Conquer Club

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:04 pm**

There! I said it! I am not targeting any specific belief...I just think ALL RELIGION should decease! Immediately! So humanity can finally go to other planets and stars without worrying about other countries nuking the other because their god is bigger than the other's god....Religion is total BULLSQUAT!

Seriously...f*ck RELIGION!

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:11 pm**

CreepersWiener wrote:decease

Inigo Montoya wrote:I do not think it means what you think it means.

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:12 pm**

Symmetry wrote:
CreepersWiener wrote:decease

Inigo Montoya wrote:I do not think it means what you think it means.

LOL! Sorry...Decease was a little harsh.

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:16 pm**

Would atheism count as a religion? I know of some pretty religious atheists, aha!

-Shape

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:18 pm**

Shape wrote:Would atheism count as a religion? I know of some pretty religious atheists, aha!

-Shape

Now...that could or could not be. Atheists should really not give a shit...religious atheists are teetering on believing in a god of some sort.

Be better that "religious" oriented atheists go ahead and join LaVeyistic Santanism.

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm**

CreepersWiener wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
CreepersWiener wrote:decease

Inigo Montoya wrote:I do not think it means what you think it means.

LOL! Sorry...Decease was a little harsh.

No- I genuinely think you don't know how to use the word.

CreepersWiener wrote:I just think ALL RELIGION should decease! Immediately!

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:23 pm**

Symmetry wrote:
CreepersWiener wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
CreepersWiener wrote:decease

Inigo Montoya wrote:I do not think it means what you think it means.

LOL! Sorry...Decease was a little harsh.

No- I genuinely think you don't know how to use the word.

CreepersWiener wrote:I just think ALL RELIGION should decease! Immediately!

You are right. I bow before you cock!

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:42 pm**

CreepersWiener wrote:There! I said it! I am not targeting any specific belief...I just think ALL RELIGION should decease! Immediately! So humanity can finally go to other planets and stars without worrying about other countries nuking the other because their god is bigger than the other's god....Religion is total BULLSQUAT!

Seriously...f*ck RELIGION!

Could you remind me again what North Korea's official stance on religion is, you know, that nation that's holding 50,000 Christians in jail and is threatening nuclear war with the United States and South Korea?

Or maybe the USSR, from which my great-grandparents fled due to persecution, not too long before the USSR killed millions of their own citizens?

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:45 pm**

CreepersWiener wrote:There! I said it! I am not targeting any specific belief...I just think ALL RELIGION should decease! Immediately! So humanity can finally go to other planets and stars without worrying about other countries nuking the other because their god is bigger than the other's god....Religion is total BULLSQUAT!

Seriously...f*ck RELIGION!

What a bold an original stance.

Religion isn't the problem, people are the problem.

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:46 pm**

I'm pretty sure the USSR has no official stance, as it ceased to exist in 1991.

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:48 pm**

Symmetry wrote:I'm pretty sure the USSR has no official stance, as it ceased to exist in 1991.

Would you say the USSR is deceased?

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:50 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:I'm pretty sure the USSR has no official stance, as it ceased to exist in 1991.

Would you say the USSR is deceased?

I was tempted to.

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:13 pm**

I'm sure that had they existed at the same time, atheist USSR would have nuked secular post revolution France.

Or else they would have formed an alliance against Dawkins, just because!

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:23 pm**

tzor wrote:I'm sure that had they existed at the same time, atheist USSR would have nuked secular post revolution France.

Or else they would have formed an alliance against Dawkins, just because!

post revolution France did try to invade Russia under Napoleon. Even without nukes, it wasn't one of Napoleon's better ideas.

Vizzini wrote:never get involved in a land war in Asia

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:32 pm**

CreepersWiener wrote:
Shape wrote:Would atheism count as a religion? I know of some pretty religious atheists, aha!

-Shape

Now...that could or could not be. Atheists should really not give a shit...religious atheists are teetering on believing in a god of some sort.

Be better that "religious" oriented atheists go ahead and join LaVeyistic Santanism.

I guess I mean "religious" in two senses: one, the Universalist Unitarian Church attendee, and the fervent atheists that fiercely combat other religions. The former seems grossly incompatible with atheist beliefs, especially given the implications of atheism.

-Shape

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:31 am**

Crazyirishman wrote:
CreepersWiener wrote:There! I said it! I am not targeting any specific belief...I just think ALL RELIGION should decease! Immediately! So humanity can finally go to other planets and stars without worrying about other countries nuking the other because their god is bigger than the other's god....Religion is total BULLSQUAT!

Seriously...f*ck RELIGION!

What a bold an original stance.

Religion isn't the problem, people are the problem.

Guns isn't the problem, people are the problem.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:03 am**

Shape wrote:
CreepersWiener wrote:
Shape wrote:Would atheism count as a religion? I know of some pretty religious atheists, aha!

-Shape

Now...that could or could not be. Atheists should really not give a shit...religious atheists are teetering on believing in a god of some sort.

Be better that "religious" oriented atheists go ahead and join LaVeyistic Santanism.

I guess I mean "religious" in two senses: one, the Universalist Unitarian Church attendee, and the fervent atheists that fiercely combat other religions. The former seems grossly incompatible with atheist beliefs, especially given the implications of atheism.

-Shape

Most "fervent atheists that fiercely combat religions" are not doing so because they have any type of religious faith that there definitely is no God, but because they see people making moral judgements and thinking that "God says so in my magic book" is enough justification for enforcing that on other people, both of different religions or none, often through secular legal channels.

If a moral stand is to be taken by a society against X, then there should be compelling reasons, without resorting to religious scripture, why that stand should be taken. X should be showed to cause harm in some way either on the ones who practice X or on society in general. Saying "God says it's wrong! Derp!" is not a compelling moral argument against anything, unless it can be proven that (a) there is a God, and (b) that he definitely said that, and (c) that he has absolute moral authority. No religion on Earth has managed to come up with a non-circular argument that proves even 1 out of those 3, yet religious people (some of them) still try to use God as a justification for discrimination by the state or by the individual. THIS is what the majority of those "fervent atheists" oppose.

That and the fact that if you actually read about the God portrayed by the religions that often get used to justify discrimination (as in the Abrahamic ones), it is generally speaking a scumbag with less moral character than your average death row inmate.

Edit - maybe we need to start using different terms. Atheist simply means "no belief in a God". But being against religion is something different, and is not confined to only atheists. You can be a theist and opposed to organised religion (Jesus himself could be shown to be in this category if the Bible is accurate). Maybe "anti-religionist" would be a much more accurate term for people like Dawkins, Hitchens and Jesus and allow them to still hold their different views on whether or not God(/Dad) exists separately to their socio-political objections to organised religion.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:26 am**

crispybits wrote:
Shape wrote:
CreepersWiener wrote:
Shape wrote:Would atheism count as a religion? I know of some pretty religious atheists, aha!

-Shape

Now...that could or could not be. Atheists should really not give a shit...religious atheists are teetering on believing in a god of some sort.

Be better that "religious" oriented atheists go ahead and join LaVeyistic Santanism.

I guess I mean "religious" in two senses: one, the Universalist Unitarian Church attendee, and the fervent atheists that fiercely combat other religions. The former seems grossly incompatible with atheist beliefs, especially given the implications of atheism.

-Shape

Most "fervent atheists that fiercely combat religions" are not doing so because they have any type of religious faith that there definitely is no God, but because they see people making moral judgements and thinking that "God says so in my magic book" is enough justification for enforcing that on other people, both of different religions or none, often through secular legal channels.

If a moral stand is to be taken by a society against X, then there should be compelling reasons, without resorting to religious scripture, why that stand should be taken. X should be showed to cause harm in some way either on the ones who practice X or on society in general. Saying "God says it's wrong! Derp!" is not a compelling moral argument against anything, unless it can be proven that (a) there is a God, and (b) that he definitely said that, and (c) that he has absolute moral authority. No religion on Earth has managed to come up with a non-circular argument that proves even 1 out of those 3, yet religious people (some of them) still try to use God as a justification for discrimination by the state or by the individual. THIS is what the majority of those "fervent atheists" oppose.

Fair enough. I know many fervent 'Christians' fiercely oppose certain moral stands, and in the context of an equal-opportunity government, I think they stand on weak ground, certainly (though I'd say more that their focus as Christians is way off-base), especially considering the New Testament is pretty clear about the separation of church and state (think "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" and Romans 13). I don't mean to appear like I'm necessarily defending these people. All the same, while those that subscribe to a theistic religion base their morality in their god(s) or religious text(s), it is interesting to consider in what non-theists base their morality. Perhaps you can elaborate on where you get yours.

crispybits wrote:That and the fact that if you actually read about the God portrayed by the religions that often get used to justify discrimination (as in the Abrahamic ones), it is generally speaking a scumbag with less moral character than your average death row inmate.

Perhaps you can elaborate here as well. My Old Testament knowledge is fuzzy.

-Shape

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:46 am**

Shape wrote:
crispybits wrote:That and the fact that if you actually read about the God portrayed by the religions that often get used to justify discrimination (as in the Abrahamic ones), it is generally speaking a scumbag with less moral character than your average death row inmate.

Perhaps you can elaborate here as well. My Old Testament knowledge is fuzzy.

-Shape

I'd say that would be dragging this off-topic a little, if you do a search for "Post evidence for God here" thread and can be bothered to read however many pages that ran to you'll see most of the reasons

My personal favourite without going into the hundreds of other bits (and I don't want to derail this thread so I'll take any further discussion on this point to the evidence for God thread). God make Adam, Eve, and the garden of Eden, and tells them not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They do, so God punishes them and every human for ever for doing so. But, if they had no knowledge of good and evil at the point where they chose to disobey, then punishing them and all of us ever since because they did not know right from wrong until after the "crime" seems a little backward (and disproportionate) no?

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:56 am**

crispybits wrote:
Shape wrote:
crispybits wrote:That and the fact that if you actually read about the God portrayed by the religions that often get used to justify discrimination (as in the Abrahamic ones), it is generally speaking a scumbag with less moral character than your average death row inmate.

Perhaps you can elaborate here as well. My Old Testament knowledge is fuzzy.

-Shape

I'd say that would be dragging this off-topic a little, if you do a search for "Post evidence for God here" thread and can be bothered to read however many pages that ran to you'll see most of the reasons

My personal favourite without going into the hundreds of other bits (and I don't want to derail this thread so I'll take any further discussion on this point to the evidence for God thread). God make Adam, Eve, and the garden of Eden, and tells them not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They do, so God punishes them and every human for ever for doing so. But, if they had no knowledge of good and evil at the point where they chose to disobey, then punishing them and all of us ever since because they did not know right from wrong until after the "crime" seems a little backward (and disproportionate) no?

Well, God told them not to eat the fruit of the tree, thus directly disobeying him, and, in essence, not really trusting him. They at least had to know to some extent who God was, so it seems their condemnation is just. And their sinning against a perfect, all-powerful, all-whatever being. Think about stealing money from a convenient store and stealing money from the National Treasury or something. Similar crime, vastly different punishments, because you have to consider who you 'sinned' against.

-Shape

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:12 am**

crispybits wrote:I don't want to derail this thread so I'll take any further discussion on this point to the evidence for God thread

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=110240&p=4089012#p4089012

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2013 6:38 am**

Just realised that I missed a question here:

Shape wrote:All the same, while those that subscribe to a theistic religion base their morality in their god(s) or religious text(s), it is interesting to consider in what non-theists base their morality. Perhaps you can elaborate on where you get yours.

I base mine on the principles developed by society, based on rational reasoning and logical debate, for the best way for humans to treat each other to provide the most benefit to both the individual and society. On people talking and thinking and finding the best way to create the most common good, equality and freedom for all at any given point in history, geography and culture.

I kind of sense a relativism criticism coming next, and if I'm right in this then I would ask in advance if you believe that there are moral absolutes independent of society or even humanity? Are there things that are always wrong, regardless of the circumstances or the prevailing moral viewpoint of society as a whole at any given time?

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2013 6:41 am**

CreepersWiener wrote:There! I said it! I am not targeting any specific belief...I just think ALL RELIGION should decease! Immediately! So humanity can finally go to other planets and stars without worrying about other countries nuking the other because their god is bigger than the other's god....Religion is total BULLSQUAT!

Seriously...f*ck RELIGION!

Silly statement. Money and/or power can also become a religion to some. I don't believe in atheists.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:35 am**

Shape wrote:Would atheism count as a religion? I know of some pretty religious atheists, aha!

-Shape

Atheism per se is obviously not a religion but there are many atheist religions,in fact there may be more religious atheists than non religious atheists.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:36 pm**

crispybits wrote:Just realised that I missed a question here:

Shape wrote:All the same, while those that subscribe to a theistic religion base their morality in their god(s) or religious text(s), it is interesting to consider in what non-theists base their morality. Perhaps you can elaborate on where you get yours.

I base mine on the principles developed by society, based on rational reasoning and logical debate, for the best way for humans to treat each other to provide the most benefit to both the individual and society. On people talking and thinking and finding the best way to create the most common good, equality and freedom for all at any given point in history, geography and culture.

I kind of sense a relativism criticism coming next, and if I'm right in this then I would ask in advance if you believe that there are moral absolutes independent of society or even humanity? Are there things that are always wrong, regardless of the circumstances or the prevailing moral viewpoint of society as a whole at any given time?

Certainly on a non-theism view, one would have to subscribe to moral relativism or, rather, subjective morality, since one would have no basis for absolute or objective morals. Personally, I believe that absolute morality is mostly false, as you kind of hinted at, there can be situations in which, say, murder or killing someone, rather, would be morally correct. This leaves the objective and subjective morality left, and with subjective morality, things can get kind of fuzzy. Different people groups have different perceptions of what is communally and individually beneficial, and often practices of one people group can be morally obtrusive or even disgusting by the standards of another people group. Then there are things like sexual acts (say, cheating on a girlfriend/boyfriend) that aren't punishable by law nor is the act inherently beneficial or otherwise; you didn't commit to that person, technically speaking, and two out of the three people involved would leave happy. In this case and in many other cases, is it morally proper to judge on the basis of who benefited most from the moral act, or if not, why would it be appropriate? In another instance, would it be morally right to execute convicted criminals (ignoring misdemeanors, let's suppose)? Certainly, it would benefit the masses by not having to worry about the criminal again (and thus preventing further potential damage), and taxes could be spent in more societally beneficial ways. What I mean to say is there are things that feel immoral, even though the repercussions positively affect the majority.

Let me know if I misrepresented your opinion; perhaps you can clarify if I did so.

-Shape

Conquer Club

f*ck RELIGION!

f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!

Re: f*ck RELIGION!