You will be A-thei-ssimilated.

[Sue U]

Sould have included "Not intended to be a factual statement," obvs.

[Gob]

Or this even.

[Sean]

Do you have evidence (meaning actual quotes, not your spin) that the organizations you cited want to "end religion" or make atheism the "dominant philosophy"? Or were you lying about those as well?

Don't be silly Scoot, they weren't lies.

They were hyperbole.
Or jokes.
Or insane witterings.
Or the DTs.

Anything but lies...

[loCAtek]

Mockery, exhibit B:

They have just discovered a Dead Sea Scroll postcard, which is nice.

Off to see the new Messiah who's just been born. Bit of a bummer with it all happening on Christmas Day!

from the Three Wise Men in Bethlehem

Exhibit: C

Actually, the colour green is commonly known of as blue. Oh, and Mithras was actually the love child of Barack Obama and Margaret Thatcher. And did you know that IBM is actually 100% owned by Steve Jobs? (All hyperbole, of course)

Exhibit D:

Or this even.

This is done as a debate stifling tactic, rather than any form of educational debate. I understand that one of the atheist claims is that they feel the need to educate people about their philosophy. Tearing others down is not educating them. We would say a teacher was a poor educator, if they just labeled certain students 'stupid' and then ignored them; that teacher would be fired if they were found to be belittling the students in any way.



Nope, not lying. These are some of the more well known persons. If you like, I can provided a longer list with many more average peoples quotes

“The [UK] government should abolish the faith element altogether”

-Richard Dawkins, Faith School Menace?

A Tucson doctor so strongly believes the world would be better off without religion that he's reaching out to share his ideas and challenge believers.
Dr. Gilbert Shapiro, a 60-year-old podiatrist and atheist, is hosting a series on secular humanism entitled, "No God. Now What?"
http://www.thelangreport.com/religion-o ... -religion/

Sheahen: You say religion is so ingrained in society that it's like a computer virus. Can it really be eradicated?
Dawkins: Only by education and reason. If people realize that it might be a virus, and saw its resemblance to a virus, they might say, "That's right. That's the way it feels." It's teaching people to think for themselves, rather than just believe and take things on faith.

Eradicate Religion to Liberate Your Mind

Description:
This group is home to the courageous people who dared to ask some tough questions and on that account lost their faith. Main goals here are (a) to unmask the hoax known as religion and show that it is an imperialistic ideology akin to Nazism but disguised as faith and (b) to help religious leave it, end this culture of hate caused by their "us" vs. "them" ethos and embrace the human race in amity. We strive for the unity of Mankind through the elimination of religion, the most insidious doctrine of hate. Religion can't be reformed, but it can be eradicated. It can't be molded, but it can be smashed. It is rigid but brittle. That is why Religious person do not tolerate criticism of it. To eradicate Religion, all we have to do is tell the truth.

On religion causing conflicts and wars;

Christopher Hitchens begins by making the case for religion being at the root of many conflicts that have shaped the 20th-21st century world, citing the current situations in the Balkans, the Middle East, and Northern Ireland. Here, it has been intra-faith disputes that have caused or aggravated the conflicts and slowed political and social progress.

-We'd be better off without religion

Sheahen: So if people lived according to rationalism, you envision, for example, no more war?
[Richard] Dawkins: That might be a little bit optimistic, but there would be a much better chance of no more war. Obviously nothing like 9/11, because that's clearly motivated by religion. There would be less hatred, because a lot of the hatred in the world is sectarian hatred.

“There really is very deep link between religion on violence.”
“The world would be best served by eliminating religion”

-Sam Harris, author of 'The End of Faith'

On Jesus didn't exist;

Directed by Brian Flemming

[Scooter]

So when you said in your OP, "these groups always...want to end religion" you were lying, because you have presented nothing from either the Atheists Alliance International or the Atheist Foundation of Australia to support such an accusation. Nor have you provided such for any other atheist organization, since all of the quotes you have provided are from individuals.

[thestoat]

Lo, there is so much there that is just wrong and misunderstood by you that I don't really know where to start. You quoted my piss take about your hyperbole. This is because hyperbole has no place in a factual debating forum! How can anyone possibly know when you are telling the truth, exaggerating or merely misinformed if you sometimes use hyperbole! It is a nonsense. Once you understand what debate means in a forum like this then there will be no need to point this out in such terms.

“The [UK] government should abolish the faith element altogether”

-Richard Dawkins, Faith School Menace?

One person stating his view-hardly wanting to take over the world. And anyway I believe a perfectly valid view. If they teach faith in school why should they also not teach an equal measure of atheism? Seems perfectly logical to me. Remember the utter tosh in Kansas that prompted the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

As for the Tucson doctor - are you serious? Is this the best you can come up with? One atheist feels the need to share his ideas and challenge believers and suddenly atheists want to rule? What about the countless thousands of religious types who stand on their pulpet every week doing the same thing?????

Sheahen: You say religion is so ingrained in society that it's like a computer virus. Can it really be eradicated?
Dawkins: Only by education and reason. If people realize that it might be a virus, and saw its resemblance to a virus, they might say, "That's right. That's the way it feels." It's teaching people to think for themselves, rather than just believe and take things on faith.

Dawkins knows much more about viruses than you do, so I'd be very carful going up against a biology expert in his own field. Dawkins ENTIRE MESSAGE, if distilled into one sentence, is "get people to think for themselves, rather than just believe and take things on faith". Utterly reasonable - how can you POSSIBLY be against that?

As for the "eradicate religion" thing - some of the words are a little strong but there is a lot to commend what they want - to embrace the human race in amity. They simply choose to go about it in another way. I personally don't feel the need to attack religion - if some need it then great (in the same way I wouldn't disabuse a child of the notion of pixies or Father Christmas).

Christopher Hitchens begins by making the case for religion being at the root of many conflicts that have shaped the 20th-21st century world, citing the current situations in the Balkans, the Middle East, and Northern Ireland. Here, it has been intra-faith disputes that have caused or aggravated the conflicts and slowed political and social progress.

What is wrong with this? If he has come to the conclusion that religion is at the root of many conflicts then why not want an end to it?

Sheahen: So if people lived according to rationalism, you envision, for example, no more war?


[Richard] Dawkins: That might be a little bit optimistic, but there would be a much better chance of no more war. Obviously nothing like 9/11, because that's clearly motivated by religion. There would be less hatred, because a lot of the hatred in the world is sectarian hatred.

Another valid statement.

“There really is very deep link between religion on violence.”
“The world would be best served by eliminating religion”

Yup - perfectly reasonable to me. What have you got against this? Honestly lo, if people are saying "religion is bad/causes many deaths and should thus be ended" that is PERFECTLY REASONABLE. You might argue their premise is wrong and religion doesn't cause deaths - but thee people have researched this and found it does. Once you find it does, then concluding we'd be better off without it is logical.

[Gob]

Lo, there is so much there that is just wrong and misunderstood by you that I don't really know where to start.

Start from this premise; this person is not interested in rational debate, she's just attention seeking, and should not be taken seriously.

You won't go far wrong after that.

[loCAtek]

What is wrong with this? If he has come to the conclusion that religion is at the root of many conflicts then why not want an end to it?l.

...because he may be wrong?

Pls site the statistics that support this assertion.

Another valid statement.

How so? Pls site the statistics that support this assertion?

Yup - perfectly reasonable to me. What have you got against this? Honestly lo, if people are saying "religion is bad/causes many deaths and should thus be ended" that is PERFECTLY REASONABLE.

How so? Pls site the statistics, rather than the opinion that supports this assertion. That would be scientific, rather than relying on the faith of your authorities that you unquestionably believe. Pls think for yourself, and show the data.

[Scooter]

All that has to be demonstrated is that religion has been the cause of more war/other forms of conflict than it has prevented. Since religion has demonstrably been the cause of several wars/other forms of conflict, and has prevented, well, none, the net effect of religion has been an increase in war/other forms of conflict

[Crackpot]

How can you judge by that which did not happen?

[Scooter]

There are innumerable examples of conflicts which came close to occurring, but were prevented, and conflicts which were ended once they had started. The means by which that came about are known. Ever hear about religion playing a role?

[thestoat]

...because he may be wrong?

It is his opinion. HIS. He is allowed to have them - and last I checked he was situated in a free country.

Pls site the statistics that support this assertion.

Ask the quotee - it is their quote, not mine. I am saying that if they believe the statistics they quote, and I am sure they do (and I am equally sure they can back them up, but I haven't asked them), then they draw a perfectly reasonable conclusion re: religion. If you are constantly after statistics and evidence for their assertions, then stop being so pathetic and start showing some for your faith. You are the one saying that atheists want to suppress religious ideas - and now you want to suppress theirs

And anyway - in the past when I have cited sources, as soon as you read they disagree with you, you simply say "can't trust the internet" - so what is the point?

[The Hen]

Mockery, exhibit B:

They have just discovered a Dead Sea Scroll postcard, which is nice.

Off to see the new Messiah who's just been born. Bit of a bummer with it all happening on Christmas Day!

from the Three Wise Men in Bethlehem

It wasn't mockery Lo. It was me being "tongue in cheek". This was a joke from a radio program called "I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue". It seemed appropriate to this thread. It still does.

[loCAtek]

So when you said in your OP, "these groups always...want to end religion" you were lying, because you have presented nothing from either the Atheists Alliance International or the Atheist Foundation of Australia to support such an accusation. Nor have you provided such for any other atheist organization, since all of the quotes you have provided are from individuals.

Scooter, the above quoted are some of the so-called 'Four Horsemen of the Anti-Apocalypse', the guest speakers of Atheists Alliance International or the Atheist Foundation of Australia who are holding their Global Atheists Convention in Australia in 2012, as Gob has already posted. Naturally we can assume, they do not hold dissenting opinions to the host organization, but are being promoted and lauded because they exemplify the attitudes of the membership.

[loCAtek]

All that has to be demonstrated is that religion has been the cause of more war/other forms of conflict than it has prevented. Since religion has demonstrably been the cause of several wars/other forms of conflict, and has prevented, well, none, the net effect of religion has been an increase in war/other forms of conflict

You understand statistics, how so? If there a scientific source for that assertion? How great a percent more? How large a net effect? How big an increase?

[loCAtek]

...because he may be wrong?

It is his opinion. HIS. He is allowed to have them - and last I checked he was situated in a free country.

Pls site the statistics that support this assertion.

Ask the quotee - it is their quote, not mine. I am saying that if they believe the statistics they quote, and I am sure they do (and I am equally sure they can back them up, but I haven't asked them), then they draw a perfectly reasonable conclusion re: religion. If you are constantly after statistics and evidence for their assertions, then stop being so pathetic and start showing some for your faith. You are the one saying that atheists want to suppress religious ideas - and now you want to suppress theirs

And anyway - in the past when I have cited sources, as soon as you read they disagree with you, you simply say "can't trust the internet" - so what is the point?

Stoat, that would be your point, not mine to prove, if you are going to make it.

[loCAtek]

A open question then, if you agree with the above quotes, do you hold the opinion that religion should be halted?

[thestoat]

Stoat, that would be your point, not mine to prove, if you are going to make it.

I'm sorry ... I have no idea what you are now saying. It's perfectly easy. They say that their stats show them religion causes wars and thus should be stopped. I say that with those stats at hand what they say is reasonable. You ask me to proofs their stats. I point out that is nonsense, and you say the above?

[Scooter]

So when you said in your OP, "these groups always...want to end religion" you were lying, because you have presented nothing from either the Atheists Alliance International or the Atheist Foundation of Australia to support such an accusation. Nor have you provided such for any other atheist organization, since all of the quotes you have provided are from individuals.

Scooter, the above quoted are some of the so-called 'Four Horsemen of the Anti-Apocalypse', the guest speakers of Atheists Alliance International or the Atheist Foundation of Australia who are holding their Global Atheists Convention in Australia in 2012, as Gob has already posted. Naturally we can assume, they do not hold dissenting opinions to the host organization, but are being promoted and lauded because they exemplify the attitudes of the membership.

So none of them were speaking on behalf of any of organization. Your "asssumption" is meaningless. So when you said in your OP, "these groups always...want to end religion" you were lying.

[Scooter]

If there a scientific source for that assertion?

Any history text of your choosing.

How great a percent more? How large a net effect? How big an increase?

Anything larger than zero means the effect of religion has been to increase war and other conflict.