Religion has been independently “invented” by every culture in human history. You must have a pretty cynical view of humanity if you think in every case it was created for population control.
You’re not being specific enough. I’m looking for the actual posts you believe are insulting. I’m not going to go through the 22 pages in the Eucharistic Shenanigans thread and 14 pages in this thread looking for what you deem to be insulting words by atheists against religion and/or Christianity. First, I don’t know you. Second, I’ve already shown my insulting words used by Christians and the religious against atheists. Time for you to put up just like I did.
Actually, both are quite mutable. In the olden days, it was moral to stone a disobedient child to death and to own slaves.
No. It’s your fault. I’ve actually had people tell me “I have nothing against atheists. You can believe anything you want. God just doesn’t like it so you should believe in Him.” :what:
I only do it to people that give it first. There’s the old saying, “You get what you give.” And “Treat others as you want to be treated.” If they want to dole out the insults and equate me to Satan himself, then this person obviously wants to be treated that way in return.
There’s only one problem with your little “turnabout is fair play” idea: Atheists don’t claim to be the bastions of morality wherein you can only be moral if you’re atheist. Christians all the time tell me that, since their morality comes from God and I don’t believe in God, I must have no morals. :meh:
When atheists preach out their moral superiority for over a thousand years, then I’ll agree with you. Until that time…
You’d still be right, though. 
Not on purpose, I’m sure it was originally put forth as a set of moral rules for people to live their lives by. But things have changed yet some people still stubbornly cling to these ancient rules because they don’t like change.
And some people realised that these rules could be used as justification to erradicate those who opposed them.
While I agree that it’s not likely every religion ( or even most ) is created as a form of population control, I’m against the idea that just because it’s a global phenomenon it’s correct. This has no bearing on your comment, but I’ve heard the argument that if religion isn’t right, then why is so much of the population religious? Basically the defensive ‘are we all just part of a mass delusion’ stance.
I’d kind of suggest that it is rather possible. At one point a good deal of humans believed the earth was flat. Even now a shadow moves in the dark and we assume it’s a threat and not the wind blowing hanging laundry ( just a lose example ). What I mean is that it could very well be a natural side effect of how our minds relate and interpret a world it is apart from. Our minds assume, and react naturally. However, that doesn’t mean that these natural reactions are correct. If we see a shadow and think it’s an attacker, and investigate to find out it is simply clothing, should we continue to believe it’s just a very tricky attacker? No, we deduce that it was just a natural reaction of our mind and our analysis of the situation suggested otherwise. Could there still be an attacker skilled enough to cover his tracks in such a way? Yeah, I guess so. But there isn’t evidence of this, and I refuse to believe that every hanging piece of clothing is an attacker in my house when I’ve gone through the process of assuring myself that it was always just a hanging shirt.
Here’s the way I see those that bash atheists for what is perceived to be bashing of religion:
It’s like these people look at atheists and think that their words and actions (such as putting up a sign in the capitol building in Olympia, Washington) are coming out of the blue with no rhyme or reason behind it, as if the first panel never happened.
@MaxTheLimit: But, if it’s a ninja, you’re dead already. :ninja:
@gwgamer:
The only atheist I’ve seen directly attacking religious people without provocation has been JohnKiller, and he’s an angsty teen that likes to troll.
Q: More people are becoming atheist and agnostic, do you consider this to be a good thing?
Looking at it in one way, it’s a good thing: it gives the impression that people are becoming more rational and are challenging the constants in their lives.
However, the rise of the nutritionist, the success of homoeopathy and other such guff makes me doubt it. Seems like people are turning away from religion simply because it’s becoming less popular.
People aren’t become more rational, it is just that there are more options for world views in the public awareness today than there were even 50 years ago than religion. Especially with the advent of the internet and the information age.
Definetly. Those who become real atheists turn to rationalism instead of blind belief, which is an overall improvement and will change not only their way of perceiving the world and human behaviour, but also the way they behave among other people.
Exchanging religion for superstition is not an improvement, however - obviously! No matter what kind of myth you believe in, it still remains a myth. There`s no such thing as a “superior belief”.
The only thing superior to belief is knowledge. And the most effective way to accumulate knowledge has proven to be science. Critical thinking and an open mind are prerequisites to that, and religion, superstition and blind belief are somewhat opposed to that.
Observing that atheists are often far more peaceful people than religious ones, I consider it to be a good thing that atheism is growing. Religious people might get the impression that all atheists do is bashing religion - while in fact they are just asking critical questions or stating how absurd they find certain (often too fundamental) beliefs, given the evidence that has shown them to be flawed.
To criticize is not to bash. I find that religious people often are prone to hypochrisy, which is frequently displayed in behaviour like that on the picture which danielsangeo has posted up there ^
While trying to counter atheist criticism with often unfounded and sometimes even outright ridiculous counter-arguments, or even insulting them or at least their intelligence by preaching instead of debating, they don`t ever find their own behaviour to be irritating. It is difficult to debate in a civilized way with someone whose intellect, morality or way of life you consider to be inferior to your own.
Atheists have their evidence, religious people have their faith as backup. Both consider their backup to be stronger than the other`s. Of course, under this circumstances, the discussion is bound to end in a painful and unsatisfactory manner.
Also: This!
It always makes me laugh when the facts you post are either links to articles you’ve not even read or links to youtube.
Watching now.
Also, for the love of your God, respond to this.
EDIT: So, basically, it’s a badly edited video with a weird audio effect in which some moron talks rubbish.
He starts off by listing reasons for people becoming atheists in a derisive voice, as if that’s going to convert them back. He doesn’t even challenge them. He then talks about evolution being false, but again, doesn’t give any reasons for it. Then he goes on for ages about political correctness, for some reason, and seems to get confused and link it to governmental politics. Then he makes some weird comment about how knowledge proves god or something.
I decided, before watching the video, to play the video and then hit stop as soon as I get to a lie about atheism or something else not relevant to atheism. Let’s see how far we get:
Movie actually starts at 0m27s. All that is preface and thus not part of the final total.
Movie stopped at 0m28s. “Accepting evolution”.
Oooh… Just barely missed the record.
(Nice necroposting, by the way.)
can someone post me link of that creepy christian guy who thinks he beats atheism in his videos
Current is fantastic.
- Here’s information on the clinical trials done in the past 40 years:
https://www.gerson.org/pdfs/Surviving%20Against%20All%20Odds.pdf
-
liver function being restored and fat being removed from the liver counts as a healthy procedure. (The only 2 Enema related deaths ever were because 1 patient overdosed the enema, and the other was allergic to caffeine)
-
The juice is from concentrate, and evidence shows that it pours out up to 8x more juice from leafy greens than centrifugal juicers, there’s probably someone in your area that has a Norwalk, call Norwalk to ask who has one. Try a juice it’s really good. cf. Norwalk Juicer California
-
Look again at the article about the research Dr. Eileen White from Rutger University who is the Associate Director for Basic Science, at The Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Professor in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, at Rutgers University is doing about cell death, her research shows evidence that cancer is caused by a protein deficiency, resulting in acidity and a lack of Autophagy. cf1. waste disposal cf2. Eileen White
What the Gerson Therapy does is it nourishes your body so much that the cancer cells cannot absorb what it needs to survive. Cancer is literally damaged cells, feeding off of the unused acidic nutrients in the blood.
Here’s where the liver comes in, because the body is being fed correctly with an alkaline diet, the blood is completely filtered by the liver and the kidneys from the acids excreted by the healthy cells in your body which the cancer feeds on. The Liver is one of the most important filtration system in the body to keep in health. cf. liver functions
If the body feeds itself properly with an alkaline diet and is well filtered by the liver, colon, and kidneys, the cancer cells cannot consume the acids it needs to survive since it needs an acidic environment to survive cf. national library of medicine. so the cancer starts to literally eat ITSELF (autophagy), until there is nothing left to feed on and thus the DNA breaks apart so much that the cell dies. cf. Autophagy in Cancer paragraph 2 sentence 3.
…has been shown to be wrong by multiple people during the peer-review process.
I’m gonna make a new thread for it, since here’s not the place.