How to Make SURE to Not raise an Atheist
- Thread starter lukep
- Start date
A dear friend of mine is a Muslim. One of the first questions he asked was if I was Jewish. I'm not. Not that it matters to me.
fwiw I'm adopted. I have No fucking clue what my ancestry is. I could be half-black, half-asian, half-martian for all I know. Because of this fact I am probably the least racist person you'd ever meet.
Anyway i told Mohamed I don't believe in any organized religion he was stunned. I also told him that since his religious education started at age 3 he was basically brain washed.
I love the dude he's a real hustler and one of the smartest people I know.
But he has been blinded imo and has No free will about his religious beliefs.
I went to catholic school for 12 years but I don't drink that kool-aid.
fwiw I'm adopted. I have No fucking clue what my ancestry is. I could be half-black, half-asian, half-martian for all I know. Because of this fact I am probably the least racist person you'd ever meet.
Anyway i told Mohamed I don't believe in any organized religion he was stunned. I also told him that since his religious education started at age 3 he was basically brain washed.
I love the dude he's a real hustler and one of the smartest people I know.
But he has been blinded imo and has No free will about his religious beliefs.
I went to catholic school for 12 years but I don't drink that kool-aid.
I'm really sick of the annoying atheists that run their fucking mouths all day about jews and christians because they lack the fucking balls to say anything about the actual worst religion of the three.
Furthermore, nothing in the world is more fucking annoying than an uppity and smug athiest. I'd rather hang out in a fucking mousqe than with a group of preaching atheists.
Furthermore, nothing in the world is more fucking annoying than an uppity and smug athiest. I'd rather hang out in a fucking mousqe than with a group of preaching atheists.
Christians:
Is early indoctrination a good thing for kids? Is it realistic and/or desirable to limit religious influence until he or she can make an informed decision?
Is early indoctrination a good thing for kids? Is it realistic and/or desirable to limit religious influence until he or she can make an informed decision?
Who defines indoctrination?
Are you saying we should lay out all of the facts of science? Christians welcome that. Of course many do not believe that, but they do.
The fossil record, OK, fine. Show me all of the transitional species.
Evolution of man, OK, fine. By the way, I know your theory justifies racism etc, are you saying all men are not equal, after all they evolved on different paths.
Time being a dimension and God is outside of it, OK.
What science disproves Christianity when thoroughly examined?
What reality disproves Christianity?
Do not list what you disagree with, like Communion, or Christ's ressurection. List something with meat, something tangible that we can prove/disprove.
I am always open and would be more than happy to dump my faith if I could find coherent, logical, and real reason to do so.
I have asked WF to Atheists to lay down their claims before and I got nothing. I got a theory, an honest reference to Occams Razor, as an argument against God. I read up on that for awhile, and will admit much of it was over my head, but in the end it was all theory, not fact.
This is all bullshit. All of it. And every other fucking religious thread.
Firstly, religious claims are not debatable to any conclusion, otherwise it would have already been done. So talking about them as though it is some sort of serious debate is worthless. Anything that involves faith over evidence is simply not debatable. That applies as much to super string theory or the boiling point of water as it does to the existence of deities.
Secondly, religious people won't accept that atheism is simply the rejection of their religious explanation of how the universe works. Religious people think atheism entails some sort of fixed set of alternative beliefs and agendas, which is simply not true - the only thing two atheists may have in common is that they both reject the same creation stories. Religious people also don't understand that if something requires faith the accept, then it can just be simply rejected - no alternative explanations or reasoning is required to reject any idea that is faith based. You don't need an alternative to decide that Zeus or Brahman are more than likely fabricated characters.
And so the fucking thing pointlessly goes round and round, when actually the real issue isn't being talked about at all. Atheists couldn't give a fuck what anyone else believed if it didn't affect them. The real issue is religious organisations being able to inform social policies, foreign policies and law simply by invoking the will of their god instead of using evidenced debate. In other words, secularism versus theocracy.
If American hundus wanted cows to be sacred, so no-one could eat beef and cattle would be allowed to roam the city streets causing havoc; if American muslims wanted to introduce aspects of Shaira law, like stopping all women from driving or not being able to go out with male friends, all the christians (as well as the secularists) would be in fucking uproar.
But the hypocrisy is that christian organisations are allowed to exert this kind of influence in our societies, bypassing processes of evidenced debate, statistics and logic, and replacing it with emotional mob rule based on nothing except '... our god says so'. That's why secularists have become more vocal. Religious organisations should not be allowed a say in the political arena, and it shouldn't matter what fucking personal beliefs our leaders have or lack, because they shouldn't be allowed to act on them anyway. Lining potential presidents up every election and asking them if they believe in the christian god is a travesty. Letting organised religions affect important decisions is down right dangerous.
Firstly, religious claims are not debatable to any conclusion, otherwise it would have already been done. So talking about them as though it is some sort of serious debate is worthless. Anything that involves faith over evidence is simply not debatable. That applies as much to super string theory or the boiling point of water as it does to the existence of deities.
Secondly, religious people won't accept that atheism is simply the rejection of their religious explanation of how the universe works. Religious people think atheism entails some sort of fixed set of alternative beliefs and agendas, which is simply not true - the only thing two atheists may have in common is that they both reject the same creation stories. Religious people also don't understand that if something requires faith the accept, then it can just be simply rejected - no alternative explanations or reasoning is required to reject any idea that is faith based. You don't need an alternative to decide that Zeus or Brahman are more than likely fabricated characters.
And so the fucking thing pointlessly goes round and round, when actually the real issue isn't being talked about at all. Atheists couldn't give a fuck what anyone else believed if it didn't affect them. The real issue is religious organisations being able to inform social policies, foreign policies and law simply by invoking the will of their god instead of using evidenced debate. In other words, secularism versus theocracy.
If American hundus wanted cows to be sacred, so no-one could eat beef and cattle would be allowed to roam the city streets causing havoc; if American muslims wanted to introduce aspects of Shaira law, like stopping all women from driving or not being able to go out with male friends, all the christians (as well as the secularists) would be in fucking uproar.
But the hypocrisy is that christian organisations are allowed to exert this kind of influence in our societies, bypassing processes of evidenced debate, statistics and logic, and replacing it with emotional mob rule based on nothing except '... our god says so'. That's why secularists have become more vocal. Religious organisations should not be allowed a say in the political arena, and it shouldn't matter what fucking personal beliefs our leaders have or lack, because they shouldn't be allowed to act on them anyway. Lining potential presidents up every election and asking them if they believe in the christian god is a travesty. Letting organised religions affect important decisions is down right dangerous.
I'm not sure that you quite understand what a retarded statement that is, speak up if you need it explaining.
This thread is retarded. As soon as you get people who "believe" debating as if it is something rational it is just crapola.
Even as young kid I knew that if you have to believe in something for it to work it is bullshit.
BTW, not all religions are belief based. You anti-religious guys might want to look into that. I was like you once. Your preconceived notions about religion don't apply to all of them.
Even as young kid I knew that if you have to believe in something for it to work it is bullshit.
BTW, not all religions are belief based. You anti-religious guys might want to look into that. I was like you once. Your preconceived notions about religion don't apply to all of them.
I like your posts, you appear to be a non-retard
Are you talking about buddhism etc? I'd love some examples.
Don't want to open a big can of worms and I do agree with the above quote for the most part, but it's worth adding that morality is a consideration here as well. Secularism is often tango partners with moral relativism, and of course religious types are generally ready to rock with their set in stone morality. Generally both circumstances are unremarkable until taken to the extreme in which case both have potentially horrible implications.
The secularist says, 'I'm not following what's right and what's wrong from some alleged dude on a mountain with some stone tablets or whatnot, that's horseshit. Let man decide what is right and wrong, our moral compasses are strong enough on their own.' And the zealot says, 'If we don't follow religious morality then the moral fabric of our society will degrade and we'll be little more than beasts. Let the holy word guide us, some people need help pointing their moral compasses.'
I like your posts, you appear to be a non-retard
Are you talking about buddhism etc? I'd love some examples.
I'm not going to even suggest 'cuz there will be a bunch of uninformed goons jumping down neck. But I will tell you one of my mostest favoritest quotes: "Don't believe something because someone tells you or you read it in a book. Practice until you know it for yourself."
This can all be summed up and ended very easily:
Nobody knows for sure if there is a god or not.
Not one person has any proof either way.
Therefore anybody that isn't an agnostic is delusional.
Using an old book or science as a platform to connect the dots and decide one way or the other just isn't logical.
surely...
end of thread (and whole religion argument forever)
Nobody knows for sure if there is a god or not.
Not one person has any proof either way.
Therefore anybody that isn't an agnostic is delusional.
Using an old book or science as a platform to connect the dots and decide one way or the other just isn't logical.
surely...
end of thread (and whole religion argument forever)
This can all be summed up and ended very easily:
Nobody knows for sure if there is a god or not.
Not one person has any proof either way.
Therefore anybody that isn't an agnostic is delusional.
Using an old book or science as a platform to connect the dots and decide one way or the other just isn't logical.
surely...
end of thread (and whole religion argument forever)
Wrong, on so many points. You can know. But you can't know by believing - you are dead-ended as soon as you believe something. In fact, and here is where are you currently stuck, you believe that nobody knows. Of course you can't possible know that nobody knows, unless you are a mind reader.
> Therefore anybody that isn't an agnostic is delusional.
You don't know what agnostic means.
Gnosticism is concerned with whether we can have knowledge of a creation entity.
agnostic atheist = rejects the various religious explanations of how the universe works, and thinks that even if there was a creation entity, humans wouldn't be capable of having knowledge of it, or be made privy to it.
gnostic atheist = rejects the various religious explanations of how the universe works, and thinks that if there was a creation entity of some sort, it would actually be 'knowable' - we could gain knowledge of it, or it would make itself known to us.
agnostic theist = accepts one or more religious/spiritual explanations of how the universe works, but thinks that humans are not capable of having knowledge of a creation entity. This is someone who likely has a woolly, new-age idea of god as some form of energy or an inter-dimensional being which has no interest in making itself known to us. 'Deists' are also in this group.
gnostic theist = usually accepts only one religious/spiritual explanation of how the universe works, and they think they know either the creation entity itself or a demiurge (Eg. Christianity, Islam, etc). Some gnostic theists may believe in a currently unknown entity, but think that we may someday uncover and have knowledge of this being.
The use of the word 'agnostic' is wrong if the intention is to suggest that 'atheists state there definitely is no god, but agnostics say they can't be sure there is no god, and so are more accurate and reasonable people because they don't say (my) god definitely doesn't exist'.
That is a crock of shit regurgitated by ignorant religious people. These misconstrued labels are tools which have historically helped the religious to attack and marginalise those who rejected their ideas. This bullshit use of 'agnostic' is a religious attempt to make it seem like atheists are thinking in unreasonable absolutes and extremes, when in fact the only people who deal in absolutes are the fucking religious themselves.
Atheism, as defined by atheists, is the rejection of specific religious explanations of the universe. Atheism makes no claims in itself as to whether a creation entity is possible or impossible, likely or unlikely. Atheists may have individual opinions about possibilities or likelihoods, but that's got fuck all to do with the fact of their atheism, which is simply that they've heard the extraordinary explanations of the religious and have rejected those unevidenced, ludicrous claims.
In fact, a christian, exactly like an atheist, rejects about 279 gods of creation: Zeus, Brahman, Mbombo, Ptah, Nanabozho, etc, etc, etc. The only thing that divides the atheist and christian is that the christian arbitrarily throws away their logic and accepts the 280th deity, whereas the atheist rejects this entity for exactly the same consistent reasons for which the others were rejected.
Hope that clears things up for you. Of course, the fucking christians won't accept any of this, and will carry on throwing around inaccurate, offensive, fallacious labels as usual.
You don't know what agnostic means.
Gnosticism is concerned with whether we can have knowledge of a creation entity.
agnostic atheist = rejects the various religious explanations of how the universe works, and thinks that even if there was a creation entity, humans wouldn't be capable of having knowledge of it, or be made privy to it.
gnostic atheist = rejects the various religious explanations of how the universe works, and thinks that if there was a creation entity of some sort, it would actually be 'knowable' - we could gain knowledge of it, or it would make itself known to us.
agnostic theist = accepts one or more religious/spiritual explanations of how the universe works, but thinks that humans are not capable of having knowledge of a creation entity. This is someone who likely has a woolly, new-age idea of god as some form of energy or an inter-dimensional being which has no interest in making itself known to us. 'Deists' are also in this group.
gnostic theist = usually accepts only one religious/spiritual explanation of how the universe works, and they think they know either the creation entity itself or a demiurge (Eg. Christianity, Islam, etc). Some gnostic theists may believe in a currently unknown entity, but think that we may someday uncover and have knowledge of this being.
The use of the word 'agnostic' is wrong if the intention is to suggest that 'atheists state there definitely is no god, but agnostics say they can't be sure there is no god, and so are more accurate and reasonable people because they don't say (my) god definitely doesn't exist'.
That is a crock of shit regurgitated by ignorant religious people. These misconstrued labels are tools which have historically helped the religious to attack and marginalise those who rejected their ideas. This bullshit use of 'agnostic' is a religious attempt to make it seem like atheists are thinking in unreasonable absolutes and extremes, when in fact the only people who deal in absolutes are the fucking religious themselves.
Atheism, as defined by atheists, is the rejection of specific religious explanations of the universe. Atheism makes no claims in itself as to whether a creation entity is possible or impossible, likely or unlikely. Atheists may have individual opinions about possibilities or likelihoods, but that's got fuck all to do with the fact of their atheism, which is simply that they've heard the extraordinary explanations of the religious and have rejected those unevidenced, ludicrous claims.
In fact, a christian, exactly like an atheist, rejects about 279 gods of creation: Zeus, Brahman, Mbombo, Ptah, Nanabozho, etc, etc, etc. The only thing that divides the atheist and christian is that the christian arbitrarily throws away their logic and accepts the 280th deity, whereas the atheist rejects this entity for exactly the same consistent reasons for which the others were rejected.
Hope that clears things up for you. Of course, the fucking christians won't accept any of this, and will carry on throwing around inaccurate, offensive, fallacious labels as usual.
I believe you may have given away your belief position with that one, Mark.
But don't worry; 99% of the ppl here still won't get it because their world is only big enough for 3-4 religions, and they can't take a philosophy seriously without it being "directly from god's mouth."
BTW, I really lean more that way than pure atheism, but living smack dab in the middle of the USA seriously limits my exposure.
I didn't read your well thought out post because I dont give a shit. The point of my post was to show that what you may think about Atheist is the same I think of Christianity or any religion. I cant stand the out spoken Atheist as much as the out spoke Christian. I didn't put much time and though into my reply to Hellblazer, I did it to show all the things he said can be spun and pointed back at him. Fuck your religion and any religion.