I'm a Christian, and am not embarrassed to admit it. I'm embarrassed by these assholes, though. (Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess.
I actually saw them today at the con, holding up a Jesus Is Lord sign, as a bunch of cosplaying executioners paraded around. I didn't know it was the Westborough asshats, or I'd have had words with them,
And you also get upset when theists call you asshats, am I right? (Do you never wonder why?)
Honestly, I think the arguments for the existence of God are more compelling than the opposite, but doing your dickwad atheist bit isn't a good counterargument.
Dawkins has made being-an-asshole-to-theists his raison d'etre, but it neither makes him right, nor even sound particularly smart. His arguments are laughably bad when he strays outside the area he knows (evo
Better to be considered an asshat by someone who is clearly delusional, than being delusional yourself - or enabling their delusions at the cost to society as a whole. Religion needs put down, hard.
The best single argument for me against faith has been one posited by Hitchens in part 2 of a debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYaQpRZJl18&feature=related [youtube.com] (part1) and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkHuvErbpd0&NR=1 [youtube.com] (part 2). The idea that existence of this sort of god being "compelling" is more ab
Religion has, historically speaking, been the greatest force for good our planet has ever seen.
Hitchens is a frothing moron who doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about - his sole tactic is to sound British and snotty when talking about religion. I've watched several dozens of his debates online, especially with Dinesh D'Souza (who doesn't do an especially good job defending Christianity), and I've yet to see him put together a single cogent argument.
>>Religion has, historically speaking, been the greatest force for good our planet has ever seen. [citation needed]
>>Hitchens is a frothing moron who doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about - his sole tactic is to sound British and snotty when talking about religion. Ad hominem isn't a real argument.
>>I've yet to see him put together a single cogent argument. What's not cogent about the arguments put forth in the videos linked just now?
>>>>Religion has, historically speaking, been the greatest force for good our planet has ever seen. >>[citation needed]
Yay, the ignorant are coming out of the woodwork.
If you haven't ever studied history, and just listened to your fellow atheists bitch about how religion hates sciences and is holding the world back, then you have an excuse for that. Otherwise, sorry. You're an ignoramus.
Pretty much our entire system of natural rights is based on being endowed by their creator (sound familia
I'm reluctant to enter this conversation, given its very low standards for mutual respect, but I can't let this common, but to me incorrect, argument pass. How can we know how things would be without religion? That's just an initial logical fillip.
But how about all the pain that religion HAS caused? Europe was at war of Catholicism versus Protestantism for several hundred years. Islam and Christianity have been at war for longer than that. Granted, there were side issues of imperialism. But how about the
>>How can we know how things would be without religion?
As I said elsewhere in the thread, you have to use natural experiments where you can, such as the introduction of Christianity to the Vikings. They stopped being quite such vicious bastards, but they did go and conquer Normandy (Northman-dy) and from there to England in 1066, but I'd say it was overall a change for the better. Unless you were a Saxon, I suppose.
Since Christianity has spread around the world, there's actually quite a lot of evidenc
Eh? The Vikins had religion, not sure what it was but they had it. There was also some woman worshipping religion some 70 000 years ago so religion isn't anything new. It's been with use since before civilization.
Now the Christian religion might have been better than religions it replaced, but there's little truly reliable data on that subject.
>>Eh? The Vikins had religion, not sure what it was but they had it.
That's what I get for writing at 4AM.
I'm talking about the Christian religion in particular, not religion in general. Sorry about that.
>>Now the Christian religion might have been better than religions it replaced, but there's little truly reliable data on that subject.
There's actually extensive data in the Vatican (the last time I looked at the subject) on the missions to the vikings. (Fun fact: based on the Northmen's reports
The Vatican isn't exactly an unbiased source, and even if you factor out the bias people back then wasn't exactly grade A statisticians.
If I remember the story correctly, the Vikings butchered wave after wave of missionaries to them until they began to suspect that if all these people were willing to die for their faith, there might be something to it.
I'm weary of stories that have a "romantic flair" to them. I did actually have Norwegian history in elementary school (being Norwegian and all) and from what little I remember some crazed king spread Christianity by the sword, with taxmen close behind. I recall someone asking the teacher what happened to those who didn't convert, and he answered simply with "he cut their he
Politics, alliances and swords pawed the way for Christianity, with the dead king becoming "a saint" and miracles occurring around his corpse. Same old, same old in other words. Remember now that this took up a good chunk of our history classes, with a lot of fuzz being made about the miracles and them being presented as factual happenings. I'm actually a little appalled right now, ho hum, but with the school system being reformed alm
It's not an optical illusion, it just looks like one.
-- Phil White
Still doing that? (Score:0, Troll)
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a Christian, and am not embarrassed to admit it. I'm embarrassed by these assholes, though. (Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess.
I actually saw them today at the con, holding up a Jesus Is Lord sign, as a bunch of cosplaying executioners paraded around. I didn't know it was the Westborough asshats, or I'd have had words with them,
Re: (Score:-1, Flamebait)
No, no, we do not think all of you are fundamentalists, However, we do think you are all delusional.
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
>>However, we do think you are all delusional.
And you also get upset when theists call you asshats, am I right? (Do you never wonder why?)
Honestly, I think the arguments for the existence of God are more compelling than the opposite, but doing your dickwad atheist bit isn't a good counterargument.
Dawkins has made being-an-asshole-to-theists his raison d'etre, but it neither makes him right, nor even sound particularly smart. His arguments are laughably bad when he strays outside the area he knows (evo
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:0, Flamebait)
>>Religion needs put down, hard.
Religion has, historically speaking, been the greatest force for good our planet has ever seen.
Hitchens is a frothing moron who doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about - his sole tactic is to sound British and snotty when talking about religion. I've watched several dozens of his debates online, especially with Dinesh D'Souza (who doesn't do an especially good job defending Christianity), and I've yet to see him put together a single cogent argument.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>>Religion has, historically speaking, been the greatest force for good our planet has ever seen.
[citation needed]
>>Hitchens is a frothing moron who doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about - his sole tactic is to sound British and snotty when talking about religion.
Ad hominem isn't a real argument.
>>I've yet to see him put together a single cogent argument.
What's not cogent about the arguments put forth in the videos linked just now?
Re: (Score:-1, Flamebait)
>>>>Religion has, historically speaking, been the greatest force for good our planet has ever seen.
>>[citation needed]
Yay, the ignorant are coming out of the woodwork.
If you haven't ever studied history, and just listened to your fellow atheists bitch about how religion hates sciences and is holding the world back, then you have an excuse for that. Otherwise, sorry. You're an ignoramus.
Pretty much our entire system of natural rights is based on being endowed by their creator (sound familia
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
>>How can we know how things would be without religion?
As I said elsewhere in the thread, you have to use natural experiments where you can, such as the introduction of Christianity to the Vikings. They stopped being quite such vicious bastards, but they did go and conquer Normandy (Northman-dy) and from there to England in 1066, but I'd say it was overall a change for the better. Unless you were a Saxon, I suppose.
Since Christianity has spread around the world, there's actually quite a lot of evidenc
Re:Still doing that? (Score:2)
Now the Christian religion might have been better than religions it replaced, but there's little truly reliable data on that subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>Eh? The Vikins had religion, not sure what it was but they had it.
That's what I get for writing at 4AM.
I'm talking about the Christian religion in particular, not religion in general. Sorry about that.
>>Now the Christian religion might have been better than religions it replaced, but there's little truly reliable data on that subject.
There's actually extensive data in the Vatican (the last time I looked at the subject) on the missions to the vikings. (Fun fact: based on the Northmen's reports
Re: (Score:2)
If I remember the story correctly, the Vikings butchered wave after wave of missionaries to them until they began to suspect that if all these people were willing to die for their faith, there might be something to it.
I'm weary of stories that have a "romantic flair" to them. I did actually have Norwegian history in elementary school (being Norwegian and all) and from what little I remember some crazed king spread Christianity by the sword, with taxmen close behind. I recall someone asking the teacher what happened to those who didn't convert, and he answered simply with "he cut their he
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stiklestad [wikipedia.org]
Politics, alliances and swords pawed the way for Christianity, with the dead king becoming "a saint" and miracles occurring around his corpse. Same old, same old in other words. Remember now that this took up a good chunk of our history classes, with a lot of fuzz being made about the miracles and them being presented as factual happenings. I'm actually a little appalled right now, ho hum, but with the school system being reformed alm