This Has to Stop

[Astonished]

The ideology is poisonous and maintaining and spreading it is pretty much evil regardless of intent or opinion on it. It can't be ignored. So there comes a point where separating the ideology from its agents is not feasible. There's just different levels of both motivation and means. So someone like Ken Ham is a far greater concern than yourself or CL but the two of you are still, whether unwittingly or not, contributing to something that has historically been doing nothing but harm to humanity and still does to this day in more ways than previously. Imagine if the entire world was awakened to the reality of the falsehood of faith; the Vatican would finally pay for their crimes and the money they've hoarded can be seized and put into humanitarian aid instead of squandered on the wretched scam it all is, among other things that would actually help. Every day you refuse to get on board with that is one more raped kid because someone in a position of ill-gotten power isn't being kept from them, as far as I'm concerned.

---

Still getting the hang of this. That religion has been used as a means for pedophiles, perverts and other degenerates to get access to their victims is, without doubt, a sorry fact. Fact - Many Atheists are good upright people. This, however, does nothing to prove that God does not exist, nor does it prove that Atheism has a beneficial effect on society (but it does not exclude the possibility either). Some terrible crimes have been committed by Atheists and obviously, it would be false to conclude that Atheism has a negative effect on society. The same applies to Theism.
I agree with your conclusion about the Vatican, and it applies equally to the Benny Hinns, Crouch's and other money grabbing cretins out in the religious sphere. I may well be wrong, but I think Ken Ham is a genuine believer in Christ and would do nothing to harm a child or use Christianity to feather his nest.
But this does not prove or disprove the existence of God either.  It's taken me a while to get to the point but it is this. Hating people who believe in the existence of a creator and seek to do well is not that far removed from an Islamist who seeks jihad and desires to kill all who do not agree with his concept of Allah.
So i do believe that in some (but not all cases) we need to separate the agent from their ideology and accept them as a fellow human being with all its accompanying frailties.

The point is, when you base your beliefs on bullshit, anything goes and anything can be justified. So ditching that nonsensical insanity is the only rational or ethical thing to do.

Your pointing out atheists doing bad things is irrelevant. Atheism in and of itself is a meaningless term as far as describing anyone's beliefs about anything other than gods, there is nothing preventing them from believing in other woo crap nonsense that borders on how outlandishly ridiculous religions are. If you want to make an actual relevant point, try finding a secular humanist and rational skeptic (without some sort of mental condition) who's got a proclivity for the universally distasteful and then we're talking. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Also you've made the shifting of the burden of proof fallacy so please, try to avoid that if you want to be taken seriously. I see you say you're new at this kind of thing so that's a free tip. You would do well to look up an index of all the various fallacies you'll have undoubtedly either already made or contemplated making so you can avoid looking foolish. It's not like your side has any arguments but at least admitting you want to believe in something for no good reason is better than lying about why you do (but not by much).

I'd also like to know in what way separating a person from their ideology prevents a suicide bomber from annihilating an entire busload of people. The ideology being the problem that infects those who hold it, like a pernicious disease that spreads like wildfire. There's no medicine or cure that works 100% of the time, only a vaccine (i.e. NOT indoctrinating them in the fucking first place) that is commonly refused by parents just like all the completely batshit anti-vaccination retards. Why anyone would be okay perpetrating that same level of crazy is beyond me but we see it all too frequently and that's why this whole mindset hasn't gone extinct, otherwise we'd probably see it evaporate within a single generation. It would be great if your beliefs existed in a vacuum but they don't, they have real-world consequences on a macro scale. So when you become an agent of perpetuation, it's no longer just passive, it's an act of direct violation against someone who isn't prepared to critically examine reality and will be affected likely for their entire life.

If you want to try and claim that it's just a matter of reforming the faith, stop. That isn't going to cut it. The entire foundation is built on rancid manure. It'll just keep sinking into the shit. Toss the ancient scrolls and use your modern, enlightened sensibilities and you'll have a much more solid footing. Don't be deluded into thinking religious morality is anything special, it's only because it's been so watered-down by secularism that you're not still burning my kind at the stake for heresy.

So go ahead and continue to be pick 'n mix, I may still resent you for being naive and the passive part of the movement to prevent things from getting any better, but I don't care enough to wish you were getting prison-raped like I do about an asshole like Ken Ham and his ilk. I don't see you defending him and the like as far as their indoctrination methods and how much influence they have and their scams like that horrid Ark Park, so that's at least something positive (but you're inexcusably naive if you think he's not doing it to pad his wallet, whether he genuinely believes or not, and that's a hard point to argue but doesn't diminish the harm he does). But my drunk driver analogy holds true; just because you reach a different conclusion than him doesn't mean you're not still using the same means (i.e. bullshit). He's just the equivalent of the unfortunate prick who hits someone on the way home while you're the lucky sod who makes it home safe even when you're also well over the limit. You're not morally superior since it's only by accident that you've reached a better conclusion than him (although that's not really the case unless you well and truly believe you only get your morals from your religion and nowhere else, which in reality, no one does; but if you want to claim otherwise, you've got to face that ugly truth.)

[beepete]

---

Still getting the hang of this. That religion has been used as a means for pedophiles, perverts and other degenerates to get access to their victims is, without doubt, a sorry fact. Fact - Many Atheists are good upright people. This, however, does nothing to prove that God does not exist, nor does it prove that Atheism has a beneficial effect on society (but it does not exclude the possibility either). Some terrible crimes have been committed by Atheists and obviously, it would be false to conclude that Atheism has a negative effect on society. The same applies to Theism.
I agree with your conclusion about the Vatican, and it applies equally to the Benny Hinns, Crouch's and other money grabbing cretins out in the religious sphere. I may well be wrong, but I think Ken Ham is a genuine believer in Christ and would do nothing to harm a child or use Christianity to feather his nest.
But this does not prove or disprove the existence of God either.  It's taken me a while to get to the point but it is this. Hating people who believe in the existence of a creator and seek to do well is not that far removed from an Islamist who seeks jihad and desires to kill all who do not agree with his concept of Allah.
So i do believe that in some (but not all cases) we need to separate the agent from their ideology and accept them as a fellow human being with all its accompanying frailties.

The point is, when you base your beliefs on bullshit, anything goes and anything can be justified. So ditching that nonsensical insanity is the only rational or ethical thing to do.

Your pointing out atheists doing bad things is irrelevant. Atheism in and of itself is a meaningless term as far as describing anyone's beliefs about anything other than gods, there is nothing preventing them from believing in other woo crap nonsense that borders on how outlandishly ridiculous religions are. If you want to make an actual relevant point, try finding a secular humanist and rational skeptic (without some sort of mental condition) who's got a proclivity for the universally distasteful and then we're talking. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Also you've made the shifting of the burden of proof fallacy so please, try to avoid that if you want to be taken seriously. I see you say you're new at this kind of thing so that's a free tip. You would do well to look up an index of all the various fallacies you'll have undoubtedly either already made or contemplated making so you can avoid looking foolish. It's not like your side has any arguments but at least admitting you want to believe in something for no good reason is better than lying about why you do (but not by much).

I'd also like to know in what way separating a person from their ideology prevents a suicide bomber from annihilating an entire busload of people. The ideology being the problem that infects those who hold it, like a pernicious disease that spreads like wildfire. There's no medicine or cure that works 100% of the time, only a vaccine (i.e. NOT indoctrinating them in the fucking first place) that is commonly refused by parents just like all the completely batshit anti-vaccination retards. Why anyone would be okay perpetrating that same level of crazy is beyond me but we see it all too frequently and that's why this whole mindset hasn't gone extinct, otherwise we'd probably see it evaporate within a single generation. It would be great if your beliefs existed in a vacuum but they don't, they have real-world consequences on a macro scale. So when you become an agent of perpetuation, it's no longer just passive, it's an act of direct violation against someone who isn't prepared to critically examine reality and will be affected likely for their entire life.

If you want to try and claim that it's just a matter of reforming the faith, stop. That isn't going to cut it. The entire foundation is built on rancid manure.

So go ahead and continue to be pick 'n mix, I may still resent you for being naive and the passive part of the movement to prevent things from getting any better, but I don't care enough to wish you were getting prison-raped like I do about an asshole like Ken Ham and his ilk. I don't see you defending him and the like, so that's at least something positive. But my drunk driver analogy holds true; just because you reach a different conclusion than him doesn't mean you're not still using the same means (i.e. bullshit). He's just the equivalent of the unfortunate prick who hits someone on the way home while you're the lucky sod who makes it home safe even when you're also well over the limit.

---

The reason I signed up for the forum was that my thinking had been challenged by Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. I'm not here to evangelize or try and win arguments but rather to try and recalibrate my compass. So far it hasn't been that pleasant an experience (yours has probably been the most welcoming response), but so be it.
My dilemma is this - no, actually I will keep it to myself for now.
Yes - a lie is a lie is a lie and killing and harming others for a lie (or the supposed truth) is evil.
I will never be an atheist but can see myself well on the way to being an agnostic. I can't prove nor disprove the existence of God.
Right and wrong, however, are reasonably apparent. Killing children because they are an Amalekite or a Foetus is clearly wrong.
And I agree that ideology can and does produce evil. A suicide bomber is a case in point. When it comes to the Taliban, Isis and so forth all you can do to protect others is to kill them as they are so wedded to their ideology (and they admit this themselves).
Your analogy of rancid manure is fair but if a person is genuinely attempting to deprogramme themselves, harsh analogies may well just drive them deeper into their nice, safe, secure delusion.
Anyway, I won't take up any more of your time. I genuinely didn't come here to push a barrow or argue, but it would seem that this is really a forum for quite heated debate, which is fair enough. Hope all goes well with you and yours, thanks again for your time.

[Astonished]

The point is, when you base your beliefs on bullshit, anything goes and anything can be justified. So ditching that nonsensical insanity is the only rational or ethical thing to do.

Your pointing out atheists doing bad things is irrelevant. Atheism in and of itself is a meaningless term as far as describing anyone's beliefs about anything other than gods, there is nothing preventing them from believing in other woo crap nonsense that borders on how outlandishly ridiculous religions are. If you want to make an actual relevant point, try finding a secular humanist and rational skeptic (without some sort of mental condition) who's got a proclivity for the universally distasteful and then we're talking. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Also you've made the shifting of the burden of proof fallacy so please, try to avoid that if you want to be taken seriously. I see you say you're new at this kind of thing so that's a free tip. You would do well to look up an index of all the various fallacies you'll have undoubtedly either already made or contemplated making so you can avoid looking foolish. It's not like your side has any arguments but at least admitting you want to believe in something for no good reason is better than lying about why you do (but not by much).

I'd also like to know in what way separating a person from their ideology prevents a suicide bomber from annihilating an entire busload of people. The ideology being the problem that infects those who hold it, like a pernicious disease that spreads like wildfire. There's no medicine or cure that works 100% of the time, only a vaccine (i.e. NOT indoctrinating them in the fucking first place) that is commonly refused by parents just like all the completely batshit anti-vaccination retards. Why anyone would be okay perpetrating that same level of crazy is beyond me but we see it all too frequently and that's why this whole mindset hasn't gone extinct, otherwise we'd probably see it evaporate within a single generation. It would be great if your beliefs existed in a vacuum but they don't, they have real-world consequences on a macro scale. So when you become an agent of perpetuation, it's no longer just passive, it's an act of direct violation against someone who isn't prepared to critically examine reality and will be affected likely for their entire life.

If you want to try and claim that it's just a matter of reforming the faith, stop. That isn't going to cut it. The entire foundation is built on rancid manure.

So go ahead and continue to be pick 'n mix, I may still resent you for being naive and the passive part of the movement to prevent things from getting any better, but I don't care enough to wish you were getting prison-raped like I do about an asshole like Ken Ham and his ilk. I don't see you defending him and the like, so that's at least something positive. But my drunk driver analogy holds true; just because you reach a different conclusion than him doesn't mean you're not still using the same means (i.e. bullshit). He's just the equivalent of the unfortunate prick who hits someone on the way home while you're the lucky sod who makes it home safe even when you're also well over the limit.

---

The reason I signed up for the forum was that my thinking had been challenged by Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. I'm not here to evangelize or try and win arguments but rather to try and recalibrate my compass. So far it hasn't been that pleasant an experience (yours has probably been the most welcoming response), but so be it.
My dilemma is this - no, actually I will keep it to myself for now.
Yes - a lie is a lie is a lie and killing and harming others for a lie (or the supposed truth) is evil.
I will never be an atheist but can see myself well on the way to being an agnostic. I can't prove nor disprove the existence of God.
Right and wrong, however, are reasonably apparent. Killing children because they are an Amalekite or a Foetus is clearly wrong.
And I agree that ideology can and does produce evil. A suicide bomber is a case in point. When it comes to the Taliban, Isis and so forth all you can do to protect others is to kill them as they are so wedded to their ideology (and they admit this themselves).
Your analogy of rancid manure is fair but if a person is genuinely attempting to deprogramme themselves, harsh analogies may well just drive them deeper into their nice, safe, secure delusion.
Anyway, I won't take up any more of your time. I genuinely didn't come here to push a barrow or argue, but it would seem that this is really a forum for quite heated debate, which is fair enough. Hope all goes well with you and yours, thanks again for your time.

Mine was the most welcoming? Well, damn. I admit I was intentionally holding back from antagonizing you since you did not seem like someone I'd ever seen around here before and you'd have to have said something extraordinarily stupid to get my ire up right from the get-go.
I'm going to have to disagree about the fetus/abortion thing on a practicality standpoint (this is where critical thinking is really...critical) but yes, Amalekites, simply by dint of their identity, don't automatically deserve condemnation. Action merits condemnation and unfortunately, beliefs based on insane ideologies inform actions and that's the underlying issue.
Your obstinacy is just one of the many problems with this whole enterprise. We can expose all the flaws and outright horrors of your ideology but rather than take that as an inspiration to re-examine it and perhaps even take a trial run of suspending belief to see how it fits, you retreat into your turtle shell. Just because it comes across as hostile doesn't make it untrue, and given that it rarely works even with the 'nice' approach, it's a poor excuse on your part to ignore it.
The fact that you can admit to it being a delusion, and my analogy being fair, it is genuinely baffling you can still hold so tightly to it. That is the most saddening and frustrating thing about this indoctrination's effects. I hate whoever is responsible for doing this to you because I can tell there's a different, potentially better person scratching at the surface trying to get out but still being smothered by that layer of dusty, grimy faith. It's keeping you from being more honest because you're pretty much admitting you don't care if it's true or not; whether that makes you a better person overall in and of itself is perhaps not certain, but the potential being stifled and squandered is damn disappointing. Not to mention how it's likely to then bleed into the next generation because of what you think is necessary as far as passing it along to your wee ones.

[beepete]

---

The reason I signed up for the forum was that my thinking had been challenged by Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. I'm not here to evangelize or try and win arguments but rather to try and recalibrate my compass. So far it hasn't been that pleasant an experience (yours has probably been the most welcoming response), but so be it.
My dilemma is this - no, actually I will keep it to myself for now.
Yes - a lie is a lie is a lie and killing and harming others for a lie (or the supposed truth) is evil.
I will never be an atheist but can see myself well on the way to being an agnostic. I can't prove nor disprove the existence of God.
Right and wrong, however, are reasonably apparent. Killing children because they are an Amalekite or a Foetus is clearly wrong.
And I agree that ideology can and does produce evil. A suicide bomber is a case in point. When it comes to the Taliban, Isis and so forth all you can do to protect others is to kill them as they are so wedded to their ideology (and they admit this themselves).
Your analogy of rancid manure is fair but if a person is genuinely attempting to deprogramme themselves, harsh analogies may well just drive them deeper into their nice, safe, secure delusion.
Anyway, I won't take up any more of your time. I genuinely didn't come here to push a barrow or argue, but it would seem that this is really a forum for quite heated debate, which is fair enough. Hope all goes well with you and yours, thanks again for your time.

Mine was the most welcoming? Well, damn. I admit I was intentionally holding back from antagonizing you since you did not seem like someone I'd ever seen around here before and you'd have to have said something extraordinarily stupid to get my ire up right from the get-go.
I'm going to have to disagree about the fetus/abortion thing on a practicality standpoint (this is where critical thinking is really...critical) but yes, Amalekites, simply by dint of their identity, don't automatically deserve condemnation. Action merits condemnation and unfortunately, beliefs based on insane ideologies inform actions and that's the underlying issue.
Your obstinacy is just one of the many problems with this whole enterprise. We can expose all the flaws and outright horrors of your ideology but rather than take that as an inspiration to re-examine it and perhaps even take a trial run of suspending belief to see how it fits, you retreat into your turtle shell. Just because it comes across as hostile doesn't make it untrue, and given that it rarely works even with the 'nice' approach, it's a poor excuse on your part to ignore it.
The fact that you can admit to it being a delusion, and my analogy being fair, it is genuinely baffling you can still hold so tightly to it. That is the most saddening and frustrating thing about this indoctrination's effects. I hate whoever is responsible for doing this to you because I can tell there's a different, potentially better person scratching at the surface trying to get out but still being smothered by that layer of dusty, grimy faith. It's keeping you from being more honest because you're pretty much admitting you don't care if it's true or not; whether that makes you a better person overall in and of itself is perhaps not certain, but the potential being stifled and squandered is damn disappointing. Not to mention how it's likely to then bleed into the next generation because of what you think is necessary as far as passing it along to your wee ones.

---

I have obviously not articulated myself adequately. I could never be comfortable pursuing something that I had come to believe was a delusion (no matter how comfortable that position may have been). I was referring to other people who may have been questioning their belief system and had come to this forum to look for answers. It is both a liberating and humiliating experience when your system of belief comes tumbling down like a house of cards.

[Harry Nevis]

Hating other people that hold a different view will probably only confirm prejudices on both sides. I'm a Christian and for years refused to look at opposing views. Recently I have started watching videos by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and a few others and it has been both eye-opening and challenging (in a positive sense). So far I have not seen them attacking the holders of certain beliefs but rather the beliefs themselves. Clearly, these men have a superior intellect to mine - but they don't attack or hate others for not being as clever as they so obviously are. Hating religious people will probably only confirm them in their belief system.

I don't hate the people.  I'm  Irritated and appalled that, in this day and age, they've given up critical thinking for a warm blankie of personal certainty.  Certainty that has no valid support except that it feels good.  But, hay, to each their own. If this was all there was to it, it would make me do noe more than ask a few questions and shake my head in disbelief. But when they push their BS to kids in schools, and fight for laws to allow them to be racists and bigots, the gloves are off.  Religious people don't need confirmation of their beliefs.  But people on the fence, when they see how empty their value system is when challenged even at the most basic level, may see them for who they are.  Egotistical, needy people who, by their belief, feel superior to people who actually think and consider issues.

---

Yes - a lie is a lie is a lie and killing and harming others for a lie (or the supposed truth) is evil.
I will never be an atheist but can see myself well on the way to being an agnostic. I can't prove nor disprove the existence of God.
Right and wrong, however, are reasonably apparent. Killing children because they are an Amalekite or a Foetus is clearly wrong.

I can't prove or disprove god.  So I'm an atheist.  I wasn't born believing in gods.  Gods have been proposed as real, no sufficient evidence has been shown to validate these claims, so I have no reason to move from not believing.  But show me good enough evidence, and I'm willing to revisit the topic.

And killing a fetus is not clearly wrong outside of your belief system.

[SteveII]

Hating other people that hold a different view will probably only confirm prejudices on both sides. I'm a Christian and for years refused to look at opposing views. Recently I have started watching videos by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and a few others and it has been both eye-opening and challenging (in a positive sense). So far I have not seen them attacking the holders of certain beliefs but rather the beliefs themselves. Clearly, these men have a superior intellect to mine - but they don't attack or hate others for not being as clever as they so obviously are. Hating religious people will probably only confirm them in their belief system.

Beepete--welcome to the warm and fuzzy AF where atheist win converts because they foster respectful discourse and win people on the merits of their points.

I too came here to look for the opposing viewpoint to Christianity. I wanted to make sure there were no unanswered objections. It turns out, there are none. There is nothing new in any modern argument against Christianity that has not been addressed before--sometimes addressed millennium ago. Most atheists here argue against a long series of straw men--caricatures of Christianity that don't exist in the real world. 

I'm curious. What Harris/Hitchens argument do you think is their most successful?

[Harry Nevis]

Hating other people that hold a different view will probably only confirm prejudices on both sides. I'm a Christian and for years refused to look at opposing views. Recently I have started watching videos by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and a few others and it has been both eye-opening and challenging (in a positive sense). So far I have not seen them attacking the holders of certain beliefs but rather the beliefs themselves. Clearly, these men have a superior intellect to mine - but they don't attack or hate others for not being as clever as they so obviously are. Hating religious people will probably only confirm them in their belief system.

Beepete--welcome to the warm and fuzzy AF where atheist win converts because they foster respectful discourse and win people on the merits of their points.

I too came here to look for the opposing viewpoint to Christianity. I wanted to make sure there were no unanswered objections. It turns out, there are none. There is nothing new in any modern argument against Christianity that has not been addressed before--sometimes addressed millennium ago. Most atheists here argue against a long series of straw men--caricatures of Christianity that don't exist in the real world. 

I'm curious. What Harris/Hitchens argument do you think is their most successful?

Yes, and welcome to the place where some people, for some reason, think we're trying to convert people.  And meet Steve II, who somehow thinks that evidence that show people believe in the bible is the same as evidence that the bible is the word of god.

[KevinM1]

That Steve cannot understand the objections isn't our fault.

[Foxaèr]

That Steve cannot understand the objections isn't our fault.

It's his cognitive dissonance protecting him. He thinks if he can fool his mind into believing there are no logical objections that we are wrong and he remains correct.

[KevinM1]

That Steve cannot understand the objections isn't our fault.

It's his cognitive dissonance protecting him.  He thinks if he can fool his mind into believing there are no logical objections that we are wrong and he remains correct.

And yet, deep down he knows his reasoning is flawed. Otherwise, he wouldn't have spent the last several years (literally) rehashing the same argument in slightly different ways.

I see him as a guy who amazes his IRL compatriots, because he is a somewhat decent writer and definitely has conviction. But it's mostly just regurgitations of WLC and not much else.