Two quick questions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-11-2016, 07:55 PM
RE: Two quick questions
(14-11-2016 06:56 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Leela I think you've got religion confused with the government. I mean seriously almost everything you've said about religion can be attached to the government.

Remember when communism was the reason why there was so much violence in the world and everything was always so bad? Remember when that reason was Monarchies and democracy was going to kick in and make the world a great place? I remember.

Religion is the new scapegoat for imperialism.

No, I did not confuse religion with the government.
No, almost everything in my list cannot be attached to the government. EDIT: Even if it could be attached to the government, how is this making it invalid when I say it about religion? You did not make a point there.
No Religion is not the new scapegoat for anything. Religion is bullshit and it has always been but nowadays people will (hopefully) not be killed for speaking out (excluding muslim countries with laws based on sharia of course) so they finally speak out and they have a lot to say.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Leerob's post
14-11-2016, 07:57 PM
RE: Two quick questions
(14-11-2016 06:56 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Leela I think you've got religion confused with the government.

No. Leela has accurately described religion.

(14-11-2016 06:56 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I mean seriously almost everything you've said about religion can be attached to the government.
Just because there are similarities does not invalidate her description.

(14-11-2016 06:56 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Remember when communism was the reason why there was so much violence in the world and everything was always so bad? Remember when that reason was Monarchies and democracy was going to kick in and make the world a great place? I remember.

Yes. You are describing government propaganda. Religion uses propaganda too.
Both religion and government are tools for social control.

(14-11-2016 06:56 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Religion is the new scapegoat for imperialism.

Bullshit. Religion has it's own set of problems and fallacies. Religious groups and governments both have used imperialist techniques. Many forms of social control overlap and blend together.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
14-11-2016, 08:24 PM
RE: Two quick questions
(14-11-2016 07:57 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(14-11-2016 06:56 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Leela I think you've got religion confused with the government.

No. Leela has accurately described religion.

(14-11-2016 06:56 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I mean seriously almost everything you've said about religion can be attached to the government.
Just because there are similarities does not invalidate her description.

(14-11-2016 06:56 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Remember when communism was the reason why there was so much violence in the world and everything was always so bad? Remember when that reason was Monarchies and democracy was going to kick in and make the world a great place? I remember.

Yes. You are describing government propaganda. Religion uses propaganda too.
Both religion and government are tools for social control.

(14-11-2016 06:56 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Religion is the new scapegoat for imperialism.

Bullshit. Religion has it's own set of problems and fallacies. Religious groups and governments both have used imperialist techniques. Many forms of social control overlap and blend together.

I'd wager more that governments use religion for propaganda.

“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
― Napoléon Bonaparte

(14-11-2016 07:55 PM)Leela Wrote:  
(14-11-2016 06:56 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Leela I think you've got religion confused with the government. I mean seriously almost everything you've said about religion can be attached to the government.

Remember when communism was the reason why there was so much violence in the world and everything was always so bad? Remember when that reason was Monarchies and democracy was going to kick in and make the world a great place? I remember.

Religion is the new scapegoat for imperialism.

No, I did not confuse religion with the government.
No, almost everything in my list cannot be attached to the government. EDIT: Even if it could be attached to the government, how is this making it invalid when I say it about religion? You did not make a point there.
No Religion is not the new scapegoat for anything. Religion is bullshit and it has always been but nowadays people will (hopefully) not be killed for speaking out (excluding muslim countries with laws based on sharia of course) so they finally speak out and they have a lot to say.

Wrong! religion is not bullshit. THIS is bullshit, or at least it is a 50-50 chance of being bullshit, maybe less, maybe 20% or 10% only need a few bulls for breeding after all. But none the less, bullshit looks like this.

[Image: cow_pie.jpg]

You're using derogatory terms to describe religion. Let go of that hatred, don't hate someone for their religion, because their religion doesn't define if they're a good person or not.

It would be tremendously invalid the points you were trying to make, if they were in fact not a product of religion but the product of a group of individuals who had less than reputable morals. Stalin murdered millions and he was an atheist in an atheist government, should I say then that all atheists are bad? Should I say that atheism causes genocide? Of course not.

You've been made to hate, and hate you do, it is tearing you apart driving a knife deeper and deeper into your heart. Let go of your bitter disposition, and enjoy a better fate, for what future can be born out of hate?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2016, 08:30 PM
RE: Two quick questions
(14-11-2016 01:16 PM)Jokurix Wrote:  1. Do you think religion is bad? Why?

No, it has provided many social benefits, that has lead to cohesive societies today. There are negatives about religion, and that is that they promote some negative social constructs like stigmatisation, and denial of research or science.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2016, 08:39 PM (This post was last modified: 14-11-2016 08:52 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Two quick questions
Laugh out load

Hate?

No. Not hate. Contempt. Learn the difference.

It's more closely related to pity. It's expressed as derision.

Calling something that is demonstrably false "bullshit" does not demonstrate hate of any kind.

Edit to Add: I apologize if I seem to be treating you with an uncalled-for degree of harshness, on this topic, but you're doing two things religionists do (other than impose theocratic ideologies, which is the #1 peeve on my list, and misquote science/scientists, which is #2) that really piss me off. Expecting people to show deference and automatic respect for your claims, and calling them "hateful" if they will not, is one of the great coups achieved by religion peddlers.

No idea is off limits for critique. If you claimed that dragons were whispering to you in your dreams, and telling you about the True Nature of the World™, I would also say "bullshit". And you would say it to me if I made that claim to you. That doesn't mean I hate dragons. I rather like the idea of dragons, actually. Big fan of most fantasy fiction. But I know that it is fiction, made up by humans, and I will express contempt and derision for anyone who tries to tell me that dragons are a part of the real world, let alone that they talk to them. The same applies to religion, and to anyone who calls me hateful for calling bullshit where a "bullshit call" is called for. (And a woodchuck could chuck wood.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
14-11-2016, 08:50 PM
RE: Two quick questions
(14-11-2016 08:24 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You're using derogatory terms to describe religion.

You catch on quick.

(14-11-2016 08:24 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Let go of that hatred, don't hate someone for their religion, because their religion doesn't define if they're a good person or not.

You have no idea of what is going on inside my head.
You do not know who, if anyone, I hate.
You do not know if I hate religion or not.

If you conflate criticism with hatred, then that implies a great deal about your beliefs and your motivations for posting here.

(14-11-2016 08:24 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  It would be tremendously invalid the points you were trying to make, if they were in fact not a product of religion but the product of a group of individuals who had less than reputable morals.

You are implying a false religion, since one would think that a divine being would not allow imposters to commit atrocities in his name. If a god allows his religion to be subverted by a bunch of evil monkeys, that doesn't say much for his power does it?

(14-11-2016 08:24 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Stalin murdered millions and he was an atheist in an atheist government, should I say then that all atheists are bad? Should I say that atheism causes genocide? Of course not.

[Image: kvjnr_zpsjhwfbwsm.jpg]

Secular? Hmmmm....

(14-11-2016 08:24 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You've been made to hate, and hate you do, it is tearing you apart driving a knife deeper and deeper into your heart.

How very... Interesting...

Perhaps if your abilities in the psychic arena are so accurate, you should attempt to win Randi's million dollar prize.

(14-11-2016 08:24 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Let go of your bitter disposition, and enjoy a better fate, for what future can be born out of hate?

Ahhh. Another preacher here to convert the heathens I suppose. Drinking Beverage

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
14-11-2016, 08:58 PM
RE: Two quick questions
It really doesn't take them long to get to the "No True Scotsman"/"Not True Christians" fallacy and the whole "Stalin was a murdering atheist" crap, does it?

They're so predictable. It's a little sad.

It's especially sad that they don't realize that you can't tag non-communist atheists with Stalin while excusing True Christians™ for the actions of Not True Christians™.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
14-11-2016, 09:05 PM (This post was last modified: 14-11-2016 09:15 PM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Two quick questions
(14-11-2016 08:39 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Laugh out load

Hate?

No. Not hate. Contempt. Learn the difference.

It's more closely related to pity. It's expressed as derision.

Calling something that is demonstrably false "bullshit" does not demonstrate hate of any kind.

Edit to Add: I apologize if I seem to be treating you with an uncalled-for degree of harshness, on this topic, but you're doing two things religionists do (other than impose theocratic ideologies, which is the #1 peeve on my list, and misquote science/scientists, which is #2) that really piss me off. Expecting people to show deference and automatic respect for your claims, and calling them "hateful" if they will not, is one of the great coups achieved by religion peddlers.

No idea is off limits for critique. If you claimed that dragons were whispering to you in your dreams, and telling you about the True Nature of the World™, I would also say "bullshit". And you would say it to me if I made that claim to you. That doesn't mean I hate dragons. I rather like the idea of dragons, actually. Big fan of most fantasy fiction. But I know that it is fiction, made up by humans, and I will express contempt and derision for anyone who tries to tell me that dragons are a part of the real world, let alone that they talk to them. The same applies to religion, and to anyone who calls me hateful for calling bullshit where a "bullshit call" is called for. (And a woodchuck could chuck wood.)

I believe some etiquette is ideal when having a conversation rocketsurgeon. The moment we allow our emotions, whether they are contempt or hate, to cloud our rationale we become vulnerable to the whims of others who seek to play on our emotions.

Any harshness I receive from others is my due karma, for I used to be a very bitter atheist, and I was quite rude to others for the silliest of reasons. It is not that I'm expecting people to take my word on the matter, I am just trying to help others not commit the same mistakes I made.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2016, 09:10 PM
RE: Two quick questions
(14-11-2016 09:05 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I believe some etiquette is ideal when having a conversation rocketsurgeon. The moment we allow our emotions, whether they are contempt or hate, to cloud our rationale we become vulnerable to the whims of others who seek to play on our emotions.

Any harshness I receive from others is my due karma, for I used to be a very bitter atheist, and I was quite rude to others for the silliest of reasons. It is not that I'm expecting people to take my word on the matter, I am just trying to help others not commit the same mistakes I made.

Certainly a degree of etiquette is ideal. That doesn't mean you get to dictate how people speak about your religion, especially since many of us come from a background (or a present-day) in which religious people treat(ed) them abysmally for their refusal to drink the tribal Kool-Aid®.

That said, I do not believe any of us have been rude. Coming to an atheist forum and then expecting us to speak of religious ideologies with reverence, and treat silly ideas with kid gloves... now THAT is rude.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
14-11-2016, 09:27 PM
RE: Two quick questions
(14-11-2016 09:10 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(14-11-2016 09:05 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I believe some etiquette is ideal when having a conversation rocketsurgeon. The moment we allow our emotions, whether they are contempt or hate, to cloud our rationale we become vulnerable to the whims of others who seek to play on our emotions.

Any harshness I receive from others is my due karma, for I used to be a very bitter atheist, and I was quite rude to others for the silliest of reasons. It is not that I'm expecting people to take my word on the matter, I am just trying to help others not commit the same mistakes I made.

Certainly a degree of etiquette is ideal. That doesn't mean you get to dictate how people speak about your religion, especially since many of us come from a background (or a present-day) in which religious people treat(ed) them abysmally for their refusal to drink the tribal Kool-Aid®.

That said, I do not believe any of us have been rude. Coming to an atheist forum and then expecting us to speak of religious ideologies with reverence, and treat silly ideas with kid gloves... now THAT is rude.

there is deeper meaning to religion, far beyond the veil of myths, I wish you could see that. Like the celebration of Christmas. I believe it would be improper to overlook the good it brings and only see the bad in it. I'm not asking you to treat silly ideas with kid gloves, but I do expect more from people when they are discussing delicate matters. Because religion does bring good in people more than it does bad, I'd really hate to strip that goodness from their life without having something to replace it of equal value.

I don't mind if you try to deconvert others, but don't be surprised if they reject you especially if you aren't being respectful to them, because you're not really offering them anything in return. If they give up their religion for you, what will you do for them? What will you give to replace it? If you insult their beliefs you are essentially insulting them and at that point you aren't being a good person.

Likewise people aren't going to just turn atheist in one single conversation. It took me an entire year before I dropped the notion of god entirely. So the real question is, do you actually want to help people? Or do you want to berate them?

(14-11-2016 08:58 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  It really doesn't take them long to get to the "No True Scotsman"/"Not True Christians" fallacy and the whole "Stalin was a murdering atheist" crap, does it?

They're so predictable. It's a little sad.

It's especially sad that they don't realize that you can't tag non-communist atheists with Stalin while excusing True Christians™ for the actions of Not True Christians™.

I'm sorry if I seemed like I was generalizing, but I would not even tag a communist atheist with Stalin, nor would I necessarily think less of Communism because of Stalin, there were many good communists, there were many good nazis, and by the heavens I'm sure there are also good people who are fighting under the banner of ISIS. It is one of our greatest flaws to judge an entire group based on the actions of a few, or perhaps even the many, but we should always be mindful because to judge an entire group equally is the highway to bigotry and racism.

I thought I was being clear on that, I wasn't using Stalin as a means to generalize atheism, I was using it as an example of why you shouldn't generalize or at least that is how I intended for it to come across. Perhaps you misread my post?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: