Atheists That Defend Religion

[MisterMudkip]

Honestly I get more annoyed by Atheists that defend religion than even the most extreme fundamentalist nut-job. I had one friend who took it to the extreme, saying that noone should even be allowed to challenge religious belief and those that do, should be made to keep quiet. While he wouldn't elaborate on what that last bit meant, I think it's pretty obvious so I broke contact with him for that.

I find the argument that is most commonly used by these people is that not everyone is an extremist. You could spend hours pointing out evil acts that resulted from religion, anything from charlatans scamming people or people suicide bombing hospitals, but no matter what you say they will come back with "But not everyone is an extremist so leave religion alone."

I want to ask how do you deal with this? I've included a disagreement (Still ongoing afaik, waiting for a reply) I had with someone who claims to be Agnostic (Atheist by my definition) so that anyone could offer me a more effective way of dealing with this type of non believer. It's also hilarious when he brings up Obama in a complete non sequitur that he thinks is relevant, and then calls me an idiot. Bear in mind the first set of comments are his not mine, and were not addressed to me. I just joined in since the other guy he was talking to hadn't replied in ages.

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

 

[RichardMNixon]

I hate hearing "leave religion alone." Extremism doesn't enter into it, you can still have a rational discussion about beliefs. You shouldn't be a dick about it, but I see no reason why discussing the flaws in religion with a theist is any worse than discussing the flaws in conservative policy with a republican. I yield the rest to Douglas Adams.



Mocking someone makes you a jerk. Mocking someone for their religion makes you as much as a jerk as mocking someone for being a republican, but not moreso, and I would argue makes you less of a jerk than mocking someone for being fat, or clumsy, or who talks funny.

 

[Balstrome]

Sounds just like my brother, I know that he really does not have time for religion, even though he is still scared of the big man in the sky. But he always hints how I, as an open atheist, am upsetting and embarrassing everyone in our family about being an atheist. Now you would think that I am a crucifix grabbing bible burning atheist, you know the normal kind, but I am not. My point is these types of folk are fence sitters even worse than agnostics, who know that gods are bullshit, but will not admit it because they want to be "fair" For my view you either for a thing or against a thing and if you for it, then you have to go all the way, and the same for against it, trying to please everyone gets you stabbed by everyone and you have no one on your side. /rant off

 

[RichardMNixon]

My point is these types of folk are fence sitters even worse than agnostics, who know that gods are bullshit, but will not admit it because they want to be "fair"

An agnostic is neither a fence-sitter, nor trying to be "fair." I'm an agnostic-atheist. That means I answer 'no' to the question "Do you believe in god(s)?" and 'I don't know' to the question "Do god(s) exist?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk&feature=channel_video_title

 

[Prolescum]

I don't defend religion, but sometimes I will defend the religious. Context, as always, is everything.

 

[Laurens]

I don't defend religion, but sometimes I will defend the religious. Context, as always, is everything.

Agreed

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I don't defend religion, but sometimes I will defend the religious. Context, as always, is everything.

Agreed

 

[shiner]

Honestly I get more annoyed by Atheists that defend religion than even the most extreme fundamentalist nut-job. I had one friend who took it to the extreme, saying that noone should even be allowed to challenge religious belief and those that do, should be made to keep quiet. While he wouldn't elaborate on what that last bit meant, I think it's pretty obvious so I broke contact with him for that.

I find the argument that is most commonly used by these people is that not everyone is an extremist. You could spend hours pointing out evil acts that resulted from religion, anything from charlatans scamming people or people suicide bombing hospitals, but no matter what you say they will come back with "But not everyone is an extremist so leave religion alone."

I want to ask how do you deal with this? I've included a disagreement (Still ongoing afaik, waiting for a reply) I had with someone who claims to be Agnostic (Atheist by my definition) so that anyone could offer me a more effective way of dealing with this type of non believer. It's also hilarious when he brings up Obama in a complete non sequitur that he thinks is relevant, and then calls me an idiot. Bear in mind the first set of comments are his not mine, and were not addressed to me. I just joined in since the other guy he was talking to hadn't replied in ages.

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

Why do you let it bother you?

 

[televator]

I don't defend religion, but sometimes I will defend the religious. Context, as always, is everything.

Quote of the year award for you.

 

[Balstrome]

I would have to point out anything religious do that is worth doing and worth protecting the religious to allow them to do, can generally be done without the need for the belief system to support these acts. So what is it that supporting the religious actually benefits mankind? I suggest nothing, I have found and been shown nothing that fits that bill yet.

 

[Prolescum]

I would have to point out anything religious do that is worth doing and worth protecting the religious to allow them to do, can generally be done without the need for the belief system to support these acts.

That's really garbled and hard to understand I'm afraid, but if I catch your drift, you're quite missing the point of my statement.

My moral code requires that I defend that which I believe to be right (usually vociferously) and oppose that which I dispute (and reserve the right to change my mind), and whether I am religious or if they are religious is usually irrelevant. They are people, I am a person. There isn't really any 'Other', just we. To put it another way, if you want to live in a place that respects your personal freedom, you must respect everyone else's. If not, I hear volcanic island bases are de rigueur.

The troglodytic atheists who describe themselves as militants (despite being irrelevant windbags on the whole) seem to live in a self-induced vacuum of thought brought upon by too much Thunderf00t and not enough IRL. It's both regrettably pathetic (I am tainted by proxy, being a common atheist) and irrevocably futile (you're not going to get rid of billions of believers by stomping around in a huff like Jane Espenson fans when yet another TV show she writes for is cancelled). The millennial-hangover of rapturous fervour to which America is currently subject (and to whom so-called militant atheism owes its genesis) is pretty much a local phenomenon and is not reflective of the whole of Christendom and certainly not of the gamut of world religions. To not see that is a mistake, and to ignore it is unforgivable.

So what is it that supporting the religious actually benefits mankind?

• 1. Not everything must benefit mankind as a whole - principle doesn't care if it's one person or many
  2. Defense isn't synonymous with support

I suggest nothing, I have found and been shown nothing that fits that bill yet.

Feel free to vote for an anti-theist demagogue, I'll be chucking at you like a very ticklish Wookie with a flea problem.



Edit: incoherent gibberish

 

[lrkun]

I would have to point out anything religious do that is worth doing and worth protecting the religious to allow them to do, can generally be done without the need for the belief system to support these acts. So what is it that supporting the religious actually benefits mankind? I suggest nothing, I have found and been shown nothing that fits that bill yet.

We need religion to control the masses. :3. They need someone to blame other than the government or their fellow people.

 

[kenandkids]

My point is these types of folk are fence sitters even worse than agnostics, who know that gods are bullshit, but will not admit it because they want to be "fair"

An agnostic is neither a fence-sitter, nor trying to be "fair." I'm an agnostic-atheist. That means I answer 'no' to the question "Do you believe in god(s)?" and 'I don't know' to the question "Do god(s) exist?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk&feature=channel_video_title

And so you agree that there very well may be an ethereal, incorporeal dragon living in your bedroom and that the atmosphere is really made of undetectable cottage cheese?

 

[lrkun]

Agnostics aren't that bad when they say they don't know if god exists or doesn't exist because due to our current technology we cannot prove nor disprove god's existence. But, we do know that if there is a god, he or she or it or they is one fucked up asshole because we still suffer. Hehe

 

[kenandkids]

Agnostics aren't that bad when they say they don't know if god exists or doesn't exist because due to our current technology we cannot prove nor disprove god's existence. But, we do know that if there is a god, he or she or it or they is one fucked up asshole because we still suffer. Hehe

+1

 

[Andiferous]

Prolescum: Wow. Extremely well said. ::thumbsup:: by two.

By the way, I was second, I just didn't post in time...

 

[australopithecus]

I don't defend religion, but sometimes I will defend the religious. Context, as always, is everything.

 

[Prolescum]

[centre]

You guys...[/centre]