Sucks, doesn't it?

See the discussion at http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Atheist-Delusion
I have little to add. It's all bullshit.

Too bad the other thread was killed.

Also too bad you can tag users, if I could, I would tag marr as "Holy Roller".

I love you marr.

-Zeek

i like the self referential illustration "proof" God <-> Bible <-> God.

The only drawback to all these videos is that since the pro-God argument is so weak, juvenile, simplistic and easy to defeat, the sarcastic arguments made against it become repetitive and boring.

btw the guy needs to take his own advice and apply Science and Reason to his examples - the reference to unicorns is wrong, the centuries old mistranslation was due to lack of knowledge of ancient Hebrew. The correct translation reads:

8 He ranges the hills for his pasture
and searches for any green thing.

9 Will the wild ox consent to serve you?
Will he stay by your manger at night?

10 Can you hold him to the furrow with a harness?
Will he till the valleys behind you?

As for the giants reference, Genesis 6 IS very bizarre, but again "giants" is a mis-transliteration of ancient hebrew which has no english equivalent to convey what the original author meant. Yet, the correct word does still seem to refer to some non-human being...

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days — and also afterward — when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Or does it? In old hebrew grammatical structure who does "they" refer to? - 'the sons of god' or 'The Nephilim', and who or what exactly was meant by The Nephilim, or "the sons of god" for that matter. Is it literal, figurative, poetic, or a cultural euphamism now long since lost?

Whenever I read dissertations on possible meanings of passages of the Bible and possible mis-translations of the original written form of the various books of the Bible I have to ask "What's the point?". If God is omniscient then he must have anticipated that his word would be translated. There were languages being used other than the language of the original writing. Would God have allowed his word to be corrupted in translation. Surely if he imbued the original writers with the ability to convey his word then he would have done the same with anyone attempting to translate his word. All translations no matter how different or contradictory must be the true word of God or they are simply the product of imperfect men, including the original writing.

Yawn. Yet another unoriginal video on the Sift blindly bashing religion and telling us nothing new. Sure to soar to the top 15. Oh well.

It would take very little effort to find material to make a video called, "The Atheist Delusion" which made fun of atheists rather than making fun of Christians. That's what I was hoping for here. Something fresh. Still waiting.

[removed]

The scary part about all of these parodies is how normal they sound to those of us living in the south. Many people down here use this same level of reasoning as proof of the existence of a god.

They tried with expelled and failed miserably. Every time Christians (or others) try to make fun of Atheists, they make logical missteps, such that their argument doesn't not hold up. I think there's been a few stand up comic videos uploaded which tried to make fun of Atheists, but they're usually just not that funny.

There's a reason you're still waiting.

>> ^messenger:
It would take very little effort to find material to make a video called, "The Atheist Delusion" which made fun of atheists rather than making fun of Christians. That's what I was hoping for here. Something fresh. Still waiting.

Atheism is just scientific rationalism applied to religions, so if there was some rational point they had missed, they would simple incorporate it and the argument would be over.

It does seem possible, however, to criticize Atheists themselves as not tolerant enough, or to argue that, though they state they're technically agnostics, they come off as if they're 100% certain.

>> ^messenger:
It would take very little effort to find material to make a video called, "The Atheist Delusion" which made fun of atheists rather than making fun of Christians. That's what I was hoping for here. Something fresh. Still waiting.

how about this. If you're an atheist, stop being so fucking pompous about it. Why are there so many damn videos and comments on the sift that bash other people's religion for fun. It's juvenile and pointless.

How about religion sticks to its churches and private worship and stay out of public policy and schools.

There is a war being waged by religions to worm their way back into US politics to make it more like a theocracy. Religious people have gotten all sorts of public funds (like from the prison system).

So, how about if you are religious you take your pompous pious knowledge from the 1st century and leave it the hell out of schools and any governance and then atheists can go back to ignoring you as harmless kooks, instead of maliciously dangerous lunatics hellbent on dragging everyone down with their particular brand of righteous knowledge.

This is a parody, right? It's getting hard to tell the difference between religious bat-shittery and parody.

wherever there's *religion, there are *lies

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by Trancecoach.

>> ^gwiz665:
They tried with expelled and failed miserably. Every time Christians (or others) try to make fun of Atheists, they make logical missteps, such that their argument doesn't not hold up. I think there's been a few stand up comic videos uploaded which tried to make fun of Atheists, but they're usually just not that funny.
There's a reason you're still waiting.

I think it's more likely that VS's regular membership is overwhelmingly anti-religion, so there are very few anti-atheist vids sifted, and the ones that do get sifted don't make it to the top 15, or even the front page for the same reasons. Further, currently, religion-bashing is a kind of sport in the Western world, whereas atheism is at its chic prime over there (I live in Turkey now), so there are correspondingly fewer vids being produced in the first place against atheists. They'll come.

>> ^joedirt:
How about religion sticks to its churches and private worship and stay out of public policy and schools.


I agree, but ridicule of those religions isn't the way to get the point across.


>> ^joedirt:
maliciously dangerous lunatics hellbent on dragging everyone down with their particular brand of righteous knowledge.


Grouping all religious folks into this category is like grouping all white americans as homosexuals because "I've seen a few."

Also, if you're honestly against such things, you should understand why I'm irritated at all the hellbent commenting/video posting on the sift about how only idiots believe in any religion. If your brand of righteous knowledge is that there is no reasonable religion, fine, follow your own advice and keep it to yourself.

>> ^residue:
how about this. If you're an atheist, stop being so fucking pompous about it. Why are there so many damn videos and comments on the sift that bash other people's religion for fun. It's juvenile and pointless.

That's what I'm talking about. An anti-atheist video wouldn't take aim at atheists' beliefs, but at their persistent unchecked arrogance, as if being correct about something (not that they are, but not that they're not) gives them the right to bash those who are wrong.

Repeatedly, this same complaint about atheists comes up in these discussions, and every time, the rebuttal is something irrational, like, "But we're right," or "But they're idiots," as if that has anything to do with their choice to be assholes.

In a nutshell, whatever you believe, believe it and be decent and respectful about it.

Wow, I totally agree with joedirt. If religion would get the fuck out of my life and stop affecting my body, our laws, et cetera, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

It seems to me that it is the theists who should keep to themselves.

Or they won't, because there's no material for them. Please do show examples of any that's been made so far? I've yet to see a single one that made a genuine point.

>> ^messenger:
>>^gwiz665:
They tried with expelled and failed miserably. Every time Christians (or others) try to make fun of Atheists, they make logical missteps, such that their argument doesn't not hold up. I think there's been a few stand up comic videos uploaded which tried to make fun of Atheists, but they're usually just not that funny.
There's a reason you're still waiting.
I think it's more likely that VS's regular membership is overwhelmingly anti-religion, so there are very few anti-atheist vids sifted, and the ones that do get sifted don't make it to the top 15, or even the front page for the same reasons. Further, currently, religion-bashing is a kind of sport in the Western world, whereas atheism is at its chic prime over there (I live in Turkey now), so there are correspondingly fewer vids being produced in the first place against atheists. They'll come.

>> ^gwiz665:
Or they won't, because there's no material for them. Please do show examples of any that's been made so far? I've yet to see a single one that made a genuine point.

You're not listening. Their "points" would not be about whether God exists or not because on the whole, nobody cares what you beleive. Their point would be that vocal atheists can be really annoying, even to fellow atheists and agnostics, perhaps especially.

You are material for them. Or you would be if you were famous.

^An open marketplace of ideas is good for society, so there doesn't seem to be any reason for people to not be vocal participants in that marketplace. This video seems to be an intelligently constructed satire, so it should be respected on those grounds.

Any videos that take aim at atheists will tend to be met with disputations of the videos logic, rather than atheists just saying it's offensive.

>> UsesProzac:
Wow, I totally agree with joedirt. If religion would get the fuck out of my life and stop affecting my body, our laws, et cetera, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Sounds like you're pissed about people intruding into your life uninvited, and making decisions about your body based on religious rules that you don't share. That about right?

I'm just looking for the point in a lot of this. What is the overall objective in making videos/comments that are designed specifically to insult members of various religions? Is your goal to convert those people to your "correct" belief in atheism? If so, then why? If that is your goal, it's a hypocritical one

>> ^messenger:
>> UsesProzac:
Wow, I totally agree with joedirt. If religion would get the fuck out of my life and stop affecting my body, our laws, et cetera, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Sounds like you're pissed about people intruding into your life uninvited, and making decisions about your body based on religious rules that you don't share. That about right?

...?

residue:
atheism is not a belief (aka faith), it is following the evidence. There is a difference.

messenger:
It's not just that it's rules imposed on me by a religion that I don't share, but that the religion is PROVABLY false.

I think some parts of religions are considered empirically disproved beyond any significant scientific debate, like the young earth creationism (~10,000 years) in which 50% of Americans believe, but most of the issues that get debated can't be proven per se, and are more about just probability, Occam's Razor, and rationalism.

gwiz665:

following evidence that leads you to a conclusion, or a belief. To believe that something is reasonable to you, or to believe that something is unreasonable for you and therefore unaccepted.


Please elaborate on the difference if I've misunderstood. For those who have faith in their religion, they also feel as if they have followed the evidence.

>> ^residue:
how about this. If you're an atheist, stop being so fucking pompous about it. Why are there so many damn videos and comments on the sift that bash other people's religion for fun. It's juvenile and pointless.


I'll seriously answer this: it's because atheists aren't getting equal shift - or rights - in many regions. To a huge number of people, it's unacceptable for an atheist to proclaim they're atheistic. These believers' own firmly entrenched word-of-God-delivered truth is that those atheistic people are committing a sin, and it is the responsibility of the religious to show them the error of their ways.

if religious groups didn't try and influence government and society toward their own agendas, we'd have no problem with them, and you wouldn't see videos like this one.

But they don't always do this. And so videos like this one are, from our position, both justified and funny.

What happened to karaidl?

> What happened to karaidl?

He's doing 10 to 20 at Leavenworth was last I heard

>> ^gwiz665It's not just that it's rules imposed on me by a religion that I don't share, but that the religion is PROVABLY false.

I understand and agree with you about assholes (religious or otherwise) controlling your life, health and education. I think everyone on the Sift agrees about that.

Beyond that issue, I'm not clear on why you care what other people believe. As long as they keep it to themselves, does it make a difference if a total stranger somewhere believes something that is false? Do you think you're gaining something by mocking them?

Messenger:
As long as they keep it to themselves, I have no problem with people believing in anything. But when religions actively encourage that they don't keep it to themselves, there is a problem. They NEVER keep it to themselves.

Other than that I have a bit of a grander scope on my objections, in that I think that religion is detrimental to the human race. Like a ball and chain it keeps us from being able to run. We are in essence slaves to superstition, irrationality and foolishness, even if we don't believe in it ourselves, because people in power impose their stupidity on the rest of us.

I don't directly gain anything from mocking them, I avoid losing our collective sanity.

Residue:
It's difficult to clearly get the same meaning of a word like "belief" because it is ambiguous and has multiple meanings.

Let's take it in small steps.

Evidence is data that you make your working hypothesis from. When you gather a sufficient amount of evidence that has no contradicting evidence, you can make a theory. As long as no evidence contradicts that theory, it can be considered factual to the best of our knowledge (or a belief if you really want to call it that (I don't)). This theory (fact) must be able to withstand attacks from all angles, which is based on evidence.

Example: I see a white swan (data/evidence). From that evidence I form the hypothesis "All swans are white". Next I gather evidence of more swans, thousands of swans, all white. The evidence then indicates that my hypothesis is correct, and we can "upgrade" it to theory. To the best of our knowledge swans are white. Then evidence is presented that suggest that some swans exist that are black. This evidence is analyzed and scrutinized and my theory is found out to be faulty. A new working hypothesis is formed: "All swans are black or white". And so on...

This is following the evidence.

There are many guidelines for what can actually be considered evidence, but all in all, you just have to eliminate the margin of error. If only 1 person (maybe a person with a different theory) saw a black swan and no one else ever has, then the evidence is not very reliable - he could easily just be making it up for personal gain, for instance. If a million people saw black swans the evidence is much more reliable. That being said, in reality you'd have to do more than just see the swan to make it reliable evidence.

So you see, it doesn't mean that it is reasonable or unreasonable to me, it's that the evidence does or does not support it. What I think is irrelevant if the evidence points in another direction.

Religion makes the grievous error of making the theory out of nothing and then making evidence support it (see all things Kent Hovind). Evidence should not be altered, the theory should be altered.

>> ^gwiz665:
...If a million people saw black swans the evidence is much more reliable.


what about if a third of the global population saw the "black swan?"

"have you come to believe because you have seen me? blessed are those who have not seen and have believed"- Jesus (John 20:29)

>> ^residue:
how about this. If you're an atheist, stop being so fucking pompous about it. Why are there so many damn videos and comments on the sift that bash other people's religion for fun. It's juvenile and pointless.


beedebeedlebeeldebeelde are you drunk again?

>> ^gwiz665:
They NEVER keep it to themselves.

Coming from someone who seems to understand evidence and logic and theories, I can't imagine you mean this literally. Do you mean you see a lot of religious people who don't keep it to themselves?

Other than that I have a bit of a grander scope on my objections, in that I think that religion is detrimental to the human race. Like a ball and chain it keeps us from being able to run. We are in essence slaves to superstition, irrationality and foolishness, even if we don't believe in it ourselves, because people in power impose their stupidity on the rest of us.

This seems like the same (valid IMO) point to me: people who impose their religious beliefs on us are slowing us down as a people. Right? And if they kept it to themselves, then they wouldn't be slowing us down anymore.

>>White:
what about if a third of the global population saw the "black swan?"

Then that would be evidence, and it would be easy to document with proof, like photographs, or at least lots of corroborating first-hand accounts, as we used before photographs. If, however, a third of the global population claimed to believe that a black swan existed, although not one of these people had ever seen one IRL or seen evidence of one, that would not be evidence.

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^residue:
how about this. If you're an atheist, stop being so fucking pompous about it. Why are there so many damn videos and comments on the sift that bash other people's religion for fun. It's juvenile and pointless.

beedebeedlebeeldebeelde are you drunk again?


my tainted past comes back to haunt me, who's juvenile now? beepbeep
thanks rottenseed

gwiz:

good point about evidence, but the problem in the circumstance for religion, is that there isn't any evidence either way really. It's impossible to prove the non-existence of anything.

Scientific evidence and religious interpretations are often interpreted to conflict when they really don't need to. For example, sure there is strong evidence that evolution occurs and has been for millions of years, but that is not evidence against any religion, it's just a theory to explain phenomena we witness, not evidence supporting or denouncing any religion. I suppose it comes down to how literally you interpret whatever religion it is you choose to follow. Christianity seems to be pretty metaphorical in my opinion.

At any rate, I was just curious why there is such a strong, forceful anti-religion emotion around here, and I think I've gathered my answer for the most part. Ridicule of things you find absurd is nothing new, it's just there has just been a very strong chant of hoo-ray for atheism around here lately.

edit:
by the way, since the strong complaint seems to be that "religious people need stop forcing their beliefs on me because it's annoying," you should understand why those of religious orientation would be frustrated at the attempts of atheists to "help" those of religious orientation by showing them how "dumb" they are. There's PLENTY of that both in the real world and online.

beedledblebeelabeedabee

Nothing should be forced on anybody, but when it comes to using politics to get your religious agenda across, people need to take a stand. So, if you don't like to hear atheists bash the Christian beliefs, don't put your beliefs center stage by trying to push your agenda. As soon as that goes away, we'll crawl back into our Macaroni and cheese eating, mother's basement living, baby murdering ways.

I've never known of a Buddhist who tries to get their religion taught in our public schools, nor wants "in Buddha we trust" on our money, nor affect other areas of government policy.

For that matter, I've never known of a Hindu a Muslim or any other religious group other than Jews and Christians (of every variety) who would ever dream of trying to affect US public policy.

Even the Quakers know just to leave shit alone and practice their own way, privately.


That's the problem that most theists just don't understand; You stop trying to shove your religion in our faces, and we'll stop being so outraged by your nonsense.


Shut.The.Fuck.Up.Already

>> ^messenger:
>>^gwiz665:
They NEVER keep it to themselves.
Coming from someone who seems to understand evidence and logic and theories, I can't imagine you mean this literally. Do you mean you see a lot of religious people who don't keep it to themselves?

Naw, I was being facetious. My point was more that when a religion actively requires you to recruit and thus "save" people, a follower would be obligated to spread their belief. And even if they don't blather on about it, the religion still directly influence their decisions. A deeply religious person in power scares me, even if they keep it under wraps.
On a related note, most religions are extremely jealous about people leaving their religion (apostasy).


Other than that I have a bit of a grander scope on my objections, in that I think that religion is detrimental to the human race. Like a ball and chain it keeps us from being able to run. We are in essence slaves to superstition, irrationality and foolishness, even if we don't believe in it ourselves, because people in power impose their stupidity on the rest of us.
This seems like the same (valid IMO) point to me: people who impose their religious beliefs on us are slowing us down as a people. Right? And if they kept it to themselves, then they wouldn't be slowing us down anymore.


You would think so, but we cannot isolate people completely from the rest of the world - there will always be reasons for interaction between the peoples. I have nothing against "healthy" traditions with no logical purpose (birthdays, xmas or in some sense even prayer), but when people actually believe that something is different just because they pray, it's ones birthday or it's xmas there is an intellectual dissonance, because nothing has changed.

The only way we advance as a species is through science and technology, religion is very similar to what it was a thousand years ago.

God is dead, and no one cares.
-NiN

>> ^gwiz665:
Naw, I was being facetious. My point was more that when a religion actively requires you to recruit and thus "save" people, a follower would be obligated to spread their belief.

Maybe where you are, all Christians recruit, but that hasn't been my experience at all. The only ones who have ever tried to recruit me are the Pious Bastards of Latter-day Saints 18-year-old Men-in-Black "Elders," and I run into a pod of them only once every couple years. Maybe I'm just lucky.

A deeply religious person in power scares me, even if they keep it under wraps.

If you mean a literalist, then yes, that's scary. If you just mean someone who uses a religion for spirituality, I can't agree with you. I would much prefer someone with a strong moral compass (not to be confused with a guy who claims to receive instructions from God) be in power than just some guy.

On a related note, most religions are extremely jealous about people leaving their religion (apostasy).

That's a major sign of weakness on their part. Anything that hints that they might be wrong (which at some level, they must know) must be demonized, just like China not letting Tibet or Taiwan leave the country peacefully.

when people actually believe that something is different just because they pray, it's ones birthday or it's xmas there is an intellectual dissonance, because nothing has changed.

People who believe they can change the world by praying alone are deluding themselves, IMO, but so what. Let them pray.

On the other hand, I've heard Mother Theresa variously quoted as saying, "Prayer without action is no prayer at all," or "Prayer without action is just a wish." A lot of people find the strength to take action from without by praying. It has worked since prayer was invented, and continues to work now. Surely, it's a placebo effect, but even the placebo effect is documented as effective. If people can heal themselves, nail that job interview, ditch that abusive husband, take care of lepers, or even stand up to their parish priest with the strength they perceive they get from prayer, then I'm all for it.

The only way we advance as a species is through science and technology, religion is very similar to what it was a thousand years ago.

Surely, in the big picture, the only measure for progress has to be how we act towards our fellow people, other living creatures, and the planet.

Science, and our acceptance of new paradigms, is arguably a measure of progress as a species, but I don't consider technology a measure of progress at all. If we can't learn to communicate peacefully, we're going to nuke ourselves into oblivion. That's not progress. If we can't learn to use the resources we have in a sustainable way, we're going to undo all the scientific and technological "progress" we've made by making it impossible to use.

New thought: The biggest problem with the atheist backlash is that brings to a halt so much philosophical discussion about what is good and right, because anyone who talks about that stuff comes off as religious, and hence, is instantly dismissed as having an intellectual disconnect.

>> ^messenger: Surely, in the big picture, the only measure for progress has to be how we act towards our fellow people, other living creatures, and the planet.

Look at the history of how religions treat members, other religions, anyone. Stone women to death. (Oh they don't do that anymore?) Ok, how about women in the clergy? (Oh they allow that now) Ok, how about discrimination against gays?

Religion has almost never been a good example of how to act against fellow man. The biggest problem atheist probably have is that so-called christians don't follow most of Jesus's teachings. They don't practice live and let live. They go around actively trying to convert and save and judge others (see abortion clinics or teaching evolution in schools for reference).

Anyone actively preaching about their faith online is the same as yelling about it on a bus or street corner. So either stick to appropriate forums or not get all offended when rational, reasonable people point out that you should keep your 1st century ideas off the 21st century invention. Most religions would ban the internet unless it had net nanny to prevent bad ideas from reaching your eyes. Look at scientology as an example.

People having a faith and practicing a religion isn't threatening, organized religion and millions in the coffers of evangelical leaders is a problem. Political action groups receiving millions in donations to push lobbying and legislation is a problem.

So, yeah, religions deserve to be ridiculed and have the sunshine of logic and truth shone on them on the internet. I can't name too many videos finding fault with the teachings of Jesus... Just the nutkooks like Kirk Cameron and idiots trying to show the existance of God because of the shape of a banana. That is what super pro-religion statements look like on the internet. You are judged against the Kirk Camerons and the 6000 yr earthers.

>> ^joedirt:
>> ^messenger:
Anyone actively preaching about their faith online is the same as yelling about it on a bus or street corner. So either stick to appropriate forums or not get all offended when rational, reasonable people point out that you should keep your 1st century ideas off the 21st century invention. Most religions would ban the internet unless it had net nanny to prevent bad ideas from reaching your eyes. Look at
scientology as an example.


You're calling Scientology a religion? Seriously.

May I invite you to visit http://www.vatican.va/ ?

Yeah, argument shot down in flames, sorry.


People having a faith and practicing a religion isn't threatening, organized religion and millions in the coffers of evangelical leaders is a problem. Political action groups receiving millions in donations to push lobbying and legislation is a problem.

I do see the disconnect in this discussion. Americans vs. Canadians/Others.

In Canada, the dominant religious group is that of the Roman Catholic church. And we're pretty low key on the whole. To use an American example, you don't see Joe Biden going around installing nativity scenes or whatever it is that bothers you.


So, yeah, religions deserve to be ridiculed and have the sunshine of logic and truth shone on them on the internet. I can't name too many videos finding fault with the teachings of Jesus... Just the nutkooks like Kirk Cameron and idiots trying to show the existance of God because of the shape of a banana. That is what super pro-religion statements look like on the internet. You are judged against the Kirk Camerons and the 6000 yr earthers.


Yup, see my last paragraph.

It's not that Catholics and other 'chill Christians' are perfect - we admit that we're not, and that's the reason we HAVE the religion in the first place! - but the billion or so people who don't cause trouble or in fact, mitigate the trouble others experience, would appreciate not being lumped in with the crazy-ass evangelicals that're causing you so much of a headache.

Messenger: New thought: The biggest problem with the atheist backlash is that brings to a halt so much philosophical discussion about what is good and right, because anyone who talks about that stuff comes off as religious, and hence, is instantly dismissed as having an intellectual disconnect.

I disagree. Proper philosophy does not stifle discussion, but instead make educated opinions heard. This thought ties into the "strong moral compass" that you mentioned earlier. I don't think that someone who got their morals from, for instance, the Bible has a particularly strong moral compass, because they need to be told what to think, not come to the conclusion first, and hell, the first 4 commandments are just petty squabbles from a jealous god.

With our philosophical advancements we could create much better commandments today, if we so chose.

>> ^joedirt:
Look at the history of how religions treat members, other religions, anyone...Religion has almost never been a good example of how to act against fellow man.

You're taking the minority example of horrible things done in the name of religion to represent the whole. Religion can be used to make people do stupid things, but on the whole, it makes people do lots and lots of good things.

They don't practice live and let live.

Again, that might be your experience where you live, but that's a relatively small group, mostly from the States. No Christians I've met from anywhere in the rest of the world behave like that, and I've been to lots of places, Christian and otherwise. Don't tar them all with the same brush just because of your experience.

@gwiz665:
Agreed, that proper philosophy does not stifle discussion. Saying that God doesn't exist is fair, and stifles nothing. Saying that all religious people are idiots, and you want them to STFU and go away does stifle discussion. You, for an example, are not willing to acknowledge anything positive that religion has ever effected. That, is discussion stifled. That is an incorrect, logically flawed viewpoint.

I've been around sane and intelligent religious people my whole life, and I can fairly say that while the religious around you seem like blind uneducated sheep, the religious people around me use religion as spiritual guidance, not law, and it makes them better people.

As for the commandments, here's my own personal take: Moses was leading a bunch of squabbling Israelites through the desert, and there were constant problems with them hurting each other, cheating on each other, stealing from each other, arguing about the true nature of God, out-of-control children, etc. He saw that if they would just follow a few simple rules that the quality of their lives would improve enormously. So, he went up a mountain away from them and meditated on what the simplest set of rules could be. He got it down to ten, carved them into stone, walked down the mountain, and said these were rules from God, and everyone had to follow them. They did, their lives improved greatly, and that was proof to them that these commandments were from God, and they spread them far and wide as a helpful guide to others so they could enjoy their lives more.

**Following evidence**

All religious people are not idiots, but all religion is idiotic. If you cut away all of the superstitious parts of religion, you can begin to use it properly. I can certainly allow for any people to make their argument, but I've yet to see any religious argument that is supported by evidence. Morality derived from the Bible is immoral according to our existing laws, so that's probably not a good source.

I totally think you guys should start the Mac vs PC argument.

^Haha, Mac vs PC is always so fun.

you want a religon that is satisfying to your intellect? You cut the superstition? yeah well what you get is moral and ethics and for that no one needs a god. all you need is self discipline, integrity; to be fair with yourself, your knowledge and the rest of the world and its knowledge awaiting for you.

I agree this kind of atheist humour is saturated. I discovered that the process of ignoring something is quite similar to the process of something not exisiting, since its existence is substanciated by the feedback it gets in conflictuous occasions. Examples: a spoiled kid will try to draw attention by conflict; a religouse group will do something outrageous just so that we realize tehey do something therefore they exist (too bad for them that what they do is just useless to them and us).

that said, the bashing, the sarcasm, etc. seem to be dialectic plots to keep alive something that apparently is set to be weakened by these same procedures of the opposite point of view.

religon is old, and in teh tiems of teh internetz each one of us can be his/her own god, if so is needed. If not, better yet, rely on the intellect to judge your path. it will lead you to disgrace or harmony (see how these terms apply very well outside of a religious context, religous ones who rob and torn our words, universal our particular as they may be?...).

>> ^messenger:
>> ^gwiz665Beyond that issue, I'm not clear on why you care what other people believe. As long as they keep it to themselves, does it make a difference if a total stranger somewhere believes something that is false? Do you think you're gaining something by mocking them?


The problem is, they DON'T keep it to themselves!!! They knock on my door at dinner time and barrage me two or three at a time with their "beliefs" and attempt to shove them down my throat. EVEN when I tell them I do not believe in God or follow any religion. Once I tell them my stance, that should be the end of the conversation and they should go on their way, but do they? Fuck no! They continue to talk, and talk, and talk, until I'm forced to either tell them to leave or shut the door in their face. It's appalling and I should NOT have to deal with it! And if you tell me not to answer my door, screw that! They should not come over to MY house UNINVITED, period!

I don't go to their houses and try to force by beliefs on them, (though I do keep threatening to do so) so what gives them the right to do that to me and continue to attempt to force it down my throat once I say I'm not interested? Not to mention the endless leaflets left on my door if I don't happen to be home when they come-a-knockin'?

My problem with religious people is; Most of them do not even know what's in their own bible, or live by the standards set forth within it. They do not "love their fellow man", "turn the other cheek", "help the poor", "love they neighbor", "not kill", "not covet", "not commit adultery", etc, etc!

How can I have respect for people that can't even follow the rules set forth by their own God? It's simple, I can't.

>> ^gwiz665:
Following evidence
All religious people are not idiots, but all religion is idiotic. If you cut away all of the superstitious parts of religion, you can begin to use it properly. I can certainly allow for any people to make their argument, but I've yet to see any religious argument that is supported by evidence. Morality derived from the Bible is immoral according to our existing laws, so that's probably not a good source.

Huh? Why would a person who is not an idiot follow something that is idiotic? That makes no sense. Either religious people are idiots for following a religion, or not all religion is idiotic. There's no inbetween. What you're showing is that you don't understand why any intelligent adult would willingly follow a religion. That's OK; you don't need to understand. But I do understand. And I could even explain it to you if you weren't so dead set on believing that religion is inherently idiotic.

Religious arguments supported by evidence:

"Violence doesn't solve problems."
"Treat others the way you want to be treated yourself."
"Money doesn't bring happiness, and often turns people selfish."

Those aren't religious arguments.

They are. These are taught in Christianity (and undoubtedly in other religions too) and are now so widely accepted that they're not credited to religion anymore. We think they're common sense, but they're not -- they're learned, and have become part of the fabric of our society.

If what you mean by "religious argument" is "something that is patently non-factual," then you've created a tautology for yourself: "I've never seen a non-factual argument proved true with evidence." Of course you haven't, because it's by definition impossible. But anything that you don't consider impossible, anything provable, is suddenly not religious, because you can prove it, or is observably true, even though it stemmed from a religion.

If not, what do you mean by "religious argument?"

They're neither religious nor arguments, in fact they're not even supported by the evidence. Certainly none of them were woven by religion rather than human nature.

That's like saying no ideas ever came out of philosophy, that they came from human nature first, and therefore, philosophy hasn't contributed anything to human society.

It's like saying religions succeed when they echo humanity's basest animal inclinations.

>> ^Irishman:
God is dead, and no one cares.
-NiN

...and if there is a hell, I'll see you there