Christianity is false and immoral. (Hitchens)

[jonks]

How many? How many of them are named Steve?

never saw that. funny 🙂

 

[zsdersw]

If religions were simply a personal belief that comforts us as we face the unknown and the big questions about ourselves, that would be fine... but so very much more often they're a lot more than that. They're systems of control over our thoughts and actions with elaborate reward/punishment schemes administered by a supreme being... and those aspects of religions are what we need to rid ourselves of in the public sphere.

 

[Tom]

We already have a word that describes the collection of a person's beliefs: it's called a worldview. Some worldviews are religious, some are not. You're abusing language and diluting the meaning of "religion" to the point of uselessness.

LOL, worldview ? That's not a word in my lexicon. Sounds like newspeak created by someone who's got a beef with the word religion.

I'm using a long accepted definition of religion. It's certainly not useless to be able to compare different personal beliefs in the aggregate, which is necessary if we are going to compare Christianity to the alternatives.

 

[Blackjack200]

You could not fail more with this post if you tried.

Belief in something greater then yourself (God, creater, diety etc) is required to be a religion. Thusly the lack of belief in those things makes something not a religion.

Relgious guilt is a strong thing and that is why relgious people try to lump athiesm as a religion to feel better about themselves.

Thank you.

I reject the characterization of my disbelief in God as a religion. It is based on nothing more than a lack of evidence. If that is a religion then not believing in Santa Claus is also a religion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

LOL, worldview ? That's not a word in my lexicon. Sounds like newspeak created by someone who's got a beef with the word religion.

Yeah, sure. That's it. 🙄

I'm using a long accepted definition of religion.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/worldview

I'm comfortable letting others make up their own minds about the truthfulness of your claim.

It's certainly not useless to be able to compare different personal beliefs in the aggregate, which is necessary if we are going to compare Christianity to the alternatives.

Again, we already have a word for the totality of a person's beliefs. Any layperson can understand that a person's beliefs about the outcome of sporting matches or the next day's weather are not part of their religious beliefs even while they are part of their worldview.

 

[soulcougher73]

But why should they listen to the morality over the urge to kill?

Really? You just admited to morality and then you question what we would do with the urge to kill?

Im going to go out on a limb here and guess that the guy with morals is going to resist the urge to kill? No that cant be it. That is too simple.

 

[soulcougher73]

yeah, but you're going to die anyways, so who cares how you spent your time? Doesn't matter in the end.

It matter to the people spending it and the people you are spending it with. Just because i know im going to be worm food someday does not mean my life has no purpose or meaning and that i should just throw caution to the wind. I dont need a higher power to tell me what makes me happy in life.

With what little time i do have alive id prefer to be as happy as i can and try to leave the world a better place then i found it.

 

[Lizardman]

Excellent post.
If someone wants to believe in something let them. The only time non-believers should interfere or mouth off is when the "believers" get violent, AKA Muslim Extremists and Westboro Baptists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kuzYwzGoXw

If you want to see a good debate about how regilion can be evil watch this debate.

 

[soulcougher73]

People that rely on empathy are ill in the "logic" sector of their brain, because if they were thinking with Logic, they would realize that empathy is relative and not objectively verifiable, thus they shouldn't listen to it.

People that rely on faith are ill in the "logic" sector of their brain, because if they were thinking with Logic, they would realize that faith is relative and not objectively verifiable, thus they shouldn't listen to it.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Of course scientists believe in science. And science is a method to attain knowledge, not the knowledge itself. And it's not the exclusive way to gain knowledge, or even the most prevalent way.

Given your obvious penchant for misusing language, I don't think I need to rebut these naked assertions of yours.

And biology can be correctly described as a subset of cosmology.

😀 You've gotta be trolling me. Even if the above were the case --which it isn't -- it doesn't change the fact that a biological theory is not a cosmological one. Evolution only operates on living things. It has nothing to say about the big bang.

We are part of the cosmos, btw, and it's inside us; it isn't just the part that's far away.

One has to wonder why you think this is relevant in the slightest.

 

[soulcougher73]

prove this to me

Prove to me he does exist. Im still waiting...

 

[soulcougher73]

so then why shouldn't they do it? kill people that is
it makes them feel good.
Who are you to not allow them that feeling?
Why should you be allowed the feeling of love,
but they not be allowed any feelings at all?

Well you believe God created all of this so maybe you should ask him why he created people who are happy to kill others. Doesnt sound like a god worth worshipping that is for sure.

 

[soulcougher73]

nope, not allowed, you have to observe everywhere first. Even then he might just be invisible and you can't see him.

Ok so say we do look everywhere and he is actaully invisible and we cant see him. Wouldnt it then be logical to conclude that he doesnt exist?

You are really reaching with everything you got to try to make some kind of rational reasoned thought and you still fail post after post.

 

[soulcougher73]

I disbelieve in the big bang.
I disbelieve in most of the theories of science as you cannot realistically prove much of anything over the entire universe.

The speed of light on earth goes at this rate, but between the expanses of the galaxy without any influence, does the speed of light remain constant? We cannot prove that, so how can we say a star is x number of light years away. How can you measure it? The entire concept is flawed, so therefore science is false and immoral.

I will passionately try to convince others to disbelieve the same things as I do. I will create youtube videos saying why things are false and immoral. I will join clubs and go on tours, and create books telling people why I disbelieve so much.

I'm sorry to say but disbelief is no different than belief.

Mr. Bradonb, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[Blackjack200]

Mr. Bradonb, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

A simple 'wrong' would have done the trick.

 

[HAL9000]

No, i didn't say all those things are seperate religions. Collectively they make up each person's set of beliefs, which I'm calling religion.

Some people seem to think religion is all the irrational beliefs and that rational beliefs are some other thing. I am saying religion is the collection of both kinds of beliefs.

And I didn't use the word belief with regards to bread, somebody else did and I'm responding to that.

But there is belief involved in what we choose to eat, or not eat. It's probably easier to see in the case of not eating, ie not eating pork, not eating meat, not eating white bread.

Then you have a bizarre incoherent definition of religion, To avoid further confusion please assume I am talking about religious groups / organisations. Having principles does not make me a part of a religion.

 

[wuliheron]

What "thriving democracies" are you talking about ? Japan isn't religious ? Germany isn't religious ? France isn't religious ? S. Korea, I don't know about.

Statistics don't support your claim about religion and democracy. As far as thriving, maybe Germany, maybe S Korea, are doing better than us, could you list what large democracies are thriving more than the US ?

About 70% of Japanese express no religious affiliation. They are sometimes called "Funeral Buddhists" because of their common practice of only using Buddhist rituals for funerals. They retain some of the rituals for specific occasions just as some atheists celebrate Christmas. This website gives some indication of the trends, but the fact that the US is exception to the rule is clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country

The figures of how many people actually attend religious services regularly are also interesting. Surveyors have found that even in the US people frequently lie about how often they attend services, while in other more secular countries people make no such pretenses and might describe themselves as religious if they attend church only a few times a year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_attendance

And socialism isn't antithetical to religion.

Duh! At this point it is merely a correlation that suggests the more people feel supported by their government the less inclined they are to rely on organized religion.

How do you know how many atheists are in prison ? How many atheists aren't in prison ?

A quick Google check will bring up countless statistics on the subject. Perhaps 8% of Americans are now Atheists and they account for maybe .2% of the prison population. The most religious states in the US also have the highest murder rates, while those with highest percentages of Atheists have the lowest.

http://atheistempire.com/reference/stats/main.html

Less religious being more affluent doesn't mean atheists are the most affluent. Less religious isn't atheism.

I never said the two were synonymous. I merely said the less religious people are the higher their income and levels of education tend to be.

And atheism isn't non-religious. Religion doesn't require belief in God or gods.

Being an Taoist myself I am very aware that you can be religious and atheist. Some Taoist atheists and agnostics are even priests who teach their congregations that their bodies alone possess 8,000 gods. However, such people are quite rare in the developed world and irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Macamus Prime]

They have declared a war on Christianity!!! Why are they picking on Christianity! We are all about peace, love and understanding,... excuse me, while I burn this Koran,....

Ahem,... WHY ARE WE BEING PICKED ON!?!?

 

[soulcougher73]

Damn I thought Jesus was just a carpenter and to solve the problems of society he did nothing but asked us to show mercy. Like that woman who was caught for adultery and everyone wanted to stone Jesus message was mercy and they went away. I'm no expert but sounds pretty moral to me in modern context.

By contrast Mohamed was a conquerer. To solve the problems of society he forced his idealogy on a lot of different people and the primary thing was justice for God. In fact, the entire koran revolves around this idea of being God's hands for justice in the world.

Interesting he chose Christianity to deride.

You may want to look into Hitchens more if you think he only derides Christianity. You took once 12 min clip and pigeon holed the man? Way to go.

 

[Tom]

Yeah, sure. That's it. 🙄


http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/worldview

I'm comfortable letting others make up their own minds about the truthfulness of your claim.


Again, we already have a word for the totality of a person's beliefs. Any layperson can understand that a person's beliefs about the outcome of sporting matches or the next day's weather are not part of their religious beliefs even while they are part of their worldview.

Did you read the links you provided ? The one about religion includes everything I've said about it. Including the fact that some people want to pretend it doesn't mean what it means.

"Usage notes

Generally speaking, certain groups that do not acknowledge the existence of one or more deities, such as Buddhism, are still religious, though some people prefer a definition of religion that discourages non-theistic groups from identifying as religious. Others are in favor of a more inclusive definition of religion that recognizes that everyone has their own set of religious beliefs. Avoid calling religious institutions that should be called churches, religions."

There's nothing in there about worldview that contradicts what I said. Nobody uses that word. Using it instead of religion is not adding anything to the discussion. Religion is a much more widel understood word, there's no need for a new word.

In German maybe it means something that differentiates it from whatever the German word for religion means. But in Englsih it has no particular meaning that's different, other than people who want to deny the universality of religion.

edit- the bolded part above..is exactly what I'm talking about. And the reason it's important is, we can't discuss one religion without considering the alternatives. And there is no alternative that is no religion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Did you read the links you provided ?

Yes, did you?

The one about religion includes everything I've said about it. Including the fact that some people want to pretend it doesn't mean what it means.

Where does it say that a belief is a religion?

"Usage notes

Generally speaking, certain groups that do not acknowledge the existence of one or more deities, such as Buddhism, are still religious, though some people prefer a definition of religion that discourages non-theistic groups from identifying as religious. Others are in favor of a more inclusive definition of religion that recognizes that everyone has their own set of religious beliefs. Avoid calling religious institutions that should be called churches, religions."

So? Yes, people like you exist. Big shocker, there are lots of idiots in the world. The common usages are given, and all of them set forth a definitions which is much more limited in scope than what you've suggested.

There's nothing in there about worldview that contradicts what I said.

You didn't say anything about "worldview" other than to deny it exists.

Nobody uses that word.

That's why it's in the dictionary, right? 🙄

Using it instead of religion is not adding anything to the discussion.

Except to distinguish between the set of one's beliefs and the religious subset of those beliefs. To repeat myself, one's beliefs about the likelihood of rain on a given day are not "religious" beliefs by any sensible meaning, so it is obvious to anyone with an IQ greater than his shoe size that religious beliefs are a subset of a person's worldview.

Religion is a much more widel understood word, there's no need for a new word.

It is ever so amusing that you think the word is "new." 😀

In German maybe it means something that differentiates it from whatever the German word for religion means. But in Englsih it has no particular meaning that's different, other than people who want to deny the universality of religion.

It isn't a German word, and it has quite a distinct meaning from "religion" in our language. Obviously, language isn't a strong suit of yours.

edit- the bolded part above..is exactly what I'm talking about. And the reason it's important is, we can't discuss one religion without considering the alternatives. And there is no alternative that is no religion.

Your assertion is approximately as sensible as saying there are no people that don't collect stamps, because even people that don't collect stamps are stamp collectors.

 

[Tom]

Given your obvious penchant for misusing language, I don't think I need to rebut these naked assertions of yours.


😀 You've gotta be trolling me. Even if the above were the case --which it isn't -- it doesn't change the fact that a biological theory is not a cosmological one. Evolution only operates on living things. It has nothing to say about the big bang.


One has to wonder why you think this is relevant in the slightest.

Somebody provided a very detailed definition of religion, it's exactly what I've been saying it is.

You apperantly think living things are not part of the universe ? What are living things made from ?

Evolution is a process over time..don't you know that the study of time is a huge part of cosmology ?

You aren't aware of the studies in biology to discover the origin of life itself ? And the relationship of that study to studying the universe ? On a macro and micro scale ?

Scientific studies may exist in their own chimneys, but the object of study doesn't. It's world-wide, baby !

 

[Blackjack200]

Somebody provided a very detailed definition of religion, it's exactly what I've been saying it is.

You apperantly think living things are not part of the universe ? What are living things made from ?

Evolution is a process over time..don't you know that the study of time is a huge part of cosmology ?

You aren't aware of the studies in biology to discover the origin of life itself ? And the relationship of that study to studying the universe ? On a macro and micro scale ?

Scientific studies may exist in their own chimneys, but the object of study doesn't. It's world-wide, baby !

Wow dude, you're reaching Farrakhan level babble.

 

[MagickMan]

Faith, belief, and spirituality are fine but organized religion usually annoys the shit out of me.

"No, I don't want a copy of Watchtower, GTFO my porch."

 

[Tom]

Yes, did you?

Where does it say that a belief is a religion?

So? Yes, people like you exist. Big shocker, there are lots of idiots in the world. The common usages are given, and all of them set forth a definitions which is much more limited in scope than what you've suggested.

You didn't say anything about "worldview" other than to deny it exists.

That's why it's in the dictionary, right? 🙄

Except to distinguish between the set of one's beliefs and the religious subset of those beliefs. To repeat myself, one's beliefs about the likelihood of rain on a given day are not "religious" beliefs by any sensible meaning, so it is obvious to anyone with an IQ greater than his shoe size that religious beliefs are a subset of a person's worldview.

It is ever so amusing that you think the word is "new." 😀

It isn't a German word, and it has quite a distinct meaning from "religion" in our language. Obviously, language isn't a strong suit of yours.

Your assertion is approximately as sensible as saying there are no people that don't collect stamps, because even people that don't collect stamps are stamp collectors.

As usual, when you have no point to make resort to insults. All 4 points in the definition you provided are applicable to my use of the word religion..

I'll repeat it again, nobody uses the word "worldview" to say what I am saying, except you. If they do, show me the quotes ?

Your assertion is wrong. A closer one but imperfect one would be..

there are no people who don't use stamps, because even people who aren't stamp collectors use stamps.

Stamps=religion (or worldview for you)
stamp collectors=churchs

Using your provided definition of religion.