Argument with an atheist

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Yo Duke.
I'm a Pagan.

Want to discuss the negative implications of my faith upon the minds of the youth I plan to have eventually based upon my religious beliefs and show that it is detrimental to society somehow?

*come at me, bro*

An important thing to know: Prolescum, Welshidiot and ImprobableJoe are the assholes of the forums. Their posts are frequently blunt, terse, both or all three.
But their posts are very rarely if ever trolling and their points are, more often than not, entirely valid. And probably worth listening to.

I feel so... Left out. D:

 

[australopithecus]

newsodrome
wikiislam[

I live in a fairly secular islamic country.. i can tell you that most of the people i know will laugh at you if you tell them that we evolved alongside today's monkeys, even a good share of the younger, properly educated ones.
They will learn it and parrot it for school grades, but not believe it.
Most people are only considered real believers if they simply accept that if the Qur'an says GODDIDIT then he did it no matter what you show or tell them.. If you can't find some rectally extracted apology for anything in the book, you are a bad muslim :roll: If they fail to believe something they call it "hardness in the heart" or something along the lines, (there is an arabic term that i always forget), if that happens, you drop on your knees and chant some verses until you "fix it".

Just so you know, I don't doubt that creationism is rife in Islamic countries, it's just I like citations

True, but they enforce the laws, and the mob mentality sucks balls

Yet is there any sources for 'the mob' sharing the views of the government, or 'the mob' being the majority?

want a picture of my grandma's sister's wedding when she was 12 and married a 40+ year old man?
In our country it is prohibited by law in meantime, but in provinces and in barely or non-secular islamic countries it is the sad truth, the daughters are practically being sold for few cows or some money and/or social status etc.
It's in the book.. the prophet did it, the book says (91 times) that the prophet is the perfect example of a man, how can it be wrong?

A thorn in my side is when people point to Mohammed and go, "he was a paedo, therefore x, y, z". Mohammed lived 1,500 year ago. We can't judge him by todays standards, even if his actions are morally offensive to us. Though I wont disagree that underage weding happen, I would ask for evidence of the numbers.

Yeah that sounds like a good story, but what with the ones who aren't? Are they really free anyway?

Well, one of the guys I know who had an arranged marriage got divorced, that's quite free. Though I wont say that's the norm, I would again ask for evidence that arranged marriages on the whole are negative, also that this is mostly religiously motivated rather than socially.

that may be true, but they use their money to do whatever they have in plan. Like.. building Hell Houses, sending missionaries to teach people to burn witches etc.. Taking donations to spread religious propaganda instead of helping the ones they collected for properly, build huge expensive churches/mosques for mass brain washing sessions etc.

But that is the action of a minority, no matter how extreme they are.

Quite naive.. i thought that is well known.

I live in the UK and the right wing press love to assert that Sharia is coming like a bogey man. Never seen it, never experienced it, never seen any evidence of it.

here few examples:
Britain

Dude, a little tip; The Daily Mail lies. Don't trust it as a source.

Yo Duke.
I'm a Pagan.

Want to discuss the negative implications of my faith upon the minds of the youth I plan to have eventually based upon my religious beliefs and show that it is detrimental to society somehow?

*come at me, bro*

I'll bite.

Paganism inspired tales of the supernatural which directly caused the Twilight saga. Therefore, Paganism is evil.

Checkmate.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

here few examples:
Britain

Dude, a little tip; The Daily Mail lies. Don't trust it as a source.

I would cite the National Enquirer before I would cite the Daily Mail.
At least people can recognize that you're an idiot if you cite the National Enquirer.

I'll bite.

Paganism inspired tales of the supernatural which directly caused the Twilight saga. Therefore, Paganism is evil.

Checkmate.

...
FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU-

But yeah, we've played this sort of game with UltimateBlasphemer before he stopped being dickish (either he's receded his useless bullshit or he's just not talking about it and flaunting it - either way is fine with me).

I think that all Atheists who think that religion is inherently evil and that all are the same should be taken to concentration camps reeducation camps and executed in masse given a stern talking to about their behavior.

 

[Dean]

@australopithecus

[. . .] Pedophilia and arranged marriages socially accepted concepts due to scriptures. [. . .]

[. . .]Arranged marriages aren't negatives in and of themselves. I know people who have had arranges marriages, and they're perfectly happy.[. . .]

Indeed. Arranged marriages (and child marriages too, I guess), are not a result of Islam. Take the most obvious example: India. India is the largest democracy in the world and it is still experiencing problems due to economic circumstances in curbing the practice, even with the facilitation of UN efforts. In Trinidad and Tobago, the Islamic population is proportionally the size of that in India and the arranged marriages Thomas Doubting speaks of are non-existent in the Muslim community. Child marriages and Arranged Marriage practice has always been historically-linked to economic circumstance, since it was a sure way for families to conduct socio-economic and political unions and still is in poorer communities. Islam doesn't come into this, really.

The main reason that the modernized world does not subscribe to such practices is also economic in basis, where children where excluded as exchanges of estate through marriage between families and entered the labour force during the rise of urbanisation and industrialisation. They later became further sequestered into the education system to develop human capital for the market economy, thus birthing the cult of childhood. Before the modern era, arranged marriages in adolescence were common and unexceptional and any persistence of the phenomenon today reflects those pre-/proto-industrial factors. Accusations of that sort of thing would extend to the classical world at large, since the practice preceded Islam and only diminished with the advent of modernity. Etc. Anyways ...

@australopithecus

[. . .]

[. . .] Contraception, abortion and certain medical researches etc are being fought by some religious authorities, resulting in more poverty and diseases.. just a part of what is financed with religious tax money, sometimes it is also wars that are financed by tax payers in the name of God. [. . .]

Religious authorities don't necessarily represent the majority of the adherents they share faith with. [. . .]

Quite. And, at least in my opinion; the unification between state and religion in Islam is traditional, borne out of happenstance and not prescribed in the qur'an. A separation of state and religion in the Islamic world wouldn't make Islam any less a religion and Islamic values ar compatible with socialistic values, which isn't a bad thing and not unlike the typical European (as opposed to US with its excesses) nation.

@australopithecus

[. . .]

[. . .] Religious intolerance, inequity, rejection of science, fighting and hindering of education, domestic violence etc are facts.. not for all or most religious people, thankfully, and of course such things happen all over the world regardless on belief or disbelief, but religions, due to parts of the scriptural doctrine, give people reasons to do it although they otherwise maybe would not do it. [. . .]

True, but not all theists are fundamentalists. [. . .]

Hmm. Once Thomas Doubting means radical extremists and/or scriptural literalists and not the mainstream, I'd love to know what sort of proportions he would imagine ascribing to those extremists in relation to the mainstream? That is the real significance of his assertion.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

Yeah sorry.. i took the next best link.. i am lazy as fuck today.
Let's see if i can find others for Britain then:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1535478/Sharia-law-is-spreading-as-authority-wanes.html
We had enough of democracy, give us sharia

ah.. better you look a bit yourself because it is quite obvious and most likely inevitable in the long run, i am telling you.. i read that book, i know what it says.. It says that they are the best of all people and instead of submitting to other people's laws, they should bring their laws with them if possible, even better if they make the others submit to them and pay Jizza.. or even better, convert.

Hmm. Once Thomas Doubting means radical extremists and/or scriptural literalists and not the mainstream, I'd love to know what sort of proportions he would imagine ascribing to those extremists in relation to the mainstream? That is the real significance of his assertion.

Why once? Show me where i said that they are all fundamentalists etc (i was accused of having said that they are all rapists and murderers etc, that is far away from the truth)

What i however said is that fundis and extremists can affect the moderate ones and through "religious brotherhood" and scriptural arguments motivate them to do what they otherwise wouldn't.
From quite harmless cases like "why didn't your son come to church last week, you didn't raise him properly"
over "your friend is a homosexual? That is a work of the devil"
To "that weird girl is a witch, i know it, my father told me, lets get the guys together and beat her up (or worse)
To the extremes where you see psychos in charge saying "It is my duty to accelerate armageddon in the name of God" Where military and the people often can only stfu and roll with it.

The problem is what is in the book and how important they think it is.

What it says + how holy people think it is + how it gets interpreted by them or authoritative figures = how many of them behave, especially under social pressure.

Which is also why people see nothing wrong about pedophilia in many countries, i don't want to judge Muhammad by today's standards, but the muppets who try to be like him, as i said, 91 times the Qur'an says "Mohammad is DA MAN!! If you want to have cohones then be like Mo."
So what is wrong about humping little girls? My God says its fine.. so why not.
What is wrong about hating jews? Mo did it and God turned them into pigs and monkeys, so how could i not.
Etc.
Muhammad was a psychopatic misogynist and sex addict, a petty plunderer and fraud, who later turned into a ruthless murdering warlord who spread his insanity over the planet and it will take a long time for the people to drop parts of their destructive and anti social beliefs.. especially because that man was pictured as a saint and the perfect example of how you should be to be acceptable in God's eyes.
Yesterday's idealists and heads of armies and their fan clubs are today's terrorists and fundamentalists.
The ones who believe "the strongest" are mostly the loudest ones have the most influence..
What pisses me off the most is them claiming that the women are equal and so much respected unlike "the western whores" but then you see things like this..
10 lashes for driving a car
(laziness strikes again so no links)
10-100 lashes for sitting in the same room with a man, (unmarried adult people) mob breaks into house and pulls her to the "lashing place" while sexually molesting her on the way "as punishment"
women stoned because lost "dignity" through rape
etc..

Ah fuck it, i'll just drop it again and leave them be, as long as they don't touch my daughter and don't start shooting and throwing bombs at my head again because of their bedtime stories, i'll be fine

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Yeah sorry.. i took the next best link.. i am lazy as fuck today.
Let's see if i can find others for Britain then:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1535478/Sharia-law-is-spreading-as-authority-wanes.html
We had enough of democracy, give us sharia

ah.. better you look a bit yourself because it is quite obvious and most likely inevitable in the long run, i am telling you.. i read that book, i know what it says.. It says that they are the best of all people and instead of submitting to other people's laws, they should bring their laws with them if possible, even better if they make the others submit to them and pay Jizza.. or even better, convert.

You're being foolishly alarmist if those are the best examples you can find. Seriously.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

You know where to look better than me, i am looking for sources by typing into google what i heard to be true, from Muslims, not from some brittish newspapers. I am way too lazy and tired to do real research on the topic, doesn't bring anything anyway. My friend who lives in Merton or something like that said that they are not fond of such things and would hate to see it really happen.. he was asked to march to promote some religious stupidity in London.. not sure what it was about. He just said that is none of his business.. which is quite typical for many Muslims, when it comes to religions, moderates often just roll with whatever the fundis bring through.. they respect the elders which are mostly utterly narrow-minded and if they do something you can try to ignore it or submit to it, but rarely somebody stands up against it.
Like the dozens of mosques being built on the few green spots in my city.. against the will of the local communities..
Anyway, watch out when you steal in turkish shops, might cost you a hand soon :lol:
jk.. don't shoot :cry:

 

[nasher168]

The Express in particular is a right-wing, xenophobic, slightly racist Tory rag which is not reliable in the slightest.
The Telegraph is slightly better, but still has a thoroughly Conservative, anti-multiculturalism agenda. And is owned by Rupert Murdoch.


Here is a BBC article which gives a far more balanced view:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7234870.stm

 

[Thomas Doubting]

The Express in particular is a right-wing, xenophobic, slightly racist Tory rag which is not reliable in the slightest.
The Telegraph is slightly better, but still has a thoroughly Conservative, anti-multiculturalism agenda. And is owned by Rupert Murdoch.


Here is a BBC article which gives a far more balanced view:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7234870.stm

Thanks! sounds about right.. including the discrimination of women and differentiations when it comes to marital laws etc.. however sharia is a part of the daily life, it is something that Muslims bring wherever they happen to live in numbers. I am quite skeptical about it.. because it is set to outrule the laws of the country they live in, even though it doesn't have to be too radically different, they do follow most of the significant, punishable rules of the country they live in.. in normal cases.. but sometimes they privately enforce more radical laws anyway according to the "real sharia"..

Oh well as i said, it is inevitable and it is reality, people should be aware of it and governments keep a close eye on it.

Apostasy, or leaving the faith, is a very controversial issue in the Muslim world and the majority of scholars believe it is punishable by death.

It doesn't have to be death but it does mostly have consequences.. denying love, kicking out of the house, taking away car money, isolation, violence etc.. people would be ashamed if others find it out because of pride and social pressure, which in my eyes clearly forces people to at least pretend to stick to their faith and take part in the rituals.. what i find unacceptable, but what can we do.. Parts of my family reacted like i killed somebody when i said that i am an atheist and that i see no reasons not to eat pork lol. Was reason enough for some of my own relatives to avoid me :roll: Lucky for me my country is quite multicultural and religion is still only a part of life despite the war that we had because of religious dick measuring.
But.. enough said.

 

[nasher168]

It doesn't have to be death but it does mostly have consequences.. denying love, kicking out of the house, taking away car money, isolation, violence etc.. people would be ashamed if others find it out because of pride and social pressure, which in my eyes clearly forces people to at least pretend to stick to their faith and take part in the rituals.. what i find unacceptable, but what can we do.. Parts of my family reacted like i killed somebody when i said that i am an atheist and that i see no reasons not to eat pork lol.

Sounds pretty much identical to the stories we hear from the fundamentalist regions in the US.

...and yet, in mainstream Christianity in places like the UK, there is none of that. I would argue that predominantly Muslim countries can and probably will also change their attitudes as time goes on. Give it a few decades and we might see a larger degree of tolerance emerge in such places.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

I'm counting on that

 

[Andiferous]

Welcome to the forums, DukeTwicep.

An important thing to know: Prolescum, Welshidiot and ImprobableJoe are the assholes of the forums. Their posts are frequently blunt, terse, both or all three.
But their posts are very rarely if ever trolling and their points are, more often than not, entirely valid. And probably worth listening to.

We've all been on the receiving ends of their harsh posts at one point or another (although I think I've only had ImprobableJoe personally...), just role with it, respond as best you can and concede when you are defeated.

Actually, I don't think Welshyidiot is that much of an asshole, myself. But people can be arseholes to combat assholes who combat arseholes. It's a bit of a cycle, and not worth being sucked in, think only conscionable.

 

[Extropian]

Laurens writes[Oct 16 2011]

Are you trying to equate religious belief to Nazism? Nazis are a hate group, religions aren't.

Religions are no less hate groups than are any extremist political groups.

Their exclusive self-righteousness and their hostility toward other specific groups are characteristic of shared ideologies.

That you see them as at opposite ends of the human ideological spectrum is more due to religious propaganda that there being actual truth in the differentiation.

Both arise from a fear of exclusion from the mainstream of society, of mainstream disapproval and ostracisation. Being by evolution a social animal, we fear being alone and excluded from the approval of an omnipotent protector. We need others around us for reassurance that numbers are protection.

The ideologies of both, when examined objectively, will show many, many points of agreement, coincidence and concordance.

Both rely heavily on the mindless grasp of exclusivity and community of thought. Both rely heavily on pomp and circumstance and ostentatious communal acts of allegiance and worship. Both rely heavily on organisational trappings like flags and banners, appropriate anthems, hymns and mode of attire. Both make ignoble the noblest of human creations, art and music. Both suppress individuality and independence of thought.

Both claim to act with the highest of motives and for the common good with a Utopoan goal as the final reward for the unerringly faithful.

But it is the hostility and hate, the joyful anticipation of eternal damnation and suffering for the non-believer, the uncommitted, the outcasts and the fringe-dwellers that bind the two so closely.

Widening your study of history will help you to a deeper understanding and demonstrate just how superficial your assertion is.

Biggles, Prime & Extropian

 

[Prolescum]

Laurens writes[Oct 16 2011]

Are you trying to equate religious belief to Nazism? Nazis are a hate group, religions aren't.

Religions are no less hate groups than are any extremist political groups.

This point could be easily refuted with the application of some rudimentary knowledge of Buddhists or the Bahà¡'à­ (to name two off the top of my head). I won't belabour the point though, as this is probably an oversight on your part. At least, I hope it is...

Their exclusive self-righteousness and their hostility toward other specific groups are characteristic of shared ideologies.

Self-righteousness isn't exclusive to the religious. Hostility isn't either. All humans fall prey to fear of the other.

That you see them as at opposite ends of the human ideological spectrum is more due to religious propaganda that there being actual truth in the differentiation.

It's borne by experience outside of narrow-minded generalisations. I highly recommend a less parochial mindset, it'll help you in all manner of ways.

Rather ironically, you're showing entry level self-righteousness and hatred yourself. I might continuously point this out to ram it home.

Both arise from a fear of exclusion from the mainstream of society, of mainstream disapproval and ostracisation. Being by evolution a social animal, we fear being alone and excluded from the approval of an omnipotent protector.

No we don't and no they don't. I like the way you state it as fact, though, as if sheer will is all it takes for something to be right. There's a word that covers this type of thing...

We need others around us for reassurance that numbers are protection.

Explain religious hermits. Oh wait, is that too in-depth for your lazy generalisation?

The ideologies of both, when examined objectively

Which you've failed to do so far

will show many, many points of agreement, coincidence and concordance.

Bananas, cherries and oranges are all fruit.

Both rely heavily on the mindless grasp of exclusivity and community of thought. Both rely heavily on pomp and circumstance and ostentatious communal acts of allegiance and worship.

Hatred doesn't rely on worship, not all religions (or religious people) rely on ostentatious acts. Hatred doesn't rely on the mindless grasp of exclusivity, as religion doesn't necessarily rely on communal allegiance. Your point is specious at best, and barely disguised hatred on the face of it.

You might want to zip up, your lack of objectivity is hanging out.

Both rely heavily on organisational trappings like flags and banners, appropriate anthems, hymns and mode of attire. Both make ignoble the noblest of human creations, art and music. Both suppress individuality and independence of thought.

*yawn*

Characterising things and people you don't like with incendiary words and emotive terms is extremely easy, even the simpletons who call themselves race realists can do it (and rather ineffectively do). It also shows a severe lack of critical thinking. Writing off vast swathes of independent, free-thinking individuals for simply believing in gods is the height of self-righteousness.

Both claim to act with the highest of motives and for the common good with a Utopoan goal as the final reward for the unerringly faithful.

But it is the hostility and hate, the joyful anticipation of eternal damnation and suffering for the non-believer, the uncommitted, the outcasts and the fringe-dwellers that bind the two so closely.

Widening your study of history will help you to a deeper understanding and demonstrate just how superficial your assertion is.

You might not want to condescend when your own understanding of the subject is so clearly finite.

 

[Laurens]

Laurens writes[Oct 16 2011]

Are you trying to equate religious belief to Nazism? Nazis are a hate group, religions aren't.

Religions are no less hate groups than are any extremist political groups.

:facepalm: Yes that local Christian group which devotes their time to giving food and shelter to homeless people are so full of hate...

There are religiously motivated hate groups out there, but to say that religions are hate groups is ignorant beyond comprehension.

But it is the hostility and hate, the joyful anticipation of eternal damnation and suffering for the non-believer, the uncommitted, the outcasts and the fringe-dwellers that bind the two so closely.

I've never encountered any religious people who joyfully anticipate the eternal damnation of others, most actually have a desire to save others from such a fate by converting them. A pointless task if you ask me, but at least it shows compassion.

Widening your study of history will help you to a deeper understanding and demonstrate just how superficial your assertion is.

Dropping your unjustified assertions that religions are hate groups will help you to come across as less unreasonable and bigoted.

Most of the people in the world are religious, do you have anything to substantiate your claim that they all belong to a hate group?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

What's this about religions being hate groups?

I'm a Pagan. I believe in a nice set of deities and an afterlife.

comeatmebro.jpg

 

[Laurens]

What's this about religions being hate groups?

Don't worry it's just Extropian's paranoid fantasy...

I find all this naive anti-theism that we sometimes see around here slightly troubling. People don't seem to realise what they're saying when they make statements that 'religions are hate groups' and such. 85.91% of the world's population are religious (according to this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_religions_pie_chart.png), so essentially Extropian is claiming the most of the people in the world belong to a hate group.

For people that take pride in the fact that reason has led them away from religious belief, these kind of statements are astonishing. To claim that such a massive demographic (86% of 7 billion - whatever that is...) are in fact members of hate groups is such a broad and unreasonable generalization that it defies words. I could not fault someone for claiming that there are quite a lot of religiously motivated hate groups in the world - at least this statement acknowledges that not all religious people belong to such groups, but to say that they do, well, it makes people like William Lane Craig seem reasonable by comparison.

Some people seem to think that being completely unreasonable is the best way to champion reason...

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

It's better than *cough* some people's ideas of taking all religious people off to concentration reeducation camps and execute them en masse give them a stern talking to about how this is for their own good.

 

[Laurens]

It's better than *cough* some people's ideas of taking all religious people off to concentration reeducation camps and execute them en masse give them a stern talking to about how this is for their own good.

Well, that's just another example of the naive anti-theism I was talking about.

I'm still interested about how that one would be implemented... Along with the plan for not allowing kids near religious institutions. Duke hasn't come back with an answer yet though...

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Honestly, you can't blame religion for making people evil -
if no Gods exist, then what's going on here? We're just blaming other humans for doing what humans are good at, and even then it's not the case in a majority of ways amongst people who actually hold that belief.

When I was a child I wasn't told to go out and stone homosexuals because that's a bad thing and things were different back then.
Did it take me until I was older to realize the problem with this logic? Yeah.
But even a kid can understand the difference between bad and good... Especially when it's explained that it's bad and that things don't work like that anymore.

Call it that sliver of hope I have for humanity in general.