Mateusz seems to be quite proud of how well he's doing. As usual we have claims of attacks and persecution, as if he was on the side of good. We have claims of 'mis-understanding christianity', which is easy to do when they change what it means to suit their current argument. Of course, his side is just as aggressive and far more foul than mine, but he like to play martyr. Oh, that's not an atheist misconception about catholics as he's previously stated, he actually does it in his closing paragraphs. Anyone, on with the usual format of his words in bold and my rebuttal.
“Your statements are quite emotional, at times aggressive and arrogant. You are trying to humiliate me and accuse me of terrible things. I do not quite understand why my views and arguments cause with such emotions in a rational thinking atheist - well - apparently it must be so. I will try to answer this calmly and objectively to your accusations against me.” – I’m answering this last, so I already know you were just as emotional and as insulting as I was. I also still think you fully deserve the tone and attitude. I justify my emotion at the end, based on your writing. I do not believe I was arrogant, my confidence in my views is well supported.
“Let me start with the issue of AIDS in Africa, especially Uganda, which przytoczyłeś. Unfortunately, You shot yourself in the foot, just because it shows Africa well on condoms and AIDS epidemic, rather I am right and you are not.”
Well, you don’t really do very well here, let’s start with the research by Dr Norman Hearst, pretty much the only scientist to side with you.
This man is against almost the entire scientific community. I can easily explain why he is wrong: Although we know that condom use alone will not stop spread of HIV, with such a high number of sufferers then it can still spread even with condom use, we also know that condoms are not ineffective and are a major part of reducing the spread of HIV. Obviously, if everyone in Africa was abstinent, then the disease would die out much more quickly. The issue is that this will never happen, it is spreading because people are being told that condoms should never be used and spread HIV and are still having sex. Again, correlation does not mean causation. You keep agreeing with that, then using correlation. There is a clear reason why you can only find one study to support you, because you can find one study that says it proves almost anything. The important thing is to have peer-reviewed data. Why do I need to repeat this?
Just making the point that abstinence stops the spread of HIV is missing the point. On an individual level, condoms are very effective. In a place where HIV is widespread, there is more inherent risk. The correct solution to stopping the spread of HIV is not just abstinence, because people will simply not be abstinent, a much broader view needs to be taken. The reasons why Africa has this issue is a very socio-economic one. My point that “Condoms spread AIDS and are ineffective” is a lie, has been proven repeatedly.
The link doesn’t show any data I can use.
Point 3 to 12 Less sex reduces HIV. I know this. So what? You seem to be under the impression that my side of the argument is “Just give people condoms and they can have as much sex as they want, with whomever they want”, this is completely wrong. I agree with you that abstinence and fidelity in the face of such a high risk of infection are a huge part of the solution. But condoms are also a very good way to lower the risk if people do not wish to be abstinent. Proving that widespread condom distribution on it’s own doesn’t work very well is not needed.
As for the rest of the discussion on condoms, you’re either arguing against a point I didn’t make or making stuff up. Your idea that “condoms aren’t 100% effective, so sex education is bad” makes no sense. My argument is that you are removing the freedom from people to make their own decisions, something that is the basis of the homosexuality discussion too. You would rather lie to children than let them decide to take a risk if they choose.
You have said that:
“I will tell my daughter that condoms do not protect adequately from AIDS, every time you have sex with a condom is still risking HIV. I will tell her that only abstinence and fidelity are capable of 100% protecting her from the dangers/risks associated with sex. And I will do is exactly to protect her. Do you call this ‘hiding of necessary information’? “
Two mistakes there. Firstly, condoms do not contain HIV, you have to have sex with someone who has it to risk infection. Secondly, marriage doesn’t cure HIV. So not only is that incorrect, it is a very narrow and inadequate view.
Instead of focusing on condom use, why not tell me what else you think is harmful about sex education?
Next, you move on to the traditional family. You say that it is obvious that you don’t think traditional marriage includes obedience from your wife etc. Why is this obvious? Which ‘tradition’ are you talking about? Biblical marriage included such reasoning; this thinking has changed very recently, certainly not long enough ago for it to be considered ‘traditional’.
I understand that you don’t see these things as part of ‘traditional marriage’, my question was ‘why not?’ They are traditional, are they not? I was simply demonstrating another example of selective memory. You think that the parts of tradition you want are sacred, the parts you either don’t agree with (or even the some that you want but couldn’t get away with) are forgotten.
Then you mis-understand the maths lesson. It was condescending because I was teaching something simple to a grown up.
Now back to sex again. You say that you want to tell people the truth that abstinence is the only way to prevent infection or pregnancy 100%. Then why argue against sex education? Remember that you were the one protesting against teaching kids about sex, not me.
On sexual repression: Yes, it is the exact opposite of an entire lack of control and sexual addiction. The same way that anorexia is the opposite of over eating. As usual, you are blind to the middle ground of rational behaviour.
Now we hit the crazy stuff. First of all, sexual abuse, paedophilia and homosexuality are not the same thing. This quote “This may explain to demand the rights of gay couples to adopt children. Perhaps some of them want to educate themselves sex objects.” is the most bigoted and offensive nonsense you’ve said so far. You claim moral superiority over me and spout rubbish like this? You wonder why I’m condescending and get angry at you? Every part of this paragraph is clichéd bullshit. You should be ashamed of yourself.
You still don’t see the parallel between equal rights for homosexuals and equal rights for others. You spout the same pathetic arguments that were used to keep women and other races oppressed for most of history. You still call it a disease and perverse but without any actual reasoning, two humans want to marry and you compare it marrying a chair.
Next, intangible nonsense: “But love is a phenomenon that goes beyond the purely biological description.” No it isn’t. Also, the proof of love is infinitely better than the proof of god. I have more than 5 years of primary source evidence that Kamila loves me, she could be lying, but there is no evidence of that and I trust her because of the evidence. There is no primary source evidence for a god.
You asked some questions:
Why(for what purpose) do you live? This isn’t really a scientific question
What is the sense meaning of your life? Scientifically, my life has no meaning. I give my life meaning myself.
Why do you exist and why does the world exist? Because that’s what happens when you give a lot of hydrogen 13.75 ± 0.17 billion years to do stuff.
What is going to happen to you after death? The universe will continue for many billions of years, probably until heat death occurs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
What is the sense meaning of your life? Scientifically, my life has no meaning. I give my life meaning myself.
Why do you exist and why does the world exist? Because that’s what happens when you give a lot of hydrogen 13.75 ± 0.17 billion years to do stuff.
What is going to happen to you after death? The universe will continue for many billions of years, probably until heat death occurs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
Answer those questions in a scientific way.
Religion has not answered these questions truthfully. Again, you quote goodness and love as somehow beyond science, which is rubbish. You don’t understand the difference between scientific theory that needs to be updated and simple right and wrong. Scientific theory evolves over time and parts of a theory can change with new data. A perfect example of this is gravity. Have you ever seen gravity? No, you can only see its effects. Can scientists see gravity? No, they are in the same situation. Does that disprove gravity? No. We know gravity exists, it’s the same with love and goodness. We don’t need any sort of god theory to explain any of those things. Love is a combination, in differing degrees, of various scientifically study-able theories. The primary contributors are biological/chemical and psychological factors.
You claim “for example, that the human species evolve, which in terms of probability and complexity is basically impossible” is a complete mis-understanding of the science and maths.
The observable universe is 46 billion light years, containing roughly 100 billion galaxies. Galaxies contain between 10 million and 1 trillion stars. A very rough estimate would give us 300 sextillion stars. That is 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. We know of one that has a rock with intelligent life on it. So, even though the conditions for life are so specific that they make the probability of life very low, the sheer number of planets makes it almost certain that life exists/existed on other planets. Think of the chances of winning the UK lottery, 14 million to one. Then think of how many times you could win the jackpot if you had a billion tickets.
“For certain you have your, atheistic answer to these questions, the believers have their own. Neither one nor the other are "scientific" in the sense of how you understand the science. So do not usurp the right to "scientific" debunking religious faith, because you do not have as to jurisdiction.”
Of course science has more values in these matters. The issue is not that science can’t tell us why, only how. There is no why in the sense that you want. That is our answer and it is not equally valid with your explanation, your explanation has no basis other than imagination, science has hundreds of years of observed evidence that has continuously contradicted church teachings. You only think these questions exist because you don’t understand that we have all
“do not know why there is a world and man, do not know what happens to the human soul after death”
We know how the world and man appeared, there doesn’t have to be an external force to give it a ‘why’. As for ‘the human soul after death’, show us a soul, or any primary evidence of its mechanisms and we’ll try to explain. Oh yeah, it’s intangible it can’t be proven. Then how do know it exists? Without any proof it no more exists than unicorns or leprechauns.
“Christianity certainly has created what we now call "Western civilization", "human rights" "humanitarianism," "the dignity and worth of human life." Were it not for Christianity, you do not even know these concepts because żyłbyś in one of the barbarian cultures.”
Rubbish. The catholic church is still fighting against "Western civilization", "human rights" "humanitarianism," "the dignity and worth of human life." The church only falls in line with secular society after the fact because it doesn’t want people to stop going to church. This very argument is about you wanting to oppose equal rights. So, rather than looks at the many, many examples of the terrible things that have been done (because you’ll just attribute them to human flaws, only good things come from god), we should look at what christianity teaches in the bible.
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)
Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
"A silent and loving woman is a gift of the Lord: and there is nothing so much worth as a mind well instructed. A shamefaced and faithful woman is a double grace, and her continent mind cannot be valued." (Eccles. 26:14-15)
That’s a small sample of the teachings of the bible and only on one subject. The moral teachings of the catholic church that are actually good morals are no more than other societies have managed without the church. Japan has had almost no influence from Christianity, yet they are not barbarians. Certainly no more than Christians anyway.
“But I am not questioning evolution.“
You did.
“My view of God's existence implies that the rational being can not arise of being irrational (which is matter, nature, evolution, etc.). Atheists proclaim the irrational view that the wise man was blind as a result of mindless evolution of nature. Other atheists do not distinguish human from the animal in terms of quality.”
The theory of evolution is as solid as the theory of gravity. We know they exist and we have incredible amounts of evidence to support our views of how they work. The theories only question the details of the mechanics and in no way question the existence of those mechanics. To suggest that the evolution of man is irrational is exceptionally ignorant. How can I not be condescending when faced with such nonsense? It is absolutely clear that there is no absolute need for a creator in our universe, even most religious scientists agree. The arguments the creationists come up with are easily dismissed.
“And secondly, what in general has to do with it?” – I bring this up because it demonstrates that humans came from the same place that every other animal did. We share a recent common ancestor with apes and, if you go far enough back, we share a common ancestor with trees. All this talk of love and good making us different is bullshit. Evolution demonstrates very clearly that there is no need to for a god us to exist. It shows that your belief that humans have special qualities is untrue. Evolution explains love, thought and emotions, even if we don’t know everything about the history of it. It is yet another example of my stack of historic evidence against your imaginary, intangible theology.
“Dawkins is certainly a prominent biologist. However, his theories and claims about Christianity are simply absurd, which says many scientists - even atheists.” – You’ve given me name, Terry Eagleton. I’ve found the critique you’re referring to. I’m going to read it now. I guess you’ve read both too? Of course you have, you wouldn’t just be assuming things with actually knowing, would you? We can go through those criticisms and address them:
“A molehill of instances out of a mountain of them will have to suffice. Dawkins considers that all faith is blind faith, and that Christian and Muslim children are brought up to believe unquestioningly. Not even the dim-witted clerics who knocked me about at grammar school thought that. “
Same crap you spout. You yourself have repeatedly said that there is no evidence for god, arguing semantics over the use of the word is stupid. You have no evidence, it is faith. Eagleton harps on for several paragraphs about the difference between blind faith and Christianity. He moves to lying and misrepresenting the catholic view of god, something you do. Changing the goal posts and then claiming that atheists have misunderstood religion is an underhanded and terrible way to argue. He makes claims about Dawkins’ view of god that simply aren’t true. You cannot claim to know the will of god and his promises of an afterlife etc. and at the same time call him ‘unknowable’.
Next, he misrepresents Dawkins and lies about the bible: “Nor does he understand that because God is transcendent of us (which is another way of saying that he did not have to bring us about), he is free of any neurotic need for us and wants simply to be allowed to love us. Dawkins’s God, by contrast, is Satanic. Satan (‘accuser’ in Hebrew) is the misrecognition of God as Big Daddy and punitive judge, and Dawkins’s God is precisely such a repulsive superego.”
Dawkins is referring to the fact that the church, claiming that it is the word of god, issue many, many rules and regulations to its believers. This is undeniable fact. Referring to god in the same way that one refers to any mythical being or fictional character, Dawkins refers to the supposed personality of god as portrayed by scripture. All books of the Abrahamic religions continuously demonstrate that god, jesus, the holy spirit etc. continuously give messages of “don’t do this or I will send you to hell” or “you can only get to heaven if you do this”. So far, Dawkins has not be shown to be incorrect, simply misunderstood.
“Such is Dawkins’s unruffled scientific impartiality that in a book of almost four hundred pages, he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from religious faith” – A misunderstanding. Dawkins asserts that there is nothing unique about christianity that means the good done in its name could not be done by someone without faith. Morality predates and does not need christianity and therefore, christianity cannot take credit for good deeds done in its name. Taking credit for morality is arrogant and immoral.
“He also holds, against a good deal of the available evidence, that Islamic terrorism is inspired by religion rather than politics.” – I don’t think this guy understood a word Dawkins said. Dawkins point was that Islamic terrorism could not be anywhere near as effective without religion. Sexual repression is used to convince people to sacrifice their lives with the promise of an eternal reward. They could not achieve this without religion.
“Dawkins tends to see religion and fundamentalist religion as one and the same.” – Not true.
The ‘critique’ is pathetic; it contains the same stupid contradictions that The God Delusion was addressing in the first place. It jumps from “God is unknowable and transcendent” to “God revealed himself through Jesus and we know exactly how he wants us to live”. Even a child should be able to see that is contradictory nonsense.
Contrary to your opinion that atheists are misunderstanding religion, my view is that theists are the ones who are misunderstanding atheists and that they are blind to a rational examination of their own beliefs. These arguments against Dawkins are clearly a good example of this. Common mistakes are made, you and he seem unable to differentiate between “we know there is no god” and the actual views of atheists like Dawkins and myself. I’ve explained this before, maybe you’ll address it later in the blog post.
You have both misunderstood other scientists’ arguments against Dawkins. This is a common type of mistake; you take someone who has even a slightly different view and then claim that they disagree with someone entirely.
“If we do not even know whether we exist we must take it on faith (is not it?) We must assume. So you admit yourself that life is not only hard to guide the premises "scientific," but you make some assumptions that you take arbitrarily. If you accept and believe in something very improbable - ie the fact that we exist (and probably exist, as we speak), why do you think is an irrational belief in the existence of God?”
No, I do not take my existence on faith. I asses the evidence and make a decision, this is the scientific process. I do the same for love. None of this is arbitrary. Irrational is the belief in something with no evidence. Not only is there no evidence for the existence of a god, there is a large amount of evidence that the god you believe in was created by humans.
“Comparison of the bird is completely clash. Because I'm not talking about some specific abilities of the body (flying, swimming, digging trenches in the ground, breathe underwater, etc.) I'm talking about a completely unique abilities, which has only a man - for freedom and understands - and these go beyond the concept of brain function.”
No, you aren’t. You can’t argue from a false premise like that. Love and thought are not uniquely human. Our concepts of love may be unique and more well defined due to our brain size, but they are in no way supernatural. The brains size difference does equate to a bird’s ability to fly, it is an evolutionary effect of natural selection and other factors.
“Hence, however, due to serious consequences - because if a man is just an animal, it does not really have any raison d'etre molarity, no respect for life, man. Therefore, if atheists were consistent and honest would admit that they are not justification for concepts such as value of life, respect for human beings, human rights, etc”
Again, no. This is utter rubbish. I derive my moral from a combination of scientifically analysed information and an evolved internal sense of care for other animals. I eat free range eggs and chickens, fight for equality and human rights and select which charities I donate to based on these factors. As for your morals, I believe them to be immoral. If god gives us morals, then why are my morals different to yours? The reason we are engaged in this argument is because I find you a morally reprehensible person. You have no intelligent reasoning behind your opposition to any of my arguments, I have shown time and time again that you can’t grasp simple concepts and have either lied and twisted yourself or just repeated the lies told to you by others.
“Hence, probably the greatest crimes in human history were made by atheists. “ Offensive lies. Again, you spout the usual Nazi argument, which I have given sufficient proof to refute. This is right-wing propaganda at its worst. Name one great crime in the name in the whole of history that was done in the name of *just* atheism. Your usual bullshit of Stalin etc. do not count, you have admitted yourself that you understand the removal of the church was to replace a supernatural god with a human one.
“Peter Singer, which referring to evolutionary reasons - biologizujących says for example that a child can be killed for the first year of life - why? Because there is still going consciousness. These same by him can not be done with the animal. These are crazy atheistic assumptions about the effects of equality between man and beast.” - This was a very intelligent thought experiment. The point of which was to promote vegetarianism, you misread “eating animals is like eating babies” as a call to eat babies, not a call to stop eating animals. This shows how exceptionally biased and ignorant of the truth you are.
“So we do not discover any "America" - cites some well known facts and you think that Christians do not know about them - it's ridiculous. “ – What a surprise, you still don’t understand the point. If all other religions are obviously untrue and made by man, why is yours different? We can see from the history of religion at the time that these polytheistic religions were changed to suit the needs of the people at the time. There is no evidence of any information from an external source, especially not a supernatural one. I did not say that these early christians should know about America, I asked why god appears to have given different messages in different parts of the world and sometimes didn’t even bother with some countries. It is so completely obvious this stuff was just made up by people, I find it hard to understand how you could believe it.
“This is another proof that you do not understand Christianity. After all, no one is questioning that, the idea of god has been developed in history – what is more- Christian interpretation of the bible contains the analysis of the contemporary culture, mentality and historical context. I’ll say more – I agree even with that the bible contains myths. All of these are well known facts, out of which you are making a big sensation.”– So you admit that you just make it up as you go along? If the idea of god develops over time, how does that happen? Does god change his mind and society changes to his will? The bible, as I’ve shown previously, demands obedience from women. It is my view that society forced religion to change its views from a humanist moral perspective, how do you explain the change in the churches attitude to women? Please explain how the clear and concise instructions given in scripture can be reinterpreted to mean that women shouldn’t be stoned to death if they refuse to marry their rapist? This is absolute proof that the bible is not a good moral guide and that your morals come from an natural source, rather than a supernatural.
Of course there are people who say that the word of god is not open to interpretation, there are millions who take the bible literally. Large parts of the bible are supposed to be the word of god, it is written that way and pretending you can ‘change your understanding’ is a pathetic cop out after religion is forced to change by society, by the very morals you say I can’t have that disagree with the morals you say are from god. The difference between my accusations and your statement is that you make excuses to try and pretend the bible said the same thing all along and it just took time to realise. What utter nonsense.
How can you agree that the bible contains myth and has changed so much over time, yet still think it is of any value? As a metaphor or guide it is utterly useless, it is morally twisted and barbaric. Of course I am making a big thing out of these things. You and millions of others have dedicated their lives to a fictional book and it has been used over centuries to oppress and kill, even against others who think slightly different things about the same stupid books. I am aggressive against you beliefs in the same way I would be aggressive against any other bigot. I would no more tolerate a racist as I do a homophobe such as yourself.
“Nobody claims, that the faith in god was created in a certain/given time as a ready philosophical system.” – Not sure what this means exactly, Kamila translated it properly and it still doesn’t make sense. I am claiming that your god was created the same way Thor, Ra and all the other gods were created. I have not misunderstood christianity, in fact, I clearly understand it better than you do.
“You go through a lot of trouble to prove (to yourself) that Christianity is a mistake, whereas in fact ‘you ram the open door." It's pretty pathetic. And this indicates what I have said that you have a problem with religion. You say that you fight only with the alleged "grievances" that were supposedly caused by religion on humanity. But your words contradict this statement - you rather fanatically are trying to fight with a God, which after does not exist (does he not?) Do you not think such an attitude as irrational? I do not believe in unicorns, and for this reason so I do not write a book "Imaginary unicorns" or looking for hard evidence of non-existence of unicorns. Understand Your attitude militant atheist is irrational.” - Hahaha… Back to the fighting with god rubbish. I would fight against unicorns if people were passing unjust laws because unicorns told them to. The reasons for opposing gay marriage and sex education are the same. Your views are dangerous and damaging. My atheism is no more irrational than my a-unicornism. Your brand of imaginary friend is much more dangerous and deserves a much stronger opposition.
"Your unfounded Prejudice of homosexuals is indefensible, you are still repeating the same basic faulty logic That 'They can not have children so they are unnatural'"
And what about this is "illogical"?. Is not it true that the gay relationship is by definition (nature) defective infertile? Deny this?
Homosexual couples cannot produce children without assistance. Your point? This does not make them un-natural. Your pathetic attempts to justify your bigotry have amount to nothing more than pathetic logic and unfounded discrimination. You state that homosexuals are different from other infertile couples but give no logical reasoning. You are still ignoring the major point. It’s none of your business whether they can produce children or not. If they wish to get married, so what? Children do not make any difference. If two people love each other and wish to enter a legal contract, then why do you want to stop them? Comparisons to child abuse are disgusting, ignorant rubbish. You clearly have no morals if you cannot distinguish between any rape and consensual sex between two people.
“This time we really get the impression (perhaps mistaken) that you are a regular fanatic who hates me for my views and faith. It's a shame, because I want us to live in spite of disagreement in peace.”
Although I am not a ‘fanatic’, I am very opposed to your religion and views. To be a fanatic, I would have to be willing to cause harm to you. The reasons for my opposition are rational, intelligent and well thought out with a large body of very empirical evidence behind them. Your views are supported by circular logic, bad logic, mis-understanding and bigotry.
“Fortunately in my country you can still live peacefully, but in Western Europe we have the first signs of anti-Christian totalitarianism, and persecution for their faith. “ – Hopefully this will change when catholicism loses its grip a bit more. I honestly don’t care that much if you see this as totalitarianism and persecution. I’d rather you understood the truth of the situation, but it really doesn’t look like you are capable of rational thought. If you think freedom is the right to impose your belief on others, then I have no sympathy for you. I am fighting for freedom and morals, not you. No harm will come from homosexual marriage or sex education, only good. If you cannot see this, I pity you, but I have to fight you. You stick to your imaginary world where evil atheists want to destroy you, rather than simply stop you hurting others. You can believe that we’re going to hell. You can pretend that Nazis were atheist despite the evidence. You can think we have no morals and that “Both in my country and in the entire Soviet bloc propaganda atheistic Communism fought against religion and religious education by means of repression and coercion” means anything in this argument. It doesn’t.
"Perhaps the return times for the Christian faith that I will have to go to jail - read your accusations against me, I feel that, quite likely." - For most of history, the people who jailed, tortured and killed christians, were other christian denominations or other religions. I have demonstrated in my previous post that your idea of abstinence only education is as effective as no sex education and that sex education protects children. The goals you admit to (there are clearly others) are the same as mine, reducing teen pregnancy and STDs. The argument is over your ignorance on the subject, it appears that I care more about your daughters health than you do.
"One more thing - do you realize that you are only one of many fighting atheists, for whom the world forgets? The Catholic Church has existed for more than two thousand years (and have a great time), despite persecution and attempts to destroy the faith" - A whole two thousand years? That's almost as long as the Egyptians believed in their gods, Judaism too. Well done. Am I supposed to feel threatened by that? Both you and I will die and leave very little mark on history. Only the exceptional leave a mark, I don't think I'm either Mozart or Hitler, do you think you are? Although many of the most famous people throughout history were scientists, many scientists have been forgotten by most people. Science is a collaborative effort. Heart transplants were not invented, they were perfected by many. Those who helped made a lasting impact on humanity. Being remember is not important. People who fight against religious bigotry are well remembered, those who fought against sexism, racism and slavery were fighting against people who believed god was on their side. Not all of them were theists.
"Since the beginning of Christianity, the powerful forces of this world tried to destroy him - first killed the founder - of Christ. Later, his followers were killed." - Actually, we already agreed the bible was myth. This is one of them.
"Politicians, "scientists", philosophers, dictators, totalitarian regimes - all tried to destroy Christianity. Do you realize that you share their fate? Did you know that you will die in obscurity, at most leave after a few anti-religious thought and Christianity will last until the end of the world?" - Putting scientists in parenthesis is pathetic. Christianity will not survive until the end of the world. It may survive until the end of humanity, but that's only if that happens soon. Your religion is dying and you know it. As I've said, the history of attacks we fighting between christian ideologies and other faiths. Occasionally, by those who replaced god with themselves, like Stalin. True, rational atheism has never spoken out against the church in such a way. This time, you can't play martyr, no-one will hurt you or kill you. You can shout oppression and only other bigots will listen. We will educate children. We don't even have to be involved in religious education. Sciences like physics and psychology are amazing tools for removing superstition. Science erodes religions lies; Mikołaj Kopernik used the scientific method to disprove the heliocentric view, it was not a revelation from god. Evolution proved that humans were not created by god. Your religion has not developed a better understanding of god, it has been eroded by the discoveries of science and will continue to do so. We aren't just picking on christianity though, all religion will die.
No comments:
Post a Comment