If You're a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong

[Battlehymn Republic]

My mistake. But were any of them Buddhists? I suppose it's hard to tell, since Far Eastern religions all get mixed up in variants of Shintoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, ancestor worship, etc.

[wolveraptor]

Neo-Hinduism basically steals from Buddhism, and has long since dispensed with the fairy tale crap (which was really already gone in educated India by the time of Gandhi).

They still have a concept of heaven, though, but luckily, they don't make you do ridiculous crap to get there. They, like most humanists, define evil as harm to others, and so don't have any widely popular rules against gays or sex and stuff.
Hell, they made the fucking Kama Sutra: you can't be less anti-sex than that.

[General Zod]

My mistake. But were any of them Buddhists? I suppose it's hard to tell, since Far Eastern religions all get mixed up in variants of Shintoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, ancestor worship, etc.

It wouldn't be surprising if at least some of them were Buddhist, but what difference would that make looking at things as a whole?

[Battlehymn Republic]

They still have a concept of heaven, though, but luckily, they don't make you do ridiculous crap to get there. They, like most humanists, define evil as harm to others, and so don't have any widely popular rules against gays or sex and stuff.

Yes, they have less hangups about certain things, and every atheist and agnostic agrees that karma is less harmful than heaven, but aside from that, isn't Hinduism (and for that matter, Sikhism) as harmful as the Abrahamic faiths?

[General Zod]

They still have a concept of heaven, though, but luckily, they don't make you do ridiculous crap to get there. They, like most humanists, define evil as harm to others, and so don't have any widely popular rules against gays or sex and stuff.

Yes, they have less hangups about certain things, and every atheist and agnostic agrees that karma is less harmful than heaven, but aside from that, isn't Hinduism (and for that matter, Sikhism) as harmful as the Abrahamic faiths?

Do you have some type of point you're getting to? Maybe it's just me but I don't see one. . .

[Admiral Valdemar]

I posted this on another board I'm new to and it seems one of the staff didn't take too kindly to it (despite others getting involved in discussion with no flaming or any bad behaviour) and so I had to send this PM to him after he locked it.

It's not going to change the status of the topic, but since you locked it rather than, say, let people discuss the matter, I can only respond to your post this way.

I'm locking this as there's never any justification to ridicule someone else's beliefs, no matter how stupid you feel them to be.

Really? Because I seem to see a thread that's still open that ridicules the beliefs of neo-Nazis. Could this be a double-standard or is religion a "sacred cow" unlike societal values such as racial integration?

Point at someone who believes in God in this country and tell them they murder people in His name, and find out just how prejudiced, stupid and ignorant you feel.

Strawman argument. If you read the article, you'd know that fundamentalists are the ones doing such acts, not Joe Average who happens to believe in one of these religious cults. And I do have a great many religious friends, hell, I've been in CofE schools all my life until I lost my faith.

And frankly, if someone believes in God, it's none of your business unless they make it your business. Sometimes aetheism is just as offensive as religious bigotry, as it's just as bad about telling people what to think.

It becomes my business when I get involved in what they preach, since pretty much all the leaders of the major powers in this world are devout followers in either Christianity (George W. Bush, a man who believes "family values" means turning back the clock) or Islamic beliefs (such as our friend in Iran who thinks it's fine to publically preach about the virtues of wiping out Jews and anyone who sympathises with them). Perhaps you've never come across religious bigots before, but I have. Having friends who happen to not be heterosexual condemned as "sinful sodomisers" is not something I take kindly too, nor is my profession in biology being mocked as an "evil evolutionist" all that good either. But please, carry on deluding yourself into thinking the atheist minority are somehow just as bad as the people who concocted such movements as Creationism, the World Church of the Creator, Nazism, Islamic Jihad and the pro-Zionist factions. I'm sure my crimes of pointing out bullsh*t fairy tales ranks up there with what the Inquisition and Hezbollah have done.

If you don't realise that, I feel a bit sorry for you.

And you have my sympathies for thinking silencing debate on a touchy subject is somehow good practice. This is exactly why such wackos exist in the world because no one will actually stand up and point out that pretty much 99% of what is wrong with the world is religiously created.

But do as you will.

[CaptJodan]

Ah yes, because several centuries of pussy-footing around the sensibilities of religious morons have been sooooo effective throughout the world.

Problem is, besides the already automatic defense nature of humanity of someone attacking your own views, either with or without evidence (this article didn't exactly provide the evidence needed to persuade anyone), you've got, at least on the Christian side, and probably the others, the idea of a "Persecuted Christian". They see themselves as being victims of the secular, satanic views of the scientific world. The hostility of this argument only confirms that.

This site helped me to question a majority of what I believed, but it took a lot of time. Mostly I ignored SLAM because either A, I didn't like the bashing of what I believed, or B, I was afraid of what I might find. (A bit of both) Occassionally I'd open up something and such good points were made that I finally started to listen further to what was being said. I was far from even a moderately devout Christian.

It's a hard thing to do to change someone's mind. The article is right about one thing, these things are danced around a lot so no one gets offended. I take that as a sign that athiest know they are a minority, and know that if they rattle the chains too loudly, they'll be spanked down by the vast majority of idiots looking to arrest them for...whatever. This is especailly true with the current government who continues to try and squeek more and more church into the state.

[Plekhanov]

If all it did was comfort people, it'd be a harmless little fantasy. But it starts wars and ruins lives, so it's hardly harmless.

Of Course there are extremists on both sides of the equation. That's why I profess that Fundamentalist wackoes like Robertson and His ilk do not speak for me as a Christian.

I doubt all the homosexuals you want to deny the right to get married due to your Christianity would consider it harmless.

You may not be as out there as Pat and he might not speak for you so what? Your marginally less world hating beliefs still do a tremendous amount of harm.

[Captain Cyran]

If all it did was comfort people, it'd be a harmless little fantasy. But it starts wars and ruins lives, so it's hardly harmless.

Of Course there are extremists on both sides of the equation. That's why I profess that Fundamentalist wackoes like Robertson and His ilk do not speak for me as a Christian.

I doubt all the homosexuals you want to deny the right to get married due to your Christianity would consider it harmless.

You may not be as out there as Pat and he might not speak for you so what? Your marginally less world hating beliefs still do a tremendous amount of harm.

Well, if we're going to generalize. Please Plekhanov, lemme know some groups you belong to, please. Every group, be it religious, scientific, or your community club that just loves to drink fucking coffee has it's nuts that think something that is fucking insane. I'll admit that only in religion do these fuck heads tend to get any power but stating that just because he can be blanketed under the term Christian he hates homosexuals is fucking wrong, hateful, and all around a retarded kind of logic.

[Darth Wong]

Who gives a shit if he likes you for saying this? You're not trying to make people into your own little personal deputies or followers; they can be furious at you for what you're saying, but to my way of thinking that is less harmful than allowing people to continue indefinitely, never once in their lives hearing someone brutally point out the flaws in their thinking.

And don't give me this "persecution complex" bullshit either. One guy insulting you will not give you a persecution complex; Christians say that regardless of how they are treated anyway.

[Keevan_Colton]

Who gives a shit if he likes you for saying this? You're not trying to make people into your own little personal deputies or followers; they can be furious at you for what you're saying, but to my way of thinking that is less harmful than allowing people to continue indefinitely, never once in their lives hearing someone brutally point out the flaws in their thinking.

And don't give me this "persecution complex" bullshit either. One guy insulting you will not give you a persecution complex; Christians say that regardless of how they are treated anyway.

As far as this goes, it falls under my new signature line...

"All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing."

If you dont cry bullshit for fear of offending people then it never gets stopped. You need to draw a line in the sand and say "No more.".

[Plekhanov]

Of Course there are extremists on both sides of the equation. That's why I profess that Fundamentalist wackoes like Robertson and His ilk do not speak for me as a Christian.

I doubt all the homosexuals you want to deny the right to get married due to your Christianity would consider it harmless.

You may not be as out there as Pat and he might not speak for you so what? Your marginally less world hating beliefs still do a tremendous amount of harm.

Well, if we're going to generalize. Please Plekhanov, lemme know some groups you belong to, please. Every group, be it religious, scientific, or your community club that just loves to drink fucking coffee has it's nuts that think something that is fucking insane. I'll admit that only in religion do these fuck heads tend to get any power but stating that just because he can be blanketed under the term Christian he hates homosexuals is fucking wrong, hateful, and all around a retarded kind of logic.

I pointed out Solo oposed gay marraige because that's a position he has repeatedly taken right here on this board not simply because I'm aware he's a devout Catholic (though that in itslef would have been a clue as to his position on homosexuality) not because I'm some kind of anti-Christian bigot who assumes that he must hate gays because he's a Christian.

[Darth Wong]

These "it's just as bad on both sides" idiots are so full of shit; please, let them provide examples of "militant atheists" who are anywhere near as bad as a typical fundamentalist.

The fact is that they won't be able to do it. They'll have to do something dishonest like substituting "commuinist" for "atheist".

[Admiral Valdemar]

I already called on that guy by suggesting my actions are equivalent to the radicals that bomb innocents over abortions/being Jewish/wrong skin colour etc. I'm eager to get his reply PM, but I expect he'll not bother or just ban me.

[Battlehymn Republic]

They still have a concept of heaven, though, but luckily, they don't make you do ridiculous crap to get there. They, like most humanists, define evil as harm to others, and so don't have any widely popular rules against gays or sex and stuff.

Yes, they have less hangups about certain things, and every atheist and agnostic agrees that karma is less harmful than heaven, but aside from that, isn't Hinduism (and for that matter, Sikhism) as harmful as the Abrahamic faiths?

Do you have some type of point you're getting to? Maybe it's just me but I don't see one. . .

If you're going to ridicule religion, it's only fair you do it to all of them, or at least all of them with a fair amount of people who kill in the name of that religion. If Hindus and Sikhs ran the world, it's possible that there would be as much people killing and dying over religion as there are now, if not more.

[Darth Wong]

If you're going to ridicule religion, it's only fair you do it to all of them, or at least all of them with a fair amount of people who kill in the name of that religion. If Hindus and Sikhs ran the world, it's possible that there would be as much people killing and dying over religion as there are now, if not more.

How does that disprove the point? It's like saying that Ted Bundy wasn't a bad guy because John Wayne Gacy was just as bad.

[Battlehymn Republic]

I'm not trying to disprove the point. I'm just questioning why it's okay to overlook certain religions in criticism, especially certain Asian ones. I'm not attacking his points about the Abrahamic religions at this moment.

[Darth Wong]

It's still a pointless tangent. If someone says "Ted Bundy was a terrible human being", would you say "hey, why aren't you talking about John Wayne Gacy?"

[Battlehymn Republic]

It's meant to be a tangent from the original discussion. To go with your analogy, I thought that we were talking about serial killers in general, with a strong emphasis on Ted Bundy, but I'm just reminding people that John Wayne Gacy was a serial killer too.

And since this discussion is on Ted Bundy, I'm going to stop talking about John Wayne Gacy, since people aren't as angry at him in this thread, which focuses on the depredations of Ted Bundy.

[Magnetic]

Yeah, . . . Ted Bundy was a terrible person and he. . . . . oh wait. That's not the topic of this thread, is it?

Yes, the original poster has some valid points, but the vaste majority of Christians out there will read it with little change to their life other than recognizing another 'anti-christ' mentality. It won't sway them away from their religion, they'll just see it as more religious percecution, and they'll rejoice over it.

FWIW, HST, IHMO, if the Muslim religion didn't have the fundimentalist section in there about 'killing the infidels', I doubt we'd have our american troops in Iraq right now, we'd still have two big arse towers in the New York sky line, and we'd have a lot more living innocent people in the world today.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, the original poster has some valid points, but the vaste majority of Christians out there will read it with little change to their life other than recognizing another 'anti-christ' mentality. It won't sway them away from their religion, they'll just see it as more religious percecution, and they'll rejoice over it.

And what do you base this on? I've gotten people to concede, face-to-face, precisely by using shock tactics. They are simply not prepared to deal with someone who refuses to pussy-foot around their bullshit sensibilities, and who bluntly points out that their God is a baby-killer or their Bible is obviously a childish fable, complete with talking animals.

In fact, I'm tired of hearing people say that it's harder to get people to concede face to face. I find that it's easier to get people to concede face to face. The Internet tends to actually make people behave in a more stubborn and less honest fashion. It's harder to keep mindlessly repeating yourself and ignoring rebuttals when you're talking to someone who's standing right in front of you unless you're a raving imbecile, and people like that don't get into debates in the first place. They actively avoid them because they find the act of arguing and thinking to be very painful.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Yes, the original poster has some valid points, but the vaste majority of Christians out there will read it with little change to their life other than recognizing another 'anti-christ' mentality. It won't sway them away from their religion, they'll just see it as more religious percecution, and they'll rejoice over it.

As far as I can tell, nothing will convince most Christians; atheists like me might as well vent, since at least it makes us feel better.

FWIW, HST, IHMO, if the Muslim religion didn't have the fundimentalist section in there about 'killing the infidels', I doubt we'd have our american troops in Iraq right now, we'd still have two big arse towers in the New York sky line, and we'd have a lot more living innocent people in the world today.

Maybe; it would still be a monotheism, and monotheisms are intolerant by nature. At the very least, I would expect it to be just as oppressive.

[Magnetic]

Yes, the original poster has some valid points, but the vaste majority of Christians out there will read it with little change to their life other than recognizing another 'anti-christ' mentality. It won't sway them away from their religion, they'll just see it as more religious percecution, and they'll rejoice over it.

And what do you base this on? I've gotten people to concede, face-to-face, precisely by using shock tactics. They are simply not prepared to deal with someone who refuses to pussy-foot around their bullshit sensibilities, and who bluntly points out that their God is a baby-killer or their Bible is obviously a childish fable, complete with talking animals.

In fact, I'm tired of hearing people say that it's harder to get people to concede face to face. I find that it's easier to get people to concede face to face. The Internet tends to actually make people behave in a more stubborn and less honest fashion. It's harder to keep mindlessly repeating yourself and ignoring rebuttals when you're talking to someone who's standing right in front of you unless you're a raving imbecile, and people like that don't get into debates in the first place. They actively avoid them because they find the act of arguing and thinking to be very painful.

But, for the "die in the wool" (is that the correct way to say that euphamism (is that a euphamism (did I spell euphamism right))) fundamentalists, they don't see these as fables but divine acts of God. Yes, one who kills babies, but to prevent them from growing up in an 'unholy religion'. Believe me, I've asked these hard questions and that's what I get from them, or the "He's God, you're not, and you're no one to judge what God does" reply.

You may get some people conceeding, but I bet afterwards they go back to their fundi friends and get 'reconditioned' with ample scripture verses and Christian brotherly love.

[Darth Wong]

The "dyed in the wool" people are idiots. Nothing would convince them, because they don't like to think. That's why they only know how to repeat themselves ad nauseum, while ignoring what you're saying.

Therefore, criticizing certain kinds of tactics is a complete waste of breath. You might as well debate in clicking sounds for all the good it would do against these people. Don't you fucking get it yet?

[Magnetic]

Yes, the original poster has some valid points, but the vaste majority of Christians out there will read it with little change to their life other than recognizing another 'anti-christ' mentality. It won't sway them away from their religion, they'll just see it as more religious percecution, and they'll rejoice over it.

As far as I can tell, nothing will convince most Christians; atheists like me might as well vent, since at least it makes us feel better.

FWIW, HST, IHMO, if the Muslim religion didn't have the fundimentalist section in there about 'killing the infidels', I doubt we'd have our american troops in Iraq right now, we'd still have two big arse towers in the New York sky line, and we'd have a lot more living innocent people in the world today.

Maybe; it would still be a monotheism, and monotheisms are intolerant by nature. At the very least, I would expect it to be just as oppressive.

All this problem because Abraham had sex with someone other than Sarah and that offspring believed themselves to be the 'true line' from God. If I were God and knew that THAT was going to happen, I would have intervened before Abraham had sex with Hagar and said, "Don't be stupid."