Which they believe with religious fervor. Funny that they don't see it. I believe it's only leftist atheists who publicly mock religions. People on the right are much better mannered.
There are atheists that just don't believe and anti-theists that are against religion and think it is bad for society. I think anti-theists are more likely to mock religion and have a purpose and a message. Just like some comedians are not just there to make you laugh but bring about social change.
Right... you were raised in the generation which was taught to respect. Those you have grown up with are in your age group now. Why have they lost what they have been taught? I have an idea but it's only an idea. Perhaps they enjoy the pleasures of unrighteousness more than the things they were taught while they were growing up. Do you remember any time when you were a teenager and acting unrighteously that the older ones would frown/reprimand (upon) your behavior? Now that you are at the age of those 'older ones' as well as the rest of your age group, where has all the 'frowning' upon unrighteousness gone? Full grown adults, who at one time, were the responsible ones, are now saying it is okay for children to be what they want to be. But the children have not yet even reached the age of voting or providing for their own livelihood with their own earned employee paychecks. Your parents most likely worked so you could be raised in the home you were raised in. And because they were providing for your 'growth', rent/food/clothes/spending monies/etc.., you had to abide by their rules. Today, the children are on equal footing with their 'providers' at home. It kind of seems like the children will never leave the nest if things continue the way it seems. The parents and children might remain 'best friends' for the rest of their lives... And why would ANYONE prefer to face the dogs and the wolves and the snakes in the world when they can eat and sleep and dine and be entertained for FREE? Besides, when mom and dad 'retire' from work, they will need their child around to keep them uplifted and to continue reassuring them that they are 'best friends' for life. But of course, once again, parents usually know best. I'm not that worried. They didn't rear a person for 16 or 17 or 18 years or so without having some form of Prudence and Knowledge and Patience.
Yes, and then the civilized discussion abruptly ends with "look what big bad atheists are doing, boohoo". This is valid for other dichotomies as well - right-left, moral-immoral, pro-against - and for all sides involved. Nothing out of the ordinary, just human nature unraveling in the relatively safe space of anonymity. I find it fascinating that there are always the religious who complain about being antagonized by atheists. Why would my model of reality be the legitimate target of religiously motivated attacks perceived as rightful defense of religious beliefs, while any defense of atheism is perceived as a vicious unjust attack on the religious? Why would my model of reality be worth less than the religious people's model? Not that I agree with "needlessly antagonizing" - on either side. Those who actually do believe the message are likely to understand that there's something wrong with the way they interpret the message. Great religious reformers had nothing but their own sacred texts to rely on, yet they managed to change from within the way the message in those texts is put into effect. Every little change in the mindset means rejecting something one believed to be true. Nobody expects people to flock out of churches chanting Darwin's name.
Well, insofar that previous mockery hasn't already done so. Your signature mentions a respect for evidence. Do you have any evidence of the effectiveness of mockery? Do you get more convinced when you see your beliefs mocked?
True. I don't think these issues are completely avoidable. I just want the little impact I could have on the debate to go against polarisation. Yeah, the reason I mostly attack "my own" side about this is that if I were to attack the other side, I don't really have a case as long as they are attacked by others on my side. I am responsible for my own actions and statements. Mockery in attacks against me is not really my problem, but then, I have pretty thick skin. Not sure what you mean. Which message are you referring to? The mockery or the Bible/similar? Sure, I don't expect huge changes, just like I don't suggest refraining from mockery will suddenly turn the entire debate tame.
The efforts by the "godless" in a thread like this reveals exactly how threatening faith is to the idea that they harness "evolution" and take credit for Creation itself. Their fallibility is obvious and it would be a waste of time to "mock" them. They mock themselves with the parodies they produce. They would have a degree of credibility if they spent time explaining "what they believe" instead of mocking others. They have no credibility.
The funny thing about these discussions are the fact that people think a G/god is something that is limited to strictly to being claimed by someone. It is not. It can also be assigned to someone based upon what or how they exercise their religion. For instance many people would ascertain people arguing in defense of the atheist religion are merely worshiping the god Koalemos, and in many cases they would be correct. Some prayers are answered
The irony of course is that it people are so delusional. Atheists believe there is no God, that is the definition of atheist, hence the atheist also has faith in their conclusion being the correct one, since they cannot prove it after all. Atheist is the antithesis to theist, [with God (belief in a deity)] versus [without God (belief no deity exists)] but there is a huge movement today in the atheist community to blur that fact, presenting themselves as agnostic while labeling themselves atheist.
I find the debates on religion hilarious as dogmatic atheists faithfully argue and defend their religious views while condemning the religious views of theists.
So then theists have a right to mock the foolishness of atheists who fail to comprehend not only the definition of atheism but fail to make a distinction between religion and belief in a deity? Belief in a deity is theism, not religion. Seriously how hard can this be?
It's a comedy routine Koko. That means Carlin has to be given leeway for simple rhetoric. The routine would not have been as comic if he used the term "theism" instead of "religion" (e.g. "there's a reason theism sucks"). I don't know what that means. I rejected my religion decades ago along with my indoctrinated belief in a mythical being, so I'm an atheist. How is that a "religion" for me in your opinion?
One thing Carlin did extremely well, is that his routines were usually spot on correct for virtually all of his rants, but as I said he blew it on religion, though I agree using the correct term theism wouldnt have the same impact as its not a common word used every day. Few people actually asked the question 'what is religion' and studied its full meaning, where in fact no deity is required to be religious. Since no deity is required to be religious, it goes without saying, simply removing a deity does not automatically remove someones religion, as so many have been indoctrinated to parrot, only the deity is removed, whatever has been accepted and put into practice is your religion and that remains. So in your terms, your religion may have had a mythical being as the primary constructive element of your religion, fast forward to today it may have science or even satan or the boogie man as its primary motivational element of its construction, what ever it is today would be classified as the god that you worship. That said, yes, you rejected a specific deity as the 'creator' of your religion, not religion in and of itself since I am sure you have morals that you retained and brought forward that you live by 'religiously'. btw, thats the beauty of 'religion', you can choose which one you want, at least until its made into public law in which case it infringes on not only upon your liberty and your personal religion regardless of the god you worship, th4e evil is that you cant change it if it runs contrary to your religion, you are stuck with the gubmints religion. Ask the mormons and the christian cake bakers. Hence the incredible importance of the 1st amendment.
Belief in God and religion are usually synonymous: Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus. Buddhists are an exception but they are still pretty far out. You can argue semantics but atheists generally don't believe in God and Religion. Theists are usually religious.
No its not, just because its popular for people who apparently do not comprehend proper grammar to throw everything into a punch cocktail and portray it as a single term does not make it a plausible much less tenable argument.
yes I know that is the popular atheist buzz. jainists lack belief in a 'deity' too and guess what....they are religious. your logic and reasoning is severely flawed, I suggest you review it. Here I will even help you along your way: I'd say the burden of proof is on the atheist but it seems its already proven, denial maybe?
Obscure religions in India. Great. I wouldn't even call it a religion. I'd call it and Buddhism more of a philosophy. The major Abrahamic religions and Hindus believe in God(s).
But no one really cares what you want to call it or how you want to change long understood definitions. You should have realized that philosophy is after the fact not before the fact. Once again you run full circle in that you choose whatever you want to be your god, philosophy great for you, then you live by your conclusions just like the jainists and buddists both of which are religions.
