Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Page 14 of 16 Previous  1 ... 8 ... 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Guest on Thu Jul 30, 2015 3:09 pm


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down


Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Raggamuffin on Wed Aug 12, 2015 10:14 pm

Eilzel wrote:
eddie wrote:I think, for what it's worth, that devout religious people who believe in written words by "anon" (because let's face it, they don't know the writers of these great books) and devout atheists are very similar.

They both cover their ears and eyes and say "La la la, I am right!"

Nobody knows for sure so to make a claim that you do, is just bloody stupid.

We don't know for sure if there are magical flying teapots either- I guess if you say you do know there aren't any then you're just being stupid?

You cannot be a devout atheist in the same sense as a devout Christian or Muslim etc

You cannot devoutly disbelieve in something (well you can I guess, but almost no one does)- I presume you definitely don't believe in fairies- but you aren't a devout a-fariy-ist.

Religious people, particularly of mainstream religions, are described as devout because they accept as true what is supernatural, a-historical, physically impossible and so on. They also accept a mass of life governing rules and often believe it is righteous to dictate those rules to people who don't share their beliefs. And worst of all, a dangerous minority will persecute and/or kill for their beliefs.

Their is NO equivalent to all that in atheism. Atheism is simply a belief that there are no gods based on an absence of evidence of one. I have never met an atheist who wont debate the subject (which in itself is a demonstration of being open to inquiry)- whereas millions of devout religious people will NOT acknowledge or accept any questioning of their beliefs.

That's not why they're called devout, they're called devout because they live their everyday lives thinking about God, or gods, or Buddhas, and trying to live those lives according to their beliefs.

Stardesk is a devout athiest because, at least on here, he spends much of his time attempting to convince those with religious faith that they're wrong. Laughing

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28567
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Eilzel on Wed Aug 12, 2015 10:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

We don't know for sure if there are magical flying teapots either- I guess if you say you do know there aren't any then you're just being stupid?

You cannot be a devout atheist in the same sense as a devout Christian or Muslim etc

You cannot devoutly disbelieve in something (well you can I guess, but almost no one does)- I presume you definitely don't believe in fairies- but you aren't a devout a-fariy-ist.

Religious people, particularly of mainstream religions, are described as devout because they accept as true what is supernatural, a-historical, physically impossible and so on. They also accept a mass of life governing rules and often believe it is righteous to dictate those rules to people who don't share their beliefs. And worst of all, a dangerous minority will persecute and/or kill for their beliefs.

Their is NO equivalent to all that in atheism. Atheism is simply a belief that there are no gods based on an absence of evidence of one. I have never met an atheist who wont debate the subject (which in itself is a demonstration of being open to inquiry)- whereas millions of devout religious people will NOT acknowledge or accept any questioning of their beliefs.

That's not why they're called devout, they're called devout because they live their everyday lives thinking about God, or gods, or Buddhas, and trying to live those lives according to their beliefs.

Stardesk is a devout athiest because, at least on here, he spends much of his time  attempting to convince those with religious faith that they're wrong. Laughing  

That's another reason they are devout (the second half of my reasoning was more or less the same). But certainly even by that definition an atheist can't be called devout.

Stardesk is an evolutionist as well as an atheist, nothing wrong with a passion for a subject. But even if he did think about evolution a lot it wont have a baring on how he lives the way religion does.

_________________
"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice"

"People who fear demons see demons everywhere"

avatar
Eilzel
Speaker of the House

Posts : 5635
Join date : 2013-12-13
Age : 32
Location : The Kingdom formerly known as Siam...

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Raggamuffin on Wed Aug 12, 2015 10:28 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

That's not why they're called devout, they're called devout because they live their everyday lives thinking about God, or gods, or Buddhas, and trying to live those lives according to their beliefs.

Stardesk is a devout athiest because, at least on here, he spends much of his time  attempting to convince those with religious faith that they're wrong. Laughing  

That's another reason they are devout (the second half of my reasoning was more or less the same). But certainly even by that definition an atheist can't be called devout.

Stardesk is an evolutionist as well as an atheist, nothing wrong with a passion for a subject. But even if he did think about evolution a lot it wont have a baring on how he lives the way religion does.

Well "devout" is not a word I would use to describe an athiest anyway, I refer to the ones who are constantly trying to mock those with faith, or convince them and others that they're wrong as "militant". I was merely following the conversation on here according to your own logic, and the logic of others.

Stardesk doesn't just think about evolution a lot, he appears to have a calling to tell religious people that they're wrong.


_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28567
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Eilzel on Wed Aug 12, 2015 10:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

That's another reason they are devout (the second half of my reasoning was more or less the same). But certainly even by that definition an atheist can't be called devout.

Stardesk is an evolutionist as well as an atheist, nothing wrong with a passion for a subject. But even if he did think about evolution a lot it wont have a baring on how he lives the way religion does.

Well "devout" is not a word I would use to describe an athiest anyway, I refer to the ones who are constantly trying to mock those with faith, or convince them and others that they're wrong as "militant". I was merely following the conversation on here according to your own logic, and the logic of others.

Stardesk doesn't just think about evolution a lot, he appears to have a calling to tell religious people that they're wrong.


In fairness I responded to Eds, fair enough if you don't describe atheists that way.

Though on militant. Wouldn't you agree there is a massive gulf of difference between militant religions and militant atheism?

When I say to you 'militant Islam'- who do you think of first?
If I say 'militant Christians'- who do you think of first?
And at the term 'militant atheists'- who do you think of first?

And what is the big difference between the former 2 and latter 1?

_________________
"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice"

"People who fear demons see demons everywhere"

avatar
Eilzel
Speaker of the House

Posts : 5635
Join date : 2013-12-13
Age : 32
Location : The Kingdom formerly known as Siam...

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Raggamuffin on Wed Aug 12, 2015 10:44 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well "devout" is not a word I would use to describe an athiest anyway, I refer to the ones who are constantly trying to mock those with faith, or convince them and others that they're wrong as "militant". I was merely following the conversation on here according to your own logic, and the logic of others.

Stardesk doesn't just think about evolution a lot, he appears to have a calling to tell religious people that they're wrong.


In fairness I responded to Eds, fair enough if you don't describe atheists that way.

Though on militant. Wouldn't you agree there is a massive gulf of difference between militant religions and militant atheism?

When I say to you 'militant Islam'- who do you think of first?
If I say 'militant Christians'- who do you think of first?
And at the term 'militant atheists'- who do you think of first?

And what is the big difference between the former 2 and latter 1?

And I responded to you because I disagreed with your definition of "devout". You can have people with strong religious faith but they're not necessarily devout. You can have athiests who are not militant as well.

To me, a militant atheist means they're a bit aggressive in their views, intolerant to the idea that others do have faith, see religious faith as a negative thing, and have a tendency to lecture those who do have faith. I don't mean they go around in soldiers' uniforms shooting anyone who has faith.

The same could be said about militant Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc who want everyone to believe what they believe. Unfortunately, some of them do resort to violence, hence the confusion.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28567
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Eilzel on Wed Aug 12, 2015 11:14 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

In fairness I responded to Eds, fair enough if you don't describe atheists that way.

Though on militant. Wouldn't you agree there is a massive gulf of difference between militant religions and militant atheism?

When I say to you 'militant Islam'- who do you think of first?
If I say 'militant Christians'- who do you think of first?
And at the term 'militant atheists'- who do you think of first?

And what is the big difference between the former 2 and latter 1?

And I responded to you because I disagreed with your definition of "devout". You can have people with strong religious faith but they're not necessarily devout. You can have athiests who are not militant as well.

To me, a militant atheist means they're a bit aggressive in their views, intolerant to the idea that others do have faith, see religious faith as a negative thing, and have a tendency to lecture those who do have faith. I don't mean they go around in soldiers' uniforms shooting anyone who has faith.

The same could be said about militant Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc who want everyone to believe what they believe. Unfortunately, some of them do resort to violence, hence the confusion.

Wise not to answer my questions directly Smile

_________________
"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice"

"People who fear demons see demons everywhere"

avatar
Eilzel
Speaker of the House

Posts : 5635
Join date : 2013-12-13
Age : 32
Location : The Kingdom formerly known as Siam...

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Raggamuffin on Wed Aug 12, 2015 11:16 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

And I responded to you because I disagreed with your definition of "devout". You can have people with strong religious faith but they're not necessarily devout. You can have athiests who are not militant as well.

To me, a militant atheist means they're a bit aggressive in their views, intolerant to the idea that others do have faith, see religious faith as a negative thing, and have a tendency to lecture those who do have faith. I don't mean they go around in soldiers' uniforms shooting anyone who has faith.

The same could be said about militant Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc who want everyone to believe what they believe. Unfortunately, some of them do resort to violence, hence the confusion.

Wise not to answer my questions directly Smile

Did you want names then?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28567
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Eilzel on Wed Aug 12, 2015 11:23 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Wise not to answer my questions directly Smile

Did you want names then?

If it's not too much bother, the first names that honestly came to mind.

_________________
"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice"

"People who fear demons see demons everywhere"

avatar
Eilzel
Speaker of the House

Posts : 5635
Join date : 2013-12-13
Age : 32
Location : The Kingdom formerly known as Siam...

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Raggamuffin on Wed Aug 12, 2015 11:40 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Did you want names then?

If it's not too much bother, the first names that honestly came to mind.

OK.

If you want a name for who I consider to be a militant Muslim, I'll name Anjem Choudary. I could name others but I can spell his name. Laughing

Choudary doesn't shoot people in the street, and he's quite softly spoken, but he's still militant.

Militant Christian - Fred Phelps - dead now of course.

Militant atheist - Richard Dawkins. Possibly Stalin, although some say he was not an atheist. Then again, some might say that Fred Phelps was not a Christian.

Militant Buddhist/Hindu - hmmm, not sure - mainly because we don't hear much about them.

Sassy might be able to help re militant Jews I guess.


_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28567
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Raggamuffin on Wed Aug 12, 2015 11:48 pm

Some might say that the Dalai Lama is a tad militant, especially some Buddhists.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28567
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Eilzel on Wed Aug 12, 2015 11:51 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

If it's not too much bother, the first names that honestly came to mind.

OK.

If you want a name for who I consider to be a militant Muslim, I'll name Anjem Choudary. I could name others but I can spell his name. Laughing

Choudary doesn't shoot people in the street, and he's quite softly spoken, but he's still militant.

Militant Christian - Fred Phelps - dead now of course.

Militant atheist - Richard Dawkins. Possibly Stalin, although some say he was not an atheist. Then again, some might say that Fred Phelps was not a Christian.

Militant Buddhist/Hindu - hmmm, not sure - mainly because we don't hear much about them.

Sassy might be able to help re militant Jews I guess.


Phelps and Choudary were/are hate preachers who parade/d their religion alongside their hate.

Dawkins does not preach hate. He does not wish death or violence or people or picket funerals or weddings chanting hate speech.

He writes books, tweets, and talks at university halls.

How are they comparable?

Stalin didn't kill because of his possibly atheists views, he did so because he was a Communist Totalitarian Dictator.

Ok, so as I said, no comparison.

And of course you cited the most world famous 'militant' atheist, while only citing a UK and US relevant Christian and Muslim.

If Dawkins is the MOST militant AND prominent atheist in the world (arguably alongside Hitchens)- who do you think his Islam equivalent would be in the last 10-20 years?

_________________
"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice"

"People who fear demons see demons everywhere"

avatar
Eilzel
Speaker of the House

Posts : 5635
Join date : 2013-12-13
Age : 32
Location : The Kingdom formerly known as Siam...

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Raggamuffin on Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:01 am

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

OK.

If you want a name for who I consider to be a militant Muslim, I'll name Anjem Choudary. I could name others but I can spell his name. Laughing

Choudary doesn't shoot people in the street, and he's quite softly spoken, but he's still militant.

Militant Christian - Fred Phelps - dead now of course.

Militant atheist - Richard Dawkins. Possibly Stalin, although some say he was not an atheist. Then again, some might say that Fred Phelps was not a Christian.

Militant Buddhist/Hindu - hmmm, not sure - mainly because we don't hear much about them.

Sassy might be able to help re militant Jews I guess.


Phelps and Choudary were/are hate preachers who parade/d their religion alongside their hate.

Dawkins does not preach hate. He does not wish death or violence or people or picket funerals or weddings chanting hate speech.

He writes books, tweets, and talks at university halls.

How are they comparable?

Stalin didn't kill because of his possibly atheists views, he did so because he was a Communist Totalitarian Dictator.

Ok, so as I said, no comparison.

And of course you cited the most world famous 'militant' atheist, while only citing a UK and US relevant Christian and Muslim.

If Dawkins is the MOST militant AND prominent atheist in the world (arguably alongside Hitchens)- who do you think his Islam equivalent would be in the last 10-20 years?

As I said, one can be militant, and can also take that militancy further. Choudary has avoided the long arm of the law quite successfully up until now. Phelps' activities were a result of his militancy, but even without them he would still have been militant.

I see you want to exclude Stalin on the grounds that he didn't kill anyone because of his atheism. I would dispute that. Choudary and Phelps didn't kill anyone, but Stalin did - or he had them killed.


_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28567
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Raggamuffin on Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:05 am

Also, we only hear more about Choudary and Phelps because of their extreme views. Well not so much about Phelps now of course.

I've seen people on forums saying churches should be closed, and religion should be banned. Is that not a tad militant?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28567
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Eilzel on Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:16 am

Raggamuffin wrote:Also, we only hear more about Choudary and Phelps because of their extreme views. Well not so much about Phelps now of course.

I've seen people on forums saying churches should be closed, and religion should be banned. Is that not a tad militant?

I've never seen or heard people saying those things, well maybe Dean mentioned it but I could be wrong there (I would like to see them gradually fade into nothing, naturally, but I'm not for forcing them underground). It is a 'tad' militant yes- but that is a tiny minority.

You can find far more militant religious views if you scratch the surface, by default really, there are more religious than non-religious people out there.

For a crystal clear example- look at mostly religious areas compared to mostly secular areas (like Scandinavia or the Czech Republic). Far more tolerance to all views and peoples in the latter.

Of course Dawkins being the example of most famous 'militant' atheist in modern times has to be looked at alongside Osama Bin Laden and the leaders of IS if we take the most famous 'militant' Muslims in modern times..

A massive difference I'm sure you'd agree.

Militant religious people try to change laws to enforce their views, on women, gay people and those of different faiths- as well as commit occasional (or frequent depending on geographic region) acts of violence.

Militant atheists write books and give speeches.

Which one is worse? And are they really the same?

_________________
"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice"

"People who fear demons see demons everywhere"

avatar
Eilzel
Speaker of the House

Posts : 5635
Join date : 2013-12-13
Age : 32
Location : The Kingdom formerly known as Siam...

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Raggamuffin on Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:32 am

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Also, we only hear more about Choudary and Phelps because of their extreme views. Well not so much about Phelps now of course.

I've seen people on forums saying churches should be closed, and religion should be banned. Is that not a tad militant?

I've never seen or heard people saying those things, well maybe Dean mentioned it but I could be wrong there (I would like to see them gradually fade into nothing, naturally, but I'm not for forcing them underground). It is a 'tad' militant yes- but that is a tiny minority.

You can find far more militant religious views if you scratch the surface, by default really, there are more religious than non-religious people out there.

For a crystal clear example- look at mostly religious areas compared to mostly secular areas (like Scandinavia or the Czech Republic). Far more tolerance to all views and peoples in the latter.

Of course Dawkins being the example of most famous 'militant' atheist in modern times has to be looked at alongside Osama Bin Laden and the leaders of IS if we take the most famous 'militant' Muslims in modern times..

A massive difference I'm sure you'd agree.

Militant religious people try to change laws to enforce their views, on women, gay people and those of different faiths- as well as commit occasional (or frequent depending on geographic region) acts of violence.

Militant atheists write books and give speeches.

Which one is worse? And are they really the same?

Well obviously if there are more religious people than non-religious people, there will probably be more militant religious people.

What is your point exactly? Is it that militant religious people are more harmful than militant atheists, or that militant atheists don't really exist?

My point is that there are militant atheists out there, according to my own definition anyway, but some people don't like me using that phrase. Some of the atheists on here won't even concede that trying to persuade someone that their religious faith is wrong is the same as a religious person trying to persuade an atheist that they should have faith. They don't see their mockery and/or insults against religious people as intolerance, but they'll gladly talk about intolerance amongst religious groups.

You've seen it for yourself on here - or you should have if you read the posts properly.

You asked me to name some people, and I did, but the ones I named are people which sprang to mind because they're more well-known than random people. That doesn't mean that there aren't others, or that all militant religious views lead to violence or hate speech any more than atheistic militant views.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28567
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Eilzel on Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:41 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

I've never seen or heard people saying those things, well maybe Dean mentioned it but I could be wrong there (I would like to see them gradually fade into nothing, naturally, but I'm not for forcing them underground). It is a 'tad' militant yes- but that is a tiny minority.

You can find far more militant religious views if you scratch the surface, by default really, there are more religious than non-religious people out there.

For a crystal clear example- look at mostly religious areas compared to mostly secular areas (like Scandinavia or the Czech Republic). Far more tolerance to all views and peoples in the latter.

Of course Dawkins being the example of most famous 'militant' atheist in modern times has to be looked at alongside Osama Bin Laden and the leaders of IS if we take the most famous 'militant' Muslims in modern times..

A massive difference I'm sure you'd agree.

Militant religious people try to change laws to enforce their views, on women, gay people and those of different faiths- as well as commit occasional (or frequent depending on geographic region) acts of violence.

Militant atheists write books and give speeches.

Which one is worse? And are they really the same?

Well obviously if there are more religious people than non-religious people, there will probably be more militant religious people.

What is your point exactly? Is it that militant religious people are more harmful than militant atheists, or that militant atheists don't really exist?

My point is that there are militant atheists out there, according to my own definition anyway, but some people don't like me using that phrase. Some of the atheists on here won't even concede that trying to persuade someone that their religious faith is wrong is the same as a religious person trying to persuade an atheist that they should have faith. They don't see their mockery and/or insults against religious people as intolerance, but they'll gladly talk about intolerance amongst religious groups.

You've seen it for yourself on here - or you should have if you read the posts properly.

You asked me to name some people, and I did, but the ones I named are people which sprang to mind because they're more well-known than random people. That doesn't mean that there aren't others, or that all militant religious views lead to violence or hate speech any more than atheistic militant views.

My point is both those you say.

Firstly, by my definition of 'militant', there are no militant atheists (or at least an exceptionally small minority, and no famous ones).

I would describe Dawkins et al as zealous, but not militant. For me militant implies aggressive. If I was to concede on any famous atheist being militant it would be Hitchens and maybe Harris.

HOWEVER, as I said my point is both those things you say. Even if I did agree there are militant atheists- they are nowhere near as harmful as their religious equivalents. Militant atheists don't influence politics to persecute religious people, they don't incite violence, and they don't commit acts of violence themselves. As I said, it is entirely confined to modes of debate and discussion- be them social media/internet or books and university halls. A MASSIVE difference- and truly the reason I do find it important to differentiate by using different words.

Because using the same adjective to describe Harris, Hitchens and Dennett, as is used to describe ISIS, al-qaeda and the WBC is clearly ridiculous.

_________________
"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice"

"People who fear demons see demons everywhere"

avatar
Eilzel
Speaker of the House

Posts : 5635
Join date : 2013-12-13
Age : 32
Location : The Kingdom formerly known as Siam...

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Raggamuffin on Thu Aug 13, 2015 1:03 am

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well obviously if there are more religious people than non-religious people, there will probably be more militant religious people.

What is your point exactly? Is it that militant religious people are more harmful than militant atheists, or that militant atheists don't really exist?

My point is that there are militant atheists out there, according to my own definition anyway, but some people don't like me using that phrase. Some of the atheists on here won't even concede that trying to persuade someone that their religious faith is wrong is the same as a religious person trying to persuade an atheist that they should have faith. They don't see their mockery and/or insults against religious people as intolerance, but they'll gladly talk about intolerance amongst religious groups.

You've seen it for yourself on here - or you should have if you read the posts properly.

You asked me to name some people, and I did, but the ones I named are people which sprang to mind because they're more well-known than random people. That doesn't mean that there aren't others, or that all militant religious views lead to violence or hate speech any more than atheistic militant views.

My point is both those you say.

Firstly, by my definition of 'militant', there are no militant atheists (or at least an exceptionally small minority, and no famous ones).

I would describe Dawkins et al as zealous, but not militant. For me militant implies aggressive. If I was to concede on any famous atheist being militant it would be Hitchens and maybe Harris.

HOWEVER, as I said my point is both those things you say. Even if I did agree there are militant atheists- they are nowhere near as harmful as their religious equivalents. Militant atheists don't influence politics to persecute religious people, they don't incite violence, and they don't commit acts of violence themselves. As I said, it is entirely confined to modes of debate and discussion- be them social media/internet or books and university halls. A MASSIVE difference- and truly the reason I do find it important to differentiate by using different words.

Because using the same adjective to describe Harris, Hitchens and Dennett, as is used to describe ISIS, al-qaeda and the WBC is clearly ridiculous.

So the problem is one of definition? Even the word "aggressive" can mean different things to different people - it could mean hostile views or violent behaviour.

To me, militant doesn't necessarily mean violent or even harmful behavior, it's more about attitude. Militant religious people don't necessarily harm anyone either.

Some people might disagree that militant atheists don't influence politics to persecute religious people. If some atheists want teaching about creationism to be banned, and some religious people don't, why do you consider that one of those points of view of valid and the other is not? Religious people might feel persecuted if they are not allowed to wear a cross or a burka in their jobs. They might feel persecuted if their religious beliefs are overruled by a court. To you, that wouldn't be persecution, but it might feel that way to them.


_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28567
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Eilzel on Thu Aug 13, 2015 1:12 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

My point is both those you say.

Firstly, by my definition of 'militant', there are no militant atheists (or at least an exceptionally small minority, and no famous ones).

I would describe Dawkins et al as zealous, but not militant. For me militant implies aggressive. If I was to concede on any famous atheist being militant it would be Hitchens and maybe Harris.

HOWEVER, as I said my point is both those things you say. Even if I did agree there are militant atheists- they are nowhere near as harmful as their religious equivalents. Militant atheists don't influence politics to persecute religious people, they don't incite violence, and they don't commit acts of violence themselves. As I said, it is entirely confined to modes of debate and discussion- be them social media/internet or books and university halls. A MASSIVE difference- and truly the reason I do find it important to differentiate by using different words.

Because using the same adjective to describe Harris, Hitchens and Dennett, as is used to describe ISIS, al-qaeda and the WBC is clearly ridiculous.

So the problem is one of definition? Even the word "aggressive" can mean different things to different people - it could mean hostile views or violent behaviour.

To me, militant doesn't necessarily mean violent or even harmful behavior, it's more about attitude. Militant religious people don't necessarily harm anyone either.

Some people might disagree that militant atheists don't influence politics to persecute religious people. If some atheists want teaching about creationism to be banned, and some religious people don't, why do you consider that one of those points of view of valid and the other is not? Religious people might feel persecuted if they are not allowed to wear a cross or a burka in their jobs. They might feel persecuted if their religious beliefs are overruled by a court. To you, that wouldn't be persecution, but it might feel that way to them.


Yes, but when you use militant to describe al-qaeda and militant to describe Richard Dawkins then that creates an inane connection between one and the others which simply does not exist.

Laws against the burkha are not anti-religious, they are pro-public security. Rules banning crosses are usually to do with safety but I would agree stupid.

Allowing the teaching of creationism as anything like a scientific theory is as silly as teaching the Greek myths as though they are scientific theories- people want to stop that happening because it dumbs the education system to allow it as such. If it must be taught it should be only as a Biblical story believed by a group of people- not as an alternative to the big bang and evolution.

And even those examples you give cannot compare to Biblical reasoned laws against abortion and homosexuality, or Islamic laws against homosexuality, abortion, blasphemy and numerous restrictions on women, not to mention things like stoning.

I appreciate there are some zealous voices in the atheist community, some by your definition maybe even militant. But comparisons with religious militancy do not extend beyond those who try to change views.

Both some atheists and some religionists try to change views- but then there is a mountain of other factors in religious militancy that do not extend to atheist.

_________________
"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice"

"People who fear demons see demons everywhere"

avatar
Eilzel
Speaker of the House

Posts : 5635
Join date : 2013-12-13
Age : 32
Location : The Kingdom formerly known as Siam...

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Eilzel on Thu Aug 13, 2015 1:14 am

And although a problem of definition does not seem to big a deal on the face of it- when Richard Dawkins is treated like the same kind of fundamentalist nut as Bin Laden or the Inquisition then it is clear that definitions alone can lead to some pretty stupid assertions about what kind of person he is.

He writes books, tweets a lot and tours university campuses- "OMFG he is just like ISIS!!!!!!!"

_________________
"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice"

"People who fear demons see demons everywhere"

avatar
Eilzel
Speaker of the House

Posts : 5635
Join date : 2013-12-13
Age : 32
Location : The Kingdom formerly known as Siam...

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Raggamuffin on Thu Aug 13, 2015 1:18 am

Eilzel wrote:And although a problem of definition does not seem to big a deal on the face of it- when Richard Dawkins is treated like the same kind of fundamentalist nut as Bin Laden or the Inquisition then it is clear that definitions alone can lead to some pretty stupid assertions about what kind of person he is.

He writes books, tweets a lot and tours university campuses- "OMFG he is just like ISIS!!!!!!!"

Well do you distinguish between militant Muslims and militant Christians? Do you consider that Fred Phelps was as bad as ISIS? Even Choudary isn't as bad as ISIS. It's all relative isn't it?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28567
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Raggamuffin on Thu Aug 13, 2015 1:25 am

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So the problem is one of definition? Even the word "aggressive" can mean different things to different people - it could mean hostile views or violent behaviour.

To me, militant doesn't necessarily mean violent or even harmful behavior, it's more about attitude. Militant religious people don't necessarily harm anyone either.

Some people might disagree that militant atheists don't influence politics to persecute religious people. If some atheists want teaching about creationism to be banned, and some religious people don't, why do you consider that one of those points of view of valid and the other is not? Religious people might feel persecuted if they are not allowed to wear a cross or a burka in their jobs. They might feel persecuted if their religious beliefs are overruled by a court. To you, that wouldn't be persecution, but it might feel that way to them.


Yes, but when you use militant to describe al-qaeda and militant to describe Richard Dawkins then that creates an inane connection between one and the others which simply does not exist.

Laws against the burkha are not anti-religious, they are pro-public security. Rules banning crosses are usually to do with safety but I would agree stupid.

Allowing the teaching of creationism as anything like a scientific theory is as silly as teaching the Greek myths as though they are scientific theories- people want to stop that happening because it dumbs the education system to allow it as such. If it must be taught it should be only as a Biblical story believed by a group of people- not as an alternative to the big bang and evolution.

And even those examples you give cannot compare to Biblical reasoned laws against abortion and homosexuality, or Islamic laws against homosexuality, abortion, blasphemy and numerous restrictions on women, not to mention things like stoning.

I appreciate there are some zealous voices in the atheist community, some by your definition maybe even militant. But comparisons with religious militancy do not extend beyond those who try to change views.

Both some atheists and some religionists try to change views- but then there is a mountain of other factors in religious militancy that do not extend to atheist.

Les, do you really think that a burka-clad Muslim woman will agree that a ban is on the grounds of security? No, she will think it's persecution because of her religion. I don't like burkas at all, but I do understand why someone who wears one would feel persecuted if she wasn't allowed to.

Who said that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory? I certainly did not. Why do you think that scientific theories are more valid though?

I see nothing wrong with religious opposition to abortion. Of course, that can go too far, but without religious opposition, lifestyle abortions would become even more prevalent than they already are, so it's a good thing someone is objecting to that.

I think that some men get stoned as well do they not? It's a type of punishment that we in the UK generally don't agree with, but then again, a lot of people in the US don't mind the State electrocuting people, or killing them with drugs. Other countries don't mind tying people to posts and shooting them.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28567
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Eilzel on Thu Aug 13, 2015 1:27 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:And although a problem of definition does not seem to big a deal on the face of it- when Richard Dawkins is treated like the same kind of fundamentalist nut as Bin Laden or the Inquisition then it is clear that definitions alone can lead to some pretty stupid assertions about what kind of person he is.

He writes books, tweets a lot and tours university campuses- "OMFG he is just like ISIS!!!!!!!"

Well do you distinguish between militant Muslims and militant Christians? Do you consider that Fred Phelps was as bad as ISIS? Even Choudary isn't as bad as ISIS. It's all relative isn't it?

I do. But the hate in the heart is the same for both men like Phelps and the leaders of IS, Phelps was restricted by his surroundings. History shows that there have been Christians as bad as ISIS (and far more successful they were). And in places there still are, Christianity has simply developed more and exists mostly in more stable countries.

There still isn't an atheist equivalent of the worst religious militants.

_________________
"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice"

"People who fear demons see demons everywhere"

avatar
Eilzel
Speaker of the House

Posts : 5635
Join date : 2013-12-13
Age : 32
Location : The Kingdom formerly known as Siam...

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Eilzel on Thu Aug 13, 2015 1:32 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Yes, but when you use militant to describe al-qaeda and militant to describe Richard Dawkins then that creates an inane connection between one and the others which simply does not exist.

Laws against the burkha are not anti-religious, they are pro-public security. Rules banning crosses are usually to do with safety but I would agree stupid.

Allowing the teaching of creationism as anything like a scientific theory is as silly as teaching the Greek myths as though they are scientific theories- people want to stop that happening because it dumbs the education system to allow it as such. If it must be taught it should be only as a Biblical story believed by a group of people- not as an alternative to the big bang and evolution.

And even those examples you give cannot compare to Biblical reasoned laws against abortion and homosexuality, or Islamic laws against homosexuality, abortion, blasphemy and numerous restrictions on women, not to mention things like stoning.

I appreciate there are some zealous voices in the atheist community, some by your definition maybe even militant. But comparisons with religious militancy do not extend beyond those who try to change views.

Both some atheists and some religionists try to change views- but then there is a mountain of other factors in religious militancy that do not extend to atheist.

Les, do you really think that a burka-clad Muslim woman will agree that a ban is on the grounds of security? No, she will think it's persecution because of her religion. I don't like burkas at all, but I do understand why someone who wears one would feel persecuted if she wasn't allowed to.

Who said that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory? I certainly did not. Why do you think that scientific theories are more valid though?

I see nothing wrong with religious opposition to abortion. Of course, that can go too far, but without religious opposition, lifestyle abortions would become even more prevalent than they already are, so it's a good thing someone is objecting to that.

I think that some men get stoned as well do they not? It's a type of punishment that we in the UK generally don't agree with, but then again, a lot of people in the US don't mind the State electrocuting people, or killing them with drugs. Other countries don't mind tying people to posts and shooting them.

1. The Muslim woman may not think so, but she would be wrong. Outright, not open to discussion. If it was religious persecution we'd ban a lot more. Whereas blasphemy laws are ENTIRELY based on religious people wanting to shut down non-religious people.

2. I think you are taking the word 'theory' the wrong. The main definition of a theory is 'an explanation' the other definition is similar to a 'hypothesis'. The former definition is how we talk about evolution and gravity. Proven, and something creationism has similar claim to. It has zero evidence.

3. Abortion was one of a few examples. Your opinion is fine, but when religion is used as a reason for opposition then that is religion trying to force itself on others.

4. I'm not debating the methods of execution. I'm pointing out the religious authorized violence exists- there is no atheist equivalent.

_________________
"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice"

"People who fear demons see demons everywhere"

avatar
Eilzel
Speaker of the House

Posts : 5635
Join date : 2013-12-13
Age : 32
Location : The Kingdom formerly known as Siam...

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Raggamuffin on Thu Aug 13, 2015 1:47 am

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Les, do you really think that a burka-clad Muslim woman will agree that a ban is on the grounds of security? No, she will think it's persecution because of her religion. I don't like burkas at all, but I do understand why someone who wears one would feel persecuted if she wasn't allowed to.

Who said that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory? I certainly did not. Why do you think that scientific theories are more valid though?

I see nothing wrong with religious opposition to abortion. Of course, that can go too far, but without religious opposition, lifestyle abortions would become even more prevalent than they already are, so it's a good thing someone is objecting to that.

I think that some men get stoned as well do they not? It's a type of punishment that we in the UK generally don't agree with, but then again, a lot of people in the US don't mind the State electrocuting people, or killing them with drugs. Other countries don't mind tying people to posts and shooting them.

1. The Muslim woman may not think so, but she would be wrong. Outright, not open to discussion. If it was religious persecution we'd ban a lot more. Whereas blasphemy laws are ENTIRELY based on religious people wanting to shut down non-religious people.

2. I think you are taking the word 'theory' the wrong. The main definition of a theory is 'an explanation' the other definition is similar to a 'hypothesis'. The former definition is how we talk about evolution and gravity. Proven, and something creationism has similar claim to. It has zero evidence.

3. Abortion was one of a few examples. Your opinion is fine, but when religion is used as a reason for opposition then that is religion trying to force itself on others.

4. I'm not debating the methods of execution. I'm pointing out the religious authorized violence exists- there is no atheist equivalent.

1. You see? Straightaway, you said she is wrong. Who are you to say that her feelings are wrong? I would say that it may well be a form of religious persecution disguised as a concern for national security. I would say that some people think that the burka represents religious repression of women, and therefore should be banned. I have some sympathy with that point of view, but to a Muslim woman the burka might represent freedom.

2. As we're talking about science, I must say that the science of evolution is not a particular interest of mine. Medical science is though.

Les, do you really think that medical science is set in stone? There are diseases for which the cause is not known. Sure, there are theories, but that's not the same thing. Sometimes, scientists don't even know how a particular drug works, they only know it does, or they think it does. They can't explain the placebo effect in scientific terms either, they can only speculate. You can call theories explanations if you want, but the result is the same - there is no proof. What then do you say about medical training?

3. I see nothing wrong with people objecting to abortion on religious grounds. You might think that the rights of the woman outweigh the rights of the unborn life, but others do not. Once again, you putting your views ahead of the views of others.

4. No atheist equivalent? So what is capital punishment in general then? It's the State and society deciding that the criminal will be killed for the good of society, not because it's what God wants.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28567
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Guest on Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:01 am

I will just answer on point one
.

A Muslim woman does not have to cover her face within Islam, this is a certain sect or belief within the faith. Its also something that is again not a necessity for people to do but again it is a belief system that makes a person believe they need to have to wear. It is very much based on a form of control on women, as who has the control here Rags?
Its an instruction to cover the body, so where is the choice here? The whole point is it is an oppressive form of dress, just as much as a Nun's habit is also

Second communication is more than just talking around 80% is body language of which the face being covered makes for great difficulty in communicating as have just like when we are on the phone how many times have you mistaken the conversation based on only hearing and not seeing the person's face? If some Muslim wish to cover up then they are not respecting communication or how a society does live with this communication. If they wish to dress this way, which again is more a belief they have to than a freedom of choice because they believe it is a religious requirement, then most people do not have an issue, except when it does matter in regards to indentification and communication.

The point is this is really a man made aspect within Islam, because its not in the Quran but the views form within a sect within Islam and it was most certainly invented to basically class women as property. Scu a view denies freedom of choice.


Last edited by Cuchulain on Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:03 am; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Eilzel on Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:02 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

1. The Muslim woman may not think so, but she would be wrong. Outright, not open to discussion. If it was religious persecution we'd ban a lot more. Whereas blasphemy laws are ENTIRELY based on religious people wanting to shut down non-religious people.

2. I think you are taking the word 'theory' the wrong. The main definition of a theory is 'an explanation' the other definition is similar to a 'hypothesis'. The former definition is how we talk about evolution and gravity. Proven, and something creationism has similar claim to. It has zero evidence.

3. Abortion was one of a few examples. Your opinion is fine, but when religion is used as a reason for opposition then that is religion trying to force itself on others.

4. I'm not debating the methods of execution. I'm pointing out the religious authorized violence exists- there is no atheist equivalent.

1. You see? Straightaway, you said she is wrong. Who are you to say that her feelings are wrong? I would say that it may well be a form of religious persecution disguised as a concern for national security. I would say that some people think that the burka represents religious repression of women, and therefore should be banned. I have some sympathy with that point of view, but to a Muslim woman the burka might represent freedom.

2. As we're talking about science, I must say that the science of evolution is not a particular interest of mine. Medical science is though.

Les, do you really think that medical science is set in stone? There are diseases for which the cause is not known. Sure, there are theories, but that's not the same thing. Sometimes, scientists don't even know how a particular drug works, they only know it does, or they think it does. They can't explain the placebo effect in scientific terms either, they can only speculate. You can call theories explanations if you want, but the result is the same - there is no proof. What then do you say about medical training?

3. I see nothing wrong with people objecting to abortion on religious grounds. You might think that the rights of the woman outweigh the rights of the unborn life, but others do not. Once again, you putting your views ahead of the views of others.

4. No atheist equivalent? So what is capital punishment in general then? It's the State and society deciding that the criminal will be killed for the good of society, not because it's what God wants.  

I'm going to address the two points most interesting here.

1. She can have her feelings, if I get fired from my job I may think its because my boss just doesn't like me, but the TRUTH is more likely that I wasn't doing my job right. The reason the burkha is banned in most places it is banned is GIVEN as a security issue. I don't see why I should debate this point further. This isn't the same as personal belief in god, this is a person simply feeling they are being persecuted where they are not being- do I really need to explain this point further?

2. Capital punishment has existed as long as man and is sanctioned by many religions. They are unconnected though. We don't have capital punishment on the say so of atheism. Why don't you see the difference? Capital punishment is not atheist authorized violence.

_________________
"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice"

"People who fear demons see demons everywhere"

avatar
Eilzel
Speaker of the House

Posts : 5635
Join date : 2013-12-13
Age : 32
Location : The Kingdom formerly known as Siam...

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Fuzzy Zack on Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:17 am

avatar
Fuzzy Zack
The Japanese Lesbian Mermaid

Posts : 4187
Join date : 2014-02-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Raggamuffin on Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:21 am

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

1. You see? Straightaway, you said she is wrong. Who are you to say that her feelings are wrong? I would say that it may well be a form of religious persecution disguised as a concern for national security. I would say that some people think that the burka represents religious repression of women, and therefore should be banned. I have some sympathy with that point of view, but to a Muslim woman the burka might represent freedom.

2. As we're talking about science, I must say that the science of evolution is not a particular interest of mine. Medical science is though.

Les, do you really think that medical science is set in stone? There are diseases for which the cause is not known. Sure, there are theories, but that's not the same thing. Sometimes, scientists don't even know how a particular drug works, they only know it does, or they think it does. They can't explain the placebo effect in scientific terms either, they can only speculate. You can call theories explanations if you want, but the result is the same - there is no proof. What then do you say about medical training?

3. I see nothing wrong with people objecting to abortion on religious grounds. You might think that the rights of the woman outweigh the rights of the unborn life, but others do not. Once again, you putting your views ahead of the views of others.

4. No atheist equivalent? So what is capital punishment in general then? It's the State and society deciding that the criminal will be killed for the good of society, not because it's what God wants.  

I'm going to address the two points most interesting here.

1. She can have her feelings, if I get fired from my job I may think its because my boss just doesn't like me, but the TRUTH is more likely that I wasn't doing my job right. The reason the burkha is banned in most places it is banned is GIVEN as a security issue. I don't see why I should debate this point further. This isn't the same as personal belief in god, this is a person simply feeling they are being persecuted where they are not being- do I really need to explain this point further?

2. Capital punishment has existed as long as man and is sanctioned by many religions. They are unconnected though. We don't have capital punishment on the say so of atheism. Why don't you see the difference? Capital punishment is not atheist authorized violence.

I think that point 1 is worthy of debate actually. I suggest that the security issue is partly true, but it's also a way to avoid the cultural and religious reasons. It's also banned in the interests of everyone "living together", issues of social communication, and equality between men and women - ie, a cultural thing.

How do you explain the ban on religious headscarves in Turkey? It was an issue in France too.

So why do you disapprove of capital punishment for religious reasons, but appear to not have a problem with it on other grounds?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28567
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Guest on Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:23 am


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Eilzel on Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:26 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

I'm going to address the two points most interesting here.

1. She can have her feelings, if I get fired from my job I may think its because my boss just doesn't like me, but the TRUTH is more likely that I wasn't doing my job right. The reason the burkha is banned in most places it is banned is GIVEN as a security issue. I don't see why I should debate this point further. This isn't the same as personal belief in god, this is a person simply feeling they are being persecuted where they are not being- do I really need to explain this point further?

2. Capital punishment has existed as long as man and is sanctioned by many religions. They are unconnected though. We don't have capital punishment on the say so of atheism. Why don't you see the difference? Capital punishment is not atheist authorized violence.

I think that point 1 is worthy of debate actually.  I suggest that the security issue is partly true, but it's also a way to avoid the cultural and religious reasons. It's also banned in the interests of everyone "living together", issues of social communication, and equality between men and women - ie, a cultural thing.

How do you explain the ban on religious headscarves in Turkey? It was an issue in France too.

So why do you disapprove of capital punishment for religious reasons, but appear to not have a problem with it on other grounds?

I actually oppose capital punishment generally. That it is defended as somehow righteous on religious grounds just makes an already disgusting act even more outrageous. The point I was making was that execution IS sanctioned by religion- it cannot be sanctioned by atheism (do not confuse atheism with all temporal decisions).

_________________
"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice"

"People who fear demons see demons everywhere"

avatar
Eilzel
Speaker of the House

Posts : 5635
Join date : 2013-12-13
Age : 32
Location : The Kingdom formerly known as Siam...

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Raggamuffin on Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:35 am

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I think that point 1 is worthy of debate actually.  I suggest that the security issue is partly true, but it's also a way to avoid the cultural and religious reasons. It's also banned in the interests of everyone "living together", issues of social communication, and equality between men and women - ie, a cultural thing.

How do you explain the ban on religious headscarves in Turkey? It was an issue in France too.

So why do you disapprove of capital punishment for religious reasons, but appear to not have a problem with it on other grounds?

I actually oppose capital punishment generally. That it is defended as somehow righteous on religious grounds just makes an already disgusting act even more outrageous. The point I was making was that execution IS sanctioned by religion- it cannot be sanctioned by atheism (do not confuse atheism with all temporal decisions).

Are you sure it's not just the methods of execution you find worse than the reason for it?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28567
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Fuzzy Zack on Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:39 am


He didn't get the fundamental point of about the laws of nature and how and when they came into existence.

In fact this dumbass thought the laws of nature are philosophical. HA HA!
avatar
Fuzzy Zack
The Japanese Lesbian Mermaid

Posts : 4187
Join date : 2014-02-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Guest on Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:42 am

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

He didn't get the fundamental point of about the laws of nature and how and when they came into existence.

In fact this dumbass thought the laws of nature are philosophical. HA HA!

I can tell he is more intelligent that you on engineering but the first video offers no proof on the existance of God, I am afraid to burst your sorry bubble.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Eilzel on Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:46 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

I actually oppose capital punishment generally. That it is defended as somehow righteous on religious grounds just makes an already disgusting act even more outrageous. The point I was making was that execution IS sanctioned by religion- it cannot be sanctioned by atheism (do not confuse atheism with all temporal decisions).

Are you sure it's not just the methods of execution you find worse than the reason for it?

See you are making extreme jumps of assumption there. I absolutely oppose capital punishment in the US, where it is not done for religious reasons.

_________________
"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice"

"People who fear demons see demons everywhere"

avatar
Eilzel
Speaker of the House

Posts : 5635
Join date : 2013-12-13
Age : 32
Location : The Kingdom formerly known as Siam...

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Raggamuffin on Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:51 am

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you sure it's not just the methods of execution you find worse than the reason for it?

See you are making extreme jumps of assumption there. I absolutely oppose capital punishment in the US, where it is not done for religious reasons.

I merely asked you a question. You said you find the defence of execution on religious grounds more outrageous than the defence of it on non-religious grounds. Why is that? Is it because you consider that it's done for trivial reasons on religious grounds or because of the method of execution?

For example, do you consider that execution for murder in an Islamic country is worse than execution for murder in the US?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28567
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Guest on Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:58 am

Laws of Nature
Laws of Nature are to be distinguished both from Scientific Laws and from Natural Laws. Neither Natural Laws, as invoked in legal or ethical theories, nor Scientific Laws, which some researchers consider to be scientists' attempts to state or approximate the Laws of Nature, will be discussed in this article. Instead, it explores issues in contemporary metaphysics.
Within metaphysics, there are two competing theories of Laws of Nature. On one account, the Regularity Theory, Laws of Nature are statements of the uniformities or regularities in the world; they are mere descriptions of the way the world is. On the other account, the Necessitarian Theory, Laws of Nature are the "principles" which govern the natural phenomena of the world. That is, the natural world "obeys" the Laws of Nature. This seemingly innocuous difference marks one of the most profound gulfs within contemporary philosophy, and has quite unexpected, and wide-ranging, implications.
Some of these implications involve accidental truths, false existentials, the correspondence theory of truth, and the concept of free will. Perhaps the most important implication of each theory is whether the universe is a cosmic coincidence or driven by specific, eternal laws of nature.  Each side takes a different stance on each of these issues, and to adopt either theory is to give up one or more strong beliefs about the nature of the world.


http://www.iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Eilzel on Thu Aug 13, 2015 3:04 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

See you are making extreme jumps of assumption there. I absolutely oppose capital punishment in the US, where it is not done for religious reasons.

I merely asked you a question. You said you find the defence of execution on religious grounds more outrageous than the defence of it on non-religious grounds. Why is that? Is it because you consider that it's done for trivial reasons on religious grounds or because of the method of execution?  

For example, do you consider that execution for murder in an Islamic country is worse than execution for murder in the US?

Executing someone because they are a murderer and you want to protect the public is better than executing someone for murder because your faith says it is wrong. Though both are wrong imo.

The method of execution can also be worse- better to be given a lethal injection that the vile act of stoning someone to death.

Execution for murder is also one thing, but execution for blasphemy, adultery, homosexuality, apostasy etc is far far worse. These are trivial reasons but by some religious reasoning they equally warrant execution.

Again- and trying to stick to my original point- there is NO equivalent to all this in atheism.

_________________
"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice"

"People who fear demons see demons everywhere"

avatar
Eilzel
Speaker of the House

Posts : 5635
Join date : 2013-12-13
Age : 32
Location : The Kingdom formerly known as Siam...

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Raggamuffin on Thu Aug 13, 2015 3:25 am

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I merely asked you a question. You said you find the defence of execution on religious grounds more outrageous than the defence of it on non-religious grounds. Why is that? Is it because you consider that it's done for trivial reasons on religious grounds or because of the method of execution?  

For example, do you consider that execution for murder in an Islamic country is worse than execution for murder in the US?

Executing someone because they are a murderer and you want to protect the public is better than executing someone for murder because your faith says it is wrong. Though both are wrong imo.

The method of execution can also be worse- better to be given a lethal injection that the vile act of stoning someone to death.

Execution for murder is also one thing, but execution for blasphemy, adultery, homosexuality, apostasy etc is far far worse. These are trivial reasons but by some religious reasoning they equally warrant execution.

Again- and trying to stick to my original point- there is NO equivalent to all this in atheism.

You keep raising new points, which I find quite interesting. I'm actually not disagreeing with you, and that's because I would also consider those crimes more trivial in relation to murder. However, the people in those countries do not think they're trivial, they think they're damaging - for whatever reason. What about capital punishment for drug trafficking in some countries? They shoot those people in Indonesia.

Your views on the method of execution is also of interest. Do you not think that a large part of the punishment is the actual anticipation of the event? To be given lethal injection is perhaps physically not as bad as being stoned, but then again what about the lead up to it? Stonings are sometimes carried out very quickly aren't they, so there's not much time for the person to think about it.

Also, is it the public element you object to as well? Some might say it's that which is awful, which it is, but I find the sanitisation and secrecy of executions in the US and other countries quite cowardly really. It's like they're saying - well it was a nice "clean" death, and the general public didn't get to see it and get upset about it, as if that excuses it.

I already explained that capital punishment can be an "athiest" event in that it's not a punishment for going against God, it's a punishment for going against society or another person.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28567
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Eilzel on Thu Aug 13, 2015 3:32 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Executing someone because they are a murderer and you want to protect the public is better than executing someone for murder because your faith says it is wrong. Though both are wrong imo.

The method of execution can also be worse- better to be given a lethal injection that the vile act of stoning someone to death.

Execution for murder is also one thing, but execution for blasphemy, adultery, homosexuality, apostasy etc is far far worse. These are trivial reasons but by some religious reasoning they equally warrant execution.

Again- and trying to stick to my original point- there is NO equivalent to all this in atheism.

You keep raising new points, which I find quite interesting. I'm actually not disagreeing with you, and that's because I would also consider those crimes more trivial in relation to murder. However, the people in those countries do not think they're trivial, they think they're damaging - for whatever reason. What about capital punishment for drug trafficking in some countries? They shoot those people in Indonesia.

Your views on the method of execution is also of interest. Do you not think that a large part of the punishment is the actual anticipation of the event? To be given lethal injection is perhaps physically not as bad as being stoned, but then again what about the lead up to it? Stonings are sometimes carried out very quickly aren't they, so there's not much time for the person to think about it.

Also, is it the public element you object to as well? Some might say it's that which is awful, which it is, but I find the sanitisation and secrecy of executions in the US and other countries quite cowardly really. It's like they're saying - well it was a nice "clean" death, and the general public didn't get to see it and get upset about it, as if that excuses it.

I already explained that capital punishment can be an "athiest" event in that it's not a punishment for going against God, it's a punishment for going against society or another person.

You are confusing the word atheist for something else. When you say its an 'atheist event', you are implying that somehow not believing god is DIRECTLY connected to how and why someone is executed. It isn't. The law of the land is the reason, and no laws in any country are formed on the basis of atheism (they may not be based on a religion, but that doesn't mean they are based on atheist principles, since there is no atheist doctrine).

The subject of execution in itself is interesting, but we haven't really concluded the discussion we were having on atheist and religious 'militancy', which is still my core point. Those people in those countries don't not think those crimes are trivial, of course they don't. But sometimes we have to say that a particular view is wrong. Ok so adultery is not good, but it doesn't warrant murder, the other things just shouldn't be crimes since they harm no one. Only religion can lead to them being crimes, and that's why militant and devout followers accept them as such. And again, no such equivalent can be found in atheism.

_________________
"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice"

"People who fear demons see demons everywhere"

avatar
Eilzel
Speaker of the House

Posts : 5635
Join date : 2013-12-13
Age : 32
Location : The Kingdom formerly known as Siam...

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Raggamuffin on Thu Aug 13, 2015 3:50 am

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You keep raising new points, which I find quite interesting. I'm actually not disagreeing with you, and that's because I would also consider those crimes more trivial in relation to murder. However, the people in those countries do not think they're trivial, they think they're damaging - for whatever reason. What about capital punishment for drug trafficking in some countries? They shoot those people in Indonesia.

Your views on the method of execution is also of interest. Do you not think that a large part of the punishment is the actual anticipation of the event? To be given lethal injection is perhaps physically not as bad as being stoned, but then again what about the lead up to it? Stonings are sometimes carried out very quickly aren't they, so there's not much time for the person to think about it.

Also, is it the public element you object to as well? Some might say it's that which is awful, which it is, but I find the sanitisation and secrecy of executions in the US and other countries quite cowardly really. It's like they're saying - well it was a nice "clean" death, and the general public didn't get to see it and get upset about it, as if that excuses it.

I already explained that capital punishment can be an "athiest" event in that it's not a punishment for going against God, it's a punishment for going against society or another person.



You are confusing the word atheist for something else. When you say its an 'atheist event', you are implying that somehow not believing god is DIRECTLY connected to how and why someone is executed. It isn't. The law of the land is the reason, and no laws in any country are formed on the basis of atheism (they may not be based on a religion, but that doesn't mean they are based on atheist principles, since there is no atheist doctrine).

The subject of execution in itself is interesting, but we haven't really concluded the discussion we were having on atheist and religious 'militancy', which is still my core point. Those people in those countries don't not think those crimes are trivial, of course they don't. But sometimes we have to say that a particular view is wrong. Ok so adultery is not good, but it doesn't warrant murder, the other things just shouldn't be crimes since they harm no one. Only religion can lead to them being crimes, and that's why militant and devout followers accept them as such. And again, no such equivalent can be found in atheism.

Being executed in an Islamic country isn't necessarily directly related to religion either.  It's to do with the law, just as it's to do with the law in the US. The fact that the law might be tied up with religious belief is what you can't accept.

You say those things don't harm anyone. Well they don't take that view do they?

If someone is not executed in the US because of the will of God, it's because it's the will of society - ie, nothing to do with belief in God - ie, atheist.


Last edited by Raggamuffin on Thu Aug 13, 2015 3:58 am; edited 1 time in total

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28567
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Guest on Thu Aug 13, 2015 3:55 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:



You are confusing the word atheist for something else. When you say its an 'atheist event', you are implying that somehow not believing god is DIRECTLY connected to how and why someone is executed. It isn't. The law of the land is the reason, and no laws in any country are formed on the basis of atheism (they may not be based on a religion, but that doesn't mean they are based on atheist principles, since there is no atheist doctrine).

The subject of execution in itself is interesting, but we haven't really concluded the discussion we were having on atheist and religious 'militancy', which is still my core point. Those people in those countries don't not think those crimes are trivial, of course they don't. But sometimes we have to say that a particular view is wrong. Ok so adultery is not good, but it doesn't warrant murder, the other things just shouldn't be crimes since they harm no one. Only religion can lead to them being crimes, and that's why militant and devout followers accept them as such. And again, no such equivalent can be found in atheism.

Being executed in an Islamic country isn't necessarily directly related to religion either.  It's to do with the law, just as it's to do with the law in the US. The fact that the law might be tied up with religious belief is what you can't accept.

You say those things don't harm anyone. Well they don't take that view do they?

If someone is not executed in the US because of the will of God, it's because it's the will of society - ie, nothing to do with belief God - ie, atheist.



Errrrr what on earth is Sharia criminal Law then?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Eilzel on Thu Aug 13, 2015 4:08 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:



You are confusing the word atheist for something else. When you say its an 'atheist event', you are implying that somehow not believing god is DIRECTLY connected to how and why someone is executed. It isn't. The law of the land is the reason, and no laws in any country are formed on the basis of atheism (they may not be based on a religion, but that doesn't mean they are based on atheist principles, since there is no atheist doctrine).

The subject of execution in itself is interesting, but we haven't really concluded the discussion we were having on atheist and religious 'militancy', which is still my core point. Those people in those countries don't not think those crimes are trivial, of course they don't. But sometimes we have to say that a particular view is wrong. Ok so adultery is not good, but it doesn't warrant murder, the other things just shouldn't be crimes since they harm no one. Only religion can lead to them being crimes, and that's why militant and devout followers accept them as such. And again, no such equivalent can be found in atheism.

Being executed in an Islamic country isn't necessarily directly related to religion either.  It's to do with the law, just as it's to do with the law in the US. The fact that the law might be tied up with religious belief is what you can't accept.

You say those things don't harm anyone. Well they don't take that view do they?

If someone is not executed in the US because of the will of God, it's because it's the will of society - ie, nothing to do with belief in God - ie, atheist.

Your reasoning is ludicrous. By such logic I assume your decisions to eat breakfast and choose a particular school for your children are also atheistic? Of course they aren't. Atheism is not society, it is singularly are a disbelief in god. Nothing follows that disbelief, there are no rules are decisions that can be based on that.

And of course the laws are tied to religious belief and ON POINT, that is the problem I have.

Read carefully:

1. The Koran is the word of god. So in an Islamic theocracy the Koran prescribes the law.
2. Atheism says there is no god. So in a country where religion isn't used to create laws the ...... prescribes the law.

See that gap (....) that gap cannot be filled by any atheist doctrine because there isn't one. Religiously authorized violence exists- there is nothing equivalent in atheism.

As to 'well they don't take that view do they?' Well obviously not. Some ancient civilization, I think the Aztecs, used to sacrifice people believing that for the sun to rise they had to offer blood to their gods, a lot of it. They 'took the view' that that was needed. Guess what- they were wrong, they were uneducated, and in at least this one regard, very, very, stupid.

Peoples views are sometimes idiotic, sometimes immoral, and it doesn't matter if they are as such based on religions they are still immoral and idiotic.

You are consistently moving the conversation in other directions. I appreciate the subjects are all interesting but at the same time my only point here is to show how atheist militancy is nowhere near as harmful and doesn't exist anything like religious militancy does.

US executions are NOT atheistic- if you cannot demonstrate a connection then you are simply wrong.

_________________
"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice"

"People who fear demons see demons everywhere"

avatar
Eilzel
Speaker of the House

Posts : 5635
Join date : 2013-12-13
Age : 32
Location : The Kingdom formerly known as Siam...

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by stardesk on Thu Aug 13, 2015 7:49 am

Evening folks. C & P from above: 'Well "devout" is not a word I would use to describe an athiest anyway, I refer to the ones who are constantly trying to mock those with faith, or convince them and others that they're wrong as "militant". I was merely following the conversation on here according to your own logic, and the logic of others.

Stardesk doesn't just think about evolution a lot, he appears to have a calling to tell religious people that they're wrong.'
--------------------------
First of all my aim is to show how some Bible stories, especially in Genesis, are simply not true. It's not quite the same as 'telling religious people they're wrong.' It is hoped that once the true facts have been put before them they'll think about their faith and and its teachings.

Secondly: Implications have been made that we evolutionists are embroiled in faith as much as religious folk. I have faith in scientific discvoveries but I'm also quite prepared to accept new discoveries and/or corrections and updates to earlier discoveries, therefore it is a slightly different kind of 'faith.'

Thirdly: I think it was Veya who, several times, has alluded to the sun being/having a sun god, or sun worship by some faiths. Then all I can say to that is that the sun is now half way through its life-cycle, middle aged, and it is one of millions of suns (stars) in our galaxy. In which case is that sun-god split into millions of parts or are there millions of gods, and is he getting older?

_________________
Theodosius Dobzhansky: 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.'
avatar
stardesk

Posts : 948
Join date : 2013-12-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Raggamuffin on Thu Aug 13, 2015 7:54 am

stardesk wrote:Evening folks. C & P from above: 'Well "devout" is not a word I would use to describe an athiest anyway, I refer to the ones who are constantly trying to mock those with faith, or convince them and others that they're wrong as "militant". I was merely following the conversation on here according to your own logic, and the logic of others.

Stardesk doesn't just think about evolution a lot, he appears to have a calling to tell religious people that they're wrong.'
--------------------------
First of all my aim is to show how some Bible stories, especially in Genesis, are simply not true. It's not quite the same as 'telling religious people they're wrong.' It is hoped that once the true facts have been put before them they'll think about their faith and and its teachings.


I'll address the bit which involves me.

Telling a religious person who does believe the Genesis story that it's not true is the same thing as telling them that they're wrong.

So your aim is to convince them that it's not true. However, if one of those people tried to convince you that it is true, you'd be complaining wouldn't you? If someone tried to persuade you to believe in God, you'd complain. Why then do you think that religious people should respect you when you try to convince them that they shouldn't believe in God?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28567
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Fuzzy Zack on Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:04 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

He didn't get the fundamental point of about the laws of nature and how and when they came into existence.

In fact this dumbass thought the laws of nature are philosophical. HA HA!

I can tell he is more intelligent that you on engineering but the first video offers no proof on the existance of God, I am afraid to burst your sorry bubble.

Lol! It's quite telling that you don't know the difference between a scientist and an engineer.

And his rebuttal about the laws of nature (the critical bit of the whole video, since you've obviously missed that too) was left unanswered by any scientific or logical standard, except by yours.
avatar
Fuzzy Zack
The Japanese Lesbian Mermaid

Posts : 4187
Join date : 2014-02-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Guest on Thu Aug 13, 2015 9:04 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
stardesk wrote:Evening folks. C & P from above: 'Well "devout" is not a word I would use to describe an athiest anyway, I refer to the ones who are constantly trying to mock those with faith, or convince them and others that they're wrong as "militant". I was merely following the conversation on here according to your own logic, and the logic of others.

Stardesk doesn't just think about evolution a lot, he appears to have a calling to tell religious people that they're wrong.'
--------------------------
First of all my aim is to show how some Bible stories, especially in Genesis, are simply not true. It's not quite the same as 'telling religious people they're wrong.' It is hoped that once the true facts have been put before them they'll think about their faith and and its teachings.


I'll address the bit which involves me.

Telling a religious person who does believe the Genesis story that it's not true is the same thing as telling them that they're wrong.

So your aim is to convince them that it's not true. However, if one of those people tried to convince you that it is true, you'd be complaining wouldn't you? If someone tried to persuade you to believe in God, you'd complain. Why then do you think that religious people should respect you when you try to convince them that they shouldn't believe in God?
so is that why you wont answer my question "do you believe in the creation story as told in the bible" i asked you 4 times yet you would not answer instead told me i was asking the wrong question but it wasn`t the wrong question just a question you did not want to answer

the creation story is the foundation of Christianity its the fundamental premise the whole book and religion is based on

And why should we respect you when you try to convince people they should believe in God regardless of the complete lack of evidence and just have faith

your problem and a lot of people of faith`s problem and a kind of defence mechanism is when asked pretty simple questions or someone points out the absurd claims and obvious false hoods you take it as an attack against you personally or just ignore the question completely and refuse to answer

so once again
do you believe in the story of creation as told in the bible yes or no ?






Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by eddie on Thu Aug 13, 2015 9:10 am

Well I don't.

But I'd like to sit in a room full of creative open-minded people and discuss the different creative ways that it couldve been created.

_________________
Unfuck yourself. Be who you were before all that stuff happened that dimmed your fucking shine.
avatar
eddie
king of beards. Keeper of the Whip. head cook and bottle washer. Senior mushroom muncher

Posts : 30966
Join date : 2013-07-29
Age : 47
Location : England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Guest on Thu Aug 13, 2015 9:14 am

eddie wrote:Well I don't.

But I'd like to sit in a room full of creative open-minded people and discuss the different creative ways that it couldve been created.
i wouldn't have said you do ether edds


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Post by Raggamuffin on Thu Aug 13, 2015 9:15 am

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'll address the bit which involves me.

Telling a religious person who does believe the Genesis story that it's not true is the same thing as telling them that they're wrong.

So your aim is to convince them that it's not true. However, if one of those people tried to convince you that it is true, you'd be complaining wouldn't you? If someone tried to persuade you to believe in God, you'd complain. Why then do you think that religious people should respect you when you try to convince them that they shouldn't believe in God?
so is that why you wont answer my question "do you believe in the creation story as told in the bible" i asked you 4 times yet you would not answer instead told me i was asking the wrong question but it wasn`t the wrong question just a question you did not want to answer

the creation story is the foundation of Christianity its the fundamental premise the whole book and religion is based on

And why should we respect you when you try to convince people they should believe in God regardless of the complete lack of evidence and just have faith

your problem and a lot of people of faith`s problem and a kind of defence mechanism is when asked pretty simple questions or someone points out the absurd claims and obvious false hoods  you take it as an attack against you personally or just ignore the question completely and refuse to answer

so once again
do you believe in the story of creation as told in the bible yes or no ?






What is why I haven't answered your question?

I'll tell you why I'm not answering now. It's because you already assume you know the answer, based on me being able to understand how other religious people think.

My question was to Stardesk because he's the one who seems to spend a lot of time telling JWs that the creation story is wrong, and also seems to resent anyone believing it, or believing in God. He seems to think they should be grateful to him for telling them they're wrong though.

I don't try to convince anyone they should believe in God.


_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28567
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 14 of 16 Previous  1 ... 8 ... 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum