Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"Some" Atheists Need Religion

RoderickSpode
Posts: 4,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2018 4:49:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Without religion, some atheists wouldn't have a nemesis that they can use to promote their self-perceived intelligence, logic and reasoning ability, etc.

Yes, without religion, a major avenue to claim intelligence publicly is removed. For those who value how others perceive them, they just have to hope folks will somehow notice in their daily mundane routine.

I know the inevitable backlash would be individual claims of having no interest in impressing others. And that may very well be true for a number of individual atheists on this sit. And of course that's why I included "Some" in the title.

Why do I think this?

This forum in particular is full of claims that religion and theism are akin to mental illness and criminal activity. Conditions that normally warrant taking action either through law enforcement, or necessary hospitalization. Yet, they never provide a solution. I mean never. Well, not that I've seen anyway. All I ever see is the allegations. If it's possible to do a typographical reference for whining, it could be an added posting feature. [Whining]....rant.... [/whining].

Other than the noble wait for the next 200 years and religion will go away theme, why would any atheist who endorses the idea of anti-religion/theism provide no solutions to an alleged major problem they seem to claim?
ethang5
Posts: 19,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2018 5:32:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2018 4:49:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Without religion, some atheists wouldn't have a nemesis that they can use to promote their self-perceived intelligence, logic and reasoning ability, etc.

Yes, without religion, a major avenue to claim intelligence publicly is removed. For those who value how others perceive them, they just have to hope folks will somehow notice in their daily mundane routine.

I know the inevitable backlash would be individual claims of having no interest in impressing others. And that may very well be true for a number of individual atheists on this sit. And of course that's why I included "Some" in the title.

Why do I think this?

This forum in particular is full of claims that religion and theism are akin to mental illness and criminal activity. Conditions that normally warrant taking action either through law enforcement, or necessary hospitalization. Yet, they never provide a solution. I mean never. Well, not that I've seen anyway. All I ever see is the allegations. If it's possible to do a typographical reference for whining, it could be an added posting feature. [Whining]....rant.... [/whining].

Other than the noble wait for the next 200 years and religion will go away theme, why would any atheist who endorses the idea of anti-religion/theism provide no solutions to an alleged major problem they seem to claim?

You're right of course.

What would say, willows or bully do if the hours they spend here were suddenly free? I think their position on Christianity represents what they wish, what they hope.

If religion was no more, I wonder what they would use to attack others? Politics? Racism? Nationalism?
mookestink
Posts: 129
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2018 8:27:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
But they do provide a solution to the dangers of religion: atheism. It"s up to the individual theist to sell their stocks in a personal god. It"s a matter of free will, unless you don"t believe you have power over your own beliefs.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2018 8:34:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2018 5:32:15 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/29/2018 4:49:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Without religion, some atheists wouldn't have a nemesis that they can use to promote their self-perceived intelligence, logic and reasoning ability, etc.

Yes, without religion, a major avenue to claim intelligence publicly is removed. For those who value how others perceive them, they just have to hope folks will somehow notice in their daily mundane routine.

I know the inevitable backlash would be individual claims of having no interest in impressing others. And that may very well be true for a number of individual atheists on this sit. And of course that's why I included "Some" in the title.

Why do I think this?

This forum in particular is full of claims that religion and theism are akin to mental illness and criminal activity. Conditions that normally warrant taking action either through law enforcement, or necessary hospitalization. Yet, they never provide a solution. I mean never. Well, not that I've seen anyway. All I ever see is the allegations. If it's possible to do a typographical reference for whining, it could be an added posting feature. [Whining]....rant.... [/whining].

Other than the noble wait for the next 200 years and religion will go away theme, why would any atheist who endorses the idea of anti-religion/theism provide no solutions to an alleged major problem they seem to claim?

You're right of course.

What would say, willows or bully do if the hours they spend here were suddenly free? I think their position on Christianity represents what they wish, what they hope.
And why would you ask him, he has as much idea as you do and that's zero.

If religion was no more, I wonder what they would use to attack others? Politics? Racism? Nationalism?
I think you've got the racism and fascist politics all sewn up thangy boy.
Double_R
Posts: 5,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2018 8:36:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2018 4:49:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Without religion, some atheists wouldn't have a nemesis that they can use to promote their self-perceived intelligence, logic and reasoning ability, etc.

Yes, without religion, a major avenue to claim intelligence publicly is removed. For those who value how others perceive them, they just have to hope folks will somehow notice in their daily mundane routine.

I know the inevitable backlash would be individual claims of having no interest in impressing others. And that may very well be true for a number of individual atheists on this sit. And of course that's why I included "Some" in the title.


Why do I think this?

This forum in particular is full of claims that religion and theism are akin to mental illness and criminal activity. Conditions that normally warrant taking action either through law enforcement, or necessary hospitalization. Yet, they never provide a solution. I mean never. Well, not that I've seen anyway. All I ever see is the allegations. If it's possible to do a typographical reference for whining, it could be an added posting feature. [Whining]....rant.... [/whining].

Other than the noble wait for the next 200 years and religion will go away theme, why would any atheist who endorses the idea of anti-religion/theism provide no solutions to an alleged major problem they seem to claim?

So some atheists are here just to step on others in order to feel better about themselves. The same can be said about some theists, some liberals, some conservatives, some libertarians, etc. What is your point?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 4,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2018 10:33:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2018 8:36:24 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/29/2018 4:49:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Without religion, some atheists wouldn't have a nemesis that they can use to promote their self-perceived intelligence, logic and reasoning ability, etc.

Yes, without religion, a major avenue to claim intelligence publicly is removed. For those who value how others perceive them, they just have to hope folks will somehow notice in their daily mundane routine.

I know the inevitable backlash would be individual claims of having no interest in impressing others. And that may very well be true for a number of individual atheists on this sit. And of course that's why I included "Some" in the title.


Why do I think this?

This forum in particular is full of claims that religion and theism are akin to mental illness and criminal activity. Conditions that normally warrant taking action either through law enforcement, or necessary hospitalization. Yet, they never provide a solution. I mean never. Well, not that I've seen anyway. All I ever see is the allegations. If it's possible to do a typographical reference for whining, it could be an added posting feature. [Whining]....rant.... [/whining].

Other than the noble wait for the next 200 years and religion will go away theme, why would any atheist who endorses the idea of anti-religion/theism provide no solutions to an alleged major problem they seem to claim?

So some atheists are here just to step on others in order to feel better about themselves. The same can be said about some theists, some liberals, some conservatives, some libertarians, etc. What is your point?

I'm tempted to wonder if you've read the entire OP. But it's not very long, so I can't see how you wouldn't.

The point is in my reference to the complainers not giving any solutions to the alleged problem. Particularly when the accusations are related to mental illness and criminal activity.

If I tell you that atheism is a mental illness and/or somehow criminal, and you confront me, something's gotta give. Either I tell you what I think should be done about the problem, or make some possible confession of exaggeration and/or dishonesty.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 1:40:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2018 4:49:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Without religion, some atheists wouldn't have a nemesis that they can use to promote their self-perceived intelligence, logic and reasoning ability, etc.

Yes, without religion, a major avenue to claim intelligence publicly is removed. For those who value how others perceive them, they just have to hope folks will somehow notice in their daily mundane routine.

I know the inevitable backlash would be individual claims of having no interest in impressing others. And that may very well be true for a number of individual atheists on this sit. And of course that's why I included "Some" in the title.


Why do I think this?

This forum in particular is full of claims that religion and theism are akin to mental illness and criminal activity. Conditions that normally warrant taking action either through law enforcement, or necessary hospitalization. Yet, they never provide a solution. I mean never. Well, not that I've seen anyway. All I ever see is the allegations. If it's possible to do a typographical reference for whining, it could be an added posting feature. [Whining]....rant.... [/whining].

Other than the noble wait for the next 200 years and religion will go away theme, why would any atheist who endorses the idea of anti-religion/theism provide no solutions to an alleged major problem they seem to claim?

Any faith based belief system can be dangerous but none is intrinsically dangerous. They are onky a problem when they are used to justify harmful behaviors and if we could eliminate all faith based beliefs people who wish to harm others would just come up with a different rationalization. I once posted to StudioB that religion is the problem, that is incorrect or at least a gross oversimplification. The truth is that people are the problem and the only sure solution is too horrible to even contemplate. Better to have bad people along with the good than to have no people.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
dee-em
Posts: 10,593
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 2:30:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2018 4:49:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

Without religion, some atheists wouldn't have a nemesis that they can use to promote their self-perceived intelligence, logic and reasoning ability, etc.

Some atheists. Many of us have other outlets where no "nemesis" is required. For example many of us posted in the Science forum before it got overtaken by trolls and spammers.

Yes, without religion, a major avenue to claim intelligence publicly is removed. For those who value how others perceive them, they just have to hope folks will somehow notice in their daily mundane routine.

You mean just like everyone else? LOL.

I know the inevitable backlash would be individual claims of having no interest in impressing others. And that may very well be true for a number of individual atheists on this sit. And of course that's why I included "Some" in the title.

Aren't we all here to test our debating skills using logic and reason? Did I miss something?

Why do I think this?

Because you are obsessed with anti-atheist rhetoric?

This forum in particular is full of claims that religion and theism are akin to mental illness and criminal activity. Conditions that normally warrant taking action either through law enforcement, or necessary hospitalization. Yet, they never provide a solution. I mean never.

Um, I have. Religionists, stop indoctrinating your children. Allow priests to marry and lead normal lives. There are two of my solutions. Stop lying that we never offer answers to the evils of religion.

Well, not that I've seen anyway.

Blinkers over your eyes have that effect.

All I ever see is the allegations. If it's possible to do a typographical reference for whining, it could be an added posting feature. [Whining]....rant.... [/whining].

States the hypocrite who is whining in this very thread about atheists. You should have encased the OP with these tags. LOL.

Other than the noble wait for the next 200 years and religion will go away theme, why would any atheist who endorses the idea of anti-religion/theism provide no solutions to an alleged major problem they seem to claim?

Rod does it again. He makes a claim, offers no evidence for his claim (other than his own ignorance) and then blithely goes on to assume the truth of what he claims. This is his modus operandi, folks.
Lying and/or abusive trolls on permanent ignore: ethang5, skipsaweirdo, dsjpk5, Polytheist_Witch, Studio-B, TKDB, Factseeker, graceofgod.
Casten
Posts: 2,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 4:19:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2018 4:49:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Without religion, some atheists wouldn't have a nemesis that they can use to promote their self-perceived intelligence, logic and reasoning ability, etc.

Yes, without religion, a major avenue to claim intelligence publicly is removed. For those who value how others perceive them, they just have to hope folks will somehow notice in their daily mundane routine.

I know the inevitable backlash would be individual claims of having no interest in impressing others. And that may very well be true for a number of individual atheists on this sit. And of course that's why I included "Some" in the title.


Why do I think this?

This forum in particular is full of claims that religion and theism are akin to mental illness and criminal activity. Conditions that normally warrant taking action either through law enforcement, or necessary hospitalization. Yet, they never provide a solution. I mean never. Well, not that I've seen anyway. All I ever see is the allegations. If it's possible to do a typographical reference for whining, it could be an added posting feature. [Whining]....rant.... [/whining].

Other than the noble wait for the next 200 years and religion will go away theme, why would any atheist who endorses the idea of anti-religion/theism provide no solutions to an alleged major problem they seem to claim?

BUT I AM AN INDIVIDUAL ATHEIST WHO CLAIMS NO INTEREST IN --

Jk, jk. Sadly you're quite right and such atheists exist. And it's not like I'm not personally invested in the impression I make as well. All of us have an inner diva, you know. Admittedly mine is probably considerably larger than yours because it's completely unrestrained by Christian humility. And that is why I will always beat you on karaoke night, Rod. ... Always. Don't lie to yourself.

But it sounds like the question you're posing to the anti-religious is, "How do you change the way the whole world thinks in a short span of time?" And if I were them I would find that a very challenging question.

Personally, I see the damage religion has done well enough, but I think its causes are rooted deeply in the human condition. Tribalism. Hating one another over differences. Arrogant belief in the supremacy of our own way of life. Ignorance, fear, craving for control, mob mentality, the inability to coexist with alternate worldviews, the tendency to perceive conflicting beliefs as threats to our identity. I can't in good conscience say these things are limited to religion. I feel they are universal human flaws that we must take collective responsibility for as a species. We will all commit some of them at some point, and it's dangerous to consider yourself outside the problem. What some atheists are saying is that these flaws are exemplified most especially in religion. I think I'd rather say they're exemplified most especially in dogmatic ideology.
Bummed about the low activity and abandonment of DDO? You can always try us on DART: https://www.debateart.com...
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 8:20:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2018 4:49:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Without religion, some atheists wouldn't have a nemesis that they can use to promote their self-perceived intelligence, logic and reasoning ability, etc.

Yes, without religion, a major avenue to claim intelligence publicly is removed. For those who value how others perceive them, they just have to hope folks will somehow notice in their daily mundane routine.

I know the inevitable backlash would be individual claims of having no interest in impressing others. And that may very well be true for a number of individual atheists on this sit. And of course that's why I included "Some" in the title.


Why do I think this?

This forum in particular is full of claims that religion and theism are akin to mental illness and criminal activity. Conditions that normally warrant taking action either through law enforcement, or necessary hospitalization. Yet, they never provide a solution. I mean never. Well, not that I've seen anyway. All I ever see is the allegations. If it's possible to do a typographical reference for whining, it could be an added posting feature. [Whining]....rant.... [/whining].

Other than the noble wait for the next 200 years and religion will go away theme, why would any atheist who endorses the idea of anti-religion/theism provide no solutions to an alleged major problem they seem to claim?

Come on, atheists need religion like a hole in the head.

If it weren't for intelligent, civil-minded atheists who expose religion for what it is (i.e. a complete con) our society would still be floundering in the dark ages just as some hard-core religious societies are now.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 4,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 2:00:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2018 5:32:15 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/29/2018 4:49:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Without religion, some atheists wouldn't have a nemesis that they can use to promote their self-perceived intelligence, logic and reasoning ability, etc.

Yes, without religion, a major avenue to claim intelligence publicly is removed. For those who value how others perceive them, they just have to hope folks will somehow notice in their daily mundane routine.

I know the inevitable backlash would be individual claims of having no interest in impressing others. And that may very well be true for a number of individual atheists on this sit. And of course that's why I included "Some" in the title.

Why do I think this?

This forum in particular is full of claims that religion and theism are akin to mental illness and criminal activity. Conditions that normally warrant taking action either through law enforcement, or necessary hospitalization. Yet, they never provide a solution. I mean never. Well, not that I've seen anyway. All I ever see is the allegations. If it's possible to do a typographical reference for whining, it could be an added posting feature. [Whining]....rant.... [/whining].

Other than the noble wait for the next 200 years and religion will go away theme, why would any atheist who endorses the idea of anti-religion/theism provide no solutions to an alleged major problem they seem to claim?

You're right of course.

What would say, willows or bully do if the hours they spend here were suddenly free? I think their position on Christianity represents what they wish, what they hope.

Absolutely! DDO provides much more a service than most think.

If religion was no more, I wonder what they would use to attack others? Politics? Racism? Nationalism?

A scary thought. I think they're both from Australia. Maybe they would use Continentalism if there was no religion to attack. They may be the first to boast how great Australia is over Antarctica.
Ludofl3x
Posts: 2,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 2:05:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Isn't also fair then to say that "some" theists here need atheists and atheism in order to have a "common enemy" if not a nemesis? After all, if I weren't here, being wrong in every version of theist's eyes, wouldn't you then be forced to debate with other religious folks about how they're going to your hell, or you're going to their hell? Let's face it, having us around means that you guys and someone like PW can all pretend you're on the same side, and if there weren't atheists here, you'd have to tell her that really, you think she's an idiot, that her religion is totally wrong, and that if SHE doesn't shape up, she's going to burn in hell, if not first at the stake? Or, you'd have to discuss with ethan how you're not a real Christian and he is, or he is and you're not, because one of you reads the bible one way and the other a different way? He's always crowing about how most mainline versions of Christianity aren't biblical enough...I bet if you started detailing things you believe, you'd find out he doesn't think much of your version of Christianity.

Really, you ought to thank us for being here! :)
RoderickSpode
Posts: 4,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 2:18:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2018 1:40:11 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 7/29/2018 4:49:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Without religion, some atheists wouldn't have a nemesis that they can use to promote their self-perceived intelligence, logic and reasoning ability, etc.

Yes, without religion, a major avenue to claim intelligence publicly is removed. For those who value how others perceive them, they just have to hope folks will somehow notice in their daily mundane routine.

I know the inevitable backlash would be individual claims of having no interest in impressing others. And that may very well be true for a number of individual atheists on this sit. And of course that's why I included "Some" in the title.


Why do I think this?

This forum in particular is full of claims that religion and theism are akin to mental illness and criminal activity. Conditions that normally warrant taking action either through law enforcement, or necessary hospitalization. Yet, they never provide a solution. I mean never. Well, not that I've seen anyway. All I ever see is the allegations. If it's possible to do a typographical reference for whining, it could be an added posting feature. [Whining]....rant.... [/whining].

Other than the noble wait for the next 200 years and religion will go away theme, why would any atheist who endorses the idea of anti-religion/theism provide no solutions to an alleged major problem they seem to claim?

Any faith based belief system can be dangerous but none is intrinsically dangerous. They are onky a problem when they are used to justify harmful behaviors and if we could eliminate all faith based beliefs people who wish to harm others would just come up with a different rationalization. I once posted to StudioB that religion is the problem, that is incorrect or at least a gross oversimplification. The truth is that people are the problem and the only sure solution is too horrible to even contemplate. Better to have bad people along with the good than to have no people.

True.

To some in this forum, the problem isn't only that some people might use religion for harmful activity, but that religion can be used for harmful activity. In other words, because someone can use the bible to justify slavery (in early American history), that's reason enough to consider religion itself a danger to society. So even if it wasn't the initial intention of early bible authors to condone slavery in any way, since there's no means of preventing scriptural distortion, the Bible is a public danger. Just like glue. It wasn't meant to be sniffed, but there's no way to prevent it.

Of course they'll often fluctuate between the idea that religion is only a potential tool like anything else for harm, and religion itself actually being harmful.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 4,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 2:19:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2018 2:05:25 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
Isn't also fair then to say that "some" theists here need atheists and atheism in order to have a "common enemy" if not a nemesis? After all, if I weren't here, being wrong in every version of theist's eyes, wouldn't you then be forced to debate with other religious folks about how they're going to your hell, or you're going to their hell? Let's face it, having us around means that you guys and someone like PW can all pretend you're on the same side, and if there weren't atheists here, you'd have to tell her that really, you think she's an idiot, that her religion is totally wrong, and that if SHE doesn't shape up, she's going to burn in hell, if not first at the stake? Or, you'd have to discuss with ethan how you're not a real Christian and he is, or he is and you're not, because one of you reads the bible one way and the other a different way? He's always crowing about how most mainline versions of Christianity aren't biblical enough...I bet if you started detailing things you believe, you'd find out he doesn't think much of your version of Christianity.

Really, you ought to thank us for being here! :)

Thank you for being here.
Ludofl3x
Posts: 2,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 2:34:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2018 2:18:31 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:


To some in this forum, the problem isn't only that some people might use religion for harmful activity, but that religion can be used for harmful activity. In other words, because someone can use the bible to justify slavery (in early American history), that's reason enough to consider religion itself a danger to society. So even if it wasn't the initial intention of early bible authors to condone slavery in any way, since there's no means of preventing scriptural distortion, the Bible is a public danger. Just like glue. It wasn't meant to be sniffed, but there's no way to prevent it.

Of course they'll often fluctuate between the idea that religion is only a potential tool like anything else for harm, and religion itself actually being harmful.

I think there's more nuance to be had in the view of religion and its overall positive or negative impact on society. The way I view it is "what good things can ONLY be done under the guise of religious imperative" and "what BAD things can be justified through religious imperative." I personally find that the answer to the first is "none", which means that the numerous answers to the second makes religion in general deleterious to civilized societies. That's not to say I think the religious should be eradicated by force. Without the use of force, then the only solution is education and time.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 4,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 2:37:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2018 2:30:29 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/29/2018 4:49:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

Without religion, some atheists wouldn't have a nemesis that they can use to promote their self-perceived intelligence, logic and reasoning ability, etc.

Some atheists. Many of us have other outlets where no "nemesis" is required. For example many of us posted in the Science forum before it got overtaken by trolls and spammers.

These spammers wouldn't by any chance be creationists would they?

Yes, without religion, a major avenue to claim intelligence publicly is removed. For those who value how others perceive them, they just have to hope folks will somehow notice in their daily mundane routine.

You mean just like everyone else? LOL.

Without trying to read into this too deeply, yes.

(But if I read into it too deeply, possibly no).

I know the inevitable backlash would be individual claims of having no interest in impressing others. And that may very well be true for a number of individual atheists on this sit. And of course that's why I included "Some" in the title.

Aren't we all here to test our debating skills using logic and reason? Did I miss something?

I don't know if everyone here is here for that reason. Some are here to look for inexpensive housing in San Francisco.

Why do I think this?

Because you are obsessed with anti-atheist rhetoric?

Correction.

I'm obsessed with classic automobiles.

This forum in particular is full of claims that religion and theism are akin to mental illness and criminal activity. Conditions that normally warrant taking action either through law enforcement, or necessary hospitalization. Yet, they never provide a solution. I mean never.

Um, I have. Religionists, stop indoctrinating your children. Allow priests to marry and lead normal lives. There are two of my solutions. Stop lying that we never offer answers to the evils of religion.

This would be like making a public announcement telling people to stop pushing illegal drugs, drive-by-shooting, etc.
Well, not that I've seen anyway.

Blinkers over your eyes have that effect.

You're not providing a solution. You're making an appeal. Laws are not enforced for negotiation.

All I ever see is the allegations. If it's possible to do a typographical reference for whining, it could be an added posting feature. [Whining]....rant.... [/whining].

States the hypocrite who is whining in this very thread about atheists. You should have encased the OP with these tags. LOL.

If there was a typographical reference feature for whining, I'd probably would use it on occasion like any other. Not sure how they would do it though.

They can make one for whispering by shrinking the letters, one for screeching by elongating the letters adding hyphens between each word, etc.

Other than the noble wait for the next 200 years and religion will go away theme, why would any atheist who endorses the idea of anti-religion/theism provide no solutions to an alleged major problem they seem to claim?

Rod does it again. He makes a claim, offers no evidence for his claim (other than his own ignorance) and then blithely goes on to assume the truth of what he claims. This is his modus operandi, folks.

The post is a challenge. If you don't feel the challenge applies to you, then so be it.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 4,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 2:47:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2018 4:19:22 AM, Casten wrote:
At 7/29/2018 4:49:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Without religion, some atheists wouldn't have a nemesis that they can use to promote their self-perceived intelligence, logic and reasoning ability, etc.

Yes, without religion, a major avenue to claim intelligence publicly is removed. For those who value how others perceive them, they just have to hope folks will somehow notice in their daily mundane routine.

I know the inevitable backlash would be individual claims of having no interest in impressing others. And that may very well be true for a number of individual atheists on this sit. And of course that's why I included "Some" in the title.


Why do I think this?

This forum in particular is full of claims that religion and theism are akin to mental illness and criminal activity. Conditions that normally warrant taking action either through law enforcement, or necessary hospitalization. Yet, they never provide a solution. I mean never. Well, not that I've seen anyway. All I ever see is the allegations. If it's possible to do a typographical reference for whining, it could be an added posting feature. [Whining]....rant.... [/whining].

Other than the noble wait for the next 200 years and religion will go away theme, why would any atheist who endorses the idea of anti-religion/theism provide no solutions to an alleged major problem they seem to claim?

BUT I AM AN INDIVIDUAL ATHEIST WHO CLAIMS NO INTEREST IN --

Jk, jk. Sadly you're quite right and such atheists exist. And it's not like I'm not personally invested in the impression I make as well. All of us have an inner diva, you know. Admittedly mine is probably considerably larger than yours because it's completely unrestrained by Christian humility. And that is why I will always beat you on karaoke night, Rod. ... Always. Don't lie to yourself.

But it sounds like the question you're posing to the anti-religious is, "How do you change the way the whole world thinks in a short span of time?" And if I were them I would find that a very challenging question.

Personally, I see the damage religion has done well enough, but I think its causes are rooted deeply in the human condition. Tribalism. Hating one another over differences. Arrogant belief in the supremacy of our own way of life. Ignorance, fear, craving for control, mob mentality, the inability to coexist with alternate worldviews, the tendency to perceive conflicting beliefs as threats to our identity. I can't in good conscience say these things are limited to religion. I feel they are universal human flaws that we must take collective responsibility for as a species. We will all commit some of them at some point, and it's dangerous to consider yourself outside the problem. What some atheists are saying is that these flaws are exemplified most especially in religion. I think I'd rather say they're exemplified most especially in dogmatic ideology.

I agree with your entire post except for the karaoke part.

You wouldn't beat me in karaoke. You would absolutely annihilate me. I can't even successfully lip sync to karaoke. (I even almost spelled it "sip lync").
RoderickSpode
Posts: 4,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 2:59:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2018 2:34:50 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 7/30/2018 2:18:31 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:


To some in this forum, the problem isn't only that some people might use religion for harmful activity, but that religion can be used for harmful activity. In other words, because someone can use the bible to justify slavery (in early American history), that's reason enough to consider religion itself a danger to society. So even if it wasn't the initial intention of early bible authors to condone slavery in any way, since there's no means of preventing scriptural distortion, the Bible is a public danger. Just like glue. It wasn't meant to be sniffed, but there's no way to prevent it.

Of course they'll often fluctuate between the idea that religion is only a potential tool like anything else for harm, and religion itself actually being harmful.

I think there's more nuance to be had in the view of religion and its overall positive or negative impact on society. The way I view it is "what good things can ONLY be done under the guise of religious imperative" and "what BAD things can be justified through religious imperative." I personally find that the answer to the first is "none", which means that the numerous answers to the second makes religion in general deleterious to civilized societies. That's not to say I think the religious should be eradicated by force. Without the use of force, then the only solution is education and time.

Then I would have to say that the division between theists/religionists and atheist activists allowing for a deleterious society provides a greater service than taking action against something that prolongs a deleterious society. A deleterious society must not be that bad.

I'm wondering if you really know what you're implying here.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 4,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 3:02:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2018 8:20:38 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/29/2018 4:49:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Without religion, some atheists wouldn't have a nemesis that they can use to promote their self-perceived intelligence, logic and reasoning ability, etc.

Yes, without religion, a major avenue to claim intelligence publicly is removed. For those who value how others perceive them, they just have to hope folks will somehow notice in their daily mundane routine.

I know the inevitable backlash would be individual claims of having no interest in impressing others. And that may very well be true for a number of individual atheists on this sit. And of course that's why I included "Some" in the title.


Why do I think this?

This forum in particular is full of claims that religion and theism are akin to mental illness and criminal activity. Conditions that normally warrant taking action either through law enforcement, or necessary hospitalization. Yet, they never provide a solution. I mean never. Well, not that I've seen anyway. All I ever see is the allegations. If it's possible to do a typographical reference for whining, it could be an added posting feature. [Whining]....rant.... [/whining].

Other than the noble wait for the next 200 years and religion will go away theme, why would any atheist who endorses the idea of anti-religion/theism provide no solutions to an alleged major problem they seem to claim?

Come on, atheists need religion like a hole in the head.

If it weren't for intelligent, civil-minded atheists who expose religion for what it is (i.e. a complete con) our society would still be floundering in the dark ages just as some hard-core religious societies are now.

I think we're still floundering in the dark ages.
Ludofl3x
Posts: 2,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 3:04:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2018 2:59:40 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/30/2018 2:34:50 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 7/30/2018 2:18:31 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:


To some in this forum, the problem isn't only that some people might use religion for harmful activity, but that religion can be used for harmful activity. In other words, because someone can use the bible to justify slavery (in early American history), that's reason enough to consider religion itself a danger to society. So even if it wasn't the initial intention of early bible authors to condone slavery in any way, since there's no means of preventing scriptural distortion, the Bible is a public danger. Just like glue. It wasn't meant to be sniffed, but there's no way to prevent it.

Of course they'll often fluctuate between the idea that religion is only a potential tool like anything else for harm, and religion itself actually being harmful.

I think there's more nuance to be had in the view of religion and its overall positive or negative impact on society. The way I view it is "what good things can ONLY be done under the guise of religious imperative" and "what BAD things can be justified through religious imperative." I personally find that the answer to the first is "none", which means that the numerous answers to the second makes religion in general deleterious to civilized societies. That's not to say I think the religious should be eradicated by force. Without the use of force, then the only solution is education and time.

Then I would have to say that the division between theists/religionists and atheist activists allowing for a deleterious society provides a greater service than taking action against something that prolongs a deleterious society. A deleterious society must not be that bad.

I'm wondering if you really know what you're implying here.

I don't think I understand your first paragraph.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 4,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 3:36:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2018 3:04:03 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 7/30/2018 2:59:40 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/30/2018 2:34:50 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 7/30/2018 2:18:31 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:


To some in this forum, the problem isn't only that some people might use religion for harmful activity, but that religion can be used for harmful activity. In other words, because someone can use the bible to justify slavery (in early American history), that's reason enough to consider religion itself a danger to society. So even if it wasn't the initial intention of early bible authors to condone slavery in any way, since there's no means of preventing scriptural distortion, the Bible is a public danger. Just like glue. It wasn't meant to be sniffed, but there's no way to prevent it.

Of course they'll often fluctuate between the idea that religion is only a potential tool like anything else for harm, and religion itself actually being harmful.

I think there's more nuance to be had in the view of religion and its overall positive or negative impact on society. The way I view it is "what good things can ONLY be done under the guise of religious imperative" and "what BAD things can be justified through religious imperative." I personally find that the answer to the first is "none", which means that the numerous answers to the second makes religion in general deleterious to civilized societies. That's not to say I think the religious should be eradicated by force. Without the use of force, then the only solution is education and time.

Then I would have to say that the division between theists/religionists and atheist activists allowing for a deleterious society provides a greater service than taking action against something that prolongs a deleterious society. A deleterious society must not be that bad.

I'm wondering if you really know what you're implying here.

I don't think I understand your first paragraph.

Well, the division between theists and atheists allow for things like discussion and debate forums. We can certainly see that the religion forum totally dominates this board. Science may fall into second place, but no photo finish required.

By deleterious, I'm assuming you're implying something fairly harmful. But you don't think religion should be met with force. Terrorism is met with force. We're not going to wait for terrorists to get educated on international and domestic etiquette.
Ludofl3x
Posts: 2,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 3:56:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2018 3:36:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/30/2018 3:04:03 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 7/30/2018 2:59:40 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/30/2018 2:34:50 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 7/30/2018 2:18:31 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:


To some in this forum, the problem isn't only that some people might use religion for harmful activity, but that religion can be used for harmful activity. In other words, because someone can use the bible to justify slavery (in early American history), that's reason enough to consider religion itself a danger to society. So even if it wasn't the initial intention of early bible authors to condone slavery in any way, since there's no means of preventing scriptural distortion, the Bible is a public danger. Just like glue. It wasn't meant to be sniffed, but there's no way to prevent it.

Of course they'll often fluctuate between the idea that religion is only a potential tool like anything else for harm, and religion itself actually being harmful.

I think there's more nuance to be had in the view of religion and its overall positive or negative impact on society. The way I view it is "what good things can ONLY be done under the guise of religious imperative" and "what BAD things can be justified through religious imperative." I personally find that the answer to the first is "none", which means that the numerous answers to the second makes religion in general deleterious to civilized societies. That's not to say I think the religious should be eradicated by force. Without the use of force, then the only solution is education and time.

Then I would have to say that the division between theists/religionists and atheist activists allowing for a deleterious society provides a greater service than taking action against something that prolongs a deleterious society. A deleterious society must not be that bad.

I'm wondering if you really know what you're implying here.

I don't think I understand your first paragraph.

Well, the division between theists and atheists allow for things like discussion and debate forums. We can certainly see that the religion forum totally dominates this board. Science may fall into second place, but no photo finish required.


The religion forum totally dominates the religion forum? That's not exactly earth shattering news. I don't visit any other part of this site, just here. I also don't get how this applies or is effected by what I said about religion.

By deleterious, I'm assuming you're implying something fairly harmful. But you don't think religion should be met with force. Terrorism is met with force. We're not going to wait for terrorists to get educated on international and domestic etiquette.

I don't think I equated religion (in this case, I took the term to mean your standard every day religious practitioner, not your extremist) with terrorism. Though ironically, terrorism is largely sanctioned by religious fervor, if actually motivated by more earthly, real issues. I'm still not sure what exactly you're pointing out.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 3:56:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2018 2:18:31 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/30/2018 1:40:11 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 7/29/2018 4:49:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Without religion, some atheists wouldn't have a nemesis that they can use to promote their self-perceived intelligence, logic and reasoning ability, etc.

Yes, without religion, a major avenue to claim intelligence publicly is removed. For those who value how others perceive them, they just have to hope folks will somehow notice in their daily mundane routine.

I know the inevitable backlash would be individual claims of having no interest in impressing others. And that may very well be true for a number of individual atheists on this sit. And of course that's why I included "Some" in the title.


Why do I think this?

This forum in particular is full of claims that religion and theism are akin to mental illness and criminal activity. Conditions that normally warrant taking action either through law enforcement, or necessary hospitalization. Yet, they never provide a solution. I mean never. Well, not that I've seen anyway. All I ever see is the allegations. If it's possible to do a typographical reference for whining, it could be an added posting feature. [Whining]....rant.... [/whining].

Other than the noble wait for the next 200 years and religion will go away theme, why would any atheist who endorses the idea of anti-religion/theism provide no solutions to an alleged major problem they seem to claim?

Any faith based belief system can be dangerous but none is intrinsically dangerous. They are onky a problem when they are used to justify harmful behaviors and if we could eliminate all faith based beliefs people who wish to harm others would just come up with a different rationalization. I once posted to StudioB that religion is the problem, that is incorrect or at least a gross oversimplification. The truth is that people are the problem and the only sure solution is too horrible to even contemplate. Better to have bad people along with the good than to have no people.

True.

To some in this forum, the problem isn't only that some people might use religion for harmful activity, but that religion can be used for harmful activity. In other words, because someone can use the bible to justify slavery (in early American history), that's reason enough to consider religion itself a danger to society. So even if it wasn't the initial intention of early bible authors to condone slavery in any way, since there's no means of preventing scriptural distortion, the Bible is a public danger. Just like glue. It wasn't meant to be sniffed, but there's no way to prevent it.

Of course they'll often fluctuate between the idea that religion is only a potential tool like anything else for harm, and religion itself actually being harmful.

Not just religions all faith based beliefs. That would include political systems like communism or capatolism, philosophical schools of thought such as nihilism or solipsism and faith in a particular individual such as John Applewhite's followers held for him or the faith of the Manson family in Charles Manson.

We cannot abandon political systems until someone comes up with a method of forming a coherent society that doesn't involve governance of the people.

We as humans seem unable or unwilling to prevent ourselves from adopting some philosophical school of thought.

We should not as humans stop having faith in each other even if we rarely deserve it as individuals or a species.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
RoderickSpode
Posts: 4,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 4:24:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2018 3:56:19 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 7/30/2018 3:36:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/30/2018 3:04:03 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 7/30/2018 2:59:40 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/30/2018 2:34:50 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 7/30/2018 2:18:31 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:


To some in this forum, the problem isn't only that some people might use religion for harmful activity, but that religion can be used for harmful activity. In other words, because someone can use the bible to justify slavery (in early American history), that's reason enough to consider religion itself a danger to society. So even if it wasn't the initial intention of early bible authors to condone slavery in any way, since there's no means of preventing scriptural distortion, the Bible is a public danger. Just like glue. It wasn't meant to be sniffed, but there's no way to prevent it.

Of course they'll often fluctuate between the idea that religion is only a potential tool like anything else for harm, and religion itself actually being harmful.

I think there's more nuance to be had in the view of religion and its overall positive or negative impact on society. The way I view it is "what good things can ONLY be done under the guise of religious imperative" and "what BAD things can be justified through religious imperative." I personally find that the answer to the first is "none", which means that the numerous answers to the second makes religion in general deleterious to civilized societies. That's not to say I think the religious should be eradicated by force. Without the use of force, then the only solution is education and time.

Then I would have to say that the division between theists/religionists and atheist activists allowing for a deleterious society provides a greater service than taking action against something that prolongs a deleterious society. A deleterious society must not be that bad.

I'm wondering if you really know what you're implying here.

I don't think I understand your first paragraph.

Well, the division between theists and atheists allow for things like discussion and debate forums. We can certainly see that the religion forum totally dominates this board. Science may fall into second place, but no photo finish required.


The religion forum totally dominates the religion forum? That's not exactly earth shattering news. I don't visit any other part of this site, just here. I also don't get how this applies or is effected by what I said about religion.

If religion were such a problem that society decided to eliminate it by force, what do you think this board would look like? Without making wide speculations, all you need do is look at the board, and pretend the religious forum isn't here.

Is your participation in this religious forum a tedious task you're only doing to play a role in fighting for it's elimination? Or are you having fun here?

By deleterious, I'm assuming you're implying something fairly harmful. But you don't think religion should be met with force. Terrorism is met with force. We're not going to wait for terrorists to get educated on international and domestic etiquette.

I don't think I equated religion (in this case, I took the term to mean your standard every day religious practitioner, not your extremist) with terrorism. Though ironically, terrorism is largely sanctioned by religious fervor, if actually motivated by more earthly, real issues. I'm still not sure what exactly you're pointing out.

Your posts tend to give certain things away. You do this quite a bit. You provide a softer version of your presentation, and then throw in an although, an irony, etc. An example, you might say something relatively religiously neutral and off the cuff about Adolph Hitler in this forum, but you won't be able to refer to Hitler without throwing in his Catholic upbringing. There's seems to be something within you that will say something meant to be reassuring, but having to follow up with a counter to your initial proclamation. (I absolutely do not think you're a messy person! But you did leave quite a mess in the kitchen the other day).

So now we're back to square one. if terrorism, as you stated, is largely sanctioned by religious fervor, shouldn't religion be subject to forceful removal? If it's the root of the problem, isn't it the root that needs to be plucked?
Ludofl3x
Posts: 2,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 4:48:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2018 4:24:33 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/30/2018 3:56:19 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:


The religion forum totally dominates the religion forum? That's not exactly earth shattering news. I don't visit any other part of this site, just here. I also don't get how this applies or is effected by what I said about religion.

If religion were such a problem that society decided to eliminate it by force, what do you think this board would look like? Without making wide speculations, all you need do is look at the board, and pretend the religious forum isn't here.


I don't think I'm getting any closer to whatever point you're making. If there were no religion at all, it would stand to reason there'd be no religion forum. I also have said several times I don't think religion should or could be eliminated by force, so I'm not sure why you're trying to pin that on me.

Is your participation in this religious forum a tedious task you're only doing to play a role in fighting for it's elimination? Or are you having fun here?


It's an easy way to make the hours I'm at work go by when I have a moment. In that case, I guess I'm having fun. The only advocacy I've ever done for the elimination of religion is through education and engagement.

By deleterious, I'm assuming you're implying something fairly harmful. But you don't think religion should be met with force. Terrorism is met with force. We're not going to wait for terrorists to get educated on international and domestic etiquette.

I don't think I equated religion (in this case, I took the term to mean your standard every day religious practitioner, not your extremist) with terrorism. Though ironically, terrorism is largely sanctioned by religious fervor, if actually motivated by more earthly, real issues. I'm still not sure what exactly you're pointing out.

Your posts tend to give certain things away. You do this quite a bit. You provide a softer version of your presentation, and then throw in an although, an irony, etc. An example, you might say something relatively religiously neutral and off the cuff about Adolph Hitler in this forum, but you won't be able to refer to Hitler without throwing in his Catholic upbringing. There's seems to be something within you that will say something meant to be reassuring, but having to follow up with a counter to your initial proclamation. (I absolutely do not think you're a messy person! But you did leave quite a mess in the kitchen the other day).


I'm lost as to the relevance of this passage.

So now we're back to square one. if terrorism, as you stated, is largely sanctioned by religious fervor, shouldn't religion be subject to forceful removal? If it's the root of the problem, isn't it the root that needs to be plucked?

if you could rewind all the way back to wherever religion started in the first place, I'd say yes, but that's not reality. I wouldn't say the root needs to be plucked, because then you always have seeds left, remnants underground that may sprout eventually (I can't seem to get all the weeds out of my garden no matter how clean I keep it). I would say the better option is akin to mulch: deprive the weeds of needed nutrients like sunlight, surround them with an environment that makes their propagation much less friendly, and it becomes much more difficult for them to grow and cause trouble. Then they're easily removed one at a time without poisoning the ground.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 4,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 5:17:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2018 4:48:00 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:
At 7/30/2018 4:24:33 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/30/2018 3:56:19 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:


The religion forum totally dominates the religion forum? That's not exactly earth shattering news. I don't visit any other part of this site, just here. I also don't get how this applies or is effected by what I said about religion.

If religion were such a problem that society decided to eliminate it by force, what do you think this board would look like? Without making wide speculations, all you need do is look at the board, and pretend the religious forum isn't here.


I don't think I'm getting any closer to whatever point you're making. If there were no religion at all, it would stand to reason there'd be no religion forum. I also have said several times I don't think religion should or could be eliminated by force, so I'm not sure why you're trying to pin that on me.

I'm not trying to pin it on you. I'm challenging you as to why you don't think it should be forcefully eliminated. Although It looks like you may have addressed it further down this post.

Is your participation in this religious forum a tedious task you're only doing to play a role in fighting for it's elimination? Or are you having fun here?


It's an easy way to make the hours I'm at work go by when I have a moment. In that case, I guess I'm having fun. The only advocacy I've ever done for the elimination of religion is through education and engagement.

I know. That's why I'm questioning you.

By deleterious, I'm assuming you're implying something fairly harmful. But you don't think religion should be met with force. Terrorism is met with force. We're not going to wait for terrorists to get educated on international and domestic etiquette.

I don't think I equated religion (in this case, I took the term to mean your standard every day religious practitioner, not your extremist) with terrorism. Though ironically, terrorism is largely sanctioned by religious fervor, if actually motivated by more earthly, real issues. I'm still not sure what exactly you're pointing out.

Your posts tend to give certain things away. You do this quite a bit. You provide a softer version of your presentation, and then throw in an although, an irony, etc. An example, you might say something relatively religiously neutral and off the cuff about Adolph Hitler in this forum, but you won't be able to refer to Hitler without throwing in his Catholic upbringing. There's seems to be something within you that will say something meant to be reassuring, but having to follow up with a counter to your initial proclamation. (I absolutely do not think you're a messy person! But you did leave quite a mess in the kitchen the other day).


I'm lost as to the relevance of this passage.

If someone told me they didn't think religion was responsible for Hitler's racism, but then followed up with "Though it's ironic that he was a Catholic", then I'm inclined to not believe their initial proclamation.

So I'm questioning your claim to not addressing religion as being equivalent to terrorism based on your follow up comment.

So now we're back to square one. if terrorism, as you stated, is largely sanctioned by religious fervor, shouldn't religion be subject to forceful removal? If it's the root of the problem, isn't it the root that needs to be plucked?

if you could rewind all the way back to wherever religion started in the first place, I'd say yes, but that's not reality. I wouldn't say the root needs to be plucked, because then you always have seeds left, remnants underground that may sprout eventually (I can't seem to get all the weeds out of my garden no matter how clean I keep it). I would say the better option is akin to mulch: deprive the weeds of needed nutrients like sunlight, surround them with an environment that makes their propagation much less friendly, and it becomes much more difficult for them to grow and cause trouble. Then they're easily removed one at a time without poisoning the ground.

Cool. Now we may be getting somewhere.

You are actually advocating force here. I think you may be assuming that my usage of the word force implies physical police force, house arrests, concentration camps, etc.

Deprivation is a means of force. if someone has food being withheld, they are forced to either give in to demands, or starve to death.

Educating however is different. Well, maybe not since the term can be subjective. But I think what you're implying is continue our secular education system, and the teaching of evolution will eventually remove traditional religion.

That's fairly non-aggressive, but adding in deprivation is another story.

How would this actually work (and continue within the confines of freedom of religion and speech)?
graceofgod
Posts: 10,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 5:20:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2018 4:49:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Without religion, some atheists wouldn't have a nemesis that they can use to promote their self-perceived intelligence, logic and reasoning ability, etc.

Yes, without religion, a major avenue to claim intelligence publicly is removed. For those who value how others perceive them, they just have to hope folks will somehow notice in their daily mundane routine.

I know the inevitable backlash would be individual claims of having no interest in impressing others. And that may very well be true for a number of individual atheists on this sit. And of course that's why I included "Some" in the title.


Why do I think this?

This forum in particular is full of claims that religion and theism are akin to mental illness and criminal activity. Conditions that normally warrant taking action either through law enforcement, or necessary hospitalization. Yet, they never provide a solution. I mean never. Well, not that I've seen anyway. All I ever see is the allegations. If it's possible to do a typographical reference for whining, it could be an added posting feature. [Whining]....rant.... [/whining].

Other than the noble wait for the next 200 years and religion will go away theme, why would any atheist who endorses the idea of anti-religion/theism provide no solutions to an alleged major problem they seem to claim?

brilliant thread and very well said... ooh i'm a poet and didn't know it...lol
Anonymous
7/30/2018 5:34:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2018 1:40:11 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 7/29/2018 4:49:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Without religion, some atheists wouldn't have a nemesis that they can use to promote their self-perceived intelligence, logic and reasoning ability, etc.

Yes, without religion, a major avenue to claim intelligence publicly is removed. For those who value how others perceive them, they just have to hope folks will somehow notice in their daily mundane routine.

I know the inevitable backlash would be individual claims of having no interest in impressing others. And that may very well be true for a number of individual atheists on this sit. And of course that's why I included "Some" in the title.


Why do I think this?

This forum in particular is full of claims that religion and theism are akin to mental illness and criminal activity. Conditions that normally warrant taking action either through law enforcement, or necessary hospitalization. Yet, they never provide a solution. I mean never. Well, not that I've seen anyway. All I ever see is the allegations. If it's possible to do a typographical reference for whining, it could be an added posting feature. [Whining]....rant.... [/whining].

Other than the noble wait for the next 200 years and religion will go away theme, why would any atheist who endorses the idea of anti-religion/theism provide no solutions to an alleged major problem they seem to claim?

Any faith based belief system can be dangerous but none is intrinsically dangerous. They are onky a problem when they are used to justify harmful behaviors and if we could eliminate all faith based beliefs people who wish to harm others would just come up with a different rationalization. I once posted to StudioB that religion is the problem, that is incorrect or at least a gross oversimplification. The truth is that people are the problem and the only sure solution is too horrible to even contemplate. Better to have bad people along with the good than to have no people.

"... none is intrinsically dangerous"? I disagree. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses (aka Watchtower) is intrinsically dangerous to the well being of children. Scientology is concluded as dangerous enough in Germany so as to be illegal. Islam is dangerous to those who desire to leave it.

"They are onky a problem when they are used to justify harmful behaviors..."

Well, this claim covers all its bases, doesn't it? Assuming "problem" = "harmful" then all you are essentially claiming is that religion is only harmful when it is used to justify harm. See: tautology. In other words, the claim adds no meaning or insight.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 7:26:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2018 5:34:33 PM, Fly wrote:
At 7/30/2018 1:40:11 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 7/29/2018 4:49:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Without religion, some atheists wouldn't have a nemesis that they can use to promote their self-perceived intelligence, logic and reasoning ability, etc.

Yes, without religion, a major avenue to claim intelligence publicly is removed. For those who value how others perceive them, they just have to hope folks will somehow notice in their daily mundane routine.

I know the inevitable backlash would be individual claims of having no interest in impressing others. And that may very well be true for a number of individual atheists on this sit. And of course that's why I included "Some" in the title.


Why do I think this?

This forum in particular is full of claims that religion and theism are akin to mental illness and criminal activity. Conditions that normally warrant taking action either through law enforcement, or necessary hospitalization. Yet, they never provide a solution. I mean never. Well, not that I've seen anyway. All I ever see is the allegations. If it's possible to do a typographical reference for whining, it could be an added posting feature. [Whining]....rant.... [/whining].

Other than the noble wait for the next 200 years and religion will go away theme, why would any atheist who endorses the idea of anti-religion/theism provide no solutions to an alleged major problem they seem to claim?

Any faith based belief system can be dangerous but none is intrinsically dangerous. They are onky a problem when they are used to justify harmful behaviors and if we could eliminate all faith based beliefs people who wish to harm others would just come up with a different rationalization. I once posted to StudioB that religion is the problem, that is incorrect or at least a gross oversimplification. The truth is that people are the problem and the only sure solution is too horrible to even contemplate. Better to have bad people along with the good than to have no people.

"... none is intrinsically dangerous"? I disagree. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses (aka Watchtower) is intrinsically dangerous to the well being of children. Scientology is concluded as dangerous enough in Germany so as to be illegal. Islam is dangerous to those who desire to leave it.

"They are onky a problem when they are used to justify harmful behaviors..."

Well, this claim covers all its bases, doesn't it? Assuming "problem" = "harmful" then all you are essentially claiming is that religion is only harmful when it is used to justify harm. See: tautology. In other words, the claim adds no meaning or insight.

It is possible to practice religion without harming others. Even scientolology, the watchtower and Islam would only require its adherents to stop using their beliefs to justify these behaviors.

That being said most religions that I know of either have been or currently are used to justify causing harm.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Ludofl3x
Posts: 2,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 7:35:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2018 5:17:56 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/30/2018 4:48:00 PM, Ludofl3x wrote:


I'm lost as to the relevance of this passage.

If someone told me they didn't think religion was responsible for Hitler's racism, but then followed up with "Though it's ironic that he was a Catholic", then I'm inclined to not believe their initial proclamation.


It wasn't responsible for his racism. It was a supporting plank in his platform to get such a large amount of the population to go along with him, though. Saying it wasn't ignores all of the references to God in Nazi culture. Gott mit Unst was on their uniforms, after all. I know you go with the No True Scotsman solution here, but the facts are the facts.

So I'm questioning your claim to not addressing religion as being equivalent to terrorism based on your follow up comment.


Religion in an of itself does not equal terrorism in and of itself, nor do religious people equal terrorists. Is that clear enough?

if you could rewind all the way back to wherever religion started in the first place, I'd say yes, but that's not reality. I wouldn't say the root needs to be plucked, because then you always have seeds left, remnants underground that may sprout eventually (I can't seem to get all the weeds out of my garden no matter how clean I keep it). I would say the better option is akin to mulch: deprive the weeds of needed nutrients like sunlight, surround them with an environment that makes their propagation much less friendly, and it becomes much more difficult for them to grow and cause trouble. Then they're easily removed one at a time without poisoning the ground.

Cool. Now we may be getting somewhere.

You are actually advocating force here. I think you may be assuming that my usage of the word force implies physical police force, house arrests, concentration camps, etc.

Deprivation is a means of force. if someone has food being withheld, they are forced to either give in to demands, or starve to death.


I guess I can see how you compute that as leverage in a way similar to, let's say, kicking down a church door and burning down the building and threatening those within with their lives, which is normally what 'force" means.

Educating however is different. Well, maybe not since the term can be subjective. But I think what you're implying is continue our secular education system, and the teaching of evolution will eventually remove traditional religion.


Not just the teaching of evolution. The teaching of critical thinking skills. The teaching of our shared humanity and intrinsic equality.

That's fairly non-aggressive, but adding in deprivation is another story.

How would this actually work (and continue within the confines of freedom of religion and speech)?

Are you asking how do critical thinking skills work? I am not trying to be a jerk, I'm trying to understand how to answer your question. Deprivation for religion starts with making them open their books to the public in exchange for the tax breaks they want, I'd say.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.