To the Anti-Religious

[Breathe]

Again, you miss the point. I am not intolerant to theists, I'm intolerant to the ideas they hold because they promote misery and death.

As I said, more power to you, but you said you were intolerant to theists. W hy the sudden change of heart?

While you point out one or two people are are both homosexual and religious, I can point to you nations full of people who would want to have them executed for being such. And many, many more who wouldn't consider them to be religious.

Those people suck then.

You want me to back this point up? I challenge you, then. I want you to go to the Catholic DIR and post the question: Would you consider a homosexual a Catholic if they professed their beliefs as such? If so, do you consider this to be a sin?

1. I'm not a Catholic
2. Shove your challenge where you got it from.

I'm stupified by how you have people like Fred Phelps yelling "God hates ****!" the Catholic Church's rampant homophobia and sexism...and accuse me of intolerance for not wanting that on the planet I reside on. Sorry, that just doesn't fly.

I don't want it either, but you claiming that you will attack the beliefs of people is the same. Sorry, that doesn't fly with me either.

 

[blackout]

The amount of gaping over-generalizations people make
will never cease to amaze me.

 

[Breathe]

The amount of gaping over-generalizations people make
will never cease to amaze me.

If only over-generalizations were something useful, like.. pie.

 

[Storm]

Not really.

Yes, really.

In Catholicism the fear of Hell has always been used to try and get kids to "do good". It's even worse in Protestant sects. Look up "Hell Houses" and tell me that isn't child abuse.

I've seen them, and they aren't.

It's absolutely disgusting that humanity needs to be threatened by a celestial overlord with an eternity of agony before they are inspired to do good.

Yes. It's equally disgusting that you would exploit something like child abuse in a cheap appeal to emotion.

 

[blackout]

At some point in every person's life
they must sort through their childhood beliefs/assumptions,
if they want to become a grown up INDIVIDUAL.
Question what they have been taught and told by parents,
schools, government, church, society, piers....
and decide for THEMSELVES what to keep, what to throw out,
what doesn't matter to them, what's useful to them,
what is and isn't of interest to them, what to look into further,
what is useful & true, what it questionable & objectionable.
This is called GROWING UP... becoming your OWN discerning adult self.

Many people never choose to actually do this, sure.
But that would be THEIR OWN fault.
You cannot force introspection on anyone,
in any area of life, be it religious, political, social.. whatever.

We ALL grow up in-doctrinated.

Question everything.

My favorite question? "Who Says"
(ok. so it IS more of a statement really. )

 

[blackout]

Oh. and did I happen to mention ... I'm a theist?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

prejudice is not necessarily a bad thing, neither is intolerance.

 

[darkendless]

prejudice is not necessarily a bad thing, neither is intolerance.

It makes people change sometimes. Other times it is not so good.

In America intolerance lead to the bible being removed from public schools. I think Australia needs to follow their lead.

 

[darkendless]

"Regardless of it is is a moderate or extremist".
I've met many a moderate theist from the Abrahamic religions who don't have a problem with homosexuality. I've some who do, but why on earth should you give those who don't go around being nasty to homosexuals a hard time because they have faith? Hell, I've met people who are religious who are gay. Talk about being nasty from both sides!

Intolerance is intolerance, and in this case the poster has shown intolerance to theists. Considering about 85% or so of the planet is considered theist, then this person has some real issues.

People are responsible for the congregations they join. Would you not call a German soldier fighting for Germany in WWII a Nazi just because he might not have hated jews?

Sure, some religious people with congregations are open minded about homosexuality. However, its not the people i'm attacking, its the fact that the religion as a whole maintains their stance against homosexuality. If people want to come under that banner then of course they are going to cop some flak.

 

[Sententia]

Suicide bombers still exist. People recently flew planes in to the world trade center.

In most of the cases the motivation is religion.

Diane Benscoter on how cults rewire the brain | Video on TED.com

Perhaps bad religion?

 

[darkendless]

Suicide bombers still exist. People recently flew planes in to the world trade center.

In most of the cases the motivation is religion.

Diane Benscoter on how cults rewire the brain | Video on TED.com

Perhaps bad religion?

People are quick to blame the bombers themselves but think about it, if they weren't of Islam, no matter how radical it is, they probably wouldn't have committed a Jihad on us.

I always wonder why the only terrorist attacks in the last 5 years have been all Islamic radicals.

 

[Buttons*]

Why not just get over Dawkins? I believe the main reason people criticize the man is because they cannot criticize his arguments. It would be respectable to criticize his arguments.

For the record, I don't agree with everything Dawkins says. But it astonishes me that in numerous threads on this board, his arguments have almost never been challenged -- only his attitude or disposition. I probably see more weaknesses in Dawkins' arguments than some of the champions of religion who have attacked him rather than his arguments.

Mostly because his arguments are an ignorant rant and a waste of time for anyone with half a brain and an understanding of religion. He is not well informed on the various traditions outside of Evangelical Christianity. Even there his arguments are largely flawed. He makes it starkly clear that he has no idea what religion is.

 

[Sententia]

Mostly because his arguments are an ignorant rant and a waste of time for anyone with half a brain and an understanding of religion. He is not well informed on the various traditions outside of Evangelical Christianity. Even there his arguments are largely flawed. He makes it starkly clear that he has no idea what religion is.

I think you are making Sunstone's point for him.

 

[Sunstone]

Mostly because his arguments are an ignorant rant and a waste of time for anyone with half a brain and an understanding of religion. He is not well informed on the various traditions outside of Evangelical Christianity. Even there his arguments are largely flawed. He makes it starkly clear that he has no idea what religion is.

I rest my case.

 

[Buttons*]

I think you are making Sunstone's point for him.

Atheists and Agnostics who study Religion at Uni in NZ agree with me. I'm more inclined to believe a professor than Sunstone, who has no credibility in this field

 

[Buttons*]

I rest my case.

To make my point would take more time and energy than I am willing to waste on that piece of dribble. But if you like, I'll go ahead and pull out my scholarly sources on this matter when I'm not writing two 3,000 word essays.

 

[gnomon]

1, 2, 3, 4........

I declare a flame war!

Dawkins!
Dawkins!
Dawkins!

 

[Sententia]

Atheists and Agnostics who study Religion at Uni in NZ agree with me. I'm more inclined to believe a professor than Sunstone, who has no credibility in this field

I don't think anyone is asking you to trust sunstone over a professor... He stated an opinion of which you confirmed... Your ad homs against Dawkins are appreciated and your fallacious argumentative response is amusing.

Whats more... Im inclined to believe a professor... really... Do all professors think this way? Is there no bias going on?

There are valid arguments which can be hashed about but do any of them accord then Professor Dawkins the Ad homs you dish out so freely?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

I rest my case.

And it rests established. At least as to the poster in question.

 

[J Bryson]

I think that Dawkins tends to make some very good points here and there, but it falls apart when he fails to take into consideration religious traditions that do not require a literal interpretation of sacred texts.