The Atheists Thread...A place for Logical, Rational and Scientific thinking with facts

[pcrdude]

So to be clear, by your words, we can hold the Catholic church accountable for a number of bad things, and all religions for a lot of bad things.

Yet atheists (and others) are simply "bashing" when they point these and the more subtle harms out?

(I'm anti-religion but not particularly anti-belief, by the way, so the difference matters).

Use of pseudo-science for bad things puts no taint on science. It's not as if there's a pope of science that puts his approval on such things, so it really doesn't equate. Science is neutral; it's a body of knowledge. Religion is not neutral; it's a body of men (and some women, but mostly men in power).

Reading between the lines a bit, and tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems your veering toward saying something along the lines of "no true christian would ...."



It's a gap in our knowledge, to be sure.

Yes, we may hold organized religion accountable for a number of "bad things", just as we can governments, fringe groups, and atheists. And NO, those critical of RELIGION are well served to criticize the actions of certain groups and individuals over time, but not the institutions of religious faiths. That isn't any more rational than blaming atheism for the murder of Jews ordered by an atheist.

In fact, the elephant in the room is the persecution of ALL religion by Marxism, and other socialistic philosophies. Historically, they are the ones who tolerated religion as the "opiate of the masses" no?

Furthermore, I implied no taint on science by the misuse of pseudo-science to advance non-scientific social objectives. So yes, you are mistaken about my motives. But that's OK, I'm used to it.

I WILL ask that you please debate with me on what I write, and not assume motives. Empiricism trumps supposition EVERY time.

(sorry if the capitalization reminds anyone of a skeleton) ((private joke for bob)).

 

[pcrdude]

I bet you would rather move on, since your reference to mass secular persecution turned out to be "well there's some in there"!

I'm good with that.

But I've saved the link as a source of "examples of harm by religion"

Sorry Hermit, I didn't write that, imply that, or think that.

 

[Deedalicious]

Well, I can give the definitions for the words, with sources. The definitions you're providing are problematic.



The "A" in atheism simply means without. The core of the word essentially means without a belief in a god (the theism part) or gods.

My source with dictionary.com if that is of any relevance to you and from what you posted, the definition is the "disbelief" or "lack of belief" in the existence of God or gods. In addition, the "a" in the root word is applied to "theos" and suffixed with "ism" which = (without god) belief not without (god belief). Since you seem to favor wiki,

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Agnosticism essentially means without knowledge. The two terms, atheism and agnosticism aren't completely separate. It is, for example, possible to be an atheist agnostic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

This describes a subset of an "agnostic" which don't hold a belief that leans towards atheist by believing there is not an existence of a deity because it cannot be proven vs an "agnostic" that leans towards theist by believing the is an existence of a deity but it cannot be proven. So because an agnostic don't know, they can lean either way, but you are an agnostic first with an atheist lean. If you are an atheist first, there is no lean... They are not mutually exclusive in one direction only... not both ways.

Atheism = Believe there is no deity
Agnostic = Without belief because you can't prove there is or is not a deity

Don't confuse atheism with science. They aren't exclusive to one another. Theories like evolution are indeed formal, but that's science, not atheism.

Some times A = B but B != A. Please don't reverse the words. I said atheist beliefs are science oriented like evolution which is a formal belief... not that science = atheism...

As I said before, atheism is a lack of a belief. A lack of a belief is not a belief. Neither is "bald" a hair colour, nor "off" a tv channel, nor "empty" a flavour of soda.

But "black", the lack of colors, is itself considered a color...

Since we're going round and round with this atheism thing. Which is an atheist...

A = I don't believe in God(s)
B = I believe there is no God(s)

This video, narrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson does a good job of explaining the problem of asking the question of whether the universe has a purpose. If it wasn't clear before, that question sits more happily with theists.

Love the guy, but it's a philosophical question... and you can be atheist and philosophical...

a. "a"theist means without. It's a lack of belief.
b. If you're not a Christian and don't believe in the bible, I could address the nature of your own beliefs if you were more specific.

a. The "a" in the root word is applied to "theos" and suffixed with "ism" which = (without god) belief not without (god belief)
b. Agnostic theist with more knowledge and exposure to Christianity than other religions.

I still find it incredible that you might think slavery could ever have been okay. Sure, the societies that make use of slaves justified their actions, but:
1. slaves were devalued as property and not considered people in order to justify keeping slaves.
2. did you ever consider the viewpoint of the slaves?
3. As I mentioned before, the bible does not make it clear that slavery was of a particular time and no longer relevant. You would arrive at the opposite opinion after reading the New Testament.

John 7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

Apart from that, it should be perfectly fine to judge an idea. Your quote from Matthew, whether or not anyone else agrees with it, is about judging a person.

My point is and has been that he concept of right or wrong is subjective not objective. It changes with culture, time, and perspective. It is a fact that slavery was not "wrong" from the "perspectives" of the common "culture" at that "time". It does not reflect "my" opinion, and in my opinion, there is no universal right or wrong that can be strictly applied to any subject that is why it can't be "wrong" but I also never said that it was "right"

To pass judgement is to presume the scale "you" hold to be the universal truth. Can't judge without such presumption. One can have an opinion, but who are we to "judge"?

 

[Hermit]

Sorry Hermit, I didn't write that, imply that, or think that.

Well, what did you intend to convey by quoting and linking to that report?

 

[pcrdude]

Didn't I make that clear already?

In repetition, that religion is persecuted by non-religious entities (and individuals). I never wrote, implied, or thought "mass".

We good now?

 

[Deedalicious]

If I may....

Slavery is not exclusive to religion. Therefore, one may not attribute the evils of slavery to religion. Although, the point could be made that religion has condoned slavery....

And, if I am not mistaken, Weedalicios was referring to a deity doing the judging. Although I reserve the right to be wrong.*

*in many things....

Actually, I prefer no judging what so ever. I separate between opinion (acknowledged subjective) and judgment (implied objective standards) rather carefully. Thanks for reading the novella though = )

My take on the quote is more along the perspective aspect of judging vs being judged by another with both having different perspectives and standards.

 

[pcrdude]

Fair enough...

 

[Hermit]

Yes, we may hold organized religion accountable for a number of "bad things", just as we can governments, fringe groups, and atheists. And NO, those critical of RELIGION are well served to criticize the actions of certain groups and individuals over time, but not the institutions of religious faiths. That isn't any more rational than blaming atheism for the murder of Jews ordered by an atheist.

In fact, the elephant in the room is the persecution of ALL religion by Marxism, and other socialistic philosophies. Historically, they are the ones who tolerated religion as the "opiate of the masses" no?

Furthermore, I implied no taint on science by the misuse of pseudo-science to advance non-scientific social objectives. So yes, you are mistaken about my motives. But that's OK, I'm used to it.

I WILL ask that you please debate with me on what I write, and not assume motives. Empiricism trumps supposition EVERY time.

(sorry if the capitalization reminds anyone of a skeleton) ((private joke for bob)).

I'm not even sure what we're discussing any more. Elephants? Marxism? I could criticise Marxism, but it's gone, so what's the point?

You write (I think), that the institutions should not be criticised. Is that correct?

Atheism doesn't have an institution. The isn't any particular connection between one athesit and another. Just as there isn't necessarily a connection between one theist and another - I wouldn't blame the catholic church for the actions of shia muslims, for example. But to say that the actions of indivual practicers of a religion don't reflect back onto the institution would be wrong. In most cases, even extremist ideas have their roots in the more acceptable teachings of religions (partly the "us and them" thing I posted ages ago). A generalised concept of religions, seen as demanding obedience of followers according to (various) defined set of dogma amongst other things, can be validly criticed too.

 

[Deedalicious]

Do I have to wiki elephants to make sure we're on the same page?

 

[Hermit]

Didn't I make that clear already?

In repetition, that religion is persecuted by non-religious entities (and individuals). I never wrote, implied, or thought "mass".

We good now?

"mass" maybe not the right word... but let's face it, if you didn't think you'd found documentation of a fair number of cases of perecution (again, too strong a word for most of the harassment described in that report), then why post it? It brought little to this debate except confusion.

 

[pcrdude]

I'm not even sure what we're discussing any more. Elephants? Marxism? I could criticise Marxism, but it's gone, so what's the point?

You write (I think), that the institutions should not be criticised. Is that correct?

Atheism doesn't have an institution. The isn't any particular connection between one athesit and another. Just as there isn't necessarily a connection between one theist and another - I wouldn't blame the catholic church for the actions of shia muslims, for example. But to say that the actions of indivual practicers of a religion don't reflect back onto the institution would be wrong. In most cases, even extremist ideas have their roots in the more acceptable teachings of religions (partly the "us and them" thing I posted ages ago). A generalised concept of religions, seen as demanding obedience of followers according to (various) defined set of dogma amongst other things, can be validly criticed too.

Well now we're getting somewhere!

Is it your position that atheism, as an "institution", isn't culpable when said atheism is used as a "reason" for anything? Since there is no "institution" for atheism, it is somehow beyond reproach?

You then go on to further to invoke "religion" as demanding "obedience"? Are you not adhering (blindly) to Dawkins and his criticism of religion in general? And thus adhering to your "god" of atheism?

Seriously Hermit, I am beginning to wonder.....

 

[pcrdude]

"mass" maybe not the right word... but let's face it, if you didn't think you'd found documentation of a fair number of cases of perecution (again, too strong a word for most of the harassment described in that report), then why post it? It brought little to this debate except confusion.

Sorry Hermit, it was brought in as a direct rebuttal to "religions persecute other religions" as proffered by you. It is evidence that there is "other" persecution outside of religion.

 

[Hermit]

Well now we're getting somewhere!

Is it your position that atheism, as an "institution", isn't culpable when said atheism is used as a "reason" for anything? Since there is no "institution" for atheism, it is somehow beyond reproach?

You then go on to further to invoke "religion" as demanding "obedience"? Are you not adhering (blindly) to Dawkins and his criticism of religion in general? And thus adhering to your "god" of atheism?

Seriously Hermit, I am beginning to wonder.....

Oh dear, you and Dawkins again. Nope, we're getting nowhere with this.

 

[bobsyeruncle]

It's kind of like defining atheism, isn't it?

 

[pcrdude]

Is that your (collective) argument?

 

[Hermit]

Sorry Hermit, it was brought in as a direct rebuttal to "religions persecute other religions" as proffered by you. It is evidence that there is "other" persecution outside of religion.

I proffered no such thing!

The closest thing I said to that was in response to you posting that link: "Most if not all of those are cases of restriction and/or violence BY the religious". Which is true.

Before that, just some discussion about religion causing harm and why it's valid for that to be criticised.

Pointing out that "other" groups also cause harm wasn't and isn't relevant to whether religion can be criticised.

Nope, you're getting nowhere with that line of argument.

 

[pcrdude]

I proffered no such thing!

The closest thing I said to that was in response to you posting that link: "Most if not all of those are cases of restriction and/or violence BY the religious". Which is true.

Before that, just some discussion about religion causing harm and why it's valid for that to be criticised.

Pointing out that "other" groups also cause harm wasn't and isn't relevant to whether religion can be criticised.

Nope, you're getting nowhere with that line of argument.

Really? Is that the position for which you would like to hinge your position in a debate about atheism based on "rational and scientific thinking"?

And as to the main "thrust" of your rebuttal, yes it IS relevant!!!

As already discussed, non-religious "groups" have vilified religion. It's true in the Pew research, and It's true with Dawkins, and is a direct refutation of points you have argued.

May we please move on? If not, then please rebut my point.

That being my stance, I'll reiterate and I'll put quotes around it... "there exists, non-religious persecution of religion in the world today".

Do you disagree with that statement???

 

[bobsyeruncle]

Are you referring to persecution of religious groups or persecution of religion?

1: the act or practice of persecuting especially those who differ in origin, religion, or social outlook

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persecution

Because one of those (religious groups vs. religion) doesn't make any sense.

 

[Hermit]

Really? Is that the position for which you would like to hinge your position in a debate about atheism based on "rational and scientific thinking"?

And as to the main "thrust" of your rebuttal, yes it IS relevant!!!

As already discussed, non-religious "groups" have vilified religion. It's true in the Pew research, and It's true with Dawkins, and is a direct refutation of points you have argued.

May we please move on? If not, then please rebut my point.

That being my stance, I'll reiterate and I'll put quotes around it... "there exists, non-religious persecution of religion in the world today".

Do you disagree with that statement???

Really? You think my position on one aspect has to somehow encompass the whole subject of the thread?

How on earth do you think anything in that link refutes any of the points I've argued? (Without putting words into my mouth again, please).

Reiterate it all you like, it's still not relevant to whether religion should be criticised for harm it's done.

Can you point me to an example of "non-religious persecution of religion in the world today", for discussion?

 

[bobsyeruncle]

Well, you did already say the link suggested there was more persecution coming from a religious bias than without.

Government policies or actions that clearly favor one religion over others have the strongest association with social hostilities involving religion. The average level of social hostilities among the countries with very high levels of government favoritism (SHI = 4.8) is much higher than the average level of social hostilities among countries with low levels of government favoritism (1.3)

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/09/20/rising-tide-of-restrictions-on-religion-findings/#patterns

If there are examples of persecution by the non-religious, that still doesn't exactly get religion off the hook.

And if it wasn't clear before, persecution applies to a person or people, for various reasons including the ideas they hold to, but not to an idea or system of ideas themselves. For example, Muslims may be persecuted, but what happens to Islam would be "criticize" or even "condemn".

 

[nightshard]

I ordered a taxi in advance for a specific hour (6:30 AM) and asked "will it be on time?", to which i got the the answer "with god's help", which ofc got me worried.
In case you were wondering, that taxi came at 6:50 and i was late.

 

[pcrdude]

Well, you did already say the link suggested there was more persecution coming from a religious bias than without.



http://www.pewforum.org/2012/09/20/rising-tide-of-restrictions-on-religion-findings/#patterns

If there are examples of persecution by the non-religious, that still doesn't exactly get religion off the hook.

And if it wasn't clear before, persecution applies to a person or people, for various reasons including the ideas they hold to, but not to an idea or system of ideas themselves. For example, Muslims may be persecuted, but what happens to Islam would be "criticize" or even "condemn".

And there you have it.

 

[Hermit]

And there you have it.

Have what? I think you've misunderstood.

I didn't say the link suggested that "there was more persecution coming from a religious bias than without". I've purposely avoided using the word persecution, since it has specific meaning. (The link summarised cases of restriction or harassment, not only persecution). Pretty sure I've only used it when referring back to what you've said.

 

[No Ash More Cash]

Some crazy stuff

 

[pcrdude]

Have what? I think you've misunderstood.

I didn't say the link suggested that "there was more persecution coming from a religious bias than without". I've purposely avoided using the word persecution, since it has specific meaning. (The link summarised cases of restriction or harassment, not only persecution). Pretty sure I've only used it when referring back to what you've said.

What exactly are you trying to say in this thread Hermit? I'm pretty lost about the point you are trying to make....

In the link, there is data about an increase in "anti-religiousness" (sure, I made up that word). Then, the claim came in that such sentiment was 'religion-on-religion'. So, I pointed out that there was some governmental anti-religion. Then the claim was 'well, those governments were acting in a religious capacity'.....

WHUT?????

Quote:
Restrictions, harassment, and intimidation towards people who practice their religion increased in every major region of the world in 2012 except the Americas, with Christians the major target, says a new report by the Pew Research Center.
“Muslims and Jews experienced six-year highs in the number of countries in which they were harassed by national, provincial or local governments,” the study found, but Christians continue to be the world’s most oppressed religious group, with persecution against them reported in 110 countries.

Source:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bar...ns-are-world-s-most-oppressed-religious-group

 

[Hermit]

What exactly are you trying to say in this thread Hermit? I'm pretty lost about the point you are trying to make....

That religions have done (and are doing) harm, and it's not wrong to criticise them for it.

Essentially (part of) my response to your post #612. Do keep up!

In the link, there is data about an increase in "anti-religiousness" (sure, I made up that word).

You made it up... LOL!! Well define what it means then! I'll take it to mean the obvious: something that could only be perpetrated by a non-religious person/group.

That isn't what the report has data about. It is titled "Rising tide of restrictions on religion", and documents cases of restriction and harassment on each religion and its followers, while being fairly opaque about who the perpetrators are. It's certainly not documenting an athesit vs theist conflict

Then, the claim came in that such sentiment was 'religion-on-religion'. So, I pointed out that there was some governmental anti-religion. Then the claim was 'well, those governments were acting in a religious capacity'.....

WHUT?????

How do you not get this?! I can only think it's because you're being wilfully blind to the facts. Examples: Restrictions and harassment of Muslims happen in Christian countries. Restrictions and harassment of Christians happen in Muslim countries. Etc. Governments are rarely 100% neutral when it comes to favouring the dominant religion of a country, and that favouritism correlates with increased harassment, as the report notes:

quote:
As noted in previous Pew Forum studies on religious restrictions, higher scores on the Government Restrictions Index are associated with higher scores on the Social Hostilities Index and vice versa. This means that, in general, it is rare for countries that score high on one index to be low on the other.


The new study finds that some government restrictions have a stronger association with social hostilities than others. Government policies or actions that clearly favor one religion over others have the strongest association with social hostilities involving religion. The average level of social hostilities among the countries with very high levels of government favoritism (SHI = 4.8) is much higher than the average level of social hostilities among countries with low levels of government favoritism (1.3), as shown in the chart on page 20. Other government actions that are strongly associated with social hostilities involving religion are (in descending order): the use of force against religious groups; failing to intervene to stop religious discrimination; and limiting conversion from one religion to another.4


As the chart below shows, social hostilities involving religion were lowest among countries where governments do not harass or intimidate religious groups; national laws and policies protect religious freedom; governments do not interfere with religious worship or practices; and governments do not use force against religious groups.
/quote

So essentially, more secular government = less restrictions and harassment of religious followers.

Quote:
Restrictions, harassment, and intimidation towards people who practice their religion increased in every major region of the world in 2012 except the Americas, with Christians the major target, says a new report by the Pew Research Center.
“Muslims and Jews experienced six-year highs in the number of countries in which they were harassed by national, provincial or local governments,” the study found, but Christians continue to be the world’s most oppressed religious group, with persecution against them reported in 110 countries.

Source:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bar...ns-are-world-s-most-oppressed-religious-group

Whoah, now you're quoting someone else's summary of the report. The word 'persecution' does not appear even once in the actual report.

 

[pcrdude]

Do keep up? I don't understand why you are belaboring this point. I posted a link that showed religions being persecuted. OK, you don't like that word. Is "religions being put down" better? You countered that is was religions putting down other religions. I retorted with 'there are non-religious entities putting down religions as evidenced in that link'. You missed the mark and argued that it was 'mostly religions", and I answered with 'we can't know the numbers based on how the data were compiled.

Suffice it to say, that religions are being put down, and it isn't just religion on religion.

Additionally, the linked news report was an analysis of the meaning behind the Pew study. And it IS relevant, especially in light of how you seem to be perceiving the data.

As far as 'it's fair to criticize religion', have at it. You are free to voice your opinion all you want. But you appear to want to go further than that. It appears you want to say that religion is somehow bad for society. That religion has 'held back humanity', and is "doing harm" which are lines strait off of Dawkin's page.

Even at times when religion (Catholics for example) attempted to project their worldviews on science, and stuck their figurative fingers in their figurative ears when the science didn't jibe with their preconceived notions, science did IN FACT find a way. As it always does, and should.

Even if you go to the extreme, and claim ISIS is doing harm in the name of religion, the conventional wisdom is that they do not even truly represent Islam.

Christians maybe? They are opposed to gay marriage, abortion, etc. Is that really doing harm to humanity in general? Are they not allowed to have their opinions as well as you are?

That's what fascinates me about militant atheism. It isn't enough to "not believe", but criticism of believers based on some pretty lame, vague "doing harm" accusation.

 

[pcrdude]

Oh Hermit.....

What about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Quote:
State promotion of atheism as a public norm first came to prominence in Revolutionary France (1789-1799).[1] Revolutionary Mexico followed similar policies from 1917, as did Marxist–Leninist states. The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1991) and the Soviet Union (1922–1991) had a long history of state atheism, whereby those seeking social success generally had to profess atheism and to stay away from houses of worship; this trend became especially militant during the middle Stalinist era from 1929 to 1939. The Soviet Union attempted to suppress public religious expression over wide areas of its influence, including places such as central Asia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

Quote:
Throughout the history of the Soviet Union (1922-1991), Soviet authorities suppressed and persecuted various forms of Christianity to different extents depending on the particular era. Soviet policy, based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religious beliefs.[1]
The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept.[4][5] The total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 million.[6][7][8]

http://martyredintheussr.com/about.html

Quote:
Militant atheism, according to Harold J. Berman, a Harvard specialist in Soviet law, was the state credo of the Soviet Union. The militant state atheism of the Bolshevik Revolution owed its origins to the Marxist-Leninist dictum that religion was the xpium of the masses. As such, the goal of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was the liquidation of religion and the means to achieve this goal included the destruction of churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, religious monuments, as well the mass deportation of believers to Siberian forced labor camps, which is commonly referred to as the Gulag. Many of these houses of worship were converted into bath houses, granaries, and museums of atheism, the latter of which were constructed in order to proselytize the masses into accepting atheism. In addition, atheistic and antireligious carnivals were frequently held in order to promote the mockery of the religious and the beliefs that they held sacred.

Lots here:
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/judaism/bldef_antisemitism.htm

And we can Godwin this thread as well.

It’s ludicrous to deny the history of atheist persecution of religion.

What about today?

The incidents span the continent, according to the Anti-Defamation League based in Washington, which has documented several examples in the past two weeks:
•In Antwerp, Belgium, a doctor refused to treat a Jewish woman, telling her son to "send her to Gaza for a few hours, then she'll get rid of the pain."
•In Nice, France, two men insulted Jews near a synagogue at night, then returned in the early morning hours with iron bars, breaking a glass door and a surveillance camera.
•In Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany, a man threatened to kill 30 Jews in the city if his family in Gaza was harmed.
•In Rome, anti-Semitic graffiti and fliers were found on stops and walls in the city's historic Jewish neighborhood.
•In Manchester, England, occupants in a group of cars shouted and swore at Jewish pedestrians, yelling, "Heil Hitler."
Source:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/09/anti-semitism-europe/13662903/

More:
http://www.adl.org/anti-semitism/international/c/global-antisemitism-2014.html

More still:
“Studies suggest antisemitism may indeed be mounting. A 2012 survey by the EU's by the Fundamental Rights agency of some 6,000 Jews in eight European countries – between them, home to 90% of Europe's Jewish population – found 66% of respondents felt antisemitism in Europe was on the rise; 76% said antisemitism had increased in their country over the past five years. In the 12 months after the survey, nearly half said they worried about being verbally insulted or attacked in public because they were Jewish.”

Source:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/07/antisemitism-rise-europe-worst-since-nazis

 

[Hermit]

Do keep up? I don't understand why you are belaboring this point. I posted a link that showed religions being persecuted. OK, you don't like that word. Is "religions being put down" better? You countered that is was religions putting down other religions. I retorted with 'there are non-religious entities putting down religions as evidenced in that link'. You missed the mark and argued that it was 'mostly religions", and I answered with 'we can't know the numbers based on how the data were compiled.

I've had enough of being misquoted by you. My first comment on that said "most ...".

Religious restrictions and harassment is what the report calls it

Suffice it to say, that religions are being put down, and it isn't just religion on religion.

True enough - it isn't just religion on religion. But, as far as I could tell from the report, it mostly is. There aren't many militant atheist governments in the world today, so it's fair to derive that it's governments which favour some religion that are imposing restrictions on (and members of their populace that are harassing) minority religions and their followers.

Additionally, the linked news report was an analysis of the meaning behind the Pew study. And it IS relevant, especially in light of how you seem to be perceiving the data.

It's a summary. There's nothing there you couldn't find in the report. How I'm perceiving the data? I suspect I've read a lot more of that report (and its references) than you have! (OK, TBH... it's pretty clear I have from your ignorance of what it says).

As far as 'it's fair to criticize religion', have at it. You are free to voice your opinion all you want. But you appear to want to go further than that. It appears you want to say that religion is somehow bad for society. That religion has 'held back humanity', and is "doing harm" which are lines strait off of Dawkin's page.

Ah, lol Dawkins again. Because he said those things, they must be wrong... is that your view? If not, argue the points rather than trying to dismiss them with that twat's name.

Even at times when religion (Catholics for example) attempted to project their worldviews on science, and stuck their figurative fingers in their figurative ears when the science didn't jibe with their preconceived notions, science did IN FACT find a way. As it always does, and should.

Even if you go to the extreme, and claim ISIS is doing harm in the name of religion, the conventional wisdom is that they do not even truly represent Islam.

Christians maybe? They are opposed to gay marriage, abortion, etc. Is that really doing harm to humanity in general? Are they not allowed to have their opinions as well as you are?

That's what fascinates me about militant atheism. It isn't enough to "not believe", but criticism of believers based on some pretty lame, vague "doing harm" accusation.

Lame and vague, whatever. That's your opinion, man. Or is it? You at least admitted at one point that:

I don't agree that religion is keeping mankind back. Sure, in the past it did. Especially the Catholic church .

As far as I can tell... It doesn't fascinate you; you love it as an opportunity for argument... and not much else. You're not interested in any proper debate on any of these points. You're not interested in "missing the point of finding truth". All you look for is data to support your own prejudiced views. Those accusing you of being disengenuous and coming here to bait have been proved right. More fool me. You're still welcome to post whatever you like here, but it won't draw my response and I doubt anyone else wants to be tagged in.

In short, you appear to be a hypocritical militant theist. Presumably not catholic, lol.

Why am I hitting eject? Because we're right back to the post that started this chain, and we haven't got anywhere - criticism is still nefarious in your view...

Interesting point, and the answer is in two parts.

Part 1 is pro atheist comments really need nothing more than "there is no prove of a deity, so we reject said deity based on science.

Part 2 is a little more nefarious. That being "religion does harm" and "religion isn't scientific, so it should be rejected".

IMHO, both of those positions actually miss the point of finding truth.

 

[Hermit]

Oh Hermit.....

What about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Quote:
State promotion of atheism as a public norm first came to prominence in Revolutionary France (1789-1799).[1] Revolutionary Mexico followed similar policies from 1917, as did Marxist–Leninist states. The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1991) and the Soviet Union (1922–1991) had a long history of state atheism, whereby those seeking social success generally had to profess atheism and to stay away from houses of worship; this trend became especially militant during the middle Stalinist era from 1929 to 1939. The Soviet Union attempted to suppress public religious expression over wide areas of its influence, including places such as central Asia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

Quote:
Throughout the history of the Soviet Union (1922-1991), Soviet authorities suppressed and persecuted various forms of Christianity to different extents depending on the particular era. Soviet policy, based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religious beliefs.[1]
The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept.[4][5] The total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 million.[6][7][8]

http://martyredintheussr.com/about.html

Quote:
Militant atheism, according to Harold J. Berman, a Harvard specialist in Soviet law, was the state credo of the Soviet Union. The militant state atheism of the Bolshevik Revolution owed its origins to the Marxist-Leninist dictum that religion was the xpium of the masses. As such, the goal of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was the liquidation of religion and the means to achieve this goal included the destruction of churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, religious monuments, as well the mass deportation of believers to Siberian forced labor camps, which is commonly referred to as the Gulag. Many of these houses of worship were converted into bath houses, granaries, and museums of atheism, the latter of which were constructed in order to proselytize the masses into accepting atheism. In addition, atheistic and antireligious carnivals were frequently held in order to promote the mockery of the religious and the beliefs that they held sacred.

Lots here:
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/judaism/bldef_antisemitism.htm

And we can Godwin this thread as well.

It’s ludicrous to deny the history of atheist persecution of religion.

What about today?

The incidents span the continent, according to the Anti-Defamation League based in Washington, which has documented several examples in the past two weeks:
•In Antwerp, Belgium, a doctor refused to treat a Jewish woman, telling her son to "send her to Gaza for a few hours, then she'll get rid of the pain."
•In Nice, France, two men insulted Jews near a synagogue at night, then returned in the early morning hours with iron bars, breaking a glass door and a surveillance camera.
•In Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany, a man threatened to kill 30 Jews in the city if his family in Gaza was harmed.
•In Rome, anti-Semitic graffiti and fliers were found on stops and walls in the city's historic Jewish neighborhood.
•In Manchester, England, occupants in a group of cars shouted and swore at Jewish pedestrians, yelling, "Heil Hitler."
Source:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/09/anti-semitism-europe/13662903/

More:
http://www.adl.org/anti-semitism/international/c/global-antisemitism-2014.html

More still:
“Studies suggest antisemitism may indeed be mounting. A 2012 survey by the EU's by the Fundamental Rights agency of some 6,000 Jews in eight European countries – between them, home to 90% of Europe's Jewish population – found 66% of respondents felt antisemitism in Europe was on the rise; 76% said antisemitism had increased in their country over the past five years. In the 12 months after the survey, nearly half said they worried about being verbally insulted or attacked in public because they were Jewish.”

Source:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/07/antisemitism-rise-europe-worst-since-nazis

Somehow you overlooked:

"In Turkey — a mostly Muslim nation — Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, who is running for president, has accused Israel of aggression similar to that of Adolf Hitler." - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/09/anti-semitism-europe/13662903/

That pretty much sums up your MO. Pick and choose. Never mind the perpetrators (unless they're atheist, or even possibly are), thnk of the victims!

 

[Adrienne]

...Those accusing you of being disengenuous and coming here to bait have been proved right. More fool me. You're still welcome to post whatever you like here, but it won't draw my response and I doubt anyone else wants to be tagged in....

You're no fool for giving a guy the benefit of the doubt. Unlike bob and I, you hadn't already seen voluminous evidence of his disingenuous MO before he ever started posting here. Still, I'm embarrassed to admit that that junk irks me so much that I was asking last night where to find the forum's "ignore" option. In the clear light of day, I remember that, when it comes to forum threads, my eyes have their own cool ignore feature 'cause I can choose not to read any of his posts. That feature sure would come in handy in a few other walks of life, right?! Nice to imagine.... Ah, well, I'll take what I can get.

 

[bobsyeruncle]

4-letter response in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... ?

 

[Hermit]

You're no fool for giving a guy the benefit of the doubt. Unlike bob and I, you hadn't already seen voluminous evidence of his disingenuous MO before he ever started posting here. Still, I'm embarrassed to admit that that junk irks me so much that I was asking last night where to find the forum's "ignore" option. In the clear light of day, I remember that, when it comes to forum threads, my eyes have their own cool ignore feature 'cause I can choose not to read any of his posts. That feature sure would come in handy in a few other walks of life, right?! Nice to imagine.... Ah, well, I'll take what I can get.

Thanks. And sorry for filling up pages with what turned out ot be mere argument. I did look over at the other place a couple of days ago, but of course quite a few posts have been deleted. The Ignore function only works if everybody does it - it's worse in a way to only see people's replies to the one(s) you want to ignore!

 

[nightshard]

The difference is the if you gave an atheist real proof the god exists, you could turn him into a believer, but it wouldn't work the other way around.

Atheists don't believe in god because it doesn't make sense, religious people believe in god despite the fact it doesn't make sense.

 

[TheWestPole]

What movie do atheists watch on Christmas?

Coincidence on 34th Street

 

[TheWestPole]

I asked my wife, "If you're such an atheist, why do you sometimes shout Oh God! when you orgasm?"

"It seems appropriate when I fake them," she replied.

 

[TheWestPole]

What do you get when you cross a Jehovah's Witness with an atheist?

Someone who knocks on your door for no apparent reason.

 

[TheWestPole]

"God's Song (That's Why I Love Mankind)" by Randy Newman


Cain slew Abel, Seth knew not why
For if the children of Israel were to multiply
Why must any of the children die?
So he asked the Lord
And the Lord said:

Man means nothing, he means less to me
Than the lowliest cactus flower
Or the humblest Yucca tree
He chases round this desert
'Cause he thinks that's where I'll be
That's why I love mankind

I recoil in horror from the foulness of thee
From the squalor and the filth and the misery
How we laugh up here in heaven at the prayers you offer me
That's why I love mankind

The Christians and the Jews were having a jamboree
The Buddhists and the Hindus joined on satellite TV
They picked their four greatest priests
And they began to speak
They said, "Lord, a plague is on the world
Lord, no man is free
The temples that we built to you
Have tumbled into the sea
Lord, if you won't take care of us
Won't you please, please let us be?"
And the Lord said
And the Lord said

I burn down your cities-how blind you must be
I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we
You all must be crazy to put your faith in me
That's why I love mankind
You really need me
That's why I love mankind

 

[pcrdude]

I've had enough of being misquoted by you. My first comment on that said "most ...".

Religious restrictions and harassment is what the report calls it



True enough - it isn't just religion on religion. But, as far as I could tell from the report, it mostly is. There aren't many militant atheist governments in the world today, so it's fair to derive that it's governments which favour some religion that are imposing restrictions on (and members of their populace that are harassing) minority religions and their followers.



It's a summary. There's nothing there you couldn't find in the report. How I'm perceiving the data? I suspect I've read a lot more of that report (and its references) than you have! (OK, TBH... it's pretty clear I have from your ignorance of what it says).



Ah, lol Dawkins again. Because he said those things, they must be wrong... is that your view? If not, argue the points rather than trying to dismiss them with that twat's name.



Lame and vague, whatever. That's your opinion, man. Or is it? You at least admitted at one point that:


As far as I can tell... It doesn't fascinate you; you love it as an opportunity for argument... and not much else. You're not interested in any proper debate on any of these points. You're not interested in "missing the point of finding truth". All you look for is data to support your own prejudiced views. Those accusing you of being disengenuous and coming here to bait have been proved right. More fool me. You're still welcome to post whatever you like here, but it won't draw my response and I doubt anyone else wants to be tagged in.

In short, you appear to be a hypocritical militant theist. Presumably not catholic, lol.

Why am I hitting eject? Because we're right back to the post that started this chain, and we haven't got anywhere - criticism is still nefarious in your view...

It's you who are fixated on the Pew report with myopic tunnel-vision. Lots of other things were discussed before that. By you, me and others. And why is it that anyone who disagrees with militant atheism is a "troll"??????

BTW, you are guilty of the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.

 

[pcrdude]

Somehow you overlooked:

"In Turkey — a mostly Muslim nation — Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, who is running for president, has accused Israel of aggression similar to that of Adolf Hitler." - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/09/anti-semitism-europe/13662903/

That pretty much sums up your MO. Pick and choose. Never mind the perpetrators (unless they're atheist, or even possibly are), thnk of the victims!

I guess you weren't done.

OK, go back and re-read who brought any quantitation to bear on the Pew report. I supplied it as evidence of nontheistic persecution of theism (or religion, or religious people as you wish). I never claimed how much.....

 

[pcrdude]

You're no fool for giving a guy the benefit of the doubt. Unlike bob and I, you hadn't already seen voluminous evidence of his disingenuous MO before he ever started posting here. Still, I'm embarrassed to admit that that junk irks me so much that I was asking last night where to find the forum's "ignore" option. In the clear light of day, I remember that, when it comes to forum threads, my eyes have their own cool ignore feature 'cause I can choose not to read any of his posts. That feature sure would come in handy in a few other walks of life, right?! Nice to imagine.... Ah, well, I'll take what I can get.

And biased moderation ended any chance of making that 'discussion' anything more than the bones and SM show.

Again, I don't care about the atheist viewpoint. I just don't understand why they are even bothered with the religious folk. I don't see a lot of Jews going around criticizing Christians for believing Jesus is God. Do you?

 

[pcrdude]

4-letter response in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... ?

Bob is trolling.

I made it in only three words (oh hell, that made it more than four....)

 

[pcrdude]

I was quite a vocal atheist in my early 20's and teens, but as time goes by I let people do as they wish and don't try to push my beliefs (or lack of) on others. I found it to be the best approach.

THIS!!!!

 

[Tripster]

I am a Proud Atheist...
I wear the symbol (label) with Pride where everyone can see it (tattoo)...
I never attempt to convert others...
I could type something else but I don't want The Religion of Peace to threaten to dox me (again) so they can have a brainwashed follower come attempt to behead me (again)...gotta love the Castle Doctrine+Stand Your Ground Law, try to tickle me!


I am a full fledged supporting member of The Christians Against Dinosaurs...trololololololing!

I'll behave and not post Intellectual Atheist Rap Music Videos...

I ain't a hater, later!

I also don't argue and or debate with believers (I try so bloody hard not to) of any religion, just state that I am an Atheist and damn Proud.

I digress...

 

[Adrienne]

Hey, @Tripster, I remember your cool tattoo from some other forum. Really neat looking. It was on the inside of your wrist, right? I remember saying that I didn't know we had a symbol, only a stigma. You were gonna get that variant of the symbol that looks like our solar system on the other wrist... C'mon, man, what's the hold up on that (*peer pressure, peer pressure*)?

Attempt to behead you? That's a reference to current shit happening in the name of religion, not, like, literally something that happened to you, right?

 

[Tripster]

Hey, @Tripster, I remember your cool tattoo from some other forum. Really neat looking. It was on the inside of your wrist, right? I remember saying that I didn't know we had a symbol, only a stigma. You were gonna get that variant of the symbol that looks like our solar system on the other wrist... C'mon, man, what's the hold up on that (*peer pressure, peer pressure*)?

Attempt to behead you? That's a reference to current shit happening in the name of religion, not, like, literally something that happened to you, right?

I'll be getting the Ernest Rutherford Planetary Model of an Atom on my other wrist sometime this year and it will be the same size and no color, just black...

Unfortunately a script kiddie attempted to dox me and threatened to hand over the dox to a follower of The Religion of Peace so they can behead me, all I stated back was "Winning Hearts and Minds, Two to the Heart and One to the Mind." plus the reference to our Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Law.

No authorities were contacted, that would be waste of time and effort on both parties.

 

[Adrienne]

Ah, hope all that's now just distant history. After I consulted Urban Dictionary about script kiddies, I went and tracked down the design you'd mentioned 'cause I was wondering if my memory was being hinky -

I like 'em both. But I'll resist my temptation to go off on a tattoo tangent in Ash's thread... Glad to see you, again.

 

[Tripster]

Ah, hope all that's now just distant history. After I consulted Urban Dictionary about script kiddies, I went and tracked down the design you'd mentioned 'cause I was wondering if my memory was being hinky -

I like 'em both. But I'll resist my temptation to go off on a tattoo tangent in Ash's thread... Glad to see you, again.

Got much better memory than I and totally forgot about that design, lol.

That script kiddie business is still being dealt with but you can't stop this Atheist!

 

[bobsyeruncle]

AronRa Destroys Creationist Tract "Big Daddy?"

The Bible Reloaded and guest Aron Ra deconstruct a Chick Tract.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

 

[pcrdude]

My absolute FAVORITE is "life from rocks".



Abiogenesis is a really hard thing to show scientifically. In fact, recently a very small microbe was discovered hinting at the minimum size of a living cell. It appears to not be able to even live on it's own without cooperation with other cells, and has a genome of 1,000,000 base pairs...... A million letters in it's DNA code, arranged in such a way as to permit survival and cellular division.

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/27/ultra-small-bacteria/

Hmmmmmm