Der Trihs

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Der Tris, I'm not a religious man. I haven't been to church in years.

But one thing I do know is that hate isn't good. You don't seem to do anything but hate when it comes to religion. That ain't healthy. The overly religious hate, can't you at least try to be a better person than they are? It's not that hard.

Please, just show some tolerance of how other human beings view the world. Drop the hate. You'll live longer.

[Lobot]

Not this shit again.

[Idle Thoughts]

Is this over a specific topic or post and, if so, could we have a linky link?

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Not this shit again.Yeah, I know, but I'm not trying to start some flame war here. I truly want to know why Der Tris is so damn angry, and the pit is the only place I can ask that question.

It's the pit, so we don't have to be civil, but I want to be anyway. I'm not criticizing your world view, Der Tris, so much as your hatred of those that conflict with it. You can disagree, just don't hate. We're all human.



On preview: Idle thoughts, no, it's not a specific thread. Both he and I have been here for years, I just picked this random time to say something.

[Der Trihs]

But one thing I do know is that hate isn't good. Hate is neither good nor bad; it's just an emotion.

Please, just show some tolerance of how other human beings view the world. Drop the hate. You'll live longer.Tolerance means that I don't try to shoot them, burn their churches, get them tossed into prison, silence them, or otherwise try to oppress them. It does NOT mean I have to pretend that I respect them or their beliefs.

I truly want to know why Der Tris is so damn angry, and the pit is the only place I can ask that question.You can ask a question like that most places. As for why, why shouldn't I be? If anything deserves anger directed at it, it's religion. I've gone into the reasons why I despise religion; repeatedly and at length. Religion deserves to be hated, the way racism, sexism, slavery and fascism deserve to be hated.

[MrDibble]

Please, just show some tolerance of how other human beings view the world. Drop the hate. You'll live longer.Intolerance != hate. Just saying.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Hate is neither good nor bad; it's just an emotion.No, it's bad. It is bad from both a moral and ethical point of view. Perhaps you should look into Humanism (http://www.religioustolerance.org/humanism.htm). Surely your hatred for others does not prevent you from at least questioning the hatred?

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Intolerance != hate. Just saying.
Religion deserves to be hated
just saying

[Der Trihs]

No, it's bad. It is bad from both a moral and ethical point of view. According to you; not to me.

Surely your hatred for others does not prevent you from at least questioning the hatred?Considering that I practically can't go a day without coming across yet another evil or stupidity inflicted on the world by religion, why would I? I would hate anything else that was responsible for so much evil, with so little reason. Why not religion?

[A Monkey With a Gun]

You enjoy hatred?! Does it make you feel better?

[Der Trihs]

You enjoy hatred?! Does it make you feel better?It makes me feel better than depression, which is my other reaction to living in a world dominated by religion. We live in a world where evil and madness triumphed ages ago, and has inflcted immense suffering and evil upon billions of people. A world where religion has spent millennia grinding all that is good or sane out of humanity.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Der Tris, I've wrestled with depression myself, but you have to realize that depression is internal. I wasn't able to heal until I realized that the outside world wasn't trying to keep me down. Hell, it didn't even know I was there. I healed when I stopped hating it.

[Der Trihs]

Der Tris, I've wrestled with depression myself, but you have to realize that depression is internal. Not when it's caused by depressing facts. Being depressed about something real isn't the same as clinical depression.

[Orbifold]

A Monkey With A Gun, I have a request/suggestion.

Go read this. (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html)

I won't lie to you; it's quite long. However, I found it illuminating and I think you'll find it relevant to the current, erm, "discussion".

[Princhester]

Tolerance means that I don't try to shoot them, burn their churches, get them tossed into prison, silence them, or otherwise try to oppress them. It does NOT mean I have to pretend that I respect them or their beliefs.

Basic problem though is that if religion is responsible for so much bad stuff in the world (and I'm with you there) then the sane thing for you to do is to do your part to rid the world of it. You're not doing that, because most people (rightly or wrongly, whether it is logical or not, like it or not) are turned off by your eloquent evisceration of their beliefs and turn away from you and towards their beliefs. So your actions are counter productive.

Not that I'm much better.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Not when it's caused by depressing facts. Being depressed about something real isn't the same as clinical depression.Must you cling to the hatred? I don't want to debate the merits of religion with you, der tris, but I do want to talk about your hatred. Your hatred seems to spill over to people, not just institutions.

It hasn't in this thread, but from your past posts it seems a deep seeded thing. I'm telling you as a friend, it would be healthier and more productive if you didn't hate.

[Der Trihs]

Basic problem though is that if religion is responsible for so much bad stuff in the world (and I'm with you there) then the sane thing for you to do is to do your part to rid the world of it. You're not doing that, because most people (rightly or wrongly, whether it is logical or not, like it or not) are turned off by your eloquent evisceration of their beliefs and turn away from you and towards their beliefs. All the bowing and scraping towards religion certainly hasn't convinced them that it's wrong. I see no evidence that ANYTHING will convince most of them; believers generally need to be outlived, not convinced.

As for the few who are persuadable; tiptoeing around the elephant in the living room, pretending that religion is anything other than baseless nonsense can only encourage religion. Giving religion false respect simply encourages people to think that religion is reasonable, because otherwise why is it getting respect? No, I don't think I'm likely to convince anyone; but I doubt that I'm any less likely to do so than someone who pretends respect towards religion, and by doing so props it up.

[Leaper]

ou're not doing that, because most people (rightly or wrongly, whether it is logical or not, like it or not) are turned off by your eloquent evisceration of their beliefs


Plus, I'm sure his distaste for religion (and his belief that people who believe in it are either deluded/crazy or evil) comes across in his dealings with those people, which is certainly counterproductive to his doing anything about religion.

Again, as you said, it's not necessarily reflecting poorly on anyone here; it just is.

[Der Trihs]

Must you cling to the hatred?Yes. What you don't seem to grasp is that I don't agree with you that hatred is automatically bad. Some things, some people deserve it.

I don't want to debate the merits of religion with you, der tris, but I do want to talk about your hatred. Your hatred seems to spill over to people, not just institutions.And why not, considering all the people who have done evil in the name of religion, or using religion as an excuse?

[Gyrate]

Der Trihs. With an H.

It's considered more polite to spell someone's name correctly when you Pit them.



Helpful hint: it's "red shirt" backwards (or "shirt red", depending on how you read it).

[BigT]

Not when it's caused by depressing facts. Being depressed about something real isn't the same as clinical depression.

Yes, it is. All that matters is how long it's been.

Plus, facts are just facts. There's no such thing as one that is depressing. YOU DECIDE to be depressed by it.

But, honestly, I don't care so much that you hate. It's your life to ruin, not mine. What I do care about is when you let it spill out in otherwise arguments. All it does is make you look foolish, and invalidates your argument before you even say it.

Your comments make people defensive. And once you become defensive, you believe yourself all the more.

In other words, your hatred for religion causes people to cling more tightly to it. You are what you hate.

[Der Trihs]

Your comments make people defensive. And once you become defensive, you believe yourself all the more.

In other words, your hatred for religion causes people to cling more tightly to it. Yeah, sure. :rolleyes: What doesn't make them cling to religion? And what makes you think that faking respect towards it will somehow make them less religious?

When has acting all respectful towards a belief, especially an irrational belief EVER made people less likely to believe it? Racism and sexism weren't fought against successfully by people who pretended that their opponents were reasonable. I keep hearing this theory that I and other atheists need to act all respectful towards religion; when has that ever done anything but reinforce it, or similar false beliefs?

[ivan astikov]

It's considered more polite to spell someone's name correctly when you Pit them.


I think you are missing the point of a pitting.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Der Trihs. With an H.
It's considered more polite to spell someone's name correctly when you Pit them.


Helpful hint: it's "red shirt" backwards (or "shirt red", depending on how you read it).It wasn't intentional. I've always known his username was a backwards reference to the guys who always get killed first in Star Trek, but I always seem to drop the "h". I think phonetically, and the "h" isn't pronounced when it's spelled backwards so I seem to drop it. It wasn't meant to be an insult, it's just a monkey not paying enough attention to detail. I noticed I've been doing it in the whole thread, but I'll pay better attention now.

[Der Trihs]

I've always known his username was a backwards reference to the guys who always get killed first in Star Trek, but I always seem to drop the "h". Technically, it's a reference to a character in the webcomic Schlock Mercenary, Der Trihs; it's his name that is a backwards reference to redshirts.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Racism and sexism weren't fought against successfully by people who pretended that their opponents were reasonable.They were, though. Civil disobedience depends on the belief that the opponents are reasonable.

[bdgr]

Yeah, sure. :rolleyes: What doesn't make them cling to religion? And what makes you think that faking respect towards it will somehow make them less religious?



It doesn't. but what the attacks and disrespect does do is make them vote. Seriously, I'm a Christian, but I cant stand the religious right, and the last thing we need is to make them mobilze. Make ignorant people feel attacked and they band togeather and pass ignorant laws. You want a constitutional amendment requireing creationism be taught in schools? Keep it up....There are enough wackos and enough apathetic reasonable people that they could do that if you make them afraid enough. (I'm exagerating here...but only barely).

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Apropos of Der Trihs's name, if a wandering mod comes by, can you change the thread title to spell his name correctly?

[Walker in Eternity]

All the bowing and scraping towards religion certainly hasn't convinced them that it's wrong. I see no evidence that ANYTHING will convince most of them; believers generally need to be outlived, not convinced.

As for the few who are persuadable; tiptoeing around the elephant in the living room, pretending that religion is anything other than baseless nonsense can only encourage religion. Giving religion false respect simply encourages people to think that religion is reasonable, because otherwise why is it getting respect? No, I don't think I'm likely to convince anyone; but I doubt that I'm any less likely to do so than someone who pretends respect towards religion, and by doing so props it up.

Agreed completely, here in the UK we tiptoe around so as not to offend anyone of faith.

Parts of the Middle East are referred to as "The Holy Land", well they are not holy to me (actually nothing is).

Mohammed is always referred to on the BBC as "The Prophet Mohammed", once again, not my prophet.

We bend over backwards to accomodate people of faith and this is causing great problems. If I were speaking to someone who accepted the existence of unicorns or fairies I could, quite rightly, think they were mad, but if I dare criticise the Judeo/Christian/Muslim image of the psychotic superbeing I can be ignored, accused of many "isms" and even sued.

I too get depressed when I see the continued tollerance for outdated mysticism and the way it is granted equal footing with scientific evidence.

Sadly, I don't see the situation improving any time soon and actually expect things to get worse, I try not to give in to hate, but sometimes it can be difficult, particularly when there is so much anti science propaganda out there.

I don't have any words of wisdom to make things better, but you are not the only one to feel the way you do.

[tagos]

We bend over backwards to accomodate people of faith and this is causing great problems. If I were speaking to someone who accepted the existence of unicorns or fairies I could, quite rightly, think they were mad, but if I dare criticise the Judeo/Christian/Muslim image of the psychotic superbeing I can be ignored, accused of many "isms" and even sued.

And the unicorn crowd aren't demanding their baseless superstitions are written into our laws.

They aren't arbitrating on who can do what to whom in the privacy of their own homes or undermining the education system. Or indeed, blowing themselves up in public places or telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies.

Etc. etc.

Count me in with the 'why does this dangerously nonsensical delusion get a free pass?' crowd.

[Der Trihs]

And the unicorn crowd aren't demanding their baseless superstitions are written into our laws.

They aren't arbitrating on who can do what to whom in the privacy of their own homes or undermining the education system. Or indeed, blowing themselves up in public places or telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies.Exactly. It's not just chance that religion, specifically, is the irrational belief system that I get so worked up about. The Bigfoot believers and Lochness Monster chasers and people who wear lucky rabbit's feet aren't trying to shove their beliefs down everyone's throat. They aren't doing damage on a worldwide scale because they insist on acting like a delusion is true; they seldom hurt more than themselves, if that.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

c'mon, both of you. Y'all aren't really saying that Western governments are theocracies, are you?

ETA: you should also address how your "oppression", can't be corrected with civil disobedience. Drop the hatred. You don't have to adopt a religion, just don't hate those who do.

[Der Trihs]

c'mon, both of you. Y'all aren't really saying that Western governments are theocracies, are you?No, but not for lack of trying on the part of the believers. And they are heavily distorted by religion.

[Princhester]

All the bowing and scraping towards religion certainly hasn't convinced them that it's wrong. I see no evidence that ANYTHING will convince most of them; believers generally need to be outlived, not convinced.

As for the few who are persuadable; tiptoeing around the elephant in the living room, pretending that religion is anything other than baseless nonsense can only encourage religion. Giving religion false respect simply encourages people to think that religion is reasonable, because otherwise why is it getting respect? No, I don't think I'm likely to convince anyone; but I doubt that I'm any less likely to do so than someone who pretends respect towards religion, and by doing so props it up.


You are smart enough to know about excluded middles. I've never bowed, scraped or tiptoed. I don't even show any real respect. But I don't cop the push back that you do because I don't exude the same degree of vitriol.

There are plenty of people who sit on the fence about religion. They know in the logical part of their brain that the whole god thing is dumbass, but they come from a religious culture and are comfortable with it. They can be lured, but I doubt you are very alluring.

[monavis]

Der Tris..I have often wondered why, with a lot of humans, it is easier to say I hate than I Love! I hope that some day we can be more tolerant of others thinking, beliefs etc.; for some reason hate seems to be a stronger emotion than love. I do not know if it is the selfish gene, or what, but if one is put on the defensive the reaction is usually negative. It seems to penetrate through all the world's difficulties. Some Christians are afraid of having their faith taken away(as if that could happen to one who truly believes as they state) Some seem to need every one to agree with them. Some fight over a piece of ground, making the land more important to them then peoples lives. I wish I had the answers but I do not.

We lived in a bad neighborhood for awhile, I taught my children not to reply, just smile and hurry on home. Strange but something bad happened to all the ones who tormented my children. There was a lot of Vandalism etc. We kept up our yard and had a nice home that we built ourselves, so for some reason they would throw trash in our yard(or anyone's who kept up their property) etc..

It has been my experience that when some one tries to force a belief or idea on someone it gets a negative response. People tend to shut there thinking down about such things, wither it is politics,religion, or ideas.

[Kobal2]

Helpful hint: it's "red shirt" backwards (or "shirt red", depending on how you read it).

I had never noticed that. Now I feel like an idiot.

Granted, that's not much of a change compared to my baseline.

[chromaticity]

Its not the religion that bugs me, its the religious.
People can do whatever the hell they want as long as they don't try to influence me.

I recently learnt that that you cant buy booze on Sundays in the US.
WTF.
If the religious dont want to buy liquor on Sunday who is stopping them? Why should something so arbitrary, apply to everyone?
Just imagine the bible thumpers reactions if ham and pork were to be banned on Friday!

I say, yay to Der Trihs.
We shouldn't have to respect delusions and ramblings.

[ivan astikov]

In your own home and head, I don't give a shit what you believe in if it causes no harm to others, but most religious folk are not happy with that.

They have to build monuments to their gullibility in the shape of churches and temples of worship, and adorn their god's representatives with fancy trappings and positions of great influence in which they do nothing, but plead for more followers.

[Vorpal Blade]

... Giving religion false respect simply encourages people to think that religion is reasonable, ...

Another one on your side, at least regarding the foul poison that is religion.

[Walker in Eternity]

c'mon, both of you. Y'all aren't really saying that Western governments are theocracies, are you?

ETA: you should also address how your "oppression", can't be corrected with civil disobedience. Drop the hatred. You don't have to adopt a religion, just don't hate those who do.

Well, in the US it's almost impossible to get elected if you are an atheist (so I have been informed by the Dope and other sources).

In the UK, it seems many of our politicians are following the US lead and are becoming more overtly religious e.g. Blair, Brown.

Also, our head of state, the Queen, is also head of the Church of England and 26 Bishops (http://www.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/mps_and_lords/house_of_lords_bishops.cfm) get a vote in the House of Lords. Not too much representation of unicorn believers or vampires there though. The major political parties have also made a point of appointing Lords from minority groups, mainly it seems on a religious ticket as a vote winner, for example Lord Ahmed (http://biographies.parliament.uk/parliament/default.asp?id=26849). Don't see Dawkins or Hawking getting a chair there do you? So while we are not a theocracy we are a theocratic parliamentary democracy.

[Trepa Mayfield]

A Monkey With A Gun, I have a request/suggestion.

Go read this. (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html)

I won't lie to you; it's quite long. However, I found it illuminating and I think you'll find it relevant to the current, erm, "discussion".

[hijack]That was really, really interesting.

Hey Der, have you read this blog (http://www.enterthejabberwock.com/)? I read it for the Chick dissections, which are amusing, but it still astounds me how exactly like you he sounds.[/end hijack]

[Kalhoun]

c'mon, both of you. Y'all aren't really saying that Western governments are theocracies, are you?

ETA: you should also address how your "oppression", can't be corrected with civil disobedience. Drop the hatred. You don't have to adopt a religion, just don't hate those who do.

I don't have too much trouble with the mild-mannered believer. It's the ones who want god legislated into MY life that deserve public scorn. LOUD and relentless scorn. They are doing much more than entertaining a fantasy in their head. They are trying to control the lives of people who don't share in their delusion. Their world view is dangerous. I'll start with those who claim we are a "christian nation." Fuck 'em. They're a public menace.

[Containing Iron]

They were, though. Civil disobedience depends on the belief that the opponents are reasonable.

Doesn't civil disobedience depend on the fact that if your opponents aren't reasonable, the whole world will know it? I always thought it was something akin to a PR action...
something like... they can't willy-nilly kick any non-threatening protesters in the teeth because then this minor civil disobedience will escalate like a motherfucker and before you know it riots are everywhere?

[Kalhoun]

Its not the religion that bugs me, its the religious.
People can do whatever the hell they want as long as they don't try to influence me.

I recently learnt that that you cant buy booze on Sundays in the US.
WTF.
If the religious dont want to buy liquor on Sunday who is stopping them? Why should something so arbitrary, apply to everyone?
Just imagine the bible thumpers reactions if ham and pork were to be banned on Friday!

I say, yay to Der Trihs.
We shouldn't have to respect delusions and ramblings.

In some places you can't buy booze on Sunday. Or any other day. Mostly you can buy it every day of the week.

[Stan Shmenge]

Der Trihs, I am an atheist, and I am well aware of all the evil that can be laid at the doorstep of religion, but I can also see the good that it can do. My girlfriend, who my love for is probably beyond your ability to conceive, is religious, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Her religion gives her something you and I can never have, and I wonder if you aren't just a little jealous. Could that be driving your hate? We have been through a lot of ups and downs over the years. When times are bad, she has faith they will improve. When times are good, she is wise enough to not get swelled about it. She has been an island of stability and reason in my life, and I attribute it to her faith.

I myself read the Bible on occasion. Whatever it's inspiration, the authors knew as much about human nature and foibles as any modern theoretician of the mind. The precepts outlined in the ten commandments are a prescription for a happy life. Don't steal, don't kill, don't mess with your neighbor's wife, don't envy, don't lie, respect your family, take a day off once in a while. You have a problem with any of that?

Religion in and of itself isn't evil, it is the people who get carried away with it, and in those cases they are doing it wrong, taking it in the wrong direction. I have been to mass with my girlfriend, and there is nothing evil going on in there. Songs are sung, the guy gives a talk that is uplifting and usually good advice, everyone has some fellowship and feels good, and they toss a dollar or two in the plate to keep the light bill paid. What is so evil about that? Have you ever even been to a church service? Or do you spend all your time reading about The Crusades and Torquemada while you cover your walls with newspaper clippings about people who shoot up abortion clinics?

I don't believe in God, but I do believe that abortion is a nasty business. One of the things I respect about my girlfriend is years ago when she was with a child she couldn't care for, she carried it to term and gave it up for adoption. She suffered considerable inconvenience for her belief that life is sacred. Would you have the integrity to carry your beliefs that far? She sleeps with a clear conscience knowing that somewhere out there is a woman who wouldn't be alive today had she taken the easy way out.

Her kindness and concern for other people, animals, and the world in general springs from her faith, and she has done much to heal my misanthropy, a gift she could not have given me if she was not who she is, and part of that is her faith in God.

We get it. Religion has done some bad things. It has also done some very good things for people as well. You can use a saw to build a wonderful house, or cut off someone's arm. Don't blame the tool.

[Stan Shmenge]

And, as an added thought, it does seem to many scientists, that some people need religion and some people don't. It may have more to do with brain chemistry or something like that. In other words, they can't help being religious, any more than you and I can help being atheistic. Would you blame someone for being gay? Religious people may just be born that way. You state that you don't think hate is wrong, but, to hate someone for a trait they have no control over, that they are born with, well that sounds like, wait for it... BIGOTRY! I know you have a problem with that.

[ivan astikov]

Life isn't "sacred", Stan! It has only as much meaning as we and those we know attach to it. Accepting that death is likely to be the end of existence, and that if you fuck up this life you won't get another crack at the whip, is likely to be far more beneficial than folling the edicts of any holy book.

[Czarcasm]

I don't have too much trouble with the mild-mannered believer. It's the ones who want god legislated into MY life that deserve public scorn. LOUD and relentless scorn. They are doing much more than entertaining a fantasy in their head. They are trying to control the lives of people who don't share in their delusion. Their world view is dangerous. I'll start with those who claim we are a "christian nation." Fuck 'em. They're a public menace.I think I have trouble with the "mild-mannered believer" that stands by and lets radical religionists take the lead without loudly proclaiming the wrongness-the ones that sit quietly in church when the padre says something they might disagree with, the ones that faithfully listen to religious radio without protesting when a nutcase starts yelling about conspiracies, the ones that think that saying in a meek and mild voice "Well, they don't really represent Christianity" means jack shit to the public at large. The radical religionists that, by and large, represent Christianity to the public(and screw all you who deny this-the squeeky wheel gets the grease, so if you want some other viewpoint to represent Christianity you damn well better start squeaking louder) want to infringe and repress because their god tells them to, and the meek and mild go with the flow because, while their Christian brothers and sisters may be "misguided", it's better than being labeled an atheist.

[ivan astikov]

is likely to be far more beneficial than following the edicts of any holy book.

That's better.

[Czarcasm]

And, as an added thought, it does seem to many scientists, that some people need religion and some people don't. It may have more to do with brain chemistry or something like that. In other words, they can't help being religious, any more than you and I can help being atheistic. Would you blame someone for being gay? Religious people may just be born that way. You state that you don't think hate is wrong, but, to hate someone for a trait they have no control over, that they are born with, well that sounds like, wait for it... BIGOTRY! I know you have a problem with that.Do you really think that belief is hardwired into your brain and has nothing to do with there actually being a god to believe in?

[ivan astikov]

And if there was a god, doesn't anyone think it'd be sick of all the wheedling, bickering and pleading coming from its 'children'? Maybe there was a god and now it wants you to stand on your own feet - ever considered that, you religious types? Or maybe god is like Sue's dad in the Johnny Cash song and wants to toughen you up with some good old criticism?

[ivan astikov]

Also, bearing in mind the tendency of those religiously inclined to believe in some sort of judgement day within our times, I feel it neccessary to throw a spanner or two in their self-fulfilling prophecy mindset, now and again.

[Uzi]

You don't have to adopt a religion, just don't hate those who do.

We don't hate them, we just hate what they do.

On most things Der Trihs and I disagree, but on religion we are pretty much spot on.

When I drive down a road in Yemen in the middle of summer and the temperatures are in the 40'sC and I see people working in the fields where the men are wearing shorts and light clothing and the women working next to them dressed in full burkha's, I pisses me off. The utter stupidity that there is anyone who would be interested in a woman covered in dirt and sweating to the point of heat exhaustion astounds me. Add to that she is surrounded by her relatives so no one could get close to her even if they wanted to. But they are just ignorant farmers who, it could be said, don't know any better and are products of the brainwashing of their religion and those who use it to their own ends.
What really pisses me off is those who grew up in the West and attended mostly secular schools who really should know better. It is like they'd rather be living in Yemen wallowing in the dirt with their women essentially locked up in their houses or encased in fabric. It is the fact that they let others co-opt their beliefs to try and stop others from living lives differently from the herd eg. gays shouldn't marry. And it is the fact that the beliefs themselves are so full of holes and lack of evidence that if they had come across it in a book and never heard of it before, they'd laugh at the thought that it was real. Yet, they want those of us who can think critically to give those same farcical beliefs as much weight as theories that actually do have evidence to support them.

No, they don't deserve respect. People won't change if you let them think that every idea is the same as every other one. Some ideas are bullshit.
If there was any merit to religion, the believers have had thousands of years to produce credible evidence. Yet they haven't done so. There is not one 'God' stuffed and sitting in the Smithsonian. They haven't produced Jesus or even a lowly angel to confirm that gays are sinners. They have nothing other than their 'holy' books. Books that are written, printed and distributed by men. No sign of god in any of that process.

[Kalhoun]

I think I have trouble with the "mild-mannered believer" that stands by and lets radical religionists take the lead without loudly proclaiming the wrongness-the ones that sit quietly in church when the padre says something they might disagree with, the ones that faithfully listen to religious radio without protesting when a nutcase starts yelling about conspiracies, the ones that think that saying in a meek and mild voice "Well, they don't really represent Christianity" means jack shit to the public at large. The radical religionists that, by and large, represent Christianity to the public(and screw all you who deny this-the squeeky wheel gets the grease, so if you want some other viewpoint to represent Christianity you damn well better start squeaking louder) want to infringe and repress because their god tells them to, and the meek and mild go with the flow because, while their Christian brothers and sisters may be "misguided", it's better than being labeled an atheist.

Well, it's annoying, for sure. I was referring more to the non-church-going believer who just thinks theres'a a Big Vibe In The Sky, but don't have an interest in making public policy based on it. I agree that those who say "but not all _____s are like that" are guily by association.

[tagos]

And, as an added thought, it does seem to many scientists, that some people need religion and some people don't. It may have more to do with brain chemistry or something like that. In other words, they can't help being religious, any more than you and I can help being atheistic. Would you blame someone for being gay? Religious people may just be born that way. You state that you don't think hate is wrong, but, to hate someone for a trait they have no control over, that they are born with, well that sounds like, wait for it... BIGOTRY! I know you have a problem with that.

'It does seem' and 'many scientists' eh?

Well that settles it then.

[Captain Amazing]

. . . and the meek and mild go with the flow because, while their Christian brothers and sisters may be "misguided", it's better than being labeled an atheist.

I don't think that's the reason that people who don't say anything don't say anything. I think they don't say anything just because they don't want to fight about it. They don't want to be confrontational...they just want to leave other people alone about religion and be left alone.

[Stan Shmenge]

Do you really think that belief is hardwired into your brain and has nothing to do with there actually being a god to believe in?

Well, some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology) people have theorized it. I am no expert and there may or may not be anything to it. I does seem that some people are more predisposed to spiritual belief than others. Whether that is nature or nurture is not even that important. Some people seem to need religion for their psychological well being whatever the reason, and I do not begrudge them the comfort and good feeling that brings them, as Der Trihs seems to.

And if he were to talk to my girlfriend, with all his religion is evil routine, she would point out, quite correctly, that Jesus never said to act like that, and in fact told people to do quite the opposite, love their neighbor, have compassion for those less fortunate, etc. She opposes those who, for example, withhold medical care from their children out of religious dogma, or take up arms in the name of God.

I am reminded of the story of the man who was in a flood. The waters started to rise and a fire engine came by his house. The firemen asked if he needed help. "No the Lord will provide!". Later on, the waters were higher, and he had to go up on the second floor to stay out of the water. A rescue crew came by in boat. The skipper asked him "Do you need any help?" "No, the Lord will provide!" Pretty soon, the waters were so high, the man had to climb up on the roof. A helicopter had been patrolling the area, looking for any stragglers. "Let us rescue you!" the pilot said through the helicopter's loudspeaker. At the top of his lungs, the man shouted, "No, the Lord will provide!" Well, the waters kept rising, and the man drowned. When he got up to heaven, he asked God, "Why did you let me drown? I had faith in you!" God said, "I sent you a fire truck, a boat and a helicopter, what more did you want!"

Yeah, old joke. But you get my point. According to my girlfriend, God gave us a brain for a reason. If people still act like fools, who's fault is that?

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

The radical religionists that, by and large, represent Christianity to the public(and screw all you who deny this-the squeeky wheel gets the grease, so if you want some other viewpoint to represent Christianity you damn well better start squeaking louder)

I deny this. Screw me, I guess.

I's like to see some backup to this assertion.

And Der Trihs is not to be worried about. I find his belief in the evils of religion and the lunacy of people like me to be... disturbing, to say the least, but I don't fear him or worry about him.

He's said time and time again that he would never actually ACT on his beliefs, because he is afraid of what the nutjobs might do to him.

[Revenant Threshold]

Standard Der Trihs is an idiot post.

[tagos]

I don't think that's the reason that people who don't say anything don't say anything. I think they don't say anything just because they don't want to fight about it. They don't want to be confrontational...they just want to leave other people alone about religion and be left alone.

Yea - well it's a shame the religious won't extend that courtesy to the rest of us isn't it.

[silenus]

Standard Der Trihs is an idiot post.

Only in GD. Everywhere else I've interacted with him, he has proven to be a well-informed, well-spoken member of the community. I'd like to share a few beers with him sometime.

[tagos]

Well, some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology) people have theorized it.

No they haven't and your cite does not support this claim.

Proponents of neurotheology claim that there is a neurological and evolutionary basis for subjective experiences traditionally categorized as spiritual or religious.

No-one denies there are transcendental states of consciousness that can be reached by anyone by a variety of drugs and techniques. Still don't give anyone the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my body or whatever.

[Blaster Master]

Hate is neither good nor bad; it's just an emotion.

I didn't see anyone comment on this, but I think there's a very important distinction here. I absolutely agree that emotions are neither good nor bad. People often think of happiness as good or sadness as bad, but that's just a judgment of the general pleasantness of the emotion. The actual value of an emotion is not tied to it's pleasantness, as I'm sure we've all seen plenty of people do bad things because it makes them happy, or fight for a worthy cause because of something that made them sad; in many cases, it's purely neutral.

However, hate is not an emotion. From Merriam-Webster: "intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury". Personally, I find very worrisome that you're conflating anger and hatred to be very disturbing as it seems clear to me that your hatred is derived from your anger.

Now, your anger I think is not only reasonable, but in some cases justified. As a Christian myself, I can understand anger toward a lot of the things that have been done in the name of religion like genocide, persecution, and intollerence. In fact, I share that anger. However, hate is never a justified action, it's usually is counter-productive, and it distorts your perspective of the positive things about the object of your hatred.

So, sure, if you don't like the things that have been done in the name of religion, do something positive about it. If all you do is hate, it puts you on the same level of other hates from historical racists to the God Hates Fags bunch. Instead, if you think it's based on ignorance, make an effort to spread what you believe to be the truth. If you see haters, do what you can to expose them to the humanity of those they hate. And do the same for yourself.

You see, hatred has a way of dehumanizing the objects of your hatred. It's hard to through hate at someone you know intimately, but it's important to realize that people, even those who anger you, are still human and deserve to be treated with the same level of human decency that you would treat anyone else. I think if you look beyond the loud and hating minority of some religious zealots, you'll find plenty of people who are very reasonable, compassionate, and non-hypocrites who actually practice what they preach.

So, seriously, cut back the the hatred, it's bad for you. Don't make your anger out to be something negative; use it to effect the world in a positive way.

[Captain Amazing]

Yea - well it's a shame the religious won't extend that courtesy to the rest of us isn't it.

Well, the people I'm talking about...the religious people who don't say anything about religion and aren't confrontational about it do extend that courtesy. I know a lot of people who are religious who I've never gotten into confrontations about religion with, don't you?

[Shodan]

The radical religionists that, by and large, represent Christianity to the public (and screw all you who deny this-the squeeky wheel gets the grease, so if you want some other viewpoint to represent Christianity you damn well better start squeaking louder)

This is a fallacy of attribution. On the SDMB, atheists with a chip on their shoulder pick out the worst they can find and use it to smear all religions. I can squeak as loud as I like - you will ignore it.

Der Trihs says specifically that all religious believers are evil and/or stupid. It makes no difference whether we are worshiping quietly by ourselves, working in the soup kitchens and homeless shelters, or sharing our faith in the most non-confrontational ways we can manage.

He's still going to scream offense, and so are you. It's RO. I hope it makes you feel better.

Regards,
Shodan

[tagos]

Well, the people I'm talking about...the religious people who don't say anything about religion and aren't confrontational about it do extend that courtesy. I know a lot of people who are religious who I've never gotten into confrontations about religion with, don't you?

If they vote according to their delusional beliefs - if they in any way act to turning the products of their delusions into law - then they are affecting me. And that indoctrinating their children into their delusional belief system.

[Shodan]

Sucks to live in a democracy, even a Constitutional one, don't it?

Regards,
Shodan

[Snarky_Kong]

Hate is neither good nor bad; it's just an emotion.


Is this not one of your main beefs with religion?

[tagos]

Sucks to live in a democracy, even a Constitutional one, don't it?

Regards,
Shodan

When public policy is influenced or even set by people who are essentially foisting their own derangement on people, yes it does. Let's hope there is a god Gene so we can begin screening it out.

[Cumberdale]

I can barely travel a few blocks without running into a 'house of superstition'. I have references to a magic man on my money, my elected representatives invoke one at the beginning of their sessions.

I would love to ignore religion but I have it constantly shoved in my face. The way things are, we need more like Der Trihs until this primitive thinking is pushed into the fringes where it belongs.

[Captain Amazing]

If they vote according to their delusional beliefs - if they in any way act to turning the products of their delusions into law - then they are affecting me. And that indoctrinating their children into their delusional belief system.

Now you're just being stupid, if you think that all people who believe in a religion vote the same way.

[Malacandra]

Only in GD. Everywhere else I've interacted with him, he has proven to be a well-informed, well-spoken member of the community. I'd like to share a few beers with him sometime.

"A few beers". That's your answer to everything, isn't it? :D

[suranyi]

It makes me feel better than depression, which is my other reaction to living in a world dominated by religion. We live in a world where evil and madness triumphed ages ago, and has inflcted immense suffering and evil upon billions of people. A world where religion has spent millennia grinding all that is good or sane out of humanity.

Do you ever have any fun?

[42fish]

"A few beers". That's your answer to everything, isn't it? :D

To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all life's problems!

[silenus]

"A few beers". That's your answer to everything, isn't it? :D

For any given value of "a few," hell yeah! :D

[MeanOldLady]

A Monkey With A Gun, I have a request/suggestion.

Go read this. (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html)

I won't lie to you; it's quite long. However, I found it illuminating and I think you'll find it relevant to the current, erm, "discussion".I love this. A lot of this is why I've backed off my "live and let live" approach. The way some people live hurts people. These are the ones that chap my hide the most:

I'm angry that women are dying of AIDS in Africa and South America because the Catholic Church has convinced them that using condoms makes baby Jesus cry.

...

And I get angry when religious leaders offer counseling and advice to troubled people -- sex advice, relationship advice, advice on depression and stress, etc. -- not based on any evidence about what actually does and does not work in people's brains and lives, but on the basis of what their religious doctrine tells them God wants for us.

...

I'm especially angry that so many believers treat prayer as a cosmic shopping list when it comes to health and illness. I'm angry that this belief leads to the revolting conclusion that God deliberately makes people sick so they’ll pray to him to get better. And I'm angry that they foist this belief on sick and dying children -- in essence teaching them that, if they don't get better, it's their fault. That they didn't pray hard enough, or they didn't pray right, or God just doesn't love them enough

...

I'm angry that Ingrid and I can't get legally married in this country -- or get legally married in another country and have it recognized by this one -- largely because religious leaders oppose it. And I'm angry that both religious and political leaders have discovered that they can score big points exploiting people's fears about sexuality in a changing world, fanning the flames of those fears... and giving people a religious excuse for why their fears are justified.

...

I get angry when believers treat the gaps in science and scientific knowledge as somehow proof of the existence of God. I get angry when, despite a thousands-of-years-old pattern of supernatural explanations being consistently and repeatedly replaced with natural ones, they still think every single unexplained phenomenon can be best explained by God. And I'm angry that, whenever a gap in our knowledge does get filled in, believers either try to suppress it (see above re: evolution in the schools), or else say, "Okay, that part of the world isn't supernatural... but what about this gap over here? Can you explain that, Mr. Smarty-Pants Scientist? You can't! It must be God!"

[Revenant Threshold]

I would love to ignore religion but I have it constantly shoved in my face. The way things are, we need more like Der Trihs until this primitive thinking is pushed into the fringes where it belongs. Why, because more Der Trihs would make that more possible?

Der Trihs' arguments on religion only serve to make him, and his side, look stupid. More Der Trihs would mean the opposite of religion being "pushed into the fringes" - rather, it would make the opinion that those who have a beef with religion are unthinking absolutists with the smallest of regards for them. And they would be correct.

[Stan Shmenge]

It is the fact that they let others co-opt their beliefs to try and stop others from living lives differently from the herd eg. gays shouldn't marry.
My girlfriend would tell you that Jesus never said a word about gays, and his word supersedes anything in Leviticus. The whole reason God sent Jesus was things were of hand and he was to straighten things out, and provide a way to be forgiven for all the nonsense that was taking place, so his word is the final say in things. She thinks gays should be allowed to do what they want. And she is most definitely a Christian.

As far as making women wear black robes in the scorching desert, that is another religion entirely, one she does not believe in. And one, I might add, that has plenty of other things wrong with it besides. I can refer you to verses in the Quo'ran such as "slay those who ascribe divinity to aught besides God wherever you may come upon them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place." Islam is the only religion I know of that advocates attacking and killing everybody else in any way you can think of.

[Kalhoun]

My girlfriend would tell you that Jesus never said a word about gays, and his word supersedes anything in Leviticus. The whole reason God sent Jesus was things were of hand and he was to straighten things out, and provide a way to be forgiven for all the nonsense that was taking place, so his word is the final say in things. She thinks gays should be allowed to do what they want. And she is most definitely a Christian.

As far as making women wear black robes in the scorching desert, that is another religion entirely, one she does not believe in. And one, I might add, that has plenty of other things wrong with it besides. I can refer you to verses in the Quo'ran such as "slay those who ascribe divinity to aught besides God wherever you may come upon them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place." Islam is the only religion I know of that advocates attacking and killing everybody else in any way you can think of.

What if jesus actually DID say that gay people suck? Would she still be a christian?

[Bosstone]

Do you ever have any fun?You know, the blog post linked on the first page addresses this kind of useless remark too.

Just because DT chooses to talk about the things he's angry about (or hates, in his words) here doesn't mean he's necessarily always like that.

[tacoloco]

Just because DT chooses to talk about the things he's angry about (or hates, in his words) here doesn't mean he's necessarily always like that.

I know people like DT, so it's not a stretch to think perhaps DT is just an angry person. But, you are correct.

[Guinastasia]

I gave up on taking Der Trihs seriously a long time ago. Face it: he's the Jerry Falwell of atheism and the Ann Coulter of the left. Dude has no problem with generalizations and ridiculous accusations and strawmen. He makes me embarassed to be a liberal at times.

Der Trihs, you're basically becoming what you hate.


I only REALLY started to become pissed off by him was back when he said that he hoped every single soldier in the Mid-East would be killed. As someone with family and friends there, that pissed the HELL out of me.

[Lemur866]

It just goes to show you, self-righteousness is a drug. People LOVE that feeling of justified hatred.

I'm a stone atheist. But when I look around at all the people I know, I surely don't see a strong correlation between being an asshole, and being religious. I know plenty of assholes, and plenty of pretty nice people, and the assholes don't seem to be any more religious than the nice people.

And so therefore, I reject the notion that religion turns people into assholes. It's simply a false belief. And therefore, hating religion and the religious is simply ridiculous.

If I wanted to improve the world, railing against religion would be the last thing I'd do. The fact that religion is all made-up nonsense (which it is) is irrelevant. You aren't going to change people's minds by accusing them of believing made-up nonsense.

So how do you change things? Well, other ways. You don't undermine religion by attacking religion, you undermine religion by making religion irrelevant. People don't give up religion because you convince them religion is factually wrong, people give up religion when their social and emotional needs are no longer met by religion.

[Bosstone]

I know people like DT, so it's not a stretch to think perhaps DT is just an angry person. But, you are correct.Right, hence the necessarily. I don't know the guy; for all I know he could always be that way. But I've seen him in Cafe Society discussing books and things like anyone else.

[Boyo Jim]

I'll tell you what religious people have done to every other American -- they've increased our taxes. Huge swaths of property and income are tax exempt because of the tax breaks given to religious organizations, and the rest of us make up the shortfall.

As a friend of mine once said, "Stomping on religion was the only good thing the Soviet Union ever did."

[ToeJam]

I don't mind DT, he's at least quite consistent in what he believes, which is better than that which I can say or do. And since he doesn't have a desire to act on his anger or such, I'm fine with him hating. It's not my choice or lifestyle, but I have no desire to go out there and change his ways or beliefs just because I don't agree with them.

I also find that if I were to think about it, I'd probably agree more with his side of matters than those standing against him. :Shrug: I've always tended to have more atheist and agnostic friends than religious ones it seemed. But as long as they meant me no ill will personally, and understood that I meant them none as well, we would always get along just fine.

I see DT actually falling into that category, and I think if we talked, we'd get along just find.
I think he might find me delusional, and not support my stance by condoning me he might give the message of encouraging others to be religious, but I don't think he'd actually HATE me.
Then again, he might. I could be completely wrong in my reading of him. I don't actually think he's a rage-driven human being. I think he's just frustrated, but he's a reasonable man, who like many others, are sick of feeling pushed around and marginalized because of their beliefs- so he pushes back.

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. The mans got his beliefs and sticks to 'em. I'm not a fan of radicalism, but everyone can't really be in the middle, and it's nice to be able to see and here from the end goals. I'd have a Soda with the man and listen to his ideas myself.

[Guinastasia]

What if jesus actually DID say that gay people suck? Would she still be a christian?

Only if Jesus says they swallow as well.

[Gfactor]

Apropos of Der Trihs's name, if a wandering mod comes by, can you change the thread title to spell his name correctly?

Done.

[Der Trihs]

Der Trihs, I am an atheist, and I am well aware of all the evil that can be laid at the doorstep of religion, but I can also see the good that it can do. My girlfriend, who my love for is probably beyond your ability to conceive, is religious, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Her religion gives her something you and I can never have, and I wonder if you aren't just a little jealous. Could that be driving your hate? :rolleyes: No. I find religion disgusting. I find the idea of being religious no more attractive than the thought of having a compulsion to eat rotting garbage.

I myself read the Bible on occasion. Whatever it's inspiration, the authors knew as much about human nature and foibles as any modern theoretician of the mind. The precepts outlined in the ten commandments are a prescription for a happy life. Don't steal, don't kill, don't mess with your neighbor's wife, don't envy, don't lie, respect your family, take a day off once in a while. You have a problem with any of that?As if that was exclusive to, or even had much to do with religion. Nor is it especially admirable in context; "don't kill" meaning "don't kill your fellow believers, but do kill those heathens over the hill". Honor thy parents meaning "Obey your parents, no matter how badly they abuse you". And so on.

Religion in and of itself isn't evil, it is the people who get carried away with it, and in those cases they are doing it wrong, taking it in the wrong direction. Nonsense. Religion is in itself evil, the way that sexism or racism or fascism is in itself evil. And it's the ones who try to do good in its name who are perverting it, which is one reason why they tend to be bad at it.

We get it. Religion has done some bad things. It has also done some very good things for people as well. You can use a saw to build a wonderful house, or cut off someone's arm. Don't blame the tool.Tools are passive things; they make no demands, they make no judgements. Religion does. Religion is not a tool; it is something that makes people into tools.

He's said time and time again that he would never actually ACT on his beliefs, because he is afraid of what the nutjobs might do to him.And because I have actual moral reservations about attacking people and burning down buildings. And I do "act on my beliefs" just by arguing against religion in such an overwhelmingly religious culture.

Now you're just being stupid, if you think that all people who believe in a religion vote the same way."All"? No. Many? Yes. When their preacher tells them to vote for Bush because Democrats are evil devil worshipers, that has an effect.

I gave up on taking Der Trihs seriously a long time ago. Face it: he's the Jerry Falwell of atheism and the Ann Coulter of the left. Dude has no problem with generalizations and ridiculous accusations and strawmen. He makes me embarassed to be a liberal at times.

Der Trihs, you're basically becoming what you hate. Hardly. I suggest you actually read them before accusing me of being like them.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

"I have to say I'm all for public flogging."

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours."

I only REALLY started to become pissed off by him was back when he said that he hoped every single soldier in the Mid-East would be killed. As someone with family and friends there, that pissed the HELL out of me.
Well, too bad. Wishing for the destruction of an invading army isn't an extreme or evil viewpoint, and the fact that you happen to know some of the conquerors or that they are waving an American flag over their victims doesn't make their cause just or their actions any less evil. Would you condemn me if I wished for the destruction of an army invading America?

[msmith537]

Life isn't "sacred", Stan! It has only as much meaning as we and those we know attach to it. Accepting that death is likely to be the end of existence, and that if you fuck up this life you won't get another crack at the whip, is likely to be far more beneficial than folling the edicts of any holy book.

Actually, some of the edicts like "don't kill, steal, cheat on your spouse and listen to your parents" as well as avoiding most of the seven deadly sins like "Gluttony", "Sloth", "Wrath", "Envy", "Pride" and so on can actually help you live a much healthier and happier life.

I'm not particularly religeous, but it's my understanding that most religeons typically preach "don't go around being a fat, sloppy, greedy asshole and we'll all be better off".

[Bryan Ekers]

Please, just show some tolerance of how other human beings view the world. Drop the hate. You'll live longer.

Oh, fuck your disingenuous attempt at offering advice. Trihs is fine the way he is and organized religion deserves far more scorn than he can ever heap upon it. if the religious types on this board can't handle it, I cordially invite them to go pound salt. Trihs is entertaining, which already puts him miles above the sanctimonious braindead dips who've joined recently like Curtis Lemay and Alx and ivan, who (assuming they're not deliberately trolling) are arguing that mankind is too smart and it's only proper that we become stupider so they'll feel less out-of-place.

You'll have to establish that Trihs is taking hostile action against religion, because you complaining about just his words relegates your entire preachy argument to the Realm of the Big Sacks of Bullshit.

[Kalhoun]

Actually, some of the edicts like "don't kill, steal, cheat on your spouse and listen to your parents" as well as avoiding most of the seven deadly sins like "Gluttony", "Sloth", "Wrath", "Envy", "Pride" and so on can actually help you live a much healthier and happier life.

I'm not particularly religeous, but it's my understanding that most religeons typically preach "don't go around being a fat, sloppy, greedy asshole and we'll all be better off".

All those "don'ts" were around long before religion. Not only did I figure it out without the help of religion, but most of the people I know who are slothful gluttons are also religious.

[Jackmannii]

...take a day off once in a while.I don't remember where Judeo-Christianity urges you to relax on Sunday, put your feet up and watch football. I had the idea that instead of putting food on the table or taking a break from work you were supposed to do some devotional heavy lifting.

I don't get the impression that Der Trihs is seething with hate 100% of the time against religion (not that that would be such a bad thing). He also expresses contempt for pseudoscience and quackery, which is appreciated.

[The Tooth]

I don't remember where Judeo-Christianity urges you to relax on Sunday, put your feet up and watch football. I had the idea that instead of putting food on the table or taking a break from work you were supposed to do some devotional heavy lifting.

Or practice your archery, oddly enough.

[Captain Amazing]

"All"? No. Many? Yes. When their preacher tells them to vote for Bush because Democrats are evil devil worshipers, that has an effect.

Sure it does. But not all religious groups have preachers that tell them things like that. Most religious sermons aren't overtly political. And some religious groups, like Unitarians and Reform Jews, for instance, are even much more liberal than the general population.

You're aiming at a fly with an elephant gun here.

[Grumman]

The utter stupidity that there is anyone who would be interested in a woman covered in dirt and sweating to the point of heat exhaustion astounds me.
Not only do I expect that such people exist, I bet someone has already created a website that caters to these people.

[Tamerlane]

What Lemur866 said.

[mswas]

I'll tell you what religious people have done to every other American -- they've increased our taxes. Huge swaths of property and income are tax exempt because of the tax breaks given to religious organizations, and the rest of us make up the shortfall.

As a friend of mine once said, "Stomping on religion was the only good thing the Soviet Union ever did."

LOL I suppose you oppose similar tax exemptions for all 501c3s huh?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

How would you explain Der Trihs the fact that the majority of the world who improved the world were religious? For instance people who fought for civil rights (Martin Luther King Jr.) or women's rights (Susan B Anthony) were mostly religious. Your claim that religion is utterly evil is unfounded by reality. Would you really say for instance universalist Unitarian ministers who don't try to convert you are dangerous?

Also religion has many times influenced scientific advancement. For instance the Roman Catholic Church preserved a large amount of literature. Also Christianity has served scientific advanced far more than Roman paganism as the Christian view was that of a universal God in unknowable reaches of space who was portrayed the Architect of the Universe while Roman Paganism was just superstition packaged better.

Finally what of the atheist tyrants who killed millions such as Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot? I believe you are some sort of leftist possibly even a communist as you've stated previously that the US and the USSR were no better in the Cold War.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

I honestly thought I could keep this thread from from a complete clusterfuck. I should have known better. I wanted to talk to Der Trihs about his hatred, which he admits. I don't think hatred's healthy. We were having a decent discussion on the first page before this thing became a train wreck, but now I've got idiots on both sides of the coin. Hell, there's this:Oh, fuck your disingenuous attempt at offering advice. I told him not to hate. I was consistent with it. I still am. That's not disingenuous, it's what I think everybody should do.

I will, however, attempt to salvage a decent dialog. Der Tris, when I ask you why you hate the religious so much, you talk about institutions. I don't want to talk about institutions, because it's too easy to blame things on a "higher power" (::chuckle:: that's religion in a nutshell isn't it?), but I do want to know why you personally hate religion so much. Not history, not politics, not something that happened to somebody else, but what happened to you?

I realize that question is a bit personal, but I think it would be very illuminating for everybody on the board if you could give us a personal story as to how you came to despise all things religious.

[Der Trihs]

How would you explain Der Trihs the fact that the majority of the world who improved the world were religious?The majority of people have been religious. You could use the same logic to claim that right handedness is the source of human progress.

Your claim that religion is utterly evil is unfounded by reality. Would you really say for instance universalist Unitarian ministers who don't try to convert you are dangerous? Indirectly; by helping to support the idea that being religious is intellectually respectable, they help prop up and excuse more directly dangerous believers.

Also religion has many times influenced scientific advancement. Generally, by holding it back.

Also Christianity has served scientific advanced far more than Roman paganism as the Christian view was that of a universal God in unknowable reaches of space who was portrayed the Architect of the Universe while Roman Paganism was just superstition packaged better. :rolleyes: Christianity is ALSO nothing but superstition; and not even packaged all that well.

Finally what of the atheist tyrants who killed millions such as Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot?They killed people because they were communist, not because they were atheist. That's why people who want to claim that atheists are just as bad as believers need to keep coming back to the communists.

Atheism is just the absence of a belief; it can't impel you to do anything. It doesn't even say that being an atheist is better. You can't realistically compare it to a full fledged belief system, like religion or communism ( which is basically religion that doesn't admit that is is religion, in my view ).

[MeanOldLady]

I don't want to talk about institutions, because it's too easy to blame things on a "higher power" (::chuckle:: that's religion in a nutshell isn't it?), but I do want to know why you personally hate religion so much. Not history, not politics, not something that happened to somebody else, but what happened to you?

I realize that question is a bit personal, but I think it would be very illuminating for everybody on the board if you could give us a personal story as to how you came to despise all things religious.Oh, cut the shit. A man can't hate something because it causes immense harm to other people? There has to be some personal story behind it? I hate religion too, and I've never been injured by a car bomb or felt up by a priest.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

No intelligent human being comes to hatred without a personal story.

[Bosstone]

I don't want to talk about institutions, because it's too easy to blame things on a "higher power" (::chuckle:: that's religion in a nutshell isn't it?)Actually, no. The reason the institutions are rightfully hated is because they are always, always used for corrupt purposes. I try to be moderate in most things, but organized religion is one of the worst inventions of mankind. The concept of God has been abused and perverted by sociopaths in search of power since the first civilization rose.

I got nothing against a higher power. I got something big against the wastes of life who purport to speak for it.

[Guinastasia]

Oh, cut the shit. A man can't hate something because it causes immense harm to other people? There has to be some personal story behind it? I hate religion too, and I've never been injured by a car bomb or felt up by a priest.

I think it's less about his hatred of religion than his foaming at the mouth, screeching and making extreme generalizations. (He's the same way about political conservatives)

Look, I don't care about his beliefs so much as I care about how he (or anyone, for that matter), expresses them. And Der Trihs tends to be an asshole about it.

[MeanOldLady]

No intelligent human being comes to hatred without a personal story.What a delightful pile of steaming garbage. No one can be flat out pissed that the Catholic church's squeamishness about concraceptives has led to spreading of AIDS in Africa? Or pissed that we have whackjobs blowing up trains in the name of religious lunacy? Or over the fact that religion is all out dumb, and encourages people to believe whatever nonsense is presented to them based on some silly thing called "faith"? How is that good for humanity? We can't come to hatred unless we have personally contracted AIDS or been blown up?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

The majority of people have been religious. You could use the same logic to claim that right handedness is the source of human progress.


Ah but you say religion is totally opposed to science by your logic we should still be riding ox carts by now.


Indirectly; by helping to support the idea that being religious is intellectually respectable, they help prop up and excuse more directly dangerous believers.

No religious people can be intellectually respectable? Say there was a brilliant medical researcher who invented the cure to AIDS but he also happened to be a Southern Baptist or a Roman Catholic; would he be less "intellectual" than a conspiracy theorist who claims aliens control the world but is atheist?

Generally, by holding it back.


Occasionally yes but usually this has been due to moral consideration (ie stem cell research).

:rolleyes: Christianity is ALSO nothing but superstition; and not even packaged all that well.

They killed people because they were communist, not because they were atheist. That's why people who want to claim that atheists are just as bad as believers need to keep coming back to the communists.

They used such excuses as "Religion is detrimental to progress" or "Religious people are in cahoots with the capitalists" for persecution. Many religious dictators you talk about have persecuted people for similar reasons.

Atheism is just the absence of a belief; it can't impel you to do anything. It doesn't even say that being an atheist is better. You can't realistically compare it to a full fledged belief system, like religion or communism ( which is basically religion that doesn't admit that is is religion, in my view ).

How is communism better? Also if atheism is true that would it be better than "false" systems of belief.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

This thread is such a clusterfuck. I weep for the children.

[Guinastasia]

Curtis, at the risk of hijacking this thread, the USSR example isn't a good one, all right? In this case, Der Trihs is right -- it wasn't about religion.


Either way, you might want to quit while you're ahead.

[Der Trihs]

Ah but you say religion is totally opposed to science by your logic we should still be riding ox carts by now.It lost. The history of human progress to a large degree has been about constantly shoving religion back; pushing it into ever narrower, ever less important areas of society. It lost because it IS illogical and ignores reality, and therefore has inferior performance to more rational, fact based appraoches to life. The more a society is infested by religion, the less competent and less just it is going to be.

Say there was a brilliant medical researcher who invented the cure to AIDS but he also happened to be a Southern Baptist or a Roman Catholic; would he be less "intellectual" than a conspiracy theorist who claims aliens control the world but is atheist?He'd be intellectually inferior to a scientist who cured AIDS and was atheist. Also, he'd be more likely to pull it off; religion is a scientific handicap. And he'd be more likely to actually try, instead of rooting for the virus.

Occasionally yes but usually this has been due to moral consideration (ie stem cell research).In other words, by the evil and stupidity of religion. By something that holds a few cells to be more important than saving the lives and health of people.

How is communism better?I didn't say it was better. I said that it was pretty much the same thing.

Also if atheism is true that would it be better than "false" systems of belief.But truth being superior to falsehood is not atheism. Atheism is simply disbelief in gods; not about a value judgement of belief in gods or whether or not their nonexistence is good or bad. That is precisely why atheists are so poorly organized; there isn't necessarily much in common.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

It lost. The history of human progress to a large degree has been about constantly shoving religion back; pushing it into ever narrower, ever less important areas of society. It lost because it IS illogical and ignores reality, and therefore has inferior performance to more rational, fact based appraoches to life. The more a society is infested by religion, the less competent and less just it is going to be.


Religion does not ignore reality. Indeed it has very much adapted to reality. Most of Christianity for example has accepted or at least quieted down about evolution.

He'd be intellectually inferior to a scientist who cured AIDS and was atheist. Also, he'd be more likely to pull it off; religion is a scientific handicap. And he'd be more likely to actually try, instead of rooting for the virus.

That is nonsense. Virtually no religious person "roots for the virus" except for the really NUTTY people who are basically cultists who claim that "Jesus will cure everyone" or something to that effect.

In other words, by the evil and stupidity of religion. By something that holds a few cells to be more important than saving the lives and health of people.

Or for an another example they may not wish to use advanced weapons which cause mass destruction.

I didn't say it was better. I said that it was pretty much the same thing.


Sorry that was a typo, I mean "How is Communism a religion?"

But truth being superior to falsehood is not atheism. Atheism is simply disbelief in gods; not about a value judgement of belief in gods or whether or not their nonexistence is good or bad. That is precisely why atheists are so poorly organized; there isn't necessarily much in common.

What are your opinions than of thse prominent atheists:

Richard Dawkings
Samuel Harris
Christopher Hitchens (Who BTW sends his kids to a Quaker school)
Madalyn Murray O'Hair

[Der Trihs]

Religion does not ignore reality. Indeed it has very much adapted to reality. Most of Christianity for example has accepted or at least quieted down about evolution.After a long drawn out fight that is still not over. It "adapted" because it lost. Because science and practicality beat it down.

That is nonsense. Virtually no religious person "roots for the virus" except for the really NUTTY people who are basically cultists who claim that "Jesus will cure everyone" or something to that effect."Let those dirty, disease-infested, sinning queers die!" -- John Ashcroft. Unlike you, I was around when the AIDS virus first became known, and I watched as millions of good Christians like you cheered it on.

Or for an another example they may not wish to use advanced weapons which cause mass destruction.What does THAT have to do with stem cells?

And it's not like being religious make someone less willing to use WMD; especially not Christians, who think the end of the world is a great idea.

Sorry that was a typo, I mean "How is Communism a religion?"It's founded on faith, ignores contrary evidence, is a dogma based world view, and is hostile to all competition. It looks like a religion; it acts like a religion.

What are your opinions than of thse prominent atheists:

Richard Dawkings
Samuel Harris
Christopher Hitchens (Who BTW sends his kids to a Quaker school)
Madalyn Murray O'HairDawkins is a biologist who wrote about atheism as well as some interesting books on evolution; I don't know the other two offhand, and know little about O'Hair but the name and her role in ending forced school prayer. So if you are going the ITR Champion route and trying to discredit atheism by bashing its supposed prophets, I don't care. I'm not a follower of anyone.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Basic problem though is that if religion is responsible for so much bad stuff in the world (and I'm with you there) then the sane thing for you to do is to do your part to rid the world of it. You're not doing that, because most people (rightly or wrongly, whether it is logical or not, like it or not) are turned off by your eloquent evisceration of their beliefs and turn away from you and towards their beliefs. So your actions are counter productive.I'm not sure I agree. Most people who are not blind to religion's irrationality and its overall destructive, and too often, dangerous head-lock on most of the world, its societies, and its politics choose to remain civil toward theists and other pushers of religion. I think mostly that is because they would not be personally comfortable going beyond that. But I think there is definitely a place for the Der Trihs of the world.

We all have to choose our battles in life. I share many of Der Trih's views about the inherent foolishness of religion and the delusion of most of the religious (note: almost all religious people are, to some degree, delusional in their religious beliefs--NOT necessarily about anything else). If engaged in earnest conversation/debate on the topic I'm willing to go pretty far, but I generally leave the religious folks IRL pretty much alone. Ultimately it is they that have to face their own folly--not I.

Unfortunately, the "cancer" of religion ends up affecting me and everyone else whether we participate or not. It is all around us, always in our face, and plays too much of a part (i.e.--any at all) in public policy and world affairs. I would do almost anything I could to rid the world of this gigantic millstone. It is (almost) entirely non-productive at best; downright evil at worst. If I thought more insulting invective would help, I would be more insultingly invective. But for me, I can only go so far.

Der Trihs is willing to go a lot further but IMO, he mostly tells it like it is. He is like the kid who is willing to point out that the Emperor Has No Clothes while everyone else shushes him. I am glad that there are people like him that are willing to go so far. Only rarely do I feel he goes too far but I'd venture that most folks here--atheist or not, believe the opposite.

This is supposed to be a board that fights ignorance. That is what Der Trihs is doing each and every time he goes on about the ridiculousness of (most) organized religion.

I know there are people on this board that are both intelligent and rational and also religious. Yet I am puzzled (logically speaking) why the question of the existence of God or gods is even up for debate on a board as intellectual as this one. (And yes, I know religion does not equal God, but they do manage to get pretty well knotted-up).

The irrationality sometimes expressed on this board vis-a-vis religion is not totally unexpected, but frustrating at the same time. I think Der Trihs' frustration with this and his frustration with the existence of religion in general moves him to express himself as he does. Impolite? Often? Insulting and uncalled for? Sometimes. But his general view on this subject, if not the way he sometimes chooses to express it, is almost always spot on.

[Bryan Ekers]

I don't think hatred's healthy.

Is it all right to hate things that are oppressive? To hate things that are harmful and counterproductive? Please supply a list of acceptable hate-targets.

[Stan Shmenge]

What if jesus actually DID say that gay people suck? Would she still be a christian?I don't know, but he didn't, so it is moot.

[Bryan Ekers]

Religion does not ignore reality. Indeed it has very much adapted to reality. Most of Christianity for example has accepted or at least quieted down about evolution.

Well, when it quiets down about everything else, I'll be happy. It can keep mysticism and myth, but stay outta science and politics, please, or anywhere else rational people are trying to get their work done.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Der Tris..I have often wondered why, with a lot of humans, it is easier to say I hate than I Love! I hope that some day we can be more tolerant of others thinking, beliefs etc.; for some reason hate seems to be a stronger emotion than love. I do not know if it is the selfish gene, or what, but if one is put on the defensive the reaction is usually negative. It is easy for me to say I Love.... I even wrote a book about it... well Vol. I anyway, I'm working on Vol. II. ;)

Seriously though--sometimes "hate" is driven by utter frustration. Because of it, an intense inner anger seethes. The inner-voice says something like: "I can't believe people still believe the world is flat and they won't shut up about it! They're always all up in my face about it and no amount of reasoning will make them stop derailing human progress and encroaching on people's personal freedoms!!!"

That, I think, is a bit like the "hatred" Der Trihs expresses.

(I put hate and hatred in quotes because I wonder just how much Der Trihs truly hates individuals--not institutions--that are religious. He may say he has real hatred for those individuals, but I am free to opine that I'm not completely convinced).

[Bryan Ekers]

Seriously though--sometimes "hate" is driven by utter frustration. Because of it, n intense inner anger seethes. The inner-voice says something like: "I can't believe people still believe the world is flat and they won't shut up about it! They're always all up in my face about it and no amount of reasoning will make them stop derailing human progress and encroaching on people's personal freedoms!!!"

Yeah, and then Trihs hulks out and throws a semi at the Pope.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

According to my girlfriend, God gave us a brain for a reason. If people still act like fools, who's fault is that?I find that ironic. In a multi-layered kinda way.

[Stan Shmenge]

One thing religion does provide, is answers that science, at least up to this point, cannot.

Why are we here?
How did the universe get started?
What is the purpose of life?
Is there any existence beyond death?

As an atheist, I realize that I may never have these answers, and have to be content with that. Some people are uncomfortable with not knowing the answer to these profound questions, and religion gives them what they need to make some sense of the world.

Astronomy in particular used to really give me the heebie jeebies. Most people don't even comprehend the immensity of the universe beyond the idea that the stars are very far away and the universe is very old. But the numbers, once understood, are so extremely humbling, that it is hard not to feel totally insignificant and unimportant. Religion gives comfort by saying that you ARE important. God sees every sparrow that falls, therefore he cares about you as well.

[MeanOldLady]

This thread is such a clusterfuck. I weep for the children.I blame Curtis LeMay.

[Der Trihs]

One thing religion does provide, is answers that science, at least up to this point, cannot.

Why are we here?
How did the universe get started?
What is the purpose of life?
Is there any existence beyond death?Science could just as easily provide answers for the first and third of those questions, if it was willing to do what religion does and simply make up the answers. There's no reason to think that there IS any "why" or "purpose" to our existence, beyond what we give to ourselves.

As for the other two; science has various theories as to how the universe began; all religion has are wild fantasies. And science does have an answer to "Is there any existence beyond death?" The answer is "No". The evidence is overwhelmingly against such a thing being possible, much less true. And it isn't the fault of science if people don't like the truth.

[Bryan Ekers]

Astronomy in particular used to really give me the heebie jeebies. Most people don't even comprehend the immensity of the universe beyond the idea that the stars are very far away and the universe is very old. But the numbers, once understood, are so extremely humbling, that it is hard not to feel totally insignificant and unimportant.

Screw that. It's a big huge mostly-empty universe that's ours for the taking!

[Grumman]

One thing religion does provide, is answers that science, at least up to this point, cannot.
So? Getting answers isn't what's important: getting accurate answers is. Otherwise you might as well just use a Magic 8-Ball.

[MeanOldLady]

Is it all right to hate things that are oppressive? To hate things that are harmful and counterproductive?According to the armed monkey here, not unless you've some personal story to share. It is not intelligent to hate things that are oppressive unless you are personally oppressed. Make sense?

[Uzi]

However, hate is not an emotion. From Merriam-Webster: "intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury". Personally, I find very worrisome that you're conflating anger and hatred to be very disturbing as it seems clear to me that your hatred is derived from your anger.

You gave yourself 3 choices and picked the wrong one. The correct one is 'sense of injury'. If I may speak for him in this instance, he is angry because of the injuries he sees caused by religion, The same here.

I can say that religion has directly hindered research on stem cells which may hold a cure for MS (which my wife has). In no way did stem cell research affect any credophile in any way whatsoever. Yet, they felt it was their duty to stop the research for years. And all the time my wife deteriorates due to her condition. Essentially, they said 'fuck you' to her. People die because of what religion allows and for what it doesn't allow.
See, I don't have a problem if people came to a rational decision on things. I might be pissed about the decision, but I at least can understand it even though I may not agree with it. But how do I deal with the fact that my wife may become a cripple because many people base their decision making upon bronze aged superstitions?

But, honestly I've held these views for longer than I've known her. She has just made it more personal for me.

Pedophile priests, no condoms for Africans, gays are sinners and can't marry, suicide bombers, female circumcision, burkhas, stonings, jihads, the list is endless of what the religious do to those who agree and don't agree with them.

Der Trihs says specifically that all religious believers are evil and/or stupid. It makes no difference whether we are worshiping quietly by ourselves, working in the soup kitchens and homeless shelters, or sharing our faith in the most non-confrontational ways we can manage.

You aren't quietly worshiping by yourselves, though. By believing in nonsense you provide the platform for those to convince you to vote against gay marriage. For those who want to stop stem cell research. If they didn't have you to stand upon and follow blindly (you wonder why Jesus refers to 'flocks'. You are sheep) they'd just be yelling in the wind and no one would take them seriously. But because some smooth talker has convinced millions that he speaks for god, now we have to have him sit at the adult table and have his views taken seriously.

[Stan Shmenge]

:rolleyes: No. I find religion disgusting. I find the idea of being religious no more attractive than the thought of having a compulsion to eat rotting garbage.

That is a choice you make. Others choose differently. That is their right.

As if that was exclusive to, or even had much to do with religion. Nor is it especially admirable in context; "don't kill" meaning "don't kill your fellow believers, but do kill those heathens over the hill".

Some religions are like that. My quote from the Quo'ran upthread puts Islam in that camp, but Jesus never advocated anything of the kind.

Honor thy parents meaning "Obey your parents, no matter how badly they abuse you".

That is how some interpret the edict. It is not the only interpretation. "Honor thy parents" might be said to mean "do not dishonor them", but if they are behaving like asshats, they have already dishonored themselves, so you really can't dishonor a dishonorable person.

Nonsense. Religion is in itself evil, the way that sexism or racism or fascism is in itself evil.

You are merely asserting your thesis here. This is not supporting evidence.

And it's the ones who try to do good in its name who are perverting it, which is one reason why they tend to be bad at it.

That is your interpretation. Martin Luther King, who someone else mentioned, was certainly good at it. He started a movement that overturned racial discrimination that had existed for centuries in this country.

Tools are passive things; they make no demands, they make no judgements. Religion does. Religion is not a tool; it is something that makes people into tools.

The religious would argue, tools for good.

When their preacher tells them to vote for Bush because Democrats are evil devil worshipers, that has an effect.

Just because you are of an opposite political viewpoint, you have a problem with that. But some religions advocate voting for liberals. Many Democrats are Catholic, and their political philosophy springs from their religion.

[ToeJam]

I feel like DT and Curtis are battling for my possibly immortal soul here in this conflict. It's like Obi Wan and Vader meeting off....
But is it wrong if I'm agreeing more and more with DT in this one? His points resonate more with me than Curtis' at least right now. And I think I realized why-

I think I should modify my previous Religious stance. I guess I'm religious, but I'm wary and not a fan of extremism and organized religion. Of which, i think both Curtis and DT do a great job of representing, but I don't get the hate- that's the final piece I think that holds me off from Der- he's got some good ideas, but his pure hatred on the topic is a turn off. I can see how others would agree that he means well but his extremist views can turn off more people than on.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

The whole reason God sent Jesus was things were of hand and he was to straighten things out, and provide a way to be forgiven for all the nonsense that was taking place.Has anyone ever considered that the whole reason God sent Der Trihs was because things are out of hand and he is here to straighten things out so all you DT bashers and all the Worshipers of Nothing (theists) can be forgiven for their nonsense?

Seems unlikely to most, I'd assume... but many people back in Jesus' time thought he was just a rabble-rousing, trouble-making, bullshitter too. Just like so many of you think Der is.

Shall we establish the church now? Or wait until long after Der Trihs is dead and put words in his mouth? You know... base our doctrine on mere hearsay and tall-tales.

Either way we lose. We would just be making the problem worse by establishing yet one more worship of myth. WWDTD?

[Cumberdale]

Why, because more Der Trihs would make that more possible?

Der Trihs' arguments on religion only serve to make him, and his side, look stupid. More Der Trihs would mean the opposite of religion being "pushed into the fringes" - rather, it would make the opinion that those who have a beef with religion are unthinking absolutists with the smallest of regards for them. And they would be correct.

No. He and people like him challenge the mindset of the deluded. It may not be pretty or nice but it is what they deserve. Everything can be explained by natural means. There is not one thing that cannot or will not some day be explainable. It is time for religion to be tossed into the trash heap of history. Der Trihs challenges believers and I have not seen one theist here refute any point he has made. We need to battle religionistas with every weapon.

Science has effectively killed religion. Being nice and respectful towards silly beliefs will not do anything. The religious should be forced to see the ugliness of religions and deal with it honestly instead of being able to chicken out and say, "but they're not really...". If a religion cannot stand up to criticism then fuck it. In any battle you need your peacemakers doing what they do, along with the rabble rousers.

[Fantome]

Some religions are like that. My quote from the Quo'ran upthread puts Islam in that camp, but Jesus never advocated anything of the kind. You might find these links illuminating. But I'm guessing you'll choose to stay in the dark.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/06/did-jesus-abolish-old-testament.html

http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/04/07/cherry-picking-and-a-bible-lesson-for-atheists/

[Bosstone]

Just because you are of an opposite political viewpoint, you have a problem with that.Not to speak for Trihs, but that is one wild assumption.

Personally, any church advocating for any political leader I find disgraceful, no matter the political bent. But then, I believe firmly that public life in all matters should be wholly secular and that religion should not extend beyond family, friends, and church. Is that marginalizing religion? Compared to the current culture in the US, yes, but I don't believe the current culture in the US is healthy. Faith is a private, personal thing.

[Stan Shmenge]

Everything can be explained by natural means.

Nonsense. There are plenty of things that are outside of the scope of science.

There is not one thing that cannot or will not some day be explainable.

This is an unprovable assertion.

[Bryan Ekers]

Nonsense. There are plenty of things that are outside of the scope of science.

Such as? Anything in our day-to-day lives?

[Cumberdale]

One thing religion does provide, is answers that science, at least up to this point, cannot.


but science is far more likely to find an answer. Religion will just be stuck in the same pointless loop it has been since its inception.

[Cumberdale]

This is an unprovable assertion.

That is true, I did not pick my words carefully. However, science and reason are far more likely to find the answer than some silly 2000 year old nonsense that some primitive desert dwellars believed

[Mapache]

That is a choice you make. Others choose differently. That is their right.



Some religions are like that. My quote from the Quo'ran upthread puts Islam in that camp, but Jesus never advocated anything of the kind.

If you check your girlfriend's bible, you will notice that JC said a lot of stuff like "Before Abraham was I am." and "I and my father are one" which implied that he was standing right beside YHWH giggling with pleasure as the children of the Midianites/Cannanites/whateverites were hacked to death with dull bronze swords. And there's the bit about jots and tittles and no change to the old laws, including the ones about "leaving nothing alive that breathed" and so on. ISTM that he (supposedly) was quite clear about his approval of the various slaughters "I and my father" ordered and oversaw.

ETA I see that as usual somebody beat me too it...sigh.

[Bosstone]

Nonsense. There are plenty of things that are outside of the scope of science.Would that religion confined itself to only those.

I don't have much against religion attempting to explain the unknowable. However, once something becomes knowable, and is known, then religion needs to get its ass out of the way.

[Yumblie]

Nonsense. There are plenty of things that are outside of the scope of science.


What does "outside the scope of science" mean anyway? And how does religion provide answers? Sure, "why are we here?" is currently unknown, but "Because God said so" is nowhere near an acceptable answer to me. What is God? What's he made out of? Did he make the universe in the same way I make a sandwich? If not, how? Is it a process that can be measured? If not, why not? If it can't be measured, then how can it ever be shown to exist? Etc...

No, the only answer that will satisfy me is one that is answered by experiment. If it's not answered in my lifetime, or not ever, then that sucks, but there's not much I can do about it. I can't delude myself into just making up a vague answer that doesn't even really answer anything, it just replaces it with a meaningless placeholder. It's intellectually dishonest, and it's just not satisfying.

I would, however, be in support of starting a religion deifying Der Trihs, due to the irony explosion it would cause.

[Guinastasia]

I feel like DT and Curtis are battling for my possibly immortal soul here in this conflict. It's like Obi Wan and Vader meeting off....
But is it wrong if I'm agreeing more and more with DT in this one? His points resonate more with me than Curtis' at least right now. And I think I realized why-

I think I should modify my previous Religious stance. I guess I'm religious, but I'm wary and not a fan of extremism and organized religion. Of which, i think both Curtis and DT do a great job of representing, but I don't get the hate- that's the final piece I think that holds me off from Der- he's got some good ideas, but his pure hatred on the topic is a turn off. I can see how others would agree that he means well but his extremist views can turn off more people than on.


This +10000000

It's not so much Der Trihs's views that bother me -- it's his attitude and the way he expresses them. Although I will say, he's completely kicking Curtis's ass here.

[Czarcasm]

My girlfriend would tell you that Jesus never said a word about gays, and his word supersedes anything in Leviticus. The whole reason God sent Jesus was things were of hand and he was to straighten things out, and provide a way to be forgiven for all the nonsense that was taking place, so his word is the final say in things. She thinks gays should be allowed to do what they want. And she is most definitely a Christian.That's sweet, but until your girlfriend spends millions on advertising and influencing politicians her opinion on Christianity won't mean jack shit to anyone but her close friends. Can any of you come up with top tier people that represent Christianity as you believe it should be? You know-the ones that can get on the major networks to make their points, and pay for the big stadiums in major cities for rallies? The ones that do this represent Christianity to the public at large whether you like it or not.

[Boyo Jim]

... I can see how others would agree that he means well but his extremist views can turn off more people than on.

His views are not extremist at all. He simply chooses more blunt language to present them than most would, including myself, becuase I prefer to avoid confrontation with crazies.

[ToeJam]

Well, I would consider that extremist- there is no compromise with him. It's all or none.

He believes not in Religion and Atheism being equally tolerated and equally respected, and having equal say (which is what I believe should be the middle ground), but rather in one side being HEAVILY favored over the other.

I'd rather just have Atheists have a completely equal footing, and to have a separation of church and state. If an individual is religious that's not a concern to me, much like their sexuality. It's only if they choose to impose their beliefs on me would I have an issue with it.
That's I think the middle ground.

I'm thinking DT probably wants MORE than that.

[Princhester]

Der Trihs is willing to go a lot further but IMO, he mostly tells it like it is. He is like the kid who is willing to point out that the Emperor Has No Clothes while everyone else shushes him. I am glad that there are people like him that are willing to go so far. Only rarely do I feel he goes too far but I'd venture that most folks here--atheist or not, believe the opposite.

Problem being that everyone else shushes him. It's not very effective is it? One of the funny (and sometime quite annoying) things about human interaction is that many people have tremendous respect for and will listen to likeable personable polite idiots who are totally wrong while ignoring abrasive impolite people who are completely correct.

What I am pointing out is that I am entirely on board when it comes to the question of what religion might deserve, but I think there is another question namely what will be effective against it.

[Czarcasm]

Problem being that everyone else shushes him. It's not very effective is it? One of the funny (and sometime quite annoying) things about human interaction is that many people have tremendous respect for and will listen to likeable personable polite idiots who are totally wrong while ignoring abrasive impolite people who are completely correct.

What I am pointing out is that I am entirely on board when it comes to the question of what religion might deserve, but I think there is another question namely what will be effective against it.Can you name some atheists that get listened to by religionists?

[Measure for Measure]

Can any of you come up with top tier people that represent Christianity as you believe it should be? You know-the ones that can get on the major networks to make their points, and pay for the big stadiums in major cities for rallies? The ones that do this represent Christianity to the public at large whether you like it or not. Reverand Spong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong)? Eh, I guess NPR doesn't count.

Responding to what you said upthread, most Americans receive their exposure to Christianity... via their local church. The Salvation Army, AA, etc. also play a role. It's the nonchristians for whom Christianity seems equivalent to Fundamentalism.

One problem is that mainline Christians and pre-Fundamentalist churches often believe religion to be a private matter. So engaging with the Falwells, Robertsons, Bakkers and other showbiz types sort of defeats the purpose. "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."

Promoting traditional quiet piety is a challenge.

[Measure for Measure]

Can you name some atheists that get listened to by religionists? Polycarp listens to everybody. And quite a few religionists like ecumenicalism and have gotten over their problems with atheism.

ETA: Point taken though. It's not like politeness changes minds all that well.

[Bryan Ekers]

ETA: Point taken though. It's not like politeness changes minds all that well.

Heck, the religions didn't spread through politeness, either. It was all conquest and conversion and putting folks to the sword and such.

[Grumman]

He believes not in Religion and Atheism being equally tolerated and equally respected, and having equal say (which is what I believe should be the middle ground), but rather in one side being HEAVILY favored over the other.
Giving equal respect and equal say is only of merit if both sides are valid viewpoints. But religion and atheism are not equally valid: one is the most probable explanation based on our current understanding of the world, and the other is a bunch of illogical bronze-age mumbo-jumbo.

You know, it's really annoying when people act like neutrality has inherent merit, no matter how one-sided the situation really is.

[Der Trihs]

He believes not in Religion and Atheism being equally tolerated and equally respected, and having equal say (which is what I believe should be the middle ground), but rather in one side being HEAVILY favored over the other.That's because the religious side is completely and utterly baseless, not to mention silly. WHY should religion be given "equal time"? Why, exactly, should it be treated any more seriously than someone claiming that the world is secretly run by invisible gnomes?

Atheism is and should be the logical default; there IS no rational reason to believe there is any such thing as a god. When some actual evidence of gods shows up; THEN you can reasonably claim that equal consideration should be given to both sides. But until then, there's no reason to look at religion as anything other than baseless nonsense that happens to be popular and powerful. I rather doubt you'd be calling me extreme if I was mocking the claim that the world is hollow and filled with chocolate; a claim that is actually more plausible than the existence of God.

[Measure for Measure]

But religion and atheism are not equally valid: one is the most probable explanation based on our current understanding of the world, and the other is a bunch of illogical bronze-age mumbo-jumbo. And yet both are inferior to empirical agnosticism, the only truly rigorous belief system. Via supreme coincidence it happens to be what I subscribe to.

[Princhester]

Czarcasm, me for a start. I have a number of friends who I have gradually influenced away from religion. I wouldn't even be friends let alone have influenced them if I'd just told them they were insane and their beloved church was evil. Even if they were insane and their church evil.

Heck, the religions didn't spread through politeness, either. It was all conquest and conversion and putting folks to the sword and such.

I don't think this is right. Of course what you say has occurred, but a lot of religion is spread by procreation, by love-bombing and providing a community focal point, by giving people comforting answers. The superstition stuff is sold as part of a package, and most of the package is community support and involvement. Even if the underlying basis is actually quite subtly insidious, it is politely done.

Furthermore, even to the extent that you are correct, it's irrelevant to my particular point which is that Der Trihs' tactics are ineffective. Atheists aren't in a position to fight religion by conquest and conversion, since we don't have the numbers (not that I'm suggesting it would be the right thing to do anyway, but you see my point).

[Martini Enfield]

Furthermore, even to the extent that you are correct, it's irrelevant to my particular point which is that Der Trihs' tactics are ineffective. Atheists aren't in a position to fight religion by conquest and conversion, since we don't have the numbers (not that I'm suggesting it would be the right thing to do anyway, but you see my point).

The other thing to bear in mind is that Militant atheism seems to be a largely US phenomenon. Sure, I see people at uni reading "The God Delusion" or any of the other Richard Dawkins books, but really, my experience is that people in Australia and New Zealand really don't care if you're religious or not, as long as they don't have to hear about it one way or the other.

[ToeJam]

That's because the religious side is completely and utterly baseless, not to mention silly. WHY should religion be given "equal time"? Why, exactly, should it be treated any more seriously than someone claiming that the world is secretly run by invisible gnomes?

Well, to simply things, I view it as Linus and his Security Blanket. For some people, religion is that security blanket. It's something that not everyone needs, but it doesn't harm him to HAVE it per se (though in peanuts he did tend to get all religious and try to spread the word, but still).

Basically, that's how religion should be- it should be there for the people who need it, and the people who don't can pass on it. I say if it doesn't HARM someone, then why not allow them to have it. Like meditation, acupuncture, or placebos. As long as they are not skipping out on actual medical cares, or trying to force others to follow it, what harm is there in allowing it to occur? Now I admit that most religions don't work this way at all, that's why I do find myself agreeing with.

But in MY perfect world, I think religion would be a valid option but not something that needs to be for everyone. As long as it doesnt harm anyone else, there is no reason that I should dictate your beliefs, views, or practices. It's only when your such things start to affect my own views should I begin to be concerned about them.

[Uzi]

The other thing to bear in mind is that Militant atheism seems to be a largely US phenomenon.

That's because Australia and New Zealand aren't as religious as the US. You don't see the dark side of the thing as much, although there have been some issues with Muslims at least in Australia.

[Martini Enfield]

That's because Australia and New Zealand aren't as religious as the US. You don't see the dark side of the thing as much, although there have been some issues with Muslims at least in Australia.

That's a racial/xenophobial issue rather than a religious one, unfortunately.

[Kalhoun]

I didn't see anyone comment on this, but I think there's a very important distinction here. I absolutely agree that emotions are neither good nor bad. People often think of happiness as good or sadness as bad, but that's just a judgment of the general pleasantness of the emotion. The actual value of an emotion is not tied to it's pleasantness, as I'm sure we've all seen plenty of people do bad things because it makes them happy, or fight for a worthy cause because of something that made them sad; in many cases, it's purely neutral.

However, hate is not an emotion. From Merriam-Webster: "intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury". Personally, I find very worrisome that you're conflating anger and hatred to be very disturbing as it seems clear to me that your hatred is derived from your anger.

Now, your anger I think is not only reasonable, but in some cases justified. As a Christian myself, I can understand anger toward a lot of the things that have been done in the name of religion like genocide, persecution, and intollerence. In fact, I share that anger. However, hate is never a justified action, it's usually is counter-productive, and it distorts your perspective of the positive things about the object of your hatred.

So, sure, if you don't like the things that have been done in the name of religion, do something positive about it. If all you do is hate, it puts you on the same level of other hates from historical racists to the God Hates Fags bunch. Instead, if you think it's based on ignorance, make an effort to spread what you believe to be the truth. If you see haters, do what you can to expose them to the humanity of those they hate. And do the same for yourself.

You see, hatred has a way of dehumanizing the objects of your hatred. It's hard to through hate at someone you know intimately, but it's important to realize that people, even those who anger you, are still human and deserve to be treated with the same level of human decency that you would treat anyone else. I think if you look beyond the loud and hating minority of some religious zealots, you'll find plenty of people who are very reasonable, compassionate, and non-hypocrites who actually practice what they preach.

So, seriously, cut back the the hatred, it's bad for you. Don't make your anger out to be something negative; use it to effect the world in a positive way.

There's nothing wrong with hating an institution. If he was out there "hating" people, i.e., physically harming them, or blocking the doors to their religious buildings, you'd have an argument. I hate on an emotional level, too. That doesn't mean it spills over into actions that harm people. Der Trihs's vocalization of his anger toward religion IS productive. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Back off. You're HARMING me," which is what religion is doing in this country. It's self-defense. Sometimes we need to speak louder than the voices in their heads.

[Mellivora capensis]

... the world is hollow and filled with chocolate;...

::starts digging::

[Uzi]

::starts digging::

See? Proof that Der Trihs words do influence people!

[Boyo Jim]

IMO, the worst you can say about Der Trihs is that it appears as if he engages in debating the retarded, and he doesn't cut them any slack. That makes a lot of people uncomfortable, as if he was beating up on one of Jerry's Kids.

[monavis]

Sucks to live in a democracy, even a Constitutional one, don't it?

Regards,
Shodan

As long as we have seperation of church and state no one should have to worrry about someone taking away their faith or making them believe a certain religion, and I think that may be Der Tris's complaint,that some one is trying to force their beliefs into law. I have fundamentalist friends who are worried that their religion is not law and their faith will be taken away from them. No one can take my beliefs away, I have the freedom to use my own mind and am grateful to our forefathers who had the insite to protect the miniority from the majority, as far as religious belief is concerned. One could consider what happens when a religion uses law to inforce their belifs...Just look a t radical Muslim countries today as an example,then if Muslims became the majority here it would be the same. Think of the father who ran over his daughter because she wasn't following her father's radical ideas.

If one doesn't want the fundamentalist laws then they should make sure they get out and vote for a non-fundamentalist, then the law will protect them.

[monavis]

My girlfriend would tell you that Jesus never said a word about gays, and his word supersedes anything in Leviticus. The whole reason God sent Jesus was things were of hand and he was to straighten things out, and provide a way to be forgiven for all the nonsense that was taking place, so his word is the final say in things. She thinks gays should be allowed to do what they want. And she is most definitely a Christian.

As far as making women wear black robes in the scorching desert, that is another religion entirely, one she does not believe in. And one, I might add, that has plenty of other things wrong with it besides. I can refer you to verses in the Quo'ran such as "slay those who ascribe divinity to aught besides God wherever you may come upon them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place." Islam is the only religion I know of that advocates attacking and killing everybody else in any way you can think of.

Ask your girl friend if she ever read the Epistles of Paul, that is why the Pope says being gay is a sin..a mortal one at that! I believe the Fundamentalists use that as well.

[Pedro]

Add my vote for Der Trihs. Admire his patience and stamina to politely debunk religion. I'd rather just point and laugh.

[monavis]

How would you explain Der Trihs the fact that the majority of the world who improved the world were religious? For instance people who fought for civil rights (Martin Luther King Jr.) or women's rights (Susan B Anthony) were mostly religious. Your claim that religion is utterly evil is unfounded by reality. Would you really say for instance universalist Unitarian ministers who don't try to convert you are dangerous?

Also religion has many times influenced scientific advancement. For instance the Roman Catholic Church preserved a large amount of literature. Also Christianity has served scientific advanced far more than Roman paganism as the Christian view was that of a universal God in unknowable reaches of space who was portrayed the Architect of the Universe while Roman Paganism was just superstition packaged better.

Finally what of the atheist tyrants who killed millions such as Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot? I believe you are some sort of leftist possibly even a communist as you've stated previously that the US and the USSR were no better in the Cold War.

The RCC also destroyed a lot of literature that didn't agree with it's teachings and put a lot of books on the list it's people couldn't read.(Early writings of Thomas etc. for example were excluded from the NT) At one time it even made people pledge not to see certain movies and leaned on their fear of hell if they did read or attend the movies it didn't want them to see or read. At one time it was a sin to even go to a non Catholic Church service. Vatican 2 changed a lot of that. That is a way of brain washing..not to let people think for themselves. Luther changed that and the Christian Church again became a very divided religion.

[monavis]

It is easy for me to say I Love.... I even wrote a book about it... well Vol. I anyway, I'm working on Vol. II. ;)

Seriously though--sometimes "hate" is driven by utter frustration. Because of it, an intense inner anger seethes. The inner-voice says something like: "I can't believe people still believe the world is flat and they won't shut up about it! They're always all up in my face about it and no amount of reasoning will make them stop derailing human progress and encroaching on people's personal freedoms!!!"

That, I think, is a bit like the "hatred" Der Trihs expresses.

(I put hate and hatred in quotes because I wonder just how much Der Trihs truly hates individuals--not institutions--that are religious. He may say he has real hatred for those individuals, but I am free to opine that I'm not completely convinced).

I wasn't directing my ideas to Der Trihs, but makeing a general statement. Der Trihs doesn't seem to be up set with the people as the religons that he feels harm them. One can love a person, but hate the action one takes.

[monavis]

One thing religion does provide, is answers that science, at least up to this point, cannot.

Why are we here?
How did the universe get started?
What is the purpose of life?
Is there any existence beyond death?

As an atheist, I realize that I may never have these answers, and have to be content with that. Some people are uncomfortable with not knowing the answer to these profound questions, and religion gives them what they need to make some sense of the world.

Astronomy in particular used to really give me the heebie jeebies. Most people don't even comprehend the immensity of the universe beyond the idea that the stars are very far away and the universe is very old. But the numbers, once understood, are so extremely humbling, that it is hard not to feel totally insignificant and unimportant. Religion gives comfort by saying that you ARE important. God sees every sparrow that falls, therefore he cares about you as well.

It can also be considered that the answers are not the truth but a way of quieting their fears, like taking an asprin for a head ache, but not curing the cause.

[Maastricht]

I didn't read the thread, but count me as another fan of Der Trihs. I think that he is incredible patient, has honest debating tactics, and supports Enlightenment in general. Also, I have never seen him attack anyone who truly sees their religion as something personal.

[Nancarrow]

And yet both are inferior to empirical agnosticism, the only truly rigorous belief system. Via supreme coincidence it happens to be what I subscribe to.

Are you empirically agnostic about the existence of a colony of ladybugs on the far side of the moon?

[Clothahump]

Der Trihs, I am an atheist, and I am well aware of all the evil that can be laid at the doorstep of religion, but I can also see the good that it can do.

Stan, I have to disagree with you and agree with DT based on that one statement alone. Arthur C. Clarke said it best:

The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.


Given that religion is a lie, a con game from start to finish, anything and everything that it does is tainted by that lie. It's like swimming in a pool and ignoring the fact that someone peed in it.

One does not need religion to be moral and do good; quite the opposite, actually.

[Kalhoun]

I wasn't directing my ideas to Der Trihs, but makeing a general statement. Der Trihs doesn't seem to be up set with the people as the religons that he feels harm them. One can love a person, but hate the action one takes.

Hmmm...sounds a little like "hate the sin, love the sinner", don't it? I wonder why that works when we're talking about believers but not when we're talking about rationalists.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

Ask your girl friend if she ever read the Epistles of Paul, that is why the Pope says being gay is a sin..a mortal one at that!

Except the Epistles of Paul don't say that, and the Pope doesn't say that being gay is a mortal sin.


We Christians have made our share of mistakes and misjudgments, we don't need you inventing new ones.

The RCC also destroyed a lot of literature that didn't agree with it's teachings and put a lot of books on the list it's people couldn't read.(Early writings of Thomas etc. for example were excluded from the NT)

Not adding the Gospel of Thomas to the Bible is not putting a book on a banned list.

At one time it was a sin to even go to a non Catholic Church service. Vatican 2 changed a lot of that.

Cite?

That is a way of brain washing..not to let people think for themselves. Luther changed that and the Christian Church again became a very divided religion.

I'm pretty sure Martin Luther came BEFORE Vatican II. Of course, you've been spouting lunacy all thread, so feel free not to believe me.

[Malacandra]

Are you empirically agnostic about the existence of a colony of ladybugs on the far side of the moon?

Well I'm not, because I am a hundred per cent confident I can safely file that under "Ridiculous shit you made up when you posted to this thread", and I needn't look more deeply into it than that.

[Nancarrow]

Well I'm not, because I am a hundred per cent confident I can safely file that under "Ridiculous shit you made up when you posted to this thread", and I needn't look more deeply into it than that.

Indeed. I am glad to see that you have at least some standards of evidence. There's some critical thinking going on there, you don't just believe anything anyone makes up.


So, remind me, how did you ever hear about this Jesus guy? Once upon a time you did NOT believe Jesus was the son of God, because you didn't have a clue who 'Jesus' or 'God' were. And then, a little while later, you DID believe, and have done ever since.

When did that happen? What evidence persuaded you? How did you verify that assertion? How did you select that hypothesis amongst its many competitors?

[Guinastasia]

Not to speak for Trihs, but that is one wild assumption.

Personally, any church advocating for any political leader I find disgraceful, no matter the political bent. But then, I believe firmly that public life in all matters should be wholly secular and that religion should not extend beyond family, friends, and church. Is that marginalizing religion? Compared to the current culture in the US, yes, but I don't believe the current culture in the US is healthy. Faith is a private, personal thing.

IIRC, any church specifically campaigning for a particular politician or political party is subject to having their tax exempt status revoked, no? Yes, I know that doesn't always happen, but if Bishop Such and Such were to come and out and say, "Vote for Senator What's His Face!" he could be in a lot of trouble.

Or campaigning actively for a certain bill from the pulpit.

At least, I THINK that's the case. It isn't always followed through, though.


Count me though as one who finds Der Trihs to be an asshole. I don't give a shit what his beliefs are. "Help help, I'm being repressed!" :rolleyes:

[rivulus]

I didn't read the thread, but count me as another fan of Der Trihs. I think that he is incredible patient, has honest debating tactics, and supports Enlightenment in general. Also, I have never seen him attack anyone who truly sees their religion as something personal.I agree. Sometimes Der Trihs jumps in more forcefully than appeals to my sensibilities. On the other hand, he has the patience to explain his position over and over again, in the face of some astonishingly willful ignorance. Under similar circumstances, I can confidently say, I would quickly flame out in a massive BBQ Pit bonfire of truly awesome proportions.

Actually, as an aside, I am continually amazed by the patience displayed by a large number of Dopers during debates. One of the reasons I love this place.

[Shodan]

Well, if by "patiently explaining" you mean repeating "religious people are evil and stupid" over and over again, then I agree with you.

Regards,
Shodan

[Boyo Jim]

Well, they ARE slow, and they need the repetition.

[Bosstone]

Well, if by "patiently explaining" you mean repeating "religious people are evil and stupid" over and over again, then I agree with you.Actually, he does a pretty good job explaining why he believes what he does. Whether you agree with him or not, he makes it plain where he's coming from. Going back to the old partisan analogues, I think Starving Artist may be full of it but I think he does a decent job explaining why he thinks the way he does.

Both of them may restate their theses an awful lot, but it's far from the only thing they say.

[Dung Beetle]

Der Trihs is willing to go a lot further but IMO, he mostly tells it like it is. He is like the kid who is willing to point out that the Emperor Has No Clothes while everyone else shushes him. I am glad that there are people like him that are willing to go so far. Only rarely do I feel he goes too far but I'd venture that most folks here--atheist or not, believe the opposite.

--snipped from the excellent post #113, of which I agree with every word. Der Trihs is my hero.

[YogSosoth]

Religion deserves to be hated.

[Snowboarder Bo]

This is a fallacy of attribution. On the SDMB, atheists with a chip on their shoulder pick out the worst they can find and use it to smear all religions. I can squeak as loud as I like - you will ignore it.

Der Trihs says specifically that all religious believers are evil and/or stupid. It makes no difference whether we are worshiping quietly by ourselves, working in the soup kitchens and homeless shelters, or sharing our faith in the most non-confrontational ways we can manage.

He's still going to scream offense, and so are you. It's RO. I hope it makes you feel better.

Regards,
Shodan

(bolding mine)

That's right, it doesn't matter how quietly you do something stupid, it's still stupid. Same with evil things. Doing them quietly doesn't make them any better.

[fervour]

--snipped from the excellent post #113, of which I agree with every word. Der Trihs is my hero.

He's mine too. All of those claiming religion isn't harmless, it is too me. Witness the Maine vote on SSM. That vote directly reflects the effects of religion on me. Not a big deal, right? Doesn't affect you. It doesn't affect Der Trihs either. And yet he is more vocal than I, more indignant, and always responds rationally.

[mhendo]

The other thing to bear in mind is that Militant atheism seems to be a largely US phenomenon. Sure, I see people at uni reading "The God Delusion" or any of the other Richard Dawkins books, but really, my experience is that people in Australia and New Zealand really don't care if you're religious or not, as long as they don't have to hear about it one way or the other.True. I was going to make the following post in response to Princhester earlier in the thread, but i left for work and forgot about it.

My attitude towards religion has changed somewhat since i've lived in the United States. My atheism is just the same as it ever was, but i have become more conscious of the active ways in which religious irrationality can have negative social and cultural consequences.

Australia is a remarkably secular place, particularly by American standards, and even the few people i knew who actually attended church seemed to do so more out of habit and a general feeling that it was the right thing to do. You can go for long periods in Australia, or at least you could when i lived there, without religion impinging on your day-to-day life in any way that might be likely to affect you.

There is very little sense, for most non-believing Australians, that religion in general presents much of a threat to their institutions and freedoms (i recognize that some of this has changed since i left, especially regarding anti-Muslim sentiment among some groups, but as you note that's more about race and xenophobia than religion per se). Even as an atheist, in Australia i never felt any sense of encroachment from religion, and thus entertained no hostility or animosity towards its practitioners. They were, with the exception of a few people like Fred Nile, just folks who spent their Sundays differently from me.

Here in the United States, religion is much more of a "live" issue in so many areas of broader political significance, in ways that often seem threatening to the continued separation of church and state, that those of us without belief can sometimes become more hostile to religion in general, and less tolerant of its believers, at least in generic ways like making broad statements about religious irrationality. While i'm a firm believer in religious freedom, and have no desire to remove from anyone their right to practice their religion, i am more likely than i was before to adopt an openly critical and hostile tone to expressions of religion, particularly when those expressions are connected with policy positions that have detrimental consequences for others. You want to believe in a sky fairy? Fine, i've got no problem with that. But when you start saying that your sky fairy view of the world should be taught alongside actual science in school science classes, then i will have no hesitation in telling you to go fuck yourself, and pointing out the irrationality and the stupidity of your beliefs.

[Fantome]

He's mine too. Ditto, and I've been meaning to say that publicly for a while. He shows no more hatred than others do for political policies that they find dangerous, unfair, etc. I don't recall seeing anyone pitted for their level of hatred for political policies they find abhorrent, yet Der Trihs regularly gets pitted for not tip towing around religion and voicing his opinion bluntly- as he should. I'm sure it's because we've all grown up being told we're supposed to have respect for religion and it's somehow improper to criticize religious beliefs. That, and people aren't used to hearing such good arguments for why their beliefs are ridiculous, irrational, etc.

I'd contribute more to religious debates if I was as good at it as Der Trihs is. Keep up the good fight, Der Trihs! I'd bet that you do get through to a lot of posters and lurkers that never heard arguments for religion get destroyed so well before.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

but I don't get the hate- that's the final piece I think that holds me off from Der- he's got some good ideas, but his pure hatred on the topic is a turn off. I can see how others would agree that he means well but his extremist views can turn off more people than on.Joe: "Everything that man is saying is logical and rational!"

Susie: "Yeah, but his attitude... it's like... ick. Such a turn-off!"

Joe: "You know you have a good point. It IS a turn-off. Fuck logic and rationality, let's follow that herd of pleasant and cordial myth-believers. They may be irrational and delusional, but at least they're nice!"

Susie: "Yeah. Sky-Fairy Tales are such a turn-on!"


Science and logic aren't popularity contests. How can someone be "turned off" from rationality? If Stalin had formulated Relativity instead of Einstein, E would still equal MC fucking squared!

You don't need to be his best buddy or even like him. But this idea that because DT can be extreme in his presentation, that somehow magically makes religionists positions have any merit whatsoever is just, well, irrational.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Problem being that everyone else shushes him. It's not very effective is it? One of the funny (and sometime quite annoying) things about human interaction is that many people have tremendous respect for and will listen to likeable personable polite idiots who are totally wrong while ignoring abrasive impolite people who are completely correct.

What I am pointing out is that I am entirely on board when it comes to the question of what religion might deserve, but I think there is another question namely what will be effective against it.I see what you mean, and I agree that you catch more people with honey than vinegar. But what sets SOME people apart from flies is that we are curious enough about the truth that we'll stomach it no matter if it is sweet or bitter. For everyone else there's American Gladiators and organized religion.

As you would probably agree--even if everyone shushes the finger-pointing kid, the Emperor STILL has no Clothes. His Clothes don't just magically appear because we all agree to be polite.

Besides--this is the SDMB-- not some black-tie Inaugural Ball. We don't gather here to compare charm school diplomas, we fight ignorance here. If there's any place to tell it like it is, it is here.

[MeanOldLady]

So has this turned into the Der Trihs is awesome thread? Sweet.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

And yet both are inferior to empirical agnosticism, the only truly rigorous belief system. Via supreme coincidence it happens to be what I subscribe to.But "agnosticism" is a loaded word because it is usually used in terms of religious belief. If you are using "empirical agnosticism" in the above quote as I think you are--i.e. starting from a neutral point and then proceeding empirically-- then atheism is still the logical default. Just as non-belief in zombies or fairies is the logical default.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

The other thing to bear in mind is that Militant atheism seems to be a largely US phenomenon. Sure, I see people at uni reading "The God Delusion" or any of the other Richard Dawkins books, but really, my experience is that people in Australia and New Zealand really don't care if you're religious or not, as long as they don't have to hear about it one way or the other.That's probably because the American religionists are so much more "in your face" then their Australian or Kiwi counterparts, and because the stakes are much higher here. In the USA, public policy falls prey to the inappropriate and destructive influence of religion far more than it does Down Under.

[Delayed Reflex]

I don't care for religion myself but Der Trihs is an asshole for making broad, absolute statements about whole swaths of people (eg. that all religious people are stupid and evil). It's about as reasonable as saying that anyone that is over 18 and has over $50,000 to their name is stupid and evil for choosing to live in the United States.

Religion may deserve to be hated, but Der Trihs goes past hating religion and hates the people that believe in it.

[MeanOldLady]

Religion may deserve to be hated, but Der Trihs goes past hating religion and hates the people that believe in it.If you further something that is evil and hated, should you be hated too?

[Martini Enfield]

That's probably because the American religionists are so much more "in your face" then their Australian or Kiwi counterparts, and because the stakes are much higher here. In the USA, public policy falls prey to the inappropriate and destructive influence of religion far more than it does Down Under.

That's all very true. But I've had more than a few American colleagues here at Uni who start to talk about how Jesus is awesome (or how religion is a con) and have to be told (politely and in a friendly way) "Mate, nobody cares. Seriously."

[Delayed Reflex]

If you further something that is evil and hated, should you be hated too?

Perhaps, depending on how you are furthering it and how evil it actually is. To suggest that a hermit buddhist monk is as evil as the guy running the Spanish Inquisition is absurd, but Der Trihs doesn't make that distinction.

I think it's too simplistic to just group all "religion" together and feel that it should be all abolished equally. It is possible to be religious and still be benign to other people - such people should not be demonized alongside the religious people who cause others harm. Plus, it is possible to hate one aspect of someone without assuming that the one aspect dominates every decision that they ever make. Do you hate Thomas Jefferson because he owned slaves?

[Lord Ashtar]

Hate hurts the hater more than the hatee.

Der Trihs is free to hate religion and the religious with as much passion as he can muster, it no longer bothers me. I still think he's horribly ignorant with the broad generalizations he makes about anyone who is even the least bit spiritual. But hey, if he likes a binary world where everything is either black or white, who am I to judge?

My sig seems very appropriate here.

[Strinka]

And yet both are inferior to empirical agnosticism, the only truly rigorous belief system. Via supreme coincidence it happens to be what I subscribe to.

So, because you can't be sure they don't exist, it's best to err on the safe side and act on the assumption that God, Zeus, Odin, Ra, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, vampires... exist.

No?

Perhaps a better policy is to not believe that something exists until there is evidence that it does exist. In which case atheism and your agnosticism mean the same thing.

[ToeJam]

It's like Schrodinger's Religion- if the cat is neither dead/alive does it comes out of the cave in three days?

[gonzomax]

We have Curtis who claims to be a 14 year old kid, completely programmed into religion before he ever had a chance to learn to think for himself. The kid is depressing and I feel sorry for him. Religious teaching have the poor kid so up tight and tied in knots, that I hate to read his posts.

[The Tooth]

So has this turned into the Der Trihs is awesome thread? Sweet.

I thought the bit about killing most of the animals and zooing the rest was a bit weird, but other than that I think he's okay. A touch bitter, but considering my attitude towards those who try to tell me it's okay to torture people because 911!!! or that reports coming from James Inhofe's office have the same clout as years of peer-reviewed research that all points in the same direction, and considering the fact that he has to live among such buffoons whereas I just sits and watches and can turn it off at any time, I can understand why an American might be less than impressed with his fellow countrymen.

Although personally my impression of Americans through my limited travel to the States is pretty darned good.

[Princhester]

But this idea that because DT can be extreme in his presentation, that somehow magically makes religionists positions have any merit whatsoever is just, well, irrational.

Is anyone saying this? I think you and others are having a good, heartening, make-yourself-feel-better slug at nobody here.

We don't gather here to compare charm school diplomas, we fight ignorance here.

Ignorance sees Der Trihs coming from across the plain, doesn't like the look of him, and closes the castle gates. He slashes to pieces any of the tiny minority of the inhabitants of Ignorance who are silly enough to come outside the walls despite his presence. Der Trihs feels great, we all love his swordplay and cheer at the righteousness of his fighting. Inside the castle the Ignorant multitudes go about their business untroubled by anything Der Trihs does or says.

Meanwhile others walk quietly up to the door, are let in, and teach the inhabitants a thing or two.

Who is better at fighting Ignorance?

[Der Trihs]

Meanwhile others walk quietly up to the door, are let in, and teach the inhabitants a thing or two.And are completely ignored because the inhabitants have been carefully raised to ignore anything that contradicts the dogma they've been raised with. And they are constantly being told over and over that the favored dogma is The Truth.

And if they actually DO pay attention to those "quiet teachers" - they react exactly as if the teachers had barged in waving a sword with a child impaled on it.

[Guinastasia]

He isn't just hateful about religious. He's said pretty much the same about anyone who leans to the right, politically.

Maybe it's just me, but stereotyping everyone into one little catagory isn't much help in fighting ignorance. If anything, that is ignorance itself.

[Czarcasm]

I sometimes see Christianity as a large group of people, where the fanatics are up front with the microphones and megaphones. The soft-spoken on either side of the debate have next to no chance of influencing the public at large, because the public at large is never going to hear the whispering over all the shouting.
Either get yourself some balls, get your ass in front of that crowd, and clean up the mess those yahoos are making of your religion, or shut up and get out of the way of those who are willing to do something to stop the constant infringement and harassment.

[Guinastasia]

Sometimes they do, but let's face it: who's more entertaining and for the media, gets better ratings, or readers?

[Czarcasm]

Sometimes they do, but let's face it: who's more entertaining and for the media, gets better ratings, or readers?We know who ultimately owns the media and most of the politicians, so that makes the "Meek and Mild" approach even that much more worthless, doesn't it?
I ask again of all those who say that Der Trihs's approach is too much for his message: Which softer-spoken atheist do you think would be a good choice to do some major influencing on the Christian community as a whole? What network would let this person have a semi-regular spot to air his views?

[Lobot]

I'm not convinced either way, but despite being a fan of both, I suspect that the softly-spoken Carl Sagan was more effective at opening people up to secular humanism than the more strident Richard Dawkins has been.

[Czarcasm]

I'm not convinced either way, but despite being a fan of both, I suspect that the softly-spoken Carl Sagan was more effective at opening people up to secular humanism than the more strident Richard Dawkins has been.How was his influence compared to the far right wing preachers that can get on the air any time they want? What laws did he push or prevent successfully? Do you think that he would be given a regular national forum to talk about secular humanism if he were alive today?

[Uzi]

I sometimes see Christianity as a large group of people, where the fanatics are up front with the microphones and megaphones.
The reason that those fanatics are able to spout at all is because of that large crowd behind them. If the crowd went away, no one would listen to the fanatics.

[Leaper]

I'm curious what those who admire DT think about his oft-spoken views on American troops in Iraq and conservatives/Republicans in general. Do you agree with those as well, for the same reasons as you do on religion?

[Uzi]

Of course not. On most of those issues he's a nutter.

[Lobot]

How was his influence compared to the far right wing preachers that can get on the air any time they want? What laws did he push or prevent successfully? Do you think that he would be given a regular national forum to talk about secular humanism if he were alive today?

No matter which way you cut it, right-wing Christianity determines political discourse in the US. I'm sympathetic to those who have the attitude of "We're not gonna take it anymore!" and feminism and gay rights advocates have had success with such an attitude, so who knows?

But the point is that if the fundies are holding the mic, they're not going to give you the floor. So you have two choices: shout from the back of the hall and potentially alienate a big chunk of your audience, or use more subversive means that turn people around without them even realising it. And that, IMHO, was Sagan's gift: to get people to think about the world in a different way without challenging their sense of identity.

[Boyo Jim]

We have Curtis who claims to be a 14 year old kid, completely programmed into religion before he ever had a chance to learn to think for himself. The kid is depressing and I feel sorry for him. Religious teaching have the poor kid so up tight and tied in knots, that I hate to read his posts.

I think maybe these boards are going to give Curtis an opportunity many of us didn't have at that time -- a chance to evaluate dissenting and contrry opinions. Maybe it's not too late.

There was almost no one in my life at that age who was willing to think critically about society, or if there was they kept their mouths shut.

Mad Magazine and Kurt Vonnegut saved my life,

[Princhester]

How was his influence compared to the far right wing preachers that can get on the air any time they want? What laws did he push or prevent successfully? Do you think that he would be given a regular national forum to talk about secular humanism if he were alive today?

Not fair since he wasn't a political campaigner and these preachers are. But I've often heard people on these boards say how Sagan quitely changed their minds on science and religion. As Uzi says, preachers need their flock behind them and politicians only take notice of them because of the flock behind them. People who were quietly converted by Sagan are not now standing behind some preacher.

Between some charismatic preacher telling the flock what to do, and Der Trihs hurling abuse at them as being stupid, there is no question whatever who they are going to follow.

Plus you are once more doing something far too fallacious for a person of your intelligence: sliding into an excluded middle with your talk of "meek and mild" vs "going all Der Trihs on their ass". There is interplanetary space between those possibilities. I can see Sagan traversing it in his "spaceship of the mind" now.

And if they actually DO pay attention to those "quiet teachers" - they react exactly as if the teachers had barged in waving a sword with a child impaled on it.

You are confusing the way that people react to you, with the way people react to those who are less inclined to hurl abuse. You think you aren't the statistical outlier here? Look around you. See who provokes threads like this one: it isn't all outspoken atheists on these boards. Its pretty much just you.

[Der Trihs]

You are confusing the way that people react to you, with the way people react to those who are less inclined to hurl abuse. You think you aren't the statistical outlier here? Look around you. See who provokes threads like this one: it isn't all outspoken atheists on these boards. Its pretty much just you.I was thinking about the way atheists are treated and regarded in general, not just here. And I see no connection with how atheists behave and how they are regarded. If you are a known atheist, you will be hated by most of the population.

[Michael Ellis]

Agreed completely, here in the UK we tiptoe around so as not to offend anyone of faith.

Parts of the Middle East are referred to as "The Holy Land", well they are not holy to me (actually nothing is).

Mohammed is always referred to on the BBC as "The Prophet Mohammed", once again, not my prophet.

I don't even get what you're trying to say here. Do you really have such a stick up your ass about these common terms because you don't agree with them?

I especially love the fact that Mohammed shouldn't be called a prophet, despite founding Islam. It's an accurate description of the man no matter if you believe in God or not. Or are you just annoyed that it's a religious title. In which case I hope you also complain about the term Jesus Christ. Christ is a descriptive, not a surname. I hope you refer to him as Yeshua bar-Joseph, which is his secular name. What about John the Baptist?

[MrDibble]

So has this turned into the Der Trihs is awesome thread? Sweet.

I know, lovely, isn't it. So unlike his previous pittings, so many more people coming out in support. Great.

But the hipster in me wants to say "I was into Der Trihs before he was popular, you posers!"

[MrDibble]

I'm curious what those who admire DT think about his oft-spoken views on American troops in Iraq and conservatives/Republicans in general. Do you agree with those as well, for the same reasons as you do on religion?Yes. I am on record here as such - well, on the Iraq thing, I've never really cared much for debating US-only politics, but I think my feelings on the matter should be clear given my extreme Leftist personal politics - much Left-er than DT.

[Princhester]

But the hipster in me wants to say "I was into Der Trihs before he was popular, you posers!"

Even more ironically, so was I and I still am. Don't think he's that effective though, for the reasons I have outlined.

And Der Trihs you are exaggerating wildly. I hate to keep harping on the one example but how hated was Sagan, for example? What about Johnny Carson? I don't live in the US but how hated are the atheists in this thread by their non-atheist friends?

Atheism has unfortunately a history of high profile proponents whose personalities could strip paint (Dawkins, O'Hair, Randi I guess). It has not been an asset to them and has merely provided a neat opening for ad homs.

[tagos]

Even more ironically, so was I and I still am. Don't think he's that effective though, for the reasons I have outlined.

And Der Trihs you are exaggerating wildly. I hate to keep harping on the one example but how hated was Sagan, for example? What about Johnny Carson? I don't live in the US but how hated are the atheists in this thread by their non-atheist friends?

Atheism has unfortunately a history of high profile proponents whose personalities could strip paint (Dawkins, O'Hair, Randi I guess). It has not been an asset to them and has merely provided a neat opening for ad homs.

Yet - no atheist could be voted President. That's a pretty fundamental fact. And for the rest of the world it is a somewhat chilling thought that the most powerful elected politician in the world has to have a track record of pandering to superstitious nonsense.

As for all you meek and mild Christians - until you seize control back from the loonies, until you stop holding your nose and vote Republican you can he sure you're going to get tarred with a broad brush. Don't want Christians seen as lunatic crackpots - do something about it and stop trying to impose your morality on others.

[monavis]

Except the Epistles of Paul don't say that, and the Pope doesn't say that being gay is a mortal sin.


We Christians have made our share of mistakes and misjudgments, we don't need you inventing new ones.



Not adding the Gospel of Thomas to the Bible is not putting a book on a banned list.



Cite?



I'm pretty sure Martin Luther came BEFORE Vatican II. Of course, you've been spouting lunacy all thread, so feel free not to believe me.

Paul states that man laying with a man is an abomination, and no, the Book of Thomas isn't banned now, but was not accepted as part of the NT that the Bishops who decided what was inspired by God,and what was the word of God! No God didn't say anything or cannot be proved to inspire anything,People said it all the writers were just humans, and one believes in the word of humans not God. Many books were kept in the Vatican and only theologins were allowed to read them.

The Pope has stated that If a Gay person has sex it is a sin,an abomination, just as any person who has sex out side of marriage and using a condom , married or not. I have a nephew who is a RCC priest and he can back me up on what I say. I once taught Religion classes in RCC Sunday school although it wasn't called that,it was Catechism.

And I didn't imply that Luther came after Vatican 2, I have read a great deal on the Reformation and before Luther's time no one was allowed to intrepret the Bible, the last word was the Pope. I know priests who have told me that they didn't know the Bible that well as the Church was considered the authority of God's word and mostly stayed by the church's teachings of the Bible. My nephew has never had an answer to the questions I have asked and neither have any priest(I know a lot of them).

When one doesn't like to hear anything controversial to what one wants to hear, they spout lunacy...Your opinion means nothing to me, the truth is all I am after and you are free to think as you wish.

[Princhester]

Yet - no atheist could be voted President.

It's a hell of a leap from this to "If you are a known atheist, you will be hated by most of the population."

There are any number of people I don't hate but wouldn't vote for. Try again.

[Der Trihs]

And Der Trihs you are exaggerating wildly. No, I'm not. Atheists are one of America's least trusted minorities according to surveys. According to surveys, most people don't think we should be elected to anything, don't think their children should marry us, and regard us as immoral.

[MeanOldLady]

It's a hell of a leap from this to "If you are a known atheist, you will be hated by most of the population."

There are any number of people I don't hate but wouldn't vote for. Try again.Not really. Is there any number of people you wouldn't vote for because of their religion, or lack thereof? Because there are a lot of people who think the most important thing a politician can do is love Jesus. If you thought the "Obama is a Muslim!!!" hysteria was bad*, wait 'til you see an open atheist try to run.


*Thank you Colin Powell for going on MtP and saying even if he were a Muslim, so what, you goddamned bigots? So many people spent the time debunking the scary Muslim myth, and not enough people asked the bigger question, "And what if he is?" Fucking Puritans.

[adhay]

All religions are authoritarian in nature and differ only among themselves as to the real nature of Authority. They share a natural enmity and so are easily co-opted into the service of those who arm, stir up and profit by any dissension no matter who wins. We can thank Christianity for our notion of "just" war which is used to justify corporate plunder around the world and for fueling a good many of our culture wars here at home. Ugh.

IMO, religion lost any moral authority it may have had when locks went on the alms boxes.

[Jackmannii]

No, I'm not. Atheists are one of America's least trusted minorities according to surveys. According to surveys, most people don't think we should be elected to anything, don't think their children should marry us, and regard us as immoral.But they love you. :dubious:

[Czarcasm]

But they love you. :dubious:I can feel that love whenever religious conflict breaks out-whatever disagreements the two sides may have, they are at least unified in their belief that atheists are the bad guys.

[Czarcasm]

Here's another question for y'all:
Of all the religions out there that would like to have the laws reflect their beliefs, which would be tolerant of atheists if they were actually in control?
Any answer along the lines of "My religion would tolerate you, but we are not trying to interfere with the legal process" is, of course, disqualified.

[tagos]

It's a hell of a leap from this to "If you are a known atheist, you will be hated by most of the population."

There are any number of people I don't hate but wouldn't vote for. Try again.

Would you like a match for that leaping straw-man?

[Guinastasia]

As for all you meek and mild Christians - until you seize control back from the loonies, until you stop holding your nose and vote Republican you can he sure you're going to get tarred with a broad brush.

Because all liberal Christians vote Republican. Yeah, that's the ticket. :rolleyes:

[tagos]

Because all liberal Christians vote Republican. Yeah, that's the ticket. :rolleyes:

Stuff your friggin roll-eyes where the sun don't shine. Yeah, that's the ticket

Then point to where I defined 'meek and mild' as liberal. Oh wait - I didn't.

Or are you saying that all Christians who vote republican are whacked out loons?

In which case the problem is even worse than I thought.

[Walker in Eternity]

I don't even get what you're trying to say here. Do you really have such a stick up your ass about these common terms because you don't agree with them?

I especially love the fact that Mohammed shouldn't be called a prophet, despite founding Islam. It's an accurate description of the man no matter if you believe in God or not. Or are you just annoyed that it's a religious title. In which case I hope you also complain about the term Jesus Christ. Christ is a descriptive, not a surname. I hope you refer to him as Yeshua bar-Joseph, which is his secular name. What about John the Baptist?

I try to avoid all religious terms if possible, but without taking it to the realm of anal retentiveness.

Prophet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet) implies contact with some kind of supernatural force, not founding a religion, therefore I object to the term on the grounds that I deny the existence of any supernatural force. Using the term implies a tacit agreement with the existence of the supernatural, which I don't think a supposedly impartial news service should be doing.

[Really Not All That Bright]

prophet

• noun (fem. prophetess) 1 an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God. 2 a person who predicts the future. 3 a person who advocates a new belief or theory.

— PHRASES a prophet is not without honour save in his own country proverb a person’s gifts and talents are rarely appreciated by those close to him. with biblical allusion to the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 13.
My italics.

[MrDibble]

My italics.

That doesn't work so well in quotes, I'm afraid.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Er... so it doesn't. :smack: Shame on me for not previewing.

Oh well - I meant to highlight this bit:
3 a person who advocates a new belief or theory.

[Vinyl Turnip]

I have to say, I'm unaccustomed to seeing that use of the word "prophet," except possibly in a mildly facetious sense. E.g., "Dr. Robert Atkins, the prophet of the low-carbohydrate diet." I suspect that the vast majority of those that would ascribe the title "prophet" to Muhammad intend definition 1, and would be rather irked at any other interpretation.

I have no personal qualms about using "prophet," because for me the term is synonymous with "charlatan" no matter whom it's applied to.

[Malthus]

Religion per se isn't the problem. Black-and-white thinking, dividing people into good and bad with broad-brush generalizations based on extremes and ignoring actual evidence in favour of fixed dogma - that's the problem.

Many (but certainly not all) religious people display that sort of thinking. As this thread so amply demonstrates, it isn't a problem *confined* to religious people, unfortunately.

[Cumberdale]

I have to say, I'm unaccustomed to seeing that use of the word "prophet," except possibly in a mildly facetious sense. E.g., "Dr. Robert Atkins, the prophet of the low-carbohydrate diet." I suspect that the vast majority of those that would ascribe the title "prophet" to Muhammad intend definition 1, and would be rather irked at any other interpretation.

I have no personal qualms about using "prophet," because for me the term is synonymous with "charlatan" no matter whom it's applied to.


Similarly, I don't use the term 'father' for Catholic clergy. I have a father and no one else should expect me to refer to them like that.

I also don't use the term reverend. If I recall, it is an honorary title or a term of respect not an official title like Doctor. Since I don't honor or respect their claims, I don't use the term, even though I have family members who many refer to with that word.

[Malthus]

Similarly, I don't use the term 'father' for Catholic clergy. I have a father and no one else should expect me to refer to them like that.

I also don't use the term reverend. If I recall, it is an honorary title or a term of respect not an official title like Doctor. Since I don't honor or respect their claims, I don't use the term, even though I have family members who many refer to with that word.

I'm not religious, and even if I was, I'd be Jewish by ethnicity: but this just strikes me as pointlessly rude. If someone is commonly referred to by a particular title, to not use it does not appear as a principled blow for freedom of thought, but as a personal insult, unless you are given a chance to explain your reasons.

One can honour and respect the *person* even if one does not honour and respect the *claims* - unless they personally give you cause not to, of course.

[MrDibble]

One can honour and respect the *person* even if one does not honour and respect the *claims* - unless they personally give you cause not to, of course.I disagree. *People* do not naturally come with titles, *positions* do. When the position is one that's earned honestly, that's OK. "Dr", "Prof.", even "Your Honour" When it's the result of a system of combined fraud, delusion and stupidity, not so much.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

I'm curious what those who admire DT think about his oft-spoken views on American troops in Iraq and conservatives/Republicans in general. Do you agree with those as well, for the same reasons as you do on religion?The issue I disagreed with DT most was when he stated he hoped the U.S soldiers got killed in Iraq. HOWEVER, he was absolutely correct in supporting the Iraqi efforts to repulse the foreign invaders (which were in large part, US soldiers and Marines.) Wishing death on them went too far, IMO, but supporting the desire to remove foreign invaders from a sovereign nation, in that instance, was correct. The hard part is seeing how they could be repulsed without being killed.

My nephew, a Marine, was there. Had he been killed by a roadside bomb I would have been very angry and very sad. But I would have understood why he was killed. He and the rest of the invading force were in a place they had no right to be. They had weapons and were killing Iraqis. OF COURSE there were going to be people trying to kill him and all the rest of the U.S. forces. The same as we would if someone were to invade us.

[Malthus]

I disagree. *People* do not naturally come with titles, *positions* do. When the position is one that's earned honestly, that's OK. "Dr", "Prof.", even "Your Honour" When it's the result of a system of combined fraud, delusion and stupidity, not so much.

Naturally enough, I don't agree. I'm no Catholic, and I don't at all believe in the dogma of Catholicism, but if I was introduced to a priest I'd not tell him 'I think your position is the result of a system of fraud, delusion, and stupidity, so I won't do you the courtesy of addressing you by your traditional epithet'. That strikes me as intolerably rude and confrontational.

[Shodan]

Atheists are one of America's least trusted minorities according to surveys. According to surveys, most people don't think we should be elected to anything, don't think their children should marry us, and regard us as immoral.You are having more of an effect than I thought.

Regards,
Shodan

[Lobohan]

You are having more of an effect than I thought.

Regards,
ShodanYou should see what you're doing to the simpering irrational asshole numbers.

[Cumberdale]

Naturally enough, I don't agree. I'm no Catholic, and I don't at all believe in the dogma of Catholicism, but if I was introduced to a priest I'd not tell him 'I think your position is the result of a system of fraud, delusion, and stupidity, so I won't do you the courtesy of addressing you by your traditional epithet'. That strikes me as intolerably rude and confrontational.

I wouldn't either. I address them as Sir, Mr., or Ms. If they ask why I'll tell them the truth. I won't be an ass about it, but I'll let them know my opinion. If they don't like it. Tough.

[B. Serum]

On anger:
Anger is a natural emotion and can have positive effects, namely driving someone to take action. The problems only arise when you can't control your anger when relating to other people, because when confronted by anger, people's defenses go up and typically regard angry-person as a wingnut. So my suggestion would be to Get angry, engage calmly.

On Der Trihs:
You could base a drinking game on how often he/she begins his/her post with"No,…" :D

[adhay]

No, I'm not. Atheists are one of America's least trusted minorities according to surveys. According to surveys, most people don't think we should be elected to anything, don't think their children should marry us, and regard us as immoral.

You are having more of an effect than I thought.

Regards,
Shodan

Shodan rarely makes me laugh but :)
I do actually remember another thread where I remarkably found myself agreeing with him. I came away thinking that however and permanently warped his wannabe mind has become, he means well.

[Apollyon]

Agreed completely, here in the UK we tiptoe around so as not to offend anyone of faith...
Mohammed is always referred to on the BBC as "The Prophet Mohammed", once again, not my prophet.And they call Silvia of Sweden "Queen" even though she's not your (or my) Queen. So?

Go read this. (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html)That's really good. Thank you.

Do you really think that belief is hardwired into your brain and has nothing to do with there actually being a god to believe in?I'm not quite sure what you are asking here Czarcasm, but for me the theorizing about a HADD "Hyperactive Agency Detection Device" in the brain is something that I find interesting. I've tended towards a stance of empirical agnosticism for one major reason: every historical human culture has had religion, which suggests strongly to me that there is either an external or internal reason for this. HADD provides a possible internal mechanism for explaining the origins of religion and its hardy persistence. The proof of HADD wouldn't (technically) prove the lack of an external reason, that is it wouldn't technically disprove the existence of god(s) -- but for me it would move the likelihood further towards the "not exist" position that atheists assert should be the default premise.

That's because Australia and New Zealand aren't as religious as the US. You don't see the dark side of the thing as much....Someone here on the 'Dope explained to me once that the reason the US needs such a high wall between Church and State is because of this; that made a lof of sense to me.

I agree. Sometimes Der Trihs jumps in more forcefully than appeals to my sensibilities. On the other hand, he has the patience to explain his position over and over again, in the face of some astonishingly willful ignorance.<AOL> Me too. :)

[B. Serum]

We know who ultimately owns the media and most of the politicians, so that makes the "Meek and Mild" approach even that much more worthless, doesn't it?
I ask again of all those who say that Der Trihs's approach is too much for his message: Which softer-spoken atheist do you think would be a good choice to do some major influencing on the Christian community as a whole? What network would let this person have a semi-regular spot to air his views?

Julia Sweeney.

Mind you, the Mahers and the Hitchens are certainly the people who can effectively make headlines as talking heads with outrageous soundbytes. By doing so, they can force the subject into the national debate.

But that's completely different undertaking than winning people over, and the methods need to be just as distinct. Conversion is not going to happen en masse by force, but rather on a personal level far under the radar of the talking points news cycle. By an atheist evangelist engaging people whom we're asking to take what will be for them the scariest thing they will ever do. And when they so begin that journey, it's a delusion that they will compete it in a single bound. It is more likely to happen by degrees. And for those first trepidatious steps, I will ALWAYS point to a "Letting Go of God" before a "Religulous."

[Fantome]

And they call Silvia of Sweden "Queen" even though she's not your (or my) Queen. So? Did you read post #230? If you don't understand the difference, maybe when it's explained more bluntly you'll get it. Hint: I'll bet everyone that calls Silvia of Sweden "Queen" agrees that she's actually a queen.

[Apollyon]

Did you read post #230? If you don't understand the difference, maybe when it's explained more bluntly you'll get it. Hint: I'll bet everyone that calls Silvia of Sweden "Queen" agrees that she's actually a queen.Even rabid anti-Monarchists? :)

Well, then I hope you are equally opposed to using all religious based titles, (the Deacon's not a messenger, the Pope's not my father), or as Michael Ellis put it:
Or are you just annoyed that it's a religious title. In which case I hope you also complain about the term Jesus Christ. Christ is a descriptive, not a surname. I hope you refer to him as Yeshua bar-Joseph, which is his secular name.

Calling Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh the Prophet Muhammad is no different to calling Silvia Queen of Sweden. It is a useful descriptor that identifies that Muhammad from any other Muhammad. And it is true in-so-far as public acclaim (whether by Muslims or Swedes) states that it is true.

I can't see that calling Muhammad a Prophet endorses Islamic beliefs... any more than me referring to that Judeo-Christian mythological figure with the wings and flaming sword as the Archangel Michael implies that I believe in Angels. It does however serve to differentiate "him" from my nephew Michael.

[ManiacMan]

It makes me feel better than depression, which is my other reaction to living in a world dominated by religion. We live in a world where evil and madness triumphed ages ago, and has inflcted immense suffering and evil upon billions of people. A world where religion has spent millennia grinding all that is good or sane out of humanity.

Hate causes depression...anger turned inward also causes depression. You are trapped in a never ending cycle. The more you hate religion the more you will become depressed. Surely, there are some aspects of organized religion (no matter how small) that are positive. Perhaps, you should focus on such and just let go of all that hate. You will feel better I think...