Christianity is a religion of tolerance and other assorted myths

[Nancy Allen``]

I'm more concerned that people do something about their health than their stance on religion. I'm more concerned that people are strong of mind and body, that is they won't let their spirit get crushed, than their stance on religion. I'm more concerned that people do the right thing, frankly they don't try and be an *******, than their stance on religion. If that's wrong in some people's eyes then I make no apologies, that's how the world should work.

[Alexander the Great]

Probably b/c there are atheists that should lable themselves as antitheist, as that is often the way many of them argue. I do agree with your opening, though. Most people don't have the "missionary impulse".

 

I agree with that, somewhat. Antitheists and atheists are different, though an atheist can obviously be an antitheist.

 

I'm more concerned that people do something about their health than their stance on religion. I'm more concerned that people are strong of mind and body, that is they won't let their spirit get crushed, than their stance on religion. I'm more concerned that people do the right thing, frankly they don't try and be an *******, than their stance on religion. If that's wrong in some people's eyes then I make no apologies, that's how the world should work.

 

I'm not sure I know what you're saying. Are you saying that it's wrong to take health over religion? Probably not, but just to be sure...

[Achilles]

You know why atheists act that way? They want revenge.

And know that she's finished dictating what muslims really believe, she's moved on to telling atheists what their real motivations are.

 

Some people seem to get the idea that all atheists are out to destroy religion. Some people seem to get the idea that all Christians are trying to convert everyone. These people are ignorant fools.

Christians (and muslims) don't evangelize or attempt to convert? I think the evidence my be against that argument.

 

There are facts to support both sides

I respectfully disagree. If you can provide one fact that unequivocally supports the existence of a god or gods, I'll be more than happy to concede the point.

 

I do believe, however, that parents shouldn't force any religion on their children. I'm fortunate enough to have been born into a nonreligious and tolerant family, so I've formed opinions that are completely my own. I just wish that everyone could have that opportunity.

There are many people that agree with you here.

[Totenkopf]

Some people seem to get the idea that all atheists are out to destroy religion. Some people seem to get the idea that all Christians are trying to convert everyone. These people are ignorant fools.

Christians (and muslims) don't evangelize or attempt to convert? I think the evidence my be against that argument.

 

 

You did notice the word ALL, Achilles, no? Sort of deflates your "rebuttal". Nice try though.

[Alexander the Great]

Christians (and muslims) don't evangelize or attempt to convert? I think the evidence my be against that argument.

 

I'm not saying there aren't any converters. There are. I'm just saying not all of them try to force their beliefs on others. Sorry for not making that clear.

 

I respectfully disagree. If you can provide one fact that unequivocally supports the existence of a god or gods, I'll be more than happy to concede the point.

 

There's an explanation in Angels and Demons by Dan Brown.

[Nancy Allen``]

I'm not sure I know what you're saying. Are you saying that it's wrong to take health over religion? Probably not, but just to be sure...

 

Honestly I couldn't care about people's stance on religion. I'd be less worried about your beliefs and more worried if you were thirty pounds overweight for example, or there was something in your life that harmed your chances of a happy future for example. Religion, atheism, you're going to get one eyed dyed in the wool crazies in both, it's just their belief system that's diffirent. Name one thing where there won't be the one nut that gives it a bad name. There will always be one Islamist or Christian thinking their ticket to heaven is through murder the antitheist hell bent on taking out their anger for history's treatment on atheists against anyone who believes in god, you only have to hear the words straight from the horse's mouth to know this. There will be theists that give atheists ammunition to attack relgion with or atheists who look like very smart theists making atheism as bad as they possibly can because of their attitude. Whether it be movies, games, sci fi, religion, whatever there is the bad as well as the good, and like everything else people are bashing the lot rather than the one nut they should be targeting.

[Alexander the Great]

Honestly I couldn't care about people's stance on religion. I'd be less worried about your beliefs and more worried if you were thirty pounds overweight for example, or there was something in your life that harmed your chances of a happy future for example. Religion, atheism, you're going to get one eyed dyed in the wool crazies in both, it's just their belief system that's diffirent. Name one thing where there won't be the one nut that gives it a bad name. There will always be one Islamist or Christian thinking their ticket to heaven is through murder the antitheist hell bent on taking out their anger for history's treatment on atheists against anyone who believes in god, you only have to hear the words straight from the horse's mouth to know this. There will be theists that give atheists ammunition to attack relgion with or atheists who look like very smart theists making atheism as bad as they possibly can because of their attitude. Whether it be movies, games, sci fi, religion, whatever there is the bad as well as the good, and like everything else people are bashing the lot rather than the one nut they should be targeting.

 

Excuse my (possible) ignorance, but I can't think of a single instance of atheists killing others because of their religion. Actually, atheists were treated horribly during the time of Galileo and the first deep look into science. I haven't heard of any atheist "nuts" who put others in danger because they disliked religion. Many atheists are actually agnostics, which, in my opinion, is the most tolerant belief system there is. I can't see why anyone would want to antagonize atheists when many of them respect other peoples' beliefs.

[Nancy Allen``]

Regretably the basic fact is that the attitude some atheists have present them as anti religion, anti right to religion, and you certainly don't have to look very far to see this. The mere fact that they would rather post baiting comments rather than address points that are raised is testement to their attacking and intolerant nature.

[Totenkopf]

Actually, Nancy, while people like al and achilles are antitheists, not mere atheists (like fundies vs your run of the mill believer), I'd be willing to say that they haven't called for a government pogrom on believers. They merely wish to see it banned from any influence outside of the "home". Be a good "____", but when you go to work, etc.. leave that stuff at home and embrace our secular progressive values in public (despite the fact that we only represent a tiny fraction of the population). They seem to wish to wish to trade what they view as the tyranny of the majority with the tyranny of a minority, because to put it boldly.....they believe themselves superior to those that don't share their world views.

[Nancy Allen``]

Yeah, yeah that's good reasoning. Antitheists are the fundies of the atheist camp. I like it.

 

On the rest, when people start seeing conspiracies because there are Christians in government, or there is a demand to have a certain number of atheists in power rather than having them democratically elected, then that goes beyond the pale. I question why people cannot leave each other alone.

[Alexander the Great]

Regretably the basic fact is that the attitude some atheists have present them as anti religion, anti right to religion, and you certainly don't have to look very far to see this. The mere fact that they would rather post baiting comments rather than address points that are raised is testement to their attacking and intolerant nature.

 

Alright, you're saying some atheists have an antitheist nature, which is the point we've been implying this entire thread. The exact same thing you said about atheists being out to wreak havoc on religion can be applied to Christians, Muslims, and other religions (Except Hindus and possibly Jews). Everyone who has a half ounce of pertinence would know that not all of them are like that. That last sentence has basically been said this entire thread. Why? Because it's true, but some people have yet to comprehend it.

 

You're generalizing atheists as intolerant and attacking. Most aren't, it's mostly only the antitheists. You seem to do exactly what you said in that last sentence of the quoted post, swaying away from the points that have been raised.

[Nancy Allen``]

Yeak, okay, antitheists then, the fundies, those who are against the right to religion. Unfortunetly they seem to be the vocal minority, saying that they are not going to hide, that theists are to hide. Uh huh, right, real tolerant.

[Alexander the Great]

Yeah, they aren't very tolerant. I think most people agree with that. My point was that atheists are more tolerant than some people make them out to be. I hope we're on the same ground now.

[Samuel Dravis]

Actually, Nancy, while people like al and achilles are antitheists, not mere atheists (like fundies vs your run of the mill believer), I'd be willing to say that they haven't called for a government pogrom on believers. They merely wish to see it banned from any influence outside of the "home".

Any influence? I don't care if you influence like minded people. Does that count as influence outside the home? Or does 'influence' really mean, "I'm going to control what you do, but I will not give a rational reason for my actions to save my life?" Because if so I would agree with the antitheists and say that this is a bad thing for a society that claims it has freedom of religion.

 

I am curious: would you call me an antitheist?

Be a good "____", but when you go to work, etc.. leave that stuff at home and embrace our secular progressive values in public (despite the fact that we only represent a tiny fraction of the population).

Embrace secular values, eh? And what would those be? The Golden Rule? Interesting. I'd hate to make anyone embrace that when they are acting in public; the repercussions would be just horrifying. If there are others you'd like to discuss, by all means do so. I will, however, expect you to justify them rationally.

 

They seem to wish to wish to trade what they view as the tyranny of the majority with the tyranny of a minority, because to put it boldly.....they believe themselves superior to those that don't share their world views.

Do you hold your views because you think they are correct?

 

If so, alternate views must not be correct, or maybe just less so. You must consider yourself more capable of understanding the truth than those people that do not believe as you do - clearly this is so since you use your own thoughts and no one else's. You feel your ideas are superior to theirs, in other words. Congratulations.

 

I think there is a difference between actual superiority and superiority that is simply felt and not real. Is the F-22 a more capable CAP aircraft than a Mustang? Yes, it is. Would anyone disagree with this opinion? Unlikely. It's a statement of truth, able to be seen by anyone. If someone said the opposite, they'd probably be laughed at.

 

This 'true' superiority works the same way with how people feel. Does the KKK actually have a right to feel that the minorities they despise are inferior? Yes, they do. Do we pay any attention to them, except to stop them from interfering with others? No. Why not? Because there isn't any objective evidence to verify their claim, and thus it's at best irrelevant.

 

Does the believer have a right to believe as they wish? Yes, they do. Should we pay any attention to that belief? Only if it interferes with other people. Why shouldn't we pay attention? Because there isn't any objective evidence to verify their claim, and thus it's at best irrelevant.

 

I am reminded of Socrates' statement on disagreement in the Euthyphro: if you could measure something that you are having an argument about, then you'd just measure it and settle the dispute. However, if you can't measure it, fighting ensues.

 

Thus we have this disagreement between two portions of society. You can either try to force people to submit - and thus fight - or you can realize that your knowledge is limited in scope and thus basic rights - including religious expression, or the lack thereof - should not be limited without a reason that can be 'measured.' As it is, the United States is a county which is not a religious state. The country must admit all religions, and not endorse nor ban any. Let's measure things, and the things not measurable should be decided on an individual basis - as it should be. The less strife the better, in my opinion. Plus, it saves the government - and thus all citizens - on court costs when clearly unconstitutional laws get passed and then overturned: a measurable benefit!

 

Now, if you believe that some significant good comes out of imposing at best irrelevancies on others, then present the reasoning. I wonder if anyone will be able to measure it.

 

 

Note: I'm sorry for the sarcasm in this post, but the tone in your post, quite simply, sounded ridiculously preachy. I think that few people would actually say such things when not in the company of trusty compatriots.

[Totenkopf]

Agh, your pen drips vitriol. To be brutally honest, though, many of the antitheists in these forums have been exceptionally "preachy" in pushing their povs, nevermind the haughty derision they've "inflicted" on their opponents. (so, no offense taken)

 

You may have missed this elsewhere, Sam, but I've stated that I'm anti-theocracy. So, frankly, I don't wish to see any group have complete control of government. This includes secular humanists as well as the "big 3" religions. Besides, as I recall, the idea was for freedom OF religion, not FROM religion (especially as many of the original colonists were fleeing religious persecution-even prosecution-in their homelands). But tell me, if secularists have no values that make them remotely distinct from, say, theists, what's the big deal? This is part of the problem with living in a "democracy". If the majority of people want X and a very small minority wants Y, who gets the upper hand? Should people be allowed to pray in public spaces if they don't try to force those around them to engage in prayer as well? If voluntary prayer were allowed back in the public school, would that be an example of tryanny on the part of the majority? Should a small group (say atheists, scientologists, etc..), be allowed to determine public policy over the objections of the majority? Or should they leave and perhaps find a country where they are more at home (like the Jews have in many cases)?

 

In answer to your question about anti-theistic, I'd have to dig up some of your posts to get a better idea of where you stand on the whole "God/gods" issue. Simply not believing in such things doesn't make you inherently antitheistic in the sense it's being used. If we take the stripped down version oft presented here of atheism as being only "not believing in", then such a person would not fit that category. As far as the expression "antitheism" is concerned, think Christopher Hitchens (who actually claims to be antitheistic, NOT atheistic), who has stated that he doesn't merely not believe in religion/god, but that said entity is actually evil/source of evil. I'd say that based on many of their comments throughout these threads, it would be fair to say that both parties mentioned fit this description. Also, given the tenor of their posts, it would be fair to conclude that they see themselves as superior, hence the gibe.

 

Last I checked though, there was no secret/open plan I've heard that even the "fundies" plan on forcing the "heathens" to convert should they actually gain control. So, I'm not sure where an atheist's "basic rights" are actually being violated (unless you're talking about the Taliban here). Which begs another question, what are the "basic rights" to which you specifically refer? But I'll tell you what, if the day does come when the fundies do take over in a manner you seem to suggest, I'll be running along side you to as far away as possible. Temporal power has a way of perverting religion from it's (at least in my opinion) true mission...to act as guide in forming our conscience. I no more want to live in the world of The Handmaid's Tale than you do.

[Achilles]

I'm not saying there aren't any converters. There are. I'm just saying not all of them try to force their beliefs on others. Sorry for not making that clear.

Fair enough. I think we're on the same page now.

 

There's an explanation in Angels and Demons by Dan Brown.

Which part are you referring to specifically? The anti-matter? I don't think that meets the criteria specified in my last post

 

The mere fact that they would rather post baiting comments rather than address points that are raised is testement to their attacking and intolerant nature.

What should we attribute it to when you don't address points that are raised? Seems that if this is going to be the standard, it should be applied uniformly.

 

Yeah, yeah that's good reasoning. Antitheists are the fundies of the atheist camp. I like it.

Hmmm...

 

Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism

Pronunciation: -t&-"li-z&m

Function: noun

<snip>

2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

 

But atheism has no set of basic principles, Nancy. Therefore your argument does not display good reasoning.

 

On the rest, when people start seeing conspiracies because there are Christians in government, or there is a demand to have a certain number of atheists in power rather than having them democratically elected, then that goes beyond the pale. I question why people cannot leave each other alone.

Are you genuinely unable to see that christians are the number one "not able to leave others alone"-er in the modern world? Muslims are running a close second. Oh and these evil atheists that are viciously persecuting you guys are way back at...whatever spot 3-7% of the population equates to.

[Samuel Dravis]

Agh, your pen drips vitriol. To be brutally honest, though, many of the antitheists in these forums have been exceptionally "preachy" in pushing their povs, nevermind the haughty derision they've "inflicted" on their opponents. (so, no offense taken)

I've indeed seen some of that here.

 

You may have missed this elsewhere, Sam, but I've stated that I'm anti-theocracy. So, frankly, I don't wish to see any group have complete control of government. This includes secular humanists as well as the "big 3" religions.

Honestly, I wouldn't care much if every single person in the government was Muslim, as long as they did not start trying to exercise their religion's teachings over their (hopefully belief-neutral) responsibilities as a public official.

 

Besides, as I recall, the idea was for freedom OF religion, not FROM religion (especially as many of the original colonists were fleeing religious persecution-even prosecution-in their homelands).

Inasmuch as this was originally true, I'd agree with you. I find that since that time, the country - and the number of faiths within it - has made a fair and equal representation of those faiths impossible to achieve. This seems to have the effect of making the government restrict its activities to wholly secular ones in order to avoid promoting one religion over another.

 

But tell me, if secularists have no values that make them remotely distinct from, say, theists, what's the big deal? This is part of the problem with living in a "democracy". If the majority of people want X and a very small minority wants Y, who gets the upper hand?

As it is, it's not completely a democracy, or at least it's not one that can change its ways very quickly. Who gets the upper hand? Both, of course. Believers can believe all they want, as long as they are not government employees acting in that capacity. The minority is not forced into doing X. The only way the government should act is in a belief-neutral manner, which basically means it should ignore religion and atheism entirely.

 

Should people be allowed to pray in public spaces if they don't try to force those around them to engage in prayer as well? If voluntary prayer were allowed back in the public school, would that be an example of tryanny on the part of the majority?

As far as I know, both of these examples of the right to freedom of religion have not been restricted. I only really have problems with the government endorsement of religion, not individuals doing what they feel like. Teacher leading prayer? No. Kids organizing it? Be my guest. Pray in the public spaces all you like (you'd probably had better not be too obstructive about it, though, because then people would get angry)

 

Should a small group (say atheists, scientologists, etc..), be allowed to determine public policy over the objections of the majority? Or should they leave and perhaps find a country where they are more at home (like the Jews have in many cases)?

I think that anyone who is able to conduct their duties as a public servant - impartially - deserves the job. Like I said, I don't care who does it, be it aliens, scientologists, or even christians. If the do their job like that, then no one should be (too) unhappy with the arrangement, and no one would be unfairly put down or raised up by the government.

 

Last I checked though, there was no secret/open plan I've heard that even the "fundies" plan on forcing the "heathens" to convert should they actually gain control. So, I'm not sure where an atheist's "basic rights" are actually being violated (unless you're talking about the Taliban here).

Since we mentioned school prayer just above, I would say that someone who is forced to attend a goverment-led school prayer session (as was common before it was ruled unconstitutional) was being forced to religion against their will. It does not necessarily take an overarching scheme, even one made by the fundies, to be wrongful use of government authority.

 

Which begs another question, what are the "basic rights" to which you specifically refer?

I meant that the freedom of religion does indeed mean freedom from unwanted religious activities. It must include that in order to be a functional right. Consider otherwise: you could be forced to pray to Zeus, but you don't have to believe he's really there so it's okay and your religious freedoms have not been violated? No, it is better to just keep all religion out of official state business entirely.

 

But I'll tell you what, if the day does come when the fundies do take over in a manner you seem to suggest, I'll be running along side you to as far away as possible. Temporal power has a way of perverting religion from it's (at least in my opinion) true mission...to act as guide in forming our conscience. I no more want to live in the world of The Handmaid's Tale than you do.

Ok. But I'll be using a truck, running is too slow.

[Nancy Allen``]

I am curious: would you call me an antitheist?

 

If you are opposed to people being allowed to practice religion, as some clearly are, then yeah you'd be antitheist. You'd also be a fanantic to condemn someone because of their beliefs.

 

Do you hold your views because you think they are correct?

 

Religious beliefs? It would be because I have opened myself to it and seen what it has done for the lives of so many people. If views in general then I look at it this way: it doesn't matter what your beliefs are, if you cannot tolerate people's rights you simply cannot function in society.

 

What should we attribute it to when you don't address points that are raised? Seems that if this is going to be the standard, it should be applied uniformly.

 

How about asking to clarify the point rather than post comments that makes your fixation to attack theists turn them into the good guys in your crusade against religion? I know being an asshat is the duty of antitheists but that attitude is counterproductive.

 

But atheism has no set of basic principles, Nancy. Therefore your argument does not display good reasoning.

 

Clearly it doesn't have any principles. Certainly not any moral ones given the appaling behaviour of the antitheist. And they do act like religious zealots declaring war on, in this case, believers. It seems an apt comparison.

 

Are you genuinely unable to see that christians are the number one "not able to leave others alone"-er in the modern world? Muslims are running a close second. Oh and these evil atheists that are viciously persecuting you guys are way back at...whatever spot 3-7% of the population equates to.

 

And why do you think that is? Christianity has led the charge to help others on many occasion, even in the fight against Aids, which says a real lot about them being able to put their prejiduces aside. What do the antitheists do to help others, really? Do they help the poor? All I've seen them do is attack the right to religion and clearly that only serves to bring conflict rather than resolve it. In fact a thread on 'Atheism is an image of tolerance and other assorted myths' might well be on the cards. The hatred of religion and it's followers antitheists obviously harbour blinds anything else.

 

Hsrsh comments? Prove me wrong, as your posts have so far only served to prove my point.

[ET Warrior]

I know being an asshat is the duty of antitheists but that attitude is counterproductive.

Yes, Nancy, this post clearly demonstrates how apt you are at being productive to a debate.

The hatred of religion and it's followers antitheists obviously harbour blinds anything else.

Yes, because what one posts and discusses in a discussion forum online is CLEARLY indicative of what one does in real life. None of the atheists around here could ever possibly give to charity, because we're too busy arguing with christians. Likewise, I'm very busy running around trying to moderate public discussions whenever I go outside.

Clearly it doesn't have any principles. Certainly not any moral ones given the appaling behaviour of the antitheist. And they do act like religious zealots declaring war on, in this case, believers. It seems an apt comparison.

Despite trying to make it an attack, you're still somewhat on target. No, there are no moral guiding principles given by atheism. There never have been. An atheists morals are derived from empathy and critical thought. If an atheist has poor morals it's because they're a bad person. If a Christian has poor morals, it might simply be because they think they're doing right in the eyes of God. I am very curious about this antitheists war they are declaring on believers. Example? I've never heard of such, nor witnessed it myself. You'll probably bring up Stalin and Mao, despite the ninety some posts pointing out why that analogy fails.

Hsrsh comments? Prove me wrong, as your posts have so far only served to prove my point.

Actually the majority of posts that were in response to you actually addressed any point that you raised with counter arguments, which you then ignored and went on a tirade about how all the anti-theists want to ban religion and are persecuting you and are so mean.

[Alexander the Great]

Which part are you referring to specifically? The anti-matter? I don't think that meets the criteria specified in my last post

 

It's around that part somewhere, though it's not just the antimatter. You might be right, it might not be the right thing to support what I'm saying, but it does show that there is a possibility of a god. I'm not saying it exists (God), but there's always the possibility. However, I highly doubt it's the omnipotent and sentient being that controls everything that some people believe it is. In my perception, if it exists, it's most likely an energy force that forms our emotion. Since emotions aren't matter, they are believed to be energy. That energy could be God, though I don't think God's an appropriate name for it.

 

Never rule out these possibilities. That's one of the prime components of science.

[Achilles]

How about asking to clarify the point rather than post comments that makes your fixation to attack theists turn them into the good guys in your crusade against religion?

How about you just one time try not answering my question with another question?

 

I know being an asshat is the duty of antitheists but that attitude is counterproductive.

Introspection. You should try it some time.

 

Clearly it doesn't have any principles.

It appears that you're finally acknowledging that atheism has no central doctrines.

 

Certainly not any moral ones given the appaling behaviour of the antitheist.

Sorry, what immoral acts have been carried out by anti-theists?

 

And they do act like religious zealots declaring war on, in this case, believers. It seems an apt comparison.

I think it funny that you're upset that another group is acting like religious people.

 

The fact that you can't support this argument is completely beside the point though, right?

 

And why do you think that is?

Well at least you're not denying it anymore. Seems we made a lot of progress in this post.

 

Christianity has led the charge to help others on many occasion, even in the fight against Aids, which says a real lot about them being able to put their prejiduces aside.

You are aware that the leading cause of AIDS in Africa is catholicism, correct?

 

What do the antitheists do to help others, really? Do they help the poor?

Indeed they do. Perhaps you and I can sit down and compare charitable contributions some time. What an interesting argument it would make if we found that I do more to help those less fortunate than you do. Care to wager?

 

All I've seen them do is attack the right to religion and clearly that only serves to bring conflict rather than resolve it.

Sorry, I don't believe I've seen anyone (besides christians) attack the right to religion in this country. Care to try again?

 

Also, perhaps you can explain to me what part christian dogmatism is doing to help resolve conflict?

 

In fact a thread on 'Atheism is an image of tolerance and other assorted myths' might well be on the cards.

Have fun. The only one foolish enought to make such a silly claim would be you. However if you're looking for suggestions, perhaps "How atheists reject dogmatism and therefore tend to be more tolerant and other assorted facts" might work out a little better for you. I hope that helps.

 

The hatred of religion and it's followers antitheists obviously harbour blinds anything else.

Yes, obviously .

 

Hsrsh comments? Prove me wrong, as your posts have so far only served to prove my point.

Sorry, why am I once more being called upon to defend your non sequitur arguments?

 

It's around that part somewhere, though it's not just the antimatter. You might be right, it might not be the right thing to support what I'm saying, but it does show that there is a possibility of a god.

I'm not sure how evidence for anti-matter proves anything more than the existence of anti-matter. It's like saying that finding change between the cushions on my couch is evidence that Genghis Khan slept with a lot of women.

 

I'm not saying it exists (God), but there's always the possibility.

Of course there is. However, the degree to which we accept that possibility should be in direct correlation to amount of evidence that we have to support such a claim. At this point we have none whatsoever.

 

We have zero evidence that invisible pink unicorns live in my pants. We have zero evidence the abrahamic god exists. Both are possibilities but neither one should be accepted as true by a reasonable person without evidence.

 

However, I highly doubt it's the omnipotent and sentient being that controls everything that some people believe it is.

Well said.

 

In my perception, if it exists, it's most likely an energy force that forms our emotion. Since emotions aren't matter, they are believed to be energy. That energy could be God, though I don't think God's an appropriate name for it.

Fair enough. We'll tack that on to the endless list of other hypothesis and interpretations. Please don't follow in the footsteps of some of your brethren and begin killing others that don't believe as you do in the name of your god. Thanks in advance.

 

Never rule out these possibilities. That's one of the prime components of science.

Well, always rule out what you can, but never rule out anything that can't be tested, measured, or observed. But I'm sure that's what you meant to say

[Alexander the Great]

I'm not sure how evidence for anti-matter proves anything more than the existence of anti-matter. It's like saying that finding change between the cushions on my couch is evidence that Genghis Khan slept with a lot of women.

 

That's not exactly it, what I was referring to, but I'll concede.

 

Of course there is. However, the degree to which we accept that possibility should be in direct correlation to amount of evidence that we have to support such a claim. At this point we have none whatsoever.

 

We have zero evidence that invisible pink unicorns live in my pants. We have zero evidence the abrahamic god exists. Both are possibilities but neither one should be accepted as true by a reasonable person without evidence.

 

Alright, makes sense to me.

 

Please don't follow in the footsteps of some of your brethren

 

Err... My brethren?

 

...and begin killing others that don't believe as you do in the name of your god. Thanks in advance.

 

Aww.... But I wanted to do that! [/idiot]

 

Nah, I don't condemn people for not sharing my opinions. In fact, I like it when people challenge my opinions in a sparkless manner. You can learn a lot through these kind of discussions.

 

Well, always rule out what you can, but never rule out anything that can be tested, measured, or observed. But I'm sure that's what you meant to say

 

Yep, that's pretty much the essence of it. [EDITED: I noticed a typo in this quote, so I fixed it. Might not have been a typo, so I corrected it anyway to show what I meant]

[Nancy Allen``]

Yes, Nancy, this post clearly demonstrates how apt you are at being productive to a debate.

 

It didn't seem to be a problem when others made such comments. Perhaps the phrase is strong. The antitheist duty would be to attack religion, push the buttons of theists so they can thump their little tails and yap as loudly as they can about how evil what they fight against is. I would think antitheists would wear such a description as a badge of honor.

 

Yes, because what one posts and discusses in a discussion forum online is CLEARLY indicative of what one does in real life. None of the atheists around here could ever possibly give to charity, because we're too busy arguing with christians. Likewise, I'm very busy running around trying to moderate public discussions whenever I go outside.

 

Discussion is one thing. Baiting comments is another. There are things wrong with religion no question. If Christians attack the issue of abortion, if they ignore their duty to aid others even through the use of scientific methods they disagree with, then the conflict turns against them. And if antitheists adopt the stratergy of seeking and sowing conflict then for them the battle is already lost, for any support they might garner is turned away by their attitude and that support is instead given to those who some see as the enemy, to use your phrase because they are seen as mean, as the aggressors, therefore theists are seen as the victims and they are given aid against this threat.

 

On that matter do you blame religion for some of the wrongs that have occured? If so then how far does this accountability spread? Is every Christian guilty for the Crusades for example? Are we to look at Islam as evil based on the actions of a few of it's members? If so then maybe looking at how I place the blame for how antitheists act on the majority will go some way to show whether or not we should go down this path. In a way I know that atheism is not to blame for the actions some carry out, yet I do blame it, as do others. Perhaps if atheists were to take responsibility, as they expect theists do, then that might change. So what of me? Am I guilty of religious crimes? If I am then I should pay for them. No apologies. No excuses. Same for everybody else regardless of religion.

 

If an atheist has poor morals it's because they're a bad person. If a Christian has poor morals, it might simply be because they think they're doing right in the eyes of God. I am very curious about this antitheists war they are declaring on believers.

 

If an antitheist has poor morals could it be said that they are doing what they think is right in their campaign against religion? You ask about this antitheist war because you are not sure of their motivations yourself. Witness the way they act, whether it be demanding freedom of speech for themselves and denying it for others or their bid to start fights, to change facts such as laying the blame for Aids on religion rather than on homosexuality, and it would seem their desire is to sow conflict rather than sidestep or resolve it. This is the image they portray to me. Perhaps my vision is clouded by such a poor portrayal. If so then set me straight.

 

Actually the majority of posts that were in response to you actually addressed any point that you raised with counter arguments, which you then ignored and went on a tirade about how all the anti-theists want to ban religion and are persecuting you and are so mean.

 

With all due respect is it one rule for those you agree with and another for those you don't? Would you prefer I act like a dead set bitch? I doubt it, so I point out where antitheists get it wrong not simply for the sake of theists being spared their comments that are intended to harm them, but so that atheism in and of itself is not shown in a negative light by those intolerants. As theists commit any and all acts regardless of how wrong they are, their arrogance making them believe everything they do is right and just, so too is this a failing in antitheism as well. If it is answers they seek then first they have to be prepared to listen. The fact what I have presented is met with scorn indicates they are close minded. Much the same as I am when their intolerance shows. If they want me to participate then they must show me that they are going to be mature, otherwise of course I'll ignore them and seek more fruitful discussion with those who do listen, for any attempt to impart my knowledge and aid them in their quest for answers would fail.

[Sir Phobos]

Excuse my (possible) ignorance, but I can't think of a single instance of atheists killing others because of their religion.

 

How about Stalin?

 

Of course you'd make the argument that Stalin was influenced by his religious upbringing. You'd also go out on a limb and believe what Hitler was saying when he was courting religious Germans.

 

The fact is, both of them were Atheists and they were responsible for millions of deaths. Were they killing in the name of Atheism? With Hitler probably not...he was more concerned with darwanism. With Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong, persecution against theists was only natural given the political ideologies they adhered to.

 

Interestingly Hitler courted Muslim militias in the Balkans and Palestine. Funny how that works.

 

 

I can't see why anyone would want to antagonize atheists when many of them respect other peoples' beliefs.

 

No actually most don't 'respect' other people's religious beliefs. They 'tolerate' them and theres a big difference there. I don't expect anyone to respect my religion, I expect them to tolerate my beliefs...i.e not shipping me off to the gulag.

[Thor the Bassis]

How about Stalin?

 

I believe that Stalin's problem with religion was not that Stalin was a strong atheist, more that Stalin saw that religion could get in the way of his totalitarian state. He wasn't intolerant of the people's views he just wanted a state which has only one idea - that of communism.

 

Also Stalin was a mad man. You could be a close family-friend, a god-father to one of his children and have know him personally for twenty years but one day he would look at you and think "I dont like his look" and you would be dead, your family would be dead and all their family and friend would be dead.

 

Hitler actually created his own beliefs close to a religion of Nazism and towards the end of his reign held religion like services that taught nazism.

 

The flaw in these arguments is that there are tolerant theists and atheists and intolerant theists and atheists. Theists are not crazed religion bashers and atheist aren't religion haters. What causes this is beliefs in general - whether they're religious, moral or other.

 

The problem with religion, particularly organised religion, is they group people together as "christians" or "muslims" etc. but the group as a whole never take the blame for members of their faith acting intolerantly.