I have always asked myself that question along with what would Jesus drive. Alas, I have the answer and it is great. Now introducing the iBelieve, a case mod for the iPod shuffle that supercharges it with the power of God. Imagine on your next crusade you have hundeds if not thousands of miles to trek and nothing to entertain you between the periodic bouts of raping and pillaging. Well that’s where this little dandy springs into action. Listen to the sweet sounds of Christian Rock or even the bible itself on your iPod shuffle. You can’t call yourself a true religious freak without one.
No related posts.
“Imagine on your next crusade you have hundeds if not thousands of miles to trek and nothing to entertain you between the periodic bouts of raping and pillaging.”
Seriously, I hope you don’t think all Christians rape and pillage.
Your commentary on this seems down right offensive to me.
Please respect the beleifs of others.
If Christians want to turn a iPod into a cross, let them. It really doesn’t seem all that stupid, really. Plus, parts of the profit go to charity. It also doesn’t seem all that stupid that Christians would want to listen to Christian rock or the Bible either.
“Please respect the beleifs of others.”
No. We have no reason (either moral or rational) to respect the beliefs of anyone. We do have a moral obligation to respect all people (unless they do something to lose that respect), but not beliefs. We also have a moral obligation to respect your right to believe ridiculous and untrue things, such as religion, but not the belief itself.
@sidfaiwu “We also have a moral obligation to respect your right to believe ridiculous and untrue things, such as religion, but not the belief itself.”
Amen to that brother/sister!
Why is it religion claims that it must be respected at all times? I mean you wouldn’t respect a belief in the seahorse as the ultimate repository of human sexual prowess now would you? That’s more likely than the abrahamic god, but hey, don’t pick on such beliefs, they’re sacred!
Now where is that pesky seahorse, I got me some learnin’ to do…..
“Your commentary on this seems down right offensive to me.”
Your religion seems down right offensive to me. Deal with it. We have to.
sidfaiwu Says:
March 13th, 2007 at 9:05 am
“Please respect the beleifs of others.â€
No. We have no reason (either moral or rational) to respect the beliefs of anyone. We do have a moral obligation to respect all people (unless they do something to lose that respect), but not beliefs. We also have a moral obligation to respect your right to believe ridiculous and untrue things, such as religion, but not the belief itself.
Ah, but you do. I am respecting your belief or lack thereof. Second, that article basically called Christians pillagers and rapists. Tell me, does that sound respectful to you? If you wish to attack the belief, that is one thing; attacking a person is another.
Skids Says:
March 13th, 2007 at 11:35 am
@sidfaiwu “We also have a moral obligation to respect your right to believe ridiculous and untrue things, such as religion, but not the belief itself.â€
Amen to that brother/sister!
Why is it religion claims that it must be respected at all times? I mean you wouldn’t respect a belief in the seahorse as the ultimate repository of human sexual prowess now would you? That’s more likely than the abrahamic god, but hey, don’t pick on such beliefs, they’re sacred!
Now where is that pesky seahorse, I got me some learnin’ to do…..
Because when we do not respect the beliefs of others misunderstanding and strife grows.
Your Father Says:
March 13th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
“Your commentary on this seems down right offensive to me.â€
Your religion seems down right offensive to me. Deal with it. We have to.
Tell me, if I called atheist or even people with red hair pillagers and rapist, would you not find that offensive?
@SilentPoet,
Congratulations on completely missing Sidwaifu’s point.
And re “does that sound respectful to you”, well no, respect is not the point there either.
Now with regard to your statement “Because when we do not respect the beliefs of others misunderstanding and strife grows.”, you have misidentified the problem. It is religion itself, or in this case, a particular religion, that is yet again the source of the violence. And yet again, someone suffers and has to deal with it.
PS sorry sidfaiwu for the name typo. Meant “sidfaiwu”, not “Sidwaifu”.
“Tell me, if I called atheist or even people with red hair pillagers and rapist, would you not find that offensive?”
No one is saying anything about you. Only your religion and the stupid crap people do because of it.
Religions are ideas and ideas do NOT have to be tolerated. Imagine if we treated organizations like NAMBLA or the KKK the same way we do as Christianity. Sure you (probably) don’t agree with their ideas, but you shouldn’t dare say anything because we should tolerate people!!!1
No problem, Korgan. It’s really my fault for choosing such an unusual pseudonym. Feel free to refer to me as ‘Sid’. That goes for anyone else as well.
Both you and Your Father have defended our position quite admirably. I especially like to counter examples of NAMBLA and the KKK. These are clear examples of beliefs that do not deserve an iota of respect.
Korgan Says:
March 13th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
@SilentPoet,
Congratulations on completely missing Sidwaifu’s point.
And re “does that sound respectful to youâ€, well no, respect is not the point there either.
Now with regard to your statement “Because when we do not respect the beliefs of others misunderstanding and strife grows.â€, you have misidentified the problem. It is religion itself, or in this case, a particular religion, that is yet again the source of the violence. And yet again, someone suffers and has to deal with it.
Wow, do you really think that abolishing religion will cause peace? Or abolishing whichever particular religion? I think perhaps South Park in its tenth season may best illustrate this. Cartman freezes himself because he “can’t wait for Nintendo Wii” and is awoken 500 years in the future where the whole world is atheistic. Ironically, this all-atheist world is home to several warring atheist factions in a dispute over what name to use for their organization, parodying an atheist notion that there would be no more war in the world if religion was done away with.
Your Father Says:
March 14th, 2007 at 8:38 am
“Tell me, if I called atheist or even people with red hair pillagers and rapist, would you not find that offensive?â€
No one is saying anything about you. Only your religion and the stupid crap people do because of it.
Religions are ideas and ideas do NOT have to be tolerated. Imagine if we treated organizations like NAMBLA or the KKK the same way we do as Christianity. Sure you (probably) don’t agree with their ideas, but you shouldn’t dare say anything because we should tolerate people!!!1
Really? Scroll back up to the article. “Imagine on your next crusade you have hundeds if not thousands of miles to trek and nothing to entertain you between the periodic bouts of raping and pillaging.”
Clearly, this is an attack on people, not a belief. It calls Christians rapist and pillagers, not Christianity.
Second, are you seriously comparing Christianity to KKK and Nambla?
Even then, are you preaching intolerance?
Surely not…
sidfaiwu Says:
March 14th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Both you and Your Father have defended our position quite admirably. I especially like to counter examples of NAMBLA and the KKK. These are clear examples of beliefs that do not deserve an iota of respect.
Not really. They basically just totally ignore the golden rule: do unto other as you would have them do unto you. But as seeing as that is a Christian belief, I guess it must be idiotic in their eyes.
Hello SilentPoet,
I’ll only respond to the portion of your post direct to me.
“They [NAMBLA and the KKK] basically just totally ignore the golden rule: do unto other as you would have them do unto you. But as seeing as that is a Christian belief, I guess it must be idiotic in their eyes.”
First of all, the Golden Rule is not owned by Christianity. It predates Christianity by at least 300 years (in the positive form) and 500 (in the negative form). It is likely much older, but the earliest written form that I am aware of is from Confucius. In fact, the Golden Rule forms the moral basis for many humanists, myself included.
But you are correct. The two organization cited are abhorrent precisely because they are immoral and violate the Golden Rule. But, once again, you missed the point. Your claim is that we should respect anyone’s beliefs. Your Father provided two counter examples that demonstrate that not all beliefs are worthy of respect. He demonstrated that respect for beliefs is conditional on some criteria. It is up to you to provide adequate reason for us to respect your beliefs.
“Really? Scroll back up to the article. “Imagine on your next crusade you have hundeds if not thousands of miles to trek and nothing to entertain you between the periodic bouts of raping and pillaging.â€
Clearly, this is an attack on people, not a belief. It calls Christians rapist and pillagers, not Christianity.
Second, are you seriously comparing Christianity to KKK and Nambla?
Even then, are you preaching intolerance?
Surely not…”
The attack is on people with a belief. No less intolerant than saying KKK members are bigots. It’s an attack on the Christian concept of spreading the word by any means. Of course, most Christians now-a-days don’t go raping and pillaging, but its a fun reminder of what your beliefs are capable of. If someone is doing something stupid, especially when it effects everybody, we shouldn’t have to walk on egg shells to let them know.
As far as comparing christianity to the KKK and NAMBLA… I think sid covered it pretty well. The only intolerance I’m preaching is toward bad ideas.
Wow, I can’t believe this story was dug up…LOL. This was one of my first posts.
gasmonso
@SilentPoet,
Re “Wow, do you really think that abolishing religion will cause peace? Or abolishing whichever particular religion?”,
No, what you have presented in your vain attempt to turn my words around is essentially an instance of the basic logical fallacy known as “denying the antecedent”. (Google on that phrase for many references.) I reject your flawed logic. I also happen to utterly reject Christianity on similar grounds and other grounds.
sidfaiwu Says:
March 14th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Hello SilentPoet,
I’ll only respond to the portion of your post direct to me.
“They [NAMBLA and the KKK] basically just totally ignore the golden rule: do unto other as you would have them do unto you. But as seeing as that is a Christian belief, I guess it must be idiotic in their eyes.â€
First of all, the Golden Rule is not owned by Christianity. It predates Christianity by at least 300 years (in the positive form) and 500 (in the negative form). It is likely much older, but the earliest written form that I am aware of is from Confucius. In fact, the Golden Rule forms the moral basis for many humanists, myself included.
But you are correct. The two organization cited are abhorrent precisely because they are immoral and violate the Golden Rule. But, once again, you missed the point. Your claim is that we should respect anyone’s beliefs. Your Father provided two counter examples that demonstrate that not all beliefs are worthy of respect. He demonstrated that respect for beliefs is conditional on some criteria. It is up to you to provide adequate reason for us to respect your beliefs.
I believe I will have to make it a point to avoid pronouns in situations like this one. Sorry for the confusion, but I was not refferring to the KKK and NAMBLA as ignoring the Golden Rule; I was refferring to Korgan, yourfather, and you (sidfaiwu).
I meant that even though I have respected your beliefs thus far, you disrespect mine. You liken them those of KKK and NAMBLA. You clamim the deserve no respect, yet have given little reason as to why. I could give ample reason why Christianity deserves some respect if you would allow me. Second, where is your criteria that your belief should be respected? If it is the lack of atrocities committed in the name of Atheism as compared to those of Christianity (God Hates Fags, Crusades, Etc.), you will find that there isn’t much criteria.
Perhaps you may find this intersting.
It is an excerpt from debate between Richard Dawkins, author of “The God Delusion,” and David Quinn, columnist at the Irish Independent, on the existence of God, free will and the effect of religion on the world.
The debate took place Oct. 9 on the “The Tubridy Show,” hosted by Ryan Tubridy, and was broadcast on Irish public radio station RTE Radio 1.
*
*
*
*
“Can I suggest that the next question, it is quite appropriate, is on the role of religion in wars. When you think of the difficulty that it brings up on the local level, Mr. Dawkins, do you believe the world would be a safer place without religion?
Dawkins: Yes I do. I don’t think religion is the only cause of war, very far from it. Neither the Second World War, nor the First World War were caused by religion, but I do think that religion is a major exacerbator, and especially in the world today, as a matter of fact.
Tubridy: OK, explain yourself.
Dawkins: Well, I think it’s pretty obvious if you look at the Middle East, if you look at India and Pakistan, if you look at Northern Ireland, there are many, many places where the only basis for hostility that exists between rival factions who kill each other is religion.
Tubridy: Why do you take it upon yourself to preach, if you like, atheism — and there’s an interesting choice of words in some ways. You’ve been accused of being something like a fundamental atheist, if you like, the high priest of atheism. Why go about your business in such a way that you try to disprove these things? Why don’t you just believe in it privately, for example?
Dawkins: Well, fundamentalist is not the right word. A fundamentalist is one who believes in a holy book, and thinks that everything in that holy book is true.
I am passionate about what I believe because I think there is evidence for it. And I think it’s very different being passionate about evidence from being passionate about a holy book.
So, I do it because I care passionately about the truth. I really, really believe it’s a big question, and it’s an important question, whether there is a God at the root of the universe. I think it’s a question that matters, and I think that we need to discuss it, and that’s what I do.
Quinn: Ryan, if I can say, Richard has just come up with a definition of fundamentalism that suits him. He thinks that a fundamentalist is someone who has to believe in a holy book.
A fundamentalist is someone who firmly believes that they have got the truth, and hold that to an extreme extent, and become intolerant of those who hold to a different truth. Richard Dawkins has just outlined what he thinks the truth to be. It makes him intolerant of those who have religious beliefs.
Now in terms of the effect of religion upon the world, I mean at least Richard has rightly acknowledged that there are many causes of war and strife and ill will in the world, and he mentions World War I and World War II.
In his book he tries to get neatly off the hook of having atheism blamed, for example, for the atrocities carried out by Joseph Stalin, saying that these have nothing particularly to do with atheism.
Stalin, and many communists who were explicitly atheistic, took to view that religion was precisely the sort of malign and evil force that Richard Dawkins thinks it is, and they set out from that premise to, if you like, inflict upon religion, as sort of their own version of a final solution, they set to eradicate it from the earth through violence, and also through education that was explicitly anti-religious.
And under the Soviet Union, and in China, and under Pol Pot in Cambodia, explicit and violent efforts were made to suppress religion underground, religion was a wicked force and we have the truth, and our truth would not admit religion into the picture at all, because we believe religion to be an untruth. So atheism also can lead to fundamentalist violence, and did so in the last century.
Tubridy: Can we let Richard in here?
Dawkins: Stalin was a very, very bad man, and his persecution of religion was a very, very bad thing. End of story. It has nothing to do with the fact that he was an atheist.
We can’t just compile lists of bad people who were atheists and lists of bad people who were religious. I am afraid that there were plenty on both sides.
Quinn: Yes, but Richard you are always compiling lists of bad religious people. You do it continually in all your books, and then you devote a paragraph to basically try to dissolve atheism of all blame for any atrocity throughout history. You cannot have it both ways.
Dawkins: I deny that.
Quinn: Of course you do it. Every time you are on a program, talking about religion, you bring up the atrocities committed in the name of religion, and then you try to minimize the atrocities committed by atheists because they were so anti-religious, and because they regarded it as a malign force, in much the same way as you do. You are trying to have it both ways.
Dawkins: Well, I simply deny that. I do think that there is some evil in faith, because faith is belief in something without evidence.
Quinn: But you see, that is not what faith is. You see, that is a caricature and a straw man, and it’s so typical. That is not what faith is. You have faith that God does not exist.”
*
*
*
*
Second, your right the notion of the Golden Rule came from Judaism orginially, but I still stand by my statement that it has not been followed here.
Your Father Says:
March 14th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
“Really? Scroll back up to the article. “Imagine on your next crusade you have hundeds if not thousands of miles to trek and nothing to entertain you between the periodic bouts of raping and pillaging.â€
Clearly, this is an attack on people, not a belief. It calls Christians rapist and pillagers, not Christianity.
Second, are you seriously comparing Christianity to KKK and Nambla?
Even then, are you preaching intolerance?
Surely not…â€
The attack is on people with a belief. No less intolerant than saying KKK members are bigots. It’s an attack on the Christian concept of spreading the word by any means. Of course, most Christians now-a-days don’t go raping and pillaging, but its a fun reminder of what your beliefs are capable of. If someone is doing something stupid, especially when it effects everybody, we shouldn’t have to walk on egg shells to let them know.
As far as comparing christianity to the KKK and NAMBLA… I think sid covered it pretty well. The only intolerance I’m preaching is toward bad ideas.
1. Your arguement for attacking Christians on the basis of acts committed by Crusaders, God Hates Fags, etc., can be used to attack atheism, since it has its fair share of the same thing going on today (communist China).
2. Christianity is stupid? Elaborate, please.
gasmonso Says:
March 14th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Wow, I can’t believe this story was dug up…LOL. This was one of my first posts.
gasmonso
Ah, yes. See I deliberately choose the first because I figured that they would be smaller, and less looked at, allowing me ample time to respond to comments before I was flooded with them. Once this issues of your first articles are resolved, or I simply start repeating myself to often, I will move on to the other articles in order.
P.S. Thank you for the email, and good luck on restoring the website.
Korgan Says:
March 14th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
@SilentPoet,
Re “Wow, do you really think that abolishing religion will cause peace? Or abolishing whichever particular religion?â€,
No, what you have presented in your vain attempt to turn my words around is essentially an instance of the basic logical fallacy known as “denying the antecedentâ€. (Google on that phrase for many references.) I reject your flawed logic. I also happen to utterly reject Christianity on similar grounds and other grounds.
What did I do?
Look at your quote again. ” It is religion itself, or in this case, a particular religion, that is yet again the source of the violence. And yet again, someone suffers and has to deal with it.”
How is that basic logical fallacy? If you say that I state the Christianity or religion is not the source violence yet do not give good reason for stating so, well, I don’t really know what to say other than you may have trouble reading my comments accurately.
I say Atheism is fully capable of violence. Surely you must see this. There is ample evidence that violence isn’t just coming from religous people. I really fail to see how I “denied the antecedent”. Did you meant some other term?
If you reject my “flawed logic” on the grounds stated above, you may want to reconsider your rejection of Christ.
__________________________________________________
Man, this place needs some forums bad.
No forums, please what ever deity you like but no forums.
Well the point of evil, all people are capable of evil. That is the basis of humanity, we can be everything between good and evil. That is to be human. Also evil is subjective as some acts are evil to us but would not be in different location.
Then to atheists and religious people. Both can be evil but many religions give you excuse to be evil under set circumstances and/or when ordered by authority.
Atheists do not have any such protection and they have to face their own actions and cannot ever say “I did it because something something ordered me or it read it some and some book.”
So where upon religions give you Carte Blanca for some of your actions, atheists will face personally the blame when doing the same things.
Hello Again Silent Poet,
I’m sorry I mis-attributed your pronoun to the groups. I had no idea you were accusing us of immorality. Had I recognized that, I definitely would have addressed it. I would argue that I am not violating the Golden Rule because I do not expect my beliefs to be respected simply because I believe them. I expect, even desire that my beliefs are rationally challenged. Since I should treat others as I would like to be treated, I challenge other’s beliefs. In other words, you don’t have any moral obligation to respect my beliefs, only my right to believe them.
Also, I think you are still missing the point of bringing up NAMBLA and the KKK. We (or at least I) are not comparing Christianity to these groups. I recognize the Christianity has some redeeming qualities whereas the other two groups do not. Once again, the point is that these groups demonstrate that not all beliefs are worthy of respect.
I am curious; do you still stand by your statement “Please respect the beleifs of others†in light of what members of NAMBLA believe? In other words, do you respect the beliefs of NAMBLA? The whole purpose of my initial response to you was to argue that we are under no moral requirement to respect the beliefs of others. If you read my posts, I never argued that Christianity, in particular, doesn’t deserve respect. That is a separate discussion, one which I am willing to have.
PS Thanks for the debate snippet. I am both a fan and a critic of Dawkins. He’s a great scientist and writer, but only an average philosopher.
“1. Your arguement for attacking Christians on the basis of acts committed by Crusaders, God Hates Fags, etc., can be used to attack atheism, since it has its fair share of the same thing going on today (communist China).
2. Christianity is stupid? Elaborate, please.”
I never did get into reasons, so your first statement is pure speculation. Whether the results of monotheistic religions be good or bad (and personally I DO think they’re bad) is not relevant. The ideas behind the monotheistic religions are ridiculous and deserves ridicule. That’s it.
Which brings me to your second question. I could go on for hours about why the idea of a personal god is stupid. Even if you’re a liberal (educated) Christian who believes that a verse is metaphorical every time science proves its not literally true, you’re still left with the idea that a perfect god who can do anything (but greatly resembles highly imperfect human beings) created a gigantic universe for the sole benefit of a race of animals on a tiny spec in a tiny corner of it. not only that but he watches everything you do and wants you to act a certain way, but never shows himself or gives reasons why.
He loves you, but he’ll let you get tortured for all eternity if you don’t believe in him even though he gives you little reason to. He wants his ass kissed, or else, and the only proof he gives us that he might even exist was by talking to a few people in a time when people were much less intelligent and prone to making similar myths up.
Then theres the disturbingly large number of people who believe in a literal 7 day creation, noah’s ark, adam and eve, which are absolutely %100 proven wrong.
@SilentPoet,
Re “What did I do?”, OK, I’ll introduce you to something in the hope that you will understand and also in the hope that improved reasoning skills will help you in the long run to leave behind your particular superstition (christianity, apparently):
First, go look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
(or myriad other references that you can easily find on logical fallacies.) Do some diligence, put what I wrote beside your re-wording, and try to understand why your twisted re-wording of what I said does not actually follow logically from what I said.
Do you get it now?
K.
Still waiting for your reply SilentPoet… Any other xians wanna field why your religion doesn’t deserve ridicule?
Jagannath Says:
March 15th, 2007 at 8:56 am
No forums, please what ever deity you like but no forums.
Well the point of evil, all people are capable of evil. That is the basis of humanity, we can be everything between good and evil. That is to be human. Also evil is subjective as some acts are evil to us but would not be in different location.
Then to atheists and religious people. Both can be evil but many religions give you excuse to be evil under set circumstances and/or when ordered by authority.
Atheists do not have any such protection and they have to face their own actions and cannot ever say “I did it because something something ordered me or it read it some and some book.â€
So where upon religions give you Carte Blanca for some of your actions, atheists will face personally the blame when doing the same things.
People of relgious blame still face their punishment. Just look at this site. It basically looks for screw ups by people of relgious beliefs.
Anyways, the point you made on evil…while I agree with you on some parts, you just basically went off on a tangent there. I do not think evil was being discussed. But I suppose we can get into to subject.
A seperate thread would be helpful though.
See? Forum=helpful.
sidfaiwu Says:
March 15th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Hello Again Silent Poet,
I’m sorry I mis-attributed your pronoun to the groups. I had no idea you were accusing us of immorality. Had I recognized that, I definitely would have addressed it. I would argue that I am not violating the Golden Rule because I do not expect my beliefs to be respected simply because I believe them. I expect, even desire that my beliefs are rationally challenged. Since I should treat others as I would like to be treated, I challenge other’s beliefs. In other words, you don’t have any moral obligation to respect my beliefs, only my right to believe them.
Also, I think you are still missing the point of bringing up NAMBLA and the KKK. We (or at least I) are not comparing Christianity to these groups. I recognize the Christianity has some redeeming qualities whereas the other two groups do not. Once again, the point is that these groups demonstrate that not all beliefs are worthy of respect.
I am curious; do you still stand by your statement “Please respect the beleifs of others†in light of what members of NAMBLA believe? In other words, do you respect the beliefs of NAMBLA? The whole purpose of my initial response to you was to argue that we are under no moral requirement to respect the beliefs of others. If you read my posts, I never argued that Christianity, in particular, doesn’t deserve respect. That is a separate discussion, one which I am willing to have.
PS Thanks for the debate snippet. I am both a fan and a critic of Dawkins. He’s a great scientist and writer, but only an average philosopher.
It was my fault really. I should have been more clear. I wasn’t speciffically calling you all immorral. I was just saying you broke the Golden Rule. I am not sure whether or not you were aware of it. Anyways, yeah, you were breaking the Golden Rule. No good arguement was presented for why the idea of Christianity is treated the way it is here, yet atheism is seemingly seldom questioned. Plus, some of you were argueing that Christianity and Christians are stupid, which is just uncalled for. True, not all beliefs are worthy of respect, but for the sake of simply avoiding unneccesary conflict, some respect should be given. What I am basically saying is don’t go insulting people because of their beliefs. If you want, attack the beliefs, but attacking the person makes it personal.
Well, if you do not think Christianity is undeserving of respect, please relay that to the others. They seem to disagree.
Ditto, average philosopher. I just think he is incredibly biased in his work though. He seems to focus on Christianity for some reason or another though.
Your Father Says:
March 15th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
I never did get into reasons, so your first statement is pure speculation. Whether the results of monotheistic religions be good or bad (and personally I DO think they’re bad) is not relevant. The ideas behind the monotheistic religions are ridiculous and deserves ridicule. That’s it.
Which brings me to your second question. I could go on for hours about why the idea of a personal god is stupid. Even if you’re a liberal (educated) Christian who believes that a verse is metaphorical every time science proves its not literally true, you’re still left with the idea that a perfect god who can do anything (but greatly resembles highly imperfect human beings) created a gigantic universe for the sole benefit of a race of animals on a tiny spec in a tiny corner of it. not only that but he watches everything you do and wants you to act a certain way, but never shows himself or gives reasons why.
He loves you, but he’ll let you get tortured for all eternity if you don’t believe in him even though he gives you little reason to. He wants his ass kissed, or else, and the only proof he gives us that he might even exist was by talking to a few people in a time when people were much less intelligent and prone to making similar myths up.
Then theres the disturbingly large number of people who believe in a literal 7 day creation, noah’s ark, adam and eve, which are absolutely %100 proven wrong.
Look again.
“Christians now-a-days don’t go raping and pillaging, but its a fun reminder of what your beliefs are capable of.”
You were using the Crusades to attack Christianity. You basically said that since some Christians did that a long time ago, it is ok to hold it over our head and say Christians do that today. You even called it “fun”.
Well do go on then. And by the way, please elaborate on how those things are proven wrong.
Korgan Says:
March 15th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
@SilentPoet,
OK, I’ll introduce you to something in the hope that you will understand and also in the hope that improved reasoning skills will help you in the long run to leave behind your particular superstition (christianity, apparently):
First, go look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
(or myriad other references that you can easily find on logical fallacies.) Do some diligence, put what I wrote beside your re-wording, and try to understand why your twisted re-wording of what I said does not actually follow logically from what I said.
Do you get it now?
K.
I am familar with denying the antecedent. I understand the concept, trust me.
I think you are mistaken.
Seriously look again.
“It is religion itself, or in this case, a particular religion, that is yet again the source of the violence. And yet again, someone suffers and has to deal with it.â€
I didn’t twist your words, dude.
If you are not saying that relgion is the cause for violence, than just what are you saying?
What I said in response to this is “Wow, do you really think that abolishing religion will cause peace? Or abolishing whichever particular religion?”
I said this because you called religion a “promblem”. I assume you do wish it remedied, correct?
So please tell me how I “denied the antecedent”.
Your Father Says:
March 17th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Still waiting for your reply SilentPoet… Any other xians wanna field why your religion doesn’t deserve ridicule?
I already expressed concern to gasmonso about my inablility to regularly check these articles. I have been busy with college. I do plan to eventually get to them though.
P.S. Do you use that term since it is shorter than Christian or just to confuse people?
And FYI I wanted to field that you really shouldn’t be calling Christians stupid. Christendom deserves some ridicule. We screw up sometimes. We are human.
Hello SilentPoet,
I’m glad you found the time to reply. Don’t worry too much about not being able to check back regularly. That’s one of the many advantages of blogs; our responses will be waiting until you find the time :) Anyway, as before, I’ll only respond to the portion of your post directed towards me.
“I wasn’t speciffically calling you all immorral. I was just saying you broke the Golden Rule.”
If I broke the Golden Rule, than I’ve made a moral infraction, albeit a minor one. I still don’t think that I’ve do so. There is no greater critic of my own beliefs than myself. Similarly, I criticize the beliefs of others, when appropriate. Thus I am treating others as I treat myself. You do make a very good, related point:
“for the sake of simply avoiding unneccesary conflict, some respect should be given.”
I actually agree with you here, for the most part. As highly social animals, we need to be able to interact with other people effectively. When many people in our society hold similar beliefs, we do need to respect those beliefs, no matter how ridiculous we find them, in order to succeed.
That being said, this website is, in part, designed to be a place where we can air our criticisms without disrupting out normal social interactions. Just as church is (and should be) a safe place for Christians to criticize other religions and atheism without social consequence.
“If you want, attack the beliefs, but attacking the person makes it personal.”
Again I agree, even if I sometimes fail and insult the person instead. As a Christian, I am sure you recognize that none of us are perfect ;)
“He [Dr. Richard Dawkins] seems to focus on Christianity for some reason or another though.”
He actually addresses that in The God Delusion. He says that his arguments can be used to criticize any version of the God hypothesis, but admits that his focuses on Abrahamic religions in general and Christianity in particular. He gives two reasons for this. One, he is most knowledgeable about Christianity and two, the vast majority of criticism he receives about his life’s work is from the Christian community; thus he addresses those criticisms.
I’m enjoying the discussion. Good luck with your education.
Year end tax planning may be just a little tougher this year because the status of the Bush tax cuts and the federal tax brackets continue to be up within the air. obviously the expiring tax cuts won’t go into effect until 2011 but the pending increase in taxes for long term capital gains and dividends could mean you may take advantage of some year end tax moves such as loss harvesting and wash sales.
What i don’t understood is actually how you’re now not really much more neatly-favored than you
might be now. You’re very intelligent. You already know therefore considerably relating to this topic, made
me in my opinion consider it from numerous varied angles.
Its like men and women don’t seem to be interested unless it’s one thing
to do with Woman gaga! Your own stuffs great. At
all times maintain it up!
It’s 2017. Fuck your stupid Jesus stories.