Why do you think it's wrong for someone else to be gay?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope, not obvious at all. You didn’t explain why religion potentially causes harm (hysterically in my view) in comparison to atheism, you just deflected with your obsession to try to debate.

I can answer for both cases, but you might not like the answer. But remember I am neither, before you choose to answer.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nope, not obvious at all. You didn’t explain why religion potentially causes harm (hysterically in my view)

All ideas can potentially cause harm.

In the case of religion, it has been responsible - in whole or in part - for mass genocide, war, sacrifice, paedophilia, torture and psychological abuse on an international scale.

So, yeah, I'm okay with challenging it. I think it's a good thing to challenge ideas.

in comparison to atheism, you just deflected with your obsession to try to debate.

My obsession?

Not sure what video game have to do with this...

 

[F1fan]

No, but can an atheist besides being that be religious?

Only if you define "religion" so broadly that it's meaningless and useless.

Religious implies anyone who employs some sort of devotional behavior that involves supernatural concepts. That's not atheists.

Even if atheists have rituals and exercises for the sake of mental and physical well-being I would not categorize that as religious. To my mind religious is more about a conceptual framework in the minds of devotional people, and the effects can be positive or negative.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All ideas can potentially cause harm.

In the case of religion, it has been responsible - in whole or in part - for mass genocide, war, sacrifice, paedophilia, torture and psychological abuse on an international scale.

So, yeah, I'm okay with challenging it. I think it's a good thing to challenge ideas.


My obsession?

Not sure what video game have to do with this...

All value systems should be challenged and that include humanism, the idea of the secular, human rights and democracy. The moment you start to treat something as beyond challenge you can in effect get GIGO or harm if you like.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Only if you define "religion" so broadly that it's meaningless and useless.

Religious implies anyone who employs some sort of devotional behavior that involves supernatural concepts. That's not atheists.

Even if atheists have rituals and exercises for the sake of mental and physical well-being I would not categorize that as religious. To my mind religious is more about a conceptual framework in the minds of devotional people, and the effects can be positive or negative.

Evidence, as that is a claim and thus you have the burden of proof. You know the drill. I am not a special little snowflake and neither are you.

 

[F1fan]

Evidence, as that is a claim and thus you have the burden of proof. You know the drill.

Dawkins is at the forefront of the atheist religion

This comment illustrates a common assertion by some theists that atheism is a religion. "Atheist religion" is an oxymoron. I see believers do this in varying ways by dilluting the definition of "religion" to the point that it could mean any hobby or activity. And it ironically attempts to damage the value of religion that believers try to advance by trying to classify atheism as religion too.

I am not a special little snowflake and neither are you.

An ordinary large snowflake?

 

[Apostle John]

All ideas can potentially cause harm.

In the case of religion, it has been responsible - in whole or in part - for mass genocide, war, sacrifice, paedophilia, torture and psychological abuse on an international scale.

So, yeah, I'm okay with challenging it. I think it's a good thing to challenge ideas.

Non-religion does more harm. Most wars, murders, paedophilia, torture and psychological abuse have no relation to religion or religion being involved.

 

[Apostle John]

This comment illustrates a common assertion by some theists that atheism is a religion. "Atheist religion" is an oxymoron. I see believers do this in varying ways by dilluting the definition of "religion" to the point that it could mean any hobby or activity. And it ironically attempts to damage the value of religion that believers try to advance by trying to classify atheism as religion too.

Atheists won’t use the word religion when others describe them and the organisations they are affiliated to religious because they say it doesn't involve the worship of a god but they do worship Satan in their ignorance.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Atheists won’t use the word religion when others describe them and the organisations they are affiliated to religious because they say it doesn't involve the worship of a god but they do worship Satan in their ignorance.

Nope. We also do not believe in Satan.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It’s a religious forum.

No, it's not. It's a forum to discuss multiple topics including religion.

It can be the only reason why you are posting here on a so called religious forum

You suffer from a poverty of imagination if that's all you can conceive, but that's fine. It's not important that you understand what motivates critical thinkers.

your defensive atheistic views

Do the atheists you are debating seem defensive or insecure to you? Do I?

It is a religion because it is based on faith in science

You have a lot to learn about both religion and faith. Atheism is less of a religion than theism, which also isn't a religion. And there is no faith in science. You only need to look at its stellar success to recognize that its foundational precepts and its testable inductions are correct.

you have no facts to dispute the existence of God.

Did you mean gods? I would agree with that. There is no way to rule out the deist god, for example.

But if by "God" you mean the Abrahamic god, that god has been ruled out empirically. One look around and we can see that no tri-omni god exists, and if life on earth was intelligently designed, it would have to be by a deceptive, superhuman presence that planted evidence in the earth and the genomes of living things to make it appear otherwise, one that need not be supernatural. That couldn't be the god of Abraham, and if the deceiver were a supernatural entity rather than advanced extraterrestrials and there is an afterlife, that's not an afterlife to look forward to.

Also, I have no use for facts to rule out your god or any other. I already wouldn't believe in your god without it being ruled out, and believers aren't moved by sound, evidenced argument, so what use would such facts be to either of us?

Can you give a stable, rational reason why you should challenge the existence of God

I just did, assuming "God" is Yahweh to you. But I've also given you a reason why no such thing is needed. All the theist has is an unfalsifiable (insufficiently evidenced) claim, which can be disregarded without rebuttal and filed under, "The other guy's opinion" along with his favorite Beatle and favorite flavor of ice cream if he's told you those as well.

 

[Apostle John]

Nope. We also do not believe in Satan.

In your ignorance. You don’t know you’re worshiping Him.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Non-religion does more harm. Most wars, murders, paedophilia, torture and psychological abuse have no relation to religion or religion being involved.

So you agree that religion can cause harm and should therefore be challenged, correct?

 

[Apostle John]

You suffer from a poverty of imagination if that's all you can conceive, but that's fine. It's not important that you understand what motivates critical thinkers.

Critical thinkers, lol. Atheist organisations love that phrase, atheists to me come across as mentally challenged and some unwell, irrational.

 

[Apostle John]

So you agree that religion can cause harm and should therefore be challenged, correct?

No, your bending truth again, non-religion does far more harm.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In your ignorance. You don’t know you’re worshiping Him.

Nah, that's bogus too. Unless of course, you can demonstrate that with some evidence. Then I'm all ears.
Otherwise, you're just making stuff up.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Critical thinkers, lol. Atheist organisations love that phrase, atheists to me come across as mentally challenged and some unwell, irrational.

Atheists don't care what you think about them. We're not personally attacking each other. Rather, we're exchanging and attacking ideas. That's how debates generally work.

Ad hominin attacks are rather juvenile and unpersuasive, as we can see.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, your bending truth again, non-religion does far more harm.

So you agree that religion does harm. Just less.
You agree then.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, your bending truth again, non-religion does far more harm.

But by saying that you implicitly admit that religion does SOME harm, right?

So, is it worth challenging an idea or isn't it?

 

[Apostle John]

So you agree that religion does harm. Just less.
You agree then.

But by saying that you implicitly admit that religion does SOME harm, right?

So, is it worth challenging an idea or isn't it?

The one true religion true Christianity causes no harm.

Nah, that's bogus too. Unless of course, you can demonstrate that with some evidence. Then I'm all ears.
Otherwise, you're just making stuff up.

The evidence of Satan is the thousands of religions existing including atheism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The one true religion true Christianity causes no harm.

Are you suggesting that no harm can be attributed to anything described as "Christianity", or are you inventing a magical non-existent religion that is the "TRUE" Christianity while everything else that has historically DEFINITELY caused harm isn't "true" Christianity?

The evidence of Satan is the thousands of religions existing including atheism.

It is harmful to suggest that certain views only exist because of imaginary monsters.

You just demonstrated that your religion causes harm.

Thus, I win. All religious debate can now cease.