Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Religion as a force for evil: a microcosm

dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 6:10:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This sub-forum is a good illustration of why, in the wider world, religion is more a force for evil rather than good. You would be hard-pressed to find an instance of two atheists abusing each other here. And yet everywhere you turn you will see one brand of Christian duking it out with another brand of Christian, the most awful name calling, and usually both invoking scripture to show how they are right and the other is going straight to Hell. If not two Christians, it will be a Christian against a Muslim. The theists attack each other with even more virulence than they go after atheists, if that is possible.

So, a valid observation or not?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 7:25:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 6:10:01 PM, dee-em wrote:
This sub-forum is a good illustration of why, in the wider world, religion is more a force for evil rather than good. You would be hard-pressed to find an instance of two atheists abusing each other here. And yet everywhere you turn you will see one brand of Christian duking it out with another brand of Christian, the most awful name calling, and usually both invoking scripture to show how they are right and the other is going straight to Hell. If not two Christians, it will be a Christian against a Muslim. The theists attack each other with even more virulence than they go after atheists, if that is possible.

So, a valid observation or not?
Well of course this is the internet so attacking is going to come from everywhere whether it's religious or not.

I've seen atheists go at it fiercely on the internet. But are there different brands of atheism?

In reality, you're probably seeing atheists go at it a lot more than you think, even at this forum. The difference might be that they are not arguing against anything atheist related. It would make sense that atheists would be more unified in a religion forum. But outside of a forum, they may go at it like cats in some other discussion. If internet attacking is evil as you suggest, then call it as it is whether it's atheists battling over topics related to atheism, or arguing who is the best pound for pound boxer. In fact, if atheists are attacking Christians on a forum, they are still attacking, therefore by your definition,are evil. It doesn't matter how unified they are with atheists.

The Nazis may have been unified, but their acts were still evil.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 7:34:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 7:25:46 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/10/2014 6:10:01 PM, dee-em wrote:
This sub-forum is a good illustration of why, in the wider world, religion is more a force for evil rather than good. You would be hard-pressed to find an instance of two atheists abusing each other here. And yet everywhere you turn you will see one brand of Christian duking it out with another brand of Christian, the most awful name calling, and usually both invoking scripture to show how they are right and the other is going straight to Hell. If not two Christians, it will be a Christian against a Muslim. The theists attack each other with even more virulence than they go after atheists, if that is possible.

So, a valid observation or not?
Well of course this is the internet so attacking is going to come from everywhere whether it's religious or not.

I've seen atheists go at it fiercely on the internet. But are there different brands of atheism?

In reality, you're probably seeing atheists go at it a lot more than you think, even at this forum. The difference might be that they are not arguing against anything atheist related. It would make sense that atheists would be more unified in a religion forum. But outside of a forum, they may go at it like cats in some other discussion. If internet attacking is evil as you suggest, then call it as it is whether it's atheists battling over topics related to atheism, or arguing who is the best pound for pound boxer. In fact, if atheists are attacking Christians on a forum, they are still attacking, therefore by your definition,are evil. It doesn't matter how unified they are with atheists.

The Nazis may have been unified, but their acts were still evil.

I think his observation is quite valid. Notice that you have to exclude atheism from the issue in order to suggest that atheists are as enthusiastic in their disagreements as Christians are over Christianity or Christians and Muslims are over their religion. Alternate beliefs create areas for division to grow. And the more emotionally-oriented the beliefs, the more violent the division. So the point to grasp is that atheism doesn't seem to result in the same levels of division as does Christianity or Islam. And in pointing out that atheism doesn't seem to have as many versions, you're only pointing out that it's based more on reality, and less in imagination.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 8:06:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
With all this talk about forces of good and evil and nature having self evident reasons for why natural things happen are you sure you're an atheist?
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 8:16:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 7:34:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 7:25:46 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
I've seen atheists go at it fiercely on the internet. But are there different brands of atheism?
Sure, there are atheists who would limit themselves to saying that there's no reason to believe in god... and then those who would say that there's good reason to believe he doesn't exist.

not terribly interesting though, and though they may kind of stake out one position or the other, most people pretty much get what the other people are saying I think.

In reality, you're probably seeing atheists go at it a lot more than you think, even at this forum. The difference might be that they are not arguing against anything atheist related. It would make sense that atheists would be more unified in a religion forum. But outside of a forum, they may go at it like cats in some other discussion.

Certainly, I tend to engage anybody I find I disagree with, and I disagree with atheists often enough... Some atheists even cling to other ideas in what might be termed a Religious manner... Like the idea that people are naturally Herbivorous! http://www.debate.org...

I think his observation is quite valid.
Notice that you have to exclude atheism from the issue in order to suggest that atheists are as enthusiastic in their disagreements as Christians are over Christianity or Christians and Muslims are over their religion. Alternate beliefs create areas for division to grow. And the more emotionally-oriented the beliefs, the more violent the division.

So the point to grasp is that atheism doesn't seem to result in the same levels of division as does Christianity or Islam. And in pointing out that atheism doesn't seem to have as many versions, you're only pointing out that it's based more on reality, and less in imagination.

Atheism is a pretty simple thing so far as it goes, and doesn't have much positive content to argue over....
I don't get how that automatically means that Atheism better describes reality.

And though I may think certain atheists put forward bad, or shallow, explanations as to why they don't believe in god... and I may even criticize their reasons... there's not too much there to discuss, and atheists, by definition, pretty much agree on the single topic at hand.. That is, that there's no good reason to believe in god.

Atheists however, like everyone else, can believe lots of different things about the nature of things/the nature of the world and that can and does provoke debate.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 8:29:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 8:16:11 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/10/2014 7:34:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 7:25:46 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
I've seen atheists go at it fiercely on the internet. But are there different brands of atheism?
Sure, there are atheists who would limit themselves to saying that there's no reason to believe in god... and then those who would say that there's good reason to believe he doesn't exist.

not terribly interesting though, and though they may kind of stake out one position or the other, most people pretty much get what the other people are saying I think.
There appears to be far less diversity in atheistic beliefs, than in theistic beliefs.

In reality, you're probably seeing atheists go at it a lot more than you think, even at this forum. The difference might be that they are not arguing against anything atheist related. It would make sense that atheists would be more unified in a religion forum. But outside of a forum, they may go at it like cats in some other discussion.

Certainly, I tend to engage anybody I find I disagree with, and I disagree with atheists often enough... Some atheists even cling to other ideas in what might be termed a Religious manner... Like the idea that people are naturally Herbivorous! http://www.debate.org...
You are. You possess the physiology of a herbivore. Tool use doesn't change the fact that you do not posses the physiology of an omnivore. Get over it.
Ever since that debate, every encounter I have with you is an extension of your anger over that discussion. File past. You're blocking your life.

I think his observation is quite valid.
Notice that you have to exclude atheism from the issue in order to suggest that atheists are as enthusiastic in their disagreements as Christians are over Christianity or Christians and Muslims are over their religion. Alternate beliefs create areas for division to grow. And the more emotionally-oriented the beliefs, the more violent the division.

So the point to grasp is that atheism doesn't seem to result in the same levels of division as does Christianity or Islam. And in pointing out that atheism doesn't seem to have as many versions, you're only pointing out that it's based more on reality, and less in imagination.

Atheism is a pretty simple thing so far as it goes, and doesn't have much positive content to argue over....
I don't get how that automatically means that Atheism better describes reality.
Even beyond the direct realm of atheism (which, as you say, is fairly simplistic), there are world-views which tend to be natural extensions and atheists tend to demonstrate less diversity among those beliefs than do theists... because atheism is based on evidence (and the lack, thereof).

And though I may think certain atheists put forward bad, or shallow, explanations as to why they don't believe in god... and I may even criticize their reasons... there's not too much there to discuss, and atheists, by definition, pretty much agree on the single topic at hand.. That is, that there's no good reason to believe in god.
And most subscribe to big-bang, evolution, abiogenesis, chaos theory, etc.

Atheists however, like everyone else, can believe lots of different things about the nature of things/the nature of the world and that can and does provoke debate.
But not to the degree common to theism: the point being made.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 8:34:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 6:10:01 PM, dee-em wrote:
This sub-forum is a good illustration of why, in the wider world, religion is more a force for evil rather than good. You would be hard-pressed to find an instance of two atheists abusing each other here. And yet everywhere you turn you will see one brand of Christian duking it out with another brand of Christian, the most awful name calling, and usually both invoking scripture to show how they are right and the other is going straight to Hell. If not two Christians, it will be a Christian against a Muslim. The theists attack each other with even more virulence than they go after atheists, if that is possible.

So, a valid observation or not?

No. It isn't. You clearly haven't been here long enough. lol
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 8:48:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 7:25:46 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/10/2014 6:10:01 PM, dee-em wrote:
This sub-forum is a good illustration of why, in the wider world, religion is more a force for evil rather than good. You would be hard-pressed to find an instance of two atheists abusing each other here. And yet everywhere you turn you will see one brand of Christian duking it out with another brand of Christian, the most awful name calling, and usually both invoking scripture to show how they are right and the other is going straight to Hell. If not two Christians, it will be a Christian against a Muslim. The theists attack each other with even more virulence than they go after atheists, if that is possible.

So, a valid observation or not?
Well of course this is the internet so attacking is going to come from everywhere whether it's religious or not.

I've seen atheists go at it fiercely on the internet. But are there different brands of atheism?

In reality, you're probably seeing atheists go at it a lot more than you think, even at this forum. The difference might be that they are not arguing against anything atheist related. It would make sense that atheists would be more unified in a religion forum. But outside of a forum, they may go at it like cats in some other discussion. If internet attacking is evil as you suggest, then call it as it is whether it's atheists battling over topics related to atheism, or arguing who is the best pound for pound boxer. In fact, if atheists are attacking Christians on a forum, they are still attacking, therefore by your definition,are evil. It doesn't matter how unified they are with atheists.

The Nazis may have been unified, but their acts were still evil.

Godwins Law is always in danger of being broken by christians.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 8:50:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 6:10:01 PM, dee-em wrote:
This sub-forum is a good illustration of why, in the wider world, religion is more a force for evil rather than good. You would be hard-pressed to find an instance of two atheists abusing each other here. And yet everywhere you turn you will see one brand of Christian duking it out with another brand of Christian, the most awful name calling, and usually both invoking scripture to show how they are right and the other is going straight to Hell. If not two Christians, it will be a Christian against a Muslim. The theists attack each other with even more virulence than they go after atheists, if that is possible.

So, a valid observation or not?

Yes. Religious people often hold to their ideals on an emotional and subjective level. Atheists ideas are based in logic and there is no emotional attachment, however an atheist can become defensive when personally attacked. In contrast a theist usually feels attacked when someone simply questions the doctrines of the religion they practice. Religion is personal and that makes it vulnerable to attack.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 11:43:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 7:25:46 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/10/2014 6:10:01 PM, dee-em wrote:
This sub-forum is a good illustration of why, in the wider world, religion is more a force for evil rather than good. You would be hard-pressed to find an instance of two atheists abusing each other here. And yet everywhere you turn you will see one brand of Christian duking it out with another brand of Christian, the most awful name calling, and usually both invoking scripture to show how they are right and the other is going straight to Hell. If not two Christians, it will be a Christian against a Muslim. The theists attack each other with even more virulence than they go after atheists, if that is possible.

So, a valid observation or not?
Well of course this is the internet so attacking is going to come from everywhere whether it's religious or not.

Well, this is the religion sub-forum, so that is my focus. The point is that if Christians can't show tolerance to each other, what hope is there for tolerance to other religions, or people without a religion.

I've seen atheists go at it fiercely on the internet. But are there different brands of atheism?

Yes, weak and strong atheists. You might even add agnostics to the mix.

In reality, you're probably seeing atheists go at it a lot more than you think, even at this forum.

Not really, certainly not in this sub-forum. But everyone seems to agree that the 'Religion' sub-forum is the basket case on this site.

The difference might be that they are not arguing against anything atheist related.

The only thing that is atheist related is the question of the existence of gods.

It would make sense that atheists would be more unified in a religion forum.

Sure. And I would have thought that it would make sense that Christians would be unified.

But outside of a forum, they may go at it like cats in some other discussion.

As might Christians discussing politics. So what? The subject here is religion and gods.

If internet attacking is evil as you suggest, then call it as it is whether it's atheists battling over topics related to atheism, or arguing who is the best pound for pound boxer.

Without religion, would the people now calling themselves Christians attack each other with such vehemence. Probably not, at least not over religion by definition. Hence my point that Christianity is more a force for evil than good, if this forum is any guide. Sure internet abuse would still go on, but that is not the issue.

In fact, if atheists are attacking Christians on a forum, they are still attacking, therefore by your definition,are evil. It doesn't matter how unified they are with atheists.

Well, I could dispute your 'attacking'. My purpose here is to attack ideas not people. But again you miss the point. Without religion, would this 'attacking' be going on? No. Then religion has to carry at least some of the burden of creating this conflict among people.

The Nazis may have been unified, but their acts were still evil.

You were going okay until you said this. Would you like to retract it?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 1:05:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 8:29:47 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:16:11 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/10/2014 7:34:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 7:25:46 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
I've seen atheists go at it fiercely on the internet. But are there different brands of atheism?
Sure, there are atheists who would limit themselves to saying that there's no reason to believe in god... and then those who would say that there's good reason to believe he doesn't exist.

not terribly interesting though, and though they may kind of stake out one position or the other, most people pretty much get what the other people are saying I think.
There appears to be far less diversity in atheistic beliefs, than in theistic beliefs.

In reality, you're probably seeing atheists go at it a lot more than you think, even at this forum. The difference might be that they are not arguing against anything atheist related. It would make sense that atheists would be more unified in a religion forum. But outside of a forum, they may go at it like cats in some other discussion.

Certainly, I tend to engage anybody I find I disagree with, and I disagree with atheists often enough... Some atheists even cling to other ideas in what might be termed a Religious manner... Like the idea that people are naturally Herbivorous! http://www.debate.org...
You are. You possess the physiology of a herbivore. Tool use doesn't change the fact that you do not posses the physiology of an omnivore.

No, being able to actually process meat does that. If you were to feed an herbivore meat, it dies, if you could get it to eat it at all. If you feed a carnivore nothing but veg, it dies, if you could get it to eat it at all. If you mix and match foods amongst an omnivore, it doesn't, and if it is limited to one extreme, its diet must stretch to meet the biological demand. While I don't disagree that the human body has an adverse reaction to specific types of meat if eaten to extreme, I don't agree at all that human physiology is specifically for a strictly herbacious diet.

Get over it.
Ever since that debate, every encounter I have with you is an extension of your anger over that discussion. File past. You're blocking your life.

I think his observation is quite valid.
Notice that you have to exclude atheism from the issue in order to suggest that atheists are as enthusiastic in their disagreements as Christians are over Christianity or Christians and Muslims are over their religion. Alternate beliefs create areas for division to grow. And the more emotionally-oriented the beliefs, the more violent the division.

So the point to grasp is that atheism doesn't seem to result in the same levels of division as does Christianity or Islam. And in pointing out that atheism doesn't seem to have as many versions, you're only pointing out that it's based more on reality, and less in imagination.

Atheism is a pretty simple thing so far as it goes, and doesn't have much positive content to argue over....
I don't get how that automatically means that Atheism better describes reality.
Even beyond the direct realm of atheism (which, as you say, is fairly simplistic), there are world-views which tend to be natural extensions and atheists tend to demonstrate less diversity among those beliefs than do theists... because atheism is based on evidence (and the lack, thereof).

And though I may think certain atheists put forward bad, or shallow, explanations as to why they don't believe in god... and I may even criticize their reasons... there's not too much there to discuss, and atheists, by definition, pretty much agree on the single topic at hand.. That is, that there's no good reason to believe in god.
And most subscribe to big-bang, evolution, abiogenesis, chaos theory, etc.

Atheists however, like everyone else, can believe lots of different things about the nature of things/the nature of the world and that can and does provoke debate.
But not to the degree common to theism: the point being made.

Point at hand, I haven't seen this forum without atheistic influence. Minus the occasional self proclaimed saint, the discussions seem to be passioned to the point of intensity, but not bitterness.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 1:05:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 7:34:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 7:25:46 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/10/2014 6:10:01 PM, dee-em wrote:
This sub-forum is a good illustration of why, in the wider world, religion is more a force for evil rather than good. You would be hard-pressed to find an instance of two atheists abusing each other here. And yet everywhere you turn you will see one brand of Christian duking it out with another brand of Christian, the most awful name calling, and usually both invoking scripture to show how they are right and the other is going straight to Hell. If not two Christians, it will be a Christian against a Muslim. The theists attack each other with even more virulence than they go after atheists, if that is possible.

So, a valid observation or not?
Well of course this is the internet so attacking is going to come from everywhere whether it's religious or not.

I've seen atheists go at it fiercely on the internet. But are there different brands of atheism?

In reality, you're probably seeing atheists go at it a lot more than you think, even at this forum. The difference might be that they are not arguing against anything atheist related. It would make sense that atheists would be more unified in a religion forum. But outside of a forum, they may go at it like cats in some other discussion. If internet attacking is evil as you suggest, then call it as it is whether it's atheists battling over topics related to atheism, or arguing who is the best pound for pound boxer. In fact, if atheists are attacking Christians on a forum, they are still attacking, therefore by your definition,are evil. It doesn't matter how unified they are with atheists.

The Nazis may have been unified, but their acts were still evil.

I think his observation is quite valid. Notice that you have to exclude atheism from the issue in order to suggest that atheists are as enthusiastic in their disagreements as Christians are over Christianity or Christians and Muslims are over their religion. Alternate beliefs create areas for division to grow. And the more emotionally-oriented the beliefs, the more violent the division. So the point to grasp is that atheism doesn't seem to result in the same levels of division as does Christianity or Islam. And in pointing out that atheism doesn't seem to have as many versions, you're only pointing out that it's based more on reality, and less in imagination.
Again I do have to point out, I have seen very heated arguments among atheists on the internet in regards to religion. And I do mean heated. As far as atheism being based more on reality, I think that's a different argument altogether.

Atheists violate other atheists all the time for multiple reasons. For instance, the communist Chinese atheists hated intellectual atheists. Atheist soccer hooligans attack atheist fans of the other team. Atheist drug dealers murder other atheist drug dealers for entering their turf. Not all atheists are atheist activists and belong to the FFRF.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 1:07:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 8:16:11 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/10/2014 7:34:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 7:25:46 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
I've seen atheists go at it fiercely on the internet. But are there different brands of atheism?
Sure, there are atheists who would limit themselves to saying that there's no reason to believe in god... and then those who would say that there's good reason to believe he doesn't exist.

not terribly interesting though, and though they may kind of stake out one position or the other, most people pretty much get what the other people are saying I think.

In reality, you're probably seeing atheists go at it a lot more than you think, even at this forum. The difference might be that they are not arguing against anything atheist related. It would make sense that atheists would be more unified in a religion forum. But outside of a forum, they may go at it like cats in some other discussion.

Certainly, I tend to engage anybody I find I disagree with, and I disagree with atheists often enough... Some atheists even cling to other ideas in what might be termed a Religious manner... Like the idea that people are naturally Herbivorous! http://www.debate.org...

I think his observation is quite valid.
Notice that you have to exclude atheism from the issue in order to suggest that atheists are as enthusiastic in their disagreements as Christians are over Christianity or Christians and Muslims are over their religion. Alternate beliefs create areas for division to grow. And the more emotionally-oriented the beliefs, the more violent the division.

So the point to grasp is that atheism doesn't seem to result in the same levels of division as does Christianity or Islam. And in pointing out that atheism doesn't seem to have as many versions, you're only pointing out that it's based more on reality, and less in imagination.

Atheism is a pretty simple thing so far as it goes, and doesn't have much positive content to argue over....
I don't get how that automatically means that Atheism better describes reality.

And though I may think certain atheists put forward bad, or shallow, explanations as to why they don't believe in god... and I may even criticize their reasons... there's not too much there to discuss, and atheists, by definition, pretty much agree on the single topic at hand.. That is, that there's no good reason to believe in god.

Atheists however, like everyone else, can believe lots of different things about the nature of things/the nature of the world and that can and does provoke debate.
The heated arguments I've seen on the web between atheists involve atheists against religion, and atheists not against religion.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 1:22:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 11:43:25 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2014 7:25:46 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/10/2014 6:10:01 PM, dee-em wrote:
This sub-forum is a good illustration of why, in the wider world, religion is more a force for evil rather than good. You would be hard-pressed to find an instance of two atheists abusing each other here. And yet everywhere you turn you will see one brand of Christian duking it out with another brand of Christian, the most awful name calling, and usually both invoking scripture to show how they are right and the other is going straight to Hell. If not two Christians, it will be a Christian against a Muslim. The theists attack each other with even more virulence than they go after atheists, if that is possible.

So, a valid observation or not?
Well of course this is the internet so attacking is going to come from everywhere whether it's religious or not.

Well, this is the religion sub-forum, so that is my focus. The point is that if Christians can't show tolerance to each other, what hope is there for tolerance to other religions, or people without a religion.

You seem to be assuming there isn't tolerance within Christendom for Christians of other denominations, people of other religions, and atheists. Do you live in the U.S.?
I've seen atheists go at it fiercely on the internet. But are there different brands of atheism?

Yes, weak and strong atheists. You might even add agnostics to the mix.

In reality, you're probably seeing atheists go at it a lot more than you think, even at this forum.

Not really, certainly not in this sub-forum. But everyone seems to agree that the 'Religion' sub-forum is the basket case on this site.

Well, then what are we doing here, right?
The difference might be that they are not arguing against anything atheist related.

The only thing that is atheist related is the question of the existence of gods.

It would make sense that atheists would be more unified in a religion forum.

Sure. And I would have thought that it would make sense that Christians would be unified.

Count how many different denominational churches are in your city, and then count how many acts of violence have been committed between each denomination against churches of other denominations.
But outside of a forum, they may go at it like cats in some other discussion.

As might Christians discussing politics. So what? The subject here is religion and gods.

As might atheists discussing politics. The point is, if atheists are fighting (which they are), no matter who they are fighting and why, then they are doing exactly what you are condemning.
If internet attacking is evil as you suggest, then call it as it is whether it's atheists battling over topics related to atheism, or arguing who is the best pound for pound boxer.

Without religion, would the people now calling themselves Christians attack each other with such vehemence. Probably not, at least not over religion by definition. Hence my point that Christianity is more a force for evil than good, if this forum is any guide. Sure internet abuse would still go on, but that is not the issue.

Why do you think this forum is a guide? How many churches in your city have members vandalizing other churches, or harassing other church members?
In fact, if atheists are attacking Christians on a forum, they are still attacking, therefore by your definition,are evil. It doesn't matter how unified they are with atheists.

Well, I could dispute your 'attacking'. My purpose here is to attack ideas not people. But again you miss the point. Without religion, would this 'attacking' be going on? No. Then religion has to carry at least some of the burden of creating this conflict among people.

How do you know this 'attacking' wouldn't be going on? Do you think there's something about religion that makes an otherwise harmless person violent? Is there something about saying the rosary that causes someone to what to want to attack other people?

The Nazis may have been unified, but their acts were still evil.

You were going okay until you said this. Would you like to retract it?
I might if you can convince me it's not true. Is what I said false? Or is Nazism a sensitive subject to where it shouldn't be brought up whether a related statement is true or not?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 2:15:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 1:05:43 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:29:47 PM, Beastt wrote:

You are. You possess the physiology of a herbivore. Tool use doesn't change the fact that you do not posses the physiology of an omnivore.

No, being able to actually process meat does that. If you were to feed an herbivore meat, it dies, if you could get it to eat it at all. If you feed a carnivore nothing but veg, it dies, if you could get it to eat it at all. If you mix and match foods amongst an omnivore, it doesn't, and if it is limited to one extreme, its diet must stretch to meet the biological demand. While I don't disagree that the human body has an adverse reaction to specific types of meat if eaten to extreme, I don't agree at all that human physiology is specifically for a strictly herbacious diet.

I guess that explains why - for decades - it was the standard practice to mix "offal" (slaughterhouse waste products) into the cattle feed. It caused them to put on weight much faster than they do on their natural herbivorous diet. However, it also caused them to contract BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy / AKA: mad cow disease), so the FDA has ruled against the practice. However, offal is still mixed into chicken feed and poultry litter (the stuff swept up which falls from the stacks of chicken cages in laying houses and brooding houses), which is still subsequently mixed into cattle feed. So the offal still finds its way into the cattle.

And, by the way, it doesn't kill them. They gain weight more quickly on the bits of meat, marrow, skin, tendons, etc. So do people.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 4:03:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 2:15:16 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/11/2014 1:05:43 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:29:47 PM, Beastt wrote:

You are. You possess the physiology of a herbivore. Tool use doesn't change the fact that you do not posses the physiology of an omnivore.

No, being able to actually process meat does that. If you were to feed an herbivore meat, it dies, if you could get it to eat it at all. If you feed a carnivore nothing but veg, it dies, if you could get it to eat it at all. If you mix and match foods amongst an omnivore, it doesn't, and if it is limited to one extreme, its diet must stretch to meet the biological demand. While I don't disagree that the human body has an adverse reaction to specific types of meat if eaten to extreme, I don't agree at all that human physiology is specifically for a strictly herbacious diet.

I guess that explains why - for decades - it was the standard practice to mix "offal" (slaughterhouse waste products) into the cattle feed. It caused them to put on weight much faster than they do on their natural herbivorous diet. However, it also caused them to contract BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy / AKA: mad cow disease), so the FDA has ruled against the practice. However, offal is still mixed into chicken feed and poultry litter (the stuff swept up which falls from the stacks of chicken cages in laying houses and brooding houses), which is still subsequently mixed into cattle feed. So the offal still finds its way into the cattle.

And, by the way, it doesn't kill them. They gain weight more quickly on the bits of meat, marrow, skin, tendons, etc. So do people.

So cows (an herbivore) were fed meat that was mixed in with their only food source. They caught nasty diseases and died. To correct this, the cows (an herbivore) were then fed a diet which didn't consist as much of meat, but still enough to beat the curve of profit margin for the cows to gain weight, or at least get slaughtered quickly enough so that the bad stuff you made mention of couldn't set it. In essence, the stock is fed enough poison to get the desired rate, but not enough to kill it out right.

Long story short, we are back to the argument of human physiology arguments being defeated by polltants and drawbacks of industrial farming.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 4:41:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 1:22:12 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/10/2014 11:43:25 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2014 7:25:46 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/10/2014 6:10:01 PM, dee-em wrote:
This sub-forum is a good illustration of why, in the wider world, religion is more a force for evil rather than good. You would be hard-pressed to find an instance of two atheists abusing each other here. And yet everywhere you turn you will see one brand of Christian duking it out with another brand of Christian, the most awful name calling, and usually both invoking scripture to show how they are right and the other is going straight to Hell. If not two Christians, it will be a Christian against a Muslim. The theists attack each other with even more virulence than they go after atheists, if that is possible.

So, a valid observation or not?
Well of course this is the internet so attacking is going to come from everywhere whether it's religious or not.

Well, this is the religion sub-forum, so that is my focus. The point is that if Christians can't show tolerance to each other, what hope is there for tolerance to other religions, or people without a religion.

You seem to be assuming there isn't tolerance within Christendom for Christians of other denominations, people of other religions, and atheists. Do you live in the U.S.?

No, I live in Australia. I'm asking the question. Is this sub-forum a microcosm which is representative of the wider world?

I've seen atheists go at it fiercely on the internet. But are there different brands of atheism?

Yes, weak and strong atheists. You might even add agnostics to the mix.

In reality, you're probably seeing atheists go at it a lot more than you think, even at this forum.

Not really, certainly not in this sub-forum. But everyone seems to agree that the 'Religion' sub-forum is the basket case on this site.

Well, then what are we doing here, right?

I don't understand what point you are making.

The difference might be that they are not arguing against anything atheist related.

The only thing that is atheist related is the question of the existence of gods.

It would make sense that atheists would be more unified in a religion forum.

Sure. And I would have thought that it would make sense that Christians would be unified.

Count how many different denominational churches are in your city, and then count how many acts of violence have been committed between each denomination against churches of other denominations.

Violence? When have I mentioned violence? You do make an indirect point though. People of all denominations are thrown together here and can't help but interact. That may not be the case in the physical world where people tend to stick to their own communities and not have that degree of interaction.

But outside of a forum, they may go at it like cats in some other discussion.

As might Christians discussing politics. So what? The subject here is religion and gods.

As might atheists discussing politics. The point is, if atheists are fighting (which they are), no matter who they are fighting and why, then they are doing exactly what you are condemning.

You're missing the point. It's not the arguing per se. It's what is driving the arguing. Car accidents happen. Say you have a new model of a car with a defect causing it to be involved in a spate of crashes. Your argument seems to be, well accidents happen anyway so we don't need to recall the car. Of course that is wrong. You do what you can when you can.

If internet attacking is evil as you suggest, then call it as it is whether it's atheists battling over topics related to atheism, or arguing who is the best pound for pound boxer.

Without religion, would the people now calling themselves Christians attack each other with such vehemence. Probably not, at least not over religion by definition. Hence my point that Christianity is more a force for evil than good, if this forum is any guide. Sure internet abuse would still go on, but that is not the issue.

Why do you think this forum is a guide?

For the reasons I gave in the OP.

How many churches in your city have members vandalizing other churches, or harassing other church members?

See above.

In fact, if atheists are attacking Christians on a forum, they are still attacking, therefore by your definition,are evil. It doesn't matter how unified they are with atheists.

Well, I could dispute your 'attacking'. My purpose here is to attack ideas not people. But again you miss the point. Without religion, would this 'attacking' be going on? No. Then religion has to carry at least some of the burden of creating this conflict among people.

How do you know this 'attacking' wouldn't be going on?

How could it if everyone was atheist or agnostic? I'm purely concerned with the role religion plays in this behaviour.

Do you think there's something about religion that makes an otherwise harmless person violent? Is there something about saying the rosary that causes someone to what to want to attack other people?

As I have already said, observe the behaviour of theists against each other on this sub-forum. Then perhaps you can answer your own question.

The Nazis may have been unified, but their acts were still evil.

You were going okay until you said this. Would you like to retract it?
I might if you can convince me it's not true. Is what I said false? Or is Nazism a sensitive subject to where it shouldn't be brought up whether a related statement is true or not?

Okay, if you want to go there. Tell me how your statement about the Nazis relates in any way to anything I said in the OP. Did I ever say that only disunited organizations can commit evil acts?
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 6:39:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 8:29:47 PM, Beastt wrote:
You possess the physiology of a herbivore. Tool use doesn't change the fact that you do not posses the physiology of an omnivore. Get over it.
Ever since that debate, every encounter I have with you is an extension of your anger over that discussion. File past. You're blocking your life.

no anger, hypocrisy on your end.. yes

get back to me in the thread detailing your religion with some sources (any sources whatsoever) and some arguments that aren't complete non-sequiturs.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 7:59:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 6:39:25 AM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:29:47 PM, Beastt wrote:
You possess the physiology of a herbivore. Tool use doesn't change the fact that you do not posses the physiology of an omnivore. Get over it.
Ever since that debate, every encounter I have with you is an extension of your anger over that discussion. File past. You're blocking your life.

no anger, hypocrisy on your end.. yes

get back to me in the thread detailing your religion with some sources (any sources whatsoever) and some arguments that aren't complete non-sequiturs.

You've seen the arguments and you couldn't refute them. Do you think calling it a religion offers anything other than a peek at your bias and the weakness of your argument?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 8:04:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 1:05:45 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/10/2014 7:34:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 7:25:46 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/10/2014 6:10:01 PM, dee-em wrote:
This sub-forum is a good illustration of why, in the wider world, religion is more a force for evil rather than good. You would be hard-pressed to find an instance of two atheists abusing each other here. And yet everywhere you turn you will see one brand of Christian duking it out with another brand of Christian, the most awful name calling, and usually both invoking scripture to show how they are right and the other is going straight to Hell. If not two Christians, it will be a Christian against a Muslim. The theists attack each other with even more virulence than they go after atheists, if that is possible.

So, a valid observation or not?
Well of course this is the internet so attacking is going to come from everywhere whether it's religious or not.

I've seen atheists go at it fiercely on the internet. But are there different brands of atheism?

In reality, you're probably seeing atheists go at it a lot more than you think, even at this forum. The difference might be that they are not arguing against anything atheist related. It would make sense that atheists would be more unified in a religion forum. But outside of a forum, they may go at it like cats in some other discussion. If internet attacking is evil as you suggest, then call it as it is whether it's atheists battling over topics related to atheism, or arguing who is the best pound for pound boxer. In fact, if atheists are attacking Christians on a forum, they are still attacking, therefore by your definition,are evil. It doesn't matter how unified they are with atheists.

The Nazis may have been unified, but their acts were still evil.

I think his observation is quite valid. Notice that you have to exclude atheism from the issue in order to suggest that atheists are as enthusiastic in their disagreements as Christians are over Christianity or Christians and Muslims are over their religion. Alternate beliefs create areas for division to grow. And the more emotionally-oriented the beliefs, the more violent the division. So the point to grasp is that atheism doesn't seem to result in the same levels of division as does Christianity or Islam. And in pointing out that atheism doesn't seem to have as many versions, you're only pointing out that it's based more on reality, and less in imagination.
Again I do have to point out, I have seen very heated arguments among atheists on the internet in regards to religion. And I do mean heated. As far as atheism being based more on reality, I think that's a different argument altogether.

Atheists violate other atheists all the time for multiple reasons. For instance, the communist Chinese atheists hated intellectual atheists. Atheist soccer hooligans attack atheist fans of the other team. Atheist drug dealers murder other atheist drug dealers for entering their turf. Not all atheists are atheist activists and belong to the FFRF.

Let me know when you see two atheists squaring off about atheism in a manner similar to what we see with Annanicole and MadCornishBiker.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 8:10:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 7:59:24 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/11/2014 6:39:25 AM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:29:47 PM, Beastt wrote:
You possess the physiology of a herbivore. Tool use doesn't change the fact that you do not posses the physiology of an omnivore. Get over it.
Ever since that debate, every encounter I have with you is an extension of your anger over that discussion. File past. You're blocking your life.

no anger, hypocrisy on your end.. yes

get back to me in the thread detailing your religion with some sources (any sources whatsoever) and some arguments that aren't complete non-sequiturs.

You've seen the arguments and you couldn't refute them. Do you think calling it a religion offers anything other than a peek at your bias and the weakness of your argument?

LOL
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 8:16:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 8:04:08 AM, Beastt wrote:
Let me know when you see two atheists squaring off about atheism in a manner similar to what we see with Annanicole and MadCornishBiker.

Throw in obed and you have the trinity.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 8:54:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 6:10:01 PM, dee-em wrote:
This sub-forum is a good illustration of why, in the wider world, religion is more a force for evil rather than good. You would be hard-pressed to find an instance of two atheists abusing each other here. And yet everywhere you turn you will see one brand of Christian duking it out with another brand of Christian, the most awful name calling, and usually both invoking scripture to show how they are right and the other is going straight to Hell. If not two Christians, it will be a Christian against a Muslim. The theists attack each other with even more virulence than they go after atheists, if that is possible.

So, a valid observation or not?

The observation may be valid, but perhaps the conclusion is relative. The combatants I've witnessed here so far have claimed they hate no one and are only following Jesus' will to spread love no matter how much conflict it causes. Telling someone they will roast for an eternity means you really, really, really love them. And, we know how much Christians really, really, really want to spread their love.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 11:26:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 4:41:19 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/11/2014 1:22:12 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/10/2014 11:43:25 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2014 7:25:46 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/10/2014 6:10:01 PM, dee-em wrote:


You seem to be assuming there isn't tolerance within Christendom for Christians of other denominations, people of other religions, and atheists. Do you live in the U.S.?

No, I live in Australia. I'm asking the question. Is this sub-forum a microcosm which is representative of the wider world?

That depends on what you mean. In a way you could say that. In the world at large, we're going to see conflicts resulting in various forms of attacking. But they are going to come in all directions, from every source, division, sub-division, interest, hobby, etc. What we're seeing in this forum is human nature. You can go to any forum on the internet, and you're going to see bickering. If you go to a monitored Christian forum website, you will see bickering like anywhere else, minus the extreme forms of attack you might see here or on a Topix religion related forum. I think many Christians avoid unmonitored religious forums for this reason.

The main problem I'm having is your reference to religion itself being a force of evil.



Well, then what are we doing here, right?

I don't understand what point you are making.

Nothing particularly profound other than I don't know if anyone who makes this claim are not including you and/or I. And if this sub-forum is this bad, what are we doing here?

I will admit that an unmonitored sub-religion forum, like a race relations forum on other websites tend to attract more bickering than, say, an entertainment sub-forum. But that doesn't render religion evil anymore than it renders ethnic distinction evil.



Count how many different denominational churches are in your city, and then count how many acts of violence have been committed between each denomination against churches of other denominations.

Violence? When have I mentioned violence? You do make an indirect point though. People of all denominations are thrown together here and can't help but interact. That may not be the case in the physical world where people tend to stick to their own communities and not have that degree of interaction.

In the U.S. we're seeing less and less of that. Christians where I live tend to look at the denominations as being unique variety within the Body of Christ. Sort of like appreciating the variety of ethnic culture in the world.


As might atheists discussing politics. The point is, if atheists are fighting (which they are), no matter who they are fighting and why, then they are doing exactly what you are condemning.

You're missing the point. It's not the arguing per se. It's what is driving the arguing. Car accidents happen. Say you have a new model of a car with a defect causing it to be involved in a spate of crashes. Your argument seems to be, well accidents happen anyway so we don't need to recall the car. Of course that is wrong. You do what you can when you can.

What exactly do you think should be done about religion? I agree with you that accident prone car models should be recalled. That's an action that needs to be taken. What action do you think should be taken in regards to religion?


Why do you think this forum is a guide?

For the reasons I gave in the OP.

Again, I guess I can only ask, if you think religion is a force of evil, what should be done?

How many churches in your city have members vandalizing other churches, or harassing other church members?

See above.

Sometimes nations keep to themselves, sometimes they go after other nations. Should we get rid of nations?



How do you know this 'attacking' wouldn't be going on?

How could it if everyone was atheist or agnostic? I'm purely concerned with the role religion plays in this behaviour.

Is China a (larger) microcosm of the world? They were not happy with anti-religion, so they (the communist regime) went after intellectuals, the wealthy, etc.

Do you think there's something about religion that makes an otherwise harmless person violent? Is there something about saying the rosary that causes someone to what to want to attack other people?

As I have already said, observe the behaviour of theists against each other on this sub-forum. Then perhaps you can answer your own question.

I don't think there's anything about religion that causes people to attack others. I relate it to human nature.


I might if you can convince me it's not true. Is what I said false? Or is Nazism a sensitive subject to where it shouldn't be brought up whether a related statement is true or not?

Okay, if you want to go there. Tell me how your statement about the Nazis relates in any way to anything I said in the OP. Did I ever say that only disunited organizations can commit evil acts?
I do understand that it is a bit risky to reference the Nazis in any argument because it can easily get translated into "are you calling me a Nazi?". And I'm not by the way. The point that seems to be being made here is that since we don't see the internal conflict between atheists here in this forum, that equates a lesser evil (or no evil). My point about the Nazis is that they were relatively unified. There were certainly internal conflicts, but they were fairly unified in comparison to countries where government protest is common. But obviously the relative lack of internal conflict within the Nazi camp was not not indication of non-evil.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 11:49:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 8:04:08 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/11/2014 1:05:45 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/10/2014 7:34:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 7:25:46 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/10/2014 6:10:01 PM, dee-em wrote:
This sub-forum is a good illustration of why, in the wider world, religion is more a force for evil rather than good. You would be hard-pressed to find an instance of two atheists abusing each other here. And yet everywhere you turn you will see one brand of Christian duking it out with another brand of Christian, the most awful name calling, and usually both invoking scripture to show how they are right and the other is going straight to Hell. If not two Christians, it will be a Christian against a Muslim. The theists attack each other with even more virulence than they go after atheists, if that is possible.

So, a valid observation or not?
Well of course this is the internet so attacking is going to come from everywhere whether it's religious or not.

I've seen atheists go at it fiercely on the internet. But are there different brands of atheism?

In reality, you're probably seeing atheists go at it a lot more than you think, even at this forum. The difference might be that they are not arguing against anything atheist related. It would make sense that atheists would be more unified in a religion forum. But outside of a forum, they may go at it like cats in some other discussion. If internet attacking is evil as you suggest, then call it as it is whether it's atheists battling over topics related to atheism, or arguing who is the best pound for pound boxer. In fact, if atheists are attacking Christians on a forum, they are still attacking, therefore by your definition,are evil. It doesn't matter how unified they are with atheists.

The Nazis may have been unified, but their acts were still evil.

I think his observation is quite valid. Notice that you have to exclude atheism from the issue in order to suggest that atheists are as enthusiastic in their disagreements as Christians are over Christianity or Christians and Muslims are over their religion. Alternate beliefs create areas for division to grow. And the more emotionally-oriented the beliefs, the more violent the division. So the point to grasp is that atheism doesn't seem to result in the same levels of division as does Christianity or Islam. And in pointing out that atheism doesn't seem to have as many versions, you're only pointing out that it's based more on reality, and less in imagination.
Again I do have to point out, I have seen very heated arguments among atheists on the internet in regards to religion. And I do mean heated. As far as atheism being based more on reality, I think that's a different argument altogether.

Atheists violate other atheists all the time for multiple reasons. For instance, the communist Chinese atheists hated intellectual atheists. Atheist soccer hooligans attack atheist fans of the other team. Atheist drug dealers murder other atheist drug dealers for entering their turf. Not all atheists are atheist activists and belong to the FFRF.

Let me know when you see two atheists squaring off about atheism in a manner similar to what we see with Annanicole and MadCornishBiker.
This is in reference to no one here, or anyone you might reference, as I choose not to go there, but internet forums possess some strange practices. There are cases where multiple accounts are occupied by one individual, and that one individual creates flame wars between his/her multiple accounts. And people think they are genuine battles between multiple parties. So when dealing with the internet, we have to keep these kinds of things in mind.

If you look for skirmishes, you will find them. And I admit they can be very noticeable. Far more noticeable than the more tame. What church is going to be more in the spotlight? The inner city church that feeds the homeless (of which there are many), or the fringe church that is not even related to the denomination of which they use in their title, the Westboro Baptist church?

Because people do look for religious antagonists on internet forums, there are those who are not religious who pose as being religious, using over-the-top religious lingo to create internet flame wars. They come around to feed that apparent need in some. There's a website where the members do this very thing. They've been here at this forum by the way. They're fairly easy to detect because of their over-the-top lingo, and usually will have a picture alongside their username of a preacher with a scowl on his face, or something along those lines. And many probably pick up on that right away, but some get sucked right into it, apparently assuming it's not a parody.

After the Japan Tsunami there was a youtube video that went [rabbit ears]viral[/rabbit ears]. A woman went on an over-the-top religious rant about how the Japanese were being punished by God. And some bought into it. Again, a number realized it was, I guess we could call it, youtube trolling?

My point is, we got to consider the form of media outlet we're dealing with before making rash judgments.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 12:21:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 11:49:41 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/11/2014 8:04:08 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/11/2014 1:05:45 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/10/2014 7:34:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 7:25:46 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/10/2014 6:10:01 PM, dee-em wrote:
This sub-forum is a good illustration of why, in the wider world, religion is more a force for evil rather than good. You would be hard-pressed to find an instance of two atheists abusing each other here. And yet everywhere you turn you will see one brand of Christian duking it out with another brand of Christian, the most awful name calling, and usually both invoking scripture to show how they are right and the other is going straight to Hell. If not two Christians, it will be a Christian against a Muslim. The theists attack each other with even more virulence than they go after atheists, if that is possible.

So, a valid observation or not?
Well of course this is the internet so attacking is going to come from everywhere whether it's religious or not.

I've seen atheists go at it fiercely on the internet. But are there different brands of atheism?

In reality, you're probably seeing atheists go at it a lot more than you think, even at this forum. The difference might be that they are not arguing against anything atheist related. It would make sense that atheists would be more unified in a religion forum. But outside of a forum, they may go at it like cats in some other discussion. If internet attacking is evil as you suggest, then call it as it is whether it's atheists battling over topics related to atheism, or arguing who is the best pound for pound boxer. In fact, if atheists are attacking Christians on a forum, they are still attacking, therefore by your definition,are evil. It doesn't matter how unified they are with atheists.

The Nazis may have been unified, but their acts were still evil.

I think his observation is quite valid. Notice that you have to exclude atheism from the issue in order to suggest that atheists are as enthusiastic in their disagreements as Christians are over Christianity or Christians and Muslims are over their religion. Alternate beliefs create areas for division to grow. And the more emotionally-oriented the beliefs, the more violent the division. So the point to grasp is that atheism doesn't seem to result in the same levels of division as does Christianity or Islam. And in pointing out that atheism doesn't seem to have as many versions, you're only pointing out that it's based more on reality, and less in imagination.
Again I do have to point out, I have seen very heated arguments among atheists on the internet in regards to religion. And I do mean heated. As far as atheism being based more on reality, I think that's a different argument altogether.

Atheists violate other atheists all the time for multiple reasons. For instance, the communist Chinese atheists hated intellectual atheists. Atheist soccer hooligans attack atheist fans of the other team. Atheist drug dealers murder other atheist drug dealers for entering their turf. Not all atheists are atheist activists and belong to the FFRF.

Let me know when you see two atheists squaring off about atheism in a manner similar to what we see with Annanicole and MadCornishBiker.
This is in reference to no one here, or anyone you might reference, as I choose not to go there, but internet forums possess some strange practices. There are cases where multiple accounts are occupied by one individual, and that one individual creates flame wars between his/her multiple accounts. And people think they are genuine battles between multiple parties. So when dealing with the internet, we have to keep these kinds of things in mind.

If you look for skirmishes, you will find them. And I admit they can be very noticeable. Far more noticeable than the more tame. What church is going to be more in the spotlight? The inner city church that feeds the homeless (of which there are many), or the fringe church that is not even related to the denomination of which they use in their title, the Westboro Baptist church?

Because people do look for religious antagonists on internet forums, there are those who are not religious who pose as being religious, using over-the-top religious lingo to create internet flame wars. They come around to feed that apparent need in some. There's a website where the members do this very thing. They've been here at this forum by the way. They're fairly easy to detect because of their over-the-top lingo, and usually will have a picture alongside their username of a preacher with a scowl on his face, or something along those lines. And many probably pick up on that right away, but some get sucked right into it, apparently assuming it's not a parody.

After the Japan Tsunami there was a youtube video that went [rabbit ears]viral[/rabbit ears]. A woman went on an over-the-top religious rant about how the Japanese were being punished by God. And some bought into it. Again, a number realized it was, I guess we could call it, youtube trolling?

My point is, we got to consider the form of media outlet we're dealing with before making rash judgments.

Or we could be more rational and understand that if people are posing as Christians, others are posing as atheists and what we see from these frauds on one side, we should also see for the other. And yet, when it comes to the defining beliefs, atheists seem to get along far better than do Christians. A large number of those tortured and killed in the Crusades were Christians. They were tortured and killed by other Christians for being the "wrong kind" of Christian.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 11:25:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 11:43:25 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2014 7:25:46 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/10/2014 6:10:01 PM, dee-em wrote:

It would make sense that atheists would be more unified in a religion forum.

Sure. And I would have thought that it would make sense that Christians would be unified.

Ah, the underlying lack of logic here is a beautifully subtle thing.

Here is the Christian narrative. Christians have enemies who fake being Christian so as to discredit the Doctrine. Additionally, there are well meaning but confused people who "muddy up the waters" so to speak, by claiming to be Christian when they aren't.

Now, that is the Christian narrative. Yet dee-em thinks it would make sense that Christians would be unified. Given the Christian narrative, why in the world would a logical person think Christians would or should seem unified to a non-christian who cannot tell a real Christian from a false one??

It is a fake argument posing as logic. It dismisses the Christian narrative, but does so on the sly, substituting an atheist narrative, and then judges Christianity on the atheist's narrative it is pretending is the Christian's.

The entire post is vacious. basically the OP is saying, People with similar world-views fight less. Well duh. This is true regardless of the belief system. Then it bunches numerous groups under their own heading "Christians" and observes they fight more than atheists. ie, people with different world-views fight more. Duh.

But stating the obvious is not enough for the OP. He goes on to say, "I would have thought that it would make sense that Christians would be unified." Why would he think this if he knew the Christian narrative? And if he doesn't believe the Christian narrative, why would he think they would be unified?

Christianity itself stipulates that it will not seem "unified" to outsiders. Peter, Paul, timothy, and James all mentioned this issue. No, any logical and sincere person would know that Christians "seeming" NOT united is exactly what one would expect if the claims of Christianity were true.

Yet, through dubious "logic", dismissal of all context, and argument by innuendo, the atheist has managed to come to the opposite conclusion using (or seeming to use) the same premises!