Critcism of religion by Pat Condell

[Negasta]

Pat Condell is a British comedian that has a Youtube channel on which he criticizes religion in a humorous manner. He is especially critical of the Religion of Peace a.k.a. Islam.

Pat Condell on Youtube

He was once called a racist by some PC fascist member of the Peace and Justice Commission at UC Berkley who had seen the video.

Here is the video:



And her is his response to the accusation of racism:



Here is another one where he discusses the unwarranted appeasement of Islam in Europe:



He is also saves quite a bit of his contempt for Christianity.

Here is an example:



Here he is taking a shot at faith in general:



I'm a huge fan of Mr. Condell and agree with everything he says in his videos. What are your thoughts?

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Yay. Another "I am so much smarter than those who worship sky gods" person....You're not that smart if you haven't figured out that Judea was a backwater pissant town that was lucky to be considered a wart on the ass of the Roman Empire. If we don't give a flying fuck about what happens in South Dakota, then why the hell would the Romans give a flying fuck about Judea? Yeesh. If you are so fucking intelligent, why are you applying today's political lay of the land to when it didn't apply?[/rant]

I hate people who can't put it together that just because someone or something is famous NOW doesn't mean that they were famous THEN.

Why do these people never direct their wrath towards Hinduism or Buddhism? Oh yeah: It would be racially intolerant. Meh...

At any rate: Faith is there because it works. We have all of these studies that show that people with faith in something live a few years longer, and that prayer helps the sick and dying. And then there is the minor detail that, if you eliminated the >1% that are complete morons, you would have a lot of great people. But, no: Let's use the worst examples of the religion and use those as the brush to paint a big freaking picture....

I know that a lot of religious people hold a lot of weird beliefs, but I'm thinking that that's part of being human. How many people in Templars as a current organization, or that sex between virgins can't spread STD's, or that a particularly cute star is gay? And it seems that belief in gay stars and Templars increases with less religion, so I think that I can legitimately say that humans have an intrinsic need for belief in something. At least religion requires people to meet up once in a while, and is becoming a lot more gay-friendly (we're getting there! Honest!).

Yeesh...silly atheists...

RG

 

[LaloGS]

RG,

If we believed in the reality of nature, as strongly as some humans believe in their "gods", perhaps the earth wouldn't be in such dire straights now. If there is a god, it has to be nature, not some impossible being with a penchant for punishing anyone who doesn't agree with him, it, her, or whatever. Sorry if you're offended, but your belief system is sick and disgusting what ever it is.

And, thanks Negasta, these clips are a rational level headed exposé for us all to appreciate why it is so difficult to believe in god.

I mean, just because I once posted that my basset can think and love, I got pms telling me I was going to burn in hell because their religion says animals have no souls. I know she does, and they would rather stand by some man made edict rather than look into her soulful eyes and denying her intelligence. If there is a god, its name is dog.

 

[Negasta]

RobinGoodfellow, your above post is incoherent to a degree that makes it almost unintelligible.

Why do these people never direct their wrath towards Hinduism or Buddhism?

Because Hindus and Buddhists aren't detonating suicide bombs and trying to force creationism into schools while trying to turn the most powerful nation on Earth into theocracy.

Also, if you pulled your head out of your self-righteous ass long enough, you might notice the Mr. Condell did make a video about Buddhism.

...and that prayer helps the sick and dying.

Actually not, scientific, peer reviewed studies have shown that prayer has no effect on illness and recovery and that people in the studies that were told that they were being prayed for, actually recovered slower and encountered more complications after surgery.

On your little diatribe about silly beliefs, the silly beliefs you mention like "Zac is gay" may be silly, but unlike the silly beliefs of the religious, they do not cause untold misery, especially in the developing world or try to stultify the minds of children with idiotic creation fairy tales.

The one rebuttal I'll make against all comers is the criticism of religion, ignoring the spiritual dimensions of religion. Attacks are often political, intellectual, or sociological, but spiritual peace is a benefit to humanity.

To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens: "What rational person would want to return to the burning bush once he has seen the images produced by the Hubble telescope."

Most Atheists including myself, view the universe with an awe that comes close to being spiritual. We don't need an invisible dictator in the sky to feel at one with nature and be good. You should read the final chapter of Sam Harris' End of Faith for a good look at the possibility of being spiritual without the need to believe in a deity.

The major religions help flood victims, the poor, the sick, etc., and no amount of harping on a child abuse or abortion or homosexuality erases all of that.

Yes, then they do help, but then they also spread lies about birth control and family planning, like "condoms are actually designed to spread AIDS", so poor people have more children than the can afford and AIDS spread like wildfire.

If Atheistic organizations had the same sort of clout and funding (not to mention tax exemption) that churches had, they would be able to provide the same sort of aid, but without the genocidal religious stupidity attached.

 

[AlinCanada]

Originally Posted by Hard-up1
The major religions help flood victims, the poor, the sick, etc., and no amount of harping on a child abuse or abortion or homosexuality erases all of that.\\\



Strangley enough the largest aid agencies in the world are not sponsored under religion. The Red Cross, The Red Crescent, UNESCO etc. They help and they also promote good sexual health, and anti discrimination. If all the money directed to church run agencies went to them they would continue to provide services at an even greater rate. Since however so much giving goes through churches who each run their own different administration a huge amount of aide each year is lost to those churches rather then providing the actual services to flood victims, aids victims, etc. Good math shows you how it works and just a basic understanding of single vender economics will tell you that the multitude of different church run agencies actually decrease the effectiveness of each dollar.


As for the comments I agree whole sail with the U tube commentary.

 

[darcey]

I'm continually confused by people who aggressively battle something they view as a figment of one's imagination. Why worry about somthing which does not exist ??

It seems to me that they are upset by the man-made institutions which claim to represent the spiritual views of human kind. And any institution involving man-kind is going to be screwed up because, well, it involves people !

The spiritual belief belongs to the individual, & should be respected as much as the individual is respected. The institutions are another kettle of fish.

Why not agree to disagree & aim all the rage at mans inhumanity to man instead. There is more than enough guilt to go around. Vote, Mentor, Offer care & concern to others. It just might make a much needed difference.

 

[Negasta]

I'm continually confused by people who aggressively battle something they view as a figment of one's imagination. Why worry about somthing which does not exist ??

Because these figments are the motivation of insane people who want to acquire nuclear weapons and would have no qualms about using them on all of us. Because these figments are the motivation of people who want to turn America into a theocratic hellhole and want to poison the minds of the nation's children with creationist nonsense and want to spread their influence through illegal and ruinous wars.

It seems to me that they are upset by the man-made institutions which claim to represent the spiritual views of human kind. And any institution involving man-kind is going to be screwed up because, well, it involves people !

Institutions aren't intrinsically the problem, but when you mix the bullshit contained in religious dogma with any institution, a huge fuckup always ensues.

The spiritual belief belongs to the individual, & should be respected as much as the individual is respected. The institutions are another kettle of fish.

I have never said that people who keep their faith to themselves should be forced to abandon it. In similar threads, myself and others have been accused of proselytization, but (in the case of those threads I have started) I have only posted stuff I found interesting or agreed with and asked people to weigh in with their opinions.

Why not agree to disagree & aim all the rage at mans inhumanity to man instead. There is more than enough guilt to go around. Vote, Mentor, Offer care & concern to others. It just might make a much needed difference.

The problem is that most of man's inhumanity to man currently occurring on Earth is caused in some direct or indirect by religion and its agents.

 

[darcey]

"The problem is that most of man's inhumanity to man currently occuring on Earth is caused in some direct or indirect by religion and its agents"

Wouldn't it be more correct to say "religion" is being used as the 'veil' for the desire for power & to feed their greed?

You speak of the institutions, but blast the believers.

Fred Phelps claims "religion" as his mask, but I think we agree that he isn't coming from any spiritual view, but his own internalized self hate.

The noise arising from the muslim community is, in truth, caused by a small, extreme group.

It's not the religion, but the abuse of it that is causing problems. And shutting down the "religion" won't change that desire for power or greed lust.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

RobinGoodfellow, your above post is incoherent to a degree that makes it almost unintelligible.

Translation: You've said something that implies that my new hero had his facts wrong, and so you either have to be insane or stupid.

Get a life. If you had bother checking your facts then you would have realized that this guy had just jumped on the anti-religious bandwagon. I'm so tired of people that attack others just because they are "The Establishment"; it's easy to attack. Ever thought of listening to someone who was actually trying to build something of merit and not just tearing something down?

Because Hindus and Buddhists aren't detonating suicide bombs and trying to force creationism into schools while trying to turn the most powerful nation on Earth into theocracy.

1) The US will never be a theocracy. If you think that, you are a truly delusional. For every Kansas situation (the sole place where Creationism was forced into the books), you have a hundred situations where judges need to defend placing a copy of the Ten Commandment where someone might possibly see it, where Christmas parties need to be renamed Holiday parties, and where artists can stick a cross into urine. If the US was anywhere near being a theocracy, would any of those situations happen?

2) Let's ignore the Hindu caste system and sutees, and Buddhist monk flambes, because they aren't Christian. And if you think Creationism in schools is bad, ever tried Reincarnation?

Also, if you pulled your head out of your self-righteous ass long enough, you might notice the Mr. Condell did make a video about Buddhism.

Yeah, that makes his point that much more valid.

Actually not, scientific, peer reviewed studies have shown that prayer has no effect on illness and recovery and that people in the studies that were told that they were being prayed for, actually recovered slower and encountered more complications after surgery.

Actually, the peer-reviewed accounts are all over the place. For every heart-patient study, you have another where prayer helped the patient, and a third where prayer was about effective as a placebo. It's one of those weird things that surgeons agree that it's generally effective, but haven't been able to prove it (and they've bee trying since at least 1872!).

On your little diatribe about silly beliefs, the silly beliefs you mention like "Zac is gay" may be silly, but unlike the silly beliefs of the religious, they do not cause untold misery, especially in the developing world or try to stultify the minds of children with idiotic creation fairy tales.

Actually, I would debate the effect on third-world nations, unless you consider AIDS, starvation and pollution positive things. And "fairy tales" do not try to "stultify", but to show that actions have consequences; again, unless you consider violence, rape, and harassment to be good things (Dr. Seuss=EVIL!, apparently).

To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens: "What rational person would want to return to the burning bush once he has seen the images produced by the Hubble telescope."

Apple. Orange. Whereas I agree that pictures from the Hubble Telescope are awe-inspiring, so is the story of the Israelites escaping Egyptian persecution. I'd like to think that both are important.

Most Atheists including myself, view the universe with an awe that comes close to being spiritual. We don't need an invisible dictator in the sky to feel at one with nature and be good. You should read the final chapter of Sam Harris' End of Faith for a good look at the possibility of being spiritual without the need to believe in a deity.

Omnipresent: Everywhere. Not just sky. Everywhere. How can you use a word like "stultify" and then trip over a simple word like "omnipresent"? Weird...

That said: It's fine to be spiritual, as long as you don't inhibit others. Put another way: Why should your spirituality require you to destroy that of another?

Yes, then they do help, but then they also spread lies about birth control and family planning, like "condoms are actually designed to spread AIDS", so poor people have more children than the can afford and AIDS spread like wildfire.

And which group is spreading that rumor? Even the Catholic church, which is against birth control because of the "go forth and multiply" issue, has begun to recognize that condoms have their place.

If Atheistic organizations had the same sort of clout and funding (not to mention tax exemption) that churches had, they would be able to provide the same sort of aid, but without the genocidal religious stupidity attached.

Actually, they do (several courts have recognized atheism as a religion); atheists however, debate whether they are a religion or not. And atheists (such as Mao and Stalin) have shown that you can have genocidal stupidity without being religious. And if you so needed an atheist charity to donate to, why not some Luter Burbank institution.

I just find it interesting that you require a personal exemption to be charitable, ignoring that anyone who gives to the charity gets the tax benefits.

Sorry; I'm just finding atheists to be sadly amusing. You're committing the same sins that you slam religion for, and doing it because it's the right thing to do...

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Because these figments are the motivation of insane people who want to acquire nuclear weapons and would have no qualms about using them on all of us. Because these figments are the motivation of people who want to turn America into a theocratic hellhole and want to poison the minds of the nation's children with creationist nonsense and want to spread their influence through illegal and ruinous wars.

1) Best bit of propaganda I've read in a bit...However, the US is unlikely to become theocratic any time soon. Also, the war isn't illegal; the Declaration of War is still valid, even if the logic was somewhat skewed (that is, the WMD's were but one reason for the Iran War; it's easy to forget that the US was being to asked by a number of nations to intercede in Iran due to Hussein's "leadership" causing so many deaths).

2) Re: Nuclear weapons: Last time I checked, the US is actually getting rid of its nuclear missiles, and trying to prevent Iraq from acquiring some, especially after the atheist Koreans acquired theirs...

Institutions aren't intrinsically the problem, but when you mix the bullshit contained in religious dogma with any institution, a huge fuckup always ensues.

I generally find it's when an organization has lost it's path that it becomes a problem, not when it has one. When the Catholic Church is bad, people may die, but when it's been good, it's been very good. Just compare the current pope and the last one...

I have never said that people who keep their faith to themselves should be forced to abandon it. In similar threads, myself and others have been accused of proselytization, but (in the case of those threads I have started) I have only posted stuff I found interesting or agreed with and asked people to weigh in with their opinions.

The key being that you agreed with them. It's the insulting those that disagreed with you, and posting vids such as you did here, and quoting Hitchens that probably earned you that rep...

The problem is that most of man's inhumanity to man currently occurring on Earth is caused in some direct or indirect by religion and its agents.

I would debate this. There are just too many churches and religious charities doing good, and too many godless warlords killing people for kicks. I think that, with an honest evaluation, you would see that religion is still more likely to be on the side of winged mythical beings sporting luminous headgear rather than those with skull enhancements...

RG

 

[Negasta]

Translation: You've said something that implies that my new hero had his facts wrong, and so you either have to be insane or stupid.

Get a life. If you had bother checking your facts then you would have realized that this guy had just jumped on the anti-religious bandwagon. I'm so tired of people that attack others just because they are "The Establishment"; it's easy to attack. Ever thought of listening to someone who was actually trying to build something of merit and not just tearing something down?

Actually he has been attacking religion in his acts for years, however he just only recently discovered Youtube.

The US will never be a theocracy. If you think that, you are a truly delusional.

Once again, if you had pulled your head out of your ass long enough to actually read what I wrote, you would have seen that I said "trying" not "going to".

Let's ignore the Hindu caste system and sutees, and Buddhist monk flambes, because they aren't Christian. And if you think Creationism in schools is bad, ever tried Reincarnation?

Sutee is long in the past and Buddhist monks only immolate themselves, not others. Muslims blowing themselves up in crowded market places and Christian theocrats are decidedly in the present.

Actually, the peer-reviewed accounts are all over the place. For every heart-patient study, you have another where prayer helped the patient, and a third where prayer was about effective as a placebo. It's one of those weird things that surgeons agree that it's generally effective, but haven't been able to prove it (and they've bee trying since at least 1872!).

Exactly! Prayer is no better than a placebo in cases where it actually does show an effect. Prayer is no better than the sugar pill given to a patient who then shows improvement.

Actually, I would debate the effect on third-world nations, unless you consider AIDS, starvation and pollution positive things. And "fairy tales" do not try to "stultify", but to show that actions have consequences; again, unless you consider violence, rape, and harassment to be good things (Dr. Seuss=EVIL!, apparently).

Well, the Bible considers all the above crimes to be good and in many cases actually condones them. Same with the Qu'ran. I would also say that when the fairy tale of Genesis is pushed on young minds, it does indeed stultify them.

Apple. Orange. Whereas I agree that pictures from the Hubble Telescope are awe-inspiring, so is the story of the Israelites escaping Egyptian persecution. I'd like to think that both are important.

The difference is that the Hubble telescope images are real and the entire myth of Exodus is not.

Omnipresent: Everywhere. Not just sky. Everywhere. How can you use a word like "stultify" and then trip over a simple word like "omnipresent"? Weird...

Once again the Head/Ass thing comes into play. I was being sarcastic.

That said: It's fine to be spiritual, as long as you don't inhibit others. Put another way: Why should your spirituality require you to destroy that of another?

You finally got something right!

And which group is spreading that rumor? Even the Catholic church, which is against birth control because of the "go forth and multiply" issue, has begun to recognize that condoms have their place.

Catholic Bishop: "Condoms cause AIDS"

I rest my case. The doucheb...bishop in question was never reprimanded.

Actually, they do (several courts have recognized atheism as a religion); atheists however, debate whether they are a religion or not. And atheists (such as Mao and Stalin) have shown that you can have genocidal stupidity without being religious.

I am actually against court recognizing Atheism as a religion.

On the second point I won't even say anything other than it is by now an intellectual embarrassment for a anybody to still bring up Stalin/Moa/Pol Pot/Hitler quartet in any debate, because this line of argument has been thoroughly refuted on many separate occasions by far greater thinkers/debaters than I. If you need link to any of those debates, I will provide them.

Re: Nuclear weapons: Last time I checked, the US is actually getting rid of its nuclear missiles, and trying to prevent Iraq from acquiring some, especially after the atheist Koreans acquired theirs...

I was referring to the hundred (possibly thousands) of poorly secured ex-Soviet nuclear warhead littering much of Asia that are being guarded by corrupt Military officers that would sell then to anybody (think Al Qaida) for the right price not to mention the chemical and biological weapons under similar conditions. There are also the nuclear weapons currently in the arsenal of Pakistan, a country that is just one cunt hair breadth away from falling under the control of Islamic crazies.

Sorry; I'm just finding atheists to be sadly amusing. You're committing the same sins that you slam religion for, and doing it because it's the right thing to do...

Please do name those sins...

 

[Kulindahr]

The first one:

He makes some good points and voices some deep-seated complaints, though he goes a little overboard on name-calling. He raises issues that John Howard did in Australia, albeit in different fashion.


The second one:

A masterful defense of a free society against barbaric ideas and those who want to return to them!


The third one:

Although he's got a number of his facts wrong, he makes some wonderfully incisive jabs. I kept wondering what he'd think if he knew that a lot of what he says can be found in the revival sermons of Charles Finney and others Christians... a century earlier.
Somehow it's gotten out of fashion for Christians to hold other Christians to the actual words of Christ. I suppose that comes from a culture where preachers are hired and fired by their listeners. That's one reason I appreciate the "liturgical" churches: the priests/pastors aren't supposed to go picking and choosing what they talk about, but preach their way through the whole of scripture, following traditional schedules/calendars -- and I really like the Lutheran emphasis that the message in the Bible is never for "those other folks", but always for us, for me; it isn't about telling others how bad they are until and unless you stand under the Word and let its light shone on all your own errors, goof-ups, idiocies, foolishness, laziness, spitefulness, lack of concern and compassion, hypocrisy....


The fourth one:

He's talking about his own fairy-tale, a version of "faith" that he's made up for himself, not one that has much at all to do with Christianity, or Judaism. He got so many errors and (admittedly popular) falsehoods in there I lost track quickly.

But I'll tackle one, the allegation that the Gospels are from long after: the best papyrological evidence, which is the physical evidence associated with items, is that Matthew's Gospel was written during the lifetime of the apostles Jesus appointed, definitely before 68 A.D. The textual evidence strongly suggests that Mark's Gospel was set down before Matthew's was, which indicates it was probably finished and in circulation by 65 A.D. Those are the latest possible dates; Mark could have been finished by 50 and Matthew by 55.

So as an observer of the contemporary scene, relating to what's in the media and the public eye, this guy is very good. But he doesn't have his background information straight -- or as he might put it, he's an ignorant yokel sounding off on things he's got no clue about.

 

[Kulindahr]

RG,
If we believed in the reality of nature, as strongly as some humans believe in their "gods", perhaps the earth wouldn't be in such dire straights now. If there is a god, it has to be nature, not some impossible being with a penchant for punishing anyone who doesn't agree with him, it, her, or whatever.

If Christians had read scripture honsetly, instead of following the rest of humanity in using whatever was at hand to justify what they wanted to do anyway, this earth wouldn't be in such dire straits now: the first "environmentalists" came long before the industrial age; it's just that their honest reading of the book of Genesis wasn't convenient to industrialists making a buck or kings making war.

And, thanks Negasta, these clips are a rational level headed exposé for us all to appreciate why it is so difficult to believe in god.

They demonstrate the brainwashing that's been going on for the purpose of making it hard to believe in God, yes. But he runs roughshod over the facts in order to get where he does. The level of ignorance is sad.

I mean, just because I once posted that my basset can think and love, I got pms telling me I was going to burn in hell because their religion says animals have no souls. I know she does, and they would rather stand by some man made edict rather than look into her soulful eyes and denying her intelligence. If there is a god, its name is dog.

What religion were they from?
There's nothing in the Bible one way or the other about animals and souls, or intelligence. Many in the Christian church through history would say they do -- and any Christian who denies that needs to get back to school.
C. S. Lewis is a fairly recent example of these; his belief seemed to be that any animal which is loved will share eternal life with its 'master'.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Actually he has been attacking religion in his acts for years, however he just only recently discovered Youtube.

Okay...So he's been your hero a long time....I'm still saying he's wrong...

Once again, if you had pulled your head out of your ass long enough to actually read what I wrote, you would have seen that I said "trying" not "going to".

Outside of semantics, the difference is...what exactly?

Sutee is long in the past and Buddhist monks only immolate themselves, not others. Muslims blowing themselves up in crowded market places and Christian theocrats are decidedly in the present.

Sutee is still in practice; it's just not as popular. I'm still not seeing how these are made any more acceptable by not affecting crowds....

Exactly! Prayer is no better than a placebo in cases where it actually does show an effect. Prayer is no better than the sugar pill given to a patient who then shows improvement.

So...I'm confused: Is it merely a placebo, or is it causing complications? And, I'm apparently not the only one in need an auto-rectal lobotomy: I said it was found to be good, placebo, or bad, depending on the study (which is a major difference, as it implies that there is some possible danger).

Well, the Bible considers all the above crimes to be good and in many cases actually condones them. Same with the Qu'ran. I would also say that when the fairy tale of Genesis is pushed on young minds, it does indeed stultify them.

Let's see: One is mentioned specifically in a commandment, another several times as punishable by death, and the third isn't even mentioned. Is there some sort of Atheist Abridged version?

And how does Genesis "stultify" young minds, exactly? Don't make me go all Princess Bride! Read: Are we talking how Creationists translate it, or that it seems that 1:1-23 does seem to describe exactly how scientists think it happened....

The difference is that the Hubble telescope images are real and the entire myth of Exodus is not.

A lot of Exodus has been proven correct, even if a bit edited due to spin doctors. Wanna try again?

Once again the Head/Ass thing comes into play. I was being sarcastic.

And you expect me to be able to tell how exactly?

You finally got something right!

Oh, this is that sarcasm thing that you mention...

Catholic Bishop: "Condoms cause AIDS"

I rest my case. The doucheb...bishop in question was never reprimanded.

Yes, you have shown that A PERSON, not AN INSTITUTION, has said that condoms causes AIDS.

I am actually against court recognizing Atheism as a religion.

Strangely enough, a number of atheists are. Nonetheless, it is a religion (a philosophy defended with zeal, as well having a very definite belief in God, albeit in the negative). Interesting that...

On the second point I won't even say anything other than it is by now an intellectual embarrassment for a anybody to still bring up Stalin/Moa/Pol Pot/Hitler quartet in any debate, because this line of argument has been thoroughly refuted on many separate occasions by far greater thinkers/debaters than I. If you need link to any of those debates, I will provide them.

Er...I didn't bring up Hitler or Pol Pot. Stallin and Mao, however, were atheists that killed a large number of people due to their "religion"; this is historical fact, especially as some of those people were attacked due to their religion.

[And I was in most of those debates; I'm not seeing how it Stalin or Mao killing hundreds of thousands of people was refuted.]

I was referring to the hundred (possibly thousands) of poorly secured ex-Soviet nuclear warhead littering much of Asia that are being guarded by corrupt Military officers that would sell then to anybody (think Al Qaida) for the right price not to mention the chemical and biological weapons under similar conditions. There are also the nuclear weapons currently in the arsenal of Pakistan, a country that is just one cunt hair breadth away from falling under the control of Islamic crazies.

You have a "Go Bush!" bumper sticker, don't you? The similar debating tactics re: Muslims w/nukes just scream "paranoid warmonger".

Please do name those sins...

Arrogance, genocide, conversion by force, ignorance, and basically not letting other people be happy campers. These are a few of your favorite things...

RG

 

[fiorio]

I love this guy!
He is awesome!

 

[Negasta]

Outside of semantics, the difference is...what exactly?

The difference of words changes the whole meaning of the statement, that's the difference.

Sutee is still in practice; it's just not as popular. I'm still not seeing how these are made any more acceptable by not affecting crowds....

Yes, sutee is still happening in rare cases, but it's illegal and punished if discovered and monks burning themselves is made infinitely more acceptable because they only harm themselves while suicide bombers decidedly don't.

Let's see: One is mentioned specifically in a commandment, anotherseveral times as punishable by death, and the third isn't even mentioned. Is there some sort of Atheist Abridged version?

Violence: God several times commands the Israelites to commit genocide against the people already occupying the "promised land". Stoning is advocated and glorified as a punishment for the most benign of "crimes".

Rape: Rape is condoned as a tactic of war against enemy women. Also the only time any sort of real punishment is prescribed for rape is for the victim if she did not scream loudly enough and for the perpetrator if the victim was married (i.e. already the property of another man).

Harassment: You mean you don't know of the constant harassment prescribed by God and Jesus of unbelievers.

Also, before you come with the old "But that's in the Old Testament!" schpiel, then least me ask you one thing. Then why don''t you get rid of the it?

And how does Genesis "stultify" young minds, exactly? Don't make me go all Princess Bride! Read: Are we talking how Creationists translate it, or that it seems that 1:1-23 does seem to describe exactly how scientists think it happened....

Well, when you teach children that a big father in the sky (that is how God is seen most of the Bible) created the universe in six days and then tell them to reject the mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary.

A lot of Exodus has been proven correct, even if a bit edited due to spin doctors. Wanna try again?

Please do give a citation for that, because in actual fact, there has been no archaeological or linguistic evidence of found of the Hebrew people ever having been present in Egypt or of and exodus.

Yes, you have shown that A PERSON, not AN INSTITUTION, has said that condoms causes AIDS.

Yes, a person that was never reprimanded for his statement by the papacy, a tacit endorsement in my eyes. Also all the research I did, indicated that the Catholic position is still "AIDS bad, condoms worse".

a philosophy defended with zeal, as well having a very definite belief in God, albeit in the negative

The only thing all Atheists have in common is their lack of a belief in the supernatural. Atheism is not a philosophy, my philosophy is one of anti-theism, one which I'm defending here. There are in fact many Atheists who would be on your side in this debate. Atheist are so zealous in many cases because we had for centuries been forced either by the threat of death or the threat of social exclusion to keep our opinions to ourselves.

Er...I didn't bring up Hitler or Pol Pot. Stallin and Mao, however, were atheists that killed a large number of people due to their "religion"; this is historical fact, especially as some of those people were attacked due to their religion.

Yes you did and yes, they did kill millions of people. However, they killed those people not because of their Atheism, they killed them in the name of the immoral/evil philosophy of Marxism/Communism and the equally bad Fascism and their fanatical beliefs in those philosophies.

As Christopher Hitchens points out (paraphrased): "Name me a country that has adopted the ideals of Spinoza, Paine, Jefferson et al. that has gone to hell in a hand basket because of those ideals." I can name a country one country founded on those ideals, namely the United States and the funny thing is it didn't start to go to hell until the religious started trying to push their beliefs into national policy (and in many cases succeeded).

I will say no more, as this line of debate has been refuted by all four of the great Atheist writers of today.

[And I was in most of those debates; I'm not seeing how it Stalin or Mao killing hundreds of thousands of people was refuted.]

I never said the number of victims has been refuted, only the usually touted motivation for doing so. Also name the debate you were at (I have them all on video BTW).

You have a "Go Bush!" bumper sticker, don't you? The similar debating tactics re: Muslims w/nukes just scream "paranoid warmonger".

Actually, if you know my political leanings, you would know that I dislike the man intensely. Do you honestly discount the scenarios in mentioned? Then you are a fool that will probably still think religion is a force for good when a mushroom cloud appears over a major American or European city.

Arrogance...

Yes, not believing in God and not keeping quiet about it is arrogant, but believing that the creator of the universe loves you, personally takes care of you every moment of your life, will suspend the laws of nature if you ask nicely and if you are really good even allow you survive your death in eternal bliss is not.

...genocide...

Your seems to thick to notice that this has been refuted any times by myself and others.

...conversion by force...

What's that now?!

...ignorance...

I have found that in most debated with Christians, the Atheists actually know more about the Bible than the Christians. What other ignorance are you talking about?

...and basically not letting other people be happy campers.

Just a little tit-for-tat I say.

They demonstrate the brainwashing that's been going on for the purpose of making it hard to believe in God

Actually, for a rational person, no propaganda is needed to see the irrationality of God belief. I myself cam to Atheism on my own without any external intervention and long before Dawkins, Hitchens et al. wrote their current bestsellers.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

The difference of words changes the whole meaning of the statement, that's the difference.

That's semantics, as I pointed out...I was curious whatthe ACTUAL difference was, not that it was semantics, as I, well, pointed out...

Yes, sutee is still happening in rare cases, but it's illegal and punished if discovered and monks burning themselves is made infinitely more acceptable because they only harm themselves while suicide bombers decidedly don't.

I love people that justify suicide as protest rather than making a difference...

Violence: God several times commands the Israelites to commit genocide against the people already occupying the "promised land". Stoning is advocated and glorified as a punishment for the most benign of "crimes".

One would have happened if they invaded, and capital punishment is hardly a sin. Wanna try again?

Rape: Rape is condoned as a tactic of war against enemy women. Also the only time any sort of real punishment is prescribed for rape is for the victim if she did not scream loudly enough and for the perpetrator if the victim was married (i.e. already the property of another man).

Incorrect. Kidnapping brides was condoned, not rape. And rape has several listed punishments...

Harassment: You mean you don't know of the constant harassment prescribed by God and Jesus of unbelievers.

Where? As you don't consider proselytization as harassment, that doesn't count....

Also, before you come with the old "But that's in the Old Testament!" schpiel, then least me ask you one thing. Then why don''t you get rid of the it?

Actually, it can be argued that Jesus Himself eliminated the OT with his sole commandment...

Well, when you teach children that a big father in the sky (that is how God is seen most of the Bible) created the universe in six days and then tell them to reject the mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary.

Ignoring, conveniently of course, that most scientists are Christian/Mulsim/Jewish, and that most Christians read The Bible figuratively rather than literally, and of course that God usually showed up in bushes, prophets, and stones (all land-based), you have a very valid point...

Please do give a citation for that, because in actual fact, there has been no archaeological or linguistic evidence of found of the Hebrew people ever having been present in Egypt or of and exodus.

There has some debate of which pharoah they were referring to (there are three candidates). Also, my favorate is Jericho; geologists believe that it went down as the Israelites were passing through (they are able to show that one of the times Jericho crumbled was about the time of the Exodus). Coneviently, I'm not arguing linguistics (which wouldn't apply to the Captivity as the Jewish would have spoken Egyptian).

Yes, a person that was never reprimanded for his statement by the papacy, a tacit endorsement in my eyes. Also all the research I did, indicated that the Catholic position is still "AIDS bad, condoms worse".

Yes, but not, "AIDS in condoms good." Interesting leap, that. And, as reprimands are usually not public, I'm not sure what kind of proof that is.

The only thing all Atheists have in common is their lack of a belief in the supernatural. Atheism is not a philosophy, my philosophy is one of anti-theism, one which I'm defending here. There are in fact many Atheists who would be on your side in this debate. Atheist are so zealous in many cases because we had for centuries been forced either by the threat of death or the threat of social exclusion to keep our opinions to ourselves.

Why is it few atheists admit that it's at least a philosophy? Weird...

Yes you did and yes, they did kill millions of people. However, they killed those people not because of their Atheism, they killed them in the name of the immoral/evil philosophy of Marxism/Communism and the equally bad Fascism and their fanatical beliefs in those philosophies.

No, I mentioned ONLY Stalin and Mao. Go back and actually bother to read it...I'm also guessing you didn't bother reading much history...

As Christopher Hitchens points out (paraphrased): "Name me a country that has adopted the ideals of Spinoza, Paine, Jefferson et al. that has gone to hell in a hand basket because of those ideals." I can name a country one country founded on those ideals, namely the United States and the funny thing is it didn't start to go to hell until the religious started trying to push their beliefs into national policy (and in many cases succeeded).

How do you justify the "many cases succeeded"? A lot of Christians would disagree with that statement. We'd also debate the "ideals of Spinoza", as Jefferson, Paine, et al, believed in a God that was apart from the universe, but still living....

I will say no more, as this line of debate has been refuted by all four of the great Atheist writers of today.

If it makes you uncomfy we can drop it...but which four?

I never said the number of victims has been refuted, only the usually touted motivation for doing so. Also name the debate you were at (I have them all on video BTW).

You have noted atheists killing people for their religion, as quoted by Stalin and Mao. And why would you film debates on this forum? Weird...

Actually, if you know my political leanings, you would know that I dislike the man intensely. Do you honestly discount the scenarios in mentioned? Then you are a fool that will probably still think religion is a force for good when a mushroom cloud appears over a major American or European city.

For someone who is doesn't like him, you sound an awful lot like him on this point. I just don't buy the Muslim=Terrorist line, as you do...

Yes, not believing in God and not keeping quiet about it is arrogant, but believing that the creator of the universe loves you, personally takes care of you every moment of your life, will suspend the laws of nature if you ask nicely and if you are really good even allow you survive your death in eternal bliss is not.

Let's (say it with me conveniently ignore all that is said in the Bible about helping yourself. I'm really starting to debate which bible you have actually read; the Buffyverse TV Bible, perhaps?

Your seems to thick to notice that this has been refuted any times by myself and others.

Refuted, yes. Successfully? Not so much...and only by ignoring history.

I have found that in most debated with Christians, the Atheists actually know more about the Bible than the Christians. What other ignorance are you talking about?

No debate there. Unless I'm using you as the model, of course.

Just a little tit-for-tat I say.

Thus showing how superior your thinking is...

Actually, for a rational person, no propaganda is needed to see the irrationality of God belief. I myself cam to Atheism on my own without any external intervention and long before Dawkins, Hitchens et al. wrote their current bestsellers.

Isn't calling non-believers bad things something bad about Christians that Condell noted? You would have thought you would learned that...And you do know that Atheism isn't exactly new, right...?

Something to consider before your next post: I'm really enjoying this. You're demonstrating that you don't need a deity of any kind to be arrogant or ignorant of the person's beliefs. Thanks!

RG

 

[ratrat]

Im an atheist with devout Christian parents but their okay with it.(My older sister is also an atheist and very vocal about it) And my Grandparents are buddhist! We all live in peace and respect each other. We debate here and then, but its all good. Why cant you do that? I dont see gay christians trying to convert people over HERE.


edit: I dont LIVE with them, but you get it right.

I've been happier since becoming atheist. However I would just HATE it for one to go to my poor grandmums house and blast her for being a stupid buddhist. As I can see she finds peace, enovation and fullfillment in praying and chanting everyday(though is can be annoying- I tollerate). Same with my parents, my mum often gets excited when discovering something new about the bible or telling a special "testimony" about an "inspiring" event(extremely annoying again, but I tolerate), I love them and know theyre happier that way.

Well, actually my dad is *******!! I think he's about as bad and annoying as..well you! Still love him.

 

[ratrat]

Hey, is your avatar Dawkins? My favourite atheist guy is Pullman.

 

[Negasta]

Hey, is your avatar Dawkins? My favourite atheist guy is Pullman.

Yeah, its Prof. Dawkins.

He is my fav of the "New Atheists".