Religion is good
Offline I hear a lot of atheists claim that religion is "dangerous" or some nonsense like that.
Whenever I ask atheists about why they're "sooo concerned" about other people's belief in god or why they bother arguing with theists, I oftentimes get a responce along the lines of how "dangerous" religions are supposed to be.
Are there any atheists on here that believe this way? That religion is somehow prone to executing violence or discrimination?
In my opinion, it's almost entirely human nature. If someone wants to commit mass genocide, he's going to do it with or without religion, religion just MAYBE at best, gives him a better veil to hide in.
But it's funny how everyone conveniently skates around the fact that religions also do alot of good. Churches hold countless functions to benefit the poor, and you can't tell me that the values taught by most religions have not been used to help others.
So besides the fact that theists may believe in an entity that you might think is "illogical" or disagrees with you bigoted points of view, why do you atheists in general hate religion? Human nature spawns ignorance, bigotry, and violence, NOT religion.
Thoughts?
- Login to post comments
Offline
Even 9/11 wasn't religiously motivated as it was motivated by American foreign policy. America isn't just a Christian nation. There are Jews, Muslims, Scientologists, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.
Of course it was not necessarily religiously motivated, but the method of retribution nost certainly was.
Quote:* The spread of sexually transmitted diseases (e.g. AIDS) due to churches prohibiting the use of condoms.
Umm, do not most of them promote ABSTINENCE?
Here you have totally missed the point - that is precisely the problem. They preach the totally unrealistic and failed approach of abstinence and positively oppose the distribution of condoms, a proven way to reduce the incidence.
Quote:* Women treated as second-class citizens or even slaves.
LOL, you are not serious about this one, are you?
You are not serious about this comment are you? The Bible justifies the affliction of women in general from Genesis right on through.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline To quote from an article on the Catholic Education Resource Centre web-site" (note: Not an anti-religious site):
"the 3,000 to 5,000 documented executions of the Inquisition pale in comparison to the 150,000 documented witch burnings elsewhere in Europe over the same centuries."
I notice you neglected to comment on the European witch-burnings...
150,000 murders pales into comparison of the millions of people killed in the span of a few years by the other dictators that I've mentioned. The crimes of atheism far outweigh the crimes of religion.
If you want theists to accept responsibility for things that happened 500-1000 years ago, then atheists have to accept responsibility for the crimes committed in their name.
any such events clearly and directly inspired by religious teachings is a very serious indictment of a philosophy specified claiming to get its code of behaviour from the ultimate source of morality.
Religion can be misinterpreted and misused, no doubt. But so can your computer. Does that make computers bad?
As BMMcD already mentioned, religion clearly provides a powerful tool to reinforce claims to power over a strongly religious population.
Once again, religion can be misused. But it also gives way to many good things, like the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which was an essential element of the Civil Rights movement.
Religion is definitely involved, especially in cultures where religion is a major defining component of the culture, which is virtually always the case in the worst examples of such wars.
They happen to be religious, so what. These wars would be happening with or without religion.
- Login to post comments
Offline Of course it was not necessarily religiously motivated, but the method of retribution most certainly was.
Elaborate on that.
Here you have totally missed the point - that is precisely the problem. They preach the totally unrealistic and failed approach of abstinence and positively oppose the distribution of condoms, a proven way to reduce the incidence.
If religion is preaching that you should abstain until marriage, then they can't be blamed if you choose to do the exact opposite.
And though the percentage of people who have pre-marital sex is higher, there are a lot of people who do wait until they are married. So you are wrong when you say it is "unrealistic".
You are not serious about this comment are you? The Bible justifies the affliction of women in general from Genesis right on through.
We were talking about issues that are going on right now.
Maybe treating women as second class citizens is widespread in the rural areas of China, but we have women doctors, teachers, professors, politicians, actors, actresses, millionaires, etc. To suggest that women today are somehow "second class citizens" is idiotic.
The issue of sexism is something you could talk about apart from religion. The dichotomy between men and women is something that could be seen from a biological, sociological, and psychological perspective. You can't blame religion for sexism.
- Login to post comments
Offline Slightly of the point but a society where you are judged on how much you give to charity is a screwed up one.
A decent society is one where charity isnt needed and people pay the proper amount of taxes to ensure charity isnt needed
- Login to post comments
Offline 150,000 murders pales into comparison of the millions of people killed in the span of a few years by the other dictators that I've mentioned. The crimes of atheism far outweigh the crimes of religion.
If you want theists to accept responsibility for things that happened 500-1000 years ago, then atheists have to accept responsibility for the crimes committed in their name.
I see... what were you thinking of that was committed in the name of atheism? Nothing that I'm currently aware of. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity. It doesn't tell you what land is your land, what colour skin is the best, or how many people can run a train on your sister before you get angry and get a gun and a rooftop.
Sure, an atheist can be a murderer just like anybody else can, but I've never heard of anybody doing anything like that in the name of atheism. Theism on the other hand has acts done specifically in its name and completely without any other justification required. When the creator of the universe and dispenser of objective morality is on your side, what more justification do you need after all.
- Login to post comments
Offline Religion's dogma gives us things like:
- Preventing same-sex secular marriages.
That's not a bad thing.
Marriage is defined as "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."
Homosexuality is wrong. Even if you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality has no purpose other than self-interest. When homosexuals are able to reproduce, then I will acknowledge that it is as legitimate as heterosexuality.
- Genital mutilation of girls and boys.
You would prefer a guy with foreskin?
- Sexual repression.
You're upset that religion discourages you from sleeping around, carrying yourself as a piece of meat for the sexual pleasure of men, and preventing you from getting STDs?
- Login to post comments
Offline I see... what were you thinking of that was committed in the name of atheism? Nothing that I'm currently aware of.
Stalinist Russia, Mao, Pol Pot, Chauchesku, Castro, etc. all operated under atheistic regimes.
Just open up the Communist Manifesto and realize that the whole idea was to create a world without God.
These dictators abandoned traditional values and created their own rules. In a few decades, they killed MILLIONS of people. Way more than anything that has been done in the name of religion.
So clearly, atheism is a failed experiment. Different than Sam Harris would like you to believe, Sweden is NOT an atheistic nation. Sure, you can do numerous case studies of people who will say that they are atheists. But that doesn't change the fact that most of Europe and the world for that matter is run under RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES.
And the world was not always that way.
Go back to the ancient world. There was no value on human life. Humans were judged in accordance to their usefulness. If a Spartan baby was born with a disablility, it was left up on a hillside to die.
The value of human life is not something we learned in isolation from religion. So if you kill God, don't think that you can preserve that ideals that he brings into the world. If God is dead, then so is everything that God brings.
- Login to post comments
Offline e
150,000 murders pales into comparison of the millions of people killed in the span of a few years by the other dictators that I've mentioned. The crimes of atheism far outweigh the crimes of religion.
If you want theists to accept responsibility for things that happened 500-1000 years ago, then atheists have to accept responsibility for the crimes committed in their name.
Whoa, now, cowboy! There is a big difference in atheism being part of something and atheism being the cause of something. Chairman Mao was not killing in the name of, defense of, or encouragement of atheism. He had his own agenda which included disposing of the educated class. The same goes for Stalin. Neither one of them were using atheism as justification for killing. They wiped out groups, any groups, that stood in their way. Sometimes those groups were religious. Sometimes those groups were communists that disagreed with them. They weren't discriminate, and they weren't using atheism to justify their actions.
You would be hard pressed to lump Hitler into that group, what with all his religious rhetoric and the fact that Christian Germany backed him makes it impossible to pretend that the Nazi's were atheist. But even if they were, the ideas expressed by the national socialist party, ideas that did not include atheism, were responsible for provoking people to kill.
On the other hand, lots of people have used religion to justify killing. They have killed in the name of, in the defense of, and in the promotion of their religion. Once you separate the key difference, because of, from the mix, you can see that atheism was not what was being used to justify communist killing. The pope's were telling the crusaders to go forth and slaughter the infidel in the name of religion. Stalin and Mao were not telling the communists to go forth and slaughter the capitalists in the name of atheism.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
- Login to post comments
Offline ...My other post was eaten? Pshaw! 
Whatev.
That's not a bad thing.
Marriage is defined as "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."
Homosexuality is wrong. Even if you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality has no purpose other than self-interest. When homosexuals are able to reproduce, then I will acknowledge that it is as legitimate as heterosexuality.
You are fucked-up, dude. No, really.
Pray tell: What is intrinsically wrong with a sexual relationship that does not result in offspring production? What about homosexuality is absolutely 'wrong', per se? Can you justify this statement at all without flipping to a page in your Bible that has made your decision for you already?
From an 'evolutionary standpoint'? What the fuck is that even supposed to mean? Do you even know a single Goddamn thing about evolution? It would appear not, given that evolution is simply the scientific model / description of common ancestry, and has absolutely nothing to matter-of-factly state about how humans should act (although the science can help us predict how humans and other animals will behave).
You would prefer a guy with foreskin?
That's not the point. It's not about what Jill or anyone else may want; it's what the child may or may not want. It's their fucking penis - they should probably get some vote on whether or not the foreskin stays.
You're upset that religion discourages you from sleeping around, carrying yourself as a piece of meat for the sexual pleasure of men, and preventing you from getting STDs?
Oooh, Man! That Strawman's not getting up anytime soon after that one!
First, sex/promiscuity = STDs is a myth. Unsafe sex (often as a result of inadequate sexual edcation) is what causes STDs to run so rampant.
Second, so what if a woman enjoys having sex with lots of different men and showing herself off. Does that enrage you with jealousy? Does it infuriate you because you opted for a dead Jew and some balding old preacher as the light in your life rather an energetic love-bunny?
Can you name a single terrible thing that will result from being sexually active & exploratory in safe & consensual arrangements (aside from your morbid fantasy that involve's God's dissentors burning forever)?
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Offline Not all communist states are atheist first off, second, just because they are communist doesn't mean that atheism is their reason for mass killing....the dogmatic beliefs of the communist regime or those in charge are usually responsible. Which is something that has been shown many times, dogma is far more dangerous than just mere belief in something. It is those that adhere fervently to the dogmatic beliefs be it religious or political that can be very dangerous. Religious dogma has been around for a long time and has been the source and the driving force behind many atrocities throughout history. Even recent history such as Rwanda, in which the genocide was started due to political reasons, the catholic church of Rwanda actively encouraged the killing of tutsi's and even outed tutsi's that had seeked refuge in the church.
As for your definition of marriage, that is the church's stance on marriage, however every society or country is free to define their own definition of marriage. In Canada, Spain and Netherlands it is the union of 2 individuals. Of course marriage can also be viewed as either the social, religious, spiritual or legal union of individuals. religion may state that it be between a man and a woman, but the definition of marriage really is vague as it has changed throughout history. Of course the christian faith isn't that concrete on the actual definition of marriage outside of the man and woman thing, some sects believe it is 1 man and 1 woman, others 1 man and many women. Same goes for other religions (Islam for example) No where really is it for making children, you don't have to be married to do that.
As for keeping women as second citizens, well religion is very good at that, chrisitans did that for centuries, and various chrisitans sects do that now, Muslims do that now and have done that for, well 1400 years. Same has occurred in various religions around the world. So no, it's true it does happen, do some minor research and you will be amazed of what you will find.
As for the spread of STD's, sure the church preaches abstience, it just doesn't work, as you can get AIDS from blood transfusions, so why shouldn't a married couple use condoms to prevent STD's, of course we all know that ALL males and ALL women never get any sexual urges at all until marriage, and STD's cannot possibly be transmitted in any other way. Of course again if you bothered to do any research you would know that sexual education and condom use lowers STD rates and actually lowers teen age preganancies as well it lowers the abortion rate. WOW, imagine that, you can even see that in the US, were in the bible belt STD's, teen pregnancies and abortion rates are higher than states that have good sex ed.
- Login to post comments
Offline Stalinist Russia, Mao, Pol Pot, Chauchesku, Castro, etc. all operated under atheistic regimes.
Wrong. The ruled under dictatorships.
Stalin was a demonstrable sociopath and ruthlessly ambitious man who imposed dogmatic rule over the entirety of the Soviet Union. The state became the religion, worshipped like any other deity.
Mao was a megalomaniac and an imbecile. He was jealous of academia and condemned anyone who appeared to have more intelligence than himself (needless to say, it was a lot of people) while attempting to build the People's Army into a horrifying juggernaut (he was obsessed with Ghengis Khan and was Hell-bent on following in his footsteps. Needless to say, he failed miserably at his ambition, much like everything else in his life).
Castro did not kill millions of anybody. He pissed-off the U.S. when he dickered-around with the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis (and he helped put the world in a precarious position as a result), he displaced many Latinos who fled to America and he attacked U.S. military personnel at Christmas time. He's a real scumbag, but a) is maybe an atheist, maybe not, b) not a mass murderer, and hardly belongs on the same list as Mao and Stalin, c) another communist who has his people effectively bow at the feet of his regime. None of the censorship and corrupt judicial action in Cuba can somehow be attributed to 'atheism'.
Just open up the Communist Manifesto and realize that the whole idea was to create a world without God.
...Have you actually read the fucking Communist Manifesto? Karl Marx, while likely not a theist, would not have approved of any of the dictatorships listed here. His communism is an unrealistic pipe dream that inevitably results in totalitarianism, but was never intended to do such a thing. Marx himself was a victim of the bootheels of Tsarist Russia, and he felt compelled to try and 'fix' the unfixable.
It's been a long, long time since I last picked-up Marx's work, but I can say with around 70% confidence that he never mentions abolishing any kind of religion. He was strictly interested in the empowerment of the proletariat (working class) because he felt that they would run a country more justly. To say that it was about 'creating a world without God' is to project profoundly into a piece of work that has little to nothing to do with your pet issue.
So clearly, atheism is a failed experiment. Different than Sam Harris would like you to believe, Sweden is NOT an atheistic nation. Sure, you can do numerous case studies of people who will say that they are atheists. But that doesn't change the fact that most of Europe and the world for that matter is run under RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES.
What a crock of shit.
And what exactly are 'religious principles', pray tell? When were these established? By whom?
Sweden has been run under secular principles for centuries, laid down by men that - while perhaps not 'scientists' in the strictest sense - were terribly interested in the world around them and exploring it without being barred by religious preconceptions.
Go back to the ancient world. There was no value on human life. Humans were judged in accordance to their usefulness. If a Spartan baby was born with a disablility, it was left up on a hillside to die.
You're a moron of an urban rumor mill.
Antiquity, while far from perfect and rich in abhorrent social structures (slavery, for example), laid the groundwork for the enlightenment. Were it not for the cancerous influence of the Christian church and it's insistence on the 'righteousness' of slavery, the Dark Ages would likely not have swallowed the Earth and the Library of Alexandria would not have been reduced to so much ash and rubble.
Sparta yielded the most well-trained and well-disciplined military force of it's time (arguably), but was a democratic society that most definately valued the lives of it's citizens. What the fuck do you think the military was for in the first place?
Yes, deformed children were often drown (I've never read about them being 'left up on a hillside', at least not legally. Do you have a citation for that nonsense?) - but you'll never guess at the behest of whom? The fucking religious nuts of the day, whom were convinced that said defects were 'curses' that might be 'spread'!
The value of human life is not something we learned in isolation from religion.
Wrong again. Altruism is an evolutionary trait. But we've been over this enough times with you that I see no point in repeating it one more time.
Just think about this for all of 30 seconds: Do you agree with the Biblical passages condoning rape, slavery, murder, stoning, etc? If you don't, how can that be? You must have some innate ability to tell right from wrong, outside your deity's book.
Odd, isn't that?
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Offline You are fucked-up, dude. No, really.
Pray tell: What is intrinsically wrong with a sexual relationship that does not result in offspring production? What about homosexuality is absolutely 'wrong', per se? Can you justify this statement at all without flipping to a page in your Bible that has made your decision for you already?
Homosexuality is totally unnatural and since it precludes reproduction, the only purpose for it would be for pleasure. It is just people using other people as means.
That's not the point. It's not about what Jill or anyone else may want; it's what the child may or may not want. It's their fucking penis - they should probably get some vote on whether or not the foreskin stays.
Let's also give them the choice on whether or not they should be able to keep their umbilical cord.
Second, so what if a woman enjoys having sex with lots of different men and showing herself off. Does that enrage you with jealousy? Does it infuriate you because you opted for a dead Jew and some balding old preacher as the light in your life rather an energetic love-bunny?
It makes me sad that someone could be so slutty and have no self-respect.
Can you name a single terrible thing that will result from being sexually active & exploratory in safe & consensual arrangements (aside from your morbid fantasy that involve's God's dissentors burning forever)?
Men will view them as little sex kittens and treat them like sex objects rather than human beings. So they will have no qualms with committing rape.
- Login to post comments
Offline That's not a bad thing.Marriage is defined as "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."
Homosexuality is wrong. Even if you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality has no purpose other than self-interest. When homosexuals are able to reproduce, then I will acknowledge that it is as legitimate as heterosexuality.
You are a bigot.
You would prefer a guy with foreskin?
You're upset that religion discourages you from sleeping around, carrying yourself as a piece of meat for the sexual pleasure of men, and preventing you from getting STDs?
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
- Login to post comments
Offline Homosexuality is totally unnatural... *other garbage*
Homosexuality is definately standard-fare in nature. It's been observed in the wild countless times.
Any other bullshit you want to try and spew?
Let's also give them the choice on whether or not they should be able to keep their umbilical cord.
False analogy.
The umbilical chord is an outmoded structure whose purpose has been fulfilled after the child is born. It will fall-away if not surgically severed regardless.
The foreskin is a functional part of the anatomy of the penis.
It makes me sad that someone could be so slutty and have no self-respect.
Non sequitor / doublethink.
Sexual promiscuity does not equal lack of self respect, somehow. 'Sluttiness' is a label imposed by bigots like yourself.
Men will view them as little sex kittens and treat them like sex objects rather than human beings. So they will have no qualms with committing rape.
Bald assertion.
Men who view women like objectsdo so regardless of the woman's sexual activeness. In fact, many predatory men prefer to go after women who are less sexually secure, as they are easier for them to manipulate.
You're also attempting to simplify the cause of rape (which often has far more to do with the control issues of the attacker than anything at all to do with the victim.
Ghost, would you please register an account? Constantly having to manually publish your comments is becoming tiresome.
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm homosexual, retard. If you were to look at homosexuality from an evolutionary standpoint, you'd see that there is no purpose for anything. "Purpose" is granted only by humans and is arbitrary. Homosexuality can not be measured as "right" or "wrong" because it's not a choice.
You are a bigot.
You should know that one of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is that mankind is naturally inclined towards sin. We know it is wrong and yet we have this innate desire to do it anyway. These aren't choices, either. But we gather up enough will power to overcome these tendencies.
You took the coward's way out. Instead of facing the challenge, recognizing that what you are doing is wrong, and working to overcome it... you decided to create a world for yourself where your behavior was okay.
You live by no rules other than your own. I feel bad for you.
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm homosexual, retard.
Pics or GTFO. 
- Login to post comments
Offline Homosexuality is totally unnatural and since it precludes reproduction, the only purpose for it would be for pleasure. It is just people using other people as means.
Let's also give them the choice on whether or not they should be able to keep their umbilical cord.
It makes me sad that someone could be so slutty and have no self-respect.
Men will view them as little sex kittens and treat them like sex objects rather than human beings. So they will have no qualms with committing rape.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
- Login to post comments
Offline Pics or GTFO.
- Login to post comments
Offline Ghost is a fuckwad. I seriously don't get why this site even allows asswads that aren't registered to post. If you're too lazy to register why should we hear from you? And the dickhead trolls can use that too.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Offline You should know that one of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is that mankind is naturally inclined towards sin. We know it is wrong and yet we have this innate desire to do it anyway. These aren't choices, either. But we gather up enough will power to overcome these tendencies.You took the coward's way out. Instead of facing the challenge, recognizing that what you are doing is wrong, and working to overcome it... you decided to create a world for yourself where your behavior was okay.
You live by no rules other than your own. I feel bad for you.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
- Login to post comments
Offline Kevin R Brown wrote:You are fucked-up, dude. No, really.
Pray tell: What is intrinsically wrong with a sexual relationship that does not result in offspring production? What about homosexuality is absolutely 'wrong', per se? Can you justify this statement at all without flipping to a page in your Bible that has made your decision for you already?
Homosexuality is totally unnatural and since it precludes reproduction, the only purpose for it would be for pleasure. It is just people using other people as means.
If it is unnatural then we cannot do it, since it is natural for us to do so, as is with various other species, penguins, monkeys, chimps, dolphins, dogs, cats, birds, then it must be a natural act. Now it maybe technically a evolutionary dead end, however it is what it is, a natural thing for various species, probably a genetic marker that instead of triggers the desire for the same sex instead of the opposite sex.
Quote:That's not the point. It's not about what Jill or anyone else may want; it's what the child may or may not want. It's their fucking penis - they should probably get some vote on whether or not the foreskin stays.Let's also give them the choice on whether or not they should be able to keep their umbilical cord.
Ok now ur just being retarded, you do realize this I hope, the foreskin can be taken off later in life as well, it really can be, it doesn't have to happen at birth. How about the clit on a woman, should religion dictate that this be removed? I mean that is unnatural to have it removed in first place as they serve a purpose, however the umbilical cord no longer has a purpose after birth
Quote:Second, so what if a woman enjoys having sex with lots of different men and showing herself off. Does that enrage you with jealousy? Does it infuriate you because you opted for a dead Jew and some balding old preacher as the light in your life rather an energetic love-bunny?It makes me sad that someone could be so slutty and have no self-respect.
depends is she doing it for attention and to please men and not herself or is she doing it because she is confident and knows what she wants. I do think you would find a massive difference there. Slutty is doing it for attention, no self respect is doing it to please others and not youself.
Quote:Can you name a single terrible thing that will result from being sexually active & exploratory in safe & consensual arrangements (aside from your morbid fantasy that involve's God's dissentors burning forever)?Men will view them as little sex kittens and treat them like sex objects rather than human beings. So they will have no qualms with committing rape.
WOW, just fucking WOW, how ignorant of you. Much of europe, especially sweden and those in Holland must be FILLED with rapists, Canada too (although living here I have not seen a high incedent of rapists...and I myself am not a rapist, so your entire idea really goes out the window here as it's based totally on your opinion and no facts at al), and Sweden and Holland I didn't see or hear much about rapes, however in many religious societies (shall we say for this example the muslim world) rapes are far more common because they view women as second class citizens. Just because you have sex with a few women doesn't mean your going to regard them solely as sex objects, sorry I was brought up better than that.
- Login to post comments
Offline You should know that one of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is that mankind is naturally inclined towards sin. We know it is wrong and yet we have this innate desire to do it anyway. These aren't choices, either. But we gather up enough will power to overcome these tendencies.
You took the coward's way out. Instead of facing the challenge, recognizing that what you are doing is wrong, and working to overcome it... you decided to create a world for yourself where your behavior was okay.
You live by no rules other than your own. I feel bad for you.
THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE HAS BEEN APPROVED OF IT'S CONTENT BY THE MINISTRY
We all know that Big Brother wants the best for all of us. Fortunately, Big Brother is watching - so Big Brother knows how to make us better.
This week, as well as increasing the ration allowance per family in Province A-3 from 20 lbs to 10 lbs in recognition of the hunger problems in the region, Big Brother is also now granting all citizens a huge increase in your freedom; as well as listing ten more books that all citizens are now free to recognize as contraband material that they no longer need worry about reading, Big Brother wants you to suggest an additional five books that should be added to the Citizen's Freedom From Learning Bill. All submissions will be collected by the end of the week, and will be implemented by our generous Big Brother immediately.
Big Brother is watching, because Big Brother cares.
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Offline
Homosexuality is totally unnatural and since it precludes reproduction, the only purpose for it would be for pleasure. It is just people using other people as means.
We see homosexuality in Bonobos, chinstrap penguins, ostriches, Japanese macaques, bighorn sheep, whales, dolphins, and giraffes. There have been 1,500 species that have displayed homosexuality. Either your god screwed up and made sinful animals, or there is a natural explanation for homosexuality.
Let's also give them the choice on whether or not they should be able to keep their umbilical cord.
No choice possible. It will shrivel up and fall off no matter what.
It makes me sad that someone could be so slutty and have no self-respect.
Or does it make you sad that their advances aren't directed at you? Why aren't you condemning the multiple accounts of male lead polygamy in the Bible? Are you saying it is fine for a man to have multiple sexual partners, but not for a woman to? Men that do it are studs, but women are sluts, hey?
Men will view them as little sex kittens and treat them like sex objects rather than human beings. So they will have no qualms with committing rape.
You mean that men will treat them like David did Uriah's wife in the Bible? He'll arange to have the husband killed so he can pound the hell out of the sex kitten? Or maybe they will be driven to slaughter entire towns and keep the virgins for sex slaves as detailed in the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, Exodus, Judges, and Zechariah. Those Canaanite and Midianite women must have caused this by flaunting their stuff.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
- Login to post comments
Offline Men that do it are studs, but women are sluts, hey?
Go out and compare the number of males in a crop tops and/or hot pants to the number of females.
I think you will find it to be one-sided.
- Login to post comments
Offline Go out and compare the number of males in a crop tops and/or hot pants to the number of females.
...Two things:
Promiscuous males wear either suits or tank-tops & baggy pants with neck jewelry when out chasing tail. Try taking this new data out in the field and comparing the population ratios again.
One-sided the issue is definately not.
...And do you actually have a objection here, Cap'n, to promiscuous behavior? Or were you just trying to point something out?
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Offline Or were you just trying to point something out?
Just rambling....
- Login to post comments
Offline JillSwift wrote:I'm homosexual, retard. If you were to look at homosexuality from an evolutionary standpoint, you'd see that there is no purpose for anything. "Purpose" is granted only by humans and is arbitrary. Homosexuality can not be measured as "right" or "wrong" because it's not a choice.
You are a bigot.
You should know that one of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is that mankind is naturally inclined towards sin. We know it is wrong and yet we have this innate desire to do it anyway. These aren't choices, either. But we gather up enough will power to overcome these tendencies.
You took the coward's way out. Instead of facing the challenge, recognizing that what you are doing is wrong, and working to overcome it... you decided to create a world for yourself where your behavior was okay.
You live by no rules other than your own. I feel bad for you.
You are a bigoted retard. Thank for making me remember all of the things I hate most about humanity you stupid bastard. Why did you even come to this form? Do you think you're going to convince anyone of anything with this? All you've done is convinced me your an ass.
- Login to post comments
Offline Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Does anyone but me think desertwolf9 and Ghost might be the same person?
- Login to post comments
Offline You are a bigoted retard. Thank for making me remember all of the things I hate most about humanity you stupid bastard. Why did you even come to this form? Do you think you're going to convince anyone of anything with this? All you've done is convinced me your an ass.
You could either be a nice guy and let someone self-destruct, or you could be an ass and save someone's life.
You ought to sit back and let the asses run the world. Otherwise, things aren't going to go as smoothly for you.
Jill is a coward who doesn't want to face reality. She wants to make reality revolve around her.
- Login to post comments
Offline Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Does anyone but me think desertwolf9 and Ghost might be the same person?
No, because desertwolf9 rarely responds to his own posts
- Login to post comments
Offline Homosexuality is totally unnatural and since it precludes reproduction, the only purpose for it would be for pleasure. It is just people using other people as means.
Taking your maladjusted view of sexuality a bit further, if sex does not result in reproduction such as with couples that are sterile I suppose they shouldn't have sex because all that results is pleasure. Regardless whether such couples are same sex or opposite you would deny them it seems. You must be an impotent or timid person that has major problems with sexuality and choose to attempt enforcemnent of your values on others as you are such a socially inept loser.
Let's also give them the choice on whether or not they should be able to keep their umbilical cord.
What a stupid ass comment.
It makes me sad that someone could be so slutty and have no self-respect.
Some slutty women must have rejected you for you to make this comment. Even sluts have taste and self-respect because they must be rejecting your socially inadequate control freak ass.
Men will view them as little sex kittens and treat them like sex objects rather than human beings. So they will have no qualms with committing rape.
So you have expressed your true internal feelings here as it's you that would hold them to be sex objects. Is rape another of your secret suppressed desires that you would turn loose upon all the women of the world once you have put your controls upon them?
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
lol silly, secular motives only apply to the good actions, not the bad.
(yeah, I cut & pasted to save time)
Unquestioned dogma is the real problem:
Religion's dogma gives us things like:
Outside religion we get such nuttiness as:
Religion brings nothing to the table that wasn't already there. Nothing good from religion can not also be had in a rational, secular philosophy. Nothing bad from religion can not also be had from any irrational but otherwise secular philosophy.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Those guys are such misinformed idiots!
Why, just today there was news of the emormous and wonderful religious festival held in Mumbai by some of Islam's greatest proponents. Ever the pioneers of highly expressive body art, at least one of the merry-makers even went so far as to transform himself and his surroundings into a shower of confetti (though some may find the move slightly controversial, as he will be unable to contribute in any meaningful way to the clean-up after the party has died down).
Islam is where joy comes from.
You couldn't be more correct.
Everyone knows that nothing fills an empty stomach, cures more AIDs or prevents teen pregnancy like a little J. Christ.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
So when people specifically say that the reason they are committing violence is because of their religious beliefs were supposed to assume they are lying?
If people do good things and say it's because of their religion it’s because of the undeniable virtues of religion. If people do bad things in the name of their religion then it's just human nature and has nothing to do with their belief in God. Seems like a double standard to me.
Religious organizations help the poor and build hospitals, this is true. But who benefits most from this? The religious people in those areas are the ones that benefit the most. These are less humanitarian works than they are methods to keep the faithful alive and productive enough to donate more to the religious organizations.
It is also noteworthy that most of the religiously founded hospitals in America do not provide free or reduced health care. They function just like any other blood sucking, greedy corporation.
And yes, religion can be a dangerous tool. It would take a delusional idiot or a barefaced liar to deny that. Just take a look at the Islam = Religion of Peace. Srsly thread to bring this point home. Those aren't atheists throwing acid in school girls faces. Those aren't atheists stoning a rape victim to death. Those are things being advocated by religious dogma.
Furthermore, religoes try to dictate morality. They try to destroy the educational system by removing every piece of math, history, geology, biology, chemistry, and physics that doesn't fit into their dogma. They attempt to thwart the civil rights of homosexuals and women. There are numerous reasons to take a stand against religion. We have to share the world with them. It isn't like they exist on separate planets, continents, or even states. What they do affect our lives, and if we don't stand up to them they will walk all over us.
In conclusion, take your sanctimonious bullshit elsewhere. It might fly in most places, say places dominated by brainwashed buffoons such as yourself, but it doesn't work in places where critical thinking and logic are still respected.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
It can do good things and it can do bad things, really religion and the dogma that follows religion is a double sided sword, and since all of it is up to interpretation it can go either way. However religion, or religious dogma really does breed extremism, and if there are a large amount of moderates, it does breed extremism among it's followers, although they maybe the minority, the moderates usually are powerless to stop such things, and in some cases actually end up encouraging it.
With that said dogma is far more dangerous really, especially blind faith or blind belief in any dogma, be it political or religious. However religion does produce a far greater danger in the means of extremism. As those that tend to follow it blindly and fervently tend to state that the laws of man do not apply to the followers of (insert religion here) and that they follow a higher law, which has lead to mass killings, terrorist acts etc, etc, etc.
I being an atheist, do work with a particular church, simply because I find how they deal trying to get gang members out of gangs far better than any other local group does, however that church also knows that I am atheist and that I am interested only in helping at risk youth and gang members trying to get out. I don't care for the religious crap, since I have already seen that hatred that i can breed, even in this church which is far more open minded than other churches, it still can and has breed some forms of extremism, be it hatred and/or violence against gays or against others of different faiths (even against other christian sects.)
Greatings, great critiques by previous entries, by the way.
"I hear a lot of atheists claim that religion is "dangerous" or some nonsense like that."
We not only claim, we prove it.
"Are there any atheists on here that believe this way? That religion is somehow prone to executing violence or discrimination?"
Yes, I am one, yawn.
"In my opinion, it's almost entirely human nature. If someone wants to commit mass genocide, he's going to do it with or without religion, religion just MAYBE at best, gives him a better veil to hide in."
Illegal use of "human nature" there. Then you creat a weird restrictive hypothetical gender assigned and genocidal character and make comment on his mental state and motivation? Proves nothing. I give you, yes, it could be for many reasons or none.
"But it's funny how everyone conveniently skates around the fact that religions also do alot of good. Churches hold countless functions to benefit the poor, and you can't tell me that the values taught by most religions have not been used to help others."
You can not feed the starving with Bibles and lies, when it created and perpetuates starvation and suffering. You deceive them viciously by imposing your religion and expect thanks for your inquisitions and missionaries. Granted, it is not the only thing responsible here.
"So besides the fact that theists may believe in an entity that you might think is "illogical" or disagrees with you bigoted points of view, why do you atheists in general hate religion? Human nature spawns ignorance, bigotry, and violence, NOT religion."
Not all atheists hate religion, but I do sometimes. Actually usually.
Read and travel my dear original author, Dr Diagoras prescribes.
PS I don't like the block quote method, ok?
Who would want to finish what they have said with the same thing everytime?
In the vain hope that the poster will actually read and respond to one of my articles, I submit the following:
Religious Moderation
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Yep just like any other human institution, it is flawed, can be abused, can be bent to justify good or bad actions. The fact that is built around totally irrational illogical beliefs, which involve requirements for total obedience to an ultimate power, it can have devastating effects on susceptible individuals, leading them to self-destructive actions, or worse, heinous attacks on other people.
It is ironic that we are asked to discount these effects by the cases where religion is associated with charitable and other arguably positive activities. Because many religious people insist that if someone commits some 'sin' which 'deserves' sentencing to Hell or at least blocking access to a 'heavenly reward', that punishment cannot be offset by good works that person may also have performed in their life.
Its called hypocrisy, something that religion has elevated to a high art form.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I used to travel to work with a guy who was a Jehovah Witness. He was a very pleasant, well mannered and respectful person. In three years travelling and working together I never heard him curse or lose his temper. He never had a bad word to say about anyone. He was almost too nice!
While driving to work one day he told me that a relative had been in a motor bike accident and was in intensive care. I was shocked to find out that due to their beliefs his parents were preventing a blood transfusion. Apparently his recovery was in Gods hands. What shocked me even more was that my colleague agreed with their actions and said he would do the same if it was his child. This otherwise charming person was willing to standby and let a relative die because of his superstitious beliefs.
Evil actions like these are only carried out by good people due to a religion.
Stephen Weinberg summed it up – With or without religion good people will do good things, while bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things that takes religion.
Hmmm, I'm starting to sense a pattern here.
1) You start a conversation with an ignorant argument.
2) We annihilate your claims.
3) You ignore our responses and start anther thread.
Sooner or later, you're going to run out of stuff to talk about, aren't you?
Me. Yes.
Religion is fundamentally opposed to free thought, for it urges its followers to conform to established conclusions instead of honestly seeking the truth.
This is true.
Some of the other posters might disagree with me on this, but I think, that when used correctly, religion can be a vehicle of "good." Of course, I'm simply claiming that religion tends to amplify what is already present, while the group conforms to the religion, the religion also conforms to the group.
For example, if a theist wanted to serve the community and such an action was supported by doctrine, then the individual will inevitably help people. On the other hand, if a man had powerful sexual cravings and his religion was blatantly misogynistic, then you're going to have a rapist or something.
Religion is an intellectual cop-out and an emotional crutch.
You don't have to be religious to do community service, but you do have to be religious to blow yourself up in a crowd of school children thinking that you'll go to heaven and get 72 virgins.
*buzzer* Sorry, incorrect. Any credible psychologist or philosopher will tell you that religion is definitely a product of human nature.
Thousands of years ago, when people in China didn't know what caused thunderstorms, they deduced that it must have been the result of two dragons fighting in the sky. As humans, we have a natural curiosity, a desire to want to know things. In fact, when we don't know something, it bothers us; this is the birthplace of religion. Every ancient civilization possessed their own creation myth, like they simply weren't content with the physical world, like simply living life wasn't interesting enough.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
"With or without religion you would have good men do good things and evil me do evil things. For good men to do evil things requires religion. " - Stephen Weinberg
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Fixed it for you.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
The reason religious institutions and hierarchies are dangerous isn't that they don't produce good works. Ostensibly at least, these organizations are established for beneficial reasons, even if those reasons are something as small as tribal cohesion and cultural unity in the face of a much larger world, with more powerful people and more tempting cultures. Religion itself is an ancient tool for unifying people into cohesive social units.
The problem is that the way religious groups are structured is inherintly authoritarian: the social cohesion sought after is attained through claims of having definitive, reliable answers to the questions and concerns that members of the group have. These answers come from a source that is said to be trustworthy by virtue of being far, far wiser than the men delivering its answers. This, too, is necessary, because it is an appeal to an external and more definitive authority than the wisdom of the priests themselves, whose wisdom might be challenged by some of the more headstrong members of the social group, as they are only human themselves, and so no less fallible than any other person in the group.
The problem then arises that the questions change, and religion must have the answers ready when they do. For if the answers to the new questions were not already presented (even if the faithful did not see it), this casts doubt on the wisdom of the divine; "if God is all-knowing, surely He knew we'd ask that question. Why didn't he anticipate that?" To combat that danger, and the danger of new ideas and outside influences threatening the social cohesion, the divine authority of the priests must be unquestioned.
And that is the real problem. Because while many who seek to be part of the religious hierarchy doubtless do so out of a sincere desire to serve the god that has given their lives direction, or to help others, some who follow that path seek only power... and many who begin the journey with good intent are soon seduced by the power and authority they find there. Some begin to believe their own claims of divine infallibility and authority... and there are none to gainsay them or call upon them (or their followers) to question their motives and critically examine what is being asked of them... because the divine authority of the priests must be unquestioned.
ANY authoritarian system is bad. Any authoritarian system lends itself to abuse and will eventually cause tragedies if it continues long enough. Religion is dangerous because it is the one authoritarian system that elevates the 'authority' to the point of being beyond human understanding and reasoning, and beyond questioning or challenge. No matter how repressive a dictator gets, he remains human, and the oppressed know that there are ways to challenge his power. Religion, by comparison, asserts that the Ruler cannot be questioned, cannot be challenged... and that all suffering and oppression now will lead to far greater reward in the future.
Yes, human nature spawns ignorance, bigotry, and violence... religion is simply the tool used to ensure that the people dare not oppose that ignorance, bigotry, and violence, out of fear of retribution from an oppressor they are conditioned from childhood to believe is so powerful that he cannot be opposed.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
I love how atheists continually lose sleep over things that happened between 500 and 1000 years ago. And how many people died in the Inquisition? 500 in a span of 350 years?
Answer me this: How many people were killed by Mao, Pol Pot, Chauchesku, Stalin, Castro, etc. over the span of 20 years?
I'm GLAD you mentioned the witch trials. I know in the case of Salem, the body count was less than TWENTY.
And you blame religion for that.... or do you blame man's desire for power and his capacity to misuse religion for his own personal gain?
Okay, now you are starting to get vague, which tells me that you are running out of fingers for counting the crimes of religion.
Oh, is this about the Virginia Tech shootings? So RELIGION is to blame for the fact that this kid was picked on and had psychological issues... and more importantly, for the fact that someone sold firearms to him without doing a thorough background check on his psychiatric history? And is religion also to blame for the fact that despite a SHOOTING taking place in one building on campus, the police decided not to evacuate the entire campus while the shooter was still at large?
And what religion actually forbids the use of hospitalization and medical science explicitly in their scriptures? I'd like for you to show me the passage.
Actually, there are very few examples of that. Most of these so-called "Holy wars" are not really religious wars at all. They are wars over land or property.
Even 9/11 wasn't religiously motivated as it was motivated by American foreign policy. America isn't just a Christian nation. There are Jews, Muslims, Scientologists, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.
Umm, do not most of them promote ABSTINENCE?
LOL, you are not serious about this one, are you?
The rest of your examples get even worse.
To quote from an article on the Catholic Education Resource Centre web-site" (note: Not an anti-religious site):
"the 3,000 to 5,000 documented executions of the Inquisition pale in comparison to the 150,000 documented witch burnings elsewhere in Europe over the same centuries."
I notice you neglected to comment on the European witch-burnings...
No intention to apologise for those other dictators, but any such events clearly and directly inspired by religious teachings is a very serious indictment of a philosophy specified claiming to get its code of behaviour from the ultimate source of morality.
And you blame religion for that.... or do you blame man's desire for power and his capacity to misuse religion for his own personal gain?
As BMMcD already mentioned, religion clearly provides a powerful tool to reinforce claims to power over a strongly religious population.
These are still valid examples, and Galileo and the more horrific treatment of Giordano Bruno, are not vague.
I'm sure it was not about the Virginia Tech shootings. There are many examples of exactly what was claimed.
Religion is definitely involved, especially in cultures where religion is a major defining component of the culture, which is virtually always the case in the worst examples of such wars.
Even the claim to the land is frequently justified as being granted to the people by their God.
{ continued in next post }
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology