it"... ne sont-ils pas français?
I agree with a passion
I remember the days when mods would ban people for saying "u mad" in /rnb/
Ah, those were the days.
OP is the bad face of atheism.
And you've got the underlying point of religion all wrong. The point is to better yourself spiritually (psycologically) and be a better person as a result.
Sure there are places like Heaven, and those are very important, but your missing one of the biggest reasons why we have religion (and so many different kinds) in the first place.
Also, the lack of a belief in God(s) is a religion, or any oppinion on it for that matter.
Their is no such place as heaven and their is no such place as hell. Sin does not exist only a negative and positive influence on the world/people. Religion can help you psycologically, depending on its beliefs and what it says is true and/or false. Christianity is a big negative, it tells us false truths about life/afterlife and it gives people hate and a reason to hate religions/people. People can become spiritual without believing in an afterlife, deity's/spirit's and God's and can believe in something that is TRUE, that is proven and still have spirituality.
I'm sorry, I didn't know the absence of belief indicated belief.
For example, if you weren't gay, the very fact that you weren't gay, would, in fact, make you gay.
No, but you would still have a sexuality.
You're taking your own belief (Christianity is false) and stating it as unsupported fact. You are no different than those who claim their religion to be correct.
>You're taking your own belief (Christianity is false) and stating it as unsupported fact. You are no different than those who claim their religion to be correct
So as long as it doesnt have false belief and false hope in it ill continue to say Christianity and unprovable religions should be abandoned for the truth.
I dont claim to have a religion, you cant just HAVE a religion as soon as you have a belief. Religions are MADE.
You don't really understand how science works, do you?
Please show us support for the existence of God. On-demand demonstrable, repeatable under controlled laboratory conditions, proof. Remember you need to show your work, especially the math. That's the stuff involving numbers, in case you're unfamiliar.
You may have a hypothesis that an all-knowing all-seeing all-caring man who lives in the sky exists (who, lest we forget, will put you in a pit of fire for all eternity if you don't obey his every command), but to progress beyond a hypothesis requires factual evidence.
, duck fuck.jpg
>you would still have a sexuality
But that's not what you said. You said that the absence of any belief in religious constructs is evidence of religion.
Pic related. Apparently this duck is now a dog by your twisted logic.
Atheism a religion?.....atheists hate the believer and not the religion itself?....man, you people need to get out of the house more.....
Oh look, someone's already said this.
Lol, you're an inconsistent nigger. Being gay is a sexuality. Being straight is a sexuality. Being bi is a sexuality The specifications of which class you fall null out your placement in the others (being gay does not make you straight; being atheist does not make you Christian), but the hierarchy answered is that a sexuality (religion, in the metaphor) is still answered.
> You said that the absence of any belief in religious constructs is evidence of religion.
That's not atheism, that's apatheism.
>Atheism a religion?
"Atheists are people who believe that god or gods (or other supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful." -BBC Religions
"The theory or belief that God does not exist." -Google
"the doctrine or belief that there is no God." -dictionary.reference.com
So much butthurt from one little post I made...
>someone's already said this
Yes, and nobody ever bothered to provide anything beside a hypothesis. Just to make it perfectly clear, an "argument" is not a scientific term. The closest applicable term is a hypothesis. One does not "disprove" a hypothesis. One must first prove a hypothesis before it can be accorded any weight whatsoever.
>Lol, you're an inconsistent nigger.
Lol, you're a retard.
You say that someone who doesn't believe in religion is, in fact, religious.
My way of pointing out that you're gay is merely a way of insulting you, not a way of disproving your ridiculous statement. Your attempt to redirect the discussion into silly semantics ("sexuality") is pointless and futile.
>an "argument" is not a scientific term
An argument can refer to a viewpoint and reasoning in a debate (2 a: a reason given in proof or rebuttal [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument]) How the fuck you want to use applied terminology to justify a flawed point is beyond me.
>One does not "disprove" a hypothesis.
To disprove means that an idea is proven as false. Stance isn't taken into account. The initial validity of a statement doesn't require a hint of being true in order to be shown that the idea is false.
>Lol, you're a retard.
I think it's funny that when your morality and "logic" fails, you athei-emo's have to fall back on silly, petty insults. That alone is just desperate.
>Your attempt to redirect the discussion
To redirect would hint that I brought the topic up. I did not. The anon at (16796) brought the topic and idea up with a flawed analogy, not only in subject matter, but in base.
Of course, I could type more, but I have a feeling I'd be met with more "shut up you relijus ignorent ful u dont understan siance shut up u dumbass omg ur a dumbass".
>An argument can refer to a viewpoint and reasoning in a debate
Glad to hear it... but we were talking about scientific terminology, not popularity contests (AKA debating).
>The initial validity of a statement doesn't require a hint of being true in order to be shown that the idea is false
Which would be nice, except - if you had bothered to read the thread - you'd see someone was claiming that a hypothesis should be accorded great weight because they felt nobody had disproved it. Of course it hadn't been proven, either, which is why it's still nothing more than a hypothesis.
>silly, petty insults
Because calling someone a nigger is somehow not a silly, petty insult. How many swastika tattoos do you have?
So, despite the fact that you're trying to drag the conversation off into some weird tangent involving semantics, you're not trying to redirect the conversation into a weird tangent involving semantics?
BTW, the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around. I thought you should know, since most Christians think its the other way around.
>not popularity contests (AKA debating).
Lol. Just, lol.
>if you had bothered to read the thread
The anon presented his reasoning against and provided reasoning for, while arguing that the point being assumed false is crap because the idea hasn't be proven false in any absolute, ultimate case. I read the thread, and I wonder if you skimmed it.
>not a silly, petty insult.
Not only do you "atheists" have a knack for not containing substance in your debates, but you spend way too much time in order to try to belittle and insult your opponent (I've seen you being guilty of this, such as the last sentence you've put bringing up an un-needed strawman attack, which is laughable that when religion is being brought into topic, you atheists seem to always try to single out Christianity unless another is mentioned).
>despite the fact that you're trying
Well, it wasn't me who brought it up, and it wasn't me who kept trying to re-bring the idea that "I" presented. The twisted logic presented in the flawed analogy (flawed in both content, context, and base) is still being presented (not by me).
>it wasn't me who brought it up
I feel sorry for whatever teacher has to interact with you on a daily basis. Your inability to grasp even relatively simple concepts is just downright incredible.
Well, if your only response is an over-glorified "You're stupid" (hey, what did you know, apparently I was right with point number 3 in 16830), then I could say the same for you. An anon made the inception of the idea in (16796) and tried to continue the idea in (16809).
Also, if I'm the one trying to change the subject, then why did the anon at (16823) hint at a change in subject to "who changed the subject"?
>belittle and insult your opponent
What was that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of your hypocrisy.
Yes, I spend too much time trying to do nothing but insult my opponent. That's why I've never quoted a post or made a legitimate counter-argument, I've just been trying to dismiss the opponent at nothing but "you're stupid". You got me, skipper!
Hey, can you explain something to me?
Why do Evangelicals and Fundamentalists think that anyone who doesn't march in absolute march-step with their extremist views is an atheist?
It's because the term "weak atheism" is often self-applied to individuals who don't prefer a religious affiliation. Apatheists and Agnostics be damned to them, the collective term is pushed for the sake of simplicity.
Hey, can you explain something to me?
Why do "atheists" (more like anti-theists and every preteen "edgy" web-atheist) think that anyone who happens to have a religion is a Fundamentalist who doesn't understand science, and also believes that Christianity is the only other religion in the world?
You appear to be a simpleton so I'll try to make this clear for you.
When both sides are engaging in derogatory statements, it is beyond patently absurd to state that only one side is engaging in derogatory statements.
>it is beyond patently absurd to state that only one side is engaging in derogatory statements.
>you're trying to drag the conversation
>What was that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of your hypocrisy.
>It's because the term "weak atheism" is often self-applied to individuals who don't prefer a religious affiliation.
Try again, try harder. I'm fully affiliated. I'm also a moderate, which is why I'm not a rabid defender of all Christianity like you. Moderates don't go on multi-paragraph rants against atheists. But extremists, which pretty much limits you to being an Evangelical or Fundamentalist, most certainly do. And they do so regularly.
Also, dumbass (>>16875), when you're going to quote someone you really should make sure you're quoting the same person. Otherwise you can get banned for not using the quoting system properly. Those bans have really been coming down on you rabid dogs left and right lately, please try harder to not be another statistic.
>I'm fully affiliated. I'm also a moderate
When did that question or answer of mine call for a personal response? Specific to that sub-topic, I don't care; the actions of the group are not defined by a small choice of an insignificant member. Identifying yourself while under an anonymous persona is laughably stupid.
>not a rabid defender of all Christianity like you.
Yes, because milking butthurt and lulz from pseudo-intellectuals who can't debate or bring a good flame makes me a white knight for a specific instance of a sub-topic. You got me, really.
>which pretty much limits you to being an Evangelical or Fundamentalist.
Do you really think that the limitations of rants and hatred are confined solely to those two factions?
>really should make sure you're quoting the same person.
The writing style, tone, agenda, and amount of ad hom in the top two quotes hint that they were written by the same anon. The bottom was added for the sake of the irony towards the group (which I don't regret adding).
Wow this is ridiculous. No one is explaining why religions/Christianity is bad for the world.
>amount of ad hom
Ah, 4chan refugees... they try so hard to stand out with all the stupid they can bear. Ad hominem attacks on chans? Holy fucking shit! Every Anonymous poster on every chan everywhere is the same guy!
When your side is the first to attack, you cannot claim that the other side's counter-attack is unjustified and - more importantly - unprovoked. Otherwise you're just going to look stupid.
I think you should remember the whole "turn the other cheek" thing... though I know Republican Jesus doesn't preach that, you really shouldn't listen to him. He's not a good role model.
>Ah, 4chan refugees
So the correct response to an accusation of ad hominem is to reply with more ad hominem and a minor strawman? This must be genius in every single word. What an inspiring feat of yours to smite me so, with words of cutting intellect and bravado. Oh, you must have dug deep into your vast depths of near-limitless knowledge to pull out an insult that's the 7chan equivalent to "le go back to le 9 gag xD". You got me skipper, I guess this is checkmate to me, really.
>When your side is the first to attack, you cannot claim that the other side's counter-attack is unjustified and - more importantly - unprovoked. Otherwise you're just going to look stupid.
You do realize what thread you were on right, and you did read the OP's post, didn't you?
>I think you should remember the whole "turn the other cheek" thing...
>When your side is the first to attack, you cannot claim that the other side's counter-attack is unjustified and - more importantly - unprovoked.
>What was that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of your hypocrisy.
The thread's train is making a turn and is on half of its wheels, and it could derail at any moment.
Its even worse than that.
All insulting posts on all chans everywhere are written by this duck.
>Avoiding the point
My point is that religion is an unnecessary supply which causes harm, so your point about supply and demand becomes moot because my point is that regardless of demand, religion is a) not useful and b) harmful.
>Atheism isn't what I say
Except I'm right. It is impossible to believe there is no god without forming a contradictory religion, which is why any rational atheist will tell you that you are wrong. Atheism can only go as far as being a lack of belief as anything further is an unsupported claim. Ergo, atheism, regardless of what poor a definition you chose, is a lack of belief in gods, not a belief in their nonexistence.
>revers is void
No, you are still wrong. For an evil person to do evil is easy, just as for a good person to do good, but for a good person to do evil, that takes religion. Modern Jihadists have every reason to believe that what they're doing is right because their holy books tell them so. They, like any religious person, are so convinced that their books are true that they cannot be told they are wrong unless the text is wrong, which naturally, they are, unless you think all religions are true, which would make you a moron.
>the off-hand insult
And your response was phenomenal.
>communist party ethics
Did I say anything about this? My entire point was about science, which religions constantly try to hinder, and economics. By the way, you can pull as many quotes as you like from whomever you choose, but I can still point out which ones are wrong. I believe that social Hellenism is the safest route, not social Darwinism.
>Google pasted evil
And what is immoral and cruel save that which does harm without just cause? Good job, you've restated my point.
>Talking about African slave drives
Well, at least we found out you support slavery. Nevertheless, I, again, was referring to dictatorships. Whites could also have easily done the work themselves and brought supplies from other nations with no need for slaves, but nice attempt at justification.
>No real statistics
Oh? Which statistics have I stated which are not true?
>continually use unstable blah, blah, blah...
And yet you haven't disagreed with a single factual notion I've made with an ounce of validity. I see a lot of generalization and character assassination on your part, but this seems to be in the midst of your arguments fading into the background. Like I said, Google the facts if you like; I have not misspoken. I've actually tried to give you more wiggle room than you've been giving me.
>Obvious to all
Well, let's examine my preposterously unsupported, anecdotal arguments against you. You said that religious debate on the internet is one-sided. This is false. Inflammatory argument occurs on both sides regularly. The religious do have an interesting and unique method on their side as well. They make profiles where they post pro-religious debates, anti-atheist statements, and so on, and block the comment section, which is its own form of inflammation. The argument grade is more openly anti-theistic, but not less religious, one should note. The arguments can and are started by either party over anything. Next, you said cities are being overrun by atheists. Again, wrong. It is more openly atheistic, but to say that religion doesn't still have the vice grip is pure nonsense; see my Superbowl question. I can address others if you like, but let's move on.
No, and I don't know how you've deduced that. If I only did that which was useful to me, I would admit to being a criminal. I'm actually community-minded.
No, it makes perfectly decent and intelligent people do and say stupid or evil things.
Yet they have that bog 'ol golden arch "M" underscored with McDonald's all big and bright on every one. Weird, you'd think they were competitive or something.
>strawman your strawman
Yet I would be right because you're attributing beliefs to people without and I'm attributing evil (not all evil, don't get your panties in a knot) to the beliefs people hold and not the people themselves.
You've been doing it this whole time and it looked fun. And the point before the strawman remains.
>Dalai Lama quote
He also believes that sex (not before marriage, but sex altogether) is wrong, that passion is poison and that concern for the future is also poison. He is wrong about all of these.
>Baseless assumptions and bad arguments
And yet you've still failed to point out which ones.
I was referring to your generalizations, again.
>why you're responding
Again, with the character assassination with no reference to what you find wrong. And I'm supposed to take you seriously?
And yet you are still here, doing it. You even called yourself a drama-whore. Blurry lines everywhere!
Another poor diversion to dodge a statement. Congratulations, you never get old. If you'd like to make a point about atheist-to-religious person conversation in real life, I'd love to hear it sometime.
>Still over your head
There's one study. Funny how handy that there Google can be.
>I could say the same for you
Yeah, but you don't see me avoiding arguments with the phrase "ad hom" all the time.
Still on the Youtube mind-frame, I see. Yes, atheists start arguments on comment sites, and no, that does not make them better in that respect. I'm denying that religious types are the silent types who do no harm. Perhaps I spend too much time browsing comments, but I see religious people just as inflammatory as the atheist party. As I've stated, this does not matter to me since the arguments of value occur outside the internet, where real perspectives must be used because you are directly involved with another person.
>Science makes scientists turn theistic
Strawman. And a bad, bad, bad one.The scientist turned theist is the rarest form, especially these days. For most scientists to be theistic requires that they already had belief to begin with. By the way, the key phrase in your argument is "tested through experiments," which religion never goes through. Religion rather simply contorts to fit spaces.
>literal or metaphoric
Literal is incorrect, and evidence has been given against this, unless you can pinpoint the exact moment in time when the first two homo sapiens were born, and further narrow your pinpoint by the possibility of them having known each other. As for metaphorical, I don't care in that case, and I would still find it incorrect since I would believe the metaphor to be wrong.
So what? That's still the case today. Gays wouldn't have gummed up the works by fucking straight people back then, either, and if they want to risk it for themselves for the sake of their love, then why not let them? They can only hurt themselves. Oh, and fun-fact: Pre-1000 BC, people thought diseases and infections were curses from gods, so your point doesn't work anyway.
>Another Craig quote
So, religious points about marriage are invalid now? Great, now we're getting somewhere.
>after I disproved atheism post-enlightenment
You didn't disprove anything. I never said I agreed with Voltaire, and I'm actually getting to my point, so all you had to do was say yes or no. The reason I asked is because that's what I mean by obsolete. Since the Enlightenment, many great people have said all the useful things stated in religion in a better and more modernized sentiment. We've systematically removed the unnecessary fluff, and the best function of religions these days is to learn from our mistakes (religion) rather than keep inventing similar ways to fuck up.
>Your modern religion point
In the West, I would be referring to Abrahamic religions, but you aren't exempt. When I mention Buddhist faults, you slide past them and defect to my arguments from Christianity. It's not about my affiliation; it's about your aversion. I mentioned the Buddhist regimes, the Dalai Lama's faults, general problems with the hierarchy of Buddhist values, and you've ignored every one. So, if you're as addicted to Christianity as you seem to be, why divert from my area of expertise?
>racism in the Bible
Matthew 15:22-26 22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. 26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
Matthew 10:5-6 5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
You forgot a couple.
>Pleasure and reason
So that which we find intimate and pleasurable can't be discussed reasonably? Curious, I find it trivial.
You sure do dwell on the past a lot, don't you? Do I need to tell you that I'm sequentially picking off unnecessary religious text as it pertains to modern society?
>belief in unjustified claims
Yet, when these claims prove to be contrary to one another, by hook or by crook, and when many like claims have been made and proven false, as is also the case, it is safe to assume that the default position of reason is to doubt any further like claims.
>By denying the religion, atheists etc.
Untrue. That an atheist does not believe in claims and can state which he finds false, does not diminish his responsibility to be a good person and find value in statements that coincide with his good nature, as good morals are innate, save in the psycho or sociopath. One doesn't simple say that since God doesn't exist, love for my fellow man is bad; that would be absurd.
More edgy character assassination. At least you spiced it up with a swear-word this time. Atheists don't mind being generic, since it's the common atheist arguments that still require answering. Things like, "Why should I believe in God when there is no evidence for his existence?" Curse that genericism!
>Your evidence for a divine entity
Your "evidence" is the shoddy notion that since the universe looks good, it implies a creator. Leave alone that we are the only species that finds it intrinsically beautiful since we're the only adept pattern-seekers, and you're still left with a bunch of problems. Why must a divine entity exist? If it's because the universe implies a creator to you, then that creator carries the qualities of having been created by the very fact that it knows how to create and decorate, which leads to infinite regress. If that being requires no creator because it it the beginning entity which embodies those qualities, then why not leave it out altogether since our universe could also apply as that set standard? The evidence for a super-entity is ridiculously poor at best, and the evidence for a creator with a specified personality and care for us and capricious mind or will, is exponentially more ridiculous and poor.
That it was absolutely false? No. But again, I have not said that the notion of super-entities is absolutely false, either, just poorly supported. For both cases however, if someone from the future would come back and present evidence that established both cases, they'd be confirmed, since evidence is a prime requirement. Ergo, doubt is the default position.
You restated my statement. And you've also employed inductive reasoning in a number of cases, I just haven't directly bitched at you about them like you have me, but rather confronted them with my own viewpoint, which you called inductive.
>religious people and optimism
Actually, I'm saying that religion prevents further optimism. You won't see me in a rally against gay marriage, or harassing or attacking gays or Jews in the streets, or ranting about how filthy modern society is, or any of the unnecessary stresses that religion provides your modern religious people. I love everyone as long as they don't hate me for an arbitrary reason, including religious people. And that you tried to take a statement of mine out of context to end your argument in a movie end-quote fashion was more than adorable.
You know, sometimes I worry that I spend too much time on imageboards. But seeing this thread, and these posts, reassures me. In a weird way, thanks guys.
, and your point is.jpg
>My point is that religion is an unnecessary supply
I could argue the same with modern gaming. You seem to be avoiding the whole supply-demand thing pretty well; not every human being acts exclusively to his/her essentials in his/her daily routine, without any other pleasureful activity.
The good anon at >>16677 already talked about this.
>Except I'm right.
I just posted quotes and sauced them, and your response is essentially "nope, because I'm right"?
>but for a good person to do evil, that takes religion.
>This is a similar argument for gun control, and it's a flawed one for a very simple reason: such blaming does not address the issue at hand, a human is corrupt with power and acting against society. You can pin the blame on what you want, but the fact is that abstract ideas can not have any real control over the actions of an individual.
I'm starting to think that you seriously view religion as a poltergeist-of-possession that magically grabs people and forces them to act according to its alien will.
>Did I say anything about this?
No, because not talking about the improvement of one unified society with one homogeneous belief system wasn't a goal of the Communist party. Really. Double really.
>not social Darwinism
Cool story bro, but the whole survival-of-the-fittest thing sounds appealing in the long run.
>Well, at least we found out you support slavery.
Oh, you're on a chan imageboard...
Please try to tell me how morally superior you are to me.
>Whites could also have easily done the work themselves and brought supplies from other nations with no need for slaves
The cheap labor contributed greatly to the wealth of the white nations. Spain and the Aztecs, Ivory trade...
>Which statistics have I stated which are not true?
A better question is which ones have you stated that 'were' true, as you've placed no sources or study into your "statistics". Tie this into...
>Google the facts if you like
... and the point is presented that you have no solid, credible, consistent basis for your argument. I don't feel as though it is my responsibility to Google "why religion is bad" when I know for a fact that many of the results will be heavily-biased shit.
>I see a lot of generalization and character assassination on your part
ಠ_ಠ I suppose you've never done this here. Nope, never. Really.
>You said that religious debate on the internet is one-sided. This is false. Inflammatory argument...
I've said this numerous times...
>No, *inflammatory* arguments start more often than not with an atheist making an attack on a theist.
>They make profiles where they post pro-religious debates, anti-atheist statements, and so on...
Yes, because there has never been an atheist community that's blocked a user and delete his/her posts out of spite when the argument's flaws and explains pro-theist arguments, and where there isn't, there's no atheist commenter who replies to it, tl;dr'ing the message and just attacking the theist on grounds that he/she "doesn't understand science". Nope, never has there been one in all of the internet. Really.
>Next, you said cities are being overrun by atheists.
Nice strawman, but I stated that open religious activity is more frowned upon in the urban than rural geographic areas, and presented it as a counter-argument to your whole "but thees cuntri drunx haet me 4 bein atheist". I like how you were nice enough to base this on your own definition of atheism though, just because you're so smart. Really.
>I don't know how you've deduced that
The reasoning is based on your own personal morality, rather than any factual evidence.
>No, it makes perfectly decent and intelligent people do and say stupid or evil things.
>This is a similar argument for gun control, and it's a flawed one for a very simple reason: such blaming does not address the issue at hand... You can pin the blame on what you want, but the fact is that abstract ideas can not have any real control over the actions of an individual
I can't help but giggle when you seriously think that the sole cause of those heinous acts is religion, not any culture influence, economic reasoning, or will of those in power. Tying back into the modern gaming point made earlier, this argument isn't unlike the "violent games inspire shootings" concept.
>Weird, you'd think they were competitive or something.
Yet no pro-religious advertisement has had a fucking name of a church at the side of it. How funny is that?
>Yet I would be right
Yet targeting the beliefs of the highly-religious and their religions as collectively evil is not the same thing as...
>You propagating an incorrect perspective about people like me
>And the point before the strawman remains.
The point before the strawman was a strawman attack with no solid evidence.
An "opposing view" that can not be either proven or dis-proven has no grounds to be called an "incorrect perspective" if you're going to use your own self-based philosophy and morality for justification against the collective group.
>He is wrong about all of these.
True and false are only concepts that can be applied to objective concepts. Anything else must be based on an individual's own morality in the sense of right-and-wrong.
>that sex (not before marriage, but sex altogether) is wrong
Yes, sex is a very risky practice that can be used to spread disease, lead to over-population, and earthly pleasure.
>passion is poison
All jokes about Taylor Swift aside, passion and lust can lead to a blinding of the outside world that, if corrupted or shattered, can lead an individual into emotional harm.
>concern for the future is also poison
Of course it is. George Orwell is quoted as saying "Each generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it". The distraction of what efforts that could be used to improve the human environment now could benefit the future generations by giving them a solid environment in their upbringing. The time spent worrying is time spent that could be working towards a better future for an individual by solving their problems now before they escalate.
>you've still failed to point out which ones
Replying has already escalated to two-to-three pages, listing all of them would be lengthy, yet the continual mentioning of a personal grievance under an untestable environment with an anonymous persona gets special mention for being the most frequently used one.
>And yet you are still here, doing it. You even called yourself a drama-whore.
Is that supposed to be an insult?
>Another poor diversion to dodge a statement.
It's hard to dodge a blank shot. Every time I've mentioned the idea of a "moon-horse in my home", it's been to satirize when you've (continually) presented a personal testimonial as evidence, constantly bringing the status of "real life" as more credible evidence than every generalization I've made (basing your location on an unspecific and unconfirmed location). The problem with that is simple, there is no factual way to test the validity of your "real life" evidence. Given your own reasoning, and without any prior reason to believe you as factual in my personal experience, "doubt is the proper perspective to have".
>you don't see me avoiding arguments with the phrase "ad hom" all the time
I point out ad hom and laugh. You dodge the central reasoning for my arguments and try to justify your own reasoning with un-scientific means. This is an ad hom in response to an ad hom.
>but I see religious people just as inflammatory as the atheist party.
Only when the topic of the location of commenting do the religious typically throw the first punch. I've seen the atheist groups more often de-rail a discussion into a religious flame-war more often than not when the topic wasn't even religious to begin with.
>Strawman. And a bad, bad, bad one.
I could say the same to you. I stated that because there of the lack of actual scientific dismissal to the ideas, many scientists throughout history have been allowed in their own mindsets to hold religious beliefs while maintaining a scientific approach and practice their field (not that they were theist because of scientific evidence).
>when the first two homo sapiens were born
Pick up the topic when this is actually found. All snarking aside, it'll be an interesting read.
>As for metaphorical, I don't care in that case
The story of a limited amount of a small, collected focus of life where the life that brings humanity gets outcast for knowledge of sin, expanding into the eventual modern world could be tested as a representation.
>curses from gods, so your point doesn't work anyway.
Seems pretty funny to waste money on something that a divine being will just bypass.
>religious points about marriage are invalid now?
When you apply your own morality to ancient life (in the wake of abusive habits), you forget the mindset of the peoples back then. Would a woman gain from marrying suitors for wealth then leaving at the sign of trouble? Would the scarcity of resources lead to more "gold-digging" between women and men? Would the appreciation of a woman bought like property be the same between the first husband, who had her way with her, be the same as those of the second man, who essentially dealt with his "left-overs".
>We've systematically removed the unnecessary fluff, and the best function of religions these days is to learn from our mistakes (religion) rather than keep inventing similar ways to fuck up.
Humanity has not reached its technological or socialogical peak. In no way have we graduated as a whole to the point where we absolutely need to abandon the beliefs presented as a whole. Should any religion be correct in its teaching, the origins of the universe explained by such religion will, as well, never be dated.
The strife to understand our universe and act upon what we belief in is by no means a mistake.
>So, if you're as addicted to Christianity as you seem to be, why divert from my area of expertise?
I have two main reasons for this:
1)Given how common Christianity is in the West is, resources of defense in a language I understand are very easy to come by, as well as my personal experience with understanding the viewpoints of others.
2) You began the argument with a grievance against those of Christian faith specifically (typical), with the introduction of your personal whining.
So the nationalistic avoidance of a wicked people that would most likely have murdered them is enough justification for the hatred of black people. Nice.
>So that which we find intimate and pleasurable can't be discussed reasonably?
The same argument could be said from an alcoholic about why he should continue to drink when he's continually told not to.
>You sure do dwell on the past a lot, don't you?
The difference is that I try to explain things in the context they were written in.
>Yet, when these claims prove to be contrary to one another
Inductive reasoning, the boy who cried wolf, yada yada yada...
>That an atheist does not believe in claims and can state which he finds false, does not diminish his responsibility
Except of course that by denying the possibility of a religion being correct, the atheist denies the possibility that God/Aliens/Cthulu created the universe as being correct. Any morality arguments, however, are personal to the atheist's culture and up-bringing.
>we are the only species that finds it intrinsically beautiful since we're the only adept pattern-seekers
Mind you how many religions view humans above animals...
>Your "evidence" is the shoddy notion that since the universe looks good, it implies a creator.
The argument often presented by theists in this case is that the universe has consistent, mathematical truths and patterns that would otherwise be created from nothing and yet abstractly apply to everything. I was referring to ideas such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Anthropic Principle.
>Why must a divine entity exist?
>...which leads to infinite regress.
The problem with that logic is that according to the beliefs of many theists, the original creator is the source of all that is good and true. When you state that it needs a sort of "mentor", you imply that it requires a higher power to answer to, effectively nulling the status of it by definition as the ultimate and original entity, yet the faithful people believe that the timeless entity is not confined to such a problem because not only does it not answer to time (if I make a box that represents time, I can move in and out of the box at will), but it possessed all of the knowledge and infinite wisdom since time was brought into the question.
>since evidence is a prime requirement
Faith, by definition, does not require evidence. Furthermore, doubt has just as much place with acceptance under the grounds of "no evidence", because both parties have an equal chance at knowing the outcome.
>You restated my statement.
Yes, I did. You presented the logic that because certain claims have been held true for a classification, all members of said classification will most likely hold those principles true. That is, by definition, inductive reasoning.
>You won't see me in a rally
Yet I see you here on the internet ranting about it. In your own words though, it happens in real life, where it matters more. Though congratulations to them, for viewing the world in such pessimism (with no real unbiased study confirming the effects gay marriage will have on the world) that they adopt doubt as the proper perspective. Thanks a bunch for not seeing the irony in that statement.
>ranting about how filthy modern society is
>concern for the future is also poison. He is wrong about all of these.
Yeah, imageboards are bad, but then you see a good old religious flamewar and you realize you could be wasting your time in even more foolish pursuits... like giving some scumbag who runs a church 10% and more of your money.
Did you know that some Evangelical "churches" require members to give a copy of their tax returns to the church every year? And that members that are found to have not given 10% of their gross income to the church are given a choice to either make a payment or leave the church.
>>16917 and >>16919 are responses to >>16912 and >>16911
I completely forgot to post that.
Sounds like a good business plan.
Yeah, Gulfstream V's don't buy themselves.
Site's full of "reason" dumbfuckery.
Seems like a pretty legit sauce.
A shame that you didn't bother to actually look at the graphic in any detail since everything in it is completely accurate to the nth degree.
For example, while you may believe yourself to be a psychic surgeon and are offended by the graphic, you'd still be a charlatan scamming sick people out of money that could instead be spent prolonging their life.
You may also note that it does not contain anything directed at normal, mainstream Christian beliefs. The theory of evolution isn't a problem for us...
Christians are idiot's Why? because they are christians.Jews,same thing, Hindu,same thing.ANY religion involving belief in deity's are false.All follower's of religions with god's and deity's have a lack of will to grasp reality.You think religions like these have done anything good for the world that has lasted? the negative out weighs the positive.
Why the fuck did you bump an old thread to post your half-assed swagfag-grammar angst?
>This whole thread
Whoever thinks Neil deGrasse Tyson is a condom-denying homophobic pedophile in the Vatican? Stupid.
That... monobrow... ssssssssssexy.
All of the people who call themselves atheists are pathetic imitations of intellectuals.
I find myself surrounded by them. They mistake me for one of their own, but I try not to let it bother me. Honestly no other theologically motivated group is more hypocritical or less introspective.
This is not my face of atheism. Fuck you.
<- Lack of pic related.
I am using your post to bump the thread, how does that make you feel?
That was a really long, yet unlettered response. I'm sure you thought it was intelligent, but just throwing around words like "hypocritical" don't just make you correct. I find atheism and, hell, anti-theism to be the best and most reasonable positions.
Listen Religion is full of people who think they are right Atheism, Christians and anyone with a belief in divine beings.NO one listens to ANYTHING and when they do its so they can counter with an argument,then it happens again and again.Until people are born with a sense of acceptance and are able to comprehend drastic change everyone here might as well kill them selves.
Meters are an abstract concept for having concrete units to measure. I think we can consider it concrete now that we can compare a meter to a mole, gram, etc., making it valid and proven. "God" and many other religious concepts have little to no proof or reference points, thus they remain abstract and most likely false.
I measure my gods in Tsoukaloses.
I measure my mileage in rods to a hogshead.
I'm half the man I used to be
I am so fucking tired of religion i just wish it was just illegal.Believe in science nothing else! philosophy wont hurt either.
What a colossal tit you are.
So you have a good argument to why religion is a good thing? Mostly christianity.
Also this is a place for venting rage is it not?
No, I'm actually shocked at how intolerant you are. So some dudes believe in a magic sky man who came down, got himself killed and then resurrected himself to prove a point to an angry red dude.
Kill yourself you angsty teenager. Who gives a fuck what people believe?
Believing that the bible is all truth and cannot be disproved is ignorant. Most religions lead to hate and war dooming the world to endless conflict. People need to face reality or else everyone will continue to be ignorant of it as long as they believe it can be helped with prayer or divine intervention.
The problem is they demand that you live your life by the tenets of their religion, or at least can't violate the "laws" they believe to be true.
And, of course, their beliefs are currently vacillating towards extremely strict, both dogmatic and literal, interpretations. In a few years their kids will take over, rebel against their tyrannical rule, and the world will vacillate back towards normalcy.
Until that happens, hate groups like Westboro will become more, not less, common.
That's been going on since there have been religions. The least capable of rational thought and most impressionable become targets for conversion. Generally this is why childhood indoctrination is so critical. But adults dumb enough to buy in like kids become zealots, miss the big picture and cause bloody fucking havoc, the very thing their religion attempts so incredibly poorly to prevent. It happens because all accepted religions are ancient shitty attempts and building a moral code. People create new, better religions all the time, but they're labelled cults and generally either not officially respected by governements or outright dismissed by them. Old cults are managable, because they're fairly rigid dogmas. New cults are unpredicable and can challenge your authority & control. Of course, societies themselves are predictably primitive and cult-based yet, aka culture, in-groups vs out-groups... these are the behaviors of simple animals. Yet, for as fucked as modern society is in many new ways, it's at very least far more advanced ethically than the halfassed cultures that spawned any of these new shitty abrahamic faiths (and they are new, compared to much older, popular, and successful gods and religions over the eons). Muslims-Jews-Christians, all worship a violent barbaric god figure of the bronze age. Ok, great. But, following the morals of their stories as a code to live by today will leave you with either a replica of their brutal societies or stuck, forever twisting logic into knots trying to rectify the grosser inconsistencies of the half-baked morals of their atrocity-condoning stories with anything that could resemble riteousness, divinity, or a loving, not totally insane psychotic, and malevolent god.
I personally love the saga of the Anabaptists. So much pious suffering, so many dead idiots. See also, everything between the exile of Akhenaten's wacky monotheism cult, I mean, Jews, out of egypt, and Waco, Texas.
The mormon church replacing huge portions of government in several states is the next smoldering shitstorm. I look forward to the festivities.