Another Gripe
Offline Yeah Im an agnostic. I just can't help it.
Seriously I have another thought that hit me after I watched the ABC debate with that growing pains guy. Brian talked about all the horrific things that have been done by christians througout history. He even mentioned a more up-to-date hypocrite like Ted Haggard. But is this really a valid argument for the case of athiesm? I don't think so. I think Brian needs to put the shoe on the other foot for a moment and then rethink his thought here.
Here is what I mean. A man in the audience at this debate asked Brian and Kelly about horrible things that have happend in communist countries, countries that where athiestic. Kelly even mentioned some by name such as Hilter and Stalin. Now if Brians condems one religion because of all the hypocites and nut-jobs then he must apply the same logic to athiesm. If christianity is bad because of the Crusades then athiesm is bad because of the Holocaust or the actions of Stalin.
Furthermore is a person doesn't like chrisitans because of one man, like Ted Haggard, then is it not fair for a person to hate athiest because they may not like Brian Sapient?
It is really cool that you guys had a debate to examine various views and opinions but lets keep the arguments reasonable.
- Login to post comments
Seriously, read the threads. Atheism isn't a religion, Hitler wasn't an atheist and the atrocities communists committed wasn't in the name of atheism.
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
1. Atheists don't necessarily dislike Christians. They just don't share their views about one particular god. When it comes to Thor and Zeus, atheists and Christians are in perfect agreement.
2. I have never met an atheist who disagreed/disliked Christianity because of one particular person. This is certainly not the case with Brian and Kelly.
3. Hitler called himself a Christian and never said he wasn't one. You cannot claim that he wasn't a Christian without commiting the no-true-Scotsman logical fallacy.
4. As Matt pointed out, Stalin was not killing in the name of atheism. In fact, I am aware of no incident in history where this has happened. And, to paraphrase Sam Harris, neither the Nazis nor the communist regimes in Russia and China suffered from an excess of rationality. These massacres were possible because a whole bunch of people believed in something uncritically and fanatically. It is barely relevant that, in this case, that thing was a political ideal instead of a god.
5. The Crusades etc are brought up to counter Christian claims that countries must be founded on God in order to act morally. In fact, we see that Christian countries are quite capable of atrocities.
6. Don't bother lecturing us on making reasonable arguments. We can make any kind of arguments we want. Nine times out of ten it is the theists and "agnostics" that end up arguing against rationality on these boards.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
As has been pointed out before - if atheism is a religion, bald is a hair color and off is a TV channel.
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
Okay, athiesm is not a religion..no big deal. But the logic still applies and you must deal with it. It doesn't matter if the acts were done in the name of athiesm or not, the fact is that a lot of bad and evil things have been done by athiest. But is it fair for me to pass a judgement on all athiest based on the stupidity of some? No! Therefore gentlemen it is not right to pass judgement on all the people in one particular religion because many did some stupid things. Furthermore, how does stupidity disprove a particular world-view. It is completely possible for a teaching and or principle to be correct even though individuals who hold to that principle don't get it right all the time.
Do you even have any idea what you are talking about?
I think you are missing the point of the argument. I've never passed judgment on any modern person because of the Crusades or Inquisition. I do, however, pass judgement on Christianity for these things.
The problem is with the teachings and/or principles. As an atheist, I find the concept of a god to be untenable. Therefore the people that hold that position cannot get it right any of the time.
"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett
The fact that you don't even know how to spell atheist is a huge red flag to me regarding your level of understanding any of these issues.
- Brian is not my leader, but nice try.
- Ray Comfort and Co. were trying to prove the existence of god - Brian was not, nor was he trying to disprove the existence of god. It was a debate wherein a statement was made and challenged.
- Proving religion false is not the same as proving god does not exist - gain, nice try.
- Whether you like it or not, religion has done many awful things and continues to do them in the name of religion. Your inability to comprehend that does not change this.
Again, name one atrocity that equals the level of, say the crusades that was done in the name of atheism.There is no dogma in atheism, there are no rituals, no leaders, no followers, no gods!
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Let me point out that I am not disagreeing with you about the horrible things that have happened in the name of religion. But it is not fair, or even logical to assume a relgion is absolutely wrong based on the actions of some, NOT ALL, of its followers. Therefore, the premise is still flawed as are you if you use this in you arguments. But nice try on your part.
It was not just the actions listed that lead to that particular conclusion. Can you please provide a list of good things religion does that exclusive to religion? (i.e. charity does not count because it can occur without religion)
Also to say athiesm has no leaders is not accurate. I suppose Dan Barker, and Richard Dawkins are meaningless to you.
Muslims dislike atheists just as much as Christians.
I personally don't know how I feel about Dawkins, I don't think I agree with him on some points. And I haven't read anything by Dan Barker yet. There are other books that I'm currently getting through. So, no, I wouldn't call Dawkins, Barker or any else 'my leader'.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
You certainly can pass judgement on the religion when you observe that the members of the religion, time after time, all through history and in different places around the world, claim direct motivation from the religion to commit atrocities. The Crusaders and Inquisitors took passages right out of Scripture to explain their actions and justify them. No one is claiming that modern theists are to blame for their actions, but we can note that they share the same beliefs at least in part, and thereby be concerned about where those beliefs might lead them. Especially when we see those beliefs already extending misery around the world by preventing safe sex in Africa, stalling stem cell research in the US and motivating people to fly planes into buildings, among other things.
By contrast, none of the atrocities of Stalin or Mao can be linked to atheism or any attempt to further atheist principles. There is no evidence that any of these people were motivated by their atheism to do the things they did, and plenty of evidence to show that they were motivated by political ideology and a desire for power.
You're skating close to the no-true-Scotsman fallacy here, but perhaps not quite over the edge. Who are you to say whether those violent Christians of the past were obeying the teachings of Christianity? I'm sure they thought they were!
We can observe, looking at history, that religious cultures are poorer, more violent and less technologically advanced than more secular cultures. Why ignore the obvious correlations and continue to say that religion is a good thing?
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Remember if good deeds and chairity can't be used by religious people then the same applies to you my atheist!
I was not asking you about the discussion Brian had, my little theist. I was asking you to provide a list of good thing exclusive to religion. Nice dodge.
I will advise you to learn the definitions to the following words: atheist, theist, deist, religion, dogma, doctrine, secular and logical fallacy. Until you do, this discussion will go nowhere.
Show me a human that claims to smell like flowers all the time and I will show you a lier.
Haggart's hypocracy was not that he did contrary to what he was preaching, but his dishonesty to himself. If he knows he is gay and choses to live a lie then he only hurts himself. His adiction and seeing an unregulated prostitude is dangerous for health reasons, not because of any atheism or theism.
I would have said to him, "Ted, why would you suck up to people who would spit on you if they knew the truth?" That was his hypocracy. The fact that he made mistakes is normal and atheists do too.
I dont think most atheists I know pass judgment on individuals. But humanity DOES have it's collective head up it's ass basing life on mythological fairy tales written by people who did not have microscopes or even knew what DNA was.
Dont sit there and make a collective statement about all of us either wich seems to be the inclination of that post.
I've known Brian for a long time now and he does not pull the "guilt by association" crap.
What we are trying to do is quite simple. Ween humanity off the idea of worship. If you dont like daddy telling you what to do as an adult, then dont worship a autocrat either. Hitler was an autocrat and the rule was done by him and him alone. So why would anyone worship a deity that rules without question, expects obediance and has the final say?
Brian wouldnt want anyone to worship or blindly follow him without question. How you'd even imply that out of his criticism of the dark side of religion and equate that to "pot meet kettle" is absurd.
I am quite certain Brian has flaws, heck, the fact that he worships the Eagles is testimony. And I am quite sure he dispises the Redskins as much as I do the Eagles.
My point is it seems that you are jumping to conclusions in your attempt to accuse people here of jumping to conclusions.
We all fart, we all burp, we all crap and we all die. Is that equall enough for you?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You are right...we can't deny history. But to say that a particular religion is wrong or not valid is still not permissable based on that history and here is why. You don't have absolute knowledge of every single person in that religion do you? Without that absolute knowledge you can't make an absolute claim can you? Yes many of these chrisitans thought they were following the bible, but just because they believed it doesn't make it true. My nephew believes in the Tooth Fairy doesn that make her real?
<
Oh and your christian soup kitchens and homeless shelters. They're really nice to everyone aren't they?
Link
{fixed link}
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Also I get it...atheism is not a religion but there are some atheistic organizations that people rally under. Isn't that right? And you are right there are a large number of people of various religious beliefs working in the hospitals but the reality is they were started by christians.
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say ALL. You were espousing how great Christian charities and the like were and I'm merely pointing out that not ALL of them are roses. Nor did I specify that I thought all Christian shelters and what not were bad. It's an example, however, of some of the negativity that comes from religion. Take it as you will.
You know, its funny, you started off one of your little threads with 'I'm an agnostic'. I'm kind of curious, if you're an agnostic, why are you defending the Christian religion so heavily?
If god takes life he's an indian giver
PLEASE tell me your next question will be, "Why do you hate god so much?". That will make this inane debate complete.
First off, you don't me at all, so please don't tell me I'm being intolerant. If you read through many of my posts on other threads, I've always maintained that I would never want to deny any their right to belief, as long as that belief did not infringe on the rights of others. I have friends who are Christian, Catholic and Orthodox Jewish. We get along great. They respect me and I respect them. I honestly don't give a hoot what religion you are. Perhaps some people on this forum do. There are also Christians on this forum who I have a great deal of respect for (Cory T, for example).
My problem isn't with these people of faith as a whole. My problem is that people's rights are being violated based on the religious beliefs of others. and the reason people's rights are being violated is because faith is being integrated into our government. Now I know your answer to this would be 'stop complaining'. These people are obviously the minority and you've made yourself crystal clear how you feel about the 'minority'. I believe I had asked you earlier whether or not you'd be ok with Islamic law, if Muslims were the marjority but you ignored it.
I think most atheists are more tolerant that religious folk. We don't buy into a lot of the bigotry that religion teaches. Why do you think I'm being intolerant? Because I don't agree with you? Because I don't want your religious beliefs to affect my life? I don't think I'm being intolerant at all.
Your support of Christianity leads me to believe that you are not as agnostic as you stated, since you seem to be responding in a personal way. Which would make you a liar. And that is not an accusation, before you get all bent.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
I can see that you have been reading this board due to the back and forth, but are you comprehending what is being said? There is a distiction between disliking christians and disliking christianity. Christians are people, christianity is a concept. We are going around in circles here. You asked a question, we answered, you ignored it, asked it again, and we start again. I would recommend going back through the thread and trying to comprehend what we are saying, not just look for points to argue.
"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett
As has been addressed a couple of posts ago, atheists do not HATE christians. We dislike theism and the things it makes theists do, but we do not nessacarily dislike the persons. So your statement about hating christians is rather poorly built straw-man argument, atheists do not like theism and do not believe in god, that's it.
I assess who I like and dislike on a person to person basis.
I don't need knowledge of every single person. I only need to note that there's a strong correlation between religiosity and bad social indicators. I'm dealing with populations here, and identifying common elements throughout them. Religion can be one of those elements. Focusing on what one single person believes is a mistake, since one person along cannot commit the kinds of crimes we're discussing.
Again, who are you to say whether these people had correct Christian belief or not? They thought they did!
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Not to get off topic, I would like to ask a question.
Why do you continue to be misogynistic when talking with the females? You do not need to refer to them as 'dear', 'sweetie', 'hun' or any other sexist term. It is very condescending and uncalled for in a debate.
Of course someone is going to be angry when you attack their belief system. We don't expect Christians to like it. SO WHAT? Attacking Christianity is STILL not the same as attacking individual Christians and you can't say it is without commiting fifteen different logical violations.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
I personally know and associate with 11 people who claim to be atheist. I see them at work, or I am related to them. Based on my judegment 8 if them suck as human-beings. So know I must play the percentage game like you are make an assumption about atheism as a whole. How do you not see the falt in you logic?
It did not make me angry - it was what I expected. You have no idea what any of our world-views are and atheism is not a belief system. You have done nothing more than confirm your own ignorance.
BGH - Thank you! I was trying to ignore the remarks and allow them to show him as the bigoted jackass that he coming across as so I am glad you called him on it. I truly love it when they try to demean my remarks by referring to my gender since it shows that they have no valid refute to them.
{edited for clarity}
No, you can't go round and round with that. You have to defend your grounds for making a judgement, or I can question it all I want.
Again, tell me why the people who commited atrocities in the name of Christianity were not following "real" Christianity. Oh, and look up the no-true-Scotsman fallacy before you do.
No, but I see the fault in your understanding of science and statistics. There are probably over 20 million atheists in the US alone. Do you really feel that 11 from the same workplace is a representative sample? Also, your feeling that they "suck as human beings" is a completely subjective criteria. I am talking about historically documented instances of Christian atrocities, and you are talking about whether someone "sucks." Furthermore, I don't think it would be a stretch to say that, as a theist, you are just a wee bit biased when it comes to judging the character of atheists.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Wow! Get defensive much?
It was a question, see the 'why' at the beginning?
I noticed you only referred to the females that way, you are not calling the males 'bub', 'dude', or 'man'. I thought it was rather odd you felt the need to be condescending to the women. Are you feeling a bit emasculated?
You can use any terminology you want but the women you are speaking to may have an issue with it. If it becomes deliberately antagonistic from either side of the debate then action will be taken.
Actually, it didn't make me mad in the slightest. I was hoping you would back that statement up with some concrete arguments. I can very easily distinguish between personal attacks and attacks on my beliefs. And since this board is the RATIONAL Responders, for some reason, I assume that other people will be rational as well. I am learning that is rarely the case where theism is involved.
I arrived at my atheism through reason, not emotion. This means that to change my mind, you have to appeal to logic, not emotion. And there is little that is logical once God is introduced.
"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett
Challenges of my beliefs is fine with me. I'm always looking for an opportunity to tear up a theist in rational debate. "Bashing" in the form of ad hoc insults is tiresome and will probably cause me to throw a few back then go away. Theists can do this if they want, but it seems rather counterproductive.
Targeting atheists in society and attempting to marginalize them is most definitely NOT OK, and I will fight this behaviour however I can, wherever I see it. Unfortunately, it is so widespread that it is hard to know where to start.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Oh wait, are you talking about the post where I said Christians are snarling, evil trolls with great claws? Oh wait, I never said anything like that so I'm not sure exactly 'how I'm making Christians out to be'. I'm speaking about religion, not the people. Did you notice that I said 'religion breeds bigotry', not 'religious people breed bigotry'? Of course not, just as you ignored (once again) my question to you. No biggie. I see how it is.
You also ignored the fact that I said I have Christian friends. And Catholic. And Jewish. I'm not making Christians out to be anything. I'm talking about the religion.
I'm also wondering why you claim you're an agnostic, but you rail against atheism so hard. Can you please explain to me why you posit you are an agnostic when you're clearly anti-atheist and pro-Christian?
And please don't call me 'dear', ok sweetums?
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Darn, wrong again Andy. A representative sample can be a lot less than 51%. How much it actually is depends on a lot of things, but I think the media usually calls elections with something like 10% of the votes counted. Anyway, I'd say you'd have to have at least 2,000 atheists meeting your personal "suck" test before you could say that the whole American atheist population "sucks." And then, once you'd done that, no one would be any smarter because your judgement in the matter is ignorant and biased.
You're also wrong about the Christians count, because I never made the claim that most Christians are bad or that most Christians had commited atrocities. You really are struggling with this concept of populations and generalities versus specifics, aren't you?
If you are interested in contemplating the rate at which Christian states commit atrocities, I suggest you open up the history of the world, starting with today and the Pope's continuing refusal to endorse condom use in Africa, and turn back throughout recorded history until the dawn of the church. You will find that every Christian country has at least several instances of faith-based oppression, genocide, atrocity and injustice. Statistical analysis is rather pointless here. The rate is 100%.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Now how can you say I am anti-atheist after all the crap you have been giving me anyway. I am attacking your belief not you... Get a clue!
How is a my lack of belief an attack? I have never gone door to door selling my lack of belief. I have never left a pamphlet in a public restroom or on a table at a restaurant explaining the fallacies of the christian faith. I have never stood infront of a church and denied people from entering because I dislike what goes on in there. I have never stood outside of a funeral and screamed that we cease to exist when we die. And with one exception (a very funny video of an atheist going door to door in SLC, Utah), I have never heard of an atheist doing any of these things, either.
I don't shout my lack of belief from the roof tops, but I don't sit quiet and meek when somebody is making fallacious statements, either. I don't attack others. I defend my position.
"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett
How am I attacking a person because I don't want their religious beliefs forced upon me? Or, are you considering the fact that I don't agree with your religious beliefs to be an attack? I am not the one with the belief. I am not the one who is trying to push my 'non-belief' on other people. I'm not running around shouting about the evils of Christianity. I speak openly on this forum, because that's what it's here for. Were you forced to go on here? No. I'm defending my right to not have yours, or anyone else's, religious beliefs affect our laws. Give me a break. I don't go around snarling at people who are saying grace. In fact, I don't recall making any personal attacks against a religious person. I said religion creates bigotry. Do you deny this?
I really think you are the one who needs to get a clue.
So listen person, whose sex makes no difference to me who I wouldn't dream of calling by a name that is affectionate.
Affectionate, my ass. Do you really think I'm that stupid to buy that? Perhaps its different where you come from, but a stranger calling a female, sweetie or dear or honey is condescending. When corresponding with me about the topic at hand, my gender should make no difference to you.
Now how can you say I am anti-atheist after all the crap you have been giving me anyway. I am attacking your belief not you... Get a clue!
Actually, I'm just still questioning your stance as an agnostic.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Yes I deny that religon, in and of itself creates bigotry. For that blanket statement to be absolutely true every single person in that religion would have to be a bigot. Can any atheist honestly say that every Buddhist or Hindu they meet is a biggot? I serious doubt it. Are there plenty of Hindus that are bigots? Sure there are. Are christians and Jews that suck at life and hate people? You bet? But is it fair to say its because of their religion when I have met and know a lot of peopel from various religions that are not? Therefore, to be fair, rational and tolerant (all the qualities I hear atheist claiming to have) you must always attack individuals, not a relgion as a whole.
Enough with your snide back-handed insults. You're ad hominems are getting annoying. People here started about being nice to you and yet you do nothing but attack and act like an overall asshole.
Fine, I'll say that many religions create bigotry. If you don't think that Christianity, for example, creates bigotry against homosexuals, well, then you don't really know much. Have you read the Bible? I don't know if you know this or not but the Bible is what the Christian religion is based on. There are some pretty prejudicial verses in the Bible. So yes, I do feel comfortable saying that some religions create bigotry.
I DID NOT SAY that all religious people were bigots. Are some of them? Absolutely. But so are other people who are not religious, so I'm not quite sure what the problem with my statement was. If I assumed that every religious person was a bigot, well, I'd know a lot of bigots. So no, you cannot attack the person because not everyone believes the same thing about the same religion.
And I really think you are the last person who should be preaching about tolerance. You've shown none. You haven't even been truthful on this forum.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
OK, so you have 1000 theists in a room and you give them a "test for bigotry" (whatever that might be). You find that 75% of them are bigots.
You have 1000 atheists in the room with roughly the same educational levels, wealth and from the same city. You give them the same test and find that 25% are bigots.
Ta da. You've shown that theist's are more likely to be bigots without having to find a 100% incidence of bigotry in theists.
Of course, you can't use these results to say that any one individual theist is a bigot. This is a survey - it measures trends in populations. However, you can use these results to make statements about the common factor you are testing for (theism) because it exists across the whole population and is fairly uniform.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown