Board index › Off Topic Discussion › Random Discussion

Why do some atheists "blame it on religion"?

Page 3 of 4 [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

jmnixon95
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,931
Location: 미국

22 Aug 2011, 9:53 pm

Fnord wrote:
jmnixon95 wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
If you don't mind me asking, how do you think it ought to be done?

So many atheists just love being obnoxious and pissing off theists for the sake of it, and that is what is irritating.
We won't "win", so don't initiate arguments and make a complete fool out of yourself.
Religion exists, and it will throughout our lifetimes. To those who have a problem: Grow some balls and get the f**k over it.

Too late. I grew my balls and am helping religion get over itself from the inside, by pointing out things that the leaders of my church would rather not have pointed out. Already our regular attendance is down 19% over the last five years.

:twisted: MUHUWAHAHAHAHA!! !


"Some", Fnord. "Some."



Last edited by jmnixon95 on 22 Aug 2011, 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jmnixon95
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,931
Location: 미국

22 Aug 2011, 9:55 pm

But seriously, good for you. (I'm not being sarcastic; it's hard to use that phrase at all without people thinking you're being sarcastic.)



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

22 Aug 2011, 9:57 pm

jmnixon95 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
jmnixon95 wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
If you don't mind me asking, how do you think it ought to be done?

So many atheists just love being obnoxious and pissing off theists for the sake of it, and that is what is irritating.
We won't "win", so don't initiate arguments and make a complete fool out of yourself.
Religion exists, and it will throughout our lifetimes. To those who have a problem: Grow some balls and get the f**k over it.

Too late. I grew my balls and am helping religion get over itself from the inside, by pointing out things that the leaders of my church would rather not have pointed out. Already our regular attendance is down 19% over the last five years.

:twisted: MUHUWAHAHAHAHA!! !


"Some", Fnord. "Some."


First, the Episco-Metho-Presby Triad; next, ZE VORLDT!! !



jmnixon95
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,931
Location: 미국

22 Aug 2011, 9:59 pm

-



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

22 Aug 2011, 10:11 pm

Fnord wrote:
and ended only when free-thinking minds turned from Christian doctrine toward actually observing and confirming scientific principles.

You do know that the vast majority of these early scientists you're referring to were Christians, right?

Quote:
Where would we be technologically if the Integer Fratres ("Wright Brothers") had made the first powered flight from Elit Accipitris ("Kitty Hawk") in 903 CE?

Where would we be now if the last ice age had ended 2000 years early?


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

22 Aug 2011, 10:54 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
Fnord wrote:
and ended only when free-thinking minds turned from Christian doctrine toward actually observing and confirming scientific principles.

You do know that the vast majority of these early scientists you're referring to were Christians, right?

Like Galileo Gallilei? Had he not rejected - at least in part - oppressive Christian doctrine, the geocentric model would have held on even longer.
Ancalagon wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Where would we be technologically if the Integer Fratres ("Wright Brothers") had made the first powered flight from Elit Accipitris ("Kitty Hawk") in 903 CE?

Where would we be now if the last ice age had ended 2000 years early?

You are comparing the occurrence of a natural event to the foolishness of humankind.



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

22 Aug 2011, 11:16 pm

Fnord wrote:
Like Galileo Gallilei? Had he not rejected - at least in part - oppressive Christian doctrine, the geocentric model would have held on even longer.

Galileo's observation that God didn't give us a mind to let it rot was correct. Whether the pope at the time realized this or not is irrelevant. And the 'in part' thing is quite correct. Galileo didn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


KWifler
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 236
Location: Bellingham, WA, USA, Earth

22 Aug 2011, 11:19 pm

Any extremely large organization with willing followers who don't think about the implications of their actions, with control freaks for leaders, are evil.
Now as a thought experiment, name one large organization that doesn't fit this characterization. There isn't one. They're all evil.

Alternatively, every large organization serves a positive purpose, from religion satisfying peoples need for something to worship (which is proven to exist FYI), to wal-mart satisfying peoples need for extremely cheap goods, to government satisfying peoples need to be protected and ruled, to science satisfying peoples need to know more and have more kids and live in luxury and be entertained.



chrissyrun
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,788
Location: Hell :)

22 Aug 2011, 11:40 pm

KWifler wrote:
Any extremely large organization with willing followers who don't think about the implications of their actions, with control freaks for leaders, are evil.
Now as a thought experiment, name one large organization that doesn't fit this characterization. There isn't one. They're all evil.


There does exist a large organization, specifically a religion.....that has people who think about the consequences of their actions. In fact, we are told in our standards book that every action has a consequence and thus to think about our actions. What is the specification for a control-freak? Because as long as they give people the choice to pick their actions....then it isn't. even if there are a lot of rules.


_________________
Go die in a ditch if you're a b*tch, if you're a jerk, go to work, if you're just mean, flee the scene, and if you're rude, go ahead and intrude because you're probably just like me.


BassMan_720
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 288
Location: UK

23 Aug 2011, 1:16 am

chrissyrun wrote:
KWifler wrote:
Any extremely large organization with willing followers who don't think about the implications of their actions, with control freaks for leaders, are evil.
Now as a thought experiment, name one large organization that doesn't fit this characterization. There isn't one. They're all evil.


There does exist a large organization, specifically a religion.....that has people who think about the consequences of their actions. In fact, we are told in our standards book that every action has a consequence and thus to think about our actions. What is the specification for a control-freak? Because as long as they give people the choice to pick their actions....then it isn't. even if there are a lot of rules.

This argument does not stand when peoples' beliefs are manipulated enough to make them think that an evil act has a justification, particularly if it is in the name of a god.



chrissyrun
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,788
Location: Hell :)

23 Aug 2011, 2:00 am

BassMan_720 wrote:
chrissyrun wrote:
KWifler wrote:
Any extremely large organization with willing followers who don't think about the implications of their actions, with control freaks for leaders, are evil.
Now as a thought experiment, name one large organization that doesn't fit this characterization. There isn't one. They're all evil.


There does exist a large organization, specifically a religion.....that has people who think about the consequences of their actions. In fact, we are told in our standards book that every action has a consequence and thus to think about our actions. What is the specification for a control-freak? Because as long as they give people the choice to pick their actions....then it isn't. even if there are a lot of rules.

This argument does not stand when peoples' beliefs are manipulated enough to make them think that an evil act has a justification, particularly if it is in the name of a god.


In reference to the organization I was specifically talking about, they do not do that.


_________________
Go die in a ditch if you're a b*tch, if you're a jerk, go to work, if you're just mean, flee the scene, and if you're rude, go ahead and intrude because you're probably just like me.


BassMan_720
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 288
Location: UK

23 Aug 2011, 2:16 am

chrissyrun wrote:
In reference to the organization I was specifically talking about, they do not do that.
Are you sure? Isn't that what they would all say? I'm not having a go at any one organisation in particular. No doubt most, if not all, religious organisations will start off with good intentions. Where there are group leaders or committees with vested interests, there is potential to mis-use the powers invested in them. There is plenty of history of violence committed in the name of peace loving religions by people that were misled to think they were doing right. People with strong religious beliefs may be easy targets.



TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

23 Aug 2011, 2:26 am

Religion isn't to blame. It's the people using it to justify hatred and twisting the fundamental values and messages of <insert religion here> that are to blame.


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


DC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,477

23 Aug 2011, 2:51 am

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Religion isn't to blame. It's the people using it to justify hatred and twisting the fundamental values and messages of <insert religion here> that are to blame.


That is the 'in the name of' fallacy.

My religion isn't to blame because my religion is good so it must be something wrong the person, it's the evil doer's or it's someone possessed by demons etc etc


The only problem is, quite a lot of the time (not always) but it is the religion to be blame.

Let's take 1 Timothy 2 as an example,

Quote:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.


That is fairly clear and not open to interpretation.

Is the religion to blame for the misogyny of it's followers when the religion quite clearly commands it or is it 'a few bad apples' twisting the meaning?

If the point of the religion was to have equal treatment of men and women, what on earth is that doing in the holy book, why doesn't the good book simply say that men and women are equal?



TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

23 Aug 2011, 3:44 am

Okay. I really have no interest in debating interpretation of religious texts. You've got your mind set, as have I. I don't care for time wasting, go nowhere debates.


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


DC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,477

23 Aug 2011, 8:57 am

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Okay. I really have no interest in debating interpretation of religious texts. You've got your mind set, as have I. I don't care for time wasting, go nowhere debates.


Fair enough, you still have great taste in tea though. :)