Ask an Atheist Anything

Sofronitsky wrote: I hit the thank you button by mistake.

While humor especially in a long-winded, meandering thread is good, I think your terse assertion is a bit off base. In brief, I disagree that genital mutilation is somehow inherently and exclusively from religion. When the Massai circumcise their young men, I think that has as much do with a long history of tribal rituals that have little to nothing to do with formalized or codified religion. I'm not a Maliki scholar, but I seriously question that female circumcision is inherently a Muslim practice as much as it is some perverse, twisted amalgamation.

IOW, what you posted was a bit of post hoc fallacy.

I never said it is exclusively from religion. Just as traditions and practice of the sort can spread while its purpose is forgotten. But circumcision by the Jewish Tradition is for the sole purpose of dulling the senses, as I said, to lessen the pleasures of sex, why? Because when people cannot be happy on their own, with their own sexuality, they are most likely to be more devout and fanatic. And when it comes to Massai tribe, although, I haven't read of them particularly, but even here in the Philippines, it is believed that circumcision of men, was done because it makes men last longer in bed having the sexual dominance in a relationship, since, there is much less sensitivity in our genital area, than those who are not circumcised.

And about you accidentally giving a "Thank you" on my comment, I am sorry, there is no way I can give it back to you, though, if a make a comment in the future that you think would deserve, a thank you from you,you no longer have to. I owe you one.

UltimateContrarian wrote: Time-travel is possible, maybe not now, but in the future.

It's not. Backward time traveling is forbidden by second law of thermodynamics. The only form of time travel that's allowed by laws is time traveling forward by obtaining speed. People on a plane is time traveling compare to people on the ground, because a moving observer experiences time slower than a stationary one. Of course the difference is so small at current obtainable human speed that it's not noticeable. To have meaningful forward time travel one needs to travel at a significant fraction of speed of light.

Whatusername wrote:

UltimateContrarian wrote: Time-travel is possible, maybe not now, but in the future.

It's not. Backward time traveling is forbidden by second law of thermodynamics. The only form of time travel that's allowed by laws is time traveling forward by obtaining speed. People on a plane is time traveling compare to people on the ground, because a moving observer experiences time slower than a stationary one. Of course the difference is so small at current obtainable human speed that it's not noticeable. To have meaningful forward time travel one needs to travel at a significant fraction of speed of light.

Also, if it were possible in the future then it stands to reason someone would have traveled back to now or another point in the past already.

Whatusername wrote:

UltimateContrarian wrote: Time-travel is possible, maybe not now, but in the future.

It's not. Backward time traveling is forbidden by second law of thermodynamics. The only form of time travel that's allowed by laws is time traveling forward by obtaining speed. People on a plane is time traveling compare to people on the ground, because a moving observer experiences time slower than a stationary one. Of course the difference is so small at current obtainable human speed that it's not noticeable. To have meaningful forward time travel one needs to travel at a significant fraction of speed of light.

Yes, you are right.

Quoting would be too much at this point in the conversation.

Alright, let me arrange the answers that I received from you and get this straight.

1. We have a working definition of atheism and each atheist is essentially free to choose which one resonates most with them depending upon personal experience.
2. You meet to essentially speak of how religions are worth being mocked among other topics.
3. A number of atheists have written on or addressed in some way what atheism is or how absurd theism can be.

Here is the outline of what it takes to be considered a religion or an occult:

1, Define what your group is
2. Gain popularity
3. Have some set of rules or books of learning about your beliefs
4. You may or may not have a deity (Buddhism does not necessarily worship Buddha if you go back into the beginnings of this practice).

Granted, these are only a few points but I think that I get the idea across.Even though you do no consider yourself a religion, the differences are far from a few. If you'd like more similarities then fine.

Other than that, let's dive into the quote you posted for me. Although long-winded, it certainly did resonate with me. I detested religion growing up as I have mentioned to you but others may not be familiar. I did choose to learn about it but not for growth in faith or anything like that. I learned how to dismantle their arguments so that sensible people could be produced with or without a religion.

Your stance to openly protest religion is a personal vendetta and not required to spread knowledge in the slightest. Returning to the quote, yes, this does take a stick and poke at several (maybe even all religions) but it does the same to Capitalism, Communism, Democracy, or any other sort. Even without religion, there will always be a way to destroy the person's soul. It is up to them to differentiate what they ultimately believe or value.

Even though you do not intend to sound like you are preaching a sermon or attempting to "convert" people to Atheism just as the running gag with Veganism and their following may not intend to sound the same with the idea that meat is murder... you run along a very incredibly fine line.

To be frank, this reply was not for you since it may or may not get through. This post is for anyone who is curious. I have no personal animosity against Atheism or religions, as of today. My displeasure is against the spread of ignorance whether it is intended or not.

AshleyCK wrote: Quoting would be too much at this point in the conversation.

Alright, let me arrange the answers that I received from you and get this straight.

1. We have a working definition of atheism and each atheist is essentially free to choose which one resonates most with them depending upon personal experience.
2. You meet to essentially speak of how religions are worth being mocked among other topics.
3. A number of atheists have written on or addressed in some way what atheism is or how absurd theism can be.

Here is the outline of what it takes to be considered a religion or an occult:

1, Define what your group is
2. Gain popularity
3. Have some set of rules or books of learning about your beliefs
4. You may or may not have a deity (Buddhism does not necessarily worship Buddha if you go back into the beginnings of this practice).

Granted, these are only a few points but I think that I get the idea across.Even though you do no consider yourself a religion, the differences are far from a few. If you'd like more similarities then fine.

Other than that, let's dive into the quote you posted for me. Although long-winded, it certainly did resonate with me. I detested religion growing up as I have mentioned to you but others may not be familiar. I did choose to learn about it but not for growth in faith or anything like that. I learned how to dismantle their arguments so that sensible people could be produced with or without a religion.

Your stance to openly protest religion is a personal vendetta and not required to spread knowledge in the slightest. Returning to the quote, yes, this does take a stick and poke at several (maybe even all religions) but it does the same to Capitalism, Communism, Democracy, or any other sort. Even without religion, there will always be a way to destroy the person's soul. It is up to them to differentiate what they ultimately believe or value.

Even though you do not intend to sound like you are preaching a sermon or attempting to "convert" people to Atheism just as the running gag with Veganism and their following may not intend to sound the same with the idea that meat is murder... you run along a very incredibly fine line.

To be frank, this reply was not for you since it may or may not get through. This post is for anyone who is curious. I have no personal animosity against Atheism or religions, as of today. My displeasure is against the spread of ignorance whether it is intended or not.

I wonder if anyone else could see where you were leading him?

Ashley, really, you have a beautiful mind.

AshleyCK wrote: Quoting would be too much at this point in the conversation.

Alright, let me arrange the answers that I received from you and get this straight.

1. We have a working definition of atheism and each atheist is essentially free to choose which one resonates most with them depending upon personal experience.
2. You meet to essentially speak of how religions are worth being mocked among other topics.
3. A number of atheists have written on or addressed in some way what atheism is or how absurd theism can be.

Here is the outline of what it takes to be considered a religion or an occult:

1, Define what your group is
2. Gain popularity
3. Have some set of rules or books of learning about your beliefs
4. You may or may not have a deity (Buddhism does not necessarily worship Buddha if you go back into the beginnings of this practice).

Granted, these are only a few points but I think that I get the idea across.Even though you do no consider yourself a religion, the differences are far from a few. If you'd like more similarities then fine.

Other than that, let's dive into the quote you posted for me. Although long-winded, it certainly did resonate with me. I detested religion growing up as I have mentioned to you but others may not be familiar. I did choose to learn about it but not for growth in faith or anything like that. I learned how to dismantle their arguments so that sensible people could be produced with or without a religion.

Your stance to openly protest religion is a personal vendetta and not required to spread knowledge in the slightest. Returning to the quote, yes, this does take a stick and poke at several (maybe even all religions) but it does the same to Capitalism, Communism, Democracy, or any other sort. Even without religion, there will always be a way to destroy the person's soul. It is up to them to differentiate what they ultimately believe or value.

Even though you do not intend to sound like you are preaching a sermon or attempting to "convert" people to Atheism just as the running gag with Veganism and their following may not intend to sound the same with the idea that meat is murder... you run along a very incredibly fine line.

To be frank, this reply was not for you since it may or may not get through. This post is for anyone who is curious. I have no personal animosity against Atheism or religions, as of today. My displeasure is against the spread of ignorance whether it is intended or not.

Here is how ridiculous your comment is, What really constitutes a cult. By Steve Mason :
1) Begin by creating your own reality. You do this by keeping your members away from outsiders. An isolated farm in the middle of Idaho is good but if such a retreat isn’t available, impose a form of self-censorship. If it’s not of the cult, it’s of the devil.

(Nope we do not do this. bear in mind, I belong to the group of humanists, who are basically atheists.Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition.)

2) Next set the leader and his/her inner circle up as the only link to paradise... only they hold the keys to the kingdom.

(We do not have a paradise, we do not have a king)

3) Remember to make increasing demands. Start small but keep it going and eventually you’ll have your followers standing in line to turn over all their worldly possessions.

(We are not tax-exempt, we surely do not demand money for the promise of something)

4) Keep turning out stories about the greatness of the leader. The more unbelievable the more they will be believed. Your members have already been conditioned from the time they were children to accept things like coming back from the dead and walking on water.

(We do not believe in rulers, supreme leaders, because we value freedom, just as we do not wish to be a slave to anybody, we do not want to be masters of anybody else.)

5) Remember to use your converts to bring in still more converts. This has the double advantage of picking up new disciples and (even if that doesn’t always work) the mere act of proselytizing will further cement the commitment of those already in the fold.

(We never proselytize)

6) Keep everybody busy. This doesn’t allow time for potentially critical thought. Let the minds of the masses wander and who knows, they might put two and two together. For this reason, long sermons — the longer the better — and interminable work shifts are essential. And when you aren’t haranguing them and they aren’t being kept busy... make sure they’re at least singing.

(No need to explain this)

7) And finally, keep your flock fixated on the carrot. The payoff is just around the corner and only they will be the ones paid off. The clouds will part and they will be raptured up and then, boy-oh-boy, won’t all those non-believers be sorry.

( and this one too)

And yes, it a personal vendetta for me also.
And if presenting ideas that oppose religious views that are being legislated into laws, that are evil and that result to lives being shattered, and impoverishing a nation as we speak, and fighting that evil,as sermoning, then call it as a sermon, I am fine with that.
Veganism is harmless, Theism is very harmful.

UltimateContrarian wrote:

Rose Mary wrote: Is science a threat to humanity? Here is a link to an article about countries that criminalize atheists and humanists: 13 of those have laws that enable death penalty!

www.independent.co.u...h-a6960561.html

Nope, Science isn't a threat for humanity. However, it has the power to serve the purpose of anything. Science can help anyone achieve anything, to do good, and to do bad, and very effective at that.

Yup, I can be lynched and killed if I were in Saudi Arabia and among those countries. And yes, we are indeed a threat, a threat to the very fabric of society there, We are a threat to all the ridiculous and barbaric ideas the constitute almost everything in those countries. When we are offended by the ridiculous stupid claims, using those to legislate ridiculous violent and stupid laws to govern their country, we do not threaten to kill one of their own, we do not issue a Fatwa, we do not bomb a mosque but when they are offended, they resort to violence almost every time, how could they not? They have just the book written by god that tells them so.

Lol. The question was more like an irony based on the news I shared. But you know how much I appreciate your reply. In January this year writers from all over the world joined a global reading for Palestinian poet Ashraf Fayadh who had been sentenced to death for apostasy in Saudi Arabia. Eventually Fayadh’s death sentence was overturned. However he was condemned to another 8 years in prison, as well as 800 lashes to be carried out in 16 sessions.

genital mutilation, of men and women. That idea is inherently from religion.

I never said it is exclusively from religion

I'm not being condescending here, but take better care to write consistently. I'm really not interested in pursing this discussion further given your contradiction.

But circumcision by the Jewish Tradition is for the sole purpose of dulling the senses, as I said, to lessen the pleasures of sex, why?

I'd urge you to refrain from speaking absolutes. And your first clause is simply wrong therefore your concluding clause is epistemologically faulty.

Sofronitsky wrote:

genital mutilation, of men and women. That idea is inherently from religion.

I never said it is exclusively from religion

I'm not being condescending here, but take better care to write consistently. I'm really not interested in pursing this discussion further given your contradiction.

But circumcision by the Jewish Tradition is for the sole purpose of dulling the senses, as I said, to lessen the pleasures of sex, why?

I'd urge you to refrain from speaking absolutes. And your first clause is simply wrong therefore your concluding clause is epistemologically faulty.

I will take note of that, and will try much better to be consistent. Thank you.

My point generally although I concede that I haven't been cautious presenting my idea, and was partially ignorant about the origins of circumcision, is that only the religious, would take a baby, beautiful, almost perfect, and say "Now, hand me a sharp knife so I could do the works of the Lord." What a disgusting thing to do.