Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H9BuxeNro0#t=81

funny that Smart people think the same about atheists  

the video Highlight how most atheist are really just individuals so Damaged by abrahamism that they literally cannot think of anything but the abrahamism...
Atheists say "lets represent religion with 2 group that worship THE SAME BOOKS ... ohh aren't we so smart people hat follow the same fairytale have the same fault in their beliefs .... "

this is why Smart people think Atheists are jackasses.





Poor unshackled atheist, so damaged like the torture victim, never able to recover proper function.

One religious person as a genius, who no doubt if alive today would be atheist

lol, how many today alive.


Poor religious small minded people they are so funny and unable to have free will when they follow religious doctrine.

Maybe it's just that Western atheists rebel against the indoctrination, irrationality and fake certainty of the concept of religion that we've known all our lives?

I don't think anybody is to blame for being part of their culture, even (and maybe especially) if that takes the form of reacting against it.

Maybe cultures thousands of miles from me have "religions" that aren't based upon blind acceptance, unquestioning obedience and that good old tribalistic superiority, but that falls outside the sphere of what I'm upset about. I don't like people being brainwashed into believing insanity on threat of eternal punishment because they were raised by people who had the same thing done to them.

I'm also fairly sure that some of these things aren't in any way exclusive to Abrahamic faiths:

you have the atheist doctrine as shown repeatable atheism is a doctrine it is a claim of a finite answer, it is a religion of nothing.
For you personally particularly as it has nothing to do with science as you have repeatable shown how little you know about even basic science.

Lack of doctrine is agnosticism FACT if you say you know something you have a doctrine if you say You DON'T know something then you don't have a doctrine

And NO way Einstein would have been atheist, You let alone dawkins and the other moron you post are worse than the atheists he argued against in his own time. You are fart less educated and just shout science when people ask why and that may work against abrahamist it but Completely fails against agnostics that believe in science and actually understand what they believe rather than just shouting the last placard they saw.



You literally posted an article that had a guy mocking religious people for not understanding their own beliefs that said the big bang was fact, IRONY at its finest

Ben_Reilly wrote:Maybe it's just that Western atheists rebel against the indoctrination, irrationality and fake certainty of the concept of religion that we've known all our lives?

I don't think anybody is to blame for being part of their culture, even (and maybe especially) if that takes the form of reacting against it.

Maybe cultures thousands of miles from me have "religions" that aren't based upon blind acceptance, unquestioning obedience and that good old tribalistic superiority, but that falls outside the sphere of what I'm upset about. I don't like people being brainwashed into believing insanity on threat of eternal punishment because they were raised by people who had the same thing done to them.

I'm also fairly sure that some of these things aren't in any way exclusive to Abrahamic faiths:

It was part of our culture though Ben and reasoning and being able to look at religious where this was once denied has allowed people to rightly question what was once dogmatic belief.
I fell the same about any religious belief of which i do not deny that they all have some good within them, what I question is why people do need to believe in the first place, which forms from yet again a doubt. There is a need to believe that that this existance in not the end and this doubt leads to a need to believe in something divine. Like I have always said something so intelligent would be devoid of emotions as it would have no need to be emotive. It would know what would be harmful and wrong to others. Emotions just cloud rational thinking and are not required when you think about it to do what is rnot going to effect others.

veya_victaous wrote:you have the atheist doctrine as shown repeatable atheism is a doctrine it is a claim of a finite answer, it is a religion of nothing.
For you personally particularly as it has nothing to do with science as you have repeatable shown how little you know about even basic science.

Lack of doctrine is agnosticism FACT if you say you know something you have a doctrine if you say You DON'T know something then you don't have a doctrine

And NO way Einstein would have been atheist, You let alone dawkins and the other moron you post are worse than the atheists he argued against in his own time. You are fart less educated and just shout science when people ask why and that may work against abrahamist it but Completely fails against agnostics that believe in science and actually understand what they believe rather than just shouting the last placard they saw.



You literally posted an article that had a guy mocking religious people for not understanding their own beliefs that said the big bang was fact, IRONY at its finest

And this is why you can not reason with someone religious they invent bullshit to fit into theier warped world that you have created.
Athesits have no doctrine, its non-belief.
You just have a weird dislike for athiests because you believe in a religion yourself and your beliefs are also irrational.
You need to reaslise that they are, but I doubt the penny will drop anytime soon.
All you come out with is hateful replies after hateful replies to anything that challenges your beliefs.
Hence why you are going back on ignore, as i would get more reason from a 5 year old than I would attempting to debate such an immature person as yourself.
So he claims the big bang is a fact, well did you miss the part where he said he can be wrong, or did this point elude you?
I guess it did, where you cannot be wrong in your religious beliefs, otherwise you will cease to believe in your religion.
Athiests can be wrong and we accept that we can, religious people with religious beliefs cannot be wrong and that is the difference
If Einstein was alive today I have no doubt he would be athiest.
Anyway best to put you back on ignore, I prefer debates, not rants.

@ben
by indoctrinating them in lies and half truths???
And that's EXACTLY what Einstein said, too afflicted by their personal interaction with a specific organized faith to be open minded about the the nature of the universe.

Atheism HAS NOT PROVEN ITSELF EITHER
it makes a finite claim about the nature of the universe.
As a believer in science THAT IS WHAT I AM AGAINST
don't care what the end answer ends up being as long as it is true NOT some shit people are saying cause they heard it. with out any evidence in the slightest.

Atheism has already committed all the sins of religion by allowing fools like didge to be it's mouth piece, has already made false claims, has already suggested it posses answer it does not and like the stereotype of the "Angry atheist victim of abuse" also tries constantly to put ALL spiritual people in the same boat as Abrahamsit which is disingenuous and cowardly IF he or any atheist is so Sure they have the right answer they WHY Can NONE of them give any scientific evidence for it? Proving that ONE thing doesn't exist doesn't prove the answer is nothing.

it is true SMART scientifically minded people laugh at the naivety and hypocrisy of atheists.

atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=athiesm+defiention+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=ua65VaPSC-fHmwWb-JAw

that is not non-belief that is a belief that "there is NO GODS"

non belief would mean that you would say I don't know by saying you believe the Opposite you have a belief it is just the opposite

Einstein was one of the founders of the pantheist movement the guy MADE a Religion of Science and you think he is going to be an atheist that HE OPENLY MOCKED FOR THEIR RIDICULOUSNESS

fuck me I cant believe i am wasting my time with someone so dumb

• 
  

• 
  

 
 

veya_victaous wrote:@ben
by indoctrinating them in lies and half truths???
And that's EXACTLY what Einstein said, too afflicted by their personal interaction with a specific organized faith to be open minded about the the nature of the universe.

Atheism HAS NOT PROVEN ITSELF EITHER
it makes a finite claim about the nature of the universe.
As a believer in science THAT IS WHAT I AM AGAINST
don't care what the end answer ends up being as long as it is true NOT some shit people are saying cause they heard it. with out any evidence in the slightest.

Atheism has already committed all the sins of religion by allowing fools like didge to be it's mouth piece, has already made false claims, has already suggested it posses answer it does not and like the stereotype of the "Angry atheist victim of abuse" also tries constantly to put ALL spiritual people in the same boat as Abrahamsit which is disingenuous and cowardly IF he or any atheist is so Sure they have the right answer they WHY Can NONE of them give any scientific evidence for it? Proving that ONE thing doesn't exist doesn't prove the answer is nothing.

it is true SMART scientifically minded people laugh at the naivety and hypocrisy of atheists.

Dude, I'm not part of a club. You're smart enough to know that everyone, no matter who they claim to speak for, is really just speaking for him/herself.

As far as my lack of belief goes, it's that -- a lack of belief, not a positive belief in nothing or nothingness. As a rationalist, I only accept things based on the evidence mustered to support them, and in my opinion, no evidence has been mustered for the existence of the supernatural, so I don't accept it.

I think belief itself is a terrible concept, at least when it comes to things besides believing in the love you have for your loved ones and their love for you, believing in your capabilities, etc. Things outside that are just theories of reality; none of them deserve to be "believed in" because they're not important enough.

When it comes to theories of reality, I prefer the word "accept" because it just means whether you find something reasonable. With the big bang, I don't "believe" in it with the kind of emotional certainty that "belief" implies, I just think it sounds logical given the evidence people have found.

For that matter, I don't fervently disbelieve in the concept of God any more passionately than I disbelieve in Santa Claus -- I have no anger toward the concept, I have a number of problems with what people do with that concept.

I know ben I'm sorry but didge is pissing me off

But I'll ask you, can you see the issue with Looking for the supernatural in nature?
and that religion is NOT supposed to be supernatural as it is supposed to be what is real?

This is Einstein's point, atheist's set an impossible task and one that is illogical. You are trying to find something unreal in reality. that does not make sense.

the question about their worth depends on what you consider worthwhile, it is as worthy as finding out what is in the rings of Saturn, finding out about dark matter or the higgs boson, and those things directly are related to pantheism, the faith of Einstein.


I mean you got didge there that STILL doesn't get that saying the big bang is fact is NOT saying something that is currently right and may be proven wrong, it straight up lying it is not and has never been fact! Science has NEVER SAID the big bang is right, only that it is possible.

There lies the problem with religious people.
For one they do not like their beliefs challenged and they are so over sensitive.
What you need to do veya is start to grow up and act with some maturity.
Athiests can be wrong and recognise that we can be.
Athiests are not trying to find anything other than seeking evidence for the many aspects in life all around us. You have a view you think everyonbe should except, when I and others do not have to, that is your belief and you are welcome to this. Where as I except religious people have views but they are not beyond ridicule.
I have never claimed the big bang is a fact and this proves how you constantly twist things when shown up.
The view to the big bang could be very wrong and athiesm can except that. Religious belief cannot accept that anything is wrong within their faith, or that faith will implode.

If you cannot be adult about such debates I suggest you do not enter into debates with them, but your views on atheists are so removed from reality because you fail to understand that we readily admit we can be wrong.

Laters

veya_victaous wrote:I know ben I'm sorry but didge is pissing me off

But I'll ask you, can you see the issue with Looking for the supernatural in nature?  
and that religion is NOT supposed to be supernatural as it is supposed to be what is real?

This is Einstein's point, atheist's set an impossible task and one that is illogical. You are trying to find something unreal in reality. that does not make sense.

the question about their worth depends on what you consider worthwhile, it is as worthy as finding out what is in the rings of Saturn, finding out about dark matter or the higgs boson, and those things directly are related to pantheism, the faith of Einstein.  


I mean you got didge there that STILL doesn't get that saying the big bang is fact is NOT saying something that is currently right and may be proven wrong, it straight up lying it is not and has never been fact! Science has NEVER SAID the big bang is right, only that it is possible.

Interesting, I always thought he meant something more along the lines that science needs to be guided by a sense of right and wrong. But like you say, we all have different priorities and concerns, and while I am fascinated by the rings of Saturn etc., I'm not overly concerned about some supernatural element to why they're there, their "purpose," etc.

Non-belief in the supernatural has layers and layers of implications to go through -- particularly for someone like me whose parents did their best to fully indoctrinate me in the notion that every little blade of grass is exactly where God intended it to be and playing a role in his grand plan for the universe

Ben_Reilly wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I know ben I'm sorry but didge is pissing me off

But I'll ask you, can you see the issue with Looking for the supernatural in nature?  
and that religion is NOT supposed to be supernatural as it is supposed to be what is real?

This is Einstein's point, atheist's set an impossible task and one that is illogical. You are trying to find something unreal in reality. that does not make sense.

the question about their worth depends on what you consider worthwhile, it is as worthy as finding out what is in the rings of Saturn, finding out about dark matter or the higgs boson, and those things directly are related to pantheism, the faith of Einstein.  


I mean you got didge there that STILL doesn't get that saying the big bang is fact is NOT saying something that is currently right and may be proven wrong, it straight up lying it is not and has never been fact! Science has NEVER SAID the big bang is right, only that it is possible.

Interesting, I always thought he meant something more along the lines that science needs to be guided by a sense of right and wrong. But like you say, we all have different priorities and concerns, and while I am fascinated by the rings of Saturn etc., I'm not overly concerned about some supernatural element to why they're there, their "purpose," etc.

Non-belief in the supernatural has layers and layers of implications to go through -- particularly for someone like me whose parents did their best to fully indoctrinate me in the notion that every little blade of grass is exactly where God intended it to be and playing a role in his grand plan for the universe

Eh?

Should I use my gifts of invisability to fight crime or hide from the world?
I have never said science should be guided by right or wrong.
I have stated that you can place a scientific stand by point well being which I debate with Victor.
Maybe its the fact Americans and Australians have difficulty understanding British people, which maybe why there is confusion.

Cuchulain wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I know ben I'm sorry but didge is pissing me off

But I'll ask you, can you see the issue with Looking for the supernatural in nature?  
and that religion is NOT supposed to be supernatural as it is supposed to be what is real?

This is Einstein's point, atheist's set an impossible task and one that is illogical. You are trying to find something unreal in reality. that does not make sense.

the question about their worth depends on what you consider worthwhile, it is as worthy as finding out what is in the rings of Saturn, finding out about dark matter or the higgs boson, and those things directly are related to pantheism, the faith of Einstein.  


I mean you got didge there that STILL doesn't get that saying the big bang is fact is NOT saying something that is currently right and may be proven wrong, it straight up lying it is not and has never been fact! Science has NEVER SAID the big bang is right, only that it is possible.

Interesting, I always thought he meant something more along the lines that science needs to be guided by a sense of right and wrong. But like you say, we all have different priorities and concerns, and while I am fascinated by the rings of Saturn etc., I'm not overly concerned about some supernatural element to why they're there, their "purpose," etc.

Non-belief in the supernatural has layers and layers of implications to go through -- particularly for someone like me whose parents did their best to fully indoctrinate me in the notion that every little blade of grass is exactly where God intended it to be and playing a role in his grand plan for the universe

Eh?

Should I use my gifts of invisability to fight crime or hide from the world?
I have never said science should be guided by right or wrong.
I have stated that you can place a scientific stand by point well being which I debate with Victor.
Maybe its the fact Americans and Australians have difficulty understanding British people, which maybe why there is confusion.

Of course that's the case, you've seen Scots subtitled before, right?

You seem to tar every religious person with the same brush - the very thing you rail against when it comes to people tarring all Muslims as terrorists!

Perhaps the reason you "hate" religion so much is the same reason straight men "hate" gays?

Maybe.....you're a closet worshipper!

eddie wrote:You seem to tar every religious person with the same brush - the very thing you rail against when it comes to people tarring all Muslims as terrorists!

Perhaps the reason you "hate" religion so much is the same reason straight men "hate" gays?

Maybe.....you're a closet worshipper!

Why is it religious people cannot even comprehend the difference between ridicule and hate?
I do not hate, as hate has little purpose, so again you are poor ly mistaken and the question I ask is why?
I tar religions as all the same whether it be a belief in faries to Zeus, they are all based on no evidence.
So do you have a point or do you just invent things not even claimed?

Nope. Just though it was funny

eddie wrote:Nope. Just though it was funny

All I can say is you have a warped sense of humour, glad you are able to amuse yourself.

Didge you have no idea how often I am laughing at my own jokes lol

eddie wrote:Didge you have no idea how often I am laughing at my own jokes lol

Like I say, what ever helps amuse you.

eddie wrote:You seem to tar every religious person with the same brush - the very thing you rail against when it comes to people tarring all Muslims as terrorists!

Perhaps the reason you "hate" religion so much is the same reason straight men "hate" gays?

Maybe.....you're a closet worshipper!

That's the funniest thing you've said, ever!

But you also have a point.

Why do atheists always have a go at worshippers? Something for dodge to think about.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

eddie wrote:You seem to tar every religious person with the same brush - the very thing you rail against when it comes to people tarring all Muslims as terrorists!

Perhaps the reason you "hate" religion so much is the same reason straight men "hate" gays?

Maybe.....you're a closet worshipper!

That's the funniest thing you've said, ever!

But you also have a point.

Why do atheists always have a go at worshippers? Something for dodge to think about.  

Nothing to think about, I question why you believe a man who heard voices in his head was conversing with an angel.
If someone came up to you today claiming the same you would no doubt shun them, but make this claim in a book and you believe without hesitation.
Is that having a go at you or trying to reason with you?

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

That's the funniest thing you've said, ever!

But you also have a point.

Why do atheists always have a go at worshippers? Something for dodge to think about.  

Nothing to think about, I question why you believe a man who heard voices in his head was conversing with an angel.
If someone came up to you today claiming the same you would no doubt shun them, but make this claim in a book and you believe without hesitation.
Is that having a go at you or trying to reason with you?

No, I wouldn't shun them. I have an open mind and not arrogant enough to think I know everything.

So your assumption is wrong.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

eddie wrote:You seem to tar every religious person with the same brush - the very thing you rail against when it comes to people tarring all Muslims as terrorists!

Perhaps the reason you "hate" religion so much is the same reason straight men "hate" gays?

Maybe.....you're a closet worshipper!

That's the funniest thing you've said, ever!

But you also have a point.

Why do atheists always have a go at worshippers? Something for dodge to think about.  

Nothing to think about, I question why you believe a man who heard voices in his head was conversing with an angel.
If someone came up to you today claiming the same you would no doubt shun them, but make this claim in a book and you believe without hesitation.
Is that having a go at you or trying to reason with you?

But that's the point isn't it? Why do you have to reason with him? It's up to him what he believes in surely?
I don't have a religion, though I have "God", but I don't see the problem with someone having a religion.

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Nothing to think about, I question why you believe a man who heard voices in his head was conversing with an angel.
If someone came up to you today claiming the same you would no doubt shun them, but make this claim in a book and you believe without hesitation.
Is that having a go at you or trying to reason with you?

But that's the point isn't it? Why do you have  to reason with him? It's up to him what he believes in surely?
I don't have a religion, though I have "God", but I don't see the problem with someone having a religion.

It is up to him in to what he believes, but can I not question his beliefs?
I do not have a problem with people having personal belief, its when they try to impose this on others.
I fail to see why it is some how bad to question beliefs people have when you will find many religious people do exactly the same in order to convert people to their faith and how do they do this?
By claiming questioning the views of that individual.
I rightly question religious beliefs that hold discrminating beliefs. To say I should not is like saying I should not question racism for example.
Remember many religious doctrines are ideologies and should aways be questioned, even more so if it allows for poor discrminating beliefs.
For example Zack holds very discrminating views against Homosexuals, so should I not question that?

Veya, your western centric view of atheism is staggering, and by your skewed thinking it is also racist, since you ignore the largest nation of atheists in the world, China.

As to your yet again ridiculous equating of atheist speakers with religious fundamentalists. Again moronic. Atheists write books and give lectures. When we have a body count to match religionists then we can talk, until then sucu statements make you seem a hystetical anti-western nutter at times.

I am not interested that half your dramatics are a response to didge, your talk against atheism is nonsensical.

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:

But that's the point isn't it? Why do you have  to reason with him? It's up to him what he believes in surely?
I don't have a religion, though I have "God", but I don't see the problem with someone having a religion.

It is up to him in to what he believes, but can I not question his beliefs?
I do not have a problem with people having personal belief, its when they try to impose this on others.
I fail to see why it is some how bad to question beliefs people have when you will find many religious people do exactly the same in order to convert people to their faith and how do they do this?
By claiming questioning the views of that individual.
I rightly question religious beliefs that hold discrminating beliefs. To say I should not is like saying I should not question racism for example.
Remember many religious doctrines are ideologies and should aways be questioned, even more so if it allows for poor discrminating beliefs.
For example Zack holds very discrminating views against Homosexuals, so should I not question that?

Not only do you have to understand the difference between criticising and mocking/ridiculing but the difference between that and questioning too.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

It is up to him in to what he believes, but can I not question his beliefs?
I do not have a problem with people having personal belief, its when they try to impose this on others.
I fail to see why it is some how bad to question beliefs people have when you will find many religious people do exactly the same in order to convert people to their faith and how do they do this?
By claiming questioning the views of that individual.
I rightly question religious beliefs that hold discrminating beliefs. To say I should not is like saying I should not question racism for example.
Remember many religious doctrines are ideologies and should aways be questioned, even more so if it allows for poor discrminating beliefs.
For example Zack holds very discrminating views against Homosexuals, so should I not question that?

Not only do you have to understand the difference between criticising and mocking/ridiculing but the difference between that and questioning too.

More inane drivel. When you have to freedom of thought, then we might have a decent discussion.

There's nothing wrong with being an atheist if you want to be one, it's this militant atheism which is hypocritical. Militant atheists don't like religious people telling others what to believe or not, but they don't mind doing that themselves.

I think militant atheists are angry because they can't get religious people to agree with them, or because they had faith and now they feel that faith damaged them in some way, so they resent anyone else having faith.

Raggamuffin wrote:There's nothing wrong with being an atheist if you want to be one, it's this militant atheism which is hypocritical. Militant atheists don't like religious people telling others what to believe or not, but they don't mind doing that themselves.

I think militant atheists are angry because they can't get religious people to agree with them, or because they had faith and now they feel that faith damaged them in some way, so they resent anyone else having faith.

Why should it be okay for religious people telling others what to believe or not?
That in itself is insulting another faith by stating their belief is wrong.
They also then back this up with threats of damnation for their beliefs.
Please explain how that is any different, if not far worse than an athiest saying that religion has no evidence?
At least I am not saying they are going to suffer, in fact I am helping them be free from such constraints.

I think some religious people think they should be immune from bring their claims of faith to task and its about time they realise that what they follow is just as ideology in most cases, one that is born from some very poor discrminating beliefs. Its all well and good following good parts, but how do you explain ignoring the bad parts? It then makes that faith and a belief in that faith a contradiction.

So a claim to militant athiesm is a poor excuse to claim.
As any person who attempts to convert another to that faith by your logic would be militant.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:There's nothing wrong with being an atheist if you want to be one, it's this militant atheism which is hypocritical. Militant atheists don't like religious people telling others what to believe or not, but they don't mind doing that themselves.

I think militant atheists are angry because they can't get religious people to agree with them, or because they had faith and now they feel that faith damaged them in some way, so they resent anyone else having faith.

Why should it be okay for religious people telling others what to believe or not?
That in itself is insulting another faith by stating their belief is wrong.
They also then back this up with threats of damnation for their beliefs.
Please explain how that is any different, if not far worse than an athiest saying that religion has no evidence?
At least I am not saying they are going to suffer, in fact I am helping them be free from such constraints.

I think some religious people think they should be immune from bring their claims of faith to task and its about time they realise that what they follow is just as ideology in most cases, one that is born from some very poor discrminating beliefs. Its all well and good following good parts, but how do you explain ignoring the bad parts? It then makes that faith and a belief in that faith a contradiction.

So a claim to militant athiesm is a poor excuse to claim.
As any person who attempts to convert another to that faith by your logic would be militant.

You misunderstood my post. The point is that militant atheists get all uptight about something they do themselves.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Why should it be okay for religious people telling others what to believe or not?
That in itself is insulting another faith by stating their belief is wrong.
They also then back this up with threats of damnation for their beliefs.
Please explain how that is any different, if not far worse than an athiest saying that religion has no evidence?
At least I am not saying they are going to suffer, in fact I am helping them be free from such constraints.

I think some religious people think they should be immune from bring their claims of faith to task and its about time they realise that what they follow is just as ideology in most cases, one that is born from some very poor discrminating beliefs. Its all well and good following good parts, but how do you explain ignoring the bad parts? It then makes that faith and a belief in that faith a contradiction.

So a claim to militant athiesm is a poor excuse to claim.
As any person who attempts to convert another to that faith by your logic would be militant.

You misunderstood my post. The point is that militant atheists get all uptight about something they do themselves.

The point is your view to it being militant is nothing more than moot.
As to getting uptight, how?
We offer no threats or harm to people if they continue with their faith.
So again your reasoning makes no sense.
The only people I see getting uptight is religious people thenselves, because athiests are not afraid to say how poor something is.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You misunderstood my post. The point is that militant atheists get all uptight about something they do themselves.

The point is your view to it being militant is nothing more than moot.
As to getting uptight, how?
We offer no threats or harm to people if they continue with their faith.
So again your reasoning makes no sense.
The only people I see getting uptight is religious people thenselves, because athiests are not afraid to say how poor something is.

And yet if a religious person told you that your lack of faith was "poor", you'd be very defensive about that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

The point is your view to it being militant is nothing more than moot.
As to getting uptight, how?
We offer no threats or harm to people if they continue with their faith.
So again your reasoning makes no sense.
The only people I see getting uptight is religious people thenselves, because athiests are not afraid to say how poor something is.

And yet if a religious person told you that your lack of faith was "poor", you'd be very defensive about that.

Why would I?
They need to back up why they think so.

Again religions are ideologies, so if I was say to you that racism is disgusting and that people who follow racism are small minded, would that be wrong to you?

I have been told by faithful people that my lack of faith is poor, that I'm going to hell, that I've made myself into my own god, etc.

I just know they're wrong -- I like dealing with reality rather than superimposing an invisible web of religious meaning over everything that happens in the world and to me, and it's also more fulfilling to do what you think is right for it's own sake, rather than because you're afraid of what a god might do to you if you don't.

Also would like to point out that if atheists were really like religious people, we'd be raising kids to think something along the lines of, they'd better not believe in God, or Darwin will punish them for eternity

My parents were atheists - not that they said so, but they didn't have s religion and they never talked of God.
My dad was very spiritual though, I think he had some kind of belief.

It's his birthday today, I hope wherever he is, he's proud of me and he's at serene peace x

Ben_Reilly wrote:I have been told by faithful people that my lack of faith is poor, that I'm going to hell, that I've made myself into my own god, etc.

I just know they're wrong -- I like dealing with reality rather than superimposing an invisible web of religious meaning over everything that happens in the world and to me, and it's also more fulfilling to do what you think is right for it's own sake, rather than because you're afraid of what a god might do to you if you don't.

And when you tell people with faith that they are wrong, that they believe in insanity, and that they're deluded, they will say that you're wrong. If you try to tell them that your way is better, they will disagree.

Why not just agree to differ?

eddie wrote:My parents were atheists - not that they said so, but they didn't have s religion and they never talked of God.
My dad was very spiritual though, I think he had some kind of belief.

It's his birthday today, I  hope wherever he is, he's proud of me and he's at serene peace x

Now that was beautiful to say.
Happy Birthday to your father Eddie.
My heart goes out to you today.

Your belief is something that is within you Eddie and you may well be right in the kind of God you believe in, as its one of love and has no conditions.
Its a belief that does not impose itself on others and its one you cherish and thus respect.
I just wish more had a belief like you as I am sure there would be more happiness in the world.

Its more the main faiths how they contradict and can allow people to wrongly think they can impose their beliefs on others that I challenge, but yours is one people can look up to even if they do not believe in.

Have a good evening.
For what is worth and there is never any excuse when I lash out, I am sorry when ever I have wronged you, as you are a very special lady.

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:My parents were atheists - not that they said so, but they didn't have s religion and they never talked of God.
My dad was very spiritual though, I think he had some kind of belief.

It's his birthday today, I  hope wherever he is, he's proud of me and he's at serene peace x

Now that was beautiful to say.
Happy Birthday to your father Eddie.
My heart goes out to you today.

Your belief is something that is within you Eddie and you may well be right in the kind of God you believe in, as its one of love and has no conditions.
Its a belief that does not impose itself on others and its one you cherish and thus respect.
I just wish more had a belief like you as I am sure there would be more happiness in the world.

Its more the main faiths how they contradict and can allow people to wrongly think they can impose their beliefs on others that I challenge, but yours is one people can look up to even if they do not believe in.

Have a good evening.
For what is worth and there is never any excuse when I lash out, I am sorry when ever I have wronged you, as you are a very special lady.

Thank you Didge. Those were very kind words and I really appreciate them x

Ben_Reilly wrote:Maybe it's just that Western atheists rebel against the indoctrination, irrationality and fake certainty of the concept of religion that we've known all our lives?

I don't think anybody is to blame for being part of their culture, even (and maybe especially) if that takes the form of reacting against it.

Maybe cultures thousands of miles from me have "religions" that aren't based upon blind acceptance, unquestioning obedience and that good old tribalistic superiority, but that falls outside the sphere of what I'm upset about. I don't like people being brainwashed into believing insanity on threat of eternal punishment because they were raised by people who had the same thing done to them.

I'm also fairly sure that some of these things aren't in any way exclusive to Abrahamic faiths:

A lot of people seem to admire Buddhism, but they have a similar concept about what happens after death. That's what reincarnation is about - until they achieve nirvana or enlightenment anyway. They don't think of it as "punishment" though - hence the controversy re Glenn Hoddle and his comments about disabled people.

eddie wrote:You seem to tar every religious person with the same brush - the very thing you rail against when it comes to people tarring all Muslims as terrorists!

Perhaps the reason you "hate" religion so much is the same reason straight men "hate" gays?

Maybe.....you're a closet worshipper!

LOL
that is exactly what I see him do to

Closet worshiper

oh why oh why do I have such an over active imagination

I now have an image of didge...all 6 foot something of him, bent double in a small wardrobe (closet) head down, arse in air praying to a picture of the flying spaghetti monster....

thats gonna haunt me forever........

Ben_Reilly wrote:Also would like to point out that if atheists were really like religious people, we'd be raising kids to think something along the lines of, they'd better not believe in God, or Darwin will punish them for eternity

OR they will teach them what they believe, and if they are of the Atheist faith(fundamentalists like didge) they will tell them they definitely know for sure about an aspect of the nature of the universe when they do not (or have no scientific reason) and they will teach them it is true because 'science'

the point of escaping the mental prison was not to swap the word god or the word magic with the word science.
it is an improvement but still

the issue as I see it, is some humans do not like being in a state of 'unknowing' so they will convince themselves that they know (or someone does) and that they can just listen and parrot... I think many atheist find the idea that "we really do not know a lot" scary, Science is no where near as 'complete' as most atheist think it is and many get super defensive when they are told you cant just say 'believe science' and expect to be treated as 'correct' you have to 'understand science' and if capable maybe you can add to it.

It's not the bible, a book written and read to be believed, it is chalkboard with many people writing up things in chalk and sometimes the same thing is written often enough some one will use paint(the point of become law or fact)

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

The point is your view to it being militant is nothing more than moot.
As to getting uptight, how?
We offer no threats or harm to people if they continue with their faith.
So again your reasoning makes no sense.
The only people I see getting uptight is religious people thenselves, because athiests are not afraid to say how poor something is.

And yet if a religious person told you that your lack of faith was "poor", you'd be very defensive about that.

Why would I?
They need to back up why they think so.

Again religions are ideologies, so if I was say to you that racism is disgusting and that people who follow racism are small minded, would that be wrong to you?

When people start to define reality by their religion are they JUST ideologies?
for example Tommy truly thinks homosexuality is unnatural because of religious views in his mind that is "a real aspect of nature".

I think maybe we are arguing different things
The moral shit I don't care about as it is unprovable And generally they are all pretty similar especially once allowing for geopolitical perspective

Where i am concerned with Religions are their "statements about the nature of the universe" that is all that can be confirmed with science. As express multiple times any 'religion' to have merit on a scientific level need to be applicable to all and not all people all LIFE. as we are just animals not some magic sky giants master work, we are just the another product of evolution.