@SDGundamX

I hope I've done the tag properly. I prefer notifications to be set to 'off' because I get enough junkmail from the other bazillion websites I'm registered to as it is, so yeah I don't pay much attention to that stuff.

Anyway, on to your reply!

Speaking of assumptions...

Oh boy! Here we go!

...I’m noticing that you tend to make a lot of them. You assumed, for instance, that I was a Christian. You assumed that I was trying to defend a particular religion or religious practice.

Yes, I did, as I've already admitted. It was a fine display of all the common symptoms of a religious apologist/troll, touting all the usual old and tired canards I've heard repeated ad nauseum; unjustified and arrogantly pronounced assertions with no evidence to ground them to reality, a blatant false equivocation, and flat out wrong characterizations of Hitchens et al's position. I'm genuinely sorry I had you falsely pegged but when it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck...well, y'know. In other words, you probably could have done a better job of elucidating and then justifying your opinion.

You assumed (and continue to assume) that I am calling Hitchens and the rest fundamentalists. I am not. I could not. Atheism by its very definition cannot be “fundamentalist” as this article explains. What I said was:

I find it ironic that those such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, in their zeal to exterminate religion, have become such zealots unwilling to admit evidence contrary to their position that they now rival the fundamentalists they profess to be fighting against.

Your words are right there above mine. They are zealots that rival the fundamentalists they are opposed to, in their zeal to exterminate (I call bullshit on this, they seek to marginalize it not destroy it) religion. On what planet is this not a false equivocation? On what planet am I to not take you at your word? You still haven't provided evidence for this or the other claim that they even wish to exterminate religion, as well. Because they don't. If you don't stand by your wording then retract it. You really haven't read anything from them other than what you have learned from secondary, tertiary sources, have you?



...that they refuse to revise their absolutist statements about religion being the cause of evil or the spreading hatred even when faced with evidence of religion instead bringing good into the world (on the blog—the story of Hitchens and the taxi driver who went to great lengths to return Hitchens’ lost wallet because the driver’s religion demanded he do so).

This evidence exists in heaps and bounds—I would guess (though I don’t know for sure, granted) in equal amounts to the evidence that religion spreads hatred. Regardless of the amount, in the face of the fact that such evidence exists at all, Hitchens’ previous statement (the one made in this clip about religion being the primary cause of hatred) becomes wholly untenable.


Are you seriously attributing the fact that moral people can exist within the institution of a religion and still be moral, to the religion itself? Could you name a single decent thing a religious person can do that a non-religious person couldn't? What kind of morality do you think preceded the origins of the Muslim cab driver's religion? The exact same morality that has always existed between humans and other humans on some level, that of mutual altruistic behavior, the "golden rule" and that the Abrahamic religion has co-opted into the rest of their vile ideology. You have your causes and effects here reversed, human morality is what it is in spite of religion, and to invoke religion where its not even a necessary requirement is to trivialize the very thing that enabled homo sapiens, as inherently social animals, to get to where we are today in this technological age without destroying ourselves in the process.


In regards to the so-called ad hom: I feel this applies to your post because you appear to be dismissing my argument before even considering it since you start off suspecting I don’t think clearly.

Well, you are wrong. I obviously read your whole reply before I responded. What you feel is irrelevant. Did you just read that one line and then ignore everything else I said? I mentioned the "not thinking clearly thing" purely as an aside, I then went on to address your points. Ad hom doesn't apply, sorry. It would've if that was all I supplied as the basis of my argument; I didn't say "You do not think clearly, therefore you are wrong". Ad hominem isn't what you wish it to be so stop abusing the term.

This brings us back to the Gnu Atheist’s confrontational tactics—in that link you gave me, the writer explicitly endorses being rude. I’m not here to tell you it isn’t a valid tactic—it most certainly is.


Being unflinchingly truthful and not kowtowing to the religious lies/claptrap and ridiculing those whose faith is threatened (who would have no qualms about being as rude and demeaning as possible in telling me so) by my sole existence is rude now. You should tell those uppity gays to be more polite and not stand up for equal treatment, in whatever way they choose as long as its non-violent/within the boundaries of the law, maybe their oppressors would stand down. No, confrontation is the answer if you want to change speak out and "business as usual". I consider lies to be harmful and rude and demeaning to an individual deserving of being treated like an adult in the marketplace of ideas, even the most comfortably benign, fluffy touchie-feelie ones.


I’m here to question it’s efficacy.

It was already pretty clear to me but thanks. It looked to me like you had already decided. You may NOW be appearing to question that, but again, what you may have meant certainly isn't what you wrote and to expect others to be able to know is dickish. I agree it's a good question still but haven't provided evidence to show its efficacy. So let's refrain from the assumptions. All I know is it wasn't some accommodationist, overly polite wank, unwilling to get his hands dirty to enlighten me, that stirred the feelings I've secretly held for so many years about my existence and God, it was someone who was NOT afraid of confrontation in surgically disillusioning my cherished notions of reality, of showing just how ridiculously absurd the whole thing is. It is a matter of ethics to value truth more than(key words) some default arbitrarily designated level of respect.

So, what I was trying to say in my original post is that it annoys me that Hitchens and the rest continue onward with their blanket absolutist statements despite the fact that there exists evidence to the contrary.

Saying religion, of all kinds, is the primary (meaning secondary and tertiary factors also contribute but don't even approach the monopoly religion has on spreading misery, violence, and hatred) isn't really a controversial statement at all to me. History tells us much. Can you think of any other more divisive human social construct that has caused more strife throughout history? Shall we play the game of "add up the bodies"? It boggles the mind to think of where humanity might be right now if not for the Dark Ages.

For instance, just because some people use communism to establish totalitarian regimes, doesn’t make communism evil.

Communism is as much an ideology based on fantasy as religion. In so far as it is not based on evidence and reason and being willfully enforced/propagated, it is harmful.

So, my question for you is, is being rude and disrespectful to people an effective arguing technique? Let’s be clear, I am not saying we need to respect other people’s ideas.


It certainly can be effective. I have no real evidence besides anecdotes and the correlative fact that religious membership levels in the US/Britain have been slowly declining since around the time the Gnu Atheists began to speak out and be more prominently featured in the media/Internets in general. The level of ridicule should be in proportion to the level of bat-shit insanity of the beliefs held. No one is championing a one-size-fits-all approach.

To tie all this together, let’s talk about one last assumption you made. You assumed I didn’t want to reply to your questions because I was trying to dodge the issue. I’d like us to be clear on my true reasons for not replying (so you won’t have to assume anymore).

I (like you, I imagine) happen to be a very busy person. I work full-time and put in a lot of unpaid overtime. I also have a beautiful family and good friends that I want to spend my free time with. This limits the amount of time I can spend on the Internet. So I have to choose when and how to respond to posts wisely.

Fair enough, I wouldn't accuse someone of dodging for being busy. I do not expect replies either, I hold you to nothing except your own words. I accused you of dodging because, when asked, you didn't provide much in the way of evidence to justify your assertions or a flat-out retraction. I could say this in any number of polite ways, you simply didn't.

You, from the very start of your post, set out to pick a fight.

Guilty as charged!

You made completely unfounded assumptions and then attacked an imaginary opponent that you mistook for me.

I made the assumption you were religious and was wrong, the rest still stands. You don't want others to take your word for it? Then add some more words! What you may have "meant" is not what I got pissed off at and responded to, understand this already.

Why should I spend it defending or searching the Internet for proof for an argument I never actually made (the “reality/validity” of Christianity; the fundamentalism of atheists like Hitchens)? Why should I try to reason with someone who from the very outset displays such misguided behavior?

That's my whole point! You shouldn't have said anything at all if you didn't have anything truthful to say in the first place. You really have no fucking clue what you're talking about when you talk about them and you rightly got called on it. I already addressed where I made any assumptions about you, the rest is through your own doing. You have NOT shown that they rival those fundamentalists they oppose, you have NOT shown that they wish to eradicate religion, you haven't even shown how they are zealots. You are being incredibly dishonest to the point of absurdity!


Thanks for reading this to the end. As a footnote, here is a link to a discussion on that web site you gave me that I found very interesting. Most of all, I found JoiletJake’s comments interesting—see posts #139 and #146 in particular, as I believe they are similar to my views on religion.


I've already read them and just re-read. Joilet comes off as incredibly honest, humble considering his position, and its pretty plain to see that the response he got, while initially bumpy, gradually warmed up to him as he elaborated and made it well known he is relying solely on his personal feeling in the matter and not trying to assert an attribution of those feelings onto actual reality. I think its great your attitude aligns with his, it may not be logically consistent but at least it's pretty harmless on the whole. Notice he wasn't tossing out baseless assertions, straw manning, or falsely equivocating.

I'd really enjoy it if you were to paste/copy what you said on Pharyngula and see how different the reaction would be. Such tasty schadenfreude! My guess is you would be entertainingly dismantled, rudely perhaps, but dismantled nonetheless. Welcome to the Internets.

I really have no interest in continuing this conversation, as lovely and downright tedious as it has been. I am done responding the minutiae of your several attempts at special pleading. Think whatever you want about the Gnu Atheists, whatever keeps the cognitive dissonance at bay.

As if Abrahamic monotheisms are the Only religion.

Looking at the results they give this scales perfectly with with education, and I'd bet there's a positive correlation between education and religious affiliation. So really its not a matter of religious affiliation being telling of your religious knowledge, but your education. But I guess the headline educated people know more stuff isn't as exciting.

I got 13/15. Had no idea about the great awakening, gave Catholics way too much credit for being rational with the blood and wine question, and got the suffering question wrong. I thought it was Abraham, I was thinking of god's psycho girl friend moment when he was all, 'if you really loved me you'd kill your kid. Oh Emm Gee you were really going to do it? I was just testing you, I wouldn't really make you do that... now burn this goat as a sacrifice to me instead... no seriously O_O'

It seems the purpose of this video is not to deny that there are moderate and peaceful Muslims, it admits as much. But to argue that moderate Muslims are doing it wrong. While I'm not in a position to say if they are in fact doing it wrong, I don't really think that's important. It seems that peaceful and modern Jews and Christians are behaving in a way that's inauthentic to their scripture. And I'm glad that they do.

Pick any flavor of the god of Abraham you like, if you actually tried to follow his instructions you'd quickly be imprisoned for the rest of your life. Being a decent modern person who belongs to an ancient religion always means willfully ignoring the parts that instruct you to be a psycho.

Let me first make it clear that I support gay marriage, because it's about to sound like I don't.

This argument is always framed wrong by both sides. See, gays already have the same marriage rights as the rest of us: a man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man. Opponents make this argument but then continue with another that's not true: that gays are asking for special rights. Gays are not asking for special rights, they're asking for new rights. These new rights would apply to us all. Straight or gay, we could all marry whomever we wanted, genders be damned. You should be happy to gain rights in a time when they are being whittled away in the name of safety. Just because you have no desire to utilize those rights doesn't mean they have no value. I don't own a gun but I'm glad I have the right to.

This is not about sexual orientation; it's about freedom from government control over your personal life. What kind of "conservatarian" are you that thinks the government should have this sort of power?

@quantumushroom (re: Freedom from Religion)
It depends on how you interpret "freedom from religion". If you interpret it as meaning I should be able to live my life without ever being exposed to anything religious, then no. That's obviously ridiculous.

What it's supposed to mean, and what is protected by the First Amendment, is that I can live my life without having religious beliefs imposed on me by the government. The government cannot tell me I can's go out after sundown on Friday or go to work on Sunday. They cannot make eating pork and shellfish illegal, at least not on religious grounds.

@quantumushroom (re: Gay marriage in history)
Same-sex marriage was legal and common in the Roman Empire up until the Christians took power and made it illegal. They also had anyone who was in such a marriage executed.

Same-sex marriage was also legal and common in parts of China during the Ming dynasty.

Presently, full marriage is legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden.

Basically, the trend seems to be that when and where people are reasonably intelligent and not of an Abrahamic religion, gays are A-Ok.

Oh come on, is this the best you can do, i.e., reach into the past to point out Democratic racism? I'm aware that the Democratic Party had a number of racists in the past. So did the Republicans. At one time even the "Great Emancipator" Abraham Lincoln wanted to deport blacks to Africa after they were freed.

- My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, -- to their own native land.

Quoth the first Republican president, of the Grand Old Party - the "party of Lincoln"

- Free them (slaves), and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not.

- If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

And let's not forget St. Ron of Paul's racist newsletters from the past.


Okay, now that we've got our history lessons out of the way, what's going on in the HERE and NOW? Well, we have:

- Republicans and Tea Party activists questioning the citizenship of Barack HUSSEIN Obama (emphasis theirs, not mine)
- The "Yup, I'm a racist." shirt becoming a popular item at Tea Party events ^{1 2}
- Tea Party activist Mark Williams racist remarks and statements ^{3 4}
- Racist signs and slogans at Tea Party events ^{5 6}
- And this:



So, are ALL Tea Party activists racist? NO. Is there an obvious, in-your-face racist demographic within the Tea Party movement? YES.
Not a history lesson, but a report on current events.

try don milo duqette qwiz.
his books on crowley,the golden dawn,enochian magick and the knights templar are fantastic reads (if your a geek like me).he also happens to be a nice guy (met him a few years back..ooo i'm such a lil name dropper).

lets remember that there are 4500 religions on the planet and the ones you are referring to are the abrahamic.
it is easier when you break them down into "eastern" and "western" theologies.western being predominantly the judau/christian/islam.

now as for the "do as thou whilt".that can easily be transcribed as "do unto others",different idioms with similar intentions and can be found in all religions in one form or another.it is the church that focuses on the subservience while the actual teachings of say jesus or mohamhed tend to be much more open in their interpretations.

It's funny to me how Obama started out identifying with honest Abe (who was, after all, a Republican). In case anyone thinks that "back then," Republicans were "different" from now in their philosophy, allow me to quote Lincoln:

"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."-Abraham Lincoln.

He set the tone in Republican rhetoric for those who followed in the party.
In practice...that's another story.

Ah, rats. I shall have to quality it when I get a power point.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Sorry bro, but dupety-doo-da.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that belief in religious claims is completely and utterly irrational, not because there isnt sufficient evidence to meet a scientific standard, but because there is NO evidence at all. None. One of the many problems with accepting subjective experience in this context is the simple fact that we have several religions, and that some of their claims are directly in conflict. (Islam is pretty clear that anyone who believes Jesus is the son of God will end up in hell, and both of these religions are clear on what happens to any non-abrahamic believers etc.) If we were to take into account a mere 2 believers and their subjective experience with god, we'd be back to square one almost immediately. A bit like forever determining the best ice-cream flavor. Ironically, if there was a god who communicated with individuals , then subjective evidence would actually be interesting. However, since believers cant seem to agree on what god it is and what its saying, all we have is noise.

In other words we need some input, some kind of evidence that doesnt contradict itself or prove utterly unreliable, and here, anything would really be of interest. Bring it on. I'm waiting, and I'd be thrilled to see some, and I wont be picky. I promise.

I am perfectly aware that many scientists have religious convictions, but this fails to impact the truth of these claims. Scientists are humans, and humans are prone to superstition and being wrong. What we can say, however, is that the percentage of religious people drops dramatically among the educated. People like Francis Collins are clearly among the exceptions. And all I can say about his rationale for his rather evangelical beliefs is that they are laughably childish and silly.


In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
Skepticism doesn't just require evidence for belief, it requires overwhelming evidence and hence any change will be slow (there are still scientists arguing against global warming).

Ironically, I think you could look at religious people as reverse-skeptics. Where a skeptic will not believe anything without overwhelming evidence to support it, a religious person will not change their belief in something without overwhelming evidence that the belief is wrong. And this, I suppose, is the main reason why skeptics and believers simply cannot agree with each other. There is not enough (I would say any, actually) reliable evidence (objective or subjective) to convince either side. How could there be? Most skeptics discount subjective knowledge (their own included) right from the start. Everyone is arguing over apples and oranges.

Sure it is fair to dismiss ALL religion. Just because you are a little crazy in that you believe in magical forces controlling the universe doesn't make it ANY more legitimate.

Of course there are non-violent religious people. Of course there are religious people that don't piss me off as much as the tools I'm mostly talking about, that doesn't mean that they don't suspend reason for something with is just illogical.

I can definitely understand that there are "good teachings" in many religions and I have no problem with that, but it is the fact that those are indistinguishable from the other parts OF THE SAME RELIGIOUS TEXTS which call for violence, war, and intolerance which lead me to my ultimate statement: religion needs to go.

Want to teach about tolerance, love and understanding? Go right ahead, you don't need mana from heaven, Jesus walking on water, crucifixions or Abraham almost killing his son, Mohammed in a bear suit whatever to get there. Secularize the teachings, remove the mumbo-jumbo and the magic rings of power and I'll listen. The problem with mixing good teachings with this suspension of rational thought is that then you are subject to the whims of clergymen who invent their own bullshit (like priests not being able to marry so the church can inherit their property) in order to advance themselves. Teach people to be good and to think, don't teach them superstition, fear and ultimately hate. Yeah yeah, some of these stories in the bible are innocent enough, but by painting this magical harrypotteresque world they open in the doors to people believing in things that WILL have a bad effect on them.

Again I remember a funny debate I had with a Jesus freak: I was discussing abortion and at some point the Jesus freak didn't like the logic I used and tried to convince me that his logic was superior by spouting the following example:

"Unlike you, I believe everyone deserves to live... even someone like YOU. And that is because my god teaches me this."

Think about that for a moment, he was essentially telling me that because of my ideas about abortion and woman's rights, he fundamentally felt that I deserved to die, but only because his god told him not to think that way he was willing to concede me my life.

I do good things because it is better for all of us to be good to each other, not because some magical being threatens me if I don't do what he says. Who is a better person, the one who does good deeds because he wants to do good deeds, or the one who does them because he's afraid of the consequences if he doesn't?

Religion needs to go.


>> ^Myrmidian:

>> ^ponceleon:
I keep saying this in all these clips and I'll keep doing so:
Religion needs to go.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss all religions on the basis of the actions of a few unintelligent or uninformed people.

@Issykitty said: "This is probably what he does best and most often."

Haha... "Whatever you are, be a good one." -Abraham Lincoln

Holy abrahamic fuck.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'drugs, lsd, dmt, math, experiences, spirituality' to 'drugs, lsd, dmt, math, experiences, spirituality, Ralph, Abraham' - edited by Trancecoach

She could've said;"Ok Son,let's sit down and discuss your concerns". But NO..Instead, she swears and threatens him with church every week,as if his brainwashing needs a top up. Like all the Abrahamic faiths(and more) it's threats,anger and punishment all the way.(but remember,god loves you) I admire the kid for saying;"A lot can happen, you can think". She should be utterly ashamed of her reaction to his honesty. Hopefully he won't have to tell her he's gay or he's dating a nice scientologist girl. Still, could've been worse. Were he muslim, they would have killed him immediately for being an apostate and bringing shame on the family..The sooner these bronze age myths are consigned to history-as countless others have been-the better for humanity.