Church of the Non-Believers

cybercoma · April 24, 2011

What's offensive to you may not be offensive to me.

I'm really not sure why it's so difficult for you to point out what parts you find offensive. You did, after all, say it was blatant.

Edited April 24, 2011 by cybercoma

GostHacked · April 25, 2011

Whoa, I've been going out of my way accomodating your silly responses that don't jive with the discussion....not to say your inattention or laziness in reading.

For someone asking for help for a quick guide to a post, you're being rather rude!

For that rudeness, you're on your own.

Grab the braincells you can find...after all you're the one begging for enlightenment!

Well then, start enlightening!

MightyAC · May 25, 2011

I find it funny that when the religious attempt to discredit atheism they call it a religion.

bloodyminded · May 25, 2011

Give me a sample where they showed blatant offensive dis-respect on Mohammed or the Quran....along the same lines as the one portrayed above on Blasphemy Day.

CITE!

Richard Dawkins:

"I'm reasonably optimistic in America and Europe. I'm pessimistic about the Islamic world. I regard Islam as one of the great evils in the world, and I fear that we have a very difficult struggle there."

This is slightly more "disrespectful" than an image of Jesus painting his nails.

Edited May 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

cybercoma · May 25, 2011

I find it funny that when the religious attempt to discredit atheism they call it a religion.

Well, it is the one thing that passes itself off as credible that has the least credibility out there.

Shakeyhands · May 25, 2011

Let me see if I can sum this up.

If you a believer, shout it from the rooftops and start 8 Billion threads on internet forums.

If you are an Atheist, thats fine.... but shut the hell up and keep your opinion to yourself.

bloodyminded · May 25, 2011

Let me see if I can sum this up.

If you a believer, shout it from the rooftops and start 8 Billion threads on internet forums.

If you are an Atheist, thats fine.... but shut the hell up and keep your opinion to yourself.

You got it. That's what "being respectful" means, all nice and selective-like.

Shady · May 25, 2011

I find it funny that when the religious attempt to discredit atheism they call it a religion.

Well, it is a belief with as much proof behind it as any believer in God. What's even more funny is prothletising atheists! Oh the rich, rich, irony! :lol:

bloodyminded · May 25, 2011

Well, it is a belief with as much proof behind it as any believer in God.

Only for atheists who believe there is no God. Some of us are perfectly willing to believe in God if He would only present himself in a way amenable to the contemporary respect for verifiable evidence which He himself must have put into motion.

What's even more funny is prothletising atheists! Oh the rich, rich, irony!

I think lots of atheists take issue with the proselytizers.

Smallc · May 25, 2011

Well, it is a belief with as much proof behind it as any believer in God.

Explain that please. There is no proof of God, so you have to prove the existence of God.

betsy · May 27, 2011

Richard Dawkins:

This is slightly more "disrespectful" than an image of Jesus painting his nails.

There were a lot more offensive gestures these people did like driving a stake through a host (appareently shown on the web, pronographic caricatures etc.., all targetting Christianity.

betsy · May 27, 2011

Only for atheists who believe there is no God. Some of us are perfectly willing to believe in God if He would only present himself in a way amenable to the contemporary respect for verifiable evidence which He himself must have put into motion.

Boy, there I was thinking simply atheist or agnostic. Was I ever wrong. There's so many hybrid....."cross-beliefs" if there's even a word....various classifications. There is no longer simplistic "atheist".

betsy · May 27, 2011

Explain that please. There is no proof of God, so you have to prove the existence of God.

No proof that God is non-existent either.

Furthermore, the confusions scientists are in as to origin - not to mention the theory of ID - is a step in that direction, that could actually prove the existence of God/Creator/Designer. Scientifically-speaking of course.

Edited May 27, 2011 by betsy

bloodyminded · May 27, 2011

There were a lot more offensive gestures these people did like driving a stake through a host (appareently shown on the web, pronographic caricatures etc.., all targetting Christianity.

I suppose "offensive" is subjective: but to say "Islam is one of the great evils of the world" sounds a lot worse than some insulting play-acting.

I hasten to add that I don't oppose any of this stuff: I don't object to Dawkins calling Islam "evil" (it's not the word I'd use, for certain reasons, but I would say it's a messed-up religion in many ways) and I don't object to insulting Jesus.

What's the problem? You don't have to agree with those insulting your religion. Everybody wins.

Edited May 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

bloodyminded · May 27, 2011

Boy, there I was thinking simply atheist or agnostic. Was I ever wrong. There's so many hybrid....."cross-beliefs" if there's even a word....various classifications. There is no longer simplistic "atheist".

I don't think it's complicated. I don't believe there are faeries in Ireland. With some solid proof, I'm perfectly happy to change my mind on this matter.

cybercoma · May 27, 2011

It's win-win. Betsy goes around insulting people's intelligence and Dawkins goes around insulting people's religions.

segnosaur · June 3, 2011

No proof that God is non-existent either.

There's also no proof that an invisible pink unicorn isn't living in my sock drawer. Just because there's no evidence refuting something doesn't mean that we should accept its existence. Sometimes the null hypothisis is correct.

Furthermore, the confusions scientists are in as to origin...

There is no confusion. There may be elements that are currently unknown, but the vast, vast majority of scientists (>99%) accept the theory of evolution (not to mention the big bang/evolution of the universe)

not to mention the theory of ID...

ID (I assume you mean intelligent design) is not a theory in the scientific sense. To be a "theory" it has to explain observations and make testable predictions. However, you cannot "test" ID, since anything that doesn't make sense can always be explained by "god did it".

- is a step in that direction, that could actually prove the existence of God/Creator/Designer. Scientifically-speaking of course.

Except of course you can never actually "prove" anything in science. Science deals with evidence, validation, and probabilities. (We may sometimes slip in the word "proof" now and then, but strictly speaking proof really only applies to math.) I have confidence that the theory of evolution is correct, because the evidence points that way.

Your claim of "proving" the existence of god illustrates how you don't understand basic scientific concepts.

cybercoma · June 4, 2011

Speaking of confusion on origin, it seems to be that Christians are just as confused about origins:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/universe.html

There's 5 different interpretations right there (from 20 Billion years to 6000 years ago) of what "In the beginning" means in the Bible and it only gets worse from there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism

You have gap creationists and day-age creationists and all other kinds of interpretations in between.

FACT: Creationists don't even agree with each other.

Tilter · June 4, 2011

Evangelists like Swaggart and Robertson just preach to spread the good news of Jesus and salvation. There is respect for others' belief. You can tune them out. No harm done.
Dawkins (and the other 3 or 4 founders of New Atheism) have a very specific goal: to go out of their way to attack religion - specifically the Christian religion. They also put emphasis on dis-respect for religious belief (zero tolerance) - which is outright bigotry.

This is an outright declaration of war.

He's lucky he's just getting all these challenges from Christians to face the Creationist scientists in a debate. Or oppositions showing him as a fraud, a charlatan, a sleaze bag just out to make money out of fundamentalist atheists - most of whom are former-Christians-turned-atheists with an ax to grind or in need of assurance.

Being one of the most influential poster-boy for New Atheism, of course everyone will be focusing on him. I intend to focus on him.

The focus btw, doesn't come from the religious side alone. There's been rebukes about him from the legitimate science field as well.

Evangelists like Swaggart and Robertson just preach to spread the good news of Jesus and salvation. There is respect for others' belief. You can tune them out. No harm done.

The idea that swaggart & robertson

just preach to spread the good news of Jesus and salvation

bull.

Swaggart & Robertson are in the preaching business because they are in the preaching bsinesss .. PERIOD.

To them it is a business to suck all the money they can out of the sheeple who have nothing better to dio with their time than to spend money on religious poppycock these guys are good at spewing. If they manage to get a few of the better looking and more gullible girls ( or boys)into bed --- hey, it's one of the perks of the business along with the white Caddys and the presidential suites the gullible buy for them.

No harm done.

????????????????????/

What about the harm done to the kids that don't have enuf to eat because their parents are shamed into giving the traveling sideshow preacher the grocery money so that the neighbors won't look badly at them for being stingy to god.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Tilter

cybercoma · June 4, 2011

The business of preaching indeed.

Saipan · June 4, 2011

Let me see if I can sum this up.

If you a believer, shout it from the rooftops and start 8 Billion threads on internet forums.

If you are an Atheist, thats fine.... but shut the hell up and keep your opinion to yourself.

...like Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin said...

betsy · June 5, 2011

To them it is a business to suck all the money they can out of the sheeple who have nothing better to dio with their time than to spend money on religious poppycock these guys are good at spewing. If they manage to get a few of the better looking and more gullible girls ( or boys)into bed --- hey, it's one of the perks of the business along with the white Caddys and the presidential suites the gullible buy for them.

????????????????????/

Did I say all preachers or priests are doing all these for God? I'm not going to go about naming anybody who do so but some do get into the BUSINESS of preaching. For money. Or for other more sinister purposes that the "authority" of the position can use.

Just like a pedophile would work as a teacher, or a coach, or a priest or a pervert....to get access to children, gullible women, young lads....

Why do I keep saying you've got to read, study and understand the Bible for yourself. If you do, you'd know that Christ repeatedly warned us about those who will use His name.

You'd understand why He mostly lambasted the Pharisees - the priests/clergy of that time - in practically every Book there is in the New Testament for their hypocrisy?

You've got to know when you're being victimized or taken for a ride! The onus is on you to be careful!

What about the harm done to the kids that don't have enuf to eat because their parents are shamed into giving the traveling sideshow preacher the grocery money so that the neighbors won't look badly at them for being stingy to god.

You'd have to ask the parents that!

Something's terribly wrong with one's priorities in life if you'd maximize your credits cards

to keep up with the Jones' - to show your neighbors that certainly being stingy to yourelf is not in your vocabulary!

What's the difference? It's all for show!

WIP · June 5, 2011

You'd have to ask the parents that!

Something's terribly wrong with one's priorities in life if you'd maximize your credits cards

to keep up with the Jones' - to show your neighbors that certainly being stingy to yourelf is not in your vocabulary!

What's the difference? It's all for show!

Betsy, you're just getting around to what is most disgusting and toxic about modern evangelical Christianity -- it has turned centuries of Christian doctrine on its head and become the spiritual justification for materialism and greed. The modern evangelical worships accumulation of wealth as a sign of blessing from the divine, and heaps scorn on the poor, somehow leapfrogging all of the bible verses condemning the rich and giving aid to the poor, just to get to that Parable of the Talents - reinterpreted as an economic parable. As long as the billionaire gives his tithes -- just like the Pharisees you mentioned earlier, he is now the pillar of the Christian community, lauded for his public show of piety, and his wealth and ability to give vast sums of money to the church....which would pretty much make them the modern day pharisees!

It seems that the modern evangelicals have created a religion to provide them with some sort of cheap, easy spiritual fix on Sunday, until they go back to their suburban silos and live the rest of the week like greedy, unconcerned libertarians....which would explain that strange partnership the political Christian Right has with the Ayn Rand Objectivists.

Saipan · June 5, 2011

Betsy, you're just getting around to what is most disgusting and toxic about modern evangelical Christianity -- it has turned centuries of Christian doctrine on its head and become the spiritual justification for materialism and greed. The modern evangelical worships accumulation of wealth as a sign of blessing from the divine

Just ask Rev. Al Gore

betsy · June 9, 2011

Betsy, you're just getting around to what is most disgusting and toxic about modern evangelical Christianity -- it has turned centuries of Christian doctrine on its head and become the spiritual justification for materialism and greed. The modern evangelical worships accumulation of wealth as a sign of blessing from the divine, and heaps scorn on the poor, somehow leapfrogging all of the bible verses condemning the rich and giving aid to the poor, just to get to that Parable of the Talents - reinterpreted as an economic parable. As long as the billionaire gives his tithes -- just like the Pharisees you mentioned earlier, he is now the pillar of the Christian community, lauded for his public show of piety, and his wealth and ability to give vast sums of money to the church....which would pretty much make them the modern day pharisees!

It seems that the modern evangelicals have created a religion to provide them with some sort of cheap, easy spiritual fix on Sunday, until they go back to their suburban silos and live the rest of the week like greedy, unconcerned libertarians....which would explain that strange partnership the political Christian Right has with the Ayn Rand Objectivists.

Well WIP, you're focusing on humans. You know what Christ said about the Pharisees and all the hypocrites, and all those who cannot detach themselves from worldly temptations. Lust for worldly treasures and pleasures. The parables touched on these. Numerous times.

What, are we going to use sinning men as a cheap excuse to forsake God? That's pretty lame. It's illogical in fact when those same gripes you have were actually addressed by Christ!

It's only God who'll be judging us in the end.