Why I think religion is inherently bad. [POLL ADDED]

[Sentinel XV]

What were you prattling on about subconsciouses again?
Maybe you should think carefully about what your religion is doing to your world view.

I harbor no bias. I accept that all groups get persecuted, but to right off everything I say as bias simply because I do not follow your ideology is a much larger bias.

We did no such thing. We contested your claim -- whether it was a typo or not, it does not matter -- that Christians were the only group killed for their beliefs. We are not biased against your religion, but we do care enough to call out fallacious claims.

[Ostroeuropa]

What were you prattling on about subconsciouses again?
Maybe you should think carefully about what your religion is doing to your world view.

I harbor no bias. I accept that all groups get persecuted, but to right off everything I say as bias simply because I do not follow your ideology is a much larger bias.

I never said that though did I. You are the only one to have brought that up.
Have you ever heard of "Projecting"

[The New World Oceania]

I think the OP was claiming that 809 million were killed by religious people, he doesn't approve of religion and he was arguing that religious people were the most prolific killers in history. But I agree with you that many of these killings are really religious groups getting victimized or persecuted. So yeah, it sucks to be criticized and attacked because you are getting gassed or executed by atheists.

1. This really gets me quite angry that you only say atheists do this, do you forget the crusades or did that just slip your small insignificant mind?

2. On a side not, your nations name is Obamacult, which instantly discredits any claims you make.

Give him a break with his name. My neighbors named their newborn Hashtag.

I harbor no bias. I accept that all groups get persecuted, but to right off everything I say as bias simply because I do not follow your ideology is a much larger bias.

We did no such thing. We contested your claim -- whether it was a typo or not, it does not matter -- that Christians were the only group killed for their beliefs. We are not biased against your religion, but we do care enough to call out fallacious claims.

Here. Accept the false being of the claim and move on.

[Seriong]

other way around.

Yep, "love thy brother" and "do unto others as you would have done unto you" are asshole things to say.

Luke 19:27 "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet."

These, (From the same book, and the first is even from Jesus) however ARE asshole things to say.

I think the OP was claiming that 809 million were killed by religious people, he doesn't approve of religion and he was arguing that religious people were the most prolific killers in history. But I agree with you that many of these killings are really religious groups getting victimized or persecuted. So yeah, it sucks to be criticized and attacked because you are getting gassed or executed by atheists.

1. This really gets me quite angry that you only say atheists do this, do you forget the crusades or did that just slip your small insignificant mind?

2. On a side not, your nations name is Obamacult, which instantly discredits any claims you make.

(Hope I quoted it correctly, multiple quotes stacked together are a bitch)

I think he was trying to call Hitler, and the Nazis atheists, because of the "getting gassed" part.

[Ordya]

I harbor no bias. I accept that all groups get persecuted, but to right off everything I say as bias simply because I do not follow your ideology is a much larger bias.

We did no such thing. We contested your claim -- whether it was a typo or not, it does not matter -- that Christians were the only group killed for their beliefs. We are not biased against your religion, but we do care enough to call out fallacious claims.

Yes, you are, but I am biased against yours as well. It is impossible to be truly objective unless you have no personality. People always fight anything that challenges who they are.

[Seriong]

Why shouldn't they?

Why, then? When Athiests keep ther beliefs to themselves, that's fine, but when they start attacking anyone religious, it gets me all irittated.

No, if you follow an offensive ideology, why shouldn't I criticize it?

[Suidwes-Afrika]

Why, then? When Athiests keep ther beliefs to themselves, that's fine, but when they start attacking anyone religious, it gets me all irittated.

No, if you follow an offensive ideology, why shouldn't I criticize it?

Theists could say the same about your own.

[Suidwes-Afrika]

We did no such thing. We contested your claim -- whether it was a typo or not, it does not matter -- that Christians were the only group killed for their beliefs. We are not biased against your religion, but we do care enough to call out fallacious claims.

Yes, you are, but I am biased against yours as well. It is impossible to be truly objective unless you have no personality. People always fight anything that challenges who they are.

Fighting something that does not not not challenge who you are is like having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

[Sentinel XV]

We did no such thing. We contested your claim -- whether it was a typo or not, it does not matter -- that Christians were the only group killed for their beliefs. We are not biased against your religion, but we do care enough to call out fallacious claims.

Yes, you are, but I am biased against yours as well. It is impossible to be truly objective unless you have no personality. People always fight anything that challenges who they are.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. I never said that I personally didn't have biases, but since you bring that point up, you yourself say that you harbor no bias, but then turn around and say that it is impossible to be "truly objective". What?

Anyways, I digress. I try to be as unbiased as possible. I don't dislike your arguments just because they argue for Christianity or are "Christian" in nature: but because they are fundamentally flawed in their nature and have no proof to back them up. Not Christian proof. Not Atheist proof. Proof. Nonobjective, unbiased, factual proof.

[Seriong]

No, if you follow an offensive ideology, why shouldn't I criticize it?

Theists could say the same about your own.

Then they should do it! (Although, there are very few topics for an ideology in which the only requirement is lacking a belief in a deity.)

[Ordya]

Proof. Nonobjective, unbiased, factual proof.

There is no such thing.

[The Orson Empire]

I don't believe religion is all that bad. It isn't the religions that have killed millions across the world; it's the people that worship those religions.

[Sentinel XV]

Proof. Nonobjective, unbiased, factual proof.

There is no such thing.

...

Alright, that's it. I give up. If you think that there is no such thing as unbiased proof, then I really have no time to argue with you because it is going in one ear and out the other. What do you think science is based on? Gut feelings? Bias?

[Ordya]

There is no such thing.

...

Alright, that's it. I give up. If you think that there is no such thing as unbiased proof, then I really have no time to argue with you because it is going in one ear and out the other. What do you think science is based on? Gut feelings? Bias?

Sight. Seeing something with your own eyes.

[Menassa]

I don't believe religion is all that bad. It isn't the religions that have killed millions across the world; it's the people that worship those religions.

But you have to agree.... some stuff are.

[Ostroeuropa]

...

Alright, that's it. I give up. If you think that there is no such thing as unbiased proof, then I really have no time to argue with you because it is going in one ear and out the other. What do you think science is based on? Gut feelings? Bias?

Sight. Seeing something with your own eyes.

No, it isn't.
HRrrrrgh.
It's not at all based on that.
Can someone else deal with this, i've got to go to bed.
OHSCREWIT

It's based on the scientific method, which involves not just seeing things with your own eyes, but making sure dozens and dozens and dozens of people can replicate the experiment and see it with THEIR own eyes, come to the same conclusion and agree.
The first time an experiment has been performed, it isn't scientific. Not until it's been replicated.

[Suidwes-Afrika]

There is no such thing.

...

Alright, that's it. I give up. If you think that there is no such thing as unbiased proof, then I really have no time to argue with you because it is going in one ear and out the other. What do you think science is based on? Gut feelings? Bias?

I feel you, boet. Can't deal with the shit it takes to be on NSG at this hour, eh?

[Trustopia]

you really need to add a "good in theory, bad in practice" option

[Ordya]

No, it isn't.
HRrrrrgh.
It's not at all based on that.
Can someone else deal with this, i've got to go to bed.

No, it's not, that is my point.

[Conservative Idealism]

One would be surprised just how many people would hijack a well-spread religion for their own personal benefit, at the cost of countless others.

[Sentinel XV]

No, it isn't.
HRrrrrgh.
It's not at all based on that.
Can someone else deal with this, i've got to go to bed.

No, it's not, that is my point.

I'm really not sure what you're claiming, anymore. You have more flip-flops than Romney. One second you're arguing that Christians are the ONLY religion killed for their beliefs, then that they only one of many. Then you claim that proof is based on sight, and now you're claiming that it's not.

[Ordya]

No, it's not, that is my point.

I'm really not sure what you're claiming, anymore. You have more flip-flops than Romney. One second you're arguing that Christians are the ONLY religion killed for their beliefs, then that they only one of many. Then you claim that proof is based on sight, and now you're claiming that it's not.

Proof is based on sight. I think Mav was saying sight is unbiased so I agreed. I never flip flopped on that, it was a typo.

[Menassa]

One would be surprised just how many people would hijack a well-spread religion for their own personal benefit, at the cost of countless others.

But some things.... are based on written fact.

[Mavorpen]

I'm really not sure what you're claiming, anymore. You have more flip-flops than Romney. One second you're arguing that Christians are the ONLY religion killed for their beliefs, then that they only one of many. Then you claim that proof is based on sight, and now you're claiming that it's not.

Proof is based on sight. I think Mav was saying sight is unbiased so I agreed. I never flip flopped on that, it was a typo.

What the actual fuck?

[Suidwes-Afrika]

One would be surprised just how many people would hijack a well-spread religion for their own personal benefit, at the cost of countless others.

But some things.... are based on written fact.

Who says that written facts are always accurate facts?