Skeptical comedians.....
Tim Minchan
Mitchel & Webb
Dara O'Brian
Eddie Izzard
Gorge Carlin
Bill Hicks
Ricky Gervais
Penn Jillette
Jimmy Carr
Dave Allen
Patton Oswalt
Just to name a few.... Look them up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To Aretas, at al.:
Atheists aren't afraid of satire.
We're not afraid to poke fun at ourselves, and we're not offended when you join in.
1) Those are hilarious.
2) That's a pretty broad generalization. I know plenty of atheists who will rage on satire.So you know a couple of atheists who aren't afraid of satire. I know a couple of Christians who aren't afraid of satire. That doesn't mean that all Christians are cool. Stupid stereotyping. Dealing with satire has absolutely s+&@ to do with what you believe.
Personally, I think most atheists aren't at all any better than the religious types. Here's why. They will read something in a magazine and believe it must be true. They don't really check the credentials, or the science behind it. They aren't any better the masses that sit around and take the word from a religious figure.
There are just as many quarrels about history and what is ethical or moral within the atheist community as there are with people who believe in one or many gods.
One of the dumbest things I've heard was Religion vs Evolution. That doesn't even make sense. You can believe in evolution and still have a religion. I've heard theories about how "God made life able to adapt to survive and grow". It's creationism vs evolution, but people are stupid and mess it up, making broad generalizations.
What do you call people aliens and magic? Are they religious too? Even if they don't believe in gods?
Many atheists are not respectable in my eyes because they act like they are better than most people and yet they're only reporting what they read. No better than a priest, really.
I respect most scientists and people who pursue the truth. To do such is admittance to the fact that there's still things you don't know. The only reason that so many religions are refuted is because of so many claims of things that have been shown to be contradictory to what actually happens or what has been found. I mean would you trust a scientist who's claimed so many things that have been proven to be false?
In fact, if most religions weren't so stagnant from becoming organizations and trying to standardize and preserve their doctrines and control its followers, there'd probably be more religious people.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To Aretas, at al.:
Atheists aren't afraid of satire.
We're not afraid to poke fun at ourselves, and we're not offended when you join in.
On my way out to fabricate more evidence for evolution, I went through the local atheist village and found this wonderful new restaurant. There's a free abortion with every dish! Your empirical mind cannot deny the overwhelming evidence for value this great!
|
If we made a body count of people killed by Christian Governments vs. people killed by Atheist governments, I bet I'd get a higher total if I get to include Stalin and Mao.
Do I get to count Hitler?
If we are counting those who killed for power vs those who killed for God, Power wins.
If we are counting who killed for God vs who killed because they were non-specifically religious, it's not even close.
|
|
I was leaving Hitler out of it. I don't think either Christians or Atheists get him. We could start another thread about what team Hitler was playing for but I bet it would get closed faster than this one will.
As far as it being close, I don't think it is that cut and dry. How do we count "Christians" who are really killing for power? If we don't count them, then Christians don't even have to count the Crusades in my opinion.
This was a big example, but my point is that there isn't anything special about irreligious people. They are, as a group, just as big or bigger pieces of crap as religious folk.
Irreligious people don't kill people because they believe God told them too.
You can't look at history honestly and not realize how many wars were fought over religion. Protestants vs Catholics, Christians vs Muslims, genocides and ethnic cleansing...
You have a better argument for Hitlers genocide being based on Religion than you do for either Stalin or Mao.
I'm personally not a big fan of any "isms" as they all tend to allow people to turn off their brains and follow.
I think we would both agree "isms" have caused most of the wars and genocides.
I don't even really like the term "Atheism"
I just don't think there is a higher power, as there is no credible evidence for one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing you have to complain about is that Christians are disgusted by homosexuality, but I've got news for you, PEOPLE in general often are. The most homophobic people I've ever known weren't religious. Men are afraid of seeing other mens' reproductive parts and they are afraid that gay people want to show them, plain and simply. That's not a Christian problem. That's a human nature problem.
So your argument is that it is ok that religion can make you small minded and bigoted since people are small minded and bigoted for other reasons as well. Seriously? Does that sound like a legit argument to you? Spoiler alert. It isn't. In fact, this paragraph disturbs me deeply and I can't quite put my finger on why. I'll get back to you on that.
If we made a body count of people killed by Christian Governments vs. people killed by Atheist governments, I bet I'd get a higher total if I get to include Stalin and Mao.
But you don't get to count Stalin and Mao, since they did not kill because of their atheism. They killed because they were dictators who needed to consolidate power. Mao was probably an Atheist (do you count Confucianism as a religion) But note that during the battle of Moscow in WWII, Stalin had an icon of the Virgin Mary famous for having repelled invaders from Constantinople flown around Moscow in an airplane to pray for victory over the Germans. That sounds awfully religious to me.
I can point to zillions of instances of sectarian violence, which is killing because of religion. See the difference?
I was leaving Hitler out of it. I don't think either Christians or Atheists get him. We could start another thread about what team Hitler was playing for but I bet it would get closed faster than this one will.
If I had to guess I would probably mention something about how Hitler was Catholic, and that anti-semitism in times of crisis is a recurrent theme throughout Christian Europe, over the course of centuries. Having happened during each of the Crusades, as well as during the Black Death. So I think that the Christians have to take that one in their column.
If we don't count them, then Christians don't even have to count the Crusades in my opinion.
Then you would be wrong, sine the Crusades were started specifically to remove Muslims from Christian holy sites, as well as for some political reasons. When the crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099, they killed not only the Jews and Muslims in the city but also the Orthodox (and to Catholics heretical) Christians. That sounds to me like violence that has gone beyond being racial or ethnic and is entirely sectarian in nature. So I would say that you have to take the Crusades in the "atrocities" column too to a certain extent.
|
|
People are homophobic without them.
From wikipedia (with a citation attached in the article...).
"In a detailed compilation of historical and ethnographic materials of Preindustrial Cultures, "strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures; it was accepted or ignored by 21%, and 12% reported no such concept. Of 70 ethnographies, 59% reported homosexuality absent or rare in frequency and 41% reported it present or not uncommon."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Irreligious people don't kill people because they believe God told them too.
You can't look at history honestly and not realize how many wars were fought over religion. Protestants vs Catholics, Christians vs Muslims, genocides and ethnic cleansing...
You have a better argument for Hitlers genocide being based on Religion than you do for either Stalin or Mao.
Actually most wars were fought for territory and economy. Even those religious wars. Religion is just a big excuse. Most people don't fight wars because "God told them too". Most people fight wars because they are paid and/or their authority told them too. Sometimes they will have "God's support" according to their priests, higher ups, etc. However, that's not the reason people usually fight. Religion is really only there to comfort them for if and when they die.
You use religion as a scapegoat, leaders use religion as a tool, but soldiers use religion as a comfort.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saint Caleth, I believe that the Crusades were a land grab in Europe for their majority. Hitler was no Catholic. He was involved in a number of magical and esoteric practices, most of which point to insanity than being really religious.
My point about human nature vs. religion is that the religions aren't MAKING people homophobic. They are catering to it. People are homophobic without them.
The First Crusade was a land grab insofar as it began with a plea from the Byzantine Emperor to the Pope to help reclaim the Holy Land from Muslim rule. So it was partially over land, but just as much over differences in religion.
That does not change what the crusader armies did to the population of Jerusalem. After the Western Christians took the city, they then refused to hand it over to the Byzantines like the original plan had been. This was in fact a land grab, but it too was religiously motivated by the Great Schism which had happened between the Eastern and Western churches about 50 years before.
When you are talking about Homophobia, remember that the construction of what was an "appropriate" sexual act/orientation for a man is not universal. It is drastically different in many ancient and non-western societies. If your assertion were true, don't you think that this would be normalized across all cultures. Your views seems too simplistic. Also I would be very interested in seeing the actual paper that you read, because I bet that you selectively read it and missed some very important caveats. As ciretose also points out, your premise is factually incorrect.
|
|
You use religion as a scapegoat, leaders use religion as a tool, but soldiers use religion as a comfort.
I don't use religion as a scapegoat. I agree 100% that leaders use religion as a tool and soldiers use it as a comfort.
If soldiers didn't believe in an afterlife, they would be less likely to follow leaders on religious grounds.
I am not absolving the evil rulers, I'm pointing out that if they didn't have religion in the toolbox, less people would follow them.
I will personally fight and give my life for a just cause, even thought I don't believe in an afterlife.
I won't crash into a skyscraper to show the infidels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You use religion as a scapegoat, leaders use religion as a tool, but soldiers use religion as a comfort.
But this is a bad thing in its own right. Maybe it would be harder for tyrants and dictators to manipulate populations if we didn't have a societal blind spot of non-critical thinking that they could exploit.
Just offering the other side of the coin.
Just noticed something...
Saint Caleth, I believe that the Crusades were a land grab in Europe for their majority. Hitler was no Catholic. He was involved in a number of magical and esoteric practices, most of which point to insanity than being really religious.
I will concede that Hitler's religious views remain a point of historical contention. You assertion that being insane and believing in occult practices is mutually exclusive of being Catholic is absurd. They are not mutually exclusive things. It is true that Hitler was both insane and interested in the occult, but that did not stop him from internalizing the Christian legacy of anti-semitism as part of his beliefs.
You use religion as a scapegoat, leaders use religion as a tool, but soldiers use religion as a comfort.I don't use religion as a scapegoat. I agree 100% that leaders use religion as a tool and soldiers use it as a comfort.
If soldiers didn't believe in an afterlife, they would be less likely to follow leaders on religious grounds.
I am not absolving the evil rulers, I'm pointing out that if they didn't have religion in the toolbox, less people would follow them.
I will personally fight and give my life for a just cause, even thought I don't believe in an afterlife.
I won't crash into a skyscraper to show the infidels.
People don't need religion to fear, kill, steal, or want. You don't need religion to twist someone to do something for you. Hitler didn't use religion to start WW2, he used the bruised and broken dreams of Germany and their want for nationalism to be once again a prosperous country and their hate for those that did this to them. He made missions, targeted "the enemies', made feel people feel comforted and justified in what they were doing. All you need to do is find what people are afraid of (for most people that's death and the unknown) or what they hate and convince them that following you is justified (having authority or being known for wisdom) and will bring about what's right and happy.
You use suicide bombers as examples, but that would be no better than using a school shooting where the kid asks his victims, "Where is your God now?".
But Hitler did use religion. Convincing people that he could save them from the evil Jews is nothing but using old religious hatreds.
Are you implying that hating someone's religion is a religious belief?
|
|
But Hitler did use religion. Convincing people that he could save them from the evil Jews is nothing but using old religious hatreds.Are you implying that hating someone's religion is a religious belief?
I think he is implying that if you convince people they are acting according to the will of a god, they will forgo their humanity.
Anti-semitism isn't a Christian deal, it is a Roman one. The fact that we got our culture and religion from Rome gives us the anti-semitism. Even if Christianity vanished off the planet along with all the Christians, the legacy of hating Jews would still be around. We basically are Rome.
I have no idea where you are getting that it was a "Roman deal" from, because it is not true. In the ancient world, anti-semitism that existed would have grown out of general xenophobia. The Ancient Egyptians and the Ancient Greeks did have some nasty things to say about Jews, but they had nasty things to say about everyone who wasn't them. The Romans treated the Jews no better or worse than any other non-Roman group in the Empire. As long as they paid their taxes and worshiped the emperor (the Jews got a buy on this one and only had to pray on behalf of the emperor), they were left alone, just like everyone else. They were a relatively low social class, but that was only because they were non-citizens. The only times that the Romans ever violently persecuted the Jews was when Judea revolted in 66 AD and again in 150 AD, at which point the Romans came in, leveled Jerusalem, dispersed the population and renamed the area Palestine.
It was only with the rise of Christianity, and the need for Christianity to differentiate itself from Judaism that anti-semitism was institutionalized in Europe.
I also use the definition of Catholic that Catholics use. If you are involved in the Occult, you aren't a genuine Catholic.
While it is true that occult and mystical traditions are more prevalent in the Orthodox church, the Caltholics have had their fare share of esoteric practices. There have been plenty of thinkers throughout history that have professed both Catholic and occult beliefs, whether your particular definition brands them heretics or not. I, for example, would call most practitioners of exorcism occult because they deal with mysticism, magic and supernatural affairs
Are you implying that religious persecution isn't related to religion?But Hitler did use religion. Convincing people that he could save them from the evil Jews is nothing but using old religious hatreds.Are you implying that hating someone's religion is a religious belief?
What I'm getting at, is with all the people that are hating on Christianity, I doubt all of them are religious.
What about all the Muslim hate that came in after 9-11. Is that all religiously based?
Or was that just a stereotype that all Muslims are possible suicide bombers? There were plenty of atheists that threatened anyone that looked like they could be a Muslim.
|
The "atheism is a religion" argument comes solely from the religious, who feel some need to ascribe fanaticism to atheists of some imagined stripe. It's a straw man argument.
Which is utterly unneccessary because fanaticism isn't an exclusive property of religion. But that's something which confuses me often. Religion is about the metaphysical universe, which (if it exists) by its very definition cannot be proven or disproven with scientific means. Why religious people even feel the need to argue with means of the physical universe or try to make science part of the metaphysical universe is totally above me. There is simply no need to make atheism a religion. As their is no need to even try and refute scientist arguments against the existence of god. But well, everyone has the right to choose in which traps to step in, I think
If soldiers didn't believe in an afterlife, they would be less likely to follow leaders on religious grounds.
I am not absolving the evil rulers, I'm pointing out that if they didn't have religion in the toolbox, less people would follow them.
I will personally fight and give my life for a just cause, even thought I don't believe in an afterlife.
Well and that's why the lack of religion wouldn't change anything. The "just" cause is just an excuse to make soldiers fight and give their life. If it isn't for religion, it is for democracy, human rights or some other thing the Powers that be don't care for the least. Every single war has been fought for Power and for nothing else. The lack of religion wouldn't change a thing, it would just mean the use of another excuse.
but that did not stop him from internalizing the Christian legacy of anti-semitism as part of his beliefs.
Interestingly enough, the Nazis didn't persecute the jews because of them "being the murderers of Jesus". In fact, they got rid of that reason and instead invented the communist world conspiracy. The Holocaust wasn't justified with Religion which is part of what I said before.
If you have something "short" I could read about this, I'd be more than happy to.
I'm not a history major either, but I'm happy to oblige. These are just encyclopedia articles, but they should get you started. I didn't have time to check them all, but the references look legit.
The understanding that I had is that under the Late Republic and the first few emperors, the Jews were tolerated at exactly the rate that "Easterners" with (to the Romans) weird beliefs and customs were. The Jews were just the most prominent example of a non-Roman culture which refused to assimilate. There were dozens of synagogues in Republican Rome, some in relatively upscale neighborhoods (like just down the road from Julius Caesar's house).
The popular understanding of the Romans is interesting because it portrays them as both better and worse than they really were, depending on the area people are talking about. I'd love to talk about that but it is a huge tangent, even for this thread.
but that did not stop him from internalizing the Christian legacy of anti-semitism as part of his beliefs.Interestingly enough, the Nazis didn't persecute the jews because of them "being the murderers of Jesus". In fact, they got rid of that reason and instead invented the communist world conspiracy. The...
But institutionalized anti-semitism in a time of crisis is a legacy of Christian Europe, repeated dozens of times throughout the Middle Ages and beyond. During every Crusade, the crusaders marching east carried out wide scale violence against Jews
To finance his crusades Loius IX of France ejected the Jews from his kingdom and confiscated their property. The ostensible reason was that they were breaking the Biblical injunction against usury by being moneylenders. Edward II of Engand did the same thing to finance his wars, for a religious reason as well. Loius IX is now a saint.
During the Black Death, there was again violence against Jews, who were blames for the epidemic. They were forced out of cities and towns and made to wear yellow badges (gee, sounds familiar) and distinctive hats so that they could be recognized. Entire populations were rounded up and burned to death.
So, after WWI, when Hitler wanted a scapegoat, he turned to the traditional scapegoat, the Jews. Even though for the most part, his rhetoric was not religious, he was still utilizing the fact that Christianity had over the course of a millennium at least, made the Jews in particular the traditional scapegoats for crises.
|
|
So, after WWI, when Hitler wanted a scapegoat, he turned to the traditional scapegoat, the Jews. Even though for the most part, his rhetoric was not religious, he was still utilizing the fact that Christianity had over the course of a millennium at least, made the Jews in particular the traditional scapegoats for crises.
I'm not denying that. I just find it stunning how easy it was to replace "Religion" by "Communism" for no obvious reason (antisemitism was prevalent before the Nazi takeover, so they could have played that card without changing the reasoning behind it).
Apart from that I agree. In "christian" Europe it was easy to play the antisemitic card. But while religion served as justification for the prosecution of the european jews, it - as you also explained - wasn't the true reason.
But there was also a religious component to his anti-semitism, find the Wikipedia page that I linked to about it above.
Totally biased commie propaganda, BUT, fun stuff about the history of anti-Semitism.