[Some random guy]

(Original post by .eXe)
But they selectively ignore anything positive that religion is capable of. For example, I can make a giant montage about all the positive things my church is accomplishing as we speak. But I guess that wouldn't invoke a similar response now would it.

You don't need religion to do positive things. But those negatives are all directly inspired by religion. Get rid of religion and humans have one less reason to hate each other and that can only be a good thing in my book.

Now I'm off to buy two footlong subs, I'm starving!

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by .eXe)
You do realize that a bunch of pictures which are an obvious appeal to emotion (and thus fallacious) brought a tear to your eye right?

Quite melodramatic.

It's not a logical argument against the veracity of world religions. It's to bring to light the damages religion can cause. It's a collection of factual events. There is no space for it to be fallacious.

(Original post by Kiss)
I thought militant atheism was about stamping out religion/hating religion and those believe in religion?

I have no problem with a person believing in whatever god they want, praying to them, thanking them, thinking there'll be an afterlife. A hell of a lot of good comes from it, too. However, I will not tolerate those baseless beliefs affecting the lives of others and causing undue suffering in the world. As soon as someone's religion causes them to believe something vitriolic, that's when I have a problem.

[kambo]

Why atheist must be militant? The atheists are too people. We probably agree in 99%. I only don't believe in god. I respect moral rules. You too! So i don't see any thing to quarrel.

[totopink]

(Original post by Time Tourist)

In his new book The face of God, Roger Scruton for example argues that:

Contemporary atheism is the desire to escape from the eye of judgement. You escape from the eye of judgement by blotting out the face - most assertively the Face of God.

That is such rubbish. Atheism isn't "convincing yourself God doesn't exist because you don't want to be judged" it is not believing in God at all.

It is feeling no emotional connection to God, no understanding of what motivates those to be religious, no sense that God is real. It's not pretending, it's not like all atheists are undercover religious fanatics that just don't want to be judged.

What motivates militant atheism? Stuff like that. Accusations that it doesn't matter what faith you have as long as you have faith and the total denial from religious people that actually some people just don't believe in God. We're not trying to be scientific and self-righteous by denying his existance, it's just that as far as we know he doesn't exist. He has never existed to us. God is not a thing. He is the tooth fairy, or santa clause, except even they were more real because at least when I was little there was proof of a 50p coin under the pillow or presents under the tree to prove their existence.

I am not in denial. I am not hiding any secret faith. God does not exist to me. I wouldn't even know what I was meant to feel towards God if I did believe he existed. I don't know what it is he's meant to do. When people question whether I'm just denying my faith then yeah, I start to get militant.

[Kiss]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
I have no problem with a person believing in whatever god they want, praying to them, thanking them, thinking there'll be an afterlife. A hell of a lot of good comes from it, too. However, I will not tolerate those baseless beliefs affecting the lives of others and causing undue suffering in the world. As soon as someone's religion causes them to believe something vitriolic, that's when I have a problem.

But you do hate religious people don't you?

You do think they are stupid don't you?

[That Bearded Man]

Militant atheism because one believes that a belief in God is not only incorrect, but that the mere thought of it is ridiculous and irrational.

Also as you said the adherence to science and logic.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Some random guy)
You don't need religion to do positive things. But those negatives are all directly inspired by religion. Get rid of religion and humans have one less reason to hate each other and that can only be a good thing in my book.

Now I'm off to buy two footlong subs, I'm starving!

Um, at what point did I argue that you need religion to do positive things?

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by Kiss)
But you do hate religious people don't you?

I have no problem with religious people, I used to post in the Christian Soc here a lot before it got too fast for me to keep up with. Loveliest place on TSR without a doubt. And I have a love and respect for all of the regulars in there.

Religious people just like every other type of person earn my contempt on an individual basis. If you go to church, worship the lord, and try to live life as a good person. Great, you're a cool guy by my standards. And this is a vast majority of religious people.

But if you're doing this and telling the LGBT community, other religions, fornicators, 'sluts', and half of the human race that they are sinners or that they are inferior to you. If you're teaching your children to deny science, to block out logical thought, and tell them that it's wrong to be critical of their beliefs and they have to follow yours or they'll burn in hell. If you're telling Africans that they're not to use condoms because it's sinful, or going as far to say that condoms aid in HIV transmission, or are a reason for the people to refuse vaccinations, or deny medical treatment in preference of faith healing. Then I have a problem. And those people do earn my contempt.

@"Thinking they're stupid."

Again. This is an individual thing. I think smart people can believe stupid things, and I think a belief that you should base your life around a thing that has no evidence behind it is a stupid belief. I know people who say they believe in God because it brings them comfort. That's not stupid. They're doing it because it benefits them. But I think a belief in God because the Bible says so is a stupid belief.

Whether that person is or isn't stupid has nothing to do with whether they believe in God or not. But the two can and do correlate.

[Kiss]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
I have no problem with religious people, I used to post in the Christian Soc here a lot before it got too fast for me to keep up with. Loveliest place on TSR without a doubt. And I have a love and respect for all of the regulars in there.

Religious people just like every other type of person earn my contempt on an individual basis. If you go to church, worship the lord, and try to live life as a good person. Great, you're a cool guy by my standards. And this is a vast majority of religious people.

But if you're doing this and telling the LGBT community, other religions, fornicators, 'sluts', and half of the human race that they are sinners or that they are inferior to you. If you're teaching your children to deny science, to block out logical thought, and tell them that it's wrong to be critical of their beliefs and they have to follow yours or they'll burn in hell. If you're telling Africans that they're not to use condoms because it's sinful, or going as far to say that condoms aid in HIV transmission, or are a reason for the people to refuse vaccinations, or deny medical treatment in preference of faith healing. Then I have a problem. And those people do earn my contempt.

..............but, they are all idiots aren't they??? I mean they have a stupid faithless believe don't they? We should ridicule them and hate them!

[The Socktor]

(Original post by Kiss)
But you do hate religious people don't you?

Hating religion isn't necessarily the same as hating the religious.

[Alpharius]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
This.

Brilliant.

(Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)

...And this? Just beautiful.

[The Patriot]

(Original post by .eXe)
Um, at what point did I argue that you need religion to do positive things?

Well done. You just completely imploded your own argument.

You argue that you could show all the good things religion does, in defence of religion.

Only a fool could deny that religion does good things. However, what the other poster suggests is that you don't need religion to do those things, religion is an unnecessary add-on, something you accept in your reply.

Therefore you have just accepted that religion is irrelevant in the ability to do good things, consequently demolishing any possible meaning in your original statement.

If you have genuinely presented your argument wrong, then try again.

[.eXe]

(Original post by The Patriot)
Well done. You just completely imploded your own argument.

You argue that you could show all the good things religion does, in defence of religion.

Only a fool could deny that religion does good things. However, what the other poster suggests is that you don't need religion to do those things, religion is an unnecessary add-on, something you accept in your reply.

Therefore you have just accepted that religion is irrelevant in the ability to do good things, consequently demolishing any possible meaning in your original statement.

If you have genuinely presented your argument wrong, then try again.

Lol okay since you asked for it...here it comes.

First, arguing that religion is required to do good things is a completely stupid argument because it's as bad as saying religion causes bad things; both arguments I do not agree with. I am a Christian, and I do good things as a Christian. However, I wasn't a Christian all my life, but I still did good things before I became one. I don't see how admitting that has in any way imploded my argument.

Second, look at the statement I have bolded, then look back at my posts, and tell me exactly which part of my posts at any point denied that religion does good things?. My argument was that the picture in question only highlighted the negatives that may be attributable to religion (which is a point I do not agree with by the way because if Christianity for example, is followed like it is supposed to, it will not lead to anything bad. However, that's not the topic at hand). All I argued was that as easily that someone can cherry pick all the negatives about religion, I can also cherry pick all the positives about religion. Doesn't make either of our arguments correct. In order to truly evaluate religion, one must examine all the things the religion advocates...not just look at its effects. For example, to evaluate Christianity, you must look at the Bible...which at no point encourages killing unbelievers...and yet the Crusades happened. Does that in any ways mean that Christianity is wrong? Hell no...it just means that a bunch of people did horrible things using Christianity as a scapegoat. So in summary, I did not deny at any point that religion does good things. That is a giant error (or misunderstanding) on your part.

Third, no I have not accepted that my religion is just irrelevant. As you can see, in my earlier post I did not elaborate on what I meant. So I will do that here. My overall belief is that good and bad are inherent constructs of religion. What I mean is, in a naturalistic world, good and bad are not required...they are only necessary in religion and are thus central to religion/God. In a naturalistic viewpoint, tt's all about survival of the fittest and natural selection. Doesn't matter if an act is good or bad or whatever, because those are just societal constructs and change over time. Think: slavery was good up until a few decades ago, but is abhorred now. My belief is that religion is required for objective good or bad. This means, things that are good and things that are bad, irrespective of what opinions may suggest. And in order to have objective good and bad, religion IS REQUIRED. Why? Because it is God who gave us the standard of what is good and what is bad. In Christianity for example, murder is considered bad...no matter what. Doesn't matter what some random person in Africa, Asia, or Japan may believe...the objective truth is that murder is bad. That's it.

However, if God and religion did not exist, then why would murder be bad? It would just be survival of the fittest, which is what Darwin and evolution teach us. This is the central tenet of naturalism. No objective good/bad are required without religion because they do not necessarily contribute to evolution, and are thus irrelevant. Good and bad ONLY come into play when God exists and religions exist. So in summary, I have at no point conceded the irrelevance of my religion. It's just that this thread was not about that topic so I chose not to elaborate. However, hopefully I've made myself clearer now.

Feel free to PM me if you have any specific questions about my personal beliefs, I don't want to hijack this thread.

[kenni12]

1) Calling someone an "Evangelical atheist" is like calling someone an "british stamp" non-stamp collector or a "goal scoring" non-sports player or a "documentary watching" non-TV viewer.
In other words, the word "Evangelical" doesn't even apply to any religion besides christianity, talkless of atheists who have no religion.

2) I don't know what you mean by "millitant" but for most atheists, the 'rule' is simple "no evidence, no belief in god". Given the fact that this 'rule' stays on, some of us don't want religious people to use "God" as an excuse to do things that affect us and people who don't believe in their religion . E.g.
Theocracy,
Homophobia,
Sexism,
Telling others how to live their sex lives,
Wars,
Use of Public funds for religious projects,
Child Indoctrination,
Exemption of Freedom speech(e.g.criticism of religious beliefs),
Random threats of eternal damination,
Public Prayers,
e.t.c
Because of this, some of us try to show or explain why using "god" or a "holy book" as an excuse for all these things is unnecessary.

[.eXe]

(Original post by kenni12)
~

Exactly. I asked earlier what evangelical atheism even means and some random hitchens fanboy came and negged me

[The Patriot]

(Original post by .eXe)
Lol okay since you asked for it...here it comes.

First, arguing that religion is required to do good things is a completely stupid argument because it's as bad as saying religion causes bad things; both arguments I do not agree with. I am a Christian, and I do good things as a Christian. However, I wasn't a Christian all my life, but I still did good things before I became one. I don't see how admitting that has in any way imploded my argument.

Second, look at the statement I have bolded, then look back at my posts, and tell me exactly which part of my posts at any point denied that religion does good things?. My argument was that the picture in question only highlighted the negatives that may be attributable to religion (which is a point I do not agree with by the way because if Christianity for example, is followed like it is supposed to, it will not lead to anything bad. However, that's not the topic at hand). All I argued was that as easily that someone can cherry pick all the negatives about religion, I can also cherry pick all the positives about religion. Doesn't make either of our arguments correct. In order to truly evaluate religion, one must examine all the things the religion advocates...not just look at its effects. For example, to evaluate Christianity, you must look at the Bible...which at no point encourages killing unbelievers...and yet the Crusades happened. Does that in any ways mean that Christianity is wrong? Hell no...it just means that a bunch of people did horrible things using Christianity as a scapegoat. So in summary, I did not deny at any point that religion does good things. That is a giant error (or misunderstanding) on your part.

Third, no I have not accepted that my religion is just irrelevant. As you can see, in my earlier post I did not elaborate on what I meant. So I will do that here. My overall belief is that good and bad are inherent constructs of religion. What I mean is, in a naturalistic world, good and bad are not required...they are only necessary in religion and are thus central to religion/God. In a naturalistic viewpoint, tt's all about survival of the fittest and natural selection. Doesn't matter if an act is good or bad or whatever, because those are just societal constructs and change over time. Think: slavery was good up until a few decades ago, but is abhorred now. My belief is that religion is required for objective good or bad. This means, things that are good and things that are bad, irrespective of what opinions may suggest. And in order to have objective good and bad, religion IS REQUIRED. Why? Because it is God who gave us the standard of what is good and what is bad. In Christianity for example, murder is considered bad...no matter what. Doesn't matter what some random person in Africa, Asia, or Japan may believe...the objective truth is that murder is bad. That's it.

However, if God and religion did not exist, then why would murder be bad? It would just be survival of the fittest, which is what Darwin and evolution teach us. This is the central tenet of naturalism. No objective good/bad are required without religion because they do not necessarily contribute to evolution, and are thus irrelevant. Good and bad ONLY come into play when God exists and religions exist. So in summary, I have at no point conceded the irrelevance of my religion. It's just that this thread was not about that topic so I chose not to elaborate. However, hopefully I've made myself clearer now.

Feel free to PM me if you have any specific questions about my personal beliefs, I don't want to hijack this thread.

It is at this point I must point out an awful mistake in my typing. I honestly meant to type "only a fool would argue religion cannot do good things".

However, to make sure that your rant was not totally in vain, I will pick up on a few points.

"which at no point encourages killing unbelievers"

Try Deuteronomy 17 maybe?
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Pretty darn clear. Your point is completely wrong.

"using Christianity as a scapegoat"

Wrong I'm afraid. Doing something, which you wholeheartedly believe, based on analysis of scripture, is fundamentally correct, moral, and justified is no using it as a 'scapegoat'. It's using something as direct authority to do something. These people didn't just fancy killing people for a laugh, they believed, whether rightly or wrongly that it was right. And you can't just reply with, oh just a few idiots got it wrong, because between 1-3 MILLION people gave up their lives for it. That number don't die on a whim. There must be something pretty wrong with the Bible for it to be interpreted so wrongly by so many people.

"It would just be survival of the fittest"
"Good and bad ONLY come into play when God exists and religions exist."

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. This is not only an extremely arrogant view from a theist, arguing religion is the only source of morality, but an incredibly uninformed one at that.

Morality did not miraculously appear when God gave Moses the ten commandments. Morality and social contracts existed between people before that moment, and to suggest it appeared just like that is beyond spurious.

Look at the statistics on murder for example. West and Central Europe, the least religious continent is not only more developed socially than the Middle-East, but only has a 1.2/100,000 murder rate in 2010 compared to the Middle East's, which is far more religious, 3/100,000, over 2 times as many murders. North America then for a more "civilized" nation akin to Europe? Far more religious than Western and Central Europe, 4.7/100,000. As good as 4 TIMES the number of murders. Even worse when society advances.

So religion brings with it morality does it? Doesn't seem like it to me, or any unbiased observer who looks at the facts.

[.eXe]

(Original post by The Patriot)
~

Objective morality is the morality I am talking about. As I alluded to in my post, the concept of good and bad has always existed because i argued that it was a socially developed construct.

For example, killing an another human being was deemed "socially unacceptable" as is walking around naked. In a naturalistic world, the only morality that can exist is the socially created version. Morality is not genetically implanted into human beings. If you want proof of this, go study feral children.

Another fail of socially developed morality is that it is very dynamic...what is good in 1200BC might not be good in 1200 AD and might be abhorred in 2200AD. Opinions (both personal and social) change over time and along with them, social definitions also change. Thus, socially developed morality cannot be trusted.

The only morality that CAN be trusted is the objective variety, because it is impervious to time and opinion. If rape is wrong...it is wrong regardless of what others may believe. If someone rapes in 1200BC, 1200Ad or even 2200AD, the inherent nature of rape being bad, does NOT change. Thus, objective morality is much more stringent and is infallible. My argument is that objective morality can ONLY exist if God exists. Otherwise all you are left with is social morality, and that is very malleable. Additionally, as I argued earlier, morality is not genetically ingrained into us. Thus, from a naturalistic perspective (which is only concerned with our genetic material), morality does not even exist. Please I beg you, don't try to refute this point because you will appear rather foolish. Without God, all you are left with is DNA and society.

If a human being were to live by himself, alone and with no society...and if God does not exist...then that human will NEVER develop a standard of morality.

Objective morality only comes from God. Try to go against this until your fingers fall off, but no amount of typing will change this fact.

[Anna150]

(Original post by .eXe)
Third, no I have not accepted that my religion is just irrelevant. As you can see, in my earlier post I did not elaborate on what I meant. So I will do that here. My overall belief is that good and bad are inherent constructs of religion. What I mean is, in a naturalistic world, good and bad are not required...they are only necessary in religion and are thus central to religion/God. In a naturalistic viewpoint, tt's all about survival of the fittest and natural selection. Doesn't matter if an act is good or bad or whatever, because those are just societal constructs and change over time. Think: slavery was good up until a few decades ago, but is abhorred now. My belief is that religion is required for objective good or bad. This means, things that are good and things that are bad, irrespective of what opinions may suggest. And in order to have objective good and bad, religion IS REQUIRED. Why? Because it is God who gave us the standard of what is good and what is bad. In Christianity for example, murder is considered bad...no matter what. Doesn't matter what some random person in Africa, Asia, or Japan may believe...the objective truth is that murder is bad. That's it.

However, if God and religion did not exist, then why would murder be bad? It would just be survival of the fittest, which is what Darwin and evolution teach us. This is the central tenet of naturalism. No objective good/bad are required without religion because they do not necessarily contribute to evolution, and are thus irrelevant. Good and bad ONLY come into play when God exists and religions exist. So in summary, I have at no point conceded the irrelevance of my religion. It's just that this thread was not about that topic so I chose not to elaborate. However, hopefully I've made myself clearer now.

Feel free to PM me if you have any specific questions about my personal beliefs, I don't want to hijack this thread.

Religion didn't create morality. People who only refrain from theft and murder because their religion are sociopaths.

Add in the fact that you don't even have to be 'good' your whole life to win at the end and go to heaven. You can be as immoral as you like as long as you repent before you die. Maybe thats why such a high percentage of prisoners are religious. Very Moral.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Anna150)
Religion didn't create morality. People who only refrain from theft and murder because their relgion are sociopaths.

Add in the fact that you don't even have to be 'good' your whole life to win at the end and go to heaven. You can be as immoral as you like as long as you repent before you die. Maybe thats why such a high percentage of prisoners are religious. Very Moral.

Yes, religion did not create social morality...the morality that society creates and deems acceptable.

However, my argument is that God created objective morals. Morals, which exists irrespective of people's beliefs and opinions.

Also, I don't think you should generalize the bolded point. You are putting all religions under the same umbrella, but not all religions have that belief. And repentance (at least from the Christian perspective) has to be true repentance. If it's just repentance out of convenience, than I believe God will judge that person accordingly. I don't think humans should hold out on that possibility of getting repentance on their deathbeds.

Not every person has the privilege of waiting for death. Most die rather unexpectedly and thus never get a moment to consider repentance before their demise.

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by TheRustaman)
The problem with religion is that it teaches people to accept their "God-given" life. This can pose a serious problem, those who are experiencing certain hardship will not strive to make the best of the one life that they have, as they believe that they will be rewarded with an afterlife.

The claim of an afterlife is extremely damaging, I feel. That alone is a good enough reason for atheists to combat religion.

Oh god do you really believe that outdated Marxist crap? These days, if someone wants go to University and work hard to jump into the middle or higher class they can. Equally, if someone of the higher class wants to give their money away and jump into the lower class they can.