Dwayne
from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updatedFebruary 8, 2014 - 2:41am
Jose, you seem like you need to chill a bit. Religous people aren't going any place. And if you've called it, there isn't going to be any reward for you being right!
Jose F. Diaz
from Boston is reading Wolf Hall by Hilary MantelFebruary 8, 2014 - 11:01am
The religious are a fading breed. Ignorance will only be tolerated so long. Especially when that ignorance attempts to keep people oppressed. I don't say this for reward.
Crescendo2020
from Redlands, Ca is reading Not enough of all of them.February 8, 2014 - 2:27pm
Atheist and Agnostic minded people are still the minority by a fairly large margin.
Jose F. Diaz
from Boston is reading Wolf Hall by Hilary MantelFebruary 8, 2014 - 2:30pm
It's funny you say that. The largest group of Catholics outside of the Vatican is in Quebec. If you ask any of them if they believe in god, they immediately say no. They've just always called themselves catholics and see no reason to change it. I wonder how many people are still actively religious. Especially in the face or reason and facts.
Crescendo2020
from Redlands, Ca is reading Not enough of all of them.February 8, 2014 - 3:24pm
To me, claiming the label of a religion without fulfilling the belief is even worse than its counterpart.
Jose F. Diaz
from Boston is reading Wolf Hall by Hilary MantelFebruary 8, 2014 - 3:43pm
You can say you believe in jesus riding a purple unicorn through the fields of elysium and I wouldn't give a crap. The moment you take your belief and try imposing it on ANYONE else, I will go out of my way to make your life a living hell.
Luckily for most it's a hollow promise considering this is the internet.
Thuggish
from Vegas is reading Day of the JackalFebruary 8, 2014 - 4:18pm
@Dwayne
That's my favorite part! They say God is Good, or God is Love.
But how can these things exist without their respective opposites?
@Jose
I don't know that the religious are a fading breed. Not world-wide. Maybe the anti-religious are merely a trend of some societies, which, coincidentally or not, have begun their decline.
Ooo! Fun tangent. What's the opposite of love? Hint! It's not hate...
jyh
from VA is reading whatever he feels likeFebruary 8, 2014 - 4:48pm
No giant squids ever came to my tee-ball games so now I worship Cthulhu.
Jose F. Diaz
from Boston is reading Wolf Hall by Hilary MantelFebruary 8, 2014 - 5:14pm
It's hate. No matter how much the songs wants to say otherwise.
Dwayne
from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updatedFebruary 8, 2014 - 10:41pm
@Thuggish - Just because some things have an opposite, doesn't require everything to have an opposite to exist. Lots of things (apples, people, my Xbox, and clouds) don't have opposites.
@Jose -
The religious are a fading breed.
Current demographics indicate that is the exact opposite of the case. In various situations religious people are simply out breeding, even with those falling away from their faith of birth, non religious groups. Often the people saying this aren't the religious trying to morale in their groups, but non religious like Blume of Kaufman trying to warn the secular. I'm not a 100% sure on the third link (Eric Kaufman's Ted Talk) regarding all the details, but it is a decent summary of what I understand the numbers to show about birth rates and conversion.
And even if you're right, which seems unlikely with these trends, it would require massive changes in what we can reasonably expect our lives spans in order to see it.
Regarding love and hate you're both got the details wrong; the opposite of love (if it is a pure love) is indifference, but indifference is simply the purest from of hate.
Jose F. Diaz
from Boston is reading Wolf Hall by Hilary MantelFebruary 8, 2014 - 11:05pm
I think we have fundamentally different definitions of hate. I know the bull$#!^ saying that in order to hate someone you must first love them. In order to love someone you must truly know them, but I call BULL.
Indifference does not acknowledge the existence of another. It would not help, NOR go out of their way to intervene in their life, they just wouldn't acknowldge it. In this sense life could still very much continue to be lived. Much the same way I feel about an ant.
Whereas hate will absolutely go out of its way to destroy that life. i.e. Nazi's hated the Jewish people.
While I think the "opposite of love is indifference" saying is cute and was really catchy for a bit, the reality, at least within my definitions, is the opposite is hate and will continue to be so regardless of how cute we try to be with our words.
Jose F. Diaz
from Boston is reading Wolf Hall by Hilary MantelFebruary 8, 2014 - 11:09pm
And as for the religious thing, yeah, I know.
In my view,
1) Religious people are ignorant.
2) Religious people are breeding at an exponential rate.
3) And their kids become religious (no fault of their own at first).
C) Then ignorance is spreading at an exponential rate.
Crescendo2020
from Redlands, Ca is reading Not enough of all of them.February 9, 2014 - 5:12am
I would classify religious people more as intent than ignorant. Some of them are extremely intelligent, which boggles my mind and leads me to that classification. That's not to say some of them aren't ignorant. One need look no further than the "Bill Nye/Ken Ham" debate to see that.
But I do agree with the sentiment:
A) They do statistically breed more.
B) I've never met one religious person who didn't force their dogma upon their children (Ones who have children, that is). Even very pleasant religious folks who aren't in your face about their beliefs do it from my experience.
That combination is very unsettling for me.
Jose F. Diaz
from Boston is reading Wolf Hall by Hilary MantelFebruary 9, 2014 - 9:50am
I am quite aware there are very intelligent religious people. However, as Bill Nye was trying to get across to Ken Ham, that when you already have the answer, god did it, everything seems to stop. It leads to people ceasing to be curious and questioning why things are the way they are.
Renae Gee
from Australia is reading All the words!February 9, 2014 - 2:58pm
The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion. --ALBERT CAMUS
Jose F. Diaz
from Boston is reading Wolf Hall by Hilary MantelFebruary 9, 2014 - 3:22pm
As Harlan Ellison once wrote, “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant”
Dwayne
from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updatedFebruary 9, 2014 - 5:38pm
Who doesn't put their world view on their kids?
Jose F. Diaz
from Boston is reading Wolf Hall by Hilary MantelFebruary 9, 2014 - 7:00pm
When you use the term "world view" like that, I guess they all do. The important thing then becomes what is the world view being pushed? If it holds an idea or belief larger than life, then that view is geared to only oppress people.
Take for instance Capitalism, it holds the acquisition of money as the ultimate end. People who believe in capitalism are willing to sacrifice anyone or anything in order to achieve their ends. i.e. willing to oppress anyone to achieve their end.
Religion, nationalism, etc.
Thuggish
from Vegas is reading Day of the JackalFebruary 9, 2014 - 8:51pm
@Dwayne
Perhaps not, but does God, good, evil, etc. fall into the "doesn't need an opposite to exist" category?
I don't think "good" does.
Crescendo2020
from Redlands, Ca is reading Not enough of all of them.February 10, 2014 - 5:03am
Well, I'm sure everyone does to a certain extent. But religion by its very nature is an intentionally limited "world view".
It's one thing to tell a child, "If you're good to people, they'll be good back." Or, "Hard work is important, because the more people who work hard, the more efficient society can be." As opposed to, "This is exactly how the world is, and this is exactly why it is the way it is. No need to question it." Or, "This is the right religion, and you have to participate because I own you."
Dwayne
from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updatedFebruary 10, 2014 - 7:51am
@Jose - That is a tough statement to address, because you are way off in crazy town. Nelson Mandela and the WBC both claim(ed) to be Christians. The four people who have given the most to charity in their life alive right now are self avowed atheists and so was Stalin. Broad generalizations about groups just aren't, for lack of a better word, sane. So like I said, chill.
@Thuggish - I'm unsure how you reached that conclusion. Are you better able to explain it?
@2020 - It isn't like atheists take their kids to church.
Jose F. Diaz
from Boston is reading Wolf Hall by Hilary MantelFebruary 10, 2014 - 10:30pm
@Dwayne - I think it's a tough statement to address because you have no clue what I'm talking about. And not that I'm in "crazy town."
Nelson Mandela and WBC claiming to be christians has no purpose being brought into this argument unless they were pushing their beliefs are more important than life, which I don't think they did/do.
The four people who have given the most to charity being atheists is a good example of people who don't push their beliefs on other people, but truly try to help others.
Why you would attach Stalin onto the end of that statement. Stalin certainly pushed his beliefs on others and was willing to sacrifice people for that belief. He has no business being lumped into the group with the other four. Just because he had atheism in common does not make him equivalent to the others.
I didn't make a broad generalization about groups. I made a particular claim about people within a group who hold their belief as more important than life. e.g. Capitalist people who are willing to oppress people to make an extra dollar.
There are religious people within the various religions who are willing to kill, torture, threaten others because they hold their view as more important than life.
At no point do I make the claim that ALL religious, capitalist, whatever people do this.
Please try again without resorting to abusive ad hominem fallacies.
Thuggish
from Vegas is reading Day of the JackalFebruary 10, 2014 - 10:34pm
I reached it by not being able to define "good" without "bad" or "evil" or something opposite to compare it with.
Crescendo2020
from Redlands, Ca is reading Not enough of all of them.February 11, 2014 - 4:40am
I'm not entirely sure I understand your response, Dwayne. Of course Atheists don't take their kids to church.
Dwayne
from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updatedFebruary 11, 2014 - 9:18am
@Jose -
I didn't make a broad generalization about groups.
At no point do I make the claim that ALL religious, capitalist, whatever people do this.
Really you seem like a cool guy, and we've all been off in crazy town at some point so it isn't that big a deal but yeah I think statements like,
Religious people are ignorant.
and
...Capitalism, it holds the acquisition of money as the ultimate end.
count as broad generalizations. If you don't, I suppose that is your right. But wow. You may not have intended to make those statements sound like 'all' statements, but I don't feel that was an unreasonable conclusion.
The four people who have given the most to charity being atheists is a good example of people who... truly try to help others...Why you would attach Stalin onto the end of that statement...
You seemed to have missed my point, namely that their are scum and heroes of virtually every ideology (although I think everyone pushes their ideology at some level). Nelson Mandela (helped end apartheid) and the Westboro Baptist Church (protests U.S. soldiers' funerals because they think God punished them for defend a nation that allows openly gay people), and present the wide diversity of actions taken by Christians. The four giving atheists stand in contrast to Stalin to show the range of that group.
Also, I don't think that pointing out moral variety between different groups ever counts as abusive ad hominem, even if I was wrong, since that would just be point out flaws in people who are agree with you as a way to show you are in the wrong. I was making what I feel to be a legitimate point, that broad statements about groups seldom hold up to close scrutiny.
@Thuggish - And how are you defining good?
@2020 - Atheists present there child with the one system they think is correct. Religious people present their children with the system they think is correct. Although exceptions exist both with intent and practice, most times this cuts the child off from other modes of thought. Your statements seem to indicate you only take issue when the religious raise their children to agree with them.
Crescendo2020
from Redlands, Ca is reading Not enough of all of them.February 11, 2014 - 10:06am
Here's the problem with that, Dwayne. Atheism is not a set of beliefs. It's the absence of belief in one single idea. There's no Atheist handbook (ironically there probably is, but it would only serve to provide an ego boost for the reader/author, and certainly not as systematic dogma from which the readers base their lives). And agnosticism even more so, being defined solely by logical reasoning.
Religions have rules in common. There are no rules to being Atheist. Even more than that, there aren't any dogmatic consequences to not being Atheist. One simply doesn't believe in a God(s). They don't go to hell if they do believe in a God, they're just no longer Atheist. It's not based on fear.
There's no church to go to where anti-religion is pounded into young people's heads.
I've never seen someone tell a child they're not allowed to be religious. I have many many times seen people tell children they have to be religious, and follow the dogma of one specific religion. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It's just my observation over my thirty-one years of existence.
People never attempt to subjugate entire populations based on Atheistic ideals. People never try to hold science back based on Atheistic ideals. Wars never start because of Atheist "belief". All those things happen routinely based upon religious ideals.
People do crazy shit when they think eternity is at stake and there's a great big spiritual battle happening. The more people who believe in these things, the more likely crazy shit in the name of those beliefs will happen. So religious populations worry me, not individuals. There are plenty of level-headed religious people who don't do crazy shit. But when they do, it's because they've thrown logic out the window to be faithful.
jyh
from VA is reading whatever he feels likeFebruary 11, 2014 - 11:26am
@Cres2020 --- Wasn't much of communism atheistic and subjugating?
And if you want to compare all religions to all atheism, you have to include Buddhism, which doesn't fit with what you're saying. To say all religions and all forms of each religion are all so easily comparable and then say all atheism is not is logically unsound.
Jose F. Diaz
from Boston is reading Wolf Hall by Hilary MantelFebruary 11, 2014 - 12:15pm
@ Dwayne - You are right, I am wrong.
Abusive ad hominem attacks are when you say that I am in crazy town, implying I am crazy. You attack my character in order to disprove my argument. But of course you never did that. My bad.
Religious people are not ignorant. They have scientific justification to believe in god(s). My mistake.
I wasn't aware that capitalism was a group of people. I thought it was an idea/belief that some people hold. And capitalism doesn't hold the acquisition of money as their ultimate end. I'm batting 1000.
Apparently I said that all people of a group are one way or the other. I thought I said there are some people within certain groups that hold their beliefs as more sacrosanct than life. Yet again, I am wrong.
Great job, Dwayne. I am defeated. Case closed.
Crescendo2020
from Redlands, Ca is reading Not enough of all of them.February 11, 2014 - 12:22pm
I'm not sure where you make the connection to Communism and Atheism. Communism isn't akin to or necessary for Atheism. Nor vice versa. What person or group of people has subjugated or attempted to subjugate an entire group of people and cited Atheism as their purpose for it? Think of how that would sound. There's no dogma attached to the belief, or disbelief, more appropriately.
"In the name of not believing in a god, such and such people suck and I'm going to do everything in my power to hold them back."
If Buddhism were the most prevalent religion in this country, I'd likely be worrying about it much less. I was being non-specific, but there are really only a few that apply and I don't think I need to mention them for people to know which ones I'm referring to. When was the last time an Atheist organization, (if one even exists) rallied to keep gay marriage illegal? Teach pseudo-science in public schools? Anything like that? Has it ever happened in recorded history?
Jose F. Diaz
from Boston is reading Wolf Hall by Hilary MantelFebruary 11, 2014 - 12:56pm
Right now 2020, you are oppressing Dwayne with your rhetoric.
Thuggish
from Vegas is reading Day of the JackalFebruary 11, 2014 - 1:41pm
@ Dwayne
Ahhhh, now we're really getting into it... Everyone has their own versions, that share common threads, and differ as well. So... How else can we define good other than the opposte of bad? (Or evil, whatever.)
Jose F. Diaz
from Boston is reading Wolf Hall by Hilary MantelFebruary 11, 2014 - 6:07pm
Good vs Bad and Good vs Evil depends on the dichotomy that you work in.
Religious people work in the Good/Evil dichotomy. Up (Heaven) is Good, Down (Hell) is bad. This is where we get phrases like, "I'm feeling down today." White is good, black is Evil, Male is good, female is Evil, God/Satan, etc.
Most other people work in the Good/Bad dichotomy. The big difference is that in the Good/Bad dichotomy you can, if you want to and work at it, move from Bad to Good and vise versa. I was ignorant (Bad) and now I get educated (Good). I was weak, now I'm strong. I try (good) I give up (bad).
In the Good/Evil dichotomy you are placed into either camp and there you will stay unless God says otherwise, or a religious mouth piece.
So Thuggish, once you determine which dichotomy you are working in you can figure out what is considered either Good/Bad or Good/Evil. I hope this helps some.
jyh
from VA is reading whatever he feels likeFebruary 11, 2014 - 6:07pm
@Cres --- I didn't "make" the connection between atheism and communism; it exists. "False religions are used by those in power to pacify the masses" -- a rough paraphrase, correct me if I'm wrong. Communist ideas weren't only about an economic model; it was also a way of describing the world as it existed before communist thought.
Saying that the communists' atheism was irrelevant would be like saying the medieval crusaders' christianity was irrelevant. It was part of the rationale for their actions.
In one sentence you claim there are no rules to atheism, then you say no one has ever subjugated people based on atheistic beliefs. If the first is true, then the second would not be noteworthy at all.
While it may be true there is no centralized dispensary of orthodox atheist belief, there are atheist organizations. They may not do anything with which you disagree, though.
While it may be true there are centralized dispensaries of orthodoxy in some manifestations of some religions, not all denominations have such a heirarchy, and therefore one risks overgeneralizing if one doesn't acknowledge the difference.
Jose F. Diaz
from Boston is reading Wolf Hall by Hilary MantelFebruary 11, 2014 - 6:10pm
JYH are you saying the official religion of Communism is Atheism?
jyh
from VA is reading whatever he feels likeFebruary 11, 2014 - 6:12pm
Nope. Neither saying nor said that.
Are you saying I said anything which would suggest I believe there's anything "official" about any contemporary communist belief?
Jose F. Diaz
from Boston is reading Wolf Hall by Hilary MantelFebruary 11, 2014 - 6:21pm
I was just trying to understand how the lack of a belief in a deity played a part in pacifying the masses.
Belief leads to action; no belief, no action.
Jose F. Diaz
from Boston is reading Wolf Hall by Hilary MantelFebruary 11, 2014 - 6:23pm
Anyway, I'm off once again from LitReactor until June or so. Time to start buckling down for school.
Ta-ta all.
If I had an argument/conversation going with people, just consider yourself the winner.
jyh
from VA is reading whatever he feels likeFebruary 11, 2014 - 6:32pm
Lack of such belief might at least lead to or foster a belief that others are ignorant/wrong, as you have pointed out.
People can differentiate between atheist and agnostic; one claims to know, the other does not.
Crescendo2020
from Redlands, Ca is reading Not enough of all of them.February 11, 2014 - 6:45pm
There's a huge difference between doing something while being affiliated with something, and doing something in the name of that affiliation. Crusades were done specifically for Christianity. Fascism didn't happen because of or to further an Atheist agenda (of which there are none, anyway). It happened because world leaders are sometimes colossal dick-faces. If you have a quote of a colossal dick-face saying, "All this shit I'm doing, I'm doing because I don't think a god exists." I would love to see it.
Atheism isn't a religion. Also, pretending to be religious to deceive people isn't Atheism. That's dick-face-ism. Propaganda works, too. The very reason I put "beliefs" in quotes was to point out that it's not a thing. Well, it's not more than one thing, anyhow. It doesn't come with any dogmatic baggage. If there are Atheist organizations, and they have a bigoted agenda, by all means, school me. I'd love to hear about it.
Not in this generation or any other has Atheism been popular enough for a world leader or government to use it in order to control populations. Why? Because most of every country's population are religious or spiritual in some way, since forever. That would be like handing out cricket tickets to American voters: "Vote for Dick-Face McBonerbutt in the next election."
jyh
from VA is reading whatever he feels likeFebruary 11, 2014 - 6:57pm
Perhaps atheism doesn't prescribe being a "dick-face" but it also doesn't prohibit it. Therefore, if an atheist is a dick-face, it's not because he's atheist. Maybe. But being religious doesn't force you to be a dick-face (according to your definition). Religion might have been used to promote dick-facery from time to time, but you don't know that any particular dick-face actually believed in the religion he professed, do you? So one might categorize all dick-faceness together, since atheists can be dick-faces too, and since dick-faces might cynically use a religion to futher their agenda without actually participating in that faith. If you don't like dick-faces, you should just dislike all dick-faces and not sweat the particulars, right? It's not like you'd be totally cool with atheist dick-faces being dick-faces, right?
Crescendo2020
from Redlands, Ca is reading Not enough of all of them.February 12, 2014 - 4:03am
Clearly there are dick-faces all over the place. I've met plenty o' Atheist dick-face. I'm a dick-face sometimes. I think the passionate nature of religion causes people to do stuff they wouldn't normally do. They follow dogma unconditionally (sometimes picking and choosing which ones). And sometimes religious dogma is fucked up. Whether or not they are actually religious is moot. That's between them and God-9000.
It's not like I'm calling for genocide, or even hoping that religion fades into obscurity. But I don't think it's an outrageous idea that they procreate faster than everyone else, and it worries me. The dogma is just the facilitator, and large groups of people are trying to teach biblical text in public schools. Large groups of people lobby against the LGBT community. It's happening right now. It's not a seven-hundred year old crusade that worries me.
I'm not saying Atheists can't be bigots and don't ever try to hurt people. I'm saying huge groups of people with an agenda can make that agenda happen. The more people there are, the more likely the agenda will be successful.
Dwayne
from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updatedFebruary 12, 2014 - 7:48am
@Jose -
Dwayne - You are right, I am wrong.
As long as everyone, everywhere knows that.
@2020 - I think part of the issue here is that many things you are basing these ideas around are objectively wrong or require the misuse of the word.
...not sure where you make the connection to Communism and Atheism.
Marxist-Leninist atheism is a specific part of the type of communism practiced in the old USSR.
There's no dogma attached to the belief, or disbelief
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
You keep moving the goal post and applying different standards to different groups. Atheists, who you agree with, aren't blocking kids off from other points of view when they teach them about atheism instead of every other world view. The religious, who you disagree with, are. Athiests who do bad things as part of a organized atheist group/government are bad people, but Christians who do bad things as part of a organized Christian group/government are bad people because they are Christians.
Large groups of people lobby against the LGBT community.
As an unrelated aside, I think it will be some designer kids and a lawsuits that are a bigger issue.
@Thuggish - I'd say being forgiving and generous without concern for reward.
Crescendo2020
from Redlands, Ca is reading Not enough of all of them.February 12, 2014 - 8:17am
First, where did you find that definition of religion? Here's what I find at dictionary.com:
First entry- "A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
Merriam Webster:
First entry- "The belief in god or in a group of gods."
Ahhhh, here we are. The third entry, there's where you got your definition. Fine, Atheism is a religion. You win.
The church you linked to is spearheaded by two comedians. Comedians. Are you serious?
Once again, just the fact that Lenin was Atheist is moot. Do you have a quote of him citing that as his reason for any of his transgressions? One single quote? Even further, can you provide one single example of an Atheist group doing fucked up shit as a group in the name of Atheism? One example is all I need. I have multiple examples of both bigotry and the subsequent ignoring of the Constitution to create legislation by and for one single religion, citing those religious views as its purpose.
Crescendo2020
from Redlands, Ca is reading Not enough of all of them.February 12, 2014 - 8:39am
Let's be more clear as well. I'm referring to groups of people. And current events. Maybe Lenin was an Atheist wacko and did some crazy shit. Sure.
That was, what, 1918? Nearly one-hundred years ago? My worries exist in current times where I exist. Edit- 1928-1941. Forty-one years before I was born, and thousands of miles from my location.
All I can find on the Internet are Atheist groups rallying to stop pro-religious government legislation. Too invasive, I suppose. Much worse than invading people's personal rights.
Dwayne
from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updatedFebruary 12, 2014 - 11:04am
@2020 - I'll be honest, it doesn't seem like you have logical ideas when new facts you where unaware of are unable to alter any of your opinion.
The church you linked to is spearheaded by two comedians. Comedians. Are you serious?
In the sense that I think there movement could ever be a good thing or that they put a lot of real value on it? No. In the sense that it can have an important effect on children brought to it, yes.
Once again, just the fact that Lenin was Atheist is moot. Do you have a quote of him citing that as his reason for any of his transgressions? One single quote? Even further, can you provide one single example of an Atheist group doing fucked up shit as a group in the name of Atheism? One example is all I need.
That is a whole different discussion, which would require more detailed definitions regarding the group behavior you wish examples of.
The point I've been making with you is that atheists limit their children as much as any other religion.
Well, I'm sure everyone does to a certain extent. But religion by its very nature is an intentionally limited "world view".
Fine, Atheism is a religion.
And I think your own words sum up that yes, they do and why.
Crescendo2020
from Redlands, Ca is reading Not enough of all of them.February 12, 2014 - 12:29pm
So...you do know about an Atheist organization currently pushing hateful legislation...er...because that's my main point.
You're so certain that I'm unwilling to change my mind because of your new evidence. Consider the possiblility that perhaps what you've shown me simply doesn't change anything. Except a couple of my empty statements were incorrect. There's an Atheist church. What happens there? Hell, I don't know. The article didn't say. I know what happens in other churches, because I've been to them. I still think that by definition, it's not a religion. But that's semantics, and doesn't matter. The religious people forcing religion into children was a side note, and backed up by a lifetime of observation. Okay let's assume that church isn't a joke. It doesn't change what I see from people. Can I apply my observations to an entire population? Maybe, maybe not. But I can apply it to the way I understand people. It's not that religious people are more prone to forcing dogma, it's that they truly believe that if they don't, there will be eternal consequences to their children. There's no dogma to facilitate that behavior in the mind of an Atheist. Unless you grew up in Russia between the years of 1928-1941.
Dwayne
from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updatedFebruary 12, 2014 - 4:58pm
So...you do know about an Atheist organization currently pushing hateful legislation...er...because that's my main point.
Yes, assuming we can count white supremacists as hateful. (Although the name would suggest otherwise) the Church of the Creator, also known as the Creativity Movement, is by their own admission an atheist white supremacy group. Although I'm guessing that will conveniently not count.
Your comments on the USSR are so far off that most replies would sound insulting.
Crescendo2020
from Redlands, Ca is reading Not enough of all of them.February 12, 2014 - 6:32pm
For some reason you don't understand the difference between affiliation and actions in the name of affiliation. You're stuck on what people call themselves. It reminds me of the argument that fascism is extreme leftism because Hitler was "socialist" based solely on the Nazi party's title, and not the actions themselves (which were so un-socialist, it's ridiculous). But it doesn't matter. Let's not forget that white supremacists have zero control over legislation. If a group could have negative political pull, they'd have negative. But never mind that, let's talk about how much I don't know about Russian history (U.S.S.R.- let's split fuckin' hairs). I never claimed to, either. My timeline was based off of a quick Google search and glimpse of the description. What I do know, is Lenin is history. Karl Marx is history. Both of those people are irrelevant to the point I'm making. In fact, almost this entire discussion is irrelevant to the point that I was making, including the nature of Atheism. It's snowballed into Atheism versus Theism. If I had something to do with that, I wasn't properly articulating my thoughts. I don't expect people to agree with me, and clearly you don't, and even more, it seems you don't understand the original point I was making. Finally, since you've warned of ad hominem, let's just end the conversation, because it will be pointless once you take it there.
Dwayne
from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updatedFebruary 13, 2014 - 3:46am
I think I follow your idea fairly well; you claim that religious people are more likely to take immoral actions (which you seem to have amended to currently more likely) then non religious people regarding homophobia, inappropriate education, and other stereotypes. It is just hard to accept that idea when all your supporting 'facts' are wrong or changing. But don't worry, someone else will chime in with something just nutso in a minute or 1440.
Crescendo2020
from Redlands, Ca is reading Not enough of all of them.February 13, 2014 - 5:17am
What about my point is wrong or changing? What a pompous statement. And, nope. That wasn't my point at all. And nope, I didn't amend it. It was side-tracked. What's it like to be so right all of the time? You're so perfect and incapable of misinterpreting another person's statement, right? You've got a brilliant mind and everyone else has to think exactly the way you do because they're a bunch of intellectually inferior idiots. Is your ego good? Great. Now we can have an actual conversation.
Firstly, I wasn't initially even trying to make a point until my statement was hit with a rubuttal. I just chimed in on how I feel about the topic. I didn't expect anyone to agree with the statement.
Secondly, it's a perfectly reasonable statement and is based on current events. Because who would have known that current events are the ones that affect current people? Craaaaaaaaazy! What a lunatic!
So, you want to know my actual point? The one where I don't give a shit whether or not you agree? Forget religion. This isn't about some stupid fuckin' spiritual dichotomy. This is about people. Lots of fucking people. When lots of fucking people want bad shit to happen, it happens. What else happens with lots of people? They have lots of babies; more than the amount that few people have. What do people do with babies? Lets assume that one-hundred percent of parents want their babies to be little versions of them. Now you have exponential growth of lots of people who want bad shit to happen. And less growth of people who don't want to allow lots of bad people to do bad shit.
If you still don't understand it, it's because you're a demi-god and my words are beneath your intellect. It's like trying to have a conversation with a forty-thousand year old cave painting. All hail you.
Just so you can have the last word, you can rebut one more time, and that'll be the end of my contribution to this topic.
Jose, you seem like you need to chill a bit. Religous people aren't going any place. And if you've called it, there isn't going to be any reward for you being right!
The religious are a fading breed. Ignorance will only be tolerated so long. Especially when that ignorance attempts to keep people oppressed. I don't say this for reward.
Atheist and Agnostic minded people are still the minority by a fairly large margin.
It's funny you say that. The largest group of Catholics outside of the Vatican is in Quebec. If you ask any of them if they believe in god, they immediately say no. They've just always called themselves catholics and see no reason to change it. I wonder how many people are still actively religious. Especially in the face or reason and facts.
To me, claiming the label of a religion without fulfilling the belief is even worse than its counterpart.
You can say you believe in jesus riding a purple unicorn through the fields of elysium and I wouldn't give a crap. The moment you take your belief and try imposing it on ANYONE else, I will go out of my way to make your life a living hell.
Luckily for most it's a hollow promise considering this is the internet.
@Dwayne
That's my favorite part! They say God is Good, or God is Love.
But how can these things exist without their respective opposites?
@Jose
I don't know that the religious are a fading breed. Not world-wide. Maybe the anti-religious are merely a trend of some societies, which, coincidentally or not, have begun their decline.
Ooo! Fun tangent. What's the opposite of love? Hint! It's not hate...
No giant squids ever came to my tee-ball games so now I worship Cthulhu.
It's hate. No matter how much the songs wants to say otherwise.
@Thuggish - Just because some things have an opposite, doesn't require everything to have an opposite to exist. Lots of things (apples, people, my Xbox, and clouds) don't have opposites.
@Jose -
Current demographics indicate that is the exact opposite of the case. In various situations religious people are simply out breeding, even with those falling away from their faith of birth, non religious groups. Often the people saying this aren't the religious trying to morale in their groups, but non religious like Blume of Kaufman trying to warn the secular. I'm not a 100% sure on the third link (Eric Kaufman's Ted Talk) regarding all the details, but it is a decent summary of what I understand the numbers to show about birth rates and conversion.
http://www.blume-religionswissenschaft.de/english/index_english.html
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/141967#.UvcPhfldV8E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYEyv5a_3LM
And even if you're right, which seems unlikely with these trends, it would require massive changes in what we can reasonably expect our lives spans in order to see it.
Regarding love and hate you're both got the details wrong; the opposite of love (if it is a pure love) is indifference, but indifference is simply the purest from of hate.
I think we have fundamentally different definitions of hate. I know the bull$#!^ saying that in order to hate someone you must first love them. In order to love someone you must truly know them, but I call BULL.
Indifference does not acknowledge the existence of another. It would not help, NOR go out of their way to intervene in their life, they just wouldn't acknowldge it. In this sense life could still very much continue to be lived. Much the same way I feel about an ant.
Whereas hate will absolutely go out of its way to destroy that life. i.e. Nazi's hated the Jewish people.
While I think the "opposite of love is indifference" saying is cute and was really catchy for a bit, the reality, at least within my definitions, is the opposite is hate and will continue to be so regardless of how cute we try to be with our words.
And as for the religious thing, yeah, I know.
In my view,
1) Religious people are ignorant.
2) Religious people are breeding at an exponential rate.
3) And their kids become religious (no fault of their own at first).
C) Then ignorance is spreading at an exponential rate.
I would classify religious people more as intent than ignorant. Some of them are extremely intelligent, which boggles my mind and leads me to that classification. That's not to say some of them aren't ignorant. One need look no further than the "Bill Nye/Ken Ham" debate to see that.
But I do agree with the sentiment:
A) They do statistically breed more.
B) I've never met one religious person who didn't force their dogma upon their children (Ones who have children, that is). Even very pleasant religious folks who aren't in your face about their beliefs do it from my experience.
That combination is very unsettling for me.
I am quite aware there are very intelligent religious people. However, as Bill Nye was trying to get across to Ken Ham, that when you already have the answer, god did it, everything seems to stop. It leads to people ceasing to be curious and questioning why things are the way they are.
The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion. --ALBERT CAMUS
As Harlan Ellison once wrote, “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant”
Who doesn't put their world view on their kids?
When you use the term "world view" like that, I guess they all do. The important thing then becomes what is the world view being pushed? If it holds an idea or belief larger than life, then that view is geared to only oppress people.
Take for instance Capitalism, it holds the acquisition of money as the ultimate end. People who believe in capitalism are willing to sacrifice anyone or anything in order to achieve their ends. i.e. willing to oppress anyone to achieve their end.
Religion, nationalism, etc.
@Dwayne
Perhaps not, but does God, good, evil, etc. fall into the "doesn't need an opposite to exist" category?
I don't think "good" does.
Well, I'm sure everyone does to a certain extent. But religion by its very nature is an intentionally limited "world view".
It's one thing to tell a child, "If you're good to people, they'll be good back." Or, "Hard work is important, because the more people who work hard, the more efficient society can be." As opposed to, "This is exactly how the world is, and this is exactly why it is the way it is. No need to question it." Or, "This is the right religion, and you have to participate because I own you."
@Jose - That is a tough statement to address, because you are way off in crazy town. Nelson Mandela and the WBC both claim(ed) to be Christians. The four people who have given the most to charity in their life alive right now are self avowed atheists and so was Stalin. Broad generalizations about groups just aren't, for lack of a better word, sane. So like I said, chill.
@Thuggish - I'm unsure how you reached that conclusion. Are you better able to explain it?
@2020 - It isn't like atheists take their kids to church.
@Dwayne - I think it's a tough statement to address because you have no clue what I'm talking about. And not that I'm in "crazy town."
Nelson Mandela and WBC claiming to be christians has no purpose being brought into this argument unless they were pushing their beliefs are more important than life, which I don't think they did/do.
The four people who have given the most to charity being atheists is a good example of people who don't push their beliefs on other people, but truly try to help others.
Why you would attach Stalin onto the end of that statement. Stalin certainly pushed his beliefs on others and was willing to sacrifice people for that belief. He has no business being lumped into the group with the other four. Just because he had atheism in common does not make him equivalent to the others.
I didn't make a broad generalization about groups. I made a particular claim about people within a group who hold their belief as more important than life. e.g. Capitalist people who are willing to oppress people to make an extra dollar.
There are religious people within the various religions who are willing to kill, torture, threaten others because they hold their view as more important than life.
At no point do I make the claim that ALL religious, capitalist, whatever people do this.
Please try again without resorting to abusive ad hominem fallacies.
I reached it by not being able to define "good" without "bad" or "evil" or something opposite to compare it with.
I'm not entirely sure I understand your response, Dwayne. Of course Atheists don't take their kids to church.
@Jose -
Really you seem like a cool guy, and we've all been off in crazy town at some point so it isn't that big a deal but yeah I think statements like,
and
count as broad generalizations. If you don't, I suppose that is your right. But wow. You may not have intended to make those statements sound like 'all' statements, but I don't feel that was an unreasonable conclusion.
You seemed to have missed my point, namely that their are scum and heroes of virtually every ideology (although I think everyone pushes their ideology at some level). Nelson Mandela (helped end apartheid) and the Westboro Baptist Church (protests U.S. soldiers' funerals because they think God punished them for defend a nation that allows openly gay people), and present the wide diversity of actions taken by Christians. The four giving atheists stand in contrast to Stalin to show the range of that group.
Also, I don't think that pointing out moral variety between different groups ever counts as abusive ad hominem, even if I was wrong, since that would just be point out flaws in people who are agree with you as a way to show you are in the wrong. I was making what I feel to be a legitimate point, that broad statements about groups seldom hold up to close scrutiny.
@Thuggish - And how are you defining good?
@2020 - Atheists present there child with the one system they think is correct. Religious people present their children with the system they think is correct. Although exceptions exist both with intent and practice, most times this cuts the child off from other modes of thought. Your statements seem to indicate you only take issue when the religious raise their children to agree with them.
Here's the problem with that, Dwayne. Atheism is not a set of beliefs. It's the absence of belief in one single idea. There's no Atheist handbook (ironically there probably is, but it would only serve to provide an ego boost for the reader/author, and certainly not as systematic dogma from which the readers base their lives). And agnosticism even more so, being defined solely by logical reasoning.
Religions have rules in common. There are no rules to being Atheist. Even more than that, there aren't any dogmatic consequences to not being Atheist. One simply doesn't believe in a God(s). They don't go to hell if they do believe in a God, they're just no longer Atheist. It's not based on fear.
There's no church to go to where anti-religion is pounded into young people's heads.
I've never seen someone tell a child they're not allowed to be religious. I have many many times seen people tell children they have to be religious, and follow the dogma of one specific religion. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It's just my observation over my thirty-one years of existence.
People never attempt to subjugate entire populations based on Atheistic ideals. People never try to hold science back based on Atheistic ideals. Wars never start because of Atheist "belief". All those things happen routinely based upon religious ideals.
People do crazy shit when they think eternity is at stake and there's a great big spiritual battle happening. The more people who believe in these things, the more likely crazy shit in the name of those beliefs will happen. So religious populations worry me, not individuals. There are plenty of level-headed religious people who don't do crazy shit. But when they do, it's because they've thrown logic out the window to be faithful.
@Cres2020 --- Wasn't much of communism atheistic and subjugating?
And if you want to compare all religions to all atheism, you have to include Buddhism, which doesn't fit with what you're saying. To say all religions and all forms of each religion are all so easily comparable and then say all atheism is not is logically unsound.
@ Dwayne - You are right, I am wrong.
Abusive ad hominem attacks are when you say that I am in crazy town, implying I am crazy. You attack my character in order to disprove my argument. But of course you never did that. My bad.
Religious people are not ignorant. They have scientific justification to believe in god(s). My mistake.
I wasn't aware that capitalism was a group of people. I thought it was an idea/belief that some people hold. And capitalism doesn't hold the acquisition of money as their ultimate end. I'm batting 1000.
Apparently I said that all people of a group are one way or the other. I thought I said there are some people within certain groups that hold their beliefs as more sacrosanct than life. Yet again, I am wrong.
Great job, Dwayne. I am defeated. Case closed.
I'm not sure where you make the connection to Communism and Atheism. Communism isn't akin to or necessary for Atheism. Nor vice versa. What person or group of people has subjugated or attempted to subjugate an entire group of people and cited Atheism as their purpose for it? Think of how that would sound. There's no dogma attached to the belief, or disbelief, more appropriately.
"In the name of not believing in a god, such and such people suck and I'm going to do everything in my power to hold them back."
If Buddhism were the most prevalent religion in this country, I'd likely be worrying about it much less. I was being non-specific, but there are really only a few that apply and I don't think I need to mention them for people to know which ones I'm referring to. When was the last time an Atheist organization, (if one even exists) rallied to keep gay marriage illegal? Teach pseudo-science in public schools? Anything like that? Has it ever happened in recorded history?
Right now 2020, you are oppressing Dwayne with your rhetoric.
@ Dwayne
Ahhhh, now we're really getting into it... Everyone has their own versions, that share common threads, and differ as well. So... How else can we define good other than the opposte of bad? (Or evil, whatever.)
Good vs Bad and Good vs Evil depends on the dichotomy that you work in.
Religious people work in the Good/Evil dichotomy. Up (Heaven) is Good, Down (Hell) is bad. This is where we get phrases like, "I'm feeling down today." White is good, black is Evil, Male is good, female is Evil, God/Satan, etc.
Most other people work in the Good/Bad dichotomy. The big difference is that in the Good/Bad dichotomy you can, if you want to and work at it, move from Bad to Good and vise versa. I was ignorant (Bad) and now I get educated (Good). I was weak, now I'm strong. I try (good) I give up (bad).
In the Good/Evil dichotomy you are placed into either camp and there you will stay unless God says otherwise, or a religious mouth piece.
So Thuggish, once you determine which dichotomy you are working in you can figure out what is considered either Good/Bad or Good/Evil. I hope this helps some.
@Cres --- I didn't "make" the connection between atheism and communism; it exists. "False religions are used by those in power to pacify the masses" -- a rough paraphrase, correct me if I'm wrong. Communist ideas weren't only about an economic model; it was also a way of describing the world as it existed before communist thought.
Saying that the communists' atheism was irrelevant would be like saying the medieval crusaders' christianity was irrelevant. It was part of the rationale for their actions.
In one sentence you claim there are no rules to atheism, then you say no one has ever subjugated people based on atheistic beliefs. If the first is true, then the second would not be noteworthy at all.
While it may be true there is no centralized dispensary of orthodox atheist belief, there are atheist organizations. They may not do anything with which you disagree, though.
While it may be true there are centralized dispensaries of orthodoxy in some manifestations of some religions, not all denominations have such a heirarchy, and therefore one risks overgeneralizing if one doesn't acknowledge the difference.
JYH are you saying the official religion of Communism is Atheism?
Nope. Neither saying nor said that.
Are you saying I said anything which would suggest I believe there's anything "official" about any contemporary communist belief?
I was just trying to understand how the lack of a belief in a deity played a part in pacifying the masses.
Belief leads to action; no belief, no action.
Anyway, I'm off once again from LitReactor until June or so. Time to start buckling down for school.
Ta-ta all.
If I had an argument/conversation going with people, just consider yourself the winner.
Lack of such belief might at least lead to or foster a belief that others are ignorant/wrong, as you have pointed out.
People can differentiate between atheist and agnostic; one claims to know, the other does not.
There's a huge difference between doing something while being affiliated with something, and doing something in the name of that affiliation. Crusades were done specifically for Christianity. Fascism didn't happen because of or to further an Atheist agenda (of which there are none, anyway). It happened because world leaders are sometimes colossal dick-faces. If you have a quote of a colossal dick-face saying, "All this shit I'm doing, I'm doing because I don't think a god exists." I would love to see it.
Atheism isn't a religion. Also, pretending to be religious to deceive people isn't Atheism. That's dick-face-ism. Propaganda works, too. The very reason I put "beliefs" in quotes was to point out that it's not a thing. Well, it's not more than one thing, anyhow. It doesn't come with any dogmatic baggage. If there are Atheist organizations, and they have a bigoted agenda, by all means, school me. I'd love to hear about it.
Not in this generation or any other has Atheism been popular enough for a world leader or government to use it in order to control populations. Why? Because most of every country's population are religious or spiritual in some way, since forever. That would be like handing out cricket tickets to American voters: "Vote for Dick-Face McBonerbutt in the next election."
Perhaps atheism doesn't prescribe being a "dick-face" but it also doesn't prohibit it. Therefore, if an atheist is a dick-face, it's not because he's atheist. Maybe. But being religious doesn't force you to be a dick-face (according to your definition). Religion might have been used to promote dick-facery from time to time, but you don't know that any particular dick-face actually believed in the religion he professed, do you? So one might categorize all dick-faceness together, since atheists can be dick-faces too, and since dick-faces might cynically use a religion to futher their agenda without actually participating in that faith. If you don't like dick-faces, you should just dislike all dick-faces and not sweat the particulars, right? It's not like you'd be totally cool with atheist dick-faces being dick-faces, right?
Clearly there are dick-faces all over the place. I've met plenty o' Atheist dick-face. I'm a dick-face sometimes. I think the passionate nature of religion causes people to do stuff they wouldn't normally do. They follow dogma unconditionally (sometimes picking and choosing which ones). And sometimes religious dogma is fucked up. Whether or not they are actually religious is moot. That's between them and God-9000.
It's not like I'm calling for genocide, or even hoping that religion fades into obscurity. But I don't think it's an outrageous idea that they procreate faster than everyone else, and it worries me. The dogma is just the facilitator, and large groups of people are trying to teach biblical text in public schools. Large groups of people lobby against the LGBT community. It's happening right now. It's not a seven-hundred year old crusade that worries me.
I'm not saying Atheists can't be bigots and don't ever try to hurt people. I'm saying huge groups of people with an agenda can make that agenda happen. The more people there are, the more likely the agenda will be successful.
@Jose -
As long as everyone, everywhere knows that.
@2020 - I think part of the issue here is that many things you are basing these ideas around are objectively wrong or require the misuse of the word.
Marxist-Leninist atheism is a specific part of the type of communism practiced in the old USSR.
By definition not true. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctrine Please not that dogma is a synonym for doctrine.
Again, untrue. http://news.yahoo.com/atheist-mega-churches-root-across-us-world-214619648.html
Again by definition, untrue. I will grant that not all atheists treat it as a religion, but it happens. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
You keep moving the goal post and applying different standards to different groups. Atheists, who you agree with, aren't blocking kids off from other points of view when they teach them about atheism instead of every other world view. The religious, who you disagree with, are. Athiests who do bad things as part of a organized atheist group/government are bad people, but Christians who do bad things as part of a organized Christian group/government are bad people because they are Christians.
As an unrelated aside, I think it will be some designer kids and a lawsuits that are a bigger issue.
@Thuggish - I'd say being forgiving and generous without concern for reward.
First, where did you find that definition of religion? Here's what I find at dictionary.com:
First entry- "A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
Merriam Webster:
First entry- "The belief in god or in a group of gods."
Ahhhh, here we are. The third entry, there's where you got your definition. Fine, Atheism is a religion. You win.
The church you linked to is spearheaded by two comedians. Comedians. Are you serious?
Once again, just the fact that Lenin was Atheist is moot. Do you have a quote of him citing that as his reason for any of his transgressions? One single quote? Even further, can you provide one single example of an Atheist group doing fucked up shit as a group in the name of Atheism? One example is all I need. I have multiple examples of both bigotry and the subsequent ignoring of the Constitution to create legislation by and for one single religion, citing those religious views as its purpose.
Let's be more clear as well. I'm referring to groups of people. And current events. Maybe Lenin was an Atheist wacko and did some crazy shit. Sure.
That was, what, 1918? Nearly one-hundred years ago? My worries exist in current times where I exist. Edit- 1928-1941. Forty-one years before I was born, and thousands of miles from my location.
All I can find on the Internet are Atheist groups rallying to stop pro-religious government legislation. Too invasive, I suppose. Much worse than invading people's personal rights.
@2020 - I'll be honest, it doesn't seem like you have logical ideas when new facts you where unaware of are unable to alter any of your opinion.
In the sense that I think there movement could ever be a good thing or that they put a lot of real value on it? No. In the sense that it can have an important effect on children brought to it, yes.
That is a whole different discussion, which would require more detailed definitions regarding the group behavior you wish examples of.
The point I've been making with you is that atheists limit their children as much as any other religion.
And I think your own words sum up that yes, they do and why.
So...you do know about an Atheist organization currently pushing hateful legislation...er...because that's my main point.
You're so certain that I'm unwilling to change my mind because of your new evidence. Consider the possiblility that perhaps what you've shown me simply doesn't change anything. Except a couple of my empty statements were incorrect. There's an Atheist church. What happens there? Hell, I don't know. The article didn't say. I know what happens in other churches, because I've been to them. I still think that by definition, it's not a religion. But that's semantics, and doesn't matter. The religious people forcing religion into children was a side note, and backed up by a lifetime of observation. Okay let's assume that church isn't a joke. It doesn't change what I see from people. Can I apply my observations to an entire population? Maybe, maybe not. But I can apply it to the way I understand people. It's not that religious people are more prone to forcing dogma, it's that they truly believe that if they don't, there will be eternal consequences to their children. There's no dogma to facilitate that behavior in the mind of an Atheist. Unless you grew up in Russia between the years of 1928-1941.
Yes, assuming we can count white supremacists as hateful. (Although the name would suggest otherwise) the Church of the Creator, also known as the Creativity Movement, is by their own admission an atheist white supremacy group. Although I'm guessing that will conveniently not count.
Your comments on the USSR are so far off that most replies would sound insulting.
For some reason you don't understand the difference between affiliation and actions in the name of affiliation. You're stuck on what people call themselves. It reminds me of the argument that fascism is extreme leftism because Hitler was "socialist" based solely on the Nazi party's title, and not the actions themselves (which were so un-socialist, it's ridiculous). But it doesn't matter. Let's not forget that white supremacists have zero control over legislation. If a group could have negative political pull, they'd have negative. But never mind that, let's talk about how much I don't know about Russian history (U.S.S.R.- let's split fuckin' hairs). I never claimed to, either. My timeline was based off of a quick Google search and glimpse of the description. What I do know, is Lenin is history. Karl Marx is history. Both of those people are irrelevant to the point I'm making. In fact, almost this entire discussion is irrelevant to the point that I was making, including the nature of Atheism. It's snowballed into Atheism versus Theism. If I had something to do with that, I wasn't properly articulating my thoughts. I don't expect people to agree with me, and clearly you don't, and even more, it seems you don't understand the original point I was making. Finally, since you've warned of ad hominem, let's just end the conversation, because it will be pointless once you take it there.
I think I follow your idea fairly well; you claim that religious people are more likely to take immoral actions (which you seem to have amended to currently more likely) then non religious people regarding homophobia, inappropriate education, and other stereotypes. It is just hard to accept that idea when all your supporting 'facts' are wrong or changing. But don't worry, someone else will chime in with something just nutso in a minute or 1440.
What about my point is wrong or changing? What a pompous statement. And, nope. That wasn't my point at all. And nope, I didn't amend it. It was side-tracked. What's it like to be so right all of the time? You're so perfect and incapable of misinterpreting another person's statement, right? You've got a brilliant mind and everyone else has to think exactly the way you do because they're a bunch of intellectually inferior idiots. Is your ego good? Great. Now we can have an actual conversation.
Firstly, I wasn't initially even trying to make a point until my statement was hit with a rubuttal. I just chimed in on how I feel about the topic. I didn't expect anyone to agree with the statement.
Secondly, it's a perfectly reasonable statement and is based on current events. Because who would have known that current events are the ones that affect current people? Craaaaaaaaazy! What a lunatic!
So, you want to know my actual point? The one where I don't give a shit whether or not you agree? Forget religion. This isn't about some stupid fuckin' spiritual dichotomy. This is about people. Lots of fucking people. When lots of fucking people want bad shit to happen, it happens. What else happens with lots of people? They have lots of babies; more than the amount that few people have. What do people do with babies? Lets assume that one-hundred percent of parents want their babies to be little versions of them. Now you have exponential growth of lots of people who want bad shit to happen. And less growth of people who don't want to allow lots of bad people to do bad shit.
If you still don't understand it, it's because you're a demi-god and my words are beneath your intellect. It's like trying to have a conversation with a forty-thousand year old cave painting. All hail you.
Just so you can have the last word, you can rebut one more time, and that'll be the end of my contribution to this topic.