When atheists go too far

Fremen

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

I dislike atheists who actively seek out to ridicule religious people and not just ridicule their beliefs.

No-one likes a bully. Most athiests are happy to let individual religious people get on with their day.

The problem isn't with Christians and Muslims, it's with Christianity and Islam.

Logical Fallacy

Seachmall wrote: »

I'm not saying it would 'cure' irrationality but it would force people to justify their positions better. Too many people around the world fall back on "it's in the bible" when questioned about their positions. They may fall back on other rationalizations but it will at least expose the irrational positions people hold to the masses.

We can't break down every foundation people use to rationalize their positions but that doesn't mean we shouldn't address them.

Indeed, but often times the best way to address them is from within their own area, rather than saying "Religion is silly and you are silly for believing in it" it's better to say "Religion is not for me, but if you can hold to the positive facets of your belief system then i can respect that".

Religion could be a good thing, i'd rather see it recycled than destroyed.

Chuck Stone

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Eeeek, argument fail. Not too many religions imply or belief that their "God" controls them...merely created them. Their fate is up to them - that's one of the key strengths of religions winning people over.

It's a bit fatefull to 'know' that you're going to either hell or heaven if you don't follow 'the rules'. Not much in the way of free choice there.

Would you agree?

Cookie_Monster

biko wrote: »

http://www.godlessgirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/85.jpg

Militant Atheism hasn't killed anyone, Christianity and Islam has killed thousands.

thousands, 10s of millions more like.

Fremen

biko wrote: »

http://www.godlessgirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/85.jpg

Militant Atheism hasn't killed anyone, Christianity and Islam has killed thousands.

Hitler and Stalin were athiests.

Hehehehe. C'mon, take the bait, take the bait...

Seachmall

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Indeed, but often times the best way to address them is from within their own area, rather than saying "Religion is silly and you are silly for believing in it" it's better to say "Religion is not for me, but if you can hold to the positive facets of your belief system then i can respect that".

But people do believe they only hold to the positive facets of their beliefs. One's that are considered negative (e.g. stoning a disrespectful son) are discarded as being outdated and not in tune with the times.

Religion could be a good thing, i'd rather see it recycled than destroyed.

I think anything that promotes collective agreement as oppose to individual thought is bad, and I can't imagine any religion not relying upon that.

(Once again, that's organised religion I'm referring to).

Freman wrote:

Hitler and Stalin were athiests.

They didn't believe in unicorns or fairies. Neither of those facts had anything to do with what they did.

Logical Fallacy

Seachmall wrote: »

I think anything that promotes collective agreement as oppose to individual thought is bad, and I can't imagine any religion not relying upon that.

(Once again, that's organised religion I'm referring to).

But on a two sided argument like pro and cons of religion (it's good or it's bad) there will always be collective agreement.

Effectively Dawkins promotes collective agreement.

(I'm enjoy this thread by the way - nice reasoned discussion going down).

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's a bit fatefull to 'know' that you're going to either hell or heaven if you don't follow 'the rules'. Not much in the way of free choice there.

Would you agree?

Of course there is, you can choose not to believe.

Easy.

In all seriousness though the rules aren't hard to live by, and i seriously doubt you will find any right minded person who will argue that it should be okay to kill, steal or do all that kind of ****, in fact most religions have hard and fast rules against things...and then later in those same texts you will times when it's "okay" to do this kind of thing. Through in forgiveness and the whole gamut is covered, just feel bad about doing stuff and your grand. This is while religions are successful...it's like a game you can't lose.

flutterflye

Fremen wrote: »

Hitler and Stalin were athiests.

Hehehehe. C'mon, take the bait, take the bait...

I don't know about Stalin, but Hitler was not athiest

Min

The more he talks the better as the article said: This was an exercise in preaching to the converted.

Dawkins made a statement that is in conflict with itself: “The most well received talks I’ve given have often been in places like the Bible Belt of the Deep South in the US rather than in more tolerant societies. Besides it’s better for a convention of this kind to take place in locations where it is needed more.”

Surely where he was received best were the most tolerant places rather than places which he perceives as being more tolerant because the area might be more liberal.

Mark200

Min wrote: »

Surely where he was received best were the most tolerant places rather than places which he perceives as being more tolerant because the area might be more liberal.

He was probably making the point that atheists in the South, who are a smaller minority than elsewhere, are more enthusiastic to see him. Which would make sense.

Lukker-

Organized religions are dangerous.

squod

Fremen wrote: »

Hitler and Stalin were athiests.

Winston Churchill worshipped pagan gods. Tom Cruise worships spacemen and madonna will worship who/whatever is fashionable.

Seems to me all ''athiests'' put all their faith in science and believe whatever the current generation of college boys tell them.

Fremen

flutterflye wrote: »

I don't know about Stalin, but Hitler was not athiest

Goebbels:
"[Hitler] expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity"

It's working, I don't believe it's working

Seachmall

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

But on a two sided argument like pro and cons of religion (it's good or it's bad) there will always be collective agreement.

Individuals coming to agreement because of their own individual reasoning is not the same as individuals agreeing because they were told to.

You are right in that there will always be collective agreement amongst groups, but as I said before we should still address why.

Effectively Dawkins promotes collective agreement.

I don't think he promotes it but there's no doubt that collective agreement amongst atheists (particularly younger ones) exists as a result of his books. People read his books and agree with him without actually questioning what he says. I know 2 people who are atheists after reading his book (or were atheist and then read is book to justify their position, I'm not really sure) however neither of them can defend their position without giving some mutilated argument they vaguely remember from The God Delusion.

(I'm enjoy this thread by the way - nice reasoned discussion going down).

Just wait, there's plenty of time for it to turn to sh*t :P

Mark200

squod wrote: »

Winston Churchill worshipped pagan gods. Tom Cruise worships spacemen and madonna will worship who/whatever is fashionable.

Seems to me all ''athiests'' put all their faith in science and believe whatever the current generation of college boys tell them.

It's not faith. Faith is a belief regardless of the lack of evidence. Science works. Science is the reason we've got planes in the sky, why we've had men on the moon, and why we're able to talk right now.

But feel free to sit in a piece of metal, have it pushed off a cliff, and pray that it'll fly.

FTGFOP

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

But i pretty much guarantee you are not naive enough to think that if there had never been a religion throughout the history of man, or if we woke up tomorrow and it was all done away with that we would all be sitting around holding hands and living in peace and harmony.

People who want to be ***** will be *****, they'll find a reason to do what they do regardless.

I don't think anybody thinks religion is the cause of every ill or that the world would be perfect without it. I think it would be a better world though. I think religion gives great solace to some people but on balance I think it hurts more people that it helps. And where some people would be misanthropes with or without it, with it they have a very handy tool.

Fremen

squod wrote: »

Winston Churchill worshipped pagan gods. Tom Cruise worships spacemen and madonna will worship who/whatever is fashionable.

Seems to me all ''athiests'' put all their faith in science and believe whatever the current generation of college boys tell them.

I.... don't understand the point you're trying to make.

Seachmall

Fremen wrote: »

Goebbels:
"[Hitler] expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity"

It's working, I don't believe it's working

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

- Mein Kampf.

I don't know what his religion was or if he was a deist but he did believe in a creator.

Chuck Stone

squod wrote: »

Seems to me all ''athiests'' put all their faith in science and believe whatever the current generation of college boys tell them.

Not sure if serious?

Personally my skepticism is not reseverved for theism and religion alone - academics, politicians and even taxi drivers will not be believed because they say something is so.

I don't think Atheism/agnosticism/whateverism reseves it's sketicism for religion/theism alone.

Min

Mark200 wrote: »

He was probably making the point that atheists in the South, who are a smaller minority than elsewhere, are more enthusiastic to see him. Which would make sense.

Yet he says 'most well received', he doesn't say anything bad about the people there in general, it seems he simply judges them for being more religious which he equates to being intolerant, if we look at what he is implying but with no evidence to support it.

squod

Fremen wrote: »

I.... don't understand the point you're trying to make.

I'm stirring

Einhard

pragmatic1 wrote: »

To the extent of a sky daddy who loves you and controls your fate for an eternity ?

Yeah, I think so. Also, most of the wars fought over religion, weren't actually about religion. Was just a convenient excuse to exterminate or subjugate the people standing in the way of expansion etc.

squod wrote: »

Seems to me all ''athiests'' put all their faith in science and believe whatever the current generation of college boys tell them.

Put their faith in rationality then...

krudler

amacachi wrote: »

Are militant atheists the ones who scream Allah Ackbar when they blow themselves up or the ones who blow up abortion clinics? A completely BS term invented by people like you so you can feel better than at least one group of people.

I scream Admiral Ackbar as I blow up stuff.

and athiests are very anti-abortion, if no babies are being born then what would we eat?

Fremen

Seachmall wrote: »

- Mein Kampf.

I don't know what his religion was or if he was a deist but he did believe in a creator.

That's not the point. We're discussing organised religion.

Movin' the goalpoasts. This is easier than trolling fish in a barrel.

Mike 1972

Is Godwin an Atheist ?

Fremen wrote: »

Goebbels:

So if Goebbeles said it it must be true

squod

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not sure if serious?

Personally my skepticism is not reseverved for theism and religion alone - academics, politicians and even taxi drivers will not be believed because they say something is so.

I don't think Atheism/agnosticism/whateverism reseves it's sketicism for religion/theism alone.

True sceptics are cool TBH. I've a real dislike for the fanboy of atheism. Believing some snake oil sales man and not questioning what they say is, to me, ridiculous. I can take any criticism of my faith as long as the story holds water.

Seachmall

Fremen wrote: »

That's not the point. We're discussing organised religion.

Movin' the goalpoasts. This is easier than trolling fish in a barrel.

The point was made that Hitler was an atheist. Not only is it irrelevant but it's also inaccurate.

Fremen

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So if Goebbeles said it it must be true

He may have been a mass murderer, but he's hardly a pathological liar. He's an important primary source.

I'm TROLLING for god's sake. How are you not getting that?

Chuck Stone

squod wrote: »

Won't be long until pigs evolve wings and we can train them into becoming little pork bombers.

Blast them with flame throwers for a delicious meal raining from the sky!

Mmmm pork belly..

flutterflye

Fremen wrote: »

Goebbels:
"[Hitler] expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity"

It's working, I don't believe it's working

Sorry but I don't understand?

Is this to mean that the belief that christianity is corrupt = atheism?

Nobody knows for sure what religious beliefs Hitler held towards the end, but he spoke a good bit about the 'Lord' and the 'Creator', and he also spoke out against atheism on many occasions.