Support NeoGAF

[Amir0x]

Some really aggresive atheists in this thread. Kinda scary.

I won't shy away from the accusation. I think it's a good thing to have aggressive atheism. It means pursuing ones knowledge passionately and forcefully, always being ready to confront. It means being unafraid to wither in the face of centuries of social degradation as a result of religion. It means being firm and unwavering in the affection for truth instead of fairy tales; an all-encompassing love of the inherent goodness of the universe, where "goodness" is not ascribed to the whims of faceless and otherwise comically improbable and needy magical deities as interpreted by delusional maniacs but to a genuine and profound inspirational awe at how beautiful and fundamentally amazing our existence is.


Why is it that virtually every religion is staffed with people who aggressively want to influence politics in so dramatic a way as to force others to follow laws that are essentially religious in nature, and yet atheists are arrogant when they call them on it? Why is it that more people have died from religious causes then virtually any other type of human war, outside of perhaps resource wars, but when atheism is merely incidentally tied to a particularly oppressive regime... it says something negative about all atheists? Why is it that religious nutjobs are so diametrically opposed to reality that they'll threaten you with murder for drawing their prophet, that they will try to re-write history to support their horrifying social conservative slant by indoctrinating children with their grotesque moral codes and text books, that they'll hate an entire group of people in the name of their God... but atheists are really aggressive? We're "really aggressive?"

Well, in the face of our competition, in the light of the great and real danger faced by religion to modern, liberated thinking, it is time to get aggressive I say. Fight the fucking lies til' they die a painful death, and smile while doing it.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I won't shy away from the accusation. I think it's a good thing to have aggressive atheism. It means pursuing ones knowledge passionately and forcefully, always being ready to confront.

In fact it does not. What it means is one generally ignorantly holds a position of anti-religion. Sadly atheism does not come attached to critical thought or scientific understanding. So lets not tack on positive aspects to atheism that are not implicit to what atheism is.

 

[Vivalaraza]

I won't shy away from the accusation. I think it's a good thing to have aggressive atheism. It means pursuing ones knowledge passionately and forcefully, always being ready to confront. It means being unafraid to wither in the face of centuries of social degradation as a result of religion. It means being firm and unwavering in the affection for truth instead of fairy tales; an all-encompassing love of the inherent goodness of the universe, where "goodness" is not ascribed to the whims of faceless and otherwise comically improbable and needy magical deities as interpreted by delusional maniacs but to a genuine and profound inspirational awe at how beautiful and fundamentally amazing our existence is.


Why is it that virtually every religion is staffed with people who aggressively want to influence politics in so dramatic a way as to force others to follow laws that are essentially religious in nature, and yet atheists are arrogant when they call them on it? Why is it that more people have died from religious causes then virtually any other type of human war, outside of perhaps resource wars, but when atheism is merely incidentally tied to a particularly oppressive regime... it says something negative about all atheists? Why is it that religious nutjobs are so diametrically opposed to reality that they'll threaten you with murder for drawing their prophet, that they will try to re-write history to support their horrifying social conservative slant by indoctrinating children with their grotesque moral codes and text books, that they'll hate an entire group of people in the name of their God... but atheists are really aggressive? We're "really aggressive?"

Well, in the face of our competition, in the light of the great and real danger faced by religion to modern, liberated thinking, it is time to get aggressive I say. Fight the fucking lies til' they die a painful death, and smile while doing it.

The thing is being aggressive towards religion won't kill it, if anything it makes it stronger.

The easiest way to "kill it" is to supply more and more evidence against it, to continue to provide answers to all the questions religious people say science can't answer.

Or do you mean that religion itself is blocking the path to reaching those answers..?

 

[Amir0x]

In fact it does not. What it means is one generally ignorantly holds a position of anti-religion.

Hahah, ignorantly holds a position of anti-religion? How does one ignorantly how a position that God does not exist? It's a fucking fairy tale told to scare children and adults because they're afraid to die.

Sadly atheism does not come attached to critical thought or scientific understanding.

Most atheists are champions of critical thought and, unsurprisingly, in a survey of the most prominent scientists and intellectuals, only something like 5~7% claim anything but the most dominate form of atheism. By contrast, the more uneducated you are, the more likely you are to claim belief in a God. These are statistical facts, supported by poll after poll after poll.

So, why atheism isn't implicit in having critical thought, it is almost certainly a byproduct of it, and living in a dream world of fairy tales doesn't change this and never will.

The thing is being aggressive towards religion won't kill it, if anything it makes it stronger.

Religion will eventually die out because it's a relic of ancient times, no longer relevant in a modern society who has broken free the shackles of belief in things like Zeus and Leprechauns. Eventually, it all will die. My aggression or lack of aggression won't change how fast it comes.

What it will change, however, is my ability to allow a lie to stand unanswered, to not allow blatant anti-intellectualism to prosper in the face of facts.

The easiest way to "kill it" is to supply more and more evidence against it, to continue to provide answers to all the questions religious people say science can't answer.

Or do you mean that religion itself is blocking the path to reaching those answers..?

Religious individuals do not give two shits about facts. You can show them a trillion facts that show them why their holy texts are bogus bullshit, and they will twist, and contort and painfully dance away until they find a justification for it.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Evidence has nothing to do with religious beliefs (at least of the empirical variety) coincidentally evidence has little to do with the masses accepting scientific belief whether it has empirical substantiation or not.

Its very rare for either group to have knowledge and understanding to critically evaluate the claims of science or religion. They are accepted based upon the authority granted to the source.

Partake in any science thread were self identified atheists are speaking about science and bask in the ignorance.

Hahah, ignorantly holds a position of anti-religion? How does one ignorantly how a position that God does not exist? It's a fucking fairy tale told to scare children and adults because they're afraid to die.

You answered your own question!

Most atheists are champions of critical thought and, unsurprisingly, in a survey of the most prominent scientists and intellectuals

Hahahaha. Most prominent scientists and intellectuals compose a minuscule minority of the group "atheists."

 

[demon]

The thing is being aggressive towards religion won't kill it, if anything it makes it stronger.

The easiest way to "kill it" is to supply more and more evidence against it, to continue to provide answers to all the questions religious people say science can't answer.

Or do you mean that religion itself is blocking the path to reaching those answers..?

I agree with this, and this is why I think education is the most effective tool in combating ignorance like Creationism and other archaic worldviews. Of course, the (religious) right is doing what it can to damage science education. Funny how that works.

 

[Door2Dawn]

Why would anyone would want to "kill" religion? Thats the stupidest thing I have heard on this forum.

Go live in a cave if it bothers you that much. Jesus.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Why would anyone would want to "kill" religion? Thats the stupidest thing I have heard on this forum.

Because its hip to be ignorant. See the best way to combat ignorance is to be ignorant yourself.

 

[jaxword]

How am I showing Cognitive dissonance? Please explain.

I wasn't saying you were. You're misunderstanding me still, I was asking why you AREN'T doing the same thing in religious threads?

Because its hip to be ignorant. See the best way to combat ignorance is to be ignorant yourself.

Isn't that the point of this thread, where people are spreading lies and ignorance about science and should rightfully be called out upon it?

 

[Acquiescence]

Fight the fucking lies til' they die a painful death, and smile while doing it.

That's what Kato did, and it seemed to work for him.

Seriously though, hypocrisy overload. Evacuate the thread.

 

[Amir0x]

Evidence has nothing to do with religious beliefs (at least of the empirical variety)

Of course not, since there is no evidence to support any religion because all religion is man-made bullshit. One won't find evidence for the abominable snowman because he does not exist.

Its very rare for either group to have knowledge and understanding to critically evaluate the claims of science or religion. They are accepted based upon the authority granted to the source.

Partake in any science thread were self identified atheists are speaking about science and bask in the ignorance.

Comparable to what? It is true that, as with any subject, there is an impossibility of knowing every aspect of it without occasionally making a mistake. Science is a vast and diverse field with tons of different specializations and, naturally, you'll make less mistakes the better informed you are on any given specialization.

That said, it is indisputable that free thinkers like atheists are demonstratively more inclined to educate themselves, to critically analyze their positions, to reject authority with cause and to regard the evidence the respect it deserves.

You answered your own question!

Oh I get it, you're one of those people who think it's not a fairy tale and so believe that something pointing out that if I called myself a REVEREND OF LEPRECHAUN STUDIES, that few if anyone would take me as seriously as the nutjobs who claim a direct line to Yahweh or Krishna.

Sorry that you don't like to hear the truth. But the mere fact of you disliking the truth does not change said truth, nor does it make one ignorant for saying so.

Hahahaha. Most prominent scientists and intellectuals compose a minuscule minority of the group "atheists."

As all people who refuse to acknowledge the truth, you try to pull things out of context to support a position that is essentially indefensible tripe for the Neanderthal set.

The correlation between how educated you are and how much belief in "God" you have is remarkable and has been documented in virtually every study to broach the subject. The MORE educated you are, the MORE learned you are, the LESS likely you are to believe in God. It's that simple. It's a correlation - the most prominent intellectuals/scientists almost entirely do not believe in God. Down the next notch, in just regular professors and typical scientists, 40% believe in God. Down the next notch, to people who maybe finished high school, it's up to 75% belief in God. Down the next notch, to people who have not finished high school, it's over 95% belief in God.

The dumber you fucking are, the more likely you are to believe in God.

That's what Kato did, and it seemed to work for him.

Seriously though, hypocrisy overload. Evacuate the thread.

It did indeed. But if the extent of your argument is to replay tired old events with no relation to the topic at hand, I'll save you all the time and trouble by informing you I do not give a shit and that you'll have a easier job bothering someone who gives a shit. Just in the name of fairness - you're free to waste your time if you like, naturally.

 

[frankie_baby]

Why would anyone would want to "kill" religion? Thats the stupidest thing I have heard on this forum.

Go live in a cave if it bothers you that much. Jesus.

the world would be a far better place without it

 

[msv]

I agree with this, and this is why I think education is the most effective tool in combating ignorance like Creationism and other archaic worldviews. Of course, the (religious) right is doing what it can to damage science education. Funny how that works.

That's not an option if there is an obstacle is in the regulation of education; Face it, something has to be done against the religious influence on education (especially in the US). If one is trying to do something against it through proselytizing, discussions, consciousness raising and such, that's good. It's a good way of at least trying to do something.

Then here come the people, apathetic people, who come in to a discussion they apparently have no interest in, and denounce both sides as being the same and too fervent. If you can't gather up the immense effort to figure out why some people are putting their hearts in this, to try and change people, to try and fight this ignorance in a civilized way, then why not just stay out of the discussion? You're obviously not interested enough in the discussion as it is, so stop trying to rile up the people and leave them be.

 

[Vivalaraza]

What it will change, however, is my ability to allow a lie to stand unanswered, to not allow blatant anti-intellectualism to prosper in the face of facts.

Religious individuals do not give two shits about facts. You can show them a trillion facts that show them why their holy texts are bogus bullshit, and they will twist, and contort and painfully dance away until they find a justification for it.

How does the "aggression" actively challenge religion? In my experience it doesn't. Sure you can encourage the debate, force the issue, try to broaden people's horizons etc etc...but it doesn't really change anything. Religious people as you say tend not to be too keen on "facts". They don't lose their faith because they suddenly read a book one day, they usually lose faith when they feel their God or whatever has let them down and become disillusioned.

Yelling them down only pushes them closer to their God.

I can understand why people look to attack religion when religious people start pushing their views too publicly, I get that. Just don't see what actively pursuing religious people to tell them theyre nuts achieves...to them you're just the "devil".

 

[Dead Man]

Why would anyone would want to "kill" religion? Thats the stupidest thing I have heard on this forum.

Go live in a cave if it bothers you that much. Jesus.

A bit difficult to live in a cave these days man. As long as religious people have the ability to impact the lives of the non religious, people will care.

 

[Atramental]

the world would be a far better place without it

And I would probably still have my foreskin.

 

[Door2Dawn]

the world would be a far better place without it

Idiocy.

Religion offers so much culture and history to this world, both good and bad. It's pure ignorance to say that would be a better place with out it.

Arguing about this is fucking useless anyway. Religion isn't going away. You can't "kill" it.

 

[msv]

Yelling them down only pushes them closer to their God.

I can understand why people look to attack religion when religious people start pushing their views too publicly, I get that. Just don't see what actively pursuing religious people to tell them their nuts achieves...to them you're just the "devil".

So you're a psychologist, sociologist? What makes you so sure that this tactic achieves nothing? Sounds like you're merely doing some ungenuine, biased, and self-affirming introspection.

 

[Amir0x]

How does the "aggression" actively challenge religion? In my experience it doesn't. Sure you can encourage the debate, force the issue, try to broaden people's horizons etc etc...but it doesn't really change anything. Religious people as you say tend not to be too keen on "facts". They don't lose their faith because they suddenly read a book one day, they usually lose faith when they feel their God or whatever has let them down and become disillusioned.

Yelling them down only pushes them closer to their God.

I can understand why people look to attack religion when religious people start pushing their views too publicly, I get that. Just don't see what actively pursuing religious people to tell them their nuts achieves...to them you're just the "devil".

People always assume that one needs to put kiddy gloves on when dealing with these institutions. For what reason? No other institution receives this sort of treatment. And I'm not going to start with religion.

If you make outrageous claims about the CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE unsupportable by science, then like any scientific hypothesis, it's going to be eviscerated by people who aren't retards.

It's not malicious. The phrase "aggressively atheist" doesn't mean you hate the people who believe in God. Most of them were just sadly indoctrinated or are too afraid to disbelieve because of what it means for them at death. What it DOES mean is that you will not stand idle or quiet as lies about reality are spread. What i DOES mean is that you hate the ideology and hate the unscientific and historically false holy books most religions are based on.

 

[Vivalaraza]

So you're a psychologist, sociologist? What makes you so sure that this tactic achieves nothing? Sounds like you're merely doing some ungenuine, biased, and self-affirming introspection.

It's just my view, relax. I know alot of people who used to believe in God and no longer do and none of them changed their minds cos people told them to. Maybe some kind of environmental effects come into it but generally religious people being told their stupid just closes them off further.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Of course not, since there is no evidence to support any religion because all religion is man-made bullshit. One won't find evidence for the abominable snowman because he does not exist.

Not all religions are the same. More importantly all metaphysical beliefs do not involve deities yet they are all equally unprovable empirically due to the nature of the topic. The ignorance is denoting all topics that cannot be evaluated empirically as being inherently false. This is ignorance of the most base kind.

Comparable to what? It is true that, as with any subject, there is an impossibility of knowing every aspect of it without occasionally making a mistake. Science is a vast and diverse field with tons of different specializations and, naturally, you'll make less mistakes the better informed you are on any given specialization.

You didn't grasp what I was saying...

That said, it is indisputable that free thinkers like atheists are demonstratively more inclined to educate themselves

There is nothing intrinsic to the term atheist that denotes "free thinking" in fact atheism as opposed agnosticism is more rigid in belief structure. You are once again attaching your fantasies to the terminology. And I also bet you are equating agnostics to atheists for if not you are just flat out WRONG.

Oh I get it, you're one of those people who think it's not a fairy tale and so believe that something pointing out that if I called myself a REVEREND OF LEPRECHAUN STUDIES, that few if anyone would take me as seriously as the nutjobs who claim a direct line to Yahweh or Krishna.

No you don't get it. Which is strange being such a atheistic paragon of critical thought, haha. This is an example of the blinders that ignorance creates.

Sorry that you don't like to hear the truth. But the mere fact of you disliking the truth does not change said truth, nor does it make one ignorant for saying so.

Im calling you ignorant because logically and empirically you have no justification for your denouement of everything that cannot be empirically substantiated. Its ignorance of the most base and egregious sort. I mean you are not even able to comprehend a few simple self evident paragraphs and reply in a coherent fashion.

Thats how deep it runs. Also itemizing posts per sentence is not a very effective means to discuss a topic. Especially when you are not able to uhhh grasp the sentences you are responding to.

 

[msv]

It's just my view, relax. I know alot of people who used to believe in God and no longer do and none of them changed their minds cos people told them to. Maybe some kind of environmental effects come into it but generally religious people being told their stupid just closes them off further.

I'm sure that tests would say otherwise, though I'm not in any field related to this. Therefore I won't make any assumptions unless presented with some evidence, and neither should you. This might very well be working, it might not. Seems to be working pretty well for FOX though. Also seems to be working for religion in general, seeing as how brazen some can be, yet very successful.

 

[frankie_baby]

Idiocy.

Religion offers so much culture and history to this world, both good and bad. It's pure ignorance to say that would be a better place with out it.

Arguing about this is fucking useless anyway. Religion isn't going away. You can't "kill" it.

are you saying we wouldnt have had culture and history without it? bullshit, and from my personal opinion most of the intresting religions sounding died out hundreds of years ago (egyption, greek, roman, norse, ect.)

and actually relgion (well specifically christianity) is going away in most of the western world

 

[EliCash]

In fact it does not. What it means is one generally ignorantly holds a position of anti-religion. Sadly atheism does not come attached to critical thought or scientific understanding. So lets not tack on positive aspects to atheism that are not implicit to what atheism is.

And why is it that one who holds a position of anti-religion does so ignorantly? What makes you think that aggressive/militant atheism is inherently ignorant?

 

[Door2Dawn]

are you saying we wouldnt have had culture and history without it?

no

and actually relgion (well specifically christianity) is going away in most of the western world

Doesn't mean a goddamn thing. Religion is never going away. Accept it and move on.

 

[Amir0x]

Not all religions are the same. More importantly all metaphysical beliefs do not involve deities yet they are all equally unprovable empirically due to the nature of the topic. The ignorance is denoting all topics that cannot be evaluated empirically as being inherently false. This is ignorance of the most base kind.

Anything that actually exists can at some point be proven/disproven with science. If it does not exist, and you try to place it on some spiritual/metaphysical realm beyond reproach, then it's no different then believing in Santa Clause.

There is nothing intrinsic to the term atheist that denotes "free thinking" in fact atheism as opposed agnosticism is more rigid in belief structure. You are once again attaching your fantasies to the terminology. And I also bet you are equating agnostics to atheists for if not you are just flat our WRONG.

Not only do I know the difference between agnostics and atheists, but I know there's even varying levels of each and beyond continuing to full blown creationism. Nothing I said denotes any less knowledge than that, so it's more ass pulling for you.

No you don't get it. Which is strange being such a atheistic paragon of critical thought, haha. This is an example of the blinders that ignorance creates.

Thats how deep it runs. Also itemizing posts per sentence is not a very effective means to discuss a topic. Especially when you are not able to uhhh grasp the sentences you are responding to.

Writing something and then trying to claim someone doesn't "get" what you're saying, while simultaneously failing to provide any relevant clarification that goes beyond "you don't get what I'm saying", is the perfect general proof that you're talking out your ass and that you don't actually have anything more substantial between the lines.

I'm free to hear what you believe I'm "misinterpreting" in your hogwash that there is a metaphysical universe filled with mysteries that will never be solved by science and how that justifies letting these freaks have free reign with their borderline retardation, but I suspect it's the same type of magical voodoo garbage supported by the same class of theists who reject the Cosmic Teapot and yet somehow expect it to be beyond reproach of critical analysis.

If we're talking about the basic metaphysical analysis of things like time and what it means to be alive, then this is even less worthy of any time here because as we all know, those people aren't trying to dogmatically impose their standards in laws, those people generally aren't committing mass murder in the name of their pursuits. So no matter what existential nonsense they want to believe in, it's of general less concern than the direct religious connotations usually associated with the rejection of something as fundamental to reality as evolution.

 

[jaxword]

Doesn't mean a goddamn thing. Religion is never going away. Accept it and move on.

I guess it's true that things will never change.

 

[TunaMarshmallow]

evolution is a theory.

Incorrect. Evolution is a factual occurrence. *Natural selection* is a theory which offers an explanation of evolution.

 

[KHarvey16]

Doesn't mean a goddamn thing. Religion is never going away. Accept it and move on.

Are you denying the world is progressing further away from religion as it marches toward scientific, reasoned understanding of the world around us? Because that would be silly.

 

[frankie_baby]

no


Doesn't mean a goddamn thing. Religion is never going away. Accept it and move on.

as anything but a niche/cult thing i give religion no more than 100 years

 

[Door2Dawn]

I guess it's true that things will never change.

I don't know if that was suppose to be snark or not, but no one is saying things will never change.

 

[Monocle]

agreed
both are annoying from the opposite spectrum and patronizing

You say that as though it somehow discredits them. Does correctness entail charm? I think you'll find the answer is no. In any case, the shrillness of the New Atheists is in most cases grossly exaggerated. As Dawkins tirelessly repeats, no one would complain about his harsh style if he were a restaurant critic or a film reviewer. There's a double standard embedded in many claims that atheists display condescension or arrogance. Religious apologists (some of whom like to first take refuge under a cloak of neutrality) are seen to unsheathe their accusations with a flourish and rattle them like maracas to avoid engaging with their opponents' actual arguments about the matters at issue. People who favor this tactic tend to have a heightened sensitivity to religious topics and take the attitude that charges of blasphemy or offensiveness should compel change in the people or things that upset them. It's not enough to voice disapproval. They have to insist on arbitrarily imposing their sensitivities on other people. That's real arrogance.

Dawkins and Hitchens aren't trying to persuade dyed-in-the-wool fanatics, nor people who can't distinguish between rational critique and thuggish harassment. Their efforts primarily find an audience in thoughtful people who are willing to critically evaluate their own views by seriously testing their beliefs against forcefully articulated counterarguments.

 

[Door2Dawn]

Are you denying the world is progressing further away from religion as it marches toward scientific, reasoned understanding of the world around us? Because that would be silly.

Yeah it would be silly, which is exactly why I didn't imply it.

 

[F#A#Oo]

So you're a psychologist, sociologist? What makes you so sure that this tactic achieves nothing? Sounds like you're merely doing some ungenuine, biased, and self-affirming introspection.

Post 9/11 Islamic conversions have been on the up...even though Islam has been under attack from all sides...

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/22/national/22CONV.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUbzJMQwoN0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Coumr7FYJCc&feature=fvwrel

 

[Amir0x]

Yeah it would be silly, which is exactly why I didn't imply it.

Even if one supposes religion has had a "profound" impact on culture (which of course it has) and that it has had a force for good in rare times (which, occasionally, it has been), it does not mean that religion will exist forever or that it should exist forever.

I firmly believe that you should be allowed to believe in whatever you like, provided you don't start crying when rational thinkers tear the position apart. And I also firmly believe that the world WOULD be a better place without religion now. If religion went away now, it wouldn't undo all those years of "culture" that was built by these organizations, and the intense study of the architecture, art and social upheavals caused by these things would remain a fascinating field of learning.

But, as for the modern world, it is now a cancer, perilously abusing the minds of children and corrupting the political and social structure of the world.

 

[frankie_baby]

Even if one supposes religion has had a "profound" impact on culture (which of course it has) and that it has had a force for good in rare times (which, occasionally, it has been), it does not mean that religion will exist forever or that it should exist forever.

I firmly believe that you should be allowed to believe in whatever you like, provided you don't start crying when rational thinkers tear the position apart. And I also firmly believe that the world WOULD be a better place without religion now. If religion went away now, it wouldn't undue all those years of "culture" that was built by these organizations, and the intense study of the architecture, art and social upheavals caused by these things would remain a fascinating field of learning.

But, as for the modern world, it is now a cancer, perilously abusing the minds of children and corrupting the political and social structure of the world.

here here

 

[Door2Dawn]

nvm

 

[EliCash]

Doesn't mean a goddamn thing. Religion is never going away. Accept it and move on.

Why should we accept it and move on? It's an insulting plague to mankind, logic and reason. And anyway that's a bold statement, arguably as long as we fear death then reassuring fables of an afterlife will continue, but who says it's never going away?

 

[Kermit The Dog]

It's just my view, relax. I know alot of people who used to believe in God and no longer do and none of them changed their minds cos people told them to. Maybe some kind of environmental effects come into it but generally religious people being told their stupid just closes them off further.

You said recently in the Footy-GAF thread that "this isn't the place." Well, I'm in the right place now, and I personally think you're a nutcase.

Nice fella, but undeniably nutty. Wandering in here and spouting such nonsense was your latest error of judgement.

 

[samven582]

It would be funny if Perry cuts an angry promo for his reply

NO IT'S NOT! NO IT'S NOT!!!

where is that video from?

 

[Door2Dawn]

Why should we accept it and move on?

Because there's nothing you can do about it. Thats why.

Religion adapts and changes it's stances to stay relevant. It's been doing this for looooong time. I'm sorry, but you can't change the way people think or feel. Not everyone anyway.

 

[Uchip]

Religion is a plague on progress itself and should not exist.
Defending it just means that you dont want to learn, and are kind of a pointless addition to society.

 

[msv]

Post 9/11 Islamic conversions have been on the up...even though Islam has been under attack from all sides...

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/22/national/22CONV.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUbzJMQwoN0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Coumr7FYJCc&feature=fvwrel

Correlation does not imply causation? I was referring to actual research, not this, whatever it is. Are there even any actual statistics in any of your links?

 

[KHarvey16]

Yeah it would be silly, which is exactly why I didn't imply it.

You said religion will never go away. Never is a very long time, and if you accept that our experience thus far demonstrates that we become less religious the more we learn I can't imagine how you would justify that assertion.

 

[Arcblade]

I suppose it would be a moot act, pointing out the irony of HeadlessRoland's screen name, because he'd more than probably argue that just because he, by self-admittance, lacks a head, and thus a brain, this by no means denies him a mind with which to think. :/

 

[Door2Dawn]

You said religion will never go away. Never is a very long time, and if you accept that our experience thus far demonstrates that we become less religious the more we learn I can't imagine how you would justify that assertion.

Just because we are getting less and less religious doesn't mean it will go away. Like I said before, religion adapts and changes stances to remain relevant. It's been doing it for a long time.

 

[BIONIC-ARRRMMM!!]

Monkeys evolved into Humans, undeniable.

Spoiler

lol

 

[F#A#Oo]

Correlation does not imply causation? I was referring to actual research, not this, whatever it is. Are there even any actual statistics in any of your links?

So you replied without bothering to check the links? lol

Niiice...

 

[Atramental]

Monkeys evolved into Humans, undeniable.

Spoiler

lol

Apes.

If we directly evolved from monkeys we'd probably have tails right about now.

 

[Arcblade]

Just because we are getting less and less religious doesn't mean it will go away. Like I said before, religion adapts and changes stances to remain relevant.

So what you are saying that even once everyone has been freed from the shackles of non-thought beliefs like religion, religion of itself will attain to sentience, and make a purposive move towards being relevant - say, like as an advocate for science and reason?