*facepalm*

May the banhammer have mercy on you and your brethens..

 Reply

I have nothing against athiests whatsoever. When they decide to ridicule and hate on people with faith is when I have a problem. Mocking a religious person without any provocation is about as childish as making fun of a kid in a wheelchair. Its extremely hypocritical in most cases, because a lot of times you're the same people advocating for acceptance and tolerance. What happened to respecting people's culture and traditions that go back thousands of years?

Apparently anybody with any sort of belief is instantly public enemy number one to you just because you think their beliefs are batshit crazy. Sure, if they try to push their beliefs on you then go right ahead and tell them its batshit crazy, but if they aren't then leave them the fuck alone and keep your opinions to yourself.

Also, thanks for assuming that I watch Fox News. Right, because I don't like athiests making disparaging remarks towards religious folks it makes me an O'Reilly worshiper. What the fuck is wrong with you? That's the most overused straw-man attack in the book. "Oh you disagree because Fox News tells you what to think!" Give me a break with that shit already.

Go fuck yourself.

 Reply

"when people are doing suicide bombings because of their religious beliefs"

Alright...either you're five or you're "Papa Bear" Bill O'Reilly...which one is it?

There is so many things wrong with your argument, if you can call it that, I don't even know where to start.

Religion is a form of faith, which, at most, gives someone something to look forward to and at the very least, provides a set of guidelines for that person to live and abide by. I hope you know a lot of the laws you follow today couldn't have existed without religion and natural laws. To look down on a doctrine purely because of its spiritual aspects is not only short-sighted but ignorant and dumb. Even I, as an agnostic can see the value and worth of religion even when I don't strictly believe in a God per se.

Secondly, it is equally as dumb to pigeon hole all of religion because of the actions of a few fanatics, which, if you did some research, would realize are not truly following their religious doctrine at all but rather, are using the guise of religion to justify their actions. Could they have carried out the attack...you know...maybe, just maybe, because they're tired of being invaded and used by an imperial order? Could they, perhaps, be pushed to carry out the attacks because they are hungry? Tired of being impoverished? Tired of being stepped on and trampled by the western world?

Look, no one is attacking your religion. No one is attacking your undying faith in Jedism. Why do you have to come in here with such an ignorant and thoughtless post? Heh...yeah I can do strawmans too.

 Reply

"The fact that (American) politicians today feel that they need to promote institutionalized bigotry against homosexuals because of a religious belief is another."

I never said anything that would suggest that I thought the law, the state and religion should ever be one. In fact, if you go through my previous posts I had adamently supported gay rights, as well as the tolerence of people with experiences and beliefs different than my own. In fact, the only time I think they should intersect is when the law is used to protect the right of its citizens in holding freedoms guaranteed in the charter. The state and religion, should, as always remain seperate.

"It is when those people use those beliefs to justify harmful or negative action that I have a problem"

Then your attack is not on the people who practise religion or religion in general but rather people who use it as a guise for their actions.There is a difference between the two. Not all religions or people of faith are harmful, in fact the majority of them promote "peace" rather than violence. However, I think we can agree on the point condeming those that harm others in the name of religion.

"Just because religions pounced on natural laws does not mean they have a monopoly on them. Natural laws would exist with or without god. God is not a requisite for morality."

God might not be a requisite for morality, but that doesn't mean there isn't value in religion. It preaches morality, codes of conduct from which one can live their life by. Is "loving thy neighbour" at all that bad?

"If you don't believe in god, you are an atheist. Do some of that wonderful research stuff you suggested to me."

Never said that I don't believe in a God. As I said, I'm an agnostic. I don't believe we were meant to know whether there is or there isn't a God and I don't think there is a way for us to ever know for sure. Thus, I remain apathetic about the whole thing. We weren't meant to know, we have no way to find out and thus, till something happens, I'm not going to worry about it. Call it atheism without balls. 

"It's actually "There's probably no God" if you're talking about the bus ad. Might implies equal probability of either case being true. Probably implies that it's more likely that there isn't."

Forgive me, it was late. It still doesn't disprove my point though. The belief in atheism still leaves room for possibilities. Possibilities which I might add, for as impossible as they are, can still exist. Which leads to my next point:

"I'm not sure what "self assured extremes" you're talking about, but I haven't said a friggin word about what it is that I believe"

It's pretty obvious what you believe and the belief you are trying to force unto others. Are you so arrogant to claim that your one belief that there is no god and that religion is bad is so absolute that you can disallow the views of all and any others? That, my friend, is the crux of what I was trying to say. When you do that, you become fanatical, bordering on irrationality in your one set belief. That, in essence, is just as bad as the people with whom you are arguing against.

"You want to say there is a god, then you have to show me."

This would be hard for me to do since I don't adamantly believe that there is a God. Like I said, I'm agnostic. Thus, I would have a terrible time trying to convince you otherwise. At any rate, that wasn't the point I was trying to impress on you. Rather, all I wanted to say was that you should be fair and tolerant of people's beliefs even when they contradict your own.

 Reply

Who says what is rational? Rational to who? You? How is that any different than people who claim their religious doctrines are absolute? It makes no sense to tolerate only those that share hte same views as you.

 Reply

I am very much aware of the seperation of church and state and no where in my arguments have I ever said that I believe we could possibily benefit if such a governing dogma disappeared. However, while they obviously don't belong together, there is more than enough room for both to exist, which is why I have little patience with people who are promoting hate through arrogance if not straight out ignorance. Secondly, why target religion for your shitty situation? What about the corrupt bankers?, the CEOs at the top? George Bush? the CIA? the voters? Why are you blaming the little Christain family who goes to church every sunday for the direction of your country? Show me the correlation, devote of anything and everything else, and I'll show you a flaw in your argument.

 Reply