Atheism and religious hate

[Ardunshin]

It is advice, not dictation. And it isn't a belief chosen by me. It is a fact. Why has this turned into a criticism of me? Can't you just accept that other people don't always share your beliefs and leave it at that? Give me one example where it's a good thing to insult and ridicule someone else, without actually taking the time to properly debate with them. I am calling for acceptance, while you seem hell bent on justifying meaningless insults. I am not superior. My beliefs are not superior, My thoughts are not superior. Truth is superior. "ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα hèn oîda hóti oudèn oîda" - "All that I know, Is that I know nothing"

So evolution is a 'belief' now. Sorry I just can't take your bitching seriously. So long.

I show patience and open mindedness, and now I am bitching? Grow up and come back with an education and an open mind. And yes, it is referred to as a theory for a reason. Because greater minds than ours have deemed it thus.
Now, if I have offended by trying to persuade you to broaden you lines of thought. Feel free to rant and rave at me like I fully expect you to.

[Grimlundt]

So all beleifs are by definition, "religious"?
LOL
Can you be serious.
Say I believe you to be a woman? Is that a religious belief?

Belief in evolution isn't a belief?

There is no absence of evidence or lack of proof for the theory of evolution, nor is it a religion tenet, hence it is not a belief.

[Ardunshin]

And Evolution and creationism are not polar-opposite concepts. One refers to the creation of the entire world, the other to the evolution and development of species.

[Grimlundt]

Ethics begins by listening to the other person with an open mind ... trying to walk in his/her shoes ... see things as he/she sees them?

[quote="Ardunshin";p="11448179"][quote="New Rogernomics";p="11448155"][quote="Ardunshin";p="11448151"

[New Rogernomics]

And Evolution and creationism are not polar-opposite concepts. One refers to the creation of the entire world, the other to the evolution and development of species.

False, one argues on the basis of religious text and dogma (alongside hallucinogenic experiences); the other on empirical evidence.

[Esternial]

And Evolution and creationism are not polar-opposite concepts. One refers to the creation of the entire world, the other to the evolution and development of species.

Abiogenesis relies on several theories, all of which are pretty much impossible to combine with the Creationist approach.

[Cameroi]

atheism doesn't have to be a religion for hatred of it to be religious hatred.

i seem to recall that christianity guy saying he'd rather hang out with atheists then fanatics.

[Ardunshin]

And Evolution and creationism are not polar-opposite concepts. One refers to the creation of the entire world, the other to the evolution and development of species.

Abiogenesis relies on several theories, all of which are pretty much impossible to combine with the Creationist approach.

Well there are different kinds of creationist.
But this is irrelevant to my previous argument anyway. I didn't mention evolution. He felt the need to drag his beliefs into it, along with insults, to dissuade me from logical debate. I am not a creationist, nor do I care too much about how the world was created to be honest. It's irrelevant to my personal future.

[Grimlundt]

well
The stakes there
If Christians can show that belief in science is an act of faith, they think they will be in a stronger positionvis the common or garden atheist who struts about in some some condition self-perceived epistemological superiority?
In short, certain Christians want atheism to be a "religion" so that they will feel "just as smart" as atheists seem to be ... LOL
So it's all bogus problematic ...

atheism doesn't have to be a religion for hatred of it to be religious hatred.

i seem to recall that christianity guy saying he'd rather hang out with atheists then fanatics.

[Esternial]

well
The stakes there
If Christians can show that belief in science is an act of faith, they think they will be in a stronger positionvis the common or garden atheist who struts about in some some condition self-perceived epistemological superiority?
In short, certain Christians want atheism to be a "religion" so that they will feel "just as smart" as atheists seem to be ... LOL
So it's all bogus problematic ...

atheism doesn't have to be a religion for hatred of it to be religious hatred.

i seem to recall that christianity guy saying he'd rather hang out with atheists then fanatics.

It's easy enough for me to retort:

"Oh, Atheism is a belief? We'll I'm not Atheist, then."

"But...what are you then?"

"Nothing. I don't believe in jack shit."

[Grimlundt]

You all know that Einstein believed in God?


I do not, but he did.
It behooves me to keep an open mind.
This will not involve denying evolution, LOL

Can't you folks imagine stories where there is a divine force working through the laws of physics?

The chances of this universe existing, according to Stephen Hawing is , 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000: 1 against.
But he is an atheist!

Open your minds
Do not polemicize.
Inquire!

Abiogenesis relies on several theories, all of which are pretty much impossible to combine with the Creationist approach.

Well there are different kinds of creationist.
But this is irrelevant to my previous argument anyway. I didn't mention evolution. He felt the need to drag his beliefs into it, along with insults, to dissuade me from logical debate. I am not a creationist, nor do I care too much about how the world was created to be honest. It's irrelevant to my personal future.

[Kubrath]

First off, I'd like to apologize on behalf of any fellow Atheists who would condone the use of violence as a way to oppress others. While I understand how you must feel, a big majority of Atheists are not violent and are not oppressive against personal faith. Some of them don't care at all about religion, others will try to share their Atheistic views with people, there are those who would fight back against the myriad of stupid things your fellow religious pull off on a common basis, and yes, there even those few who foolishly hate the religious, instead of the religion.

But, I'd like you to understand a few things:
To every action, there is an opposite in direction and equal in power reaction, in other words, you guys had this coming. As you know, this is a fundamental law of nature and retaliation is most certainly a natural process.

You cannot base the entire, or even a good portion of the, Atheist movement on a few douchebags. Those who act on violence tend to get nothing accomplished and feel the consequences of their actions (I hope).

Please make a difference between Militant Atheists and as*holes. I am a Militant Atheist myself, yet I don't jump on every religious person I meet on the street. It means counter-opposing the notion of God fervently but nothing more. Richard Dawkins is a Militant Atheist, Matt Dillahunty is one too, I can't say with 100% certainty, but I don't think they've ever attacked someone based solely on their beliefs.

I would agree that people should have a right to wear whatever they want, so long as it doesn't hinder the every day processes of the government - things like hijabs and face veils actually do that, as they cover much of a woman's face. It's out of practical reasons why these things shouldn't be allowed, not out of religious.

I don't hate you nor any religious person who is a good human being. My best friend is an Orthodox Christian and unless he brings it up, I almost never give a rats arse about his personal beliefs. What I do hate, however, is your religion and I will not stop prosecuting and ridiculing it as it deserves. Not only does it have the power to make good people do bad things but also causes them to push their beliefs on others through forceful lobbying and terrorism.

We fight back, because we don't want to be judged legally simply for not accepting it. We fight back, because we don't want to be labeled Satanists, believers in nothing and other misconceptions and blatant lies. We fight back so that someday we won't fear being ostracized by our own families for not having their beliefs. We fight back, because we don't want to see pseudo-science side by side with science in schools. We fight back, because we don't want to keep brainwashing our children with advertisement of it on every billboard, bus and station. We fight back against every missionary and apologist, who lies and twists facts to suit their interest. We fight back, because we actually give a damn about this world and the place that we live in.

[Esternial]

First off, I'd like to apologize on behalf of any fellow Atheists who would condone the use of violence as a way to oppress others. While I understand how you must feel, a big majority of Atheists are not violent and are not oppressive against personal faith. Some of them don't care at all about religion, others will try to share their Atheistic views with people, there are those who would fight back against the myriad of stupid things your fellow religious pull off on a common basis, and yes, there even those few who foolishly hate the religious, instead of the religion.

But, I'd like you to understand a few things:
To every action, there is an opposite in direction and equal in power reaction, in other words, you guys had this coming. As you know, this is a fundamental law of nature and retaliation is most certainly a natural process.

You cannot base the entire, or even a good portion of the, Atheist movement on a few douchebags. Those who act on violence tend to get nothing accomplished and feel the consequences of their actions (I hope).

Please make a difference between Militant Atheists and as*holes. I am a Militant Atheist myself, yet I don't jump on every religious person I meet on the street. It means counter-opposing the notion of God fervently but nothing more. Richard Dawkins is a Militant Atheist, Matt Dillahunty is one too, I can't say with 100% certainty, but I don't think they've ever attacked someone based solely on their beliefs.

I would agree that people should have a right to wear whatever they want, so long as it doesn't hinder the every day processes of the government - things like hijabs and face veils actually do that, as they cover much of a woman's face. It's out of practical reasons why these things shouldn't be allowed, not out of religious.

I don't hate you nor any religious person who is a good human being. My best friend is an Orthodox Christian and unless he brings it up, I almost never give a rats arse about his personal beliefs. What I do hate, however, is your religion and I will not stop prosecuting and ridiculing it as it deserves. Not only does it have the power to make good people do bad things but also causes them to push their beliefs on others through forceful lobbying and terrorism.

We fight back, because we don't want to be judged legally simply for not accepting it. We fight back, because we don't want to be labeled Satanists, believers in nothing and other misconceptions and blatant lies. We fight back so that someday we won't fear being ostracized by our own families for not having their beliefs. We fight back, because we don't want to see pseudo-science side by side with science in schools. We fight back, because we don't want to keep brainwashing our children with advertisement of it on every billboard, bus and station. We fight back against every missionary and apologist, who lies and twists facts to suit their interest. We fight back, because we actually give a damn about this world and the place that we live in.

I'm adding this to your argument, because I found it quite challenging to my tolerant and laissez-faire nature:

Clicky.

[Grimlundt]

Maybe there is not a stereotype for what you -- or me -- are?
I have no problem with that.
Me?
I have read the Bible every day for 45 years.
I have also read the Koran, the Upanishads, the Baghvad Gita, the Analects, the Tao Te Ching ...
But I am an atheist.
People sometimes ask me, why do you read the Bible?
I tell them, it's the only sure defense against Christians.

atheism doesn't have to be a religion for hatred of it to be religious hatred.

i seem to recall that christianity guy saying he'd rather hang out with atheists then fanatics.

[/quote]
It's easy enough for me to retort:

"Oh, Atheism is a belief? We'll I'm not Atheist, then."

"But...what are you then?"

"Nothing. I don't believe in jack shit."[/quote]

[Ukrussiaine]

Make them look and feel stupid. Then you're work is almost done for you.

What's from stopping this from being used against progress?

[Esternial]

Maybe there is not a stereotype for what you -- or me -- are?
I have no problem with that.
Me?
I have read the Bible every day for 45 years.
I have also read the Koran, the Upanishads, the Baghvad Gita, the Analects, the Tao Te Ching ...
But I am an atheist.
People sometimes ask me, why do you read the Bible?
I tell them, it's the only sure defense against Christians.

So I'm guessing you're older than 45. I'll remember that for future reference, in case you happen to be lying.

In any case, that's pretty impressive.

[Seperates]

First off, I'd like to apologize on behalf of any fellow Atheists who would condone the use of violence as a way to oppress others. While I understand how you must feel, a big majority of Atheists are not violent and are not oppressive against personal faith. Some of them don't care at all about religion, others will try to share their Atheistic views with people, there are those who would fight back against the myriad of stupid things your fellow religious pull off on a common basis, and yes, there even those few who foolishly hate the religious, instead of the religion.

But, I'd like you to understand a few things:
To every action, there is an opposite in direction and equal in power reaction, in other words, you guys had this coming. As you know, this is a fundamental law of nature and retaliation is most certainly a natural process.

You cannot base the entire, or even a good portion of the, Atheist movement on a few douchebags. Those who act on violence tend to get nothing accomplished and feel the consequences of their actions (I hope).

Please make a difference between Militant Atheists and as*holes. I am a Militant Atheist myself, yet I don't jump on every religious person I meet on the street. It means counter-opposing the notion of God fervently but nothing more. Richard Dawkins is a Militant Atheist, Matt Dillahunty is one too, I can't say with 100% certainty, but I don't think they've ever attacked someone based solely on their beliefs.

I would agree that people should have a right to wear whatever they want, so long as it doesn't hinder the every day processes of the government - things like hijabs and face veils actually do that, as they cover much of a woman's face. It's out of practical reasons why these things shouldn't be allowed, not out of religious.

I don't hate you nor any religious person who is a good human being. My best friend is an Orthodox Christian and unless he brings it up, I almost never give a rats arse about his personal beliefs. What I do hate, however, is your religion and I will not stop prosecuting and ridiculing it as it deserves. Not only does it have the power to make good people do bad things but also causes them to push their beliefs on others through forceful lobbying and terrorism.

We fight back, because we don't want to be judged legally simply for not accepting it. We fight back, because we don't want to be labeled Satanists, believers in nothing and other misconceptions and blatant lies. We fight back so that someday we won't fear being ostracized by our own families for not having their beliefs. We fight back, because we don't want to see pseudo-science side by side with science in schools. We fight back, because we don't want to keep brainwashing our children with advertisement of it on every billboard, bus and station. We fight back against every missionary and apologist, who lies and twists facts to suit their interest. We fight back, because we actually give a damn about this world and the place that we live in.

I'm adding this to your argument, because I found it quite challenging to my tolerant and laissez-faire nature:

Clicky.

Indeed. And people always wondered why I don't like religion at all.

And nice sig addition.

[Grimlundt]

Please do! You OUGHT to keep your eyes peeled. I agree!
This is me:
http://www.icompositions.com/artists/pharmakeus

Maybe there is not a stereotype for what you -- or me -- are?
I have no problem with that.
Me?
I have read the Bible every day for 45 years.
I have also read the Koran, the Upanishads, the Baghvad Gita, the Analects, the Tao Te Ching ...
But I am an atheist.
People sometimes ask me, why do you read the Bible?
I tell them, it's the only sure defense against Christians.

So I'm guessing you're older than 45. I'll remember that for future reference, in case you happen to be lying.

In any case, that's pretty impressive.

p.s. My parents said I did not have to go to Sunday School if I agreed to read the Bible ... that's how I got started. They were geologists, and did not believe in God, but they sent me to Sunday School ... BIG MISTAKE ... all that hell and damnation is now a permanent feature of my imaginative landscape ... I envy people who can lagh at the idea of hell without feeling a secret fear ... I really do ... my father, educated by Nuns, was a scientist and atheist, and died in fear of Hell ...

So please cut me some slack if this is a subjkect I seem to feel strongly about
I am 50 years old

[Cameroi]

i have no problem with whatever sees fit to exist. its what humans pretend to know about it that is over the top.

[New Rogernomics]

So all beleifs are by definition, "religious"?
LOL
Can you be serious.
Say I believe you to be a woman? Is that a religious belief?

There is no absence of evidence or lack of proof for the theory of evolution, nor is it a religion tenet, hence it is not a belief.

Beliefs by definition can be religious, ultimately they are based on an absence of evidence or empirical proof. Even if you were to suggest that evolution did not stand up as a theory, then the evidence it would be based on would be incorrect or otherwise false; but it would not be a belief as it is based on evidence or empirical proof. If you believed I was a woman based on some religious text's view of how men and women act; then it could be. If you believed without evidence or empirical proof I was a woman then that also would be a belief. But if you had empirical evidence (i.e. a shirt of mine saying 'I am a woman') then it would not be a belief, but an incorrect assumption.

[Kubrath]

So all beleifs are by definition, "religious"?
LOL
Can you be serious.
Say I believe you to be a woman? Is that a religious belief?

Beliefs by definition can be religious, ultimately they are based on an absence of evidence or empirical proof. Even if you were to suggest that evolution did not stand up as a theory, then the evidence it would be based on would be incorrect or otherwise false; but it would not be a belief as it is based on evidence or empirical proof. If you believed I was a woman based on some religious text's view of how men and women act; then it could be. If you believed without evidence or empirical proof I was a woman then that also would be a belief. But if you had empirical evidence (i.e. a shirt of mine saying 'I am a woman') then it would not be a belief, but an incorrect assumption.

Belief does not always equal faith. That's why you'd find many scientists say "I/We believe...", in the sense that they believe it based on facts. Belief is simply an acceptance of something, anything else is just a personal addition to the word.

[Grimlundt]

So all beleifs are by definition, "religious"?
LOL
Can you be serious.
Say I believe you to be a woman? Is that a religious belief?

Beliefs by definition can be religious, ultimately they are based on an absence of evidence or empirical proof. Even if you were to suggest that evolution did not stand up as a theory, then the evidence it would be based on would be incorrect or otherwise false; but it would not be a belief as it is based on evidence or empirical proof. If you believed I was a woman based on some religious text's view of how men and women act; then it could be. If you believed without evidence or empirical proof I was a woman then that also would be a belief. But if you had empirical evidence (i.e. a shirt of mine saying 'I am a woman') then it would not be a belief, but an incorrect assumption.

Right beliefs CAN be religious ... but that's not what you said before
Good to see you can change your discourse, when corrected.

Now you mean to say that religious beliefs are not based on evidence.
That's also false.
Religious beliefs OFTEN explain evidence.
Indeed, religion was the science we had before we had science?

Now ... empirical proof ... what are your truth conditions?
Because science NEVER proves anything 100% -- it just offers strong theories which compete to explain the data
Sadly, I have to say, religious explanations are often incapable of really competing with these theories except in minds/sould that long to belong to religious communities so very much ... or fear the absence of God to such an extent?

Now, your squirmy wormy about "beliefs" and "assumptions" was completely semantic. You ought not to squirmy worm. It just makes you look dishonest

[Kubrath]

Religious beliefs OFTEN explain evidence.

Tell me you're joking.

[Grimlundt]

Um.
My main gripe with you is not your epistemology, which seems okay ...
But your *Bad Faith*
You think you are tolerant, but you are intolerant
You think muslim women should NOPT wear muslim clothes
obviously, you have not talked to many muslim women.
You view is ethnocentric and intolerant
And I let it pass
But you want to pick on me in a not-picky way for things I never said?
Oooh. I apoligize. You are not picking on me
I invite you to reconsider your views on religious practices. they are cultural practices

Beliefs by definition can be religious, ultimately they are based on an absence of evidence or empirical proof. Even if you were to suggest that evolution did not stand up as a theory, then the evidence it would be based on would be incorrect or otherwise false; but it would not be a belief as it is based on evidence or empirical proof. If you believed I was a woman based on some religious text's view of how men and women act; then it could be. If you believed without evidence or empirical proof I was a woman then that also would be a belief. But if you had empirical evidence (i.e. a shirt of mine saying 'I am a woman') then it would not be a belief, but an incorrect assumption.

Belief does not always equal faith. That's why you'd find many scientists say "I/We believe...", in the sense that they believe it based on facts. Belief is simply an acceptance of something, anything else is just a personal addition to the word.

[Grimlundt]

Well ...
So you think that humans never used religion as a way of explaining their observations?
Or are you just waving a red flag at an old bull?

Religious beliefs OFTEN explain evidence.

Tell me you're joking.