Support NeoGAF

[TacticalFox88]

Are you saying that Dawkins' books have never changed anyone's mind?

Reading the God Delusion changed mine, along with other external factors. I have a personal grudge against religion, so I guess mine doesn't "count" per say.

 

[masud]

I bet Perry believed in evolution when he was a Democrat...

 

[magicstop]

And let's be perfectly fucking honest: Dawkin's books are not filled with simple anti-religious statements. In fact, most all of them are filled with rich scientific explorations and explanations that are extremely educational and interesting. The ARE the sources people turn to in order to educate themselves. He's teaching, and in doing so is also pointing out that ID isn't correct. But his primary focus is scientific exploration and explanation. I've learned a LOT reading his books. Sounds like some of you arguing against him haven't read ANY of his books.

 

[Cyan]

Ofcourse...what else would I be saying?

I encourage what ever gets us moving forward...

I thought you said Dawkins shouldn't be politically active? Maybe that was one of the other people.

 

[Orayn]

And let's be perfectly fucking honest: Dawkin's books are not filled with simple anti-religious statements. In fact, most all of them are filled with rich scientific explorations and explanations that are extremely educational and interesting. The ARE the sources people turn to in order to educate themselves. He's teaching, and in doing so is also pointing out that ID isn't correct. But his primary focus is scientific exploration and explanation. I've learned a LOT reading his books. Sounds like some of you arguing against him haven't read ANY of his books.

You can't expect people to understand what they're arguing against. That's ridiculous.

 

[triplestation]

And let's be perfectly fucking honest: Dawkin's books are not filled with simple anti-religious statements. In fact, most all of them are filled with rich scientific explorations and explanations that are extremely educational and interesting. The ARE the sources people turn to in order to educate themselves. He's teaching, and in doing so is also pointing out that ID isn't correct. But his primary focus is scientific exploration and explanation. I've learned a LOT reading his books. Sounds like some of you arguing against him haven't read ANY of his books.

RAISES HAND, I HAVE

 

[magicstop]

You can't expect people to understand what they're arguing against. That's ridiculous.

Touché, my friend. Perhaps I'll go meditate on the logistics and merits of arguing on the internet.

 

[elrechazado]

I bet Perry believed in evolution when he was a Democrat...

I think perry, like many politicians, believes in what will get him elected.

 

[F#A#Oo]

I thought you said Dawkins shouldn't be politically active? Maybe that was one of the other people.

No I said "Brian Cox" said it when we spoke...he would prefer for people like Dawkins to do more for grass roots stuff rather than get involved in political struggles...

In the article I posted he touches on religion;

Einstein saw God as a useful metaphor, saying that physics helped man know the mind of God, but Richard Dawkins criticises this use of the word as it has too much cultural baggage. Where does Cox stand?

I’m more practical about it. There is a lot of goodwill toward scientists among the religious communities in this country. I met the Dean of Guildford Cathedral when I was an atheist on a panel and we got on well. After that I took him to Cern and we became good friends. I also recently got invited to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s house because he liked Wonders of the Solar System.”

And? “Rowan Williams is a very thoughtful man. If you want to move society forward in a more rational direction, religious leaders can be useful because they share that view. Setting yourself up as anti-religion is not helpful. You can set yourself up as anti-maniac, that’s different. So it’s OK to say that if you believe the world was created 6,000 years ago, as the Creationists do, then you are an idiot. There is nothing wrong in saying that because you are an idiot. But setting yourself up as an atheist who is against all religion is not a battle that needs to be fought.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8330863/Brian-Cox-Im-not-anti-religion.-Im-anti-maniac.html

 

[KHarvey16]

My point has always been that Dawkins' work has always been pointless because of this. If he chose to write his books a few centuries ago, it would've made more sense.

Today's world is too informative for someone to just come out of the blue and preach science.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about. A public dialogue IS effective even if between two diametrically opposed, stubborn groups, because other people who are not either of those can observe it. So, EVEN IF Dawkins had the intention of addressing fundamentalists specifically(and he doesn't just to be clear), the result is still that others can read his book or hear him speak and then make up their minds. If the guy just wrote letters to individuals that would be one thing, but he doesn't.

Your attitude about this sucks.

 

[VistraNorrez]

Arrogance is only really bad when paired with ignorance. So, what is more arrogant than saying "I know a god exists, I know exactly who that god is, and what that god wants"?

At least evolution has tons of evidence that is constantly backed up by new findings.

And scientists love to be proven wrong. They know it extends knowledge. Fundamentalists are the exact opposite because they believe they know everything and so they think there is nothing to prove wrong. There is no growth. And if there is no growth, then we are screwed as a species.

 

[triplestation]

You don't have any idea what you're talking about. A public dialogue IS effective even if between two diametrically opposed, stubborn groups, because other people who are not either of those can observe it. So, EVEN IF Dawkins had the intention of addressing fundamentalists specifically(and he doesn't just to be clear), the result is still that others can read his book or hear him speak and then make up their minds. If the guy just wrote letters to individuals that would be one thing, but he doesn't.

Your attitude about this sucks.

In reality, people are not constantly thinking about either religion or science in their everyday lives. It's clear to the sane that religion is a guidance to peace but not a proven dynamic. A person can study science and still be a christian.

Dawkins' ideal world is a world without religion and more practicality. He thinks he'll stop greed and evil if he diminishes religion.

 

[KHarvey16]

In reality, people are not constantly thinking about either religion or science in their everyday lives. It's clear to the sane that religion is a guidance to peace but not a proven dynamic. A person can study science and still be a christian.

Dawkins' ideal world is a world without religion and more practicality. He thinks he'll stop greed and evil if he diminishes religion.

The hell he does. What have you read that's written by him? Nothing?

 

[triplestation]

The hell he does. What have you read that's written by him? Nothing?

I've read the God Delusion. His big one. I was already nonreligious before it and after. So what?

If he states that religion is the root of all evil, that's exactly what he implies.

 

[magicstop]

I've read the God Delusion. His big one. I was already nonreligious before it and after. So what?

Well, you are putting words in his mouth pretty casually. Seems like you aren't referencing anything you've actually read yet, just stuff you are making up.

 

[KHarvey16]

I've read the God Delusion. His big one. I was already nonreligious before it and after. So what?

You obviously didn't pay any attention while doing so.

If he states that religion is the root of all evil, that's exactly what he implies.

Yeah, if he stated that.

 

[triplestation]

Well, you are putting words in his mouth pretty casually. Seems like you aren't referencing anything you've actually read yet, just stuff you are making up.

Read my edit.

I've also seen his documentaries I forget the names of.

 

[Kinitari]

Read my edit.

I've also seen his documentaries I forget the names of.

...

Okay, I don't normally do this. But I am going to have to call bullshit.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Why are they using the word "theory" so wrongly?

I get the feeling most of these super religious conservatives didn't pay attention in 6th grade science class.

"Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader" makes fun of the situation, but the ignorance and stupidity of the general adult population is no fucking joke, especially when one of these clowns is a potential future president.

 

[triplestation]

You obviously didn't pay any attention while doing so.



Yeah, if he stated that.

I'm sorry, it was his documentary titled 'Root of all Evil?' which focuses on religion based exactly on what the title says. But again, evil isn't exclusive to religion.

Religion is such a small part of peoples lives, anyway. And it's a harmless sense of comfort. It's laughable to go on about it and argue to defend it. Because it's not going away anytime soon and neither is science. So I'm gonna stop here.

 

[Kinitari]

I'm sorry, it was his documentary titled 'Root of all Evil?' which focuses on religion based exactly on what the title says. But again, evil isn't exclusive to religion.

Religion is such a small part of peoples lives, anyway. And it's a harmless sense of comfort. It's laughable to go on about it and argue to defend it. Because it's not going away anytime soon and neither is science. So I'm gonna stop here.

The Root of All Evil?, later retitled The God Delusion,[citation needed] is a television documentary written and presented by Richard Dawkins in which he argues that humanity would be better off without religion or belief in God.
The documentary was first broadcast in January 2006, in the form of two 45-minute episodes (excluding advertisement breaks), on Channel 4 in the UK.

Dawkins has said that the title The Root of All Evil? was not his preferred choice, but that Channel 4 had insisted on it to create controversy.[1] The sole concession from the producers on the title was the addition of the question mark. Dawkins has stated that the notion of anything being the root of all evil is ridiculous.[2] Dawkins' book The God Delusion, released in September 2006, goes on to examine the topics raised in the documentary in greater detail. The documentary was rebroadcast on the More4 channel on the 25th August 2010 under the title of The God Delusion.[3]

This might clear up some stuff.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Religion is such a small part of peoples lives, anyway. And it's a harmless sense of comfort.

I call bullshit on this.

The reason there's such a passionate backlash against religion is because it's such a huge burden on our lives. In most of America, if you out yourself as being unreligious to your neighbors, you're fucking stuck for the rest of your life dealing with people trying to convert you, who judge everything you do and blame all your fuckups on you not having God, who ostracize you from the community and make sure you can't make friends unless you convert, who influence local politics, who try to go behind your back and convert your children (this is the most heinous shit to deal with... it'll test the patience of the most docile people), etc etc.

If religion were just a personal harmless sense of comfort, no one would really give a shit other than thinking "haha what a nut" to themselves. The problem is much, much deeper and out in the open than that, though.

 

[magicstop]

I'm sorry, it was his documentary titled 'Root of all Evil?' which focuses on religion based exactly on what the title says. But again, evil isn't exclusive to religion.

Religion is such a small part of peoples lives, anyway. And it's a harmless sense of comfort. It's laughable to go on about it and argue to defend it. Because it's not going away anytime soon and neither is science. So I'm gonna stop here.

How many times do we have to repeat that this simply isn't true? You are just ignoring it, and it's making it hard to want to have a conversation with you or think that you are doing anything but trolling.

Religion is HUGELY important for a lot of people who are both in it and against it. It sets up entire world views and paradigms which then influence the entirity of people's perception of the world and therefore their decisions and actions.

And it's incredibly dangerous, not harmless. It causes death and suffering everyday, across the world. The middle east is ravaged because of it, and US religious groups pour money into that fire to make sure it stays brightly lit. People around the world persecute others in the name of their religion, murdering, torturing, and exploiting. It's guilty of defending and justifying slavery AND genocide. It's currently guilty of bigotry against homosexuals, denying HUMAN BEINGS their right to fair treatment, benefits, and the expression of love. The list goes on and on.

It is not fucking harmless, and it is not fucking unimportant. It's a big fucking deal, and you've got to face up with that if you ever hope to see why Dawkins (or anyone else with their head on their shoulders) is passionate about it, one way or the other.

 

[F#A#Oo]

Religion is such a small part of peoples lives, anyway. And it's a harmless sense of comfort. It's laughable to go on about it and argue to defend it. Because it's not going away anytime soon and neither is science. So I'm gonna stop here.

No it is quite a big part...I can only speak for myself ofcourse but it has an essential role in my day to day life.

 

[The Lamp]

Perry's ENTIRE perspective on education annoys me to no end.
Which is why I will not vote for him.

But there's nobody else I like in the polls either :l

This is ridiculous, not only is Dawkins arrogant, but he's also wrong too.



Yes, it's called Democracy. Other people may have a different favourite candidate to you, shock horror.



Wrong, evolution is a theory. It is an inference used to explain a set of observations, which makes it a theory. It's the best theory we currently have for explaining the origin of species, but that doesn't rule out a future discovery which may contradict the foundations of this theory, and we thus must create a new theory that is consistent with all observations ever made. This happens all the time in science.



...unless you work in the majority of occupations where evolution is irrelevant.



I agree with this, if he just shut his mouth after this he wouldn't seem so arrogant.

Honestly, I am so sick of science being treated as a religion, and being used to wage war against Christianity. The people who do this are the ones responsible for the rise of anti-science sentiment in certain communities.

Pretty much what I was thinking.

1. "Fact" and "theory" are not mutually exclusive. The FACT is that species evolve. We know how it happens, and we've watched it happen in some pretty dramatic ways. The THEORY of evolution is the body of work explaining the details of the evolutionary process, which, of course, is tentative and subject to revision.

2. The utility of knowing the theory of evolution isn't the point. The point is that it's a basic piece of scientific knowledge and not having a basic understanding of it is scarcely better than not knowing the Earth is not flat and revolves around the sun, or not knowing which hemisphere you live in.

3. Science is a powerful force in many non-religious worldviews and it shouldn't surprise you that it's brought up in religious debates where real-world claims are made. I can see a small-minded person having a problem with this, but anti-science sentiment is really a case of shooting the messenger. When I mouth off to someone who says that medicine is a crock and that healing comes from the spirit, I am telling it like it is, not just defending my own point of view.

This too though, lol

 

[Amir0x]

Frankly, in this day and age, if someone needed to read that entire God Delusion text to convince them that the bible is a storybook, it would baffle me. But that is if a devout religious person picked it up.

I say most people who bought that book are the same people who praise him. And what they bought is a thorough explanation on what they already know.

Changing deep indoctrination is extremely difficult. Sometimes it takes a book to do it, sometimes it's completely internal and sometimes it's a discussion with someone or an event that makes you question what you've learned. But Richard Dawkins books HAVE converted people, undeniably, and if it has even converted one person, its existence is validated.

Outside from the Douglas Adams example, just a quick random search netted many cases of conversion after introspection resulting from Dawkins books. Here are some examples.

I'm not saying it's a widespread occurrence, but it doesn't need to be. If it converts one person from clinging to superstitious nonsense, then it works.

How many times do we have to repeat that this simply isn't true? You are just ignoring it, and it's making it hard to want to have a conversation with you or think that you are doing anything but trolling.

Religion is HUGELY important for a lot of people who are both in it and against it. It sets up entire world views and paradigms which then influence the entirity of people's perception of the world and therefore their decisions and actions.

And it's incredibly dangerous, not harmless. It causes death and suffering everyday, across the world. The middle east is ravaged because of it, and US religious groups pour money into that fire to make sure it stays brightly lit. People around the world persecute others in the name of their religion, murdering, torturing, and exploiting. It's guilty of defending and justifying slavery AND genocide. It's currently guilty of bigotry against homosexuals, denying HUMAN BEINGS their right to fair treatment, benefits, and the expression of love. The list goes on and on.

It is not fucking harmless, and it is not fucking unimportant. It's a big fucking deal, and you've got to face up with that if you ever hope to see why Dawkins (or anyone else with their head on their shoulders) is passionate about it, one way or the other.

Yup.

Put simply, one has to suspect that individuals who says religion is harmless are being intellectually dishonest. Any even cursory study of history, modern or past, show a vast array of evidence that suggests the exact opposite. In nearly every overall net value study, religion has done more harm than good.

 

[CharminUltra]

Religion is such a small part of peoples lives, anyway. And it's a harmless sense of comfort.

You don't get out much do you?

 

[Amir0x]

You don't get out much do you?

I just wish one of the people saying this would justify it based on how they view the evidence. How is it harmless, how is it a small part of people's lives? How is the way they're constantly trying to affect politics 'harmless' to those around them?

I want to see the position established with some form of vigor, because it truly is a remarkable form of self-denial. But if by some chance it isn't self-denial, I'd at least like to see the reasoning for why they would believe such a thing.

 

[siddx]

I call bullshit on this.

The reason there's such a passionate backlash against religion is because it's such a huge burden on our lives. In most of America, if you out yourself as being unreligious to your neighbors, you're fucking stuck for the rest of your life dealing with people trying to convert you, who judge everything you do and blame all your fuckups on you not having God, who ostracize you from the community and make sure you can't make friends unless you convert, who influence local politics, who try to go behind your back and convert your children (this is the most heinous shit to deal with... it'll test the patience of the most docile people), etc etc.

If religion were just a personal harmless sense of comfort, no one would really give a shit other than thinking "haha what a nut" to themselves. The problem is much, much deeper and out in the open than that, though.

You also seem to read my mind when it comes to religion threads.

My other personal issue is I find in too many cases, religion because a roadblock to progress. If people are happy to hand the reigns to some invisible man with the whole "it's god's will, whatever happens happens" mentality, then they don't bother to actually try and improve their own situation. And if they are happy to let god take the credit for things, we end up with people being willfully ignorant towards knowledge and fact because it's easier to say "god did it" than learn how something actually came to be or works. That's harmful. Not just to those people who are harming themselves through ignorance, but also the people around them that suffer for it, and society in general who has to try and progress with these fools in the way.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

An immediate family member of mine died and the guy that found the dead body is a fundamentalist Christian.

This guy actually crashed the funeral and took the podium to give a eulogy without anyone's permission, yelled gibberish, said the dead person is now with Jesus, and preached at everyone to find Jesus so we could meet up again when we die. It was the most angry and helpless I've ever felt in my life because half the crowd was totally into what this guy was saying, even as I knew my immediate family hates religion.

I'm dying for another person to tell me religion is just a small, private part of people's lives that doesn't bother anyone else. I know this one guy is just a dick, but it doesn't change that the core of Christianity is this stubborn conversion bullshit that you are required to push onto everyone you know because you end up brainwashed into thinking you are literally saving lives.

 

[Volimar]

Richard Dawkins is calling out my governor, I feel honored (and somewhat ashamed).

At least your home town isn't in the news for a highway full of littered panties....

 

[reggie]

Religion is such a small part of peoples lives, anyway. And it's a harmless sense of comfort.

This has to be a troll post. How can someone be so dishonest?

 

[Volimar]

An immediate family member of mine died and the guy that found the dead body is a fundamentalist Christian.

This guy actually crashed the funeral and took the podium to give a eulogy without anyone's permission, yelled gibberish, said the dead person is now with Jesus, and preached at everyone to find Jesus so we could meet up again when we die. It was the most angry and helpless I've ever felt in my life because half the crowd was totally into what this guy was saying, even as I knew my immediate family hates religion.

I'm dying for another person to tell me religion is just a small, private part of people's lives that doesn't bother anyone else. I know this one guy is just a dick, but it doesn't change that the core of Christianity is this stubborn conversion bullshit that you are required to push onto everyone you know because you end up brainwashed into thinking you are literally saving lives.

That's what religion should be. A private matter that you can choose to do or not. The 10th anniversary of 9/11 memorial service is a good example. I'm all for a moment of silence, but when members of the clergy think they should be allowed to come and make speeches etc. because of the christians that ministered to people on the day of the attacks. Well that's where just butting in. By all means pray during the moments of silence, but there's no reason for you to come and force everyone there to follow you in moments of prayer or to stand there feeling awkward while you lead the faithful.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

That's what religion should be. A private matter that you can choose to do or not. The 10th anniversary of 9/11 memorial service is a good example. I'm all for a moment of silence, but when members of the clergy think they should be allowed to come and make speeches etc. because of the christians that ministered to people on the day of the attacks. Well that's where just butting in. By all means pray during the moments of silence, but there's no reason for you to come and force everyone there to follow you in moments of prayer or to stand there feeling awkward while you lead the faithful.

I was even more angry when I started imagining the shitstorm that would have happened if one of my Muslim friends had tried that same shit at the funeral. I hate the double standards.

 

[jaxword]

Someone should go through the thread and gather up all the people that claimed they saw "a debate" where Dawkins was a jerk, and that tainted their view forever.

Because every single one of them has been called out on it, and not a single one has provided this documentary. When lots of ALTERNATIVE debates have been posted where he is even-handed and calm.

It says something when people resort to lies and hypocrisy to argue their religious beliefs.


And the funny thing is, I have no doubt Dawkins has come across as an ass in debates, because everyone does at some point if they're in the public eye. But to judge someone on ONE when there's lots of others to the contrary just demonstrates the hypocrisy of people like DIEhard and nib95.

 

[Amir0x]

Someone should go through the thread and gather up all the people that claimed they saw "a debate" where Dawkins was a jerk, and that tainted their view forever.

Because every single one of them has been called out on it, and not a single one has provided this documentary. When lots of ALTERNATIVE debates have been posted where he is even-handed and calm.

It says something when people resort to lies and hypocrisy to argue their religious beliefs.

If anything, debates like that one with the Concerned Women of America (I think that was the name of their fucked up organization) prove he has the patience of one of their false Gods. He was polite, reasoned, gently pointed out where she was going wrong. And she literally ignored every point he made, pointedly ignored direct evidence he was continually showing her ("well we'd see fossil evidence - not drawings!" And he pointed out fossil evidence after fossil evidence and she kept parroting the line like the retard she is). I know I wouldn't be that patient with someone that stupid.

And the funny thing is, I have no doubt Dawkins has come across as an ass in debates, because everyone does at some point if they're in the public eye. But to judge someone on ONE when there's lots of others to the contrary just demonstrates the hypocrisy of people like DIEhard and nib95.

The thing is trying to attack someone's style of debate is far easier for non-thinkers like that to do than actually trying to attack his substantive points. He has made tons of unassailable points and the only thing to do is either have a real crisis of faith or lie to oneself and attack HOW he presents the points.

It's a common tactic that slow people use to avoid facing facts.

An immediate family member of mine died and the guy that found the dead body is a fundamentalist Christian.

This guy actually crashed the funeral and took the podium to give a eulogy without anyone's permission, yelled gibberish, said the dead person is now with Jesus, and preached at everyone to find Jesus so we could meet up again when we die. It was the most angry and helpless I've ever felt in my life because half the crowd was totally into what this guy was saying, even as I knew my immediate family hates religion.

I'm dying for another person to tell me religion is just a small, private part of people's lives that doesn't bother anyone else. I know this one guy is just a dick, but it doesn't change that the core of Christianity is this stubborn conversion bullshit that you are required to push onto everyone you know because you end up brainwashed into thinking you are literally saving lives.

I would have gone up there and as calmly as possible said "I appreciate the intent but my family was deeply irreligious and they wouldn't want people to believe they feel they're in heaven right now. They're at peace; they feel nothing at all. They're not with God."

You should have done what Pat Tillman's brother did during his funeral. Truth is better than lies for consolation.

 

[njean777]

An immediate family member of mine died and the guy that found the dead body is a fundamentalist Christian.

This guy actually crashed the funeral and took the podium to give a eulogy without anyone's permission, yelled gibberish, said the dead person is now with Jesus, and preached at everyone to find Jesus so we could meet up again when we die. It was the most angry and helpless I've ever felt in my life because half the crowd was totally into what this guy was saying, even as I knew my immediate family hates religion.

I'm dying for another person to tell me religion is just a small, private part of people's lives that doesn't bother anyone else. I know this one guy is just a dick, but it doesn't change that the core of Christianity is this stubborn conversion bullshit that you are required to push onto everyone you know because you end up brainwashed into thinking you are literally saving lives.

Im christian and I push it on no one, I won't argue that they do try to push it on other people. But if you really had the balls to do it, you should have told him to stop. I understand it is at a funeral, but still, if it bothered you that much you had all the right to tell him to stop.

 

[jaxword]

Im christian and I push it on no one, so you are wrong.

Do you represent all of Christianity?

 

[freenudemacusers]

You should have done what Pat Tillman's brother did during his funeral. Truth is better than lies for consolation.

so good, that is what I want my funeral to be. Booze and profanity.

 

[njean777]

Do you represent all of Christianity?

I wish I did to be honest, would shut most atheist up, because we would be peaceful and respectable to other peoples beliefs, but I can only dream.

 

[Amir0x]

Do you represent all of Christianity?

njean777 seems to think religion in general is harmless these days judging by what he says so he's just been indoctrinated beyond all hope. I'd say that's a pretty good representation of Christians. They say they don't get involved, but they do.

Considering the children, if you do not want them learning this and want them to make up their own mind, then by all means that is YOUR responsibility. I don't hear your same argument, when atheist professors throw arguments at college students everyday. Same thing if it were the other way around, if we had nothing but atheist pre school teachers, they would call Billy stupid for believing in god, is that right also?

For real world evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relics_...ted_with_Jesus. This has more to do with jesus but if you believe in Jesus then you most likely believe in God. These are real world items, if you choose not to believe in them that is fine, but they are real, and can be used as evidence for belief.

Then it is your right not to vote for them, just because they think it is wrong doesn't mean they are ignorant that is just how they feel. If you don't like it don't vote for them, its simple. It sucks to be gay and not be able to be married, but its still a social stigma. I don't mind them being married, and slowly the US is starting to let it happen. It may take awhile but its happening. Also you can get married if gay in some states.

I mean, he thinks relics count as evidentiary proof of Jesus being God or even exisiting at all. He thinks the ability not to vote for religious nutjobs like Rick Perry make it ok that a political official is, in fact, a religious nutjob who uses religion as a foundation for any policy. A very good sample of just how insane Christians are.

 

[njean777]

njean777 seems to think religion in general is harmless these days judging by what he says so he's just been indoctrinated beyond all hope. I'd say that's a pretty good representation of Christians. They say they don't get involved, but they do.




I mean, he thinks relics count as evidentiary proof of Jesus being God or even exisiting at all. He thinks the ability not to vote for religious nutjobs like Rick Perry make it ok that a political official is, in fact, a religious nutjob who uses religion as a foundation for any policy. A very good sample of just how insane Christians are.

I was just providing evidence ( like I said whether you believe it or not is your decision). I haven't been to church in years, nor have i once ever tried to convert somebody. Nice try though, to be honest I have been questioning god for the last 4 years or so, so I guess I'm indoctrinated. /eye roll

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Im christian and I push it on no one, I won't argue that they do try to push it on other people. But if you really had the balls to do it, you should have told him to stop. I understand it is at a funeral, but still, if it bothered you that much you had all the right to tell him to stop.

Your mind isn't the same right after someone really close to you dies. I remember this constant wave of emotion that kept me wondering why people are so violent and mean to each other all the time when we don't have much time together.

I saw what Pat Tillman's brother did months later, and I did feel incredible regret for not being as strong as him.

 

[njean777]

Your mind isn't the same right after someone really close to you dies. I remember this constant wave of emotion that kept me wondering why people are so violent and mean to each other all the time when we don't have much time together.

I saw what Pat Tillman's brother did months later, and I did feel incredible regret for not being as strong as him.

I'm sorry for your loss, and hope you never have to deal with that type of person again. He is a dick and had no right to do that.

 

[Amir0x]

I was just providing evidence ( like I said whether you believe it or not is your decision). I haven't been to church in years, nor have i once ever tried to convert somebody. Nice try though, to be honest I have been questioning god for the last 4 years or so, so I guess I'm indoctrinated. /eye roll

People always do this. They try to act like they're somehow objective and "different" from the majority, but then in words and actions one can only interpret the opposite must be true. If you were really questioning God, you probably wouldn't be in this thread desperately playing defense mode to the abhorrent practices of religion and acting like it's a generally harmless institution. You wouldn't be getting offended that someone is using the same critical language for religion as any other hypothesis for creation, of any other field worthy of criticism.

You're lashing out at people because it's deeply personal for you. You still consider yourself a Christian, even. I have no problem with people who are religious and keep it completely to yourself. But you've been defending the institution non-stop in this topic for people who are being, in your view, "disrespectful" and this is a problem. Because the topic is about someone who is pushing his version of fairy tale while he's in a position of political power, and you're only getting angry at atheists who are refusing to allow such tripe to be taken sitting down.

If one tries to assert themselves into the realm of science or politics, it becomes a problem. If you agree that religion does this, then you shouldn't be complaining that atheists are speaking out aggressively against such practices. You shouldn't be ok with the child abuse indoctrination that goes on in the religious organizations.

But you are, or at least you make excuses that only lead one to think you are.

Say what you mean, then. Stop being offended that people are calling things which are untrue fairy tales. Handling religion with kiddy gloves is not the right answer. ANYbody who submits a hypothesis for how the universe was created must have their hypothesis submitted to the proper scientific rigors, period. And if you've ever read scientific papers, you know that such harsh language is extremely normal. Scientists go after faulty science as hard as anyone you could imagine. Why is religion allowed to ass speak about a natural occurrence (the creation of the universe) and then get protected from criticism?

 

[njean777]

People always do this. They try to act like they're somehow objective and "different" from the majority, but then in words and actions one can only interpret the opposite must be true. If you were really questioning God, you probably wouldn't be in this thread desperately playing defense mode to the abhorrent practices of religion and acting like it's a generally harmless institution. You wouldn't be getting offended that someone is using the same critical language for religion as any other hypothesis for creation, of any other field worthy of criticism.

You're lashing out at people because it's deeply personal for you. You still consider yourself a Christian, even. I have no problem with people who are religious and keep it completely to yourself. But you've been defending the institution non-stop in this topic for people who are being, in your view, "disrespectful" and this is a problem. Because the topic is about someone who is pushing his version of fairy tale while he's in a position of political power, and you're only getting angry at atheists who are refusing to allow such tripe to be taken sitting down.

If one tries to assert themselves into the realm of science or politics, it becomes a problem. If you agree that religion does this, then you shouldn't be complaining that atheists are speaking out aggressively against such practices. You shouldn't be ok with the child abuse indoctrination that goes on in the religious organizations.

But you are, or at least you make excuses that only lead one to think you are.

Say what you mean, then. Stop being offended that people are calling things which are untrue fairy tales. Handling religion with kiddy gloves is not the right answer. ANYbody who submits a hypothesis for how the universe was created must have their hypothesis submitted to the proper scientific rigors, period. And if you've ever read scientific papers, you know that such harsh language is extremely normal. Scientists go after faulty science as hard as anyone you could imagine. Why is religion allowed to ass speak about a natural occurrence (the creation of the universe) and then get protected from criticism?

/eye roll you are not me. Please don't judge me based in your assumptions. I'm out this debate is not going anywhere.

 

[Count Dookkake]

/eye roll you are not me. Please don't judge me based in your assumptions.

What part did he get wrong?

 

[njean777]

What part did he get wrong?

The part were he calls me indoctrinated, the part where he said I like children being taught religion. When I have said I dont. The part where he assumes he knows everything about me. Basically everything tbh.

 

[Amir0x]

The part were he calls me indoctrinated, the part where he said I like children being taught religion. When I have said I dont. The part where he assumes he knows everything about me. Basically everything tbh.

See I am only going by what you've said. This is why I've "assumed" you have no problem with it, or at least have no problem making excuses for the problem:

Considering the children, if you do not want them learning this and want them to make up their own mind, then by all means that is YOUR responsibility. I don't hear your same argument, when atheist professors throw arguments at college students everyday. Same thing if it were the other way around, if we had nothing but atheist pre school teachers, they would call Billy stupid for believing in god, is that right also?

This is a common type of practice for people who want to push responsibility for an issue onto someone else. They'll say something like "well if that's true about A, why are you okay with B going on? Would you be ok with B?" It's effective because it avoids answering what you really think about A, while simultaneously changing the subject back (in this case, to your belief that atheists are overreaching or being disrespectful).

One, in school reality should be taught. There is no God, so God should not be brought up. But indoctrination of children is child abuse, and is wrong. So do you agree with this point of view, or do you think we should allow these child abusers free reign to do what they want?

I'm asking you directly so now instead of allowing me to make "assumptions", you can answer it up front and truthfully.

I only have what you say to go by. So far throughout this topic you've not only showed no sign of doubt of God, you've labeled yourself a Christian, have defended against absolutely every truth about the horrible corrupting influence of religion and have made excuses (or passed responsibility) for everything from child indoctrination to political leaders being religiously motivated. And then you've gone one step further to attack atheists for being 'disrespectful' while simultaneously giving no legitimate reason why it deserves special protection from criticism versus any other hypothesis for creation. Any hypothesis for creation is within the realm of science, no matter how much one wants to claim otherwise, and so should get no special protection for proper analysis.

If you believe differently, then I'd think your words would reflect it. so far, up until the moment you threw out that you doubt God, there have been no words that reflect that point of view and a substantial amount of words that suggest the opposite.

 

[Zaptruder]

I was just providing evidence ( like I said whether you believe it or not is your decision). I haven't been to church in years, nor have i once ever tried to convert somebody. Nice try though, to be honest I have been questioning god for the last 4 years or so, so I guess I'm indoctrinated. /eye roll

Ah. So you're on the verge, and your visitations to threads like this are simply you doing what you can to maintain a little bit of what you previously viewed as so important.

It's ok. You'll overcome it. When you do, the world will make a whole lot more sense. It's like... everyday you read an article, or hear about a little news, and you view them without the filter of religion, and they seem new and awesome in some intangible way.

It's great to be losing a religion - it's like having a veil removed from you eyes!