Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   The official Atheist church just launched last year, but there's already a schism in the congregation. That religion of yours is getting complicated, guys   (religion.blogs.cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, Pippa Evans, Cat Stevens, Godless Revival, central planning, live better, house band, East London  
•       •       •

7869 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jan 2014 at 4:28 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



467 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-01-06 06:44:51 AM  

luxup: Would it be easier for people to believe we are organic robots settled here eons ago by the aliens that brought us here to create the pyramids?

That would be a kick-ass religion!  I give you the beginning of Robotalienism.  The headgear alone has some amazing promise I think.


I just stick with Church of the Sub-Genius... Great coffee!

I seek a return to perfect slack...
 
2014-01-06 06:45:06 AM  

Uncle Tractor: mamoru: What are the atheism+ people and what makes them assholes?

They're feminists first and atheists second, of the "join us or be cast out" variety.

More divisiveness from the Atheism Plus crowd


Oh god! Not feminists!

Why do people come out of the wood work to white knight a guy who was mad because he got called out for acting an ass at a con, and then lied about it?
 
2014-01-06 06:46:17 AM  

doglover: mamoru: what makes them assholes?

Anyone who puts a plus sign at the end of a word and calls it XXXX Plus is an enemy of learning and knowledge.


Damn. Does that mean I should turn down my invitation to join Fark+ then?
 
2014-01-06 06:47:44 AM  

Danger Avoid Death: doglover: mamoru: what makes them assholes?

Anyone who puts a plus sign at the end of a word and calls it XXXX Plus is an enemy of learning and knowledge.

Damn. Does that mean I should turn down my invitation to join Fark+ then?


No, it just means you're an enemy of learning and knowledge.

art.penny-arcade.com
 
2014-01-06 06:51:10 AM  

doglover: Danger Avoid Death: doglover: mamoru: what makes them assholes?

Anyone who puts a plus sign at the end of a word and calls it XXXX Plus is an enemy of learning and knowledge.

Damn. Does that mean I should turn down my invitation to join Fark+ then?

No, it just means you're an enemy of learning and knowledge.

[art.penny-arcade.com image 850x425]


The history of it is kinda interesting.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus

The whole concept was proposed because many female skeptics and atheist con goers were tired of shiatbags like TAA and Thunderf00t acting like assholes and getting away with it.
 
2014-01-06 06:51:37 AM  
I sympathize with them and understand their goals here I really do.  The positive social aspects or a weekly gathering with unified purpose and numerous.  Church creates a community that can help members in need when tragedy strikes and help the wider community as well.  They are simply trying to do away with god and keep those, and other, positives.  The thing is that it's much much harder to form a group based on a lack of belief in something because that doesn't narrow down the conflicting motives, views or opinions that will cause friction within the group.  I'm not saying it's impossible but it is much more difficult.
 
2014-01-06 06:52:22 AM  
*sees pic in article*

Is that type of douchebag the atheist equal to the slick-haired suit-wearing preacher man for Christians?
 
2014-01-06 06:52:54 AM  

Prophet of Loss: But you do believe in something jackass, you believe that the universe, life, and everything is a accident.

Others believe differently.


My belief is conditional and based on evidence and reason.

But answer me this. What's the end game here? Why do people like you keep trying to conflate acceptance of scientific findings with faith? What do you think that you're trying to prove? That your unfounded belief, based on the scribblings of men claiming to be the voice of gods has the same gravitas as understandings based on empirical evidence and reason?
 
2014-01-06 06:53:34 AM  

hardinparamedic: doglover: Danger Avoid Death: doglover: mamoru: what makes them assholes?

Anyone who puts a plus sign at the end of a word and calls it XXXX Plus is an enemy of learning and knowledge.

Damn. Does that mean I should turn down my invitation to join Fark+ then?

No, it just means you're an enemy of learning and knowledge.

[art.penny-arcade.com image 850x425]

The history of it is kinda interesting.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus

The whole concept was proposed because many female skeptics and atheist con goers were tired of shiatbags like TAA and Thunderf00t acting like assholes and getting away with it.


So they took a stand against the English language itself.

Good for them.
 
2014-01-06 06:55:15 AM  

nulluspixiusdemonica: LonMead: You mean, kind of like the way you prefer to tell us what we should believe?

I told someone what to believe? Where?


Forgive me if I misunderstood you, but...

nulluspixiusdemonica:When I meet an adult with unimpaired cognitive facilities who professes to believe in sky faeries I will call them out on it because it is hilarious and weirdly disturbing.

If my taunting them results in the sort of childish pique witnessed in adolescents discovering Santa Claus was a lie, well that's just funnier still...


... Sounds an awful lot like you're telling someone what they should believe (yes, by denigrating someone's belief's, you are telling them that they shouldn't believe in them).

/just engaging my critical faculties here...
 
2014-01-06 07:00:03 AM  

Ed Grubermann: Prophet of Loss: But you do believe in something jackass, you believe that the universe, life, and everything is a accident.

Others believe differently.

My belief is conditional and based on evidence and reason.

But answer me this. What's the end game here? Why do people like you keep trying to conflate acceptance of scientific findings with faith? What do you think that you're trying to prove? That your unfounded belief, based on the scribblings of men claiming to be the voice of gods has the same gravitas as understandings based on empirical evidence and reason?


And many people have spiritual beliefs based on the scientific evidence that they have observed. Saying "evidence" and "reason" doesn't make one's views accurate or correct if they are actually not, seeing as we all discover a little something new every day.
 
2014-01-06 07:02:50 AM  

LonMead: /just engaging my critical faculties here...

"You really should believe in the FSM because magic"

- Telling you to believe in something

"You have got to acknowledge that processing reality using a belief system is childish behavior for an adult" - Not telling you to believe something.

Panties knotted? You're probably not employing critical faculties.
 
2014-01-06 07:03:28 AM  

Ed Grubermann: Why do people like you keep trying to conflate acceptance of scientific findings with faith?


It comes from ambivalent usage of "belief" as meaning both understanding and rote/emotional learning, when they're really quite different.
 
2014-01-06 07:07:29 AM  

nulluspixiusdemonica: LonMead: /just engaging my critical faculties here...

"You really should believe in the FSM because magic" - Telling you to believe in something

"You have got to acknowledge that processing reality using a belief system is childish behavior for an adult" - Not telling you to believe something.

Panties knotted? You're probably not employing critical faculties.


Panties quite flat, thank you. But you seem a little worked up over it.
 
2014-01-06 07:07:44 AM  

namatad: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus



Take a look at the talk page.

so they are nice people
without god



Some are.  Some are complete assholes.
 
2014-01-06 07:10:23 AM  

memebot_of_doom: namatad: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus


Take a look at the talk page.

so they are nice people
without god


Some are.  Some are complete assholes.


Nonsesne, I've been told repeatedly that for good people to do bad things, religion is required!

/which is kind of magical thinking of itself, given that it ascribes powers/abilities to the idea/organization that is 'religion' that, apparently, cannot be duplicated by any OTHER idea/organization...
//but I've also people get huffy when you point that out.
 
2014-01-06 07:10:37 AM  
Like Atheist churches weren't set up to create a false equivalency so the weirdos could beat their strawman without looking so stupid.
 
2014-01-06 07:15:20 AM  

Phil Moskowitz: Like Atheist churches weren't set up to create a false equivalency so the weirdos could beat their strawman without looking so stupid.


As nearly as I can tell, they weren't. Most Christian churches I'm familiar with are as much(or more) about getting together and hanging out with people you agree with(they call it "fellowship") as with theology. Same thing with atheist church.
 
2014-01-06 07:16:20 AM  

Felgraf: memebot_of_doom: namatad: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus


Take a look at the talk page.

so they are nice people
without god


Some are.  Some are complete assholes.

Nonsesne, I've been told repeatedly that for good people to do bad things, religion is required!

/which is kind of magical thinking of itself, given that it ascribes powers/abilities to the idea/organization that is 'religion' that, apparently, cannot be duplicated by any OTHER idea/organization...
//but I've also people get huffy when you point that out.


Nationalism, schizophrenia, drugs/alcohol, PTSD, etc etc call all cause good people to do bad things. Then again i'm pretty sure nobody ever told you that religion was the sole cause of good people doing bad things.
 
2014-01-06 07:19:42 AM  
Voiceofreason01:  Same thing with atheist church.

Surely a better atheist gathering should be a collection of individuals who don't agree with each other?
 
2014-01-06 07:31:32 AM  

omeganuepsilon: DerAppie: omeganuepsilon: fusillade762: He also said he advised them to leave the dive bar "where women wore bikinis," in favor of a more family-friendly venue.

You know, now that I think about I don't like this "family friendly" idea. Just as I don't think children should be indoctrinated into religion I wouldn't want them indoctrinated into atheism. Let them grow up and make up their own minds.

What? Tell me you're trolling. It's not like it's convoluted, "There are a lot of people who believe in a lot of silly things. I hope you don't fall in line with that." is hardly indoctrination.  You sort of need a doctrine to do that.

Considering that these people appear to have a schism based on social issues and how to behave morally (don't go to dive bars, go to family friendly establishments) I'd say that they are pretty well on their way to establishing a doctrine.

/How to be a good Atheist
//Buy my book
///Required reading, but definitely not a bible

But "those people" are not the entire group that is atheism in general, hence my reply.

Although it does stand to logic.  The "church"(if we are to only talk about that) is a construct meant to replace the social parts of religion.  It stands to reason that they'd do so in a place that's "family friendly".

A dive bar is going to exclude a lot of people.  Using it as an excuse to have a bunch of hipsters in your bar is not the same thing.


I understand that they do not represent all atheists. I, for one, do not feel represented by them.

And about the locale: if I were to start an "atheist church" I would want people with similar interests to join. Meeting in bars might very well be part of it. If others feel excluded because if the location they can start their own club. I see no reason to be all inclusive.

/It isn't a real group until you exclude someone
 
2014-01-06 07:38:27 AM  

Egoy3k: Nationalism, schizophrenia, drugs/alcohol, PTSD, etc etc call all cause good people to do bad things. Then again i'm pretty sure nobody ever told you that religion was the sole cause of good people doing bad things.


... You've *never heard* that quote before? It crops up FREQUENTLY in religion/atheism threads.

" Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.  " Steven Weinburg (taken from wikiquote).

So. Uh. Yes. I have heard people say that, and it's parroted FREQUENTLY in religion/atheism threads (Often crops up at least once a thread, though that could very well be observer/sampling bias. I may simply be remembering it because it triggers the "THIS IS A TERRIBLE ARGUMENT AND AS A PHYSICIST YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER, fark half our our PhD's and Bachelor's degrees are TRAINING in critical thinking. Come on man!" parts of my brain).
(it is a very specific part of my brain, apparently)
 And when I point out that it's falling prey to a LOT of the same logical fallacies that *Allow* religions/religious people to do evil things (People who do bad things always have trait X! I do not have trait X, therefore if I do it, it's probably not a bad thing), and when I mention that the quote shows a remarkable lack of critical thinking and honestly an ignorance of history(because, as you said, you can EASILY shove nationalism into that gap. fark, we've *Seen it happen*), I've had people get quiiiteee pissed at me because. Um. I'm not sure. Apparently thinking critically is only OK if you criticize religion, and not well-liked atheists, or something?
 
2014-01-06 07:43:57 AM  

Felgraf: Apparently thinking critically is only OK if you criticize religion


Basically. It's the same with the people who hate one group of people for hating a third group. Applying actual objective thinking and discovering a flaw in your side is not cool. But tearing the other guys apart? Go for it.
 
2014-01-06 07:44:03 AM  

namatad: rational thought is not a religion, nor brain washing


Hey, just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you're rational. See: Ayn Rand.
 
2014-01-06 07:46:45 AM  

hardinparamedic: log_jammin: long story short, you're either with them or you're a misogynis

Sounds like the opposite of Men's Rights Activists. Either you agree blanket with them, or you're a man-hating misandrist or something.


I've never met such a Men's Rights Activist.  I have, however, met plenty of Feminists who say they have met such a Men's Rights Activist.
 
2014-01-06 07:47:46 AM  

Felgraf: So. Uh. Yes. I have heard people say that


Are you saying that bad is equal to evil? Because the quote you quoted, and as it's often quoted and/or paraphrased says it takes religion for good people to do evil.

If your dog poops on the floor, do you say "Evil dog! Evil evil dog!"?
 
2014-01-06 07:48:34 AM  
Atheist organizations and "churches" giving the rest of us a bad rep.
i1036.photobucket.com
/You're not helping
//where's my trilby
 
2014-01-06 07:54:31 AM  

doglover: Felgraf: Apparently thinking critically is only OK if you criticize religion

Basically. It's the same with the people who hate one group of people for hating a third group. Applying actual objective thinking and discovering a flaw in your side is not cool. But tearing the other guys apart? Go for it.


Heh, to be fair, I'm not sure I count as *atheist*. I'm not really sure... *what* I count as. Conditional Theist? ( For instance, I have a sort of... reverse-pascal's wager I've worked out in my head: If there is a god and they are *worth* worshiping, then what really matters most is simply helping your fellow man, and trying to leave the world a better place than when you came in. If there isn't a god... you've still tried to make the world better for the people to follow you, and that's a wonderful legacy to leave. If there s a god, but they'd punish you for not worshiping them, even if you tried to leave the world a better place/helped your fellows/etc? Theeeennn that's not a god worth worshiping in the first place)

I have half-jokingly reffered to myself as a "Pratchettist". (THE TURTLE MOVES.)

Maybe apatheist, but I'm not even sure that works, because I do toy with things in my head. (Pondering what I do and don't believe, working through potential implications of things, because.. I dunno, I'm strange, I guess.)

I think one of the reasons that quote frustrates me so is... well, the incredible lack of critical thinking, the lack of  knowledge of history, and frankly the engagement in magical thinking *while decrying magical thinking*, and it's coming from a physicist. It's sort of like how I don't expect someone who visits the creationism museum to display critical thinking skills/I am not surprised if one thinks the moon landing is faked (though it is still irritating), it doesn't compare to the frustration and anger I get when I encounter a physicist that's a conspiracy theorist.
 
2014-01-06 07:57:42 AM  

Felgraf: With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.


Yes the literal interpretation of that suggesta that all evil acts done by good people are the result of religion.  Then again only a moron would take it that way.
 
2014-01-06 07:59:23 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-01-06 07:59:43 AM  

Prophet of Loss: Lenny_da_Hog: Prophet of Loss: But you do believe in something jackass, you believe that the universe, life, and everything is a accident.

I'm an atheist and a determinist. Nothing is an accident. Everything happens the only way it can happen.

Quantum physics disagrees with you.


If that were true, the universe would be a blob of unstructured matter. Chaos and uncertainty are two of the most misused terms on Earth.
 
2014-01-06 08:00:52 AM  

mamoru: Felgraf: So. Uh. Yes. I have heard people say that

Are you saying that bad is equal to evil? Because the quote you quoted, and as it's often quoted and/or paraphrased says it takes religion for good people to do evil.

If your dog poops on the floor, do you say "Evil dog! Evil evil dog!"?


No, I don't think bad=evil. But he apparently does!

But it appears he also said it the first way *first*, (that is, at a talk in 1999, Wikiquotes claimed he said " Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. "), and then expanded on that in a later article, replacing evil with bad and mentioning fredrick douglass, etc.

So I apparently swapped two very similar quotes from the same man,  and went with the one where he tried to illuminate his views *more*.

Is there a problem?

It's still wrong, shows an ignorance of history, and engages in magical thinking by elevating the idea (or organization) of 'religion' by giving it powers that apparently cannot be possessed by any other idea/organization.
 
2014-01-06 08:03:21 AM  

namatad: rule one of atheism: no vegans

no really
that was the first rule
well it is the first rule in my church of atheism


our three sacraments are:
sex
drugs
gambling
and meat

of four sacraments



I came in here to say that an atheist church was the dumbest thing I had ever heard of but you just changed my mind. I'm assuming you hold services at a bar Saturday night?
 
2014-01-06 08:04:54 AM  

Egoy3k: Felgraf: With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.

Yes the literal interpretation of that suggesta that all evil acts done by good people are the result of religion.  Then again only a moron would take it that way.


Wow, that's a well reasoned and wonderfully laid out rebuttal there.

How dare I take the man at his word.

Are you just frustrated that you said "No one's ever said that!" and I went "Uh, yes. They have. They've said it, and then they've said it AGAIN, swapping evil with bad."

Prophet of Loss: Quantum physics disagrees with you.


Uh... no, I don't think so? While there *is* a many-worlds interpretation of Q-mech, that's... not really been proven. (... Though Brian Greene loves to talk about it like it's fact. He likes to talk about string theory in a similar fashion, which I find frustrating.)
 
2014-01-06 08:06:03 AM  

Confabulat: I'm an atheist and these people are all assholes.

I don't need to join a damn club to be an atheist. Are you just lonely?

What awful human beings.



They want political power, so yes they are awful human beings like any politicians.
 
2014-01-06 08:06:39 AM  
Like I said, having an atheist church is like having a not plumbers convention. People sitting around specifically with the purpose of not talking about plumbing. How about just living your life and going to conventions, movies, skiing. Life?

It's such an absurd idea that it seems fabricated so that theists have someone to fight.
 
2014-01-06 08:08:21 AM  

Felgraf: Are you just frustrated that you said "No one's ever said that!" and I went "Uh, yes. They have. They've said it, and then they've said it AGAIN, swapping evil with bad."


Hrm, actually, that is kind of a dickish comment, and unfair of me. Especially since I highly dislike it when people try to say "oh, the REAL reason you're arguing X isn't because Y, but because you really think Z."

I retract this accusation.
 
2014-01-06 08:13:19 AM  
I was born and raised am atheist. I don't believe in gods as much as anybody alive.
But having ransacked my mind and it's life experience, and I can come up with no rational explanation for these people (or many others  but that's for other threads).
I have never met one IRL.
Their stated purposes seem insane to me.
I can neither praise nor critisise them - they are , to me, gibberish in human form.
 
2014-01-06 08:14:01 AM  
The daily atheism thread. Add a teacher sleeps with student. Mugshot roundup, and drunk person does something stupid thread and the Fark day will be complete.

I would say what I normally say in these threads, but ehh, you already know.
 
2014-01-06 08:14:08 AM  

Felgraf: Egoy3k: Felgraf: With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.

Yes the literal interpretation of that suggesta that all evil acts done by good people are the result of religion.  Then again only a moron would take it that way.

Wow, that's a well reasoned and wonderfully laid out rebuttal there.

How dare I take the man at his word.

Are you just frustrated that you said "No one's ever said that!" and I went "Uh, yes. They have. They've said it, and then they've said it AGAIN, swapping evil with bad."


No I'm not frustrated I'm confused as to why you seem to think that a poorly chosen phrase should be taken as literally as possible unless, of course, you have an axe to grind.  The discussion was on the topic of religion, not nationalism, the first statement is that without religion good people are good bad people are bad then the second phrase, admittedly, says that religion is the only cause of good people acting bad.  The thing is do you honestly take it that way given that a much more logical argument would be the following;

Without religion good people are good and bad people are bad, with it good people can act bad.

Again I don't dispute that the quote does say exactly what you claim that it says. My dispute is that a thinking person should understand, in my opinion, that it was made within the context of a discussion of religion, and only religion.  It does not encompass topics outside of the theological. Furthermore I'm 100% sure that the vast majority of people that you ever see repeating the quote would readily admit that religion is not the only thing in the world that can cause good people to act bad.
 
2014-01-06 08:16:40 AM  

DerAppie: I see no reason to be all inclusive.


Depends one one's agenda.

You want government laws to not be based in religion(ie gay laws, equal rights for women/races, etc)?
 Inclusion is a good idea.
You want religion to not taint or even replace real education?
Inclusion also works well here.
You want local public offices to not fall into a setup similar to Dominionism because they're all of the same religion?
Inclusion here is great.
(Or Sharia Law or other similar control schema's)

There is some valid reasoning to be as inclusive and friendly as possible. You can have a cause and not have a doctrine. You can believe in something(equal rights), without BelievingTM in magic, sky gods(and obedience thereof), worship, etc.

If your agenda is to more simply have friends and hang out in a bar, well, that's easy, you can even join a "club".
 
2014-01-06 08:17:05 AM  

Egoy3k: Without religion good people are good and bad people are bad, with it good people can act bad.


Wow I messed it up too, see how easy it is?

Lets try;

It takes outside justification for good people to act bad, religion is a commonly used to justify atrocities.
 
2014-01-06 08:20:05 AM  
There are plenty of atheist religions, Taoism, Catholicism, Buddhism come to mind. I suppose Judaism as well. Heck, I think Protestants are the only Theists after all.
 
2014-01-06 08:20:41 AM  

Egoy3k: It takes outside justification for good people to act bad



It's rather adamant that good people cannot in fact act bad and be good. If you act bad, you are bad.
 
2014-01-06 08:24:24 AM  

fusillade762: He also said he advised them to leave the dive bar "where women wore bikinis," in favor of a more family-friendly venue.

You know, now that I think about I don't like this "family friendly" idea. Just as I don't think children should be indoctrinated into religion I wouldn't want them indoctrinated into atheism. Let them grow up and make up their own minds.


NO! All children must be bathed in the knowledge that there is no god and nothing that man doesn't know.

NO GOD WILLS IT!
 
2014-01-06 08:28:21 AM  

jaybeezey: and nothing that man doesn't know.


...about that.... 

No.

What they should be taught is that inserting "magic" in place of "I don't know" is wrong. Hurting people because they refuse to accept your demented interpretation of magic is evil.
 
2014-01-06 08:30:58 AM  
If there are women in bikinis, it's not a dive bar. Dive bars serve hard drinks to men who want to get drunk fast, and they don't need any characters around to give the joint atmosphere.

Best bar in Manhattan, if you actually want to go to a bar and just drink.
 
2014-01-06 08:32:10 AM  

Egoy3k: No I'm not frustrated I'm confused as to why you seem to think that a poorly chosen phrase should be taken as literally as possible unless, of course, you have an axe to grind. The discussion was on the topic of religion, not nationalism, the first statement is that without religion good people are good bad people are bad then the second phrase, admittedly, says that religion is the only cause of good people acting bad. The thing is do you honestly take it that way given that a much more logical argument would be the following;

Without religion good people are good and bad people are bad, with it good people can act bad.

Again I don't dispute that the quote does say exactly what you claim that it says. My dispute is that a thinking person should understand, in my opinion, that it was made within the context of a discussion of religion, and only religion. It does not encompass topics outside of the theological. Furthermore I'm 100% sure that the vast majority of people that you ever see repeating the quote would readily admit that religion is not the only thing in the world that can cause good people to act bad.


Perhaps it's just observation bias. The last time it came up in a thread, I pointed out the problems with it and got blasted repeatedly (granted, by one guy). I suppose that may have lodged something in my brain.

Given the number of people I've seen on these fark threads that say stuff like "Most of the world's problems would be solved if religion were to vanish!", and such, I have to disagree with you, though. Hell, I *know* a self-proclaimed 'anti-theist' (his words) in real life. (... Though I can't prove this, and that sounds reaaalllly close to "Hey, I have a black friend!").

And I *know* I've seen people go "Well, what happened in communist russia was turning love of the state INTO a religion, so it's still religion's fault, etc etc (Which feels very No True Scotsman-ish)

Furthermore, again, given that he's said it twice, and the first time he said it he included the phrase "For good people to do evil things, that takes religion", and he furthermore states "<b>
With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.", I... that really seems to strongly imply that, yeah, it *IS* religion that makes good people do terrible things, and without religion, good people wouldn't do those terrible things.

I mean, yes, he was talking about religion when he brought it up (.. because.. I'm not sure that would come up in a conversation about, say, geography). I'm... I guess I'm confused about why that shields it from criticism of being, well, *wrong*, especially given how frequently it gets bandied about.

I mean, hell. Are you that charitable when people talk about, say, Genesis? Do you go "Well, the bible clearly has two conflicting origin stories right after each other. Clearly these were not meant to be taken literally, or they would have obviously made them line up with each other, so I will assume anyone talking about genesis knows this and does not take it literally"?

And I dislike it when it shows up because, again, it's the same kind of thinking that *allows religious people to do horrible things.* Not on the same scale, but it's still "Us vs Them, and They're bad, and we're not" style thinking, and that goes dangerous, dangerous places.


To quote pratchett (.. Okay maybe I am a pratchettist)

"It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things."
―  Jingo
 
2014-01-06 08:36:08 AM  
Obligatory, tl:dr version:

(Pushes him off the bridge) "Die, Heretic!"
 
2014-01-06 08:40:08 AM  

Egoy3k: Egoy3k: Without religion good people are good and bad people are bad, with it good people can act bad.

Wow I messed it up too, see how easy it is?

Lets try;

It takes outside justification for good people to act bad, religion is a commonly used to justify atrocities.


Aye, and that is a fair interpretation. I've just run across (..granted, on Fark, but I don't often *get* into discussions about religion with people in real life, since... I dunno. I feel it might be rude of me), people that tend to think that most all atrocities *are caused by religion*. They talk about how the world would be better if religion/all the religious people were gone, etc. It's possible they're just venting.

But, to echo the statement I just made (which, since I doubt you posses causality breaking powers, you had not read when you posted that! =) )

I don't think that's always *The way people who parrot it* are thinking. Just like many parts of the bible are clearly parable/not *MEANT* to be taken literally (again, literally, Genesis. Two origin stories, things happen *in different orders*, an they are next to each other. Even if you have a low opinion of the intelligence of religious people, the *writers* likely realized this wasn't 100% literal historical truth). But there's a lot of people that *view* it as 100% historical truth (.. Until you ask them about shrimp. Or loving one's neighbor.)

So I suppose my main beef isn't so much the phrase, as it is what a lot of people saying it are implying/interpreting/feel they are agreeing with when they repeat it.

Also, I fear I may not be able to respond to...well, any responses for a bit. I'm apparently still a bit low on sleep, so I've got to vanish for a few hours.
 
Displayed 50 of 467 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report