Religion and monolithism

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Religion and monolithism

Surfing the atheist blogs, I see the same thing. That everytime a theist goes against their pre-rendered schemas, then they aren't following their religion [i.e they are not TRUE Christians/Muslims etc....]

 

This is of course common with anyone familar with group psychology. That when a member of the outgroup breaks the schema [Oh and for the record, one common thing in group mentality is that the perons sees the outgroup as homgenous and the ingroup as heterogenous] then by golly, they can't possibly be TRUE Christians, they are the exception etc.....

 

The reason this fails is for several reasons:

 

1] The person is not always the exception.

 

For example, it is common thought that if a Christian thinks that embryonic stem cell research is morally acceptable, they are the exception. This, however is not the case

 

 

 

This of course, relies on ancedotes [As nearly all ingroup views of an outgroup do]. "Well, so and is against embryonic stem cells and he's Christian"

 

[oh and perhaps for another topic, whenever something goes against their veiw, then clearly the people who present it and did the actual research are a bunch of religious apologists.]

 

 

Second of all, this assumes that Religion is monolithic. This is not the case. [The same people ironically, say that the Bible is contratictory and vague, what this means is that lots of things can be supported by the Bible.]

 

Not only does this border on "No True Scotsman", it also dives into the Genetic Fallacy.

 

Allow me to demostrate:

 

Early Surgery methods were cruel, painfull and barbaric, therefore any surgeon who uses anesthetics are not following the practice of surgery.

 

 

This of course assumes the Surgery is monlithic. That Surgery can't change.

 

Same problem here.

The fact of the matter is that religion DOES change, and merely dismissing the changes and say "oh, well, they're not following their religion" is, quite frankly, a sympton of group mentality.

 

 

Relgion CAN change, and Religion DOES change, and simply re-defining things and playing mental gymnastics isn't going to change that.

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I admit.  I'm stumped.

 I admit.  I'm stumped.  What are you getting at?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
seriously? 

seriously?

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Surfing

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Surfing the atheist blogs, I see the same thing. That everytime a theist goes against their pre-rendered schemas, then they aren't following their religion [i.e they are not TRUE Christians/Muslims etc....]

Probably, but I would never say that. 

Asserting that there is a *true* anything is just complete crap. Once a group has a clear definition, you either fit into that group or you don't. You don't have to think that stem cell research is immoral to be a *true* Christian, just like you don't have to accept evolution to be a *true* atheist, whatever the hell that even means.

Edit: Honestly, don't you hear this *true* stuff a lot more from the religious themselves than from the non-religious? Every other Christian that comes to this forum seems to consider their themself a *true* Christian while the other Christians are *lost*.

Quote:

Relgion CAN change, and Religion DOES change, and simply re-defining things and playing mental gymnastics isn't going to change that. 

There's no doubt about that. They really shouldn't change though, since religions hold their beliefs to be infallible.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
o.O

Why is there ANYONE against stem cell research in the first place?

 

Really?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Ok... I'm trying

 Ok... I'm trying again...

Quote:
Surfing the atheist blogs, I see the same thing. That everytime a theist goes against their pre-rendered schemas, then they aren't following their religion [i.e they are not TRUE Christians/Muslims etc....]

You mean atheists are pulling a "No True Christian" on theists who happen to have some rational views?  That seems... odd.  Being a Christian just involves believing in Jesus as God, right?

Or, do you mean that atheists are pointing out that the exception doesn't disprove the rule?  If you manage to find a Christian who believes there is no God, that Jesus is a myth, and that the philosophies espoused in the Bible are worthwhile enough to call oneself a Christian... well, that doesn't somehow negate the fact that the vast majority of Christians believe Jesus existed and was God.  It's not that one is a "true" Christian and the other isn't.  It's that it's bad argumentation to deflect from the generally accepted parameters of "Normal" Christianity just because you can find exceptions.

Quote:
For example, it is common thought that if a Christian thinks that embryonic stem cell research is morally acceptable, they are the exception. This, however is not the case

Hmm.  I didn't know the opinion of the majority was such a big issue on this.  I thought it was about the legislation being passed.  I know it's kind of a tangent, but I've always said (on any issue... not just religious) that if you're not actively opposing something that sucks, you're condoning it.  I honestly don't give a rat's ass about what the majority of Christians think of stem cell research.  I care about whether or not legislation gets passed.  I've yet to see any efforts by that majority who think it's ok to outvote, outargue, or otherwise oppose the efforts of their religious compatriots.

Why do you think this majority remains silent?  If most Christians are ok with stem-cell research, why the perception that all Christians are against it?  Do they just not care?  Are they feeling pressure from the minority?  What's your take?

Quote:
The fact of the matter is that religion DOES change, and merely dismissing the changes and say "oh, well, they're not following their religion" is, quite frankly, a sympton of group mentality.

Naturally.

Quote:
Relgion CAN change, and Religion DOES change, and simply re-defining things and playing mental gymnastics isn't going to change that.

So... your main point is that atheists are screwing up their critical thinking by trying to force all of Christianity into an older version of the religion?

Sounds... anecdotal.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Or, do you

Hambydammit wrote:

Or, do you mean that atheists are pointing out that the exception doesn't disprove the rule?  If you manage to find a Christian who believes there is no God, that Jesus is a myth, and that the philosophies espoused in the Bible are worthwhile enough to call oneself a Christian... well, that doesn't somehow negate the fact that the vast majority of Christians believe Jesus existed and was God.  It's not that one is a "true" Christian and the other isn't.  It's that it's bad argumentation to deflect from the generally accepted parameters of "Normal" Christianity just because you can find exceptions.

 

 

No, I mean when atheists say such and such a view is held by the majority of Christians with out any non-ancedotal proof that that is the case. That is, they haven't proven that it's an exception to the majority without establishing which view is the majority!

 

 

Quote:

Why do you think this majority remains silent?  If most Christians are ok with stem-cell research, why the perception that all Christians are against it?  Do they just not care?  Are they feeling pressure from the minority?  

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071800182.html

 

Quote:

The Senate voted to lift restrictions on federally funded human embryonic stem cell research yesterday,

 

it was dated 2006. [Bush vetoed]

 

Also, Obama the person who is revering it and speaking out against and liftiing the restricitions is Christian. The people who voted him in along with a democratic Congress are Christian[This is coming from the fact majority of Americans are Christians] etc...

 

 

Quote:

What's your take?

 

I think people are simply ignoring the Christians who DO speak out and label them as the minority.

 

 

Quote:

So... your main point is that atheists are screwing up their critical thinking by trying to force all of Christianity into an older version of the religion?

Sounds... anecdotal.

 

 

I never said that ALL atheists do this, or that the majority do this. All I said is that from the atheist blogs I've read this happens. Whether or not the majority do, I don't know I haven't read every atheist blog in existence.

 

Whether the majority of atheist do, regardless of if they have a blog or not, do, once again I don't know, and I'm refuse to fall in the same trap, some atheist blogs do.

 

 

 


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Early

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Early Surgery methods were cruel, painfull and barbaric, therefore any surgeon who uses anesthetics are not following the practice of surgery.

Pineapple, you're comparing a science to a religion, you should go to your room and think about what you've done. Bad Pineapple! Are you unable to see that as advances in Physiology were made we also became better at treating the body. The same cannot be said for retelling of the same tired fairy tales in different and more violent ways.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

The fact of the matter is

[vomit.jpg]

I hate that phrase anywhere near the word religion.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

that religion DOES change, and merely dismissing the changes and say "oh, well, they're not following their religion" is, quite frankly, a sympton of group mentality.

 

Relgion CAN change, and Religion DOES change, and simply re-defining things and playing mental gymnastics isn't going to change that.

 

Yes, in some religions there are changes, generally changes that allow the rule of those men in fancy clothes to continue. I'd call it cynical self-interested change, not progress.

 

And then there are religions like islam. Change? Not as such......

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


Jayhawker Soule
Posts: 14
Joined: 2009-06-25
User is offlineOffline
Abu Lahab wrote:I'd call it

Abu Lahab wrote:
I'd call it cynical self-interested change, not progress.
Which, I suspect, simply reflects the dismissive cynicism of the willfully ignorant.


 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I never said that

 

Quote:
I never said that ALL atheists do this, or that the majority do this. All I said is that from the atheist blogs I've read this happens. Whether or not the majority do, I don't know I haven't read every atheist blog in existence.

 

Whether the majority of atheist do, regardless of if they have a blog or not, do, once again I don't know, and I'm refuse to fall in the same trap, some atheist blogs do.

Then I agree with you.  Some atheists do fall into the trap of caricaturing Christians.  It's my (anecdotal) observation that most American Christians are basically decent people who subscribe to a version of theism that more or less matches their own personality and outlook on life.  Theists are just like atheists in this respect -- even within ingroups, there will be a wide variety of genuine beliefs.

It's difficult to separate something as complex as theism from all other personality and behavioral traits.  It's even harder for an observer to be pedantically precise in talking about people with a certain trait.  When I asked in the other thread whether you have examined your own ingroup bias of atheists, I was getting at something like this.  Let's take something I say from time to time:

"Theists, by definition, are less rational in at least one area than atheists, since theism is, by definition, an irrational belief."

When you hear me say that, do you automatically leap to the conclusion that I think all theists are broadly "less rational" than atheists?  Or do you take the sentence for only what it does say -- that simply by identifying as atheist or theist, a person is committing to a position that is either rational or irrational?  Do you take the "at least one area" phrase as an insinuation that they're probably irrational in others, or do you take it as a precise use of logical language to indicate that it neither dictates nor precludes irrationality nor irrationality in any other specific area?

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Jayhawker Soule wrote:Abu

Jayhawker Soule wrote:

Abu Lahab wrote:
I'd call it cynical self-interested change, not progress.
Which, I suspect, simply reflects the dismissive cynicism of the willfully ignorant.

I have far more evidence of power brokering, corruption and shenanigans throughout the history of religion than you do of religious miracles during that same time.

 

Wanna play "Mine is bigger than yours"?

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Actually Hamby it's your

Actually Hamby it's your blog that got me to write this.

 

You wrote:

Sure, there are moderate religious people in most every religion who are content to let others have differing beliefs, but I think we’ve had it wrong all along.  These people aren’t the rule.  They’re the exception, and the exception doesn’t disprove the rule in this case.

 

 

 

You're basically saying the Relgious people can't be tolerant, and if they are, then they are not following their religion. Which is why I argue religion is NOT monolithic, it would have to be for your argument to be valid.

 

 

[EDIT]

 

Oh and you still haven't proven that the "exceptions" are the minority in the non-anecdotal sense

 

[/EDIT]

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Right.  And I wasn't

 Right.  And I wasn't talking about stem-cell research.  I was talking about the attitude of "live and let live."  I don't think your chart addresses this claim.

I also admitted that this assertion is hard to prove since people who don't act upon their genuine feelings are unlikely to admit to them unless pressed.  That's why I think the only way to guess at the situation is to look at the overall pattern among religious cultures.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Right.

Hambydammit wrote:

 Right.  And I wasn't talking about stem-cell research.  I was talking about the attitude of "live and let live."  I don't think your chart addresses this claim.

I also admitted that this assertion is hard to prove since people who don't act upon their genuine feelings are unlikely to admit to them unless pressed.  That's why I think the only way to guess at the situation is to look at the overall pattern among religious cultures.

 

 

I used the chart as an example of an assertion failing. It popped in my head after your stem cell topic.

 

Also, in my experience according to many bloggers I've seen, beliefs tend to magically oscillate.

 

For example, the Dover trial, teaching Intelligent Design was ruled unconsitutional seeing as ID is religious, not scientific.

 

But when something like Stem Cell research happens, than America is suddenly in a "Theocracy".

 

I mean, the people who don't support federal funding for stem cells, could be Libertarians who think it is better funded by private businesses.

 

Also, to my knowledge abortion is still legal, and laws sent to change it have been shot down.

 

I just don't get it. How can America be "losing it's religious death grip" and be "spiralling into a Theocracy" at the same time?

 

I just feel that this is confirmation bias.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

Also, to my knowledge abortion is still legal, and laws sent to change it have been shot down.

 

I just don't get it. How can America be "losing it's religious death grip" and be "spiralling into a Theocracy" at the same time?

 

 

Abortion is being made essentially illegal in some places in the country. Yes, it is doing both of those things, depending on where you live. The country is quite divided.

 

 

It looks in my experience to be most divided by urban/rural. Very urban environments seem to be more tolerant, and do not center their lives around religion, while rural areas seem to be intolerant, and place high value on religion.

 

But that is my personal experience. I could guess that it is because of exposure to diversity, and lack therof...or of higher education rates in urban areas (due to job locations). It is hard to say, but if you live in the states the dividing line is very obvious in the population of areas. You can drive from what looks like a modern urban area...into a third world country outside of the city in a few moments, with people living together in clusters in trailers and churches on every corner.

 

If I drive somewhere, I have marked off places I won't drive through now for fear if my car breaks down someone might make me into a target of righteous bigotry before AAA could get there. I know people that have suffered people stoning them or their vehicles. One of them was hit with rocks in school, and the teachers looked the other way and said they never saw it. Being a "fag" means that you aren't a person anymore, and are destined for "hell"..their god killed the dirty sodomites, so they have to follow his example and be just as savage!

 

Not every rural area is like this, but many of the ones in the southern US are. It is indescribably difficult to live in an area with that kind of hospitality. I don't think you could understand unless you experienced that level of discrimination firsthand, on a regular basis.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

What you end up with are areas controlled by evangelical leaders, which usually are dominant over rural areas..and urban areas with people that have a large diversity of ideas.

 

States with larger rural areas push their religion into law in this country, and states with larger urban areas tend to try and keep religion out of the law to prevent lawsuits.

 

If higher courts override things in the rural controlled states, they tend to go to terminology changes instead to get the same effect. Like redefining what a "person" is to effectively stop abortion in that state.

 

Gay marriage is a huge example of church-driven bigotry being pushed into law. Many countries have had it legal for years, and there is no reason the state should have interest in preventing equal rights. The religious claim it is "stepping on their rights" though, because they might have to teach in school that "being gay isn't wrong or evil". Yeah. Shame, that.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
I like how Alison always

I like how Alison always tries to say, 'Oh, no, I'm not an apologist for the fundies...', and then always goes on the attack against disbelief and never, ever is found criticizing fundamentalists. It's lolz.

Alison, you've got to be kidding. *We* pull the 'Oh, they're just not true Christians card'?

No. YOU pull that card, and you do it all of the time.

Atheist: 'Here's an example right here where someone has done something horrible, and claimed they did it in the name of defending their religious beliefs'.

Alison: 'Well that doesn't count. They're not True Christians (TM) like Ken MilleAnd when you Rr. Besides, my theist buddy Pape Whatshisfuck thinks that muslims aren't violent due to Islam; it's that America has been occupying Saudi Arabia for so long.'

 

And when you aren't doing it, the rest of the moderates are.

 

...Then you blame *us*? Har har. Can you cite the blogs that have done this? I mean, other than quote-mining one sentence from one of Hamby's old articles?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:I like

Kevin R Brown wrote:

I like how Alison always tries to say, 'Oh, no, I'm not an apologist for the fundies...', and then always goes on the attack against disbelief and never, ever is found criticizing fundamentalists. It's lolz.

Alison, you've got to be kidding. *We* pull the 'Oh, they're just not true Christians card'?

No. YOU pull that card, and you do it all of the time.

Atheist: 'Here's an example right here where someone has done something horrible, and claimed they did it in the name of defending their religious beliefs'.

 

 

Tell you what, Kevin, find me a quote of me saying that they weren't Christians.

 

Go ahead, I have never denied that they were Christians

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Alison: 'Well that doesn't count. They're not True Christians (TM) like Ken MilleAnd when you Rr. Besides, my theist buddy Pape Whatshisfuck thinks that muslims aren't violent due to Islam; it's that America has been occupying Saudi Arabia for so long.'

 

Never said that, so fail.

 

Oh and BTW I put some other names on the "religious apologist" list in that thread including a video by Atran[who's an atheist] explaining it.

 

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:
I mean, other than quote-mining one sentence from one of Hamby's old articles?

 

That was actually a rather recent on the front page of his blog in fact.

 

 

So tell me Kevin, do you acknowledge that at least some atheists do what I said in the OP?

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Alison,

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Alison, you've got to be kidding. *We* pull the 'Oh, they're just not true Christians card'?

Honestly, I can't recall a single non-Christian ever doing that crap (at all). It's always the Christians themselves pointing their fingers at other Christians. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Tell you what, Kevin,

Quote:
Tell you what, Kevin, find me a quote of me saying that they weren't Christians.

Geez, this was so hard: 

Quote:
I never understood the whole "imperfections of humans" atheist argument.  God isn't a clay maker

Now, while we're in this region...

Quote:
Never said that, so fail.

...Really? You 'never said that'?

Quote:
Even within the countries, there is massive difference between Canadian Christians within Canada and American Christians within America. Compare Kent Hovind to Ken Miller

I guess Somebody must've been logged into your account, then. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
That was actually a rather recent on the front page of his blog in fact.

It was a retouched old article. It was also a quote mine (not that you denied that, anyway).

 

Sure, some atheists are assholes. Answers in Gene Simmons comes to mind. I can be a pretty big vagina sometimes, too. EXC is usually a douchebag. 

...So, what's your point? Some atheists painting theists with a (deservedly) broad brush is not the same as 'just about every atheist blog on the internet' doing the same thing. Where are these blogs, Alison? Where are your quotes from them? You provided one grossly out of context quote from an article on 'Life Without a Net', and while I like Hamby's blog, it's not exactly the most widely read secular blog on the net. 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Quote:I

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:

I never understood the whole "imperfections of humans" atheist argument.  God isn't a clay maker

 

How exactly is that me denying that somebody is Christian?

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
Never said that, so fail.

...Really? You 'never said that'?

Quote:
Even within the countries, there is massive difference between Canadian Christians within Canada and American Christians within America. Compare Kent Hovind to Ken Miller

I guess Somebody must've been logged into your account, then. Sticking out tongue

 

 

You got a reading comprehension problem?

 

I said "look at the differences between CHRISTIANS" as in both Hovind and Miller are Christian.

 

 

So I DIDN"T say that Hovind wasn't Christian. fail

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

...So, what's your point?

 

My point is that whenever a Christian goes agains the schema, atheists will rationalize and say that those people are going against their religion [Hamby's done it in his blog which I quoted]

 

But then pretty much anything can be justified using the bible so I could just as easily say the opposite.

 

 

 

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote: Sure,

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

Sure, some atheists are assholes. Answers in Gene Simmons comes to mind. I can be a pretty big vagina sometimes, too. EXC is usually a douchebag. 

 

Yay!!!1!11!!! I made number one!!!1!!!!1!!!

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I didn't even make the first

I didn't even make the first round cut.  I'm slipping.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Surfing

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Surfing the atheist blogs, I see the same thing. That everytime a theist goes against their pre-rendered schemas, then they aren't following their religion [i.e they are not TRUE Christians/Muslims etc....] 

 

This is just the natural result of not following a rational process to decide things. People are all over the map with what the implication of their belief really mean. I think this is just that fact that if rational processes are followed their is division about what can be known. This just demonstrates religion is a human invention.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Relgion CAN change, and Religion DOES change, and simply re-defining things and playing mental gymnastics isn't going to change that.

 

Of course, religion is all about convenience.

Of course it's fantasy island. You can have whatever fantasies and delusions you choose. Whatever rules you like as well. How convenient.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca