If athiests ruled the world

Holy fuck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO9IPoAdct8

Yeah I stumbled upon this yesterday, it was pretty hilarious.

Lol, just before it finished I was thinking "I've heard actual christians spout shit like this", then at the finish, I couldn't help but lol.

I was just about to quote the thing from http://www.fstdt.net about the atheists having wild sex with prostitutes and watching gays fucking followed by crucifying/burning the Christian, since I thought it was relevant.

And then I realized, well, you know.

guys

i don't know how to say this

but 95% of the time, reading forum posts aloud is going to sound ridiculous, especially when it's a specialized forum for extremists.

this is about as funny as that faggot trying to satire teaching boys to control their urges

ps sycld if my future wife ever asks you and one of your fairy friends to fuck in my bed because she wants to watch, you had better say yes

or else.

haha That was pretty good

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

guys

i don't know how to say this

but 95% of the time, reading forum posts aloud is going to sound ridiculous, especially when it's a specialized forum for extremists.

this is about as funny as that faggot trying to satire teaching boys to control their urges

---

To be honest, these posts were funny even in text form. In fact, I think the "if atheists ruled the world" post was funnier as text since you got to add the inflections to the voices yourself and visual the scene in your head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

ps sycld if my future wife ever asks you and one of your fairy friends to fuck in my bed because she wants to watch, you had better say yes

or else.

---

Hey, I'm not a Jesus-loving Christian that would refuse such a request and deserves to be BURNED and HANGED FOR HIS BELIEF.

itt I agree with coquavin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

itt I agree with coquavin

---

then you obviously haven't read the text of these posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

then you obviously haven't read the text of these posts.

---

no, I did, and they are retarded, but there is a difference between ignorance and comedy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

guys

i don't know how to say this

but 95% of the time, reading forum posts aloud is going to sound ridiculous, especially when it's a specialized forum for extremists.

this is about as funny as that faggot trying to satire teaching boys to control their urges

---

Very valid point, but I don't think some of these comments are extremist, you would not believe how many times I have heard someone say the line about "if we evolved from monkeys then why do monkeys still exist" or a similar variable. They aren't extremist by any means, just massively ignorant on science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrTroy

Very valid point, but I don't think some of these comments are extremist, you would not believe how many times I have heard someone say the line about "if we evolved from monkeys then why do monkeys still exist" or a similar variable. They aren't extremist by any means, just massively ignorant on science.

---

Just because there are more of them than there should be doesn't mean they aren't extremists. Extremist does not necessarily imply minority.

these are all quotes from fstdt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sion

these are all quotes from fstdt.

---

Is that all you do?

You're fucking pathetic.

this kind of shit only really seems to appeal to people who have a hard on for hating on anything remotely resembling religion

i admit the visual is strange and can be oddly comical, but you're taking the bottom of the barrel and implying it is representative of the whole

this is just as misguided as their description of 'if atheists ruled the world'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

this kind of shit only really seems to appeal to people who have a hard on for hating on anything remotely resembling religion

---

i don't hate anything remotely resembling religion.

i hate anything resembling close-mindedness and a spirit of anti-intellectualism. there's a huge difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

this kind of shit only really seems to appeal to people who have a hard on for hating on anything remotely resembling religion'

---

heh, i hate everything remotely resembling religion (except yours, man; you're the exception -- you're my exception) and i pretty much agree with you about the video.

belittling religious people like this video does -- pretending that they're all like this -- is counter-productive, i feel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simonj

Is that all you do?

You're fucking pathetic.

---

nah i quick replied before i read the thread or finished the video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

i don't hate anything remotely resembling religion.

i hate anything resembling close-mindedness and a spirit of anti-intellectualism. there's a huge difference.

---

a rose by any other name

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

guys

i don't know how to say this

but 95% of the time, reading forum posts aloud is going to sound ridiculous, especially when it's a specialized forum for extremists.

this is about as funny as that faggot trying to satire teaching boys to control their urges

---

Are you arguing that "If humans evolved from monkeys, why aren't babies born monkeys?" sounds reasonable if read in a forum post and not read aloud?

oh of course i am

dumbass

Coq you're getting really worked up in this thread. Does Christian bashing just stick a cock right up your ass, or what?

I got a lol out of it. Do I think it is representitive of all christians? Of course not. Its a piss take of the ones who like to grab the media spotlight and shit all over their name. Its a piss take of all the people who fear evolution but do not know the slightest thing about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nevrmore

Coq you're getting really worked up in this thread. Does Christian bashing just stick a cock right up your ass, or what?

---

Do you need to be so confrontational? I don't think anyone in this thread has said anything particularly stupid or aggressive, so nobody deserves to be talked down to or insulted. We're having a debate.

Settle.

Now carry on.

It's because people bash christianity under the same pretext that christianity bashes other people - the blanket of "Well, I'm better than you, you misguided fool." Any bashing that's done paints the basher with the same brush as the bashee. The difference is, it's hip for people who wish to be seen as intelligent to hate on religion as loudly as possible right now, so this kind of thing is encouraged, which is completely retarded, both in the pejorative and literal sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

It's because people bash christianity under the same pretext that christianity bashes other people - the blanket of "Well, I'm better than you, you misguided fool." Any bashing that's done paints the basher with the same brush as the bashee. The difference is, it's hip for people who wish to be seen as intelligent to hate on religion as loudly as possible right now, so this kind of thing is encouraged, which is completely retarded, both in the pejorative and literal sense.

---

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to coqauvin again.

Glad to see someone other than me has actually caught this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

It's because people bash christianity under the same pretext that christianity bashes other people - the blanket of "Well, I'm better than you, you misguided fool." Any bashing that's done paints the basher with the same brush as the bashee. The difference is, it's hip for people who wish to be seen as intelligent to hate on religion as loudly as possible right now, so this kind of thing is encouraged, which is completely retarded, both in the pejorative and literal sense.

---

I think it is a simple fact of atheism or "non-religious" becoming more popular. In the latest polls it is at 15% in the US. The more people who share a common ground, the more likely it is to come up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrTroy

I think it is a simple fact of atheism or "non-religious" becoming more popular. In the latest polls it is at 15% in the US. The more people who share a common ground, the more likely it is to come up.

---

I think coquavin was commenting less on the frequency of it coming up and more on the context in which it comes up. Some people throw atheism around like it makes them geniuses and instantly better than anyone and everyone who isn't an atheist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

I think coquavin was commenting less on the frequency of it coming up and more on the context in which it comes up. Some people throw atheism around like it makes them geniuses and instantly better than anyone and everyone who isn't an atheist.

---

Ah... the pot and the kettle (not you specifically)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

It's because people bash christianity under the same pretext that christianity bashes other people - the blanket of "Well, I'm better than you, you misguided fool." Any bashing that's done paints the basher with the same brush as the bashee. The difference is, it's hip for people who wish to be seen as intelligent to hate on religion as loudly as possible right now, so this kind of thing is encouraged, which is completely retarded, both in the pejorative and literal sense.

---

i really don't understand what you're getting worked up over. do you like figures like george w. bush? do you like it when people think the USA is specially favored by god and that the king james version of the bible is the only authoritative inspired one (even to the exclusion of its precedents in hebrew, greek, and aramaic)? do you like it when people who identify themselves as christians bash other religions?

the thing is that these stupid forum posts reflect an attitude adopted by many christians in the US and abroad, and it's scary. some people such as myself are intelligent enough to take a nuanced view of things and realize that not all christians are like this and to differentiate between christians like you and christians like these.

however, way too many christians hold the views that these people do, no matter how much you want to deny it. these are stupid beliefs that are just as stupid when read as text as they are recited out loud, and the humor comes from their nature as self-parody and from their obvious absurdity

Yeah, I don't think that mocking the viewpoints that are mocked in the OP video is at all the same as mocking Christianity or Christians or religion in general. Coqauvin, I think you're jumping to conclusions if you perceive things like this video as simply atheists bashing Christians because they think it makes them look intellectual, or because they think they're better than Christians. I'd perceive it as non-retarded people bashing utterly idiotic ideas because those ideas deserve to be bashed. It's moron-bashing, not Christian-bashing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

this kind of shit only really seems to appeal to people who have a hard on for hating on anything remotely resembling religion

i admit the visual is strange and can be oddly comical, but you're taking the bottom of the barrel and implying it is representative of the whole

this is just as misguided as their description of 'if atheists ruled the world'

---

Its humorous. Just because I laugh at a racist joke doesn't mean I'm racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infernus

Its humorous. Just because I laugh at a racist joke doesn't mean I'm racist.

---

According to the principal of my school you just acted on "the first steps to genocide."
thats a quote in context of racist jokes.

Ok, so this video isn't a particularly poignant example of what I'm against, but that's not the point I'm making - it's still relatively representative of what I was talking about.

Honestly, I just see some (socially-awkward-looking) guys making fun of some particularly idiotic things that religious fundamentalists have said on their forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

Ok, so this video isn't a particularly poignant example of what I'm against, but that's not the point I'm making - it's still relatively representative of what I was talking about.

---

well, i'm sorry that you're such a persecuted martyr. i hope this aria i'm playing on the world's tiniest violin will give you some comfort while you're being crucified.

Yes, but we can describe anything solely by a literal description and miss the subtext of what they're saying. It's not strictly speaking the content of this video that perturbs me - it's the spirit that goes into making it, the spirit that enjoys it and the perpetuation of that mindset that aggravates me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

well, i'm sorry that you're such a persecuted martyr. i hope this aria i'm playing on the world's tiniest violin will give you some comfort while you're being crucified.

---

This isn't about me or my beliefs or lack thereof. It's the 'let's all hate religion' bandwagon that has appeared recently that bothers me. The people who hop on that are just as misguided as those they hate, and for the same reasons.

so what do you want, people to walk on eggshells when talking about christianity, even its dark side?

Did you read what I said at all? I have made my position clear on this several times.

Part of the problem is that there really isn't a way for religious people to rebute, seeing as religion is faith based and atheism is intellectually based. Not being able to prove there is a god is kind of the point of religion, because it wouldn't be genuine if people knew for sure that there were a god. It isn't really fair for either to attack the other for seeing things the way they do, because they are not at all comparable views. They come from two completely different places.

Debate, sure. Criticism, sure. Attacks, not really justified. At least not for the run-of-the-mill religious person.

Now, of course, attacking people like the faggots who post on that forum isn't a bad thing, because they are fucking stupid. This video isn't really clever at all, and I find that kind of stupidity more sad than hilarious, but I think it could be funny if it were done better.

I don't really know who I am talking to or what point I am trying to prove, but I'm just sayin'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

Yes, but we can describe anything solely by a literal description and miss the subtext of what they're saying. It's not strictly speaking the content of this video that perturbs me - it's the spirit that goes into making it, the spirit that enjoys it and the perpetuation of that mindset that aggravates me.

---

I dunno, it just seems to me that the ideas they are lampooning in this video are so utterly absurd and so ripe for mockery--"if our cells are really full of deoxyribonucleic acid, how come we don't all dissolve?"--that it's hard to say with any confidence that the video reveals any broadly anti-religious spirit on the part of the makers, or that someone who enjoys it has any broadly anti-religious spirit. I dunno, I just don't see it. I get what you're saying, but in this case, I think the target of the derision is so eminently deserving of derision that there's just no grounds for claiming that there's an underlying anti-religious subtext. The stuff in the video is dumb enough that people with no beef against religion in general could still very well be inclined to mock it.

It seems this conversation has transcended the video and moved on to statements about society in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

Do you need to be so confrontational? I don't think anyone in this thread has said anything particularly stupid or aggressive, so nobody deserves to be talked down to or insulted. We're having a debate.

Settle.

Now carry on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

oh of course i am

dumbass

---

Obligatory "learn to read" written in humorously ironic internet shorthand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nevrmore

Obligatory "learn to read" written in humorously ironic internet shorthand.

---

I'm sorry; what I should've said was "Nobody had said anything particularly stupid or aggressive before you arrived".

Why are the Video Vault threads turning all AI?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simonj

Why are the Video Vault threads turning all AI?

---

Because this forum is for talking about the videos that people post, so when someone posts a video that deals with a topic like evolution/creationism or religious fundamentalism, people will talk about it. Shocking, I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

I'm sorry; what I should've said was "Nobody had said anything particularly stupid or aggressive before you arrived".

---

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

I'm sorry; what I should've said was "Nobody had said anything particularly stupid or aggressive before you arrived".

---

except for the christians in the video, of course.

we must BURN them all.

right after I have INTERACIAL SODOMY WITH MY GAY LOVER, that is, while YOUR WIFE IS LOOKING

sycld you are making me want to bend you over and do unspeakable homosexual activities in your ass-ular regions while making your wife watch with her x-ray vision

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

This isn't about me or my beliefs or lack thereof. It's the 'let's all hate religion' bandwagon that has appeared recently that bothers me. The people who hop on that are just as misguided as those they hate, and for the same reasons.

---

But religion is stupid. It is good that more and more people are starting to see it that way. It has lost its relevance. They are not as misguided, that simply is not true. Mocking people who believe in an invisible superman in the sky who will send you for torture for the rest of time if you kiss someone of the same sex isn't misguided.

What they do in this video is to hold up some of the stupidity of the religious right for us all to laugh at. Just because lots of people hold these beliefs, and they are old doesn't make them any less stupid. So what if some people may not have any strong philosophical understandings to why it is stupid, it doesn't matter because the christian right is blatently stupid, you don't need your amateur philosophy hat on to see that.

Sure, there are people who get evangelical about god hating, without having spent alot of time mulling the ideas over. You seem to imply that you must have a well thought out argument and reason for hating on religion - you don't, whilst it might make you seem intelligent and it is generally more pleasant to hear well considered reasons, the simple fact that religion is redundant and built upon pillars of stupidity make it all ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

But religion is stupid. It is good that more and more people are starting to see it that way. It has lost its relevance. They are not as misguided, that simply is not true. Mocking people who believe in an invisible superman in the sky who will send you for torture for the rest of time if you kiss someone of the same sex isn't misguided.

What they do in this video is to hold up some of the stupidity of the religious right for us all to laugh at. Just because lots of people hold these beliefs, and they are old doesn't make them any less stupid. So what if some people may not have any strong philosophical understandings to why it is stupid, it doesn't matter because the christian right is blatently stupid, you don't need your amateur philosophy hat on to see that.

Sure, there are people who get evangelical about god hating, without having spent alot of time mulling the ideas over. You seem to imply that you must have a well thought out argument and reason for hating on religion - you don't, whilst it might make you seem intelligent and it is generally more pleasant to hear well considered reasons, the simple fact that religion is redundant and built upon pillars of stupidity make it all ok.

---

Hahahahah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

But religion is stupid. It is good that more and more people are starting to see it that way. It has lost its relevance. They are not as misguided, that simply is not true. Mocking people who believe in an invisible superman in the sky who will send you for torture for the rest of time if you kiss someone of the same sex isn't misguided.

What they do in this video is to hold up some of the stupidity of the religious right for us all to laugh at. Just because lots of people hold these beliefs, and they are old doesn't make them any less stupid. So what if some people may not have any strong philosophical understandings to why it is stupid, it doesn't matter because the christian right is blatently stupid, you don't need your amateur philosophy hat on to see that.

Sure, there are people who get evangelical about god hating, without having spent alot of time mulling the ideas over. You seem to imply that you must have a well thought out argument and reason for hating on religion - you don't, whilst it might make you seem intelligent and it is generally more pleasant to hear well considered reasons, the simple fact that religion is redundant and built upon pillars of stupidity make it all ok.

---

Blind hatred is more retarded than blind faith. By your logic christians are worse than racists. By your logic the Pope is worse than Hitler. You. Are. Retarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

But religion is stupid. It is good that more and more people are starting to see it that way. It has lost its relevance. They are not as misguided, that simply is not true. Mocking people who believe in an invisible superman in the sky who will send you for torture for the rest of time if you kiss someone of the same sex isn't misguided.

What they do in this video is to hold up some of the stupidity of the religious right for us all to laugh at. Just because lots of people hold these beliefs, and they are old doesn't make them any less stupid. So what if some people may not have any strong philosophical understandings to why it is stupid, it doesn't matter because the christian right is blatently stupid, you don't need your amateur philosophy hat on to see that.

Sure, there are people who get evangelical about god hating, without having spent alot of time mulling the ideas over. You seem to imply that you must have a well thought out argument and reason for hating on religion - you don't, whilst it might make you seem intelligent and it is generally more pleasant to hear well considered reasons, the simple fact that religion is redundant and built upon pillars of stupidity make it all ok.

---

Wow - just wow. I need time to think about this.
You boy, are getting a wall of text once I've sorted out my views coherently.
(p.s. you're wrong)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Think

You boy, are getting a wall of text once I've sorted out my views coherently.

---

I wouldn't bother if I were you.

And then a uniting force came unto the thread, and the people were brought together to oppose the force of idiocy.

i thought i had lost this argument until gismo came along and proved me right, especially with this little doozy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo lol

Sure, there are people who get evangelical about god hating, without having spent alot of time mulling the ideas over. You seem to imply that you must have a well thought out argument and reason for hating on religion - you don't, whilst it might make you seem intelligent and it is generally more pleasant to hear well considered reasons, the simple fact that religion is redundant and built upon pillars of stupidity make it all ok.

---

hahaha well guys, the other side isn't human or has any characteristic making them human, so it's ok to kill them!

ps i can't wait to read think's post

Gismo doesn't represent me or any sane human being. Scientific people thrive on well thought out arguments and reasons

atheistic does not infer scientific

Atheistic may not infer scientific, but scientific usually infers non-belief or doubt. There is a difference between atheist who are atheist because they feel betrayed and angry at the world and think religion is fucking stupid, and atheist who are atheist because of known evidence and facts.

wall o' text's going to have to wait til I have the time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrTroy

Atheistic may not infer scientific, but scientific usually infers non-belief or doubt. There is a difference between atheist who are atheist because they feel betrayed and angry at the world and think religion is fucking stupid, and atheist who are atheist because of known evidence and facts.

---

tell me, you say this; but does the law of parsimony really play that important a role in the rest of your life?
Sorry, but with the available evidence it's simpler to believe you have a different underlying reason :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrTroy

atheist who are atheist because they feel betrayed and angry at the world

---

i daresay there are very few of these

most people who are angry at god continue to believe in god (otherwise how could they be angry at him)

some people, though, find it impossible to believe in a god who could allow so much suffering to exist, and i hold that position

(that actually came after i was already an atheist though)

The whole "I can't believe in a God who allows suffering" is something I can understand, but I think it's a position that is inherently flawed.

However, I won't discuss that itt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

The whole "I can't believe in a God who allows suffering" is something I can understand, but I think it's a position that is inherently flawed.

However, I won't discuss that itt.

---

I feel the same way, and I, too, will not discuss it itt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

The whole "I can't believe in a God who allows suffering" is something I can understand, but I think it's a position that is inherently flawed.

However, I won't discuss that itt.

---

Well, I will! Not forcefully, but I will say that there is no satisfying answer to the question of how a benevolent god can allow such suffering.

All He has to have done is decided to give us free will and not renege on that decision.

Surely the combination of omniscience and benevolence would have prevented that.

Plus, it's not as easy as "he created us as wonderful beings with souls, completely free to choose to act badly or well". He created us with some serious fucking faults.

He must have known he was doing nobody a favour when he foresaw (as he must have) that people would, because of their significant and varied faults, use their free will to inflict terrible suffering on innocent others.

I made that post in a hurry, re reading it I see that the point which I was trying to make was well and truely lost by the incoherant manner in which it was framed. I shall try better this time.

What I do want to make clear is that I do think religion is stupid and has lost its relevance, there are much better ways of understanding ourselves and our world.

Mr Troy hit on what I was aiming to say. I don't want to get bogged down in semantics here, but I think it is safe to say that there are 2 kinds of atheist, ones who have given proper thought to the notion of god, who may have read up on famous atheist works which challenge the notion, read up on different branches of science and then came to conclude that they don't believe there is a god as the evidence against is too strong. They are able to give good reasoning to back up their atheism when needed and give coherant, reasoned criticisms of god and religion (which is fine).

And there are those who don't think there is one, but arrived at this conclusion by different means. Whilst less thoughtful, I would first like to say that it doesn't imply hatred. The notion of an invisible man in the sky, and blind faith in the Bible, which is quite clearly a book of myths totally staggers me and I find it's stupidity glaringly obvious. This group generally cannot give the same arguments as the first, their arguments tend to be "lol godfag" or something like that. Whilst crude, and something I personally try to avoid (if I am being serious), it doesn't imply hatred (I doubt few, if any of these guys have murdered a religious person for their faith, the opposite cannot be said however) and it doesn't always carry with it a notion of "im clevr".

Yes, there are some people who criticise religion for being stupid and then try to claim that therefore they must be clever, we all know it doesn't work like that. I want to make it clear that you can still make mindless digs at god without adopting this attitude, and that in my mind is ok too.

Since when did criticism of religion have to be from a point of scientific understanding? Alot of people here seem to think that if you wish to have a go at god, you better be able to justify it. Why? To make it clear, this isn't the same as "lol stupid christians, I therefore am clever by virtue of mockin u", the christian god and myths quite clearly are not true, the nonsense of it all is striking, so if people want to take midnless digs at it, go ahead.

Again to make it clear, I don't like it when people take digs, then try to imply it gives them intelligence, or try to mask themselves as the first kind of atheist, as I don't believe the deserve to. One of the other video's about telling christian boys how to avoid the urge, whilst I didn't find it amusing, I have no issue that the guy chose to make it.

Let me be clear with what I mean with "dig", as judging by some posts it would seem people have taken this to mean almost anything. I mean stuff like silly youtube video's mocking god. Or someone making a thread on an internet forum. I am not talking about murdering people, or going to faith schools and shouting at the kids. These aren't the same, and the latter is not what I meant.

Many of you are according far too much respect to religion.

Again, I sense I am having trouble expressing my point....look at it this way, let us say personX believes in the tooth fairy. PersonX is 40 years old. What alot of you guys are saying is that to criticise him for this belief, you must provide sound reasoning as to why this is wrong, because the blatent stupidity of the situation is not enough. Thats not to say he should be criticised, in person at least, I wouldn't do that for the same reason I never talk about religion with my religious friends, I don't wish to offend them. But if I were to criticise it, surely the blatent stupidity of this notion would be strong enough cause. And yes, I brought religion down to the level of the tooth fairy, as in my opinion they are very alike in essence, wishful belief in a fantasy. Except one is far less prevelant and dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

I don't want to get bogged down in semantics here, but I think it is safe to say that there are 2 kinds of atheist, ones who have given proper thought to the notion of god, who may have read up on famous atheist works which challenge the notion, read up on different branches of science and then came to conclude that they don't believe there is a god as the evidence against is too strong.

---

There is no way that reading up on various scientific topics could ever provide you with any evidence against the existence of a god. I say this as an atheist and someone spends a lot of free time reading scientific literature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

the christian god and myths quite clearly are not true, the nonsense of it all is striking, so if people want to take midnless digs at it, go ahead.

---

That is not a strong argument.

It isn't that everyone here is according respect to religion as much as it is the people here respecting the reasonable members of religion on the virtue that they are human beings and their belief systems are important to them. Running around saying, "god isn't real, you guys are retarded because of what you believe, herfnesnerfnesnu," is just discourteous, whether your reasoning is justified or not and whether you are saying it just to harass them or you are saying it from a place of superiority. It isn't an issue of what you believe, it is an issue of being a considerate person.

There is nothing wrong with expressing dissension reasonably, but there is no need to be an ass about it (unless they are particularly asking for it like the people who post on those fundamentalist forums).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

And there are those who don't think there is one, but arrived at this conclusion by different means. Whilst less thoughtful, I would first like to say that it doesn't imply hatred. The notion of an invisible man in the sky, and blind faith in the Bible, which is quite clearly a book of myths totally staggers me and I find it's stupidity glaringly obvious. This group generally cannot give the same arguments as the first, their arguments tend to be "lol godfag" or something like that. Whilst crude, and something I personally try to avoid (if I am being serious), it doesn't imply hatred (I doubt few, if any of these guys have murdered a religious person for their faith, the opposite cannot be said however) and it doesn't always carry with it a notion of "im clevr".

---

He does have a point. I've been an atheist since I was about 7. Not because I saw any flaws in the bible or because I read up on evolution or because I understood the inherent flaws in Pascal's Wager. It was more that I simply didn't see any necessity in believing in a God (I suppose I was more of an Agnostic). As I grew up the things I learnt seemed to only confirm this more until I decided to drop the obnoxious 'Agnostic' label and call myself an atheist. This is because I don't believe there is a God, simple as.

There's been a lot of talk in the media over here about the importance of respecting people's beliefs. Surely that's just wrong. I respect the right to hold whatever beliefs you so choose but if I think it's stupid then I believe that I should have the right to say so. That's all that's gone on so far in this thread (in regards to Gismo's posts) and I don't entirely understand why everyone's joining the 'lolidiot' bandwagon other than maybe because his contribution was poorly worded and slightly brassy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

There is no way that reading up on various scientific topics could ever provide you with any evidence against the existence of a god. I say this as an atheist and someone spends a lot of free time reading scientific literature.

---

This is true but it can certainly spark the way towards atheistic beliefs. Of course it's not going to provide you with evidence against a higher power but that's only because such belief is predicated entirely on a lack of evidence (see: faith). This argument isn't so black and white.

If someone plays some music for me that I think sucks I have the right to say it sucks, but out of respect for their opinions I generally just say that I don't like it and maybe give some reasons why. It isn't that I don't have a right to say it sucks, it is just an issue of respect and decency. If you don't choose to have respect and decency then that is your right, but just because it is your right to be that way doesn't make it justified or reasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simonj

This is true but it can certainly spark the way towards atheistic beliefs. Of course it's not going to provide you with evidence against a higher power but that's only because such belief is predicated entirely on a lack of evidence (see: faith). This argument isn't so black and white.

---

Even if belief in a higher being wasn't predicated entirely on a lack of evidence, science would still be incapable of providing evidence against it. Anyone who believes otherwise doesn't understand science or how it works. I'm not sure what you mean by "this argument isn't so black and white". The only thing I'm saying in black-and-white terms is that science is incapable of providing evidence against the existence of supernatural entities. That's just a fact.

Incidentally, I came about my atheism the same way you did: When I was about 8 years old, I said to myself, "Wait a minute... I don't have any evidence that this guy exists. Generally speaking, I don't believe things unless I have a reason to believe them. So why is God different?"

Bad music doesn't harm anyone, Mr E.

I agree that there's no need to be discourteous to people who don't deserve it (which is the majority of religious people). But sometimes it's not discourtesy, and sometimes they deserve it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

If someone plays some music for me that I think sucks I have the right to say it sucks, but out of respect for their opinions I generally just say that I don't like it and maybe give some reasons why. It isn't that I don't have a right to say it sucks, it is just an issue of respect and decency. If you don't choose to have respect and decency then that is your right, but just because it is your right to be that way doesn't make it justified or reasonable.

---

But if someone goes on and on and on about how and why Nickelback are one the greatest bands in the world I will probably tell them to shut up and tell them why they're probably wrong. Then they'll sulk away and just mutter something about 'opinions'.

Similarly, I'm very tolerant of people's religious views until it comes to the point where they're preaching at me. Then I consider it 'gloves off' and will probably tell them to shut up and then say why I believe they're wrong (although, I'll probably treat them a lot more politely than I would any Nickelback fan - even though the two groups do tend to share space on the relevant Venn Diagram).

There is nothing wrong and there is plenty right about religious tolerance and respect but to keep such discussions bottled up for the ignorant reasons coq has already stated is not healthy for society and will only create more problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Even if belief in a higher being wasn't predicated entirely on a lack of evidence, science would still be incapable of providing evidence against it. Anyone who believes otherwise doesn't understand science or how it works. I'm not sure what you mean by "this argument isn't so black and white". The only thing I'm saying in black-and-white terms is that science is incapable of providing evidence against the existence of supernatural entities. That's just a fact.

Incidentally, I came about my atheism the same way you did: When I was about 8 years old, I said to myself, "Wait a minute... I don't have any evidence that this guy exists. Generally speaking, I don't believe things unless I have a reason to believe them. So why is God different?"

---

Ok, we're saying the same things here, just in two misunderstood ways so let's just disagree to agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

I agree that there's no need to be discourteous to people who don't deserve it (which is the majority of religious people). But sometimes it's not discourtesy, and sometimes they deserve it.

---

I agree with this entirely.

While religion may somewhat hurt the world, it also does good in the world (I'm not implying that atheists don't do good too). If the world was run by atheists I think things would probably be generally the same as they are now. Most cases of religion hurting people are mislabeled. If there was no religion people would have to be more honest about why they did the bad things they did, but they would still do them. If there was no religion it wouldn't eliminate the issues of abortion, gay marriage, race, sex education, or anything else, it would just change some of the reasons why some people were divided on the issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

There is no way that reading up on various scientific topics could ever provide you with any evidence against the existence of a god. I say this as an atheist and someone spends a lot of free time reading scientific literature.

---

I'd just like to add to this why the existence of god is unscientific, since a lot of people just don't understand what science is and what science isn't. They get the impression in elementary to high school that science is a corpus of facts about how the world works that's taught by fiat, statements that should be held as true simply because they are being taught by an authority. That's not what science is at all.

The proposal that god exists is unscientific because it is non-falsifiable. Science works more or less by observing a phenomenon, formulating a hypothetical model with predictive power to describe the phenomenon, and then by performing experiments to see if them model can predict their outcome. If it does, the model is accept as a "true" scientific theory. If not, it is discarded or modified.

God is presented to us as a supernatural entity or at least as one that transcends the physical reality that is sensible to us. Science works only with stuff we can perceive with our senses, usually indirectly through the use of instruments, but nonetheless only with stuff for which we can correct direct evidence.

So what does all this have to do with unfalsifiablity? Well, science works through deductive reasoning. That means it tries the same thing over and over and over and over again, and if the same thing happens again and again and again, then it makes a general statement about the world from these specific instances.

Now, it is impossible to definitively determine that a proposition is true in science. At best we can determine truth beyond a reasonable doubt. However, it is possible to show that something is false in science by finding just one instance of something which definitely contradicts a statement.

Since God "transcends" the realm of phenomenality, there is no experiment that could concievably be used to show that the proposal "God exists" is false. On the other hand, it is quite easy to concieve of an experiment that could show any host of scientific theories are false, and what sorts of outcomes they would have to be.

This is why the existance of God is inherently an unscientific idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simonj

But if someone goes on and on and on about how and why Nickelback are one the greatest bands in the world I will probably tell them to shut up and tell them why they're probably wrong. Then they'll sulk away and just mutter something about 'opinions'.

Similarly, I'm very tolerant of people's religious views until it comes to the point where they're preaching at me. Then I consider it 'gloves off' and will probably tell them to shut up and then say why I believe they're wrong (although, I'll probably treat them a lot more politely than I would any Nickelback fan - even though the two groups do tend to share space on the relevant Venn Diagram).

---

It seems we are in agreement then. When the gloves come off I think anything is fair. I'm just critical of atheists who act like the gloves are always off, provoked or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

I agree with this entirely.

While religion may somewhat hurt the world, it also does good in the world (I'm not implying that atheists don't do good too). If the world was run by atheists I think things would probably be generally the same as they are now. Most cases of religion hurting people are mislabeled. If there was no religion people would have to be more honest about why they did the bad things they did, but they would still do them. If there was no religion it wouldn't eliminate the issues of abortion, gay marriage, race, sex education, or anything else, it would just change some of the reasons why some people were divided on the issues.

---

What?

What?

Without religion, there would be no reason to fight abortion laws and no reason to hate gays. There'd be none of these ridiculous taboos about sex, so sex education would be at an infinitely higher standard. Your assertion is nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

What?

What?

Without religion, there would be no reason to fight abortion laws and no reason to hate gays. There'd be none of these ridiculous taboos about sex, so sex education would be at an infinitely higher standard. Your assertion is nonsense.

---

I disagree. People hate people who are different than them, religion or no religion. Gay rights would still be an issue, just like race rights. I think it is a little presumptuous to assume that there wouldn't be taboos either. We don't know how society would have developed without religion, and there is no way to know. All of these are moot points anyway because it is too late for there to have been no religion, lol. Even if everyone on earth magically decided there wasn't a god one day it wouldn't solve every problem ever. Back when I was a hardcore conservative (the days did exist, as much as I am ashamed of them) my arguments against abortion and gay marriage had nothing to do with religion.

I knew Karl Popper would come up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

If someone plays some music for me that I think sucks I have the right to say it sucks, but out of respect for their opinions I generally just say that I don't like it and maybe give some reasons why. It isn't that I don't have a right to say it sucks, it is just an issue of respect and decency. If you don't choose to have respect and decency then that is your right, but just because it is your right to be that way doesn't make it justified or reasonable.

---

Like I said in my analogy, I wouldn't criticise the 40 year old for believing in the tooth fairy, because I didn't want to offend him. But, if for whatever reason I find that I am, the stupidity of his belief should be enough.

I have friends of all sorts of faiths, but I would never sit with them and criticise this, out of respect for them as people. This however is the internet.

Mr E, religion still acts as a massive source of hatred and problems. Whilst people may hate gays for any number of reasons, religion has been a major source since it was invented. In Iran, if you get caught, you get murdered by the state, because it is a sin against god. This is both terrible and stupid.

Removing religion wouldn't solve all of the worlds problems. It would help remove some of them though. All of this because people believe some myths. The whole thing is insane. So if you do feel the need to have a go at religion, this gives a very good reason. No one ever died because they disobeyed the tooth fairy.

So what you are saying is picking on idiots is mean, but still ok because they are idiots. I see...

I am aware of abusive theocracy, and they are horrible and the world would probably be better without those, I will say that. However, beyond that things would generally be the same. Who knows, there could be countries that execute gays because it is an affront to the natural order. Religious extremists could (and probably would) just be replaced by natural order extremists. It is human nature for there to be dissenting opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

So what you are saying is picking on idiots is mean, but still ok because they are idiots. I see...

I am aware of abusive theocracy, and they are horrible and the world would probably be better without those, I will say that. However, beyond that things would generally be the same. Who knows, there could be countries that execute gays because it is an affront to the natural order. Religious extremists could (and probably would) just be replaced by natural order extremists. It is human nature for there to be dissenting opinion.

---

Mocking idiots to their face, and criticising their views on the internet are not the same. That is the point I am trying to make, I apologize if I failed to express it in a meaningful manner. They are not the same. People on this forum say all kinds of crap that I am pretty sure they wouldn't say out in public, because people can actually see you and maybe shout at you, threaten or assault you.

You seem to imply that removing religion would be pointless as nothing much would change. Actually, I think a few important things would change. Religion has always been the biggest force against human thought and progress. Removing this would be a good thing. And yes, in some cases it would be replaced by secular ignorance and bigotry, however it would not be wholly replaced and therein lies the value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

Actually, I think a few important things would change. Religion has always been the biggest force against human thought and progress.

---

Uhh, would you care to support this assertion? You kind of just say it off-hand, like it's a well-established fact that everyone knows already.

I'd say the biggest force against human thought and progress has been institutional conservatism (or institutional inertia, or institutional self-preservation), which can certainly be seen in religious institutions but also in all manner of non-religious institutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

my arguments against abortion and gay marriage had nothing to do with religion.

---

Yes they did; you just didn't know it.

The are only ISSUES because of religion. YOU only argued against them because they were issues in the first place. Are you saying that if they weren't already very big conservative no-nos, you would have picked reasons out of the air why they were wrong? That's ludicrous.

There is no secular reason to hate gays and only incredibly silly and tenuous secular arguments against abortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

Well, I will! Not forcefully, but I will say that there is no satisfying answer to the question of how a benevolent god can allow such suffering.

---

Syme gives a pretty good point by saying:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

All He has to have done is decided to give us free will and not renege on that decision.

---

And on top of this, as an analogy, when you raise your children, ideally, you raise them to be themselves, but also to do good as themselves. You train them when they're young to do the right thing, but the idea is to instill in them the concept that they are responsible, for their own actions and the consequences from them. If you continually save them from the consequences from their actions, they get the idea that anything they do is fair game, and every society is littered with people who epitomize this through reckless action that goes unchecked. But that's straying from the point.

The point is if you overbaby your child, like what you're implying by putting their lives on railway tracks and having them achieve a preconceived notion of success based entirely on your own desires, it leads to miserable fucking people, in most situations. Ideally, God wants you to be happy and free to choose, but if he forces you to make those choices, what's the purpose in that? I mean this whole argument rests on pretending I understand God's desires, the existence of a soul allowing free will and a ridiculous oversimplification of these concepts, but the heart of the stance is: God is daddy who says you're old enough to take care of yourself; you've been raised with the right influences around you, but you are the one who has to choose to do them and live by them, ultimately. Claiming that the existence of suffering implies a God that doesn't care, but that's not necessarily the case - it can still explain a God who does care, but also one who respects your right to be yourself and make your own choices and live by them, even if it does cause you and others trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

What I do want to make clear is that I do think religion is stupid and has lost its relevance, there are much better ways of understanding ourselves and our world.

---

Guys, the old way of donig things, the heart of which is still very much applicable, should totally be scrapped because it's been abused in the past.

I would love to see you point out a set of rules on that level that haven't been abused in the past, and deserve to be scrapped simply because of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

And there are those who don't think there is one, but arrived at this conclusion by different means. Whilst less thoughtful, I would first like to say that it doesn't imply hatred. The notion of an invisible man in the sky, and blind faith in the Bible, which is quite clearly a book of myths totally staggers me and I find it's stupidity glaringly obvious. This group generally cannot give the same arguments as the first, their arguments tend to be "lol godfag" or something like that. Whilst crude, and something I personally try to avoid (if I am being serious), it doesn't imply hatred (I doubt few, if any of these guys have murdered a religious person for their faith, the opposite cannot be said however) and it doesn't always carry with it a notion of "im clevr".

---

Ok, you are comparing the history of organized, or at least publically recognized, Atheism, which has existed for... what, half a century, tops? and comparing it to the entire history of organized religion, something that has lasted for millennia, existed in human culture as it developed through some particularly bloody periods and the aftereffects of living in those periods. Of course people have killed for opposing beliefs - the length of time it's been around and the cultures and eras it has existed through mean that it's impossible for it to have been otherwise. With the culture we're in now, with the exception of some particularly brutal backwoods enforcement, religious people don't physically assault or abuse those who don't follow their beliefs. The idea that they do otherwise is absurd, so claiming superiority over them on those grounds is completely mistaken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

Yes, there are some people who criticise religion for being stupid and then try to claim that therefore they must be clever, we all know it doesn't work like that. I want to make it clear that you can still make mindless digs at god without adopting this attitude, and that in my mind is ok too.

---

Making mindless digs at anything reeks of ignorance, and there is no pride to be taken from ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

Since when did criticism of religion have to be from a point of scientific understanding? Alot of people here seem to think that if you wish to have a go at god, you better be able to justify it. Why? To make it clear, this isn't the same as "lol stupid christians, I therefore am clever by virtue of mockin u", the christian god and myths quite clearly are not true, the nonsense of it all is striking, so if people want to take midnless digs at it, go ahead.

---

If you want to 'have a go' at anything on an intellectual level, you had better be able to back yourself and your viewpoints up. Simply mocking something doesn't imply any sense of superiority, and the viewpoint you've adopted that, because their beliefs are foolish in your eyes, these people somehow become less human (more worthy of denigration and your hate) and are therefore more worthy of contempt begs for escalation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

Again to make it clear, I don't like it when people take digs, then try to imply it gives them intelligence, or try to mask themselves as the first kind of atheist, as I don't believe the deserve to. One of the other video's about telling christian boys how to avoid the urge, whilst I didn't find it amusing, I have no issue that the guy chose to make it.

---

oh you're a good guy because your own views are "well we shouldn't do that, but i still support it."

my correlation with the other one was that it was a poorly done satire that only appeals to a certain asinine crowd, much like, say, a television show entitled: Ow, my Balls![/quote]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

Many of you are according far too much respect to religion.

---

I think you have too little respect for religion and the benefits its given in its relationship with human development on a societal level. You would rather look at the harm it's done and the foolishness of literal interpretations of allegories and claim that's the only value religion has. Nobody pays attention to the quiet, devout religious couple that goes to church twice on sunday, maintains their jobs, pays their taxes and lives their lives quietly. This isn't even to imply that only religious people do that, it's more to say that religion has encouraged this kind of living, of participating in your community and loving the people inside it, for a lot longer than any secular movement, and to greater effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

Again, I sense I am having trouble expressing my point....look at it this way, let us say personX believes in the tooth fairy. PersonX is 40 years old. What alot of you guys are saying is that to criticise him for this belief, you must provide sound reasoning as to why this is wrong, because the blatent stupidity of the situation is not enough. Thats not to say he should be criticised, in person at least, I wouldn't do that for the same reason I never talk about religion with my religious friends, I don't wish to offend them. But if I were to criticise it, surely the blatent stupidity of this notion would be strong enough cause. And yes, I brought religion down to the level of the tooth fairy, as in my opinion they are very alike in essence, wishful belief in a fantasy. Except one is far less prevelant and dangerous.

---

Ok, belief in the tooth fairy doesn't contain the same level of commitment, of commandments and rules to follow, of practices and cultures that religion does. The only comparison that it has is the one you've made, where you choose to take what can easily be seen as wishful and unrealistic and saying that's the only aspect of religion, and it's worthy of contempt and mockery. This is , probably in naïvety, completely ignoring the benefits that religion has offered and accomplished. Anything that exists as long as organized religion and wields the power that religion has achieved is going to have black marks in its history. Abuse of a law doesn't imply that it's ineffective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

Bad music doesn't harm anyone, Mr E.

I agree that there's no need to be discourteous to people who don't deserve it (which is the majority of religious people). But sometimes it's not discourtesy, and sometimes they deserve it.

---

Religion doesn't always harm people, and it's not a fair representation to make saying that's all it does. You are willfully choosing to watch and acknowledge only the terrible things it's done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

What?

What?

Without religion, there would be no reason to fight abortion laws and no reason to hate gays. There'd be none of these ridiculous taboos about sex, so sex education would be at an infinitely higher standard. Your assertion is nonsense.

---

What?

Religion is the only factor on the development of a societal or cultural understanding of sex? This isn't true, with an admittedly weak example being the island of Tikopia who practice Zero Population Growth based on the tiny size of their island and the realization that unchecked growth would lead to massive starvation.

I would further clarify this, but I've lent out my copy of Collapse! to a friend in Ontario, and so I won't have it for a few days, but Jared Diamond mentions this, and also talks about the sexual taboos involved in Tikopian society, all of which was present well before any contact with Europeans, much less any religious influence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

Like I said in my analogy, I wouldn't criticise the 40 year old for believing in the tooth fairy, because I didn't want to offend him. But, if for whatever reason I find that I am, the stupidity of his belief should be enough.

---

The issue here isn't whether or not they believe in God, it's whether or not it's ok to harass them for adhering to a religions precepts (personal beliefs and level of fundamentalism notwithstanding). The tooth fairy analogy doesn't take that into account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

I have friends of all sorts of faiths, but I would never sit with them and criticise this, out of respect for them as people. This however is the internet.

---

well i'm friends with black people so it's ok if i call people niggers on the internet although i would never do it to their face (out of respect you know)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

Mr E, religion still acts as a massive source of hatred and problems. Whilst people may hate gays for any number of reasons, religion has been a major source since it was invented. In Iran, if you get caught, you get murdered by the state, because it is a sin against god. This is both terrible and stupid.

---

No! Ignorance and Bigotry are the source of hatred and problems! While some fundamentalist and extreme sects of varied religions certainly have those two qualities in spades, they don't have a monopoly on those aspects. As much as I hate to bring Godwin's Law into this, Nazi Germany also hated and persecuted (to the point of death) Homosexuals, and for completely non-religious reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

Removing religion wouldn't solve all of the worlds problems.

---

Well at least you're smart enough to realize that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

It would help remove some of them though.

---

Call me crazy, but removing certain power structures that influence millions of people would alleviate some problems. Of course, they would wildly exacerbate others, but we'll conveniently ignore that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

All of this because people believe some myths.

---

Being religious isn't about believing in myths, it's about living by the tenets of your faith. These tenets are also created to create a strong community that supports itself. But again, it's not about that, is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

The whole thing is insane.

---

There are so many non-religious things that are completely fucking insane and do more harm than religion, but again, we'll just ignore that aspect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

So if you do feel the need to have a go at religion, this gives a very good reason.

---

Oh, so because the other side believes different things than me (the justification the other side uses to demonize you), it's ok to be a bigot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

No one ever died because they disobeyed the tooth fairy.

---

I've already explained that you're tooth fairy analogy is flawed and why it's flawed, but if you want more clarification, I can provide it for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

You seem to imply that removing religion would be pointless as nothing much would change. Actually, I think a few important things would change. Religion has always been the biggest force against human thought and progress. Removing this would be a good thing. And yes, in some cases it would be replaced by secular ignorance and bigotry, however it would not be wholly replaced and therein lies the value.

---

You are really going to have to back up a massive statement like that.

As a hint, where there is a vacuum of ignorance and bigotry, something will always come in and fill it up. Because religion has done so in the past doesn't mean that nothing else will. I guarantee you that any power structure that has been around as long and exerted that much force will have abused once or twice in it's past, but that is not the structure's fault - it is the blame of those who ran it, and what allowed them to get into power.

Coq, your answer is not satisfying enough. Like I said, it's one thing to raise your child to make his or her own decisions, but it's another to let them fall to the consequences of others' decisions. It's also another thing to turn your back when your child makes really bad decisions that lead to the intense suffering of others.

It's a stretch, but I'll grant that it's acceptable for God to sit back and let people reap the consequences of their choices. I will not grant the same allowance for God to sit back and let innocent people reap the consequences of the choices of others.

Yes but the keystone of that is that you are granted free will, and part of that is accepting the consequences of temptation and succumbing to that seduction.

If in the face of that temptation, you still lead a virtuous life, that is truly a remarkable, wonderous thing. If you succumb to it, there are repercussions for it; there is nothing that can absolve you of responsibility for what you've done in your life. It is, in this explanation, not God's job to ensure that you live life the right way, because those who would succeed would have that effort be cheapened, I guess? I am not a perfect theologian, so I can't really express a lot of details about it, but suffering is a part of life and overcoming that and coping/maturing/learning is all steps in growth and maturity.

There's suffering and there's adversity. Adversity yields character and strength. Suffering is meaningless pain. (Those don't quite work as definitions, but "meaningless pain" is the specific kind of suffering I'm talking about.) A life of inescapable suffering because of someone else's actions is something that a benevolent, omni-etcetera god should have forseen and should not allow. There is no justification for unjustifiable suffering!

Gwahir I am sorry, but you are wrong. There are non-secular reasons to hate gays and be against abortion.

Non-secular reasons to hate gays: They are different than me and I don't like that, It is just not natural
Non-secular reasons to be anti-abortion: It is against the natural order, People should have to live with their mistakes not get a free pass

Just because you personally blame religion for those two things being issues doesn't mean if you took religion away they wouldn't still be issues. Ironically enough to your point, I was an atheist during the times of my extreme conservatism. Now I am something else entirely that I won't go into.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Uhh, would you care to support this assertion? You kind of just say it off-hand, like it's a well-established fact that everyone knows already.

I'd say the biggest force against human thought and progress has been institutional conservatism (or institutional inertia, or institutional self-preservation), which can certainly be seen in religious institutions but also in all manner of non-religious institutions.

---

It wouldn't be prudent to apply this to all cultures, but in western and Mediterranean Europe, the rise of Christianity certainly sponsored the establishment of institutions and the destruction of others. Whether deliberate or not, monasteries, for example, were wealthy and politically influential and Christian or Christian-sponsored institutions always strove to keep the people at large ignorant.

So while there is probably no doubt that traditional institutions can inhibit progress, the extent to which they do it is probably the better question; and the fact that early Christianity hardly championed free thought and creativity, then proceeded to infect 'secular' politics with these ideas, didn't do a great deal for civilisation until, well, the invention of the printing press.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Gwahir I am sorry, but you are wrong. There are non-secular reasons to hate gays and be against abortion.

Non-secular reasons to hate gays: They are different than me and I don't like that, It is just not natural
Non-secular reasons to be anti-abortion: It is against the natural order, People should have to live with their mistakes not get a free pass

Just because you personally blame religion for those two things being issues doesn't mean if you took religion away they wouldn't still be issues. Ironically enough to your point, I was an atheist during the times of my extreme conservatism. Now I am something else entirely that I won't go into.

---

There are much better ethical concerns against abortion that need not invoke a supernatural component to humans.

I'll go into them in a second, but first let me give you the atheist's campaign slogan:

"A cock in every butt, and some pot in every menage."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

There are much better ethical concerns against abortion that need not invoke a supernatural component to humans.

I'll go into them in a second, but first let me give you the atheist's campaign slogan:

"A cock in every butt, and some pot in every menage."

---

I was just giving simple examples, I didn't think too hard about it.

Briefly stated, the biggest ethical concern with abortion is that there simply is no clear-cut point at which you can say this thing in the mother's womb is a human. The viability criterion really makes no sense since it is arbitrarily set by how good our technology is to sustain the child outside the womb, i.e. viability keeps getting pushed back to earlier and earlier stages of development as technology improves, and if it were an absolute criterion for "humaness," then it would be independant of our state of technology. Also, one could claim that a child outside of the womb is stll not "viable," as it requires intensive support from the parents or other caretakers to survive. Some have made this claim and have been lambasted for promoting "infanticide," but really, how is a completely helpless 3 month old child any more viable if he can't even put food in his own mouth without assistance?

I still think that accesible abortion provides benefits to both individuals and to society that out-weigh the ethical concerns that come along with it, but I still recognize that abortion is a more complex issue than many of its supporters would like to think.

Also, there are plenty of reasons that people give for hating gay people or any other sort of people, from pseudo-scientific reasoning to just plain out-and-out unjustified disgust. Sure, there might be less intolerance for gay people if Christianity didn't so strongly condemn homosexuality, and Christianity might even be the source for such intolerance in our society, but if Christianity were to disappeared tomorrow, gays would still have to face some degree of prejudice.

I mean the greeks were notorious for their love of man/boy love, and i'm pretty sure they got lambasted for that.

although to be honest my sources are pretty sketchy so i mean that could theoretically just be modern prejudices applied to older viewpoints.

Yeah, I think the secular objection to abortion is perfectly clear. You don't need the slightest shred of religious belief to reach the conclusion that abortion is wrong. You only need to believe that a fetus is a human being, and that killing it therefore constitutes murder, and that murder is wrong.

For the record, I'm pro-choice. But I agree with sycld that you don't have to be religious to have a problem with abortion, and that the arguments against abortion are more valid than a lot of pro-choice people give them credit for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

It wouldn't be prudent to apply this to all cultures, but in western and Mediterranean Europe, the rise of Christianity certainly sponsored the establishment of institutions and the destruction of others. Whether deliberate or not, monasteries, for example, were wealthy and politically influential and Christian or Christian-sponsored institutions always strove to keep the people at large ignorant.

So while there is probably no doubt that traditional institutions can inhibit progress, the extent to which they do it is probably the better question; and the fact that early Christianity hardly championed free thought and creativity, then proceeded to infect 'secular' politics with these ideas, didn't do a great deal for civilisation until, well, the invention of the printing press.

---

I don't think it's as simple as this. No offense, but this is kind of the "pop history" view of Christianity's intellectual impact on European history. The fact is that the intellectual history of Europe is more complicated than this, and that the church's impact varied greatly over time, and from area to area. The popular image of the church fighting against intellectual progress hardly holds true in a consistent fashion over Europe's history. For instance, there was a period from the 12th to the 14th century where Europe saw a blossoming of scientific and philosophical thought that was largely spearheaded by religious thinkers, and was certainly not opposed by the religious institutions of the day. The approaches and ideas of these thinkers would probably be pretty surprising to most modern people who associate the medieval period with ignorance or backwardness. The arrival of the plague more or less put an end to that, though, and eventually brought about the cultural shifts that would produce the conservative attitudes that predominated in the post-plague period and have lead most people to associate the European church with anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, or anti-progress zealousness. I don't think it's fair to say that Christianity in Europe has consistently been a force against progress or thought. It has played that role during some periods of history, and it has also played a very different role during other periods of history.

Again, I think the biggest single obstacle to human thought and progress has been institutional conservatism--the reluctance of people to give fair treatment to ideas that differ from or challenge the ideas that inform the institutions of the day, and the tendency of institutions to exhibit hostility towards ideas that differ from or challenge the ideas they are based on. This isn't an innately religious problem; certainly religion has been guilty of it at various points, but no more so than the institutions of secular society (economic and political institutions, for instance).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

I don't think it's as simple as this. No offense, but this is kind of the "pop history" view of Christianity's intellectual impact on European history. The fact is that the intellectual history of Europe is more complicated than this, and that the church's impact varied greatly over time, and from area to area. The popular image of the church fighting against intellectual progress hardly holds true in a consistent fashion over Europe's history. For instance, there was a period from the 12th to the 14th century where Europe saw a blossoming of scientific and philosophical thought that was largely spearheaded by religious thinkers, and was certainly not opposed by the religious institutions of the day. The approaches and ideas of these thinkers would probably be pretty surprising to most modern people who associate the medieval period with ignorance or backwardness. The arrival of the plague more or less put an end to that, though, and eventually brought about the cultural shifts that would produce the conservative attitudes that predominated in the post-plague period and have lead most people to associate the European church with anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, or anti-progress zealousness. I don't think it's fair to say that Christianity in Europe has consistently been a force against progress or thought. It has played that role during some periods of history, and it has also played a very different role during other periods of history.

---

Well yeah I agree. Which is why I stated it's probably not a good idea to lump all of Europe (and beyond) under one banner, and also noted that it was early Christianity that largely hindered progress.

edit: and medieval humanism was largely inspired by classical thought anyway. It's my contention that sans Christianity, Europe would have advanced at a far faster rate.