The moral reason to reject all god claims.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The moral reason to reject all god claims.

The core reason to reject all claims of the super natural and god claims is lack of evidence, no matter who is doing the claiming. But another reason to reject god claims is the cherry picking dodge pinning no accountability on such a god in the face of cruelty and suffering under their alleged watch.

While Harris is addressing Christianity, this also applies to Muslims and Jews as well because of the "all powerful" and "all loving" and "all seeing" attributes. So please try if you wish to justify a counter to Sam Harris's argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HthQ6a7FZeA

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
"evidence" is only necessary

"evidence" is only necessary or relevant with a falsifiable claim.  the existence of god is nonfalsifiable and has neither the need for empirical or scientific proof, nor the universal validation that comes with said proof.  i have no problem with claims of god's existence.  i only have a problem when the claimant tries to give his beliefs objective validity and/or make them into a universal imperative.  believers don't always do this.  in fact, i know of about about a billion, most of whom don't.  of course, a great number of those believers don't really believe in "god" at all.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:"evidence" is

iwbiek wrote:

"evidence" is only necessary or relevant with a falsifiable claim.  the existence of god is nonfalsifiable and has neither the need for empirical or scientific proof, nor the universal validation that comes with said proof.  i have no problem with claims of god's existence.  i only have a problem when the claimant tries to give his beliefs objective validity and/or make them into a universal imperative.  believers don't always do this.  in fact, i know of about about a billion, most of whom don't.  of course, a great number of those believers don't really believe in "god" at all.

Stop, this is nothing but a wordy way of saying " Let them believe, who is it hurting".

 

They have the legal right to make whatever claim they want, and I have the right to call it bullshit.

 

You help nobody by saying "it is ok". Your pc intent is not the issue. It is NOT ok to believe in invisible friends even if it is a  normal aspect of an imperfect species.

 

Quote:
i only have a problem when the claimant tries to give his beliefs objective validity and/or make them into a universal imperative.

You can claim all you want that most people don't do this, but far too many people DO and the ones who dont do what you say lend cover to the ones that DO!

Stop making this out to be a human rights issue when that is NOT the argument I am making. That is the same stupid pc doge I get from my believing friends when they don't like the message. Being uncomfortable with being faced with an uncomfortable topic is not a reason to ignore it just to placate the insecurities of others.

 

Their lack of evidence is not my baggage. Their naked assertions are not my baggage. You are a fool to think that liberals and moderates don't lend cover to nuts that do cause problems, THEY DO, and you are a party to it as well by spewing such nonsense.

 

"Not all people are zealots" thanks for the update, still not the issue.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: i have no

iwbiek wrote:

 i have no problem with claims of god's existence.  i only have a problem when the claimant tries to give his beliefs objective validity and/or make them into a universal imperative. 

I totally agree on that one. I especially hate it when people try to force legislation of morality upon the public because the bible/god/religion or anything else told them to.

Of course, I have a strong tendency to disagree with anyone doing that theists or not. For instance, I see no reason for this absurd law banning trans-fat in foods. If I want to choke to death of a heart attack (which even my skinny ass could be susceptible to due to all the fatty foods I eat) or smoking a cigar, I should be able to do so.

To my knowledge, no one forcing this nonsense is doing so for religious purposes.

iwbiek wrote:

  in fact, i know of about about a billion, most of whom don't.  of course, a great number of those believers don't really believe in "god" at all.

To whom would you be referencing with that one ? Are you talking more about eastern religions that to my limited knowledge do not have a "god" per se ? Or are you speaking along the line of some anti-theists that I know that while they believe in a god of some sort, they reject organized religion ?

I know my girlfriend's religion doesn't really have a central god, authority, nor much else. God/Goddess is seen differently by Wiccan followers. I personally don't buy it, but since I do not see too many Wiccans going around trying to convert anyone nor really caring what others believe, I am really not too worried about it.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:To

harleysportster wrote:

To whom would you be referencing with that one ? 

hindus.  many of them are atheists: speaking in the strictest of terms pretty much all of them are.  add the buddhists to that, you get about another 800 million or so.  add the jains, the most aggressively atheistic indian religion, and you get about another five and a half million.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
 You can claim all you want

 

You can claim all you want that most people don't do this, but far too many people DO and the ones who dont do what you say lend cover to the ones that DO!

Stop making this out to be a human rights issue when that is NOT the argument I am making. That is the same stupid pc doge I get from my believing friends when they don't like the message. Being uncomfortable with being faced with an uncomfortable topic is not a reason to ignore it just to placate the insecurities of others.

Brian37 wrote:

Their lack of evidence is not my baggage. Their naked assertions are not my baggage. You are a fool to think that liberals and moderates don't lend cover to nuts that do cause problems, THEY DO, and you are a party to it as well by spewing such nonsense.

 

oh fuck you, brian!  you want to call naked assertion?  your last sentence there is THE BIGGEST FUCKING NAKED ASSERTION THE ATHEIST COMMUNITY EVER MADE, and i'm fucking ill of it.  where is the data for that, brian?  where are the studies?  how the fuck do you know moderates make it easier for extremists?  you don't.  it's a fucking hunch.  in fact, it's a nonfalsifiable statement in and of itself, so it as much logical and scientific validity as any religious dogma, no more, no less.

if i'm a party to getting people, atheists or theists, to think twice before spewing shit out their mouths, i'll gladly answer to that charge, you self-righteous fucking dolt.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: You can claim

iwbiek wrote:

 

You can claim all you want that most people don't do this, but far too many people DO and the ones who dont do what you say lend cover to the ones that DO!

Stop making this out to be a human rights issue when that is NOT the argument I am making. That is the same stupid pc doge I get from my believing friends when they don't like the message. Being uncomfortable with being faced with an uncomfortable topic is not a reason to ignore it just to placate the insecurities of others.

Brian37 wrote:

Their lack of evidence is not my baggage. Their naked assertions are not my baggage. You are a fool to think that liberals and moderates don't lend cover to nuts that do cause problems, THEY DO, and you are a party to it as well by spewing such nonsense.

 

oh fuck you, brian!  you want to call naked assertion?  your last sentence there is THE BIGGEST FUCKING NAKED ASSERTION THE ATHEIST COMMUNITY EVER MADE, and i'm fucking ill of it.  where is the data for that, brian?  where are the studies?  how the fuck do you know moderates make it easier for extremists?  you don't.  it's a fucking hunch.  in fact, it's a nonfalsifiable statement in and of itself, so it as much logical and scientific validity as any religious dogma, no more, no less.

if i'm a party to getting people, atheists or theists, to think twice before spewing shit out their mouths, i'll gladly answer to that charge, you self-righteous fucking dolt.

Quote:
you want to call naked assertion?

 

Invisible magical super brains with no material, no location, and NO EVIDENCE for such, is a naked assertion. If you want to placate other people's fantasies you can, I refuse to.

By the way I said the following, not you.

Brian37 wrote:

You can claim all you want that most people don't do this, but far too many people DO and the ones who dont do what you say lend cover to the ones that DO!

Stop making this out to be a human rights issue when that is NOT the argument I am making. That is the same stupid pc doge I get from my believing friends when they don't like the message. Being uncomfortable with being faced with an uncomfortable topic is not a reason to ignore it just to placate the insecurities of others.

 

It was understandable when people didn't know better. But when you know that the earth is a globe and not flat willfully ignoring that just because it "feels right" to believe the earth is flat, does not make it so, or even wise to pretend.

 

I am with Harris and Hitchens in questioning religion and questioning the likes of you who give cover to religion to allow it to cause human division and retard human progress.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
So, Brian37, you just

So, Brian37, you just accused iwbiek of "[giving] cover to religion to allow it to cause human division and retard human progress."

Do you realize you're accusing him of "[giving] cover to religion" because he wants "to allow it to cause human division and retard human progress"?

I'm really hoping you didn't intentionally word it that way, and what you actually intended to convey was very close to "...and questioning the likes of you who give cover to religion, which will allow it (religion) to continue to cause human division and retard human progress."

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:So,

blacklight915 wrote:

So, Brian37, you just accused iwbiek of "[giving] cover to religion to allow it to cause human division and retard human progress."

Do you realize you're accusing him of "[giving] cover to religion" because he wants "to allow it to cause human division and retard human progress"?

I'm really hoping you didn't intentionally word it that way, and what you actually intended to convey was very close to "...and questioning the likes of you who give cover to religion, which will allow it (religion) to continue to cause human division and retard human progress."

 

 He is bashing me for my criticism of religion but yet he himself is trying to act like he is the schoolyard peacemaker protecting the innocent . Yet hypocritically participates in a website that allows for such criticism then condemns others for doing it while doing it himself.

Again, he falls for the "human rights" pc intent, which is not my argument. In that context religion has to be protected BY LAW, but not it should not be free from criticism.

If he is going to bash me for bashing religion, then he IS giving cover to religion. It is not ok to believe the earth is flat. It was understandable when people didn't know better. But we know better now.

Humans  publicly make pronouncements about god/s, and then attack things like gay rights, women's rights and other religions, and science itself, and base it on their religion they are starting from the naked assertion that a magic man with no body or material gave them divine entitlement to do so, and base it on ignorant comic books written by ignorant people.

Ibwuik saying "most people don't do this", does not change that there are far too many that do. And "most" is probably due to his geographical location which is not the entirety of the globe. If he wants to know what harm religion does, ask Ayaan Hersi Ali or Malala. Ask Iranian gays. Ask people old enough to remember when mixed race marriage was illegal here in the states, or what white Christians did to blacks wanting voting rights.

 

His argument should not be with me. His argument to his theist friends is to challenge them to call out their nuts. Again not to end religion, but to reduce the harm it does and keep it from becoming abusive.

 

It is NOT ok to teach people that an invisible being exists and made their group or sect "special". Anymore than it is ok to believe the earth is flat. We are a product of evolution, not invisible beings.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:If he is going

Brian37 wrote:

If he is going to bash me for bashing religion, then he IS giving cover to religion.

Nowhere have I seen iwbiek claim you should stop criticizing religion altogether. He thinks (and I'm inclined to agree) that you're ignorant of what religion truly IS. If he's correct, a significant portion of your criticism will likely be completely inapplicable to religion.

More importantly, however, is the wording of the following sentence: "I am with Harris and Hitchens in questioning religion and questioning the likes of you who give cover to religion to allow it to cause human division and retard human progress." You're not just claiming iwbiek is "giving cover to religion", you're claiming he's doing so for malicious reasons. If this is not your intention, I think you should clarify and/or reword that sentence.

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Yet

Brian37 wrote:

Yet hypocritically participates in a website that allows for such criticism then condemns others for doing it while doing it himself.

i'm not criticizing "others," brian.  i'm criticizing you.

i'm criticizing your methods of criticism because they're not "critical" at all.  criticizing something means pointing out its flaws on their own merits using reason and logic and coming from a position of knowledge.  demagoguery is not criticism.  it's demagoguery.  i'd say you're the bill o'reilly of the atheist movement, but people actually listen to bill o'reilly.

point out to me one other time on this website when I've criticized anyone but you for criticizing a religion.  go ahead, take all the time you like.  search the threads.

(getting ready for another epic dodge...)

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Brian37

blacklight915 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

If he is going to bash me for bashing religion, then he IS giving cover to religion.

Nowhere have I seen iwbiek claim you should stop criticizing religion altogether. He thinks (and I'm inclined to agree) that you're ignorant of what religion truly IS. If he's correct, a significant portion of your criticism will likely be completely inapplicable to religion.

More importantly, however, is the wording of the following sentence: "I am with Harris and Hitchens in questioning religion and questioning the likes of you who give cover to religion to allow it to cause human division and retard human progress." You're not just claiming iwbiek is "giving cover to religion", you're claiming he's doing so for malicious reasons. If this is not your intention, I think you should clarify and/or reword that sentence.

 

No I am not ignorant of what it is. It is a placebo an escape, but that does not mean it deserves taboo status. Just because delusion is an outcome of human evolution does not mean it deserves a pass.

 

I think he has good intent, but again, "getting along" should not mean zipping our lips to placate the insecurities of others who clearly lack the evidence to back up their naked assertions.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: I think he

Brian37 wrote:

 

I think he has good intent, but again, "getting along" should not mean zipping our lips to placate the insecurities of others who clearly lack the evidence to back up their naked assertions.

I NEVER SAID ZIP OUR FUCKING LIPS, YOU DICK!!!!  WHERE DID I SAY WE SHOULDN'T CRITICIZE RELIGIONS???  WHERE, BRIAN?  FUCKING QUOTE ME, YOU PIECE OF SHIT!  and don't come back with some slippery dick bullshit like "well, that's what you're thinking."

never in my fucking life, even when I was a fucking christian, said anything should be off-limits or taboo.

what i'm saying (please, pleeeaaase try to get this through your thick fucking skull) is that each religion should be looked at as an individual, heterogeneous unit, and should be criticized according to its own doctrines and historical circumstances, and that, when we paint with mile-wide fucking strokes and apply catch-all aphorisms indiscriminately to all religions, as if "religion" were some monolithic phenomenon, and use ignorant fucking arguments like "communism is a religion" or "nazism is a religion," we look like intellectually lazy douchebags.  statements like that have no motherfucking merit, even if they sound good to you.

criticize, yes!  by all fucking means!  criticize everything.  but criticize relevantly.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:No I am not

Brian37 wrote:

No I am not ignorant of what it is. It is a placebo an escape...

I think he has good intent...

The above portions of your response directly and properly address my previous post. They also make up a significant portion of your whole response. AND you completely and thoroughly answered every part of my key question.

I do sincerely apologize if my above statements are offensive. However, I am genuinely quite surprised and pleased.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Yet hypocritically participates in a website that allows for such criticism then condemns others for doing it while doing it himself.

i'm not criticizing "others," brian.  i'm criticizing you.

i'm criticizing your methods of criticism because they're not "critical" at all.  criticizing something means pointing out its flaws on their own merits using reason and logic and coming from a position of knowledge.  demagoguery is not criticism.  it's demagoguery.  i'd say you're the bill o'reilly of the atheist movement, but people actually listen to bill o'reilly.

point out to me one other time on this website when I've criticized anyone but you for criticizing a religion.  go ahead, take all the time you like.  search the threads.

(getting ready for another epic dodge...)

 

Yes you are criticizing me, but you don't see me saying "SHUT UP WHY CANT YOU LIVE AND LET LIVE".

 

You don't like the way I criticize religion, so? If religion does not deserve a pass, then the way I do it is fine. You not liking my tactic does not constitute me committing a crime. When I call for laws oppressing religion or when I call for violence against religious people, then you'll have a case. But since all I am doing is saying "bullshit" and "fuck you", to religious claims, you have nothing.

 

You don't like me personally. Welcome to reality.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:iwbiek

Brian37 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Yet hypocritically participates in a website that allows for such criticism then condemns others for doing it while doing it himself.

i'm not criticizing "others," brian.  i'm criticizing you.

i'm criticizing your methods of criticism because they're not "critical" at all.  criticizing something means pointing out its flaws on their own merits using reason and logic and coming from a position of knowledge.  demagoguery is not criticism.  it's demagoguery.  i'd say you're the bill o'reilly of the atheist movement, but people actually listen to bill o'reilly.

point out to me one other time on this website when I've criticized anyone but you for criticizing a religion.  go ahead, take all the time you like.  search the threads.

(getting ready for another epic dodge...)

 

Yes you are criticizing me, but you don't see me saying "SHUT UP WHY CANT YOU LIVE AND LET LIVE".

you don't see me saying that either!  once again, brian, WHERE do I say that?  i'm still waiting.

Brian37 wrote:

But since all I am doing is saying "bullshit" and "fuck you", to religious claims, you have nothing.

 

no, you're not, because you don't even know 90% of the claims religions make.  basically, you're whole knowledge of religion stems from spats with your coworkers and family and a couple lightweight, polemical books.  it would be like me reading one of those bullshit christian books about islam you can get in the wal-mart checkout aisle (the ones with titles like the truth about islam) and then acting like i know everything there is worth knowing about islam, and plugging up my ears when ever anyone tried to educate me further.  in other words, i would be a joke.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
When I start advocating the

When I start advocating the same tactics then you'd be justified in equating me to nuts like this.

But since I am not nor ever will, stop fucking bitching about my blasphemy. THIS is yet another reason religion needs to be treated as the poison it is.

http://www.examiner.com/article/christian-extremists-advocate-kidnapping-women-who-seek-abortions

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37, you are so

Brian37, you are so monumentally dense that I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. Seriously.

Do you think you're accurately assessing and responding to what iwbiek is saying?

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
(throws up hands)fuck it.

(throws up hands)

fuck it.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
↑ Influences are not always necessarily immediately tangible
 
 re :: Influences are not always necessarily easily seen, or immediately tangible.

 

iwbiek wrote:

(throws up hands)

fuck it.

  I would like to encourage you. LOL! I am sure I know that exact same sentiment from what has been been put forth by Caposkia, (guaranteed)!

______

  ¬ TO Others ::   "If you go off half cocked, thinking youre doing it on your own. You're guaranteed to fall on your face every time" ¬ Ben Carson


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:(throws up

iwbiek wrote:

(throws up hands)

fuck it.

I'm tempted to squawk "I toldja so", but then I didn't. I didn't tell you so because I thought the futility of your actions was overwhelmingly obvious.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote: I'm tempted

Kapkao wrote:

 

I'm tempted to squawk "I toldja so", but then I didn't. I didn't tell you so because I thought the futility of your actions was overwhelmingly obvious.

well, the futility of all actions is overwhelmingly obvious.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian wants "1984" to

Brian wants "1984" to happen, with him in charge. Thought police, ministry of truth, ministry of peace, etc. His opinions are irrelevant.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Brian wants

Vastet wrote:
Brian wants "1984" to happen, with him in charge. Thought police, ministry of truth, ministry of peace, etc. His opinions are irrelevant.

WHAT? Holly crap. This is laughable. 1984 is what the Koch brothers want, not me.

 

You pool enough money together for any human venture, religious, political or business and you gain a monopoly of power. Explain to me how a dishwasher has the same monetary power as the Koch Brothers.

 

A monopoly of power is what 1984 warned us about. Same with Animal Farm. Use propaganda to pit people against each other so they ignore their own self interests.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Vastet

Brian37 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Brian wants "1984" to happen, with him in charge. Thought police, ministry of truth, ministry of peace, etc. His opinions are irrelevant.

WHAT? Holly crap. This is laughable. 1984 is what the Koch brothers want, not me.

Have you read 1984?

 

Brian37 wrote:

You pool enough money together for any human venture, religious, political or business and you gain a monopoly of power. Explain to me how a dishwasher has the same monetary power as the Koch Brothers.

Why should a dishwasher have the same monetary power as the Koch brothers?

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: 

danatemporary wrote:

 
 re :: Influences are not always necessarily easily seen, or immediately tangible.

 

iwbiek wrote:

(throws up hands)

fuck it.

  I would like to encourage you. LOL! I am sure I know that exact same sentiment from what has been been put forth by Caposkia, (guaranteed)!

______

  ¬ TO Others ::   "If you go off half cocked, thinking youre doing it on your own. You're guaranteed to fall on your face every time" ¬ Ben Carson

 

Where is Caposkia? Haven't seen Caposkia  in ages. What Caposkia  had, even as a believer, that some here seem to forget, is yes,  thought, like many here, that I was full of shit. But  didn't run away, and I wasn't the only one blasting god claims.

 

That thread was what 5 years old, if not more? If I am correct it started with a book written by an apologist Caposkia thought would convince us of the existence of a god. I wasn't the only one in that thread attacking the claims of a believer was I?

 

When any believer of ANY religion can take their findings to a lab, and beat everyone else to the patient office, I will gladly back off. You can believe you are chosen by FSM or Thor or pink unicorns all you want, but don't expect me to be polite about it even if I agree with your right to make the claim.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Brian wants "1984" to happen, with him in charge. Thought police, ministry of truth, ministry of peace, etc. His opinions are irrelevant.

WHAT? Holly crap. This is laughable. 1984 is what the Koch brothers want, not me.

Have you read 1984?

 

Brian37 wrote:

You pool enough money together for any human venture, religious, political or business and you gain a monopoly of power. Explain to me how a dishwasher has the same monetary power as the Koch Brothers.

Why should a dishwasher have the same monetary power as the Koch brothers?

 

 

 

FUCK IT THEN might makes right.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

 

Double post.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:But  didn't

Brian37 wrote:

But  didn't run away, and I wasn't the only one blasting god claims.

nobody here is "running away" because you're "blasting god claims."

people (like me) are "running away" because life is too short to waste it dealing with persistent, willful stupidity.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

But  didn't run away, and I wasn't the only one blasting god claims.

nobody here is "running away" because you're "blasting god claims."

people (like me) are "running away" because life is too short to waste it dealing with persistent, willful stupidity.

"Willful stupidity" like claiming a woman came out of a man's rib? You run from that? Funny how science does NOT take that attitude. If it took the "live and let live" PC attitude you want to advocate, science would not advance.

Yes, it is good to ignore the stupidity that women can't drive in Saudi Arabia. It is good to ignore the stupidity of thugs shooting a girl for wanting an education.

 

You got me, it is ok for lawmakers to base the legality of slavery on the bible DO NOT TELL ME THEY DID NOT. It is ok for lawmakers to say "fuck women's right to vote" DO NOT TELL ME they didnt. DO NOT TELL ME that gays are denied the right to marry based on purely secular reasons.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: You got me,

Brian37 wrote:

 

You got me, it is ok for lawmakers to base the legality of slavery on the bible DO NOT TELL ME THEY DID NOT. It is ok for lawmakers to say "fuck women's right to vote" DO NOT TELL ME they didnt. DO NOT TELL ME that gays are denied the right to marry based on purely secular reasons.

and DO NOT TELL ME that no religion would mean none of those things would exist.

if you TRULY BELIEVE, AS I DO, that religion comes from the human mind, then every irrational precept that religion prescribes must ALREADY BE PRESENT IN THE HUMAN MIND.  the majority of men feel threatened by women so RELIGION REFLECTS THAT.  religion is NOT the CAUSE of sexism, it is its REFLECTION.  the majority of heterosexuals, for one reason or another, are naturally disgusted by homosexual behavior.  once again, religion is NOT the CAUSE, it is the REFLECTION.

as for slavery, religion was merely an excuse for a practice that was encouraged for ECONOMIC reasons.  had religion not been there, ANOTHER excuse would undoubtedly have been found (and often was--jefferson was an avid slave-owner, and he was not terribly religious, as you enjoy pointing out ad nauseum).

all in all, you give religion far too much credit.  religion REFLECTS human prejudice, it DOES NOT CAUSE IT.  THAT IS THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION.

unless, of course, you believe religion comes from some source other than the human mind?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

You got me, it is ok for lawmakers to base the legality of slavery on the bible DO NOT TELL ME THEY DID NOT. It is ok for lawmakers to say "fuck women's right to vote" DO NOT TELL ME they didnt. DO NOT TELL ME that gays are denied the right to marry based on purely secular reasons.

and DO NOT TELL ME that no religion would mean none of those things would exist.

if you TRULY BELIEVE, AS I DO, that religion comes from the human mind, then every irrational precept that religion prescribes must ALREADY BE PRESENT IN THE HUMAN MIND.  the majority of men feel threatened by women so RELIGION REFLECTS THAT.  religion is NOT the CAUSE of sexism, it is its REFLECTION.  the majority of heterosexuals, for one reason or another, are naturally disgusted by homosexual behavior.  once again, religion is NOT the CAUSE, it is the REFLECTION.

as for slavery, religion was merely an excuse for a practice that was encouraged for ECONOMIC reasons.  had religion not been there, ANOTHER excuse would undoubtedly have been found (and often was--jefferson was an avid slave-owner, and he was not terribly religious, as you enjoy pointing out ad nauseum).

all in all, you give religion far too much credit.  religion REFLECTS human prejudice, it DOES NOT CAUSE IT.  THAT IS THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION.

unless, of course, you believe religion comes from some source other than the human mind?

 

Quote:
and DO NOT TELL ME that no religion would mean none of those things would exist.

 

I have defied you consistently, and now unfortunately one more time, TO FUCKING SHOW ME IN ANY OF MY POSTS, where I claimed a utopia was a possibility.

 

If "Its all good" worked like you stupidly think then the assholes who shot Malala are right.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:  I have

Brian37 wrote:

 

 

I have defied you consistently, and now unfortunately one more time, TO FUCKING SHOW ME IN ANY OF MY POSTS, where I claimed a utopia was a possibility.

 

YOU DON'T MAKE ANY FUCKING CLAIMS, BRIAN, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS PEOPLE ARE LOSING PATIENCE WITH YOU.

"religion is poison" but what?  we can't get rid of it?  you seem to admit that.  so a little poison's ok?  if we had less of this poison we'd have fewer shootings?  is that what you're saying? 

i'm only speaking in HYPOTHETICALS, brian, do you know what that means?  it means WE'RE OUTSIDE THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY COMPLETELY.  i'm not saying--NOT SAYING--what you think is "possible."  hypotheticals can be helpful in justifying our position philosophically in the real world.  i'm ASKING you, NOW, whether you believe a HYPOTHETICAL world without religion, HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING, would be a world with FAR LESS prejudice and violence.  IF YES, how is that possible, considering religion is a REFLECTION of human nature, NOT its CONDITIONER?  IF NO, then why bother fighting religion at all, since humanity's behavior would not be significantly affected, just its modus operandi would have to be changed?

if these question are over your head, just say so.

i think people would be more tolerant even of your constant hyperbole if you had SOMETHING FUCKING CONSTRUCTIVE TO SAY.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

 

I have defied you consistently, and now unfortunately one more time, TO FUCKING SHOW ME IN ANY OF MY POSTS, where I claimed a utopia was a possibility.

 

YOU DON'T MAKE ANY FUCKING CLAIMS, BRIAN, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS PEOPLE ARE LOSING PATIENCE WITH YOU.

"religion is poison" but what?  we can't get rid of it?  you seem to admit that.  so a little poison's ok?  if we had less of this poison we'd have fewer shootings?  is that what you're saying? 

i'm only speaking in HYPOTHETICALS, brian, do you know what that means?  it means WE'RE OUTSIDE THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY COMPLETELY.  i'm not saying--NOT SAYING--what you think is "possible."  hypotheticals can be helpful in justifying our position philosophically in the real world.  i'm ASKING you, NOW, whether you believe a HYPOTHETICAL world without religion, HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING, would be a world with FAR LESS prejudice and violence.  IF YES, how is that possible, considering religion is a REFLECTION of human nature, NOT its CONDITIONER?  IF NO, then why bother fighting religion at all, since humanity's behavior would not be significantly affected, just its modus operandi would have to be changed?

if these question are over your head, just say so.

i think people would be more tolerant even of your constant hyperbole if you had SOMETHING FUCKING CONSTRUCTIVE TO SAY.

 

Quote:
YOU DON'T MAKE ANY FUCKING CLAIMS, BRIAN, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS PEOPLE ARE LOSING PATIENCE WITH YOU.

 

So this is not a claim itself?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:So this is not

Brian37 wrote:

So this is not a claim itself?

you are the fucking king of chickenshit dodges.

JUST SAY "I DON'T KNOW"!  OR "HM, I HAVEN'T GIVEN THAT MUCH THOUGHT"!  OR "OH, YOU MIGHT HAVE A POINT THERE"!

YOU WON'T DIE, I PROMISE!

FUCK...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

So this is not a claim itself?

you are the fucking king of chickenshit dodges.

JUST SAY "I DON'T KNOW"!  OR "HM, I HAVEN'T GIVEN THAT MUCH THOUGHT"!  OR "OH, YOU MIGHT HAVE A POINT THERE"!

YOU WON'T DIE, I PROMISE!

FUCK...

For someone who says they have given up on me you sure do a bad job of it.

 

I do know.

 

EVOLUTION.

 

Every human behavior, both yours and mine is a RANGE of our species. Now if you have a better explanation I am all ears.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: I do

Brian37 wrote:

 

I do know.

 

EVOLUTION.

 

Every human behavior, both yours and mine is a RANGE of our species. Now if you have a better explanation I am all ears.

my question was not to explain religion.  do you know what my questions were?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:iwbiek

Brian37 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

So this is not a claim itself?

you are the fucking king of chickenshit dodges.

JUST SAY "I DON'T KNOW"!  OR "HM, I HAVEN'T GIVEN THAT MUCH THOUGHT"!  OR "OH, YOU MIGHT HAVE A POINT THERE"!

YOU WON'T DIE, I PROMISE!

FUCK...

For someone who says they have given up on me you sure do a bad job of it.

 

I do know.

 

EVOLUTION.

 

Every human behavior, both yours and mine is a RANGE of our species. Now if you have a better explanation I am all ears.

Evolution therefore what?  Evolution doesn't prescribe values, it describes a process.  That process lead to us being what we are today.  So what?  Saying evolution isn’t any more of an argument then saying gravity.  What point are you trying to make?  If you have arguments you want to make then make them.  If you  want to engage with people engage with them.    Instead you have a tendency to spout inane drivel that is often unrelated to the topic at hand.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Brian37

RatDog wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

So this is not a claim itself?

you are the fucking king of chickenshit dodges.

JUST SAY "I DON'T KNOW"!  OR "HM, I HAVEN'T GIVEN THAT MUCH THOUGHT"!  OR "OH, YOU MIGHT HAVE A POINT THERE"!

YOU WON'T DIE, I PROMISE!

FUCK...

For someone who says they have given up on me you sure do a bad job of it.

 

I do know.

 

EVOLUTION.

 

Every human behavior, both yours and mine is a RANGE of our species. Now if you have a better explanation I am all ears.

Evolution therefore what?  Evolution doesn't prescribe values, it describes a process.  That process lead to us being what we are today.  So what?  Saying evolution isn’t any more of an argument then saying gravity.  What point are you trying to make?  If you have arguments you want to make then make them.  If you  want to engage with people engage with them.    Instead you have a tendency to spout inane drivel that is often unrelated to the topic at hand.

No shit, so if all it is about is a "process" then explain to me how a god is required? Does lightening need Thor to exist? Does the sun need Ra to exist? Does a hurricane need Poseidon to exist?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:and DO NOT TELL

iwbiek wrote:

and DO NOT TELL ME that no religion would mean none of those things would exist.

if you TRULY BELIEVE, AS I DO, that religion comes from the human mind, then every irrational precept that religion prescribes must ALREADY BE PRESENT IN THE HUMAN MIND.  the majority of men feel threatened by women so RELIGION REFLECTS THAT.  religion is NOT the CAUSE of sexism, it is its REFLECTION.  the majority of heterosexuals, for one reason or another, are naturally disgusted by homosexual behavior.  once again, religion is NOT the CAUSE, it is the REFLECTION.

as for slavery, religion was merely an excuse for a practice that was encouraged for ECONOMIC reasons.  had religion not been there, ANOTHER excuse would undoubtedly have been found (and often was--jefferson was an avid slave-owner, and he was not terribly religious, as you enjoy pointing out ad nauseum).

all in all, you give religion far too much credit.  religion REFLECTS human prejudice, it DOES NOT CAUSE IT.  THAT IS THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION.

 

You know that strangely enough, I have never thought of this the whole entire time that I have been through both the religious stage and Atheist stage.

But this does make perfect sense.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Evolution

Brian37 wrote:
 No shit, so if all it is about is a "process" then explain to me how a god is required? Does lightening need Thor to exist? Does the sun need Ra to exist? Does a hurricane need Poseidon to exist? 

Brain, what is wrong with you?  We are both atheists so why are you bring up Thor and Poseidon?  God doesn't exist, and evolution happened.  So what?  What is your argument?    Here I'll start are argument for you.   God doesn't exist, and evolution happened therefore... Now fill in the rest of it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Brian37

 

 

No shit we are both atheists. You are the PC guy who thinks "getting along" should mean always placating people when they make stupid claims. EVEN AFTER I said humans making stupid claims is going to happen.

 

When you open your mouth and make a claim, the POISON, isn't in the fact that people make stupid claims. The poison is in their insistence that you don't question them.

 

Our species DOES THIS, but the fact that we don't like challenges to our social norms does not mean that we also do not overcome our bad claims.

If the key to progress was to never upset anyone because they might get offended our species never would have left the caves.

Religion IS poison like refusing to learn about vocanos lead people to throw virgins in them. You can understand why people did those horrible things in the past. But when you know how a volcano actually works, to don't stupidly say "Its ok to throw virgins in them".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:  We are both

RatDog wrote:

 

 We are both atheists God doesn't exist, and evolution happened.  So what?  What is your argument?   

Yes I actually miss the theist/atheists discussions on here if truth were to be told.

I am just hoping when this issue with Chrome and Explorer are fixed, (neither will let me access the site) that SOME forms of the old RRS might come back.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You are the PC

Brian37 wrote:

You are the PC guy who thinks "getting along" should mean always placating people when they make stupid claims.

Where has RatDog indicated he thinks this way, Brian?  I know it's not in this thread, because I just reread both his posts in it. I'm questioning your claim, Brian; please provide evidence to back it up.

 


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:RatDog

harleysportster wrote:

RatDog wrote:

 

 We are both atheists God doesn't exist, and evolution happened.  So what?  What is your argument?   

Yes I actually miss the theist/atheists discussions on here if truth were to be told.

I am just hoping when this issue with Chrome and Explorer are fixed, (neither will let me access the site) that SOME forms of the old RRS might come back.

I've never really enjoyed arguing with theists that much.  I've always had a tendency to get overly angry, or to get depressed when people keep repeating stupid things over and over again.  Sometimes I like reading other peoples debates with theists, but only when they contain new thoughts and ideas.  I guess that is just my lazy lurker mentality.


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
*Sigh* Brian when did you

*Sigh* Brian when did you become like this?  Where you always like this and I just didn’t notice or is this something that happened slowly over time.

Brian37 wrote:

No shit we are both atheists. You are the PC guy who thinks "getting along" should mean always placating people when they make stupid claims. EVEN AFTER I said humans making stupid claims is going to happen.

 

Where did you get this from anything I said?  Brain you need to listen to what people say.  Not what you think they mean, or whatever weird crap is going on inside your head.  Focus on their actual word.  Otherwise real communication can’t take place.

Brian37 wrote:

When you open your mouth and make a claim, the POISON, isn't in the fact that people make stupid claims. The poison is in their insistence that you don't question them.

 

Our species DOES THIS, but the fact that we don't like challenges to our social norms does not mean that we also do not overcome our bad claims.

If the key to progress was to never upset anyone because they might get offended our species never would have left the caves.

Religion IS poison like refusing to learn about vocanos lead people to throw virgins in them. You can understand why people did those horrible things in the past. But when you know how a volcano actually works, to don't stupidly say "Its ok to throw virgins in them".

Boiled down your argument seems to be:

  1. Insistence that people don't question stupid claims = poison
  2. Progress involves upsetting people in order to overcome bad claims
  3. If progress didn’t involves upsetting people then there would be no progress.
  4. Religion = poison = refusing to learn
  5. Refusing to learn causes harm (or maybe virgins being thrown into volcanoes I’m not sure).   

Simplifying this we get:

  1. Religion is poison, refusing to learn and insisting that people don’t question stupid claims.
  2. Upsetting people is necessary for both progress and overcoming bad claims.  
  3. Refusing to learn causes harm.   

I don’t find any of this relevant to anything I’ve said.  As for your discussion with iwbiek I don’t think the two of you are going to be able to agree on the definition of religion.  Maybe you should try shifting the discussion to something like, willful ignorance is unethical because it causes harm.  On a more personal note I think you might need help.  Maybe you should try doing something new like going to a class at a community college, or reading a book that you wouldn’t normally read.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Please explain to me why I

Please explain to me why I am the bad guy for pointing out sick crap I didn't write and wasn't even born  when it was written.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT,

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father and he must marry the young woman  because he violated her and he will never be allowed to divorce her"

 

None of the books of Abraham value girls/women's rights. In evolution because of human ignorance it was the morality of most cultures back then. But why anyone would say vile garbage like this is relevant today when we know better, is astounding.

 

My PC atheist and theist friends, your problem should NOT be with me, but with those who insist on avoiding verses like this and cherry pick a book that is NOT a good bases for morality.

 

I stand by calling religion poison and this, is yet another example.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Maybe you

RatDog wrote:

Maybe you should try doing something new like going to a class at a community college, or reading a book that you wouldn’t normally read.

i once suggested he needed to study up on comparative religion.  i even offered to suggest a couple books.  i got told no, there is nothing more he needs to know about religions, he knows enough, thanks.  then he proceeds to argue against the existence of multi-armed deities.  even though nobody actually believes they exist.  had he read even an extremely cursory, layperson's book about hinduism, he wouldn't have wasted his time writing that drivel.

as for defining religion, it's been a couple weeks since we argued about that.  now, no matter what i say, i just get called PC and told my primary concern is not upsetting theists.  even though he's the ONLY atheist on this site who's ever gotten so much vitriol from me.  ok, well, there was EXC, but that had nothing to do with religion at all.  the other people i've railed against as much or more than brian have been: furrycatherder, jean chauvin, gramster, paisley, epistemologist, mind over matter, old seer, and i'm sure there were others--all theists.  i evn called luminon on his bullshit a couple times, even though i like him, and i often questioned eloise on why she felt the need to posit a deity of any sort (i admit i never pushed her too hard because i have the major hots for her, on both a physical and intellectual level).

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek

iwbiek wrote:

 furrycatherder, jean chauvin, gramster, paisley, epistemologist, mind over matter, old seer, and i'm sure there were others--all theists.  i evn called luminon on his bullshit a couple times, even though i like him, and i often questioned eloise on why she felt the need to posit a deity of any sort (i admit i never pushed her too hard because i have the major hots for her, on both a physical and intellectual level).

Jean Chauvin was a joke.

Gramster, Old Seer were pains in the ass. Just like that Henson guy or whomever that asshole was with his Pathway Machine book. That was one that I totally could not stand and did not treat with any finesse.

Epistemologist I do not remember.

Furrycatherder was one that I never read enough of to really care about.

There was one guy that I had a hard fight against on here named Mr. Metaphysics, but then again, I think he was a troll that had been on here multiple times under multiple names.

There was that one dumbass that was talking about Math Phyz that really rubbed me the wrong way that I had an out and out confrontation with. but that is been my experience with most of them.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:iwbiek

harleysportster wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

 furrycatherder, jean chauvin, gramster, paisley, epistemologist, mind over matter, old seer, and i'm sure there were others--all theists.  i evn called luminon on his bullshit a couple times, even though i like him, and i often questioned eloise on why she felt the need to posit a deity of any sort (i admit i never pushed her too hard because i have the major hots for her, on both a physical and intellectual level).

Jean Chauvin was a joke.

Gramster, Old Seer were pains in the ass. Just like that Henson guy or whomever that asshole was with his Pathway Machine book. That was one that I totally could not stand and did not treat with any finesse.

Epistemologist I do not remember.

Furrycatherder was one that I never read enough of to really care about.

There was one guy that I had a hard fight against on here named Mr. Metaphysics, but then again, I think he was a troll that had been on here multiple times under multiple names.

There was that one dumbass that was talking about Math Phyz that really rubbed me the wrong way that I had an out and out confrontation with. but that is been my experience with most of them.

If these were the worst theists in the world we had to deal with, I wouldn't have started this thread at all. The problem isn't which label, the problem is our evolutionary history allows our delusions to distract our species from its common condition.  Religion IS a poison because it produces false perceptions to the point of divisive conflict.

You must really live in a bubble and never turn on your tv or read anything in social media about what people do in the name of religion.

Now tell this 13 year old girl her family had the right to kick her out of the house merely because she didn't believe. If this is NOT ok, which it IS NOT, then  your good intent of "cant we all just get along", which is NOT my point, but "leave em alone", well this is what happens when you "leave em alone".

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/22/atheist-13-year-old-kicked-house/

 

And this isn't just about atheists, this is about gays, and even Muslims whose families disown them because they think differently or decide they don't want to be part of the societies religions.

 

There are still far to many humans in the world who indoctrinate their kids into a religion and grow up divided because of it. Now, while you cant stop a parent from teaching a kid what they want, you can outside that family to foster a future where you grow the idea to let the kid grow up first and decide for themselves.

 

Your argument of "not everyone does this" is again, still not my point. If you want less of this as a liberal and moderate you cant simply say "live and let live". You can use the island the volcano is on but you'd be stupid to assume that it will never blow it's top.

 

But crap like this goes on all the time, not just here and not just with atheists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Just found another one. As a

Just found another one. As a former Catholic I never knew any conservative Catholics. But here is proof they do exist.

 

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/conservative-catholic-group-ties-illinois-tornadoes-gay-marriage

 

You, "but but that is just a few Catholic nuts"

 

Nope, not exclusive to label.

 

FB user commenting on the book "I am Malala"

 

FB user wrote:
Wow - I just reading in the book , "I am Malala" on how the Taliban said the exact same things to the people in the Swat region of Pakistan when natural disasters occurred . . .
There were enough superstitious "god fearing" people to believe it and start paying more mind to those religious fanatics

 

Crap like this happens all over the world and throughout our species history. You'd argue all the more reason to leave them alone. I don't think you could get away with telling that to Malala.

 

We are more civil because we challenge these absurdities, not because we should always coddle them.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37