Per CNN.

Not a minute too soon.
Per Zip Goshboots

There goes another fucking poster.

I'm betting that he didn't die poor.

Another stain on religious representation gone. Now if only we could remove Osama Bin Laden, Hamas, 90 percent of catholic priests, the entire country rural bible belt religious order, and the Atheists fundamentalists who hate anyone who believes in God. Things would be a little more sane.

Another stain on religious representation gone. Now if only we could remove Osama Bin Laden, Hamas, 90 percent of catholic priests, the entire country rural bible belt religious order, and the Atheists fundamentalists who hate anyone who believes in God. Things would be a little more sane.

"And the Atheists fundamentalists who hate anyone who believes in God. Things would be a little more sane"

There aren't many people associated with religion who couldn't be considered a "stain" on religious representation.
When you go around believing that "Fairy tales DO come true" and preach a "gospel" that damns everyone who doesn't believe as you do, it's a stretch not to include any bible thumper in your post there.
Do Atheists REALLY "hate" people who believe in god, or would they just like to sell them some ocean front property in Oklahoma?

There are plenty of evangelical atheists Zip. If you've never seen one, you probably are one.

There are plenty of evangelical atheists Zip.
People who are more bent on being severely anti-religious rather than atheist. Taking out their rage on any religious representations they can with no resprect for anyone else's beliefs. To me they are no different that evangelical Christians.

I can't speak to these new terms: Atheistofascism? Evangelical atheists?
I do know that Atheists haven't gone out to kill multitudes to get "In God we Trust" off our coins.

Of course Believers (since you capitalized "Atheists") didn't slaughter millions of Russians and Chinese to institute socialism.

Its not a new term Zip.

This should be a good discussion.

I'll bet 2 alpacas that we all find common ground.

Well, you make a great point, I suspect the Nazi Party may have been officially "Atheist" as well, but don't know for sure.
The Communists of Russia and China were indeed officially "Atheist", and did slaughter millions, but I'm quite sure they didn't ask whether people were religious before killing them. Their killing was a blanket policy of annihilating any opposition.
Russia, more than China, had a history of killing "religous" people, but it is still hard to distinguish the difference between seeing the church as a "subversive" organization and blaming believers in god for being a real problem in a society (which, for the vast majority, they are obviously not). But Russia does have a history of communism attempting to rid the country of religion, and often with murder and intimidation as the tactics.
http://atheism.about.com/library/world/KZ/bl_RussiaOrthodoxHistory.htm
As for China, although the government disavowed ties to religion, and probably did go after the religous movement with a fervor, the more blatant reality of the murders under Mao appear to again be a blanket policy of killing perceived opposition to the party.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part7

As for history not including these periods, the killing fields brought about in the name of god before or since far outnumber and are frought with far more brutality then any general "atheistic" cause.

^your Cliff Claven signature has never been more fitting

I read that whole post using my best Claven voice. The only thing that would have made it better is if you could have worked in "it's a little known fact that..."

Well played, in any case.

I kind of go between Claven and Farley (down by the river).
Favorite CHEERS episode: When Cliff had the therapist install the "shock treament" thing on him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs

China has had a system of controlled religious freedom, that is, the religious system bows down to the party rule, especially in areas dominated by ethnic minorities (and their respective religions, traditions and customs ) like Tibet, Xinjiang etc. For example, had Dalai Lama not staged any uprising -or resistance if you will, he could still be the religious leader and a token political leader in Tibet, as he had been for 10 years under Mao's rule. His fellow reincarnation, the Panchan Lama, has partially filled in the religious leadership void.

It wasn't because Mao and Stalin were atheists that all those people died; in fact, it was because their brand of communism was a little bit too much like a set of religious beliefs. You can be an atheist for all kinds of dumb reasons in addition to some smart ones. All "atheist" means is that you don't believe in God. It doesn't explain why.

I'm curious to know where these atheist fundamentalists are, or what that would even be like. I've been on the Internet a long time. I've heard of people who draw pornographic pictures of themselves transformed into Thundercats, but this one's new to me.

Anyway, I'm glad Jerry Falwell is dead. It means that against all the odds, Larry Flynt outlived him.

Well, and now Jerry Falwell is finding out if fags and lesbos are really to blame for all of society's ills.

Folks like Richard Dawkins come off as 'fundamental atheist', to a lot of people. But he is actually some kind of agnostic, as he stated that any concrete evidence of god's existence would make him a theist. Still, such kind of god would be a material one, so disclaimer like that doesn't hold much water.

Well, and now Jerry Falwell is finding out if fags and lesbos are really to blame for all of society's ills.
I would think there's the question of whether Falwell really believed what he said he did.

I doubt any of these charlatains believe a word of what they say. They line their pockets, though, with the cash of the dupes they con into believing them.

The point isn't that atheists kill in the name of "No God", that wouldn't make any sense. The point is that religion is just one more thing people use as a justification to kill each other and atheists find just as many justifications as "believers" do. Should we end politics because political wars are fought all over the place. WWI and WWII weren't religious battles. Where is your call to end "nationhood" as a whole?

And Mich & Tele, I never said there were "fundamental atheists" (that would again be some sort of band killing in the name of the absence of God). I said evangelical atheists abound. People who aren't happy enough just to have their own belief, but feel they must try and impose those beliefs on others. We got onto killing with Zip's response to that assertion.

Atheism isn't some magical cure to extremism or an end to violence. Wars were fought before the major religions we have today and wars will be fought should those religions come to an end.

(Btw, no question Falwell was at the bottom of humanity's barrell)

Fingerbang:
Well, now that you mention it, I kind of do (and have said in the past) that nationalism and borders, flag waving, "patriotism", and the rest of the shit that goes with puffing out your chest and shouting, "HEY! I'm a fucking XXXXXXXXXican, so eat my shit" can be a bad thing.
I've never touted Atheism as a panacea to end violence or wars, just that there's a whole lot of bad shit that has gone on in the name of religion, and maybe religion as a whole is more detrimental than good because people take that stuff so much to heart. Not to mention nothing about religion has ever been proven to be true, so we kind of live in this world where glorified bed time stories are used to validate governmental authority, killing, wars, terrorrism, and the conquering of new lands and people.
To me, the upshot is that everyone speaks of this "all loving" god while slashing the throat of a person who believes otherwise, or not at all.
I'm not so sure I follow your point of Atheists going out to kill people in the name of forcing their beliefs, because aside from the two nations discussed yesterday (and China is kind of a weak example), most warring nations profess to have god blessing their cause.

America didn't invade Iraq in the name of God, it did so in the name of democracy and "defense" and oil. Let's get rid of all three.

I just explained my "point" about Russia and China. It was a direct response to your assertion that people kill in the name of god. Atheists kill people too, with just as many reasons as "believers" do. Linking religion simply to war and acting like its some terrible evil because people who want to kill each other use it as a justification is skewing your perspective. I'm fine with examing whether the religions of today do more harm than good.

What I love is the idea that atheism is new and faultless, and that anyone who claims to believe that a god exists can and should be grouped together. Monotheism is much newer than religion as a whole and there are plenty of practicising Buddhists and Hindus and "Pagans" (used generically not derogatorily) whose religions are terribly different than the 3 Religions of the Book (Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam). The majority of wars are not holy wars. Terrorism today is pitched in a religious guise but it's existed under politcal, racial, and personal pretenses as well.

America invades Iraq, and the cries of "God Bless America" ring out. We have many, many people linking our survival as a nation and world to our protection of Israel, god's "chosen people". I know, because I do listen to alot of these guys on the radio.
Atheists do kill people. I have no problem accepting that fact. I said earlier it's not some sort of Great Answer to the world's problems. However, I DO believe that we are at a time, and have been here before, where the divisions between whatever god you believe in is a huge problem that seems to be a powderkeg that can launch wars. Whether or not wars are political, money, or oil driven, they are fought by people who then belive they have some sort of divine right and power behind them.
I don't think the linking of religion to war or killing is "skewering my perspective". Organized religion is a crock of shit that is as corrupt and blood thirsty as any motivating force we have out there, and I don't see where that point is debatable. Are "Atheists" guilty of the same stuff? We have only Communism in the world's history as a political movement that disavowed belief in a god. The rest, by vast majority, of the world's governments, back to ancient Chinese civilizations, back to the Code of Hammurabi, link their authority, as well as the control of their people, to some sort of divinity.
The Judeo-Christian-Islamic Trio of Terror has just done it better than anyone else, and have lasted longer and kept power longer than the rest.
As for "forcing beliefs" upon people, nobody, and I mean NOBODY is more guilty of that than those who believe in their religion.

So am I supposed to respond to your blanket statements and over-generalization or is this just another "Zip shit for the day" thread?

For a great example of "blanket statements", read post #21.

I don't think that a concept being the cause of a war is necessarily a reason to abolish it altogether. That's just kind of silly, as pointed out by Fingerbang.

However, it seems outrageous and unacceptable to tolerate any amount of hostility that comes from people because of minor differences in their ancestral mythologies. Religion tends to be such a personal and mental phenomenon by nature, that to allow it to cause (or complicate) conflict between people would be insufferably lame.

So I guess I'm trying to say that religion certainly isn't the only cause of conflict in the world, but the conflict it causes just seems agonizingly transparent and preventable.

And in some ways, I have to agree with authors like Sam Harris who think that the reason we don't seem to be able to stop violence or hostility that's rooted in religion is that the moderate, liberal believers have got us all thinking that everyone's religious beliefs, no matter what they are, are perfectly acceptable and tolerable. In our society, the prevailing attitude is that no matter what someone's religious beliefs are, they should be tolerated and celebrated for diversity.

But there are some religious beliefs that are just not compatible with 21st-century civilization. We're taught to be tolerant of JWs and Christian Scientists who refuse basic medical treatment for themselves and their children. We're taught to be tolerant of Scientology, which is little more than a combination pyramid scheme and UFO mind-control cult. We're taught to be tolerant of Haredi Jews in Israel who turn every city bus they use into a "beat the shit out of women who show bare skin" contest. We're taught to be tolerant of powerful people in foreign relations who openly admit that a massive war in the Middle East would be a welcome sign that Jesus is coming back. In any country where nuclear weapons exist, it seems exceptionally dangerous for the vast majority of people to believe that they will be rewarded after death for their refusal to cooperate with people of other religions.

I think some religious beliefs should be examined in the cold light of day, and where they cause harm, they should be ridiculed. Is that really so bad?

I've got no argument at all with that Mich.



For a great example of "blanket statements", read post #21.

Um, there's only one statement that could be considered blanket in that post.

I've got no argument at all with that Mich.

You sound pretty sure that you don't possess any of those destructive beliefs.

You don't have to respond to that, I'm just trollin' ya.[smilie=clown.gif]

If I do, they're wrong. I've no problem with discovering my own biases and faults and becoming better for it.*


I might not enjoy the process or be pleasant going through it, but I think I'd come out of it correct in the end.

I'd like to share a couple of great Richard Dawkins stories:

Story #1: In his mini-series "The Root of All Evil," he tells a great story about how he had taken classes from a really great scientist who had a pet hypothesis about some kind of biological concept for decades. He invited a guest speaker to come in one day and the guest speaker talked about all this new evidence that essentially blew apart the professor's pet hypothesis. At the end, the professor got up, and shook the speaker's hand, and talked about how glad he was to know the truth, and how exciting it was to be proven wrong. The whole class jumped to their feet and applauded. That's intellectual honesty. And that is pretty much the opposite of what happens in the world of religion.

Story #2: At a conference, Dawkins was criticized by Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is a big guy in the field of physics, for being too confrontational and aggressive in his promotion of scientific/materialist thinking. Tyson (who's one of the most brilliant black scientists) was worried that Dawson's job was to be a professor of Science in the Public Interest, and that he could actually turn off the public with his sharp rhetoric. Here's Dawkins' response:


I gratefully accept the rebuke. Just one anecdote to show that I'm not the worst in this thing: a former and highly successful editor of New Science Magazine, who actually built up New Scientist to great new heights, was asked, "What is your philosophy at New Scientist?"

And he said, "Our philosophy at New Scientist is this. Science is interesting; and if you don't agree, you can fuck off."

That's great. The "moderates", those who choose to be accepting and tolerant, are to blame for the problems that religion causes.
Funny, I wonder how many "moderate" Sunni's are driving car bombs into the mosques occupied by Shiites or vice versa?
I think the real problem is earlier in your post, Mich. These are MYTHOLOGIES that some people are hell bent on proving, even to the utter destruction predicted by the obviously drugged up "John" while on a bender on the aisle of Patmos.
It is not so bad at all to review religious principles and criticize those that are causing harm. But to a degree, since none of them can be proven to be "correct" or "beneficial", are they not all worthy of criticsm? From the practices of SOME Catholic priests to the current Islamic endeavors, to the storefront church that demands your 10% tithe so de LAWD can bless you ten fold?

Not to side track things here, but when you get the chance M&T, I'd like to hear how you chose that Rosey Grier avatar.

He liked him in those Police Academy movies.

That's great. The "moderates", those who choose to be accepting and tolerant, are to blame for the problems that religion causes.
Funny, I wonder how many "moderate" Sunni's are driving car bombs into the mosques occupied by Shiites or vice versa?
I think the real problem is earlier in your post, Mich. These are MYTHOLOGIES that some people are hell bent on proving, even to the utter destruction predicted by the obviously drugged up "John" while on a bender on the aisle of Patmos.
It is not so bad at all to review religious principles and criticize those that are causing harm. But to a degree, since none of them can be proven to be "correct" or "beneficial", are they not all worthy of criticsm? From the practices of SOME Catholic priests to the current Islamic endeavors, to the storefront church that demands your 10% tithe so de LAWD can bless you ten fold?

Where is Taymelo? You and he would work together quite well. From your posts it seems you're both more interested in throwing out ridicule and contempt then actually discussing the issues. That's exactly how the crap you don't like gets to be so powerful. You just get enough people around you worked up and hating the same thing for no specific reason and you're off.


And that is pretty much the opposite of what happens in the world of religious extremism.

Fixed.

That's great. The "moderates", those who choose to be accepting and tolerant, are to blame for the problems that religion causes.
Funny, I wonder how many "moderate" Sunni's are driving car bombs into the mosques occupied by Shiites or vice versa?

Well, of course, I didn't say anything like that. I said that religious moderates hinder us from being able to stop the religious nutsacks. Look at what happened in the UK when the train bombings happened on 7/7/05.


I think the real problem is earlier in your post, Mich. These are MYTHOLOGIES that some people are hell bent on proving, even to the utter destruction predicted by the obviously drugged up "John" while on a bender on the aisle of Patmos.

And those occasions when this happens, it should definitely be stopped.


It is not so bad at all to review religious principles and criticize those that are causing harm. But to a degree, since none of them can be proven to be "correct" or "beneficial", are they not all worthy of criticsm? From the practices of SOME Catholic priests to the current Islamic endeavors, to the storefront church that demands your 10% tithe so de LAWD can bless you ten fold?

Actually the truth be told, I am not a believer in anything supernatural. But that doesn't mean everything in every religion is terrible. I am a great admirer of many important religious figures, whether or not they actually existed, and anyone who can't find something useful in the Sermon on the Mount or the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta or the poetry of Rumi or the journals of Thomas Merton...well, I don't know what to tell you.

There is a difference between "religion" and the kinds of mystical insights that give rise to religion. Among the Buddhists of Sri Lanka, it's said that one of the sure signs of a spiritually enlightened person is a general disregard of religious rituals and institutions. Religion can be a means to co-opt what is a very natural spiritual expression of humanity for power and monetary gain, and it's perilously close to pornography in that respect.

OK now that I've written a friggin' dissertation, I'm going outside to pick up the sticks from my lawn. Sniff you jerks later. :dhall:

Not to side track things here, but when you get the chance M&T, I'd like to hear how you chose that Rosey Grier avatar.

I am a huge fan of the movie Free To Be You And Me.

I don't know how to break up quotes like you do, Mich, but that is pretty good stuff.
I come into the religion discussion from the viewpoint of your third discussion topic. My beef with religion is that it has co opted a very deep and personal spiritual relationship one has with his/her god. Organized religion, for the most part, has taken that and turned it into big business, a way to worm into governmental bodies, and used it as an excuse to cause much harm and mayhem.
I agree also with your points about speeches like the Beattitudes, or the sayings and spiritual writings of many people who have seemed to speak on behalf of their god also. I think that at its core, a relationship with god, reading the bible, enjoying fellowship with other worshipers, etc, would be an inspiring and beneficial thing to many many people.
But it seems that that is not enough for Organized Religion, that the benefit of the masses is not necessarily to the benefit of them. I think people like Jerry Falwell speak directly to that point.
Fingerbang
Can't really seem to have a discussion with you without you resorting to challenging me about "generalities" or my arguing style. maybe you should put me on your ignore list, unless you can hang with a discussion for longer than usual, and just make your points the way you see fit, tear mine apart the way you see fit, and keep up with us. In your last two posts you have begged off the topic and wandered into Sparty Territory about arguing style and that is a red herring I just won't deal with.

Are you kidding me with that?

First of all, which thread other than this one did I talk to you about your flamboyant, over the top, nonsensical, bullshit? And if I have done it before then you simply calling foul about not being able to use incorrect generalities is hilarious. Sorry I'm not cool with you falsely labeling millions of people in order to try to create a coherent point in defense to your silly ravings.

The last discussion I had with you, you were trying to forecast the dismanteling of Michigan as a state using only newspaper headlines about auto-manufacturing and your "pa's" stories of the line and I handed you your ass needing only a few actual facts to do so (so limited was your actual knowledge of the situation). I haven't "begged off" anything. But when you come with "everybody does X" and "all X is Y" without using anything but your wacked out oppinion as foundation for the nonsense, there's nothing to argue. The correct response to nonsense is no reply at all.

Who exactly is "us"? I assure you my friend. I can handle any ACTUAL argument with you. But if you just want someone to bounce your bullshit off of, you're right, I'm not the guy you are looking for.

Well, if you go back and re read my posts, and the responses to the other posts, which began with me first responding to the term "evangelical atheists", I think you'll see that I'm not bouncing "whacked out" opinions off of anyone.
I began early by conceding to you that you made a great point with Russia and China, and from there I think I've stayed away from the "All or nothing" kind of statements. One example is saying "the activities of SOME catholic priests"; another: teh utter destruction that SOME people are hell bent on proving" (paraphrase).
I think it has been you that has consistently misrepresented or misconstrued things I;ve said, and has painted with a broad brush, whether discussing atheists or my opinions.
Go ahead, re read 'em. You're off base.
I'll admit an anti-religious bias. I think organized religion is a business more than anything, and it's a crock of shit.
What's your bias? regualr church goer? believer? You are flaming out, my man, and not making any points other than you don;t like my style. But my style has alot of substance. Can't help it if I've touched a nerve.

Fingerbang
I just went and re read the whole thread, and the flames seem to have started with a very large blanket (in fact, a regular comforter) statement by Gutz Gazu condemning about 90% of the people in the world (I'm still waiting for you to call him out on that, BTW), and me taking some liberties from there.
But not much in the way of hyperbole, not much in the way of ranting, and actually, alot of very well thought out posts by myself, if I do say so, um, my...self.
As for your Detroit argument, I gave you proper kudos, you took a whole week to do your research, congratulations. But in the same vein, I heard that the Red Wings weren't exactly playing before sold out crowds in these playoffs so far.
But skip that, stick to this thread, so I can continue to Thrash your ass

Just re read it again, Fingerbang. You're FUCKED
I'm conceding OWNAGE to myself right here and now.

the problem with senor falwell and his marriage of religion and politics is that there really isnt a problem. the seperation of church and state (maybe unfortunately) is that its a one way road. and this is actually a parodox.

the gov is supposed to stay away from religion, and therefore the gov cannot technically (theoretically?) keep religion away from itself. you could only do that through gov interference on religion-a no no. but falwell and his kind invariably will use religion as a means to an end, and will bring relgion and politics together.

its difficult to decide exactly how bad of a thing this is. afterall, we are all allowed one vote, and use that vote for any cause and for anyreason we want. but i can see why some would say that its bad that person would get on the pulpit and espouse his own interpretation of the bible and offer it as somesort of reason to vote for george bush.

ps i didnt understand 90% of this thread.

Hopefully Pat Robertson is next.

Q_PFLbitE8I

diddy:
I see that you did not understand your post, and here is my interpretation of it (I DID understand it, by the way):
Zip Goshboots is extremely intelligent, and quite the ladies man

Fingerbang
I just went and re read the whole thread, and the flames seem to have started with a very large blanket (in fact, a regular comforter) statement by Gutz Gazu condemning about 90% of the people in the world (I'm still waiting for you to call him out on that, BTW), and me taking some liberties from there.
But not much in the way of hyperbole, not much in the way of ranting, and actually, alot of very well thought out posts by myself, if I do say so, um, my...self.
As for your Detroit argument, I gave you proper kudos, you took a whole week to do your research, congratulations. But in the same vein, I heard that the Red Wings weren't exactly playing before sold out crowds in these playoffs so far.
But skip that, stick to this thread, so I can continue to Thrash your ass

A week? That thread took place during Easter. Sorry I didn't jump up sooner to show you comonly known government websites where you could easily educate yourself if you so desired. Apparently you didn't care to and just stuck to believing the message you liked hearing best. I'll go look back at this thread and see if I've missed anything but you can claim whatever you want about this or any other thread. I'm not here to take your crown. The only reason I brought that Michigan thread up was because you came in all "you can sit over there junior" on me. We all get our shit fucked once in a while and I've been wrong plenty. I'm not trying to hang shit over people's heads.

YkAPaEMwyKU

Ahh, Christopher Hitchens. Don't take that guy too seriously. He's pretty funny and interesting, but he gets a lot of joy in saying deliberately incendiary things to get attention. He's like an internet troll, but in real life...a very successful one.

Fingerbang:
As for that Michigan thread, what Cowherd said was based on his going off into a philosphical discussion questioning whether upper midwest cities would be able, in the future, to support the sports teams they had, and yes, I agreed that they may not be able to. And you did a good job of refuting that.
But if you look back to yesterday, you accused me of "shitting" on this thread when I simply took the baton from Gutz Gazu and you. You went into your own hyperbole and insults, calling Cowherd my "Pa". Now, I, like you, can admit when I'm wrong, and like I said in the Michigan thread (especially with that subject), I do not mind being proved wrong at all so I don't run around spouting stupid shit all day long.
I came all "you sit over there junior" because it was hyppocrittical of you to tell me about shitting on the thread when it appeared you had tired of the discussion and begged off with the old line that I don't know how to carry an argument beyond generalities.
Now there is no need to carry this part of it any further, so let's get back to the discussion at hand.
MICH:
I'm wondering if you've read Hitchens' book "God is Not Great"? I am just about finished with it. Yes, there is some material to take with a grain of salt, but he makes great sense and the book is a fantastic read.

I just went and re read the whole thread, and the flames seem to have started with a very large blanket (in fact, a regular comforter) statement by Gutz Gazu condemning about 90% of the people in the world (I'm still waiting for you to call him out on that, BTW), and me taking some liberties from there.


It's quite possible that Gutz' comment about "fundamental athiests" might have just been a jab at me.

But even if that is the case, I'm amused at the discussion that has resulted, so carry on.

I have not read his latest book. The reason for this is that I had read one of his previous books, "Letters to a Young Contrarian," where he openly admits that he doesn't mean a lot of the stuff he says, and is mostly just trying to get on TV.

The book that pretty much sealed the deal for me is called "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George S. Smith. It's mostly a pretty tiresome book, written by an Ayn Rand devotee (I like to call them Randroids). It spends most of its pages cataloging the centuries of everything Christendom has done against humanity. However, the first 2 or 3 chapters are pretty devastating logical refutations of everything I had ever heard from people who've tried to convince me to believe in God, and that was pretty amazing.

Based on the first few chapters of that book, I no longer feel intimidated by people who try to argue with me about this stuff. When I first read it, I went around "picking fights" with people just to see if I could hold my own. Once I realized how easy it was to shake someone's entire worldview, it lost its appeal. Maybe some atheists haven't gotten past this phase, I don't know.

However, the first 2 or 3 chapters are pretty devastating logical refutations of everything I had ever heard from people who've tried to convince me to believe in God, and that was pretty amazing.

Based on the first few chapters of that book, I no longer feel intimidated by people who try to argue with me about this stuff. When I first read it, I went around "picking fights" with people just to see if I could hold my own. Once I realized how easy it was to shake someone's entire worldview, it lost its appeal. Maybe some atheists haven't gotten past this phase, I don't know.

care to expound upon this?

I've got one on the shelf called "God: The Failed Hypothesis", which is next up after Hitchens. But, I'm going to check out those books in your post and probably get them.
I'm more interested in refuting religion rather than God. I figure that's a battle I'll lose either way. Religion, though, is another story.
I keep wondering about the conundrum of who created whom, and while doing so, try to take the human ego out of the equation. I feel it's more human ego that leads us to believe there is an afterlife because we're so damn busy thinking that Cell Phones and SUV's are proof that we're right up there with an all powerful creator. Golf, of course, is proof that we've spent more than a few years being tutored by Satan.

"Atheism: The Case Against God" by George S. Smith

I read that book back in highschool. A buddy of mine had a college professor who was a Zecharia Sitchin devotee and introduced the book in one of his courses (that my buddy had been in).

I haven't read God is Not Great but I hear its all the rave.

Zip, you are right about our little tangental argument needing to come to an end, at least in this thread, so I've PM'ed you a response to your last post directed at me.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the existence of religion. Somewhat like Zip, the problem that I have is with "organized religion".

I think religion can be a good thing in many ways. It gives people strength when a loved one passes away, some of the writing in the bible is beautiful and don't forget the kick ass bake sales.

Where I get edgy is when it all gets "organized". I'm with Zip when it comes to disdain for the "business" of religion. When they start forming LLC's, buying TV stations, getting podium time at political conventions, forming PACs, then things get dicey.

It was bound to come to this though, TV evangelists are nothing more than the equivalent to the old fashioned tent revivalists.

One of my favorite song quotes is from the U2 song "Bullett the Blue Sky"


I can't tell the difference between ABC News, Hill Street Blues
And a preacher on the old time gospel hour
Stealing money from the sick and the old
Well the God I believe in isn't short of cash, mister!

I guess you could call me more of a fan of "disorganized religion".

Judging from the stances on atheism, it sounds like some folks have an O'Hair up their butt.


But he is actually some kind of agnostic, as he stated that any concrete evidence of god's existence would make him a theist,
I think that'd be true for most atheists. If somewhere along the way, there were concrete evidence of God, they'd become theists. Defining "concrete evidence" is hard. But then again, defining a lot of things is hard. There's the known knowns, the known unknowns, the unknown unknowns, and it all boils down to what the meaning of the word "is" is.


Religion tends to be such a personal and mental phenomenon by nature, that to allow it to cause (or complicate) conflict between people would be insufferably lame.
Religion isn't a phenomenon, at least not in the "exceptional" use of the word. As long as people are social creatures who collectively want to understand "why the universe?" and such, there'll be religion, mythology, superstition, fantasy, etc. There's questions our current science suggests we will never be able to answer, and groups come up with all sorts of ways to deal with life's unknowns. Some of the most wonderful and horrible things have been done in the name of religion. Categorizing religion as simply "personal and mental" doesn't do its impact justice. People will be lame and we suffer all the time, even as we benefit.

It's George H. Smith who wrote that "Atheism: The Case Against God" book.

Bono said that? That's classic.
Thomas Paine, in paraphrasing something from "Common Sense", said God don't need no miracles to prove he is there.

I guess you could call me more of a fan of "disorganized religion".
Unorganized religion is not the kind of successful viruses. :D
E8oixIeCxdo
Watch the intro by David Cowan about 1min from the beginning.

Anyway, not that all aspect of religion is after the money, but from the financial perspective alone, expecting religion to remain unorganized is like expecting an open safe to be untouched.

care to expound upon this?

The first few chapters of the book cover apologetics, which is basically the art of knowing what arguments will be tossed at you and how you should be able to respond to them.

I don't want to go into detail about it because this thread has been pretty polite so far for a religion thread, and I don't want it to turn into some atheist vs. theist shitflinging disaster. :)

I like that "tooth fairy test".

Thanks for the video, CindyK.

No problem, Glenn.
Just in case you liked the child education aspect of it, I'd suggest Julia Sweeney's show
OtIyx687ytk

I think I saw her funnier version of the monologue, but anyhow...

The first few chapters of the book cover apologetics, which is basically the art of knowing what arguments will be tossed at you and how you should be able to respond to them.

I don't want to go into detail about it because this thread has been pretty polite so far for a religion thread, and I don't want it to turn into some atheist vs. theist shitflinging disaster. :)

fair enough. i dont know about your boy though, i read the excerpt on amazon and also some pretty rough reviews. im not sure he has the answers...

i will offer this little nugget though. all of humanity is essentially based on faith. we really couldnt survive without it. example, everyone here "knows" the answer to the math problem "1+1=?" (?=2), but i doubt that one person on this board could actually prove that 1+1=2. same goes for damn near every subject, we all agree that the theories on gravity, innertia, etc, are true, but only because some egghead we never met says so. faith is an essential part of our survival, and also probably not a bad thing either.

To play the geek role:
1+1 is 2, by definition.
1+1 = 10 is true in a binary system, which we don't usually use in everyday life.

Gravity, inertia all have their clear definitions, and are quantitatively verifiable/disproveable with regard to any relationship you assign to it. If Newton says F=MA but I like F=2M/A better, it's not a philosophical difference but rather something you can test on and draw your conclusion over.

fair enough. i dont know about your boy though, i read the excerpt on amazon and also some pretty rough reviews. im not sure he has the answers...

Yeah, because amazon reviewers are so intelligent about most other topics right? Come on. Even if George H. Smith (thanks Mxy) is a complete goof or a Lakers fan, he can still be right about something. That's why ad hominems are logical fallacies. It detracts attention away from the intellectual content of what someone says. The question is: is he right, or is he not right? Not "is his book any good" or "is he a dummy".


i will offer this little nugget though. all of humanity is essentially based on faith. we really couldnt survive without it. example, everyone here "knows" the answer to the math problem "1+1=?" (?=2), but i doubt that one person on this board could actually prove that 1+1=2. same goes for damn near every subject, we all agree that the theories on gravity, innertia, etc, are true, but only because some egghead we never met says so. faith is an essential part of our survival, and also probably not a bad thing either.

I admit that DNA replication is a matter of trust for me...sadly, I don't understand the ins and outs of how a double-helix protein makes copies of itself. I don't know enough about the subject matter to form an intelligent opinion about it, so I have to trust the experts.

But DNA replication is not a matter of metaphysics or logic. You don't need to be knowledgeable about anything in particular to be able to talk about metaphysics or logic. Those are an inherent side-effect of language and mathematics. All it takes is a mediocre amount of smarts. You don't need to be especially informed about any particular topic.

The thing about logical arguments is that when they are right, they are self-evidently right. Just about everyone has the intelligence to see what's logical and what's not. I'm not saying that logic is necessarily the most important force in human existence - clearly that's not the case. But we all have the ability to make sense out of those things. It's not a subject matter like quantum mechanics, only for a few ivory tower experts and no one else.

I mean, we can get into the nitty gritty of this kind of thing but I don't think this is the right forum for it.

Given a certain restrictive set of mathematical axioms, like Peano notation, one could "prove" that 1 + 1 = 2 without having it be a pre-defined "copout" as part of the formal definitions for "addition" or "integer". However, that has to be counterbalanced against Godel's incompleteness theorem, which hits at the fundamental soundness of any set of sufficiently well-described axioms.

Anyone else here read Godel/Escher/Bach, or is geeky enough to post a movie review of a documentary involving a Hungarian math guru in the past couple weeks? I'm rusty on formal logic and first-order proofs and wouldn't want this to turn into a math blog, but my focus of late has been on the proof that 9 = 6. More expansively, 9 more wins = 6 Championship Drive. :)

And you will NEVER be able to disprove my theory that two beers plus two beers equals a better looking chick down there at the end of the bar.

Yeah, because amazon reviewers are so intelligent about most other topics right? Come on. Even if George H. Smith (thanks Mxy) is a complete goof or a Lakers fan, he can still be right about something. That's why ad hominems are logical fallacies. It detracts attention away from the intellectual content of what someone says. The question is: is he right, or is he not right? Not "is his book any good" or "is he a dummy".




i didnt mean to diss your book, but i can tell you it isnt for me. like i said, i read the 10 page excerpt. i didnt care for his writing style, but i really didnt care for his 'atheists are victims' stance. unfortunately, he didnt get to his argument in the excerpt, which i would like to hear, but c'est la vie, as they say.

And you will NEVER be able to disprove my theory that two beers plus two beers equals a better looking chick down there at the end of the bar.

Gravity, Evolution, Germ Disease, Relativity, and Beer Goggles: the 5 most important theories of modern times

i didnt mean to diss your book, but i can tell you it isnt for me. like i said, i read the 10 page excerpt. i didnt care for his writing style, but i really didnt care for his 'atheists are victims' stance. unfortunately, he didnt get to his argument in the excerpt, which i would like to hear, but c'est la vie, as they say.

His position is that no argument is necessary on the atheist's behalf. The atheist is not making a positive claim, so the atheist only needs to sit back and refute what other people claim. So in essence, an atheist only has to be prepared for the common arguments of God-believers.

We've heard them all. The "there would be no morality if there was no God" argument, the "well the universe had to be created by someone" argument, the "it's better to believe in God because if you die then you aren't risking going to hell" argument, the "I just know it in my heart and that's all that matters" argument, the "first you have to believe and then you'll understand" argument, the "civilization still exists so God must exist too" argument, the "I know for sure God exists because He saved my sick child" argument, the "shut up or I'll beat your ass" argument...

The book mainly serves as a way to point out how flawed those arguments are, so it's easy to expose their weaknesses. Honestly, as I said, it's not that good of a book, but it's very valuable for the apologetics sections.

One more thing: Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I think all religion is stupid. I'm a Theravada Buddhist. :)

My favorite apologist reason:
If you put the parts of a watch in a box and shake the box for one million years, you'll never get a complete, working watch to form in the box.
Thus: There MUST be a god!

Yeah, that's one you see a lot. People don't realize that ordered systems happen naturally all the time. A bag of tortilla chips is all you need to prove that: a bag of randomly sized tortilla chips will "magically" order itself during shipping into a gradation of large chips at the top and small chips at the bottom.

http://loljesus.com/wp-content/uploads/_takethatbj2.jpg

awesome

CCODIhAXbQM

She's a Spiritual Warrior?

At 500 pounds, more like a Spiritual Army.

But her daughter is hawt. I wonder if she's a track and field athlete?

IT'S ALL DARKSIDED!