God is not great: How religion poisons everthing

[manfriday]

Satanism worships Satan, atheism doesn't worship anything. You're being extremely evil by trying to vilify atheism by any means.

Nope. Sorry. Pretty much all the 'satanic' religions are atheist in nature. They do not believe in God or Satan as personal beings.
They see satan as the personification of mans primal nature and the antithesis of what they believe is a repressive diety (christ) and so worship that.
What they call satan is simply the worship of their own primal nature.

I'm against all religion but where I live most people are Christians and they are very conservative and political.

So what if they are political? As long as the religous influence is at an individual level, what does it matter? Of course a persons belief system is going to influlence the way they vote. That is as it should be. Everyone should vote their conscience regardless of whether they are religous or not.

My other gripe with them is that they are the only religion which in such a systematic way, tries to convert people and takes advantage of people who are very poor. If you are starving you will eat at a church but let me tell you food is not the only thing on the menu.

Wow. Ok. Well, all I can say is that I have never see anyone actually attack the christian church for feeding the hungry before.
Also, I have never heard of a church that literally holds starving people captive and forces them to listen to a sermon before they feed them.
Im not saying such a thing has NEVER happened, but I have certainly never heard of it.

Going to hell is just a tactic to frighten people into joining

Dude, it's not joining a book club or signing up for AOL or something.

If you can't see that, then they got you too. You are one of them.

Nope. sorry. They dont have me. Not a church go-er as I have said before, and I dont believe in hell as a literal place of fire and torment.

You should read some books on the history of the church. You might get an idea about where a lot of chruch donctrine comes from, how it came about, and some of the thinking behind it.
You might get a better, less hateful (and frankly silly) view about the motives of these horrible christian people you hate so much.

[braincell]

Atheism by definition is about reality and nothing else. You still didn't prove to me there is a god and you never will because you can't since there is no god. Just don't say it is a fact without evidence! "Look at the beauty, look at the complexity" is not evidence at all. Of course living things are complex.... THEY HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF YEARS. You would need a god to explain it if you thought the earth was 6,000 years old as it says in the bible. My other point is when you die you don't exist. Most people can not accept this. But if you think about it, if you are so sure you are going to meet up with them in heaven then why are you so sad when they die?

Anyone who is not an atheist please support your thesis that there is a god now.

Bingo, do you know that secularisation has taken place in other areas of the occident already in the middle ages sometimes ?

And what has secularisation to do with atheism as state ideology ?
It is the separation of power, which is fine and nothing surprisingly new at all.

Cultural evolution has already taken place before the united states were founded.
And when you know (also without sources ) that atheism has never stood the test of reality so why do you not accept that it simply does not have the capacity to improve the situation. ?

[kensuguro]

braincell, it's not that I want to compromise or end the discussion, I was just wondering whether the quality of the discussion had boiled down to "you suck", "no you suck". Which I'm glad it got out of.

On the other hand though, I doubt there will be any sort of compromise, just exchange of ideas. Or, just putting it all out on the boards for everyone to read, think, and discuss.

Going back to one of your points, religion in school I think is a bit odd. I mean, perhaps if the school was a missionary school, or maybe a catholic school, I'd understand since it's prorperly labeled. It's like a specific religion being spread by school, which is also another machine that brainwashes, or "teaches". Again, if it's something by choice I'd understand, but when it's sort of slipped in there, that's a different story. What's that have to do with education anyway?

And that also goes to the strange blend of christianity and the government too. That's a strange mix. It's a good way to show that the government embodies all that is good, but it's obvious the government just uses it as a tool. It's a way to deliver messages, and it's a good way to reach people who have retrieved into church societies. But then things are ignored when the government does destructive things, like fighting a war. Are they going to make it okay with religion? and make it a holy war? Religion and government don't mix well, in my opinion. It works well maintain order, or a unified view, but things can get weird.

[alfonso]

Atheism is a concept that has its precise origin in religion. It is a word that was created to describe a crime. Some religions, not all of them, but expecially monotheistic ones, have been historically political totalizing systems. I would like to remember that there has been a long period in western history in which if someone like Galileo observed something about the physical world that was somehow putting the religious power in a position of cultural weakness, he was tortured, which happened, and was forced to retreat if he wanted to save himself from an horrible death. At that time not believing in what the church says about the existance of a creator or the refusal "in toto" of such a concept was regarded as a terrible crime and the word "atheism" was used to describe this crime. The consequence was to be tortured and burnt alive. If the crime was instead a sexual life different from what imposed by the church, the punishment could be hardened. The homosexuals, in the State of the Church, until Rome was conquered by the Italian new-born state, were burned using not dried wood but fresh wood and grass, the process was much slower and instead of the 10-15 minutes of agony , the condemned could be heard crying for at least half an hour or more.

Atheist is a word that contains a negation of something, it implies that this "something" exists and that someone refuses it.

But saying Atheist to someone that thinks that the universe doesn't have any starting point and that nothing remains of a mind after death is like calling a dog a "non-bird", as being a bird was the parameter to judge all the forms of life.

The word expresses an opposition, so it can be adopted to express a point of view against a dominant power, when the religious powers act to defeat the doubting minds and the freedom of thought.

But I'm sure that all the Scope users would feel quite p#ssed off if they were just defined as the Aprotoolers, and with some concern that such a "desease" isn't spread around too much because it would make all those who spent soo much to conform themselves to the main stream feel wrong.....

Last thing: my biggest problem with the idea of god comes from the fact that it is an....idea, I mean I've only heard human sources about it, never had a direct experience of anything supernatural, and I don't think that any human mind is entitled to know anything about it.

I can't believe in any god described or thought by men.

[BingoTheClowno]

Atheism is a concept that has its precise origin in religion. It is a word that was created to describe a crime.

Your source please.

[Mr Arkadin]

Atheism (like any other ism) is NOT about reality.
Because it excludes some facts of this world's reality

Which facts are excluded exactly.

and is just an anti-attitude.

Which pre-supposes that religion is the 'pro-' attitude?

[BingoTheClowno]

Brain, exactly that is the point.
Atheism (like any other ism) is NOT about reality.
Because it excludes some facts of this world's reality and is just an anti-attitude.

And once again. It is NOT the case that I am a bible preacher if I put atheism's practical relevance in question.

And what those facts might be? Please name them!

You are the anti-attidude.

(Yes, again )

[braincell]

Kensuguro,

It's a bad mix I agree to have the government in bed with the church but how can this be stopped when most of the government and most of the voters are theists?

Some science teachers in public schools are no longer teaching anything about evolution simply because they are afraid of the heat from parents.

In my opinion all public schools need to be taken over by the federal government. This would help ensure that funding is equal for all public schools. Currently it is not at all.

[BingoTheClowno]

And what those facts might be? Please name them!
You are the anti-attidude.
(Yes, again )

Good try Bingo

The fact that all around you are people that dont want to, cannot and will not see use in an atheistic approach. Gnostics are real. Religions exist And many of them have practical impact that you guys deny. There are many people that live in a spiritual way and are the exact opposite of what you would like them to be.

The rest of your post is just your helpless pattern, no significance

Your pathological change of subjects is starting to exasperate me. Are you doing this on purpose so that we stop posting in this thread?


You said: "Atheism (like any other ism) is NOT about reality.
Because it excludes some facts of this world's reality and is just an anti-attitude. "

We asked: "What are those facts?"

You proclaimed: "The fact that all around you are people that dont want to, cannot and will not see use in an atheistic approach."

Are you sure that is a fact?
Do you ever doubt yourself, do you ever ask yourself, "Am I being coherent"?
(and wtf does "use in an atheistic approach" mean?)

[braincell]

Never underestimate the stupidity of the general public. Britney Spears is popular. Does that make her music good or valid? Atheism is growing. I hear in the UK they are 70%. We are backwards here in the states. We are prudes and afraid of the world. First we organize the Kyoto Treaty, then we back out of it. The world is full of idiots like us.

[kensuguro]

I think we need to separate religion from the effects of religion. For example, a religion, or any belief may be fundamentally good, but the effects may be spoiled by extremists or distorted interpretations. Again, if the contents of all religion were not in question, and just the main issues were, then I think the messages themselves are quite peaceful in nature. Given that they're peaceful, I'd rather commend their existance, but for spoiled interpretations and extreme views, I think that's nonesense. This goes for most any religion.

Again, I don't think the discussion is which religion is right. It's not about having to prove there is a god, or there isn't a god, or anything else that deals with the content of a religion (or a belief system). It's about religion as a concept, and its effects, its characteristics. Think of religion as a machine. Forget about it's contents. In essence, any belief system that is suspended and contained by a group basically functions in a similar way if you overlook the small details of rules and what not. That's what we should be talking about. Not a specific religion or belief.

[braincell]

I guess if it makes you feel better without harming you it is good but personally I would rather not live with a delusional concept of how things work.

[kensuguro]

hmm, the dillusional. I guess I can agree that would be a problem if the person couldn't take the abstract examples (or concrete, whichever) and couldn't apply it in real life. So, if the examples stayed as examples, and lost its connection to whatever the original message was, then I wouldn't go as far as calling them dillusional, but they're just stories that serve no purpose, or have lost its purpose. I guess that's where I agree with you. If teachings aren't abstracted and internalized in the individual (believer) and then applied into the real world, then the contents really serve no good. It might as well be a story about chimps and bananas. I think alot of the times people just take it literally and retain it in some sort of un-usable form.

[BingoTheClowno]

Bingo, I cant help you if you get bored by your own pattern of behavior.

Your fact panting is irrational because you only accept as fact what you believe is fact.
Why do you think that is not visible ?

You give up on your previous post?
You want me to respond to this new subject?


Can you please give me examples of me "painting facts"?

[BingoTheClowno]

Ken you will not get these two guys out of their extreme position by opening doors and offering dialogue.

The longer this dicussion goes the more I assume that brain and bingo will always slam the doors from inside.
There is no reflection just sermonic repetition.
Even the slightest movement from extremist positions is quite quickly overcompensated with their dogmas about their chosen enemy.

I understand you guys love that extremes.
You have chosen your home.

You're wrong again, I don't love extremism. I just hate hypocrisy. Thanks for opening your door and let us learn about your prejudices and bigotry.

[braincell]

Stardust, you didn't answer the question. What are the facts? What proof do you have that there is a god?

[braincell]

That is a lame reply.

[BingoTheClowno]

And when you ask me so politely for examples, I am happy to help you.
Anytime you dont like a statement from anybody you pant for what you call facts.
You dont do this in order to listen.
You do this to immediately start your microquoting and insulting.
Alternatively you post a bunch of weblinks to claim you are right.
What you miss in that pattern is that you are not convincing, but only insisting on your dogmas.

read your responses here. Then you see your examples.

I don't like your statements? Should I LIKE your obfuscating and false statements? You don't like to back up your claims with any source? Can you at all?

[BingoTheClowno]

Stardust, you didn't answer the question. What are the facts? What proof do you have that there is a god?

It is not my intention to do that, cause it is like the question if there are parallel universes (multiverses more precisely)
In case you dont want to get upon it just assume that there is no proof that there is none.

Subject change!

[braincell]

I understand that you are offended when we say there is no god yet every day we are bombarded by people speaking about god is if it is real and we are supposed to quietly live with that.