Jump to content

Home

Christianity is a religion of tolerance and other assorted myths


Achilles
 Share

Recommended Posts

Saying something is an untruth, implies you know the truth. Is that what you intended?

 

No. Saying something is a lie is implying that they know the truth. An untruth is more general as it is just something that isn't true. Of all the beliefs of a religion at least one must be wrong and so is an untruth, even though they do not know it is wrong.

 

That there are atheists who...to use the specific example here, put the unethical into ethical makes me ashamed that they are representing a nonbelief of god.

 

They aren't representing a nonbelief of God but are representing a belief that no God's exist. There is a subtle difference between passively believing that there isn't a deity and actively believing that no God's exist.

 

If you passively think this then you have decided, for whatever reason, that God's cannot exist. You do not run you're life by this concept, much like the young child has no idea of God and so cannot run their life by this concept.

 

If you actively think this then you try to bring religion down and pick holes in it at whatever oppertunity. You would treat people who are religious as stupid because they believe in something they think is blatently stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Good. Most people would, and have the idea that atheists are like this.
Well I'm not sure how much can be done about that. If the aforementioned serial killers decided to proclaim their actions as a symbol of right-handedness, I'm not sure that there would be a right-handed coalition ready to step forward to denounce the actions of the serial killers.

 

I guess this is just one more example of how blatant misconceptions of atheism continue to occasionally make life difficult for atheists. Of course, my hope would be that any rational person would quickly (and of their own volition) determine that these serial killers couldn't possibly represent all right-handed people, however as reality shows us every day, irrationality is rewarded is very powerful circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be a vocal minority, but those who are actively opposed to religion seem to do atheists a lot of disservice.

 

I'm curious. Secular people's opinion of people who are opposed to religion is that they are opinionated. Theists believe they are opinionated. Extremists believe all secular people are immoral and nothing will change that. You can't win, people either think you're good or bad and most people will get to know you before they decide. I've always thought that if someone judges you before getting to know you they aren't worth knowing.

 

What is the point your trying to make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That hatred of religion is not going to win hearts and minds.
Possibly. I bet that questioning religion will though.

 

Always with the extremes, "Rogue Warrior".

 

Or should we be more hateful and violent?
You know this might be good advice for the fundies. It might actually have an audience there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That hatred of religion is not going to win hearts and minds. Or should we be more hateful and violent?

Is it just me or did I say nothing about hating religion. I specifically said that I just live my life as it comes and avoid people who are total nutters. I really dont care what religion people believe in so long as they dont come to me telling me I'm going to hell and I'm a bad person when they dont even know me. Live and let live.

 

Also if I hear one more person say "hearts and minds" I might saw my head off with a rusty pen. I have no power over anyone - I can't win hearts and minds. The way for politicians and armies to win "hearts and minds" is to make life better for them - a thing that hasn't happened in Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly we should be fighting against the evil that is religion. My question is how aggressive we must be. Is it simply a matter of breaking theists or is it more?
Erm...
Clearly we should be fighting against questioning the evil irrational dogmatism that is religion. My question is how aggressive diligent we must be. Is it simply a matter of breaking theists promoting rational thinking or is it more?
I believe that we should be as diligent as we can. I mean, we are talking about our rights, and in some cases our lives, after all. We have the same rights to free speech as everyone else. If theists choose to voice their thoughts and opinions in a public forum, then we have the right to questions those thoughts an opinions just as they would have the right to question ours. The unfortunate thing about dogmatism however is that it's impervious to reason; the conclusion is foregone and unchangeable, therefore most attempts at reasoned discourse end poorly.

 

The good news is that simply refusing to be cowed by taboo might inspire others to speak out or cause those that haven't thought too much about it one way or the other to really question what it is that they believe. So even though you might never, ever get through to the fundie, you might still be able to reach someone. And once there are enough people willing to speak out against being governed by superstition and people that believe that they are in constant contact with their imaginary friends, then we might begin to see meaningful change.

 

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why then do we see atheists consistently getting it wrong?

What is "it"?

 

Also what is your point of argument? Are you arguing against theism, atheism or for theism or atheism? You have been arguing for quite a while with random directions in your agument. Try padding out your posts with points not just opinions.

 

Sos if this seems a bit harsh but the thread was really breaking down into random arguments about almost nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By it I refer to the way atheists negatively present themselves, and by extension atheism as a whole despite the fallacy of atheism being portrayed solely on the individual. Such as? Being arrogant, they use their intelligence of how evil religion is to beat down those who do not agree. Bullying, they keep on pressing the issue and pressing the issue. Condescending, they treat those who do not agree with them as though they are idiots. Double slandered, demand answers to their questions and then avoid any that they are asked. Ego maniacal, they go off about how they are 'such a smart ****.' Fascist, anything that is not of their own belief is immediately dismissed as being deluded. Goading, they try and bait their opponents in a debate to act. And then there are those who feel that hatred, intolerance and even violence are acceptable methods of dealing with the evil of religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By it I refer to the way atheists negatively present themselves
Ok, let's try it:

 

Why then do we see atheists consistently getting the way that they negatively present themselves wrong?

 

Not sure that helps. Would you be willing to try again?

 

and by extension atheism as a whole despite the fallacy of atheism being portrayed solely on the individual.
Not sure how it's a fallacy if it's true. You've been invited on several occations to present evidence for a central athiest doctrine, but have not. Therefore, if there is not central doctrine that guides behavior, then only individuals can be held accountable for what they do.

 

Such as? Being arrogant' date=' they use their intelligence of how evil religion is to beat down those who do not agree. [/quote'] So you would feel better if atheists (as a whole) were less intelligent?

 

Bullying' date=' they keep on pressing the issue and pressing the issue.[/quote'] Participation in these forums is voluntary. No one is forcing you to read. Also, if theists have the right to post their thoughts and opinions, then atheists have an equal right to post theirs' (and vice versa).

 

Condescending' date=' they treat those who do not agree with them as though they are idiots.[/quote'] Bad arguments and fallacious thinking are bad arguments and fallacious thinking. Not sure how the shody rationale for theism is our fault. If people don't like having their arguments refuted then perhaps they aren't prepared to participate in such dialogs.

 

Double slandered' date=' demand answers to their questions and then avoid any that they are asked.[/quote'] That's quite the accusation, coming from you (as he painstakingly responds to every single point in this post, knowing that none of his points will be acknowledged).

 

Ego maniacal' date=' they go off about how they are 'such a smart ****.'[/quote'] Examples?

 

Fascist' date=' anything that is not of their own belief is immediately dismissed as being deluded.[/quote'] And when the belief actually is delusional? Again, not sure how that's our fault.

 

Goading' date=' they try and bait their opponents in a debate to act.[/quote'] Guilty. Although in my defense I don't think it's wrong to ask for straight answers to straight questions when a dialog is being held in good faith. So maybe I'm only partially to blame on that one.

 

And then there are those who feel that hatred' date=' intolerance and even violence are acceptable methods of dealing with the evil of religion.[/quote']Yep, I'm sure that there are. Just like those right-handed serial killers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also what is your point of argument? Are you arguing against theism, atheism or for theism or atheism? You have been arguing for quite a while with random directions in your agument.
I think this might help to explain part of it.

 

I guess my greatest fear' date=' without going in depth about it, is that people would see atheists as jerks and side with religion.[/quote']When it comes to "truthiness", I tend to concern myself more with accuracy than popularity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...