Would you like to see the death of religion.

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Zillah wrote: »

Yes but you didn't answer the question. What if they are?

You seem to be proposing a world where we can't call anyone on their evil deeds, even if they're evil, simply because we can never be 100% of anything.

If I'm 99.99% sure that someone is a rapist, I'll treat them like a rapist.

If a group (be they fundamentalists, atheists, blacks or homosexuals) is indeed dangerous, corrupting and prone to evil behaviour then I think the onus is on the one making such an assertion to prove it. Such evidence, in order to justify such a blanket assertion, must be extremely conclusive and not just some anecdotal examples. For example, if the guy in the US could produce statistical evidence that demonstrated beyond all doubt that all homosexuals were dangerous and corrupting and that homosexuals were more prone than heterosexuals to commit acts of paedophilia, then I might have conceded that he had a point. Since he could produce no such evidence I dismissed him as a homophobic bigot.

If I'm 99.9% sure that someone is an intolerant bigot then I'll treat them like an intolerant bigot.

I can see why you as a Christian might like a world where our ability to criticise bullshit when we see it is reduced though...

While I oppose the blanket demonising of groups of people, I wholeheartedly think that the criticism of bull**** is a fundamental human right. However, I will refrain from further comment since I think you, Zillah, are much more familiar with bull**** than I am, so it would be an unequal debate.

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Wow! How did that happen? I type a word in my post & it automatically comes out as asterisks. Is this some kind of filter on boards.ie? But how come it still allows Zillah to type the word? Has Dades installed a filter that allows atheists to curse but censors Christians? Spooky.

robindch

Yes - through natural causes

PDN wrote:

Is this some kind of filter on boards.ie? But how come it still allows Zillah to type the word?

Yes, there's a filter, but press the quote button on Zillah's post and all will be revealed...

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

robindch wrote: »

Yes, there's a filter, but press the quote button on Zillah's post and all will be revealed...

Hmmm, very clever. Now, does that prove that all atheists are clever or that all gays are clever? Or does it simply prove that Zillah did something clever and that has no bearing on whether any particular group is clever or not?

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

hamiltron wrote: »

From the point of view of a non-believer, we only see the effect of what believers do in reality - we are not concerned with their post-mortem passage (or our own) to paradise, as we do not believe in one. For this reason, we hope that the things that dictate the behaviour of our fellow humans would be logic and psychological/sociological benefit to the individual/mankind. The fact is that most moderate "believers" actually do develop their belief system by those criteria (i.e. they are influenced by logic and the society in which they live), and then tack their beliefs onto an inherited religious framework. Even with their a la carte religion, they are more like atheists in how they form their morals, etc.

Nice post Hamiltron.

PDN wrote: »

But how come it still allows Zillah to type the word? Has Dades installed a filter that allows atheists to curse but censors Christians? Spooky.

The "Abrahamibot" I installed only filters out the Lord's name so as you can't take it in vain.
For your own protection!

Zillah

Yes - through natural causes

PDN wrote: »

If a group (be they fundamentalists, atheists, blacks or homosexuals) is indeed dangerous, corrupting and prone to evil behaviour then I think the onus is on the one making such an assertion to prove it. Such evidence, in order to justify such a blanket assertion, must be extremely conclusive and not just some anecdotal examples. For example, if the guy in the US could produce statistical evidence that demonstrated beyond all doubt that all homosexuals were dangerous and corrupting and that homosexuals were more prone than heterosexuals to commit acts of paedophilia, then I might have conceded that he had a point.

This is somewhat ironic. The man you speak of almost certainly uses his faith in God and God's book as justification for his anti-homosexual stance. The word "abomination" is quite hard to reinterpret.

If I'm 99.9% sure that someone is an intolerant bigot then I'll treat them like an intolerant bigot.

Ok, cool. We agree then. I just wanted to confirm that you weren't proposing a world where we are not allow make judgements of other people and their beliefs.

While I oppose the blanket demonising of groups of people, I wholeheartedly think that the criticism of bull**** is a fundamental human right.

What if whole groups of people would be demonised by critising their beliefs which also happen to be bullshit?

However, I will refrain from further comment since I think you, Zillah, are much more familiar with bull**** than I am, so it would be an unequal debate.

Zing!

Wow! How did that happen? I type a word in my post & it automatically comes out as asterisks. Is this some kind of filter on boards.ie? But how come it still allows Zillah to type the word?

God did it.

Hmmm, very clever. Now, does that prove that all atheists are clever or that all gays are clever? Or does it simply prove that Zillah did something clever and that has no bearing on whether any particular group is clever or not?

Ah, imply that the person disagreeing with you is a homosexual. A fine internet staple since the first blinking lights of ARPANET

Anyway, we've established that I'm clever, be damned to the rest of them.

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Zillah wrote: »

This is somewhat ironic. The man you speak of almost certainly uses his faith in God and God's book as justification for his anti-homosexual stance. The word "abomination" is quite hard to reinterpret.

Actually, no, the guy was originally Chinese and his homophobia had been indoctrinated into him at school along with his atheism. I refrained from mentioning that in my previous post to see if you would fall into the trap of stereotyping someone according to your prejudices. You didn't disappoint me.

Zillah

Yes - through natural causes

PDN wrote: »

Actually, no, the guy was originally Chinese and his homophobia had been indoctrinated into him at school along with his atheism. I refrained from mentioning that in my previous post to see if you would fall into the trap of stereotyping someone according to your prejudices. You didn't disappoint me.

Very clever ruse, though it doesn't actually prove anything. The vast majority of homophobes that a Westerner such as myself encounters use the Bible as justification, hence my statement "almost certainly" was not inappropriate. Plus, you've spoken about your flock previously, I thought maybe it was a wayward sheep

Now, if you had mentioned something about a Christian, and I stated that he was almost certainly a bigot, that'd be an unfair stereotype.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Zillah wrote: »

PDN wrote:

Actually, no, the guy was originally Chinese and his homophobia had been indoctrinated into him at school along with his atheism. I refrained from mentioning that in my previous post to see if you would fall into the trap of stereotyping someone according to your prejudices. You didn't disappoint me.

Very clever ruse, though it doesn't actually prove anything. The vast majority of homophobes that a Westerner such as myself encounters use the Bible as justification, hence my statement "almost certainly" was not inappropriate. Plus, you've spoken about your flock previously, I thought maybe it was a wayward sheep

Now, if you had mentioned something about a Christian, and I stated that he was almost certainly a bigot, that'd be an unfair stereotype.

I'd say Zillah has avoided your trap, PDN. Out of interest, did your homophobic put forward any "Biblical justification"? Or does he remain an atheist homophobe?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Now, I could equally make the allegation that some atheists carry out atrocities due to their ideology. But I would never use that as an argument for attacking all atheists.

Is that not because all atheists don't subscribe to the same ideologies. There is not atheist ideology.

On the other hand I think all Communists are worrying because I think Communism is a dangerous ideology.

You also seem to be confusing a property of a person (black, gay, woman) with what they believe (Christianity, Communism, Fascism, Anarchism, Hindu). Saying all gay people are dangerous (or sinful) because there is little connection there, but saying all fascists are dangerous hold more weight since Fascism itself is a dangerous ideology

estebancambias

The end of religion would begin world wide chaos.

estebancambias

Social darwinism is the knock on effect of Atheism.....

5uspect

Yes - through proactive secularism

Care to qualify those statements?

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

estebancambias wrote: »

Social darwinism is the knock on effect of Atheism.....

No, no. "Social Darwinism is a logical corollary of Evolution, As is Atheism". What do they teach them in school these days?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Yes - through natural causes

estebancambias wrote: »

The end of religion would begin world wide chaos.

Only because religion has gotten its sticky talons into society to the degree it has. If we phase it out gently I predict the begining of a humanist paradise.

It would be chaos, not because we need religion to show us how to behave, but because most people currently use religion for that purpose. Its a bit like talking about a building with a wooden support structure. Concrete would be better, but its currently using wood, and were we to rip out all the wood the building would fall down. That says nothing about the value of wood over concrete for construction.

aidan24326

Yes, except for my religion.

5uspect wrote: »

Care to qualify those statements?

Don't encourage him...

estebancambias

Let me quantify my claim..Atheist nuts may look at a human life as something rather worthless.....i.e do people think it's evil when a shark kills a fish? Many Atheist believe in Evolution(I do, but it's Gods design) so the case of the boy killing the teacher, and the shark killing the fish to a nut what is the difference.

I hope at least you give me some credit for having some sort of sense to my statement. There is nothing wrong with Atheism, just like Religion, but people will give it a bad name.


My original statement would be like one of you making the claim that religion causes conflict....WRONG.people cause conflict.

2Scoops

estebancambias wrote: »

Let me quantify my claim..Atheist nuts may look at a human life as something rather worthless.....i.e do people think it's evil when a shark kills a fish? Many Atheist believe in Evolution(I do, but it's Gods design) so the case of the boy killing the teacher, and the shark killing the fish to a nut what is the difference.

I hope at least you give me some credit for having some sort of sense to my statement. There is nothing wrong with Atheism, just like Religion, but people will give it a bad name.


My original statement would be like one of you making the claim that religion causes conflict....WRONG.people cause conflict.

So without religion, people would value human life no more than that of fish? Really?

estebancambias

Yes, if the person in question is a nutjob.

2Scoops

estebancambias wrote: »

Yes, if the person in question is a nutjob.

Surely the problem is nutjobs then, and not atheism.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

2Scoops wrote: »

Surely the problem is nutjobs then, and not atheism.

Hmm. Assuming that evolution has provided humans with a built-in morality, which I think is the case, the atheist summary goes as follows:

1. certain people are nutjobs - morally deficient, viewing human (and any) life of no account except presumably their own.

2. for those people who are not nutjobs, killing someone is not an act taken lightly - the individual must overcome internal resistance to do it

3. sufficiently strong passions can overcome this internal resistance, particularly where responsibility is shared - killings in 'hot blood', mob action

4. to kill in 'cold blood', the individual requires some other motivation to overcome their internal resistance

5. strong convinction of an ideology, whether religious or not, is often sufficient to overcome this internal resistance - "for the cause", "for the nation", "for the glory of God" - if, and only if, the individual can be convinced that the cause, the nation, God, or whatever, requires the killing.

6. it is common for groups, usually but not always at the behest of a leader, to use shared ideologies to reduce in-group resistance to the killing of out-group members.

Now the atheist would claim that atheism cannot realistically be a group ideology, because there is nothing more to atheism than disbelief in God, and that therefore, in turn, there are no ideologically atheist killings - whereas religion is far more apt to these ends. I'm not sure this is correct - if it is, there would be no atheist groups, and there are, particularly in the US. I appreciate that these groups are only held together by the external pressure of an overtly religious and apparently hostile society, but nevertheless, they exist, are held together by their shared atheism - and therefore the possibility exists of atheist attacks on theists (and maybe those irritating agnostics).

Further, and more importantly, although atheism provides no justificatory pretext for taking another life in any positive sense - you have to want to kill someone first - the same is true, in an individual context, of most religions (not Thuggee). Christianity provides no justification for the individual believer to kill another - you have to want to kill someone first, then convince yourself that God wants it.

Can we do the same with atheism? I imagine that if you want to kill someone, you could help yourself overcome your internal resistance by dwelling on how meaningless life is, and so on. I think this is possible, but you would need a very strong ego so as not to simultaneously persuade yourself into a deep depression. That's assuming, of course, that you're not a nutjob, which I think you probably are, if you're capable of persuading yourself that someone else is entirely meaningless without applying the same to yourself. Mao is a good example - not frothing, but really really not mentally normal.

It's actually not so much screwing yourself up to do the deed, but dealing with the after-effects. Spending a long time reminding yourself that your victim was meaningless is not going to be at all healthy, and there are no external agencies to assist in achieving 'forgiveness'.

Overall, I think it's quite implausible to imagine a cold-blooded atheist multiple killer who is not also either mentally unwell or in the grip of some other ideology - although it is perfectly possible to imagine an atheist committing a single murder. Opposing points of view welcome, as ever.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Yes - through natural causes

estebancambias wrote: »

I hope at least you give me some credit for having some sort of sense to my statement.

I think you'll find that most posters here base their beliefs upon observable evidence, rather than that which is contrary to the evidence.

estebancambias

You are looking at matters with blinkers on!!! You are blinded by your dislike of religion. That is not an attempt to provoke you, but from what I can see it is true. It's complete hypocrisy, you will attack religion, for retards doing something bad ''in the name of God'' yet you will look past Atheist related attacks as nothing more than the individual.

5uspect

Yes - through proactive secularism

estebancambias wrote: »

Many Atheist believe in Evolution(I do, but it's Gods design)

estebancambias wrote: »

You are looking at matters with blinkers on!!!

Which God?

My original statement would be like one of you making the claim that religion causes conflict....WRONG.people cause conflict.

And people create religions too.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

estebancambias wrote: »

You are looking at matters with blinkers on!!! You are blinded by your dislike of religion. That is not an attempt to provoke you, but from what I can see it is true. It's complete hypocrisy, you will attack religion, for retards doing something bad ''in the name of God'' yet you will look past Atheist related attacks as nothing more than the individual.

That's because neither you, nor any other theist, have ever provided any examples of "atheist attacks" where there isn't an ideology like communism/fascism/Maoism also involved - and where that isn't the reason usually given by the perpetrators themselves.

I don't deny that one can have a dangerous atheistic ideology, but I can cheerfully deny that atheism is an ideology. Who has been killed in the name of atheism itself?

The same simply isn't true of religion. Many people have been killed in the name of religion - that's an undeniable fact. Religion was given as the reason by the perpetrators - and that's equally undeniable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's because neither you, nor any other theist, have ever provided any examples of "atheist attacks" where there isn't an ideology like communism/fascism/Maoism also involved - and where that isn't the reason usually given by the perpetrators themselves.

I don't deny that one can have a dangerous atheistic ideology, but I can cheerfully deny that atheism is an ideology. Who has been killed in the name of atheism itself?

The same simply isn't true of religion. Many people have been killed in the name of religion - that's an undeniable fact. Religion was given as the reason by the perpetrators - and that's equally undeniable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

One doesn't have to kill to confirm that a belief is an ideology. I still don't buy into equating atheism to 'not collecting stamps'. Off the top of my head, I could think of two posts from this fora that would lead me to believe that Atheism, in ideological terms, has tentative beginnings for some. Indeed, looking at the one of the driving forces behind the French Revolution, you could hardly state that Atheism wasn't an ideology for many. Enough people defined themselves by their Atheism to drive their agenda throughout that time.

estebancambias

Yes people have killed in the name of religion, but not for over two hundred years.

I'm not saying that Atheists do cause mass violence, but I'm responding to people who say the world would be so much better without religion. This is wrong.

estebancambias

5uspect wrote: »

Which God?




And people create religions too.

What? That made no sense. Religion in it's foundations is good.

Muslim Religion-No alcohol/drugs/cigarettes

Christianity-Yeah like the 10 commandment just scream evil.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

estebancambias wrote: »

Muslim Religion-No alcohol/drugs/cigarettes

Christianity-Yeah like the 10 commandment just scream evil.

And people are murdered everyday in the name of both of these religious concepts.

The 10 commandments may not scream evil, but they have been used to justify the most unbelievable evils.

or did that escape your attention?

5uspect

Yes - through proactive secularism

estebancambias wrote: »

What? That made no sense. Religion in it's foundations is good.

Muslim Religion-No alcohol/drugs/cigarettes

Christianity-Yeah like the 10 commandment just scream evil.

Why aren't you a Muslim then, or a Jew?