Certain religions that are fun to slam:

[Anonymous]

I am another non-believer who believes in being tolerant of everyone else's beliefs. I think it's all fairy tales, but this thread and my husband are the one people I'll tell.

[Anonymous]

I dislike any religion that classifies non-believers, whether they are from another religion or they are atheists, as the "other" and therefore says they are unclean, or deserving of discriminatory treatment. One religion does this more than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have respect for almost everyone. In my heart, I truly believe that those of us who are religious worship the same God. And I believe as we become more enlightened and eventually meet our creator, we'll realize how ridiculous all the petty arguing is. Different paths to the same destination.

I can respect the agnostic. I don't see anything wrong with saying "I don't know" or "I can't know".

I've never met an atheist that was even worthy of debating. And that says a lot because I enjoy intellectual debate. But seriously. To simply say that God doesn't exist because "you can't prove it" is insane. A few hundred years ago we couldn't have "proven" the existence of most of our galaxy. Yet it's there. I can't imagine how any intelligent person could be so self-important that he thinks he knows all. There are so many things that we don't understand. So much we can't see yet. To dismiss the possibility is conceit at it's highest form.

This is interesting because my VERY religious, evangelical Christian mother thinks agnostics are worse than atheists for this very reason. Like they can't decide one way or the other. . .

[Anonymous]

The more atheists, the lower the crime rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like aborting and embryo or fetus. Or circumcision. Or blood transfusions. Or pedophile priests. Or ...

Your point, as I understand it, is that everyone might find some other culture's practice abhorrent, so we shouldn't judge any of them. So...I can't criticize homophobia, because I could be criticized back for being nice to fags; I can't criticize lynching, because lynchers would have criticized me for associating with darkies; I can't criticize human sacrifice, because Aztecs would have criticized my ignorance of astronomy; I can't criticize child abuse, because I could be criticized for poor discipline...

People from other cultures are welcome to judge mine. If they can support the judgment, we'll have something to talk about. In the case of pedophilia, we already agree, so that example made no sense - it's not like the culture overall supports it. Circumcision is ritual mutilation, so I won't defend it, though female genital mutilation is far worse for a few reasons that I assume don't need to be reviewed. There are certainly arguments against abortion, though the ones based on some guy in a robe saying that the invisible man in the sky doesn't like it don't rate. The only arguments I'm aware of against blood transfusions fall into that category, so they're worthless.

On my side, I can support my opposition to female genital mutilation. I'll assume I don't have to here.

The thing is, you don't think that female genital mutilation is OK or immune from your judgment, do you? So you're just wasting breath on an academic philosophical point, trying to be self-righteously liberal.

If I'm wrong, and you really do think that none of us is qualified to judge, and that all cultures and opinions are therefore equal, then here are some people whose company you might enjoy:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/
http://www.nambla.org/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since you asked, in the confines of my head and never to leave, I "look down" on Islam. I cannot deal with the gender inequality as evidenced in Sharia law, etc.

Um, don't know what religion you are--Unitarian? liberal Episcopalian?--but I was raised Catholic, and I pretty much got the feeling that women were a lower form of life. Started at communion, dressed like a little bride of Christ, and went from there.

To the woman who thinks agnostics are "worse" than athiests: that may be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[Anonymous]

I personally have a hard time understanding Hinduism. Do they really believe there's a god with an elephant's head? And Scientology, the alien connection is strange. Admittedly, I'm ignorant to both of these religions and was raised Catholic so I am the pot calling the kettle. For the record, I'm not a practicing Catholic because aside from the obvious pedophile priest issue, it seems like you can buy your way into that religion fairly easily (probably the case for most religions). I would have to agree that most religions are ridiculous on the surface. What is the quote about people not killing and torturing with more vigor than in the name of religion? Something like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To simply say that God doesn't exist because "you can't prove it" is insane.

I think the arguments are considerably better than that. Regardless, that's still a lot better than "God exists because this book says he does."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To simply say that God doesn't exist because "you can't prove it" is insane.

I think the arguments are considerably better than that. Regardless, that's still a lot better than "God exists because this book says he does."

Actually, the books, OT and NT both, at least offer historical accounts of God's presence among men. You'll dismiss them as fairy tales, I'm sure. But for many of us, even those of us who don't take every word literally, these are historical accounts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From DCUM, I would have to say Catholicism and the LDS Church.
Do we feel more sophisticated when we look down at these faiths? From reading DCUM, I suspect that the atheists put themselves above everyone, then the Humanists, then come the Quakers and Orthodox Quakers.

We could try to be be a bit more considerate. I am an atheist and was raised agnostic as were my parents, but I have respect for everyone's faith or lack there of. I endured severe intolerance to my lack of religion which ironically has made me more tolerant of religion.

Well OP, your prediction that posters would beat up on Catholicism and the LDS Church proved, shall we say, prophetic. There are many here who are less tolerant than you.

[Anonymous]

New PP here. How would you call that 'historical accounts'? Just because they were written long ago doesn't mean it actually happened. Fairy Tales written hundreds/thousands of years ago are still fairy tales. There was proof that people worshipped Zeus. That doesn't make him real. I believe in God but purely on faith, I don't pretend that it's based on history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The more atheists, the lower the crime rate.

You said it sister.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have respect for almost everyone. In my heart, I truly believe that those of us who are religious worship the same God. And I believe as we become more enlightened and eventually meet our creator, we'll realize how ridiculous all the petty arguing is. Different paths to the same destination.

I can respect the agnostic. I don't see anything wrong with saying "I don't know" or "I can't know".

I've never met an atheist that was even worthy of debating. And that says a lot because I enjoy intellectual debate. But seriously. To simply say that God doesn't exist because "you can't prove it" is insane. A few hundred years ago we couldn't have "proven" the existence of most of our galaxy. Yet it's there. I can't imagine how any intelligent person could be so self-important that he thinks he knows all. There are so many things that we don't understand. So much we can't see yet. To dismiss the possibility is conceit at it's highest form.

Actually, my objection to the existence of god is not the proof thing. I believe in lots of things of which we only have theoretical "proof" and no real experience. No, my problem is that belief in a god who loves us and is involved in our lives means believing that white men from the global north are actually the holy favorites. Or put another way, that females from the global south have somehow incurred his wrath. I mean, many of them live lives of utter religious devotion, and tailor their every move to the dictates of their religion. Yet "god" continues to disdain them, to allow their continued poverty and opression-- while allowing their men, the ones who whore around, beat them, take advantage of their labor-- to live lives of relative ease. If there were a god, inequalities would have more to do with individual behavior, and less to do with geography and race and sex. And it would have ever been so.

How can any woman believe in religion. Ever notice you are always the servant, slave, second class citizen who has to bear the brunt of the burden? Does that not clue you into who really wrote and interprets the religious guide books?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the books, OT and NT both, at least offer historical accounts of God's presence among men. You'll dismiss them as fairy tales, I'm sure. But for many of us, even those of us who don't take every word literally, these are historical accounts.

How is that not "I know God exists because this book says so?"

[Anonymous]

Any religious folks wonder what will happen when you get to "The Place" and find out you were worshiping the wrong deity? I guess there's no room for doubt.