New Atheism

I have a hard time seeing religion being actively more harmful to humanity than communism, fascism, nationalism, imperialism, racism..
Several points:
* Communism is a religion. You don't think it's science, do you?
* Fascism is also a religion. It's a "New Age" version of Marxism that simply incorporates nationalism and deemphasizes that whole "proletariat/bourgeoise" center of "the struggle."
* Nationalism? How is patriotism detrimental? I'm calling bullshit. In fact, I'm calling you a very stupid bullshitter. Do you have any sort of explanation for this comment of yours or are you simply spewing what other very stupid people are telling you to regurgitate? Oh wait, fuck, you did it. You added "racism" to the list. You are spewing what other people are telling you to regurgitate.
* Racism. You know how leftists are always screaming "RACISM!" everywhere, always, everywhere, always, everywhere? Did you ever notice that? You might have missed it because you were too busy getting caught up in screaming "RACISM!" everywhere, always, everywhere, always, everywhere. I hate to break it to you, but there is never any racism behind any of those screams of "RACISM!" Never. Never, ever, ever. Your point should have been that the incessant screams of "RACISM!" by leftists everywhere, always, everywhere, always, everywhere ... is what is extremely damaging to society ... and that is also a religion.

The question is really whether any benefit of religion is outweighed by any harm it does.
Excellent question. The answer is "that depends on the religion."

The Marxist religions (Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Global Warming, Climate Change, The Church of Green, The Democrat Party, leftism, etc..) are entirely destructive to society and don't appear to have any redeeming qualities. They spread fear and denial of science, math, logic, critical reasoning, sound economics and of basic human nature, and inculcate a HATRED of happiness in others. If they could destroy the global economy tomorrow, they'd jump at the chance in a heartbeat. These religions are best characterized as "social cancers," similar in nature to pancreatic cancer.

attachment.php

Islam is a militant version of Bronze Age mentality that was nonetheless forever locked into the religion in the 7th century (that region was FAR behind the civilization power curve) and won't come into the modern day. They still worship the moon idol "Allah" and their religion is extremely intolerant of any other religion (which is why leftists are so enamored with Islam, especially American Jews). This rabid intolerance leads to a complete legitimization of killing living humans who have committed no crime but who simply do not worship as they do. Leftists can't get enough of this. This has led to the attempted genocide of Israelites, the repeated attempted genocide of Hindus (who rarely fight back), the ongoing persecution of Christians, the taking of international terrorism to new levels, and the big one ... Islam is primarily responsible for plunging the western world into the Dark Ages. Now this last statement is going to stir the leftist hornets' nest because they don't want their intolerant heroes being portrayed in a negative light, ... yet they secretly acknowledge all of this and are actively working on getting the term "Dark Ages" renamed to something more positive so that Islam can be forthwith credited ... instead of being blamed. Keep an eye out for efforts to redefine/rename/refactor the "Dark Ages." When you see it happening, you'll know exactly what is going on.

Hinduism is really just an endless collection of stories of many gods, which lead to many traditions with many variations each, and the belief that these stories are true is what makes it a religion. And there is nothing there, meaning the religion itself is almost incidental. It's the culture of the Hindu people, not so much their religion, that makes them happy, friendly, peaceful and charitable. The only real "branch" of Hindus that was ever martial are the Sikhs which became a separate religion by going monospiritual (following the Satnam). The Sikhs are obviously not Hindus but their spiritualism is/was based on Hinduism with the polytheism forthwith dispensed. The point is that Sikhs will actively defend themselves. Outside the leftist-dominated western world, male adult Sikhs are required to carry a sword in order to be able to defend themselves (mostly against Muslims who will kill them for not being Muslim). Beyond that, India (which includes what is today Pakistan, Afghanistan and other regions) has historically been Hindu for thousands of years, but the "empires" of India after the time of Mohammed were Islamic, because the Hindus didn't really resist much and the Muslims just killed Hindus until attaining power, e.g. Delhi Sultanate (1206 CE to 1526 CE), Mughal Empire (1526 CE to 1857 CE), Bahmani Sultanate (1347 CE to 1527 CE), etc...

Buddhism is just a pursuit of peace and tranquility. This often involves charity (both charitable giving and charitable work). Buddhists are either quietly making the world a better place and don't want recognition or they are just living their own separate lives and don't want recognition.

Christians, collectively, are mostly about being charitable and proselytizing the "Good News". No other group on this planet is as charitable as Christians, and this pisses leftists off to no end because leftists are the greediest mother-fukkers on the planet who (collectively) hardly lift a finger for their fellow man, and when compared to Christians, look very, very bad. Leftists would rather spend their day trying to set the world record for the number of times they can scream "RACIST!" within a 24-hour period and/or virtue-signal how Donald Trump defeated Satan in the last election to become the Chief Executive of the Underworld Branch of government. Christians globally make the world a better place, not only through incomparable charity, but by ingraining sound economic principles within their communities by instilling them in their children. This pisses leftists off to no end because Christians are out there in the world building sound economic foundations and growing sound economies, and it simply adds more work to the leftists' plate in order to destroy the global economy for everyone, in order to make everything fair ... and equally miserable for all. Therefore, leftists feel compelled to label Christians as "RACIST!" at least five times per day while facing Mecca.

I'm sure I have omitted some that I should have mentioned, but this list will do for now.

As for me, I favor a pluralistic society where freedom of conscience is guaranteed by law.
... unless that conscience wishes to prevent the killing of living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die, in which case you want that conscience thwarted at all costs.

The lesson I take from history is that the two endpoints of both State theocracy and State atheism are equally harmful to the human condition.
Stupid position. An atheistic State is required to ensure freedom of religion for all, unless you are misusing the word "atheist" in the manner of a stupid leftist, of course.
 
As for discussions, I don't think random strangers should be approached on the street and proselytized.
Give me your thoughts on PETA and Greenpeace.

But personally, I enjoy reading Guno's [overtly bigoted and hateful] theads on ["white people" from a racist American Jew's perspective], and I actually didn't mind Dukkha starting threads about Buddhism.
So officially for the record, you are fine with the propagation of racism, and enjoy reading it. Don't let me see you trying to claim otherwise.
 
I totally agree organized religion should definitely not be making government policy.
Bullshit. You think the government should be imposing the Global Warming and Climate Change faiths onto society in the form of economy-suffocating legislation and taxation, and you demand that our schools be required to teach Marxist religions in all classrooms, not just the science classroom.

I don't neccessary think it should be kept inside the home.
You're damned right you don't.

I can't imagine Catholicism, Judaism, Islam without churches, synogogues, mosques.
You can't imagine schools and other public places not being converted into defenselessness temples that treat the 2nd Amendment as though it were Satanic verses.
 
The concept of an immaterial soul and a transcendent heaven comes from Plato, making a big part of your belief pagan in origin.
Well, everything in every religion was a mix of many things from other religions and different social customs/norms. Religions were hand-stitched. The idea of a priest/minister/vicar leading a service is entirely pagan, especially one in which a sacrifice is performed, either in practice or ceremonially.

If you dispense with the irrelevant topic of "origins" and focus on the content of the religion, ... what's your point? You acknowledge that Christians believe in a transcendental "human soul" yes? ... and that makes it a Christian belief, right? ... and that it doesn't matter that non-Christians might have had that belief, right?

Are you going to argue that Christians are Greek?
 
Some Americans in particular hold truly despicable values that are encouraged by biblical nonsense
By any chance would that be the defense of living humans who have committed no crime against being killed for someone else's convenience? Is that one of the truly despicable values that you notice are encouraged by Biblical nonsense?

A funny thing, the killing of living humans, who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die, merely for someone else's convenience, without even being afforded legal representation or a day in court, is a truly despicable value that I notice routinely coming from leftists.

Maybe we need more of this Biblical nonsense of which you speak.

and fundamentalist Muslims take it even a little further than that.
Well, in the sense that they are happy to advocate for the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die, but who merely do not worship the moon idol as they do. Muslims can look the other way if you drink alcohol or eat pork, but if you don't pray to Allah, they have to be suspicious of you, at a minimum.

In similar contrast, good things that are done by good people are inaccurately credited to the religious superstitions belived to be held by those persons.
Like good ol' Al Gore receiving the Nobel Prize ... for his belief in Global Warming. Too funny! In fact, and don't tell anyone but Al Gore wasn't even a good person. He was a shitbag, but let's keep that little secret between us. However, his professing of his religion was enough to inaccurately credit him with being a good person. You are definitely spot on with this point.

Al-Gore-pissed-RA-316x229.jpg
 
Paul wrote about actual physical bodies being resurrected and an Earthly Kingdom of heaven.

The concept of an immaterial soul and a transcendent heaven comes from Plato, making a big part of your belief pagan in origin.

dude....fuck Plato.....the concept of heaven comes from the word of God.....don't really care if you don't accept that.....doesn't really matter to any of us......don't pretend an atheist has any authority when it comes to the Christian religion......deniers just gonna deny.....
 
I think it's hubris to leap to the conclusion that our primate sensory perception, and our simian cognitive capacity are capable of accessing true knowledge about all reality.

Steven Weinberg, Nobel winning physicist-->

"Another question is whether our brains are powerful enough to even understand these increasingly comprehensive (natural) laws. In the end, dogs can’t be trained to solve the Schrödinger equation."
 
The term New Atheism was coined by the American journalist Gary Wolf in 2006 to describe the positions of some atheist academics, writers, scientists, and philosophers of the 21st century.

New Atheism advocates the view that superstition, religion, and irrationalism should not simply be tolerated. Instead, they should be criticised, countered, examined, and challenged by rational argument, especially when they exert strong influence on the broader society, such as in government, education, and politics. Major figures of New Atheism include Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Proponents of New Atheism often criticised what writers such as Dawkins described as the indoctrination of children and the social harms caused by perpetuating ideologies founded on belief in the supernatural. Critics of the movement described it as militant atheism and fundamentalist atheism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism


"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point… The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it."

Richard Dawkins

Do you Support this position?
 
Steven Weinberg, Nobel winning physicist-->

"Another question is whether our brains are powerful enough to even understand these increasingly comprehensive (natural) laws. In the end, dogs can’t be trained to solve the Schrödinger equation."

If you can ask a question, it can be answered. Wallowing in mystery is useless.
 
Most world religions throughout all of human history have never contemplated an afterlife, or if they did it wasn't particularly pleasant.

Your vision of a transcendent afterlife and an eternal soul comes from the pagan Plato, not Christianity.

True religion is reality ,what is real!
The more you talk,the more you search the deeper into Spiritual Babble you get.
 
Most world religions throughout all of human history have never contemplated an afterlife, or if they did it wasn't particularly pleasant.

Your vision of a transcendent afterlife and an eternal soul comes from the pagan Plato, not Christianity.

Organized religion has you blinded to Christianity.
 
I think the New Atheists thought of themselves as openly and publically confrontational with religion. And furthermore, like Marx, Freud, and Lenin before them, they considered religion not just to be foolish and irrational but actively harmful to humanity

Isn't that what atheist are all about?
 
It's difficult to come right out and say it when you know so many people of faith who appear to be very likable people,
but I have to confess that my mind goes in that direction as well.
Religion causes so much conflict for impossible to rationalize reasons.

You're confusing organized religion with true religion.
 
I have a hard time seeing religion being actively more harmful to humanity than communism, fascism, nationalism, imperialism, racism..

The question is really whether any benefit of religion is outweighed by any harm it does.

As for me, I favor a pluralistic society where freedom of conscience is guaranteed by law. The lesson I take from history is that the two endpoints of both State theocracy and State atheism are equally harmful to the human condition.

Without religious beliefs ,you'll never see past organized religion ,which you assume is religion!
FYI,it's not!
 
I totally agree organized religion should definitely not be making government policy.

I don't neccessary think it should be kept inside the home. I can't imagine Catholicism, Judaism, Islam without churches, synogogues, mosques.

As for discussions, I don't think random strangers should be approached on the street and proselytized. But personally, I enjoy reading Guno's theads on Judaism, and I actually didn't mind Dukkha starting threads about Buddhism.

trumpprayedover1_hdv.jpg
Abomination
 
Steven Weinberg, Nobel winning physicist-->

"Another question is whether our brains are powerful enough to even understand these increasingly comprehensive (natural) laws. In the end, dogs can’t be trained to solve the Schrödinger equation."

For God Sake Stop being a name dropper while avoiding your own beliefs if any!
 
Back
Top