Shop now Shop now Shop now See more Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Are Most Atheists really Atheists or...


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 12:58:59 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Perhaps you might explain the history of catholcism than includes murder, rape, child rape, child abuse, genocide, cultural genocide, and the hiding of all the above- which is still going on in Australia and Germany.

The history of your church makes the Waffen SS look like amateurs. And yet you support it.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:00:17 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Feb 2013 13:06:42 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"In order to refute my claim of 'unreasonableness', perhaps you could site a post where the atheist gives equal reference to the good things that religion does."
I think you're confusing 'reasonableness' for dogged diplomacy to the point where only a middle ground conclusion is correct. That's so unreasonable it's a logical fallacy.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:00:30 GMT
DB says:
Drew
I never said religions were perfect. The 'reasonable' person knows that nothing is.
To condemn something outright without reference to it's entirety, good and bad, as you do, is 'unreasonable.'

If I am wrong, please show the post where you acknowledge anything good done by religions

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:02:30 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:05:08 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"To condemn something outright without reference to it's entirety, good and bad, as you do, is 'unreasonable.'"
That's not unreasonable if you see the good being so mundane and unconnected to the 'faith' element that it does't vindicate the whole.

What is unreasonable is to expect a reference to the whole of something as expansive as religion when commenting on it.

What you want is all criticism tempered, so that it losses it's impact and doesn't impede on that small little nagging part of your conscious that doubts.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:10:26 GMT
DB says:
Drew

Nice attempt at avoidance.

I repeat - If I am wrong, please show the post where you acknowledge anything good done by religions

-

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:10:27 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Any answer to god trying to drown pilgrims? No, I thought not. Just carry on chanting and bead juggling.

You might note that my hatred of religion extends to arguing against it.

I have not murdered any one, tortured anyone, or preached homophobia and misogyny, unlike various religious institutions. Nor have I repeatedly lied to children about it and brainwashed them

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:11:52 GMT
AJ Murray says:
Diane,

You single example doesn't cover any of the claims you've made though. Is the poster claiming that his words are being informed by reason or intellect? No. Are they hiding behind the term atheist so that their own beliefs may not be questioned or defined? No.

All you've done is reveal your own ingrained prejudice and in doing so demonstrated that you are just as guilty of the things you accuse others of.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:17:26 GMT
Bellatori says:
Drew Jones says: "...that small little nagging part of your conscious that doubts."

You touch on something that I have often thought true of usually the most extremely fanatic of the religous. They doubt. Because they doubt they have to be more 'fanatic', more 'faithful', more 'doctrinaire', and usually more intolerant of the less doubting and therefore more relaxed believers. In simple terms, the greater the doubt the more the adherent becomes a zealot. Such people are never the suicide bombers but always those that will organise and support and sacrifice others. Like the Pharisee they have to proclaim their virtue and adherence to faith with a loud and dinning sound to hide the small voice of doubt that ever knaws at them.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:18:06 GMT
AJ Murray says:
-"In order to refute my claim of 'unreasonableness', perhaps you could site a post where the atheist gives equal reference to the good things that religion does."

G. Heron says:
-"I agree that many good things have been done in the name of religion and that it is not all violent and evil, I cannot agree however that it is not totally irrational."

Shakepen says:
-"Actually, religion has helped man in many ways. Religion has drawn man together in fellowship. It has provided answers to questions in a pre-scientific world that would otherwise have been very bewildering, but most of all, religion has given man hope for the depression caused by his fears for his own mortality (existentional angst).

There's two, consider yourself refuted Diane.

Posted on 12 Feb 2013 13:19:14 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:20:40 GMT
Bellatori says:
"Tell us the good things you know about the work done by the other 95% of priests."

They have helped a lot of fellow human beings avoid jail...

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:20:58 GMT
Dan Fante says:
I see maths isn't your strong suit either ;-)

Posted on 12 Feb 2013 13:22:03 GMT
Bellatori says:
... particularly the child abusers, paedophiles and their ilk but lets not get nit picky over detail.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:22:28 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:25:17 GMT
AJ Murray says:
-"atheist conclusion -all priests are paedophiles."

Diane, you are overfond of putting words in others mouths.

-"Condemn the whole church."

Or is it condemn the institution that did little to prevent these abuses, took actions that allowed them to continue, conspired to cover them up, and was more concerned over their preceived reputation than innocent lives?

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:29:21 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:30:30 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"I repeat - If I am wrong, please show the post where you acknowledge anything good done by religions "
That's a way your premise would be refuted but it's not the only way you could be wrong. An alternative way to overturn your contention would be to show your working definition of reasonable was not something advocating reasonable behaviour and that is the point I disagreed with you on for the reasons explained.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:33:02 GMT
Bellatori says:
AJ, I agree with you entirely.

I would have been more impressed with this Pope had he resigned because he failed to deal with the child abuse problem amongst the clergy as a Bishop then cardinal and even as Pontiff.

These 'old men' who are about to elect a new Pope are my age and older. They would have been involved with the Catholic Church from the 60s onward and, unless, like Tommy, they were deaf dumb and blind, they are and were all well aware of the problems. They either did not want to see or were hit by the cover up reflex. In either case they are as culpable as the criminal who actually did the deed.
In many ways this is like the parliamentry expenses scandal. Throw a few to the wolves and move on. Not a proper house clean.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:37:57 GMT
AJ Murray says:
-"Couldn't find one could you?"

No, i found two.

-"The first one is calling religion 'irrational'"

It is. That's just a fact. Whether you wish to acknowledge it as such is of little interest to me.

-"The second one - '(existentional angst)'"

And yet both do highlight the good that religions do. Which is something *you* insisted did not happen.

-"both are thinly veiled criticism. Try again "

Oh dear...First you complain that atheists don't criticise based on an appreciation of both the good and bad done by religions and when they do you dismiss it because they are critical. You're not going to be satisfied unless we only post unqualified praise. That's the role more suited for you and those like you. Apolgetics and unthinking approval.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:43:14 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"so your aim isn't to be 'reasonable', it is only to promote biased criticism."
I disagree with your definition of reasonable. A criticism that lies more on one side than another is not unreasonable. I don't need to acknowledge something nice or sensible Pol Pot did to condemn his rule.

"i.e. 0.5% of priests involved in child abuse cases. - atheist conclusion -all priests are paedophiles. Condemn the whole church."
[Citation needed]

"Tell us the good things you know about the work done by the other 95% of priests."
I know of nothing good a religious person could do that they wouldn't have secular reasons for doing.

"Or if that is too difficult, just one priest will do."
To answer this would be to dignify your claims and give them a veneer of credibility they don't deserve. Let's just say that I don't think it impossible for a religious person or religious leader to do something good. I don't think virtuous actions validates theological beliefs though.

"If you have researched any part of the catholic faith, I am sure you will be able to do this."
You appear to be under the impression that religions only issues is with ethics. It has bigger problems with veracity - I don't know how to be balanced in the way you presume 'reasonableness' to be obtained on that front.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:43:51 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Feb 2013 13:44:52 GMT
Dan Fante says:
You aren't doing yourself a lot of favours here, are you?
Apart from those examples providing what you've asked for the existential angst bit wasn't even a criticism in reference to religion. It refers to the anxiety associated with questioning one's existence and the person quoted was crediting religion with helping people to answer those questions.
Perhaps I'm being whooshed here and you're on the wind-up.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:49:11 GMT
Drew Jones says:
Cited against you: G. Heron says: -"I agree that many good things have been done in the name of religion and that it is not all violent and evil, I cannot agree however that it is not totally irrational."
DB: "[This] is calling religion 'irrational'... [it is a] thinly veiled criticism."
So first you want something nice said for balance and now you want something that has nothing bad to say at all. Confirmation bias much?

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:49:26 GMT
C. A. Small says:
dB 0.5 % HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?

btw 0.5 plus 95 = 95.5%- what are the other 4.5% up to?

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2013 13:50:50 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Diane as I have frequently informed you. I am an atheist and an anti-theist. Stop mixing the two up.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  41
Total posts:  1324
Initial post:  11 Feb 2013
Latest post:  11 Mar 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions