To the Non Believers.

[Archer]

I see. So, to you, any question that a believer obviously can't answer is considered an attack. You need to reconsider your definition of "attack".

I also love the irony of your signature.

No the attack comes when evidence is presented and nothing other than BS is presented as a response.

EDIT: I have seen that go both ways TBH.

 

[MSizer]

Why is it a constant believer bashing around here?

Why? Are you looking for understanding of what is incomprehensible to you?.

Incomprehensible? Are you smarter than us? It is irrationality that is the greatest cause of human suffereing, and religion generally breeds irrationality.

Are you missing something in your life.

Yes. Peace.

and feel that you must make others like you?.

No.

I have heard religion blamed for everything but the people are individuals and think for themselves. I say dont blame the faith or the believers just take it out on the individuals..

That is what i do, when they base their actions on irrational explanations, such as rationalizing bigotry using a passage in leviticus or some surah, or having to deal with some uneducated ignorants who want to choose the science corriculum.

Please explain to me why the constant attack on religion.

Because it causes harm. You yourself told me that if unbelievers would just either convert or die, the world wouldn't be such a bad place. Do you expect me to sit apathetic while people try to use stone aged stories to try to promote ridiculous ideas that split a wedge between morality and the suffering of councious beings?

 

[Autodidact]

I just wonder why there are so many threads about the same thing. I constantly see threads made to accuse and condemn people of faith and when a response is made it is discounted. A debate works both ways.

Well surely you don't expect us to debate on the other side, do you? Isn't that your job?

Look at the thread titles. Most are attack threads.

Examples? What is an attack thread? You mean like 301's delightful thread about whether secularism leads to darkness and moral annihilation? That sort of thing?

[qutoe]And I believe that because it seems to be the theme around here.[/quote] Yes, debating religion is a theme around here. Again, if you don't want to do it, you may want to find a Christian site.

 

[Autodidact]

Debate is different from discount and call names such a liar and the like. Debate is to reach an understanding and possibly persuade another to view things as you do.



Really? I don't think you are seeing the whole picture here.

How do you think I should respond when someone is caught lying?

 

[Sunstone]

How do you think I should respond when someone is caught lying?

I don't see any point in not calling out a lie.

 

[Archer]

Incomprehensible? Are you smarter than us? It is irrationality that is the greatest cause of human suffereing, and religion generally breeds irrationality.



Yes. Peace.



No.



That is what i do, when they base their actions on irrational explanations, such as rationalizing bigotry using a passage in leviticus or some surah, or having to deal with some uneducated ignorants who want to choose the science corriculum.



Because it causes harm. You yourself told me that if unbelievers would just either convert or die, the world wouldn't be such a bad place. Do you expect me to sit apathetic while people try to use stone aged stories to try to promote ridiculous ideas that split a wedge between morality and the suffering of councious beings?

That is what I mean. You so easily discount and blame people of faith. Look at history. More have been killed by non believers than believers.

You and others blame the belief in God when it is the individual that is the problem.

 

[Archer]

How do you think I should respond when someone is caught lying?

I don't see any point in not calling out a lie.

A lie is a lie but when one is called a liar because of differing beliefs that is just ridiculous.

 

[Willamena]

The point of debate is to destroy the other side's point of view.

Just the opposite: if you destroy the other side's point of view, there is no possibility of debate.

 

[MSizer]

That is what I mean. You so easily discount and blame people of faith. Look at history. More have been killed by non believers than believers..

I don't know if that's actually accurate, but I certainly grant you that very many people have been killed by unbelievers. But it was irrationality, not their disbelief in god, that led them to do such things. I don't care whether hitler was a catholic or an atheist, he was irrational, that's the problem.

You and others blame the belief in God when it is the individual that is the problem.

No, you've completely missed my whole point. It has nothing to do with belief in god. Belief in god is the result of an irrational stance. The problem is deeper, way deeper than that. How many times do I have to say it?

Would you want a man who believes that ronald mcdonald will come someday with a giant snake to swallow all black people and take them to a beautiful planet where they'll always be happy, and that people who don't think it will happen should be treated with contempt?

The jesus story, or the allah story (and most other religious ones) are no more rational, and furthermore, they promote the idea that it is virtuous to be aware of this, yet to hold onto it anyway.

Correct information and respect for fairness among concious creatures are the only two constants necessary for improving the world. The type of thinking that allows religions to persist stands in the way of both.

 

[Erebus]

It's pretty difficult to "attack" anybody on a forum unless they participate. If you don't like a thread, don't reply to it. Problem solved.

 

[DeitySlayer]

More have been killed by non believers than believers.

So what? Disbelief in God was not a factor in their murdering pyschopathy.

Hitler for example. He did not go 'I don't believe in God, ergo I will kill Jews, homosexuals and gypsies'. Atheism was not part of his logic. Stalin, another example. He did not go 'I don't believe in God, so I will purge the Communist Party'.

Religion on the other hand...

Crusades: "We must convert the heathens and spread the word of our Lord Jesus, so we'll kill all the Muslims or force them to convert"

Inquisition: "We're doing God's work and purging evil!"

Witch Hunts: Ditto

9/11: "We're doing this for Allah"

Religious killers are directly motivated by religion. Atheist killers rarely have atheism as a motivation; it usually just 'is'.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Just the opposite: if you destroy the other side's point of view, there is no possibility of debate.

You've won the debate when their point of view is destroyed and yours remains the right answer. It's no different than a trial using the adversary system. When you complete destroy the other sides case there is either a conviction or an acquittal.

 

[Willamena]

You've won the debate when their point of view is destroyed and yours remains the right answer.

That's very Creationist of you (apologies to Creationists).

It's no different than a trial using the adversary system. When you complete destroy the other sides case there is either a conviction or an acquittal.

*raises eyebrows* Do any modern nations use the adversarial system?

(Sorry for the off-topiciness.)

 

[MSizer]

Example. Measels is now out of control in Zimbabwe, and many people all over the country are dying from it. The vaccine is available in limited quantities, and the gov't has alloted certain portions to rural areas, but the biggest obstacle is not the distance of those rural areas, but the beliefs of the religious people there. Their village idiots are telling them that the injections are a ploy to exterminate them by non-believers.

Tell me exactly how it's in any way moral for me to sit back and say nothing when such mentality permeates the entire planet?

People are suffereing, and irrationality is at the heart of much of it.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

That's very Creationist of you (apologies to Creationists).

Not at all. You really haven't actually won until there is no more opposition. A war isn't over until the other side is defeated and no longer wishes to fight, how is a debate any different?

*raises eyebrows* Do any modern nations use the adversarial system?

(Sorry for the off-topiciness.)

The United States does, and always has.

 

[JustWondering2]

*raises eyebrows* Do any modern nations use the adversarial system?

Klingons

 

[Badran]

Example. Measels is now out of control in Zimbabwe, and many people all over the country are dying from it. The vaccine is available in limited quantities, and the gov't has alloted certain portions to rural areas, but the biggest obstacle is not the distance of those rural areas, but the beliefs of the religious people there. Their village idiots are telling them that the injections are a ploy to exterminate them by non-believers.

Tell me exactly how it's in any way moral for me to sit back and say nothing when such mentality permeates the entire planet?

People are suffereing, and irrationality is at the heart of much of it.

If i could just point out that this village's problem would be putting too much trust in those who they listen to.

If those telling them aren't religious figures, then i guess the village's real problem would be irrationality which like you said before is the main cause for such behavior.

So the main thing to criticize would be their irrational thinking and not their religious beliefs.

 

[Revoltingest]

...Are you looking for understanding of what is incomprehensible to you?...

It's pretty comprehensible, so no issue there.

Are you missing something in your life and feel that you must make others like you?

Bashing religion wouldn't seem to make me more likable.

Please explain to me why the constant attack on religion.

A reason for bashing, which you ought to know,
believers run government & take our dough.
Faith is expected
to get elected.
To share in some power would be apropos.

 

[MSizer]

If i could just point out that this village's problem would be putting too much trust in those who they listen to.

If those telling them aren't religious figures, then i guess the village's real problem would be irrationality which like you said before is the main cause for such behavior.

So the main thing to criticize would be their irrational thinking and not their religious beliefs.

Their religious beliefs and their irrational thinking are one and the same. It is religious leaders telling them not to let their children receive the drug. Their religious belief causes them to "put too much trust" as you put it, or as I would say it, makes them gullible.

 

[Willamena]

Not at all. You really haven't actually won until there is no more opposition. A war isn't over until the other side is defeated and no longer wishes to fight, how is a debate any different?

Debate isn't a war, though. Ideally, it's has no winners and losers. It's an exercise in presenting opposing sides, and if done well leads each side to a better understanding of the other. In this, I can sympathize with the OP's complaint.
Edit: It is, after all, a Religious Education form.

The United States does, and always has.

Ah. I was thinking of something else.

By analogy, then, debate as a court of law isn't about the lawyers and the clients but justice.