Go back and read your post that started this. You are looking to pick a fight with someone you call a "right wing conservative." The internet is full of people like you.
Umm would you care to elaborate on that ScareCrow? If you're right I'd be the first to admit it, but you need to provide reasoning. Calling me stupid in a post with no justification or reasoning is just.. well nonsensical. Next comes the momma jokes =)
I have never read anything as stupid as what you posted.
Nothing said warrants this response. Intelligent people should be able to convey their disagreement without resorting to name calling. Really uncalled for.
" Screwcrow, can you tally the deaths from religions vs atheistic viewpoints for the last, oh I dunno, say 15 thousand years? If you can't then your remarks are at best inflammatory, with no logical reasoning. Right wing atheism is the exact same mind set as right wing religion, just different words, the effective 'us vs them' is still the same no matter what you call it."
Extremist athiesm is no better than extremist religion.
I stated a fact to correct a common misconception about religion in history. The post containing the George Carlin's analogy is wrong. Then comes your arrogant, babbling response.
"Right wing atheism is the exact same mind set as right wing religion"....this is where the stupid part comes in. "Right wing atheism"? Hahahahahahah, that's a good one....contrast it to left wing atheism, you are rich in comedy.
........right wing religion? descibe "right wing religion" .... I bet your description of it will be dripping with all kinds of keen insights on what a religious person is and isn't. Your superiority in such matters will come shining through, I'm sure. You are so deep.
Not really, since I could have reworded it as extremist religion is no worse than extremist athiesm and the meaning would not have changed. But how is this relevant to anything in the first place?An extreme point of view.
Religion is simply an invention of man, to help him deal with his fear of his ultimate mortality and other things he doesn't understand.
As man becomes less ignorant there will be less a need for religion for more and more of us. Religion is not the sole source of wars and violence, but it's gradual demise will help.
Lefty
What's your problem? What are you getting so worked up about?
Right-wing just means extremist conservative and left-wing just means extremist liberal. You do realize, you can have both athiests and relig(ists?) can be either completely closed to other ideas or open to them. *THAT* is a liberal athiest.
........................................................................
Now painting athiests as a whole as more murderous than religous people- that's extreme. Also, was Stalin and Mao killing people because of their beliefs? I'm seriously asking because I do not know. ......
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard of swarms of athiests killing people .............
You can be programmed to grow up believing that someone with beliefs other than your own are bad, whether or not you believe in a god. So it'd also be false to say that religion is better able to carry on these beliefs to future generations than atheism.
Religion is simply an invention of man, to help him deal with his fear of his ultimate mortality and other things he doesn't understand.
As man becomes less ignorant there will be less a need for religion for more and more of us. Religion is not the sole source of wars and violence, but it's gradual demise will help.
Lefty
That's all true, but before religion, the physically powerful ruled, pretty much did as they pleased, answered to no one. Gods control the forces of nature, where no man can. You can not fight, what you can not see or touch. Religion gave the majority of people some power, and grows in numbers. It was really well conceived, but of course mankind always exploits things that work well, and finds a way to profit.
The world without religion, would become barbaric and immoral once again. It would free the masses of accountability, everything is okay, just as long as you don't get caught by someone strong, who might take offense. It's pretty easy to see, in the short time since they've banned religion in schools, government, and most any place except the churches. Children aren't forced to learn the bible at a young age, and now they run in street gangs, do some pretty horrific things for fun.
Churches are pretty corrupt these days, but the Bible is still a pretty good book. Usually sermons are crafted to get people to be more generous with offerings and collections. I would think the Almighty would provide just enough to keep the church going...
I see this argument made again and again: that without religion, there is no morality. I call ********. The simple fact that atheists are capable of immoral acts is no more significant than the fact that religious people are capable of immoral acts.
Sure there are good lessons in the Bible, but there are also bad ones, as with most writings. What we take away from them and incorporate into our own lives is up to us and us alone.
I consider myself an atheist, and I have no trouble with my moral compass. Sure I get snippy with people at times (i.e., Sceadwian seems to draw an unfortunate amount of fire from my direction, which I regret) but I do not steal or kill or covet, I am loyal to a point which some would consider unhealthy, and I have a firm belief that I should harm others only in defense.
And yet, none of this stems from being superstitious. I don't try to be a good person because I fear an eternity in Hell. I (along with most of the people I know) try to be a good person because I think people should just try to be good people. We'd all be happier that way, no gods required.
Christianity and many other religions rely on the idea that we need a higher power to keep us on the straight and narrow. I don't believe it for a second. I have seen no difference between religious and non-religious folks I've met in terms of how good a person they are.
Torben
This is not factually true. Atheists are the big killers
It is factually true. In addition to religious wars, there's a correlation between how religious a society is and its crime rate. More religious people in the US than UK, more crime in the US. More atheists in Canada, lower crime rate. More religious people in Mexico, higher crime rate.
The most atheist countries are Norway, Japan, and Sweden. The countries with the lowest crime rates are Norway, Japan, and Sweden. There's been several studies on this, the most recent I know of was by Gregory Paul, there was a good one a couple of years ago by Phil Zuckerman.
Additionally, atheists are the most under-represented group in prisons. Until the early 1980's the Christians were the most over-represented, since then it's been the Muslims.
This superstitious belief in an invisible and immortal human "soul" causes religious people to pretend life is cheaper than it really is. The atheist knows that this life, good or bad, is all the other poor slob's got. Religious people figure you have an invisible soul that sprouts magic fairy wings and flys away somewhere when you die, so they aren't as careful with someone else's life.
I never said they are the same concept. I said that there can both extremists and moderate athiests just like there is for religion. I just explained this. If you aren't listening, it seems more like you are trying to paint the other side with the same colour, in the same way that hardcore athiests might paint all religous people as extremists when arguing their points. It's difficult to accept that people are more alike that we would like to think.I corrected a hstorical misconception about religion. It stirred up some people. What bothers you about that?
Atheism is not the opposite of religion. They are different concepts.
There can be no right or left wing atheists. There is only one dimension to atheism. Any left or right wingflapping by atheists is of socio-political origin.
Your framework and so-called "safeguarding" of information across works both ways. It can be used for both good and evil. While athiesm might not have explicit framework to promote morality, neither does it have framework that can be interpreted to promote wrong doing in it's name like religion does.You have never heard of Stalin's great purges and his gulag system? You have never heard of Chaiman Mao and the Chinese Civil War, or the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution? I find that hard to believe. You do know that atheism is fundamental to communism don't you? Communism cannot tolerate a higher authority, any belief expressed that does not accept the communist party as supreme must be eliminated. A true communist must be an atheist. I didn't write those rules, communists did. Read Marx or Mao.
Atheism contains no framework for social or governmental functions what-so-ever and does not contain any moral or legal framework nor does it contain any vessel for the transport or safeguard of information across generations. It simply denies a higher authority, that's all. Atheism compares to religion as a pamphlet compares to the Library of Congress.
Who said anything about dimensions? I'm saying that there are varying degrees of extreme on both sides. Is there a distinction between moderate and extreme religous people so you can separate yourself from the ones that use religion for evil? And no such distinction exists for athiests, huh? THere are always varying levels extremes and to say otherwise is to pull the cloth over your eyes.Machines are programmed, people are influenced. If that's not true then who programmed you to believe that atheism actually had more than one dimension?
I never said they are the same concept. I said that there can both extremists and moderate athiests just like there is for religion. I just explained this. If you aren't listening, it seems more like you are trying to paint the other side with the same colour, in the same way that hardcore athiests might paint all religous people as extremists when arguing their points. It's difficult to accept that people are more alike that we would like to think.
Your framework and so-called "safeguarding" of information across works both ways. It can be used for both good and evil. While athiesm might not have explicit framework to promote morality, neither does it have framework that can be interpreted to promote wrong doing in it's name like religion does.
The "safeguarding" of information between generations should just be the "guarding" of information between generations. Yes it can be good if the information is good, but it can also be used to prolong the life of information that has been distorted to someone else's end. Ever heard of racist parents raising racist kids? Athiesm does not have the mechanism to prolong good ideas, but neither does it for bad ideas. Religion does.
Which is better? Being pre-disposed to neutral? Or the potential to being pre-disposed to extreme good but also extreme evil? I don't know, but it's certainly not right to say one is definitively more good than the other.
Who said anything about dimensions? I'm saying that there are varying degrees of extreme on both sides. Is there a distinction between moderate and extreme religous people so you can separate yourself from the ones that use religion for evil? And no such distinction exists for athiests, huh? THere are always varying levels extremes and to say otherwise is to pull the cloth over your eyes.
To me, that sounds like dehumanizing the opposing because it makes it easier to accept preconceived notions about them in the face of reason. It's much easier to think negatively of the opposing side if you can just say "they're all like that, no or very few exceptions."
Do you see any resemblance between what you are saying and these comments:
"All Americans are invading pigs! Islam generates terrorists!"
Yeah...right *scoff*
Just because a person is religous, in itself, does not make a person more good evil than person who is an athiest in the same what that just because a person is athiest, in itself, does not make them any more evil. The crusaders believed in a god. Hitlier believed in a god. Mao and Stalin didn't. What can we learn from this? Both sides are more alike than we would like to admit. Different method, same results.
Stick to electronics. You don't have a clue about religion or atheism.
But were you always an atheist? Or were you taught the Bible, and later made up your mind? I don't really by into the heaven/hell thing, or the higher powers stuff either. I believe this world, and this life, is what we've got. We have the power to turn it into a heaven, or hell (seems like our current course). The Bible was meant as a guide book, and not just the Christian Bible either.
Children need somebody to teach the right from wrong, all day, everyday. They don't get much from a babysitter, daycare, or public school, unless they get caught first. Mostly they get taught that it's only bad when they get caught. Punishment is usually pretty mild, mostly a brief inconvenience. Sure some kids grow up just fine, but a large quantity are way out of control.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?