Which religion do you dislike most?

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Well I hope no one's forgetting the 500-600 year gap in science and knowledge,

That argument cmes under 'foolish trivialising', and is a myth. In reality, the church was responsible for a lot of scientific advancement during 'the dark ages'. Next, you'll be presenting 'that graph' as if it constitutes fact.

Don't get caught up in an argument just because it suits your position. Check if it's actually true.

Oh, that's right. It was called the Dark Ages because everyone decided that piety was in and that dying from poor sanitation was all cool.
And that thing with Galileo? Pfft! I'm sure they were just yanking his chain. They knew Copernicus was right all along, didn't they?

I love the idea of how you put "a lot of scientific advancement" as if stitching a metaphorical limb back on is somehow an advancement from you cutting it off yourself. Actually, if you want to get technical, it was mostly the Muslims who were responsible for furthering and preserving the knowledge of the Romans and the Greeks in terms of scientific advancements and technology.

They teach this in 3rd grade. If you're referring to that chart from Thunderf00t's video about the projection of the loss of knowledge due to the Dark Ages, I'm not sure about future projections, but it does give an accurate view of a scientific "hole" that was left in the progress of knowledge. I'm aware that it was called "the Dark Ages" because it was significantly colder in Europe, but weather does not halt scientific progress FOR 500 YEARS. It does not burn books. It does not condemn scientists to death.

 

[alimck]

Fundamentalist atheism. Not to be confused with regular, run of the mill atheism, which is harmless.

Atheism is not a religion as religion requires the supernatural. Atheism is the direct rejection of the supernatural.

Implying atheism is a relgion is like saying unemployment is a form of employment.

 

[MRaverz]

Fundamentalist atheism. Not to be confused with regular, run of the mill atheism, which is harmless.

Atheism is not a religion as religion requires the supernatural. Atheism is the direct rejection of the supernatural.

Implying atheism is a relgion is like saying unemployment is a form of employment.

Worldquest has a point, you do find people who subscribe to 'There is no god, religion is a virus, we should put religious people in camps blah blah' in a fairly intolerant and dogmatic way. They're rare, but they exist.

It's a no true Scotsman to say they're not real Atheists because technically they are, they just don't seem to understand what the term actually implies.

That said, it's not fundamentalism because there is no doctrine or basic principles of Atheism. It's misguided.

 

[Worldquest]

Worldquest has a point? Wow, I'm flattered. Now get your ass to our other thread and let's reinvent the system.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Fundamentalist, evangelical, it all sounds preachy to me. What I mean is that some atheists are cool, and some have this really weird thing about insisting that they're right, and wanting to ram it down people's throats, saying why why why prove it prove it otherwise you're stupid. The same applies to some people in religions, of course.

Your argument seems to be that angry, arrogant atheists are just as bad as fundie Christians, which may be true, but if you're just equating them, then by what criteria did you decide the former is worse than the latter as you said originally? What makes angry atheists harmful in a way that Phelps, McLeroy, bin Laden, etc. aren't? At least the former doesn't have a massive campaign lobby to take away civil rights from women and gays and insert lies into public school curricula.

Sure, some atheists are dicks, but if you're going with extremes, I think it's pretty outrageous to think the worst of atheists have anything on the worst of theists like Phelps and bin Laden.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Oh, that's right. It was called the Dark Ages because everyone decided that piety was in and that dying from poor sanitation was all cool.
And that thing with Galileo? Pfft! I'm sure they were just yanking his chain. They knew Copernicus was right all along, didn't they?

I love the idea of how you put "a lot of scientific advancement" as if stitching a metaphorical limb back on is somehow an advancement from you cutting it off yourself. Actually, if you want to get technical, it was mostly the Muslims who were responsible for furthering and preserving the knowledge of the Romans and the Greeks in terms of scientific advancements and technology.

They teach this in 3rd grade. If you're referring to that chart from Thunderf00t's video about the projection of the loss of knowledge due to the Dark Ages, I'm not sure about future projections, but it does give an accurate view of a scientific "hole" that was left in the progress of knowledge. I'm aware that it was called "the Dark Ages" because it was significantly colder in Europe, but weather does not halt scientific progress FOR 500 YEARS. It does not burn books. It does not condemn scientists to death.

Yes, this is the usual guff, and it's almost all wrong. Tell you what, why don't you have a look at some material from somebody who actually knows what they're talking about on these topics. Check out this thread at Ratskep, and pay particular attention to the posts by Tim O'Neill. It's also worth having a look at his website, which you'll find linked in his signature, for more information on this and other topics with regard to medieval history, in which he holds a masters degree. He knows this material better than anybody I know.

As for it being taught in 3rd grade, well, your teachers failed you.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Yes, this is the usual guff, and it's almost all wrong. Tell you what, why don't you have a look at some material from somebody who actually knows what they're talking about on these topics. Check out this thread at Ratskep, and pay particular attention to the posts by Tim O'Neill. It's also worth having a look at his website, which you'll find linked in his signature, for more information on this and other topics with regard to medieval history, in which he holds a masters degree. He knows this material better than anybody I know.

Unfortunately I am bedridden at the moment, and the site doesn't work on my PS3. When I get to a PC I'd happily type it out, word-for-word from the history book here as well as check out the site.

<snip>

That's not what your mom said last night. (See? I can make useless statements too.)

 

[Deleted member 619]

School history books are all well and good, but can't necessarily be relied on for absolutely rigorous historical analysis. Many just cite the popular conceptions. For example, I remember my history book at school stating categorically that Cromwell slaughtered 6,000 innocent peolpe at Drogheda, when the evidence only supports the killing of 3,000 combatants, albeit after they were disarmed. There's no substitute for proper critical research, and Tim is a historian. He also cites robust sources for all his assertions.

 

[Worldquest]

Fundamentalist, evangelical, it all sounds preachy to me. What I mean is that some atheists are cool, and some have this really weird thing about insisting that they're right, and wanting to ram it down people's throats, saying why why why prove it prove it otherwise you're stupid. The same applies to some people in religions, of course.

Your argument seems to be that angry, arrogant atheists are just as bad as fundie Christians, which may be true, but if you're just equating them, then by what criteria did you decide the former is worse than the latter as you said originally? What makes angry atheists harmful in a way that Phelps, McLeroy, bin Laden, etc. aren't? At least the former doesn't have a massive campaign lobby to take away civil rights from women and gays and insert lies into public school curricula.

Sure, some atheists are dicks, but if you're going with extremes, I think it's pretty outrageous to think the worst of atheists have anything on the worst of theists like Phelps and bin Laden.

You're making a strawman comparison. Most religious people are not like bin laden. It's ridiculous, of course. You know this, and I know this. So let's not go overboard and equate all religious people with extremists.

With that in mind, think about this. The world as we know it is religious by majority, meaning that religion is more popular than atheism by a long shot, and history features religious events, good, neutral, and bad, throughout. There isn't much atheism in history.

The reason why people who happen to be atheists and also happen to be dicks aren't dangerous is because they are in a minority, hence atheists' campaigning for greater representation and so on. What is dangerous, a gun, or the person using it? The person. It's about what is in your mind and what your intentions are. If a dangerous (-ly minded) atheist doesn't have the means, then they can live their whole life without anyone thinking anything at all. But give them the means, and they become, in practical terms, just as dangerous as a crazy christian or muslim.

So yes, arrogant angry atheists, as you acknowledge, are just as bad as religious fundies. The only, only difference is that the religious fundie has the means. If enough arrogant, angry atheists got together, and exercised their arrogance and anger, they would be just as dangerous as any religious fanatic.

Look I don't have a problem with atheism, but you can't tell me that there aren't negative "factions", and that given half a chance, they wouldn't cause problems.

 

[monitoradiation]

I voted christianity because Worldquest is christian.

Edit: I should withdraw my vote, and vote for whichever religion worldquest belongs to.

 

[Unwardil]

I believe the point of contention here is thus.

Atheism is not a belief system.

Let's just agree with that and be done with it so that I can tell you why you're wrong (which I so like to do). That's the wrong point and I think you all know it but don't like to say so because it makes everyone involved sound very douchy. The point is the difference in belief systems. One of them is based on mystical woo, the other of empirical evidence, maybe, or something entirely different, but that's not the point either. The point is, everyone thinks their own system is correct. You can't have two correct answers, not to extremists at least. There is a 'correct' belief system and then there is every other belief system.

Everybody thinks this way. This is critical to understanding conflict. It doesn't matter that atheism isn't a belief, it matters that what you believe is different from what somebody else believes and to such a degree that to many, the difference is irreconcilable. When you've reached that point of irreconcilable differences of belief systems, it's probably fair enough to say that you gone to one side or the other of extremism.

 

[justsomefnguy]

I picked 'other' in the poll, but not because I don't think that not just Islam and christianity are worthy of revulsion, but I'll include all of the abrahamic religions. The problem isn't really any particular religion or belief, its a way of thinking. I reject monotheism, not just for the ludicrous idea that there could only be one member of some race of theoretically advance beings. Say that it is impossible for us to understand or even concieve of the manner of existence of beings more advanced than us, just as the two dimensional residents of flatland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland) could not understand our three dimensional existence. Well, I see no way to believe that a higher plane of existence would have a population of one, or three in one or a thousand names for one. So I guess they may be right. But I'm not the problem, the problem arises when you have multiple groups asserting that not only is their fictional character is real, but anyone else asserting the same are liars and fools. And if that were not enough, they are willing to kill those other guys just to convince them of it. These children of the mind have never left the playground of make believe and one must always be on guard for violence with them when they encounter anything that would so crudely introduce reality to their intentionally enforced infancy.

Its not any particular religion that is the problem, it seems to me, its the existence and propagation of the mindset that some self-imposed delusions are entitled to be respected and encouraged. If it were the case that all that chose this turgid gray sort of life were content to keep it to themselves, or at least not be insistent that all cater to their distorted perception of reality, it would pose not a problem at all. It is only the regrettable conclusion of some that their snow globe be protected from all threats, as if their beliefs were not only more precious than their life, but worth the lives of others that do not play along.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Your argument seems to be that angry, arrogant atheists are just as bad as fundie Christians, which may be true, but if you're just equating them, then by what criteria did you decide the former is worse than the latter as you said originally? What makes angry atheists harmful in a way that Phelps, McLeroy, bin Laden, etc. aren't? At least the former doesn't have a massive campaign lobby to take away civil rights from women and gays and insert lies into public school curricula.

Sure, some atheists are dicks, but if you're going with extremes, I think it's pretty outrageous to think the worst of atheists have anything on the worst of theists like Phelps and bin Laden.

[A] You're making a strawman comparison. Most religious people are not like bin laden. It's ridiculous, of course. You know this, and I know this. So let's not go overboard and equate all religious people with extremists.

So yes, arrogant angry atheists, as you acknowledge, are just as bad as religious fundies. The only, only difference is that the religious fundie has the means. If enough arrogant, angry atheists got together, and exercised their arrogance and anger, they would be just as dangerous as any religious fanatic.

Your A and B contradict themselves. You're saying angry atheists can be as dangerous as religious fanatics, but that I can't cite religious fanatics as a danger of religion. If that's the case, then why can you cite [hypothetical even!] atheist fanatics?

Most [atheists] are not like bin laden. It's ridiculous of course. You know this, and I know this. So let's not go overboard and equate all [atheists] with extremists.

You're still just saying "atheism can be as bad as religion." I'll take this a Socratic step further and tell you for the sake of argument that it IS as bad as religion; now how does that make it worse? All you've done is compare them, you've never given anything that would make atheism actually even worse than religion. That is what I take issue with in your argument. You can't say "A has the capacity to be as bad as B; therefore, A is worse than B." That doesn't make sense; at worst A and B are equally bad according to that statement.

 

[Worldquest]

R Nixon -

Another strawman. I didn't say that if A has the capacity to be as bad as B, then it must be worse than B. That's you putting words into my mouth, words that I too would disagree with on the basis that they indeed make no sense. Nice try, though. Now let's get back to what I am actually saying, shall we.

Here's what I'm saying : Some people within A have the capacity to act badly. Perhaps as badly as certain people within B, given the chance / the means.

And so, what I call atheist fundamentalism (and which you can give any name you like) is the atheist counterpart to the equivalent that you find within some religious circles.

Atheism in itself, and religion in itself, is harmless. It's what people do that can be harmful. Most atheists I'm sure are cool people, and I'm sure most religious people are cool too. But I'm talking about the dangerous minority within each.

 

[Commander Eagle]

You're making a strawman comparison. Most religious people are not like bin laden. It's ridiculous, of course. You know this, and I know this. So let's not go overboard and equate all religious people with extremists.

]With that in mind, think about this. The world as we know it is religious by majority, meaning that religion is more popular than atheism by a long shot, and history features religious events, good, neutral, and bad, throughout. There isn't much atheism in history.

The reason why people who happen to be atheists and also happen to be dicks aren't dangerous is because they are in a minority, hence atheists' campaigning for greater representation and so on. What is dangerous, a gun, or the person using it? The person. It's about what is in your mind and what your intentions are. If a dangerous (-ly minded) atheist doesn't have the means, then they can live their whole life without anyone thinking anything at all. But give them the means, and they become, in practical terms, just as dangerous as a crazy christian or muslim.

So yes, arrogant angry atheists, as you acknowledge, are just as bad as religious fundies. The only, only difference is that the religious fundie has the means. If enough arrogant, angry atheists got together, and exercised their arrogance and anger, they would be just as dangerous as any religious fanatic.

Look I don't have a problem with atheism, but you can't tell me that there aren't negative "factions", and that given half a chance, they wouldn't cause problems.

I'm new to the forum here, so I don't know much about who's who and all that. It appears that Worldquest is the native punching bag - the token believer in a forum full of atheists. As such, I think his posts are getting a little less consideration than they deserve.

As an aside, I sympathize with you, Worldquest. I'm the token skeptic on a forum full of paranormal believers. Even though I'm not a believer myself, I can understand where you're coming from here.

Anyway, I don't know what your position on everything is, but I think that you have a point in this post: there are dangerous, idiotic pricks on all sides of any given issue. As much as we hate to admit it, there are atheists who are total jerks, and who would be every bit as bad to believers as Pat Robertson and his ilk are trying to be to the nonbelievers. That they happen to be on the Right Side (tm) doesn't condone their actions - or, rather, the actions they would take given the opportunity.

In case anyone here is thinking of jumping on me for agreeing with Worldquest, keep in mind that I do not necessarily agree with anything else that he says. Any baggage associated with this post... I have no idea what it is.

 

[RichardMNixon]

R Nixon -

Another strawman. I didn't say that if A has the capacity to be as bad as B, then it must be worse than B. That's you putting words into my mouth, words that I too would disagree with on the basis that they indeed make no sense. Nice try, though. Now let's get back to what I am actually saying, shall we.

Here's what I'm saying : Some people within A have the capacity to act badly. Perhaps as badly as certain people within B, given the chance / the means.

[C] And so, what I call atheist fundamentalism (and which you can give any name you like) is the atheist counterpart to the equivalent that you find within some religious circles.

Atheism in itself, and religion in itself, is harmless. It's what people do that can be harmful. Most atheists I'm sure are cool people, and I'm sure most religious people are cool too. But I'm talking about the dangerous minority within each.

You're flip-flopping all over the place. You said "Fundamentalist atheism" is the religion you dislike most, and then defended it by saying it could be as bad as religion. You have still never given a reason why it is worse. What I said is not a straw man, it's just the distillation of what you're saying. Your statement C is perhaps defensible but you have yet to explain why you dislike atheism most. If A can be as bad as B, why do you dislike A more than you dislike B?

Then here you say you're talking about the dangerous minority within each, but rebuked me when I did the same with bin Laden. Make up your mind, would you? Should the minority be considered or not?

It appears that Worldquest is the native punching bag - the token believer in a forum full of atheists. As such, I think his posts are getting a little less consideration than they deserve.

His posts contradict themselves, he'd make more sense if I gave him less consideration and just skimmed over them. Also welcome to the forum, and Advance Wars is sweet.

 

[Commander Eagle]

It appears that Worldquest is the native punching bag - the token believer in a forum full of atheists. As such, I think his posts are getting a little less consideration than they deserve.

His posts contradict themselves, he'd make more sense if I gave him less consideration and just skimmed over them.

That would explain why I did, then. :lol:

Also welcome to the forum, and Advance Wars is sweet.

Thanks much. Wanders off, ranting about how Eagle wasn't in Days of Ruin...

 

[Prolescum]

This poll is stupid.

 

[Worldquest]

R Nixon -

Another strawman. I didn't say that if A has the capacity to be as bad as B, then it must be worse than B. That's you putting words into my mouth, words that I too would disagree with on the basis that they indeed make no sense. Nice try, though. Now let's get back to what I am actually saying, shall we.

Here's what I'm saying : Some people within A have the capacity to act badly. Perhaps as badly as certain people within B, given the chance / the means.

[C] And so, what I call atheist fundamentalism (and which you can give any name you like) is the atheist counterpart to the equivalent that you find within some religious circles.

Atheism in itself, and religion in itself, is harmless. It's what people do that can be harmful. Most atheists I'm sure are cool people, and I'm sure most religious people are cool too. But I'm talking about the dangerous minority within each.

You're flip-flopping all over the place. You said "Fundamentalist atheism" is the religion you dislike most, and then defended it by saying it could be as bad as religion. You have still never given a reason why it is worse. What I said is not a straw man, it's just the distillation of what you're saying. Your statement C is perhaps defensible but you have yet to explain why you dislike atheism most. If A can be as bad as B, why do you dislike A more than you dislike B?

Then here you say you're talking about the dangerous minority within each, but rebuked me when I did the same with bin Laden. Make up your mind, would you? Should the minority be considered or not?

It appears that Worldquest is the native punching bag - the token believer in a forum full of atheists. As such, I think his posts are getting a little less consideration than they deserve.

His posts contradict themselves, he'd make more sense if I gave him less consideration and just skimmed over them. Also welcome to the forum, and Advance Wars is sweet.

I dislike what I call atheist fundamentalism the most because if the level of utter arrogance on atheist forums is anything to go by, it's a sure sign that given the chance, some, not all but a fair few atheists, would behave just as badly as fundamentalist religious people.

I've lurked on spiritualist forums. The general mood is : We believe in what we believe, if you disagree, fair enough, maybe we can learn from each other, whether you be religious or atheist or anything in between. There's virtually no arrogance.

I've lurked on religious forums. The general mood is : We feel very strongly about our faith, and if you'd like to join us you're welcome, and if not, then fair enough, god bless. Virtually no arrogance.

I've lurked and also participated in atheist forums. The general mood is : We are right, we are right, prove it, prove it, otherwise you're stupid. Us, arrogant? Naah, we just think that you must be stupid if what you say seems illogical to us. We'd love to really go for it and call you names but there are rules so we will go as close as we can without breaking them (hackenslash's outburst yesterday is an exception...by the way why is he not banned? I bet I would be if I'd sworn like he did - double standards). The chip that some of you have on your shoulders, honestly. You spend your time patting each other on the back for being so "clever", baiting theists and then calling them trolls just because it's "your" forum, going as close as you possibly can to actually calling them names, and generally trying your hardest to ridicule people who have a different point of view. Instead of trying to understand others, in order to actually come to some understanding as to why people think differently, all you do is try to reinforce your prejudices about theists. Many of you are ex religious, and your anger, plus your arrogance, plus your determination to (in the words of hackenslash) eradicate theist views (well, hackenslash does, and I wouldn't be surprised if many other atheists would too), and your general ignorance as to why exactly people come to conclusions about life that differ from yours, add it all together and you have a recipe for something which, given the chance, would be just as bad as religious fundamentalism. But it's worse, because as I've observed, most religious or spiritual people that I've met and seen on forums are reasonable, whereas in atheist forums, it's nothing much other than a pit of negativity. And if you go to the thread "10 things atheists and christians can, and must, agree on" and read the penultimate post, by me, where I quote hackenslash, we can really see what fundamentalist atheism is all about. That is the kind of attitude I'm talking about, and I'm sure hackenslash is not alone in his views.

I'm not addressing "you" specifically, Richard, I'm just making a point. I may be a dumb crazy "cunt" (hackenslash's word, not mine) theist but from time to time I do actually make a good observation, believe it or not, despite the general desire to disagree with everything I say by default. And fortunately, from time to time, someone comes along and actually sees that, while the rest of you (again, not nec. you, Richard) continue with your mob mentality. As far as atheists being in charge of things, it's not looking too good, is it? The fact that religion (not spirituality) has had the means, through popularity and a few despots, to cause so many problems is no longer an excuse to say that somehow atheists would do a better job, because the ability of some of you to even engage with others is so piss poor. Many atheists that I've come across on these forums are so insecure, a psychoanalist would have a field day with them. Some of you really have no clue as to how poorly equipped you are to engage, and deal with other people. You're useless. It's all about the mob, and your hangups.

Some of you are perfectly ok though. Andiferous comes to mind. Hi Andiferous, are we still on for church this sunday?

 

[Andiferous]

Some of you are perfectly ok though. Andiferous comes to mind. Hi Andiferous, are we still on for church this sunday?

Hah!

I think that quite possibly I've been to more masses in my moderatly short life than most anyone on this forum. No thankee.