When atheists go too far

Ellis Dee

Ellis Dee wrote: »

(significantly, the Tree of Knowledge, so dumbing down was the name of the game from the beginning)

In fairness, the name of the tree isn't just the tree of knowledge. Its name is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So, eating from that tree had greater metaphorical implications than just wanting knowledge.

It's still a completely absurd story. But, metaphorically, at least, it's an interesting one.

steddyeddy

Its one thing attacking the idea of religion itself but is there not a danger in attacking certain religious groups over the other? Dawkins states he has a sentimental attachment to the chuch of england yet he attacks other religions such as the jewish faith. Am I wrong and he does attack all religions eqaully or am I right and should he attack all equally.

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

Ellis Dee: I think it's more conspiracy theory material alá Obama is a Muslim hysteria but each to their own

Not really. the way it is in the US is you have to be religious to get elected! which is against their constitution but it's just a bit of hemp paper..


It wouldn't surprise me in the least if half the elected officials in the US feign their beliefs to get elected.

Show Time

RichieC wrote: »

That be great, only problem is they want laws that reflect their insanity.

The day religion fk's off out of politics or starts paying tax is the day I stop giving them ****.

Actually fk the paying tax bit, let them fk off out of politics.

Religion and politics should never mix as it only leads to more trouble.

philologos

RichieC wrote: »

Not really. the way it is in the US is you have to be religious to get elected! which is against their constitution but it's just a bit of hemp paper.

It's not really unconstitutional. People vote whatever way they like. It's unconstitutional for the State to impose restrictions on the basis of creed to get into office. It's not unconstitutional for people to vote for their candidate for X, Y or Z reason.

RichieC wrote: »

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if half the elected officials in the US feign their beliefs to get elected.

Sounds a little bit extreme. I have no reason to assume that Obama doesn't believe in God.

Elliemental

RichieC wrote: »

That be great, only problem is they want laws that reflect their insanity.

The day religion fk's off out of politics or starts paying tax is the day I stop giving them ****.

Actually fk the paying tax bit, let them fk off out of politics.

On top of all this, and most important of all, get them out of the education system.
If parents want to indoctrinate their kids into believing in invisible men, then there're sunday schools and church services for that kind of thing. School should be a place of education, where children are taught to think critically, rationally and logically. Not told to believe everything they read in a two thousand year old book.

MagicMarker

steddyeddy wrote: »

Its one thing attacking the idea of religion itself but is there not a danger in attacking certain religious groups over the other? Dawkins states he has a sentimental attachment to the chuch of england yet he attacks other religions such as the jewish faith. Am I wrong and he does attack all religions eqaully or am I right and should he attack all equally.

It's pretty clear that he attacks religion as a whole.

Ellis Dee

Show Time wrote: »

I myself distrust any form of religion as i am not to keen on getting sucked into a cult, But anyone who wishes to play along is more the welcome to in my book as i would not go out of my way to force my view(or lack of one) on anyone who is into the holy joe stuff. As i said best of luck to them and each to their own.

Good policy! Playing along was what I did in Ireland most of the time as Ididn't want or need the hassle that I knew I'd get from the Holy Joes and Biddies. Fortunately, I married abroad and we were able to bring up our kids in a country where religion is "lite", not at all in anyone's face, and plays no role in schools. It would have been different if they had gone to school in Ireland with them having little real option but to go along with the Holy Communion stuff and all that other waste of time and money, so in that sense it was easy to "go along", as I never was forced into taking a stand. Now that I am back in Ireland most of the time, I find I only need to play along at funerals and the like, where it's no big deal to pretend to go along, and when my thoughts are usually more on the departed than on any all-knowing, all-caring being. Fortunately, the days when the Legion of Mary busybodies would come calling to ask whether the family was saying the Rosary - as happened in my childhood - are long gone, so I don't need to take a stand now, either. Like setting the dog on them!

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

It's not really unconstitutional. People vote whatever way they like. It's unconstitutional for the State to impose restrictions on the basis of creed to get into office. It's not unconstitutional for people to vote for their candidate for X, Y or Z reason.

pointing out the irony. it's the "strict constitutionalists" (aka toothless redneck arseholes) that are the first to reject someone based on their faith.

philologos

RichieC wrote: »

pointing out the irony. it's the "strict constitutionalists" (aka toothless redneck arseholes) that are the first to reject someone based on their faith.

The Constitution doesn't prevent people from voting on any grounds that they like. Where the Constitution would be violated would be in the Government deciding that people couldn't run based on religion or lack thereof.

melb

Only droppping by to pay my two cents but...

"Won't somebody think of the children"

CDfm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Its one thing attacking the idea of religion itself but is there not a danger in attacking certain religious groups over the other? Dawkins states he has a sentimental attachment to the chuch of england yet he attacks other religions such as the jewish faith. Am I wrong and he does attack all religions eqaully or am I right and should he attack all equally.

Or you might conclude that he is a populist who does not want to piss off the home crowd.

ejmaztec

Ellis Dee wrote: »

As I have already pointed out, Obama is 1) a politician, 2) he is ambitious, 3) he knows that in the USA he would have little chance of being elected dogcatcher unless he professed to be religious, went to church and let the media report that he prays ...

After all, the USA is a country where millions of people still believe that dinosaurs once co-existed on the planet, that a relatively primitive tribe of people thousands of years ago built a wooden ship bigger than the Titanic, that a volume of water great enough to carry that vessel to near the summit of a mountain over 3,000 metres tall fell in the space of a few weeks and then disappeared to somewhere without leaving any traces, that a deity put people in a beautiful garden where they could enjoy everything but not eat the fruit of one tree (significantly, the Tree of Knowledge, so dumbing down was the name of the game from the beginning), where there was a snake that spoke archaic English --- puhleeese!

Those people are not ready for reason. But they have the vote.:mad:

To summarise your point of view:

Only complete cretins believe in a deity, and if an intelligent person professes the same belief, he's only pretending so that he's more appealing to the cretins.

johnmcdnl

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Stephen Roberts

sums a lot of it up - why don't all the christians believe in Allah or Buddha or Zeus or any other god... why do they believe that Jesus is the son of god and dismiss every other religion as wrong.. same goes for any other religion...

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.

which answers the question about why no one questions religion... because you can't or else your gonna get in trouble... up until recently how many aethists would be brave enough to stand up against the power of the church... and even today in the middle eastern countries... how many of ye would stand up and try to say Allah isn't real in Saudi Arabia or Iran...

When do atheists go to far... can anyone give 1 piece evidence that god exists besides faith that a 2000 year old book and what your parents tell you... atheists have had to live their lives with influence from relgion for way too long... look at Ireland a few years ago - condoms were illegal for example... why - because the pope says it's against the rules of the church... but now that atheists are asking for changes and standing up for what they belief or disbelieve it's considered a disgrace or unfair...

how is it any different really than Christians and Muslims or whatever other religion over the course of time that is popular trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else and persecuting those that don't... you might say this make an atheist no better than a religious person... but a religious person thinks there going to get something when they die for never committing blasphemy.. however should an atheist be prevented from blaspheming because of a law.. if a religious person feels that blaspheming is wrong nothing is stopping them from never blaspheming but should a non religious person be prevented from saying what they want to keep the religious fanatics happy...

having my children taught in a public school that god create the earth and adam and eve were the first people on the earth and we're all descended from that is wrong... it's been proven this is false so children shouldn't be exposed to this is schools that are funded from my tax money... if parents want to teach their children about religion it should be done at their own expense in a private catholic school or outside school hours...


atheists aren't going to far - just trying to get people to see some common sense...

and to end with another quote..

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes

Gene Roddenberry

Ellis Dee

gvn wrote: »

In fairness, the name of the tree isn't just the tree of knowledge. Its name is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So, eating from that tree had greater metaphorical implications than just wanting knowledge.

It's still a completely absurd story. But, metaphorically, at least, it's an interesting one.

Thanks for that correction and addition to my own knowledge. I only remember it as the Tree of Knowledge from what we were taught by the Screechin' Butchers at school - probably the condensed, abridged version in between laying into us with the leather.:eek:

I suppose going into details of metaphorical implications is something that comes when one studies those things in much greater detail later in life, but in my case the same Screechin' Butchers gave me a lifelong immunity to religious belief and it kicked in almost as soon as I learned to read and understand things.

And what now confuses me, in the light of what you say, is why the sky fairy wouldn't want people to have knowledge of good and evil. Surely it would be desirable, from anyone's point of view, for people to know the difference between those two opposites?

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

The Constitution doesn't prevent people from voting on any grounds that they like. Where the Constitution would be violated would be in the Government deciding that people couldn't run based on religion or lack thereof.

You said that... I said I was pointing out the Irony.

There's still states in the US (largely the podunc hick infested backwaters) that still require religious test contrary to the constitution.

philologos

RichieC wrote: »

You said that... I said I was pointing out the Irony.

There's still states in the US (largely the podunc hick infested backwaters) that still require religious test contrary to the constitution.

I'm doubting that you would vote for a Christian over an atheist personally given how much you think they are stupid and lack intelligence.

Prejudices go both ways really I think. Personally I would be open to any non-believer being president or Taoiseach if they were willing to defend liberties such as the freedom of religion and if they weren't going to use their office to promote an anti-theist agenda.

johnmcdnl wrote:

which answers the question about why no one questions religion... because you can't or else your gonna get in trouble... up until recently how many aethists would be brave enough to stand up against the power of the church... and even today in the middle eastern countries... how many of ye would stand up and try to say Allah isn't real in Saudi Arabia or Iran...

RLY? I question my faith on a near daily basis. Questioning doesn't mean concluding that it is false, it just means querying and inquiring into it in a questioning manner and with an open mind.

drkpower

Biggins wrote: »

I detest fanatics on BOTH sides.
Let the rest quietly sit (or whatever) and cross-communicate - the world would be a much better place.
...Yes, I live in hope!

Dont ever be fooled into believing that Jakkass/Philologos is not a fanatic. He most certainly is. He tries to talk in tolerant tones, but he is far from tolerant.

Scratch under the surface on his views on atheists, or homosexuality or a range of topics, and his obnoxious and bigotted views become entirely clear.

Only a few pages ago, on this very thread, he stated that it was wholly justified that good honorable people should burn in hell for eternity for the grave evil that is..... not believing in god. Is that fanaticism or tolerance?

Ellis Dee

Ellis Dee wrote: »

And what now confuses me, in the light of what you say, is why the sky fairy wouldn't want people to have knowledge of good and evil. Surely it would be desirable, from anyone's point of view, for people to know the difference between those two opposites?

philologos might be able to answer this better than I can, but I'll give it a shot.

God placed the tree in the garden to give Adam and Eve a choice; it was an exercise in free will, essentially. If God hadn't placed something in the garden that was forbidden then Adam or Eve wouldn't have been able to rebel against God and exercise the free will they were given. Without the choice then their free will (to obey or disobey God) was essentially useless.

Why the name? Eating from the tree gave them knowledge of evil; it removed their innocence and resulted in sin.

If taken literally it's an extremely ridiculous story. Even if taken metaphorically it's almost as ridiculous, to be honest.

Ellis Dee

gvn wrote: »

philologos might be able to answer this better than I can, but I'll give it a shot.

God placed the tree in the garden to give Adam and Eve a choice; it was an exercise in free will, essentially. If God hadn't placed something in the garden that was forbidden then Adam or Eve wouldn't have been able to rebel against God and exercise the free will they were given. Without the choice then their free will (to obey or disobey God) was essentially useless.

Why the name? Eating from the tree gave them knowledge of evil; it removed their innocence and resulted in sin.

If taken literally it's an extremely ridiculous story. Even if taken metaphorically it's almost as ridiculous, to be honest.

Nor argument from me on that score! Thanks.:)

RichieC

drkpower wrote: »

Dont ever be fooled into believing that Jakkass/Philologos is not a fanatic. He most certainly is. He tries to talk in tolerant tones, but he is far from tolerant.

Scratch under the surface on his views on atheists, or homosexuality or a range of topics, and his obnoxious and bigotted views become entirely clear.

Only a few pages ago, on this very thread, he stated that it was wholly justified that good honorable people should burn in hell for eternity for the grave evil that is..... not believing in god. Is that fanaticism or tolerance?

That's how it works with the religious, it's all about respect for others and their views until a gay person asks for the same rights as everyone else.

Cú Giobach

gvn wrote: »

God placed the tree in the garden to give Adam and Eve a choice; it was an exercise in free will, essentially. If God hadn't placed something in the garden that was forbidden then Adam or Eve wouldn't have been able to rebel against God and exercise the free will they were given. Without the choice then their free will (to obey or disobey God) was essentially useless.

Holy divine entrapment batman!!!

johnmcdnl

philologos wrote: »

RLY? I question my faith on a near daily basis. Questioning doesn't mean concluding that it is false, it just means querying and inquiring into it in a questioning manner and with an open mind.

out of interest - how do you conclude that god exists every day

whenever i think about it - just seems sillier every single time

philologos

johnmcdnl wrote: »

out of interest - how do you conclude that god exists every day

whenever i think about it - just seems sillier every single time

Funnily enough I think the same about atheism. I find the idea that God doesn't exist to be absurd.

As for how I conclude it I've gone through that much in previous threads. I may go searching and linking when I have some time.

It's better than an attempted character assassination on thread :pac:

Ellis Dee

Just thought I'd share a joke I heard recently. The person who told it to me is a female pastor with whom I sometimes chat when we are walking our dogs in the park:

What did the cannibal say about ecumenism?

These days all the missionaries taste the same!:)

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

Funnily enough I think the same about atheism. I find the idea that God doesn't exist to be absurd.

As for how I conclude it I've gone through that much in previous threads.

Of course you have.....:D:rolleyes:

mgmt

I love Penn and Teller. Here is their take on the Bible and Christianity.

NSFW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk0K1zgCDtE

Biggins

drkpower wrote: »

Dont ever be fooled into believing that Jakkass/Philologos is not a fanatic. He most certainly is. He tries to talk in tolerant tones, but he is far from tolerant.

Scratch under the surface on his views on atheists, or homosexuality or a range of topics, and his obnoxious and bigotted views become entirely clear.

Only a few pages ago, on this very thread, he stated that it was wholly justified that good honorable people should burn in hell for eternity for the grave evil that is..... not believing in god. Is that fanaticism or tolerance?

Its wolf in sheep's clothing - and they are the worst.
If they are willing to stoop to that level - what other ways are they willing to go to and by what means!

philologos

Biggins wrote: »

Its wolf in sheep's clothing - and they are the worst.
If they are willing to stoop to that level - what others are they willing to go to and by what means!

Meh. (It's funny that you use Biblical language in this statement )

To clarify.

Some of my best friends are atheists and agnostics. To suggest that I harbour hatred towards them is ridiculous. In fact if I hated them it would be absurd for me to hope that they would be saved and come to know God. I feel that way because I care about them.

Homosexuality: I believe that all sexual activity outside of a marriage is wrong. A marriage in the Christian point of view being the union between a man and a woman. People make these decisions for themselves. I've decided to wait until marriage because I believe that is right and beneficial on a number of grounds. This opinion doesn't cause me to "hate" anyone. It just means that I disagree with them about what is right in this respect.

It's ignoring the actual definition of tolerance anyway. Tolerance doesn't mean agreeing with what everyone does. It means accepting the liberties of others to live differently to yourself even if you disagree. As much as people disagree with me going to church on Sunday or believing in God, so I disagree with atheists in the respect of denying their Creator. We get on well, we just have disagreements. I think many of the atheists on boards.ie that I would talk to in the A&A section and off-boards woulds say that I'm nothing but civil to them. In most cases they have been civil towards me as well.

What more could you ask for?

mgmt

philologos wrote: »

Homosexuality: I believe that all sexual activity outside of a marriage is wrong.

Do you jerk off?