To the Anti-Religious

[Smoke]

Mostly because his arguments are an ignorant rant and a waste of time for anyone with half a brain and an understanding of religion.

I agree that people with half a brain are wasting their time trying to counter Dawkins' arguments. I wonder if they're aware, though, of the extent to which their inarticulate insults reveal the fact that they have half a brain.

 

[Vile Atheist]

How do you know she is not willing to act? How do you know does not find such acts disgusting? This is your prejudice and ignorance speaking, not hers, considering you don't know her. What if she had an abortion many years ago? What on earth would you know about her before you decided to brandish her as in the same league as a Christian extremist who blows up abortion clinics?

I see a lot of "What if"s and little in the way of an actual argument. What if she's a mutant space alien just pretending to be Christian and an old lady? What if she's actually a man, baby?

What if? So what? You seem to have this barking mad notion that people, despite their declared religious beliefs, freely ignore the dogma they claim to accept and embrace. If she was a Christian - especially as an old lady - how likely do you think it is she got an abortion? You don't actually make arguments. You just throw in a crapload of hypotheticals without actually addressing the issue.

You didn't say that earlier.

No, you assumed that and I can hardly be blame for your prejudices.

I don't mind you bashing someone's beliefs when they support the death and misery of humans. I do mind when you bash someone's beliefs when they don't, when they don't interfere with the world at large.

And when have I here? Were my examples not all of the Abrahamics? Except for one or two when prompted to address religions outside Christianity, Judaism, and Islam?

Even if they don't contribute to the misery and death of humans, they are by their own very nature irrational and on that basis alone, I object to them. I wouldn't necessarily attack them, but I certainly do object to them.

I disagree. You miss the point.

Wow. That amounts to saying "You're wrong! And that's that!". When I disagree with you on a point, I explain my rationale for disagreeing. This is called debating.

Your point seems to be that there is a correlation between extremism and literal interpretation when I very much disagree with you as I know plenty of Catholics who take the Bible literally and they are "good people", or rather, would be "good people" if they didn't believe the lives of millions of Africans was worth making the world more prudish. But good in deed, certainly.

I'm not a Catholic. I'm not even Christian. I view the Pope's actions as irresponsible and immoral and believe that he would do wise to reverse them. Therefore, your point doesn't really do much good. However, many Catholic people still use contraception regardless of the sin and stigma attached. Yet you would still insult these people, according to what you said earlier.

Then that should bolster my point further. The only way these Catholics do something moral in your eyes is by CONTRADICTING the Pope. Shouldn't that ring a few alarm bells to you? That they have to violate the tenets and dogma of their own religion in order to act morally?

As I've said, those views debating are fine.
However, you said "moderate" or "extreme", the people themselves. I have no problem with debating and discussing their views, so long as you do it respectfully. You don't have to be "ANTI-religious", you just have to be "pro-common sense".

The only point where I attack someone holding their views is when, in the face of overwhelming evidence and reason, continue to blindly hold on to some morally repugnant point with no justification for it. And unfortunately, a lot of the time, being anti-religious IS pro-common sense.


----------------------------------------------

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

I do believe I said I was intolerant of the beliefs themselves, not the people holding them and I was sure to make that distinction. If I typed that somewhere else and didn't realize it, my apologies, but I can't spot where I wrote I was intolerant of the people themselves.

Those people suck then.

Exactly, so you can understand my frustration when the only way someone can live and enjoy their life peacefully is by going against their own religious teachings. That's what I'm against.

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

It doesn't matter if you are Catholic or not. I picked a religion I'm familiar with and a religion whose "moderate" views I know quite well.

And shove my challenge? Then let it be established here that you alone - through no fault of my own - neglected to see the evidence I'm presenting you of the homophobia and intolerance of moderate religious people.

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.

What a mind-boggling stupid point. So if someones religious beliefs included pedophilia and I spoke out against that, I'd be intolerant? And because I use WORDS to condemn their beliefs, I'm as equally morally repugnant as the pedophile?

If someone wants to believe everything is made of cheese and that gets them through the day, that's fine by me. It's irrational, but so long as they don't claim it is the truth despite evidence, don't try and shove their cheese-worship down other people's throats, don't try to dictate what is moral and what isn't based on their unproven cheese-worship, and do not do anything morally repugnant because of it...I'm fine with that. But the Abrahamic religions (my main focus) are certainly not any of those things.

------------------------

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

My sincerest apologies, UltraViolet, for not being able to summarize the beliefs of over 3 billion people for you in a nice, neat paragraph and explain why each is morally repugnant.


--------------------------------

Yes, really.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me. What I do mind, though, are people who disagree without saying why. Honestly, if you are just going to contradict what I say and give no supporting reasons, then why should I spend any time addressing you?

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

Psychologist Jill Mytton would disagree. Not to mention the tidy little fact that someone screaming in the face of an eight year old of how they are going to roast in Hell forever if they are gay IS child abuse, no matter what your needless contrarianism dictates.

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

I am ashamed of myself! I am certainly the next Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, wrapped up into one atheist package of evil! /sarcasm

-----------------------

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

No, separation of Church and State lead to the Bible being removed from public schools.

 

[Vile Atheist]

YouTube - Richard Dawkin's The Virus of Faith, Hell House

Yeah, it's Richard Dawkins, so some people will automatically dismiss it. But really, watch it...they target children with that garbage and that isn't child abuse?

 

[Buttons*]

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?

*sigh*

Ok. I've read the book. We discussed the entire thing in class. I'm doing Religious Studies and Philosophy, two things which Dawkins (not ad hom - this is just blatant observation) has no real idea about. Dawkins does not have a PHD in Religious Studies, and he doesn't discuss anything more than Evangelical Christianity and Fundamentalist nuts. This is obvious if you've read the book. Have you?

I realize that I haven't fully explained myself, but at the moment, I am completely swamped with homework -hence the fallacious action I took to cut through the ********. I simply don't have the time. But I do have notes on the inaccuracies of his book, and I do have much more to say on the matter. Dawkins is biased against religion, my professor is also an atheist, who thinks that Dawkins does a very poor job combating "all religion." The truth is that this is not one of his better works. He writes brilliantly on Biology - but not when it comes to religion. I figured this would be an obvious assertion to make, since I assumed everyone here had read the book and had actually thought critically about it. Clearly this is not the case. This book seems to be more of a publicity stunt than to stand up for the modern atheist. There are MUCH better arguments to be made for the atheist case than, "religious people are morons." If you can't understand this, I again have wasted my time...

 

[Buttons*]

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

mmmm ignorance IS bliss!

 

[Buttons*]

YouTube - Richard Dawkin's The Virus of Faith, Hell House

Yeah, it's Richard Dawkins, so some people will automatically dismiss it. But really, watch it...they target children with that garbage and that isn't child abuse?

I like Dawkins, I think he's a great Biologist, I think he's smart, and does present himself in a very educated manner when speaking in public. Sadly, his lack of knowledge concerning religion is apparent. When he does attack "all religion" he MEANS Evangelical Christians and fanatics. Obviously, this is not ALL religious people. Yes, there are ways in which some religious institutions can be considered abusive to children, and I agree that some people ARE abusing their children. But the great majority of people aren't.

 

[Vile Atheist]

*sigh*

Ok. I've read the book. We discussed the entire thing in class. I'm doing Religious Studies and Philosophy, two things which Dawkins (not ad hom - this is just blatant observation) has no real idea about. Dawkins does not have a PHD in Religious Studies, and he doesn't discuss anything more than Evangelical Christianity and Fundamentalist nuts. This is obvious if you've read the book. Have you?

I know this isn't addressed to me, but I feel as if I must answer. I've read many of Dawkins' books and he talks about "moderate" religion as well. And likewise, all other prominent atheists don't just clamp down on fundamentalism. Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens also highlight the dangers of "moderate religion".

I realize that I haven't fully explained myself, but at the moment, I am completely swamped with homework -hence the fallacious action I took to cut through the ********. I simply don't have the time. But I do have notes on the inaccuracies of his book, and I do have much more to say on the matter. Dawkins is biased against religion, my professor is also an atheist, who thinks that Dawkins does a very poor job combating "all religion." The truth is that this is not one of his better works. He writes brilliantly on Biology - but not when it comes to religion. I figured this would be an obvious assertion to make, since I assumed everyone here had read the book and had actually thought critically about it. Clearly this is not the case. This book seems to be more of a publicity stunt than to stand up for the modern atheist. There are MUCH better arguments to be made for the atheist case than, "religious people are morons." If you can't understand this, I again have wasted my time...

Yeah, you'd be right, if "Religious people are morons" was actually the thesis of his book. You clearly haven't read it if that's what you think it is about. Either that or you just skimmed it or read Sparksnotes. He says no such thing. He says religious beliefs are irrational and are a precursor to bigoted and dangerous beliefs that hamper the progress of humanity. And that is true, as I mentioned in other posts.

A Catholic may not go out and stone gay people. But a Catholic's unfounded opposition to homosexuality on the basis of his priest's teachings is going to lead to a political vote to block gay marriage, thus contributing to the misery of humans. That's just one example.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I like Dawkins, I think he's a great Biologist, I think he's smart, and does present himself in a very educated manner when speaking in public. Sadly, his lack of knowledge concerning religion is apparent. When he does attack "all religion" he MEANS Evangelical Christians and fanatics. Obviously, this is not ALL religious people. Yes, there are ways in which some religious institutions can be considered abusive to children, and I agree that some people ARE abusing their children. But the great majority of people aren't.

Not necessarily true. Speaking from personal experience now, I grew up in a moderate Catholic family and I didn't realize how frightened I was of Hell until I realized Catholicism wasn't for me. I was afraid to actively denounce God for fear of roasting in Hell forever. That was psychological damage.

And fundamentalism is just one of Dawkins' many points. The basic beliefs held between a fundamentalist and a moderate are scarcely different. But fervour and willingness to act do come into play, along with environment.

A setting of many different people with widely differing religious views (like RF, for example) will yield people who are more accepting of other people's beliefs...and strangely enough, that goes for me, too. I'm willing to learn about what other people believe and engage with them on that subject. I'm not just going to storm in and accuse them of being pederasts.

But a setting of moderate people with the same views, you start to have more extremist leanings. It's a group mentality and while obviously not in every case violence is the product, undue intolerance and bigotry can be found.

 

[Buttons*]

I know this isn't addressed to me, but I feel as if I must answer. I've read many of Dawkins' books and he talks about "moderate" religion as well. And likewise, all other prominent atheists don't just clamp down on fundamentalism. Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens also highlight the dangers of "moderate religion".

I haven't read all his books. There are some GREAT atheist books that are intelligent and know what they're talking about. Dawkins isn't one of them. How can you attack all religion if you don't know all religions? Dawkins, based on, "The God Delusion" clearly doesn't.

Yeah, you'd be right, if "Religious people are morons" was actually the thesis of his book. You clearly haven't read it if that's what you think it is about. Either that or you just skimmed it or read Sparksnotes. He says no such thing. He says religious beliefs are irrational and are a precursor to bigoted and dangerous beliefs that hamper the progress of humanity. And that is true, as I mentioned in other posts.

I HAVE read it. I didn't read sparknotes - I didn't even know there was a spark notes for this book. LOL. I hope there isn't! Irrational - sugar coated word for moronic. I haven't read all the way through this thread. There are beliefs about the world that AREN'T religious that also hamper the progress of humanity. People will make mistakes, but to blame this on religion only is sort of a cop out.

A Catholic may not go out and stone gay people. But a Catholic's unfounded opposition to homosexuality on the basis of his priest's teachings is going to lead to a political vote to block gay marriage, thus contributing to the misery of humans. That's just one example.

Much worse than political non-religious genocide?

 

[Vile Atheist]

To add to what I said earlier, it seems that a lot of the posters here do not seem to be happy with your arguments unless you address every single possible religious belief and every interpretation of gods, deities, fairies, pixies, etc.

Obviously, this is an impossible task. So for future reference, when I say, "Religion is evil" or something of the sort, I'm talking specifically about the Abrahamic religions. And if I say "Religion is irrational", then I address all of them.

If you're unhappy with that, then stop needlessly insisting I address every variation of every religion explicitly. Of course there will be exceptions to what I say because I have to make generalizations. When covering 85% of the world, you need to do that, contrary to what UltraViolet seems to think is possible.

 

[Breathe]

If she was a Christian - especially as an old lady - how likely do you think it is she got an abortion?

Simple: abortions have been around for over 50 years. She could have had one at 30 and be 80 years old now. It's not hard.

You don't actually make arguments. You just throw in a crapload of hypotheticals without actually addressing the issue.

Likewise, you just come out with a bunch of vile intolerant spew, insult some of our other members (what you've said to Storm in the message I have replied to shows how disgusting an attitude you have) and how you claim to be "DEFENDING THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS", when really, you're a jack ***.

No, you assumed that and I can hardly be blame for your prejudices.

No, you didn't say that earlier. Go read what you wrote. You said you will attack the beliefs of a moderate or extreme person who holds faith to any of the Abrahamic religions, and attack others on them too.

Even if they don't contribute to the misery and death of humans, they are by their own very nature irrational and on that basis alone, I object to them. I wouldn't necessarily attack them, but I certainly do object to them.

So it's a case of guilt by association with you? Many Christians give money to help the AIDS crisis in Africa, so you really are just an intolerant little creep. Forgive me for my words, but that is how you have come across. Someone who can tar three billion people with the same brush is intolerant.

When I disagree with you on a point, I explain my rationale for disagreeing. This is called debating.

You don't have an explanation, you're just lumping people together and spouting how great you are for attacking others' beliefs.

Shouldn't that ring a few alarm bells to you? That they have to violate the tenets and dogma of their own religion in order to act morally?

What do you mean "shouldn't it", you act as though it doesn't ring alarm bells for me. Considering you know nothing about me before you start spouting crap off about me, this shows how ignorant you are of my views. That is why I am in favour of secular laws, and I think God should be kept out of the bedroom.

The only point where I attack someone holding their views is when, in the face of overwhelming evidence and reason, continue to blindly hold on to some morally repugnant point with no justification for it. And unfortunately, a lot of the time, being anti-religious IS pro-common sense.

No it isn't, not always. The only point you attack someone holding their views that I have seen, is when someone holds different views to yours.

I do believe I said I was intolerant of the beliefs themselves, not the people holding them and I was sure to make that distinction. If I typed that somewhere else and didn't realize it, my apologies, but I can't spot where I wrote I was intolerant of the people themselves.

"Regardless of whether it is a moderate or extreme person holding them".

Exactly, so you can understand my frustration when the only way someone can live and enjoy their life peacefully is by going against their own religious teachings. That's what I'm against.

And you're very welcome to being against those. Just don't go bashing people for their views when they have nothing to do with you.

Change comes from the inside. There is easily a chance that a new pope will appear any time soon who will be a liberal, pro-homosexuality, pro-condom pope. It may be late, but better late than never.

It doesn't matter if you are Catholic or not. I picked a religion I'm familiar with and a religion whose "moderate" views I know quite well.

Yes, it does matter. It's not a religion which holds any sway with me, and the number of Catholics is shrinking. Here's the problem, you picked "a" religion you're familiar with. Christianity, for example, is incredibly diverse. You failed to mention for example, the Anglican church, who have ordained homosexual priests - including sexually active ones - for some time now.

And shove my challenge? Then let it be established here that you alone - through no fault of my own - neglected to see the evidence I'm presenting you of the homophobia and intolerance of moderate religious people.

I didn't say I neglected it, I said shove your challenge where you bought it from. I have better things to do than challenge you to what some people on the 'net think about homosexuality. I HAVE two good friends who are Catholics and homosexual and they have encountered virtually no problems, so why the hell would I want to play your little games?

What a mind-boggling stupid point. So if someones religious beliefs included pedophilia and I spoke out against that,

Unless you've got proof of a religion that does include pedophilia, you're just using a cheap appeal to emotion. And no, I don't think you would be wrong for speaking out against that - but what you would be wrong for, is harassing people who aren't practising in pedophilia, simply because of their faith in that religion - religions are a very broad group. After all, not all Christians are followers of Westboro Baptist Church, but you would seem to identify them all as one.

I'd be intolerant? And because I use WORDS to condemn their beliefs, I'm as equally morally repugnant as the pedophile?

I never said that, did I? It's no good blatantly lying and trying to twist my words.

If someone wants to believe everything is made of cheese and that gets them through the day, that's fine by me. It's irrational, but so long as they don't claim it is the truth despite evidence, don't try and shove their cheese-worship down other people's throats, don't try to dictate what is moral and what isn't based on their unproven cheese-worship, and do not do anything morally repugnant because of it...I'm fine with that.

Me too.

But the Abrahamic religions (my main focus) are certainly not any of those things.

So now you can't be secular and follow the Abrahamic religions? Wow. Just, wow.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I haven't read all his books. There are some GREAT atheist books that are intelligent and know what they're talking about. Dawkins isn't one of them. How can you attack all religion if you don't know all religions? Dawkins, based on, "The God Delusion" clearly doesn't.

There is an inherent assumption that one addresses the most relevant religions when speaking on the subject of religion. And that means the Abrahamics. As I posted earlier (because of posting times you probably missed it when you posted this), it is an impossible task to address every individual take on theism and needless, too. If only a handful of people in the world are quiet deists, why address them when there are over 2 billion Christians on Earth who obviously have a huge impact on the human condition?

I HAVE read it. I didn't read sparknotes - I didn't even know there was a spark notes for this book. LOL. I hope there isn't! Irrational - sugar coated word for moronic. I haven't read all the way through this thread. There are beliefs about the world that AREN'T religious that also hamper the progress of humanity. People will make mistakes, but to blame this on religion only is sort of a cop out.

I don't know if there are either lol, but it is irrelevant, anyways. Irrational I take to mean as unsupported by evidence which is not necessarily moronic. One can have an educated hypothesis for a scientific theory. In the hypothesis stage, there will be little to no evidence supporting it, so belief in the hypothesis would be considered irrational until you gather the evidence to support it conclusively.

And yes, there are secular ideologies that are detrimental to the human condition as well - especially political ones. But I think it is rather irrelevant to discuss those on a forum meant for religious discussion. Rest assured, I attack those political ideologies as well, like Fascism and Communism and Imperialism.

Much worse than political non-religious genocide?

I really don't get you. And I'm not trying to be condescending or anything, either...but...

First you declare I (or at least Dawkins, who forms some of the influence on me) attack only the fundamental parts of religion and ignore the moderate. And then when I give you a moderate example of how religions can contribute to human misery, you give me an extreme example?

Rest assured, there are plenty of religious genocides. Take a look at Rwanda and how the Catholic Church was involved.

I condemn all atrocities, religious or not. But it seems a little - again - irrelevant to discuss non-religious atrocities on a forum meant for discussing religion.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Simple: abortions have been around for over 50 years. She could have had one at 30 and be 80 years old now. It's not hard.

No, that's not what I mean. I mean if she's a Christian, how likely do you think it is she got an abortion, especially when the concept is relatively new and there must have been huge stigma attached to it and at that, in a time where people were more devoutly religious?

Likewise, you just come out with a bunch of vile intolerant spew, insult some of our other members (what you've said to Storm in the message I have replied to shows how disgusting an attitude you have) and how you claim to be "DEFENDING THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS", when really, you're a jack ***.

Uh huh. Nice ad hominems lol. But that's fine. Well next time you see a pedophile and people condemning that pedophile for sullying the innocence of children, go accuse them of "intolerance". Next time you see a child being abused and people condemning the abuser, go accuse them of "intolerance". I only attacked Storm in the way I did because she accused me of using child abuse as an appeal to emotion. I have no agenda to fulfill so what would be my motives behind that? Simple. I have no agenda. I have nothing to prove. And even when I give evidence of Hell Houses being child abuse, you still accuse me of intolerance. Go stuff a duck.

No, you didn't say that earlier. Go read what you wrote. You said you will attack the beliefs of a moderate or extreme person who holds faith to any of the Abrahamic religions, and attack others on them too.

Yes, I will attack their BELIEFS, not the person holding them. There is a distinction. From what you said, it seemed like you were accusing me of attacking the person holding those beliefs, but no, I will attack only the beliefs until they continue to hold onto a morally repugnant point despite evidence - as is the case with Storm.

So it's a case of guilt by association with you? Many Christians give money to help the AIDS crisis in Africa, so you really are just an intolerant little creep. Forgive me for my words, but that is how you have come across. Someone who can tar three billion people with the same brush is intolerant.

I myself am not a racist. So if I were to join the KKK, would you consider me to be one?

Even though I do not hate blacks, isn't the mere fact I (hypothetically) am a prospective member of the KKK show that I am willing to tolerate those bigoted views?

And again, if I'm accused of being intolerant for denouncing the willing promotion of genocide in Africa, then yes...I accept that moniker whole-heartedly.

And I love how the ad hominems keep rolling out. A sure-fire sign that you have no arguments left.

You don't have an explanation, you're just lumping people together and spouting how great you are for attacking others' beliefs.

You're confusing my overall thesis with my individual points. I support my individual points with evidence in order to bolster my thesis.

You, on the other hand, either fire unwarranted ad hominems or just disagree without saying why. Great way to get your point across. /sarcasm.

What do you mean "shouldn't it", you act as though it doesn't ring alarm bells for me. Considering you know nothing about me before you start spouting crap off about me, this shows how ignorant you are of my views. That is why I am in favour of secular laws, and I think God should be kept out of the bedroom.

...Except for the fact I wasn't assuming anything about you. You see that question mark at the end of that sentence? We use that in English when we want to ask questions. When we don't know the answer to something, we pose a question to someone else - followed by a question mark - in order to get their perspective. Only in your deluded fantasy am I attacking you in that sentence.

No it isn't, not always. The only point you attack someone holding their views that I have seen, is when someone holds different views to yours.

Not so. As long as they have evidence to support what they are saying. And that's if you count disagreeing as "attacking". I have debates with friends over whether evolution is gradual or gradual with occasional "spikes". We all have evidence to support our views, and we disagree. But we don't "attack" each other.

When someone claims to me, for example, that everyone is born with a soul and they have no evidence for that and insist that they are right, of course I'll attack their notion.

"Regardless of whether it is a moderate or extreme person holding them".

That still doesn't say I would attack the people themselves because of their beliefs. That just says no matter who holds those beliefs, I'll still attack the beliefs if they are irrational.

And you're very welcome to being against those. Just don't go bashing people for their views when they have nothing to do with you.

Change comes from the inside. There is easily a chance that a new pope will appear any time soon who will be a liberal, pro-homosexuality, pro-condom pope. It may be late, but better late than never.

On the contrary, when I have gay friends who cannot get married because of pro-religious lobby in this country, it has something to do with me. When my family wants to outcast me because I'm an atheist, it has something to do with me. When Africans die by the millions because of some messed up moral policy, it - believe it or not - has something to do with me.

We are all humans and we share this planet. And if one group is oppressing another, you bet I'll be condemning it. We all have duties to condemn it. And surely you agree with that?

Yes, it does matter. It's not a religion which holds any sway with me, and the number of Catholics is shrinking. Here's the problem, you picked "a" religion you're familiar with. Christianity, for example, is incredibly diverse. You failed to mention for example, the Anglican church, who have ordained homosexual priests - including sexually active ones - for some time now.

Up until 1996 in my country, the Anglican Church - along with the Uniteds and Catholics - ran "schools" for Native children. They would beat and torture and often kill these children for speaking their own language or practicing their culture. They would rip these kids from the arms of their parents - and could do this legally, thanks to religious lobby. They would sexually abuse these kids and intentionally spread tuberculosis to them.

The Anglican Church may be (admirably) tolerant of homosexuality - and for that I give them props. But that does not excuse them of their other crimes and prejudices.

I didn't say I neglected it, I said shove your challenge where you bought it from. I have better things to do than challenge you to what some people on the 'net think about homosexuality. I HAVE two good friends who are Catholics and homosexual and they have encountered virtually no problems, so why the hell would I want to play your little games?

What a big man you are lmao! Better things to do? Like what? Engage in the same discussion with other people on RF? Really now.

Well, how does their priest - the leader of the flock - feel towards homosexuality? And keeping in mind they are going against the teachings of the Catholic Church. I commend them for having the courage to be openly homosexual. But don't delude yourself into thinking that this is a-okay with Il Papa, the head honcho.

Unless you've got proof of a religion that does include pedophilia, you're just using a cheap appeal to emotion. And no, I don't think you would be wrong for speaking out against that - but what you would be wrong for, is harassing people who aren't practising in pedophilia, simply because of their faith in that religion - religions are a very broad group. After all, not all Christians are followers of Westboro Baptist Church, but you would seem to identify them all as one.

Clearly you don't know a hypothetical example when you see one.

That wasn't the cheap appeal to emotion I was accused of. That was my stance that Hell Houses are tantamount to child abuse, which I've kindly provided links to highlight my point.

And no, I don't think all theists are members of the WBC. This is a little rich and hypocritical coming from someone who not moments ago, mistakenly railed against me, thinking I was assuming things about him. And now, not moments later, you make those assumptions about me. I love it lol. I really do.

I know religions are a broad group. And you don't seem to be satisfied unless I address each specific variation of every belief explicitly which is an impossible task. So obviously I have to generalize and when I generalize, there will be some exceptions, which I stated earlier.

I never said that, did I? It's no good blatantly lying and trying to twist my words.

Again, learn what a question mark is.

So now you can't be secular and follow the Abrahamic religions? Wow. Just, wow.

What!? What does being secular and following Abrahamic religions have to do with "claim truth without evidence", "shoving itself down people's throats", "not dictating to others what is morally right", and "not doing anything morally repugnant because of your beliefs"?

That is a whopping non-sequitur. No, you can be secular and follow Abrahamic religions in the sense that you want Church and State separated. That's fine. But the basis of secular beliefs is evidence. No evidence? No dice.

 

[Breathe]

No, that's not what I mean. I mean if she's a Christian, how likely do you think it is she got an abortion, especially when the concept is relatively new and there must have been huge stigma attached to it and at that, in a time where people were more devoutly religious?

There's still a chance she could have.

Uh huh. Nice ad hominems lol. But that's fine.

Well, you started them, didn't you?

Well next time you see a pedophile and people condemning that pedophile for sullying the innocence of children, go accuse them of "intolerance". Next time you see a child being abused and people condemning the abuser, go accuse them of "intolerance".

I wouldn't defend a pedophile. Nice going attempting to accuse me of tolerating something so disgusting, this shows you have no intentions of a truthful debate, and you're not a nice addition to these forums. On the contrary, I'd drag the pedophile by his throat to the police.

I only attacked Storm in the way I did because she accused me of using child abuse as an appeal to emotion.

Because it is. You're attempting to lump every single thing Christians do to child abuse. If you like anything a Christian does, it means you support child abuse. That's what you're trying to do.

I have no agenda to fulfill

:biglaugh: Looks like it.

so what would be my motives behind that? Simple. I have no agenda. I have nothing to prove. And even when I give evidence of Hell Houses being child abuse, you still accuse me of intolerance.

How about you don't accuse all Christians of sending people to these Hell Houses?

Go stuff a duck.

NOW who's doing the ad hominem attacks?

Yes, I will attack their BELIEFS, not the person holding them. There is a distinction. From what you said, it seemed like you were accusing me of attacking the person holding those beliefs, but no, I will attack only the beliefs until they continue to hold onto a morally repugnant point despite evidence - as is the case with Storm.

There is a difference, yes, but you seem to be crossing the line, calling Storm a moron for example, you're then attacking her. Obviously you have transgressed this line, or you aren't sure of where attacking the view is, and attacking the person is.

I myself am not a racist. So if I were to join the KKK, would you consider me to be one?

Yes.

Even though I do not hate blacks, isn't the mere fact I (hypothetically) am a prospective member of the KKK show that I am willing to tolerate those bigoted views?

If you don't hate blacks, you wouldn't join the KKK.

And again, if I'm accused of being intolerant for denouncing the willing promotion of genocide in Africa, then yes...I accept that moniker whole-heartedly.

Genocide is a strong word. "n. The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group." - The Pope is advocating celibacy, not a lack of condoms. Therefore, it's hardly genocide, just irresponsibility.

And I love how the ad hominems keep rolling out. A sure-fire sign that you have no arguments left.

On the contrary, it's you who is attempting to justify things by going to the extremes.

You're confusing my overall thesis with my individual points. I support my individual points with evidence in order to bolster my thesis.

You, on the other hand, either fire unwarranted ad hominems or just disagree without saying why. Great way to get your point across. /sarcasm.

Pot, meet kettle.

...Except for the fact I wasn't assuming anything about you. You see that question mark at the end of that sentence? We use that in English when we want to ask questions. When we don't know the answer to something, we pose a question to someone else - followed by a question mark - in order to get their perspective. Only in your deluded fantasy am I attacking you in that sentence.

LOL, your previous message was saying I "fire unwarranted ad hominems" and what exactly is this? And yes, a question mark makes it a question, well observed. However, you presupposed that I wouldn't have alarm bells ringing.

Not so. As long as they have evidence to support what they are saying. And that's if you count disagreeing as "attacking". I have debates with friends over whether evolution is gradual or gradual with occasional "spikes". We all have evidence to support our views, and we disagree. But we don't "attack" each other.

Good for you. But this is not a debate on evolution.

When someone claims to me, for example, that everyone is born with a soul and they have no evidence for that and insist that they are right, of course I'll attack them for that.

Attack "them" for that, eh? Can't you just "attack" their views? Oh wait, you meant that. Right.

Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.
Can't you just say "Why?" "I disagree"?

That still doesn't say I would attack the people themselves because of their beliefs. That just says no matter who holds those beliefs, I'll still attack the beliefs if they are irrational.

What would you constitute as irrational? Oh, probably everything religious.

On the contrary, when I have gay friends who cannot get married because of pro-religious lobby in this country, it has something to do with me. When my family wants to outcast me because I'm an atheist, it has something to do with me. When Africans die by the millions because of some messed up moral policy, it - believe it or not - has something to do with me.

And have I said I'm supporting them? No. So you're welcome to those, since I'm a secular person by nature and I don't believe laws should be dictated by religions.

We are all humans and we share this planet. And if one group is oppressing another, you bet I'll be condemning it. We all have duties to condemn it. And surely you agree with that?

I do, that's why I'm opposing the way you're acting.

Up until 1996 in my country, the Anglican Church - along with the Uniteds and Catholics - ran "schools" for Native children. They would beat and torture and often kill these children for speaking their own language or practicing their culture. They would rip these kids from the arms of their parents - and could do this legally, thanks to religious lobby. They would sexually abuse these kids and intentionally spread tuberculosis to them.

And that is awful.

The Anglican Church may be (admirably) tolerant of homosexuality - and for that I give them props. But that does not excuse them of their other crimes and prejudices.

But it shows things are changing.

What a big man you are lmao! Better things to do? Like what? Engage in the same discussion with other people on RF? Really now.

How about you mind your own business what I get up to?
If you must know, looking after my children is more important than playing your little games.

[/QUOTE]Well, how does their priest - the leader of the flock - feel towards homosexuality? And keeping in mind they are going against the teachings of the Catholic Church. I commend them for having the courage to be openly homosexual. But don't delude yourself into thinking that this is a-okay with Il Papa, the head honcho.[/quote]
Have I said I think it's "a-okay" with the Pope? No. You assumed. Again. However, their priest is fine with it, and says that people should not judge them for it.

Clearly you don't know a hypothetical example when you see one.

So you're using another appeal to emotion.

And no, I don't think all theists are members of the WBC.

I never said you did, I merely wrote a statement.

This is a little rich and hypocritical coming from someone who not moments ago, mistakenly railed against me, thinking I was assuming things about him. And now, not moments later, you make those assumptions about me. I love it lol. I really do.

Mmmm, troll flavour.

I know religions are a broad group. And you don't seem to be satisfied unless I address each specific variation of every belief explicitly which is an impossible task. So obviously I have to generalize and when I generalize, there will be some exceptions, which I stated earlier.

Well, don't generalize. Better yet, don't attack people's religious beliefs when they don't conflate with your views.

Again, learn what a question mark is.

Mmm, VinDino flavour.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Well I thank you for that emotional, tear-driven factless tirade, Odion, but I have work in the morning. Good night.

 

[Breathe]

Well I thank you for that emotional, tear-driven factless tirade, Odion, but I have work in the morning. Good night.

Night. Don't stay up too late trying to think of smarmy responses.

 

[Vile Atheist]

There's still a chance she could have.

Ah, you're back lol. Okay, I'll have one more go, but THEN I have to hit the hay.

Again, you aren't offering any arguments. You are simply just listing hypotheticals without addressing the PROBABILITY of those hypotheticals.

Well, you started them, didn't you?

No, actually I didn't. This started when I was accused of using child abuse an appeal to emotion.

I wouldn't defend a pedophile. Nice going attempting to accuse me of tolerating something so disgusting, this shows you have no intentions of a truthful debate, and you're not a nice addition to these forums. On the contrary, I'd drag the pedophile by his throat to the police.

Exactly. And I would want to do the same to the child abusers. So what is the problem here? I've called out child abuse at Hell Houses, providing evidence for child abuse occuring there...and yet you accuse me of being intolerant of them? So what's your beef?

Because it is. You're attempting to lump every single thing Christians do to child abuse. If you like anything a Christian does, it means you support child abuse. That's what you're trying to do.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that most Christian institutions have a hand in some sort of atrocity, or at least support of some atrocity. And by giving support to these institutions, they perpetuate these atrocities.

All I said was Hell Houses are child abuse. If you disagree, provide evidence.

:biglaugh: Looks like it.

Well, that laughing smiley would be indicative you don't believe that and if that is indeed the case, perhaps you wouldn't mind informing me of my own agenda, because I certainly don't know it.

How about you don't accuse all Christians of sending people to these Hell Houses?

Except I never accused all Christians of sending people to those Hell Houses.

NOW who's doing the ad hominem attacks?

That wasn't an ad hominem attack lol.

Besides, if you'd like to do a running total of who ad hommed who, I'd be very curious to see the tally.

There is a difference, yes, but you seem to be crossing the line, calling Storm a moron for example, you're then attacking her. Obviously you have transgressed this line, or you aren't sure of where attacking the view is, and attacking the person is.

Except you like to deny the convenient fact she accused me of using child abuse as an appeal to emotion which is obviously not the case. Had she merely disagreed with me, I would have offered my counter-points and nothing more. When she gets to the point of insulting me, too bad so sad, I fire back.

Yes.

Exactly. So if you joined an institution that has a long history of atrocities, could that not be seen as support for those atrocities? You've already answered yes. Many religious institutions have been at the hands of horrible atrocities. And there are atheistic institutions as well that have done the same, but the difference is I don't actively associate myself with them AND I denounce their atrocities.

If you don't hate blacks, you wouldn't join the KKK.

And if you don't hate Native children, you wouldn't lend your support to the Catholic, Anglican, or United Churches. If you don't hate Africans, you wouldn't agree with a man whose moral policies lead to the deaths of millions.

Genocide is a strong word. "n. The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group." - The Pope is advocating celibacy, not a lack of condoms. Therefore, it's hardly genocide, just irresponsibility.

It is an attempted extermination. The Pope is fully aware of the AIDS crisis in Africa. The Pope is also fully aware of the prevention effect condoms have. Any other position is a willing advocacy of the deaths of millions.

The Pope confuses idealism (well, his idealism) with reality. It's like saying "Abolish all the laws for murder! They protect us, but we should live in a society where people don't kill each other!".

It's a nice thought, right? But people ARE going to kill each other. And wiping out those laws will do a lot more harm than good.

"Abolish condom use! They protect against AIDS, but people should not be having sex outside of marriage!" What's the difference?

On the contrary, it's you who is attempting to justify things by going to the extremes.

I've provided examples on how moderate religion can be dangerous. So if you missed that, I invite you to go back and read.

Pot, meet kettle.

Not quite sure what you mean here.

I haven't confused your thesis with your individual points. If I've disagreed with you, I've made clear why, and you've fired way more ad hominems than I could ever hope to produce.

LOL, your previous message was saying I "fire unwarranted ad hominems" and what exactly is this? And yes, a question mark makes it a question, well observed. However, you presupposed that I wouldn't have alarm bells ringing.

Clarifying what the purpose of a question mark is, is not an ad hominem. It's clear that you must be mistaken as to the function of the question mark because you keep on repeatedly saying I'm assuming things about you when I'm asking you questions. I have not presupposed anything by asking an honest question.

Good for you. But this is not a debate on evolution.

You've missed the point entirely. The point was not the subject matter we discuss, it's the fact that whatever we disagree with each other on, we all have evidence to support our views. If not, we attack each other.

If it delves into a discussion on who is mightier: Superman or Spiderman, there is no real evidence for that. Thus, we attack each other. If it delves into scientific discussions where there IS evidence to support both sides, then it's merely a disagreement and stating of our points.

Attack "them" for that, eh? Can't you just "attack" their views? Oh wait, you meant that. Right.

Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.
Can't you just say "Why?" "I disagree"?

By "them", I meant "their views" and I realized the possibility of confusion, so I went back and edited that to "attack their notion". I edited that while you were typing your reply, so that is my fault for the confusion, but my point still stands.

And I cannot say merely "I disagree" because it gets nowhere closer to solving the issue at hand.

What would you constitute as irrational? Oh, probably everything religious.

Yes, but not just everything religious. Everything that is unsupported by evidence. If the Catholic Church came out with scientific evidence to say "Everyone is born with a soul", I would immediately change that view from "Irrational" to "Rational". There is nothing wrong with that.

I can respect religious views on the basis that some - though not all - are genuine guides to personal happiness. And I don't object to them on that basis. But I do object to there being no evidence to support them.

And have I said I'm supporting them? No. So you're welcome to those, since I'm a secular person by nature and I don't believe laws should be dictated by religions.

And I agree.

I do, that's why I'm opposing the way you're acting.

You are opposed to my opposition of atrocities in religious institutions, both present and historical? You are opposed to my disbelief in the supernatural on the basis of no evidence?

And before you start whining that I'm assuming things, those are questions, as indicated by the question marks.

And that is awful. But is shows how things are changing.

Yes! Exactly! And can you imagine how slow things would change if there were no one to speak out against these atrocities? That is why I speak out against them. To try and inspire these sorts of changes.

How about you mind your own business what I get up to?
If you must know, looking after my children is more important than playing your little games.

You obviously have a very watchful eye, if you continue to reply to me and "play my little games".

Have I said I think it's "a-okay" with the Pope? No. You assumed. Again. However, their priest is fine with it, and says that people should not judge them for it.

Then if that is indeed the case, I commend the priest for his forward-thinking attitudes. But that still doesn't change the fact the leader of the Catholic Church is opposed to it and actively preaches against it.

So you're using another appeal to emotion.

Now I'm curious here lol. How is saying "You don't know a hypothetical example when you see one" an appeal to emotion? And if that's not what you were specifically referring to, how is a hypothetical example where I merely replace the word "child abuse" with "pedophilia" an appeal to emotion? Is pedophilia not child abuse?

I never said you did, I merely wrote a statement.

...A statement that claimed I have this view.

Mmmm, troll flavour.

Lmao. So you accuse me of assuming things about you...then you go on to assume things about me. And when I call you out for hypocrisy, I'm a troll lmao? Get a hobby lol.

Well, don't generalize. Better yet, don't attack people's religious beliefs when they don't conflate with your views.

Incorrect. I will attack them so long as they devalue humanity.

 

[Breathe]

Ah, you're back lol. Okay, I'll have one more go, but THEN I have to hit the hay.

Tsk, tsk. You won't get any beauty sleep if you stay up.

Again, you aren't offering any arguments. You are simply just listing hypotheticals without addressing the PROBABILITY of those hypotheticals.

The whole damn thing is a hypothetical, man!

No, actually I didn't. This started when I was accused of using child abuse an appeal to emotion.

Which you did.

Exactly. And I would want to do the same to the child abusers. So what is the problem here? I've called out child abuse at Hell Houses, providing evidence for child abuse occuring there...and yet you accuse me of being intolerant of them? So what's your beef?

My beef is with your beef with the moderates and the lumping together. I agree there are some bad apples, but there's a bad apple in every bunch. It's no reason to be anti-religious. Common sense and courtesy and religion aren't exclusive. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" "Judge not lest ye be judged" kind of things.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that most Christian institutions have a hand in some sort of atrocity, or at least support of some atrocity. And by giving support to these institutions, they perpetuate these atrocities.

Most Christian institutions HAVE HAD a hand in some sort of atrocity, but most try not to. The church I used to go to did not. They donated money to soup kitchens, homeless shelters, etc. They didn't tithe or anything like that, it was donations. They didn't run the kitchens themselves nor make a profit off them.

All I said was Hell Houses are child abuse. If you disagree, provide evidence.

I didn't say I didn't agree though.

Well, that laughing smiley would be indicative you don't believe that and if that is indeed the case, perhaps you wouldn't mind informing me of my own agenda, because I certainly don't know it.

You're anti-religious. Your agenda seems to be attack, maybe even to destroy religion.

Except I never accused all Christians of sending people to those Hell Houses.

You made guilt by association. "John is a Christian and sent his son to a Hell House, so he is a child abuser. Mary, who lives a mile away, is also a Christian, and so is also a child abuser." - that's the kind of rhetoric you have.

That wasn't an ad hominem attack lol.

Keep telling yourself that. It doesn't make it true.

Besides, if you'd like to do a running total of who ad hommed who, I'd be very curious to see the tally.

Tallies? We're not here playing games.

Except you like to deny the convenient fact she accused me of using child abuse as an appeal to emotion which is obviously not the case. Had she merely disagreed with me, I would have offered my counter-points and nothing more. When she gets to the point of insulting me, too bad so sad, I fire back.

Except, you did. In effect, you said "Christianity is awful/Christians are awful! look at Hell Houses - child abuse! Disgusting!"

Exactly. So if you joined an institution that has a long history of atrocities, could that not be seen as support for those atrocities? You've already answered yes. Many religious institutions have been at the hands of horrible atrocities. And there are atheistic institutions as well that have done the same, but the difference is I don't actively associate myself with them AND I denounce their atrocities.

And many Christians denounce their atrocities that the churches have performed. You would be hard pressed to find a Christian who defended the churches hand in the slave trade, for example.

And if you don't hate Native children, you wouldn't lend your support to the Catholic, Anglican, or United Churches. If you don't hate Africans, you wouldn't agree with a man whose moral policies lead to the deaths of millions.

But, I don't. And it was "up until 1996", you said, so there have been years of change since then, thankfully.

It is an attempted extermination. The Pope is fully aware of the AIDS crisis in Africa. The Pope is also fully aware of the prevention effect condoms have. Any other position is a willing advocacy of the deaths of millions.

I agree the Pope is aware of the AIDS crisis, yet I don't think he is attempting extermination (considering one of the highest people he has in power are African) - just a dumb choice with dangerous consequences.

The Pope confuses idealism (well, his idealism) with reality. It's like saying "Abolish all the laws for murder! They protect us, but we should live in a society where people don't kill each other!".

It's a nice thought, right? But people ARE going to kill each other. And wiping out those laws will do a lot more harm than good.


"Abolish condom use! They protect against AIDS, but people should not be having sex outside of marriage!" What's the difference?

Agreed.

I've provided examples on how moderate religion can be dangerous. So if you missed that, I invite you to go back and read.

:kissbette

Not quite sure what you mean here.

It means, in effect, you're saying something that's the same for you.

See?

Clarifying what the purpose of a question mark is, is not an ad hominem. It's clear that you must be mistaken as to the function of the question mark because you keep on repeatedly saying I'm assuming things about you when I'm asking you questions. I have not presupposed anything by asking an honest question.

Your honest is quite dishonest, though.

You've missed the point entirely. The point was not the subject matter we discuss, it's the fact that whatever we disagree with each other on, we all have evidence to support our views. If not, we attack each other.

I am well aware of what you were saying.

By "them", I meant "their views" and I realized the possibility of confusion, so I went back and edited that to "attack their notion". I edited that while you were typing your reply, so that is my fault for the confusion, but my point still stands.

And I cannot say merely "I disagree" because it gets nowhere closer to solving the issue at hand.

You can't "solve" something like a soul.

Yes, but not just everything religious. Everything that is unsupported by evidence. If the Catholic Church came out with scientific evidence to say "Everyone is born with a soul", I would immediately change that view from "Irrational" to "Rational". There is nothing wrong with that.

Good. But how can you prove the existence of a soul?

I can respect religious views on the basis that some - though not all - are genuine guides to personal happiness. And I don't object to them on that basis. But I do object to there being no evidence to support them.

And you're welcome to that. As long as you do it respectfully.

And I agree.

Cool.

You are opposed to my opposition of atrocities in religious institutions, both present and historical?

Not at all, opposed to your opposition of letting someone follow it if they don't harm people only. I don't think religious institutions should have any political sway, for example. I know that they do, though.

You are opposed to my disbelief in the supernatural on the basis of no evidence?

Not at all.

And before you start whining that I'm assuming things, those are questions, as indicated by the question marks.

Oi, don't say I'm whining! Cheeky bugger. Then if they are questions, they should say "Are you" not "You are".

Yes! Exactly! And can you imagine how slow things would change if there were no one to speak out against these atrocities? That is why I speak out against them. To try and inspire these sorts of changes.

The only thing you've done is made yourself look like you're whining yourself. I applaud you speaking out against atrocities, but not against beliefs themselves.

You obviously have a very watchful eye, if you continue to reply to me and "play my little games".

:beach:

Then if that is indeed the case, I commend the priest for his forward-thinking attitudes. But that still doesn't change the fact the leader of the Catholic Church is opposed to it and actively preaches against it.

I never said it did. Though I think that sucks.

how is a hypothetical example where I merely replace the word "child abuse" with "pedophilia" an appeal to emotion? Is pedophilia not child abuse?

Of course pedophilia is child abuse. Of the worst kind.

Get a hobby lol.

Mmmm, more troll flavour!

Incorrect. I will attack them so long as they devalue humanity.

Good.

 

[rageoftyrael]

okay, how do i feel about anti-atheists? I kind of am one, i just don't spout my opinion all over, lol. I don't feel the need for religion, but i'm not going to bash them(much, lol). I figure that christians, jews, muslims, etc. deserve the same kind of respect i want from them(lots!). Essentially, i don't like religion, don't think it's necessary, but i try not to bash on them..... What's the point? It just creates bad feelings.

 

[Storm]

I don't mind people disagreeing with me. What I do mind, though, are people who disagree without saying why. Honestly, if you are just going to contradict what I say and give no supporting reasons, then why should I spend any time addressing you?

I did give my reasons for disagreeing with you, and you failed to address any of them. Why should I give them again?

Psychologist Jill Mytton would disagree. Not to mention the tidy little fact that someone screaming in the face of an eight year old of how they are going to roast in Hell forever if they are gay IS child abuse, no matter what your needless contrarianism dictates.

Such things don't go on in the Hell Houses I've seen. They're just haunted houses with a religious theme.

You moron. You absolute moron.

You whine about people not debating you properly and then resort to this?

It's equally disgusting to call out child abuse when you see it and actively denounce it?

Not remotely what I said.

Go crawl back under the rock from whence you came. Your beliefs are exactly what I have problems with.

You haven't bothered to find out what my beliefs are. The only problem you can have with them is your own bigotry.

How can you even begin to say something like that?

I can't, which is why I didn't. I said that calling religion child abuse was a cheap, exploitive appeal to emotion, which it is.

Since when is saying "This practice is child abuse" an appeal to emotion when that practice is....clearly child abuse!?

When it clearly ISN'T. When the only reason for calling it so is to link something benign to something horrific. When you have no sane, reasonable argument to support your bigotry, and so have to resort to such tactics.

Screw you a thousand times over. I hope you never have kids, if not just for the reason you clearly don't know what child abuse is.

:biglaugh: Of course I don't. The years of rapes and beatings had no affect.

Listen, bucko, I understand child abuse on a level you never have and never will. A fact for which you should be immensely grateful. That's precisely why such claims offend me.