“Yeah, well, you guys do it too!” That’s your response? Seriously?
Way to demonstrate the inherent superiority of your position there, Czar.
Would it make somebody a dick if they said it was silly and irrational to believe in goblins?
Missed the point, I think. How about, “You guys do it first and in greater quantity, then bitch when we dare react.”
Seen any door-to-door atheists lately?
Or push-polls accusing a candidate of being a Christian?
I’m sure you’ll find a place.
Oh sure it drives people to violence too, but I’m sure in everyday life religion has a moderating effect on people. I’m sure that some asshat right now isn’t beating his wife because church is tomorrow. That’s a good thing, but utterly not worth the cost to the rest of society.
Not drawing Mohammad or stoning people that work on a Saturday are arbitrary things. I understand that religion and culture are intermixed, but the few rules that made sense in antiquity for stinking, illiterate animal-herders don’t necessarily make sense for today’s people and society. Keeping to them is simply counterproductive.
You aren’t really a Christian if you don’t believe really hard. I know there are half ass-ed believers. At my wife’s grandfather’s funeral I looked around while everyone was praying. A half dozen other non or casual believers like me were doing the same thing. Yet those guys pretend to be as Christian as the next guy when around others. But by being half-assed believers they aren’t the problem. The problem is the loons who really and truly think that the drivel is real.
People will find other outlets to practice cultural rituals if religion were gone. And they’d be freed of the outright bronze-age stupidity they’re trying to shoehorn into our world.
Who are you reacting to in this thread? Who is the OP reacting to?
More generally, if person A is a dick to you, how does that justify you being a dick to person B?
I believe that I was directly responding to Lord Ashtar’s commonly held religionist’s viewpoint of “Stop trying to tell other people what to believe and just live your own life.”, something most atheists would subscribe to in a New York minute if it were followed by both sides.
Quick questions. Is it a dick move to tell someone that astrology isn’t real?
What if that person is telling others to change their actions based on astrology?
What if a lot of people believe in astrology? Is it then a dick move to speak against it?
You mean “some other bullshit” like power, money, ambition, sex, spite, revenge, land, people, control, stupidity, miscommunication, resources, access, politics, history?
Yeah, that’s never happened.
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
Is it a dick move to tell someone that astrology isn’t real?
[/QUOTE]
I’m open minded on many things, but I’ll be damned if I think anybody can move the stars with their dick.
I’m not entirely certain what you’re trying to say, here. This post seems to be going in about four different directions at once, and I’m not sure which one is intended, and which ones are sarcastic.
(Sorry for the double post).
“Speak against” is one thing and “being a dick” is another.
As someone pointed out if I start a thread “Which are the water sign of the zodiac” itis a dick move to answer “horoscopes are for stupid motherfuckers”?
IT is a dick move to go into a “My cat died - sigh” thread nd say “all people who have pets are clinging to breathing safety blankets, snap out and embrace reality. Cats don’t love you”.
It might be true, but it’s being a dick.
I don’t know how you can say that. What religion are those people who think they are Christian but don’t believe really hard?
In general, though, I think you and I mean different things by “religion.” I don’t think it is sensible to take specific parts out of context. Stoning people who work on a Saturday is not arbitrary, because we can trace where it comes from. It may no longer be relevant, it may no longer be a good idea, but it’s not arbitrary. And you know what? Most Christians (and Muslims and Jews) are quite happy being religious and keeping the Sabbath in a much less rigid fashion. It’s the extremes that catch our attention.
Hey, may cat loves me!
Otherwise I’d agree with what you said.
I would say that a lot of people who claim to be religions aren’t really religious at all. They go through motions and do the social aspects without the solid belief in what they say. They are a muddy half measure between believer and non-believer. If you don’t actually believe Jesus had magic powers and transcended death you aren’t a very good Christian.
I’m not sure how the Sabbath isn’t arbitrary. It’s not based on any real necessity. It’s a nonsense rule that is given strength by religious belief. The problem with religions is that the lay believers, who are in large part social and non-ideological give power to the command structure who are ideological and fanatical. The pope’s might is based on the masses of cafeteria Catholics who use birth control and have abortions and cheat on their wives. But he uses that power to support the insane ideological causes of Catholicism, like increasing sexually transmitted disease and forcing poor people to have children they can’t afford.
The incursions of believers into secular society is what needs to be fought. If Jesus hates abortions then by all means, don’t have one. But to push to outlaw them for people who think Jesus is a fairy tale is where the evil of religion comes in.
There you go: you are reducing religion to belief alone, saying that people who lack that aspect of religion in sufficiently quality aren’t religious at all. That’s sort of like saying a pizza isn’t a pizza because it doesn’t have enough cheese.
Regarding the sabbath, you really don’t see how arranging a collective weekly holiday is potentially useful? I guess you don’t take weekends, then.
By the way, Jesus isn’t a fairy tale by any except the sloppiest definitions of “fairy tale.” Call him fictional or something.
For the record, I am not a Christian and I don’t believe in a personal deity who loves me, and I don’t think my life is the poorer for it. I just think your perspective on religion is heavily skewed toward aspects involving belief, and that you’re taking them more literally than the vast majority of believers.
This is exactly right. There are a bunch of atheists on this board that are every bit as evangelical and RIGHTEOUS in their belief as the worst of what they despise.
Most religions require belief in them as a requisite. I know Judaism doesn’t, but as I say, the Jews who don’t believe in the supernatural components of their faith aren’t the main problem. They mostly aren’t the idiots who are trying to ram superstition into the secular world.
I don’t see the value of murdering people who work on it.
If God is a sky pixie, then Jesus can accurately be called a fairy.
Again, if people are using a church to meet attractive singles in their community, they are still supporting the overarching organization who may be promoting disease, fighting science or generally trying to get people to stop thinking critically. Even lax parishioners have some culpability in religion’s evils. But they aren’t the main problem. The main problem are people who actually believe that garbage.
That suggests that religion and atheism are equal. They aren’t. Religion is about accepting factual assertions without evidence. Atheism is about not accepting those assertions.
One is rational, one is by its very nature irrational.
Translation: you prefer atheists who suck up to the religious and pretend that such blatant nonsense is actually worthy of respect just because it’s popular.
No, it’s not wrong and it’s never been “debunked”. Being accurate, how could it be? Religion is a fantasy held to as if it were true; it denies reality, and is by nature in conflict with science and everything else real.
Nonsense; religion encourages violence, along with every other form of evil or stupid behavior. It is a destructive force in the world. Its devotion to irrationality and delusion makes this inevitable.
Of course; the same principle as self defense. And as for what the OP is reacting to; religion all over the world is constantly inflicting death and suffering and oppression.
I’m not entirely certain what you’re trying to say, here. This post seems to be going in about four different directions at once, and I’m not sure which one is intended, and which ones are sarcastic.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t ignore the obvious. He’s pointing out that the believers always try to force their beliefs down everyone else’s throat, constantly inflicting the consequences of their madness on everyone else believer or not. Telling atheists to not criticize the beliefs of others and live their own life is just a self righteous way of telling them to shut up and take it like good little second class citizens. It’s a way of telling athiests that when the believers harass them , insult them or hurt them that they have no right to even complain.
No, that’s not true. I just prefer people who aren’t pig-ignorant. I’m certainly no apologist for religion. It’s just that as a subject it is a lot more complex, and a lot less dependent on belief, than you lot are suggesting. And it is not inherenty antithetical to science (though it certainly can be), but clearly you have made up your mind on that point.
God isn’t a sky pixie. Not all supernatural beings are equivalent. You wouldn’t say that a horse is a whale because both are mammals, but when something is imaginary suddenly you don’t have to think about it seriously. I’m talking about trying to understand intellectual constructs before dismissing them out of hand, and all you do is whine that they’re stupid. Isn’t it a basic priciple of science that you gather and categorize the evidence first, and then theorize based on everything, not just select criteria? Why should an ideational system be any different than particle physics?
All I’m saying is that you write as if you understand religion completely, but you clearly dismiss the socio-cultural and psychological aspects out of hand, and they are important.