fetus, did you miss all the threads where Der Shit wished death on all members of the US armed forces? Where he stated he rejoices every time he hears of their deaths? That every single one of them is a war criminal? I think you must have, since you are on active duty and you are defending the guy who wants your buddies to die.
Meh. I agree with Der Trihs and his views (on religion, the military, some politics ) more than I disagree with them. I do feel he sometimes exaggerates for effect, but I don’t care. Certainly, I agree with him on both the danger of religion, and the notion that calling the religious on their delusion is as OK as telling psychic woo-woos and pyramidiots that their dearly held beliefs are stupid (I’m looking at you, KGS) . Suck it up, god-botherers.
I, for one, welcome our new alien brain-sucking overlords.
I disagree. While the idea may be correct (and bruddah is dat a biiig may), but the execution is pure shit. You’re not going to get anyone to listen when you refer to them as “delusional bullies” and “scum”. You’re certainly not going to convince any extremists, and more likely than not you’ll turn off any moderates as well.
And if you combat an exteme attitude with an extreme viewpoint, the only thing you get is a couple of idiots butting heads. Sure it’s entertaining. It just doesn’t solve anything…unless the two idiots knock themselves out. Then it’s at least quiet for a moment or two.
Right. Several times I’ve called Der Trihs the Swaggart, Falwell of Atheists. In a few threads he’s more rational. I don’t disagree with every point he makes but the net result of his unreasonable ridiculous rants is that I tend to dismiss him and not listen.
Emphasis added. Nobody does listen to him except people who already agree with him.
To completely dismiss religion as he does is not rational or scientific (as he seems to think). Quite the contrary. Religion* is fundamental to the human condition, as any evolutionary psychologist will tell you. It’s not religion per se that causes the problem, but religion used as a proxy for simple, basic human emotions and desires. Without religion, we wouldn’t be who we are, and a society/government formed along strictly non-religious lines is no guarantee of civil rights and peaceful coexistenece with its neighbors. Just look at the former Soviet Union.
*I’m using the term very losely, to mean any kind of spirituality
Mmmmm, J-Lo’s arse…
There is something wrong with exaggeration when it reaches his usual level-- “America is going to become Handmaid’s Tale, starting tomorrow.” It’s the religious equivalent of “Bush is planning to disband the government and crown himself king any day now, just you wait.” It’s laughable conspiracy theory nonsense.
Let’s try that again…
There is something wrong with exaggeration when it reaches his usual level-- “America is going to become Handmaid’s Tale, starting tomorrow.” It’s the religious equivalent of “Bush is planning to disband the government and crown himself king any day now, just you wait.” It’s laughable conspiracy theory nonsense.
I think that the manner in which Der Trihs chooses to express his views on religions is extremely counter productive to the overall interests of the non-religious community. For someone who takes such offense to the way in which American atheists are treated, he does nothing to remedy the situation. Believe it or not, but not everyone who thinks religions is a joke has a desire to live in disharmony with their neighbors. Responding to ignorance with your own ignorant rant just gets you dismissed and ignored. To me, he falls into the same category as those idiots who go around whining about profiling and then proceed to knock over convenience stores and rob old people.
Add me to this list. I don’t agree with Der Trihs on a lot of stuff, but on the topic of religion, he has been right. One might disagree with his delivery style, but the message is dead on target.
Even blind hogs find occasional acorns.
At this point, I am starting to look at Der as just being tiresome, like a broken record that keeps playing the same track over and over. All relgions suck and are evil. All Americans suck and are evil. Everything sucks and is evil. YAWN
But isn’t he the one who tries to use the former Soviet Union as support for his “religion is evil” rants, because he thinks communism is a religion? So those miilions of deaths at the hand of Stalin are due to, of course, religion. :rolleyes:
I don’t practice any religion and religion can certainly have it’s problems, bu the idiot goes way too far. He is a fanatic who has ceased to be able to think about the subject rationally. He is every bit as bat shit crazy, fanatical, and unhelpful as the extreme religious leaders he despises.
Very well put.
(Maybe there’s hope for you yet.) 
I agree with Clothahump! :eek:
But OTOH I can also take his last sentence and say, right back atcha, pal.
Seriously, I do think DS’s style of delivery leaves much to be desired, and I don’t agree with his proposition that religious people are ‘scum’ (obviously some are, and some aren’t). I do however, agree with ‘delusional’ and ‘irrational’. Subject to the eternal get-out clause ‘well of course they might be right’. After all, maybe there are genuine UFO abductees.
And I would also say that my beef with religion is more directed to the organised religions, with their elaborate creation myths and morality tales, and above all insistence on faith, than to the abstract philosophical discussions of whether or not there is a God. The generic proposition that the universe was created by an intelligent entity, is much more defensible that the specific propositions, that this intelligent entity requires worship, or that it incarnated in human form two thousand years ago and got itself killed to atone for our sins (our sins against whom, again?), or that it once commanded a tribal leader to kill his first born son.
Any organised religion looks infantile to someone who views it from the outside, and is genuinely concerned with trying to find reality. Abrasive though he is, kudos to DS for not mincing his words. Religious beliefs must be held up to the same standards of critical analysis as all beliefs should be. ‘It might conceivably be true’, or ‘you can’t absolutely prove it isn’t true’, just aren’t good enough reasons for a firmly held conviction about the nature of the world.
Thanks 'hump. Knew you wouldn’t let me down. :rolleyes:
That is what defines religion. What, do you seriously think that you can define religion by science? By its very nature it is faith based.
Well, it certainly requires belief in an elaborate worldview that has no empirical justification.
I honestly don’t know whether or not you could consider Soviet style communism as a religion or not, it’s rather a semantic issue (oh joy). But the anti-skeptical way of thinking on which it is based, is pretty much the same as the religious mode of thought. People get into serious trouble when they imagine that it’s just peachy to hold beliefs on faith, that is, on a mode of thought which commands the adherents of a particular belief, to believe it no matter what… to hold that, when evidence or reason conflict with that belief, so much the worse for evidence or reason.
It is necessary because this Board is all about fighting ignorance. Der Trihs is way overly aggressive in his comments, but as fetus posted: these things need to be said.
Religion is just THE single most “untouchable” subject in here or anywhere else. But among rational people (like most on the SDMB) the purpose/existence/validity of a “God” and of religion is highly debatable. Witness (pun intended) the number of threads this Board has concerning religion/atheism.
Ah, posted just after Airman Doors.
Yep. Completely agree with you. That is indeed the nature and definition of religion.
And that is the whole problem.
No, I can’t define religion by science. But I can criticise it from a philosophical viewpoint that includes science as a subset.
Incidentally, our agreement that religion is based on faith should hopefully clarify that religion is indeed irrational, as DS and I contend, and as others here deny.
Unless someone would care to argue that faith is actually rational?