Religion — Page 4

Wut

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/08/florida_pastor_asks_why_atheis.html

xhonzi said:

Interesting comment through the link you posted, Frinky.

September 4, 2011  
1. No atheist has ever killed anyone in the name of God.  
2. Belief is the lowest form of thinking.  
3. Religion is a dangerous thing and children need to be protected from it through laws, as we have laws protecting them from booze. No child should be allowed to be taught religion before they are of drinking age and have developed critical faculties which will let them question outlandish lies which all religions preach.  
4. Along with freedom of religion we need freedom from religion. 
5. All so-called men of the cloth or men of God need to undergo a psychiatric examination before being allowed to preach. And those who preach hate, like half the mullahs in American mosques and nasties like the irreverend Wright, should be jailed.  

My thoughts:

1) True, at least by definition.  But if someone kills my family, I don't care if they did it in the name of God or because they wear their pants too low...end result is the same.

2) That's a pretty dumb comment.

3) Religion CAN be dangerous, but that doesn't mean it IS dangerous.  And I don't like the government telling people what they can or can't teach their own children.

4) I believe in the separation of church and state.  I don't believe I have a right to be "protected" from exposure to religion.

5) Can we get psychiatric evaluations for anyone who posts comments like this?

I'd hope no one here supports the idea of putting atheists on a public list, however.

I agree with you on all your points, Frink.  You seem to be a fair minded agnostic.

I would only make an addition, and that is the point that atheists, agnostics, and anyone else CAN be dangerous as well.  People can go from reasonable to zealots over the most varied issues, even those that do not involve any religious reverence.  Something that a certain OT fellow whose name escapes me seemed unable to accept or confess.

Though we see differently on a number of issues, I'm always happy when I can be respectful as I disagree with my debate opponents.

TV's Frink said:

Wut

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/08/florida_pastor_asks_why_atheis.html

 Yeah, that's pretty idiotic.  What distuinguishes this from requiring all Jews to wear patches?  That's institutionalizing bigotry and prejudice.

On the other hand, read the comments on the Huffington Post regarding any religious topic (given that many members there are non-religious).  Heck, look especially at those dealing with Mormonism, such as Mitt Romney's political campaign, Proposition 8 and the subsequent vandalism of Mormon property, the burning of the Provo Tabernacle last year, etc.  In fact, after hearing about the Tabernacle burning (not the big one that most people know), I immediately went to HP.com and found some of the most bigoted and hateful comments regarding that tragedy.  Looking at it now, many of the worst comments were removed (and it is no small number) by the rare moderation that takes place at "Fountains of Tolerance and Togetherness."  Still, if you are interested, look it up and you'll find there remain quite a few rude and unnecessary statements.  I guarantee you, Puffington Host and its many parasites have a greater influence than this preacher, and they advocate some of the worst bigotry I've ever read, doing it quite openly.  This would be another opportunity for me to toot my horn on my little "Guide" thread.

I usually don't pay attention to the source I'm linking to...unless I read the story and it's too slanted (for my taste ;-) ).  And I rarely read the comments on any site since it's usually a waste of time.

Understood.  Most people who comment on the internet are whack jobs. ;-)

That list above is actually a pretty good example of what could be called an extreme form of (possibly even) weak atheism.

It's whenever someone makes the conclusion that religions are based on falsehoods and fallacies and can do considerable harm (weak atheism is based around the notion that the religious claims that have been made so far, are unfounded and constitute no evidence for themselves), and suggests crude, simplified and poorly thought-out solutions.


Having that said, anyone who disagrees with point 3, should ask themselves whether the law should have any say in whether parents are allowed to feed their children false or morally reprehensible ideas, be it pseudo-science (debunked, harmful alternative medicine comes to mind), false history (say one that favors one's own race or nation) or acceptance of morally reprehensible ideas (like, ah whatever, I'll just say Hitler - some brainwashed children are fed sugar-coated lies of that period similar to the apologetic, euphemized attitude many take with regards to God in our beloved Scriptures) from a young age.

Like, is there any line before teaching the children violence, bigotry or self-damage, that should be prevented from being crossed?'

Or should the entire focus be on formal education? How prudent would it be to rely on that, seeing as how parental influence from a young age can leave rather stubborn marks in the unformed mind?



So while I'm absolutely positive that the idea to ban "any teachings of religion" without distinction is not acceptable (I sincerely hope the guy doesn't include education about and comparative religion into his suggested prohibition), some ideas within as well as associated with religion, are just at that level of falsehood and harm, and should be obviously treated just the same way.

Would it be alright if parents scared their kid with a tentacle monster who would eat them alive if they don't do their homework?
Ok, how about fire & brimstone?

You get the drift.

xhonzi said:

TV's Frink said:

xhonzi said:

Interesting comment through the link you posted, Frinky.

September 4, 2011  
1. No atheist has ever killed anyone in the name of God.  

My thoughts:

1) True, at least by definition.  But if someone kills my family, I don't care if they did it in the name of God or because they wear their pants too low...end result is the same.

I was thinking about this on my drive home yesteday. 

*quick scan of the list*

I was thinking about your mom on my drive home "yesteday."

Please use this thread to discuss the merits of religion, security blankets, or whatever you want to call it.  It's difficult to discuss faith with those that consider it weakness, but if you want to do so, feel free to use this other lovely thread, started by some brilliant guy who wanted to promote more discussion in this topic.

Why is God a man?

That's silly.

Ok, I'll throw my hat in the ring. As I've said in another thread, I am what you would call a Christian. I currently attend a Baptist church and currently am the active youth minister. I don't really claim any denomination, but I'm here for the time. Don't really care much about denominations anyway. To me it's the division of the church.

Another thought I've had as of late. The word: Christian. I've almost decided to retire it for me as it has been mistreated so much that it's hardly distinguishable to what it actually is supposed to be.

For example, this other thread was hijacked by this specific individuals so-called Christian beliefs... Well, say someone entered the forum with no prior knowledge of what a Christian is.... Well, this individuals hatred becomes the picture of Christ for that person, and that is what gets me.

Lately, I call myself a believer... Follower of the Way if you will. Either the true Christians need a name change, or we need to reclaim it.

Would love to talk to anyone about my beliefs.

Davnes007 said:

Well...okay.....she wouldn't destroy the world every month...

 

 

There would be a flood!**  ;)

More recently, and very weirdly, the Mormons have been caught amassing great archives of the dead, and regularly “praying them in” as adherents of the LDS, so as to retrospectively “baptize” everybody as a convert. (Here the relevant book is Alex Shoumatoff’s The Mountain of Names.) In a hollowed-out mountain in the Mormons’ stronghold state of Utah is a colossal database assembled for this purpose. Now I have no objection if Mormons desire to put their own ancestors down for posthumous salvation. But they also got hold of a list of those put to death by the Nazis’ Final Solution and fairly recently began making these massacred Jews into honorary LDS members as well. Indeed, when the practice was discovered, the church at first resisted efforts to make them stop. Whether this was cultish or sectarian it was certainly extremely tactless: a crass attempt at mass identity theft from the deceased.

Wrong thread, guys, though I authored both of these threads.  I'll copy and paste over there, but I actually can't  answer right now.  About to start a study group.

A slightly more balanced account:

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/etc/genealogy.html

The practice has not been without controversy, however. In the mid-1990s, there was a backlash when it was uncovered that the names of about 380,000 Jewish Holocaust victims had been submitted for posthumous baptism by what church historian Marlin Jensen calls "well-intentioned, sometimes slightly overzealous members." In 1995, the church agreed to remove the names of all Holocaust victims and survivors from its archives and to stop baptizing Jews unless they were direct ancestors of a Mormon or unless they had the permission of all the person's living relatives. However, Jewish names have periodically been discovered since the 1995 agreement, including that of Holocaust survivor and Jewish human rights activist Simon Wiesenthal, which was found and removed in 2006. Catholics and members of other faiths have also been upset at the practice.