How can you stand these things? They usually turn into one big name calling mess. There do not seem to be many people who are willing to discuss religion without trying to bash someone, call the religious dumb, or others incompetent.

Heh. This is SciForums. It HAS to be this way. But for less emotional religious discussion check out the Boris and Plato discussions in the archive.

How can you stand these things? They usually turn into one big name calling mess. There do not seem to be many people who are willing to discuss religion without trying to bash someone, call the religious dumb, or others incompetent.

Well I call it entertainment! It's fun to come here and read peoples take on things, be it religion, lack of, or spout purely BS that can't be proven, as if they were some kind of authority on god & science.

Some of us do learn and some of us deal with frustration, by letting a "theist" believer have it! :D But I see that they fight back, as well as they should. I'm an atheist, but I would fight tooth and nail, for anyone to believe whatever they like, as long as they are not forcing their believes on me.

But then there lies the problem. (religion has a history) of forcing people to believe as they do, seperated by countries and regions and within societies are groups of like minded individuals who dictate their beliefs as "truths" and discriminate, criminalize, and banish those whom don't believe as they do. Islam for one, has a death sentence if you leave their religion. Christians banish your "soul" to hell if you don't believe.

Hence they want to rule, by intimidation and ignorance. That's why atheist, secularists come to places like this, and try to "educate" these nut heads theists. That's why the name calling accurs, and the such. People tend to defend their beliefs. However irrational it may seem, we do see changes in people, if they stick around.

Godless

It's hard not to bash religious people for being idiots as their stupidity consantly effects the lives of non-believers. 40% of muslims want this Sharia law thing implemented in the UK and now growing numbers of evangelical nutjobs want creationism taught in science class.

It's bad enough most kids in this country must be taught religion in state schools in the first place, but imagine if we didn't bash religion for the stupid ideology that it is... It would take over and we'd be back in the dark ages.

Religion is stupid. Religious people are stupid. This is supportable with facts.

How can you stand these things? They usually turn into one big name calling mess. There do not seem to be many people who are willing to discuss religion without trying to bash someone, call the religious dumb, or others incompetent.
OK then walk the walk. begin how YOU likeit...

Christians can't banish your soul to hell. Only you can banish your sould to hell by refusing to obey God. They can only tell you that they notice you are not following their God and that the consquences are that you will go to hell if you don't straighten up. Does it offend you to think that someone else thinks you're going to be burning for eternity?

The British and all of Europe really should slow down or stop Muslim immigration if they don't want to become future minorities in their ancestral homelands... The Muslims are conquering Europe by immigration...and leftist socialistic thought.

"Religion is stupid. Religious people are stupid. This is supportable with facts"

You don't think that many people would think you sound stupid with that saying?

And can it be considered that you want to force you science on others? You believe there would be another dark ages, but what if that's what they want? They don't want your forced science, devoid of all meaning, purpose, and morality.

Or is science not devoid of any purpose and morality?

And can science say why its wrong to force your beliefs on others? Where does that belief of yours come from and how do you justify it?

And can it be considered that you want to force you science on others? You believe there would be another dark ages, but what if that's what they want? They don't want your forced science, devoid of all meaning, purpose, and morality.

Or is science not devoid of any purpose and morality?

if you understood what science is, then you would understand that it is indeed devoid of morality, because morality is not an essential consideration for scientific understanding. it is up to the scientist himself or herself to act morally and ethically when conducting scientific experiments. however, i believe that a basic truth applies universally in todays world - if it can be done, it will be done, regardless of right or wrong. if one scientist finds that they have the ability and equipment to investigate the possibilites of human cloning, but decides not to conduct the experiment on the grounds that success could have negative implications for society, it is just a matter of time before someone else, somewhere else, has the same capabilities and uses them with no regard to consequence. morality is a useless shield against progress.
as for purpose, science is certainly not devoid of that. in fact, without a stated purpose, a goal, or vision, you would not be able to use science to gain understanding. you must state your aim before investigating. that science is pursuit involving high levels of focus, detail, and specific purpose is why it is the most important way by which humanity advances their understanding of themselves, their environment, and the universe as a whole.

can religion make a similar claim? no. religious superstitions are more often debunked than supported by factual evidence. if there is support for some piece of ancient religious belief, 9 times out of 10 science finds a different underlying explanation for the event or phenomena than the religion does, and scientists can always support their work with evidence, while religious points of view rely on dubious accounts of history, mythology, oral traditions, and other distorted or ancient misunderstandings of the natural world. what value is there in such things?

morality is highly subjective across cultures. in a free society valuing the rights of individual expression, privacy, and legal equality - the moral authoritarianism, exclusivity, and discrimination practiced by people of religion is anathema, and should rightly be viewed as a detriment to society, not a furtherance of its core values.

...You believe there would be another dark ages, but what if that's what they want?

They could move to the middle east and once fossil fuel has been replaced then they can live in the dark ages. It's likely going to happen in our lifetimes too. Heck, I would even pay the moving expense for a family and help them find a non-science job.

"in a free society valuing the rights of individual expression, privacy, and legal equality - the moral authoritarianism, exclusivity, and discrimination practiced by people of religion is anathema, and should rightly be viewed as a detriment to society, not a furtherance of its core values"

To the contrary, I would have to say that science or maybe the scientists have had a devastating impact on the values of society. What usually replaces religion, or fills the spiritual vaccuum, is the anti-free doctrines of socialism and communism. They are more akin to catholicism than decentralised protestantism. I'm not sure if any of you notice this or not.

Religion does not go away. It takes new forms. The people are the same and do the same things. And I think the dark ages had more to do with the decline of the roman empire and the barbarian invasions than anything having to do with religion.



anyway, i'm trying to say that none of us has any scientific or rational or whatever you call it justification for thinking that it's wrong to persecute people, kill people, or detonate nuclear weapons all over the world. there is no justification that I'm aware of for believing that those are wrong. if you hold that they are it's not much more than the religiousity and supersition that you condemn as anathema and a detriment to society.

And scientists are exclusive when you get to the bottom of it. Their method is exclusive to the core.

Christians can't banish your soul to hell. Only you can banish your sould to hell by refusing to obey God. They can only tell you that they notice you are not following their God and that the consquences are that you will go to hell if you don't straighten up. Does it offend you to think that someone else thinks you're going to be burning for eternity?No.The British and all of Europe really should slow down or stop Muslim immigration if they don't want to become future minorities in their ancestral homelands... The Muslims are conquering Europe by immigration...and leftist socialistic thought.I agree, but not for religious reasons."Religion is stupid. Religious people are stupid. This is supportable with facts"

You don't think that many people would think you sound stupid with that saying?Should I care?

Christians can't banish your soul to hell.[ Only you can banish your sould to hell by refusing to obey God. nobody refuse to obey god, they just think it exist in the first place, therefore irrelevant to the arguement. They can only tell you that they notice you are not following their God and that the consquences are that you will go to hell if you don't straighten up. your god the muslims god, it matters not we believe in none. Does it offend you to think that someone else thinks you're going to be burning for eternity? why would it, it's your fantasy not ours."Religion is stupid. Religious people are stupid. This is supportable with facts"
You don't think that many people would think you sound stupid with that saying?well many religious people possible do think that, but I doubt if any non-believer has ever said it the way you phrased it, religion is stupid and religious people are foolish for following on faith alone, but until they become better educated, this will continue.
And can science say why its wrong to force your beliefs on others? Where does that belief of yours come from and how do you justify it? firstly it's not a belief, and secondly we dont force anything, it's the only reasonble path to take if you cant see that, thats you failing not ours.

"firstly it's not a belief, and secondly we dont force anything, it's the only reasonble path to take if you cant see that, thats you failing not ours. "

I was talking about forcing any beliefs on others.

Why is it wrong to do that? You don't believe in the scientific method? You don't believe in reason?

You need to tell me why it's the only reasonable path and how you can possibly prove that.

I am thinking that your beliefs have no foundation at this point and wonder if its possible to justify any beliefs whatsoever...

"in a free society valuing the rights of individual expression, privacy, and legal equality - the moral authoritarianism, exclusivity, and discrimination practiced by people of religion is anathema, and should rightly be viewed as a detriment to society, not a furtherance of its core values"

To the contrary, I would have to say that science or maybe the scientists have had a devastating impact on the values of society. What usually replaces religion, or fills the spiritual vaccuum, is the anti-free doctrines of socialism and communism. They are more akin to catholicism than decentralised protestantism. I'm not sure if any of you notice this or not.

socialism and communism are socio-economic philosophies, not religious or anti-religious ones. in societies where they have been implemented, they have often been accompanied by the criminalization of religion because those in power have sought to redirect religious fervor towards the similarily irrational and ultimately violent ideology of nationalism. nationalism and religion are closely linked and in my mind nearly equal in terms of the damage they can do to a society. the fact remains however, that neither communism or socialism require official atheism as a tenet of their ideology, and neither does religion go hand in hand with capitalism anymore than it does facism or mercantilism. maybe you should try getting an education.

Religion does not go away. It takes new forms. The people are the same and do the same things. And I think the dark ages had more to do with the decline of the roman empire and the barbarian invasions than anything having to do with religion.

the problem is that the rise of christianity led to the abdication of many of the technological, social, and philosophical advances that had been made during the greek and roman era. there might not have been a black plague if people had accepted roman ideas about public sanitation and hygiene. these ideas however were tossed aside because it was thought indecent to use a public bath or to use a public toilet. it is no coincidence that the dark ages are followed by a renaissance, or rebirth of interest in learning that was brought on initially by innovators who were throwbacks to the time of the greek and roman era, who broke with religious doctrine and attempted to use the scientific method to reacquaint humanity with itself and its environment instead of allowing it to be trapped in a world ruled by a wrathful and monstrous god whose earthly agents extorted and abused the whole of society to enrich themselves.


anyway, i'm trying to say that none of us has any scientific or rational or whatever you call it justification for thinking that it's wrong to persecute people, kill people, or detonate nuclear weapons all over the world. there is no justification that I'm aware of for believing that those are wrong. if you hold that they are it's not much more than the religiousity and supersition that you condemn as anathema and a detriment to society.

try logic. logic would dictate that if there are no rules or deterrants against murder, then you put yourself at a much greater risk of being murdered. if you have a basic sense of self-preservation, then you can agree that this is desireable, even if it means giving up the privelege of murdering someone else if you want to. right or wrong is pointless in such a case, what underpins that specific idea is a sense of shared self-interest. the basic laws of society that are meant to preserve the lives and property of the people who make up the society are never based on a sense of right and wrong, but always on a sense of common interest. without this agreement of common interest, society, and therefore civilization as we know it could not exist. what goes against the shared interest is "wrong" what furthers it is "right", and distinctions made outside of this are rather arbitrary. now, tell me is it right or wrong to have anal sex with a consenting partner? who cares? the point at which this becomes a compelling issue of common interest is when and only when anal sex becomes the preferred form of intercourse to the exclusion of intercourse that promotes reproductive success in society. so where do you draw the lines of morality? in my view, morality is relative as soon as the shared interests of the majority of the society are no longer relevant to an authority's pronouncement of right or wrong as it pertains to a specific issue. that is a logical and reasoned, and thoroughly human approach to law and morality. it has nothing to do with superstition, unless of course you call reason superstition, in which case you are even less credible than i thought you were.

And scientists are exclusive when you get to the bottom of it. Their method is exclusive to the core.

oh, would you like to explain that? i fail to see how anyone could be prevented from using the scientific method provided that they understand its few simple requirements.

"socialism and communism are socio-economic philosophies, not religious or anti-religious ones. in societies where they have been implemented, they have often been accompanied by the criminalization of religion because those in power have sought to redirect religious fervor towards the similarily irrational and ultimately violent ideology of nationalism. nationalism and religion are closely linked and in my mind nearly equal in terms of the damage they can do to a society. the fact remains however, that neither communism or socialism require official atheism as a tenet of their ideology, and neither does religion go hand in hand with capitalism anymore than it does facism or mercantilism. maybe you should try getting an education."

Do you see how internationalism can be a bad thing? In America, socialistic thought, anti-religiousity, and internationalism are connected. For some reason, the people just seem to hold to that group of beliefs. I am educated.

"logic would dictate that if there are no rules or deterrants against murder, then you put yourself at a much greater risk of being murdered."

Why does it matter if you are murdered? Why should you give into self-preservation instincts? Death is the end of suffering. Science is not the cure to the problems of society. Death is. Unless, you have the idea that science will slowly extinguish the need for humans, and machines become more dominant, and AI advance so far that humans will be gradually thrown away until their eventual extinction, which would be the end of human suffering as well.

"oh, would you like to explain that? i fail to see how anyone could be prevented from using the scientific method provided that they understand its few simple requirements. "

The scientific Method is exclusive.

Do you see how internationalism can be a bad thing? In America, socialistic thought, anti-religiousity, and internationalism are connected. For some reason, the people just seem to hold to that group of beliefs. I am educated.

you weren't talking about internationalism before. dont try to change the subject just because you are wrong. you were saying that religion is replaced by communism or socialism. not only is that not true, but then in the next segment of your response you said that religion never goes away no matter what. which one is it, because it clearly isn't both. in addition to that, you seem not to be able to comprehend that communism and socialism dont replace religion because they are not the same thing as religion. communism isnt a religious philosophy, and therefore does not automatically replace any religion in the places it moves into, that is the decision of the ruling party and is specific to that particular country. i also disagree that socialism in america is connected in any way to anti-religiosity or any anti-religious movement. there may be more atheists and agnostics per capita aligned with left-wing political causes, but i doubt the majority of these people would identify themselves as anti-religion. if you define people as anti-religious because they seek to keep religion from having undue influence in the public square in a country that has an official seperation of religion and government, then i would suggest that you are an extremely biased as well as unreliable judge of what that means.


Why does it matter if you are murdered? Why should you give into self-preservation instincts? Death is the end of suffering. Science is not the cure to the problems of society. Death is. Unless, you have the idea that science will slowly extinguish the need for humans, and machines become more dominant, and AI advance so far that humans will be gradually thrown away until their eventual extinction, which would be the end of human suffering as well.

every living thing on earth seeks to survive. it is a basic and ingrained desire. to deny it is to deny the value of life, which in turn robs life of any meaning or purpose. we weren't talking about suffering, we were talking about shared interest. whether you like it or not, it is almost universally recognized by all plants and animals and even tiny bacteria that the continuation of life is desireable, and the end of life is undesireable. that is why suicide is an anomolous occurance in human society, and why organisms evolve and adapt to avoid extinction, it is in fact, why species reproduce to begin with. in human societies, laws and codes of conduct are developed so that people can preserve life and property and by extention, preserve society. thus, the preservation of life becomes morally "right" and the destruction of it becomes "wrong". that has nothing to do with suffering, and everything to do with survival. if you view life as an pointless chain of suffering, and find death for all desireable, then you are in the minority. i sincerely doubt that humanity is actively trying to advance AI technology for the purposes of making humanity obselete so that robots can take over the world and we can end all human suffering. you need to stop watching the matrix and as i said before - get an education.



The scientific Method is exclusive.

maybe if you keep repeating it, someone will believe you. that's not an explanation, that's just a reiteration. please have more to offer next time.

"maybe if you keep repeating it, someone will believe you. that's not an explanation, that's just a reiteration. please have more to offer next time."

Well, you said you fail to see how anyone could be prevented from using the scientific method and that was not what I said. I said the scientific method is exclusive. I don't think I have to explain that.

And can it be considered that you want to force you science on others? You believe there would be another dark ages, but what if that's what they want? They don't want your forced science, devoid of all meaning, purpose, and morality.

Yet, they revel what science offers while stabbing the scientist in the back - hypocrites.

Or is science not devoid of any purpose and morality?

The purpose of science is to help understand the universe. Are you saying those people would rather live in ignorance of understanding and would much rather pray to imaginary gods?

you weren't talking about internationalism before. dont try to change the subject just because you are wrong. [QUOTE]

You wrote about nationalism; therefore, I spoke of internationalism.

[QUOTE]religion is replaced by communism or socialism. not only is that not true, but then in the next segment of your response you said that religion never goes away no matter what. which one is it, because it clearly isn't both

yes, that's true. I was thinking about the common thought about religion when I said the first thing. I do think that communism and socialistic thougth are religious thought and that the state is the basically their church. And there is always syncretism.


if you define people as anti-religious because they seek to keep religion from having undue influence in the public square in a country that has an official seperation of religion and government, then i would suggest that you are an extremely biased as well as unreliable judge of what that means.


They are not only anti-religious because of that. All you have to do is read what they say. They are openly anti-relgious, calling for its eradication.

These people are inconoclastic and totally misrepresent the true meaning of not establishing religion. All they have to do is read the founders thoughts like I have, and read the history since the revolution, but they mostly seem unknowledgeable in that subject, holding to dogmatism that any sign of religion in public must be destroyed.

it is a basic and ingrained desire. to deny it is to deny the value of life, which in turn robs life of any meaning or purpose.

I don't deny the survival instinct. So survival is the purpose to life?


i sincerely doubt that humanity is actively trying to advance AI technology for the purposes of making humanity obselete so that robots can take over the world and we can end all human suffering. you need to stop watching the matrix and as i said before - get an education.

I did not say that humanity was actively trying to make humans obselete. These just seem like the future consequences of the progression of science. Have you not ever thought of the future of scientific progress and what could be its consequences? Or is this too heretical? This does not come from the matrix.

I am educated.

[QUOTE]I am educated.

Is that also up for debate? :D

The purpose of science is to help understand the universe. Are you saying those people would rather live in ignorance of understanding and would much rather pray to imaginary gods?

They have their own understanding of the univese. Why would they need a new undestanding that is constantly changing and does not offer them any kind of comfort?

If their imaginations bring them comfort, what's the problem?

For many people, science is cold, dark, and sucks the meaning and purpose out of life. It's depressing.

yes, that's true. I was thinking about the common thought about religion when I said the first thing. I do think that communism and socialistic thougth are religious thought and that the state is the basically their church. And there is always syncretism.

so then religion in general can't be replaced by socialism or communism if you just see them as another form of religion, albeit with a different focus. to say that is to basically say "religion is usually replaced with different religion". youre not making a lot of sense, and flip flopping all over the place here.


They are not only anti-religious because of that. All you have to do is read what they say. They are openly anti-relgious, calling for its eradication.

thats your opinion, and i disagree with it so why dont you offer up some evidence that that is the case for the majority of people identifying with left-wing political ideology.

These people are inconoclastic and totally misrepresent the true meaning of not establishing religion. All they have to do is read the founders thoughts like I have, and read the history since the revolution, but they mostly seem unknowledgeable in that subject, holding to dogmatism that any sign of religion in public must be destroyed.

wrong. all "they" have to do is interpret the founders intent as you have. that is a much different thing. the constitution is the legal document designed to represent the founders intent regardless of the personal views of any one of them on any subject legislated therein. it is purposely open-ended, flexible, and adaptive to reflect the changing needs, desires, and hopes of the public that it serves at any point throughout history. you are not an authoritative source of foudational intent, and in addition to that, the PEOPLE who live in the United States are the ones who make and adhere to the laws, not the dead founders, so if it is the willof the populus that "to not establish a religion" requires that religious iconography and scripture be removed from the public square, then it is the job of the government to obey.


I don't deny the survival instinct. So survival is the purpose to life?

of course. do you believe it is something else?

I did not say that humanity was actively trying to make humans obselete. These just seem like the future consequences of the progression of science. Have you not ever thought of the future of scientific progress and what could be its consequences? Or is this too heretical? This does not come from the matrix.

of course i have thought of the future of scientific progress and what it could mean for humanity. why do you assume the outcome must be negative? science helped to invent a nuclear bomb, yet humanity did not immediately destroy itself. in fact, i am willing to bet that there have been more people killed with the sword than the nuclear bomb. i bet nearly as many people have been killed with bare human hands. what makes science the destroyer? people. science in and of itself has no intent, no desire. it is people who bend science to their own desires, and make it serve their needs. religion has been the cause of untold bloodshed, violence and death, yet people demand that it must be allowed to exist and flourish, but you would criticize science for the same flaw, which is no flaw other than one in the character of humanity?

I am educated.

well, you don't show it.

wrong. all "they" have to do is interpret the founders intent as you have. that is a much different thing. the constitution is the legal document designed to represent the founders intent regardless of the personal views of any one of them on any subject legislated therein. it is purposely open-ended, flexible, and adaptive to reflect the changing needs, desires, and hopes of the public that it serves at any point throughout history. you are not an authoritative source of foudational intent, and in addition to that, the PEOPLE who live in the United States are the ones who make and adhere to the laws, not the dead founders, so if it is the willof the populus that "to not establish a religion" requires that religious iconography and scripture be removed from the public square, then it is the job of the government to obey.

It's not that hard to see the clearness on the founders' intent on religious issues. The people are more in line with the founders view on this than the small bit of atheistic extemist iconoclasts anyway. To treat the constitution as clay is dangerous. The judges can intepret it anyway they want to fit any ideology they have that way. It's for the legislature to make laws. If you don't like the constitution, then you can go to them so that they can propose a new iconoclastic amendment.

science in and of itself has no intent, no desire. it is people who bend science to their own desires, and make it serve their needs. religion has been the cause of untold bloodshed, violence and death, yet people demand that it must be allowed to exist and flourish, but you would criticize science for the same flaw, which is no flaw other than one in the character of humanity?

This is what I want the people who want to eradicate religion to notice. They think it's religion that causes all of these problems, when it is human nature, but science does give the technology to make the grip of oppressors ever stronger.

Christians can't banish your soul to hell. Only you can banish your sould to hell by refusing to obey God.
no one can banish any souls b/c they dont exist
www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html :p

They can only tell you that they notice you are not following their God and that the consquences are that you will go to hell if you don't straighten up.
straighten up?
have you read your bible completely and noticed all the EVIL shyt your god/JC preaches?
www.evilbible.com
www.thewaronfaith.com/bible_quotes.htm

For many people, science is cold, dark, and sucks the meaning and purpose out of life. It's depressing.

Yet, science has brought people out of the cold and dark and has given them warmth and light. Science opens the mind and gives meaning and purpose to life.

Whoever thinks science is depressing is clearly out of touch with reality.

But then, those are probably theists you refer.

This is what I want the people who want to eradicate religion to notice. They think it's religion that causes all of these problems, when it is human nature, but science does give the technology to make the grip of oppressors ever stronger.

Is it human nature to kill in the name of ones imaginary gods?

No technology will ever surpass religion as an oppressor.

It's not that hard to see the clearness on the founders' intent on religious issues. The people are more in line with the founders view on this than the small bit of atheistic extemist iconoclasts anyway. To treat the constitution as clay is dangerous. The judges can intepret it anyway they want to fit any ideology they have that way. It's for the legislature to make laws. If you don't like the constitution, then you can go to them so that they can propose a new iconoclastic amendment.

the constitution is what it is. it was made flexible. the intent of one or two founder smeans little, if they all intended something more specific it would be in the constitution. if the people are more in line with the founder's intent, then why are you worried about a few atheistic extremist iconoclasts? the ten commandments have been taken out of the courts, you dont have prayer in schools, teaching intelligent design in science classes is being struck down, the people obviously feel that favoring a religion in the public sphere is tantamount to establishing one. atheists may be more vocal about it than others, but that doesn't make them wrong and that doesn't make them out of line with the spirit or meaning of the constitution.


This is what I want the people who want to eradicate religion to notice. They think it's religion that causes all of these problems, when it is human nature, but science does give the technology to make the grip of oppressors ever stronger.

i think your whole premise is wrong. you are going around assuming that people want religion wiped off the planet. even the most unreasonably militant atheists that i have heard of dont advocate that. all they want is for religion to not have an impact on everybody's life just because some believe in it. for example, the fact that catholics aren't supposed to use contraception shouldn't impinge on anybody else's right to. the same thing goes for abortion. we shouldn't have a lwa that everybody must abide by jewish dietary restrictions, or participate in lent. yet, in some places, religious people would force their moral belief onto everyone vis-a-vis legislation. being an atheist, i find this arrogant, offensive, and unjust. the law should reflect logic, reason, need, and a consideration for all of the groups that make up a society, not just the zealotry of one group. religion is a personal thing and should be kept that way. live your life how you want, but do not force others to live that way.
religion does cause problems. just as science does. religion has a hold on people's emotions and dictates their lifestyles, even in the face of contradictory evidence. religion is a form of social control, and when manipulated by those with power and intent, it becomes a terribly destructive force.
science is a little different. science cannot do the impossible or create fear of the impossible as religion does. you could not have made a nuclear bomb if it was not possible to make. however, religion could create a hell where none exists and force people to kill each other over it. science can only be used for evil to the extent that the evil is possible as acheived through science. if there is no hell, a scientist cannot create one for someone to use against us. if there is no cancer, a scientist cannot discover it and make us fear its growth inside our bodies. science is the revealer of things unknown, and through knowledge of something you can gain comfort, empathy, and understanding. religion seeks to use the unknown to further its own position of power, and it exploits fear and discomfort by pretending to offer solutions and explanations for them, however untested and unproven they may be. and as science reveals reality and religion turns out to be wrong again and again more people will flee from it as they see it for what it is. you can't fool all of the people all of the time, as the saying goes. so if you are disappointed that there is opposition to religion, realize that it is precisely the religious claims to understand the unknown that will allow science to unravel them.

Is it human nature to kill in the name of ones imaginary gods?

No technology will ever surpass religion as an oppressor.

It's the humans beings who will inevitably use the techonology who will.

Why does it matter if you are murdered? Why should you give into self-preservation instincts? Death is the end of suffering.
who is suffering ??
life is beautiful and full of MEANING and PURPOSE b/c it ENDS one day, :)

Science is not the cure to the problems of society. Death is.
oh really?
next time you get sick,or get a toothache instead of going to the doctor,get on your knees and pray to god to heal you,
and see how far it well get you.
and please spare us the stories of people being healed by the prayers or touch etc..its all BS

btw the founding fathers were DEISTS do a search for "founding fathers" and learn the real truth

i think your whole premise is wrong. you are going around assuming that people want religion wiped off the planet. even the most unreasonably militant atheists that i have heard of dont advocate that. all they want is for religion to not have an impact on everybody's life just because some believe in it.

haven't you seen what the atheists on this website are saying? They are saying that they want to eradicate religion.


religion is a personal thing and should be kept that way. live your life how you want, but do not force others to live that way.

Should science be personal too? It intrudes on everyone's lives.

It's the humans beings who will inevitably use the techonology who will.

That's very different, however ridiculous.

Can you show a single scientist who used technology to oppress?

Would you like me to show you a massive list of theists who used religion to oppress?

Should science be personal too? It intrudes on everyone's lives.

Then, you should immediately disconnect your internet, toss your computer in the garbage, turn off your electricity, heat and water, burn your house down and go live in a cave.

Or, you could simply stop being a hypocrite.

oh really?
next time you get sick,or get a toothache instead of going to the doctor,get on your knees and pray to god to heal you,
and see how far it well get you.
and please spare us the stories of people being healed by the prayers or touch etc..its all BS

Death will end all human suffering. I did not think anyone who does not believe an afterlife could disagree that death is greater than science when it comes to ending human problems. If all human beings were to commit suicide, then there would be no more human suffering and no more human degradation of the earth and its other inhabitants.

haven't you seen what the atheists on this website are saying? They are saying that they want to eradicate religion.

I am an atheist on this website. what did i say? you are awfully quick to judge.


Should science be personal too? It intrudes on everyone's lives.

science is nothing but a process by which you discover what already exists. like it or not, if a thing exists, it is effecting us all in some way, and is therefore no longer personal. science illuminates fact. fact is difficult to ignore, try as you might. if it is your desire to live ignorant of fact, or in contestation of it, no one will try to stop you, but you will repeatedly encounter obstacles in nearly everything you do.

Then, you should immediately disconnect your internet, toss your computer in the garbage, turn off your electricity, heat and water, burn your house down and go live in a cave.

Or, you could simply stop being a hypocrite.

You don't even know what I personally think about science, but it does intrude on people's lives who do not want it to.

I am an atheist on this website. what did i say? you are awfully quick to judge.


I did not judge anyone. I just stated what I saw and for whatever reason you have not seen. It's not judging people when you repeat what they say is it?

I did not judge anyone. I just stated what I saw and for whatever reason you have not seen. It's not judging people when you repeat what they say is it?

but i didnt say it and i am an atheist here. you are making the same type of generalization that you are striking out against atheists for making about religious people.

by the way, reality intrudes on all of our lives too, so why dont we just ignore it.

You don't even know what I personally think about science, but it does intrude on people's lives who do not want it to.

Didn't you just say science was depressing and that it intrudes on peoples lives?

Who's talking here, you or someone else?

but i didnt say it and i am an atheist here. you are making the same type of generalization that you are striking out against atheists for making about religious people.

by the way, reality intrudes on all of our lives too, so why dont we just ignore it.

to make it a perfect match, I should call for the eradication of atheism to go along with the generalizations.

Death will end all human suffering. I did not think anyone who does not believe an afterlife could disagree that death is greater than science when it comes to ending human problems. If all human beings were to commit suicide, then there would be no more human suffering and no more human degradation of the earth and its other inhabitants.

Or, we could simply become educated and understand that human suffering of any kind need not exist, and then do something about it.

Problems are merely challenges to overcome.

Surely, you can't believe religion is any kind of answer to anything?

to make it a perfect match, I should call for the eradication of atheism to go along with the generalizations.

how do you call for the eradication of non- belief in something? "hey from now on no one can not believe in religion anymore". think about how stupid that would sound.

You get them to believe in something.

Yes, mankind. Theres a novel thought.

You get them to believe in something.

right, but if they resist would you force them to?