Another Gripe

shortandy
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Another Gripe

Yeah Im an agnostic. I just can't help it.

Seriously I have another thought that hit me after I watched the ABC debate with that growing pains guy. Brian talked about all the horrific things that have been done by christians througout history. He even mentioned a more up-to-date hypocrite like Ted Haggard. But is this really a valid argument for the case of athiesm? I don't think so. I think Brian needs to put the shoe on the other foot for a moment and then rethink his thought here.

Here is what I mean. A man in the audience at this debate asked Brian and Kelly about horrible things that have happend in communist countries, countries that where athiestic. Kelly even mentioned some by name such as Hilter and Stalin. Now if Brians condems one religion because of all the hypocites and nut-jobs then he must apply the same logic to athiesm. If christianity is bad because of the Crusades then athiesm is bad because of the Holocaust or the actions of Stalin.

Furthermore is a person doesn't like chrisitans because of one man, like Ted Haggard, then is it not fair for a person to hate athiest because they may not like Brian Sapient?

It is really cool that you guys had a debate to examine various views and opinions but lets keep the arguments reasonable.


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Well..I was in need of a

Well..I was in need of a good laugh today. Thanks for providing this excellent reading material! Allthough I have to say I only skimmed over what was said after we were told Brian is our leader. I honestly dont know how you guys were able to keep the debate up after that was said. Good job! Cool


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
shortandy wrote: Yeah Im

shortandy wrote:

Yeah Im an agnostic. I just can't help it.

Seriously I have another thought that hit me after I watched the ABC debate with that growing pains guy. Brian talked about all the horrific things that have been done by christians througout history. He even mentioned a more up-to-date hypocrite like Ted Haggard. But is this really a valid argument for the case of athiesm? I don't think so. I think Brian needs to put the shoe on the other foot for a moment and then rethink his thought here.

Here is what I mean. A man in the audience at this debate asked Brian and Kelly about horrible things that have happend in communist countries, countries that where athiestic. Kelly even mentioned some by name such as Hilter and Stalin. Now if Brians condems one religion because of all the hypocites and nut-jobs then he must apply the same logic to athiesm. If christianity is bad because of the Crusades then athiesm is bad because of the Holocaust or the actions of Stalin.

Furthermore is a person doesn't like chrisitans because of one man, like Ted Haggard, then is it not fair for a person to hate athiest because they may not like Brian Sapient?

It is really cool that you guys had a debate to examine various views and opinions but lets keep the arguments reasonable.

 

I'm once again stealing my own analogy, but perhaps you'll be more accepting of it since you do accept the bad things in the name of religion:

The benefit of curing AIDS is not reduced just because there is still Cancer.

Or

The benefit of stopping one war is not reduced just because there is another war going on somewhere else.

Or

The benefit in saving one persons life is no less important just because you couldn't save another persons.

 


Do you see where this analogy is getting?  Sure there are lots of problems, but religion is one of them.  And a major one when it comes to segregation, discrimination, and war.


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
shortandy wrote:  Sorry,

shortandy wrote:

 Sorry, Brian mentioned the good things atheist have done and are doing to support his claims therefore chairity is valid. Some of the largest organization that help people today are run by christians. I good friend of mine pointed that truth out to me a few months ago. I believe that it is the Baptist that are like the 3rd largest disaster relief team in our country. What about hospitals? Did you know that the higher education, places like Harvard were started by christians? There are countless homeless shelters, and soup kitchens in my area alone.

 Remember if good deeds and chairity can't be used by religious people then the same applies to you my atheist!

 

It pains me to have to point this out.

Yes, Christians give more money to charity than Atheists do. Probably millions and millions more dollars per year.

You also make up 80% of the population. 

So, I would say that these stats are a bit skewwed. 


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
So a small group of people

So a small group of people equalling no more than 20 is representave of  a homungous group of people?

And I like how the RRS is like all atheists, not all militant atheists (Or whatever hot word whiney bigots are useing) But just atheists. 

this would include spiritual atheists, and non-spiritual atheists.

Hard atheists, Soft atheits. Atheists who are anarchists, and otherwise.

Etc. etc. to the end.

That's kind of like me saying, the hindu vet just down the street is just like the phelps clan.

Why in fact the hindu worshipsthem too,becuase he is a theist like them.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


DewiMorgan
DewiMorgan's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Claim that there are no

Claim that there are no atheistic hospitals is hard to disprove, but there are plenty of secular ones here in the UK: all of them, I suspect? Not sure.

On the subject of atheistic charities, I make just £180/month, but I still gave all my last paycheck to someone who lived in what was once Greensburg. Personal anecdote, I admit: not statistically meaningful. Atheist blood drive is a bit better. There are a huge number of secular charities, though: they outnumber the religious, so it seems strange to claim that the charities are more likely to be theistic

Also, charities such as UNICEF, Oxfam, the WWF, RSPCA (SCPCA in the US?), RSPCC (SPCC in the US?), RSPB, Cancer Research UK and others are secular, so you can't really claim the religious ones are bigger either: those are, at least here in the UK, some of the biggest charities.

Of course you can't guarantee that there are no theists in them. You can't guarantee that they were not founded by theists, or founded on theistic principles. But if they do not share their money with theistic organisations, do not display theistic imagery and do not indulge in proselytising, then in my opinion they are secular by any measure anyway.

Back to the original question, though: yeah, people are assholes on both sides, but that was not the point of bringing up the atrocities in the debate.

The point of showing that theistic societies caused more horror, and that morality and quality of life seems to increase the more secular a society becomes, was to rebut the claim made that theists are innately moral.

If that were the case, then the most theistic societies should have a better quality of life, a higher incidence of moral values being consistently applied, and a lower incidence of immoral events.

That is why the point about theistic atrocities was raised: not just to say "OMG you smell of poo and ur mom eats kittens!" - it wasn't an insult at the Christians there, just an answer to the claim that "God must exist because theists have morality through the ten commandments."

That the reasons for making that point were not made clear to all watching was one of the minor failures of the talk.

T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: As has

MattShizzle wrote:
As has been pointed out before - if atheism is a religion, bald is a hair color and off is a TV channel.

 

Interestingly enough, my cat only watches the TV when it is off. Perhaps she is a religious atheist? 


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: As has

MattShizzle wrote:
As has been pointed out before - if atheism is a religion, bald is a hair color and off is a TV channel.

 

Interestingly enough, my cat only watches the TV when it is off. Perhaps she is a religious atheist? 


DewiMorgan
DewiMorgan's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: As has

MattShizzle wrote:
As has been pointed out before - if atheism is a religion, bald is a hair color and off is a TV channel.

Interestingly enough, I have no TV...

T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }


shortandy
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: shortandy

Tilberian wrote:
shortandy wrote:

Yes I deny that religon, in and of itself creates bigotry. For that blanket statement to be absolutely true every single person in that religion would have to be a bigot. Can any atheist honestly say that every Buddhist or Hindu they meet is a biggot? I serious doubt it. Are there plenty of Hindus that are bigots? Sure there are. Are christians and Jews that suck at life and hate people? You bet? But is it fair to say its because of their religion when I have met and know a lot of peopel from various religions that are not? Therefore, to be fair, rational and tolerant (all the qualities I hear atheist claiming to have) you must always attack individuals, not a relgion as a whole.

OK, so you have 1000 theists in a room and you give them a "test for bigotry" (whatever that might be). You find that 75% of them are bigots.

You have 1000 atheists in the room with roughly the same educational levels, wealth and from the same city. You give them the same test and find that 25% are bigots.

Ta da. You've shown that theist's are more likely to be bigots without having to find a 100% incidence of bigotry in theists.

Of course, you can't use these results to say that any one individual theist is a bigot. This is a survey - it measures trends in populations. However, you can use these results to make statements about the common factor you are testing for (theism) because it exists across the whole population and is fairly uniform.  

 

What you have failed to offer is what percentage of Christians are you referencing when you make your claims. Would the numbers of lets say those who participated in the Crusades being a large enough percentage of these people to make the blanket statements you are making?


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
shortandy wrote:  What

shortandy wrote:

 What you have failed to offer is what percentage of Christians are you referencing when you make your claims. Would the numbers of lets say those who participated in the Crusades being a large enough percentage of these people to make the blanket statements you are making?

I want you to read this real slowly so it sinks in:

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT CHRISTIANS. I AM TALKING ABOUT CHRISTIANITY IN THE ABSTRACT, AS A SHARED IDEA THAT CHRISTIANS HAVE. IT IS THE IDEA THAT IS BAD BECAUSE IT LEADS TO VIOLENCE IN PEOPLE WHO WOULD OTHERWISE BE PEACEFUL.

Could you just give some indication that you understand this point before we go any further? I see very little point in proceeding with this discussion if you really are unable to separate the concept of a religion from the people who follow it.  

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
shortandy wrote: He even

shortandy wrote:

He even mentioned a more up-to-date hypocrite like Ted Haggard. But is this really a valid argument for the case of athiesm?

No, it's a case that religion doesn't make you a better person. I sarcastically stated at the beginning of that paragraph, "Ray is right, religion does make you a better person, if you take out, X, Y, Z"

 


Quote:
Now if Brians condems one religion because of all the hypocites and nut-jobs then he must apply the same logic to athiesm. If christianity is bad because of the Crusades then athiesm is bad because of the Holocaust or the actions of Stalin.

Hitler was a Christian.

Stalins government was communism. The dogma here was allegiance to the state. Atheism had little to do with communistic crimes, those negatives are more religious in nature.

 

Quote:
Furthermore is a person doesn't like chrisitans because of one man, like Ted Haggard, then is it not fair for a person to hate athiest because they may not like Brian Sapient?

I'm very much against the idea of judging a whole class of individuals because of the actions of one person. I hope you aren't inferring that I was suggesting that Haggard is a reason to dislike all Christians.

 

Quote:
It is really cool that you guys had a debate to examine various views and opinions but lets keep the arguments reasonable.

And you were just talking about putting the shoe on the other foot? Hopefully your next post will be more reasonable.

So that agnosticism... is it of the theistic or atheistic variety?

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
shortandy wrote: The

shortandy wrote:
The claims of atheism are stupid.

You're needing that mirror again.  Name one claim of all atheism.  There are no claims to atheism, it's the absence of a claim that a god exists. Do you make a claim that god exists?  If not, you are an atheist.  An agnostic atheist just like everyone on the core of the Squad. 

 

Quote:
Now how did that make you feel? Be honest...it made you a little angry right? But all I did was attack the world-view or belief system of atheism.

It made me feel as if I calmly needed to help the misled child.  It's what I do for a living, and I love what I do for a living, it didn't make me angry.  Does it make you angry that I think you are misled?  Do you know what I think you're misled about?  It's not my intent to make you angry, fwiw.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
shortandy wrote: But is

shortandy wrote:

But is it fair for me to pass a judgement on all athiest based on the stupidity of some? No! Therefore gentlemen it is not right to pass judgement on all the people in one particular religion because many did some stupid things.

Agreed. Once again I never advocated what you're assuming.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
shortandy wrote: In the

shortandy wrote:

In the nightline debate Brian, your leader, read a long list of actual things, terrible things, that have been done in the name of Jesus or by christians. Now this was debate put together to argue the proof for existence of God. So he is using bad things, done in the name of a religion as proof that the religion is false, specifically their god doesn't exist.

Hey numbnuts, in that paragraph my point was a sarcastic one that religion doesn't make you better, not that it's false.  Oh also, I'm not anyones "leader" here.

Here is the exact quote:

You know, Way of the Master is right… Religion IS a force for good... when you take out the murder, mass genocide committed by god as documented in the bible, religious wars, burning witches at the stake, Ted Haggard, shooting abortion doctors, the bible's promotion of slavery, pedophile priests, serial killing Christians gone wild, the church's systematic oppression of women and minorities, aversion to protection against STDs and the spread of AIDS in third-world countries, creative and inconsistent interpretation of "thou shalt not kill.”

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: I'm

pariahjane wrote:

I'm just going to point out that Brian Sapient is not our 'leader'. He is the person who started and maintains this website. I have never personally spoken to him, nor has he ever emailed me and probably has no idea I am even on this forum.

Oh, I know you're on this forum.  I love reading your posts.    

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


DewiMorgan
DewiMorgan's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Sapient (to shortandy) wrote:
It's not my intent to make you angry, fwiw.

Sapient (to shortandy) wrote:
Hey numbnuts

Do insults serve any other purpose?

T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
DewiMorgan wrote: Sapient

DewiMorgan wrote:
Sapient (to shortandy) wrote:
It's not my intent to make you angry, fwiw.
Sapient (to shortandy) wrote:
Hey numbnuts
Do insults serve any other purpose?

 Dewi, I have a dry sense of humor.  That was a reference to the debate itself.  And yes, insults can serve purposes other than to incite anger. 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.