"evidence" is only necessary or relevant with a falsifiable claim.  the existence of god is nonfalsifiable and has neither the need for empirical or scientific proof, nor the universal validation that comes with said proof.  i have no problem with claims of god's existence.  i only have a problem when the claimant tries to give his beliefs objective validity and/or make them into a universal imperative.  believers don't always do this.  in fact, i know of about about a billion, most of whom don't.  of course, a great number of those believers don't really believe in "god" at all.

I totally agree on that one. I especially hate it when people try to force legislation of morality upon the public because the bible/god/religion or anything else told them to.

Of course, I have a strong tendency to disagree with anyone doing that theists or not. For instance, I see no reason for this absurd law banning trans-fat in foods. If I want to choke to death of a heart attack (which even my skinny ass could be susceptible to due to all the fatty foods I eat) or smoking a cigar, I should be able to do so.

To my knowledge, no one forcing this nonsense is doing so for religious purposes.

To whom would you be referencing with that one ? Are you talking more about eastern religions that to my limited knowledge do not have a "god" per se ? Or are you speaking along the line of some anti-theists that I know that while they believe in a god of some sort, they reject organized religion ?

I know my girlfriend's religion doesn't really have a central god, authority, nor much else. God/Goddess is seen differently by Wiccan followers. I personally don't buy it, but since I do not see too many Wiccans going around trying to convert anyone nor really caring what others believe, I am really not too worried about it.

You can claim all you want that most people don't do this, but far too many people DO and the ones who dont do what you say lend cover to the ones that DO!

Stop making this out to be a human rights issue when that is NOT the argument I am making. That is the same stupid pc doge I get from my believing friends when they don't like the message. Being uncomfortable with being faced with an uncomfortable topic is not a reason to ignore it just to placate the insecurities of others.

oh fuck you, brian!  you want to call naked assertion?  your last sentence there is THE BIGGEST FUCKING NAKED ASSERTION THE ATHEIST COMMUNITY EVER MADE, and i'm fucking ill of it.  where is the data for that, brian?  where are the studies?  how the fuck do you know moderates make it easier for extremists?  you don't.  it's a fucking hunch.  in fact, it's a nonfalsifiable statement in and of itself, so it as much logical and scientific validity as any religious dogma, no more, no less.

if i'm a party to getting people, atheists or theists, to think twice before spewing shit out their mouths, i'll gladly answer to that charge, you self-righteous fucking dolt.

So, Brian37, you just accused iwbiek of "[giving] cover to religion to allow it to cause human division and retard human progress."

Do you realize you're accusing him of "[giving] cover to religion" because he wants "to allow it to cause human division and retard human progress"?

I'm really hoping you didn't intentionally word it that way, and what you actually intended to convey was very close to "...and questioning the likes of you who give cover to religion, which will allow it (religion) to continue to cause human division and retard human progress."

Nowhere have I seen iwbiek claim you should stop criticizing religion altogether. He thinks (and I'm inclined to agree) that you're ignorant of what religion truly IS. If he's correct, a significant portion of your criticism will likely be completely inapplicable to religion.

More importantly, however, is the wording of the following sentence: "I am with Harris and Hitchens in questioning religion and questioning the likes of you who give cover to religion to allow it to cause human division and retard human progress." You're not just claiming iwbiek is "giving cover to religion", you're claiming he's doing so for malicious reasons. If this is not your intention, I think you should clarify and/or reword that sentence.

No I am not ignorant of what it is. It is a placebo an escape, but that does not mean it deserves taboo status. Just because delusion is an outcome of human evolution does not mean it deserves a pass.

I think he has good intent, but again, "getting along" should not mean zipping our lips to placate the insecurities of others who clearly lack the evidence to back up their naked assertions.

The above portions of your response directly and properly address my previous post. They also make up a significant portion of your whole response. AND you completely and thoroughly answered every part of my key question.

I do sincerely apologize if my above statements are offensive. However, I am genuinely quite surprised and pleased.

you don't see me saying that either!  once again, brian, WHERE do I say that?  i'm still waiting.

no, you're not, because you don't even know 90% of the claims religions make.  basically, you're whole knowledge of religion stems from spats with your coworkers and family and a couple lightweight, polemical books.  it would be like me reading one of those bullshit christian books about islam you can get in the wal-mart checkout aisle (the ones with titles like the truth about islam) and then acting like i know everything there is worth knowing about islam, and plugging up my ears when ever anyone tried to educate me further.  in other words, i would be a joke.

Brian37, you are so monumentally dense that I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. Seriously.

Do you think you're accurately assessing and responding to what iwbiek is saying?

  I would like to encourage you. LOL! I am sure I know that exact same sentiment from what has been been put forth by Caposkia, (guaranteed)!

______

  ¬ TO Others ::   "If you go off half cocked, thinking youre doing it on your own. You're guaranteed to fall on your face every time" ¬ Ben Carson

well, the futility of all actions is overwhelmingly obvious.

WHAT? Holly crap. This is laughable. 1984 is what the Koch brothers want, not me.

You pool enough money together for any human venture, religious, political or business and you gain a monopoly of power. Explain to me how a dishwasher has the same monetary power as the Koch Brothers.

A monopoly of power is what 1984 warned us about. Same with Animal Farm. Use propaganda to pit people against each other so they ignore their own self interests.

Where is Caposkia? Haven't seen Caposkia  in ages. What Caposkia  had, even as a believer, that some here seem to forget, is yes,  thought, like many here, that I was full of shit. But  didn't run away, and I wasn't the only one blasting god claims.

That thread was what 5 years old, if not more? If I am correct it started with a book written by an apologist Caposkia thought would convince us of the existence of a god. I wasn't the only one in that thread attacking the claims of a believer was I?

When any believer of ANY religion can take their findings to a lab, and beat everyone else to the patient office, I will gladly back off. You can believe you are chosen by FSM or Thor or pink unicorns all you want, but don't expect me to be polite about it even if I agree with your right to make the claim.

Double post.

"Willful stupidity" like claiming a woman came out of a man's rib? You run from that? Funny how science does NOT take that attitude. If it took the "live and let live" PC attitude you want to advocate, science would not advance.

Yes, it is good to ignore the stupidity that women can't drive in Saudi Arabia. It is good to ignore the stupidity of thugs shooting a girl for wanting an education.

You got me, it is ok for lawmakers to base the legality of slavery on the bible DO NOT TELL ME THEY DID NOT. It is ok for lawmakers to say "fuck women's right to vote" DO NOT TELL ME they didnt. DO NOT TELL ME that gays are denied the right to marry based on purely secular reasons.

I have defied you consistently, and now unfortunately one more time, TO FUCKING SHOW ME IN ANY OF MY POSTS, where I claimed a utopia was a possibility.

If "Its all good" worked like you stupidly think then the assholes who shot Malala are right.

So this is not a claim itself?

For someone who says they have given up on me you sure do a bad job of it.

I do know.

EVOLUTION.

Every human behavior, both yours and mine is a RANGE of our species. Now if you have a better explanation I am all ears.

Evolution therefore what?  Evolution doesn't prescribe values, it describes a process.  That process lead to us being what we are today.  So what?  Saying evolution isn’t any more of an argument then saying gravity.  What point are you trying to make?  If you have arguments you want to make then make them.  If you  want to engage with people engage with them.    Instead you have a tendency to spout inane drivel that is often unrelated to the topic at hand.

You know that strangely enough, I have never thought of this the whole entire time that I have been through both the religious stage and Atheist stage.

But this does make perfect sense.

No shit we are both atheists. You are the PC guy who thinks "getting along" should mean always placating people when they make stupid claims. EVEN AFTER I said humans making stupid claims is going to happen.

When you open your mouth and make a claim, the POISON, isn't in the fact that people make stupid claims. The poison is in their insistence that you don't question them.

Our species DOES THIS, but the fact that we don't like challenges to our social norms does not mean that we also do not overcome our bad claims.

If the key to progress was to never upset anyone because they might get offended our species never would have left the caves.

Religion IS poison like refusing to learn about vocanos lead people to throw virgins in them. You can understand why people did those horrible things in the past. But when you know how a volcano actually works, to don't stupidly say "Its ok to throw virgins in them".

Where has RatDog indicated he thinks this way, Brian?  I know it's not in this thread, because I just reread both his posts in it. I'm questioning your claim, Brian; please provide evidence to back it up.

*Sigh* Brian when did you become like this?  Where you always like this and I just didn’t notice or is this something that happened slowly over time.

Where did you get this from anything I said?  Brain you need to listen to what people say.  Not what you think they mean, or whatever weird crap is going on inside your head.  Focus on their actual word.  Otherwise real communication can’t take place.

Boiled down your argument seems to be:

1. Insistence that people don't question stupid claims = poison
2. Progress involves upsetting people in order to overcome bad claims
3. If progress didn’t involves upsetting people then there would be no progress.
4. Religion = poison = refusing to learn
5. Refusing to learn causes harm (or maybe virgins being thrown into volcanoes I’m not sure).   

Simplifying this we get:

1. Religion is poison, refusing to learn and insisting that people don’t question stupid claims.
2. Upsetting people is necessary for both progress and overcoming bad claims.  
3. Refusing to learn causes harm.   

I don’t find any of this relevant to anything I’ve said.  As for your discussion with iwbiek I don’t think the two of you are going to be able to agree on the definition of religion.  Maybe you should try shifting the discussion to something like, willful ignorance is unethical because it causes harm.  On a more personal note I think you might need help.  Maybe you should try doing something new like going to a class at a community college, or reading a book that you wouldn’t normally read.

i once suggested he needed to study up on comparative religion.  i even offered to suggest a couple books.  i got told no, there is nothing more he needs to know about religions, he knows enough, thanks.  then he proceeds to argue against the existence of multi-armed deities.  even though nobody actually believes they exist.  had he read even an extremely cursory, layperson's book about hinduism, he wouldn't have wasted his time writing that drivel.

as for defining religion, it's been a couple weeks since we argued about that.  now, no matter what i say, i just get called PC and told my primary concern is not upsetting theists.  even though he's the ONLY atheist on this site who's ever gotten so much vitriol from me.  ok, well, there was EXC, but that had nothing to do with religion at all.  the other people i've railed against as much or more than brian have been: furrycatherder, jean chauvin, gramster, paisley, epistemologist, mind over matter, old seer, and i'm sure there were others--all theists.  i evn called luminon on his bullshit a couple times, even though i like him, and i often questioned eloise on why she felt the need to posit a deity of any sort (i admit i never pushed her too hard because i have the major hots for her, on both a physical and intellectual level).

If these were the worst theists in the world we had to deal with, I wouldn't have started this thread at all. The problem isn't which label, the problem is our evolutionary history allows our delusions to distract our species from its common condition.  Religion IS a poison because it produces false perceptions to the point of divisive conflict.

You must really live in a bubble and never turn on your tv or read anything in social media about what people do in the name of religion.

Now tell this 13 year old girl her family had the right to kick her out of the house merely because she didn't believe. If this is NOT ok, which it IS NOT, then  your good intent of "cant we all just get along", which is NOT my point, but "leave em alone", well this is what happens when you "leave em alone".

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/22/atheist-13-year-old-kicked-house/

And this isn't just about atheists, this is about gays, and even Muslims whose families disown them because they think differently or decide they don't want to be part of the societies religions.

There are still far to many humans in the world who indoctrinate their kids into a religion and grow up divided because of it. Now, while you cant stop a parent from teaching a kid what they want, you can outside that family to foster a future where you grow the idea to let the kid grow up first and decide for themselves.

Your argument of "not everyone does this" is again, still not my point. If you want less of this as a liberal and moderate you cant simply say "live and let live". You can use the island the volcano is on but you'd be stupid to assume that it will never blow it's top.

But crap like this goes on all the time, not just here and not just with atheists.