Reza Aslan: Sam Harris and "New Atheists" aren't new, aren't even atheists

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. I’ve often said, DCUM needs to upgrade its atheists. I’ve had great, provocative conversations with really smart atheists and remained friends with them. DCUM’s atheists are a bunch of snarky bullies who make up facts (“99% of atrocities,” “1000-1 loser” right above) apparently at whim and never with any decent cites.

The 99% quote was hyperbole. If it makes you happy substitute "the vast majority" for it.

The 1000-1 loser comment - also hyperbolic but also was proved by the linked article. The wikipedia article has dozens of sources in it, and is an entirely reliable citation.

People who disagree with you are not bullies. We are angry about lies. We beat them back with truths.

At this point, we might as well just let your posts hang out in the open for everybody to see your lies and distortions. “Hyperbole,” nice try, lol: there’s no bright line between “hyperbole” and “straight-up lie.” Your “vast majority” is clearly another lie if you read even a single one of the longer posts on the previous page comparing atrocities by atheists vs. believers (you did read those posts, right?). Someone else pointed out that your Wikipedia article includes violence *against* believers.

“Bullying” includes lies, distortions, and mockery. You check all the boxes, as you show so well in this discussion about who commits the most atrocities. You don’t just “disagree,” instead you lie and distort and bring a big helping of nasty aggression. You’re a bully. Own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. I’ve often said, DCUM needs to upgrade its atheists. I’ve had great, provocative conversations with really smart atheists and remained friends with them. DCUM’s atheists are a bunch of snarky bullies who make up facts (“99% of atrocities,” “1000-1 loser” right above) apparently at whim and never with any decent cites.

The 99% quote was hyperbole. If it makes you happy substitute "the vast majority" for it.

The 1000-1 loser comment - also hyperbolic but also was proved by the linked article. The wikipedia article has dozens of sources in it, and is an entirely reliable citation.

People who disagree with you are not bullies. We are angry about lies. We beat them back with truths.

At this point, we might as well just let your posts hang out in the open for everybody to see your lies and distortions. “Hyperbole,” nice try, lol: there’s no bright line between “hyperbole” and “straight-up lie.” Your “vast majority” is clearly another lie if you read even a single one of the longer posts on the previous page comparing atrocities by atheists vs. believers (you did read those posts, right?). Someone else pointed out that your Wikipedia article includes violence *against* believers.

“Bullying” includes lies, distortions, and mockery. You check all the boxes, as you show so well in this discussion about who commits the most atrocities. You don’t just “disagree,” instead you lie and distort and bring a big helping of nasty aggression. You’re a bully. Own it.

I dispute every single claim you make above, and will let the facts as presented speak for themselves.

You are the one who started this by making the baseless claim that people without belief are more likely to be bad. This is a ridiculous claim, clearly untrue, and disproved herein. I am not claiming religious people are more likely to be bad; I am claiming it is irrelevant to their morality. This is both the true and, ironically, the more moral claim - to not judge people's character based on their belief or lack thereof.

You are a bigot, and a liar, and we are now finished on this topic. Good day.

[Anonymous]

Raza Aslan is a fraud.

No one should take him seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. I’ve often said, DCUM needs to upgrade its atheists. I’ve had great, provocative conversations with really smart atheists and remained friends with them. DCUM’s atheists are a bunch of snarky bullies who make up facts (“99% of atrocities,” “1000-1 loser” right above) apparently at whim and never with any decent cites.

The 99% quote was hyperbole. If it makes you happy substitute "the vast majority" for it.

The 1000-1 loser comment - also hyperbolic but also was proved by the linked article. The wikipedia article has dozens of sources in it, and is an entirely reliable citation.

People who disagree with you are not bullies. We are angry about lies. We beat them back with truths.

At this point, we might as well just let your posts hang out in the open for everybody to see your lies and distortions. “Hyperbole,” nice try, lol: there’s no bright line between “hyperbole” and “straight-up lie.” Your “vast majority” is clearly another lie if you read even a single one of the longer posts on the previous page comparing atrocities by atheists vs. believers (you did read those posts, right?). Someone else pointed out that your Wikipedia article includes violence *against* believers.

“Bullying” includes lies, distortions, and mockery. You check all the boxes, as you show so well in this discussion about who commits the most atrocities. You don’t just “disagree,” instead you lie and distort and bring a big helping of nasty aggression. You’re a bully. Own it.

I dispute every single claim you make above, and will let the facts as presented speak for themselves.

You are the one who started this by making the baseless claim that people without belief are more likely to be bad. This is a ridiculous claim, clearly untrue, and disproved herein. I am not claiming religious people are more likely to be bad; I am claiming it is irrelevant to their morality. This is both the true and, ironically, the more moral claim - to not judge people's character based on their belief or lack thereof.

You are a bigot, and a liar, and we are now finished on this topic. Good day.

What’s wrong with you? You or another atheist made the initial claim that *religious* people were more likely to commit atrocities, and your lie was blown out of the water. You never said anything about morality until now, so that’s yet another lie.

So now you stomp your feet, do a hair flip, and call people names. What a good example of enlightened atheism you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s wrong with you? You or another atheist made the initial claim that *religious* people were more likely to commit atrocities, and your lie was blown out of the water.

DP here. Nobody made that claim, the very first post of that sub-topic was at 06/17/2021 06:58 that said "Marx’s vision of a religion-less society was spectacularly realized with the establishment of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China – two nations that actively promoted “state atheism” by violently suppressing religious expression and persecuting faith communities.“

PP replied to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Atheists should rather worry about the kind of people they hope to attract to their community when they mock religion. Truly compassionate, generous, gentle, kind and forgiving people won't be attracted to a group that mocks others.

As someone who ran from the debris of the 2nd plane crash on 9/11, I won't hear about the compassion of the religious.

I also won't create a giant wall of text about religious atrocities but here is a link if you want. By the way, these are just atrocities committed in the name of religion, and does not include atrocities committed by states that had a religion, of which there are many more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence#

You should stop this argument. It is a 1,000-1 loser for your side. Also, atheists are not mocking religion. We don't think any god exists. That's it.

“Religious violence does not exclusively include acts which are committed by religious groups, instead, it includes acts which are committed against religious groups.“ From your Wikipedia link. Really you aren’t serious, you can’t be. I hear about the high intelligence and sharp debate skills and sterling wit and plethora of facts atheists and anti-theists supposedly have at hand while having a go at religion online, and I am sorry, but I just don’t see it. At all.

DP. I’ve often said, DCUM needs to upgrade its atheists. I’ve had great, provocative conversations with really smart atheists and remained friends with them. DCUM’s atheists are a bunch of snarky bullies who make up facts (“99% of atrocities,” “1000-1 loser” right above) apparently at whim and never with any decent cites.

My sister is married to an atheist, and he’s a nice person. She is religious but not deeply religious; they have a good marriage and he doesn’t object at all to her beliefs, nor she, his lack of beliefs. They love each other and are raising the kindest little boy ever. He doesn’t believe in a God or gods, and has some serious objections to religious institutions, and I respect his opinions. He’s got some valid objections to religious institutions that I can’t disagree with at all, but also, he doesn’t paint religion as having no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I firmly respect his beliefs. I have never tried to convert him to Christianity. He has examined his own beliefs and is intelligent, and I don’t have any interest in alienating him, or causing issues in family relationships. However, he displays the same respect back to people who do have religious beliefs, all religious beliefs. His dad is a Buddhist and a pacifist; his mom is somewhat of a pagan and doesn’t celebrate any holidays that are traditional to most Americans. We don’t heavily discuss religion or politics, because people are more than that, and family is more important than those things.

I don’t think the people here who mock religion, call religious people dumb, or are constantly rude and denigrate other religions are actually atheists. I believe they are anti-theists, which are different as they believe religion has no redeeming qualities at all. I also believe they hide the fact they are anti-theist and make atheists look rude and mean and bullying. One can be anti-theist and believe religion is a negative factor in the world, but be honest about it. Don’t hide behind atheism. Also, if you come to a religion forum, you will see people who are religious. Getting offended is ridiculous.

The anti-theists here do mock religious people and religion, and then deny it despite all evidence. Sometimes I think they are deliberately trying to provoke another poster into losing their temper and “damning them to hell” and saying unkind things about people who are unbelievers.

I grow more sure through my discussions here with atheists/anti-theists that my beliefs are valid. Not to say my religion is the “right one,” but the right one for me. So thank you, atheists and anti-theists of dcum, for allowing me to be renewed in belief through dialogue with you. However, being rude and bullying will never get you or your movement anywhere. I don’t think religion is perfect, I know churches are not perfect, I believe Christians are not perfect and will never be. I don’t like it when Christians are mean, rude, bullying, etc, and I know it just drives people away from God and Jesus and any hope of building a connection to people when Christians act that way. And no matter what, people are deserving of respect. Full stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s wrong with you? You or another atheist made the initial claim that *religious* people were more likely to commit atrocities, and your lie was blown out of the water.

DP here. Nobody made that claim, the very first post of that sub-topic was at 06/17/2021 06:58 that said "Marx’s vision of a religion-less society was spectacularly realized with the establishment of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China – two nations that actively promoted “state atheism” by violently suppressing religious expression and persecuting faith communities.“

PP replied to that.

PP replied with lies: 99# of atrocities are committed by believers (evidence provided by several believers here says otherwise), that 1/1000 figure (clearly made up), and claiming you never mock religion or believers (it happens every day on DCUM).

And because ad hominems are easier than producing your own facts, PP (you?) insulted people by calling them liars without evidence, calling them bigots, etc.

You still don’t see a problem here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s wrong with you? You or another atheist made the initial claim that *religious* people were more likely to commit atrocities, and your lie was blown out of the water.

DP here. Nobody made that claim, the very first post of that sub-topic was at 06/17/2021 06:58 that said "Marx’s vision of a religion-less society was spectacularly realized with the establishment of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China – two nations that actively promoted “state atheism” by violently suppressing religious expression and persecuting faith communities.“

PP replied to that.

PP replied with lies: 99# of atrocities are committed by believers (evidence provided by several believers here says otherwise), that 1/1000 figure (clearly made up), and claiming you never mock religion or believers (it happens every day on DCUM).

And because ad hominems are easier than producing your own facts, PP (you?) insulted people by calling them liars without evidence, calling them bigots, etc.

You still don’t see a problem here?

+1 It’s honestly concerning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s wrong with you? You or another atheist made the initial claim that *religious* people were more likely to commit atrocities, and your lie was blown out of the water.

DP here. Nobody made that claim, the very first post of that sub-topic was at 06/17/2021 06:58 that said "Marx’s vision of a religion-less society was spectacularly realized with the establishment of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China – two nations that actively promoted “state atheism” by violently suppressing religious expression and persecuting faith communities.“

PP replied to that.

PP replied with lies: 99# of atrocities are committed by believers (evidence provided by several believers here says otherwise), that 1/1000 figure (clearly made up), and claiming you never mock religion or believers (it happens every day on DCUM).

And because ad hominems are easier than producing your own facts, PP (you?) insulted people by calling them liars without evidence, calling them bigots, etc.

You still don’t see a problem here?

No, I don't sir, I agree with PP's points, even though I would have chosen to express them differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s wrong with you? You or another atheist made the initial claim that *religious* people were more likely to commit atrocities, and your lie was blown out of the water.

DP here. Nobody made that claim, the very first post of that sub-topic was at 06/17/2021 06:58 that said "Marx’s vision of a religion-less society was spectacularly realized with the establishment of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China – two nations that actively promoted “state atheism” by violently suppressing religious expression and persecuting faith communities.“

PP replied to that.

PP replied with lies: 99# of atrocities are committed by believers (evidence provided by several believers here says otherwise), that 1/1000 figure (clearly made up), and claiming you never mock religion or believers (it happens every day on DCUM).

And because ad hominems are easier than producing your own facts, PP (you?) insulted people by calling them liars without evidence, calling them bigots, etc.

You still don’t see a problem here?

No, I don't sir, I agree with PP's points, even though I would have chosen to express them differently.

That’s ma’am to you.

Now you guys are just embarrassing yourselves. Care to bring any evidence for “pp’s” “points”? We’re still waiting for that.

I showed this thread to an atheist friend and he did a facepalm. Do better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You still don’t see a problem here?

No, I don't sir, I agree with PP's points, even though I would have chosen to express them differently.

That’s ma’am to you.

Now you guys are just embarrassing yourselves. Care to bring any evidence for “pp’s” “points”? We’re still waiting for that.

I showed this thread to an atheist friend and he did a facepalm. Do better.

I refer to my interjection at 11:26.

Sorry I misrepresented your gender. I meant "sir" in the respectful-genderneutral way, as in "no sir-ee". Apologies, I won't do it again.

I might also suggest you not use "my atheist friend says" the way people use "my African-American friend" as it reveals more than you may wish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You still don’t see a problem here?

No, I don't sir, I agree with PP's points, even though I would have chosen to express them differently.

That’s ma’am to you.

Now you guys are just embarrassing yourselves. Care to bring any evidence for “pp’s” “points”? We’re still waiting for that.

I showed this thread to an atheist friend and he did a facepalm. Do better.

I refer to my interjection at 11:26.

Sorry I misrepresented your gender. I meant "sir" in the respectful-genderneutral way, as in "no sir-ee". Apologies, I won't do it again.

I might also suggest you not use "my atheist friend says" the way people use "my African-American friend" as it reveals more than you may wish.

This would be unintentionally hilarious if it weren’t so sad.

Your “interjection” at 11:26 didn’t bring the hoped-for facts to the atheist side of the argument; instead, you just deflected with a pointless historical tidbit about this thread. It’s odd you’re such a dishonest debater when everybody can read what you actually posted.

More problematic, likening your victimhood as an atheist to that of Blacks (you should know Blacks is used in preference to African Americans) is pretty appalling.

[Anonymous]

(you should know Blacks is used in preference to African Americans) is pretty appalling.

I'm not getting in this fight between these assholes, but I promise you the above is NOT an absolute truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

(you should know Blacks is used in preference to African Americans) is pretty appalling.

I'm not getting in this fight between these assholes, but I promise you the above is NOT an absolute truth.

I don't appreciate the name calling, and I used the term as an example of what NOT to say, anyway, so PP is wrong either way.

Please try to address respectfully next time if you wish a reply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

(you should know Blacks is used in preference to African Americans) is pretty appalling.

I'm not getting in this fight between these assholes, but I promise you the above is NOT an absolute truth.

I don't appreciate the name calling, and I used the term as an example of what NOT to say, anyway, so PP is wrong either way.

Please try to address respectfully next time if you wish a reply.

bicker, bicker bicker