Pastor in US burns Koran, Afghans kill 8 UN workers in protest

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The majority of atheists would hold a negative view(often hostile) towards religion. You can pretend that there is a silent majority somewhere who has never been effected by religious views and just embraced there atheism out of logic and reason but, you won't find evidence of that. People who leave a faith are generally the most hostile towards their former religion. Most atheist at the very least grew up within a nominal religious community. They at some point rejected that community in faviour of atheistic beliefs. We know this because the majority of the world is religious.

You can maintain that the atheists on this site aren't representative of atheists in general but, you aren't producing any evidence of the silent majority. What do you base your opinion on. Sure Cheese and Thor could just be wild wingnuts on the fringes of atheistic opinion but, where than is the mainstream? Show me.

So what is the problem here? Are you feeling persecuted for your beliefs? This is just an internet forum and people are just stating their opinions. You are free to do the same.

My own personal thoughts on this are that most of the western world, aside from the United States, has been areligious for many decades. I could say that about Quebec, much of Europe (aside from the encroach of Islam from immigration), Russia, and certainly China and Japan are areligious. Shinto and Buddhist practices are more cultural behaviors/customs than possessing any true theistic beliefs.

I'm Asian myself and most people in China, Japan etc. grow up without being in the Judeo-Christian/Islamic religious communities and practices that you claim people are backlashing against. It is the same for many generations of young people in Europe/Eurasia. It's simply not part of the cultural milieu.

You are right however, that several of the people that post in the religion threads on CP were once religious or grew up with religion and have since decided via logic and reason to leave their faiths. What is wrong with that?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's always about control of resources. If the justification is religion or race or who knows what it always boils down to troops of monkeys fighting other monkeys for resources. That's the way humans are programmed.

And for religion, those resources do not even have to be real. They can be self-fulfillment, peace of mind, good karma, or even things attained in the afterlife whether it be eternal life, salvation, celestial kingdoms, nirvana, a harem of perpetual virgins, etc.

Is it any wonder why prosperity gospels are so popular when the New Testament (or more aptly Pauline and early Christian church) example seemed to be more of the "sell all your worldly possessions" paradigm?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I find it ironic that you reject my generalizations as wrong on the grounds it doesn't fit all the time yet the whole reason why we are again talking about your silly religious position is because of generalizations made about religion at the start of this thread. Atheists are the kings of generalizations and hyperbole.

So we're changing the subject and switching to rhetoric now?

Theists are the kings of generalizations and hyperbole. All the billions of them!

Sweeping generalizations, easy and fun for the whole family!

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The majority of atheists would hold a negative view(often hostile) towards religion.

Just like people who believe in a round earth would hold a negative view towards people who believe in a flat earth. Obvious point is obvious. As for "often hostile", define often, define hostile. Some people view disagreement as hostile, which is silly. Some people are hostile in response to hostility. Some people just like to feel superior to others.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You can pretend that there is a silent majority somewhere who has never been effected by religious views and just embraced there atheism out of logic and reason but, you won't find evidence of that.

That's not even what I've claimed, I haven't made any claim.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You can maintain that the atheists on this site aren't representative of atheists in general but, you aren't producing any evidence of the silent majority.

I don't have to, I'm not the one making the claim, you are.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

What do you base your opinion on. Sure Cheese and Thor could just be wild wingnuts on the fringes of atheistic opinion but, where than is the mainstream? Show me.

I'm not the one making the claim about what percentage of atheists hold a specific opinion, you are, so it's your claim to support.

And as I've already said, even if the majority did hold the opinion that religion is the "cause of all the ills in society", that still doesn't demonstrate that that is a result of the lack of belief in a god. To think so is flawed reasoning so it is an invalid conclusion.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I can show you directories of thousands of churches who havn't ever burned a Koran. Likewise we could find thousands of Mosques who didn't riot after last Friday's prayers. In fact I bet a google search would turn up many public denouncments of both behaviours by members of their respective communities. Where again is this peacable silent majority of atheists?

I was talking about the media and you're talking about church websites, I can't tell what point you are trying to make here.

I searched for atheist websites and could only find one that even mentioned these killings and that was to link to a Sam Harris blog post. So it appears that the peaceable silent majority of atheists are doing what the peaceable silent majority of theists are doing; not burning Korans and not rioting.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You who are quick to point out my generalizations, have you ever replied to a post of one of your atheist brothers to point out the limits of their generalizations. Maybe your silent majority should be more proactive in communicating their viewpoint instead of letting the wingnuts represent them.

Tu quoque.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So which author has not attacked religion using the same generalizations as members of this site and how many books has he/she sold?

You're making the claim about what all or some portion atheists believe. I picked the book most likely to represent the strongest view that religion is harmful and have sold the most copies to try and figure out how many atheists would hold that position, and it comes out to a very very small percentage. I tried to think of the best case that could be made for your point for that perspective, and it falls far short.

So what are you asking here? You want to determine how many people don't think religion is harmful by how many copies of a book that, what, has the absence of a position on the harmfulness of religion? That's ridiculous, because no one would write the book, "photon's book on why I have no opinion on religion being harmful to society", and no one would buy it.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If all I can observe is atheists that are hostile towards religion how am I suppose to conclude there are any other than what I see?

"If all I can observe is theists that are hostile towards non-believers, how am I supposed to conclude there are any other than what I see?"

Same point from the other side, you either give both the exact same merit and agree that my conclusion that all Christians are hostile towards non-believers is valid, or you understand why both are invalid.

To answer the question of how are you supposed to conclude that there are any other than what you see, that's easy, you do what reasonable people do and realize that your own experience is limited with respect to all possible experience.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Ok show me 5 atheist web sites that don't attack religion in general. Surely some of these positive atheists that live outside of CP must have the internet.

Like I said, why would someone make a website that says "I'm an atheist and I have no opinion about religion's affect on society"? The ones that think it impacts it are going to write about it, and the ones that don't aren't. It's a silly request.

And I expect your concept of "attacking" religion is different than mine.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yah I can just feel the love whenever you atheist's highjack one of these threads to save us from our misguided paths.

Just like I can feel the love whenever a Christian tells me I'm going to hell and that I hate God and that I'm doing the devil's work and that God killed all those people in Japan/Haiti/Whereever because of my unbelief.

I was talking about the motivation, not the method. When I was a Christian I disagreed with many of the methods used to evangelize because I thought they were mean spirited, and I think there are atheists who are guilty of the same thing. But I understand the motivation.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I have supported that atheists are drawn to a hostile view of religion. This site and the major atheist authors carry that point of view.

You have supported that some atheists are drawn to a hostile view of religion. We haven't even asked the question of if that view is justified.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If they don't represent the majority of atheists out there than show me who does.

That's like asking "show me out there who represents the majority of people who don't believe in Zeus". Or "show me out there who represents the majority of people who don't have mustaches". Or "show me out there who represents the majority of people who don't collect stamps".

It's a nonsense question, because the ONLY thing all atheists have in common, by definition, is the fact they do not believe in a god.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Sure the folks here are a small sample size but, if they represent the only data offered and are supported by the best selling atheist authors it is the best conclusion one can make.

"Hey, the Flames won one game in a row, I don't have any more data, but they'll win 82 games because that's the best conclusion I can make."

If you don't have enough data to draw a reasonable conclusion, then you have the option of not drawing a conclusion at all.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The term "baggage" was coined(I believe) by me to refer to an ideology or world view that tends to accompany the atheist's core belief: "there is no God".

Yeah, that's called poisoning the well, and demonstrates motivation.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

One of the atheists on this site was maintaining that atheists believe this core belief and there is no ideology{baggage} carried along with it. From what I have seen that position is false.

Your conclusion is invalid however because there is nothing in saying "God Exists" is not true that mandates any kind of ideology. Unless you can see the hundreds of millions of atheists, what you see is only representative of a subset of atheists.

Some groups of atheists do share an ideology. Obviously they can't have an ideology that requires the existence of a god because then they wouldn't be atheists, so the ideologies available have limitations, but the lack of belief does not dictate one specific ideology.

Secular Humanism would be more like an ideology, and many atheists and agnostics are secular humanists, but not all atheists are secular humanists.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I have never said or thought that my christian faith is void of its own baggage. Having said that perhaps the term "baggage" could be a little imflammatory. Really though, you already know my low opinion of atheism. I've been nothing but, honest about that. Why fret about a word?

Because words have meaning, and choosing a word with a negative connotation to represent something is a (conscious or unconscious) attempt at undermining a position based on emotion rather than reason. It's a well known tactic called poising the well, and it's flawed.

[photon]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Sorry, I never took a philosophy course, and, frankly, found purely philosophical writing/discourse boring. I was under the impression "agnostic" was one who was willing to admit that he didn't know. I was also under the impression that an athiest was sure that there was no god. That is wrong? Therefore, I am a "weak athiest" as opposed to an "agnostic"? Not trying to be smarmy - just curious if I've been operating with incorrect assumptions/definitions.

Some people do tend use the words to say that agnostic was one who was willing to admit they didn't know and atheist as one that was sure, as you say.. so it's not so much incorrect definitions but more a case where the meanings are complicated and casual use isn't precise enough for a meaningful discussion.

Plus mix in the negative response to atheism by some believers in our society, and atheist will even identify themselves as agnostic just because that seems to be more acceptable to friends/family/coworkers.

But yeah if you take the position that you don't believe that there is a god but you didn't know for sure, then you are a weak atheist (by virtue that you answer no to "do you believe god exists" and answer no to "do you believe god does not exist"), and a weak agnostic (by virtue that you say you do not know, if you said that in principle it is impossible for anyone to know then you would be a strong agnostic).

I just try to be clear because it's easy to think you're disagreeing with the person's ideas when really it's a lack of matching up of definitions.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Not really. Communists saw religion as the enemy because the religion (Christianity) was resisting changes imposed by communists on the whole society. Christians were labelled as "reactionary" or "counter-revolutionary", because they resisted the so-called "progress towards a bright future" ie resisted the uprooting of conservative values and replacing them with the marxist-leninist nonsense. In short, religion was the shield people were using to resist communist dogma that violently turned their world upside down.

I will point out that Marx's objection to religion was different from the Lenin/the russian communists.

Marx felt that all religion acted to keep the workers compliant with their lot, by promising a better after life, it therefore reduced their urge to overthrow the powers that be in this life, he saw religion as a sympton of capitalism though, that would disappear on its own after the revoloution.

Lenin and Stalin were confronted with the Russian Orthodox Church that activaly supported the Tzar and worked against the revolution, while they quoted Marx to justify the suppresion their real objection was less a philosophical one than an act of self defense against counter revolutionary forces.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

And for religion, those resources do not even have to be real. They can be self-fulfillment, peace of mind, good karma, or even things attained in the afterlife whether it be eternal life, salvation, celestial kingdoms, nirvana, a harem of perpetual virgins, etc.

Is it any wonder why prosperity gospels are so popular when the New Testament (or more aptly Pauline and early Christian church) example seemed to be more of the "sell all your worldly possessions" paradigm?

I actually disagree about this. The divisions between people are just social constructs designed to justify taking resources from the other group.

Nobody ever really fights about religious disagreements. In the end, one side always ends up taking something material from the other. People in one society may disagree and there may be individual instances of conflict, but the large scale conflict does not begin until one side wishes to expand into the other's resources.

[Reggie Dunlop]

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...ub=CalgaryHome

Well, I don't think this situation is going to be abated anytime soon, and in all likelihood will spread to other Muslim countries.

The second annual Draw Mohammed Day is also coming up.

Things aren't going to improve until secularization takes greater hold in the world.

[T@T]

This site sums it up nicely.just about everyone of us read the bible or the koran and most of us had it forced down our throats.Now with the event of the internet hopefully people will read some options.

The truth is that every priest who really understands the nature of his business is well aware that science is its natural and implacable enemy. He knows that every time the bounds of exact knowledge are widened, however modestly, the domain of theology is correspondingly narrowed... Religion is a flight from reality." - H.L. Mencken

Theologians and philosophers have produced nothing more than strings of words as evidence for the existence of deities, not physical evidence. The words they have compiled fail to give humanity even one reason to believe that any deity exists in reality. Religion is dumb because no god or gods exist, so devoting time, resources, and energy into make-believe-nonsense is dumb (and psychotic). "Religion is a universal neurosis." - Sigmund Freud

Religion Is Dumb is an educational attempt to help RID the world of neurotic stupidity (not to mention terrorism and war).

http://www.religionisdumb.com/

[Gozer]

The thoroughness required of a reasonable response to an argument is inversely proportionate to the douchiness of he who presents it.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

But the atheists on this site often resort to links of both cartoons and articles/web sites by leaders within the atheist movement. Those cartoons and articles/web sites contain the arguments they use on this site. I doubt any of you have contributed an original thought to the conversation.

Not really sure where you picked up this idea that an independent lot like atheists acually have leaders. There is a movement, of course. There are some thinkers out there, writing. Some like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have bonafide scientific credentials. Citing their writings does not make one an acolyte.

Have yet to see athiest centres being constructed on every block.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

But the atheists on this site often resort to links of both cartoons and articles/web sites by leaders within the atheist movement. Those cartoons and articles/web sites contain the arguments they use on this site. I doubt any of you have contributed an original thought to the conversation. You can't honestly believe these guys don't represent a large segment of atheistic opinion.




Again the source of these few dozen atheist's arguments are from popular modern atheist thought. They quote and link to guys like Dawkins with regularlity.

To be perfectly fair you post quotes from a book full of lies and fairy-tales to try and prove your point all the time.You have never actually ever tried to defend your beliefs without using your great book as a reference. To be honest, the minute a debate comes up you quote your bible scriptures...and then run. This tells me you are afraid of the truth!

Very irritating non-the-less.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You can maintain that the atheists on this site aren't representative of atheists in general but, you aren't producing any evidence of the silent majority. What do you base your opinion on. Sure Cheese and Thor could just be wild wingnuts on the fringes of atheistic opinion but, where than is the mainstream? Show me.

lol awesome, I'm a wild wingnut.

[Thor]

Interesting idea.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Thor

Interesting idea.

I usually like thunderf00t, but that's a lame idea.

Draw Mohammed Day is far more effective, as it involves creating something as opposed to destroying (or in this case, deleting) something.

I took part in last year's Draw Mohammed Day. Got some lovely death threats for my efforts (more than the usual ones from Oilers fans). Good times, good times.

[Thor]

Did you watch the whole video?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Thor

Did you watch the whole video?

Yeah, I did.

Not sure the intended target residing in the mountains of Afghanistan is going to comprehend the political act of defragging a hard drive as an affront to all that he holds holy.

Deleting computer files is mundane. Drawing cartoons is fun.

[Thor]

Its an interesting concept, I mean draw Moohammed day worked great, this might be hard to compare or have the same kind of success.