RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/12/2010 3:05:45 AM)
Columbine an example of people "killed by athiests". LMAO. Its just as good an example of people killed by trenchcoat lovers.

tazzygirl -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/12/2010 3:08:02 AM)
Writing for the Discovery Institute, David Klinghoffer pointed out that Darwinian theory has a strange effect on people who are “crazy, wicked, or both.” He’s correct, but he might as well have said “belief” or “philosophy” has a strange effect on people who are crazy, wicked or both. Klinghoffer explained that Columbine High School shooter Eric Harris, Jokela High School shooter Pekka Eric Auvinen and Holocaust Memorial Museum shooter James von Brunn espoused an evangelical loyalty to Darwin and atheism. Those who commit atrocities to fight for the cause of Darwin are similar to those who commit atrocities for the sake of Jesus or Muhammed. They are con men, striking out in hatred and justifying their acts with figures greater than self Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/atheist-104128-discovery-extremist.html#ixzz1546pMMBR

HowardYu -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/12/2010 3:22:53 AM)
Point made taz! Delusional extremists with weapons are dangerous...they look only to religion or atheism or Darwinism or other to self justify their delusions.

tweakabelle -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/12/2010 4:21:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Writing for the Discovery Institute, David Klinghoffer pointed out that Darwinian theory has a strange effect on people who are “crazy, wicked, or both.” He’s correct, but he might as well have said “belief” or “philosophy” has a strange effect on people who are crazy, wicked or both. Klinghoffer explained that Columbine High School shooter Eric Harris, Jokela High School shooter Pekka Eric Auvinen and Holocaust Memorial Museum shooter James von Brunn espoused an evangelical loyalty to Darwin and atheism. Those who commit atrocities to fight for the cause of Darwin are similar to those who commit atrocities for the sake of Jesus or Muhammed. They are con men, striking out in hatred and justifying their acts with figures greater than self Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/atheist-104128-discovery-extremist.html#ixzz1546pMMBR Please indulge me, I really need to confirm that I am understanding you correctly. Are you saying that the people who carried out the Columbine killings did so motivated by a belief in atheism and Darwinism? And that the evidence you offer to support this is a opinion advanced by someone writing for the Discovery Institute? And that the Discovery Institute you mention is the organisation that promotes "intelligent design" theory?

tazzygirl -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/12/2010 10:06:12 AM)
Not at all. What i am pointing out is that people who commit such attrocities are often delusional, having nothing to do with religious or non religious practices. BUT, as many will do, they point to the fact that an atheist has never committed a murder. Eric Harris was known as an atheist. Even his facebok status indicated that. Im not getting into a petty debate over this. Merely pointing out that atheists have killed as well.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/12/2010 10:17:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Not at all. What i am pointing out is that people who commit such attrocities are often delusional, having nothing to do with religious or non religious practices. BUT, as many will do, they point to the fact that an atheist has never committed a murder. Eric Harris was known as an atheist. Even his facebok status indicated that. Im not getting into a petty debate over this. Merely pointing out that atheists have killed as well. Cliff notes version: My conflation of Columbine and atheism was way off the mark.

tazzygirl -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/12/2010 11:31:32 AM)
Im impressed you know how to spell cliff notes. Go back to sleep willbe.

tweakabelle -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/12/2010 4:20:53 PM)
Yes tazzy girl atheists do kill, steal, and all the things that humans in general do. The point here surely is that they are not motivated by atheism or lack of religious belief. The same cannot be said of religious inspired killers, of which there are numerous examples. To assert or even imply that Columbine was inspired by the killer's (alleged) belief in atheism is fatuous nonsense. But perhaps I am being unfair. It could well be asking too much to insist on rational thinking by ppl who insist on the veracity of imaginary friends and fairy tales.

Raechard -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/12/2010 4:22:47 PM)
What be this new atheism I here of?[:D]

thishereboi -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/12/2010 5:21:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Yes tazzy girl atheists do kill, steal, and all the things that humans in general do. Yes, they do. The point here surely is that they are not motivated by atheism or lack of religious belief. The same cannot be said of religious inspired killers, of which there are numerous examples. To assert or even imply that Columbine was inspired by the killer's (alleged) belief in atheism is fatuous nonsense. So it's ok to kill someone as long as your doing it for kicks and not some greater power? But perhaps I am being unfair. It could well be asking too much to insist on rational thinking by ppl who insist on the veracity of imaginary friends and fairy tales. And the same could be said for people who have to resort to insults to make a point. Personally, I would rather hang with the ones telling fairy tales. The condescending ones make me nauseous.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/12/2010 5:48:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle But perhaps I am being unfair. It could well be asking too much to insist on rational thinking by ppl who insist on the veracity of imaginary friends and fairy tales. Your frigging moral superiority is showing, dearie. Firm

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/12/2010 6:01:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle But perhaps I am being unfair. It could well be asking too much to insist on rational thinking by ppl who insist on the veracity of imaginary friends and fairy tales. Your frigging moral superiority is showing, dearie. Firm Actually Id be more critical of the absence of moral superiority. Moral equivalency is irrational.

GotSteel -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/12/2010 7:47:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi So it's ok to kill someone as long as your doing it for kicks and not some greater power? How did you get from her position to this statement? I don't see how they have anything to do with each other.

GotSteel -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/12/2010 7:52:18 PM)
Thank you for that long thought out response but it still doesn't answer my question. Maybe if I ask it yet another way. How do you get from here: quote: ORIGINAL: hertz If an idea cannot be shown to be false, then it becomes one of a number of possible truths. to here: quote: ORIGINAL: hertz I believe the universe was created .20 seconds ago and I am the only being in it. Everything I am experiencing is a false memory created at the same time as myself and the universe. Even down to this post, and you reading it.

tweakabelle -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/12/2010 10:25:52 PM)
Last time i checked, religious belief was based on faith, not rational thinking. This is the official position of every major religion i am familiar with. It is rational to form a conclusion based on concrete evidence. It is not rational to form a conclusion in the absence of evidence. It is not rational to form a conclusion based on faith. To form a belief on the basis of faith and in the absence of any supporting physical evidence is irrational. It is entirely rational and reasonable to describe a phenomenon whose existence is not supported by any physical evidence as "imaginary". That is what imaginary means. There is no rational reason to suppose deities exist outside the minds of those who choose to believe in them. The status of whatever deity you chose to nominate will remain as "imaginary' until such time as its existence can be demonstrated by physical evidence. At the moment, i am unaware of any such evidence. If you disagree, please show me the evidence and i will be delighted to be persuaded by the evidence. That some people CHOOSE to believe that these texts are true does do not give them any truth value whatsoever. If anyone can demonstrate a difference in truth value of, for example, the Biblical account of Creation in Genesis or any similar text and any given fairy tale please do so ..... Again, I will be delighted to be persuaded by the evidence. Until a differing truth value is clearly demonstrated, i feel perfectly entitled to describe such texts perfectly accurately as fairy tales. Calling a spade a spade is neither insulting nor condescending. It is simply calling a spade a spade. OTOH, pandering to the delusions of believers, pretending to take fairy tales seriously simply to assuage the feelings of ppl who choose to believe in them is condescending according to my understanding of the term. Love to all

tazzygirl -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/12/2010 10:28:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Yes tazzy girl atheists do kill, steal, and all the things that humans in general do. The point here surely is that they are not motivated by atheism or lack of religious belief. The same cannot be said of religious inspired killers, of which there are numerous examples. To assert or even imply that Columbine was inspired by the killer's (alleged) belief in atheism is fatuous nonsense. But perhaps I am being unfair. It could well be asking too much to insist on rational thinking by ppl who insist on the veracity of imaginary friends and fairy tales. tweak, perhaps if you climbed off your high horse long enough to realize exactly what i was responding too, you might have a clue. quote: ORIGINAL: HowardYu There are a few religious types that have killed for their position....they might be viewed as extremists by other religious types....but there are doctors that because they performed abortions are now dead shot down by proud religious types. Many a clinic blownup that could easily have injured or killed. I am certain there are others. Religious extremists...no matter the religion...have proven time and again to be dangerous. Cannot think of any killed by atheists but there might be. My post was to prove that people have been killed by atheists. But, perhaps its a bit too much to expect you to actually read and follow a thread from its conception.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/12/2010 10:45:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Last time i checked, religious belief was based on faith, not rational thinking. This is the official position of every major religion i am familiar with. It is rational to form a conclusion based on concrete evidence. It is not rational to form a conclusion in the absence of evidence. It is not rational to form a conclusion based on faith. To form a belief on the basis of faith and in the absence of any supporting physical evidence is irrational. It is entirely rational and reasonable to describe a phenomenon whose existence is not supported by any physical evidence as "imaginary". That is what imaginary means. There is no rational reason to suppose deities exist outside the minds of those who choose to believe in them. The status of whatever deity you chose to nominate will remain as "imaginary' until such time as its existence can be demonstrated by physical evidence. At the moment, i am unaware of any such evidence. If you disagree, please show me the evidence and i will be delighted to be persuaded by the evidence. That some people CHOOSE to believe that these texts are true does do not give them any truth value whatsoever. If anyone can demonstrate a difference in truth value of, for example, the Biblical account of Creation in Genesis or any similar text and any given fairy tale please do so ..... Again, I will be delighted to be persuaded by the evidence. Until a differing truth value is clearly demonstrated, i feel perfectly entitled to describe such texts perfectly accurately as fairy tales. Calling a spade a spade is neither insulting nor condescending. It is simply calling a spade a spade. OTOH, pandering to the delusions of believers, pretending to take fairy tales seriously simply to assuage the feelings of ppl who choose to believe in them is condescending according to my understanding of the term. Love to all So ... your religion is science? Firm

tweakabelle -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/12/2010 11:58:07 PM)
For the record, firm, i don't have any religion. Science is a useful research methodology, tho (please let me emphasise this bit) it has its limitations. I will admit to being fond of rational thinking, tho, like all approaches, it has its limitations. I do profess to have ethics and to be guided by them. BTW there may well be, imho, some non-rational justifications for religions. These might include (but are not limited to) social utility; that religions tend to develop desirable characteristics in people; that the amount of social good they facilitate outweighs their negatives; .... amongst others. These justifications exclude any theological content that any given religion may have ie they are independent of the belief system. Nor am i saying i necessarily agree that these justify religions. Any appropriate ethical system, including of course secular ethical systems might generate similar, or possibly far better outcomes. All i am saying is that such justifications could exist and could be argued. So, reduced to its absolute minimum with all the risks that entails, all i am asserting in my last 2 posts is that religious belief is faith based and therefore irrational. All the major religions i am familiar with agree with that claim (tho they might choose to express it differently). Hardly controversial i would have thought....... I hope this clarifies my position for you.

tweakabelle -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 1:52:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle But perhaps I am being unfair. It could well be asking too much to insist on rational thinking by ppl who insist on the veracity of imaginary friends and fairy tales. Your frigging moral superiority is showing, dearie. Firm Why thank you! How nice of you to say so! I should hope any evidence-based belief system is superior to one relying on superstition, other wise it would be remiss of me to use it wouldn't it! I like to examine the evidence, evaluate it and then form a view. Which appears to be what you have just done - you read my post (the evidence), evaluated it according to your lights and formed a conclusion. I would like to be able to exclude a belief in the supernatural in your method, but, as i don't know you, i can't. It may be that this accounts for for your somewhat-less-than-enthusiastic tone. Or it could be something else .... Nonetheless, should i take your apparent use of the same system as implicit agreement that it is a superior system? Please note that i don't claim that the evidence-based system i employ is the only superior system, or that is the most superior system. Simply that is superior to relying on superstition.

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 2:05:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Thank you for that long thought out response but it still doesn't answer my question. Maybe if I ask it yet another way. How do you get from here: quote: ORIGINAL: hertz If an idea cannot be shown to be false, then it becomes one of a number of possible truths. to here: quote: ORIGINAL: hertz I believe the universe was created .20 seconds ago and I am the only being in it. Everything I am experiencing is a false memory created at the same time as myself and the universe. Even down to this post, and you reading it. There's a really nice step by step explanation of it just here. And some more here Apologies for appearing to sidestep the question - I just want to try and avoid writing a huge block of text if I can... The basic theme is that statistically, my theory of existence is much more likely than the general claim of big bang, expansion, planets and stars, evolution, us and so on that you most likely believe in. The universe I see is more likely to be the result of a random fluctuation which has put a whole lot of energy in exactly the right configuration to create a brain with a false set of memories out of nothingness. I know it's as mad as a box of badgers. How do you think I feel knowing I am having a conversation with a false memory? But you've got to go with the most likely scenario, haven't you? Otherwise you're into faith. And that is crazy.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875