As a long term atheist, I think any attitude toward religion that goes beyond mere acceptance of it to appreciation or even encouragement is wrong. The quote: "We are all atheists, I merely believe in one fewer gods than you. when you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Is an important logical statement and embodies history, reason, and common sense. The religious point to religion as the motivation of great works of peace. Perhaps they were but good and bad people occur in every environment, but there are far more christians …
All 16 comments by...
mlwmohawk
-
-
Dear Marta: While I really do understand your points, I think we are on a speeding train of destruction. Islamists on one side, christians on the other, scientologists with lawyers beyond them, and so many more cults and crazies that you can't even count. If you lend legitimacy to one, you allow legitimacy for all. Not one of these belief systems have a rational leg to stand on with regard reality. People BELIEVE that they are safe in a car because of the rubber tires. This is, of course, false and believing it is dangerous. In fact may be life threatening …
Posted to Atheism’s Unholy Trinity
-
Dear Marta: Your Point: Zeus=God Jesus= Dionysus, Horus, Osiris, Virgin Mary= Isis, Venus, Athena Or the equivocation of religions is a fairly common, how would you say it, way of accepting and conflating religions that are vastly different in philosophy and structure, in a way to say "its all the same thing." When the true believers of these religions would probably have you killed for suggesting it. My point about the "easter bunny" was about rational proof. I ask you, in a factual and verifiable way, prove to me there is no easter bunny. Furthermore prove to me the easter bunny …
Posted to Atheism’s Unholy Trinity
-
The problem with religion is that it is a lie. It has always been a lie. The problem with lies is that the people who tell them have to fight the lie from being exposed and the people who believe the lies, for what ever reason, either have to face disillusionment or self denial. On top of that, the lie is impossible, and it is almost as if the tellers of the lies try to see how ridiculous they can make it and still be believed. Take for instance, Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark. These stories are impossible. Period. Noah's …
Posted to Atheism’s Unholy Trinity
-
Marta: If I may continue my diatribe against religion.... You bring up a very good example: Huckabee. I don't know which is true, is he a cynical lying manipulator or a delusional psychopath? Don't believe in evolution? Why not say don't believe in geometry? Its crazy.
Posted to Atheism’s Unholy Trinity
-
Jon B. One of my favorite cristian stupidities is the 10 commandments. There are three separate and contradictory versions of the 10 commandments. The christians and the jews use different commandments, the jews use the the set which includes a restriction of milk and meat.
Posted to Atheism’s Unholy Trinity
-
Dear Wolf: This is the classic "science was wrong before, why is it right now?" argument, which on the surface sounds plausible, but, of course, it is well crafted nonsense designed to create doubt about well researched fact and knowledge amongst those not willing to dissect what is being attempted. Isaac Asimov wrote a very good piece about this subject. The basic premise of which is that science wasn't wrong, per se' It was functionally accurate within the context of technology over time. For instance, people believed the earth was flat because it was observably flat, and for the scale of …
Posted to Atheism’s Unholy Trinity
-
Dear FreeDem "To dismiss the thinking of thousands of such smart people, working for thousands of years, because a few ignorant people think that the simple con game they fell for is all there is, and therefore such ignorance is proof that all the unexamined rest is equally ignorant, is itself as narrow and mindless as the folk they ridicule." Obviously I disagree. a few hundred years ago, it was a sin to state that the earth was round and that it revolved around the sun. Why was it necessary to fight inquiry so vigorously? Why were people burned at the …
Posted to Atheism’s Unholy Trinity
-
FreeDem: "reject the rational 'many subtleties explain deeper understanding'" Deeper understanding of what? "Yes people use the ignorant to con with simple platitudes and give themselves power, and do great damage, but it is the con that is the problem and not the legitimate understanding of what they are perverting." Again, "legitimate understanding" of what? "actual religion has a long history in which nearly everything is given up in pursuit of free inquiry" How can you inquire about that which requires faith? The inquiry of "faith," is merely enforcement of the delusion. "If you are Mohawk then some of your ancestors …
Posted to Atheism’s Unholy Trinity
-
wolf "Furthermore it [science] does not address many of the most interesting phenomena we as humans experience" This is ABSOLUTELY wrong. The interesting phenomena that humans experience should ABSOLUTELY be studied by science and we should COMPLETELY reject any foolish metaphysical explanation. "Of course, one can always argue that such things as love and joy are merely chemical reactions and that we as physical beings are merely very complicated robots, but that, like the mechanical universe of yore, is a barren point of view, at least to me." And there in lies the difference between a theologian an a scientist. Biological …
Posted to Atheism’s Unholy Trinity
-
FreeDem I tried to find a useful identifying quote about your previous post, but I didn't find one, but your need for "deeper understanding" doesn't make sense. Deeper understanding of what? Yes, there is philosophy, but that's not the mumbo jumbo of gods and myths. There are "thought exercises" like "if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound." Nonsense like that. There is the consideration of how to form a successful society. How to be happy. And so on. None of these require a god. I guess you are trying to imply …
Posted to Atheism’s Unholy Trinity
-
FreeDem: "Aggressive disbelief is no more than the aggressive belief in a negative" What frustrates me most about claims of religious is that, I as an atheist, state "I do not believe in god." Theists take that as "I believe there is no god." The latter is a belief, the former is a statement of conclusion based on facts. I do not believe in god. I do not believe in the reasons for the Iraq war, and I do not believe the 9/11 commission. These things have insufficient facts (in the case of religion, an absence of facts) to be believed. …
Posted to Atheism’s Unholy Trinity
-
Wolf: "It seems to me that your faith in science rivals the faith others have in various religions" Accepting the evidence of science is quite different than "faith." "Do you pretty much only believe in what you personally completely understand?" I think the usage of the word "completely" is probably impossible on some level. I do not accept *anything* unless I understand the basic concepts and theory and consider them plausible. "science will be able to explain everything?" Science is knowledge and a methodology for the pursuit of knowledge, the "explanations" are a practical outcome of successful research. "physics “should” tell …
Posted to Atheism’s Unholy Trinity
-
To FreeDem "What is the need for triple redundancy? If a thing works, then it will work. If not, it needs to work or not be done in the first place. Even the first redundancy by such thinking is wasted effort," As an engineer by trade, I can tell you, redundancy is necessarily because nothing is perfect and things fail. Your assumption is flawed. "Of course, no matter the religion, few would dare to not make those sacrifices to Murphy." That is just a childish way of thinking. Murphys law is humorous, but it is in no way an actual "law." …
Posted to Atheism’s Unholy Trinity
-
FreeDem: "You insist that all points of information be of the Encyclopedic nature amenable to scientific investigation" Yes. Except for the phrase "of the encylopedic nature," that is accurate. Anything less is childhood fantasy. Your repeated use of the word "encylopedic" is, I guess, some sort of buzz word that is intended to reduce the value of actual knowledge or to imply it is somehow filtered. Maybe it is like the political spin masters using the word "elite" like its a bad thing. I don't know. But, if you insist that "scientific investigation" is somehow a bad thing, I have to …
Posted to Atheism’s Unholy Trinity
-
"The “faith” that it seems to me you have in science is in its ability to explain (successfully research?) everything. From my point of view, it misses a great deal." As I tried to say earlier, "science" is not always about "explaining," sometimes it is about documenting and verifying. "From my point of view, it misses a great deal" Perhaps so, but if you believe in things that can not be proved, what does that say about you? "This would be the underlying “cause” for the variety of religions we see, each trying to explain a deep phenomenon that is yet …
Posted to Atheism’s Unholy Trinity
- Joined May 23, 2008
- Last Visit June 22, 2008
Other Profiles
IN THESE TIMES COMMUNITY MEMBERS
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
Turning a Wall Street Giveaway Into a Rescue for All Americans
- 9.
- 10.
RSS Feed