They always pick on nice, friendly, forgiving Christians.

You don't see anyone making videos saying Allah was made up or publishing "The Buddha Delusion".

Instead of picking on someone who will chop your head off or someone who publishes all those new-age meditation books you guys read (by the way those are religious) you pick on nice, friendly, forgiving people.

Last of all, I would encourage you to actually read the Bible before you make statements like "God is always smiting people" or "God sends people to hell for being irrational?".

Christians and friendly, nice and forgiving shouldn't be used in the same sentence

Troll

Troll

In Before Lock

You don't see anyone making videos saying Allah was made up or publishing "The Buddha Delusion".

You ignorant fool. "The God Delusion" wasn't focusing on Christianity alone. Just because it singled out and highlighted some of the absurdities in the Old Testament doesn't mean he didn't spend an equal amount of time on other religions. Read the book before you comment.

Instead of picking on someone who will chop your head off or someone who publishes all those new-age meditation books you guys read (by the way those are religious) you pick on nice, friendly, forgiving people.

Let Islam become the dominant religion in the U.S. and I'm sure the activists would concentrate more on the *head choppers*.

Last of all, I would encourage you to actually read the Bible before you make statements like "God is always smiting people" or "God sends people to hell for being irrational?".

Why don't you read "The God Delusion" before stating that it focuses 100% on Christianity? And how about NOT assuming the extent of a non-believers knowledge of the Bible, eh?

Christians and friendly, nice and forgiving shouldn't be used in the same sentence

Troll

Agreed. Rarely have I seen a topic that displayed more ignorance and arrogance. Check out the story of Madilyn Murray O'Hair, and what she suffered by being open about her atheistic activism.

I would encourage you to actually read the Bible before you make statements like "God is always smiting people" or "God sends people to hell for being irrational?".

I would encourage Christians to actually read the bible before they declare themselves Christian. If they did, there wouldn't be any Christians.

They always pick on nice, friendly, forgiving Christians.

Instead of picking on someone who will chop your head off

you pick on nice, friendly, forgiving people.


http://tinyurl.com/8pc2a
http://tinyurl.com/2b7nrm
http://tinyurl.com/sy2gl
http://tinyurl.com/2dt8fp

"A conservative estimate puts the total number of brutal deaths in the 20 th century at more than 250 million. Of these, Muslims are responsible for less than 10 million deaths. Christians, or those coming from Christian backgrounds account for more than 200 million of these!"


What a nice, friendly, peaceful people Christians are.

I would encourage Christians to actually read the bible before they declare themselves Christian. If they did, there wouldn't be any Christians.

I doubt that, it takes a special kind of person to believe in the invisible man....

Most of the time its because Buddhists or Muslims aren't the ones coming up to you, insisting you join them in their spiritual journey.

Athiests are anything but cowards. They're going against God. Chrisitans just submit to his will in fear of being sent to hell. Athiests give God the finger and tell him to suck it. Who's the coward now?


~Ron Paul for '08~

Athiests are anything but cowards. They're going against God. Chrisitans just submit to his will in fear of being sent to hell. Athiests give God the finger and tell him to suck it. Who's the coward now?


~Ron Paul for '08~

Atheists give the invisible man the finger? Hmmm....

http://tinyurl.com/8pc2a
http://tinyurl.com/2b7nrm
http://tinyurl.com/sy2gl
http://tinyurl.com/2dt8fp

"A conservative estimate puts the total number of brutal deaths in the 20 th century at more than 250 million. Of these, Muslims are responsible for less than 10 million deaths. Christians, or those coming from Christian backgrounds account for more than 200 million of these!"


What a nice, friendly, peaceful people Christians are.

Christian backgrounds? :p Atheists who leech off our Christian society, people like you, have skewed that satistic rediculously.

Hitler wasn't a Christian but by your logic he had a "Christian background".

Most of the time its because Buddhists or Muslims aren't the ones coming up to you, insisting you join them in their spiritual journey.

By all means, stay on your path of suffering that leads straight to hell! :p

We're just trying to help you. :)

Christian backgrounds? :p Atheists who leech off our Christian society, people like you, have skewed that satistic rediculously.

Hitler wasn't a Christian but by your logic he had a "Christian background".

You're being a bit too brash here. Slow the trolling down a little and people might not pick up on it so easily. Man, when good trolling opportunity is wasted it's annoying. But that could be trolling in itself... hmmm.....

Modern activists are all cowards. They're deluded into thinking the way to make a difference is to bombard other people with meaningless crap.

Atheist activism is just as fucking annoying as any other kind of activism. If you want to make a difference in the world, do it the realistic way: BE WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT. If you think a life with God is the right way...well then, live with God in your life. If you think a life without God is the right way, then live without God.

Keep your uneducated and entirely baseless and wholly retarded lifestyle to your fucking self because nothing you can say or do will ever be the deciding factor as to how anyone other than YOU lives their life.

BTW, Richard Dawkins is a moron. The God Delusion...yes, let's try to convince people that an idea which has propelled human kind for over 12 millenniums of civilization that it's entirely delusion. Why? Because a universe with a paradoxical self-contradicting beginning makes more sense than a paradoxical being?

Atheism is as much a delusion and theism...

Modern activists are all cowards. They're deluded into thinking the way to make a difference is to bombard other people with meaningless crap.

Atheist activism is just as fucking annoying as any other kind of activism. If you want to make a difference in the world, do it the realistic way: BE WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT. If you think a life with God is the right way...well then, live with God in your life. If you think a life without God is the right way, then live without God.

Keep your uneducated and entirely baseless and wholly retarded lifestyle to your fucking self because nothing you can say or do will ever be the deciding factor as to how anyone other than YOU lives their life.

BTW, Richard Dawkins is a moron. The God Delusion...yes, let's try to convince people that an idea which has propelled human kind for over 12 millenniums of civilization that it's entirely delusion. Why? Because a universe with a paradoxical self-contradicting beginning makes more sense than a paradoxical being?

Atheism is as much a delusion and theism...

Well said.

Another important point would be that even if he is right, which he is not. From the athiest point-of-view the same thing happens to all of when we die.

Christians can justify their conversion efforts by saying "We're helping people get to heaven", but from atheists are just wasting the few years they have before they die.

As an atheist, I think "atheist activism" is largely pointless, since the religious population is largely too stupid to understand any of the arguments against their assbackwards belief systems.

"BTW, Richard Dawkins is a moron. The God Delusion...yes, let's try to convince people that an idea which has propelled human kind for over 12 millenniums of civilization that it's entirely delusion. Why? Because a universe with a paradoxical self-contradicting beginning makes more sense than a paradoxical being?"

Yes, an idea that has propelled humanity through countless wars and enough bloodshed to theoretically paint the entire Solar System red. How dare anyone raise a finger to point out that maybe, just maybe, it's time to move past shit like that! Dawkins is essentially preaching to the choir (if you'll forgive the pun), but the idea behind going "Alright, enough of this bullcrap" is perfectly valid.

Thousands of years ago before humans had the faculties to learn about and comprehend the universe around them, religion made sense. Men can make fire, therefore anytime a lightening bolt comes down from the sky and sets a forest on fire... maybe it's just a bigger, stronger man doing that? To the primitive mind a God was needed to explain away all the retarded shit that went on around him.

However, it went past that. People started writing books about these gods, and eventually they started thinking those same gods gave them some kind of authority over others, and it is at that point that shit started going downhill. Those days *should* be far behind us, since this an age where we have the tools to learn and explore and expand our knowledge. But those old beliefs still give people warm, fuzzy feelings on the inside... and that would be just fine if everyone left it at that. The days of making up stories to explain the unexplainable should have ended by the time of the Renaissance.

But people don't just leave it at that. People with those beliefs think their gods want them to rule over others by legislating their beliefs into secular law. They want to turn back the clock on scientific progress by trying to have baseless assertions taught as "alternative theories" in science classes, while lobbying to get those theories tossed out. They try to deny people who love each other the right to marry based solely on what their holy books say about sexual preference. And the hilarious thing? These same people like to claim they're being persecuted.

I'd love it if all religious people kept their shit to themselves; And many of them do... the problem is, a lot more of them don't. A lot more of them stick their noses in other people's fucking business and try to ruin their shit because they think that's what their god wants. At that point, yeah, I get pissed because that's effecting me, my friends, and my family, and that's wrong. I'm not wasting fuck all by not standing for that crap, on the contrary! It's an excellent use of my time.

Pull your heads out of your asses, you stupid bastards.

Yes, an idea that has propelled humanity through countless wars and enough bloodshed to theoretically paint the entire Solar System red. How dare anyone raise a finger to point out that maybe, just maybe, it's time to move past shit like that! Dawkins is essentially preaching to the choir (if you'll forgive the pun), but the idea behind going "Alright, enough of this bullcrap" is perfectly valid.

Thousands of years ago before humans had the faculties to learn about and comprehend the universe around them, religion made sense. Men can make fire, therefore anytime a lightening bolt comes down from the sky and sets a forest on fire... maybe it's just a bigger, stronger man doing that? To the primitive mind a God was needed to explain away all the retarded shit that went on around him.

However, it went past that. People started writing books about these gods, and eventually they started thinking those same gods gave them some kind of authority over others, and it is at that point that shit started going downhill. Those days *should* be far behind us, since this an age where we have the tools to learn and explore and expand our knowledge. But those old beliefs still give people warm, fuzzy feelings on the inside... and that would be just fine if everyone left it at that. The days of making up stories to explain the unexplainable should have ended by the time of the Renaissance.

But people don't just leave it at that. People with those beliefs think their gods want them to rule over others by legislating their beliefs into secular law. They want to turn back the clock on scientific progress by trying to have baseless assertions taught as "alternative theories" in science classes, while lobbying to get those theories tossed out. They try to deny people who love each other the right to marry based solely on what their holy books say about sexual preference. And the hilarious thing? These same people like to claim they're being persecuted.


I'd love it if all religious people kept their shit to themselves; And many of them do... the problem is, a lot more of them don't. A lot more of them stick their noses in other people's fucking business and try to ruin their shit because they think that's what their god wants. At that point, yeah, I get pissed because that's effecting me, my friends, and my family, and that's wrong. I'm not wasting fuck all by not standing for that crap, on the contrary! It's an excellent use of my time.

Pull your heads out of your asses, you stupid bastards.

Well put on all points, and worth quoting in full.


Keep your uneducated and entirely baseless and wholly retarded lifestyle to your fucking self because nothing you can say or do will ever be the deciding factor as to how anyone other than YOU lives their life.

Just roll over and take majority opinion quietly? I think not. Remember that everything YOU say and everything YOU do has been borrowed from or inspired by someone else's ideas, someone else's activism before you. Ideas just don't spring to life on their own, and I'm quite certain that your own idealism wasn't spawned by original thought. Just simply stating aloud how "retarded" and "entirely baseless" the atheist lifestyle seems to you - is a form of activism. Every time you open your mouth or use your fingers and keyboard to push your own ideas - is a form of activism. Should we all just hunker down and put our hands over our mouths?

Ain't happenin' over here.

You do the same thing the Christians do. You spout a bunch of bullshit, and then when you're finished, you let out the real reason you're being such a douche.

So what if evangelists are annoying? Does that mean you have to be just as fucking annoying to somehow out-retard them to be the victor?

Faith in God has not propelled a single fucking war. The war-like nature of man has propelled EVERY fucking war. In case you haven't gathered this from the useful tool of science, we're fucking animals that like to steal, rape, kill, lie, and gorge all in the name of survival. What the fuck is wrong with (or without) either trying something different with the thought of a 'god', or doing the same old fucking thing with (or without) the thought of a 'god'? Getting rid of faith won't get rid of our sick nature. YOU need to pull your head out of your ass if you think faith in a creator is the deciding factor in morality.

To paraphrase ArmsMerchant from another thread: The Bible has some truth in it, and it'd be a disservice to man to throw out the entire book.

My reasoning is that while some people will do unspeakable acts in the name of god, just as many will do unspeakable acts for no reason at all. Aside from that, people will do many good deeds for god, and for nothing. The mental framework you operate under does not necessitate any particular quality of thought, nor quantity - neither faith nor the lack thereof is a superior trait. Neither is more detrimental or beneficial than the other, so why the fuck are you here saying that your brand of bullshit is somehow more tasty than a Christian's?

(If you, for some insane reason, think your bullshit stinks less, let's look at some death stats from wars!)

We'll focus on just communism in the 20th century, nevermind all the warmongers that used religion (not faith, mind you) to pacify their nationals during times of conflict in the past.

USSR — 20 million deaths
China — 65 million deaths
Vietnam — 1 million
North Korea — 2 million deaths
Cambodia — 2 million deaths
Eastern Europe — 1 million deaths
Latin America — 150,000 deaths
Africa — 1.7 million deaths
Afghanistan — 1.5 million deaths

Now, my calculations may be wrong, but atheist nations seemed to kill a shit-load more people than Christians have...and in a much shorter period of time too (I think the tally for all of the Crusades is roughly 1.5 million). I guess those Christians, with all their reliance on imaginary friends, couldn't find the time to exterminate nearly 100 million people in less than a hundred years (and this was even with the Church being gung-ho for murder! They were told it was for God, and they still wouldn't murder on the scale that atheist leaders in the communist revolution did). Oh, and don't forget the ongoing famine and family displacement that's still a world-wide after effect of the first atheist governments...

Remove thy head from thy sphincter, and let thine wonder upon revelations.

Well put on all points, and worth quoting in full.



Just roll over and take majority opinion quietly? I think not. Remember that everything YOU say and everything YOU do has been borrowed from or inspired by someone else's ideas, someone else's activism before you. Ideas just don't spring to life on their own, and I'm quite certain that your own idealism wasn't spawned by original thought. Just simply stating aloud how "retarded" and "entirely baseless" the atheist lifestyle seems to you - is a form of activism. Every time you open your mouth or use your fingers and keyboard to push your own ideas - is a form of activism. Should we all just hunker down and put our hands over our mouths?

Ain't happenin' over here.

There's a difference between speaking opinions on a message board and being an 'activist'. In particular, I'm speaking of douche bags who have to have any reference to a god being removed from all public areas, atheist organizers (since when did 'lack' become a common fucking interest to gather over?), and general assholes who ask you if you believe in God and then barrage you with inane shit about faith being a delusion.

Saying that atheists are as big of douches as Christians is not activism. It's my opinion. Were I actively fighting either movement BECAUSE of my opinion, then I would be an activist. My apologies that you can't differentiate from discussion and planned activities. :P

You do the same thing the Christians do. You spout a bunch of bullshit, and then when you're finished, you let out the real reason you're being such a douche.

So what if evangelists are annoying? Does that mean you have to be just as fucking annoying to somehow out-retard them to be the victor?

Faith in God has not propelled a single fucking war. The war-like nature of man has propelled EVERY fucking war. In case you haven't gathered this from the useful tool of science, we're fucking animals that like to steal, rape, kill, lie, and gorge all in the name of survival. What the fuck is wrong with (or without) either trying something different with the thought of a 'god', or doing the same old fucking thing with (or without) the thought of a 'god'? Getting rid of faith won't get rid of our sick nature. YOU need to pull your head out of your ass if you think faith in a creator is the deciding factor in morality.

To paraphrase ArmsMerchant from another thread: The Bible has some truth in it, and it'd be a disservice to man to throw out the entire book.

My reasoning is that while some people will do unspeakable acts in the name of god, just as many will do unspeakable acts for no reason at all. Aside from that, people will do many good deeds for god, and for nothing. The mental framework you operate under does not necessitate any particular quality of thought, nor quantity - neither faith nor the lack thereof is a superior trait. Neither is more detrimental or beneficial than the other, so why the fuck are you here saying that your brand of bullshit is somehow more tasty than a Christian's?

(If you, for some insane reason, think your bullshit stinks less, let's look at some death stats from wars!)

We'll focus on just communism in the 20th century, nevermind all the warmongers that used religion (not faith, mind you) to pacify their nationals during times of conflict in the past.

USSR — 20 million deaths
China — 65 million deaths
Vietnam — 1 million
North Korea — 2 million deaths
Cambodia — 2 million deaths
Eastern Europe — 1 million deaths
Latin America — 150,000 deaths
Africa — 1.7 million deaths
Afghanistan — 1.5 million deaths

Now, my calculations may be wrong, but atheist nations seemed to kill a shit-load more people than Christians have...and in a much shorter period of time too (I think the tally for all of the Crusades is roughly 1.5 million). I guess those Christians, with all their reliance on imaginary friends, couldn't find the time to exterminate nearly 100 million people in less than a hundred years (and this was even with the Church being gung-ho for murder! They were told it was for God, and they still wouldn't murder on the scale that atheist leaders in the communist revolution did). Oh, and don't forget the ongoing famine and family displacement that's still a world-wide after effect of the first atheist governments...

Remove thy head from thy sphincter, and let thine wonder upon revelations.

Wow... now that was an excellent post, it should be archived.

Wow... now that was an excellent post, it should be archived.

If by "excellent" you mean "full of shit" then, sure.

So what if evangelists are annoying? Does that mean you have to be just as fucking annoying to somehow out-retard them to be the victor?

You say that as if you yourself weren't annoying...


Faith in God has not propelled a single fucking war. The war-like nature of man has propelled EVERY fucking war. In case you haven't gathered this from the useful tool of science, we're fucking animals that like to steal, rape, kill, lie, and gorge all in the name of survival. What the fuck is wrong with (or without) either trying something different with the thought of a 'god', or doing the same old fucking thing with (or without) the thought of a 'god'? Getting rid of faith won't get rid of our sick nature. YOU need to pull your head out of your ass if you think faith in a creator is the deciding factor in morality.

Bullshit. Faith in a god, coupled with what they believe are the tenets of their religion, is precisely what is propelling young Muslims to martyr themselves in the name of Allah.

That there are other reasons that may fuel such actions? Sure. That doesn't absolve religion.

My reasoning is that while some people will do unspeakable acts in the name of god, just as many will do unspeakable acts for no reason at all.All the more reason why we shouldn't add religion into the mix of possible reasons - especially when we can achieve so much without it.

Of course, that's even if we accept the ridiculous notion that people are acting just as much for "no reason", than they do for religions reasons. The reasons might be other things that are not necessarily religious in nature, like greed, jelousy, et cetera, but generally there are reasons.


Now, my calculations may be wrong,Oh, they are really fucking wrong; there's no doubt about that.

but atheist nations seemed to kill a shit-load more people than Christians have...and in a much shorter period of time too (I think the tally for all of the Crusades is roughly 1.5 million). Thanks for the strawman but nobody here is saying that they are at fault just for being religious and committing a crime. It's the fact that they did so because they were religious that is the problem.

So even if we accept those shitty figures you're providing (and they are really fucking shitty), the fact remains that those governments didn't participate in those atrocities in the name of atheism. They might have been atheists while comitting such crimes, much like they could have had msutaches or blonde hair while comitting those crimes, but they didn't do so because they are atheist or have mustaches or blonde hair.

If there are people killing themselves or other people based on their religious beleifs, then I sure as fuck want to know whether we can stop that, and whether having those religious beliefs is worth it to begin with.

Christian backgrounds? :p Atheists who leech off our Christian society, people like you, have skewed that satistic redicul.

Dear boy, you keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into the foul and pestulant pit of stupidity.

Do you mean to say that atheists are somehow less productive than theists? Is there some sort of welfare for non-Christians--if so, where do I sign up?

"Our Christian society"? What is this "our" thing--got a tapeworm? Or does the implied plural refer to the voices in your head?

If by "excellent" you mean "full of shit" then, sure.

LOL... nah, he made some good points.

Edit: having read your response (to his post) I can say that your' was equally enlightening... being that I am an agnostic I tend to see the logic of either side when it comes to these issues.

You say that as if you yourself weren't annoying...

Resorting to an ad-hom? :P

Bullshit. Faith in a god, coupled with what they believe are the tenets of their religion, is precisely what is propelling young Muslims to martyr themselves in the name of Allah.

No, it is their animal impulse overpowering their weak little mind. They sense a threat (real or imagined), and instead of organizing, negotiating, and seeking resolution; their instant fight instinct kicks in and they go do something fucking insane. Faith doesn't propel this behavior, it's their decision not to discipline themselves to better traverse the world. They become lost, desperate, afraid, confused, and explosive (pardon the pun). Not to mention there are quite a few political organizations in the middle-east that are trying to destroy their neighbors for resource control...we Westerners call these folk terrorists to give ourselves reason to intervene.

That there are other reasons that may fuel such actions? Sure. That doesn't absolve religion.

Since when was I arguing that religion hasn't done harm? I'm just saying that if you take it away, the same old shit is still going to happen. There are people that are warriors by nature; there are also psychopaths, rapists, child molesters, genocide fiends, and all varieties of people that make continuing peace in this world a fantasy of fools. Unless this world turns into some fucked up Brave New World scenario, there are always going to be assholes that press their view on you as the absolute truth, there are always going to be assholes that lie, cheat, rape, kill and steal. Their faith, or lack of faith, does not determine what they can and/or will do - nor is it the real reason. You seem to be fond of logic, reasoning, and science...so think of this: If a god is not evidenced, then we must rely on what is (that being science). If we do so, we find that the brain is our center. Imbalances and all sorts of flaws can arise. Psychotic sociopaths, in particular, are what I'm looking at, because I sincerely believe one must be a psychopath and sociopath in order to do something such as engage in genocide.

Are you really trying to say that if you get rid of religion, that psychotic sociopaths are somehow going to stop popping up? If I'm not mistaken, thoughts and beliefs you arrive at after birth don't cause your genetic predispositions to violence and other things change.

All the more reason why we shouldn't add religion into the mix of possible reasons - especially when we can achieve so much without it.

What is this wonderful utopia we would have without religion? *laughing*

Of course, that's even if we accept the ridiculous notion that people are acting just as much for "no reason", than they do for religions reasons. The reasons might be other things that are not necessarily religious in nature, like greed, jelousy, et cetera, but generally there are reasons.

Forgive my poor wording in that paragraph. I was trying to get across that the same people that kill in the name of god, were their god taken away, would still be killing in the name of nothing. They'd find some other excuse to justify their behavior because they are simply what they are: killers.

Oh, they are really fucking wrong; there's no doubt about that.

I referenced them with a few different websites, they seemed to be standard. If they are incorrect, then could you please point me to a contradictory statistic? On either communism death tolls, or the Crusades.

Thanks for the strawman but nobody here is saying that they are at fault just for being religious and committing a crime. It's the fact that they did so because they were religious that is the problem.

I'm sorry, I just don't see too many folk using their faith in a higher being to justify typical crimes. The only one I've ever seen it used for is war...definitely the most horrific of actions...but using something as a justification for your actions is nothing more than lying to yourself. These people want war, so they fabricate a reason and go to war. You give humanity too much credit over our inner animal.

So even if we accept those shitty figures you're providing (and they are really fucking shitty), the fact remains that those governments didn't participate in those atrocities in the name of atheism. They might have been atheists while comitting such crimes, much like they could have had msutaches or blonde hair while comitting those crimes, but they didn't do so because they are atheist or have mustaches or blonde hair.

No? You don't think the policy of eradicating religion was the motivating factor in their genocide against their own people and neighboring countries? They were trying to eradicate the notion of a higher power so that these individual countries' leaders would be installed as the replacement 'god figure'. When you have nothing abstract to turn to for inspiration, you're left with ruthless humans that would erase millions of lives just to give their 'utopian dream' a chance. At that point, it's bow down or die. Don't get me wrong; were these insane fucks who perpetrated communism from the Christian camp, they'd have done the exact same shit, but their justification would probably have been the eradication of atheism and competitive religions. Sick fucks are sick fucks, Rust...their justifications may change, but the reality that they've simply chosen to do evil is the remaining old man behind the curtain after all the fireworks and holograms die down.

If there are people killing themselves or other people based on their religious beleifs, then I sure as fuck want to know whether we can stop that, and whether having those religious beliefs is worth it to begin with.

And you somehow think there's a way to rid the world of religion other than mass extermination? Given the options of putting up with Christian (or any religion's) bullshit or having to kill a few billion people in the name of relaxation, I'll just let evangelists annoy me a bit...after all, if we get rid of Christianity, they'll just convert to something else and be annoying fucking pricks from that angle, too.

You do the same thing the Christians do. You spout a bunch of bullshit, and then when you're finished, you let out the real reason you're being such a douche.

So what if evangelists are annoying? Does that mean you have to be just as fucking annoying to somehow out-retard them to be the victor?

Faith in God has not propelled a single fucking war. The war-like nature of man has propelled EVERY fucking war. In case you haven't gathered this from the useful tool of science, we're fucking animals that like to steal, rape, kill, lie, and gorge all in the name of survival. What the fuck is wrong with (or without) either trying something different with the thought of a 'god', or doing the same old fucking thing with (or without) the thought of a 'god'? Getting rid of faith won't get rid of our sick nature. YOU need to pull your head out of your ass if you think faith in a creator is the deciding factor in morality.

To paraphrase ArmsMerchant from another thread: The Bible has some truth in it, and it'd be a disservice to man to throw out the entire book.

My reasoning is that while some people will do unspeakable acts in the name of god, just as many will do unspeakable acts for no reason at all. Aside from that, people will do many good deeds for god, and for nothing. The mental framework you operate under does not necessitate any particular quality of thought, nor quantity - neither faith nor the lack thereof is a superior trait. Neither is more detrimental or beneficial than the other, so why the fuck are you here saying that your brand of bullshit is somehow more tasty than a Christian's?

(If you, for some insane reason, think your bullshit stinks less, let's look at some death stats from wars!)

We'll focus on just communism in the 20th century, nevermind all the warmongers that used religion (not faith, mind you) to pacify their nationals during times of conflict in the past.

USSR — 20 million deaths
China — 65 million deaths
Vietnam — 1 million
North Korea — 2 million deaths
Cambodia — 2 million deaths
Eastern Europe — 1 million deaths
Latin America — 150,000 deaths
Africa — 1.7 million deaths
Afghanistan — 1.5 million deaths

Now, my calculations may be wrong, but atheist nations seemed to kill a shit-load more people than Christians have...and in a much shorter period of time too (I think the tally for all of the Crusades is roughly 1.5 million). I guess those Christians, with all their reliance on imaginary friends, couldn't find the time to exterminate nearly 100 million people in less than a hundred years (and this was even with the Church being gung-ho for murder! They were told it was for God, and they still wouldn't murder on the scale that atheist leaders in the communist revolution did). Oh, and don't forget the ongoing famine and family displacement that's still a world-wide after effect of the first atheist governments...

Remove thy head from thy sphincter, and let thine wonder upon revelations.

Very good post! :D I think the USSR killed more than 20,000,000 people though (when you count all the people who were starved & secretley exterminated)

Very good post! :D I think the USSR killed more than 20,000,000 people though (when you count all the people who were starved & secretley exterminated)

The figures I had were on military deaths, both targeted and collateral. The starvation and death squad numbers would put it well above 100 million deaths for the combined communist movement.

Edit: Please don't mistake my posts as a heralding or praising of religion or faith, nor as an attack specified against the lack of religious belief and faith. I am as much disdainful of faithful stagnant thought as I am of doubtful stagnant thought. When you think you know, you have lost all knowledge.

Resorting to an ad-hom? :P

No, that would imply I consider you to be a man. Oh snap!

But really, I'm not resorting to it, I'm just following your example.

"You spout a bunch of bullshit, and then when you're finished, you let out the real reason you're being such a douche."


No, it is their animal impulse overpowering their weak little mind. ....
.... And you know that how exactly? This serves as a very great example of why arguing with you is ultimately useless: You see no problem with posting unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Sorry but you simply do not know that. Third-rate psychology isn't a substitute for actual evidence. If we can base ourselves on anything, it's on what those very martyrs say was their reason; and they are almost entirely religious or political reasons. Not to mention the fact that there are other human beings which do not carry out such attacks.


Since when was I arguing that religion hasn't done harm? I'm just saying that if you take it away, the same old shit is still going to happen.Again I ask, how exactly do you know that? You don't. The only thing you can say for sure is that if religion has done harm - which it seems you admit - then if it doesn't exist, then the harm it causes (has caused) will stop (not occur in the future). That's it.


Are you really trying to say that if you get rid of religion, that psychotic sociopaths are somehow going to stop popping up?No, and you should actually start reading what I'm saying, and not saying, because there would be no need to ask such a question if you had.


What is this wonderful utopia we would have without religion? *laughing*Who the fuck said anything about an utopia?

Forgive my poor wording in that paragraph. I was trying to get across that the same people that kill in the name of god, were their god taken away, would still be killing in the name of nothing. They'd find some other excuse to justify their behavior because they are simply what they are: killers.That's a ridiculous notion as there is nothing to suggest that a fundamentalist Christian who blows up an abortion clinic because he or she believes god would want him to do that, would still blow it up if he wasn't a fundamentalist Christian who believes his god would want him to do that. In reality, we have all the reason to suspect that he wouldn't do such a thing if that were the case.


I referenced them with a few different websites, they seemed to be standard. If they are incorrect, then could you please point me to a contradictory statistic? On either communism death tolls, or the Crusades.

Care to provide those sources?

You can also ask yourself how neat and rounded those statistics are, who is actually writing those statistics, and what methodology was involved (i.e. usually disparity of projected population) to see that those figures are dubious at best.



I'm sorry, I just don't see too many folk using their faith in a higher being to justify typical crimes. The only one I've ever seen it used for is war...definitely the most horrific of actions...but using something as a justification for your actions is nothing more than lying to yourself. These people want war, so they fabricate a reason and go to war. You give humanity too much credit over our inner animal.

Please read what I wrote again, because is has nothing to do with "folk using their faith in a higher being to justify typical crimes". It has everything to do with your statistics being utterly meaningless because nobody is faulting the religious for just being religious and committing crimes (though that's definitely a very fruitful avenue given the blatant hypocrisy inherent in that), the point being made is that their religion is what propelled those actions.


No? You don't think the policy of eradicating religion was the motivating factor in their genocide against their own people and neighboring countries? No, I don't. Do you have anything to support those wild accusations? Please, by all means, go ahead and quote any of those leaders saying "We kill these people because we lack a belief in god". Go ahead.


They were trying to eradicate the notion of a higher power so that these individual countries' leaders would be installed as the replacement 'god figure'.Oh please, this is just getting pathetic. :rolleyes:

We're talking about supernatural gods, not what you desperately define to be a "god figure" to make your argument barely work.


And you somehow think there's a way to rid the world of religion other than mass extermination?.Yes, most definitely. The number of atheists in the world has been raising as of late. Are you suggesting it has been because of some mass murders? Are you suggesting that all the religions of the past that are now long lost, have been lost because of mass murder?

There's a difference between speaking opinions on a message board and being an 'activist'.

There certainly is a difference. There are those who just cry on a messageboard about the douchebaggery of others, and there are those who actually get out and create awareness to others without hiding behind a computer screen and calling people "douches" and assholes.

I'll choose the activist route, as it is far more productive.

Were I actively fighting either movement BECAUSE of my opinion, then I would be an activist.

My apologies that you associate "fighting" with activism. The activism I participate in revolves around mature discussions with the intent to create awareness - there aren't sticks thrown to break bones, so to speak. No picket lines. None of this Norma Ray-esque bullshit that makes headlines and covets media attention. Simple, mature, adult discussion and debate. Planting alternative perspectives for people to consider. That's my brand of activism.

Femme:

It's still your way of fighting, albeit non-violent. Think Ghandi, perhaps? My apologies for using a full range of definitions in my typing rather than picking my words based on what the commonly inspired definition is. You are fighting against religion, without using violence...much like you can fight against the legal system via a lawyer.

Rust:

"You spout a bunch of bullshit, and then when you're finished, you let out the real reason you're being such a douche."

I hardly claimed to be exempt from this category. My shit stinks as much as anyone's. I wasn't attacking a particular poster, I was making a general statement about humans. We let sewage flow from out mouths to dump dirt on those around us, and then we'll let out a small hint as to the reality of why we are doing what we do: we just want to make our own life a little bit more enjoyable at the expense of others.

And you know that how exactly? This serves as a very great example of why arguing with you is ultimately useless: You see no problem with posting unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Sorry but you simply do not know that. Third-rate psychology isn't a substitute for actual evidence. If we can base ourselves on anything, it's on what those very martyrs say was their reason; and they are almost entirely religious or political reasons. Not to mention the fact that there are other human beings which do not carry out such attacks.

So now we're going to trust a self-deceptive mind to accurately inform us of its motivations? The insane fuck is doing what he wants to do, simple as that. Religion is not his motive, even if it's what he's told himself in order to justify his own insanity to himself. Call it third rate psychology if you want; it's an examined and studied position based on every experience I've encountered in my life. I can guarantee you that you argue with me not to reveal truth, but solely to keep your own views justified in your mind as to help you better sleep at night.

Again I ask, how exactly do you know that? You don't. The only thing you can say for sure is that if religion has done harm - which it seems you admit - then if it doesn't exist, then the harm it causes (has caused) will stop (not occur in the future). That's it.

Because the predisposition towards violence is not curtailed or enhanced by the current justification. And don't try to make it seem as though I'm saying religion has done extensive harm by any means. It's simply a tool of justification, that if removed, will be replaced. It was once the rallying cry for war, and has since been replaced with 'national security'. The enemy isn't 'after our faith and holy sites' anymore...it's 'after our way of life'. The human mind will take a truth, and warp it into something grand and deceptive in order to let itself believe it is doing right when it is doing nothing more than taking countless lives, spewing countless lies, and controlling countless areas of life.

No, and you should actually start reading what I'm saying, and not saying, because there would be no need to ask such a question if you had.

I got the gist, I was going on a tangent to see how far your view went on the matter. My apologies for baiting rather than being straight.

Who the fuck said anything about an utopia?

I was being sarcastic; playing on a common misconception that ridding the world of faith and religion will somehow benefit man.

That's a ridiculous notion as there is nothing to suggest that a fundamentalist Christian who blows up an abortion clinic because he or she believes god would want him to do that, would still blow it up if he wasn't a fundamentalist Christian who believes his god would want him to do that. In reality, we have all the reason to suspect that he wouldn't do such a thing if that were the case.

True, it would be ridiculous to think he would blow up an abortion clinic, but it is not ridiculous to think the man is a suck fuck that doesn't find killing all that appalling; nor is it ridiculous to think this sick fuck would find other justifications for his own choice to take lives.

Care to provide those sources?

You can also ask yourself how neat and rounded those statistics are, who is actually writing those statistics, and what methodology was involved (i.e. usually disparity of projected population) to see that those figures are dubious at best.

You can quit the straw man. Their roundness is due to estimation, not their lack of proximity to the exact number.

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

My apologies on one point: Apparently the USSR figure includes some of the famine deaths. If you want me to post corroborating sources, I will, but usually Wiki suffices.

Please read what I wrote again, because is has nothing to do with "folk using their faith in a higher being to justify typical crimes". It has everything to do with your statistics being utterly meaningless because nobody is faulting the religious for just being religious and committing crimes (though that's definitely a very fruitful avenue given the blatant hypocrisy inherent in that), the point being made is that their religion is what propelled those actions.

No, it's not. People kill because they want to fucking kill. They use their religion (among millions of other reasons) as a justification to imagine a fucking enemy and exterminate it. You give people far too much credit: we lie to ourselves constantly in order to do whatever we please with as little guilt as possible.

No, I don't. Do you have anything to support those wild accusations? Please, by all means, go ahead and quote any of those leaders saying "We kill these people because we lack a belief in god". Go ahead.

Good, I'm glad you got the point I was arguing when I play devil's advocate for a second! I'm arguing against atheism and religion being even a fraction of the reason why people kill, or do anything wrong! I'm arguing that these atheist leaders, despite lacking religion, were just as fucking insane and genocidal as any religious person has ever been. Faith does not corrupt, lack of faith does not corrupt! We are already corrupt and we will use anything to justify our dissent from the ideal 'perfect humanity'.

Yes, most definitely. The number of atheists in the world has been raising as of late. Are you suggesting it has been because of some mass murders? Are you suggesting that all the religions of the past that are now long lost, have been lost because of mass murder?

No, but I'm saying that the eradication of faith cannot happen without mass murder. Beliefs can shift, but they don't disappear unless they're wiped away with swords, guns, and graves. If you can cite a single example of any two activist movements of opposing ideals in all of history that have assimilated with each other without massive loss of life, I will concede that point to you.

You can't eradicate a form of justification without creating one just as absurd and easy to manipulate: the want to kill for personal reasons is always going to exist, and the murderers will always find a motive.

I am 100% certain that if religion is decided to be obsolete and in need of removal from humanity, more people will die in that single war than all other wars EVER waged. The amount of pure self-delusion necessary to think removing an entire section of choices from the mind-set is assuredly accompanied by both psychosis and sociopathy...to think one has a clear idea of what is good for all mankind is fucking insanity. THAT is the food of genocide...not the shit excuses you shower the world with for your disgusting actions.

Awaiting your reply, Rust. I always love threads that you show up in. :D

Femme:

It's still your way of fighting, albeit non-violent.

Hex:

If you can call my activism my 'way' of fighting, albeit non-violent, then by the same measure I could call the messageboard rants you opine a 'form' of activism, albeit non-aggressive. It's all just loose banter, correct?

Hex:

If you can call my activism my 'way' of fighting, albeit non-violent, then by the same measure I could call the messageboard rants you opine a 'form' of activism, albeit non-aggressive. It's all just loose banter, correct?

For the most part; I see a differential in a religious discussion forum to be no form of activism on my part. People come here specifically for the kinds of discussions we're engaging in.

When you go out into the world trying to secure your private opinion a place of exaltation in the public eye, you seek people out in areas that they have other matters to attend to. Activism invades people's lives, tells them they are unenlightened and delusional, then after crushing the person's spirit, crafts a homonculus in its place...effectively destroying another beautiful and unique facet of humanity.

I'm not here to call another wrong - I'm keeping my opinion where it's welcome because I have no inclination to force my way on anyone else, even if I think it to be superior.

So now we're going to trust a self-deceptive mind to accurately inform us of its motivations? The insane fuck is doing what he wants to do, simple as that. Religion is not his motive, even if it's what he's told himself in order to justify his own insanity to himself. Call it third rate psychology if you want; it's an examined and studied position based on every experience I've encountered in my life. I can guarantee you that you argue with me not to reveal truth, but solely to keep your own views justified in your mind as to help you better sleep at night.

Not only do you continue to make the same unfounded claims, continue to not provide any fucking evidence to support them, but now you claim to know why I argue. Brilliant. Do you want to add anything else, because this has been immensely helpful in showing how deluded you are to all the readers here on totse. Any more help in furthering this would be much appreciated. Please, tell me more of why I do the things I do!

Your "theory" doesn't explain why these people do not engage in such acts before joining that particular religious sect, or why we don't see any of those acts in other sects. If it was just a result of the human condition the we must see it expressed the same way in all humans. Instincts and "human nature" don't magically skip members. It also doesn't explain why they would join the religion in the first place! If humans would find anything to be a justification, then surely they'd choose the path of least resistance. Religion is surely not that.


Because the predisposition towards violence is not curtailed or enhanced by the current justification.

It's not just a justification, that's the point. It's a set of beliefs the followers strive to follow. Martyrdom for Allah won't get justified by these suicide-sects if these suicide-sects don't exist.


I was being sarcastic; playing on a common misconception that ridding the world of faith and religion will somehow benefit man.

Needlessly sarcastic since I don't fall for that "common misconception", hence why I didn't say anything about an utopia.


True, it would be ridiculous to think he would blow up an abortion clinic, but it is not ridiculous to think the man is a suck fuck that doesn't find killing all that appalling; nor is it ridiculous to think this sick fuck would find other justifications for his own choice to take lives.

Actually, that's very ridiculous since he could believe that all other forms of killing are appalling except when justified by a supernatural god. Not to mention that you have no way of knowing what he will do. What we could say is that he could find other justifications. Big difference.

Also, you ignore that "his choice to take lives" was the direct result of his fundamentalist Christian beliefs in the first place!


You can quit the straw man. Their roundness is due to estimation, not their lack of proximity to the exact number.

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

My apologies on one point: Apparently the USSR figure includes some of the famine deaths. If you want me to post corroborating sources, I will, but usually Wiki suffices.


1. That's not a strawman, that's the truth: Their roundness is indicative of their inexact nature. That they are round because of estimation just proves my point! What the hell do you think an estimated number is? An inexact number. What have I been saying all along? That those numbers are inexact!

2. The very fact that these figures include deaths from famine already proves my point. Thank you. Not to mention the slew of criticism of the figures offered in that very article you provided.


No, it's not. People kill because they want to fucking kill. They use their religion (among millions of other reasons) as a justification to imagine a fucking enemy and exterminate it. You give people far too much credit: we lie to ourselves constantly in order to do whatever we please with as little guilt as possible.

Yet you are conveniently not affected by this phenomenon. You're not lying to yourself. You're magically immune to this. You're the only one who is enlightened on this human condition. Right? I'm the one who 'argues solely to keep my own views justified in my mind mind to help me better sleep at night', not you? :rolleyes:

Your position is not only completely unsubstantiated, it's self-refuting.


Good, I'm glad you got the point I was arguing when I play devil's advocate for a second! I'm arguing against atheism and religion being even a fraction of the reason why people kill, or do anything wrong!

And how does admitting that those "atheists" weren't using atheism as a justification prove that exactly? It doesn't.

We're left right back in the beginning: Religious folks following their religious beliefs to murderous results, and you baselessly claiming that they would do so without religion.


No, but I'm saying that the eradication of faith cannot happen without mass murder. Beliefs can shift, but they don't disappear unless they're wiped away with swords, guns, and graves. If you can cite a single example of any two activist movements of opposing ideals in all of history that have assimilated with each other without massive loss of life, I will concede that point to you.

The fact that atheism is on the rise coupled with the countless number of lost faiths across human history are already enough to prove my point. Unless you're suggesting that atheism is rising (and those faiths have been lost) because of mass murder, you have no point.


Awaiting your reply, Rust. I always love threads that you show up in. :D

I wish I could say the same for you but engaging in discussion with people whose only idea of evidence is their "personal experiences", rhetoric and convenient redefinitions isn't really what I find enjoying.

Not only do you continue to make the same unfounded claims, continue to not provide any fucking evidence to support them, but now you claim to know why I argue. Brilliant. Do you want to add anything else, because this has been immensely helpful in showing how deluded you are to all the readers here on totse. Any more help in furthering this would be much appreciated. Please, tell me more of why I do the things I do!

Getting defensive now, eh? Another ad-hom. If you're arguing for any other reason than the one I stated, then please enlighten me.

Your "theory" doesn't explain why these people do not engage in such acts before joining that particular religious sect, or why we don't see any of those acts in other sects. If it was just a result of the human condition the we must see it expressed the same way in all humans. Instincts and "human nature" don't magically skip members. It also doesn't explain why they would join the religion in the first place! If humans would find anything to be a justification, then surely they'd choose the path of least resistance. Religion is surely not that.

A bit from genetics: human society keeps most of its members alive. Only so many 'criminals' are caught. Many are left free and alive to breed; their dispositions for violence are then spread further through humanity.

And something on criminal psychology. The justification is created by the criminal thought, not the other way around. Faith in a creator does not create a violent person; violent people create and find ideas to propel their ability to do what they want...the results have been abhorrent all over the place: governments, schools, churches, private organizations, businesses...our machine of war is ever present, and faith is not the oil that keeps it running smoothly: it's selfishness.

It's not just a justification, that's the point. It's a set of beliefs the followers strive to follow. Martyrdom for Allah won't get justified by these suicide-sects if these suicide-sects don't exist.

The set of beliefs are adhered to because they ring true to that individual. The predisposition towards psychotic thought and behavior has to be in place before a person can go insane. Suicide groups of Islam do not create suicides; suicides create the organization; these people want to die and kill for a cause, so they create one. They would find anything to justify this behavior!

Needlessly sarcastic since I don't fall for that "common misconception", hence why I didn't say anything about an utopia.

Loosen up a bit; not saying you were. It just was something in there for any kidiots who happened to be reading the thread.

Actually, that's very ridiculous since he could believe that all other forms of killing are appalling except when justified by a supernatural god. Not to mention that you have no way of knowing what he will do. What we could say is that he could find other justifications. Big difference.

Yeah, sure that's what he believes. He believes an all merciful God that tells him to remove the mote from his eye first...but he somehow goes out and blows up a clinic and says it's God's will. Sounds like he sure was telling himself the truth!

Also, you ignore that "his choice to take lives" was the direct result of his fundamentalist Christian beliefs in the first place!

No, his fundamentalist beliefs are a direct result of his choice to take lives. He made a choice and then made his justification for it.

1. That's not a strawman, that's the truth: Their roundness is indicative of their inexact nature. That they are round because of estimation just proves my point! What the hell do you think an estimated number is? An inexact number. What have I been saying all along? That those numbers are inexact!

No, you said exactly: "Oh, they are really fucking wrong; there's no doubt about that."

Inexact and 'really fucking wrong' portray two very different things. Rounded numbers within close proximity to exact figures are actually quite fucking right. Don't try to bullshit me, Rust.

2. The very fact that these figures include deaths from famine already proves my point. Thank you. Not to mention the slew of criticism of the figures offered in that very article you provided.

Those are some of THE most conservative estimates I could find. According to http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm , Stalin and Lenin dropped almost 40 million; and it gives an estimate for communist China ranging from 32-68 million. Taking the lower estimate of 32, that's still about 70 million deaths from just two communist countries! Hitler, the biggest of the 'religious' dictators, brought the world war to a toll of about 50 million. I'm sorry, but even counting Hitler as a religious warmaker (by the way, his actual justification was conquering for land 'lebensraum' I believe it's called) leaves the atheist leaders ahead by 20 million! And that's omitting all the smaller countries that have some numbers that add up to around another 10 million.

Yet you are conveniently not affected by this phenomenon. You're not lying to yourself. You're magically immune to this. You're the only one who is enlightened on this human condition. Right? I'm the one who 'argues solely to keep my own views justified in my mind mind to help me better sleep at night', not you? :rolleyes:

I haven't claimed to be above or beyond it, and it's no phenomenon. I'm here to see if people can shed new light on topics I'm interested in - I come here with various evaluations I've come to and see how they hold up. I don't care whether or not I'm 'right', I care about the possible discussion that arises from it. That is my justification; I argue to bring new thoughts to my mind.

Your position is not only completely unsubstantiated, it's self-refuting.

Sure it is; but I've cited my stats and asked for anyone to show an example of it being otherwise.

And how does admitting that those "atheists" weren't using atheism as a justification prove that exactly? It doesn't.

Yes it does, like so: If religion is what is blocking humanity from reaching its potential, then shouldn't these criminal psycho-fuck genocide lovers have been people of faith, not atheists? Or do you understand yet that faith and lack thereof are not the catalysts of evil?

We're left right back in the beginning: Religious folks following their religious beliefs to murderous results, and you baselessly claiming that they would do so without religion.

No, it's murderous folks justifying their behavior with a religion, and with a variety of other bullshit excuses.

The fact that atheism is on the rise coupled with the countless number of lost faiths across human history are already enough to prove my point. Unless you're suggesting that atheism is rising (and those faiths have been lost) because of mass murder, you have no point.

If religion is a detrimental factor in humanity, then shouldn't rising atheism be reducing the percentile of homocides? The percentile of wars? Genocide? Get it through your head, people don't kill because 'god tells them to'. 'God tells them to' because they want to fucking kill.

I wish I could say the same for you but engaging in discussion with people whose only idea of evidence is their "personal experiences", rhetoric and convenient redefinitions isn't really what I find enjoying.

I've redefined nothing, and have spouted no rhetoric. What I've said can be found in the fields of psychology and history, and can be observed by anyone in everyday life: try to find a selfless person, and good fucking luck!

For the most part; I see a differential in a religious discussion forum to be no form of activism on my part. People come here specifically for the kinds of discussions we're engaging in.

People come here specifically to champion their beliefs, whatever their position might be.

Funny thing is, I've never had cause to be the starter of discussion outside of a religious message board when it came to practicing my 'activism'. I don't exactly wear a sandwhich board and parade up and down the street announcing THERE IS NO GOD on a bullhorn. I find my opportunities to discuss and influence perspectives when I'm approached either at professional gatherings, social gatherings or even friendly gatherings where people find it quite acceptable discussing faith or religious rituals. My perspective then has a voice, my intent being no longer benign or passive. My perspective is then activated, if you will.

In this arena, my activism may very well be all for naught, as most people don't take in earnest the opinions or perspectives of faceless strangers. That'll never cause me to lose steam, though - for the rules of internet engagement clearly state in the fine print that much like assholes, opinions are aplenty, and are going to fly regardless of who is actually subscribing to them. Why NOT market my own? It would seem lazy and unmotivated to do anything less.


When you go out into the world trying to secure your private opinion a place of exaltation in the public eye

I have to stop you right there. Don't you realize this is the very type of behaviour I OPPOSE? This is the kind of politicking I see my fellow humans perverting, through their religious faith. Denying their God and shunning their methods of faith-insertion on the public is my personal agenda. I have no desire for my private opinions to be "exalted in the public eye". I would just like the public eye to not have a concern about the morality or spiritual well-being of others, based on their own brand of faith. I would like to see spirituality become a private opinion, and not a mainstream public topic of conversation or legislation.

you seek people out in areas that they have other matters to attend to. Activism invades people's lives, tells them they are unenlightened and delusional, then after crushing the person's spirit, crafts a homonculus in its place...effectively destroying another beautiful and unique facet of humanity.

No, no no. Religion invades people's lives (through missions, ministries, outreach programs), tells them they are unholy and "on the wrong path", then after calling them sinners and demanding they recognize God else be damned for eternity ... effectively brainwashes yet another rational-thinking human being into believing that guilt, submission and believing in myths is truly the path to salvation.

I'm not here to call another wrong -

You must be in complete agreement with them then, hence why you call them douches and assholes? Curious.

You can claim neutrality for the next 15 moons, but it's pretty obvious to me which group you're going to end up in bed with at the end of the day.

Femme, I'm not attacking either group, I'm telling people what I see as the big picture, and so far nobody has shown my presented reasoning as faulty - I've been told by Rust that my argument falters, but he hasn't shown how. He called it unsubstantiated, but I cited the basis for my conclusion and it has yet been effectively disputed.

Femme, people that try to push themselves onto you, whether it be through social structure, religion, law, or any other authority, it is an attempt to print a fabrication on your mind. We selfishly act in ways that please us, and if we happen to be pleased by some sick shit, we grasp at reasons to excuse our behavior, not to others, but to ourselves. Even the good we do benefits ourselves.

Some people simply wish to kill because it makes them feel good about themselves; all killers have the ability - through discipline, however, some become professionals after finding there is a market for their skill in military and security. Others become religious leaders, others government officials, others random fucking weirdos across the world. People are not born blank slates - some of us are born less empathetic than others, and thousands of other traits that pop up later in life.

I'm not saying that all people are potentially killers, but killers run in all walks of life.

People come here specifically to champion their beliefs, whatever their position might be.



Not all people, but probably most. Personally, I mainly like to see other people's thoughts on certain things and from time to time I might interject something of my own that I think others might want to ponder.

I do hate the personal nit-picking at people that goes on here.

Femme, I'm not attacking either group, I'm telling people what I see as the big picture

Your portrayal of the big picture shows (however unwittingly on your part) the group you sympathize with the most. Clearly, you attempted to remain neutral while ending a few posts with a disclaimer about not picking sides, but you were, in effect, attacking the concept of active atheism, while showing support for those poor Christians who you feel are not only incapable of killing in the name of their God, but are also suffering as a result of outspoken atheism, going so far as to call a secular agenda as "invading people's lives".

You seem to exalt religion as "another beautiful and unique facet of humanity", while asserting that outspoken atheism "crushes a person's spirit, destroying them" ...

Meanwhile, you do attack the concept of outspoken atheism. You call them delusional cowards. Douches. Assholes. You call one of their main spokespersons a "moron". You seem to project the religious lifestyle as an acceptable, harmless tradition, while beating down a secular lifestyle as some far-out, unattainable Utopia.


Not all people, but probably most. Personally, I mainly like to see other people's thoughts on certain things and from time to time I might interject something of my own that I think others might want to ponder.

Fair enough, not all people. But definitely most. From what I've read of your posts, you do seem to fall into the category of being non-confrontational and neutral towards the strong opinions on both sides. But hey - you're a diamond in the rough.

Come to think of it, I can't recall being able to ascertain anything on here regarding your personal beliefs, except that you're a well-spoken, articulate female who is mad about mr. ketch. ;)

But hey - you're a diamond in the rough.



A "diamond in the rough", eh? I would have said an "antique writing desk", myself. :)


On topic though, I do find it strange when atheists use some of the conversion (or rather deconversion) methods that some Christian's use.

But, people are people.

I sometimes visit a website geared toward people who have deconverted from Christianity. I find it interesting to read.

Getting defensive now, eh? Another ad-hom. If you're arguing for any other reason than the one I stated, then please enlighten me.

If "ad-homs" are a sign of "getting defensive", then what the fuck does that make you? Must I remind you that your previous posts have been riddled with little else?

Sorry but if I use an ad-hominem attack, it's not because I'm getting defensive but because I'm getting tired of your bullshit.


A bit from genetics: human society keeps most of its members alive...

And something on criminal psychology. The justification is created by the criminal thought, not the other way around.Again, none of that third-rate psychology of yours explains any of the problems I've outlined.


The set of beliefs are adhered to because they ring true to that individual. The predisposition towards psychotic thought and behavior has to be in place before a person can go insane. Suicide groups of Islam do not create suicides; suicides create the organization; these people want to die and kill for a cause, so they create one. They would find anything to justify this behavior!Yet you've still have not explained why everything we find shows that is not the case! If these people were hell bent on finding an excuse to commit suicide over, then why would they chose religion as their justification? If they would choose anything as their justification, as you continue to claim, then why religion? Either your inane theory is completely wrong, or it's true and we're still left with religion proving to be a very special sort of justification that - for a reason you have yet to explain - attracts all sort of sordid people.


Yeah, sure that's what he believes. He believes an all merciful God that tells him to remove the mote from his eye first...but he somehow goes out and blows up a clinic and says it's God's will. Sounds like he sure was telling himself the truth!If you think the god of the Christian bible is an all merciful god, then you must be reading the kiddy-edition.

If there's anything evident in the bible, it's that god is willing to massacre scores of people for whatever cause he deems just. A reassuring position to a fundamentalist Christian who objects to abortion so much that he is willing kill for what he thinks is a god-given cause.


No, his fundamentalist beliefs are a direct result of his choice to take lives. He made a choice and then made his justification for it.Right. He woke up one day wanting to kill abortionists and then decided to join a religion that opposes abortion, practiced that religion for decades, just to kill people. :rolleyes:


No, you said exactly: "Oh, they are really fucking wrong; there's no doubt about that."

Inexact and 'really fucking wrong' portray two very different things. Rounded numbers within close proximity to exact figures are actually quite fucking right. Don't try to bullshit me, Rust.I'm not bullshitting anyone. The whole fucking point it's that you've yet to prove that they are "within close proximity to exact figures"! Get it?
Providing a book that has been discredited by numerous historians and that you yourself admit includes figures from other sources that are not "atheist wars", does everything but show that they are withing close proximity to exact figures.


Those are some of THE most conservative estimates I could find.So? Your idea of proof is taking two ridiculous figures and picking the lowest one? Is that suppose to prove your point?


I haven't claimed to be above or beyond it, and it's no phenomenon. I'm here to see if people can shed new light on topics I'm interested in - I come here with various evaluations I've come to and see how they hold up. I don't care whether or not I'm 'right', I care about the possible discussion that arises from it. That is my justification; I argue to bring new thoughts to my mind.
Bullshit. Saying you know for a fact why I argue, and that you are "100% certain" of your beliefs is not indicative of that at all. That would be the perfect example of what you so ignorantly accused me of doing: arguing with me not to reveal truth, but solely to keep your own views justified in your mind as to help you better sleep at night.


Sure it is; but I've cited my stats and asked for anyone to show an example of it being otherwise.You've "cited" nothing of the sort. The only thing you've "cited" is a book for figures that are incorrect, and that are ultimately meaningless since they do nothing to prove your initial point (i.e. that those atheists, if we assume the figures are correct, committed those atrocities in the name of atheism).


Yes it does, like so: If religion is what is blocking humanity from reaching its potential, then shouldn't these criminal psycho-fuck genocide lovers have been people of faith, not atheists? Or do you understand yet that faith and lack thereof are not the catalysts of evil?Again, as I already explained to you, that's a strawman. That would only follow if we were claiming that all "psycho-fuck genocide lovers" have to be religious. Nobody has claimed that at all. That's you putting words in our mouths. The fact that there have been "psycho-fuck genocide lovers" which are not religious does not refute our point.


If religion is a detrimental factor in humanity, then shouldn't rising atheism be reducing the percentile of homocides? The percentile of wars? Genocide? 1. No, not necessarily. It could very well be that the religious are increasing their contribution to those figures, or that there other explanations for that phenomenon. So no, it is certainly not absolutely necessary that global percentage of homicides or wars be reduced.

2. We do in fact see a correlation between the religious level of a country, and the violence and general social-health of that country! The higher the level of religiosity, the higher level of violence and low level of social-health.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

This may not be absolute proof, but it definitely goes against your "theory".


I've redefined nothing, and have spouted no rhetoric. What I've said can be found in the fields of psychology and history, and can be observed by anyone in everyday life: try to find a selfless person, and good fucking luck!You have spouted nothing but rhetoric, in fact, you've done so right there! Why would I need to find a selfless person? How does doing so prove your ludicrous theories or not doing so refute what I've said? It does not! That's pure, unadulterated rhetoric that has little to do with what is being argued.

Your portrayal of the big picture shows (however unwittingly on your part) the group you sympathize with the most. Clearly, you attempted to remain neutral while ending a few posts with a disclaimer about not picking sides, but you were, in effect, attacking the concept of active atheism, while showing support for those poor Christians who you feel are not only incapable of killing in the name of their God, but are also suffering as a result of outspoken atheism, going so far as to call a secular agenda as "invading people's lives".

Actually, I'm only focusing on atheist activists a bit beyond other brands of activism because this thread started off targeting atheist activism. I'm just keeping on topic. And to quote myself to correct your view that I'm only calling outspoken atheism the 'invading people's lives':

"Atheist activism is just as fucking annoying as any other kind of activism. If you want to make a difference in the world, do it the realistic way: BE WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT. If you think a life with God is the right way...well then, live with God in your life. If you think a life without God is the right way, then live without God."

I'm not trying to snipe atheism and leave the rest of activism alone. People trying to push their views on me in an attempt to control me, either through limiting my spiritual or physical being, be it through religion, secular factions, or otherwise, PISS ME OFF. I don't like Richard Dawkins because he is actively out there trying to show the world how 'right' he is. He's just another fuckwit human like myself trying to gain credibility to put his weak little mind at ease at the end of the night, thinking he's made a difference. It's the same shit that propels EVERY fucking action ever taken. We want to feel good about our self, and the methods we each are predisposed to engage in to achieve this inner bliss varies from person to person.

You seem to exalt religion as "another beautiful and unique facet of humanity", while asserting that outspoken atheism "crushes a person's spirit, destroying them" ...

Ahaha, I wasn't talking about religion. I was talking about the individual very humanity. The very parts of their existence that have been since birth and continue to exist no matter how confined. They continue to exist no matter how contrary the individual has been told 'right' and 'good' is. I exalt nature: I despise religion as much as atheism.

Meanwhile, you do attack the concept of outspoken atheism. You call them delusional cowards. Douches. Assholes. You call one of their main spokespersons a "moron". You seem to project the religious lifestyle as an acceptable, harmless tradition, while beating down a secular lifestyle as some far-out, unattainable Utopia.

These are the labels I call any outspoken activists. Falwell, Robertson, Bill Maher, and thousands of others. I despise activism. If someone wants to make a place for their views, I find the best way is to simply live by the views. Now, I have the option of going out into the world and preaching this to people as if it's somehow glory on highest...but I don't, because I couldn't live with myself knowing I had to betray my very being (that being my birth-to-death affinity for natural humanity) in order to propagate my way. I'd rather live as I feel is right, die, and have it lost to the world if I happen to be the only one. (doubtful of that, though) The only way I can envision myself ever shouting to the world my views on this were if I was the last man alive to have accepted no activism as true - at that point, it'd be either speak my view or let human nature forever be caged by 'activism' (a neat little word for brainwashing, so far as I see it).

On tangent:
You're still getting me wrong, Femme. I don't think religion or atheism makes any up or down difference. Both ideas could be completely stricken from all existence, and people would still push themselves on you to satisfy their need for validation, people would still kill in the name of anything to satisfy their bloodlust, people would still do every single fucking thing they're doing right now, good and bad...all that would change are the excuses they present to the world.

One last thing, I sympathize with neither group. The individual members of the both groups, I sympathize and empathize with all of them. But I personally disdain to the extreme any attempts to explain objects of faith; whether the explanation be that it is delusion, or that it is worthy of worship and submission to man-made laws in the name of a said object of faith.

Optional reading!
I'm not an atheist, but I am certainly not religious; and I am certainly not sympathetic to either train of thought. My belief is simply that a self-contradicting abstract is necessary for existence to be - I don't worship the abstract as I can't define it, I don't pretend to be able to define it, and I don't base my moral judgments on it. If that somehow makes me sympathetic to religion, well shit, I've lost my way.

If "ad-homs" are a sign of "getting defensive", then what the fuck does that make you? Must I remind you that your previous posts have been riddled with little else?

I haven't used a single insult as an attempt to weaken an argument. The only people I've called names in this thread are third parties not in this argument...Richard Dawkins and the general community of activists.

Sorry but if I use an ad-hominem attack, it's not because I'm getting defensive but because I'm getting tired of your bullshit.

It is being defensive when you've yet to show any examples of my figures being incredible, or any example of my psychological reasoning being incredible. You accuse me of spouting rhetoric, but your only attack on my psychology so far is that it is 'third-rate'. May I ask how? You've shown nothing to provide a counter to my proposed 'hypothesis' (I'll use that for now since you apparently don't accept basic psychological theory as true), stating that first comes the impulse from the inner brain (id, as it's often called), which is then filtered through the ego and superego to make it acceptable to the self. This filtering is known as 'justification'.

Again, none of that third-rate psychology of yours explains any of the problems I've outlined.

You haven't outlined any real problems. You've said I spouted rhetoric, you said my numbers were 'too round' and 'very wrong' (which they weren't...check second site, and go ahead and go through itemizing the numbers one by one if you wish - communist wars killed nearly 100 million, if not more, religious wars, and this is loosely including Hitler [despite his justifications being racism and land acquisition], numbers about 70 million)

Yet you've still have not explained why everything we find shows that is not the case! If these people were hell bent on finding an excuse to commit suicide over, then why would they chose religion as their justification? If they would choose anything as their justification, as you continue to claim, then why religion? Either your inane theory is completely wrong, or it's true and we're still left with religion proving to be a very special sort of justification that - for a reason you have yet to explain - attracts all sort of sordid people.

Religion is their justification because it is the most accessible tool available. It is the most widely accepted, widely ported, and widely corruptible tool in the Middle East to justify an act of violence with. Rid the Middle East of religion, and you will find these suicides killing themselves for a different reason...essentially, whichever replaced their religion (most likely in this particular case, racial conflict).

If you think the god of the Christian bible is an all merciful god, then you must be reading the kiddy-edition.

Well, according to most non-fundamentalist forms of Christianity (ya know, the version propagated by those who aren't looking to kill people, subjugate minorities, etc.), the guidance is Christ's life, not the book of Leviticus. Damnit Rust, Christianity has split into so many different sects because there is too great a variety of people trying to justify their life through it. Take it away, and they'll move to another system of justification.

If there's anything evident in the bible, it's that god is willing to massacre scores of people for whatever cause he deems just. A reassuring position to a fundamentalist Christian who objects to abortion so much that he is willing kill for what he thinks is a god-given cause.

Yadda yadda yadda; please explain the hundreds of millions of followers who are entirely against all forms of murder, rape, genocide, etc.? Is their faith just to weak? Or perhaps have they sat firm in a version of the faith that justifies their beliefs, while the more radical nutfucks sit firm in a version that justifies theirs?

Right. He woke up one day wanting to kill abortionists and then decided to join a religion that opposes abortion, practiced that religion for decades, just to kill people. :rolleyes:

No, he's wanted to kill for a cause his entire life. It just so happens he had to find one he could justify in his own mind. Turns out that if he tells himself abortion is murder, he can justify to himself the murder of people who perform and assist abortion. God doesn't even enter into it - faith and lack thereof does not affect morality.

I'm not bullshitting anyone. The whole fucking point it's that you've yet to prove that they are "within close proximity to exact figures"! Get it?
Providing a book that has been discredited by numerous historians and that you yourself admit includes figures from other sources that are not "atheist wars", does everything but show that they are withing close proximity to exact figures.

I cited another source that uses recurring statistics; numbers found to be repeated through several different accountings of death tolls per war. If I'm not mistaken, repeatability is what separates a hypothetical guess from a solidified theory. Many different people have attempted to find the exact figures; many different people have all come within close proximity of all the others who did their research as well. My numbers are not flawed; if you would check the second source I posted, you'll see that the fully credited figures are even HIGHER than the 'Black Book of Communism' figures.

So? Your idea of proof is taking two ridiculous figures and picking the lowest one? Is that suppose to prove your point?

No, my idea of proof is finding a credible number, and if the incredible one, being less an example than the credible one, I'll still use it to give the object of my attack a chance. It's called 'benefit of the doubt'. I used the smaller numbers to see if it made a difference. It didn't. Atheist leaders have killed millions upon millions more than religious leaders.

Bullshit. Saying you know for a fact why I argue, and that you are "100% certain" of your beliefs is not indicative of that at all. That would be the perfect example of what you so ignorantly accused me of doing: arguing with me not to reveal truth, but solely to keep your own views justified in your mind as to help you better sleep at night.

Rust, the only reason I argue with you in particular is because you present some of the best counters I've ever come across. This has nothing to do with proving myself right. Honestly, I've expected some coups de gras from you that blows this whole fucking argument away, but I haven't.

You've "cited" nothing of the sort. The only thing you've "cited" is a book for figures that are incorrect, and that are ultimately meaningless since they do nothing to prove your initial point (i.e. that those atheists, if we assume the figures are correct, committed those atrocities in the name of atheism).

Check my other source. And that was not my initial point; my point was that without religion, people still find justification for what they want to do. Religion does not create psychopaths; psychopaths use religion, and anything else, to excuse their behavior.

Again, as I already explained to you, that's a strawman. That would only follow if we were claiming that all "psycho-fuck genocide lovers" have to be religious. Nobody has claimed that at all. That's you putting words in our mouths. The fact that there have been "psycho-fuck genocide lovers" which are not religious does not refute our point.

Rust, if religion and atheism both allow someone to find a justification for genocide, then I think it's safe to assume that one's faith in a higher power is not the deciding factor as to how fucking homicidal a person is.

1. No, not necessarily. It could very well be that the religious are increasing their contribution to those figures, or that there other explanations for that phenomenon. So no, it is certainly not absolutely necessary that global percentage of homicides or wars be reduced.

Yes, it could be that. But can you find figures that contradict mine? As it appears, the religious folk are killing less and less as of late. My understanding for this is that newer systems are being popularized, and the murderous mindset is migrating into them.

2. We do in fact see a correlation between the religious level of a country, and the violence and general social-health of that country! The higher the level of religiosity, the higher level of violence and low level of social-health.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Your site fails to take into account social factors such as gun restrictions, jailing rates, and such. Better criminal control doesn't equate to fewer criminals. This may not be absolute refutation, but I think the study is incomplete.

You have spouted nothing but rhetoric, in fact, you've done so right there! Why would I need to find a selfless person? How does doing so prove your ludicrous theories or not doing so refute what I've said? It does not! That's pure, unadulterated rhetoric that has little to do with what is being argued.

A selfless person is the only thing that would prove me wrong: a person, whom instead of acting on their own benefit of self-satisfaction prior to any other cause, is acting for the sole and genuine benefit of something 'higher' than self. Nobody does a damned thing that doesn't satisfy their instinct first. The modus operandi is an attempt to justify our selfishness.

Hex:

What constitutes activism for you? You seem to loathe the idea of individuals creating awareness about causes that directly affect them. You seem to despise the idea of people speaking their minds and attempting to make a difference concerning his or her cause. You assert that if someone wants to make a place of their views, to simply live by them - and all will be right within the world. That just isn't so. Activists are idea-propagators, definitely. They use communication as the means to educate other people. Dawkins, Falwell and Maher are communicators, propagating ideas by using their popularity and/or intellectual clout to push forth their agendas.

Am I to believe that you loathe and despise all great motivators that have shaped our history into what it is today? Do all people with a "vision" deserve to be called douchebag asshole activists if they dare share their points of view with others? I find it difficult to believe that aside from Totse, you have humbled yourself to the point of taking "live and let live" to the extreme, never espousing your disdain/support of select views that you hold dear to you that you. And I find it even more impossible to believe that the loose (non-violent) activism of others hasn't influenced or shaped your ideals into what they are today.

Reading your posts here concerning the utmost and complete unbias you hold towards religion/atheism, it was difficult to ascertain who you were really trying to convince more of your neutrality - me, or yourself.

If by chance it appears as though I've furthered my already gross misunderstanding of you, I have to beg forgiveness on the grounds that your posts here did seem to lean a little heavy on the side of religious sympathizing on your part. First, by defending the claim that religion has never been a direct cause of violence, and secondly by asserting that only a completely selfless person (which would be impossible to present/prove) is the only thing to prove you wrong ... regardless of how irrelevant it may seem to those debating you.

What constitutes activism for you? You seem to loathe the idea of individuals creating awareness about causes that directly affect them. You seem to despise the idea of people speaking their minds and attempting to make a difference concerning his or her cause. You assert that if someone wants to make a place of their views, to simply live by them - and all will be right within the world. That just isn't so. Activists are idea-propagators, definitely. They use communication as the means to educate other people. Dawkins, Falwell and Maher are communicators, propagating ideas by using their popularity and/or intellectual clout to push forth their agendas.

It's not the very action of speaking one's mind that bothers me. It's the intention that is often behind it. If a Christian came out and said, "I believe Christ to be the Son of God," they are simply speaking their mind. If they come out and say, instead, "Believe on Christ and obey these rules or you will be damned," then they are rendering another's mind inferior in their judgment and trying to convert that person away from who they are to validate their own belief. Not all people get their high from pushing their bullshit down people's throats, however, so I'm not against the individual ability and right to believe anything, no matter how illogical and potentially insane.

Am I to believe that you loathe and despise all great motivators that have shaped our history into what it is today? Do all people with a "vision" deserve to be called douchebag asshole activists if they dare share their points of view with others? I find it difficult to believe that aside from Totse, you have humbled yourself to the point of taking "live and let live" to the extreme, never espousing your disdain/support of select views that you hold dear to you that you. And I find it even more impossible to believe that the loose (non-violent) activism of others hasn't influenced or shaped your ideals into what they are today.

Not everyone brings their vision to life by converting people to their way of thought. Did Michael Jordan fail to motivate just because he wasn't out everyday telling people how to live? Hell no! He simply lived a life that many people found to be extraordinary. He didn't need to push any of his bullshit because he focused on personal excellence. It was left then to the world to decide whether or not they wanted to even let MJ influence them, let alone if they had to listen to a damned word he ever spoke.

I have been influenced, of course. I've seen ways to live that do nothing well for individual or society; I've seen ways to live that benefit one or the other; and I've seen a way to live that benefits both: focus on personal excellence. I don't need to push a damned thing on anyone...if I succeed in my own measures, people can choose, on their own, whether or not to expose themselves to who I am.

Reading your posts here concerning the utmost and complete unbias you hold towards religion/atheism, it was difficult to ascertain who you were really trying to convince more of your neutrality - me, or yourself.

I don't claim freedom from bias. Neither makes a difference in morality, but personally, I think humanity does a disservice to itself by locking its frame of mind into either. I don't go around telling people 'my way is better'...I do think it is so, but that's why *I* live my way. If it works for me, and people decide they want to emulate it because their goals are similar to my successes, they are welcome to.

If by chance it appears as though I've furthered my already gross misunderstanding of you, I have to beg forgiveness on the grounds that your posts here did seem to lean a little heavy on the side of religious sympathizing on your part. First, by defending the claim that religion has never been a direct cause of violence, and secondly by asserting that only a completely selfless person (which would be impossible to present/prove) is the only thing to prove you wrong ... regardless of how irrelevant it may seem to those debating you.

'tis all okay. I try to make it pretty well known that I'm a bit of a head-trip. I can use pretty obscure definitions of words, pretty obscure words, and I present my arguments in a way that usually requires two or three reads to figure out my premises and my conclusions. Another weird trait I seem to have is that my argument is never complete in a single post. I begin with a posit, then as discussion comes about I present past reasonings I've come to that have led to the current position I hold. By next year, I assure you my opinions will have changed, but they will be firmly based around past opinions that have held true, but were found to be incomplete.

I guess with the whole religion and atheism thing...I think both of them are incredibly stupid, but I also see that both of them, in and of themselves, are entirely harmless. It takes a special kind of person to do something sick and demented...and special people can be found anywhere - in churches or at Bible burnings. :D

This shit is saying my response is too long, and quite frankly I'm getting tired of your bullshit, so I'll response to you on a point by point basis:

1. "You spout a bunch of bullshit, and then when you're finished, you let out the real reason you're being such a douche."

If you can back-peddle and say that you were just talking about the "human condition" and not a specific person, then allow me to join you:

I wasn't calling you an annoying cunt, or saying that you were a moron who has deluded himself into believing he knows more about why I argue than I do... I was just talking about the general human condition. How stupid of you (human condition still!) to believe those were ad-hominem attacks on my part.

2. On the validity of death figures:

a. Again are they estimations? Yes they are. This means that, by definition, they contain error. What makes them "very fucking wrong" is that coupled with the fact that they include deaths not caused by atheist wars, as you have been forced to admit!

b. Not only do they include famines, they also generally include civil wars and revolutions. Civil Wars and revolutions can hardly be blamed just on the winning party. The blame - I would say the at least the majority of it - should fall on the cruel rulers of those countries that necessitated such revolts in the first place - like the "god-appointed", Church supported, Tsars of Russia...

c. The figures don't agree with close proximity in the least. If we can take anything from your own source is that the figures vary wildly.

d. You forget to analyze the methodology of arriving at such figures. Collecting actual corpses is impossible, hence they must use other methods of arriving at those figures, methods that are often unreliable.


3. On your "psychology":

I've done much more than just call it "third-rate"; your deliberate misrepresentation isn't going to change this. I've repeatedly asked you to explain a whole slew of inconsistencies with your "theory" and you've explained none of them. Not to mention that you've provided no credible evidence supporting what you're saying. Claiming it's psychology doesn't make it so; nor does talking about Fred's division of the human psyche as if it suddenly supported what you're saying.

4. On using religion as a justification:

a. If you admit that they would and could use ANYTHING to justify what you say (yet have not even come close to proving) is an innate desire to kill, then religion is most definitely not the most available, There are a near infinite amount of other justifications, ones that do not require those who hold them to participate in the religions for decades before actually carrying out what you say are there innate desires.

b. I'm not saying that there is only one absolute interpretation of Christianity, I understand quite well that there are a multitude of different ones. The fact remains however, that if a fundamentalist Christan - who believes murder is wrong except when called for by a supernatural creator - believes blowing up an abortion clinic is called for by a supernatural creator, then he's going to blow it up. To say that he would without that supernatural calling, is ridiculous.

c. Assuming that just because "religion and atheism both allow someone to find a justification for genocide", that it is safe to "assume that one's faith in a higher power is not the deciding factor as to how fucking homicidal a person is" is is unreasonable and illogical. That is a non-sequitur. Both a spoon and a nuclear bomb can be used to kill. Does that mean they are just as deadly or just as dangerous? No. Similarly, just because one can be a psychopath without being religious does not mean that being religious and not being religious are equal in how homicidal a person can be.

Nobody is saying that only the religious commit crimes. We're saying that religion serves as a very special form of justification. It's a tool; it can be used for good, or for bad. Just like an anthrax-covered hammer is a tool - a really fucking dangerous and inefficient tool.

5. On the study I provided:

a. They considered general homicides, not just those committed with guns. Hence, gun control would only be relevant if you are saying that the people who are looking to kill since the moment they are born (according to you) are incapable of justifying killing with a knife... Is that what you're saying?

Moreover, there are countries with high gun control and religiosity while still having a higher level of homicides than other more secular countries with equal or less gun control. Britain serves as a good example.

b. If the religious countries have less "criminal control", then that's a point in my favor - a point against the religious, who are more often that not, those who actually have more means to put that "criminal control" in place. The United States serves as a perfect example.

c. There are other statistics that collaborate this, like for example the number of atheists in jail compared to the number of theists.

---

If you want me to reply to something specific, then say so, but like I said, I'm getting tired of your continuous rhetoric. You keep making claim after claim without anything to support them. For example, you claim that these people have the desire to kill since they are born... yet you provide absolutely nothing to show this.

I'm sorry, I'll get to a real reply later, but I have to quote this one paragraph and respond this very instance.

Nobody is saying that only the religious commit crimes. We're saying that religion serves as a very special form of justification. It's a tool; it can be used for good, or for bad. Just like an anthrax-covered hammer is a tool - a really fucking dangerous and inefficient tool.

El. Oh. MOTHERFUCKING El. That shit seriously almost knocked me out of my chair. Awesome imagery. *thumbs up*

If you can back-peddle and say that you were just talking about the "human condition" and not a specific person, then allow me to join you:

I wasn't calling you an annoying cunt...

Except your ad-hom attacks were in posts specifically directed towards me and my arguments. I was using 'you' in the generalized sense that leads to a formerly comical situation for blaxploitation: "You people? What do you mean, you people?"

a. Again are they estimations? Yes they are. This means that, by definition, they contain error. What...

The figures that *I* tallied up were from specific reigns. Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, etc. The second citation I provided holds information on a whole slew of wars from a variety of reigns, but I made certain not to include the non-communist reigns in any calculations.

b. Not only do they include famines, they also generally include civil wars and revolutions. Civil Wars and revolutions can hardly be blamed just on the winning party. The blame - I would say...

Figures for the Crusades and other religious wars also include famine deaths and civil unrest...which can also hardly be blamed on just the winning party.

c. The figures don't agree with close proximity in the least. If we can take anything from your own source is that the figures vary wildly.

No, they really don't. The second source provides all of its sources, and then the average of its individual sources (excepting the case of red China, where the range varies widely from mid 30 to above 60 million people).

d. You forget to analyze the methodology of arriving at such figures. Collecting actual corpses is impossible, hence they must use other methods of arriving at those figures, methods that are often unreliable.

I know the methodology isn't perfect, but neither are the figures on any religious wars. My hope is that the various methods used in either case are accurate enough for the figures in both cases to be at least capable of conveying the truth.

I've done much more than just call it "third-rate"; your deliberate misrepresentation isn't going to change this. I've repeatedly asked you to explain a whole slew of inconsistencies with your "theory"...

I have explained apparent inconsistencies. Just because I don't have a psychology textbook aside me to quote and cite doesn't discredit any information I've presented here. You can find anything on the web...I'm sure psychology texts are no exception. And I'm not just using Freud (I like to call him Fraud...he was just simply a motherfucker! ;)), I'm using the similar aspect of various psychological theories (as they are the recurring and proven traits of the psyche) to base my conclusion off of.

a. If you admit that they would and could use ANYTHING to justify what you say (yet have not even come close to proving) is an innate desire to kill, then religion is most definitely not the most available, There are a near infinite amount of other justifications, ones that do not require those who hold them to participate in the religions for decades before actually carrying out what you say are there innate desires.

In the case of the Middle East, religion is DEFINITELY the most available. It currently has a monopoly on the fanaticism in the Middle East. During Saddam's secular reign, it shared the power hold on fanaticism with political sources. When/if Islam dies, the fanaticism is still going to be there...it will find another avenue to travel.

b. I'm not saying that there is only one absolute interpretation of Christianity, I understand quite well that there are a multitude of different ones. The fact remains however, that if a fundamentalist Christan - who believes murder is wrong except when called for by a supernatural creator - believes blowing up an abortion clinic is called for by a supernatural creator, then he's going to blow it up. To say that he would without that supernatural calling, is ridiculous.

The nutcase CREATES a supernatural calling to justify his want to kill. He may believe murder is wrong, but his want to kill is stronger, so he creates a justification in the form of his religiosity to excuse a murder. This is pure and simple sociopath reasoning to justify impulse.

c. Assuming that just because "religion and atheism both allow someone to find a justification for genocide", that it is safe to "assume that one's faith in a higher power is not the deciding factor as to how fucking homicidal a person is" is is unreasonable and illogical. That is a non-sequitur. Both a spoon and a nuclear bomb can be used to kill. Does that mean they are just as deadly or just as dangerous? No. Similarly, just because one can be a psychopath without being religious does not mean that being religious and not being religious are equal in how homicidal a person can be.

The justification for a murder is separate from the weapon of choice. A spoon could only be used for personal and savage murders. A nuclear weapon could only be used for impersonal genocide. Religion and atheism, in the form of justifications, can be warped for the purpose of killing a single person or for killing entire nations - the justification comes after the action has already been decided.

Nobody is saying that only the religious commit crimes. We're saying that religion serves as a very special form of justification. It's a tool; it can be used for good, or for bad. Just like an anthrax-covered hammer is a tool - a really fucking dangerous and inefficient tool.

And I'm saying that removing a single tool, or the entire tool box, will not stop man from creating new ones. Ridding the world of religion, or atheism, or any other ideal or system that has ever been used to justify a murder, rape, or any other wrong will do absolutely NOTHING to stop murder, rape, or other wrongs.

a. They considered general homicides, not just those committed with guns. Hence, gun control would only be relevant if you are saying that the people who are looking to kill since the moment they are born (according to you) are incapable of justifying killing with a knife... Is that what you're saying?

Only a small example, my apologies. There are a variety of ways that increase pacification. Drug use, sexual gratification, secure supply chains, increased policing and jailing, and many more. I'm saying that most of the countries that are growing more passive are not doing so because of atheism, it's because of general contentment. If your hunger, thirst, lust, and greed are all satisfied, you're not too likely to be pissed off enough at anything to go kill a person even if you have the compulsion to do so. Possible, yes, but not likely.

This ideal is used in drug rehab quite often. The patients all want their fix, but they're fed sweets, coffee, and cigarettes to help pacify their craving for a drug.

Moreover, there are countries with high gun control and religiosity while still having a higher level of homicides than other more secular countries with equal or less gun control. Britain serves as a good example.

I'll just concede this point as I don't know what the fuck to say about Britain. They have tons of drugs, tons of hookers, gun control, some damned fine imported food, plenty of alcohol...I think they're just some violent motherfuckers? I just don't know, though.

b. If the religious countries have less "criminal control", then that's a point in my favor - a point against the religious, who are more often that not, those who actually have more means to put that "criminal control" in place. The United States serves as a perfect example.

I'm not saying religious countries have less criminal control; I'm saying first world countries have more extensive criminal control than third-world (essentially, further reaching policing), even though third and second world countries typically have stricter law and enforcement.

c. There are other statistics that collaborate this, like for example the number of atheists in jail compared to the number of theists.

The only statistic I could find on that was the 1995 Jail Population census. The latest information, from 2005, doesn't contain religious preferences. But the ACTUAL 1995 DOJ census completely shows that lie you espoused to be total bullshit:

According to the DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics (National Census of the Jail Population 12/31/95), while 72% affirmed affiliation with religious institutions (determined through answers to the question on "Religious Background" on the Penal entrance form) only 54% of Federal and State Prisoners actually consider themselves religious, and 33% can be confirmed to be practicing their religion.

---

If you want me to reply to...

It's simple genetics, Rust. Our inner brain is determined by our genetics, as is every other part of our body. The inner brain contains ALL impulse control. If the idea of killing loads your head with GABA, you're going to be a killer one way or another. The difference is your modus operandi. Some become soldiers, some become veterinarians who get to put animals down, others become serial killers, some abortion clinic bombers, some may even craft complex enemies, paranoias, and a variety of other shit in their outer brain to carry out their impulse. Their justification doesn't change that they're just getting themselves high by killing someone.

Getting rid of religion is getting rid of a single construct that can be used for wrong. It won't change shit. People kill, people lie, people cheat, steal, hate, rape, use drugs, and all sorts of other shit. They do it because it feels fucking good to them...the lies they tell themselves don't change the truth that they're just getting their fix.

They always pick on nice, friendly, forgiving Christians.

You don't see anyone making videos saying Allah was made up or publishing "The Buddha Delusion".

Instead of picking on someone who will chop your head off or someone who publishes all those new-age meditation books you guys read (by the way those are religious) you pick on nice, friendly, forgiving people.

Last of all, I would encourage you to actually read the Bible before you make statements like "God is always smiting people" or "God sends people to hell for being irrational?".

You must not get out much, do you? That, or you listen to the only thing your church is telling you. There are no books that I am aware of criticizing solely Christianity. They criticize Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and anything else you could think of.
Yes, Buddhism doesn't get criticized, you're right, but if you've read anything about Buddhism or know its basic principles, there is no higher power. Buddhism focuses mainly on meditation and peace, and if that even relieves stress, it's something to look into.
I have read the bible cover to cover, more than once, and i guarantee you well-known Atheist "activists", as you call them, have studied it more than you or your fellow churchgoers ever have.
How about instead of telling Atheist activists to read a bible, which they have, pick up "The God Delusion" or "Letter to a Christian Nation" and you read it. It may just change YOUR mind.

Agreed. Rarely have I seen a topic that displayed more ignorance and arrogance. Check out the story of Madilyn Murray O'Hair, and what she suffered by being open about her atheistic activism.

That's ridiculous.. I've met hundreds of nice, forgiving Christians.

Just because the ones in the US are complete wackos doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't have some caring, hard working and friendly ones.

I skimmed this thread. I never post in this forum, but I'd just like to remind you all that if Atheism became the widely accepted belief we'd end up having different types of atheism and wars would still go on.

All religions are based upon the same idea, some more extreme than others and some misconstrued. The fact of the matter is humanity needs something to fight over.

I skimmed this thread. I never post in this forum, but I'd just like to remind you all that if Atheism became the widely accepted belief we'd end up having different types of atheism and wars would still go on.

Atheism is nothing more nor less than believing there is no God. How the fuck would wars be caused by everyone denying the existence of Gods?

The only slight difference is that some state absolutely there is no God, while others claim they believe there is no God, but admit that there is no way to know either way for sure. Do you really think wars can happen over this?

Let me guess, you've just watched the episode of South Park about science wars, right? :rolleyes:

The only slight difference is that some state absolutely there is no God, while others claim they believe there is no God, but admit that there is no way to know either way for sure. Do you really think wars can happen over this?

Have you studied history well enough to understand macro group dynamics? As people come together and resolve old issues, they will constantly find something new to bitch and fight about. This isn't because an issue worth fighting over exists, it's simply because some people like to fight with each other. And worse than that, a lot of people just like to be led around by majority opinion because it's easier than studying the situation yourself (once again, something else that removal of religion would not fix; sheep are sheep no matter who the shepherd is). Wars may not happen specifically over the differentials in degree of atheism, but they will still happen on just as horrific a scale as they ever have.

Atheism is nothing more nor less than believing there is no God. How the fuck would wars be caused by everyone denying the existence of Gods?

The only slight difference is that some state absolutely there is no God, while others claim they believe there is no God, but admit that there is no way to know either way for sure. Do you really think wars can happen over this?

Let me guess, you've just watched the episode of South Park about science wars, right? :rolleyes:

That's obvious where the reference came from but it puts forth an excellent example of my point. Leave it to somebody to ignore the point being made to make fun of the reference.

That's obvious where the reference came from but it puts forth an excellent example of my point. Leave it to somebody to ignore the point being made to make fun of the reference.

I didn't just make fun of the reference. Did you just ignore the two paragraphs preceding it?

Except your ad-hom attacks were in posts specifically directed towards me and my arguments."

No, like I said:
I was just talking about the general human condition. I too was talking in the general "you". Fancy that.


The figures that *I* tallied up were from specific reigns. Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, etc. The second citation I provided holds information on a whole slew of wars from a variety of reigns, but I made certain not to include the non-communist reigns in any calculations.What the fuck does that have to do with what you're replying to? Where they or where they not estimations? Yes, they were. Did they or did they not include figures other than just war casualties? Yes, they did.


Figures for the Crusades and other religious wars also include famine deaths and civil unrest...which can also hardly be blamed on just the winning party.So what? Two wrongs don't make a right. This doesn't make the figures you posted any less fucking shitty.


No, they really don't. The second source provides all of its sources, and then the average of its individual sources (excepting the case of red China, where the range varies widely from mid 30 to above 60 million people).They vary more wildly than that; apparently you didn't even bother reading your own fucking source. Look under the figures for the Soviet Union and you'll see that many of the high figures are around 6 to 7 times that of lower figures. Hell, your own fucking sources makes it a point to state how wildly different the numbers are.


I know the methodology isn't perfect, but neither are the figures on any religious wars. My hope is that the various methods used in either case are accurate enough for the figures in both cases to be at least capable of conveying the truth.Again, who said other wise? The fact of the matter is that I said they were really fucking bad, and everything you've posted here points exactly to that very notion. That the number for religious wars are also bad doesn't refute this at all.


I have explained apparent inconsistencies. Just because I don't have a psychology textbook aside me to quote and cite doesn't discredit any information I've presented here. You can find anything on the web...I'm sure psychology texts are no exception. And I'm not just using Freud (I like to call him Fraud...he was just simply a motherfucker! ;)), I'm using the similar aspect of various psychological theories (as they are the recurring and proven traits of the psyche) to base my conclusion off of.Sorry, but it's not my job to do your research for you. You're supposed to cite sources. Saying "you can find this on the web or psycology textbooks" proves absolutely nothing. Here, allow me to retort in a similar fashion: You are wrong. You can find proof of this on the web and on psychology textbooks! .... :rolleyes:


In the case of the Middle East, religion is DEFINITELY the most available. It currently has a monopoly on the fanaticism in the Middle East. During Saddam's secular reign, it shared the power hold on fanaticism with political sources. When/if Islam dies, the fanaticism is still going to be there...it will find another avenue to travel.Actually no, food is more available. Water is more available. Cloth is more available. Language is more available. There are countless other things that are more available than religion, and according to you, since they would use ANYTHING to support what you claim are innate beliefs, they they could certainly use those.

Not to mention the fact that these religions require them to participate for years before actually using that religion as a justification. Adherents belong to a religion for years, even decades, before they actually getting to kill themselves in the name of Allah.

This is inconsistent with your ridiculous "theories". If they wished to fulfill the inherent desires you say they have, they could martyr themselves instantly in the name of a scrumptious falafel.


The nutcase CREATES a supernatural calling to justify his want to kill. He may believe murder is wrong, but his want to kill is stronger, so he creates a justification in the form of his religiosity to excuse a murder. This is pure and simple sociopath reasoning to justify impulse.No, the religion, which existed long before he did - even those very interpretations- , gave him that possible justification. One that would not have been possible had there not been such a religious belief.


The justification for a murder is separate from the weapon of choice. A spoon could only be used for personal and savage murders. A nuclear weapon could only be used for impersonal genocide. Religion and atheism, in the form of justifications, can be warped for the purpose of killing a single person or for killing entire nations - the justification comes after the action has already been decided.You're evading the problem with your claims: The fact of the matter is that just because there can be a non-religious psychopaths, does not mean that religion is just as viable as no-religion in making psychopaths.


And I'm saying that removing a single tool, or the entire tool box, will not stop man from creating new ones. Ridding the world of religion, or atheism, or any other ideal or system that has ever been used to justify a murder, rape, or any other wrong will do absolutely NOTHING to stop murder, rape, or other wrongs.Again I find myself explaining to you that nobody is claiming that the end of religion will be the end of all murder, rape, or any other crime. That is a strawman on your part, one that is beginning to look deliberate since you apparently can't make a simple reply without invoking it.


Only a small example, my apologies. There are a variety of ways that increase pacification. Drug use, sexual gratification, secure supply chains, increased policing and jailing, and many more. I'm saying that most of the countries that are growing more passive are not doing so because of atheism, it's because of general contentment. If your hunger, thirst, lust, and greed are all satisfied, you're not too likely to be pissed off enough at anything to go kill a person even if you have the compulsion to do so. Possible, yes, but not likely.

This ideal is used in drug rehab quite often. The patients all want their fix, but they're fed sweets, coffee, and cigarettes to help pacify their craving for a drug.Yet you offer absolutely nothing to show any different level of "pacification" in these countries. In fact you go on to say that the "first-world" countries have a high level of pacification, all the while the statistics prove otherwise: It is precisely the most wealthy, industrialized, advanced countries in the world that have such high level of homicides.


I'll just concede this point as I don't know what the fuck to say about Britain....I think they're just some violent motherfuckers? I just don't know, though.Well that's the darnest thing, huh? Hey, maybe your "theory" sucks?


I'm not saying religious countries have less criminal control; I'm saying first world countries have more extensive criminal control than third-world (essentially, further reaching policing), even though third and second world countries typically have stricter law and enforcement.That only serves to prove my point! The countries that most embody the "first-world" and have an excruciatingly high level wealth, the United States and Great Britain, all have high level of violence and low levels of social-health!


The only statistic I could find on that was the 1995 Jail Population census. The latest information, from 2005, doesn't contain religious preferences. But the ACTUAL 1995 DOJ census completely shows that lie you espoused to be total bullshit:Before you call me a fucking liar, perhaps you'd like to take a moment of your precious time to read both what I said, and your own source:

"while 72% affirmed affiliation with religious institutions "

I said the number of ATHEISTS. That 72% of inmates affirm affiliation with a religious institution - what exactly entails "affirming affiliation with a religious institution" is not explained - does not refute single word I said.

Response Number %
---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
....
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
...
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
...
Atheist 156 0.209%
...
(Statistics form the Federal Bureau of Prisons) http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
---


It's simple genetics, Rust.It's so simple that you can't even find a single fucking article that proves your point.

You can rant all you want, you can claim all you want, but until you fulfill your burden of proof you'll have no point.

http://tinyurl.com/8pc2a
http://tinyurl.com/2b7nrm
http://tinyurl.com/sy2gl
http://tinyurl.com/2dt8fp

"A conservative estimate puts the total number of brutal deaths in the 20 th century at more than 250 million. Of these, Muslims are responsible for less than 10 million deaths. Christians, or those coming from Christian backgrounds account for more than 200 million of these!"


What a nice, friendly, peaceful people Christians are.
Muslims werent really as active and sucidal as they are now....
And alot of those deaths were from WW2 and WW1

Hexadecimal:

"If you think that as an atheist that I do not believe murder is wrong then you have no real understanding of what it means to be an atheist. The entire term 'œmilitant atheism' is a non-sequitur invented to label the people who do not wish to be forced to either sanction with their tax dollars or to honor your prehistoric beliefs. We simply wish to live in a free society without being pressed into accepting the silly beliefs and practices that you do. However, I would fight just as hard for your right to believe whatever the fuck you want as long as it doesn't infringe upon me. I also do not approve of your beliefs or lifestyle. I just realize that I have no right to tell anyone how to live."

Christians on the other hand don't realize that.

And:

"But religious people have always been happy to trade mortal suffering for the promise of moral purity. I don't really understand why religious folk are so opposed to abortion, anyway (nor do most of them, I suspect, but that's another entry.) Religion and infanticide have much in common. Both are fundamentally disgusting. Both are practices that have occured in every society since time immemorial. Both are sometimes necessary for the survival of the society. Both often involve going out into the wilderness. Both involve a lot of guilt in the West. Both are practiced primarily by the poor. And both are usually considered better than the alternative. Both obviously involve killing. In some societies, both involve ritual."

Basically, we atheists just want you Christians to keep your primitive, prehistoric fruitless beliefs to yourself and quit hearing voices that tells you to bomb Abortion clinics. I mean, people called one friend of mine crazy because HE had an imaginary friend that told him to steal mouse-balls from the library.
While you would gladly hang us if you had the chance: we on the other hand would be happy to protect even YOUR right to believe what you want and live how you want AS LONG as it doesn't infringe upon anyone else. As the guy said in the first quote: I personally think y'all are moronic douchebag shits who have the brain capacity of a sheep and your lifestyle is laughable, but we who have the HIGHER capacity recognize that we don't have the right to dictate your life.

Many atheists in the past have been tortured/executed/persecuted for refusing to convert to Christianity. No Christian has ever been forced to become an Atheist.

Also, I've heard somewhere that 99% of prisoners in some jails are religious folk. And that 95% of rapists have read the Bible. Can't find links right now.

Basically, we atheists just want you Christians to keep your primitive, prehistoric fruitless beliefs to yourself and quit hearing voices that tells you to bomb Abortion clinics. I mean, people called one friend of mine crazy because HE had an imaginary friend that told him to steal mouse-balls from the library.
While you would gladly hang us if you had the chance: we on the other hand would be happy to protect even YOUR right to believe what you want and live how you want AS LONG as it doesn't infringe upon anyone else. As the guy said in the first quote: I personally think y'all are moronic douchebag shits who have the brain capacity of a sheep and your lifestyle is laughable, but we who have the HIGHER capacity recognize that we don't have the right to dictate your life.

I am not a Christian. I believe abortion clinic bombers are just as fucking nuts as any rational person does.

I don't see the religion that a sociopath-psychotic holds as any concern. Plainly put, their inner brain's urge to kill is stronger than their outer brain's ability to control and direct that urge down healthy avenues. The person is predisposed to radical branches of ANY belief system. And just so you see why I think atheism is just as retarded as Christianity here, I'll say this: Just like some Christians wanting to wipe out atheists and other religious folk, there are atheists who want to wipe out all the religious folk. There are also atheist rapists, liars, cheaters, thieves, kidnappers, and so on. The belief system is radicalized according to the insanity of its followers. A belief in God does not make you insane, but insanity can make your God order you to kill people in its name...or it could make your puppy order you to kill...or just about anything else. Psychosis is psychosis.

[b]I am not a Christian. I believe abortion clinic bombers are just as fucking nuts as any rational person does.

I don't see the religion that a sociopath-psychotic holds as any concern. Plainly put, their inner brain's urge to kill is stronger than their outer brain's ability to control and direct that urge down healthy avenues. The person is predisposed to radical branches of ANY belief system. And just so you see why I think atheism is just as retarded as Christianity here, I'll say this: Just like some Christians wanting to wipe out atheists and other religious folk, there are atheists who want to wipe out all the religious folk. There are also atheist rapists, liars, cheaters, thieves, kidnappers, and so on. The belief system is radicalized according to the insanity of its followers. A belief in God does not make you insane, but insanity can make your God order you to kill people in its name...or it could make your puppy order you to kill...or just about anything else. Psychosis is psychosis.

Well put, I couldn't agree more. Any type of fanatic including an atheist one would be as irrational as Christian fundies are. One can believe there are no limits and he can do whatever he wants without recognizing other peoples rights, I don't approve of that.

However, on average Atheists are more moral than Christians but I'll admit the average Christian is more educated -- which is hard to believe, I mean I heard that 75% of doctors believe God is performing miracles and curing people e.g. Cancer, despite the fact that they are fully aware that THEY indeed are the ones contributing to fighting cancer and saving lives... Three words: de-lu-sion. It's a neurotic disorder, not psychotic. You can be the smartest and most balanced person in the world and have beliefs you can't let go of. That simple.

If you believe in a god, isn't it natural from there to attribute your life to it, good and bad?

Just like fanatics attribute their various problems to their religions, upbringings, education, and such, those capable of maintaining mental and physical order around them attribute their various successes to their religions, upbringings, education, and such.

There's really no automatic difference between atheists and theists other than the one qualifier. My hope is that one day atheists and theists can live in harmony, so that they can finally bicker over the same shit with each other that they do amongst themselves... ;) (it gets odd from here! oh noes! free thought ahead!)

For example, no longer judging someone by their degree of faith in supernatural entities...we can start judging them how we used to! Clothes, background, education, race, sex, sexual preference, nationality, non-deity related beliefs, superstitions, money, attitude, eyes, bodily deformations, class, trophy partners, and so on.

Hell, we can even go to war over a few of those issues! Throw in wars for resource control, political gain, and power consolidation, and it'll be just like now...except we won't have to worry about being judged for whether or not we believe in God...because dammit, we don't have to put up with other people's beliefs! Oh wait...

However, on average Atheists are more moral than Christians but I'll admit the average Christian is more educated --

You failed to open that line with, "In my opinion, ...".


For example, no longer judging someone by their degree of faith in supernatural entities...we can start judging them how we used to! Clothes, background, education, race, sex, sexual preference, nationality, non-deity related beliefs, superstitions, money, attitude, eyes, bodily deformations, class, trophy partners, and so on.

Bolded are the items that, if boiled down, would likely stem from their religious traditions. You can differentiate the Amish, the Pentecostals and the Muslims from non-religious, or semi-religious folks by the way their dress stands out. Our backgrounds (especially early/mid childhood) are definitely saturated by our family's religious beliefs and traditions. A lot of people of faith educate their offspring in privately funded schools, which further indoctrinates their children's education towards their strain of religion. Your religious preferences usually coincide with your nationality, especially those who live in a region where there is one religion that dominates and has more followers than another.

Unless you completely sequester yourself away from all of society, you'll always have to put up with people's religious beliefs by way of how they outwardly express it. These days, there's absolutely no avoiding it, because it tends to permeate several aspects of our lives. Much to the non-believer's chagrin, the reprieve from such seems to be quite unattainable, and perhaps that's why atheists the world over have decided that now is not the time to just sit quietly and not be counted.

The real progress will be made when people no longer wear their personal religions on their sleeve, tending to be more private and discreet about their particular articles of worship. I could almost gaurantee that there would be a major decline in the number of outspoken atheists if this were the case. And remember - we've been practicing keeping our beliefs under wraps for many, many moons.

This is where I argue that atheist "activists" are unfairly named so. For people of faith, spreading their religion and testifying truths to others is an acceptable tradition that no one dares frown on. If an atheist goes "out" or speaks in public (with complete absence of "tradition") - they are "activists", which implies they are fighting for a cause. They're not fighting for anything, as non-belief in God isn't something they fear could be taken away from them. They're just being more vocal about it these days because it just makes sense to apply the "If you can't beat 'em, Join 'em!" attitude about it.

In my opinion, the only thing completely unattainable is this "world harmony" people speak of. Humans aren't wired for cooperation on such a grand scale with other humans. There will always be dissent and grudgery because by gosh, we're selfish creatures, and we just can't help ourselves most of the time.

Bolded are the items that, if boiled down, would likely stem from their religious traditions...

No argument there.

Unless you completely sequester yourself away from all of society, you'll always have to put up with people's religious beliefs by way of how they outwardly express it. These days, there's absolutely no avoiding it, because it tends to permeate several aspects of our lives. Much to the non-believer's chagrin, the reprieve from such seems to be quite unattainable, and perhaps that's why atheists the world over have decided that now is not the time to just sit quietly and not be counted.

I'm not against making a stance be known...I am, however, against attempts to force a change of opinion. For two reasons, really:
1. You can't change someone else.
2. Even if you could, their opinion is not the problem, it is what they do with their opinion.

Actions are the key - the problem for the atheist is not the opinions or beliefs of others, it's the personality of the individuals being scrutinized, essentially, the propensity to force one's way onto another person. This is where separation of church and state comes in. Individuals are free to hold any belief they wish, and are able to freely act on their beliefs so long as it doesn't stop you from acting on yours. Of course though, criminal elements exist in any society, so there are people among us that utilize the negative trait of liberty: the ability to ignore another's rights.

The real progress will be made when people no longer wear their personal religions on their sleeve, tending to be more private and discreet about their particular articles of worship. I could almost gaurantee that there would be a major decline in the number of outspoken atheists if this were the case. And remember - we've been practicing keeping our beliefs under wraps for many, many moons.

I think the greater progress would be a moving away from extreme actions. That would require a decrease in the number of people who find comfort in the discomfort of fellow men...and sadly, the only two ways to do that are castration and genocide.

It's a real shame though...we humans can sometimes come across ideas that would make life so damned enjoyable for the like-minded, but it is always at the expense of those with dissenting views. Luckily though, the rational minded in any camp are able to forge compromises if there is a natural leader among them.

My main stance on this issue is not that extreme beliefs are innocuous...it's more related to the dualistic nature of existence. Creation and destruction spawn the other. To destroy one extreme belief, one would have to create extreme policies of eradicating the genetics, society, and lives behind said belief. No matter the case, human rights are being violated. I'm not happy with the status quo, but I don't lie to myself about it: Humanity can not lose its darker side.

...For people of faith, spreading their religion and testifying truths to others is an acceptable tradition that no one dares frown on.

Isn't it also acceptable for nearly ANYONE to try and make their belief known and accepted? The only things it is hard to make public is that you fuck children, rape, or kill people. Most anything else will hardly go noticed...and if it does, it's just not likely that you're going to face any real consequences for your opinion. Sure, you may have to deal with annoying pricks every now and then...but you also have the ability to shack up in your house and never face the moronic masses again.

If an atheist goes "out" or speaks in public (with complete absence of "tradition") - they are "activists", which implies they are fighting for a cause. They're not fighting for anything, as non-belief in God isn't something they fear could be taken away from them. They're just being more vocal about it these days because it just makes sense to apply the "If you can't beat 'em, Join 'em!" attitude about it.

I don't view someone stating their opinion as activism...but then again, I don't hold typical views on any subject. :D I see activism as the attempt to bring glory to your 'cause'. When atheism becomes organized and starts to create causes (I'm sure you're aware of atheist churches beginning to spring up, which local agendas and such), that is when religious extremism begins to be replaced with atheist extremism. As support for a movement grows, so does the branching of the movement into more docile and more hostile areas.

Take a look at ANY movement in ALL history. At first, it's agenda is survival, then propagation. From there, it branches into ceremonial forms of propagation (titles, honors, etc.) and practices to ensure effective propagation. Ceremonial forms branch into masturbatory ceremony and celebratory ceremony.The self-congratulatory ceremonies branch into contained and exerted ceremonies (essentially, private and public ceremonies). The celebratory ceremonies branch into benchmark celebrations and annualized celebrations.

Practices branch into personal and community practices. Personal practices branch into private and public practices. Community practices branch into public gatherings and private meetings. Private practices branch into the selfish and selfless. Public practices branch into lies and revelations. Public gatherings and private meetings don't quite branch, but the agenda does change: public gatherings are typically parties with a beneficial edge to the community; private meetings turn political.

This can be seen in any religion's development. It can be seen in any social movement. It can even be seen in any full storyline.

The nifty part, I think, is when infighting weakens the whole damn structure and another system takes its place to repeat the cycle.

In my opinion, the only thing completely unattainable is this "world harmony" people speak of. Humans aren't wired for cooperation on such a grand scale with other humans. There will always be dissent and grudgery because by gosh, we're selfish creatures, and we just can't help ourselves most of the time.
QFT :)