Why atheists should join religions:

I never understood what was thought so foul of a douche bag, I mean the bag itself isn't bad is it?

Perhaps your referring to the saline solution or in some cases vinegar water that is actually shot up the snatch to disinfect and rinse out unwanted material like semen unfertilized eggs and in very rare cases marbles.

So what I'd like to ask is just out of curiosity, did you mean that as an insult?

 

Your intellectual prowess and amazing vocabulary have destroyed any vestiges of humor that may have been hiding in my being.

All hail the atheist
Beacon of logic - hooray
for logic
logic
logic
logic
logic
logic
logic
logic
logic
logic
logic

 

Your mind is a bastion of ignorance, you annoy me.

 

very silly

 

Choosing the most idiotic possible example of an atheist as a reason not to be one is a pretty crap way of arguing a point. Just saying. If religion is considered distinct from ideology, then atheism is not a religion. However, I would concede that there are atheists who are every bit as dumb and as over-zealous as the worst of the religious.

 

I don't know it's kinda hard to top an Islamic suicide bomber when it comes to being over-zealous.

 

Large, yes. Large enough to command a controlling interest in the direction of the religion, no way. Most people's sole involvement in religion in my country is when they want to get married or buried. It's frustrating that religion gets to appear disproportionately important by being associated with these emotional moments in people's lives, and that half the time they end up begging churches to let them use them (more because they just need a big room than anything) when it really should be the other way around.

Christianity needs unbelievers more than any religion. It's spent a good few centuries edging towards a compassionate, humanitarian version of itself, but now it's slipping back towards the kind of nastiness we used to see 500+ years ago. They're even serious enough to consider having another schism!

Christianity needs unbelievers. It can achieve this by getting some hot models (men and women) to lie about being Christian while living active high profile social lives. Catholicism could also promote confessional as free psychotherapy, and maybe do more to promote the "Free Wine" aspect of the religion.

BUMS ON PEWS.

 

Maybe. Some of those suicide bombers are pretty smart though. I wouldn't trust the average Internet atheist zealot to tie their own shoes in a room on their own without somehow making a tit of themselves and refusing to accept it.

 

No, and that's a prime example of why Dawkins is a showboating retard who is more interested in being quoted on forums than in saying anything worth repeating.

 

Is that because you believe that rational and polite people who remain members of religions out of habit or tradition lend indirect tacit support and validity to the raving lunatics who do awful things in the name of religion? Or do you just think Christians are teh stupeds?

If it's the former, I have a counter argument.

If it's the latter, LOL YEH THEY R WEL STUPED ARNT TEHY.

 

The gospel of Mel Gibson,

Free brain washing!, donation as always very appreciated...

 

You're absolutely right, and that's the scariest part. Faith can corrupt otherwise pristine minds because of the humanity's ability to compartmentalize ideas in our heads and embrace irrationality in order to fulfill our need to have an answer to the biggest questions.

 

Whats your beef with Dick Dawkins if I may ask?

 

YO

i believe in love

 

You are so far from the sentiment of what you think you are agreeing with it's unreal.

 

Some are not...

The other main problem is that you get one shot with a suicide bomber; and since the type of person who commits themselves to a one-way mission for a vague sense of glory and responsibility isn't usually the sharpest fork in the drawer, you can actually have semi-hilarious situations (overlooking the dead for a moment). Consider some of these "suicide snafus":

* In August of 2001, a suicide bomber sitting in a coffee house hit on the waitress, finally lifting his shirt and showing his explosives to get her attention. The waitress immediately screamed "terrorist" and the coffee shop immediately emptied before the bomber could hit the detonator, killing himself instantly but only lightly injuring 21 people.

* There have been multiple cases of suicide bombers being snagged at checkpoints, detonating prematurely, and killing absolutely no-one. This is the suicide bomber equivalent of driving drunk and crashing into a tree pulling over for a sobriety check.

* And in one case in May of 2002, a suicide bomber blew up, by himself, walking along a road, far away from anything or anybody. No doubt his family was proud.

http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/martyrdom/suicide-bombers/

 

Primarily that, while he's demonstrated a great deal of intelligence and insight on his chosen subject, he almost unwaveringly dumbs down his message in the popular media, so that rather than providing a thought-provoking debate that has the power to benefit atheists and religious people alike, he simply plays up to the Oedipal prejudices of atheists and adds to a climate of hostility over something as pathetic as the existence of God that really doesn't need it right now.

 

Do I really need to go and dig out a selection of statistics on the number of Americans shot by themselves/each other in the recent conflict in Iraq?

Interestingly as an aside to this, I was once told that the British Empire deserved to lose the colonies to the Americans because we refused to adopt their tactics. They were referring to the fact that the Americans combatants wore civilian clothes, while British soldiers always wore their uniforms. When I asked him when the US Army would start recruiting its own units of suicide bombers to "fight" in the Middle East, he conceded that if the British deserved to lose America based on failure to adopt their enemies tactis, so did the Americans.

 

He's just stating his opinions and as for hostility I would say that shot is coming from the other camp if you get my drift.

What do you mean by Oedipal prejudices?

 

You could if you wanted, I was just giving a bit of a counterpoint to your statement on the intellect of a suicide bomber.

I see the tactic of suicide bombing an act of desperation and not a sound tactic to win a war, in other words adopting the enemies tactics is probably not in the best interest of the cause if your already on the winning side.

Just my opinion though.