Why do atheists spend so much time talking about religion?

Dades

Overheal wrote: »

Why do Christians spend so much time talking about religion?

I suspect many "Christians" spend no time at all. That's why they're still Christians.

Deus Ex Machina

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And yet, ironically, I'm not the one scrabbling in the dirt throwing ad-hominems, am I....?

My post was in response to ShagNastii's surprise at no-one commenting on your post, it's an oft repeated and oft discussed topic in the forum, I very deliberately wasn't responding to your post specifically, for all the reasons I mentioned. Your post above just added a few more.

It isn't an ad hominem if it is directly relevant to the issue at hand, which in this case it is, and even so my statement didn't go as far as certainty, I merely put forward an hypothesis.

Also you did refer to my post, so I am within my rights to respond. I couldn't be a bigger advocate of the application of logic and critical thinking, and thus I am not myself a theist, my problem is with those whose atheism is the focal point of their personality, those who belittle the religious. I have spent a great deal of time around atheists of all types, and I generally get along very well with them. There is a small percentage who consider the religious to be stupid, refer to them as troglodytes and sheep, and dispense with common decency in discussion with them. If you have been lucky enough to have never met these people then that is your good fortune, but I assure you they are out there, and there are few groups of people I have met more uncomfortable to be around.

Deus Ex Machina

Zillah wrote: »

This is me. I am one of these atheists. I love beating religious people over the head with my scepticism. I'll also throw a few digs at those supporting psychics, homeopathy, alternative medicine, prophecy or any other sort of magic. Their confusion, tears and offence is like nectar and wine to me. I savour it, I relish it. I don't care if they feel stupid, ridiculous or insulted.

Rabid? I believe the word you are looking for is "correct".

They don't feel stupid, they probably pity you, if the picture you paint is anything like reality I know I would.

Dades

Zillah's really a pussycat.

Stercus Accidit

preamble to the Irish constitution wrote:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

:rolleyes:

Ickle Magoo

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

It isn't an ad hominem if it is directly relevant to the issue at hand

It isn't fallacious if relevant to the issue at hand, the moment you stoop to making personal assumptions and passing derogatory remarks about posters rather than tackle their posts it most certainly is an ad hominem.

Deus Ex Machina

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It isn't fallacious if relevant to the issue at hand, the moment you stoop to making personal assumptions and passing derogatory remarks about posters rather than tackle their posts it most certainly is an ad hominem.

I tackled your post, you beat up a straw man, I am quite happy with how it went to be honest.

Ickle Magoo

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

I tackled your post, you beat up a straw man, I am quite happy with how it went to be honest.

As I've stated ad nauseum now, I wasn't discussing your post specifically nor even directing my post at you. You had to stoop to making ad hominems at me specifically without tackling my post at all - at which point you loose all credibility, never mind claims of rationality. You also clearly don't know what constitutes a strawman nor ad hominem. If that makes you happy...woo, go you. *high fives*

Deus Ex Machina

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

As I've stated ad nauseum now, I wasn't discussing your post specifically nor even directing my post at you. You had to stoop to making ad hominems at me specifically without tackling my post at all - at which point you loose all credibility, never mind claims of rationality. You also clearly don't know what constitutes a strawman nor ad hominem. If that makes you happy...woo, go you. *high fives*

High five indeed, it was directed at my post in the way it was written, whether or not that was your intention is another matter. The statement that your post was a straw man is very much in line with the phrase "tackling" your post, so you are wrong there too. You focus on this supposed ad hominem which I explained was relevant and therefore not fallacious. What more is there to say?

Ickle Magoo

Get yourself a dictionary?

ad hominem (plural ad hominems)
(logical fallacy) A fallacious objection to an argument or factual claim by appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim; an attempt to argue against an opponent's idea by discrediting the opponent himself.
A personal attack.

Deus Ex Machina wrote:

I wouldn't be remotely surprised to find out that you are one of these annoying atheists who can't stand to sit in a room without telling everybody about the omnipotence paradox and that Jesus probably didn't exist

mikhail

Would it help if I told you you're both acting like ****s?

The word "NAME-CALLING-DELETED" isn't automatically censored here.(*)

.

strobe

I think they are stars too Mikhail.

Dades

mikhail wrote: »

Would it help if I told you you're both acting like ****s?

Would it help if I stepped in and closed the thread?

No, so everybody relax.

nozzferrahhtoo

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

I think a lot of, but certainly not all, atheists talk about religion because it makes them feel smarter than other people.

I think what people are asking you in the thread so far, and you may have taken their questions as a little more hostile than you should, is.... aside from the fact you think it, have you anything at all to back up this position that is not... a personal anecdote or 2? You call it later in the thread a "hypothesis" but if it is merely something you thought up with no more backing than the fact you did not like a couple of people you met, then you may need to choose words a little less lofty than "hypothesis". "Musing" perhaps.

amacachi

I've noticed on the Rugby forum people seem to almost only every talk about Rugby, they must have nothing else to live for.

Goduznt Xzst

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm curious. When I scan down the list of topics in this forum I see that nigh on every issue revolves in some way around religion, in the anti sense of the word naturally.

If I come home from a leisurely stroll with the missus and see a bunch of monkeys throwing sh!t at my house you're damn sure I'm going to turn to her goodself and talk about it.

I would never personally engage in the act of throwing sh!t at my own house, but while the problem affects me directly I think I would be entitled to discuss how I may go about stopping it and the reasoning behind why these cheeky monkeys think throwing their feces all over my place is a good idea.

Deus Ex Machina

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think what people are asking you in the thread so far, and you may have taken their questions as a little more hostile than you should, is.... aside from the fact you think it, have you anything at all to back up this position that is not... a personal anecdote or 2? You call it later in the thread a "hypothesis" but if it is merely something you thought up with no more backing than the fact you did not like a couple of people you met, then you may need to choose words a little less lofty than "hypothesis". "Musing" perhaps.

You have misunderstood, just like the other poster. The point I am making is that I have met a few people the likes of which I described, and that they were excruciating to be around, more so than the devoutly religious. The evidence I use to back this up, unsurprisingly, is that I have met a few people the likes of which I described. I never said it was anything other than a small percentage, that is the point which is being taken with hostility if any point is. The hypothesis was a another matter altogether, it was directed towards the other poster which whom I was discussing this matter, and has been mistaken as an ad hominem.

Deus Ex Machina

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Get yourself a dictionary?

This is now hilarious.

MagicMarker

I was asked my religion for the first time in years yesterday! In Hospital of all places.

I was a little taken aback at first, didn't realise they still asked that stuff! I gave a little chuckle to myself as I peeked over at the copy of 'The God Delusion' as it sat on my bedside table.

Other than that, I never talk about religion unless someone else brings it up.

sh1tstirrer

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm curious. When I scan down the list of topics in this forum I see that nigh on every issue revolves in some way around religion, in the anti sense of the word naturally.

I know that atheists consider themselves to be defined as people who lack a belief in God but that shouldn't mean their sole interest is being anti-religious. Surely there are thousands of topics relevant to your position as an atheist that you'd like to discuss other than the anti-theist position.

Why is this? Why is it that the raison d'etre for this forum centres around (nay requires the existance of) an unbelieved in God. Should I suppose that if Ireland was 100% secularised there would be no topics of discussion left for atheism?

Because they have nothing to believe in so all they can do is spend their time [OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE DELETED] and moaning about other peoples beliefs.

checkyabadself

antiskeptic wrote: »

My point was that atheism seems to concern itself with theism excessively, when there should be (I'd imagine) a whole raft of issues that could be addressed from the atheistic viewpoint. Morality struggles, sickness and death, life meaning, arguments that undergird your position. None of which need make any central reference to theism.

Atheism might seem excessively obsessed with theism for a good reason. Most of the main religions teachings contains a violent, hateful, repressive, sexist, racist, genocidal warrant to suit their particular creed.
While not every subscriber to these religions partakes in the evils prescribed b their ancient text, quite a lot do. As long as there are those who kill others in the name of a deity. I and others like me will never stop
arguing against the legitimacy to attach their "moral" teachings to state constitutions, educational syllabuses, court rulings, etc.

As for wondering why the atheism forum is excessively dominated by threads about religion.......there's very few topics in here about buddhism, as compared to Catholicism or Islam. This is due to the lack of Buddhist paedophilia, Buddhist genocide, Buddhist fatwas against fiction authors.
My point is, when (not if) the brands of religion that preach and practice violence against innocent people
stop killing raping and torturing people, the atheism forum will probably hang up its boots, just in the same way as antiwar protesters tend to stop talking about dictators, corrupt regimes and war crimes, etc, when the war is over.
I'll stop talking about religion when it stops threatening the lives of humankind.

Ickle Magoo

MagicMarker wrote: »

I was asked my religion for the first time in years yesterday! In Hospital of all places.

Oh it gets better than that in hospitals. I was harangued every day by a priest to bless my premature baby - every day, I'll never forget his smirking insidious face.

Deus Ex Machina

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Oh it gets better than that in hospitals. I was harangued every day by a priest to bless my premature baby - every day, I'll never forget his smirking insidious face.

Is it so bad a thing for a preist to attempt to bring religion to your child? Bear in mind that he believes his religion to be true, and that those who don't follow it are going to be worse off for doing so. He is just trying to help your child according to the way he sees the world, not something which I would consider to be worthy of scorn.

strobe

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

Is it so bad a thing for a preist to attempt to bring religion to your child? Bear in mind that he believes his religion to be true, and that those who don't follow it are going to be worse off for doing so. He is just trying to help your child according to the way he sees the world, not something which I would consider to be worthy of scorn.

When they ask once that flies alright. When you have to repeatedly tell them you aren't interested and they keep coming back chancing their arm I'd say it's worthy of scorn alright. How would you feel if you were in hosptial with a sick child and a Scientologist kept coming over to you and asking you to let him perform a thetan reading on the baby? What if a neo-nazi came over and offered to sign your baby up to the White Power movement and have a big cross burning for him? How about if a Voodoo hougan came over and after you telling him several times you didn't want him to sacrifice a chicken for your sick baby he kept coming back again and again and asking the same question? It's fukking annoying let me tell ye.

Deus Ex Machina

strobe wrote: »

When they ask once that flies alright. When you have to repeatedly tell them you aren't interested and they keep coming back chancing their arm I'd say it's worthy of scorn alright. How would you feel if you were in hosptial with a sick child and a Scientologist kept coming over to you and asking you to let him perform a thetan reading on the baby? What if a neo-nazi came over and offered to sign your baby up to the White Power movement and have a big cross burning for him? How about if a Voodoo hougan came over and after you telling him several times you didn't want him to sacrifice a chicken for your sick baby he kept coming back again and again and asking the same question? It's fukking annoying let me tell ye.

I don't find it annoying. I have been approached by members of many faiths, and I often listen to them in order to see their perspective. There is nothing inherently nasty in the actions of this preist.

Sam Vimes

sh1tstirrer wrote: »

Because they have nothing to believe in so all they can do is spend their time [OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE DELETED] and moaning about other peoples beliefs.

Aptly named I must say

strobe

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

I don't find it annoying. I have been approached by members of many faiths, and I often listen to them in order to see their perspective. There is nothing inherently nasty in the actions of this preist.

I don;t think there is anything inherently nasty in his motivation anymore than I think their would be anything inherently nasty in the motivations of my Scientoligist from the previous post. Both are, presumably, doing what they think is best for the baby.That's not the issue. In both cases I believe that thier beliefs are brainless giberish. If I tell either of them I am not interested then they should fukk off.

MagicMarker

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

I don't find it annoying. I have been approached by members of many faiths, and I often listen to them in order to see their perspective. There is nothing inherently nasty in the actions of this preist.

Once he was given an answer he should have left them alone. It's really quite simple.

Ickle Magoo

MagicMarker wrote: »

Once he was given an answer he should have left them alone. It's really quite simple.

Exactly. Like it's not bad enough we had a premature and sick baby and I was really very sick as well but someone who is supposed to show compassion and caring was getting a real kick out of haranguing a sick woman, even the nurses commented on it and it was only when my husband intervened that he stopped.

sensibleken

why do pacifists talk about war?

I talk about religion cause its funny

checkyabadself

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

I don't find it annoying. I have been approached by members of many faiths, and I often listen to them in order to see their perspective. There is nothing inherently nasty in the actions of this preist.

Why a priest is allowed into a hospital is beyond me. It is essentially cold calling, which for companies is illegal.

Unsolicited interfering with peoples freedom is surely religions biggest and most deplorable crime.

Zombrex

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

Is it so bad a thing for a preist to attempt to bring religion to your child? Bear in mind that he believes his religion to be true, and that those who don't follow it are going to be worse off for doing so. He is just trying to help your child according to the way he sees the world, not something which I would consider to be worthy of scorn.

That is like asking is it such a bad thing that my child is taught maths by someone who thinks 2+2=22.

The way the priests sees the world is stupid and teaching it to my child would be detrimental to the development of my child's learning abilities, such as critical thinking and skepticism, things I want my child to excel in.

So yes it is a bad thing.

magicbastarder

checkyabadself wrote: »

Why a priest is allowed into a hospital is beyond me.

because a significant proportion of those in there might gain some solace from his presence.

as regards what i'd do if a priest asked me could he bless my sick baby, i reckon my response would be 'whatever makes you feel good about yourself'.

Ickle Magoo

magicbastarder wrote: »

because a significant proportion of those in there might gain some solace from his presence.

as regards what i'd do if a priest asked me could he bless my sick baby, i reckon my response would be 'whatever makes you feel good about yourself'.

Which would mean he doesn't need to harass those that don't, surely?

I can assure you, if you had a premature baby at risk from infection in an incubator in a special care unit and you were an atheist, you would not be letting some priest you didn't know anywhere near them just to satisfy their own wants, to suggest otherwise is just ludicrously short-sighted and sadly just trying desperately to score a point.

gbee

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm curious. When I scan down the list of topics in this forum I see that nigh on every issue revolves in some way around religion, in the anti sense of the word naturally.

Now, you might have a point here, but it is an Atheism forum, thus I'd expect an anti-established, organised religious bias.

Organised religion is just another form of human slavery and mind control, it is very dangerous and should be banned [along with the concept of Government too actually, not too much difference IMO].

Now, a faith or a personal belief is fine, in fact it would be encouraged, principals to live one's life by and live with other people. We'd have had far fewer wars and far smaller ones only we [as in religious peoples] had to answer the call of Allah or The Pope or die for the emperor.

If left to ourselves to make our own minds up an assess each 'threat' separately, we'd certainly have war like individuals who would wage war no matter what on all sides, but he'd not be able to command vast armies or populations to wage HIS personal war for him, as has been our history.

And to that end also, religion was ripe to exploit as The Popes called for the 'Crusades' and the Knights saw new Kingdoms to conqure for themselves.

Almost none of it had or has any baring in the existence of God ~ if we really did believe in God, we could NOT have done what we have.

magicbastarder

of course he doesn't need to harass those that don't want his help, i wasn't suggesting he did.

and my other answer was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but somewhat informed by a discussion i had (not on boards) about the phenomenon of grandmothers 'baptising' grandchildren whose parents had not chosen to have them officially baptised. the common link being a 'religious intervention' which the parents did not have any faith in.

Sam Vimes

gbee wrote: »

N
Organised religion is just another form of human slavery and mind control, it is very dangerous and should be banned [along with the concept of Government too actually, not too much difference IMO].

No they really shouldn't be banned. 95% of people believe in some form of god/religion so the only effective way to ban it is through violent oppression. I don't like religion any more than you do but you can't force people to live the way you want them to.

As for banning government, I assume you've never taken a bus, used a hospital, been helped by a garda etc?

checkyabadself

magicbastarder wrote:

as regards what i'd do if a priest asked me could he bless my sick baby, i reckon my response would be 'whatever makes you feel good about yourself'.

I can now appreciate the level of intellectual retardation that was possessed by Abraham when faced with the dilemma of his own child.

Improbable

checkyabadself wrote: »

I can now appreciate the level of intellectual retardation that was possessed by Abraham towards his own child.

There is a significant difference between letting a priest give a blessing and causing physical harm...

Having said that, priests shouldn't be doing this.

Ickle Magoo

magicbastarder wrote: »

of course he doesn't need to harass those that don't want his help, i wasn't suggesting he did.

and my other answer was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but somewhat informed by a discussion i had (not on boards) about the phenomenon of grandmothers 'baptising' grandchildren whose parents had not chosen to have them officially baptised. the common link being a 'religious intervention' which the parents did not have any faith in.

I had one of my mother-in-laws friends make the sign of the cross on one of my kids. While being a little taken aback and thinking it was a little inappropriate, I also thought it was quite sweet that in her own way she was trying to put some kind of fairy-godmother-esque protective enchantment on my wee one. However, in the context of hounding someone who is very sick in a hospital, completely stressed out wondering if their child is going to even live, praying on vulnerable people just to satisfy their own lust for proselytising? Pretty sick puppy, tbh.

checkyabadself

Improbable wrote: »

There is a significant difference between letting a priest give a blessing and causing physical harm...

True, but I consider an unsolicited blessing harmful to patients of a hospital. It is invasion and uncomfortable to an essentially captive audience.
We all know where to find the priest if we want him, isn't his office the tallest building in every town.

strobe

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As for banning government, I assume you've never taken a bus, used a hospital, been helped by a garda etc?

I really really don't want to start another libetarian thread but none of those things require a government. Not the present idea of a government in anyway. The one that will readily enslave it's citizens at will and force them to go murder other enslaved citizens. The one that will force itself into your home, steal your property and hold you captive for a period of time of its choosing for doing something that harms no one. I could go on......

magicbastarder

checkyabadself wrote: »

True, but I consider an unsolicited blessing harmful to patients of a hospital. It is invasion and uncomfortable to an essentially captive audience.

you would consider it invasive, but do you accept that most people wouldn't?

Mark Hamill

magicbastarder wrote: »

because a significant proportion of those in there might gain some solace from his presence.

I'd gain some solace from having a stripper in my hospital when I'm sick, and I'm sure I wouldn't be alone. Can we get them instead? Sure, more people may die from lack of faith, but at least we will go with smiles on our faces.

magicbastarder wrote: »

as regards what i'd do if a priest asked me could he bless my sick baby, i reckon my response would be 'whatever makes you feel good about yourself'.

My response would be "If you aren't a doctor, you are going to need one, get the hell out". Doing crap like, patrolling a building looking for the weak and needy is slimy salesman behavour at best and predator behavour at worst. Its sickening and someone honestly believed that god would only help a sick child or adult because they chose them, then there is something seriously wrong with them.

Mark Hamill

magicbastarder wrote: »

you would consider it invasive, but do you accept that most people wouldn't?

I actually thin a lot of people would, especially if they where sick and the priest sort of appeared, ready to bless, out of the blue. If people want a priest, they can call for one. And this doesn't just go for priests, I wouldn't homeopathes wandering hospitals asking if random sick people wanted sugar pills either.

magicbastarder

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Doing crap like, patrolling a building looking for the weak and needy is slimy salesman behavour at best and predator behavour at worst. Its sickening and someone honestly believed that god would only help a sick child or adult because they chose them, then there is something seriously wrong with them.

put your belief about the efficacy of that blessing to one side for a second - do you accept that some people will gain solace from a blessing by a priest?

checkyabadself

magicbastarder wrote: »

you would consider it invasive, but do you accept that most people wouldn't?

I can accept that, of course. My point is that it shouldn't be an opt out process. I have no real problem with any priest than was respectful of my refusal of a blessing. It's the harassment of hospital patients that I consider shameful.
I cannot see how a priest needs to be involved with a child in he precious first days of it's life, even more importantly when the child is still in an incubator.

magicbastarder

checkyabadself wrote: »

It's the harassment of hospital patients that I consider shameful.

i'd agree with you that if a priest pestered someone about it, it's very ill-judged, but i see no issue with a nice (once-off) polite offer to perform a blessing. and i'd forgive a failing of memory if a priest offered again, having forgotten that the previous offer was rebuffed.

strobe

magicbastarder wrote: »

put your belief about the efficacy of that blessing to one side for a second - do you accept that some people will gain solace from a blessing by a priest?

Religious people would. Like Mark said, by all means have a priest on standby somewhere so if someone wants a blessing they can have him come bless them. But don't have the chap roaming through the corridors like a vulture hassling people.

gbee

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No they really shouldn't be banned. 95% of people believe in some form of god/religion so the only effective way to ban it is through violent oppression. ?

I'd say, why do you think this is the only way? By using violent oppression it's just one monster for another.

It's the ORGANISED part of religion that I'd ban, the Baptism [of children], etc and so on ~ after all in John the Baptist baptised adults, Hitler wanted a child until he was seven ~ similar principals ~ all that is bad.

One should be free to grow up and question for ourself and find or not, a God, truth and honesty and have our eyes open enough to see.


And in fairness, the government [Our government] comment and your defence of it ~~ today like?