RE: Does Atheism Need to be Rebranded?
April 10, 2012 at 11:09 pm
(This post was last modified: April 10, 2012 at 11:11 pm by Shell B.)
(April 10, 2012 at 10:58 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "Heroin gives those people comfort, why should we take that away from them?" hehehehe.
Haha,
Man, we're good at this. If you want to start suggesting that religion will eventually kill everyone who uses it heavily, you'll have yourself an argument. Quote:I'm not looking to rob anyone of their comfort, and if they find comfort in religion I can't rob them off it by "robbing" them of a god anyway, because there isn;t any god doling out the comfort to begin with.
No, there is no god doling out the comfort, but fucked if feeling alone is not a horrible feeling. Kids have imaginary friends to keep them company. So do adults. Kids blame the bad things they do on their imaginary friends. So do adults. So, you're against religion, but unlikely to try to strip the world of religion? Really, it's not such a bad stance to have. Again, I'm just trying to understand it.
Quote:They are comforting themselves, and I'm fairly confident that they would continue to do so. Unless you want to propose that even though all the bad shit would be there if religion were gone, the good shit wouldn't.
Oh, come on. You wouldn't expect such a shoddy argument from me, would you? Sure, the good would still be there. People would find a way. I just don't see how a little religious reform wouldn't do the same thing. We can start with the Vatican.
(April 10, 2012 at 11:08 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If someones religious thoughts and feelings are disgusting to me, then I am anti-"their thoughts and feelings", aren't I? So what? Doesn't stop them from having them. Sometimes people think things that bother the shit out of me Shell, it isnt the thinking that bothers me, it's the things being thought. Religion is a long list of things being thought. Ergo anti-theist.
We are talking about anti-religion right (that's the second time I've asked this for the same reason). You equate anti-religion with anti-the group(the religious). I equate anti-religion with anti-religion (the thing). I'm not talking about something unrelated to your comment, I'm suggesting that your idea of anti-religion may be a bit of a mix-up. There are religious people who are positively pleasant otherwise (and the same is true of Klansman, as I've already mentioned). That doesn't make their position with regards to religion any more palatable.
That's the point, Rhythm. I don't understand where you are coming from and am trying to. Now, religion is the product of human minds. It's only way of existing is through the people who believe in it. How is it possible to be against religion, but not against the religious?
