Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

[It aint necessarily so]

insidesecrets wrote:

Atheism is a cult. It hasn't taken hold however because it requires a belief in the irrational. Any philosophy based on the idea that something comes from nothing is a philosphy of absurdity.

More of stage two.

Hellfire can't be far off.

[Khatru]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
Good post!

Thanks

When it comes to standards of evidence for magic, we non-believers set the bar at a high level.

When that magic is as described in the Bile, Quran, Gita, etc; believers will drop the bar to an exceedingly low level while we non-believers maintain the bar at the same high level.

[Khatru]

Whoops!

Spot the Freudian Typo

I accidentally skipped the second "b" in Bible.

[rio]

Khatru wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps Marx was inspired by the Bible.

Didn't look like it ...

[It aint necessarily so]

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

I could not possibly care less, if you want to attach dead chicken-feet to a baby's rattle and dance on the graves of your dead in your underwear. If that is what it takes to make your pathetic life have a semblance of meaning? Have at it.

I'm still laughing.

The Christians want respect. They also want us to respect the chicken talon - to obey it and to hate what it hates. I don't see any of that happening happening.

[It aint necessarily so]

rio wrote:

I am not religious and I don't believe in religion, but I tolerate most as harmless expressions of some people's spirituality.

The church is hardly that. It's been a devastating institution. In America, it defines who to hate (atheists and gays) and who to disbelieve (scientists, including climate scientists). Both are quite harmful.

rio wrote:

You, atheist activists, don't seem to be a happy lot: just an observation...

Thanks for your concern.

So you're not into religion, huh? Then you should have no objection to blaspheming the Holy Pigeon.

rio wrote:

I am very sympathetic to people wanting to keep their traditions

Christianity is an infantilizing "tradition." We all suffer for having too many Christians per capita.

[It aint necessarily so]

insidesecrets wrote:

Since the atheist does not believe that God exists then he cannot lay our modern nightmare (climate change) at the feet of the Abrahamic religions.

Why not? Christian anti-scientism and its apocalyptic eschatology are in large part responsible. Christianity teaches that science and scientists can't be trusted. Why would people so instructed listen to climate scientists?

This is also a Christian nicety, something I showed you three days ago. Note his job title. He was entrusted to protect America's natural resources :

“We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand”- James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan

[It aint necessarily so]

rio wrote:

I just cannot believe the intolerent fanaticism of these atheist activists.

I'll tell you what: We promise not to stone you, impale you in the iron maiden, lacerate your recti with the anal pear, or burn you at the stake. That already makes us more tolerant than the religites, doesn't it?

rio wrote:

What do they fear now?

Nothing. We're celebrating.

[It aint necessarily so]

rio wrote:

I don't feel any right to stop people in their beliefs, which are mostly harmless.

Strongly disagree.

[Blogit]

I have created a website called blogit. The site is like facebook and free for anyone to join... Http://blogit.wall.fm

[It aint necessarily so]

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

You're just another lying godbot, pretending. I've seen your ilk on Topix in the past. You aren't fooling anyone.

[4] IANS Fourth Law: Anybody calling himself an atheist, agnostic or deist who is arguing with the bulk of atheists around him is a stealth theist until proven otherwise.

[It aint necessarily so]

rio wrote:

So, for you tolerating someone is agreeing with him? To me it's just being plainly civilised.

I intend to give Christianity all of the respect that it has given to atheists like me. More, really. Are you good with that?

[NightSerf]

rio wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not religious, and I don't have a religion. But I tolerate anyone.
I don't hate non-believers, I hate the intolerance displayed by some.
I just cannot see why many atheists want to impose their views on others, and dismiss religionists as crank, deluded, supersticious, etc....
Just like I don't agree with religionists imposing their views on others.
There is room for everyone, and we should tolerate each others religious beliefs, or lack of, without engaging in hostilities, verbal or else...

Then why this series of diatribes against nonbelievers? Why is it identical to previous series from Christian fundamentalists?

[It aint necessarily so]

insidesecrets wrote:

The theist does not say he knows with certainty that God exists, he says he believes it.

Not the majority of the ones I hear from.

insidesecrets wrote:

His belief in God therefore does not demand proof since it is based on faith.

Then he needs to keep it out of my life - out of the public square.

insidesecrets wrote:

The atheist, on the other hand, claims to be quite certain that there is no god.

Not I, and not the majority of the ones I hear from.

[It aint necessarily so]

insidesecrets wrote:

The atheist needs to realize that atheism is a belief just as firmly planted in irrationality, in ego and desire, as it claims theism is.

No he doesn't. Atheism is rational skepticism applied to the domain of the supernatural and god claims. BillMaher said it very nicely:

"No. N-n-n-n-no. It’s not fair that people who can’t defend their own nonsense get to create a fake fair and balanced argument, the way they do when asserting that evolution and creationism are equally valid ... when it comes to religion, we’re not two sides of the same coin and you don’t get to put your un-reason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus, Thor and The Kraken - with the stuff that is not evidence-based, the stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens. That’s not atheism."

insidesecrets wrote:

Atheism has no proof and no possible proof.

[1] IANS First Law: You cannot successfully refute atheism without producing a god

[rio]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
The church is hardly that. It's been a devastating institution. In America, it defines who to hate (atheists and gays) and who to disbelieve (scientists, including climate scientists). Both are quite harmful.
<quoted text>
Thanks for your concern.
So you're not into religion, huh? Then you should have no objection to blaspheming the Holy Pigeon.
<quoted text>
Christianity is an infantilizing "tradition." We all suffer for having too many Christians per capita.

I think you project too much what happens in the US on the rest of the world.

Atheists and gays persecuted in America? Tell me more because that's news to me; you seem to be the avant-guard of the gay movement as witness your gay parades, etc... I have been to the States and seen gays openly displaying their homosexuality. Well, maybe not everywhere is like California or New York...
But we don't have that problem in Western Europe where homosexuality and atheism are proudly displayed.

Now, what "church" are you talking abou?, Because there are so many christian denominations in the States (and here)all fighting for audience, that I cannot figure out who is behind that persecution you mentioned. Catholic? Evangelist? Protestant? Pentacostal? etc....

As for global warming, scientists are divided among themselves that the issue is far from clear cut. But I didn't know that YOUR religionists have taken the fight too. It's very quiet on the subject here.

No, I am not into religion, and if you mean the Pope by the Holy Pigeon, I have certainly no allegiance to the catholic church, although I was raised as a catholic. I broke free at the first occasion at 17, when I left home and never attended a service of any kind since. I do not subscribe to any abrahamic religion either, but I toy with the idea there could be a god somewhere, not that I dig much into it, or feel the need to explore that venue. Really, I honestly don't know, one way or the other...

Christianity an infantilizing "tradition? Well probably, but there are plenty of harmless people who follow it without getting involved in the issues you have mentioned. Beside, it's hardly the only religion on the planet, and its overall global influence has been greatly reduced.

[NightSerf]

rio wrote:

<quoted text>
My preacher, eh? What a jerk you are!
You probably don't know anything about the USSR and Russia under Stalin and communism; I do. My family comes from Russia.
So I wont let a moron like you pretend it didn't happen when it did! I have plenty of example in my families and relatives of the treatment of believers in the hands of the soviet apparatus, of persecution of church goers, of summary executions, etc...
The Russian Orthodox Church was in fact closed, its patriarch put in jail. Many priets were executed, many followers deportes, etc...
Many church building were demolished, the others converted into barns, schools, cinemas, barracks, etc... or just left in ruins.
Church attendance came to nil. Believers met in secret in each others house; some were denounced, and arrested for it. For many, their fate is still unknown.
That, I can tell you from family recollection. My grand mother had her hand pierced with a bayonet by a soviet soldier because she didn't want to give him a small religious icon she was keeping.
So, don't tell me about the "innocence" of atheism!
Yes, some church were kept, but with no service allowed inside; those were mostly the Russian icons near Red Square and so on; they were empty.
Stalin relaxed his persecution after 1941 and the German invasion: he needed to galvanised the masses, and the Church was an instrument for that. Stalin chose the priests, nominated the Patriarch, etc... and everything done and said was under his control. That's what an atheist state is.
So don't you feel f*cking smugg about it! I have very good reason to criticise an atheist take-over: we have seen where it leads to...
Atheism is like arsenic: in very small dose, it can be beneficial, but in large dose, it kills you!

In post 11982, you wrote,'There is room for everyone, and we should tolerate each others religious beliefs, or lack of, without engaging in hostilities, verbal or else...' How is the above consistent with that, especially when you begin by calling someone a moron and end by telling him not to be "so f*cking smugg (sic)"? I don't think you're being honest about your beliefs.

[It aint necessarily so]

insidesecrets wrote:

Stalin was an atheist.

Stalin's moral upbringing was the work of his church, which had him into his young adulthood. If humanists had had him first, he would likely have been a better man.

[NightSerf]

Rio is right about the forum--we in the atheist forum share this thread with the World News, Religion, Europe, and the United Kingdom forums. It's usually a good idea to take a look at the bottom of the page before claiming ownership of a thread on behalf of one's home forum.

[rio]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
I intend to give Christianity all of the respect that it has given to atheists like me. More, really. Are you good with that?

If you have that problem in the States, move to Western Europe where atheists are widely accepted. Countries like France, Germany, the Netherlands, even Britain, which are far more tolerant and are full of atheists.

Here, journalists, scientists, writers, philosophers, academics, politicians, can confess their atheism without any problem.
That's the society I know, and that's why I do not understand why posters from the US are so aggressive and so defensive about their position.
Here, it's just not a problem!