/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 26 KB, 749x468, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 09:59:32 2011 No.3331024 [Reply] [Original]

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:00:32 2011 No.3331029 Nope, I'm an atheist and I detest the atrocities committed by all religions, ever. In fact, Islamism is the worst offender in my book.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:00:32 2011 No.3331030 What planet are you from?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:01:32 2011 No.3331031 Retards: Post the same shit over and over again. Completely ignore the fact that it's not funny and only other retards reply to it without sage.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:02:32 2011 No.3331034 If Dawkins wants to be a hero, he should go to Saudi Arabia and debate an imam.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:06:32 2011 No.3331041 >>3331034 You misspelled "an hero". Obviously, like many people, he values his life.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:06:32 2011 No.3331042 This thread is useless, OP. For at least 2 obvious reasons: way too generalizing, and we've all heard this critique of atheists before. I suppose, you're just trollin' That's okay, have a nice day :) SASASASSASASASASAAAGE

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:07:32 2011 No.3331045 >>3331034 He's debated imams and Islamists before though I'm not sure he has in Saudi Arabia. He's not going to make a habit of it, though, because he's not suicidal. It's not heroism doing that: it's idiocy.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:09:32 2011 No.3331052

>>3331041
Especially since his kind think you only get one life to live.

As for me, I think reincarnation exists and that you ought to enjoy this life because the next one might suck. Like you may have a comfortable middle class life in America now, but the next time you could be born to parents in North Korea or something.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:11:32 2011 No.3331056 >>3331045 Ah see, he knows that Christians are nice guys that won't fight back. He doesn't have the balls to take on Muslims. Or Jews for that matter since they can break out the Holocaust guilt card.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:16:32 2011 No.3331069

>>3331024
>Implying Christians quit committing atrocities at some point

>>3331034
Oh, hey. I see you're pretending Richard Dawkins is the only atheist. That's cool. Let me show you some videos of Dawkins interacting with Islam:

Here's Dawkins saying it's the greatest evil in the world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iiAaCzFrw4

Here's Dawkins shouting down an Imam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VselUW4Aoxg&feature=related

And another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8NRX5osjhg&feature=related

Here's a video of him going to Gaza to go after Muslims:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6Xr3MsPPBA&feature=related

It's like /sci/ doesn't realize there's a search bar on Youtube.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:17:32 2011 No.3331071

>>3331056
Did you not read what I said? He HAS argued against Imams and Islamists.

And yes, even against Zionist Jews. You can see him argue with Islamists and Jews (he actually goes to Israel to debate with both of these) in The Root of All Evil, while he focusses a lot more on Jews in Faith School Menace.

Please educate yourself before spouting shit or ignoring what I said.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:17:32 2011 No.3331072 >>3331069 The Inquisition was a long, long, long time ago, toots.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:18:32 2011 No.3331077 >>3331072 >Implying the Inquisition is the only atrocious thing Christianity has ever done. Oh, grow up. Toots.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:19:32 2011 No.3331081 >>3331077 You could argue about witch burnings, but that was a long, long time ago too.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:23:32 2011 No.3331087 >>3331081 How about lynch mobs? What about shooting up abortion clinics? What about not turning in pedophiles in your clergy? What about almost electing Sarah Palin for national office or giving money to Jerry Falwel?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:23:32 2011 No.3331090 File: 80 KB, 540x448, lynching.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3331072 >>3331081 but this sure wasn't

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:24:32 2011 No.3331091 >>3331081 what about the lack of stem cell research which could save lives

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:24:32 2011 No.3331092 File: 25 KB, 405x294, c68b6847a3f9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I am an atheist and strongly anti-islam and anti-immigration. Dont put as all in the same bracket with pseudohumanists OP.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:26:32 2011 No.3331097

>>3331087
>>3331090

I can see you've lost the argument, because you reverted to spewing out garbage from Daily Kos or other such websites. Once you posted this:

>What about almost electing Sarah Palin for national office or giving money to Jerry Falwel?

...you lost any semblence of credibility

Also...

>implying Jim Crow had anything to do with religion

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:29:32 2011 No.3331104 >>3331097 >proceeds to ignore over half the post good show

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:29:32 2011 No.3331106 >>3331097 they are christian that means any crime they commit reflects on christianity itself just like the Stalin and Mao card people play to make atheism look evil

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:30:32 2011 No.3331110 >>3331106 Some may have been atheists. Who knows?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:31:32 2011 No.3331113 >>3331110 this is why agnostic apatheism is the best why care about all this bs when you can just not.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:31:32 2011 No.3331114 >>3331110 >implying most weren't bible thumping christians stop trying to make excuses

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:32:32 2011 No.3331117

>>3331097
>Implying that wasn't a joke
>Implying I don't stab the thumbs-down button on Stumbleupon whenever that Kos shit pop up, yet the damn website just refuses to fucking learn, increasing my hatred with each passing day
>Implying the Ku Klux Klan isn't a specifically christian organization

You're willfully ignorant.

In Old Testament lingo, you've hardened your heart.

You are unreachable. You are lost to understanding and knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:32:32 2011 No.3331119 >>3331114 Most were probably nominal Christians, although claiming to be a Christian and actually doing what your religion teaches are two different things.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:34:32 2011 No.3331125 >>3331117 The last I checked, the KKK's aim is to keep the black man down, not spread the Gospel.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:34:32 2011 No.3331126 >>3331119 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman >Christians don't commit atrocities >What about these atrocities obviously committed by Christians? >Oh, they CALL themselves Christians...

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:35:32 2011 No.3331127 >>3331119 Then I guess Islam is a perfectly fine religion since it has messages of peace within it, and the 'nominal' Muslims were just not following what the Quran taught right

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:36:32 2011 No.3331131 >>3331125 >KKK lights the cross on fire so Jesus shines upon them yeah they aren't Christian at all bro

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:36:32 2011 No.3331133 >>3331126 I never said they weren't Christians, I said they weren't very good Christians.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:38:32 2011 No.3331136 >>3331125 I'm not even going to debate basic, well-documented facts like this with you. If you can't be bothered to even glance at the Wikipedia article, I'm not going to teach you about the country you live in.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:38:32 2011 No.3331137 All right, I will ask this. Did atheists do anything to end segregation in the US? Nope. It was primarily people who identified as Christians.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:38:32 2011 No.3331138 >>3331133 READ THE LINKED ARTICLE BEFORE YOU SPEAK, IDIOT.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:40:32 2011 No.3331145

>>3331137
Alright, I'll ask this: Did Christians do anything to stop the slaughter of Chinese by Genghis Khan in the 1200s? No.

See how that works? You can't just pick an event in history that a group had next to no control over and condemn them for not having control over it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:40:32 2011 No.3331147 >>3331133 >only good Christians count wat

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:42:32 2011 No.3331157

Shit that was done in the name of Christianity:

*Crusades
*Inquisition
*Witch burnings
*Religious wars in the 16th and 17th centuries

Shit that was not done in the name of Christianity except in the imagination of atheists:

*Jim Crow
*Northern Ireland
*Abortion clinic shootings

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:43:32 2011 No.3331158 >>3331145 >Did the Japanese do anything to the Christian missionaries of the middle ages? Oh yes...they did and it was glorious

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:44:32 2011 No.3331161 >>3331145 There were no Christians in 13th century China last I checked.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:44:32 2011 No.3331165 >>3331147 If you're going to argue that, then I can just as easily blame atheists for Pol Pot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:45:32 2011 No.3331168 >>3331157 >Implying every shooter in every abortion clinic shooting hasn't been doing it for Jesus >Conveniently forgets child-molesting clergy >Fastidiously overlooks violence against gay people Not sure if trolling...

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:47:32 2011 No.3331175 >>3331158 That was somewhat religiously motivated because the Japanese authorities feared that the nation would be corrupted by a foreign faith that, among other things, refused to accept the emperor as a divine being.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:48:32 2011 No.3331178 >>3331157 Oh, let's not forget Jesuits killing the ever-living fuck out of some Indians.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:48:32 2011 No.3331179 >>3331168 >implying Catholics priests raped anyone in the name of Jesus and not simply because they were filthy homosexuals who wanted to get some

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:49:32 2011 No.3331185 >>3331158 Taoist Emperor-worshipers = atheists?

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:50:32 2011 No.3331187
File: 26 KB, 360x450, strawman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Implying im naive enough to believe atrocities are directly cause by religion or the lack of it
Religion is just a tool for control in situations like this, it is the politics that cause these things to happen.

It's obvious in the case of current islamic extremeism. A number of peoples have political grevances with the west because of their world policy but the leaders arnt willing to fly planes into buildings themselves. So they use religious belief to create themselves an army of zealots.

The Crusades is an interesting one because it was led by the catholic church. But when you consider how powerful the catholic church were and their hierarchical structure they can be considered as much a political entity as any state. They gained so much wealth and power from the crusades and risked little, seeing as it was mostly denizens of other states that supported the war effort for them.

This does not mean i think religion is harmless, religion encourages ignorance and that is not productive in a modern democracy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:50:32 2011 No.3331188 >>3331185 Already covered in >>3331175

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:53:32 2011 No.3331192

>>3331179
>Implying that being forced to swear an oath of lifelong virginity in order to yap at people on Sundays probably didn't have something to do with that
>Implying that homosexuality is filthy, and that the inability of Christians to accept homosexuals or even separate homosexuality from pedophilia isn't causing repressed emotions to boil out in unacceptable fashions

Oh, so we went from atrocities performed by Christians, to atrocities performed by REAL Christians, to atrocities specifically performed in the name of Jesus?

Them goalposts. They're a-shiftin'.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:53:32 2011 No.3331197 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Great_Awakening As you can see, Christian groups played a huge part in social reforms such as improving workplace conditions. And again, atheists didn't do squat to help anyone.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:55:32 2011 No.3331203 ITT: Ad hominem

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:55:32 2011 No.3331204

>>3331192
They probably should allow priests to marry. I don't disagree there.

>Implying that homosexuality is filthy, and that the inability of Christians to accept homosexuals or even separate homosexuality from pedophilia isn't causing repressed emotions to boil out in unacceptable fashions

So now you whip out the liberal victimhood card. "Oh, if only we weren't so mean to gay people, those children would not have been raped."

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:56:32 2011 No.3331208

>>3331197
>Implying Atheism wasn't a super-minority in the US at that time
>Implying one could announce to the world that one was an Atheist at that time without being shunned by everyone you met

Again, I didn't see Christianity's help when Mongol hordes were slaughtering China...

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:58:32 2011 No.3331210 >>3331208 See >>3331161

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:58:32 2011 No.3331212 >>3331204 Liber--what the hell are you even talking about? If a guy doesn't have any sexual outlet for a decade, anything with a hole looks inviting. I've known men who fuck a lot worse than little boys.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:59:32 2011 No.3331213 File: 2 KB, 256x256, You miss the point.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3331210 Re-read post. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 10:59:32 2011 No.3331214 >>3331212 Then they should go and pick up a damned hooker or something.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:00:32 2011 No.3331220 >>3331213 I already did. How were Christians supposed to stop the Mongols from taking over China when there weren't any of them in that part of the world then?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:01:32 2011 No.3331222 >>3331214 You can tell that to them, Christian-to-Christian, then. No atheist I've ever met has told me about his dog's tongue.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:01:32 2011 No.3331223

>>3331204
So now you whip out the liberal victimhood card.

>support groups that create hate and discrimination
>react by reframing thier discriminatory tendencies as some value-neutral idea, and then suggesting that criticism of this reframed idea constitutes discrimination.
dat persecution complex,

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:02:32 2011 No.3331225 >>3331222 Personally I think they should let the guys marry, but that's a huge step that I'm not sure the RCC would be willing to take.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:03:32 2011 No.3331227

>>3331220
That's good. You've seen the disconnect between expecting a group to enact change without any kind of noteworthy representation in the larger group.

Now, let's see if you can pick out what part of expecting a major atheist movement in 1890s America could be analogous to this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:04:32 2011 No.3331232 >>3331227 Think about it this way. When atheists were in charge (like in 1970s Cambodia), they sure didn't improve anyone's life.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:04:32 2011 No.3331233 >>3331225 Here's the fun part: >Implying rates of child abuse by clergy is lower in denominations that allow clergy to marry

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:05:32 2011 No.3331236 >>3331233 There's some sect of Catholicism with married priests? Huh?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:07:32 2011 No.3331247 File: 15 KB, 726x308, 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'll just leave this here...

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:08:32 2011 No.3331251 >>3331232 >Well, atheists suck when they're in charge! >Can only think of Pol Pot, whose regime was based around removing external influences from the country >Native religions of Cambodia were already dead >CAN'T COME UP WITH ANOTHER EXAMPLE

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:10:32 2011 No.3331256 >>3331236 Catholics are a SUBSET of Christians. Many Christian denominations allow their clergy to wed. Guess what happens to children left alone with those guys?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:11:32 2011 No.3331260 >>3331251 Or Stalin or whatever. Let's discuss the CRM in the 1960s. There were communists around then (who were atheists) and they did nothing whatsoever except tell blacks that white men were bad and evil and to riot in the streets.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:12:32 2011 No.3331264 >>3331256 >Guess what happens to children left alone with those guys? The priests molested then. This was already discussed in here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:13:32 2011 No.3331266 >>3331232 http://www.atheismresource.com/2010/the-happiest-countries-have-the-lowest-rates-of-religiosity#more -897

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:15:32 2011 No.3331274 File: 17 KB, 314x208, StarvingChildreninNorthKorea.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3331266 How sure of that are you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:16:32 2011 No.3331277 pol pot went to catholic school for 8 years Theravada Buddhism (the belief system of 95% of the Khmer people) teaches renunciation of the material world ...this is not supporting theists argument

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:17:32 2011 No.3331281

You know, I've yet to see a single one of you come up with an atrocity committed in the name of Zeus, the thunder god who watches over the world from atop Mount Olympus.

Azeusists, those who don't believe in our Olympian gods, have been responsible for every atrocity of the last 2000 years!

The Inquisition? Azeusists.
Apartheid? Azeusists.
The Holocaust? Azeusists.
Communist Russia? Azeusists.
9/11? Azeusists.
Pearl Harbor? Azeusists.

The list goes ON AND ON.

WHEN are people going to learn that lack of faith in almighty Zeus, defeater of the Titans, leads only to hardship and woe?

You're all going to burn in the fires of Tartarus, you Azeusist scum! Your souls will be judged by Hades, the pale-faced god of the netherworld, and he will frown upon you.

Turn from your wicked ways and embrace the glory of the Olympian faith!

Bask in the light of the gods!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:17:32 2011 No.3331282 >>3331277 And they almost totally obliterated religion in Cambodia. Your point?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:19:32 2011 No.3331286 File: 20 KB, 460x288, hitchens_1587756c[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3331274 obvious trollllllllolololololololololoolloollo!!!!!!1!112!!!!!!!!!111!1

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:20:32 2011 No.3331291

Why exactly do atheists whine about priest molestation like little bitches?

1. They don't go to church or have children, so they're not in any danger of having their kids molested
2. They don't believe in morals, so who cares if a priest molests someone anyway? Aren't we just molecules with no soul?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:20:32 2011 No.3331292 >>3331282 >>3331165 >>3331232 So, let's be honest, here. You recently watched a documentary on Pol Pot, didn't you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:22:32 2011 No.3331298 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Buddhists#Cambodia_under_the_Khmer_Rouge

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:23:32 2011 No.3331299
File: 88 KB, 1000x379, Dawkins says God is your BBEG.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3331291
>Atheists don't have children

You're an idiot

>Atheists' children don't go to church.

I have empathy. Do you not?

>Atheists don't have morals.

LOLWAT.

The fact that somebody who is willing to take his marching orders on morality from a being that murders children for political gain is telling me that my moral code doesn't exist is hi-fucking-larious.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:23:32 2011 No.3331301 >>3331091 I never opposed that so long as we aren't grinding up fetuses to benefit the abortion racket.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:24:32 2011 No.3331304 >>3331299 Weren't Dawkins and Hitchens both divorced multiple times?

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:26:32 2011 No.3331307

>>3331301
>IF WE USE THE DEAD BABIES TO BENEFIT THE LIVING RATHER THAN THROWING THEM OUT LIKE TRASH, PEOPLE WILL HAVE MORE ABORTIONS!

I don't know how to make the ignorance of this argument any clearer.

You are arguing for a meaningless death to remain meaningless, rather than to at least give the child the benefit of helping to cure diseases.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:27:32 2011 No.3331309 >>3331307 I'd rather we not kill babies at all.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:27:32 2011 No.3331312

>>3331304
Isn't the Anglican religion based solely on allowing divorce?

Aren't divorce rates measurably higher among religious people than atheists?

Isn't it one of your objections to gay marriage that marriage is a religious institution, and therefore meaningless to atheists?

MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:27:32 2011 No.3331313 >>3331299 >The fact that somebody who is willing to take his marching orders on morality from a being that murders children for political gain is telling me that my moral code doesn't exist is hi-fucking-larious. whatthefuckamireading.jpg

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:28:32 2011 No.3331316 >>3331309 And I'd rather my car ran on good feelings and rainbows, but that's not an option, so why don't you quit dodging the question?

>>	Inuyasha !!mhnKW82iEgG Mon Jul 4 11:29:32 2011 No.3331320 >>3331161 Jesuits...

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:31:32 2011 No.3331324

>Isn't the Anglican religion based solely on allowing divorce?

Might be. I don't know much about it.

>Aren't divorce rates measurably higher among religious people than atheists?

Right, because atheists don't tend to get married or have families.

>Isn't it one of your objections to gay marriage that marriage is a religious institution, and therefore meaningless to atheists?

I'd rather not get into gay marriage now except to point out that marriage was historically not a religious institution.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:31:32 2011 No.3331326

>>3331313
>Implying God somehow NEEDED to murder the first-born of Egypt to get the Israelites away

He's...he's God, isn't he? I mean, tell me if I'm overstepping my bounds, here, but isn't slaughtering children in order to shock one dude into letting a bunch of people walk out of a city kind of a...well, kind of a stupid way to do business?

Couldn't he have, you know, spared that fiery chariot that took Elijah and carted his beloved people away without bloodshed? Why was killing innocent children the answer?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:33:32 2011 No.3331329 >>3331320 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuits Founded in 1534. That was 300 years after Genghis Khan's time. The Mongol Empire was ancient history by then.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:33:32 2011 No.3331330

Atheists: People who find the superstitious and supernatural claims of religions, including those regarding a divine agency, to be unfounded and unsubstantiated.

[another unrelated but often overlapping group]: People who find unquestionable and unresponsive authorities to be anathema to human flourishing, regardless of whether they claim to be divinely inspired or not.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:34:32 2011 No.3331332

>>3331324
(Yeah. Anglicans broke off because the King of England wanted a divorce. Many Christian sects allow divorce. It's very common outside Catholicism. Catholics get around it by bullshitting their way through an annulment, which is functionally identical to a divorce, but with Catholic jibba jabba attached)

And marriage can't be a religious institution in one argument and not in another. Either it is, and you have no basis to take potshots at Hitchens for his divorce(s?), or it is not, and you can't object to gay marriage on those grounds. Pick one.

You don't get to redefine history whenever it suits you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:34:32 2011 No.3331333 >>3331316 Didn't dodge a thing.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:36:32 2011 No.3331336

>>3331332
>And marriage can't be a religious institution in one argument and not in another. Either it is, and you have no basis to take potshots at Hitchens for his divorce(s?), or it is not, and you can't object to gay marriage on those grounds. Pick one.

>You don't get to redefine history whenever it suits you.

See >>3331313

>>	Inuyasha !!mhnKW82iEgG Mon Jul 4 11:36:32 2011 No.3331337 >>3331329 sorry I confused the names. Look at medieval. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China If you don't believe wikipedia, read Old World Encounters: Cross-Cultural Contacts and Exchanges in Pre-Modern Times

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:37:32 2011 No.3331339

>>3331333
You absolutely dodged the question.

The question was whether already-aborted fetuses should be used to benefit the living. You dodged the question by objecting to the fact that the baby was dead.

We aren't arguing about abortion. We're arguing about stem cells. You want to change abortion, you do it on your own time. Meanwhile, babies are still dying and being flushed out the garbage as biohazard waste when they could be saving lives.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:38:32 2011 No.3331346

>Right, because atheists don't tend to get married or have families.
"rate" means, that the atheist who do get married are less likely to get divorced.
probably has something more do do with general higher intelligence of atheists, as opposed to them having more respect of marriage, though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:39:32 2011 No.3331348 >>3331336 See >>3331326 And quit dodging.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:39:32 2011 No.3331349 >>3331332 Why would any Christian sects allow divorce? Haven't they ever read the bible?

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:39:32 2011 No.3331351

>>3331337
If there were any Christians in China then, they didn't exist in any significant numbers and I also don't think they had a telephone hotline to the Vatican to ask for help when the Mongols came.

The Church did send missionaries to convert the Mongols in the 14th century, but they failed because they'd gotten too corrupt. The Mongols would gladly join a spiritual Kingdom of Heaven, but there weren't interested in becoming a vassal of Rome.

Inuyasha !!mhnKW82iEgG Mon Jul 4 11:40:32 2011 No.3331352
File: 21 KB, 544x400, 1307394495933.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3331339
Good post.
Btw, I corrected some people saying that there weren't any Christians in China during the 13th century. I am not saying anything else. Just saying that Christians were there.

Not implying anything

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:40:32 2011 No.3331353 >>3331349 Why would any Christian sects allow the consumption of shellfish? Haven't they read the Bible?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:40:32 2011 No.3331356 >>3331348 Show me what I dodged. BTW, the argument about God killing the Egyptian firstborn is fallacious since atheists don't believe that happened in reality anyway.

>>	Inuyasha !!mhnKW82iEgG Mon Jul 4 11:41:32 2011 No.3331359 >>3331351 I wasn't saying anything about that. I was just saying that there were Christians there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:42:32 2011 No.3331361 >>3331349 They probably read the part where Jesus was asked about divorce and he said (paraphrasing) "You were granted this privilege in the Laws of Moses because you could not behave yourselves"

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:42:32 2011 No.3331364

>>3331351
>The Mongols would gladly join a spiritual Kingdom of Heaven, but there weren't interested in becoming a vassal of Rome.

Ghengis Khan was born of a virgin...you had better not deny the divinity of Genghis or you will burn in hell for all eternity

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:42:32 2011 No.3331365

>>3331353

Good point. It's almost as though they just get to pick and choose which bits they like and which bits they don't.

No wonder modern day Christians are better, more moral people than those who lived years ago. They pick better things from that book because they live in a society built on enlightenment values.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:42:32 2011 No.3331367

>BTW, the argument about God killing the Egyptian firstborn is fallacious since atheists don't believe that happened in reality anyway.
If i say Santa Claus is an old man, that doesn't necessitate i believe Santa exist
Fictional beings can have attributes, and the Christian god, as described in the bible is a psychotic, choleric mass murderer

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:43:32 2011 No.3331369

>>3331351
>they didn't exist in any significant numbers

This, by the way, was my original point.

The analogy was to your argument that atheists were somehow immoral for not having been a part of the Third Great Awakening, when nobody in the country identified as an atheist (they may have been around, but it was so stigmatized that they spent their lives pantomiming Christianity).

Do you see the analogy, yet? Groups that are too small to enact change probably shouldn't blamed for not enacting change? Yes?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:45:32 2011 No.3331372 >>3331361 Why would you paraphrase? What did Jesus actually say on the matter?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:45:32 2011 No.3331374 >>3331365 >society built on enlightenment values None of which had to do with atheism. There were some atheists around then, but they didn't really contribute anything great intellectually. Weren't most of the Enlightenment guys deists or agnostics?

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:45:32 2011 No.3331375

>>3331367

Not a Christian/Jew but everything God did in the old testament was to assure the family line of Christ would survive. Since Moses was Jesus' ancestor it sort of makes sense. It's all why gay sex was prohibit, as well as being kosher was mandated. Also he flooded the world because the old testaments describe evil creatures that were the result of angels breeding with humans...god flooded the world to rid their impact on the culture of the family line

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:46:32 2011 No.3331379 >>3331369 Then why, when atheists have run things (like in North Korea), they turned the place into a trash hole?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:47:32 2011 No.3331383 >>3331372 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+10%3A1-12&version=ESV

>>	Inuyasha !!mhnKW82iEgG Mon Jul 4 11:48:32 2011 No.3331384 >>3331379 Yea, and why did atheists in turn make South Korea a relatively richer country than North Korea? Then again, why did Christians go ahead and ruin Latin America while Christians turned the 13 colonies into a prosperous country?

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:49:32 2011 No.3331391

>>3331356
>Hypothetical situations can't happen!
>I believe it, but because you don't believe it, you can't question it!

You need to step back and examine the kinds of things you're saying. My argument about Exodus is completely valid if you believe it happened, which Christianity does.

If I've missed my mark, and you're not a Christian, be sure to correct me. If you ARE a Christian, explain why your god would slaughter children like cattle when a less gruesome and abjectly unjust solution was available.

You dodged when you saw my call to decide whether you're going to call marriage a religious institution (and therefore back down concerning atheist divorce) or not (and therefore admit that the argument can't be used against gay marriage). Instead of answering the question, you linked to another argument I had already addressed as if I had not, and offered no comment on the one at hand.

By the way, you also never answered me about stem cells.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:49:32 2011 No.3331392 >>3331379 > (like in North Korea) >>3331286

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:50:32 2011 No.3331393

>>3331374

Deists or agnostics share almost every position with atheists. Except that one has a gut feeling god exists, one declines to discuss the matter, and one has a gut feeling god doesn't exist. They all hold that there is no reason to believe anyone on Earth has ever seen or spoken with god, and they all hold that nobody on Earth can possible speak with the authority of god.

And besides, enlightenment values ARE tangential to atheism. But they are not transparent to Christianity, since they do provide a better set of values to live ones life by than anything in the direct Christian tradition. They are relativity to Christianities Newtonian physics, if you will.

And relieving oneself of the superstitious elements of religion is not a big issue so long as one does not buy into the ideological elements.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:50:32 2011 No.3331394 >>3331384 South Korea has quite a few Christians. In fact, the actually send missionaries to the US.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:51:32 2011 No.3331400 >>3331379 >>3331384 Don't forget the chiefly atheists northern European countries, which are probably the best places to live in the world

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:52:32 2011 No.3331403 >>3331384 Latin America failed because of the Spanish peonage system (where a white ruling elite controlled masses of poor Indians). That and they had Catholicism as the state religion and didn't have religious freedom as the US did.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:52:32 2011 No.3331404 >>3331383 What? Is adultery prohibited or not? Because Jesus is saying there, paraphrased of course; fine you can do it if you want but you're still committing adultery.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:53:32 2011 No.3331407 Agnostic here. Catholics are okay, but Protestants are fucking assholes. Muslims vary from individual to individual.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:53:32 2011 No.3331408 >>3331400 Don't those countries have a state church?

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:53:32 2011 No.3331412

>>3331356
>BTW, the argument about God killing the Egyptian firstborn is fallacious since atheists don't believe that happened in reality anyway.
uhuh, and Vader is not Lukes father

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

the present King of France is not bald

Inuyasha !!mhnKW82iEgG Mon Jul 4 11:53:32 2011 No.3331413

>>3331403
that is not the only reason. Contracts in the Spanish world were a lot weaker. The bank system was also weaker. Many other things were weaker. My point was that you can't just blame everything on religion, even though religion is a huge factor.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:53:32 2011 No.3331414 >>3331379 >implying North Korea isn't the most religious state in the world How can it be that atheism is considered a religion by most religious people, but Kim worship is not?

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:55:32 2011 No.3331419

>>3331372
...You don't know? What kind of a Christian are you?

>>3331375
>Moses was Jesus' ancestor

Swing and a miss.

Moses was a Levite.

Jesus sprang from the line of Judah.

Also, it seems like whisking people away without violence would maintain the safety of Jesus' ancestors better than plagues and famine.

>>3331379
North Korea isn't run by atheists. They practice emperor worship. Kim Jong Il's father is worshiped as a god, much like in WWII Japan.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:55:32 2011 No.3331420

>>3331356

It applies to arguments that god is a decent role-model.

Like in an argument over whether Batman is a decent role-model or not, one could draw on the wealth of material written about him. That Batman is fictional is irrelevant to discussions over his character.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:55:32 2011 No.3331422 >>3331414 >How can it be that atheism is considered a religion by most religious people Huh? What?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:56:32 2011 No.3331426 >>3331393 >Deists or agnostics share almost every position with atheists. I was on a /b/ thread with a gigantic flame war between atheists and agnostics.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:57:32 2011 No.3331432

>>3331413

Religion is not the root of all evil.

Evil is the root, and religion is a sturdy branch of that tree.

We know that merely cutting the branch will only lead to some new, different evil growing in it's place. But, as we see in the developed, modern, western world, reducing the things that feed evil will make the branches whither over time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:58:32 2011 No.3331433 >>3331413 See now you had a very religious American population that built a great superpower nation. And then you had (I would assume to also be religious) population in LA that couldn't develop any functioning, stable societies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:59:32 2011 No.3331436 >>3331414 The Juche system (NK's ruling ideology) still doesn't have any belief in the supernatural or any promise of an afterlife.

>>	Inuyasha !!mhnKW82iEgG Mon Jul 4 11:59:32 2011 No.3331437 >>3331432 i just said that >>3331433 i just said that too.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:59:32 2011 No.3331438 File: 164 KB, 504x1543, 20100409.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3331432

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:01:32 2011 No.3331447 >>3331436 It's still Kim worship. Whether they hold other superstitions is irrelevant, since the end result is the same. Just because you don't like the way that religion conducts itself doesn't mean that it's not one.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:04:32 2011 No.3331455
File: 63 KB, 750x600, 1308620824086.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3331447
If you want to argue that NK is based on emperor worship, I could also mention Cuba (which doesn't have that shit). Place is also a dump.

Also it seems to me that a lot of atheists have a cult worship of Richard Dawkins, amirite?

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:05:15 2011 No.3331460

>>3331436
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/23/north-korea-holy-war-warning

North Korea's armed forces minister, Kim Yong-chun, also lifted the pitch of the sabre-rattling. "To counter the enemy's intentional drive to push the situation to the brink of war, our revolutionary forces are making preparations to begin a holy war at any moment necessary based on nuclear deterrent,"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:06:15 2011 No.3331465 >>3331126 As Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits." The Palestine of his day was full of such fake holy men.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:07:59 2011 No.3331473 >>3331460 If you're going to claim NK is based on a religion (despite no belief in an afterlife or whatnot), then I can also claim that Dawkins-hugging atheists also practice a religion.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:09:43 2011 No.3331481

I miss debate in High School, when I could point to the flow and say, "Clearly, the Affirmative team has refused to address the issues, mentioned in >>3331391 , of marriage as a religious institution, stem cell research, whether their god murders children, and if so, how it could possibly be the most moral option available to an omnipotent being. Therefore, you must side with the Negative in this Debate. Thank you."

>>3331455
Cuba's a shithole because we've had them under a trade embargo for 50 years, so they can only get needed supplies from the outside world through the black market. It has nothing to do with atheism. In fact, since Kennedy was a Catholic, we can trace that nation's ills back to Christianity if we like.

Once again, you're stereotyping all atheists into Dawkins-lovers. I find the man pretentious and antagonistic. I certainly don't worship him, or believe him to have any special status (aside from being rich enough to keep a camera crew with him at all times).

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:09:43 2011 No.3331484

>>3331455

If you are commenting on the easy slide between cults of personality and straight religion, then I agree. In fact, I would say that the only thing separating Kim from Mohammed is that the latter was more successful and more comfortable using explicitly superstitious overtones in his propaganda. And most religions, especially the great man religions of Islam, Christianity and Buddhism, have a similar origin.

People prayed to Stalin, remember, and they still pray to Mao. They are forced to pray to Kim, the dead one and the alive one, to give thanks, to make observances. It has every apparatchik of religion but the afterlife.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:10:28 2011 No.3331489 >>3331473 >then I can also claim that Dawkins-hugging atheists also practice a religion. Of course, as long as they build statues to him, follow his every order and belief him to posses supernatural powers

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:10:43 2011 No.3331487 >>3331473 >Liking somebody is the same as worshiping them as a god! >Religions that don't believe in an afterlife aren't real religions!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:11:28 2011 No.3331491 >>3331465 Entirely full of them, I would say.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:11:28 2011 No.3331495 >>3331484 Some Chinese peasants still believe Mao was a god, and the government has tried to urge them to not believe in "superstitious nonsense"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:12:08 2011 No.3331502 >>3331481 Cuba is free to trade with many countries outside the US and it's still a dump.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:13:08 2011 No.3331507 >>3331491 The Bible warned of false prophets and holy men, and Dawkins is just the latest in a long line of them.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:14:08 2011 No.3331509

>>3331495

So, like I say. We can easily see how cults of personality turn into straight religions. Even with every effort to the contrary.

Now, I don't believe for a second that any of these people actually are gods, or actually speak for gods, but plenty of people do. And who are any religious people to say that the belief of another religious person is wrong. They have no method of discriminating between people who actually speak for god and those who don't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:14:55 2011 No.3331514 Angry teenager detected. Carl Sagan kicked puppies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:14:55 2011 No.3331515 Agnostic master race reporting in. You all suck. /thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:15:55 2011 No.3331519 >>3331507 Many people think that Jesus was among these false prophets, and they have a wealth of biblical evidence to back this up. Why are they wrong and Christians right?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:15:55 2011 No.3331526 >>3331519 I don't think I ever heard of such people except that the Muslims say he wasn't the son of God.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:16:38 2011 No.3331531 >>3331526 You've never heard of the Jews?

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:17:38 2011 No.3331538

>>3331507
HE MEANT THAT ALL THE HOLY MEN IN PALESTINE WERE FAKE BECAUSE HE'S AN ATHEIST, YOU FUCKING CHRISTFAG IDIOT! ATHEISTS DON'T THINK ANY HOLY MEN ARE FOR REAL AND WE DON'T THINK DAWKINS IS A PROPHET EITHER!

FUCK YOU AND FUCK EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD!

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:17:38 2011 No.3331539

>>3331507
It also warned against letting women be teachers, and against wearing clothing of blended fabric.

It also said not to throw your pearls before swine, which is as close to saying "don't talk about religion on 4chan, asshat" as he could have come.

So, do as your savior said, and go away.

Don't try to get the last word. Turn and give me the other cheek, be meek, and live not by the sword.

Cherry-picking dipshit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:19:24 2011 No.3331550 >>3331539 >It also said not to throw your pearls before swine So you admit to being swine. Tell us something we don't already know.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:20:07 2011 No.3331564

>>3331539
>1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in you hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

He also said this, so obviously Christians get to pick which one they like the sound of on any particular day.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:20:07 2011 No.3331566

As a member of the agnostic master race, I wonder why these threads always devolve into atheists rudely slamming a Christian guy's head into the wall and asking him all kinds of absurd questions. I go on /b/ and the religion threads are a lot more interesting and less one sided.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:21:52 2011 No.3331570 >>3331550 >strawman fallacy Yes he admitted we're swine, now take his fucking advice.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:21:52 2011 No.3331572

>>3331550
Cheek not turned. Sword raised. Earth not inherited.

How can you look at the teachings of somebody you call GOD, and immediately do the exact opposite of what they say?

How does that work?

Do you just not CARE about Jesus? Are you a Christian in the way I might be, say, a Cowboys fan?

Does the Bible only matter to you when it suits what you're saying at that exact moment?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:22:52 2011 No.3331574 >>3331566 Name one absurd question?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]