This is why I hate people who hate "fucking christians"

[Brakeman]

One could make it a mission almost, to spend one's time fighting against religion, and that in and of itself, becomes a belief system for that individual.

It's important to stand up for what is right, and not let religous factions take over public square, but it's another to focus one's attention on dismantling religion. It's here to stay. It's better to find ways to educate people as to what atheism is than to spend one's time discrediting religion.

So you think striving to bring reason and intellect to the forefront of society is folly? You think that those who push for the world to recognize reality are going too far and may create a "belief system" that is not reality based? That does not follow at all. A belief in religious context is a faith that something is true, despite contradictory evidence. Our skepticism will never lead us to a foolish belief system, only the cessation of our skepticism and a turn toward delusion and superstition will do that.

Religion is harmful to both individuals and society, it does not deserve quarter in any way. It deserves no respect at all.
"http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1fe_1310865020"

Warning: graphic content to follow.

---

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1fe_1310865020

---

Watch a few minutes of this and let me know if we should give this superstition some respect and just educate ourselves, but not decry their ignorance and evil.

[Owlix]

Can't we all just get a bong?

[*Deidre*]

One could make it a mission almost, to spend one's time fighting against religion, and that in and of itself, becomes a belief system for that individual.

It's important to stand up for what is right, and not let religous factions take over public square, but it's another to focus one's attention on dismantling religion. It's here to stay. It's better to find ways to educate people as to what atheism is than to spend one's time discrediting religion.

So you think striving to bring reason and intellect to the forefront of society is folly? You think that those who push for the world to recognize reality are going too far and may create a "belief system" that is not reality based? That does not follow at all. A belief in religious context is a faith that something is true, despite contradictory evidence. Our skepticism will never lead us to a foolish belief system, only the cessation of our skepticism and a turn toward delusion and superstition will do that.

Religion is harmful to both individuals and society, it does not deserve quarter in any way. It deserves no respect at all.
"http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1fe_1310865020"

Warning: graphic content.

---

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1fe_1310865020

---

Watch a few minutes of this and let me know if we should give this superstition some respect and just educate ourselves, but not decry their ignorance and evil.

First, don't twist or add to my wording, things I never said. I completely agree with everything you suggest here; of course educating people with reason is a worthy endeavor. My point is though there are atheists and agnostics who at first, make that their worthy cause but unfortunately, take a turn towards becoming anti-religious zealots. I will use myself as an example here. My desire to pursue reason and a genuine passion for science, is what led me away from religion. Keeping religion out of government and the public arena, is a battle worth fighting. But, not allowing people the right to religious freedom is not. And that, is my point.

It is not up to you or me to erase religion from the planet. It is up to us to help foster an environment that is inviting and causes religious folks to explore reason and science. Religious people deserve the freedom to follow their faith however, and I don't want to be a part of any "mission" that starts dictating to those who don't think as I do, to think as I do.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I, too, do not get your point, Deidre, in your previous post you said dedicating time to fighting religion would be a belief system and that it's more or less not a good use of time because it's here to stay. I don't believe it's a waste of time, I believe it's very important to keep society secular and if a society isn't secular fight for a society to be secular. That includes going out there and dismantling religious arguments, trying to convince others of our viewpoints and reducing religious influence on policies that affects everyone. You may think it's here to stay, and I'm not sure how you deduced that but many do not think so and think that it's a good investment to fight against religion, and I agree with them.

This has nothing to do with freedom of religion. In fact to ensure freedom of religion would require religions to withdraw their hands and reduce their influence on the government. Telling someone that their religion is bullshit does not violate their right to worship. Telling them to stop forcing their religion down others' throats is not violating their rights to worship either. If we see that they do something distasteful and want to say so on the internet it has nothing to do with freedom of religion either. I'm just confused because I don't think anyone on this thread has called for christians to not be allowed to be christians, so why is this issue of freedom of religion brought up?

In terms of disasters, I'm not sure who's responsible for this in the Philippines, but yea, disasters are disasters when the city is not prepared. I mean yes, you'd suffer damage definitely, but if you don't have proper buildings, water system, medicine, when disasters strike they're much worse. Most people who die from a disaster do not die because of what happened, they die later of infections, disease, etc. etc. resulting from dirty water, injuries that are not taken care of, being homeless, starvation, and things like that. Charity is of course important when disaster strikes, but we have to keep in mind that that is not the only time to do charity. And often the organizations doing these charities have the capabilities and resources to affect actual change that will help these countries be more self reliant, but for some reason, they continually give aid that doesn't affect permanent change. So, some of us who are more cynical would see that this is a way for these charities to boost their own image. I don't see why doing one good thing excuses them from taking money from the poor under false pretences and using the money to provide better lives for themselves that some of their parish cannot even afford, but I can see why they'll continue to do these good things if it helps them get away with it.

ETA: oh and about religion. It's not just it's effect on policies, it also affects many individuals on personal levels. There are people who give up medicine and believe in faith healing. There are those that are forbidden to marry the ones they love because they don't share religions. There are those who would marry their daughters off to their rapists because of religion. It's a real thing that people believe in and it's a very strong influence on people's lives. I personally believe that if I could convince these people that they are free to choose according to their own moral compasses, it's worth doing. So yea, it's worth discrediting religion.

[Jacob(smooth)]

I think I get the the point.

Atheism can never become a religion, by definition. However the group which identifies as atheists does stand in danger of developing some of the more loathsome characteristics of a religion.

Blanket denunciations, prejudice, persecution complex, paranoia, hyperbole which becomes interpreted as fact, patronising superiority, all aspects found in spades among theists. However I've caught a few whiffs of it on this forum too.

Don't underestimate the power of community. Whenever a group comes together from a common belief (or lack thereof) themes start to develop. A sort of gestalt personality, a shared ethos. That's what can turn sour.

You have seen it many times in religious groups across the world. The sheer variety of these group personalities should be Testament to the fact that they arise from the group, not the core belief. That's why the "God hates fags" brigade and the christians who stand at gay pride marches wearing "We're sorry for hateful Christians" signs can exist. They may share aspects of their faith but their religion, their shared identity and values, are diametrically opposed.


An atheist group or community is just as vulnerable to that as a theist one. To think otherwise is, I suspect, the slippery slope to which diedre alluded. You won't ever make a religion. But you are vulnerable to the same pitfalls.

[Zen Badger]

I would agree, look at atheism+ or the atheist churches springing up.

What a circle jerk.

But it only reiterates my view that humanity would would awesome if it weren't for all the people in it.

[Jacob(smooth)]

I would agree, look at atheism+ or the atheist churches springing up.

What a circle jerk.

But it only reiterates my view that humanity would would awesome if it weren't for all the people in it.

Yep. People are shite.

[Brakeman]

First, don't twist or add to my wording, ... Keeping religion out of government and the public arena, is a battle worth fighting. But, not allowing people the right to religious freedom is not. And that, is my point.

It is not up to you or me to erase religion from the planet. It is up to us to help foster an environment that is inviting and causes religious folks to explore reason and science. Religious people deserve the freedom to follow their faith however, and I don't want to be a part of any "mission" that starts dictating to those who don't think as I do, to think as I do.

I'm not wishing to twist your words at all, I'm hammering you to refine and clarify your proposal.

I haven't purported to push theists into Chinese style re-education camps or anything silly to take away any freedoms. Because people should have the freedom to think on their own, they should also have the "freedom" to be stupid and wrong. It is twisting the words of the conversation to insinuate that the AF forum, or the atheist community would ever purport to control others' minds. We simply counter those ideas that gods are the only way to a good future. We simply push dialog that reality is beater than magic and superstition. We push reason, but that is simply impossible to force on anyone. We certainly try hard to spoon feed it to the stubborn child-minded theists on this board, but there is no element of "force" involved, only dialog.

Since no one is purporting force, can you restate succinctly what about ancient misunderstanding of the world and institutionalized dishonesty (religion) should be unanswered by reasoned dialog because you think it goes too far?

An atheist group or community is just as vulnerable to that as a theist one. To think otherwise is, I suspect, the slippery slope to which diedre alluded. You won't ever make a religion. But you are vulnerable to the same pitfalls.

In most cases it would seem so, but not in this case because of the tools we use. There is no way to "overdose" on logic and reason. It's not even like water where you can drown. You only get into trouble when you diverge from logic and reason.

Rationality cannot be overdone, therefore there is no slippery slope and no hole to fall into. Once you enter the world of reality, you can't go too far inside.

[Jacob(smooth)]

First, don't twist or add to my wording, ... Keeping religion out of government and the public arena, is a battle worth fighting. But, not allowing people the right to religious freedom is not. And that, is my point.

It is not up to you or me to erase religion from the planet. It is up to us to help foster an environment that is inviting and causes religious folks to explore reason and science. Religious people deserve the freedom to follow their faith however, and I don't want to be a part of any "mission" that starts dictating to those who don't think as I do, to think as I do.

I'm not wishing to twist your words at all, I'm hammering you to refine and clarify your proposal.

I haven't purported to push theists into Chinese style re-education camps or anything silly to take away any freedoms. Because people should have the freedom to think on their own, they should also have the "freedom" to be stupid and wrong. It is twisting the words of the conversation to insinuate that the AF forum, or the atheist community would ever purport to control others' minds. We simply counter those ideas that gods are the only way to a good future. We simply push dialog that reality is beater than magic and superstition. We push reason, but that is simply impossible to force on anyone. We certainly try hard to spoon feed it to the stubborn child-minded theists on this board, but there is no element of "force" involved, only dialog.

Since no one is purporting force, can you restate succinctly what about ancient misunderstanding of the world and institutionalized dishonesty (religion) should be unanswered by reasoned dialog because you think it goes too far?

An atheist group or community is just as vulnerable to that as a theist one. To think otherwise is, I suspect, the slippery slope to which diedre alluded. You won't ever make a religion. But you are vulnerable to the same pitfalls.

In most cases it would seem so, but not in this case because of the tools we use. There is no way to "overdose" on logic and reason. It's not even like water where you can drown. You only get into trouble when you diverge from logic and reason.

Rationality cannot be overdone, therefore there is no slippery slope and no hole to fall into. Once you enter the world of reality, you can't go too far inside.

That presumes two things. One is that logic and reason are the only tools people use (they are not) and two is that only the tools people use define them as a group. Surgeons use scalpels. That's separate from the fact that a group of surgeons tends to exhibit signs of arrogance. That's not because of the tools they use, it's the group dynamic.

[Brakeman]

Can't we all just get a bong?

Sorry, it's one of my raw nerves that people assume we should respect wrong headed ideas like religion but not respect other wrong headed ideas like alchemy or phrenology.

Incorrect ideas should always be countered with better ideas in the greater society, there is no benefit for attachment to error.

For the individual there may be reason to soft pedal. I do the same with my father, an ex-pastor of the southern baptists. We have a truce because at his age, being shown that his whole life was a lie, might have a poor effect on him. Yet he knows I don't abide by any bullshit.

---

That presumes two things. One is that logic and reason are the only tools people use (they are not) and two is that only the tools people use define them as a group.

Bullshit, name these two tools that atheists use that might define them and could lead to a negative outcome if overused.