Explain Your Religious Views or Lack Thereof

[With Teeth]

I made a google doc for it if you're interested. It's not easy material.

I'll give it a full read however I noticed that axiom number 1 is only valid if the universe has been existing for an infinite length of time which is a current hypothesis but it (has to my knowledge) has yet to be verified.

Continue reading. I explain why my argument is compatible with standard Big Bang cosmology.

Feel free to TG about this any time.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I still want someone to explain how I, a person living in the 21st century, by being an atheist, formed a base that allowed a man to kill people more than six decades ago.

You don't.
Just as religious people, living in the 21st century, do not form a base for the Popes that prosecuted the Crusades or any other number of 'religious' wars, nor do they neccessarily form a base for wackjob extremists who bomb abortion clinics and commit suicide in train stations via bomb vest.

This was the original point being made in this godawful mess with the Stalin comparison.

[Conserative Morality]

Let people have their weakness.

Why would I do that? I'm not a Christian. I don't glorify weakness like so much of Christianity does. I'm an atheist, and not even a humanist atheist at that. Weakness is anathema to me.

[With Teeth]

I still want someone to explain how I, a person living in the 21st century, by being an atheist, formed a base that allowed a man to kill people more than six decades ago.

You don't.
Just as religious people, living in the 21st century, do not form a base for the Popes that prosecuted the Crusades or any other number of 'religious' wars, nor do they neccessarily form a base for wackjob extremists who bomb abortion clinics and commit suicide in train stations via bomb vest.

This was the original point being made in this godawful mess with the Stalin comparison.

But that's not what he said. He's explicitly referring to modern day extremists.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Ask him:

He's referring to the present moment. You guys used that to argue that he forms the base for something that happened sixty god damn years ago. The difference is that he's not endorsing retro-causality.

So all religious people are responsible for 9-11?
...
That makes no goddamned sense.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Ask him:

He's referring to the present moment. You guys used that to argue that he forms the base for something that happened sixty god damn years ago. The difference is that he's not endorsing retro-causality.

Oh good christ.

It's the same bloody principle. Did the atheists of 60 years ago form the base for stalin? Yes or no?

[Frisivisia]

I still want someone to explain how I, a person living in the 21st century, by being an atheist, formed a base that allowed a man to kill people more than six decades ago.

You don't.
Just as religious people, living in the 21st century, do not form a base for the Popes that prosecuted the Crusades or any other number of 'religious' wars, nor do they neccessarily form a base for wackjob extremists who bomb abortion clinics and commit suicide in train stations via bomb vest.

This was the original point being made in this godawful mess with the Stalin comparison.

I maintain that it was a really bad analogy and that I still won.

Cause it's sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet...

[The Steel Magnolia]

Let people have their weakness.

Why would I do that? I'm not a Christian. I don't glorify weakness like so much of Christianity does. I'm an atheist, and not even a humanist atheist at that. Weakness is anathema to me.

Why would you seek to alter someone against their will, if that which you are altering harms no one?

[Blasveck]

I'll give it a full read however I noticed that axiom number 1 is only valid if the universe has been existing for an infinite length of time which is a current hypothesis but it (has to my knowledge) has yet to be verified.

Continue reading. I explain why my argument is compatible with standard Big Bang cosmology.

Feel free to TG about this any time.

If you have any more good arguments, points etc, would you mind TG-ing them to me?

[Asshatland]

By following Lenin? Seriously, the tendency of the religious to try to hold up Stalin and Mao as though they were atheist prophets is something which baffles me. How divorced from reality are you people? Can you really not distinguish between Soviet Communism and atheism in general?

Can you not distinguish between religious extremism and religious beliefs?

A CHRISTIAN moderate goes quietly about their business while a CHRISTIAN extremist bombs an abortion clinic. A MUSLIM moderate goes to the store while a MUSLIM extremist sets off a car bomb. They can attend the same churches or mosques, read the same "holy" books, speak of the same magical entities and stories. You are trying to compare apples and oranges and are making a false comparison by invoking the COMMUNIST dictator.

[With Teeth]

He's referring to the present moment. You guys used that to argue that he forms the base for something that happened sixty god damn years ago. The difference is that he's not endorsing retro-causality.

So all religious people are responsible for 9-11?
...
That makes no goddamned sense.

Some are, unless the hijackers were atheists.

[Occupied Deutschland]

You don't.
Just as religious people, living in the 21st century, do not form a base for the Popes that prosecuted the Crusades or any other number of 'religious' wars, nor do they neccessarily form a base for wackjob extremists who bomb abortion clinics and commit suicide in train stations via bomb vest.

This was the original point being made in this godawful mess with the Stalin comparison.

But that's not what he said. He's explicitly referring to modern day extremists.

So your argument is that all modern day extremists ARE in fact supported by the religious community? Every religious community?
...
What are you, high?

[With Teeth]

Continue reading. I explain why my argument is compatible with standard Big Bang cosmology.

Feel free to TG about this any time.

If you have any more good arguments, points etc, would you mind TG-ing them to me?

Yep.

[Neo Rome Republic]

He's referring to the present moment. You guys used that to argue that he forms the base for something that happened sixty god damn years ago. The difference is that he's not endorsing retro-causality.

Oh good christ.

It's the same bloody principle. Did the atheists of 60 years ago form the base for stalin? Yes or no?

No, just like all Theists did not form the base of Christianity 60 years ago or or today. Heck, you don't even have to have a religion, to be a Theist.

[Czechanada]

Religion is just a business, designed to sell a drug.

Besides, it's silly to think that one particular religion is the right one out of all the others on Earth.

Furthermore, psychology adequately proves that the concept of an afterlife is nonsensical.

[Dyakovo]

He's invisible and untouchable. Also, he told me to kill all the blonde people. Respect my beliefs.

Killing people due to your beliefs is a bit different.

Because that's not something religious people do...

[Occupied Deutschland]

So all religious people are responsible for 9-11?
...
That makes no goddamned sense.

Some are, unless the hijackers were atheists.

Thank you.
The original beginner of this internet-spat did not distinguish between some and all, hence inviting the comparison to Stalin (because hell, even 60 years ago not all atheists supported Stalin).

[Frisivisia]

Can you not distinguish between religious extremism and religious beliefs?

A CHRISTIAN moderate goes quietly about their business while a CHRISTIAN extremist bombs an abortion clinic. A MUSLIM moderate goes to the store while a MUSLIM extremist sets off a car bomb. They can attend the same churches or mosques, read the same "holy" books, speak of the same magical entities and stories. You are trying to compare apples and oranges and are making a false comparison by invoking the COMMUNIST dictator.

He wasn't even really communist.

[Ikigain]

I am a tibetan buddhist. Why I believe it requires a long explanation.

I believe spirits live in the minds of men but that doesn't make them any less real. Whether the Gods are real or not, it doesn't mean you shouldn't practice the religion that posits their existence. Religions embody a way of looking at things and a set of values. Religions rarely revolve around the existence of a deity. Whether the bodhisattva avalokiteshvara(bet'cha can't pronounce that!) receives my offerings of food and sends emotional energy to me when I pray to him, doesn't matter. What matters is how religion improves my life and that it helps me put my values into practice.

I also wanna say religion is needed civilization. No civilization without religion has existed for any long period of time. Not only that but most atheists I've seen have no values whatsoever. They're like unhappy nihilistic hedonists. I think atheism is only popular right now because it's trendy to be an atheist. It's what the cool kids do.

to all the atheistfags who are reading this who take liek an hour out of their day to bitch about religion and how evil it is(which is what the majority of religious debates revolve around, how God is either good or evil), stop. Please get a life. Or if you're not into that, go get a non-life. Like go find a few skype friends and talk to them. Go watch some anime and play COD. maybe you can learn a second language or learn how to play an instrument. Stop because you're stupid, angsty, annoying, and unproductive.

[With Teeth]

But that's not what he said. He's explicitly referring to modern day extremists.

So your argument is that all modern day extremists ARE in fact supported by the religious community? Every religious community?
...
What are you, high?

My argument? It's not my argument. I'm just explaining why your response was fucking stupid.

He's saying that moderate religious people, by creating this notion of tolerance, are helping religious extremism from being criticized.

You guys, somehow, took this to mean that atheists today, by being atheists, must have some involvement that happened in something before 95% of us were born.

See the relevant difference? You guys are pretty much implying that an atheist today could have some causal influence on an event that took place sixty years ago.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Some are, unless the hijackers were atheists.

Thank you.
The original beginner of this internet-spat did not distinguish between some and all, hence inviting the comparison to Stalin (because hell, even 60 years ago not all atheists supported Stalin).

Funny thing, Stalin actually died 60 years ago.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Killing people due to your beliefs is a bit different.

Because that's not something religious people do...

No, most of them do not.

[Ljvonia]

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow... yes what? What is it that you actually want to know?

Exactly what I asked.

Since the quote was a few pages ago here it is again:

What do we normally do with hindrances to human society?

This is ambivalent and open to interpretation (the obvious provocation aside) and is overly generalizing. Let's get the obvious rethorics out of the way first to get to the heart of the matter, shall we?

- Who is "we"?
- What constitutes "normally"?

Now for the generalisation: Hindrances to societal progress in this context are no universal category, so I'll just presume you mean the issue of those people who hold belief without evidence as something other than an anticivilisational element. There we have a sliding scale to consider: from the reluctantly tolerant who has yet to see just how much harm this issue actually does to the suicide bomber (and possibly his higher backers). Of course all these shades must be dealt with in the appropriate manner, which is of course not a general one - but against the root of this the solution is enlightenment, which Kant defines as follows:

Enlightenment is man’s leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another. Such immaturity is self-caused if it is not caused by lack of intelligence, but by lack of determination and courage to use one's intelligence without being guided by another. Sapere Aude! Have the courage to use your own intelligence! is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.

And on to religious organisation:

Through laziness and cowardice a large part of mankind, even after nature has freed them from alien guidance, gladly remain immature. It is because of laziness and cowardice that it is so easy for others to usurp the role of guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor!

Kant, not without reason a giant of philosophy, simply offers this solution:

All that is required for this enlightenment is freedom; and particularly the least harmful of all that may be called freedom, namely, the freedom for man to make public use of his reason in all matters. But I hear people clamor on all sides: Don't argue! The officer says: Don't argue, drill! The tax collector: Don't argue, pay! The pastor: Don't argue, believe!

Yes, there it is, the heart of the matter: what is to be done to ensure this freedom? Who will protect it and with what methodology? I want this freedom, and I want it right bloody now!

[Neo Rome Republic]

I'll give it a full read however I noticed that axiom number 1 is only valid if the universe has been existing for an infinite length of time which is a current hypothesis but it (has to my knowledge) has yet to be verified.

Continue reading. I explain why my argument is compatible with standard Big Bang cosmology.

Feel free to TG about this any time.

Couldn't your argument suffice, as evidence against the existence of God?

[Blasveck]

I am a tibetan buddhist. Why I believe it requires a long explanation.

I believe spirits live in the minds of men but that doesn't make them any less real. Whether the Gods are real or not, it doesn't mean you shouldn't practice the religion that posits their existence. Religions embody a way of looking at things and a set of values. Religions rarely revolve around the existence of a deity. Whether the bodhisattva avalokiteshvara(bet'cha can't pronounce that!) receives my offerings of food and sends emotional energy to me when I pray to him, doesn't matter. What matters is how religion improves my life and that it helps me put my values into practice.

I also wanna say religion is needed civilization. No civilization without religion has existed for any long period of time. Not only that but most atheists I've seen have no values whatsoever. They're like unhappy nihilistic hedonists. I think atheism is only popular right now because it's trendy to be an atheist. It's what the cool kids do.

to all the atheistfags who are reading this who take liek an hour out of their day to bitch about religion and how evil it is(which is what the majority of religious debates revolve around, how God is either good or evil), stop. Please get a life. Or if you're not into that, go get a non-life. Like go find a few skype friends and talk to them. Go watch some anime and play COD. maybe you can learn a second language or learn how to play an instrument. Stop because you're stupid, angsty, annoying, and unproductive.

"Atheistfags"

Get the fuck off.