The Satanic quality of the Internet

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

As for the argument, i think its hard to express a desire for freedoms and yet attack religion, regardless of its history. In fact, i believe that it is truly impossible to do so. i believe that religion is a completely ridiculous system and i loathe everything it leads to. Human beings invented religion, and by countless examples, it has proven to be just as flawed as human nature itself. It has lead to a control system, constantly being changed based on the ideas of the few to spread into the masses. Individuals have proven themselves to be, more times than not, to be more reasonable than people.

And because the idea can spread through the people so quickly, because of human nature, it often gets absorbed without individual critical thinking and reason. In this fashion, religion has been used more often than not as a tool for to control the masses for individual gain. Discrimination, crusades, hate, violence,denouncement of scientific advances and the rights of others, all have been the result of religion being used as a tool for the accomplishment of the few.

That is my take on religion, andThose are examples that religion has denied the basic rights of people. But we cannot deny people to believe whatever they want to. people can say things that they truly believe, yet not act on them. When those people do act upon those beliefs in a way that infringes on other's rights is when intervention is required. Theres not much more people can do. i may hate religion, and i may hate many people who bible thump and try to save, for example, homosexuals from "eternal damnation", but i cant deny them the right to believe whatever they want and to express that feeling verbally. All i can do is to stop him from infringing on other's rights and hope, imo, that he comes to his senses.

The red part is the point, and I often have said that I do not care for what is going on in other peoples porivate cabinet or bedroom as long as they do nto rub it down other people's nose and do not try to enforce it into the public sphere, legislation, education, state politics and law-giving. The red part also illustrates partz of the answer why atheists use the internet to communicate and organsie themselves, becaseu u_crfank asked why there is so much of that on the internet. It is a reaction to relgion prssing more and more openly into society and law-making again, mainly pushed by Catholicism and fundamentalists in the US demonising secularism, and Islam demonising criticism as Islamophobia.

Freedom is not to be defended when it has been taken away, because then it is too late: it is gone. Freedom is to be used for defence as long as it is still there.

Where tolerance even tolerates intolerance or those putting their ideology above mutual tolerance (which basically is one and the same thing), the intolerant will overrun the tolerant and destroy them, and tolerance with them. What remains is the ruling of the intolerant.

The record of the three desert dogmas stands as it is, and it is not a positive one, by far not. The evil and wickedness comign from them is beyond doubt, the evidence reaches back from the present 1000 years, 2000 years, even 3000 years. And its alwaxyd the same damn darkness following in their wake. At court, the ben fit of doiubt is rcongised as long as their is no evidence given proving guilt. But the evidence in this case is present since a long time, in amyn forms and variations, in many stories and details. The issue is beyond all doubt, and is so since centuries and millenia. That'S why I do not grant them the benfit of doubt anymore, and call for the destuctio0n of the intolerant - before they can destroy tolerance. And it is this what the intolerant aim for, and what the church aims atr, and what the orthodox Jews waim at, and what Muhammedanism aims at: destruction of tolerance, and freedom. Or in more archaic language: EXTERMINATION OF THE FOREIGN TRIBES, and taking their land. That is the archetype behind it. And so I say: destroy the churches and mosques and synagogues, save the chidlren from being intoxinated with this brain poison, burn these damn things called bible, quran and Thora.

Note that I do not say: bring down hinduism, destroy buddhist centres. I m not really a fan of hinduism, and the caste system they have is an offence to all what is humane and ciuvilised, but what makes me tolerating Hinduism is that they do not mess up the world beyond their borders, and do not try for active subjugation or convertation of others - and that is a big plus for me, after all the religious aggressive violence we have seen being done in the name of Islam, Christianity, Judaism. Also, Buddhas teaching does not aid in seeking conquest, hate, intolerance and subjugation of others, and they leave you alone and do not missionise all around the globe, only open a centrte her eor there where they are welcomed, and even then they stay inside their compound and do not mess up society, do not seek to manipulate education sysetems, laws, and try not to gain a special status for themselves that make them special amongst all others. So yes: no problem to tolerate them as well.

And there are many other opinion traditions and schools of thinking and other religious cults towards which I feel no need to confront them - even when I disagree, even when I find them hilarious.

But the churches, Jewish and christian funda,mentlaism, Islam I explicitly exclude from this tolerance, since they show no tolerance towards others.

U_crank,

I called you an idiot above, and that was an unneeded call.
I apologize for that.
I still find your way of running your part of the debate absurd and contradicting in itself, I still do not accept the way you were weazeling. But the name calling was unneeded, and should considered to be unneeded in any other debate as well. So: sorry for that one, and I mean it.

But sorry only for that one.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

Really...now why don't you ask Skybird about denying basic rights of few based on his purely logical (in his view)social reasoning then....
Or maybe reflect on some ugly ideologies that took in some inspiration on Darwin theory of evolution.

I always wonder when reading such postings whether it is really that difficult to argue and defend ones own opinion without distorting what the other said, or whether it is just the easier path of defamation that is being taken due to own laziness or lack of arguments that could hold their ground.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

U_crank,
I apologize for that.

Noted. Accepted. Peace.

I always wonder when reading such postings whether it is really that difficult to argue and defend ones own opinion without distorting what the other said

The beauty of it is that people don't need to distort what you say, you just cannot see what you are saying(or what other people are saying).

Its brilliant, even when you try to exclude little things like saffronization or the rising of the lotus from your own intolerance to make you seem more reasonable you manage to get facts so wrong its laughable

Really...now why don't you...

MH don't be silly.
you know he already did that perfectly, Sky won't answer that and you can see his attempt at skirting round his contradiction leads him straight into another self contradictory position.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I always wonder when reading such postings whether it is really that difficult to argue and defend ones own opinion without distorting what the other said, or whether it is just the easier path of defamation that is being taken due to own laziness or lack of arguments that could hold their ground.

...me lazy

As for the scientifically based ugly ideologies the argument stands.
I think the few past centuries show and in particular last century.A period when religion was less relevant than earlier that the bloodshed and conquest, including killing on industrial scale had become even more intensive.
In some cases it can be attributed to advancement in weaponry in others to applying Darwinian laws about survival of the strongest races therefore making racism a science ...for example or used in the name of social engineering.Yet the fact is that the "enlightenment" did not really prevent it...sometimes led to it.

The "enlightenment" made religion merely a less effective tool in political game while other ideas replaced them.

I can agree that religion may hold us back when it comes to scientific advancements but i can hardly say that it is root of all evil.

When it comes to Judaism and local (why local is a long story that dates back to 48)orthodox i probably like them even less than you do (not sure though...)but still they don't try to convert anyone or conquer others.
They simply are closed club that is trying to preserve itself.
God dam it...most of they don't even recognise Israel.
Israel is Zionist sin till Messiah comes to sort things out.


..........

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by MH

Really...now why don't you ask Skybird about denying basic rights of few based on his purely logical (in his view)social reasoning then....
Or maybe reflect on some ugly ideologies that took in some inspiration on Darwin theory of evolution.


..............

Exactly what rights is he denying in this particular argument?

Also please explain your second statement. I seem to be missing your point.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The beauty of it is that people don't need to distort what you say, you just cannot see what you are saying(or what other people are saying).

Its brilliant, even when you try to exclude little things like saffronization or the rising of the lotus from your own intolerance to make you seem more reasonable you manage to get facts so wrong its laughable

But you express no argument, just an attack and insult. If you have nothing substantive to say, why say anything at all?

But you express no argument, just an attack and insult. If you have nothing substantive to say, why say anything at all?

The arguements are all there. he is still stuck with his popper paradox but can't see it due to a combination of his hatred and his belief that he must be right
In fact its even funnier with what you quoted as in his rabid intolerance of anything remotely muslim he previously has linked to some real crazies in India and the surrounding countries who were doing exactly what he says they don't.(another recuring theme here as he again linked to a hey looky what they say, me likey what they say,they say the same as me..... though the EDL is notquite not as funny as the arab christians complaining about black people he linked to when he wanted to moan about muslims in France)

But if you want more funnyness on the topic you may recall his recent theory that the Green party is somehow part of a catholic conspiracy which of course must not be tolerated, yet amongst its leadership there happens to be a very vocal atheist doing exactly what Skybird insists they don't do.

Also please explain your second statement. I seem to be missing your point.

Well I thought you would have got that with Skys religious intolerance global conspracies, habit of going into my struggle mode and his fondness for eugenics, after all poor people shouldn't be allowed to breed though foriegners can breed but must be treated as lesser people especially those ones as they are all the same and are not worthy of the name of people...

Look at the whole topic Steve or the whole pattern of posts.
Right from the start he has done the very things he objects to and all the way through has carefully aimed and shot himself in the foot before lining up for another shot and shooting himself in the foot again and again.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Exactly what rights is he denying in this particular argument?.

I was referring to his interesting/economical reasoning behind gays rights in some other threads which may approach the issue from different angle but go in par with religious stance.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Also please explain your second statement. I seem to be missing your point.

Post 50

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The arguements are all there.

But you personally made no arguments. All you did in this case was attack, insult and troll. Again, if you won't discuss it reasonably, please stay out of it. This constitutes a personal attack and will no longer be tolerated.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by MH

I was referring to his interesting/economical reasoning behind gays rights in some other threads which may approach the issue from different angle but go in par with religious stance.

While I completly disagree with Skybird on that subject I found his arguments to be the only anti-gay-marriage arguments to be worthwhile. He made good and reasonable points.

Post 50

Again I disagree. While some benighted people have tried to use Darwinism to that end, it doesn't refute the basic tenets of the theory of Evolution. Are you saying you believe Skybird adheres to that concept?

[MH]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

While I completly disagree with Skybird on that subject I found his arguments to be the only anti-gay-marriage arguments to be worthwhile. He made good and reasonable points.

Yes he made reasonable points.

Again I disagree. While some benighted people have tried to use Darwinism to that end, it doesn't refute the basic tenets of the theory of Evolution. Are you saying you believe Skybird adheres to that concept?

I dot follow you here...its not about whether theory of evolution is true.

I was trying to counter Sky,s argument about religion being root of all evil.
It is about how things for political reason can taken out of context manipulated and used for "reasonable" brainwashing....behold... no religion involved in mass murder,conquest and "spread civilisation crusades".
A case when ethics goes to trashcan in the name of science and greater good instead of religion.
While religion may try deal with ethics, science is more about greater good and facts while ethics might be elusive.

Simply dot buy the blame religion thing.


(did not try to call Sky names or imply anything)

But you personally made no arguments. All you did in this case was attack, insult and troll. Again, if you won't discuss it reasonably, please stay out of it. This constitutes a personal attack and will no longer be tolerated.

Read again, I am personally making the arguement of using his own arguements.
Answer the question put forward in the first post then make that statement again.
You may notice that it avoids the broad brush pitfall you pulled crank up on, which strangley enough is the same broad brush which Sky is using.

The second post clarifies the arguement put forward in the first.

The third is a quick serious of accurate counters and the reference to "zeal" is included to highlight how he is the same as those he says he is against.
Did you get the two references in the 4th and see which of his claims they countered? I was tempted to cross reference to his arguement about PC gone mad, which in reality was a legal ruling to deal with the legacy of the racist policy of honourary white people to further highlight it as a pattern but considered the point stood well enough itself.
The second part of the 4th deals with the very same notion you yourself have pulled him up over, if I recall correctly your arguement can be simply paraphrased as ... how are you and your arguements any different than those people and arguements you are saying are wrong, your intolerance loops to put you in the same category as that which you say must be got rid of.....please correct me if I have mistated on that angle about freedom of speech and intolerance and the self contradictory nature of the arguements put forward.

[Morts]

Originally Posted by u crank

Atheists have a system of belief, a doctrine, that is well documented. You ascribe to it and believe it to be true. If you think that's absurd it's not my problem.

Wrong, its a lack of belief.
There is no guide to be an atheist, there is no "bible" to lead you on your way to become a better atheist, its simply just a lack of belief, nothing more.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

Yes he made reasonable points.



I dot follow you here...its not about whether theory of evolution is true.

I was trying to counter Sky,s argument about religion being root of all evil.
It is about how things for political reason can taken out of context manipulated and used for "reasonable" brainwashing....behold... no religion involved in mass murder,conquest and "spread civilisation crusades".
A case when ethics goes to trashcan in the name of science and greater good instead of religion.
While religion may try deal with ethics, science is more about greater good and facts while ethics might be elusive.

Simply dot buy the blame religion thing.


(did not try to call Sky names or imply anything)

A relgion is a cult that is formed around an ideology. I think its fair to say these ideologies base on a.) superstititon on the one and and b.) the self interest for power and priviliges of priesthoods of said religions.

Ideologies have two effects. 1. they motivate for future deeds/behaviour. 2. they serve as justifications for future AND past deeds/behaviour.

If the ideology preaches attack and conquest, the ethnic cleansing of new territories, the supression of females, the torture of infidels and apostates, and so on and on (I have the old testament on mind!), and if the ideology preaches about a magic skycaptain who threatens all this if his tyrannic orders are not met, and who executes mass murder as a penalty< for disobedience; if for his sasdistic joy he terrorises fathers to kill their sons to prove something, calling them back just in last minute in one story - and not calling them back in another story! - if all this is like it is, and muczh more blood and gore being told: then a motivating justifying ideology turns into a problem, becasue the rules and ethics and morals coming from that hardly can be called ethical, moral, humane. They are barbaric.

We should feel blessed an gifted that the morals of the est'S modenr present DO NOT BASE on Christian values. Else pour place would be like Afghanistan, probably.

I remind of the radical attitude of fundamentalist Chriostian in the US, a group mainly deriving from the bible belt, that by all what I have read about them in n o way are any different, any less medieval, any less inhukmane than the Taliben in Afghanistan. Maybe that is why these christians sometimes are referred to as the American Taliban. Thes people are ruthless and do not even shy away from murder and assassination, whoich they ocasionally carry oput - in context with the battle over abortion, for example.

At the same time such people, people like them, time and again show massive intellectual deficits. I cannot put it any other way.

Totalitarianism, mind control, supremacism are what keeps ideologic fundamentlaists together and oincreases their strength to change the world. That'S why the church calls for obedience, that'S why Islam is as openly totalitarian in its control claism as it is, that'S why Chriostian fundamentalists are so extremely aggressiove againmst others, espoecially atheists. The worst thing you can call yourself in the US seems to be "atheist". And up into the highest ranks of political and social representations you can find statements questioning whether an atheist should be allowe dto hold public office, can even be called an American, can even be called a civilised human being. Accusations of lacking human nature coming from a medieval Taliban, well that's rich, isn't it!

I mentioined the experiment done in I think the 60s, by Israeli professor Tamarin, who looked how expopsition to religious teachings changed 1000 children's attitude towards genocide. The result - for which he was fired by his university (!) - was that the same biblic story of once again some tribe getting mowed down and pushing over the cliff of extinction, was met with disgust and moral outage if names and places were chnaged to some fictional historic event in Chinese history. But when the same story was told in the opriginal bilbical context, the vast majority found the genocide justified because it was the will of God.

Nice, eh?

The new testament is not much better, and only in the immediate preachings of Jesus you see a slightly different concepotion of God being given. But even Jesus repatedly referred to the woman as being inferior and the the foreign infidel must get pushed down and attacked. Not that without that I would see Jesus as any more holy than he is. If he existed, which to me is absolutely not a certainty, he still was a normal human, with a mind speaking some reaosnmable things for which they claim he was assassinated by those feeling threatened by this reason, and he still was a brainchild of his time and as a human could not completely escape being influenced by it. So even, by all sympathy for sermon on the mount and cleansing of the temple - leave Jesus the humanity that he had, and take the later emerging written fixings of hear-say about his claimed life with a grain of salt.

It seems to me that throughout history the moral and ethical standards caused and demonstrated by religions are far, far inferior to those basing on other grounds or were lived by people - sometimes under threat to their life for being herectis! - not signing it to relgion club membership. And no other mtoviation there has been in history, not poltics and not economics, that has caused, motiavted, called for and afterwards justified so much violent barvbaric excesses and wars, like the three theistic desert dogmas. Their historic record is a nightmare.

I personally fear very strongly that the US is developing into a theocratic police-state regime. That's why I cannot laugh about creationist museums anymore. In Europe, we maybe get the same thing, just in Islamic translation.

That'S why I am against religious schoolo lessons, and relgious clubs being allowed to nfliuehjce the small and weak, the unedcuated and unexpereinced children. I call it child abuse, and I mean it exactly lioke that. Let people get education, let them grow up, and when they are in their mid-twenties, let them decide by themselves whether they want to replace reality with fiction that eithe lets them live in a sugar-coated lie, or allows them to turn out the worst in them and become Taliban at worst, no matter whether Christain or Islamic ones. The chikldren are innocent, and their minds are unformed and defenceless to manipulation - that'S why religions fight so bitterly to get access to them as early as possible, and why they all have formed traditions to claim club possession over them from cradle on, if it could be legally managed.

To me, all this equals crime against humanity, and child abuse. Disgusting. And no sign of a sense for moral responsibility anywhere.

This should - once again - explain why I want the three desert dogmas brouight down. They are dangerous, and unfortunately they win in influence throughout the world. And that deeply concerns me. It doesn't matter whether it is Islam which is fundamentalist from A to Z, or Chroistzian church which is funda,mentlaist in parts of it and in some sects. Fundamentalists are a dangerous breed in both cases, as are Jewish extremists as well. Let'S show them all their place under the big stone in the garden, and make sure they stay there.

P.S. Yu said that no religion calls for global crusade and conquest. You are wrong. Islam does, both by deed and by scripture. Catholicism does, both by deed and by scripture, though today in a less military form (ignoring some Christian sectarians for the moment). The Vatican still implies demand for dominat rulership over all other Christian sects and chruches, too. Radical Jews demand ethnical cleannsing and theocratic totaliatrianism at least in the polaces they claim for themselves: the socalled holy land. Islam and radical Christians as well as Catholicism try actively to push into and gain ground in schools, education systems, law making, courts. All seek special status, regarding the law, and tax duties, for themselves, all of them want to establish parallel law systems for its members and special treatement for their priesthood.