Atheistic Bias & It's Angry Troll Cousin
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
What are you talking about, Prag? Is it a 'biased', 'prejudice', and an 'anti-propaganda' (whatever that means lol) image of Atheism to say that you (atheists) feel wholeheartedly that not only would the World be so much better without Religion, but that many of the problems society faces today are actually due in large part or are largely stemming from organized religion in general and on a Worldwide basis?
If not, then what's all the fuss about...? So, if you are Christian, then why not just believe in a green-eyed, afro-donning, homosexual, greedy, perverted, albino, pot-smoking, Islamic Jesus and call it a day. Or better still, then call him the Son of God...no harm done, right?
No, I don't think so. At least take some responsibility for your beliefs and don't try to hide behind the shield of political correctness and manufactured bigotry.
You don't want God, fine, then be truly "pragmatic" you pipe smoking lizard and see or at least try to predict for the purpose of debate, how that belief would actually play out in the real world and then own it.
Masterblaster21 - "Is it a 'biased', 'prejudice', and an 'anti-propaganda' (whatever that means lol) image of Atheism to say that you (atheists) feel wholeheartedly that not only would the World be so much better without Religion, but that many of the problems society faces today are actually due in large part or are largely stemming from organized religion in general and on a Worldwide basis?"
I think so (it is a biased image or whatever). For example: I don't think getting rid of religion is even possible. And I think the world would still be a pretty screwed up place if you could wave a magic wand and make religion disappear.
- "be truly "pragmatic" you pipe smoking lizard"
My dear sir, I'm no lizard.
The correct taxonomy classification would be Reptile or Dinosaur.
You are quite correct that I made a mistake in writing "anti-propaganda", how clumsy of me. I meant to write "anti-atheist propaganda".
Your image of atheism is skewed, because you mistake it for anti-theism. This mistake is quite common, and most people seem to assume that all atheists are anti-theists, even many atheists.
Anti-theists are of the opinion that theism, and particularly organized religion, does more damage than it does good.
Atheism, on the other hand, is simply a lack of belief in gods.
I myself am both.
Might I enquire what unspoken meaning was of the statement:
- ""Anti vaccination"...please."
I was thinking "Lizard", "Reptile", "Dinosaur"...much like the terms "Atheist", "Anti-theists" were somewhat interchangeable, especially in the context/tone in which I had referred to it and since you yourself admittedly are "both".
Sorry, if I offended your sensibilities by not recognizing the distinction...or "extinction" as it were lol.
Such an interesting "defense mechanism" I've stumbled upon here in this forum, that many atheist participants seem more interested in parsing out words than debating topics.
"Anti vaccination"...it just struck me as odd that you mentioned it, as I don't remember that generally being a Christian tenet.
"atheist participants seem more interested in parsing out words than debating topics."
The words are important to the debate. If words are misused or incorrect, there can be no debate.
And why have you brought your self important ass hole attitude back?
Sorry, I was just ribbing him a bit...am I not allowed? His was not a question directed about me personally, as he is still more than welcome to do.
Just trying to add a little levity, not hostility...didn't mean to offend.
I agree about "words", but the intent of those words and the general concepts are just as important, and sometimes the over the top parsing can be a real distraction from honest debate.
- "Sorry, if I offended your sensibilities by not recognizing the distinction...or "extinction" as it were lol."
LoL, that was actually really funny! Good one.
- "Such an interesting "defense mechanism" I've stumbled upon here in this forum, that many atheist participants seem more interested in parsing out words than debating topics."
Well, I'm a stickler for defining the words used when debating. There have been countless of debates where people get absolutely furious at each other, not even realizing that they define some key word differently.
Words like atheism, faith, belief, proof, evidence get redefined by people constantly.
Ex: Harry Truman recently posted a youtube video of a debate, where one of the debaters say the same thing he is claiming, as proof that "there were 3 million witnesses of G-d talking to Moses at Mt. Sinai"
That is an interesting interpretation of proof.
"Anti vaccination"...it just struck me as odd that you mentioned it, as I don't remember that generally being a Christian tenet.
I got it from how many of the Christian right in the U.S seem to be anti-vaxxers.
- "I was just ribbing him a bit..."
"ribbing"? Eww... what...
Oh, I had to look that up: "The act or instance of joking or teasing."
Well, you see the importance of knowing the definition of words... :)
Of course you're allowed. I wasn't offended.
However, it's easy to misunderstand when the opposing party is joking or being sarcastic in a text-only medium.
It's not a surprise. You asked why atheists are angry.
"Isn't it just as abhorrent that the same is happening to Christians?"
Yes it is just as abhorrent. But in the case of Christians it's kind of a pots and kettles situation. Christians have been guilty of exactly the same crimes as ISIS, and not so long ago either. As an atheist, I'm angry, frustrated and disgusted at every single act of religious cruelty by anyone against anyone.
You wise up. Religion isn't a basic human need that will create a vacuum by its absence. It fufills no useful role and produces nothing but lies and hatred. It's a dangerous disease of the mind. I'm confident that when it's finally gone people will have better lives in a better world.
1) jesus was ordered to be executed by the religious leaders. The Romans only carried out the order.
2) It's ISIL NOT ISIS. All right wing nuts get that wrong.
3) ISIl has murdered more muslims than any other group. Far more!
4) "All worldwide Atheism will do is create a vacuum where some type of radical belief system or perverted doctrine will be adopted by mainstream society ". BUllshit! How could less than 3% of the population cause a vacuum? That is just stupid. AND....as far as radical belief systems and perverted doctrines go, christianity have a lock on that. Have you heard of Westboro baptist Church?
"2) It's ISIL NOT ISIS. All right wing nuts get that wrong."
That's debatable. The US State Department and President Obama prefer "ISIL," but others stick to "ISIS." The problem with both those names is that the "S" stands for "State", which gives that bunch of thugs undue legitimacy. Arab opponents call it "Daesh", and Ban Ki Moon calls it the "Un-Islamic Non-State." I think the BBC now uses "so-called Islamic State."
I get confused over what to call it myself. I look forward to the day when we can just call it "dead." It's one of the most evil organizations ever to pollute the planet with its presence.
No, the second "S" stands for Syria in Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. ISIL stands for the Islamic state of Iraq and Levant which is a vast larger region. The believe that once they have captured the entire Iraq and Levant, the end of the world will begin. That is why they don't care if their personal life is sacrificed. They want to bring about the end of the world and end Secularism. That is the purest forms of their intent. In reality, they just want complete control and rule over everyone with tyranny.
To be fair a lot of people aren't really given enough chance to be atheist and after thinking a certain way for such a long time I think they just ignore and avoid examining it cause it is easier to keep lying to themselves. Honestly I don't wish it on anybody to go through losing there faith cause it was the most painful experience of my life. Even worse than going through foster care. I was just lucky enough to go through something when I was younger in my teens that aloud me to think on my own and not have church rammed down my throat every other day by my creationist mother. That why Im not angry with them. A lot of people don't get that chance. Being 30 or 40 and discovering these things would probably be way too hard for me. I'd probably just lie to myself instead of destroying everything about my entire life's worth of belief systems. I just kinda feel bad all their thinking is forced into a box but i can't blame them.
What are you babbling about? No one is forcing anything on anyone. We all have the power of 'choice' concerning our beliefs and the way we think, view God, our fellow man, and filter the World around us.
Many people have died to ensure that you have the freedom to enjoy forsaking Christianity to then become an Atheist whilst shouting it from the rooftops, here in this forum for all to see.
So you made it through foster care...great, now come back home as an adopted son of Christ and stop feeling rejected and dejected.
Masterblaster21 -"What are you babbling about? No one is forcing anything on anyone."
Tell that to someone who's access to food, clothing and shelter (let alone education, employment, etc) is dependent upon them endorsing the religious beliefs of their family/community. We see people almost every day on this forum in this predicament.
Under what circumstances are you seeing this in our Nation? Family disputes go on all the time. The deprivation of food, clothing, and shelter in the name of religion in communities is not just a predicament, but would be illegal.
Please further elaborate or explain your fervent and fevered assertion about this current fantasy, or "phenomenon".
Masterblaster21 - "Under what circumstances are you seeing this in our Nation?"
Masterblaster21 - "Please further elaborate or explain your fervent and fevered assertion about this current fantasy"
I said we see people almost every day on this forum in this predicament. It's not that hard to figure out (go read the atheist hub).
Bullshit! Almost every person that holds a religious belief has been forced into that belief in one way or another. Peer pressure, involuntary indoctrination, brainwashing, extortion via food clothing and medicine for conversion (missionaries), all manner of force. I would bet that YOU were forced in some manner, but I bet you would deny it.
Do you really believe that I was forced? Check your statistics my friend, and you will see that there are almost a majority of people on the Globe who believe in God. Ask them if they are being forced - I highly doubt it.
" Almost every person that holds a religious belief has been forced into that belief in one way or another."
Most important of all, small children are indoctrinated (infected) with the god mania by hearing about it from people whom they instinctively trust: parents and teachers. That's force, too.
There is a difference between being angry and frustrated by other peoples intolerance and bigotry, and being angry because others don't share your beliefs.
If you are a god-fearing person that's a good thing if you need to be. I also think you have an opinion of yourself and attendant in it is a self-respect partially predicated on that god-fear. In this sense you cannot wholly respect yourself in the absence of your fear of a god, such as it manifests itself in your psyche, and makes you who you are. That sums up the average apologist, or theist, or god-fearing person, whichever meets with your sensitivity. I wish I had the ability to endorse that which no one can prove to themselves as truth, as a redeemable ticket to life's reward in immortality, but it isn't in my psyche as it is in yours.
Man is naturally inquisitive and does not readily yield himself to uncertainties. He will yield to pain, fear and reward, however, and those are the driving motives behind the original supposition for the existence of a god-created physical world, as levied upon man by those who would hold power over him for certain purposes, and has since become a convention of the ages, marred by countless episodes of blood-letting in its name, as man's current mindset.
I can't mock you. I don't hate you. I can't avoid you and I don't seek to convert you. You need to be who you are and I would take no solace from convincing you of your mortality, though I'm comfortable with my own.
If your post is as a religious apologist taking a stand against atheism I can't debate that. No fruit in it for either side of the argument. If you are of a persuasion other than apologist and are simply here to ask for relief from the haranguing of the atheism you are familiar with, I cannot argue that either for the same reason. I will see your post as a typical believer's rant, though, and dismiss you to return to a life you needn't rant about, in your god's graces, and await bestowal of its company in perpetude.
Well said, but it's really not about you. Nor is it about me. It's about the collective and cohesive understanding of reality and question of mortality.
We are both discussing and debating these things because they are worthy of such discussion and debate.
The rest of your post smacks of some kind of Freudian, or "sang froid-ian" incoherence and condescension.
Therefore I will dismiss you, your "rant", and perhaps your very own quest for "perpetude", or perhaps it's ugly antithesis.
However, I will leave you with this: Being "comfortable with your mortality" is fairly commonplace and natural, until one is lying on his deathbed. I can all but guarantee many will decide to "fear God" then, or perhaps His ugly Antithesis.
When that time comes, your platitudes will have absolutely nill effect on that stark reality and offer you no solace whatsoever, without Christ. I don't hate you either, my friend, and do not wish that gruesome "bestowal" upon anyone here.
"Thou doth protesteth too much".
Subliterate ninny, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"
"Doth" is the third person singular form. You need "dost" or "doest" here. "Protesteth" is also third person singular, but after "doth" you should use the plain form of the verb, "protest." And in a Shakespearean context, "protest" actually meant to affirm something, rather than deny it. I have no idea what you're trying to say.
As my OP already stated, it was a paraphrased quote from Hamlet used to illustrate a point.
A point which you just helped to further solidify in your angry and misguided attempt to discredit me on an extremely petty and trivial lesson about semantics.
If you are truly this smart and articulate about such things, then I don't believe you when you say:
"I have no idea what you're trying to say."
Apparently, you have an extremely firm grasp on at least what I was trying to say, but you let your Atheistic bias and it's angry troll cousin get in the way.
Calm down, take a breath, and let's resume....
"in your angry and misguided attempt to discredit"
He didn't seem angry to me. Try again junior.
Yes, I'm sure no fellow Atheists ever "seem" angry or biased to you when they are in the process of rebuking your nemesis.
But again, this only serves to further support my contention of why you are "seemingly" unable to surmount your own bias and anger in dealing with the subject matter concerning God, creation, and it's "believers" in general.
Getting it yet, "junior"?
I'm getting that you assume that you can tell how a person whom you've had no prior contact with before is feeling just from reading what they've said. The fact that you also immediately assumed anger shows your theistic bias twords atheists. You seeing the stick I'm poking you with, mate?
I do see it and it's very clever, as are you "mate".
Please don't insult everyone's intelligence though with this "...assume that you can tell how a person whom you've had no prior contact with before is feeling..." subterfuge, because it was clear that the poster ("Algebe") was attacking me on a non-issue, just for the sake of discreditation concerning semantics regarding my original post. It's an angry and desperate move, and it's underpinning was bias.
It only further proves that the "Troll" is alive and well in this Atheistic forum and needs some "herding" toward "common sense and plain dealing" to be a bit more "astonishing", as your friend Emerson would most likely tell you himself if he were still here to school you as well.
I'm simply trying to point out that it is oddly presumptuous for anyone to assume they knowhow one feels through writing alone. I will also point out that, per this point, it is impossible as well for me to know. You may be right about the anger. But you may also be wrong. I will not make a claim on the correctness of your statement. I just hope you take what I am saying into consideration.
Edited to add:
Please, don't poke fun at me saying "mate". I'm from the land down under, so jumping on me for that is like jumping on to a person from the Southern U.S when they say " y'all ".
Understood...then please allow me to extend the proverbial olive branch and in reply assure you that there are certainly "no worries, mate", here on my end.
Also, point taken and thank you for the civil discourse.
However, keep in mind that it was not essential to "know" how the poster was feeling, as his "modus operandi" clearly exposed his attitude and I was able to infer much from his approach. Choosing to attack the semantics of my post rather than deal with the subject at hand was
bogus and lead to his own undoing. He got caught, but I'm over it now.
So, shall we move on and enjoy the day (of which mine is quickly waning and yours is just beginning) my "down under" Aussie friend?