Assuming, of course, that you think a religion is an arbitrary fiction. When you start from your conclusion, you just end up running around in circles. Doesn’t that make you dizzy?
Because either it is, or it is indistinguishable from one and can therefore be treated as such.
Right, no shades of grey. Gotcha ya.
Prove to us which one of the thousands there have been through history hasn’t been.
I gave up on trying to convert atheists years ago.
Right, no proof. Got it.
Btw, there are no shades of gray in religion. There are god(s), or there aren’t. They are fiction, or they are not.
In other words, I’m right and you have no facts to counter me. None whatsoever. There ARE no shades of grey here - because your side is completely baseless.
In other words, you have nothing. You tried to pretend that religion has actual content that can be distinguished form any other collection of fiction, were called on it, but don’t want to admit it. Instead you’ll pretend that the unbelievers are being all bigoted and unreasonable for wanting some evidence.
If you say so.
Atheists are not bigoted and unreasonable, you are. Why are you having such a hard time with this? You don’t represent atheists as a whole anymore than Pat Robertson represents theists or Glenn Beck represents conservatives.
As I said earlier in the thread, my best friend is an atheist. He and I get along great, and can have civil conversations about anything. The difference is, he isn’t an arrogant ass like you.
Because I was not arguing about me, nor were you saying anything particularly applicable to me or even TO me at first. You made some silly statements defending religion, and are now trying to make it all about me rather than defend the indefensible. Or rather, trying to make it about your strawman version of me.
Most likely that means he sucks up to you, assuming he exists. “Some of my best friends are X” is such a cliche.
I admit I got off on a bit of a tangent there, but that doesn’t change the fact that you are an arrogant bigot.
I never said “some of my best friends are atheists”, I said “my best friend is an athiest”. Why is that so hard to believe? And why would he suck up to me?
In other words, I don’t hesitate to call your stupid beliefs stupid. And since you have no good reasons for your beliefs, you call me a bigot rather than try to defend them. And I’m not arrogant; it’s just that the other side is just that blatantly wrong.
Because if he didn’t, I doubt he’d be your “best friend” anymore, or a friend at all. He’d be an “arrogant bigot”.
My mistake, I assumed that was what you meant. I am not in favour of being rude for the sake of it, but do think that beliefs need to be challenged.
I agree.
See, that is what I would miss most about the disappearance of religion, even though I don’t attend services anywhere, I still fancy the idea of that big vibe in the sky (thanks kalhoun!). Thinking about the lack of religion in the world, for starters I would miss the background presence of the humble little churches that dot the countryside to the big cathedrals as well, no more spires, stained glass, icons, religious art, flying buttresses, assembled choirs, the stillness of hundreds of people waiting for a sign from above. Ok so I don’t really care to be a part of lots of church communities, but to say all are worthless is so wrong.
No more churches or temples? what would stand in its stead? nothing? Universal toastmasters or what?
Can’t fathom it.
Great comebacks theists; you’re doing an awesome job here. Keep up the good work!
You do make a good point. We should indeed refrain from returning atheist insults in kind.
Or you could just admit to defeat when your lousy arguments are rebutted and you have no recourse other than posting “but you’re ridiculous” or “but you’re a bigot, neener neener neener”.
Or you could just claim what was done was “returning atheist insults” and pretending I made a different point. Great tactic!
“You’re right, but you’re disrespectful, and that’s why you’re wrong!”
And the religious miss the irony of calling an atheist a bigot.
Let’s see, keeping women “in their place”, repressing homosexuals, denying birth control, shooting abortionists and generally persecuting anyone who doesn’t believe in the same sky pixie as them. Yep, no bigotry there at all.
I wonder if name calling is any better coming from the believers side, or the non believers. Belief is just that…it helps some people to believe in something but does no good for others, each person has a reason to believe or not.
I can understand Der Trihs and how he feels even though I do not agree on some of the things he writes,but if one looks at they way some people use their religion(such as the major who killed his own buddies, or the one’s who kill abortion doctors, the crusades the early killing of other innocent people during the OT times and using a god for an excuse ) It doesn’t tell how some people are kept from such acts by their beliefs (out of fear perhaps) but it still works.
The main purpose of some religions(at least) is to help a person, but some radicals are the one’s who get their actions reported. The fundamentalists do want our Government to follow their religion and make laws to push it, but our forefathers(having experienced that) had the foresight to have sepration of church and state so all people could be free to practice their beliefs without being forced to follow a religion, as is now the case with the Taliban and some radical Muslims. The minority must be protected from the majority. The majority in this country (Now) is Christian but our government must remain secular.
If he is, then I guess I am, too, because you claiming religion isn’t arbitrary fiction is no substitute for proving it isn’t. An example I like is the eight-day adventist:
Imagine I printed up by own copy of the bible, identical to the New International version except that, though a typo or a conscious choice (which one doesn’t matter) in my version of Genesis the creation of the universe takes seven days and on the eighth day, God rested. I print up numerous copies and distribute them to various churches and temples and libraries and overseas missions and whatnot. Can anyone prove my version is incorrect? Is there any type of independent test a person can run that can help him decide which bible, mine or someone else’s, is the true bible? If I print and distribute a hundred million copies of my bible, isn’t it likely that in a generation or two, many readers will assume that, indeed, God rested on the eighth day? Are they wrong? Can you prove it?
If this seems too far-fetched, consider that prior to Gutenberg, bibles were copied by hand in monasteries. Did the monks make mistakes? Can you guarantee a modern bible has the same meaning as one written circa AD 200? What if you’re following a practice that a modern bible advocates, but an ancient original bible says is a mortal sin? If people started resting on the eighth day and ignoring the seventh, for example, they’re in blatant violation of the fourth commandment (third for a Catholic or Lutheran, also suggesting the whole thing is arbitrary). Are they going to Hell as a result?
Please enlighten us, if you can.