I'm Becoming a Fabulous Atheist

Now now. Surely below your mighty intellect?
What next? "Nah nah nah nah naaaaah"?
I mean really!

Anyway, keep it up and I may well reconsider you getting anywhere near my gloriously massive mound...which would mean we both lose out.
xxx

McClane is trying to communicate to you because he's always been an atheist yet believes you paint people with broad brushstrokes. Now, I'll admit that some of us may be guilty of something similar, but it's really weird to be fighting with someone who agrees with much of what you say just because you say things in a totally different manner and seem to be totally skewed when you "interact". By the way, seen any good horror flicks lately?

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Actually he fought with me, because he thinks I should show some kind of respect for people's beliefs (that they mutate the real world with...THAT'S the important thing) just because such delusional ramblings are classed as a 'religion'.

If I murdered, raped, tortured, assaulted, mutilated, publically damned and threatened the amount of people 'religions' have (and yes, Islam is the biggest turd in the pile) because I decreed it was okay because the blue gnome at the bottom of my garden said it was okay and righteous to do so....No respect of any kind at all would be shown for such garbage.
And quite rightly so.

McClane, atheist or no, is happy to have everyone else's life altered and ruled by other peoples ramblings even as he disbelieves them though.
He appeases, which is all the religious sorts need.

And if deciding that people who follow the letter of a religion, with devout love for it, are the only ones who actually truly represent that religion (Wow! Such a crazy idea!) is being classed as painting people with broad strokes...I'm happy to get my brushes out.

But hey, the day people keep their beliefs in their own homes (child marriage, forced marriage, honour killings and enforced slavery in the home aside) I could care less.

But what the ****...This is just going over what I already have done above.
But like I said...you can't argue with fantasists.

I guess time will show if I was right to push so hard against these, automatically deserving of respect it seems, ancient, anti-21st century, religious ramblings.

But if I'm proven right...Our children will be the ones that suffer.
So i think I'll put THAT worry ahead of offending some dude who thinks (his specific) pixie does actually exist.

And I don't care if people think I should put respect for someones fantastical beliefs before the future and welfare of my child!
**** that and **** them!
The day my daughter's life is free from the chance some suicide bombing religious dog blowing her up while screaming "God is great", the day she is not prejudiced against by religious freaks because of her gender or perhaps lack of 'belief' (and the day that applies to HER children as well) I'll happily put away my paintbox and my broad brushes.
Until then...don't think my child's future will come second to showing respect for someone else's delusion.

And yes, all kinds of bad things can happen or go wrong for a person. But most (indeed if not all) those other things are not deemed worthy of respect, are not socially accepted, appeased, defended or even protected!
Someone mugs my daughter and no holy man in a holy place or so called community leaders will defend and apologise for it!
Or hold ****ing parades in praise of the mugger and her mugging!!

Compare THAT though with what we saw after 9/11 and 7/7. Respect? **** respect.



I'll leave with one more sign of God's love.
A newborn baby in Haiti was in hospital for severe burns to its head when God decided to drop that hospital on it with an earthquake resulting in the baby's arm being amputated and its Mother killed. All before the burns could even be healed just to add the cherry on top.

Now I'm sorry...But such an event means only 3 things...None of them good for religion.
1) There is no God. **** happens.
2) There is a God but he's powerless and takes no interest.
3) There is a God but he let (even made) such a thing happen because he's a nasty ****.

Whichever one you choose ( a newborn baby let us remember) it invalidates any belief in God as it makes religion pointless, offensive and certainly not worthy of actual power over people's lives.

Now... I'm off to massage my massive mound.

****ing Flamer.

In that case you should be even more upset than the rest of us; if he's expressing things you agree with, he's certainly not making those views look particularly good, given that he's got believers, agnostics, and borderline atheists all aghast simultaneously.

Letting behavior like this slide because one agrees with some rough sentiment behind it is, to my mind, something that fosters generalization and resentment on both sides of any debate. It encourages the caricaturization of opposing viewpoints and leads to laxer standards of discourse. Bad behavior is bad behavior, and we shouldn't make apologies for it because we share some partial worldview with whoever's engaging in it.

Re: 42nd's many recent posts: so many words, yet none of them come to make a point that a) hasn't been made (and answered) before, b) address in any way the staggering number of things he says that are borne completely out of generalization, c) couldn't be made in a perfectly civil manner.

There's simply no reason why someone who has come to logical conclusions based on sound reason would feel the need to constantly supplement that reason with juvenile insults and cursing. None.

Looking back over your last few posts, it's interesting how many of these errors come from one simple mistake: the failure to differentiate between a religion and its followers. The rest of the world has no problem realizing that something one Muslim does does not necessarily reflect on every other, or that things can be (and are) done in the name of Christ that aren't particularly Christian. You sarcastically ask why religion is worthy of respect while reeling off lists of the most extreme things ever done in its name (or by its followers), but this only serves to highlight your own ideological blindspot. Most people have no trouble understanding that a belief and the people who espouse it are different thing.

I've tried to engage you in those rare instances in which you stumble near an actual point (like your long, roundabout way of parroting the famous Epicurius quote in the post above), but you've made it plenty clear that you're not interested in any of that. There are plenty of complex theological issues at play here, but nothing you've said leads me to believe you've bothered to really consider any of them, or have anything new to say about them.

But it's easy to see why you wouldn't. If you ever strayed near a truly serious thought about religion, it would inevitably dismantle the nice, simple, black-and-white view of it you've expressed here. Such visceral anger can't survive any sustained attempt at legitimately pondering these things, because reality is always more complicated than our prejudices will let us acknowledge.

Best to keep a safe distance from all serious literature and discussion on the topic, if you want to maintain such a high level of righteous anger.

Yeah...Hmmm....Cop out.

A total lifestyle religious belief has nothing to do with the person living by it!??
Really?

Seems like the kind of weasel remarks people like you (unless you're not devout or have made up your own religion, if not you;re a liar) spew out when attacking Homosexuals...condemn the sin, not the sinner. LMAO!

"We don't hate gays...we just don't want them to do anything actually gay. Because we are moral and upright like that".
You make a mockery of morality as much as you make a mockery of liberalism.

You're a delusional weasel and hypocrite. So don't dare judge me with your medieval mind.

I want to live in 42nd's world. It sounds so much less fanatical.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Er, no. Show me where I said that. And then, when you can't, sit back and reflect on just how often you have to exaggerate in order to have something to say.

What I did say was that they're two different things. People can -- and will -- do things at odds with their belief system. They can -- and will -- pervert any teaching from time to time.

Of the two of us, you're the one taking the absolute position, by continually insisting that there is no abstraction or difference between believer and belief, even when the former does things clearly at odds with the latter. It's stunning how much of what you say is rooted in this basic failure. Your entire attitude towards religion seems to be one giant logical fallacy.

What's supposed to be funny about "condemn the sin, not the sinner"? Are you under the impression that you've just made an argument of some kind by typing "LMAO"?

Again, with the insecurity. Do you think insulting people makes you sound smarter? Do you think it'll distract anyone from just how shallow most of what you're saying is? Because I think it only makes it more obvious.

Yeah...this tack isn't gonna work. I'm a computer programmer, dude. And I don't program on those old wooden medieval computers, either. No sir, I've moved up to the ones that use 'lectricity and everything.

Also, giving negative rep just because I'm disagreeing with you is, well, dumb. I give it to any post of yours that insults someone needlessly, just as I've always given it out. You, on the other hand, seem to do it purely out of retaliation. Grow up.

Wow - terrible debating skills at work again on MoFo...

I guess I am the one that usually has to say it:

You've lost the debate, 42ndstreet. Time to give up.

Extreme views usually put people firmly in the LOSS column. Try a more balanced approach next time.

__________________

I laugh with disdain at all delusional homophobes and hypocrites like you Yoda.
Especially fantasist bigots like you who pretend you're so ****ing superior and moral because your delusions and prejudices are supposedly blessed by some invisible God being!

Wow...I'm so awed. Kind of makes it even worse then that you live in some dark ages dwelling religious delusion and judge life and people by fantasy words spouted out of thin air.

An ape with a PC in its paw....is still an ape.


Well because you like simple minded things such as negative rep in a cyber world, that actually means so much of nothing, I like knowing it bothers you so much when I do it.

You are a Mod dear...just ban me. Make me go 'puff' (sorry...offensive word to you I know. God said so).



And sadly Golgot...very sadly...you do live in my world.

Yeah, I have no idea how this is supposed to be a response to anything I've said, or even addressed to me at all, for that matter.

We've seen this from you plenty of times, guy: when you're cornered, you lapse into critiques aimed at whatever your stereotype of a typical Christian is, regardless of whether or not it has any relevance to the discussion at hand. You start arguing with the caricature in your head, rather than the people you're actually arguing with. It's your go-to when you've run out of things to say.

So, your response is...nothing. Awesome.

Perhaps this went over your head, but the point was not to "awe" you, but to point out how silly you look when you toss out random adjectives on topics you know nothing about. A technologically savvy person of faith doesn't fit with your childish stereotypes, so it's almost as if it doesn't even occur to you that such a person could exist.

You're a bit confused, I'm afraid. It doesn't bother me; I've got plenty to spare. And if it did bother me, I could take solace in the fact that you're literally the only person taking it from me in this thread, or by the fact that retaliatory rep is against the rules and I could remove it if I wanted.

The fact that you think it's pointless -- yet do it because you hope to antagonize me -- is exactly my point. You're a grown man, and you're using some frivolous points system to try to get a rise out of someone on the Internet because they disagree with you. I don't think you've fully internalized just how petty that is.

If you break a rule, you will be banned (you have one warning already, I believe). But there's no rule against being ignorant. I know me saying this doesn't fit with your cartoonish notion of Christians being bigoted, intolerant, and quashing dissent at every turn, so I guess you can just add this to your overflowing surplus of cognitive dissonance.

Meanwhile, you've somehow managed to make yet another post that addresses nothing, illuminates nothing, and answers nothing. It's almost becoming impressive. One would think you'd say something relevant by accident now and again, at least.

Wake me when you've developed the philosophical curiosity and general social skills of your average 14-year old, and then we'll talk.

I think you've missed my point a little, Yoda.

I'm not letting anything slide because I'm not engaging. I think I've already stated my thoughts on the direction this thread has taken and its validity. I'm not 'letting' 42nd's rant slide, any more than I'm letting anyone who believes in the existance of a God, slide.

Talking about faith when including religion is one thing, a bit like arguing who'd win in a fight between Batman and Spiderman, but at least there are 'facts' and documents that everyone agrees on or can be presented. There's a basis for a debate. Arguing or challenging someone's faith alone is completely pointless, as no one's going to change their mindset or world view after something said in a thread. Not only that, but when this does happen (as seen in this thread) people get defensive, which is understandable, but it breeds ill will and resentment, none of which is necessary and all completely pointless.

I'm not bothered about who he's pissing off or how he's making his (my?) views look.

If you want a little more from me I'll say that, personally, saying those who believe in a God have a medieval mind (or whatever it was) is doing them a favour. It's certainly more charitable than I'd be. People had been believing in God(s) for thousands of years before that, so why label them as medieval? That'd only put them about 600 years behind the current day.

The view that it seems myself and 42nd share is that religion is bunk and that there is no God. We both seem to be of the view that organized religion has been, and is, to blame for the deaths/pain/hatred/etc of a great many people throughout history right up until the present day and that this world would be better off without it. Not only that, but that it is no longer needed.

I don't really see how he was speaking for me beyond that or why I should be repremanding him for... what? Not arguing 'my' position well enough? I wasn't putting my position forward. Merely saying that I agreed with the sentiment of some of it.

To be honest, it's a poor insult. The last time I checked medieval thinkers, and earlier, were some brilliant arseholes. Every branch of science owes something to these "medieval" thinkers. So technically, if we're insulting their intelligence then we are insulting our own. But hey, to each their own insults.

Blaming a large portion of past transgressions on religion requires you to throw all reason out the window. No, last time I checked humans are just s****y creatures. No religion needed. Now you can easily argue, and I wouldn't disagree, that religion gives people a reason to embrace their evil side. That, however, does not reflect on the religion itself but the person.

For example, I kill a person because they use a Zune and not an iPod. Apple is not evil. I'm evil.

The idea that all evil and bad, or even a majority of it, will leave the world once religion is eradicated is...well...stupid.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

OK, honey, that's a good post and well-explained, but as I think about it a little more, I believe that no matter what else 42nd is saying that he has been disingenuous on at least one count in laying forth an agenda. I don't recall exactly what brought 42nd to this site, but I was under the impression that he wanted to discuss horror flicks with people who mostly liked horror flicks. It didn't take too long for him to segue into the fact that Islam is taking over the world in general and the UK specifically. He discussed, at length, how Islam needs a reformation and that other religions, specifically Christianity, underwent their reformation so that it wouldn't be such a danger to the world at large. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's a fair way to present his side, at least at first.

Now, apparently 42nd didn't realize that he stumbled onto a site where people coming from both sides of the "religion and politics" question are willing to (and actually quite interested in a) debate in the classical form of a debate. To be sure, religion and politics are discussed here all the time, but they probably take up about 2% as much space as movie discussion and debate. However, for some reason, when some people here thought he was being too extreme in his hatred for Islam and his point that it may well cause the end of the world (I still thiink I'm reading him correctly here), he seemed to get even more extreme by lumping everybody who has anything to do with religion (or a belief in any form of spirituality) as a fanatic who is apparently personally condoning AND ACTUALLY contributing to the downfall of western civilazation by having a caveman mentality and some kind of appeasement attitude toward this dangerous situation confronting our world. Look, I'll be the first person to say that we live in a world more-dangerous than it has ever been. Radical fundamentalism is a key reason for that. Yet, somehow this world is populated by more people who claim to be agnostics or atheists than ever before. Therefore, let me ask you this. If this apparent contradiction is true, then who is more responsible for this so-called appeasement? I know you're going to say that the people in charge are responsible, but really, if there are enough people in enough countries who agree with 42nd, wouldn't they be mobilizing to do something to save their families from what they see as a direct danger to their posterity?

I don't want to get into how these sorts of things have happened down through the ages where a minority group of people have risen up to popularly quash what they believe to be an evil living amongst them. Sometimes they result in things such as a people obtaining their liberty from an occupying force and sometimes they result in a group's extermination due to the doctrines of totalitarian states. I hope that we all find a way to survive this world of terrorism which we live in, and I'm pretty sure that MoFo will survive anything which resembles terrorism from people who may or may not have their hearts in the right place. I, for one, am not going to think differently of anyone expressing their difference of opinion unless they somehow feel the need to insult those who do not share their beliefs. I might feel upset if I actually knew though that some people automatically discount my opinion on anything just because they believe they know what I believe about something which probably has nothing at all to do with whatever discussion I'm entered into at the time. Call me silly for taking a "message board" (that's the first time I've ever used that phrase) so seriously, but you guys are a part of my family.

I had started a reply to the last two posts. I know I said I wasn't bothering with it, but there were a couple of things I'd like to add/answer. Anyway, I'm an idiot (don't all agree so quickly) and lost it all. I'm not going to start it all again now, so I'll just try and hit the main points in broad strokes.

As I also said earlier, I haven't read a most of the posts in this thread (after the posts concerning the original reason for it) but I'm willing to go along with you mark, on your take of what's been said. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether or not he thinks that Christianity changed so as not to be a danger to the world. If he does, then I think he's wrong. Christianity changed because what it said/preached has been constantly disproved over the last 600 years or so and they did their best to stop that being known to the world, too.

I agree that 42nd has appeared to become very involved in this thread to the exclusion of all others. I think that's a shame (as I said, I liked him for what he said elsewhere on the site) and I don't think he came to this site looking to start this up. I think this thread appeared and it's obviously one of his pet peeves/bandwagons/whatever and he's jumped into it with both feet.

While the world may be populated with more people than ever who claim to be non-religious/athiest/secular/whatever, there's still billions more who believe in some God/religion. A quick internet count puts it at something like 5.8bn to 1.1bn and it's not like we're all mixed up together. Interacting, talking and understanding one another, explaining why we think the way we do. It's not as if all the secular people are going to descend on Japan and tell them that Shinto is a load of crap? Are they going to flood the US? Of course not. All that can happen is that the ideas spread and, more often than not, it happens from the top down. It wasn't until the Emperor Constantine converted in the third century that Christianity spread thoughout the Roman Empire and the Roman Gods were usurped by the Christian God.

When you said this, mark:

Did you mean "agree" as in non-religous/secular? Or agree as in with the ferocity and fervour of 42nd? People are notoriously difficult to organise in large numbers, especially among civilians (where people are still individuals and question things, as oppossed to an army, say.) If you just meant agree that there's no God or whatever, then that's not the same as actively seeking/demanding a religion to be updated/modernised or whatever.

John, at no point did I say that the eradication of religion would solve all the worlds problems or all of societies ills. That's not the point. The point is, at least, my point is, that if you only believe something's evil/bad/unholy/whatever because of your religion (or more often than not, your parents as they're the ones that usually indoctrinate their children, hence pro-creation being so exhalted and sacred in many religions) then to rid the world/society of that religion would mean they'd be less hatred/pain/violence/whatever. Not none. There'd still be homophobics, there'd still be racists, there'd still be mysogynists and everything, but at least they wouldn't have the 'excuse' of religion and there'd be less people who think they have to think that way because it's the 'right' way.

I agree that people are ******. Couldn't agree more. We're animals and I mean that in the beastial sense, not a moral one.

True, but if Apple told you that you were being righteous if you killed Zune users, then wouldn't you concur that Apple would be evil? If you didn't care if someone used Zune until you started using Apple, wouldn't you only care because you were an Apple user?

Personally, I don't like to use words like 'evil' seriously. It's a moral evaluation which changes depending on the society or mindset of the person using it. Women are still routinely stoned to death for committing adultery in Nigeria, among other countries. Still sentenced to death in Iran and Somalia (among others) for being raped. Honour killings still occur. We have them here in the UK. None of these things are considered 'evil' by the people that commit them. They're following what they've been taught/told to do by their religious teachers or the laws created based on thos teachings. We, of course, do.

Conversely, in those countries they think we're evil/it's disgusting for allowing women to dress the way they do. To allow homosexuals to live their lives without fear of prosecution or death. To drink alcohol. To not be religious. All manner of things, most of which I probably have no idea about.

I just feel the need to point out that's not how it happened. Christianity was already widely accepted and practiced before Constantine took office. We can argue whether he converted for political or personal reasons, but all he did was make it the official religion of the state...alas, most people were already practicing it before he did that.

You will still have politics, so I ain't buying that one bit. Not one bit at all.

Religion doesn't tell people to kill others. Point to as many religious passages as you want about "killing infidels" or what not and I'll point you to an equal number that don't condone it. More over, the context of some of those "kill the infidels" passages illustrate what not to do. However, I very much dislike religious documents for this very reason. The moral judgment is NOT in the book. It's made by the person reading it.

Sorry, I can't get behind the idea of there not being some sense of absolute morality...God or no God. There are very obvious things that are inherently evil, regardless of the society. Not only that but many societies have similar morals, i.e. they only disagree on the application of them.

For example, no society considers it honorable to hold your own interests above others. They do, however, disagree on who's interests you should hold above your own (your parents, your government, your neighbors, etc.). We can also use witch burnings as an example. If you had good reason to believe that some women eat children, destroy crops, and etc and there was no way to imprison them...would you not be morally obligated to kill them? You would be.

Nah, there are quite a few difference between our worlds mate.

In my world, it's fine for a Christian not to act on the apparent homophobia in the Bible, for example.

In my world, exceptional claims require at least reasonable evidence. A bulldozer scooping some grit & a still of a nearby broken gravestone don't = 'Muslims bulldoze graveyard' etc. Especially not when a quick spot of research reveals the real circumstances are quite distinct. (And that's just one of the many extreme claims you to stick by, despite very reasonable evidence to the contrary).

In my world, it's healthy to recognize when facts we thought supported our argument or world view turn out to be false.

In my world, understanding the minds and arguments of those you disagree with is worthwhile. And hurling blanket insults isn't.

Tho lord knows it's ****ing nigh impossible where you're concerned. Because frankly, your behaviour warrants about every insult sent your way, and your ears seem closed to any attempt at constructive disagreement.

You see Honeykid puts it right (wow, for a supposed Atheist you sure do love defending religion McClane!).

Evil acts will always happen without religion.
But there would be an awful lot less of them without it (and as Honey said...It's not like anyone in 2010 NEEDS the damn stuff either) and, for me, most importantly these acts would not be considred righteous and worse...Justified!

I'll simply quote myself. Because I'm ****ing good.

All kinds of bad things can happen or go wrong for a person.
But most (indeed if not all) those other things are not deemed worthy of respect, are not socially accepted, appeased, defended or even protected!

Someone mugs my daughter and no holy man in a holy place or so called community leaders will defend and apologise for it!
Or hold parades in praise of the mugger and her mugging!!

People can weasel and disgracefully apologise for religion all they want...but when the devout (**** pick and choose merchants as they simply do not represent their religion. Simple as that) carry out acts and specifically quote from their religion to back those acts up and excuse them...that religion is at fault, NOT JUST the person.

Take Australia last year or the year before when a Muslim man accused of beating his Wife used the fact the the Quran directly said it was right for him to do so as his legal defence!

Shia Muslim men in Afghanistan voted on the right to rape and refuse food to their wives only last year specifically because Islam, in the Quran and the Hadiths, says they can if their wives do not agree to sex whenever the man wants it.

Directly because their Prophet (who also slaughtered Jewish tribes) married a 9 year old girl...Child marriage in Islamic countries is a huge, widespread, socially and legally accepted practice and problem.
RIGHT NOW a...wait for it...12 year old girl is fighting to divorce her 80 year old Husband (and Cousin of her Father) in Saudi!!
The same Saudi that's the most exporting state as far as pushing Islam in The West goes has no legal minimum age for marriage. Nice.

Basic figures, official figures, in the UK has hundreds of girls around the age of 12 suddenly vanishing from school records because they get shipped off to marry abroad.
Muslims explicitly bring up what their Prophet did as justification for child marriage!
That's the religion itself!
No matter how much appeasers and apologists (as bad as any Jihadist as they help smooth the way) try to dodge this basic, in black and white, historical fact.

And why would almost no action be taken against such events, that break the Law of the country?
Because it's a religious practice!

As we have seen this week in the UK the first Sikh judge shows his true religiously fanatic colours be saying that Sikh boys at school (Schoolchildren!) should be allowed to carry their ceremonial knives to school!
That specifically break numerous Laws of this country that EVERYONE ELSE has to abide by...but it's also a farce as far as basic common sense goes!
Again...Ancient religion not only screams to be obeyed, but asks to be treated differently from anyone else in the country.

And really, please don't go on about closed minds. As there is nothing more closed than a mind that believes GOD is on their side.

And Yoda...as for dodging things, you no all about that, as if you are devout to your religion you do indeed condemn Homosexuals and do it because you think your invisible being says it's righteous to do so!
Hey, I know what you are...You should accept it too.

My niece says this all the time - she's five years old.

She gets put in time-out when she says it...

Coming soon, to a theater near you...