How about you save the sermon,  brother bart? From my perspective, you're looking like everything that you claim to dislike.

Why not read some more of the site before judging? Why not put some money behind that keyboard of judgment and visit www.atheistvolunteers.org which is a site created by the Rational Response Squad?

After you get done with paypal, then you can come back here and apologize for your narrow-mindedness. We'll be waiting.

Also, could you tell me how valuable APATHY is since you obviously would rather let religious belief have its free reign over mankind? 

i must say, i like being called brother bart. and i dont 'let religous belief have its free reign over mankind'. its not my job to govern what people should or shouldnt believe. i just think  it'd be a better world if christians kept their mouth shuts more, and aetheists did the same. these beliefs should be personal and not pushed onto others.

Tell me when Christians have ever kept their mouths shut?  It isn't going to happen, so we must challenge.

For a very long time, I would have been happy to live and let live, but the Christians in my life never let that happen. They pushed and pushed and pushed.  I intend to push back.   

So you think it's stupid for people to shove their opinions in other people's faces and your reaction to this is to come to a public forum and shove your opinion into other people's faces.

Have you thought this through? Your argument defeats itself, if RRS is stupid for doing that then how stupid are you?

What difference could that possibly make? You said this:

Well that's exactly what you're doing right now. You're shoving your opinions down my throat. If you think this is wrong then why are you doing it?

Unless maybe you think it's ok to express some opinions and not others in which case I would ask on what basis do you decide what it's ok to talk about?

You're just not making any sense right now. I think that you should reexamine your position.

 

You mean like how you used my dollar (I pay for the site) to shove your beliefs down my throat?

 

theres a beautiful pattern in this site where one person makes one point, and then a bunch of other people jump on and say the same exact thing and then a little guy at the end jumps in and says"damn, he got pwned. 'point taken though.sweet pwnage d00ds that was 1337 hah

Much of this noticeable pattern is owed to theists who start or enter threads with the same arguments:  "Prove that god doesn't exist "; "What if you go to hell"; "The bible is true"; and on and on. 

If such exchanges conclude repeatedly with "pwnage", it is because these are non-arguments, which can only follow the same pattern towards refutation.   

If one were to provide a sound argument for god/religion (for a change), we might observe a break in the pattern. 

 

 

 

There's also a pattern of people coming to our site and bringing the same argument to the table that has been addressed dozens and dozens of times on our site.  Check both mailbag forums.

You're right. 
Atheists shouldn't have to fight against indoctrination. Atheists shouldn't have to fight against religious extremism. And if we lived in an ideal world where theists didn't indoctrinate children, where theists didn't blow up buildings, where theists didn't impose their views on public school children and adults of all ages, where theists didn't have lobbyists in Washington fighting every day to take away our constitutional freedoms, I would be totally in agreement with you. Unfortunately, we don't live in Nirvana-land, where it's okay to just stay neutral and avoid a fight. We live in a world where religious fundamentalists are waging wars on those who don't share their values and  who don't believe their fairytales. 
What your suggesting would only further keep a minority down. This argument was made when the gays fought for their rights, when the blacks fought for their rights, when women fought for their rights, and it is sad that people need to relearn the lesson each and every time.   This behavior cannot be ignored, because without those annoying people who refuse to submit to accepting the world the way it is, there is no progess, and the consequences would be truly dire. 

BINGO!  Excellent point.  (May I use it when necessary?) 

 

Of course.  I guess we should be prepared for someone to tell us they see a pattern on this site of someone saying something, and then someone else coming along and agreeing.

 

I would like to add something here. Maybe it is just what my atheistic opinion is, but I see these same points raised about outspoken atheists over and over again, and I never see atheists make this point in which I'm about to make (not right away at least).
We are not really pushing a set of "views or beliefs" on people because we don't abide by any. We just simply lack the ones that we are challenging. We are doing exactly what you are suggesting, PROMOTING INDEPDENDENT THINKING. We don't claim to know a certain "truth" or "ultimate explanation" of the universe besides explanations of which we can be intellectually honest about. We are simply pointing out that theists have a lack of evidence and good argument for their positions, and as a result of this, there is widespread harm. If we lived in a society of clashing views on beliefs in magic elves, then that's what we would be challenging. God's have just been more appealing to humans.
Does this clear that up at all? That's how I've always felt and I never see atheists point that out right away. Everyone buys into this stereotype that atheists are just as bad and it is a stereotype that must be shattered.


Well, maybe if more people were not so heavily indoctrinated in our society (and not just from religion) and were capible of critical thinking then we could do more about it. We want an age of reason.
I encourage you to watch this video with Bill Maher, he says more that needs to be said:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGNeNaf4G7Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmyspace%2Ecom%2F

There really isn't much of a point left to make here-Bart's points have been defeated completely by the others here, but there was talk of noticing "patterns." I'm noticing another pattern: most of the people I've seen come on here and make arguments like this or otherwise trying to degrade the website or Atheism do not have a very strong grasp upon grammatical skills. Almost without fail, everyone who disagrees with Bart has good sentence and paragraph structure-or at the very least decent spelling and punctuation skills. This may be nitpicky, but I usually find it difficult to take an argument seriously when the person can't even properly spell the name of the group they oppose (I'm sure there are groups of people out there who accept "aetheist" as the proper spelling-but it's not in the dictionary. Atheist, however, is.).

I was going to say more but there's really nothing else I can think of-there's nowhere I can see this topic going.

 

There seems to be a new pattern emerging where you avoid real arguments and relegate those whom you fear to dialogue with to troll status even when they post Scientific news. Sapient doesn't even answer my e-mail when I ask him the most simple question and theres no rational excuse for it. Rook won't debate me. I feel like a boxer being avoided out of fear of hurting his opponent.

 

I've asked to debate your whole crew and instead you continuously debate those who you think are easy wins. Come'on get some guts and debate me, please!!!! I'm begging you!

 

 

I'm not going to compare myself and other posters with Rook and Sapient in general except to say why the hell would they want to take time out of their learning and administrative efforts to defeat someone in "debate" who can't make it past the standard memberships arguments? I personally have destroyed everything you've said on more than a dozen seperate occassions. With almost no effort at all. At least 5 or 6 other board posters with no direct attachment to the RRS have done the same. You have no points left. You merely dodge and ignore and are the perfect definition of intellectual dishonesty. You don't know the meaning of the word debate. Debate and Bodhitharta in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

Listen to me. Trolls are not labelled Trolls until they become Trolls. I will not say that again. You're pushing the limits of some of the calmest people that I have ever known.

Attempts have been made to establish discussions with you by members of the site. Obviously, humility is not well-covered in your brand of theism as evidenced by those discourses. The sheer level of egotism on your part is astounding.

It isn't exclusively the squad that really doesn't want to hear you assert, deny, deny, deny, assert, assert, change topic, assert, deny, cry, assert, assert, declare yourself unanswered, attack RRS motivations, assert, cry, troll, troll, assert, change topic, assert, troll, declare yourself unanswered, troll. (just a subjective assessment of one thread you've posted in)

Please. Don't beg. That is so unbecoming and unnecessary.

 

I've warned you before about this behavior:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/general_conversation_introductions_and_humor/4630

 

That was given as kindness for the delusional. I will be registering my opinion on the issue of Bodhitharta in one minute.

Patterns and such aside, we need to confront theists because history has proven they can be dangerous.  Throughout history Christians and their belief in their version of God has resulted in countless murders in the name of religion.  The scholar Hypatia hacked to death by monks in the 4th century because she presumed to teach men, against God's will is an example of the narrow-minded dogma evident in the beginnings of Christianity. 

Orthodox Christians were in part responsible for the downfall of the Western Roman Empire and largely responsible for the decline of civilization in the dark ages after coming to power and sytematically eliminating science, art, literature, technology, history, medicine, etc. 

The plague of the 5th century and the great bubonic plague were helped in no small part by the Church's claim that the plagues were brought about by God to punish the people for not adhering to the word according to the Church.  More than 100 million people died during the plagues.

The Crusades, Salem witch trials, countless wars in the name of God, all the result of Christians gaining control or influence within governments.

The current pope was a nazi sympethizer who assisted in the naming of Jews on the Church rolls knowing what the result would be.  The Catholic Church early on sought a treaty with the Nazi government prior to the war and ordered priests in France and other countries to cooperate with the nazi regime.  Before you even think it, Hitler was not an atheist, he was a card carrying Catholic who often invoked God in his speeches.

Christian fundamentalists need to be confronted now before they gain any more control or influence in our government than they already have with the great pissant Bush. 

It would be greatly beneficial to the world and humanity if we could stamp out all religion as irrational thought, but I doubt that will ever happen.  At least, probably not before societies destroy themselves. 

Dogma of one's religion is a dangerous thing.  Atheism is not a religion, it is more a rational examination of the mythology of religion and freedom of thought.  There are no rules, rituals, holy texts, threats of burning in hell, or any of the other trappings of religion, including close-mindedness and ignorance.

You will not find Atheists attempting to take over the government in order to thrust our beliefs (or lack therof) onto society.  We will try to show theists the folly of their belief systems and the inherent dangers as we must if our society, indeed, the society of humankind is to survive intact.

Just as an aside; a recent study showed that you are more likely to find atheist doctors donating their time and skills to the treatment of the poor in our own country and other countries than Christian doctors.  That should say something.

 

Whilst there is indeed evidence of papal colusion with the Nazis, I'm pretty sure that isn't true.  He turned 14 in 1941 an was enrolled in Hitler Youth, as was manditory for kids that age.  I have no idea where that other bit could have come from.

 

Let's attribute the correct stupid shit to the guy. 

 

 

France Cooperate? Then why did Germany invade them?

 

French resistance anyone? Didn't they compare themselves to Joan of Arc and say they were called on by God to drive out the Nazis?

Why, I believe they did! 

 

 

 

No, that wasn't my point.

 

 

I'm sure there were French Nazi collaborators. That wasn't my point.

 

Are you (Or the person who posted that message) saying there were no non-Christian Nazis?

 

I posted them because the poster said no atheist attempted to 'thrust' their beliefss (or lack there of) onto society.

Hoxha sure did. 

Did he do it because he was atheist? No. Did Hitler do his action because he was Christian? No.

Both were merely taking by their political ideaologies, the actual driving force behind their actions. 

 

No, they (Hitler, Stalin, Hoxha) all promoted their political agendas. 

My apologies.  I was up at 3 a.m. for work the morning before I wrote this and 21 hrs later was not thinking clearly.  My unfortunate comment about the current pope was based on a foggy recall of something I'd read somewhere else.  The Catholic Church had negotiated with the Nazi's to receive favorable status before the Nazi's established a presence in Italy.  As to France; I had meant to say Germany as the Catholic Clergy there and in other countries such as Poland and Hungary did assist the Nazi's.  The Church opened its books of geneology to the Nazis revealing those of Jewish descent. The Church in Rome, while publicly standing against the persecution of Jews was complicit in that no one in the Nazi party and none of the clergy in those nations were ever ex-communicated or even threatened with ex-communication, even after the war. 

And, yes; the Vichy government in France cooperated fully with the Nazis.

Again, I apologize for my statement regarding the current pope.  However, he is quite orthodox in his views as recently demonstrated when he issued a paper reiterating the Church's stand that they are the only way to salvation.  He continually decries the secularism of the West and is trying to reassert the influence of the Church with governments in small but potentially dangerous ways.  Shades of the Dark Ages. 

I was not saying atheists would not attempt to take control of a government or push their beliefs on others in a historical context.  And I really can't say absolutely that it could not occur today.  From a philosophical viewpoint, I don't believe you would find any atheist today who would try to do this in the context of an attempt to force everyone to renounce their belief in God or ban churches and religions.  Not the same can be said about the Fundies.

I really am going to have to stay off these things late night.  I only mentioned Hitler was a Catholic because Theists often make the claim that he was an atheist when his name is brought up.  My point is not about Hitler's motives, rather it is about the motives of theists.

I think it's worth noting that atheism, unlike things like communism, nationalism or religions, is not something that can unite people on a wide range of topics.  Just because we can unite for a cause like free speach or the promotion of rationality and an end to the things that inhibit "free-thought", does not mean we could unite in the interest of any kind of coup.  On it's own, atheism can't do that, but religions can and have.

 

Of course the Fundies are forcing their beliefs on others. My point is that not all religious people are like that.

 

 

 

It's actually nice to see someone say something like this.