Why must I keep making topics like this?
Posted on: August 15, 2007 - 11:09pm
Offline
Why must I keep making topics like this?
Oh wait, I remember. To counter the other million topics I get nowhere arguing in.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/1999/09/16/texas990916.html
About 150 people, mostly teenagers, were in the crowded church when Ashbrook started shooting.
Witnesses said he yelled: "What you believe is bullshit" and "stay still." They said he smoked a cigarette as he calmly reloaded his gun and kept shooting.
He then rolled a pipe bomb down one of the aisles that exploded a short time later.
For the last time, Theism isn't bad, atheism isn't bad people are bad.
If you realize this, than good on you. If not, I am struggling to make it more clear.
- Login to post comments
Actually, Cpt. In your threads concerning the issue 'theism as a mind disorder', you have accused us of bias while summarily dismissing your own.
It seems you still can't understand that I like people; that many of us like people, we just hate their theistic beliefs because of the harm those beliefs cause to the individual and others affected by that individual.
For as long as you've been on the site, you'd think at least THAT would be grasped.
If there was a book or a doctrine about Sailor Moon that painted Wal-Mart as an enemy then a resounding YES! Of course, it would require much more investigation than just simply ascribing that as a cause. A burden of evidence is placed upon the positive assertion.
LMAO. Then why post the original topic and NOW suddenly refuse to speculate???
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
I simply do not understand how you can despise Christianity and marry someone who supports it.
I'm sure you're a good guy, but I do notice your extreme aggression towards Theism.
I don't see anything in the bible that promotes anti-baptisim or portrays baptists as the enemy.
Authorities piece together bizarre puzzle of Ashbrook's life
Garrity speculated that the elder Ashbrook's death was the pivotal factor that pushed the gunman over the edge.
A longtime friend of the Ashbrooks agreed. "Everybody thinks this is what brought this on, that he just went crazy," said the woman, who declined to be identified.
Oh,and another thing you might find interesting.
Ashbrook frequently assaulted his father, Garrity said. When neighbors saw scratches on the elder Ashbrook, he acknowledged with embarrassment that his son was responsible.
They speculate for me.
You're never going to get this are you?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
If I never said religion was the cause for Lebanon and Israel so it doesn't matter what you say about them.
I haven't talked about Lebanon, Israel, or Hezbollah. Talking about these groups like I said they were religious is called a strawman.
I said I will not limit myself because portions are doing different things. Meaning I will call people on the poor thinking that causes their actions even if it makes the pacifists or the more rational of the flock upset. I honestly think everyone should criticize thinking when they see flaws, stopping the problem before it becomes one.
Philosophy has a big impact on how people think and thus actions.
You can't argue religion has a purpose and no effect at the same time. It can either cause actions or it is worthless.
I thought you wanted religion to end? People usually marry people that support their beliefs, not contradict them.
What does your wife think of these violent acts you claim came from Christianity?
BTW thanks for ignoring my other points.
I already told you, I am using them as an example. I am not going to go through every terrorist organization and list the secular causes. When I said 'they added religion to their beliefs' I meant religious terrorists in general, not just Hezbollah.
So what is a solution then? I doubt simply 'calling them' on it will change their minds. What else? Educating them? Critising them? Trying to reason with them? What?
When I say it doesn't cause it, I mean people attribute the actions to their Theism. The actions themselves may have other causes. For example, a person might help an old lady across the street. Then say 'Boy, am I a good Christian.' They didn't do it because they're Chrisitan, they did it because they're a good person, but only attributed it to their Christianity. They would have done it regardless of their religion.
Ok so know John Roger's HONE is an atheist org because their actions have to be secular?
Don't know who John Rogers is, what the hell I'm talking about, or how this relates to the point? Well you shouldn't know what I'm talking about as I made that up. I was trying to show you how it is pointless to bring up groups I have not talked about. However your argument it none and mine is some so its a little harder to give you a similar strawman.
Talking about Hezbollah when I haven't said anything about it is the same kind of thing. You can make a rock solid case that Hezbollah is all secular, but doesn't mean anything when I am not saying anything about them.
Do you think an action being caused by one source means it can only come from that source? If you don't the only other reasoning I can think of is that you are assuming that I think Hezbollah is somehow religious. I thought I covered this on another post tho...
In order for this to be relevant someone, besides you, has to talk about Hezbollah or make the claim that terrorism can only be caused by religion.
I think anything and everything that doesn't violate rights is fair game. Criticizing and questioning their reasoning is a good start, but if I had the "solution" that would work quickly and effectively we would have stopped having this argument by now.
Then religion is useless.
Gives purpose or meaning? Well then it motivates and can cause things.
Fine, no more Hezbollah, but answer this.
How will things change with no religion?
Sell a 'rational pill', take it and become fully rational!
The pill itself won't work, but you'd still make millions.
Poetry/music gives people purpose and meaning, but doesn't motivate. People derive their poems/music from thoughts, not vice-versa. If somebody is inspired by a poem/music, to give to chairity for example, odds are they were already a good person.
So is poetry/music useless?
My spouse rationalizes it by asserting that they(perpetrators of violence in theism's name) aren't true christians. I thought I mentioned that in the thread where you were discussing the atheist that used the 'no true scotsman' fallacy.
Oh yes. That's right. You had assumed that all atheists were well-versed in analyzing arguments for their logical worth. Or perhaps it was more of an accusation that atheists use no logic or consistently make logical fallacies. Hmmm. I think I'll read that thread again right after I post this.
Good question. Let's find out.
For sure, there won't be anymore violent acts committed in the name of religion or caused by religious 'extremism' or supported by religious moderates or ignored by people unwilling to see the harm in any of those things.
Will that end all violence? No. I don't think so. BUT if it prevents any more of the heinous acts like this church shooting then I say it is worth it.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Remind me which thread? The who's more moral thread?, That's the most recent one I can think of. I don't recall your post, but I'll look back.
I am saying atheists are cabaple of logic fallacies. I am sure you will concede this. Being atheist does not guarentee a logical argument.
Of course, because there will be no religion to do something in the name of. Of course the secular reasons will stick around. The question is will those be enough to drive the terrorists?
I say yes. I derive this since the majority of terrorists come from politically unstable countries.
This is what I don't get. You admit you dispise Chrisitianity, yet you claim you don't hate Christians.
My question is, if you dispise a belief, how can you not hate the very people supporting that belief?
That is what I simply don't understand.
Your make-up sex must be fantastic LOL.
The very first thing is that a very large portion of unquestioned activities would be looked at and stopped. Later on it would make it much harder to get a person to follow bad reasoning. I don't see religion as based on reason so action coming from it are based on bad reasoning.
I have never been very interested in poetry and music, but if someone is going attach their meaning and purpose in life to someone else's words I think they have bigger issues.
The readers?
In your example the poem/music triggered actions by motiving the person. Being inspired shapes the person's actions, no?
If music and poetry did nothing then yes it would be useless, but most people don't take and claim its sacred, base their existence around it, worship it, and say other sources are wrong if the words of the art differ.
Are you arguing that religion does nothing? If so it follows that it is of no use. You don't want to say this though. You want to say it gives meaning and purpose. Those kinds of things at a person's core idea of existence is the lens which everything else is viewed. Purpose by definition relates to the actions of a person.
If a person thinks they will go to heaven, death isn't so bad. If the world is ending soon, we don't need need long term goals. If the world is here for us, rape it. If there is a plan, don't plan.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
I thought I had mentioned my spousal situation in the thread about your cousin's poor logic. I was wrong. I've said it before many times elsewhere. I get ripped on in stickam over it too sometimes. lol.
Primarily because the belief has such power over the people. Look at how the christian religion woo'ed the masses away from gods that required sacrifices of livestock, money, and family.
It stays the same nowadays. The numbers of the even more liberal christians swell every day. Bit by bit, the change can be seen to accomodate secular progression.
Amish people with cars and zippers.
Muslims with computers and oil contracts, dealing with the kafir on a daily basis despite the admonitions intrinsic in the Q'uran.
Pro-choice christians.
Yet through it all, they are still required to believe to feel good about themselves. To give 'thanks' to a power instead of themselves. To blame bad things on 'godlessness' instead of looking deeper to see that the person was merely an instrument of their religious ideology, such as in this Ashbrook incident.
I watch my spouse agonize over the most simplest decisions every day because she holds out for 'divine guidance' in issues over friends and her own desires.
I'm not going to get graphic, but imagine feeling bad for asking your partner to do something viewed as immoral by people you consider pious. And then despite enjoying the act while engaging in it, feeling bad afterwards for enjoying it?
I watch good people go slap insane when I answer their questions because it short-circuits their brain to get a different answer than expected.
And then, I see the endless rationalizations that people pour forth in defense of religions that reward people with 'comfort' or whatever else. I hear stories about camp counselors dragging girls behind a van as part of their idea of 'instilling christian values' and then must explain WHY it is logical to expect that without the ideology then the tragedy has fewer precipitating factors for it happening again.
I hear stories of women killing their children because the 'rapture' is near and god sent them a sign about how they should do in their children. Yates with water. Laney with a rock. Harris with a good throwing arm and a bridge. etc.
Many of the horrendous acts that we read about are either caused, excused, or tolerated because of belief systems
Imagine if I told you the WHOLE story. I am the reason she was re-baptized as a Southern Baptist in 1999. She was pathetically unhappy due to a medicine she was on (depo-provera sp?) and church settled her. She had 'backslid' for years and was quite happy on the surface. However, she still needed and needs religion and I understand it. By no means is it 'tolerated', we have question and answer time every other day. lol. She walks away for a while until she channels her energy into other 'endeavors'.
It's the sex when we simply forget our ideological, political, musical, ethical, and moral differences that is the most rewarding.
When we are simply two people who greatly admire each other for their past achievments, enjoy their present moments, and plan for future happiness regardless of any irreparable ideological conflicts, there are metaphorical fireworks shooting off of whatever household object chosen.
The 'make-up' sex almost always starts with the classic "I love you anyways."
One of the best quotes from an RRS alumnus regarding this sub-topic is paraphrased as:
Hate the -ism, not the -ist. - HealingBlight
It's not the people's fault that their beliefs are bad. It's the belief's fault that the people are bad.
We can see that with simple examination of Why the people did what they did.
In cases such as good ol' Vernon Howell(David Koresh), we see a truly bad person that preyed upon people's willingness to 'believe'. If those beliefs had not been so easily manufactured then I speculate that Waco would still be just a little Texas town instead of having that incident as a defining feature of a town's history.
Even more modern examples exist.
On a personal note: If the beliefs were never there then my spouse and I would argue over meaningful things like: what color to paint the bathroom or who is going to cook on Sunday.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Thinking without religion is like walking without trying to hold a bing cherry between the cheeks.
People will still be free to come up with perfectly awful reasons for their actions, but, unlike religion, none of it (or at least much less of it) will be removed from scrutiny. A person would be called to account for their rejection of gay marriage or embryonic stem cell research based soley on facts they can present; not unsupportable conjecture.
The only thing that would be stopped is religon. I think that the 'large portion of unquestioned activites would be looked at and stopped' part is non-sequiter.
If someone holds irrational beliefs A and B, but then drop B it does not follow they will drop A.
Same thing. If they hold belief A, they will be inspired by poems that write about A. The point is, the beliefs are there in the first place.
Now a more valid question would be where did those beliefs come from then?
My answer: From society. This is why I see a vast difference between Christians born in different parts of the world.
If they hadn't read that poem, or heard that song, they would have found another 'inspiration' that would drive them to that act. They commited a good deed because they were a good person and attributed it to the poem.
errr.... the East side/West side rap war in the 90's perhaps?
To use your lens analogy, 'religion is the lens, but the lightsource/eye were already there'
But if the world is God's gift, we should cherish it.
See what I did? I took a secular belief (We should take care of the Earth) and attributed it to religion.
Well since many people do that, I don't see how things would change. The only difference is there will be atheist organizations/books/websites. That's the only one I can see.
How will this end religion? I am well educated.
How will this end irrationality? Many irrational people are well educated.
The question isn't whether God is there or not, but whether you believe their is one.
No, the purpose of poetry is to express thoughts/feelings.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Labels dont make a person automatically good or bad, that is true.
But god belief is bad(not every person who believes in god is bad). Two seperate issues.
Belief in a god is bad because it starts from a presuposition that is unfounded. As such those who make these claims base their lives and almost every decision they make on their "faith".
This will lead them to draw lines in the sand "republican vs democrat", "Shiite vs Sunni" "Muslim vs Jew" "Christian vs atheist".
Theism divides humanity.
"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
Actually, humanity divides humanity. Religion is merely one tool for doing so.
Religion is that large portion of unquestioned activity.
I didn't say that.
Bullshit. People have to be taught things like...
"I believe in One God, the Father, The Almighty, maker of the heaven and earth, and all that is seen and unseen.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered died and was buried. On the third day he rose again in the fulfillment of scriptures, he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his Kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son the Spirit is worshipped and glorified, and has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins, I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."
You do realize by saying religion was made up you don't leave much reason to believe its true. However people do think its true and from god(s).
People don't view poems and music like they do religion, but if they did you can't really say people will do things regardless of influence. Do you really think large numbers of muslims would go to mecca without faith?
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
True.
Okay, I misread.
If they have to be taught it, where did it come from in the first place?
No, I dont' think muslims will go to mecca without their faith. People will still go to mecca of course, but not for muslim faith.
Perhaps I should clarify:
I jumped the gun in saying religion doesn't influence. My point was that if there were other sources of influence than it is difficult to pinpoint there actual influence. My argument is the majority of things (good/bad) come from secular sources and only attributed to their religion.
This is a good point. However, the view of the world mainly comes from secular sources. This is why I stated society influences the beliefs.
You missed the point. They do care about the Earth and are attributing it to their religion. How do you know they don't actually care?
Nope. However, I think the best solutions comes from the political realm.
I think the complexities of religion developed out of more simple religious ideas, such as entities controlling nature or something being needed to create the world.
Not as many I can tell you that much.
Tell that to evangelicals.
If people can't give good reasons for the things they back I don't think they really know why they are backing them.
If you don't think people can pinpoint the influences what makes you think a majority are secular? My problem with religious thinking is that people are not basing their actions on good reasoning. People who do not base their actions off of religion can still fall prey to bad reasoning, but no religious thinking can be reasonable because of its base.
Lets say for a second there is portion of people use only secular influences for decision making leaving another portion using religious. Now everyone can make good and bad decisions, but who is going to be more likely to be making the bad? Who is going to have good reasons for their actions? Who can look at their actions and see where they are going wrong? Who can be show their actions are wrong?
Right, and the specifics (Muslim, Jewish, Hindu faiths etc..) are derived from society. That is why there are so many sects of Christianity.
I fail to see the signifance of this point.
The problem is they are using ancient sources. These ancient sources came from secular. Unless of course God actually came down and gave them the bible.
That may not be the only reason though.
Because pretty much all religious thinking varies from society to society.
If Christianity caused X, we would see all Christians support X. This is not the cause. There may be Christians against X.
The point is it varies from person to person. If Christianity or any religion for that matter was the main motive, we shouldn't see so much variety in those who hold that religion.
I'm trying to show you that the beliefs are not exclusivly based on religion. If someone did base it exclusivly on religion (creationists for example), then I'd agree.
I would say for both cases it depends on their leaders.
It seems to be a misconception that if the view is secular, the person can be persuaded to change. This is not always the case. People hold irrational secular beliefs all the time, and they won't let go.
So to answer neither, it depends on the indivdual person. Religion can adapt to change too.
{edit:clarity}
So now something is only religiously-motivated if it comes from proven supernatural sources? Your premise is sounding desperate.
What? My main point all along is that the beliefs come from secular sources and are only attributed to religious.
I had the impression you meant the people doing wrong in the name of religion always had equal or greater secular motives for their actions--a premise I disagree with. Are you now also suggesting every religiously-motivated wrongdoer is also explicitly aware their reasons are not scripturally-justified, or that they have secretly forsaken their professed faith?
Beliefs affect behavior, whether those beliefs are founded or not.
Yes, but direct actions affecting the individual does more than beliefs can.
While Theism can divide humanity, there is nothing that indicates that it should.
So correlation doesn't only not equal causation, but it equals not-causation? People are doing things in the name of their "gods"; what basis do you have deny this?
Except for the unbending, mutually-exclusive belief systems.
There's a higher correlation with political unstability and terrorism. Not all religious countries breed terrorists, but most politically unstable countries do.
They're not totally distinct issues. Political instability can be caused by religious disagreements; political instability makes people desperate for answers, makes them vulnerable to ideology: including the religious variety. Religious ideology greases the wheels for extreme acts by honoring martyrdom and dehumanizing the opposition. If you're trying to get religion off the hook, you're gonna fail.
I actually think political instability makes people desperate for a solution. Political instability is usually caused by the leader's greed, thirst for power etc...
Any more self-serving speculation to offer?
Superstition and urban legends come from society at some point as well, but that does not make them rational nor pre-existing in the mind.
Variation of religions support the idea that people have to be taught such things. If people have to be taught the ideas I don't think people are attaching their ideas to religion, but getting them from it. If the idea's were pre-existing I would think the ideas would be universal.
They are doing this for religious reason, meaning religion can make people do things.
Charlie's Pilgrimage To Mecca
This isn't a tourist attraction.
If a person can't give their reasons there is no reason for me to think they have a reason.
Hmm thats interesting you just admitted there that some beliefs can be based on religion. BTW when I talk about beliefs I tend to view it as "an idea a person views as true." Now if a person holds one without good reasons, say faith, I'd call that irrational and a bad bases for someone's actions.
The idea is that secular views have a better chance to based on good reasons. It has to be this way as religious views can't be based on good reasons. Even if the probably is as low as 25% for being good reasoning its better then 0% chance.
Religion doesn't adapt very well. In most cases new religions are created out of old. Still though bad reasoning changing doesn't make it any more rational nor gives the ability for the action to evaluated as a good choice. If its based on faith or viewed as god's will then it would follow that it is the good choice in the mind of the faithful.
It is poor reasoning that causes bad actions. Religious thinking is poor reasoning so if religious thinking was used religion is at fault. Poor reasoning however does not mean everyone who uses it comes up with the same answer nor does it mean everyone does the same thing.
I am against poor reasoning and illogical ideas so I am against religion. I'm pretty sure hamby talked about this earlier in this thread and the idea has been voiced before by others.
This is the best point yet. As a dyed-in-the-wool non-religious person, my main beef is not with religion per se. The term I often use is "arbitrary assignment." Religion is an example of arbitrary assignment. But it's arbitrary assignment that is the larger problem.
But this problem is very difficult to overcome because our brains evolved to take advantage of something very close to arbitrary assignment. Our minds interpet the too-vast amounts of data we receive through our senes and filters it through templates to speed up the decision making process in what could be life-threatening circumstances. Religions are examples of these templates.
It's true that something like "do not steal" has secular sources, but what religion does is to take a saound and rationally or at least experientially derived rule and turn it into an undoubtable fact handed down for no reason that we are even allowed to ask about. In this way, religion frequently takes ideas that were rationally/experientially derived and destroys them by sapping all relevance.
So I think it's a little disingenous to say that religious ideas have secular sources (of course they do) when the religious themselves typically deny this. By and large, the end result of religion (which amounts to worshipping your own interpretive templates) is denial of the process of change that comes through experience.
On the subject of where religion came from, it most certainly started with a simple question.
"Why is the sky blue?" for example. Or even a simpler "WHAT IS THAT BOOM IN THE SKY?"
Some wise elder probably said "IT IS VEHEECKMONT!" When asked what that was he replied with "THE GOD OF THE SKY! AND HE IS ANGRY! HE WANTS YOU TO DO ____!"
And religion was born.
The only thing pre-existing in the mind is the belief in God.
I never said they never had to be taught anything. I am saying they are taught by society.
The premise is simple, if you live in a peacefull intelligent country, you will hold those views and attribute them to religion.
If you live in a war torn country, you will hold those views and attribute them to religion.
The fact that religion is non-universal illustrates my point.
Yes, but it is easy to tell that it is caused by religion. I don't see Christians going on a pilgramage to Mecca. You, see all Muslims must make a pilgramage to Mecca, regardless of where they come from. Whether they be from Canada or Russia. We see uniformity among the different societies. This is not the cause for secular causes.
They do give secular reasons.
See my response to the Mecca point.
They mostly base it off secular causes. That is the key to my argument.
My main argument is that they are mostly secular.
The fundies don't adapt, the moderates do. See Christians accepting evolution etc...
My point was that if it was 'religious thinking', you'd think that all people of that faith would think that way since they hold to that religion. This is not the case.
1. Pineapple, you're committing a 'no true Scotsman' by arbitrarily limiting what you will accept as religion.
2. I've heard the claim that belief in deities is a biological tendency. Even if this is so -- I'm not aware of it being well accepted as fact -- it neither substantiates claims about deities, nor is it an argument in favor of religion. Very few people are deists: most believe that an Abrahamic "god" is interested in their doings; so even if it was a natural state for some people, it rarely stops there. It inclines one to the religiously-motivated and religiously-justified claims of the society (regardless of the core motives you'd like to attribute them to).
Nope. When I say that Christians are using secular motives, I'm not denying they're Chrisitan which would be a no true Scotsman.
What do you accept as religion?
The key word here is society.
Religion isn't just "I believe in god," and all the other stuff is secular society's fault. I can agree that religion is technically secular in that 'spirituality' is an incoherent concept devoid of any real meaning -- but so is 'god.' But to say that religion, and 'god' as part of that, is wholly a misrepresentation created to delude the masses doesn't remove it as a tangible influence on how people behave. The question isn't whether people are basing their decisions on valid claims of spiritual inspiration, but whether they believe this to be so. That is all that is required for someone to be religiously-motivated. For instance, there is no secular justification, based on actual data, to oppose gay marriage or embryonic stem cell research.
Really? God belief is pre-existing? You think this why?
Your example had no talk about a secular reasons and it was not about secular nor religious reasons, but reasons in general.
The argument wasn't about change it was about reasons people hold things to be true. The idea people can change does mean they have good reasons for change or the ideas they hold are evaluated. Without that I don't see how
"Poor reasoning however does not mean everyone who uses it comes up with the same answer nor does it mean everyone does the same thing."
Non-universal religion doesn't really say anything about why a person might be holding a belief. I of course think society plays a role, but there are religious groups within the society. People go to churchs, parents teach their kids ideas of their religion.
Comparing different geographic and political area's to the religious mind sets would be a good start by even with a correlation I could still argue its coming from religion.
You talk about how for a religious idea to be religious it must be uniform through out geographical regions.
Congrats god has nothing to do with religion now, it all comes from secular sources. People in the same church can vary on how they define god what qualities it has, what its suppose to do, etc.
I argue that uniformity is not needed for poor reasoning because bad processes of thought can vary widely when presented with the same problem.
Lets say person X has a illness that makes them behave strangely (assume this is different from the person's normal behavior)
Religious solution can range from getting the demons out, to prayer, to new age meds.
Other poor reasoning could yield hitting the person (in a snap out of it fashion), draining the blood, or ignoring the problem.
Different approach but all are ineffective. The ineffective nature would be the main reason why I think their line of reasoning is flawed, but they could reach a good choice through poor reasoning as well. I'd think calling the doctor would be a good choice, but so you can go clubbing would probably be a bad reason.
I hadn't opened this topic until today (Aug. 30). If you're referring to the thread I started, I must admit it got on my last nerve.
Teaching children there is a literal hell in which they will burn forever and ever is evil. And there's no fucking way you can divorce that from Christianity, which is both religious and theistic.
I agree with Thomas Jefferson's opinion of Christianity: "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."
I haven't read most of the thread, but I'm guessing you've argued that it's only the "fundies" who do such things and that it's okay to believe in god because it never actually influences the things "normal" people do. I contend that a "normal," mentally-healthy person has no need of Christianity or any other religion, nor does he entertain delusional thoughts in order to make himself happy.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Nope, it was this one.
I haven't even seen your camp topic.