I say I am an Agnostic, but

[tzor]

Thousands of years of human mythology have shown us time and again that religious ideologies and "facts" and "laws" are tenuous and based on wishful thinking and xenophobia and wrath.

I really need to quote you on this because this type of argument is both sloppy and not conductive to reasonable debate.

"Thousands of years of human mythology have shown us time and again ..." Human mythology obviously has a convention every century where they give demonstrations.

"... that religious ideologies and "facts" and "laws" are tenuous and based on wishful thinking and xenophobia and wrath." Which breaks down to A, B and C are (all) based on X, Y and Z.

So in other words you are insisting that every religious idea is based on angry xenophobia. Every one of them, without exception? I suppose this would apply to even athiest religions.

If we ignore this absolute claim because it is impossible to verify and simply imply that you meant that there exits througout history cases where a religious idea, fact or law was based on wishful thinking or xenophobia or wrath then we have statement that can apply to everything. It can be said of governments. It can be said even of science. It can be said of the arts.

And yes it has also been used to dismiss an argument in politics, arts and even science. Used wrongly, but used never the less.

[MeDeFe]

What's an "atheist religion" supposed to be?

[Neoteny]

*long post*

Heh, no offense or anything. I guess I got a little worked up after reading some Harris. Anyhow, as I've said already, if you are anti-theist, you are playing word games by calling yourself agnostic. As far as the whole proof being irrelevant thing, I think that is indicative of someone incapable of arguing and whose thoughts are not worth considering on opinions of worldview. It's admirable to try and prepare for that, but when the other side thinks they've won no matter what evidence you present, there is no point in bothering. Instead, the focus should be on the rational individuals.

I'm happy to have stimulated some thought on your part, however. That's always nice to know.

Thousands of years of human mythology have shown us time and again that religious ideologies and "facts" and "laws" are tenuous and based on wishful thinking and xenophobia and wrath.

I really need to quote you on this because this type of argument is both sloppy and not conductive to reasonable debate.

"Thousands of years of human mythology have shown us time and again ..." Human mythology obviously has a convention every century where they give demonstrations.

Obviously. Jerry Springer?

"... that religious ideologies and "facts" and "laws" are tenuous and based on wishful thinking and xenophobia and wrath." Which breaks down to A, B and C are (all) based on X, Y and Z.

So in other words you are insisting that every religious idea is based on angry xenophobia. Every one of them, without exception? I suppose this would apply to even athiest religions.

Yes, but are A, B, and C necessarily all inclusive? I would say no. But if you want to debate sentence structure, I'll just say that I'm already tired of doing so. Throw a "many" in before "religious" if it makes you feel any better.

What's an "atheist religion" supposed to be?

Worship of the "unholy trinity of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris," of course. I would suckle their toes for a few blessings.

[Ditocoaf]

Awesome to hear that you're reading Harris. How're you liking it?

I personally think that "The End of Faith" is a much better, more reasonable book than books like "God is Not Great". Harris actually stands a chance at convincing some believers, while Hitchens just pisses them off.

[Neoteny]

Awesome to hear that you're reading Harris. How're you liking it?

I personally think that "The End of Faith" is a much better, more reasonable book than books like "God is Not Great". Harris actually stands a chance at convincing some believers, while Hitchens just pisses them off.

I'm actually about twenty pages into GiNG, and I can't say I've found anything particularly chafing. Then again, I'm the kind of guy who would probably agree with Hitchens. We'll have to see. I finished Letter to a Christian Nation earlier, but The End of Faith was checked out from my library, so I got Rushdie's Satanic Verses instead. I'm looking forward to a good end of the week literature-wise.

[Neoteny]

Wow... this discussion has really taken off in a direction I'm not too interested in. Hopefully it'll meander back eventually.

All I'm gonna say is that

[i]I hate string theory[i].

That is all.

To bring this back to where Ditocoaf wants it I offer the following:

Ditocoaf: Militant agnostic - "I don't know and neither do you."

Agnostics frustrate me almost as much as theists. Outright claims that "we can never know" are merely a copout in an attempt to not only pander to either side of the argument, but mostly to yourself as well. Thousands of years of human mythology have shown us time and again that religious ideologies and "facts" and "laws" are tenuous and based on wishful thinking and xenophobia and wrath. At what point does this accumulation of falsities create such a burden of proof that you will deny that these cults have no serious foundation and deserve no respect in serious consideration other than a worry over the potential dangers that have been made so painfully clear recently? We have demonstrated that so much of the "holy" texts are scientifically and ethically abhorrent, and we see "sophisticated" theologians squirm and mutter about interpretations and metaphor. You still need more proof? The reality is that the current popular gods are childish megalomaniacs who defy human dignity and respect and empathy. If they did exist, it would be far more righteous to defy them than to subvert yourself to their whims. On the other hand, to lend credence to these fantasies is irresponsible to the victims of extremists and deranged psychos blinded by the passions of faith. We need to appeal to the rational individuals of faith to take action against such insanity, and all the people wavering in the middle trying to avoid stepping on people's toes need to suck it up and finish stepping over the line. I can applaud your progress, but I cannot respect your views any more than I respect a theist's. And I think it is clear where I stand on that point.

I always agree with NEOTENY. I can't understand it.

I think we've been over my awesomeness before.

[Ditocoaf]

Wow... this discussion has really taken off in a direction I'm not too interested in. Hopefully it'll meander back eventually.

All I'm gonna say is that

[i]I hate string theory[i].

That is all.

To bring this back to where Ditocoaf wants it I offer the following:

Ditocoaf: Militant agnostic - "I don't know and neither do you."

Agnostics frustrate me almost as much as theists. Outright claims that "we can never know" are merely a copout in an attempt to not only pander to either side of the argument, but mostly to yourself as well. Thousands of years of human mythology have shown us time and again that religious ideologies and "facts" and "laws" are tenuous and based on wishful thinking and xenophobia and wrath. At what point does this accumulation of falsities create such a burden of proof that you will deny that these cults have no serious foundation and deserve no respect in serious consideration other than a worry over the potential dangers that have been made so painfully clear recently? We have demonstrated that so much of the "holy" texts are scientifically and ethically abhorrent, and we see "sophisticated" theologians squirm and mutter about interpretations and metaphor. You still need more proof? The reality is that the current popular gods are childish megalomaniacs who defy human dignity and respect and empathy. If they did exist, it would be far more righteous to defy them than to subvert yourself to their whims. On the other hand, to lend credence to these fantasies is irresponsible to the victims of extremists and deranged psychos blinded by the passions of faith. We need to appeal to the rational individuals of faith to take action against such insanity, and all the people wavering in the middle trying to avoid stepping on people's toes need to suck it up and finish stepping over the line. I can applaud your progress, but I cannot respect your views any more than I respect a theist's. And I think it is clear where I stand on that point.

I always agree with NEOTENY. I can't understand it.

I think we've been over my awesomeness before.

It's funny... I tend to agree with neoteny, but he tends to disagree with me... it's an unstable situation, and the universe may just implode if I waste even more time on the internet than I do now.

[Neoteny]

Wow... this discussion has really taken off in a direction I'm not too interested in. Hopefully it'll meander back eventually.

All I'm gonna say is that

[i]I hate string theory[i].

That is all.

To bring this back to where Ditocoaf wants it I offer the following:

Ditocoaf: Militant agnostic - "I don't know and neither do you."

Agnostics frustrate me almost as much as theists. Outright claims that "we can never know" are merely a copout in an attempt to not only pander to either side of the argument, but mostly to yourself as well. Thousands of years of human mythology have shown us time and again that religious ideologies and "facts" and "laws" are tenuous and based on wishful thinking and xenophobia and wrath. At what point does this accumulation of falsities create such a burden of proof that you will deny that these cults have no serious foundation and deserve no respect in serious consideration other than a worry over the potential dangers that have been made so painfully clear recently? We have demonstrated that so much of the "holy" texts are scientifically and ethically abhorrent, and we see "sophisticated" theologians squirm and mutter about interpretations and metaphor. You still need more proof? The reality is that the current popular gods are childish megalomaniacs who defy human dignity and respect and empathy. If they did exist, it would be far more righteous to defy them than to subvert yourself to their whims. On the other hand, to lend credence to these fantasies is irresponsible to the victims of extremists and deranged psychos blinded by the passions of faith. We need to appeal to the rational individuals of faith to take action against such insanity, and all the people wavering in the middle trying to avoid stepping on people's toes need to suck it up and finish stepping over the line. I can applaud your progress, but I cannot respect your views any more than I respect a theist's. And I think it is clear where I stand on that point.

I always agree with NEOTENY. I can't understand it.

I think we've been over my awesomeness before.

It's funny... I tend to agree with neoteny, but he tends to disagree with me... it's an unstable situation, and the universe may just implode if I waste even more time on the internet than I do now.

Heh, I disagree with nearly everyone, even people who try their damndest to not take a side... I don't know that I disagree with you, we just don't agree enough.

[tzor]

What's an "atheist religion" supposed to be?

I've heard arguments that some variations of Buddhism comes close.

[Neoteny]

What's an "atheist religion" supposed to be?

I've heard arguments that some variations of Buddhism comes close.

Yeah. It's really not difficult to see it either way.