AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

I intend to add onto this list because i find both the new atheist movement followers and religious fanatics to be quite similar. I dont mean to say all of them are but quite a few that I see are actually having these similarities. Correct me if you think I am wrong or add more cause I know one thing they get pissed of easily.(LOL)-1) arrogance
2) delusion: most of the new atheist movement followers i have met are convinced that religion is the root of all evil and religion should be completly done with just like religious nut jobs believe their religion is the only way to go ahead. there isnt any mid way its my way or the high way.
3) they both claim tolerance while in reality they arent tolerable to any other opinion because both are convinced that they actually know it all.
4) both use the slippery slope, straw man and ad hoimenum attacks to justify themselves.(Yah I have met religious people who use them hard to believe but the extreme ones use the same fallacies)
5) denial: they live in denial when they actually think they are listening to the other person when they are actually totally convinced and cannot even see that.
6) Both are more concerned with convincing others that they are more moral and wise than in actually seeking the truth.
Again this is just a opinion

3719 views

I intend to add onto this list because i find both the new atheist movement followers and religious fanatics to be quite similar. I dont mean to say all of them are but quite a few that I see are actually having these similarities. Correct me if you think I am wrong or add more cause I know one thing they get pissed of easily.(LOL)
> 
> 1) arrogance
> 2) delusion: most of the new atheist movement followers i have met are convinced that religion is the root of all evil and religion should be completly done with just like religious nut jobs believe their religion is the only way to go ahead. there isnt any mid way its my way or the high way.
> 3) they both claim tolerance while in reality they arent tolerable to any other opinion because both are convinced that they actually know it all.
> 4) both use the slippery slope, straw man and ad hoimenum attacks to justify themselves.(Yah I have met religious people who use them hard to believe but the extreme ones use the same fallacies)
> 5) denial: they live in denial when they actually think they are listening to the other person when they are actually totally convinced and cannot even see that.
> 6) Both are more concerned with convincing others that they are more moral and wise than in actually seeking the truth.
> Again this is just a opinion-In brief. your opinion is excellent. right on.

3794 views

I have some New Age (not Atheists) friends who are just as fanatical about their New Age beliefs as I was with religion. -Oh...and welcome Satyansh! Glad to have your perspective added!!!

3668 views

Hi bella. nice to hear from you. looking forward to some interesting discussions with you in the future.

3616 views

7: They are blind to anything that deviates from their own narrow perspective of the world.

3641 views

thank you very much. my dear friend. now i have point 7 i wanna add a lot more points not because i dislike atheists i know it just pisses them off and i find it funny. just a light banter here and there.

3701 views

Satyansh drew up a list of six points that fundamentalist theists and atheists have in common. Tony has added one:-TONY: They are blind to anything that deviates from their own narrow perspective of the world.-SATYANSH: thank you very much. my dear friend. now i have point 7 i wanna add a lot more points not because i dislike atheists i know it just pisses them off and i find it funny. just a light banter here and there.-So long as you're pointing the finger at a certain type of theist and a certain type of atheist, I think these comments are fair enough and in my view devastatingly accurate! But satyansh's last post suggests that this attack is not even-handed at all and is directed only against atheists in general. It's as wrong to lump all atheists together as it is to lump all Muslims together. Fundamentalists of all kinds, religious or anti-religious, are blind to any perspective other than their own, but we tend to give them short shrift on this forum, and they rapidly depart. Much as I enjoy a good laugh, I hope you will piss atheists (or theists) off by answering the arguments of the thinkers rather than by picking on the characteristics of the extremists.

3659 views

"So long as you're pointing the finger at a certain type of theist and a certain type of atheist, I think these comments are fair enough and in my view devastatingly accurate! But satyansh's last post suggests that this attack is not even-handed at all and is directed only against atheists in general. It's as wrong to lump all atheists together as it is to lump all Muslims together. Fundamentalists of all kinds, religious or anti-religious, are blind to any perspective other than their own, but we tend to give them short shrift on this forum, and they rapidly depart. Much as I enjoy a good laugh, I hope you will piss atheists (or theists) off by answering the arguments of the thinkers rather than by picking on the characteristics of the extremists."-Obviously all atheists are not like that. only the crazy ones. but honestly there are quite a few of them who are crazy. just like when people say all muslims are not terrorists but most of the terrorists are muslims. when I say it is a light banter and it does not mean it is generalized. i think your being too politically correct. i mean we are not fighting a law suit here that we need to dissect each and every line. when i try to joke around with my wife by saying you women r this or that doesn't mean all women r like that. it is just a light bit of banter. it certainly does not mean that they are all like. i am more than capable of arguing with reasonable answers but this was just a joke and no one needs to take it literally. -this is just a rebuttal to a vast majority of extremist atheists who use the quite a vast number of personal based attacks in subtle ways when they argue with theists or agnostics. this was intended to be a joke and it is a joke. i hope i have cleared my position now.

3611 views

SATYANSH: this is just a rebuttal to a vast majority of extremist atheists who use quite a vast number of personal based attacks in subtle ways when they argue with theists or agnostics. this was intended to be a joke and it is a joke. i hope i have cleared my position now.-Sorry I haven't got back to you sooner. Yes, all clear. It's precisely the "personal based attacks" I would like us to avoid, and when you talked of taking the piss out of atheists, alarm bells rang.-I've just seen your "time out" post under "The Gods - All of them!" Don't worry about Matt and me. We often have little ding-dongs, but we have plenty of fun, and we're generally on the same side. At least, I hope that's how Matt feels!

3639 views

well i am happy that you have understood my point. because i certainly dont want to be coming off as someone who is prejudiced towards atheists. infact i was one of them who used to think like them but as time passes by and you collect more data and learn more things i have kind off become agnostic.-I know how it is to be an atheist i was one and when i look back at it i dont regret it but yes i do find it very silly. life is too big and complicated to have certain answers.-I guess that is why we are agnostic because we all realise that life is just too complex.

3624 views

The phrase "New Age Atheists" is one I've not met before.-"New Age" thinking usually refers to the "Age of Aquarius" hippy type woo, 
that talks of chi energy and quantum consciousness and such like. 
Richard Dawkins did a series attacking such ways of thought, 
typified by Deepak Chopra.-"New Atheists" is usually used to refer to Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and co. I'm very much on their wavelength.-Satyansh is saying, jokingly he admits, that these two groups are similar.-Needless to say, as a rationalist and atheist, I don't agree.-1) arrogance. Is it arrogance to cite the evidence for ones views where based on science, and to give reasoned arguments where of a philosophical nature?-2) delusion. Much religion IS at the root of conflicts in the world, and is spreading pernicious ideas, like young-earth creationism, repression of women and homosexuality, and submission to religious authorities, etc. This is real.-3) intolerance. Opinion needs to be backed up by evidence. No rationalist claims to "know it all", we just think extraordinary claims need proof.-4) both use the slippery slope, straw man and ad hominem attacks to justify themselves. This is indeed pernicious, and genuine rationalists try to avoid such temptations. No doubt there are some sinners who fail this test.-5) denial: they actually think they are listening to the other person. Well personally I do try to listen, but often fail to understand.-6) seeking truth: I certainly wouldn't claim to be "more moral and wise" than others. Many people have much more experience than me, but I do reserve the right to come to my own conclusions.

--
GPJ

3674 views

Satyansh is saying, jokingly he admits, that these two groups are similar.
> 
> Needless to say, as a rationalist and atheist, I don't agree.
> 
> 1) arrogance. Is it arrogance to cite the evidence for ones views where based on science, and to give reasoned arguments where of a philosophical nature?
> 
> 2) delusion. Much religion IS at the root of conflicts in the world, and is spreading pernicious ideas, like young-earth creationism, repression of women and homosexuality, and submission to religious authorities, etc. This is real.
> 
> 3) intolerance. Opinion needs to be backed up by evidence. No rationalist claims to "know it all", we just think extraordinary claims need proof.
> 
> 4) both use the slippery slope, straw man and ad hominem attacks to justify themselves. This is indeed pernicious, and genuine rationalists try to avoid such temptations. No doubt there are some sinners who fail this test.
> 
> 5) denial: they actually think they are listening to the other person. Well personally I do try to listen, but often fail to understand.
> 
> 6) seeking truth: I certainly wouldn't claim to be "more moral and wise" than others. Many people have much more experience than me, but I do reserve the right to come to my own conclusions.-It is great to have you back with your reasoned positions. Hope to see more of you again.

3585 views

GEORGE!! Hope to see you back around more!-And thanks for a nice counterpoint. However, I do disagree with the statement that rationalists and atheist demand that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. After all, Dawkins is quite happy to taut that there is no God and that we all crawled out of the primordial muck, neither of which as proof any more than the idea that a God exists and we were all created it.

3621 views

B_M: "GEORGE!! Hope to see you back around more!"-I may not be here for long, just felt the atheist position needed some support. -B-M: "And thanks for a nice counterpoint. However, I do disagree with the statement that rationalists and atheist demand that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. After all, Dawkins is quite happy to taut that there is no God and that we all crawled out of the primordial muck, neither of which as proof any more than the idea that a God exists and we were all created it."-On the contrary, the idea "that we all crawled out of the primordial muck" - or to put it more positively, that we are all formed of star dust - is a proposition for which there is overwhelming evidence.-The idea that there was some supernatural input to the process is where there is no significant evidence.

--
GPJ

3709 views

Let me belatedly join the welcoming chorus of approval at George's comeback! Combative, provocative and informative as ever. The jesusneverexisted website packs a mighty powerful punch, and I'll be interested to hear what Tony (Balance_Maintained) thinks of it.-I'd love to know a little more about the star dust we're made of, for which there is "overwhelming evidence". In particular, does it have all the properties needed to spontaneously and unconsciously create the mechanism for life and evolution?-In your absence, we've been told that God is "organized energy", and I thought an atheist would agree that everything is organized energy, but not that organized energy is God. The question is whether organized energy is conscious of itself, or organizes itself through the unconscious laws of Nature. Can we apply the same argument to star dust? -You say rather ominously that you "may not be here for long". I trust you're referring to the forum and not to Planet Earth, but either way I hope you'll stay with us for a very long time.

3583 views

Hey George,-First of all it is indeed a pleasure to meet you. Like I said before this is a joke and obviously not all atheists are like that but yah quite a few I have come across are indeed falling in that category.-"1) arrogance. Is it arrogance to cite the evidence for ones views where based on science, and to give reasoned arguments where of a philosophical nature?"-It isnt arrogance to cite the evidence for ones views when based on science but it is certainly arrogant to dismiss arguments of pedigree and research such as when David promotes Intelligent design because New Atheist Movement followers also suffer from the same problem of faith just like religious people when Darwin is questioned. By the way just want you to know that I am a huge fan of Darwin.-"2) delusion. Much religion IS at the root of conflicts in the world, and is spreading pernicious ideas, like young-earth creationism, repression of women and homosexuality, and submission to religious authorities, etc. This is real."-Now when you say religion I would like you to cite examples with proper evidences and proof of all the eastern religious philosophies which have been involved in all the above mentioned charges on a reasonably decent scale.-While I agree that yes there is a problem in the abrahamic faiths especially islam i certainly dont believe that if they cease to exist the world would suddenly become this beautiful and marvelous place. World war 1 and 2 were not because of religion they were because of the human need for conquest. The problem starts when people take their religion seriously. -I agree with you that there is citing of violence in the OT and the Koran and if you take them seriously you are bound to be aggressive. But what needs to be done is that people need to be taught that religion is just a philosophy and it was written by a man nothing else and you should challenge it and not abolish it. George when we are small and our parents tell us dont drink or dont smoke we tend to do it more because we are told to abolish it. -Its human nature that when you tell the person to leave something completely they tend to cling on to it even more. It triggers of a insecurity which is inherent in all human beings and atheists are no different to that. Why did atheists run away from the concept of god because you're told time and again by ardent believers to not question him which deters you even more from that belief. Science is one of the reasons for atheists to question the concept of god not the only reason.-My dear friend science can only tell you probably not certainly how life is, it cannot teach you how to live life. I dont mean to say religion can teach you how to live life. But science cant either. Science is given way too much importance just like religion is. They have their own places in life. If religious nut jobs take religion too seriously atheists take science and reason too seriously.-"3) intolerance. Opinion needs to be backed up by evidence. No rationalist claims to "know it all", we just think extraordinary claims need proof."-Well i certainly can assure you that a lot of rationalists are completely intolerable to any other forms of scientific explanations when it comes to Darwin's theory. so please dont tell me they are not intolerant and closed minded.-Everybody has the right to his opinions no matter if he or she is backed by evidence or not. But no one is entitled to impose it on people be it on any side. Extremism in thoughts or in acts are certainly not the right way forward and unfortunately quite a few atheists are very similar to religious nut jobs because both have extreme ideas. one person acts on them which is the religious nut job and i certainly feel atheists right now aren't violent because a they are more civilized thanks to reason not science and also because they are not as organised and powerful as religious people. I wun be surprised when the new atheist movement takes political power that you see atheists ran sacking shops on the name of the very science and religion that they love so much. I could actually see them breaking churches or mosques because you are assuming that when people become atheists that all of them would understand science very well. Heck i know people who became atheists just because they think it is something cool of different and those are the ones that worry and they are the ones that are increasing at a faster rate.-I do not intend to insult anyone. These are my opinions which are based on observations of atheists as i have followed all the famous atheists and read around 14 books of these famous people and yes their thoughts are quite extreme atleast in my view. I hope I did not offend you George and if i did i apologise for the same. As a person from India who has a culture which has a agnostic philosophy like Hinduism i really find new age atheists quite amusing.

3620 views

Hallo Satyansh. A lot of points there. I'll take up Darwin first:-"New Atheist Movement followers also suffer from the same problem of faith just like religious people when Darwin is questioned. By the way just want you to know that I am a huge fan of Darwin."-Glad to hear you are a fan. Charles Darwin was certainly a great scientist, but he was born 200 years ago and a lot more knowledge about biological science has been discovered since he wrote Origin of Species. There is no question of "having faith" in what he said. He was certainly wrong on many things. Notably his theory of genetics. We base our beliefs on the far more extensive evidence now available.-"Well i certainly can assure you that a lot of rationalists are completely intolerable to any other forms of scientific explanations when it comes to Darwin's theory. so please dont tell me they are not intolerant and closed minded."-I'm not sure what alternatives to Darwin you have in mind. Many of them, such as punctuated equilibrium, or convergent evolution, or the cambrian explosion, or epigenetics, etc are well discussed and debated in scientific circles. It is only those like young-earth creationists, who go against all the evidence, that we find intolerable; especially when they try to get their crazy teachings into schools.

--
GPJ

3607 views

Satyansh: A second topic: the nature of Atheism.-You wrote: "George when we are small and our parents tell us dont drink or dont smoke we tend to do it more because we are told to abolish it. Its human nature that when you tell the person to leave something completely they tend to cling on to it even more. It triggers of a insecurity which is inherent in all human beings and atheists are no different to that. Why did atheists run away from the concept of god because you're told time and again by ardent believers to not question him which deters you even more from that belief. Science is one of the reasons for atheists to question the concept of god not the only reason."-This idea that atheists run away from the concept of god as some sort of rebellion is a strange one to me. I only really encountered religion when I was given classes on "Religious Instruction", as it was then called, at Grammar School. I gave quite a lot of thought to it, until I decided that it was all just a waste of time. In the end I thought that people like Bertrand Russell and A. J. Ayer, who were prominent humanists at the time, made more sense. -You also devalue scence: "My dear friend science can only tell you probably not certainly how life is, it cannot teach you how to live life. I dont mean to say religion can teach you how to live life. But science cant either. Science is given way too much importance just like religion is. They have their own places in life. If religious nut jobs take religion too seriously atheists take science and reason too seriously."-Science can tell you a lot of things that are the basis of knowledge upon which one can then apply philosophical reasoning to decide questions of ethics, politics and aesthetics, which tell you how to conduct your life.-You are afraid of atheists becoming violent: "i certainly feel atheists right now aren't violent because a they are more civilized thanks to reason not science and also because they are not as organised and powerful as religious people. I wun be surprised when the new atheist movement takes political power that you see atheists ran sacking shops on the name of the very science and religion that they love so much. I could actually see them breaking churches or mosques because you are assuming that when people become atheists that all of them would understand science very well. Heck i know people who became atheists just because they think it is something cool of different and those are the ones that worry and they are the ones that are increasing at a faster rate."-Historically I can't think of any examples of atheists coming to power and destroying churches. Usually they just convert them to secular uses. Atheism is just a nonbelief in the supernatural, it is not a political belief. Atheists can be capitalist, socialist, communist, fascist, or whatever.

--
GPJ

3688 views

Satyansh: final topic, Religion and violence.-You say: "Now when you say religion I would like you to cite examples with proper evidences and proof of all the eastern religious philosophies which have been involved in all the above mentioned charges on a reasonably decent scale."-You only need to google for "hindu violence" to come up with numerous stories of violence between Hindus and other religious believers, such as Muslims and Christians. There's a lot of it going on in India now.-"While I agree that yes there is a problem in the abrahamic faiths especially islam i certainly dont believe that if they cease to exist the world would suddenly become this beautiful and marvelous place."-I agree if religion ceased there would still be disputes over territory and materials, but it wouldn't be made so much worse by a "them and us" mentality. There is very litle difference genetically between Jews and Arabs for instance; their conflict is based on their religious identities. Peace would become much more easily negotiable.
 
"Everybody has the right to his opinions no matter if he or she is backed by evidence or not. But no one is entitled to impose it on people be it on any side."-Some 'opinions' are more dangerous than others I fancy.-"As a person from India who has a culture which has a agnostic philosophy like Hinduism i really find new age atheists quite amusing."-How far then do you actually believe in all the gods and reincarnations of them that form the basis of Hindu culture?

--
GPJ

3687 views

"You only need to google for "hindu violence" to come up with numerous stories of violence between Hindus and other religious believers, such as Muslims and Christians. There's a lot of it going on in India now."-What violence are you talking about my dear friend. Your knowledge of the history of India is indeed very poor my dear friend. I would recommend you understand what being a Hindu is and than argue with me. Do you even know why people in India got called Hindus. Please do your research and then i will explain to you in detail. Understanding the history of India is very important. The very people you're fans of have not been able to criticize eastern philosophies because most of the conflicts in the eastern regions have spread on the conquest of land and not religion. You're database needs to be updated. I will just quote Richard Dawkins whom you happen to be agree with for a change:-" Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews (or philosophies) and I see nothing wrong with these religions."-But that doesnt mean i say abrahamic faiths are bad. they r a lil messed up but not that bad. they could be there and not cause harm.-This and many other famous atheists with the exception of Hitchens whose criticism again come out of the same misunderstanding that Hindus fighting Muslims are because of religion when the fact is that it has always been a quest of who controls the land of India since the Muslims invaded us first followed by the British.-"Some 'opinions' are more dangerous than others I fancy."-it might be harmful according to you and i dun believe that we are qualified to justify what is right and wrong.-"How far then do you actually believe in all the gods and reincarnations of them that form the basis of Hindu culture?"-again please increase your knowledge of Hinduism. if Hinduism presented this theory well i will give you a small example.-An excerpt from an ancient sacred text of Hinduism called Rigveda (~1700-1100 BCE), or more specifically the Nasadiya Sukta, a creation hymn, says: 
"Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it produced? 
Whence is this creation? The gods came afterwards, with the creation of the universe. 
Who then knows whence it has arisen? Whence this creation has arisen-perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not-the one who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only He knows-or perhaps He does not know"-This is the very reason Hinduism is a agnostic faith. no hindu scripture actually propagated any particular idea. It was truly agnostic and by the way the other 2 great eastern philosophies did not even consider a creator god. So we have 1 agnostic and 2 atheistic philosophies from the point of a creator god.-"Historically I can't think of any examples of atheists coming to power and destroying churches. Usually they just convert them to secular uses. Atheism is just a nonbelief in the supernatural, it is not a political belief. Atheists can be capitalist, socialist, communist, fascist, or whatever."-Now you may say that they were not aggressive because they were atheists but the bottom line is they were atheists and i dun believe that they did kill people because they did not believe in god. I am naming Lenin and Stalin. Why i am naming them is even if you reject religion or god it does not mean you would be any less aggressive.-I am not atheism i am against it trying to project that they have a better option. you can exercise your option just dont say it is better than the other options. it suits you thats fine dont say it is better. right or wrong can be very deceptive.

3755 views

Satyansh asks: "What violence are you talking about my dear friend. Your knowledge of the history of India is indeed very poor my dear friend."-There has been plenty of Hundu violence in recent times, let alone in history. For example:-http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/holy-war-strikes-india-955502.html
"35 Christians killed and 50,000 forced from their homes by Hindu mobs enraged at Swami's murder" (October 2008)-http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,213670,00.html
"Hindu-Muslim violence imperils India: A decade ago, Hindu-Muslim strife over the disputed holy site at Ayodhya helped propel India's current ruling party from the political margins to the corridors of power." (2002)-I have correspondents in India, and have known several Indians living in England, so I'm not talking entirely out of ignorance.

--
GPJ

3705 views

"There has been plenty of Hundu violence in recent times, let alone in history. For example:-http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/holy-war-strikes-india-955502.html
"35 Christians killed and 50,000 forced from their homes by Hindu mobs enraged at Swami's murder" (October 2008)"-By the way i am not a Hindu apologist and i would be the first one to condone organisations like VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad).Now if you state these examples and you are drawing the conclusion that Hindus are violent people because of religion than indeed you are extremely ignorant and I dont apologize for this. the very articles have clearly stated the reason for the attacks. I will paste it from the very article.-"The swami, a senior member of a right-wing Hindu organisation known as the Vishswa Hindu Parishad (VHP), had reportedly been working to prevent low-caste Hindus converting to Christianity. His followers claimed he had been murdered by local Christians, though police said there was no evidence of that. "-I will have to explain the history of India in detail to you my dear friend unfortunately. The term Hindu is not coined from a religious belief. The term Hindu simply comes from the fact that people thousands of years ago were settled by the Indus valley civilization in the province of sindh, they were calling themselves Sindhus which is mentioned in the RIG Veda. Now when the Persian Muslim invaders came to Sindh they had a LISP and hence started calling us Hindus. Also tell me the word that is a replacement for the english word religion in Sanskrit or hindi. Please do not come up with the word dharma because dharma does not mean religion it means righteousness or duty. we do not even have a word for religion. So if you know so much about Hinduism find a trace of the word Hindu in that and then accuse Hindus of violence because of religion. India does not have a history in its whole civilization of invading any country. But India has been invaded tortured and brutally murdered by the Mughal Muslims invaders and than by the Britishers. This isn't a myth my dear friend it is a reality. And when your very identity is at threat than human beings will stand up and defend it. While i condone the violence that happened in the above link i dont regret them because they stem from the fact that unfortunately abrahamic faiths have this weird style where you can convert into a Muslim and Christian. Hindus and their beliefs are stated as ways of life and not religion and there is no concept of conversion in that philosophy. we never taught of increasing numbers we were very happy living our lives peacefully and did not even think of going anywhere. It is the invaders who forced their faiths upon us. You dont have stories of Hindu settlers going to the gulf and trying to convert people into Hinduism because they did not even have a concept like that. But if people are going to force their faiths upon others and if those people within the group that does not want to be converted are going to stand up and defend themselves than yes it is justified. 
This is like if we had a country where most of the people were atheists and suddenly the religious abrahamic minority comes and they start converting the atheists into their faiths. I can guarantee you that some of those atheists will attack those religious groups in self defense. I can challenge anyone of your so called correspondents in an open debate about this with historical facts and evidences. They are welcome. You can give them my e-mail address which is satyansh30@yahoo.com. I am sorry and I will condone everything that is wrong about people who call themselves Hindus but I will definitely do not accept charges of violence in the name of religion by hindus. If standing up for ones identity and culture is wrong than i support wrong. You say hindus are violent here are some population statistics of india after independence since 1947. Please check my second reply for that.

3737 views

India 1947 Hinduism accounted for 86.5% of the population of India. Islam (9.9%), Christianity (1.6%) and Sikhism (1.3%) and the rest were other faiths.
India 2001 According to the 2001 census,Hinduism accounted for 80.5% of the population of India. Islam (13.4%), Christianity (2.3%) and Sikhism (1.9%) and the rest were other faiths.
Pakistan The Hindu population in Pakistan has reduced from 26%, in 1947, right down to 2% in 1990 which is now less than 1%.
Bangladesh The Hindu Population in 1971 when they were formed was 35% and now it is a mere 10%. Conceivably, by 2050 Bangladesh will achieve the status of Pakistan: no significant Hindu population.-If hindus were so violent and that violence stems out of their religious faiths than explain why are they reducing in numbers in their country and neighboring countries. you have been brain washed by the same psuedo secular people that have brain washed lots of people in India too. You are not the first one who has spoken to me about this and you wont be the last one. But if someone who really wants to have a good debate can set up a time and date with me on the e-mail. -Now to the second link. Do you know the history of ayodhya. there are archeological facts of there being a mandir underneath and a mosque. again i condemn the breaking of the mosque because now i believe muslims are a part of india and they shud be allowed to live here as much as hindus are. but i do not condemn the thought of making a temple at the same sight. by the way high court of india has already given a ruling to the case of ayodhya stating very clearly that the site should be distributed equally amongst all the parties to satisfy all faiths.Two out of the 3 judges were Hindus. Now onto the riots in Gujrat. Well my dear friend every action has a equal and opposite reaction. Do you even know why the riots in Gujrat happened. There was train that was coming to Godhra a place in Gujrat which had young hindu kids and women and saints. Now the muslim mob burnt down that train which than angered the hindu locals and again in self defense they attacked the muslims. now if the muslims wudnt have attacked the hindus wudnt have reacted. my dear friend it is very easy to criticise but without knowing the ground realities of life you should not go about commenting like this. Like I said again i am happyily inviting you and your friends in a debate on these subjects in detail. I will show you facts and evidences. U can already realise how sure i must be because i am the one who is iviting you not the other way around. 
 In the mean time please refrain from blaming eastern philosophies for violence stemming out of religious identities. I once again repeat myself. I know there are citings of violence in the OT and the Koran but i still say removing those religions will not make mankind peaceful. Mankind is more than capable of fighting for new means. Heck Adolf Hitler used Darwins theory of Natural selection and started killing handicapped and mentally challenged people and justified it by saying if we remove these people the upcoming race will be even better. So should i infer that Darwinism is a violent thought. Please think before you criticize people.

3691 views

I agree if religion ceased there would still be disputes over territory and materials, but it wouldn't be made so much worse by a "them and us" mentality. There is very litle difference genetically between Jews and Arabs for instance; their conflict is based on their religious identities. Peace would become much more easily negotiable.
> -I have to disagree with you on this. People will always find a reason to hate each other. You need only look at examples such as Nazism, the Black Panthers, KKK, anti-abortionists, ethnic cleansing in Africa, etc. It is not that people hate each other based on religious differences, they hate each other based on differences period. They have a need to feel superior to those around them and will find any reason at all to justify that feeling of superiority. If you remove religion from the equation, it will be race, if you remove race, it will be ideology, location, education, wealth, or some other triviality. Maybe it is just that I do not have an overwhelming faith in humanity, but my the reasoning behind that lack of faith is well justified. -This is probably one of the biggest problems I have with the Atheist community as a whole. They seem so focused on dealing a death blow to religion that they are blind to the fact that it is not the fundamental element that has to change. If you care to argue the statement on them wanting to oust religion, I would suggest a perusal of the Dawkins.net forums.

3663 views

I agree if religion ceased there would still be disputes over territory and materials, but it wouldn't be made so much worse by a "them and us" mentality. There is very litle difference genetically between Jews and Arabs for instance; their conflict is based on their religious identities. Peace would become much more easily negotiable.
> > 
> 
> I have to disagree with you on this. People will always find a reason to hate each other. -This comes from the hunter-gatherer period of human development. One's local tribe was trusted and outsiders not at all. Survival was dependent on tribal cohesion.

3687 views

I intend to add onto this list because i find both the new atheist movement followers and religious fanatics to be quite similar. I dont mean to say all of them are but quite a few that I see are actually having these similarities. Correct me if you think I am wrong or add more cause I know one thing they get pissed of easily.(LOL)
> 
> 1) arrogance
> 2) delusion: most of the new atheist movement followers i have met are convinced that religion is the root of all evil and religion should be completly done with just like religious nut jobs believe their religion is the only way to go ahead. there isnt any mid way its my way or the high way.
> 3) they both claim tolerance while in reality they arent tolerable to any other opinion because both are convinced that they actually know it all.
> 4) both use the slippery slope, straw man and ad hoimenum attacks to justify themselves.(Yah I have met religious people who use them hard to believe but the extreme ones use the same fallacies)
> 5) denial: they live in denial when they actually think they are listening to the other person when they are actually totally convinced and cannot even see that.
> 6) Both are more concerned with convincing others that they are more moral and wise than in actually seeking the truth.
> Again this is just a opinion-Alot of these are valid points, but I think they're superficial and attacking the wrong thing. Dogmatic thought patterns are what you should be attacking, not Atheists per se. -Many atheists in the world come from cultures where if not merely considered subversive (such as in America) they are considered enemies (mid east). -Generally speaking, I think a good portion of so-called "new atheists" have a tendency to blindly believe (as I did from ages 14-18), but if pressed, generally speaking you'd discover that some of their views are just as convoluted as anyone else's. -So in general, I refrain from making opinions similar to yours, as most of the time they are just in a different phase of development as a person. -If you're referring to Dawkins and the like, they build a solidly convincing case. Several points of theirs are very difficult to dismiss:-1. Nearly every supernatural claim about the natural world has been displaced by a materialistic explanation. -This is a fancy way of saying that we know that Zeus isn't the cause of lightning. But, in the same light, those who claim that their religions still accurately describe the natural world face an incredibly uphill battle. Note why our boards only theist has a God that is verified only through negative evidence and makes no claim at all on how this being interfaces with the world.-2. At least in the west, religion in the form of the Roman Catholic Church absolutely stifled and crushed any and all explanations that could not or would not place God and/or Christ at the center of their explanation. If you add to this the fact that generally, Atheism is looked down upon, this creates a volatile brew.-3. There are thousands of religions and only one science. Hardcore Atheists share one thing in common with their ultra-religious counterparts; they both want the world to make sense, and they don't feel well if the world cannot be put in order. If you're going to compare explanatory frameworks, you cannot defeat science. -4. The irrationality of faith. I--being an agnostic--hold this nearly as a sacred belief. It is why I became unable to call myself an atheist. (Saying "There is no God" to me, requires evidence, of which--there is none.) The most powerful point New Atheists make, is that faith is not a great method for solving problems. You can compare faith to random chance, which as everyone on this board recognizes--does not solve complex problems. -I understand that faith is often equated with hope, but I do not do this. -I also realize that you might consider this view dogmatic; in my own case I recognize that some basic amount of faith is required, especially when you meet new people--and I highly respect those that have faith in some deity--but that said, you can have respect for someone and think that they are incorrect. The most powerful point New Atheists make, is that the same tools we use to say, criticize a political view is commonly not used against one's own religious belief; hence the claim that "religious people are deluded." I don't agree with the latter, but I do with the former.-In the end, it is the point in #4 that earns them the most ire and hatred from religious people; because even when I was a believer in a God, I always found the notion irrational, though I was honest enough to admit that it was irrational. It was logical consistency combined with rebellion that declared me an Atheist, and age + wisdom that moderated me to an agnostic. -I hope you have a little more respect for where this thought comes from...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3754 views

the very first line like I said not all are like that but quite a few do share these characteristics which I have mentioned. Again I repeat myself this is an observation being made in a style of a light banter. I know for sure all atheists are not this or that. I know that but I think we can have a joke here and there on the expense of theists, atheists and agnostics. we dun need to be thinking and analyzing all the time in a serious mode. analysis and points can be made in a jovial manner too.

3674 views

Nuh-uh! Jovial is another word for Jupiter therefore Zeus. Stop trying to bring up your nonexistent Gods!! </sarcasm>-
 ;-) -But seriously, sardonic humor doesn't translate well in this kind of online forum. That and I usually don't see people saying that in full knowledge of the human history behind it. it wasn't cear that humor was the goal, just an opinion piece.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3738 views

well I respect your views and opinions. Just Like I said before sometimes in life humor is very necessary to point out certain things that are actually bothering or might bother the society in the future. I again repeat not all new age atheists are like that but I have met quite a few and quite a bit of them have those qualities. Heck at one point of time ( for a tiny little period ) I was a atheist too and I realised there is more to life than just God/Religion/Science which are the three areas New age atheists and religious people are so obsessed about.-Life has a lot more to offer my dear friend.

3926 views


> Life has a lot more to offer my dear friend.-Yes, life can be celebrated all by itself, with or without religion. Religion tries to answer 'the why question', but has done so in a very unsatisfactory way so far. Since no one knows, the answers dance in every direction, and the intensely religious folks fight with each other all the time over interpretations that have no basis in fact. A lot of it is wishful thinking. But atheists are just as bad. They are attepting to prove a negative, that God does not exist, and proving a negative is extremely difficult.

3660 views

any idea or thought when treated as the absolute truth without step by step evaluation is bad for mankind.-Questioning things in life in a positive way is the key. I certainly dont believe science or religion have all the answers to life. But that doesn't mean we ignore both science and religion. Following any one thought totally makes you an extremist. For me an ideal mixture of scientific thought along with religion is what makes life beautiful. That ideal mixture changes from person to person. extremism of thought is what destroys mankind for me. because extremism in acts stems from extremism in thought.

3675 views

any idea or thought when treated as the absolute truth without step by step evaluation is bad for mankind.
> 
> Questioning things in life in a positive way is the key. I certainly dont believe science or religion have all the answers to life. But that doesn't mean we ignore both science and religion. Following any one thought totally makes you an extremist. For me an ideal mixture of scientific thought along with religion is what makes life beautiful. That ideal mixture changes from person to person. extremism of thought is what destroys mankind for me. because extremism in acts stems from extremism in thought.-I cannot agree with you more. Science and religion both attempt to give us answers. You are very wise.

3677 views


> > Life has a lot more to offer my dear friend.
> 
> Yes, life can be celebrated all by itself, with or without religion. Religion tries to answer 'the why question', but has done so in a very unsatisfactory way so far. Since no one knows, the answers dance in every direction, and the intensely religious folks fight with each other all the time over interpretations that have no basis in fact. A lot of it is wishful thinking. But atheists are just as bad. They are attepting to prove a negative, that God does not exist, and proving a negative is extremely difficult.-Well, atheists don't prove a negative, they simply point out that God as defined in the bible is very, very, unlikely to exist. Dawkins says frequently (and he is correct) that every supernaturalistic claim against the physical world has been categorically refuted. -Though this says more about the approach to dogmatists than it does about religion at large... though it is a relatively new phenomenon, to make God the center of creation... which I must again point out takes up 2 of some 900 chapters of the Torah.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3682 views

Well, atheists don't prove a negative, they simply point out that God as defined in the bible is very, very, unlikely to exist. Dawkins says frequently (and he is correct) that every supernaturalistic claim against the physical world has been categorically refuted. 
> -Just out of curiosity, for a decent mathematician out there: Statistically, what is the probability of a UI vs. the probability of Spontaneous Generation and variation of life?

3683 views

Well, atheists don't prove a negative, they simply point out that God as defined in the bible is very, very, unlikely to exist. Dawkins says frequently (and he is correct) that every supernaturalistic claim against the physical world has been categorically refuted. 
> > 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, for a decent mathematician out there: Statistically, what is the probability of a UI vs. the probability of Spontaneous Generation and variation of life?-A UI is not calculable.-Abiogenesis will only be calculable if and only if we can do it, and as david pointed out (before you joined us) we won't have any idea if it is THE mechanism that was the 'correct' one. -Statistics--that favorite tool of the foolish--will not help you here. It is a matter of faith.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3655 views

I am not a fan of statistics myself, I just think it would be an interesting thought experiment.

3659 views

I am not a fan of statistics myself, I just think it would be an interesting thought experiment.-One of my first posts to this forum in... 2008? Dealt with statistics. In the entire debate regarding intelligent design, statistics are misused constantly. -David periodically posts a blogpost detailing some ID advocate's math; and invariably it is sloppy if not useless. (And I take my role as a reviewer seriously; I do my best to try and describe to a non-mathematician why exactly the mathematical arguments don't add up.) -But Occam swings both ways: Just because biblical claims against the physical world have been largely demoted doesn't mean that fundamentally--every idea we've ever had about God is wrong except for the fact that he exists. This is more or less David's position. -To recap one of my ancient posts, we need to know these things before we can calculate real odds.-1. We have to have created life artificially--in my opinion, in any method possible instead of trying to mimic conditions that we "think" existed. -The reasons for this are many, but for brevity, you need to have complete knowledge of your system of study, or at least have a model that predicts reality reasonably well. If you don't have this, you have an infinite factor of error. This is why I automatically discard any discussion of the likelihood of God's existence via mathematical means. Dawkins... Dembski, all have tried and all fail absolutely because they are reasoning about processes that we currently and honestly--don't know anything about. -2. Once we've created life, we can start calculating it's probability to have occurred. Then--and only then--will any discussion regarding mathematics be able to bear any fruit at all.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3632 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum