Do you treat a volcano as if it is an ice cream cone just becuase it makes land and looks pretty when it is dormant?

Right wing atheist? No, hardly. I do get sick of people equating mere blasphemy as on par with religious laws and physical violence done in the name of religion as being equal. If you are more concerned with my blasphemy than the acutal laws and violence done in the name of religion you have your priorties way out of whack.

I don't want laws banning religion, nor do I blow things up or murder people because they center their lives arround absurdities, that does not mean that what comes out of their mouths deserves taboo status. 

Human rights can be valued on a government level and should be, but that does not mean claims deserve hands off or should be free from criticism or blasphemy. 

I hate claims of invisible fictional sky heros. I especially hate religions that promote sexism and homophobia and bigotry. Liberals don't get a pass from me simply because they say "not everyone thinks like that". It isn't a matter of "not everyone" it is a matter of just enough of people in all religions cause enough division, and that is why it must be challenged. Do not ask me to sugar coat reality.

I'll make religious people a deal, when they can get along and stop killing each other over it and stop oppressing others over it, I'll shut up. But do not get angry at me because they use our planet as a giant pissing contest.

          Dude, your posts are definitely spiraling down into an  incoherencent word salad. 

The fuck it does not . If humans did not evolve with our senses we would have no input to make bad guesses on. Same reason people falsely see shapes in ink blots and clouds.

Evolution does not have a primary goal of getting facts right, if a bullshit gap answer gets enough people to follow it can create the safety in numbers to get that group to the point of reproduction. Our flawed perceptions are part of evolution.

It is the same flawed perception that can cause a moth to go for a lightbulb instead of moonlight. But you'd know that if you had read "The God Delusion". But what would an evolutionary biologist like Dawkins know?

"If humans did not evolve with our senses we would have no input to make bad guesses on"

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 Evolution produces pattern seeking, but far too often the answers we fill in are a resut of gap filling. For the same reason a gazzel on the African plains mistakes wind moving tall grass as a lion stalking it.

I can appreciate this sentiment. My fantasy deal is that when the monotheistic religions excise the vilification, bigotry and exhortation to hate crime from their texts I'll shut up.

The trouble is that monotheistic doctrines like Islam and Christianity are 'morality' cults whose underpinnings demand an acceptance of the genetic fallacy of global human guilt.

Armed with the belief all humans deserve to die for not believing doctrinal assertions, monotheists are uniquely equipped to de-humanize others to the death. 

In my opinion Brian, our real enemy is the core doctrine of the Fall. In a better world, the teaching of this doctrine to defenceless children would be legislated out of existence.

Ultimately, it is never rational to argue by insult (all humans are wicked), never rational to argue by threat (hell/death/separation from god).

Consider what christianity would be left with if you removed original sin and the supporting threat of hell from its doctrine. 

There would be no need for a sacrificial lamb. There would be nothing left at all. 

Two interesting books that I have read by Ernest Becker (Denial of Death and Escape From Evil) reach into this subject exclusively. Now while Becker's work are not meant to be the work of an anthropologist, he does provide some really interesting insights about the psychology of our inability to accept mortality. While many people found his work controversial for its time (the 70s) I found them rather thought provoking.

No shit sherlock. The Ancient Egyptians were successful for 3,000 years falsely believing in their polytheistic gods which no one believe in anymore. That does not change the fact that those gap answers allow people to set up social pecking orders. 

It is about safety in numbers and reproducing and resources. You readly accept that there is no Isis atom or Horus atom. The fact that religion exists is not the issue. The reality that people can center intire societies around false claims IS the issue.

No, it is a human invented placebo, it isn't a tool. If any one religion were a requirement to fuck and reproduce we should expect humanity to only have one religion. I only agree that it is in our evolution to default to wishful thinking much more than we do to questioning. 

People can define "faith" whatever way they want. But there is only one way to settle disputes of competing claims. "Faith" is not the way to do that.

If "presupositions" exist in those oriental religions as you just admitted, then you do a disservice by not reading "The New Atheism" by Victor Stenger.

Just like you can accept that Newton got physics right without accepting Alchemy or any god he might have believed in.

There is only one way to insure quality of data and "faith" is not the way to do that. "Faith" is a personal sugar pill, not a microscope  or tellescope.

I disagree. The Egyptians were successful not because of their "gods" but because they ruled the way rulers are supposed to rule the people. And if religion was used by the leaders to keep the others in control it was a TOOL used against the people.

Tryanny of the majority. The Mob Rules!

What the fuck is an Isis atom or Horus atom and what does it have to do with this discussion?

False claims? You think societies rely on a religion to exist?

Religion is a tool when leaders use it to manipulate people. Religion can't be a placebo because you don't find it harmless. In fact I'm betting some where in the 15,000 posts you have on this website, there is a post talking about how religion is a posion or harmful to people.

 Hey DigitalBeachBum . . .  I am not sure what the reference could be to either 

  Wave/Particle Duality  may perhaps be his mistaken allusory reference to the concept of the Soul Ba Bohr Heisenberg & Schrodinger described particles, so I cannot understand his meaning either.

 Although it seems that the ancient Egyptians  believed  that the human soul was made up of five parts. In the earliest examples, Primarily it was spoken of in but two parts, often times. The Ba and the Ka (THE BREATH OF LIFE= आधार ).  Ba and Ka, one being the breath given and the other a more everlasting primary aspect or eternal 'soul'.  One of the five aspects constituent parts their conception of a human soul, was the shadow .. where the shadow is most often related to the ba, these references come to us from ''the Coffin Texts of the First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom. Hence, the shadow could be viewed as a mode of existence after death. In some references, the shadow and ba could even appear to be parts of an single entity. For example, in one such instance, we find the command, "Go, my ba and my shadow, that you (singular) may see the sun". Because of such references, and the fact that the ba was regularly said to have physical attributes enabling it to eat, drink and copulate, Egyptians may have thought that the ba had its own shadow..''

 

  There is the spherical eye,  as in one instance of  an  eye for an eye,  he (Brian) may be confusing, like when there's the time Set ripped out Horus' eye, and in the struggle Horus literally ripped out one of the desert chaos god's own testicles.

''In the medical papyri (e.g. the  Ebers Papyrus) it say nothing much about the normal conduct of labor, ..Delivery took place in special surroundings, ''on the cool roof of the house, or in an arbor or confinement pavilion, a structure of papyrus-stalk columns decorated with vines. A mattress, headrest, mat and cushion and a stool were arranged in the area. At delivery, only female helpers were present, not physicians.''  Many numerous rutals were completeled during the delivery, one example of one of the delivery  sayings were repeated, such as one that asked Amun to "make the heart of the deliverer strong, and keep alive the one that is coming."  "The identifiying of the Ka with the heart of the individual new born seem to go back to somewhere at least as far back as the Old Kingdom period, the new life was suppended ''in order to ascertain the destiny of new-born children''

     I am  sure  he can tell us more though . . .

Either religion was part of their ruling or it was not, you cannot have it both ways. If no one beleived in those gods the rulers could not have used it as a "tool", as you described it.

THAT is why I call religion a poison, it makes it too easy for powers to peddle utopias to get lemmings to follow.

You are missing my point. It is the fact that people treat religion as a "tool" that they cannot see it as the sugar pill it really is. It may create safety in numbers for that particular group, but it comes at the expense of setting up in group vs out group.

Religion is what causes people to do all storts of insane things, from denying kids health care, to denying girls educations, to racism, and homophobia, to entire wars. The insiders of a particular label would not be lemmings if they did not treat delusions as fact, nor could the powers that be use that delusion as a tool.

I am not he only one who calls religion poison, there is an entire book by Christopher Hitchens "God Is Not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything".

Now again, time after time after time, thread after thread you, and other people here have a needless knejerk reaction to that discription. While at the same time my same detractors start threads blasting Islam and Catholic preists molesting kids, and all sorts of other things. AND RIGHTFULLY SO.

Mt Fuji is inactive most of the time. It is pretty to look at when it is inactive. But only a fool pretends it is never distructive and only spews ice cream. You cant remove Mt Fuji but you are stupid to say "It is inactive so it will never cause problems". 

Science has today a much better understanding of evolution and the planet and the universe and even human psychology. Do you want our species to progress, or do you want us hiding behind myths and superstitions just because it makes some people feel good? 

I think we are better off knowing the earth is not flat. I think we are better off not believing the sun is a god. And just because a religion might bring someone comfort, If they can live without believing other's gods, and they can live without belonging to another's religion, then the truth is they do not need theirs either.

Religions have been manufactured mostly due to  ignorance of physics, biology and other things that needed to be known and understood. What we have is an inheiritence from previous generaltions. One also has to consider---how were they to know when knowledge is acquired over time and generations. Just as the knowledge of physics gives understanding of factors studied and found and then also inheited by succeeding generations, so it was with the misinformation and guess work of religions. The cumlitive knowledge of physic and other subjects of knowledge then conflicts with religious beliefs of which are carried into societies by leaders of religions. What's to understand is, religion provides 1- a living for those promoting it, 2- maintains the leaders in a social status and authority which most members of a society may be seeking. So, one cannot expect them to change and loose their livelihood and status. Also,religions are good for an economy and job creation, so what would they do if proven wrong. There's a difference in "knowing" they're wrong and "proving" it.

 So how are they to be proven wrong? There's only one way. Their information has to be analysed, and the source of that information must be studied. Analysis shows that via all practical reasoning by a neutral party(ies) that they are wrong. BUT, merely critisizing the information and source isn't going to change their thinking because they're relying on the misinformation to gather their sustanance. Does the "source" of thier information substaniate their claims and practices.

If it is to be assumed that their information is correct and aligned with the source then there is no case contrary, would that not be correct. The problem is--- tghose critisizing (and rightly so) assume that their information is correct with the source. But, what if it isn't? What then?

Their information "and" source have to be shown faulty. If not, they can keep operating. Does the information match the source????? If you think their information and source are faulty you'll get nowhere because they are existing and proceeding on false information and the source of that false information. "Is" the source faulty and what happens if it's not---"then" you can prove their religion---false.

Addition-8/1/14- The people/masses have to be brought to an understanding of "what" was inherited.

                                            Brian is a "tool".

Devolved? Not at all. 

I think some here have egg on their face they cant get over.

Here it is again.

Humans evolved to seek patterns. More often than not humans mistake success as being right. You can be successful centered around a false belief. That is where religion stems from. Get enough like minded people in a group, they have more opportunity to create offspring. That does not mean what they are centered around is true, it only means it beifits the group.

Dawkins discribes god belief as being the same false positive as "the moth mistaking the light bulb for moonlight". But what would an evolutionary biologist know?

And further more, if one person in one group rightfully admits another not belonging to that group is capable of the same compassion they have, then the truth can only conclude that our behavior is not in the labels we invent but in our evolution.

Bottom line is that our ability to be cruel or compassonate as a species is in us, not the labels we invent and hide behind.

Lol, again you demonstrate that you don't know what the fuck evolution is. The only person with egg on their face is you, and you don't even have the ability to realize it. When are you going to admit the iwbiek that you were completely wrong? 

Don't hold your breath. My money is solidly on him never owning up to it and I can damn near guarantee he will ignore these posts and continue to misquote Hypatia, appeal to what Anne Frank would have thought if she survived (while misspelling her name), and will pull out the fake quote of Marie Antoinette. Counting how many times he uses the word 'evolution' out of context in a year will continue to be the RRS version of "how many M&Ms are in this jar". 

everything has a "dark nature." absolutely everything. nothing only brings benefits. your grand point that you keep driving into the ground is nothing more than a truism.

"a human invented construct that sets up a social pecking order, seperates one group of people from another and creates a framework of morality and social norms to be followed, as well as a method of punishment when it isn't followed."

What is government.