It's 2012, And People Are Still Being Killed Over Make Believe (Religion) Being Treated As Fact

[stopbush]

Judaism, Islam, Christianity - all of them are based on pure make believe.

God, Yahweh, Allah, Jesus - make believe, every one of them.

Yet people get offended that their make believe god of their parents has been insulted, because their parents told them their make believe god was real, so the killing continues.

That's the elephant in the room.

As Hitchens wrote, religion poisons everything.

[Politicalboi]

1. I totally agree

It does poison everything.

[brewens]

2. I'll second that. If they only knew how many of us really don't give a shit about their

superstitions. Actually more of their own people than they care to believe feel the same way in any of these countries we have problems with. Just regular guys wishing they would all just STFU about it.

[cbayer]

3. Is that the final word on religion?

If you have been able to disprove god, then you need to pick up your Nobel Prize right away.

[mike_c]

4. it's impossible to reason with people who live in a make believe universe....

eom

[cbayer]

7. I suppose it would be, but what is make believe to you is held to be true by

an extremely large number of people living on this planet.

Are you saying that only those that hold no belief in god can be reasoned with on this earth? And, if so, can all of them be reasoned with?

[skepticscott]

42. Ask that again

the next time hordes of atheists take to the streets in a frenzy of burning and killing in response to someone insulting Richard Dawkins. Then we'll talk.

[whathehell]

28. No, it's impossible to reason with people with closed minds and an agenda.

Again, pick up your Nobel when you can furnish proof.

[stopbush]

5. I'll get right on that after you disprove the existence of fairies and werewolves.

[cbayer]

6. I make no such claims and wouldn't be bothered to do so.

You make definitive statements about which there is no general agreement.

It's your opinion, that's all.

[whathehell]

29. Correct....It's deliberate provocation, something that used to be known as "flame bait"

Ignore them...It's what they hate most.

[skepticscott]

43. And it's your opinion

that creationists are "a bunch of dumbasses". Even though no one can PROVE with absolute certainty that creationism never happened, right?

Are you getting this...slowly...ever?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

70. Actually, one can

Creationism requires that the universe be no more than 10K years old. Yet it is demonstrably far older.

[cleanhippie]

71. Facts are meaningless when one has "other ways of knowing."

Religious beliefs (called beliefs because they are based on these "other ways of knowing&quot don't require facts, they just require faith.

Creationism, as absurd and demonstrably incorrect as it is, is no less deserving of validity than any other religious claim. If creationism does not deserve validity, then neither does any other religious claim. Facts are facts, and without them, one is left with only their beliefs. We cannot have it both ways. Something is either factual or it is not.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

74. No, it is not

Creationism, as absurd and demonstrably incorrect as it is, is no less deserving of validity than any other religious claim.

No. Creationism is demonstrably false. Other religious claims are not demonstrably false.

[skepticscott]

78. You keep using the word "demonstrably"

I do not think it means what you think it means.

[cleanhippie]

85. What claims are not false?

[skepticscott]

77. Wrong and wrong

Creationism does not require a universe less than 10,000 years old. You might want to educate yourself about creationism before you comment further. And does "demonstrably" mean proven to an absolute, unquestioned, 100% mathematical certainty? No. More education required.

[Tyrs WolfDaemon]

121. Fairies and Werewolves are real

I believe in them, in fact I'm...

growl woof bark bark ...

Sorry about that, Something is in the air, really messing with me.
I think my neighbor may have planted some Wolf-bane in their garden.

[sharp_stick]

9. Not really possible to prove a negative

and trying to prove that something does not exist is just that.

[cbayer]

10. And stating a negative as fact makes me chuckle.

[skepticscott]

93. It's not possible to "prove" a positive, either

Do you really understand how all of this works?

[dmallind]

13. a)Nobel prize in what? b)If you can't disprove Scientology - and you can't - does that make it real?

[cbayer]

14. In science of some sort, as that would be a landmark breakthrough.

I have no interest in disproving Scientology and I wouldn't waste my time making definitive statements about it's lack of validity.

OTOH, when you are going to make definitive statements about beliefs held by a vast number of humans, then you might want to be able to back it up. Otherwise, you just appear foolish.

[EvilAL]

18. I'd make a bet that if

one could actually disprove God using science, that a very large majority of the believers and religious leaders would contend that it proves God exists and that it's merely a test of faith.
I'd also say that with all we know about the vastness of the universe, science has pretty much confirmed that there is no way an invisible being out there somewhere just created it all. It is a pretty big stretch, but when we didn't know how big the earth was, it was easy to say it was created by one being, not so much now.

[cbayer]

21. How could you possibly disprove god using science?

I would make the devil's advocate argument that the bigger the universe is known to be, the more likely it is that there may be forces (gods?) that are bigger than anything we could possibly even imagine.

Bottom line is no one ever is going to be able to either prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods. Those who claim they know the answer either way are full of hot air. They may believe or disbelieve, but they don't know.

And to emphatically state they do, and to do it with ridicule, has much more to do with them than it does with anyone else.

[EvilAL]

22. Then why do people believe it

I mean I know that's a loaded question that doesn't have a 4-line answer, but really. People believe it is true, to them it is proven. If you don't know for sure and if your god isn't willing to prove himself to you and instead likes playing little games with ancient men, there's no reason to believe at all. Maybe once nobody believes in this god he will come out of the sky and prove himself, because that's what he had to do the first time before anyone had a clue who he was.

You can't prove something doesn't exist, but the evidence is stacking up pretty high that allah or Yahweh, Jehovah or whatever he prefers, is not real. I'm just saying if something happened that confirmed that this god doesn't exist, like the emergence of another god or a tablet in a tomb that says it's all a crock of shit, signed by moses, people still wouldn't believe it.

[cbayer]

24. Well, that's what makes it so different than science, right?

The have something called faith. I guess the reasons why are as numerous as the people who have it. Anyone I have talked to about their beliefs and faiths has revealed very personalized versions of why they believe.

Can you offer one shred of evidence to support what you say in your second paragraph? While science has explained much that may have been attributed to a god or gods in the past, every door opened has only led to more questions. There is no evidence mounting to up to either prove or disprove a god or gods.

What I don't understand is the need for either believers or non-believers to convince anyone that they are right and the other side is wrong. Not only wrong, but bad, crazy, damned.... whatever. That's ridiculous fundamentalism, whichever side it comes from, and I would posit it is also a strong indication that the person dong it is quite insecure about what they believe or don't believe.

[EvilAL]

32. Well

looking at the universe it seems pretty clear to me that god didn't create it all in X amount of days. There is faith in god and there is faith in reality. Did somehow the universe create a life force that some call god? Probably not, but it would disprove everything written about allah.
My point was that even IF somehow something showed that god wasn't real, proven that the whole allah/abraham thing was all a farce, people still wouldn't believe it. They would cling to the "mysterious ways/testing faith" conundrum. I can almost prove that by using the Satan or God put fossils in the earth to mess with people's heads. That alone proves the bible/torah/koran and everything else based on it is not real according to the book.
I said if they proved it through science and in hindsight maybe I should have said archaeology, which I suppose is a science.

[cpwm17]

62. 'Faith' is a fancy word for believing without evidence

If believers had evidence they wouldn't need to use faith. Without evidence non-belief is the default position. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. When believers make specific claims about their god, their god can then be disproven.

Anyone reading the Bible or listening to just about any religious leader spout their nonsense should see why non-believers may want to oppose these beliefs. Religions don't deserve special protection. The desire for special protection is evidence that believers are insecure of what they really believe.

[cbayer]

68. That is correct - that is what faith is.

It's an entirely different concept that requires no evidence.

I really don't see why non-believers feel any need to oppose the beliefs or faith of others unless those beliefs are impinging on their own liberties. Religions do preserve special protection, imo. Are you saying that those harmed by hate crimes involving religion do not deserve protections?

[cpwm17]

83. Since 'faith based' beliefs have no evidence, they can be discarded outright.

Nothing else makes sense.

It's a huge jump from opposing obviously wrong, and often harmful religious beliefs to committing hate crimes. Saying that a particular religious belief is wrong is free speech. If believers promote their religion, non-believers have every right to point out what is wrong with the religion.

So let's call every disagreement a hate crime. That makes no sense. It seems strange that the religious ask for special protection. It sounds like insecurity.

There are non-believers (some of the most famous) that do commit hate crimes (in my view) and I strongly oppose them (see my post 61).

[cbayer]

84. I believe that I love my husband and have faith that he loves me back and will continue to do so.

I have soft evidence for that, but no proof. Should I discard it?

Your views are extreme and you are welcome to them, but lack of tolerance and insensitivity towards others who see the world differently are seriously non-progressive traits, imo.

See you around the campfire.

[cleanhippie]

87. Not even remotely the same thing, and you know it.

Come on, lets keep it honest.

[cpwm17]

88. Wow! - did you read what I wrote?

I didn't say anything close to extreme. Non-hateful free speech isn't extreme. I don't promote hatred against believers or collective guilt of all believers for the misbehavior of some believers. I have a liberal world view.

Perhaps you were associating me with some atheists that have a less than a liberal world view. Atheists tend to be rather liberal - including me.

[cbayer]

89. My apologies if I misunderstood you.

What I read was that you thought that anything that isn't backed by evidence should be discarded, which would include pretty much all religious beliefs. I did not read this as saying that they should discarded by you as an individual, but should be discarded by everyone, a position that I would challenge.

I also read that you felt that religion deserved no protection under hate crime legislation, and I do find that extreme. When people go into a church or mosque or temple to execute and terrorize those within based only on what they believe, that is a hate crime. It impacts an entire community and deserves protection, imo. That's not a disagreement and it's not based on *insecurity*.

Where this started, I think, is with the OP's assertion that he is right and anyone who disagrees with him is delusional. In asking for tolerance and sensitivity, there is no request for special treatment.

Perhaps I was associating you with anti-theists, and, if you are not one, I apologize again.

[skepticscott]

34. Sheesh, you just never stop with this claptrap, do you?

Just because something isn't KNOWN with absolute, unquestioned, 100% certainty doesn't mean that every possible explanation for it is equally likely and has equal evidence in support of or against it.

I know you'd like that to be the case, because you just can't tolerate the notion that some people are far more likely to be wrong in what they hold true than others, and that that likelihood is based on, you know, facts and evidence, but it's not.

[trotsky]

58. Quite easily.

It all comes down to the definition of god. Many believers realize this, and are quite careful never to define their god in concrete ways that could be tested and disproven.

[cpwm17]

64. I haven't ever heard anyone claim that they 'know' a god doesn't exist

That's a straw man. I can say that I'm sure that no gods exist, and that all god claims that I've heard are impossible. That's not the same thing as saying I know a god doesn't exist.

One can disprove specific claims made about a god. If one can't make any specific claims about their god, then their god has no use.

[gcomeau]

128. Why yes...

"Bottom line is no one ever is going to be able to either prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods. "

That IS the bottom line! That makes the claim that God exists what we refer to as an unfalsifiable hypothesis and it can be completely rationally rejected on those grounds as being utterly useless and without any valid justification for being made in the first place. Just the same as we would do is someone claimed gravity was really the work of the guild of invisible magical gravity faeries. Cannot ever prove or disprove it and don't have to to reject it.

[cbayer]

129. Who is this "we" you refer to.

I find it fascinating that some non-believers use the first person plural more than most religious people I know.

Useless to you, rejected by you. But that's just you.

[gcomeau]

130. People who comprehend what an unfalsifiable hypothesis is...

...and what it's ramifications are.

If you do not include yourself in the group... well...

[cbayer]

131. Oh, people just like you.

Your position is crystal clear and your apparent belief that it is the only way of correctly seeing things equally so.

[gcomeau]

133. People like me who understand this concept?

Well.... yeah. Quite the zinger comeback there.

[gcomeau]

127. Look up the concept of an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Last edited Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:33 PM - Edit history (1)

"Disproving" God is no more necessary than disproving leprechauns or faeries or inter dimensional gremlins that steal socks out of your laundry.

[rug]

8. Do you actually think the core of these attacks is religion?

For someone so offended by notions of makebelieve, you should consider some geopolitical and economic facts before posting simplistic tripe.

[VWolf]

12. I'm of the opinion

that religion is merely used to justify the insanity.

I have no problem with religion. Organized religion, on the other hand, is a very, very dangerous force.

[mr blur]

17. Right, we should leave the "simplistic tripe" to you.

[rug]

25. Speaking of simplistic tripe . . .

[stopbush]

20. I take the word of the mobs in the street who are shouting that their prophet/god has been offended

Why don't you take them at their word?

[rug]

26. Which mobs? The ones organized by political extremists?

Or the millions of Muslims who want nothing to do with it?

Politics trumps everything. Religion, along with racism and nationalism, is being used as a whip.

[skepticscott]

37. How facile

The fact that not EVERY Muslim is motivated by their religion to take to the streets, burn flags and kill Americans doesn't remotely mean that those who do AREN'T motivated by their religion. Those "political extremists" would have had nothing to organize in this case if it weren't for the twisted beliefs of certain Muslims.

And I'm sure you also believe that communism trumped everything in Stalinist Russia, and that atheism was just used as a whip. You might want to take that up with humblembum.

[rug]

39. How stupid.

[skepticscott]

40. Wow you win the

cbayer Really Excellent Post(r) award for the month! Congratulations!

If it were longer, you'd have won the (only slightly less prestigious) Really Good Read(r) award, too.

[rug]

44. How extremely stupid.

[msongs]

11. a new religion - let's all riot because some strangers 8000 miles away made a crappy video nt

[humblebum]

15. It certainly doesn't take religion to cause the murders of large numbers of people as

history well proves.

[whathehell]

33. No, but it's a nice, pat answer for those unable to handle complexity

Blaming "religion" for an incident like this is like blaming "government" for Stalin.

[Starboard Tack]

16. The elephant in the room is ignorance and intolerance, not what people believe or disbelieve.

Your simplistic, reactionary answers are no better than the reactions of the religious intolerants, or those who invaded Iraq for make-believe reasons.
Religious beliefs are not the problem and have never been the problem. Intolerance of those different beliefs and non-beliefs is and always will be the problem.

[dimbear]

23. In precolumbian Mexico, the Aztec priests sacrificed at least 20,000 people per annum.

Some estimates range up to a quarter million. It's a relief to learn this was not a problem.

[rug]

27. It was cheaper than a standing army to maintain political power.

[whathehell]

36. Ha!

[okasha]

113. Given the population

of Mesoamerica at the time, I find that figure just the weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee bit stretched, especially the larger estimate. Cite?

[okasha]

145. Still waiting for some corroboration of your figures.

Assuming you have any, that is.

[dimbear]

151. Wackypedia article seems pretty good here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture

I'm not sure what your point is. There are a few folk who try to diminish the Aztec ritual, would you care if somehow it was only 10,000 dead? Would that materially change the drift of the argument?

[skepticscott]

30. The elephant in the room

is religious people believing that being offended gives them the right to murder people.

That you would blame the people giving offense and hurting feelings and excuse the people committing murder in the name of their "beliefs" is beyond despicable.

[whathehell]

41. Yeah, but the real "elephant in the room" is pointing out that

those "religious people" seem to be Muslims in the middle east, politically incorrect as it may be to say so.

Unless, of course, you can cite incidents of murder for "blasphemy" or by non-muslims in the West.

[LARED]

66. Quiet, it very useful to some to conflate

radical muslims with Christians.

[whathehell]

94. + 100..n/t

[skepticscott]

95. If you see someone doing that

anywhere on this board (other than in the depths of your imagination), please feel free to point it out.

[LARED]

98. This gets pretty close

The elephant in the room is religious people believing that being offended gives them the right to murder people

To avoid identifying the true fanatical murders in the name of religion you seem perfectly at ease lumping in everyone of faith as holding to that idiotic view.

How would this hypothetical sound to you?

The elephant in the room is athesit people (or what if I stuck the word black in there) believing that being offended gives them the right to murder people. You would be correctly called out as a bigot in heartbeat.

[skepticscott]

100. As I said

The flights of fancy in your rather paranoid imagination don't qualify. I said nothing...zip..zero..nada...about Xstians, fundamentalist wackos or otherwise, in that post. So, you're basically lying through your teeth.

The people attacking our embassy in Libya are religious people who were offended and felt that gave them the right to respond with violence, up to and including killing people. Those are the people I was referring to. If you'd care to dispute any of that, feel free (I won't hold my breath). Anything else is just a product of your pathetic persecution complex.

And if you can cite any incidents where violent mobs of atheists took to the streets to burn and kill because someone hurt their feelings, go ahead. I suspect you'll fail just as miserably as you did here.

[LARED]

105. Instead of attacking me why not just admit your

post was easily interpreted as conflating all religious people.

Given your history of hostility to all religions I interpreted your remark as inclusive and intrinsic to all religions .

[humblebum]

63. To twist words as you have done is indeed "beyond despicable." nt

[skepticscott]

65. Except that I haven't twisted words. Your post is just another of your lame, idiotic lies.

Because that's all you and your ilk have to debate with any more. Pathetic.

[humblebum]

82. Clearly you are overcompensating for your screw-up.

In fact, intolerance really is the elephant in the room.

We know that radical atheists a can be intolerant and violent, too. But your "ilk" is always trying to deny or cover up same.

[Starboard Tack]

69. No. It is ignorant people being prodded into a mob mentality by rogue leaders.

Has no more to do with religion than the troubles in N. Ireland ever did. Your anti everything religious fervor promotes the same kind of mentality, furthering divisiveness and hatred.
Tolerance and respect for the personal beliefs of others will get you a lot further in life than hubris and the arrogant condemnation of all you disagree with.

[cleanhippie]

72. Perhaps I have missed it, but no one, no one here has said that personal beliefs

Should not be tolerated. It is the intrusion of those personal beliefs into public service and the basing of laws and legislation and promotion of one religion over another that is opposed.

That is a very wide difference from what you posted.

[whathehell]

46. +1000 n/t

[EvilAL]

19. It boils down to

not being able to challenge their own faith and beliefs as far as I am concerned. That's the real test of faith. It's easier to just believe it's ok to kill people for your magical man because it says so in your magical book.

[whathehell]

35. It's 2012 and rude, intolerant atheists are still using empty generalities to insult non-atheists.

Go "make believe" your ass.

[skepticscott]

38. And rude, intolerant religionists

are still using empty generalities and their own vacuous beliefs to insult OTHER religionists. And they don't stop with insults.

What was your point again?

[whathehell]

45. Yes, there's lots of rude intolerant religionists and rude, intolerant non-religionists

so what was YOUR point again?

[rug]

47. Whatever it is, it's not one against being rude and intolerant.

[whathehell]

51. Say what?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[rug]

52. Sorry.

I tried to say he was not making a very good case ahainst being rude and intolerant.

[whathehell]

53. I got you

and I agree. Thanks.

[EvilAL]

48. I wish I had a book

that said it was ok to be rude and intolerant to people that thought differently about murder and rape than me. Doesn't mean I'd do it, but at least I could justify it to myself and be forgiven.

[rug]

49. Read The Fountainhead.

[EvilAL]

54. Maybe if I have the time,

but I've read some philosophical fiction and I haven't found the people that take them literally enough to kill over it. Maybe this happened with the fountainhead, but if it didn't, I don't really understand why you suggested it.

[whathehell]

92. Do you have any idea how many have been killed over political ideology?

Do the names Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot ring a bell?...They didn't need no stinkin' religion.

[SarahM32]

86. The Fountainhead? Ayn Rand? Let's think about that.

"History has shown time after time that the Republican claim is deceptive and their logic is flawed. After all, our current economic crisis was caused by three decades of Reaganite policies, legislation and deregulation, because they didn’t learn the lessons of history.

That’s why the rich have gotten so much richer, the middle class has shrunk, the working poor population has grown, and poverty, hunger and homelessness increased. It is similar to the historical consequences of Republican dominance in the 1920s, when the rich got richer and corrupt and caused the financial crisis and stock market crash of 1929, followed by the Great Depression.

Unfortunately, Right-wing Republicans, Libertarians and the “Tea Party” love laissez-faire government. That’s why Ayn Rand has become a cult hero to them (almost as much a hero as Ronald Reagan). They even consider Rand a prophet. But Americans should understand that while Ayn Rand was surely well-meaning and said some good things, she was sadly mistaken about some very crucial issues.

Rand was born in Russia in 1905, and her family was financially ruined after the Russian Revolution of 1917. She grew up hating Russian Communism, and she moved to America. Then, when Capitalism became so corrupt in America that it caused an economic collapse in 1929 followed by the Great Depression, she simply misunderstood, and therefore feared, the New Deal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. She did not recognize how necessary his reforms were, and she thought his regulations would be like those of the Soviet Communists. And, since she hated government control, she supporting laissez-faire capitalism. She believed it was the only social system that protected individual rights (even though it is what had almost ruined America before Roosevelt saved it).

That is why real Democrats and real Christians believe in Jeffersonian Democracy, and in Roosevelt's New Deal. They believe that government must promote the general welfare and properly and sufficiently regulate and oversee big businesses, corporations and banks; that we must provide an adequate safety net to provide for those who need financial assistance and other care; and that we must legislate to make the vast majority prosperous, because widespread prosperity will benefit the whole country in many ways."

Excerpted and quoted from Partisan Politics: A Corrupt, Failed System.
.

[whathehell]

50. Yeah, me too. The only problem is

the "non-specificity" thing, as I know of NO religion other than extreme forms

of Islam that "justify" this.

[EvilAL]

55. It's all based off the same god

just a different prophet. Maybe some religions have lightened up over the years in regards to murder and rape, but extremists still exist in all of them and the only justification they need is in the book.

[whathehell]

56. No, not really.

Some religions are monotheistic, some are polytheistic and the beliefs and even their "god" or "gods" in the case of polytheism,

are different.

You would also be mistaken about what you refer to as "the book"...The religions that HAVE

a "book" have different books, and as far as I know NONE of them -- the bible, the koran, the torah, excuse or "justify"

murder.

Sounds like you're knowledge of the religions of the world is scant...You might want

to "bone up" on the subject.

[EvilAL]

57. You're right they don't justify it

they promote it.

[Marrah_G]

73. Christians raped and slaughtered Muslims in Bosnia

There is a long history of Christianity committing mass murder in the name of God.

Islam and Christianity share a history of bloodshed not only with each other but also within different groups within their religions.

All for the same God.

Frankly, if there was a God of Abraham, he is an incredible asshole for allowing his worshipers to continue slaughtering one another in his name.

[SarahM32]

81. Yes, and No.

Since the fourth century "Christianity" (as we know it) has been misguided by hypocritical theocrats who have destroyed and killed. An early example of that was the book burning in Alexandria, and the killing of Hypatia. And the bloody Crusades, the Inquisitions and all the military industrial imperialism followed.

Islam has been nearly as bloodthirsty, and Zionist Judaism has been as well since 1948.

But none of those are examples of truly religious people. Those were all examples of bigots and hypocrites masquerading as religious and wearing their religion on their sleeve. And today it continues.

See http://cjcmp.org
.

[Warren Stupidity]

125. That is a no true Scotsman argument.

You are defining out of the set of "true" religious people all of those with behaviors that are inconvenient.

A religion that has just been misguided for 1600 of its 1900 years? That is a bit of a reach, no? And by the way the early Christians were killing each other before Constantine put Rome in charge.

[whathehell]

91. No shit...There is a long history of people of every religion and no religion killing for ideology,

greed, jealousy, and revenge too.

[skepticscott]

67. The point is that

it's rather silly to compare people who get their feelings hurt being told that what they believe in is silly to people who get killed or have their rights taken away because they gave offense or didn't believe in the right way. It's only religionists who perpetrate the latter.

[Jester Messiah]

76. Well, at least you didn't kill anybody over it. [nt]

[gcomeau]

134. Compare and contrast

The bad end of the spectrum in the religious group involves the slaughter of those who oppose them.

The bad end of the spectrum in the atheist group is... they're kinda mean and not polite to you.



Yeah, good comeback. You sure put atheists in their place.

[whathehell]

136. "Yeah, good comeback. You sure put atheists in their place"...Yes, it seems so.

Why else would it take you nearly a YEAR to respond?

[gcomeau]

138. Yeah... I wasn't in this thread a year ago.

Someone bumped it recently, I read it, I responded. So it took me about 2 minutes to respond... not a year.

But keep rolling around laughing at your wittiness.

[whathehell]

139. Maybe you should have been.

because year old "wittiness" still doesn't cut it.

[gcomeau]

143. Oh I don't know...

...it seems to have been enough to keep you from mustering any actual response to what was said.

[whathehell]

144. Keep trying..

[gcomeau]

146. Why?

The first attempt seems to have gotten the job done.

[whathehell]

147. "The first attempt seems to have gotten the job done"

To no one but you, I'd guess.

[gcomeau]

148. Then you had a response to it?

Written in invisible text perhaps? Or did you seriously think that pointing out at what time it was posted constituted a response to it's content?

[whathehell]

149. Sorry, but I didn't find your "response" to my year old post substantive enough

to merit one.

Have a nice day.

[gcomeau]

150. So in other words... no, you didn't have one.

Alright then. Like I said, first post did the job.

[whathehell]

152. No, in other words I don't need one.

[gcomeau]

153. Uh huh... the ancestral battle cry of the Runaway Clan.

You keep talking about how the only reason you're not answering is cause you don't need to all day long if it makes you feel better. Have fun with that.

[whathehell]

154. Uh, no.

If you haven't noticed, I've been signaling an end to this pointless exchange for the last two posts.

Hint: Most Dues understand "have a good day" coupled with a waving smilier to mean "goodbye".

Since it seems you don't do nuance, though, I guess I'll have to spell it out for you by welcoming you

to my ignore list. Buh Bye:

[gcomeau]

155. Like I said...

Run away.

[onager]

59. And Ricky Gervais nails it...

We have to stop this recent culture of people telling us they're offended and expecting us to give a fuck.

http://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/224132733717315585



edit for SP

[rug]

60. You must try harder.

[cpwm17]

61. You shouldn't quote Hitchens' condemnation of religious violence

Last edited Fri Sep 14, 2012, 01:47 AM - Edit history (1)

Hitchens was an outspoken warmonger who was motivated by religious hatred. He promoted the Iraq War heavily (the world's worst crime this century), and to his dying day he stuck with the WMD BS.

Religion is obvious nonsense, and it can contribute to hatreds that sometimes lead to violence. But the US - arguably the world's leading warmongering nation - is motivated by greed, selfishness, and bigotry. Religious bigots do contribute to this warmongering, but it isn't the leading cause.

Here's Hitchens' talk at the Freedom From Religion Convention in 2007 as described by PZ Myers:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/14/ffrf-recap/

He (Hitchens) was asked to consider the possibility that bombing and killing was only going to accomplish an increase in the number of people opposing us. Hitchens accused the questioner of being incredibly stupid (the question was not well-phrased, I’ll agree, but it was clear what he meant), and said that it was obvious that every Moslem you kill means there is one less Moslem to fight you … which is only true if you assume that every Moslem already wants to kill Americans and is armed and willing to do so. I think that what is obvious is that most Moslems are primarily interested in living a life of contentment with their families and their work, and that an America committed to slaughter is a tactic that will only convince more of them to join in opposition to us.

Basically, what Hitchens was proposing is genocide. Or, at least, wholesale execution of the population of the Moslem world until they are sufficiently cowed and frightened and depleted that they are unable to resist us in any way, ever again.

[Thats my opinion]

75. If love, truth, beauty, purpose. compassion, hope, goodness are only make-believe

you are probably right.

Hitchens probably never came within reach of any of these things. Alas. I hope you have.

[SarahM32]

80. They are not make believe. They are the most valuable reality.

As you know, I realize.

[onager]

90. I wish you could have said that to Hitchens' face.

A few on-topic Hitchens quotes for you:

Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain, replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing more.

To be the father of growing daughters is to understand something of what Yeats evokes with his imperishable phrase 'terrible beauty.' Nothing can make one so happily exhilarated or so frightened: it's a solid lesson in the limitations of self to realize that your heart is running around inside someone else's body. It also makes me quite astonishingly calm at the thought of death: I know whom I would die to protect...

Heroism breaks its heart, and ide­al­ism its back, on the intran­si­gence of the cred­u­lous and the mediocre, manip­u­lated by the cyn­i­cal and the corrupt.

Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.

And since you frequently claim to be an author, Hitch left some good advice for you:

Everybody does have a book in them, but in most cases that’s where it should stay.

[skepticscott]

97. You should know better

than to use facts on Charles. All that will do is get you put on ignore. Or accused of "bullying", "harassment", "persecution" and "personal attacks".

See, now this is a situation where an honest and decent person, having leveled hateful slams against someone that they never met, never spoke to and never knew well enough to tell whether what they were saying was even remotely true would, having been confronted with evidence completely to the contrary, apologize and say something like "Gee, I never knew that about them....guess I was wrong". Charles on the other hand, being mired in the notion that anything he says embodies truth and validity simply by the fact of his having said it, and being blind and deaf to any contrary information, will likely dig his heels in on personal denial and not respond at all.

[SarahM32]

103. I like all those Hitchens quotes, and I see both sides.

I think the problem is that most religious people don't know what God is, and I think most Atheists realize the error and hypocrisy of many religious people who don't know but claim to know -- (like theocratic right-wing "fundamentalist Christians).

However, there are many religious people who have a fairly good idea of what God is, who understand why they should live by the golden rule and universal divine imperative, and uphold the virtues of honesty, kindness, compassion, empathy, generosity, and peacefulness. They don't wear their religion on their sleeve, and they are liberal and progressive.

Hell, I'm not even religious, and I don't claim to understand God. We cannot fathom what is eternal, infinite, omnipresent, and yet is pure Consciousness. But we can experience and feel and "see" that Divine Light Energy-Source of our existence .. and realize it is very real, and is within, around and above us all.
.

[SarahM32]

79. No. People are being killed because hatemongering Theocrats distort their religion to gain power.

Right-wing Jewish Zionists are hypocritical Theocrats ignorant of the true purpose of their religion.

Right-wing Christian Fundamentalist Zionists are hypocritical Theocrats ignorant of the true purpose of their religion.

And radical "fundamentalist" Muslim "Jihadists" are hypocritical Theocrats ignorant of the true purpose of their religion.

Read four articles that make that case -- The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, About Christianity, About Islam, and Why the "Religious Right" Is Wrong -- which explain how and why the "religious" bigots and hypocrites are wrong and in fact betray God and their religion.
.

[skepticscott]

96. So who exactly decides

what the "true purpose" of any of these religions is, or whether such a thing ever existed in the first place? You? Please, grace us with your wisdom about what the true and ultimate purposes of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are. With abundant evidence for why you view has objective authority over the fundamentalists' view, of course.

[SarahM32]

99. Since you asked ...

The true purpose of religion is easy to see, but, like beauty, truth is in the eye of the beholder.

People see what they want to see in religious scriptures, and the Abrahamic scriptures are especially loaded with ideas that are opposites, from love to hate, and from kindness to war.

Here as a relevant quote from Why the "Religious Right" Is Wrong, at http://messenger.cjcmp.org/religiousright.html

It helps to understand how Liberals and Conservatives interpret Christianity differently.

Conservative Christians focus on the patriarchal aspects and love to quote all the things based on the idea that "I am the Way, and the Truth," even though they don't understand what Jesus meant by that. Instead, they sum up Jesus’ message as "Obey me or you're going to suffer in hell for eternity." It's an authoritarian, patriarchal approach.

Liberal progressive Christians, on the other hand, focus on the matriarchal aspects that are around the Golden Rule, and around peace, love, freedom, compassion, charity, forgiveness, and pacifism, acknowledging the idea that it will be the humble, gentle, peaceful and meek who shall inherit the earth.

Those two approaches inevitably produce the situation we have now, with proud and militant Conservative Christians trying to impose and enforce their beliefs, while Liberal Christians usually do not retaliate but instead tend to turn the other cheek.

The difference between the two has produced conflict since not long after the death of Jesus of Nazareth (as is discussed in the article About Christianity), and it is the basic cause of the dilemma we face. It produces conflict and dilemma because while conservative "fundamentalist" Christians insist they are the right and true Christians and therefore tend to be theocratic and dominant, liberal progressive Christians understand the error in that. That's why the conflict has existed since it began between Paul and James and others, and it has been a problem sporadically throughout the history of Christendom.

It was even a problem in the late 1700s in America.

Thomas Jefferson, the principle author of the American Declaration of Independence, wrote: “I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect (or religion) over another.”

Jefferson wrote that the freedom of religion clause in the Constitution was to “build a wall of separation between church and state.” And in his autobiography he even wrote that the name Jesus Christ should not be added to any legal government document, because we must protect “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Muslim, the Hindu and Infidel of every denomination.”

Here is another relevant quote from http://cjcmp.org:

"We will save the world only by obeying and abiding by the Universal Divine Imperative, common to all religions.

All great spiritual teachers taught it, in one way or another. Thus Jews are supposed to be taught that we should not do to others what is hurtful to our self. Christians are supposed to be taught to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And Muslims are supposed to be taught that no one is a true believer in Allah until he loves for all others what he loves for himself.

Similarly, Buddhists are taught that we should treat others as we treat our self. Hindus are taught that we should not do unto others anything that, which if it were done to us, would cause us pain. The Taoists are taught that we should regard our neighbor's gain as our own gain, and our neighbor's loss as our own loss. Those of the Bahai Faith are taught that we should ascribe not to any soul that which we would not have ascribed to our self. Followers of Confucius are taught that we should never impose on others what we would not choose for our self. And the founders of all other religions have taught the same thing in different ways.

The founders of all true religions have also said that the search for the Divine and Holy should be not in the world, but within, and when found it brings forth love that is universal and knows no bounds.

These teachings and spiritual values are at the very core of all genuine religions, and they are all about unconditional love, peace, freedom, honesty, humility, tolerance, forgiveness, compassion, charity, and pacifism.

Unfortunately, some of the worst atrocities in the world are being committed by people who ignore those values and yet claim they are religious. That is why a reminder is needed.

All Jews should understand why Solomon of ancient Israel, renowned for his great wisdom, said that pride goes before destruction and an arrogant spirit before a fall, and it is better to be of a humble spirit than to join the proud and militant in their aggressive and offensive pursuit of the "spoils" of war.

All Christians should understand that Jesus of Nazareth agreed with that, and he added that we should love even our enemy. He advised against retaliation, and against living by the sword. He declared that Man cannot serve both God and Mammon (which could be defined as unfairly or unethically gained worldly wealth, and unfairly imposed or abused worldly power). Jesus even declared that the humble, gentle and meek are blessed and shall inherit the earth. Then, to top it off, he willingly sacrificed his life to set a good example and culminate his teachings regarding peace, love, tolerance, forgiveness, and pacifism. That is, he was a true martyr.

All Muslims should understand that Islam's founder, Muhammad, knew and respected the teachings of Jesus, and he stated that killing is always evil, and that indiscriminate killing is especially evil. Moreover, like Jesus, he advised against retaliation and against force or coercion in religious matters, and he commanded Muslims to "be very courteous to Jews and Christians because we all believe in the same God." (Qur'an 29:46)

Of course, proud and militant Jews, Christians and Muslims feel righteously justified in their actions, and in certain cases they have good reasons for that. In fact, many of them do have legitimate grievances which should be addressed.

The trouble is, in far too many cases, the proud and militant are misled by theocratic zealots who simply ignore many core scriptural facts and universal truths, and misunderstand divine will and intent. Thus they merely feign religiosity, preach the doctrines of men, and pray for the ears of men, but betray God and humanity as a whole body. That is why part of the plan is to expose them, particularly the Theocrats who lust for political power in the name of religion."

(Sorry for the long quotes, but I think they are very relevant, and needed in this discussion.)
.

[skepticscott]

102. All you've offered

are a bunch of opinions, with no evidence that any of this constitutes the "true" purpose of any of these religions. You're cherry picking opinions that describe the way YOU'D like religion or religions to be, without provide any evidence or argument that shows why these opinions have objective authority. And btw, Jesus said "I come not to bring peace, but a sword". So why are you lying and saying that he advised AGAINST living by the sword? Why is your interpretation the only possible correct one?

Try again.

[SarahM32]

106. Yes Sir.

That's your opinion. All I did was quote a source that points out the facts of the matter concerning the essential, core tenets of religions.

As for the statement attributed to Jesus ("I came not to bring peace, but a sword.&quot , it can be better understood if you consider it in context with a similar statement he made --- "I came not to bring peace, but division."

Jesus said that because, unlike his followers who wrote the books in the official church canon, he understood that he had come not to fulfill the ultimate prophecies. He knew he was ushering in an age of conflict and division, symbolized by the two Piscean fish that appear to be swimming in opposite directions.

Jesus knew and said he had to go away and be seen no more. He predicted wars and rumors of war, nation against nation, etc. And he predicted that false christs, false shepherds and false prophets would be leading their blind flocks astray.

He also said, however, that at the end of the age (aeon), another would come to issue judgment, guide humanity to truth, show us things to come, and glorify the real God.

I know you won't believe it. But that's alright with me.
.

[DrDan]

101. based on beliefs . . . just like atheism

nothing has been proven as yet . . . as far as I know

[rogrot]

104. Guns don't kill people...

Accept religion as a part of life. People make a mistake when they denigrate other people and denigrate other people's religion. If there were no religion to "poison everything" then humans, their minds being what they are, would find something else to "poison everything." Religion is little more than a gun some misguided, ignorant people choose to aim and fire at civilization. What might be a positive in some lives then, turns out to be really bad.

[Anthony McCarthy]

107. How's that North Korean thing working out for you?

First, it's so funny for someone to cite Christopher "I love cluster bombs because they kill people as the shrapnel passes through people it kills" Hitchenss, Christopher "I'm with Bush as he invades Iraq" Hitchens, Christopher "let's get into a war with more than a billion Muslims" Hitchens in this kind of a discussion.

A Jew, a Christian, a Muslim who murders an innocent person is violating the moral teachings of the religion they purport to follow. An atheist who murders an innocent person can't be said to be violating a moral law of atheism. I'd rather take my chances on people who inconsistently act in accords with a claim that they believe it's against the will of God to murder than someone who rejects the idea that there is any kind of real, moral law that forbids murder consistently being held back only by whether or not they can get away with it. In aggregate, there are individual atheists I know who I'd trust on that count and people who profess those religions who I wouldn't trust. I'd include Christopher Hitchens' beloved president Bush in that one.

[cpwm17]

108. I couldn't agree with you more on your first paragraph.

Hitchens is a war criminal, as I wrote above.

Religious teachings tend to be far less moral than the morals most people use in their everyday lives. The Bible promotes genocide, rape, slavery - including sex slavery, severe prohibitions against thought crimes, infinite torture, etc.

Humans have an ability, independent from the various religious teachings, to determine right from wrong. Some people do it better than others, but most people do it better than the writers of the religious teachings. That's how most people determine that the Bible is wrong on these issues.

On average, world-wide, countries and regions with more atheists have less crime and higher living standards. I'm not necessarily saying they are directly related, but it sure goes against any claim that morality comes from a higher being.

[cbayer]

109. I had not heard what you state in your last paragraph before, but would love to

see data in regard to that.

[MyJesusRox19]

110. Yeah Right

There's obviously proof that God exists. There is NO proof that the big bang was true. It's as simple as that. Exorcisms are real as well. There's your real proof. Just look up the case from 1949. Based on a true story. I'm not sayin' this to be rude. I'm sayin' this cuz I care and I wanna see y'all in Heaven ?

[hrmjustin]

111. Welcome to DU and welcome to the religion room.

[MyJesusRox19]

116. Nice

[hrmjustin]

117. Enjoy the religion room!

[MyJesusRox19]

119. AMEN!!

AMEN!! I ? U!!! (Not romantically, but as a person and brother

[hrmjustin]

112. I am a Christian and I believe in the Big Bang. The ideathe Earth is 6000 years old is

ridiculous. Yes I believe God exist but we can not prove or disprove God exists.

[LostOne4Ever]

114. Sorry to burst your bubble

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Halloran

Halloran later expressed skepticism that the boy was actually possessed.

That is not proof of exocercisms being real and there is no proof that God exists. THERE is evidence that the Big-Bang happened though:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-crunch2.htm

[MyJesusRox19]

118. Proof

The page about the Big Bang has a few "if"s in it. And I actually know people who hav done exorcisms and ppl who hav had demon problems and hav asked me to help them. (Luckily the first one was solved before the demon started possessing the people in her family) and the other one is still in the process. I still need more stories from this girl to see if she's just hallucinating or not. I knew the first girl wasn't because she said that her sister had seen it too; a major light bulb to me & knowing that she's not hallucinating. Sadly most CHRISTians don't wanna be exorcists because the possessed person could easily kill them. But I can't stand to see people suffering. I also can't stand knowing that someone I know or hav talked to is going to Hell. It just makes me sad So I'll gladly risk my own life to help them. Don't think I'm a weird stalker or anything, but LUV YA!! (Honestly though, I do, and that goes for everyone who reads this. No faking or acting what so ever).

[LostOne4Ever]

120. Can you post some verification

Could you post some verification of this? Specifically something that shows the demon leaving the body like a video? Also what are your credentials as an exorcist? Any psychological or scientific background?

Sorry but this is a pretty big claim so you can understand my asking for proof beyond hearsay or just your word for it.

As for evidence of the Big Bang, yeah there will always be gaps but they always get smaller and smaller and the evidence is verifiable.

That said, welcome to DU

[MyJesusRox19]

122. Answer

There is audio that you can listen to on YT of someone performing an exorcism live. Exorcisms took place way back. (That was pretty stupid cuz Jesus did them too so obviously it was back then -.- OK, that was my "idiot" moment XD) And yes I do understand that this is a big claim, therefore I do not blame you at all if you don't believe me. And let's just say that I know an exorcist and we r close. I don't wanna give personal information about them, cuz I'm respecting their privacy, but I do hope that you'll believe me when I say that I know one =^.^=

[demwing]

115. ;Hey look, another "your beliefs are stupid" thread!

How very original.

[whathehell]

141. +100 n/t

[Apophis]

123. It's still happening in 2013.

[refrescanos]

124. people will dislike

Others, even kill them if they are perceived as different. People also dislike others if they see something in another person that they dislike consciously or unconsciously about themselves.
Simple as that...politics, religion, ethnicity, family all come back to these two statements, not Just religion.

[whathehell]

142. Exactly, Thank you.

The idiots who blame "religion" for all violence must think Stalin & Hitler were regular church-goers.

[Tigress DEM]

126. So how is it better to post not one single fact and accuse Religious people of stupidity?

I really WANT to be tolerant of atheists and anyone who believes or chooses not to believe, but when you step up to the plate with bupkiss and pretend it's some huge relevant post....


PUHLEEEESE! I call it bullshit.


I also don't believe that religion is any justification for murder, but I only hold the people who are actually using religion as a smoke screen or being deluded into "Hating in God's name" as being the problem.


I object to the blending of State and Church because of the tendency of this blending to create a way to "control" society.


People who seek through their faith to become better people by applying the principals inherent in the available doctrines should not be wadded up with bozos who don't.


Your only justification for this post is to hate.


Makes you ZERO percent different from those you accuse of being intolerant to the point of murder.

YOU would murder people just because they believe in God.


What? You wouldn't HOW can you prove that? Where is your scientific method?


Well, I believe in God and I haven't killed anyone either ....



AND contrary to what current radical atheism is spouting .... NOT ALL MASS KILLING IS DONE IN GOD's name. Christianity has it's past, but so does atheism.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rory-fitzgerald/richard-dawkins-should-be_b_541387.html



snip

Atheistic communism, as manifested in the Soviet Union, hated religion, "the opium of the masses" and it brought about the murder of millions more in Gulags and purges.

snip

As recently as 1979, the Cambodian genocide killed 1.7 million people. These were murdered by communist atheists. War crimes tribunals are now being set up in Phnomh Penh. The Tibetan people continue to be persecuted by an atheistic tyranny.

http://atheisticviolence.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/atheism-not-religion-is-the-force-behind-the-mass-murders-of-history/

snip

In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.




I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ATHEISM..... I actually LIKE most atheists I've personally known.


I have a problem with INTOLERANCE. It is THOSE that think they have the only correct thinking who are dangerous.


I agree with HUFF PO author Rory Fitzgerald ---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1218&pid=45774
snip

... secularisation has brought society the ability to expose the hidden actvties of religious authorities. A theocracy is as bad a place as a secular dictatorship. Both science and our shared wisdom is of profound importance to all of us. Atheists, believers, agnostics all have a huge amount to contribute to building a better society. Some of the most moral people I know are atheists, and some of the least moral are fervent believers. Neither side has a monopoly on truth or on virtue. But it is in a spirit of co-operative discourse that truth is best served




TRUTH SPEAKS TO THE HEART OF ALL GOOD PEOPLE



and bullshit is bullshit


Wrap it in a flag, wrap it in a cross or paint it with science, it's STILL intolerant bullshit if the only point is to belittle and bemoan.

[cbayer]

132. It was flame bait from the get go and quite effective flame bait at that.

Good post, btw, and I agree with much of what you say here.

[whathehell]

140. +10 n/t

[whathehell]

137. Thank you.

[okasha]

135. It's 2013,

and someone had to do considerable digging to revive this inane post.

Stupidity poisons everything.