CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Hell yes they are, and they make the rest of us look bad. So they should shut the fuck up.
Edit: On hindsight, I should clarify. Many doesn't really mean most. There's a lot of really intolerant atheists out there who incredibly hate the idea of someone having a religion. I can jive to that, but there's a certain point you can go to before enough is enough. It's not like the same can't be said for people with a religion. I mean, there's crazy pissed Christians out there spouting nonsense that nobody really wants to hear, and it's embarrassing for other Christians. Why? Because they're associated with those morons.
In general, atheists are intolerant because many have an imperious and impervious attitude of superior intelligence where they are inherently correct, and theists are inherently incorrect.
For the most part, religion has many flaws, but if one wants to believe in a deity, then s/he has every right as I do to be atheist.
However, in all fairness, I may be borderline agnostic/atheist because I grew up in a very religious family, and it follows everywhere I go.
I absolutely don't resent theists.
Lastly, even in today's society, it is rare for children to grow up a completely atheist family. I
Coming from a former atheist, yes. They are only narrowly intolerant though. Through the preachings of tolerance, they gain a narrow view of faiths in power (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam for example) and are quick to criticize them on their own intolerance, thus leading to the intolerance of. Pick a group, most of them are intolerant people.
Many atheists are intolerant? Good! Many more need to be.
I usually don't do this, but why should I bother typing it all out? With the time I'll save just posting this link, I can put a pot of coffee on and shoot a round of golf.
Spoken like a true anti-American (or, in your case, Anti-Canadian).
I don't get it. What's anti-American (or in my case, anti-Canadian) about putting on a pot of coffee and shooting a round of golf?
Oh, you mean my intolerance of misogyny, racism, barbarism, ignorance and discrimination of homosexuals. I don't believe any of those things are considered patriotic virtues.
I don't get it. What's anti-American (or in my case, anti-Canadian) about putting on a pot of coffee and shooting a round of golf?
I did not contest that paragraph and you damn well know it. The part which I contested is that in which you stated that more atheists need to be intolerant.
Oh, you mean my intolerance of misogyny, racism, barbarism, ignorance and discrimination of homosexuals. I don't believe any of those things are considered patriotic virtues.
The intolerant atheists of which I speak are intolerant of the first amendment (or, in Canada, section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms).
Funny, last I checked the atheist and especially secular humanist groups rigidly defend those amendments/sections from being ignored whenever a religious party tries to get government favours, or tries to insert itself into politics. Actually, the secular organisations are responsible for constantly battling to make those countries truly secular, so that no one is discriminated against because they lack the popular belief system of the day.
They wish to take away one's right to raise one's child as they will, amongst others.
Interesting point, actually this is something truly worth discussing in depth. For example, is a parent truly free to raise their child as they wish? If a parent is not, then obviously there are some overriding concerns that trump parental freedom, like the child's welfare, or societal welfare.
For example, is a parent free to physically or sexually abuse their child? Why not? Because it traumatises the child and adds a burden to society. The beliefs supporting this proposal fall under a similar attitude: teaching a young, innocent child that hell exists, and that a god is watching them and will punish them, that they must hate jews or atheists, etc. is traumatising to the child, it causes unnecessary guilt and fear and places a burden on society for creating a population of people who live in fear and hate certain groups only because they were raised to.
Those statements are unconstitutional. Those statements directly state that they are intolerant of religiosity.
Nope. They're unconstitutional only if endorsed by government.
If more atheists were intolerant and took to active protesting of religion on the streets, maybe we would see a healthier society that isn't so enslaved by crooks and liars.
I don't know what you're trying to accomplish. You've been making claim after claim, generalization after generalizaton, and reaping praise and anguish from those childish enough to play along. It's time you stop. Your debates use to be interesting. What happened to:
Look at that, atheists! One of your group (you are an atheist, right?) is attempting to convince me not to use my rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press!
What happened to:
I'd forgotten about those. They seem so distant now; I've spent so long looking for refutation against these outrageous lies made by the so-called 'New Atheists'.
Aliens
I got one response.
Society
I got a few responses.
Controversy
This was a religious question. Only one user responded.
So it's about the responses now, the ol' Joecavalry method. So be it. Who am I to expect anything more or less from anyone on the internet anyhow? If I wish for engaging debates, I shall so make them. To each his own.
You've gotta admit that any debate dealing with religion is quite popular. After all those debates with one or two responses, I start making religious ones with thirty or forty responses.
Atheists always seem compelled to insult theists for their belief in "the flying spaghetti monster", whereas Christians always badger the atheists for proof for their claims. The atheists always (erroneously) claim that they don't need to provide proof - the burden being on the one making the claim for something's existence, not it's nonexistence (as they say).
Semper necessitas probandi incumbit qui agit.
the claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies with him.
If an atheist claims that there is no God, then he must prove his case just as he badgers the Christian to prove that there is a God. The atheist becomes the claimant.
When you claim something as fact (i.e. "There is no God", or "There is a God", etc.), then the burden of proof lies with you.
If an atheist claims that there is no God, then he must prove his case just as he badgers the Christian to prove that there is a God. The atheist becomes the claimant.
When you claim something as fact (i.e. "There is no God", or "There is a God", etc.), then the burden of proof lies with you.
This is really all a distraction, anyway. Claiming that your religion is true, then trying to shift the focus on the party who denies your absurd claims is meant to distract from the fact that you never validated your position.
It's like:
"I believe that aliens walk amongst us and send us baking recipes through Morse code in our dentures."
"You're wrong."
"Prove it! Prove that there aren't aliens! You made a claim of fact! The burden rests with you!"
Sure, by technicality if you claim to know a fact, you must defend it, but it's always amusing how you think this hides your need to prove a whole long list of claims you made.
This is really all a distraction, anyway. Claiming that your religion is true, then trying to shift the focus on the party who denies your absurd claims is meant to distract from the fact that you never validated your position.
And you do the same thing.
"I believe that aliens walk amongst us and send us baking recipes through Morse code in our dentures."
He has to prove it because he made the claim.
When you claim that there is no god(s), you have to prove it. The first person - the claimant - must prove the statement.
One cannot provide evidence for the lack of something, this is because there cannot be evidence. To find evidence supporting the lack of something is contradictory to the essence of evidence. I cannot prove there is no Yog Sothoth haunting the abyss of space because there is no negative evidence, only affirmative evidence. Extreme claims necessitate extreme evidence.
If atheists are intolerant, then religious people are equally intolerant.
I did not state that they were not. However, for a people who claim to have no purpose to proselytize - to reason to advertise their beliefs - they seem to do a hell of a lot of it.
I do not believe this is so. The (last I checked) universal opposition by atheists to the banning of religion (debate) implies a distinct level of tolerance.
I do not believe this is so. The (last I checked) universal opposition by atheists to the banning of religion (debate) implies a distinct level of tolerance.
Then you must surely have checked long, long ago. For while it is true that I know of none who wish to ban religion outright (though Dawkins is most likely quite close to such an outrageous view), there are those who wish to ban aspects of religion which, in turn, would lead to a decrease in religious followers.
New Atheists, as they are by some known, wish to limit the freedoms of those who are religious. They wish to ban the religious from speaking about their religion - to others or even to their own families! - which, in turn, would lead to a lack of proselytization. After very few generations, religion would be all but forgotten. That is why Zoroastrianism nearly died out some twelve or thirteen centuries ago - a lack of proselytization led to an ever-diminishing number of adherents.
though Dawkins is most likely quite close to such an outrageous view
Not at all actually. He was asked what he would do if his kids wanted to be religious, and he said that he wouldn't try and stop them but he hoped they would be smarter than that.
Maybe you could legitimately argue that he doesn't respect religion as much as he should, but saying that he wants to ban it entirely is a complete misrepresentation of his views.
In fact, as far as being tolerant, how many religious parents would be okay with their children converting to either a different religion or becoming irreligious? A lot less than atheist parents who would oppose their children becoming religious (let me tell from experience, religious parents don't take it well when you tell them your an atheist).
New Atheists, as they are by some known, wish to limit the freedoms of those who are religious. They wish to ban the religious from speaking about their religion - to others or even to their own families!
Who wants this? You are nuts.
I know there are atheists who claim that parents are abusing their children by scaring them with hell, and those who oppose certain types of indoctrination, but none that oppose people speaking about their religion.
He was asked what he would do if his kids wanted to be religious, and he said that he wouldn't try and stop them but he hoped they would be smarter than that.
Thus, he is belittling their hypothetical conversion.
Case in point, McMartin Preschool abuse scandal. Kee MacFarlane, the child psychologist who questioned the children, belittled them. Calling them things such as 'stupid' and 'unintelligent' to make them 'confess' to being molested. Why would they confess to something that never happened? They want to be 'special' or 'smart', and the only way in which she would state that they were 'special' or 'smart' was by them confessing. She had control over them by either lauding them or criticizing/belittling them.
Maybe you could legitimately argue that he doesn't respect religion as much as he should,
I've watched a number of Dawkins videos on youtube, and I've read some of what he's written, and I'd say he hasn't an ounce of respect.
but saying that he wants to ban it entirely is a complete misrepresentation of his views.
Most proselytization occurs amongst the young. By making it illegal to inform the young of religion, the percentage of theists would decline dramatically.
In fact, as far as being tolerant, how many religious parents would be okay with their children converting to either a different religion or becoming irreligious?
I've a number of relations who are not religious - or are of a different religion. Their parents had little problem with it, as far as I can tell.
A lot less than atheist parents who would oppose their children becoming religious
I know there are atheists who claim that parents are abusing their children by scaring them with hell
I've always felt that fear was good for children.
For instance, young children - especially toddlers - are very impressionable. Tell them that something horrific and evil will result from them disobeying, and they are far more likely to obey.
I've also found from experience that a mild form of hypnosis works fairly well in that regard, as well.
I did not think we could edit these after someone responded, but okay.
Thus, he is belittling their hypothetical conversion.
No, he is being arrogant about his position and implying that people who are religious are stupid. These are legitimate criticisms against Richard Dawkins, and ones that I would mostly agree with. Your story about little kids being convinced to lie is irrelevant to this conversation. If we had a conversation about how easy it is to manipulate children, then I think your story may have some relevance.
Most proselytization occurs amongst the young. By making it illegal to inform the young of religion, the percentage of theists would decline dramatically.
Look at the language of this petition. It says it is against indoctrination, not against talking about religion. I personally think this type of idea is unrealistic, but I also find it humorous that you understand most people are only religious because they were indoctrinated yet still defend the practice.
In addition there is a huge difference between trying to ban something, and trying to enact policies that discourage it. For example banning alcohol is different from making commercials that advocate responsible use.
I've a number of relations who are not religious - or are of a different religion. Their parents had little problem with it, as far as I can tell.
People do tend to be polite, and most likely you weren't there when they first "came out" to their parents about their religious differences. Once again though, I can only speak about my experience... not fun having a parent tell you it makes them feel like they've failed as a parent just because you don't accept their religion. But hey, maybe I was just unlucky.
Theists are belittled in modern society.
And atheists are demonized. Cry about it.
Dawkins, amongst others.
Once again: read the language. You are completely misinterpreting what this petition is meant to do.
I've always felt that fear was good for children.
Remind me not to hire you as a babysitter. I think rational fear is good. Fear against putting their hand on a stove or sticking a fork in a light socket is well and good. When it comes to morality though, teaching empathy rather than fear would be my approach.
For instance, young children - especially toddlers - are very impressionable. Tell them that something horrific and evil will result from them disobeying, and they are far more likely to obey.
Sure, if all you want in children is obedience, but honestly I don't want to get into an argument about child rearing. It's almost completely unrelated to the subject.
I've also found from experience that a mild form of hypnosis works fairly well in that regard, as well.
Once again, don't ever babysit my kids. You may get them to shut up for the short term, but I wouldn't want to see the long term effects.
I suppose that depends on how you interpret the petition
Oh come on. Do you seriously not see the extraordinary jumps that have to be made for anything that the site says to be true? Where does it say that children will be taken away from religious parents? Nowhere! Where does it say that talking about religion is a form of indoctrination? Nowhere! Maybe you should actually try and see what the creators/supporters of this petition intended it to mean. Or just live in some fantasy world where all atheists are awful, immoral, intolerant people who want to kill theists and are secretly trying to take their kids away from them through petitions. Be afraid be very afraid...or be rational and calm the hell down.
You do understand that the idea of waiting until someone is an adult for them to decide their religion is not some new idea, right? Many Christian sects wait to either baptize or confirm until a person is an adult, because they figure the person can't really understand their religion until they are old enough to think rationally so they shouldn't make a decision about what they are. Sound familiar?
I did not think we could edit these after someone responded, but okay.
800 days and you didn't even know that!
No, he is being arrogant about his position and implying that people who are religious are stupid.
An historically incorrect position. Indeed, Christopher Langan - said to have the highest IQ of any living man - is a theist.
Your story about little kids being convinced to lie is irrelevant to this conversation.
Incorrect.
Kids will believe that which will make them considered superior; if society dictates that atheists are superior, then they shall become atheists. If society dictates that atheists are inferior, then they shan't be atheistic. It is impossible to be completely neutral in the matter: if they are raised being taught about religion, they shall be religious; if they are raised as atheists, they shall be atheists. If the matter is wholly ignored, they would quite possibly be agnostic. In the end, the issue will come up some day.
Look at the language of this petition. It says it is against indoctrination, not against talking about religion.
As I believe I stated, the interpretation is open to opinion.
I also find it humorous that you understand most people are only religious because they were indoctrinated yet still defend the practice.
No. I did not state that they were indoctrinated; rather, I alluded that they were more open-minded - once they come to adulthood, their opinions become rock-solid.
In addition there is a huge difference between trying to ban something, and trying to enact policies that discourage it.
What gives them the right to enact laws discouraging it?
People do tend to be polite, and most likely you weren't there when they first "came out" to their parents about their religious differences.
They are my relations. I know them quite well. I see them as they interact with other relations.
Once again though, I can only speak about my experience... not fun having a parent tell you it makes them feel like they've failed as a parent just because you don't accept their religion.
Why tell them?
And atheists are demonized. Cry about it.
Perhaps in America, but I've never seen a case of atheism or liberalism being anything but glorified in Canada.
Once again: read the language. You are completely misinterpreting what this petition is meant to do.
Once again: the meaning of the petition is open to interpretation.
I think rational fear is good.
I believe it was you with whom I had discussed the nature of inducing fear in children.
I first theorized about it after reading about and discussing with people their first encounters with horror films. Ofttimes, they were very young and, as a result, did not wish to watch the genre ever again. As time went on, they 'lightened up' about it, but they still felt uneasy. Some people still, into adulthood, will not watch them.
Then I began to wonder about other experiences. For instance, surely witnessing a rape (whether on film or in real life) would be traumatic enough to "scare" the said witness from ever committing a rape himself.
This is conjecture, though; I've never found anything regarding this in either statistics for criminality or any psychology book/journal.
Fear against putting their hand on a stove or sticking a fork in a light socket is well and good.
Perhaps this would add to my previous statement in italics. If you know somebody who gets burned by touching an active stovetop, perhaps they'd be more cautious in future?
When it comes to morality though, teaching empathy rather than fear would be my approach.
I've never known an atheistic family's children to have good morals. I've accused one of them of having Münchhausen's Syndrome; another is perhaps the most deceitful and disrespectful person I've ever met. The list goes on.
The worst part is, the latter's parents encourage that kind of behavior.
You may get them to shut up for the short term, but I wouldn't want to see the long term effects.
It was very minor; I didn't even know about hypnogogic trances back then. I thought it was all "the power of suggestion".
Where does it say that children will be taken away from religious parents?
That was a petition, not the wording of the actual law. However, it stands to reason that, if parents disobey the law, legal action would be taken.
Where does it say that talking about religion is a form of indoctrination?
Okay, I amend my statement to: "Talking about religion in a positive light..."
Or just live in some fantasy world where all atheists are awful, immoral, intolerant people who want to kill theists and are secretly trying to take their kids away from them through petitions.
I hate theists. I prefer to interact with agnostics, but I'll settle for an atheist. Christians are too...Christian. Don't like 'em.
The more radical the person - either atheistic or theistic - the more laughable it can be to interact with them.
For instance, there's this one atheist who insists that there is a gigantic anti-woman plot all over the world created with the intention of making women more enslaved then ever. She believes that all males are in on the plot, and that I - when I try to reason with her - am either blind or in on it to. Her husband is even in on it.
See the difference between my conspiracy theories and hers? Her rebuttal to each of my arguments is: "they're lying!", whereas I do listen to reason. There are many theories - some of the most popular - which I do not agree with. I have never, and most likely never will, believe that everybody is in on it. I don't think that you are in on it. I've grown to like you throughout our discourses.
Be afraid be very afraid...or be rational and calm the hell down.
I have never feared the result of a conspiracy theory. Most never come to see the light of day (that doesn't mean they weren't real, though). If it occurs, it is never on quite as grandiose a level as the theorists believed.
You do understand that the idea of waiting until someone is an adult for them to decide their religion is not some new idea, right? Many Christian sects wait to either baptize or confirm until a person is an adult, because they figure the person can't really understand their religion until they are old enough to think rationally so they shouldn't make a decision about what they are.
Thus, religious people aren't all that evil and conniving.
I know, right? Coulda sworn it was impossible, but I guess you learn something new everyday.
An historically incorrect position. Indeed, Christopher Langan - said to have the highest IQ of any living man - is a theist.
Generalizing? Yes. Simplistic? Yes. Historically incorrect? I wouldn't go that far.
Incorrect.
Kids will believe that which will make them considered superior; if society dictates that atheists are superior, then they shall become atheists. If society dictates that atheists are inferior, then they shan't be atheistic. It is impossible to be completely neutral in the matter: if they are raised being taught about religion, they shall be religious; if they are raised as atheists, they shall be atheists. If the matter is wholly ignored, they would quite possibly be agnostic. In the end, the issue will come up some day.
1st: You once again misunderstand the terms atheist and agnostic. I am an agnostic atheist. This means that I am both not religious, and I believe it is impossible to know whether god exists (but find it extremely likely that he does not).
2nd: Kids may believe a lot of things (Santa, the Easter Bunny, the tooth fairy) but teaching them about a religion, and even claiming oneself as religious is very different than raising a kid and saying: you are this religion. Hell, a parent could even go so far to say to their child: I am a Christian, and I think Christianity is the best choice, but you have to make your own decision as to what you think is best for you. Then the parent could teach about christianity as long as they wanted, so long as it didn't seem like the kid never had a choice. What children fear more than any imaginary underground fire is the disapproval of their parents. If you are emotionally manipulating your child. Here is a very good video that explains my viewpoint, by a you-tuber whose views on subjects like religion I respect highly (seriously, I don't often expect people to look at every link I post, but this one would go a long way towards helping you understand the whole indoctrination thing from my point of view).
As I believe I stated, the interpretation is open to opinion.
Maybe to a certain degree but I couldn't argue against the NRA by interpreting the 2nd amendment as me having the right to place the arms of a bear on my wall. I have already multiple times explained what the petition means to those who have signed it, and this is really the only interpretation that matters.
No. I did not state that they were indoctrinated; rather, I alluded that they were more open-minded - once they come to adulthood, their opinions become rock-solid.
That's why it's best to show them all viewpoints as a child and not try and instill a rock solid sense of what religion they are. It's called personal choice, and I thought that this was an idea you supported.
What gives them the right to enact laws discouraging it?
Nothing. This may be the underlying motive, but I think the prima facie reason for this petition is to prevent what they view as abuse. Once again, refer to the video for my thoughts on this.
Why tell them?
I only let one know, and its not like I just went up and told them. We were talking about religion and she started asking me questions, and I didn't feel like lying. The majority of my friends and family have no idea that I'm an atheist (in fact, until recently, I even went to church almost every Sunday). I don't think it's right I should have to hide this fact about me, but unfortunately, in our society, I do for the most part.
I believe it was you with whom I had discussed the nature of inducing fear in children...
Based on your logic, those children who grow up in the most violent areas should be the least likely to commit violence as adults. Guess what? The truth is that this is the exact opposite. So much for teaching kids about sexual abuse by sexually abusing someone in morning assembly.
Perhaps this would add to my previous statement in italics. If you know somebody who gets burned by touching an active stovetop, perhaps they'd be more cautious in future?
This was an example of a fear in which the consequences were real. To teach kids about other things they shouldn't do, you need to make the reasons against doing these things make sense. If you can't think of a rational reason why someone shouldn't act in a certain way, then resorting to "you will burn in hell" is kinda intellectually lazy, right?
They are my relations. I know them quite well. I see them as they interact with other relations.
You're right, I can't speak to your own experiences, only my own.
Once again: the meaning of the petition is open to interpretation.
And once again, I interpret the U.S. constitution as a treasure map.
I've never known an atheistic family's children to have good morals. I've accused one of them of having Münchhausen's Syndrome; another is perhaps the most deceitful and disrespectful person I've ever met. The list goes on.
The worst part is, the latter's parents encourage that kind of behavior.
We can go on and on about anecdotal evidence, however, it is my own opinion (and prison population statistics that people are either moral or immoral, and their religious views have little or no affect. If you're not killing people then I don't care if it's Jesus, Muhammad, Budah or an invisible 12 foot trout that is your reason. I personally just use reason to determine my own morality, but to each his or her own.
That was a petition, not the wording of the actual law. However, it stands to reason that, if parents disobey the law, legal action would be taken.
And it stands to reason that you continue to make outrageous jumps in logic.
Okay, I amend my statement to: "Talking about religion in a positive light..."
Once again: learn what indoctrination means. Seriously, if you haven't watched the video yet, this would be a good time since it addresses your argument.
I hate theists. I prefer to interact with agnostics, but I'll settle for an atheist. Christians are too...Christian. Don't like 'em.
What's with the hate? I love a number of people, and the majority of these people are Christian. That's because the majority of people I know are Christian, and I don't really care one way or another about people's religious preferences.
For instance, there's this one atheist who insists that there is a gigantic anti-woman plot all over the world created with the intention of making women more enslaved then ever. She believes that all males are in on the plot, and that I - when I try to reason with her - am either blind or in on it to. Her husband is even in on it.
Once again, crazy people are crazy regardless of religion. Their are radical feminists that are religious, and those that are atheists.
See the difference between my conspiracy theories and hers? Her rebuttal to each of my arguments is: "they're lying!", whereas I do listen to reason. There are many theories - some of the most popular - which I do not agree with. I have never, and most likely never will, believe that everybody is in on it. I don't think that you are in on it. I've grown to like you throughout our discourses.
Sure, her theory is a little more crazy than most, but once again the majority of conspiracy theories are crazy to a certain extent.
I have never feared the result of a conspiracy theory. Most never come to see the light of day (that doesn't mean they weren't real, though). If it occurs, it is never on quite as grandiose a level as the theorists believed.
Haha: I promise, if I ever do find out about an atheist conspiracy you'll be the first to know.
Thus, religious people aren't all that evil and conniving.
Agreed. Religious people are people, and most people are good. There are evil Christians, just like there are evil atheists and Muslims and all other sorts of belief systems. People are just people, and labels don't change that.
Maybe to a certain degree but I couldn't argue against the NRA by interpreting the 2nd amendment as me having the right to place the arms of a bear on my wall.
Now there would be an intriguing debate!
That's why it's best to show them all viewpoints as a child and not try and instill a rock solid sense of what religion they are.
Who is "they" in that final "they are"?
It's called personal choice, and I thought that this was an idea you supported.
What about the parents' personal choice to teach their children what they will?
This may be the underlying motive,
Knowing Dawkins, I'd say that this is the underlying motive.
but I think the prima facie reason for this petition is to prevent what they view as abuse.
How does it become abusive?
The way Margaret White treats Carrie in Stephen King's first published novel? That was abuse: not her teachings, but the way she treated her daughter.
I don't think it's right I should have to hide this fact about me, but unfortunately, in our society, I do for the most part.
Your society. As far as I've seen, atheism is accepted in Canada. The atheists I know openly ridicule religion.
Based on your logic, those children who grow up in the most violent areas should be the least likely to commit violence as adults.
No, I attempted to ignore that position. If they witness a single disturbing act, that act will haunt them into adulthood. It, of course, depends on the act.
Also, I wrote if they witness it. That is not the same as having it done to you.
Perhaps if I explain myself better (I hate being verbose on here, which I believe leads to most of the misunderstandings/miscommunications I get myself into. Also, I often try to be grammatically accurate. I sacrifice coherency for grammatical accuracy. I shall attempt not to do that here.)
The other day, I noticed that a relative had "liked" a page on Facebook called "If you harm my son I'll make your death look like an accident". I looked at it, and laughed. It's crazy. Killing him will not do anything towards reducing the feelings you have for the loss/damage incurred on your son.
So, I came up with another idea. Most horror films sacrifice true horror for a few random jumps and scares. It's the truly scary ones that leave the viewer in fear and thought. So, I came up with what I thought to be True Horror. It'd probably make for a good film.
Let's say that you have been married for eight years and you have a five year old son. You love them more than anything. You would do anything for them. They get killed, perhaps during a home invasion. What do you do? Let's assume - for the purpose of the story - that you decide to exact revenge. Most movies would have you believe that you go off to find the person who killed them and torture them (cf. Law Abiding Citizen, etc.) That doesn't work.
You find their family. I shan't even begin to give details on the rather lengthy storyline I came up with - I doubt that many people have the stomach for it; it was more graphic than anything you'll ever see on TV - in which the murderer's entire family is brutally tortured and murdered before his own eyes. But, at the end of which, he is left without so much as having a hair on his head harmed.
Survivor's guilt, for one, would most likely be a major effect of that. Along with loneliness, and the knowledge that everybody he loves died because of him. Nothing comes closer to True Horror than does this.
(end rant)
I hope I conveyed accurately my feelings regarding this topic. If you were tortured because of past crimes, it wouldn't have any impact on you. If your loved ones suffer because of you, it'll "scar them" for life.
It was difficult for me to come to this conclusion but, when I did, my entire worldview changed. I went from believing that all (nearly all) people are inherently selfish to believing that most people are inherently selfless, sometimes, depending on the circumstances.
We can go on and on about anecdotal evidence, however, it is my own opinion (and prison population statistics that people are either moral or immoral,
How many admit to being atheist?
and their religious views have little or no affect.
For the most part, morality is instilled in people during childhood. In America, by a religious society and often by religious parents. I've never disputed that atheists have morals. Their morality (moral code, if you will) differs from my own; thus, their morality is, in my mind, immoral. That does not make it so.
And it stands to reason that you continue to make outrageous jumps in logic.
So, if that petition were made law, what would happen to those who break the law?
What's with the hate?
Okay, I dislike them.
I love a number of people, and the majority of these people are Christian.
They're your family.
I watch videos on youtube made by Christians. I laugh at them. I find their justifications to be horrendously simplistic and illogical.
Religious people are people, and most people are good.
So you are arguing that people are inherently good? I argue that they are neither good nor bad, inherently. It forms over time.
The words are open to interpretation. I agree with John Scott's interpretation
The debate between the difference of agnosticism vs. atheism is literally the stupidest debate on the internet. Literally the only difference is how people view the two. Religious people want to feel less threatened by agnostics but still want to hate atheists so they create this big divide, as if there is some huge fundamental difference between the two beliefs. It is completely retarded, and a tedious exercise in semantics.
What is happening is people are taking these labels way too seriously. All atheists believe this with this exact wording, while agnostics all believe this with this exact wording. NO! The only difference is that some people like the associations one term has over another. Some people who consider themselves agnostics want to feel superior to their atheist counterparts, and some people who consider themselves atheists want to make their break from religion more dramatic: they are saying the same thing though...that they don't believe in a god. Otherwise they'd be deists.
Sorry for the rant, but this kind of thing pisses me off.
Who is "they" in that final "they are"?
The children...sorry about the ambiguity.
What about the parents' personal choice to teach their children what they will?
Which is why I don't actually support the idea. To a certain extent there is the right to be a "bad parent." Did you watch the video I linked to?
Knowing Dawkins, I'd say that this is the underlying motive.
Or at least a nice little side effect. His assumption is that religion won't survive if it is put on equal footing with other belief systems. Much like you suggested, he assumes that the only reason we believe certain things is because we grow up with them.
How does it become abusive?
Once again, did you watch the video? I tried to explain the whole: forcing your kids into your own category by showing disappointment when they choose differently, but theowarner is much more articulate on the subject than I ever could be.
No, I attempted to ignore that position...
In my own opinion? Children who witness these acts become more desensitized to them. Children growing up in violent areas witness violence that doesn't happen directly to them a lot. My own father growing up in queens saw a man who was hung from a street sign.
I think though it's safe to say that there is no actual conclusion we can make on this matter without evidence.
How many admit to being atheist?
Seriously?
For the most part, morality is instilled in people during childhood. In America, by a religious society and often by religious parents. I've never disputed that atheists have morals. Their morality (moral code, if you will) differs from my own; thus, their morality is, in my mind, immoral. That does not make it so.
I wouldn't necessarily describe most parts of our society as religious (although there are some aspects, and even whole parts of the nation which are), but there is some influence.
In general though, people will try to do good, and religion just defines what good means. My issue is when people use religion as an excuse not to think, but instead willingly embrace what was considered morality 2,000 years ago and has no place in our modern society (see discrimination against homosexuals).
So, if that petition were made law, what would happen to those who break the law?
Let me repeat that I think this is kind of a ridiculous petition that is well meaning but unrealistic.
To answer your question though, I think parenting classes would be appropriate.
They're your family.
And my friends.
I watch videos on youtube made by Christians. I laugh at them. I find their justifications to be horrendously simplistic and illogical.
I wouldn't generalize that with all Christians, but fundamentalists and apologists, yes, I would have to agree.
So you are arguing that people are inherently good? I argue that they are neither good nor bad, inherently. It forms over time.
No, I'd say that a person can be spoiled so that he/she is not good anymore, but I think that the vast majority of people are, at heart, trying to do good. That's why even the most evil acts, usually have some kind of twisted moral logic to them (at least in the mind of the people committing them).
Atheists just lack a belief in god, there's really nothing that unifies their behaviour. Maybe if the subject was secular humanists, then one could argue that there is more tolerance within them.
I think a lot of atheists are actually very tolerant. And if you look at it from a historical perspective, the religious are the intolerant ones, starting wars in the name of God and persecuting people for not subjecting to their code of "ethics" or for not subscribing to their religion.
I think a lot of atheists are actually very tolerant. And if you look at it from a historical perspective, the religious are the intolerant ones, starting wars in the name of God and persecuting people for not subjecting to their code of "ethics" or for not subscribing to their religion.
But surely not as often or as viscously. Look at the past: the Pope himself (I forget which ones), who was supposed to be the "closest" to God, waged the Crusades in the name of God and killed Jews and Muslims just because they were living on the holy land. And in Spain, Catholics tortured and killed innocent people during the Inquisition just because they didn't share a belief in Christ. And when they came to the new world, they either killed the natives through war and disease or tried to convert them in order to "save them" rather than learn about their culture and embrace it. And that's just the Catholics.
The Jews waged war at the holy land after their slavery in Egypt because God "gave them that land"... Who cares? Honestly, if they needed to live there so badly, why couldn't they try to live there through diplomacy instead of war? And the Muslims have modern day radicals who terrorize the rest of the world because of their beliefs. And they are constantly fighting the Jews over the holy land. Frankly, I think the holy land should be a non-denominational nation in which any religion can enter to worship however they need.
Regardless, many atheists are not intolerant. Some are. But I wouldn't say a lot of them are. Especially when you contrast them to the overwhelmingly intolerant past of the religious. =/
Look at the past: the Pope himself (I forget which ones), who was supposed to be the "closest" to God, waged the Crusades in the name of God and killed Jews and Muslims just because they were living on the holy land.
No, they conquered the Holy Land. Pope Urban II (I'm quite certain that's the name) ordered the Crusades to protect the Middle East.
The Muslims were trying to take over all of Europe and the Crusades may very well have prevented that. Vlad II, as well, was influential in protecting Europe. Whilst many view him as a demagogue because he had many thousands of his subjects executed and put on pikes (enough so to form a veritable forest of bodies-on-pikes), which scared the invading Muslim army.
And in Spain, Catholics tortured and killed innocent people during the Inquisition just because they didn't share a belief in Christ.
How many people died as a result of the inquisition? Ten to twenty thousand.
And when they came to the new world, they either killed the natives through war and disease
They did not "try to kill the natives... [via] disease"! That was incidental - how could they have known that North Americans hadn't the immunity to survive European diseases?
rather than learn about their culture and embrace it. And that's just the Catholics.
Then why is most of Latin America a mixture of Catholicism and tribal religions? Most Haitians call themselves Catholics, yet they continue to practice Voodoo.
Honestly, if they needed to live there so badly, why couldn't they try to live there through diplomacy instead of war?
As I recall, the Jews have been loathed nigh everywhere they've ever gone. I doubt that diplomacy would have worked with the people who had, only years prior, been their owners!
And the Muslims have modern day radicals who terrorize the rest of the world because of their beliefs.
How many Muslims are terrorists? How many are willing to live in peace with the 'Western Community'?
And they are constantly fighting the Jews over the holy land.
Especially when you contrast them to the overwhelmingly intolerant past of the religious.
How many people of the past were intolerant? The clergy were intolerant (under orders of the Pope. Correct?), and the rulers may have been intolerant. However, one must wonder whether or not this tolerance was due to religion or to politics and power.
they have the right to believe or not believe in what they want to believe. they have that right just as just as religious people have the right to believe or not believe in
No, not necessarily. I myself am an agnostic, which, on MANY levels, can be considered a form of atheist. I am tolerant towards all sorts of religions. Your religion can be based on a God who created the Earth in order to see a Jon Melloncamp concert for all I care! No skin off my nose! It just DEPENDS on what you do with your religion, really.
Atheists are intolerant, this could only have been written by the religious, as they are the most judgmental shower of cunts that exist, its not nice to have your obviously ridiculous beliefs questioned is it?
How about considering the fact that Atheists consist of peoples from every race and color and formerly of every type of religious denomination, most religions occupy their own little niche and are holding on with closed eyes for dear life to a notion created in the simple minds of ancient men with no understanding of the world and the cosmos. This meme ancient and deadly is creating fear and fear is the most dangerous of all emotions. A fear that is causing a new third world war.
Atheists are intolerant, this could only have been written by the religious
I was not making a comparative statement.
as they are the most*
That's a generalization.
judgmental shower of
And you aren't being judgmental?
cunts
Another one like that and you'll be banned.
its not nice to have your obviously ridiculous beliefs questioned is it?
I don't mind it.
How about considering the fact that Atheists consist of peoples from every race and color
As do many religions.
and formerly of every type of religious denomination
As do many religions.
in the simple minds of ancient men
Are you saying that Aristotle and Plato and Socrates were "simple minds"?
with no understanding of the world and the cosmos.
In one thousand years, do you think that future man will view our understanding of the world and the cosmos as "advanced"?
This meme ancient and deadly
Prove it.
is creating fear and fear is the most dangerous of all emotions.
Based on what you are saying, all - or, at the very least, most - religious people should be very violent. I've never known a violent religious person.
I never said you were, I made a comparative statement after reading the title.
That's a generalization.
It may be, but in my experience its true.
And you aren't being judgmental?
Yes I am. The topic of the debate although disguised as non judgmental is that in buckets.
Another one like that and you'll be banned.
OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH NOOOOOOOO. Please Masta.
I don't mind it.
Then why the topic?
As do many religions.
Undoubtedly, but from a generally less educated background.
Are you saying that Aristotle and Plato and Socrates were "simple minds"?
No, but you pull up three of the greatest minds of ancient times and some how wish to prove that because they had faith in GODS that this somehow proves what? There was a time when the worlds greatest minds thought the world was flat, this did not stop the rest of the world thereafter from considering them great minds. The world moves on.
In one thousand years, do you think that future man will view our understanding of the world and the cosmos as "advanced"?
Compared to more ancient civilizations, yes. In the last one hundred years man has split the atom, created space travel, automobiles, the telephone, television, the Internet, the home computer, particle physics, genetics, mobile communications, etc,etc.
Based on what you are saying, all - or, at the very least, most - religious people should be very violent. I've never known a violent religious person.
Oh I don't know maybe the current situation in the middle east, Israel, the fact that a bible belt president sent America to war.
Anecdotal evidence is just that - anecdotal. It is invalid.
Yes I am.
Hypocrite.
OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH NOOOOOOOO. Please Masta.
Are you attempting to allude to you being of the Negroid persuasion?
Then why the topic?
I've made some 700 debates. Religious debates are the ones with the greatest participation.
No, but you pull up three of the greatest minds of ancient times
You stated that ancients have "simple minds".
and some how wish to prove that because they had faith in GODS that this somehow proves what?
When I mentioned them, I ceased to be debating religion and rather began a debate about the intellectuality of the ancients.
There was a time when the worlds greatest minds thought the world was flat
What is your point? The Bible did not state that the world was flat.
this did not stop the rest of the world thereafter from considering them great minds.
Most of history's great minds were theists.
In the last one hundred years man has split the atom, created space travel, automobiles, the telephone, television, the Internet, the home computer, particle physics, genetics, mobile communications, etc,etc.
And how much more shall happen in the next thousand years? The things you names may be infinitesimal compared to the scientific state of the year 3000AD.
the fact that a bible belt president sent America to war.
Are you stating that he would not have sent America to war had he not been from the "Bible Belt"? Are you stating that only theists go to war?
Doubt it. At least those atheists in America have to tolerate Christians everywhere they go. If they were really intolerant they would have to leave the country and go to some island somewhere...but hey, whatever you have to tell yourself to reassure your worldview.
I can't speak to your experience, and I'm sorry if they didn't respect your views, but I've never seen atheists stopping people on my way to class and trying to recruit them. To be fair though, I don't actually know all that many atheists personally, nearly everyone around me is Christian, which further goes to my point that it would be almost impossible to be intolerant...if I was, I'd have no friends :(
Try being a christian living with athiests for two and a half years. The worst part was that I didn't try convert them, they tried de-converting me.
To use a prosaic example, imagine that you were a man walking along the streets proclaiming that you have aliens in your teeth and the president is a ghost. People would mock you or ridicule you. The only difference between Christianity and this example is that there are some 2 billion Christians proclaiming that a man rose from the dead who was the son of god, etc. You have immunity from ridicule granted by the herd. That's why atheists who ridicule you seem obnoxious, you've never had to confront your beliefs because everyone around you tends to believe as you do.