You know what... I'm seriously done with this thread. I'll just leave it to Despanan because clearly Saya and others are just going to continue trying to stuff my points with straw or to paint me with an incorrect brush.

1. Government and policy making should be categorically secular

2. Scriptures are broken and should be left to consider that maybe one's own critical thinking is more worthy to follow than a scripture laced with bigotry

3. A secular charity will always be a better charity than a religious based one as it would be truly more altruistic, though it may not get the same results*

4. Being an atheist is the rejection of the existence of a supernatural. It could only go to show that the logical event horizon of an atheist would be that to be a theist or superstitious in any measure would be at best a very minor character flaw. I can't say that being religious is okay. That gives religion a chance to be right and well... if I don't think it is right or real, then logic dictates this.

*As far as getting results from a charity is concerned, our modern society is still very steeped in religion. A faith based charity would CLEARLY yield more charity work BECAUSE things such as atheism is not even CLOSE to a normative world view. Religion still has a larger pool of willing bodies and minds. Atheism's still taboo and to judge the worthiness of atheist thinking or even theist thinking in a society as it is now is silly, because this society is still skewed to assume that SOME kind of religion HAS to be right before a lack of faith is right. Society views spiritualism as a necessity still and as an atheist, I find that to be one of the flaws of our current society.

*tosses Despanan the keys to the thread*

I'm leaving the thread, dude. Don't forget to lock up when you're done.

In my experience Vind, the philosophy behind your mission trip is not uncommon.

I remember when I had a conversation about my fundraising work for Active Water with a christian friend of mine. I was telling him all about the charities work with building wells in Zambia, and the AIDS clinics they were setting up. His response was to say (very earnestly):

"But they use some of that money to build churches, right?"

In his eyes, converting people to Christianity was more important than helping them get a steady supply of clean drinking water. And this guy is more than a decent person.

The thing is, if you believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and follow the scripture of the bible, then you must believe that this world is temporary and suffering and death here is intrinsically less important than how someone will spend eternity. Therefore, the only logical conclusion one can draw when using a christian worldview as their operating principal is that making sure that someone makes it to heaven and/or avoids hell IS infinitely more important than helping them improve their own temporal lives/community.

This attitude isn't even necessarily bigoted or evil, depending upon the person. I would say that the Catholic charities threatening to with hold their services if Homosexual adoption is permitted, is monstrous. However, in a Catholic's mind, they may simply believe that it's better for a child to grow up without parents than risk Hell due to the temptation of a homosexual lifestyle.

Do all faith-based charities operate in this manner? probably not, but if they really believe in the normative christian view and the Bible's scripture, this conclusion is pretty much inevitable.

As long as: "I am the way, the truth, and the light; no one comes to the father, except through me" reigns supreme in a person's mind, helping the downtrodden will always be secondary to saving their souls, no matter how kind or compassionate a person they may happen to be.

Now considering the fact that in all likelyhood, Jesus was not divine, God does not exist, and all of this is just a collection of superstitions based on the writings of pre-historic desert nomads, you can see why it's so important to operate with the correct view on reality, and why Kontan and I rail so hard against superstition. Regardless of what kind of a person you are, it is genuinely dangerous, to yourself and others to have a fiction like this as your operating principal.

You can see why Kontan and I would have a problem with a statement like:

"As long as it inspires you to be a good person, what's the harm in believing in a God(s)?" and why we are passionate about this particular topic.

Well that example is exactly where I start to see how Christianity and religions like it, are actually dangerous and harmful to mankind.

If everything, including life itself is unimportant...then we're pretty much doomed. Last night I was watching "The Atheism tapes" with Jonathan Miller, and English philosopher Colin McGinn was talking about this exact topic. The world, especially the US is not able to see Christianity as dangerous due to the fact that it is still so embedded into us. But it is VERY harmful, especially when you look at how many deaths have been dealt with in the name of God.

I mean when you look at the statistics that alone is good reason to not want to participate. But my favorite thing in the show, was when Steven Weinberg explained how even though he didn't believe in God, he didn't like God and doesn't understand how anyone else could truly love, and adore someone who has such a bad personality. :)

Yeah, Yahweh is kind of like an insane, over-controlling boyfriend:

"I love you baby, more than anything, and I don't want to hurt you, but if you don't love me back with all of your being, I'm gonna hit you so hard you'll feel it TOMORROW.

It won't be my fault, it'll be yours. Don't make me hurt you baby because that will make me so damn sad.

Also, you've gotta change the way you dress, eat, and make sure you wear your hair the way I like it"

Hahahah!!!!

Someone needs to post a picture of Jesus dressed like a pimp.

I'm sure there has to be one out there...if not I should make one.

I would like to follow that up with:

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z...her/whores.jpg

"Is Christ gonna have ta choke a Bitch?"

I bet he really knows how to nail bitches.

I think you guys are confusing religion with what people do with it. A religion is created, and then it gets into the hands of A Twat and they ruin it for everyone else.

Now you've just gone and made me a liar. Lady, this is one of the stupidest fucking things I've ever read.

Religion, especially the abrahemic ones, were created originally as a code of laws within the original culture. They made their code of laws a divine mandate, making it much more potent. But... you have no idea what you're talking about. You're once again, being a sensitive douche and appealing to a koombaya attitude as if it's somehow better to be polite and permissive than it is to being right. Religion wasn't made to make people feel better, it was made to control and guide behavior and culture.

Religion without divine mandate or without a sense of concrete law is pretty much just philosophy. You know, ideas to be considered, but can be ignored if you don't find them applicable.

This statement is almost as stupid as all of Saya's participation in this thread. She was dumb, but you're being dumb on a much more concentrated level.

I'm talking about things like crusades, or even things like "God hates gays," which in Christianity, at least, has been superceded by "Love thy neighbour" and "Judge not." Things that have been cherry picked, or done in God's name that rather go against the message of the scriptures.

*Buries head in art again*

And no, I'm not desperately well-versed in religion, because most of what I know of it I know through art history. I'm about 90% atheist, 9% agnostic, 1% other, and believe firmly in the ability of humanity to do things of great good, great beauty, and great evil. I hate it when people go out and try to convert people (whether by sword or by fear), but I think it's fine if someone goes to them and asks, "What's this all about?" and then converts or doesn't.

I guess I am curious and wonder about religion, but it's just not that important to me. I've got art to think about...

I'll read some stuff and get back to you.

LaBelle - it's no use trying to argue with someone whose entire argument is "You are dumb because of your beliefs" because they are too self-righteous. It is the same as those religious folks who say "Well my religion is better than yours, and to prove it I'm going to get a rocket laucher and destroy everyone in your religion".

And yeah before you say it Kontan I know you think I'm friggin' dumb and stupid and I don't give a rats ass what you think.

It's very telling that you're accusing them exactly of the opposite they're complaining about.
Time and time again they've said that they don't pragmatically mind religious fervor if it is put to good use, but the goodness of it by definition extends from its humanist undertones and the religious overtones are merely inconsequential, or at worse, counterproductive.

They're complaining about the very essence of religiosity, demanding an answer as to what would make religious goodness better than just human goodness.
And here you are accusing them about complaining only of what bad people do with religion?
Then answer me instead of them - there's no room for misunderstanding my point. This is the first concentrated post in this recent argument and I'm explicitly stating you the problem:
Tell me one sole legitimate reason for me to appreciate religiously fueled good deeds? Show me one sole example of a good deed that made better precisely by its religiosity?




Is it?
Do religious extremists give you logical reasons to construe their stance as the point-zero of further knowledge?
Do they appeal to induction, empiricism, the scientific method, or Occam's Razor?
Isn't it clear that you're just being hyperbolic at your attempt to feel superior to either of these two kinds of people?
For an objective person, wouldn't it be more accurate to compare them to a very jaded misanthrope who says "You've pissed me off with your inconsistent rationalizations that I won't have any burden on my conscience when I drive a sledgehammer through your nut sack" ?
Of course, if you think that saying
"to prove it here's infinite examples that your bullshit is inconsistent"
and
"to prove it I'm going to get a rocket laucher and destroy everyone in your religion"[sic]
are somehow even marginally analogous then yeah, you're 'friggin' dumb and stupid' because you actually fucking believe any type of antagonism towards you is exactly the same: from a scoff to FUCKING GENOCIDE. It's all the same to you because it's against you, right?

Thanks for explaining that Alan. Good to know someone is getting this.

Okay Belle,

Alan pretty much already said this, and I already said it time and again, but I'm going to make it very simple.

Imagine this:

Take a good person, who really only wants to help their fellow man. They run an orphanage because they want t help kids without families. Now leave that good person the same, except they were raised Christian and believe in the bible. Because of the bible, they now believe that Homosexuality is a sin, and because the majority of religious communities reject homosexuals, children raised by homosexuals will have a much higher chance of rejecting Jesus. Since they believe that without Jesus, everyone goes to hell they relinquish their services because the government tells them they must allow gay adoption.

All they ever wanted to do was help the children, but no, those kids will grow up without loving parents; all because these otherwise good peole believed in Jesus and the bible.


I'm not saying religion is a good thing that bad people pervert, I'm saying religion is a BAD thing which perverts otherwise good people into being bad and makes bad people even worse.

Got it?

Fruitbat, you're incorrect. You're making the mistake by thinking firstly that atheism is a kind of religion. That's not true. It's a lack of faith/religion.

Also, I never said or even want to destroy people or physically hurt people because they're superstitious. Though I guess I am hurting some egos and some pride. I'm not being self-righteous, actually. I'm simply saying that because I'm an atheist, I'm acknowledging the superiority of my stance when it comes to religion. It states a negative and every other belief that one may hold is the one with the burden of proof, not me. The reason this is so and why it seems like I'm being self-righteous is because I CAN'T in good conscience say that it's inherently okay to be a theist. That would be me admitting that there is something possibly wrong with my lack of belief in the supernatural. At the least, I think people who are religious have a minor character flaw. It's not something worth killing or hurting people over. But you can't expect me to give their beliefs a courtesy or a level of respect it doesn't deserve.

Don't confuse me for being the same as an evangelical on the other end of some kind of spectrum. That's just not true.

I think it really speaks to our argument that there doesn't seem to be anything these people can bring to the table except the same tired straw-man.

I hereby declare victory. You all owe Kontan and I 50 internets each.

So what sort of supernatural things don't you believe in? (curious - don't shoot me down for asking a question).

What sort of character flaws are you talking about?

In my experience with religious folks, there is a lot of espoused theory and theory in practice anomolies.

I read the incorrect tone from what you guys were writing.

What I was trying to get at (while I was being attacked by a toddler) was saying "you are dumb" is not an argument. It closes people down to hearing what you have to say.

No one is dumb - they just either don't understand what you are saying (unclear communication) or else they have never considered the options before.

People have a right to their own beliefs and despite how much either of us think those beliefs are dumb, we can't change others beliefs. (Although we can plant seeds of doubt/alternative ideas in their minds and watch them grow).

Alan I love your use of big words. They make my brain hurt. (sorry to spoil your fun but I'm not biting).

I was addressing LaBelle because of what Kontan wrote in his post (below).

Desp Man, 50 internets???? Can I knit you a scarf or something?

Wow dude, what types of words do you consider long?
I've read and reread my post and I cannot find a word you might object to.

Since Kontan is out, I'll field this one:

The ones which have no evidence and can't be proven. Ghosts, leprechauns, unicorns, and Jesus. Etc.

The one where you believe in a superstition so much that you base your life on it.

Our argument was never "you are dumb" or "Christians are dumb". I stated that on the second page. Our argument was that Christianities scripture was clearly broken due to being blatantly self-contradicting, and thus why should any reasonable person use it as a guide for life and base their politics on it, let alone believe it's true.

WTF is this kindergarten bullshit? PLENTY of people are dumb. Plenty of people lack intelligence.

That's what we're doing you friggin' moron! We have the right and the DUTY to point out just how stupid those beliefs are. Will doing so change the mind of a true believer? Of course not. But if we mock them and expose them for what they are, we can hope to convince fence-sitters, and make their beliefs politically and socially irrelevant.

No. Also, every week you don't pay up, you'll incur 15% interest. We can talk about temporary deferment if you can show that you're on foodstamps and seeking full-time employment.

Well... I don't believe in the supernatural at all. I figured you could glean that from the discussion. This question is rather redundant.



Well clearly, I think those that are superstitious or actually believe in the supernatural. That is their character flaw. Depending on how seriously they take it determines the degree of that character flaw.

My language was indeed incendiary, but I was taking a hard stance on this. Not being incendiary would done nothing different in the discussion. As you can see, even the most secular of theists on here saw me as an opponent and saw me as incorrect. This thread was pretty much offensive from the get go. I knew what I was getting into. And technically, no. You don't have a right to your beliefs or your opinions because if you did, I'd have to observe certain duties to enforce that right such as considering their beliefs or opinions and concluding that they are right. But we can't have that. I'd love to expand on this, but someone pointed out the fallacy of the argument that people are entitled to their beliefs and opinions a long time ago. I wish I could find it. I think it'd be incredibly relevant in this thread. I had no intentions on being nice about this.

You see, this is why I don't like you and think you're dumb. Any dipshit can understand what Alan wrote, yet you lack the comprehension skills to grasp very basic communication. You must have the intellect of a horse.



He already has a scarf. Dude sports this faggy home-made harry potter scarf all the time. Internets. Stand and deliver, ho.

Same old shit, different day.

Yet another day in your fractured Psyche.

Don't you ever get tired of talking to yourself?

Nigga, why don't you say something?

Ah you guys are hiliarious. Yeah call me whatever you like - it ain't like I haven't heard it before.

You haven't answered me. Where the fuck did I use long words?

@ Alan: Dude, it was any of the words that had up to three letters or more.

Fruitbat's not going to answer us in any meaningful sense. I highly doubt LBDSM or Corpsey (1 or 2) or anyone else will either. We've pretty much smashed any and all rational arguments. They're really just left with straw-men and fallacious dismissals.

There's no point in arguing. Refer to dead horse image above.

Fruitbat, you're right. There's no point in arguing now. Desp and I have won.

I lose internet for two days and the place falls to an orgy.

Yeah, sorry. I tend to do that when you aren't around.

...Thats what everyone says :(

It's so easy for you to tell me which words you found long.
It's also so easy to apologize for saying that criticizing one's bullshit inconsistent beliefs is the same as fucking genocide


It's not that 'there's no point in arguing.'
It's that you're too proud to admit you were wrong.

Ya know, I realy WOULD like to have this answered:

I don't think Alan going to get an answer, mind you. I'd just like to point out that that's a damn good question.

Jillian gets a gold Star. :D

Well, it is odd how Christ's death in association to removing everyone's sin through baptism seems a lot like a blood ritual to perform a magical cleansing cerimony.

This.
It makes me think of all the Christians who try to convert people because their beliefs are wrong and/or inferior, and are perceived to be a threat. Trying to browbeat people by calling them stupid and generally being incendiary (to use Kontan's term) will not get you very far, if anywhere. Reasonable discussion, rather than contempt, will get you a much broader audience.
Think of it as planting a seed of doubt in soil you haven`t salted or otherwise abused.

I am not arguing that religious charity is better than secular charity. I am arguing that they both have the potential to be good, and they both have the potential for flaws.
I *am* arguing that going to a place with a bunch of other people every week where they announce charitable opportunites makes people more likely to do it because it's convenient.
I know that you guys have done a whole bunch of charity work, and I commend you on that - I really do, and wish I had the energy to do more for my fellow humans. It's just that a lot of people (like me) are lazy bums and don't really go hunting for such things, and if the opportunity to do charity work is presented to such lazy bums, more of them are more likely to go out and do it. Not all, but more.

Alan - Nothing makes religious goodness better than human goodness.

So you admit that religion is actually indefensible?


Also
Guide me through this. First you negatively compare Kontan to religious zealots trying to convert others... and then... you tell him that he's not using methods that will convert anyone?
So basically.... he's not proselytizing after all then, or how does this logic work?

You know what... I'm beyond talking to you. If you said this to my face, I'd spit in your eye and you'd deserve it for saying such stupid shit.

What I'm doing is not EVEN the same fucking thing. You take the language out of context and try to put a spin on it, saying that an action that's nearly identical is indeed the same action because the context itself is meaningless. Well mother FUCK you. You really are stupid.

Then you admit that religion is pretty much pointless because human goodness would be there with or without it. So WHY IN FUCK would you ever consider religious goodness to ever be okay or even the same thing? Are you superstitious? Are you spiritual or religious? If not, then you're on the wrong side, toots.

But I get it. You don't care about what I'm actually saying, you're just butthurt because I'm also being a dick and picking on people while I prove point after point. Fuck me being right, KK is being a dick about it, so we have to keep railing against him even though we know he's right.

Do you realize how insanely stupid your position actually is if the only reason you're challenging me is because you don't like the way I'm delivering my points?

Jesus fucking Christ. Going by your logic, we should teach creationism right next to evolution in science classes and let the kids decide which one is right.

I'm not saying religion is indefensible, as long as people don't harm others with it. Bigotry IS indefensible, reprehensible and problematic.
I don't do religion, but I don't begrudge other people their religious beliefs. I can live with other people believing in God, as long as they don't push it on other people or use it as a reason to hurt others.

I'm saying Kontan is trying to proselytize, but is using methods that cause people to generally say "Fuck you" and stomp off.

Fuck you....

I believe in God.

Jesus fucking christ.

Look. The word indefensible has an actual definition. It means it cannot be justified. That it simply cannot be defended as being valid.
If it is true that there's no instance of religious good being better than simple human good, then it is fucking indefensible. There's no justification for religion being the guiding factor of your ethics. It's quite simple.

Fuck you Bob. Go lose another election or film another Viagra commercial.

You're using arguments which have already been refuted in this thread.

We've already discussed why it's not correct to refrain from criticizing religion out of politeness, and why it's NOT okay for someone to be religious even if they're not a dick about it.

You really have no case, so all you're doing now is attempting character assassination on Kontan because he's being inflammatory.

Stop it.

That assumes the sole purpose of religion is to make immoral people moral.