Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

[wee honeybee]

Kermudgeon wrote:

Religion is inherently evil.

God is inherently good.

[Amused]

wee honeybee wrote:

<quoted text>
Religion doesn't=God or I could understand the hate.

Religion =/= god is true. God is less of a problem because he most probably does not exist. Religion, on the other hand, undeniably exists, and is an engine for creating human misery. Therein lies the problem. Religious beliefs are like tattoos. I don't have a tattoo. I don't want to have one. I really don't care if someone else has one. I have no interest in preventing someone else from getting one. I don't want people who have tattoos pressuring me to get one.

[wee honeybee]

Amused wrote:

<quoted text>
No, just inaccurate. Most new converts live in what AA members call the 'pink cloud', a state where everything seems wonderful because of the new-found belief. It is part of how conversion works. That keeps the new convert in thf fold long enough for other attachments to take hold.

I just added 'god' to a line in post 1059. You could be describing converts to atheism.

[wee honeybee]

Amused wrote:

<quoted text>
Religion =/= god is true. God is less of a problem because he most probably does not exist. Religion, on the other hand, undeniably exists, and is an engine for creating human misery. Therein lies the problem. Religious beliefs are like tattoos. I don't have a tattoo. I don't want to have one. I really don't care if someone else has one. I have no interest in preventing someone else from getting one. I don't want people who have tattoos pressuring me to get one.

Not finding enough like minded people in the 'right religion' won't take god out of my life. I don't want everyone pressuring me to remove my tattoo if i like it.

[It aint necessarily so]

Libertatem wrote:

Kittenkoder wrote: "By pushing the non-zealots in the same category as the zealots we force them to come out against the zealots or admit they are siding with them."

I had to comment on this. Very insightful. Puts an image in my head of politicians & media proprietors dressed in 4 star general uniforms meeting to plan the next move in the social engineering war. Lump them together and shame them into weeding out their own. Brilliant propaganda.

Propaganda? It a legitimate tactic. It's honest. Why do you think that any of us should not do what Kitten is describing?

This is EXACTLY what I'm doing with this Catholic apologists here at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... .

Do you think that those questions are unfair? They require a lay Catholic congregant who is singing the praises of his church to acknowledge his its pedophilic priest scandal, and to justify supporting them with his words and his tithes. Isn't he enabling a pedophile sex ring, like most of the rest of the Roman Catholic Church?

And if so, isn't that a valid argument against his church and the kind of neighbors it generates? Shouldn't any Catholic that refuses to acknowledge his church's gross failure, or who tries to make them seem unimportant, be shamed for his shoddy values? They reflect the status of his integrity - none in this case. Isn't that part of the argument against his church, which he would say promotes character? Isn't he a living counterexample of that?

So what's wrong with Kitten's comment?

[Rambeaux]

Egad! Now we have atheist prophets?

[Big Poppy]

wee honeybee wrote:

<quoted text>
God is inherently good.

can you explain this statement in terms that may appease the scienctific types here?
I mean, I agree with your statement, I am just not sure If you and I view God differently.

[It aint necessarily so]

wee honeybee wrote:

<quoted text>
Not finding enough like minded people in the 'right religion' won't take god out of my life. I don't want everyone pressuring me to remove my tattoo if i like it.

A woman has the images of her favorite sex symbols - Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise - tattooed to the insides of her thighs. When the artist is finished, the woman looks down and expresses her dismay at the poor job that he has done.

The artist points out that she is in no position to judge his work, since she is seeing it upside down. So they agree to let a third party – the first one to walk by the tattoo shop - be the final arbiter.

That just happens to be a street drunk, who is stumbling by at that moment. They beckon the drunk enter, and to please try to identify the celebrities between the woman’s legs. He agrees.

After a few seconds of staring, reeling, and squinting the drunk announces,“I can't say who the two on the ends are, but the one in the middle is the spittin’ image of Willie Nelson.”

[havent forgotten]

havent forgotten wrote:

oh how I wish it were true that the worst sorts of religion would fade out. I am not that optimistic. I would settle for just getting rid of the evil aspects of religion. the ones that are harmless. i have Christian friends who have gotten rid of some of the worst parts, I think, in their views.

obviously by the term evil I meant the ones that are harmful. By that I mean in their consequences in how persons act in real life - and also in indirect consequences of how desensitized persons could be to cruelty, if they think it is OK for God to be cruel, and make excuses. religion of the cruel sort desensitizes - as do some video games where kids are taught to shoot first and ask questions later.

[havent forgotten]

wee honeybee wrote:

<quoted text>
God is inherently good.

I have no trouble with that statement. where is the little guy hiding? your god needs to come out and replace the one we have now.

[havent forgotten]

j b by archibald macleish: from the play, approximate quote:
"If God is God, He is not good,
If God is good, he is not God;
take the even, take the odd,
I would not sleep here if I could
except for the wind in the grass
and the little green leaves in the wood."

The God of the Bible is not good. The allpowerful creator of all that is is not good. Find a nice, good little smallish not very powerful god somewhere and help him to get bigger and stronger and replace the other two.

The best quote about this I have seen is from a poem of Don Marquis - Young Lucifer, I think, not sure of the title:
he refers to:
"The God that is not God if he is not we."

In short we have to be the good ones, for good to be accomplished.

[havent forgotten]

Big Poppy wrote:

<quoted text>
can you explain this statement in terms that may appease the scienctific types here?
I mean, I agree with your statement, I am just not sure If you and I view God differently.

why don't both of you explain what you mean? sometimes I do not have a problem with folks who try very hard to have a good God - if they really insist on its being good. But if they make false claims that it is good, and make excuses for it, then I have a problem with that. I am willing to wait for your reply, and not assume which type you are. I know nice Christians who do not want to believe in a cruel God.

[Libertatem]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>Propaganda? It a legitimate tactic. It's honest. Why do you think that any of us should not do what Kitten is describing?

This is EXACTLY what I'm doing with this Catholic apologists here at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... .

Do you think that those questions are unfair? They require a lay Catholic congregant who is singing the praises of his church to acknowledge his its pedophilic priest scandal, and to justify supporting them with his words and his tithes. Isn't he enabling a pedophile sex ring, like most of the rest of the Roman Catholic Church?

And if so, isn't that a valid argument against his church and the kind of neighbors it generates? Shouldn't any Catholic that refuses to acknowledge his church's gross failure, or who tries to make them seem unimportant, be shamed for his shoddy values? They reflect the status of his integrity - none in this case. Isn't that part of the argument against his church, which he would say promotes character? Isn't he a living counterexample of that?

So what's wrong with Kitten's comment?

Propaganda:

1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.

[Libertatem]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>Propaganda? It a legitimate tactic. It's honest. Why do you think that any of us should not do what Kitten is describing?

This is EXACTLY what I'm doing with this Catholic apologists here at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... .

Do you think that those questions are unfair? They require a lay Catholic congregant who is singing the praises of his church to acknowledge his its pedophilic priest scandal, and to justify supporting them with his words and his tithes. Isn't he enabling a pedophile sex ring, like most of the rest of the Roman Catholic Church?

And if so, isn't that a valid argument against his church and the kind of neighbors it generates? Shouldn't any Catholic that refuses to acknowledge his church's gross failure, or who tries to make them seem unimportant, be shamed for his shoddy values? They reflect the status of his integrity - none in this case. Isn't that part of the argument against his church, which he would say promotes character? Isn't he a living counterexample of that?

So what's wrong with Kitten's comment?

There is nothing wrong at all with her comment. Her comment just shed some light on a question. Why do I hear so much derogatory stereotyping of individuals affiliated with religious institutions in mainstream news? I remember it starting with all those "Islamo fascists" pre Iraqi Freedom and suddenly and suddenly the sheeple were wondering if their Muslem neighbors had bombs strapped to their sons or were about to honor kill their daughters. Now all Christians/Catholics are misogynist child molesters who love war.

[atheists are wicked]

paarsurrey wrote:

I don't think it will ever happen; since there is not a single evidence with the atheists that the Creator God does not exist.
If you have give it here.

This may actually happen because of the return of Christ , whereby religion will be eliminated. Atheists will no longer be atheists because they will be in the pits of Hell burning , while the Christians of this life will be enjoying the flourishing joys and happiness of the peace that Heaven offers while being in the presence of Jesus and the Father.

So I too hope religion goes away and we can move on with eternity with the evil and wicked tramps of anti-Christianity permanently separated from the rest of the wonderful universe that we can explore, explore freely while the pigs are boiling and frying in Hell as eternal punishment for their horrible deeds in this life.

[Amused]

wee honeybee wrote:

<quoted text>
Not finding enough like minded people in the 'right religion' won't take god out of my life. I don't want everyone pressuring me to remove my tattoo if i like it.

Like I said, I really don't care if someone else has a tattoo.

My real objection to tattoos is that they are permanent. I keep learning, and as a result, I keep changing. I am very different from the person I was at 20, 30, or even 40. A tattoo works against that by essentially "freezing" some part of you in the phase you were in when you got the tattoo. What may have been a 'perfect' expression of your thinking when you got it may be anything but that years later. So, tattoos can be something of a declaration that the wearer is not interested in growing or changing anymore. Still their choice, still not one I would make.

[KittenKoder]

Libertatem wrote:

<quoted text>
Kittenkoder wrote:
"By pushing the non-zealots in the same category as the zealots we force them to come out against the zealots or admit they are siding with them."
I had to comment on this. Very insightful. Puts an image in my head of politicians & media proprietors dressed in 4 star general uniforms meeting to plan the next move in the social engineering war. Lump them together and shame them into weeding out their own. Brilliant propaganda.

It's not propaganda based concept, it is reasons why I do not correct other atheists when they do lump them all in one. The lumping all together is actually being done by the zealots, not the atheists, atheists are just often too lazy to talk to enough christians to find that, in reality, most christians do not like the zealots. It is an effect of the event, not the purpose, there is no purpose, it is just happening. Unlike what zealots want to think, most things do not have a purpose, they just are.

[KittenKoder]

Libertatum, again, it is not a tactic, it is what the zealots are doing. We are just turning it up a notch to encourage those who do not agree with the zealots, to come forward. The tactic we are employing is simply showing people that their "leaders" are saying, nothing more, but our reason is to encourage them to stand up and be themselves, identify as an individual.

[Kermudgeon]

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
I never give the idea of flying unicorns much of a thought. Are you saying you are an atheist because you don't believe in flying unicorns or would you say the existence or non existence of flying unicorns played no role in your decision to be an atheist?

Unicorns can't fly?

[Libertatem]

KittenKoder wrote:

Libertatum, again, it is not a tactic, it is what the zealots are doing. We are just turning it up a notch to encourage those who do not agree with the zealots, to come forward. The tactic we are employing is simply showing people that their "leaders" are saying, nothing more, but our reason is to encourage them to stand up and be themselves, identify as an individual.

This tactic, whomever is using it, is a powerful tool. I hope the wielders use it wisely. I hope those it is used on receive it with discernment. I appreciated your post.