Atheist/Anti-theist/Agnostic Troper Group

@Gelzo It's because gods have been disproved, silly! Didn't you know?

@Aondeug whenever: There are non-annoying antitheists, they're just easy to miss because they're not annoying, and easily confused with other flavors of irreligion beside.

evolution is proven fact

Not really.

edited 3rd Mar '11 1:52:20 PM by Tzetze

Let me rephrase, then. "Faith" can describe thinking a thing is true. Everyone thinks something is true.

You're right, Tzetze. I like you non-annoying anti-theists. Whoever you are.

^^^The fact that things evolve is as much as a fact as the earth is round(ish). The mechanisms by which organisms evolve is the theory that can't be ever proven for sure.

^^Again, what's the difference between that and belief?

edited 3rd Mar '11 1:54:50 PM by Funnyguts

^^I can think of some here, but I don't like labelling people who might not want to be, so I will simply leave you in suspense.

^Yes, but it's not a fact that that's how life as we know it came to be, just the prevalent (for good reason) theory.

"Smile" and "grin" can be used to describe the same thing, but are generally used differently. That's pretty much what is going on here.

^I guess that's how I perceive the definition of belief then. Faith seems to include a lack of reasons to me.

That's what's called a connotation.

> religion is harmful its a dangerous weapon whiled by the disillusioned.
For the love of Weaver of Wires, please see things on a larger scale. Every. Single. Ideology can be used as that. And is used as that.

edited 3rd Mar '11 2:52:12 PM by Aminatep

What scale would that be, one where I look at the world though bullshit coloured glasses?

Seconded. Communists used the atheist ideology to justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands, just as much as Mohandas Ghandi used religion to justify the peaceful protests which ended the despotic British reign over India.

edited 3rd Mar '11 2:58:17 PM by Enkufka

^I'm not sure that communists committed atrocities specifically in the name of atheism in the same way theists have committed atrocities in the name of their religion.

> one where I look at the world though bullshit coloured glasses?

[looks at avatar]

OH THE IRONY

Speaking of bullshit coloured glasses, your hatred towards religion seems to have its roots in your lack of actual knowledge of it, or other things, of which there are any. I dislike people like you so, so, so incredibly very much, you are the reason atheists are usually not seen as good people.

Try to not insult people's opinions, okay?

edited 3rd Mar '11 3:11:52 PM by Aminatep

While some actually did believe that they were going along with their religion, many just used the ideology to justify grabs for power.

Alternatively, insult people's opinions if they deserve to be insulted, but be smart about it.

> I'm not sure that communists committed atrocities specifically in the name of atheism in the same way theists have committed atrocities in the name of their religion.
It is a good and deep question. I have published some research on Crusades long time ago so.

It's not that crusaders specifically commited something due to the religion itself, they commited it due to ideology. The ideology in question includes some variation of Christianity that allows starting wars (as opposed to Eastern Orthodox Church at the time which forbade soldiers from Eucharistia for 5 years).

Similarily communists commited atrocities in the name of some variation of communism, which inevitably includes atheism.

The implication is that beliefs themselves are not inherently bad if they are not built on commiting atrocities, it's just that some beliefs can get an ideology which is viewed by US as amoral easier. (And can we please for the love of the Network not measure kill counts? It does not do anything! Morality shifts over years, and if the crusaders were atheistic, they probably wouldn't have been any nicer)

I don't recall where did I read that, but have you notice that people are actually becoming more cruel rather than less cruel? Sure, medieval tortures did exist (they were misattributed and all that, but they did exist) but they did exist because people didn't view it as something cruel, they believed it was a necessary and logical punishment (including I think the tortured themselves)? Now people do cruelty for the sake of cruelty.

When you fought wars in ancient times, you had to go into melee and at least see their faces. Now we may not even see our enemies in person, ever. It's so much more easy now to erase enire nations off the face of the globe because we are trying revel in out cruelty and we won't let anything stand in our path.

edited 3rd Mar '11 3:16:58 PM by Aminatep

> Alternatively, insult people's opinions if they deserve to be insulted
I do not think this is how it works. i think the world would be much better if we kept all the snark and sarcasm and holier than thou and smarter than thou and flamewars and pierced scrotums and stealth insults and offhand insults and open provocation and trolling inside our rotten, stupid heads. Such is the will of the Keeper of the Automata.

edited 3rd Mar '11 3:14:47 PM by Aminatep

I don't believe that people are getting more cruel than they used to be. I'd need to see the actual papers that you are pointing out.

And I have no problems with insulting or mocking beliefs, as it's not the same as mocking the person. Feel free to make fun of anything you say if you think it's the most appropriate response.

They are in Russian, and I have to find in which newspapers and whatnot I published that :(

that was years ago seriously. But the conclusion was that the crusaders were largely influenced by political reasons rather than, say, New testament itself.

edited 3rd Mar '11 3:18:38 PM by Aminatep

YES YES I FOUND IT YES

So simple, so freaking simple XD

It's Andrzej Sapkowski and Stanislaw Beres, Historia i fantastyka (History and Fiction).

Sapkowski is that guy who wrote Witcher, and Witcher kicks ass. He is also a historian if I recall. The part about medieval cruelty is the first page of the book, kinda well grounded.

which inevitably includes atheism

Uh...

edited 3rd Mar '11 3:23:34 PM by Tzetze

^^I wouldn't think that religion is the sole explanation for any major act of agression, but I think a lot of the politics of the Crusades and similar things would not work as well without a religious base or religious trappings.

I disagree with some of your point. Religion should be mocked. People should be mocked. Kicks to the teeth keep us in line. You know why I have spider as my avi. "He is also an avowed, often virulent atheist who opposes all organized religion, which he sees as little more than unworthy authority figures that exploit their members" (excerpt from his wikipedia articial).

Poor choice of words. Communism as in USSR's form of communism, which is mostly marxism and inherently includes atheism. Red terror and whatnot is ideology already.

> You know why I have spider as my avi.
Because he is not a heroic figure, not an role model, and author explicitly stated that he is not to be viewed as such, so you do NOT imitate him? Right? RIGHT?

edited 3rd Mar '11 3:27:33 PM by Aminatep