Nevlach Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 But atheists aren't a group. Atheists for America are a group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 6, 2012 Author Share Posted September 6, 2012 So when Stalin (an atheist) attacked and destroyed the churches in the USSR would you say he wasn't a true atheist? I mean come on are you a hypocrite? What he did constituted genocide according to international law so you can put him right up there with theists who have also committed genocide in the name of religion. Or does the true Scotsman fallacy only apply when it is suitable for your own personal views. I don't believe in god but I'd rather not call myself an atheist for practical reasons. I have had many religious friends throughout the course of my life and I know what grief they have been given by know it alls like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyfan87 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Are you actually suggesting that Stalin destroyed those churches in the name of Atheism?? That argument has been dismantled numerous times....as have the ones using Pol Pot or Hitler. And I assure you, the grief that Christians receive in words is most assuredly outweighed by the grief the larger non-believers and believers of other religions have received from 'Christians' historically and currently, in deeds. And you can call yourself whatever you, but 'practically' you're an Atheist. You should probably look up what 'practically' means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyfan87 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 And you can call yourself whatever you, but 'practically' you're an Atheist. You should probably look up what 'practically' means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 It's like i've seen this discussion before... (You're not adding to it. Leave the thread. Yada-yada-yada.) It is redundant. Sorry. Here's something else to consider: 'Curing homosexuality' doesn't have to involve religion at all. If indeed there is a 'gay gene', then the cure to homosexuality is purely scientific. (Obviously, since religion has not cured homosexuality so far. Praying the gays out? Please.) To me, the attempt to use religion to cure homosexuality only serves to discount religion as anything meaningful. Not that being an atheist is awesome, since it is relatively empty, but religion is clearly not the answer to all of life's problems. What religion should do is modernize. They should step up to the plate and fully accept science. Then they can use it to effectively promote their beliefs in the modern society that we live in. ie. What's better than believing in God? Playing God. If science can be used to determine which fetuses are born gay or not, then why not use it? I think genetic alterations will play a significant role in human development in the very near future. Certainly there are sectors of our society that is already planning on taking advantage of it. I suspect 'the elite' already are. (And we all know what 'the elite' is directly tied to.) And of course genetic alterations could 'cure' many things, not just homosexuality. It can cure all forms of genetic disease. It can also make us more advanced. It's probably the key to human evolution going forward. And it's coming, whether we like it or not. So... Accept, or lose. Anyway, what's being disregarded in the op is the fact the boy totally agreed to the procedure. He did it by choice. Yeah, you can call it brainwashing. But i call it desperation. He, like millions others before and after him, desperately did not want to be outside the norm. You certainly don't need religion to have that common desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 And of course genetic alterations could 'cure' many things, not just homosexuality. It can cure all forms of genetic disease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 6, 2012 Author Share Posted September 6, 2012 It's hard to type on my phone but no that's not what I meant or said in regards to Stalin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyfan87 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 It's like i've seen this discussion before... (You're not adding to it. Leave the thread. Yada-yada-yada.) It is redundant. Sorry. Here's something else to consider: 'Curing homosexuality' doesn't have to involve religion at all. If indeed there is a 'gay gene', then the cure to homosexuality is purely scientific. (Obviously, since religion has not cured homosexuality so far. Praying the gays out? Please.) To me, the attempt to use religion to cure homosexuality only serves to discount religion as anything meaningful. Not that being an atheist is awesome, since it is relatively empty, but religion is clearly not the answer to all of life's problems. What religion should do is modernize. They should step up to the plate and fully accept science. Then they can use it to effectively promote their beliefs in the modern society that we live in. ie. What's better than believing in God? Playing God. If science can be used to determine which fetuses are born gay or not, then why not use it? I think genetic alterations will play a significant role in human development in the very near future. Certainly there are sectors of our society that is already planning on taking advantage of it. I suspect 'the elite' already are. (And we all know what 'the elite' is directly tied to.) And of course genetic alterations could 'cure' many things, not just homosexuality. It can cure all forms of genetic disease. It can also make us more advanced. It's probably the key to human evolution going forward. And it's coming, whether we like it or not. So... Accept, or lose. Anyway, what's being disregarded in the op is the fact the boy totally agreed to the procedure. He did it by choice. Yeah, you can call it brainwashing. But i call it desperation. He, like millions others before and after him, desperately did not want to be outside the norm. You certainly don't need religion to have that common desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 This section of your post is ridiculous. What a horrendously ignorant statement. To believe that someone's sexual orientation is a disease is just idiotic. I guess then we need a cure for hair and eye colors too. What about height and skin color? I know a group of people in the past who would have loved all of these cures you speak of. Then we could all be pasty white, 6'4" with blonde hair and blue eyes and speaking German. Good luck building your genetically heterosexual master race there Adolf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 As for this particular case I don't think it matters that the "patient" agreed to the procedure. There doesn't need to be a demand for a cure to treat being homosexual and it's unfortunate that some view it as an ailment that has to be cured. The guy abused his position of trust and as far as I'm concerned should be sent to jail for something. He misrepresented the facts, he was reckless, and he gambled with the health of the "patient". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 No you're right, Stalin is a pretty good example. There are a handful in history. My thinking was limited to modern day and regular people. That said, your narrative that atheists have anything more in common than... atheism is false. The same argument could be made about people wearing cardigans. Are you going to stop wearing a cardigan because someone may have worn one and did something bad? If you don't believe in god, it matters not what you call yourself, you are by definition an atheist. That's the point. Now you can call yourself the Holy Pony of Cacadoo and you'll still be an atheist, just as you're still a human. Grief caused by the likes of me? Gee, they must take internet as serious business. Forgive my lack of empathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 6, 2012 Author Share Posted September 6, 2012 I know I refused to wear a cardigan ever again once I found out Hitler enjoyed wearing them. I didn't want to be associated with that sort of thing. Personally, I only use the term "atheist" as a descriptor for myself when the subject of the belief in god(s) comes up. It's useless otherwise because it says absolutely nothing else about me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I know I refused to wear a cardigan ever again once I found out Hitler enjoyed wearing them. I didn't want to be associated with that sort of thing. Personally, I only use the term "atheist" as a descriptor for myself when the subject of the belief in god(s) comes up. It's useless otherwise because it says absolutely nothing else about me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I think people can wear a cardigan and be good at the same time like Harry Dunn. Lot's of crazy people do wear them though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I think people can wear a cardigan and be good at the same time like Harry Dunn. Lot's of crazy people do wear them though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 It's just a place-holder name for non-belief for the most part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Their are crazy Christians just as there are crazies in about every group of people. More often than not the crazies will become more publicized than your average member of the group. To assume all (or even most) Christians are crazy hate mongers, is the same as assuming all Muslims are extremists, despite the fact only a very small fraction of them actually fit that description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Harry Dunn wasn't a true cardigan wearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Oh yes he was, he even corrected the cop who mistakingly accused him of wearing a pull-over! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 For the record, those who call themselves atheists do so for the recognition more than they do as an actual framework for their reason to believe that the supernatural doesn't exist. IMO a more acceptable term that is "popular" is agnostic but you can understand why most non-deists choose to avoid it; it invites an argument that has been played out and repeated and can be exhausting when speaking to certain (not all) close-minded/stubborn theists. The Brights have tried to make their name mainstream but I just find the term too silly to be taken seriously. Did any of you read my previous post or did you just decide to not argue with me? I find it curious because the points in my post are directly in opposition to your points above, yet none of you chose to refute them. I am open-minded so please feel free to argue against my points and I will try to respond in a civil manner. I will re-post my comment again for you: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.