(July 21, 2015 at 5:03 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(July 21, 2015 at 4:46 pm)BrokenQuill92 Wrote: The problem with newbie atheists is that they make us look like this guy

I don't intend for this to sound mean, but you do not post images properly.  A link to the page is not the same as a link to an image.  I do not know how easy or difficult it is for you to be able to get links for images that you wish to post.

In this case, the image link is:

http://i.imgur.com/tgLFLNh.jpg

Which gives us:

Is that the "amazing" atheist?

I got sick of his rants about the third video I watched.

(July 21, 2015 at 5:39 pm)Beccs Wrote: Is that the "amazing" atheist?

I got sick of his rants about the third video I watched.

Which is more than I could stomach.

(July 21, 2015 at 5:03 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(July 21, 2015 at 4:46 pm)BrokenQuill92 Wrote: The problem with newbie atheists is that they make us look like this guy

I don't intend for this to sound mean, but you do not post images properly.  A link to the page is not the same as a link to an image.  I do not know how easy or difficult it is for you to be able to get links for images that you wish to post.

In this case, the image link is:

http://i.imgur.com/tgLFLNh.jpg

Which gives us:

You do know I can't tell the difference?

(July 21, 2015 at 4:52 pm)Dystopia Wrote:

Quote:Of course the good deeds done due to religion count.  Now, tell me, how many good deeds does it take to balance against a beheading?  If you need more examples of the deeds caused by religion, you don't have to look very hard for them.  All you need to do is keep looking at Minimalist's threads in which he keeps adding atrocity after atrocity to the lists.  Or, if you want, you can search on your own.

Indeed, how many? is this about quantity or quality, after all? BTW, why should people who do nothing wrong be taken into account by what others decide to do? ...

That has already been addressed in a later post:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-34874-po...pid1001060

(July 21, 2015 at 4:52 pm)Dystopia Wrote:

Quote:Edited to add:

When smokers and drinkers start beheading others due to their smoking and drinking, then we can start to talk about how such things compare with religion.  But otherwise, it is a bullshit analogy.

Pyrrho, you're too smart for this - Are you seriously arguing that because one side does it worse, the other is ignorable? isn't that what anti-feminists do about women's issues in the west (that they even claim don't exist)? Tell me why I shouldn't feel bad about smokers being marginalized, just because some people have it worse?

That is not why the analogy fails.  If a smoker keeps his or her smoke to himself or herself, then that is just the person hurting himself or herself.  But with religion, it seems that no one keeps it to themselves, but seek to spread it, causing other people suffer the same illness.  If religious people only hurt themselves, I would not have a problem with it.

Of course, if we are discussing a rude smoker, who imposes his or her smoke on others, then those others have a right to complain about it and stop it.

(July 21, 2015 at 4:52 pm)Dystopia Wrote: How many people do behead? Are they a majority of theists? Again I ask, are communists responsible because one day some older communists decided that everyone who was a "traitor" should be executed and sent to gulags? Why should a Christian living in France even care or feel bad about what a retarded pastor in America says about gays? Why should a successful middle class Muslim living in Europe feel bad about what ISIS is doing? Why is religion special when it comes to harm, when it is merely one of the things that causes it?

In the case of religion, religious people are encouraging poor thinking in others.  And in the case of the typical Christian, they are encouraging other people to take the Bible seriously.  They can properly be blamed for their affects on others regarding such things.

As for things other than religion, obviously, religion is not the only source of evil (i.e., bad things happening, not some supernatural force).  But religion is a very significant source of evil, with its affects having a great preponderance of evil over good.


None of this is to suggest that religion should be outlawed or that religious people should be rounded up into concentration camps or any other such ridiculous and vile idea.  I mention this because you seem to be getting the wrong idea of what I am saying.

(July 21, 2015 at 5:45 pm)BrokenQuill92 Wrote:

---

(July 21, 2015 at 5:03 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: I don't intend for this to sound mean, but you do not post images properly.  A link to the page is not the same as a link to an image.  I do not know how easy or difficult it is for you to be able to get links for images that you wish to post.

In this case, the image link is:

http://i.imgur.com/tgLFLNh.jpg

Which gives us:

---

You do know I can't tell the difference?

I am aware of your blindness.  The difference, in this case, is between this:

http://imgur.com/tgLFLNh

And this:

http://i.imgur.com/tgLFLNh.jpg

If you have those read off to you as a series of letters and symbols, you will recognize that they are different things.  The first is a link to a web page, the second is a link to an image on that web page.  If you want to successfully post an image, you need to have the right link or it does not show up for others to see.  As I stated in my earlier post,  I do not know how easy or difficult it is for you to be able to get links for images that you wish to post.  If it is impossible for you to do so, then so be it.  But I thought you might want to know that your images were not showing up for others to see.  If you cannot get links to pictures and only links to pages, then it would be better to post it just as a link, rather than as a failed image.  If it is a link, people can just click on it, but a failed image takes more work for someone to find what it is supposed to be.

Eh, I agree that ex-believers are often pretty zealous. But in some cases they need to be. Some of them may simply be meeting the religious with the same level of fervor.

(July 21, 2015 at 5:01 pm)Dystopia Wrote:

Quote:Religions are all poisonous.  They all corrupt thinking.  They all depend on people not thinking clearly, and so they oppose clear thinking.

And that should be opposed.  Getting people to be unreasonable and believe nonsense, they are opening the door for the person to believe any other nonsense that they might stumble upon.  After all, they have been trained to avoid critical thinking, and so they are ready to believe other bullshit as well.  That preparation for believing bullshit is very dangerous and should be opposed.

If you replace "religion" by "other religions" (and pretend you were a Christian or something) your argument sounds exactly like what fundamentalist preachers say.

If they said that, they would by lying.  They advocate things like having faith (i.e., belief unsupported by evidence), just like the others.  It is the same type of reasoning, regardless of which religion we are discussing.  The problem is not so much the content of the beliefs, but how they are acquired.  Faith is a dangerous thing.  If you want, we can have a separate thread on that subject.  A more lengthy discussion of the issue is in an essay by William Kingdon Clifford called "The Ethics of Belief":

http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm

I will be happy to discuss that essay with you, in a thread devoted to that purpose.  Just let me know, and I will start one just for you.

(July 21, 2015 at 5:01 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Seriously, people need to start thinking before writing, you're basically advocating the inferiority of a group of people based on the fact that they have one tiny difference between them and you.

That seems so bizarre I hardly know how to respond.  But since you are not the only one who seems confused about my meaning, I presume that there must be something defective in my manner of expression in my earlier post(s).

But I will respond to your post as written.  Suppose we were to consider two groups of people:  Those who are murderers, and those who are not.  Is that one little difference enough to make some judgement about the inferiority of one of those groups?

But let us be a bit more serious.  I am not saying that someone who is not religious must be a better person than one who is religious.  I defy you to find me saying such a thing in this thread.  Or, indeed, in any thread, excepting possibly something stated in jest.

All religious people are not thinking properly.  That does not entail the idea that nonreligious people must be thinking properly.  And it does not mean that a nonreligious person cannot be completely reprehensible.

Frankly, I have no idea why you are supposing that I have the ideas that you evidently imagine me having.

(July 21, 2015 at 5:01 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Your slippery slope is ridiculous and fallacious, believing one bullshit claim doesn't mean you believe all bullshit claims, proof of that is theists who believe just one religion but not others.

And when did I state anything that contradicts that?  When have I stated that belief in one stupid thing entails belief in every stupid thing?

(July 21, 2015 at 5:01 pm)Dystopia Wrote: C'mon, where's the complex argument and studies, etc? Why should I believe your opinion (because that's what it is)? I've met far too many great theists in my life

Do you seriously imagine that I hate all theists?  My mother is a theist.  She did her best to raise me, in a manner that she thought was right and proper.  She is one of the nicest and best people I know.  But that is not due to her theism, and she would likely be nicer still if she did not have the religiously inspired bigotry she has toward some groups of people (e.g., gays, not that they would likely know it from meeting her, nor would she be stoning gays at the city gates).

You really are so far off the mark on this, I am having a hard time responding.  Were you the only person who has reacted in such a manner, I would question your reading comprehension in English, but as you are not, I can only suppose that there must be something wrong with my manner of expression previously.  And yet I do not know what it is, as I have not stated the things you seem to imagine.

(July 21, 2015 at 5:01 pm)Dystopia Wrote: - I know personal experience doesn't count as evidence, but I'm not proving anything, I'm just saying this sounds too much like a conspiracy theory for me to buy into it. The division between atheists and theists is insignificant compared to things like class and nationality. People are religious for all kinds of reason, and anyone who isn't retarded knows perfectly that religion appeals to people for many many reasons, otherwise no one would become religious in the first place - It's not a valid argument to say religion is poisonous and always opposes critical thinking because that's a hasty generalization and only serves the purpose of ridiculing - It doesn't work philosophically or scientifically - To back up your stance you would need to see every religion on earth and prove that every instance of religious thinking is anti-critical thinking.

You are now reasoning fallaciously.  Not every argument is deductive.  Inductive reasoning does not depend on an examination of every example to come to a conclusion that is reasonable.  Granted, an inductive argument does not give deductive certainty, but that does not mean that induction must be unreasonable.

(July 21, 2015 at 5:01 pm)Dystopia Wrote:

Quote:People do not murder or discriminate because of not being religious.  That does not mean that they cannot do bad things for other reasons.

No, but they can murder because they hate religion. That isn't worse or better than what religious nuts do. The doctrine people claim to follow isn't nearly as important as the damage they cause - I care about people's religion as much as I care about the murderer using a knife or a gun - It has some relevance, but nowhere near as much as the damage and suffering caused to the victims .

Okay.  At what point have I advocated the killing of theists or religionists of any type?  Do you see me making up excuses for killing them?  Do you see me advocating rounding them up into concentration camps?

Sure, someone can be an evil bastard without being religious.  That is obvious enough, and no one of sense will deny it.  That, however, does not gain any ground as a defense for religion.  That does not make religion good or even neutral.

I'm not going to lie, posting a link to Kingdon Clifford's essay and demanding others read it is annoying.

(July 21, 2015 at 9:06 pm)Pizza Wrote: I'm not going to lie, posting a link to Kingdon Clifford's essay and demanding others read it is annoying.

I am not demanding that anyone read it.  Why do you imagine that I am making such a demand?  I am posting it in case someone is interested in the subject.  If they are not, I expect that they will not read it.

Quote:That has already been addressed in a later post:

I'm sorry but I can't find answers to what I'm looking for in the linked reply. 

Quote:Obviously not.  When someone says that the Catholic Church is an international pedophile ring, they are not thereby committed to the idea that every Catholic is a pedophile.  Of course, by contributing money to the church, they are voluntarily helping to pay for hiding the pedophile priests, so they do not entirely escape blame merely by not directly molesting children themselves.

^This one


I'll say this though, I think that's a massive non-sequitur. As far as I know, there's many ways you can contribute to the church, and namely you can choose to whom you want to donate, and when, and where, and how - Donating to a local small church isn't necessarily corroborating with paedophilia. I'll make an analogy to make my point clearer - Recently in my country there have been reports of a minority of doctors exercising pediatrics that have been convicted in the past for child molestation - The law says clearly that this can't happen - Regardless, would you agree with me saying that everyone who pays healthcare is necessarily supporting paedophile doctors in the system? The majority of priests are not paedophiles. You can find all sorts of Catholic priests - There's priests who followed that path because once upon a time it was a reliable job and guaranteed minimum income (nowadays that doesn't happen as often except in very religious cities/zones/regions) but they may not believe; there's priests who have sex with women, have kids and hide it from society and the locals (I'm talking about consensual sex); there's priests who know Christianity is bullshit but can't drop the job because they have no qualifications for anything else; there's priests who genuinely think doing good and being nice is all that matters and support LGBT issues and women's rights; There's priests who believe the bible is the literal word of god, and there's priests who believe the bible is flawed because it was written by Humans; and of course there's priests who commit crimes, not only child abuse but also economic corruption - Now tell me, how is your argument anything but a hasty generalization? Why should local churches feel guilty if they (and their members) never condoned horrible crimes like paedophilia?

Quote:That is not why the analogy fails.  If a smoker keeps his or her smoke to himself or herself, then that is just the person hurting himself or herself.  But with religion, it seems that no one keeps it to themselves, but seek to spread it, causing other people suffer the same illness.  If religious people only hurt themselves, I would not have a problem with it.

Of course, if we are discussing a rude smoker, who imposes his or her smoke on others, then those others have a right to complain about it and stop it.

Who told you that people are hurting themselves in the first place? Delusions can feel good - Like drugs - The fact something is false doesn't mean that it's bad to use it for your pleasure. There's this vision going on in mainstream "atheism" and new atheism that believers are all (using the example of Christianity) bible-fearing Christians who pray everyday and follow scripture literally, hate gays, hate women and want atheists to burn in hell. The mainstream idea is that this is the model of a good christian and if a christian refuses to be like that he's not a very good one. Guess what? You only need to believe in the divinity of Jesus to be a Christian. There's no other requirement. Most people who identify as Christian in Europe don't go to church very often other than in special occasions like funerals, etc. A lot of Christians in Europe do criticize the church and even see it as a corrupt organization that doesn't speak the truth about religion and Christianity. You can be a Christian and be a lot of other things, there's nothing you can assume about a Christian aside from the fact they believe in the resurrection.

Why do you think that most believers do that? Because most believers I know don't even go to church often, let alone spreading the faith. Most Christians are employed, have kids, are married, they have lots of concerns in life and can't lose time preaching all the time, and many are not even interested in bothering others as long as they are not bothered. It is not an illness to believe in god - Sorry, I have to disagree with that. 

Yes, there are religious people who seek to spread the faith - But so what? It is perfectly natural for people to preach (this includes all of us) about what they think is true - The Pope does it, priests do it, politicians do it, Imams do it, random people at the coffee shop do it - Everyone does it, even Richard Dawkins writes books about what he thinks is right and wrong. If we want to live in a healthy society the important thing is that no one gets forced into anything they don't want - You seem to be "upset" that people want to spread religion - isn't it natural for people to convince others what they think is better for the world? Aren't you here doing that - Telling me and other members what you think about X or Y issue and thus implying that you think X or Y is better for Humankind and the world?

And trust me, the number of asshole smokers isn't very small

Quote:In the case of religion, religious people are encouraging poor thinking in others.  And in the case of the typical Christian, they are encouraging other people to take the Bible seriously.  They can properly be blamed for their affects on others regarding such things.

We all encourage poor thinking because no one is safe from dogma - And to believe we (ourselves, I and you, etc.) are the exception is very dangerous. Yes, Christians encourage dogma, but everyone is doing it, if it isn't religious dogma I can guarantee it's about something else. No one is exempt from groupthinking and dogmatic ideas. We all have them. I think religious people only encourage poor thinking if they force others to believe without choice or without the possibility to investigate and find answers - If the person being preached to searches answers and still decides to be religious, how is this an encouragement of poor thinking? I'm interested in a critical thinking society where people think and question most principles and rules - Whatever conclusion they may reach is up to them. 

Quote:As for things other than religion, obviously, religion is not the only source of evil (i.e., bad things happening, not some supernatural force).  But religion is a very significant source of evil, with its affects having a great preponderance of evil over good.

[color] [/color]
Is it? I see it as neutral. Religion is an institution that has been around for ages (possibly for evolutionary reasons) - It's not inherently good or bad, you can use it (and the government too) for anything you want, good, evil, neutral, to help, to kill, etc. I'm going to reverse your previous question - How many bad deeds does it take to compensate and match for a religious charity who gave money to help a child with cancer and saved his/her life? I have a problem with this idea and here it is:

To believe religion causes evil means believing it causes good as well. I refuse to accept the latter premise, therefore I must refuse the former. Does this make sense? I'm asking for an opinion. I think empathy and helping others, like evil and cruelty, is caused by our evolutionary traits - We are animals - Regardless of the reason (like religion, morality, principles, politics, etc.) I simply believe that people will commit evil, good and morally neutral actions anyway regardless of personal beliefs - Socialist countries declared/declare state atheism, they abhor the idea of believing in god, but they can still commit evil (though it is a debatable topic like you can see in the thread our new marxist member started in the "ask a..." sub-forum). If someone wants to commit evil, or good, they'll always find an excuse. If religion really caused evil, then we could expect that all of its believers behaved in an evil manner, or the other way around, but that just doesn't happen. The first thing you learn if you take a course in religious history/studies (I don't know how it is called in America) is that scripture doesn't determine your behavior - You determine what scripture means.

Quote:None of this is to suggest that religion should be outlawed or that religious people should be rounded up into concentration camps or any other such ridiculous and vile idea.  I mention this because you seem to be getting the wrong idea of what I am saying.

Oh I wasn't thinking you support those abhorrently vile measures - I'm sorry if I expressed myself poorly and shortly, I was in a hurry doing house chores and couldn't type everything down properly. I hope it is better now.

Quote:If they said that, they would by lying.  They advocate things like having faith (i.e., belief unsupported by evidence), just like the others.  It is the same type of reasoning, regardless of which religion we are discussing.  The problem is not so much the content of the beliefs, but how they are acquired.  Faith is a dangerous thing.  If you want, we can have a separate thread on that subject.  A more lengthy discussion of the issue is in an essay by William Kingdon Clifford called "The Ethics of Belief":

Well they think you're lying as well... Here's the definition of faith according to the Oxford dictionary:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...lish/faith

Quote:Complete trust or  in someone or something:

Quote:Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual  rather than proof:

There's more definitions inside the link.

Isn't faith something most of us have? The way I see it, we all have a tendency to have faith in something ,out of will or need - I may not have faith in religion, but I have faith my girlfriend loves me - I say "faith" because I don't have verifiable evidence that she, in fact, loves me - She can perfectly have dinner with me, go out with me, have sex with me, smoke cigarettes with me and still be lying or manipulating me - But I have faith she truly loves me. Is this necessarily unreasonable? I'm interested in that topic, if you wish, please start it - You seem more informed than me on the topic. Note I never said faith is "good" or that it doesn't have problems - Of course it has.

Quote:That seems so bizarre I hardly know how to respond.  But since you are not the only one who seems confused about my meaning, I presume that there must be something defective in my manner of expression in my earlier post(s).

Quote:But I will respond to your post as written.  Suppose we were to consider two groups of people:  Those who are murderers, and those who are not.  Is that one little difference enough to make some judgement about the inferiority of one of those groups?

It's probably my fault for being in a hurry.

It depends - Inferiority about what? Moral inferiority? Sure, murderers are morally inferior. Physical inferiority? It depends. Intellectual inferiority? It depends. Please specify what you want with the question.

How is murdering compared to a simple thought of believing in something - Specially considering all the understandable natural reasons to believe (like ignorance)?

Quote:But let us be a bit more serious.  I am not saying that someone who is not religious must be a better person than one who is religious.  I defy you to find me saying such a thing in this thread.  Or, indeed, in any thread, excepting possibly something stated in jest.

All religious people are not thinking properly.  That does not entail the idea that nonreligious people must be thinking properly.  And it does not mean that a nonreligious person cannot be completely reprehensible.

Frankly, I have no idea why you are supposing that I have the ideas that you evidently imagine me having.

You didn't say that, And I didn't say you said that.

Do you know that about 1/3 of the world's religions, including minor ones, don't require belief in god, right? If I presented you a religion that has little to do with believing in the supernatural but just requires following basic moral principles and meditation because it's good for your brain, would you say this is harmful or "without evidence"? (I think science says meditation can be good for people, if not please assume some innocuous activity instead of meditation). I just think you're making hasty generalizations. You are American, so you probably know more about Christianity (I get that, it's my case as well, being European and all...), but the three Abrahamic religions do not even represent the majority of the world's religions. Japan seems to be a healthy country with economic prosperity and high IQ, the majority of people are only atheist towards western Gods, but they practice Shinto (the Japanese religion) though most take it as a tradition and not as literally true - Would you say all Japanese are not thinking properly?

Quote:And when did I state anything that contradicts that?  When have I stated that belief in one stupid thing entails belief in every stupid thing?

Here -

Quote:And that should be opposed.  Getting people to be unreasonable and believe nonsense, they are opening the door for the person to believe any other nonsense that they might stumble upon.  After all, they have been trained to avoid critical thinking, and so they are ready to believe other bullshit as well.  That preparation for believing bullshit is very dangerous and should be opposed.

It's a quote from an earlier post, and you are implicitly saying that believing one nonsense leads to believing more nonsense.

Quote:Do you seriously imagine that I hate all theists?  My mother is a theist.  She did her best to raise me, in a manner that she thought was right and proper.  She is one of the nicest and best people I know.  But that is not due to her theism, and she would likely be nicer still if she did not have the religiously inspired bigotry she has toward some groups of people (e.g., gays, not that they would likely know it from meeting her, nor would she be stoning gays at the city gates).

No I do not think that.

Quote:You really are so far off the mark on this, I am having a hard time responding.  Were you the only person who has reacted in such a manner, I would question your reading comprehension in English, but as you are not, I can only suppose that there must be something wrong with my manner of expression previously.  And yet I do not know what it is, as I have not stated the things you seem to imagine.

Sorry for my hurried up replies - I think now we can continue this discussion and agree to disagree on some points - But note (I repeat) I'm not condoning religion or saying it is a good thing, I just don't think it is that bad...

Quote:You are now reasoning fallaciously.  Not every argument is deductive.  Inductive reasoning does not depend on an examination of every example to come to a conclusion that is reasonable.  Granted, an inductive argument does not give deductive certainty, but that does not mean that induction must be unreasonable.

Yes, but by saying things like "all religion is false" (I don't know if you said that, it's just an example) or that "all religious people are not thinking correctly" you should investigate a wide number of religions. Please consider the example I gave above about religions that don't require belief in god. Doesn't political ideology basically work like a religion, in some way?

Quote:Okay.  At what point have I advocated the killing of theists or religionists of any type?  Do you see me making up excuses for killing them?  Do you see me advocating rounding them up into concentration camps?

[color]
No, and I wasn't saying you said that.[/color]

Quote:Sure, someone can be an evil bastard without being religious.  That is obvious enough, and no one of sense will deny it.  That, however, does not gain any ground as a defense for religion.  That does not make religion good or even neutral.

I see it as neutral as explained above.

I see it differently - Let's check the example of racism - Racists will be racists, whether they believe in God or not - Some even use Darwinism to justify racism and deny/hate creationism and religion. Do you know there's neo-nazi punk and metal bands that see religion as horrible, specially Christianity, but still think white people are objectively superior to all other races? People will commit evil, and the specific doctrine they claim to follow is not as important as the damage they cause. Let's take the example of Muslim terrorists - There's Muslims who basically commit crimes because they believe in martyrdom and paradise, and then there's terrorists who (in interviews after failing) talk about Pakistan, Palestine, Iraq, wars, hunger and other terrible things - There isn't one single cause and many times religion simply fills the void, the empty space - It gives desperate souls something to believe and hope for - This is a well documented fact and religion works well for that purpose, governments have used it to keep people quiet when in deep crisis and times of war, hunger, political crisis, etc.