People Who Hate Because Of Religion

Originally posted by Transfinitum
I think the idea that religious people "always go on crusades" is an irrational, hypocritical statement. If you could step back and take an objective view on this topic, you will see that Atheism has its crusades as well to try to eradicate religion on this planet as per the Christians tried to do with the Muslims etc. In such cases Atheism is more a religion of people who do not believe in God. A so called "group of loners".

Eradicating religion isn't eradicating people. One's an idea, the kind that can be challenged just like any other opinion (political, philosophical, etc.). The other's a person.

Big difference.

So yeah, atheists will challenge religion (the reverse is obviously true as well). Big whup. It deserves to be challenged, just like anything else. If it stands up to that challenge, great. If not, then the challenge was justified. Religion doesn't need to be on a respctful pedestal where it is never put up to tests, where we say "Oh, that's a religious belief, so even if I disagree vehemently I respect it and won't talk against it." No, that's giving religion (or atheism, or anything) too much credit and respect, rather than actually respecting it properly by facing up to its biggest challenges and, yes, faults.

This works both ways, for any belief or non-belief.

So get off you high horse and stop attacking atheism.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Eradicating religion isn't eradicating people. One's an idea, the kind that can be challenged just like any other opinion (political, philosophical, etc.). The other's a person.

When people go out to irradiate a political view or philosophy they often do kill people.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
So yeah, atheists will challenge religion (the reverse is obviously true as well). Big whup. It deserves to be challenged, just like anything else. If it stands up to that challenge, great. If not, then the challenge was justified. Religion doesn't need to be on a respctful pedestal where it is never put up to tests, where we say "Oh, that's a religious belief, so even if I disagree vehemently I respect it and won't talk against it." No, that's giving religion (or atheism, or anything) too much credit and respect rather than actually respecting it properly by facing up to its biggest challenges and, yes, faults.

Being respectful is only a bad thing if your trying to abuse moral relativism to justify yourself. Yes, everything has faults but before you can discuss those faults you have to agree that you will respect the other side, if you don't all that happens is a pissing contest.

Respecting a person's beliefs (even if you really think the person has gone completely insane) is the single most basic step to talking about them not an obstacle.

Just an opinion of course.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
So get off you high horse and stop attacking atheism.

But you just said that no belief should be place in a position where you would say "[I] won't talk against it".

*enjoys brief moment of prickishness*

*gives Sym the middle finger*

Absolutist bastard!

😛

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
When people go out to irradiate a political view or philosophy they often do kill people.

Erm, ok. Granted. But didn't I say that the latter of those was bad? Think so. My point was debating without attacking people physically.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Being respectful is only a bad thing if your trying to abuse moral relativism to justify yourself. Yes, everything has faults but before you can discuss those faults you have to agree that you will respect the other side, if you don't all that happens is a pissing contest.

Respecting a person's beliefs (even if you really think the person has gone completely insane) is the single most basic step to talking about them not an obstacle.

Just an opinion of course.

I was saying that it's wrong to give religion so much respect that we feel disinclined to challenge it. The respectful avoidance characterized by people who try too hard not to upset anyone, when clearly some things need upsetting.

So you took my logic too far, rather than taking it for what it was. I don't think anyone would disagree that a respectful base on a personal level is a desirable start (though a rare one, given the volatility of the subject matter).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But you just said that no belief should be place in a position where you would say "[I] won't talk against it".

*enjoys brief moment of prickishness*

Enjoy it.

*goes to get Sym banned*

Anyway, there's a difference between debating against something and attacking it from a biased standpoint. Sometimes the line is vague, but usually it's pretty easy to discern which side of the line a particular person or argument is on.

Ah, but Digi, there is no level playing ground. You ask to rationally debate and weigh both sides of the argument (perfectly sensable, of course,) but what you fail to realize is that there is not level ground. In schools, for example, evolution is taught as the sole scientific theory when other forms with just as much justificaltion (ID Creationism etc.) are prohibited to be taught even as less likely alternataves. And if you dissagree that those are rational theories, you have another forum where I am still awaiting a response.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Ah, but Digi, there is no level playing ground. You ask to rationally debate and weigh both sides of the argument (perfectly sensable, of course,) but what you fail to realize is that there is not level ground. In schools, for example, evolution is taught as the sole scientific theory when other forms with just as much justificaltion (ID Creationism etc.) are prohibited to be taught even as less likely alternataves. And if you dissagree that those are rational theories, you have another forum where I am still awaiting a response.

But ID is not a scientific theory.

It is as much so with evolution: just replace the "intelligent designer" with random chance and they are the same. The only difference is with random chance the probabilites are impossible. ID is the only plausable mechanism for evolution. But there is another forum for this topic, post there.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
It is as much so with evolution: just replace the "intelligent designer" with random chance and they are the same. The only difference is with random chance the probabilites are impossible. ID is the only plausable mechanism for evolution. But there is another forum for this topic, post there.

Evolution has nothing to do with random chance. Random chance does not exist in reality.

Then tell me, what causes "mutations"?

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Then tell me, what causes "mutations"?

Problems with reproduction.

And these problems occur when...

Originally posted by Transfinitum
And these problems occur when...

There are too many reasons to list. I will give an example: If the father is elderly, there will be a greater chance for brakes in the genetic code of the sperm. This will lead to a host of problems.

But yet you say "chance". Which then leads to a probability argument that was mentioned earlier in the Creationism vs. Evolution forum.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
But yet you say "chance". Which then leads to a probability argument that was mentioned earlier in the Creationism vs. Evolution forum.

You must understand what the word chance means. Chance only talks about what we know, or do not know. Nature and reality always knows because all things are driven by cause and effect.

Dude, this thread isn't about ID, which you clearly know nothing about based on your statements. Keep it where it belongs, because right now it amounts to spam, and will be reported if it continues.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Ah, but Digi, there is no level playing ground. You ask to rationally debate and weigh both sides of the argument (perfectly sensable, of course,) but what you fail to realize is that there is not level ground. In schools, for example, evolution is taught as the sole scientific theory when other forms with just as much justificaltion (ID Creationism etc.) are prohibited to be taught even as less likely alternataves. And if you dissagree that those are rational theories, you have another forum where I am still awaiting a response.

lulz at you touting Creationism as a well justified scientific theory.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Dude, this thread isn't about ID, which you clearly know nothing about based on your statements. Keep it where it belongs, because right now it amounts to spam, and will be reported if it continues.

I'm sorry. I was just following Transfinitum over the edge. 😮

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm sorry. I was just following Transfinitum over the edge. 😮

I was talking to him, not you. No worries.

😉

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Dude, this thread isn't about ID, which you clearly know nothing about based on your statements. Keep it where it belongs, because right now it amounts to spam, and will be reported if it continues.

Originally posted by 123KID most Atheists denounce religions for spreading hate
but the people who hate religion are doing the exact same thing: spreading hate except they spread hate against religion instead of for it

I think those who speak out against religion are not spreading hate, but simply proving a point - there is hatred in religion, and people are blind to that.

Originally posted by Tempe Brennan
I think those who speak out against religion are not spreading hate, but simply proving a point - there is hatred in religion, and people are blind to that.

of course atheists are making a point, and people usually see exasperation or the like as hate. its unfortunate but it happens. religion advocates alot more than atheists do. just look at the catholic churchs stance on gays