The Amazing Atheist - YouTube debater about religion and other stuff

[ktimekiller]

This guy is really great, one of his videos has got more than 13.000 views and has good ratings. 13000 might not be even close to other videos but in this area it is the best.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ1n5ecSylU[/YOUTUBE]

he has tons of other intressting videos too. Please listen through the whole video. The guy is so funny and smart and logical. He totaly owns Christians on youtube asking him questions etc. Hes getting alot of subscriptions and his fanbase is growing, hes gona be famous on youtube and some day maybe move to bigger things i hope.

Not all religious people are stupid, its just the stupid ones seem to try and speak out the most

 

[Uriel]

Thank you for NOT being a jackass and apologizing Mikael seriously we don't see it much online, especially in this sort of thread

As for the little argument between Mecha and Uriel, I think it's fair to say that at least most organized religions have harmed society. Not all, but mostly just because I try to avoid making blanket statements about things that one cannot easily or conclusively quantify. Christianity, Islam, and most of the other major religions that are fairly high profile in the world have certainly harmed society. Any ideology founded on something as unreasonable, illogical, and unsubstantiated as the idea of a God or presiding judge and creator of life becomes immensely dangerous when it is taken to the point where people would kill for it. That is inherently dangerous to society, even if it has not yet been demonstrated.

I certainly will agree that there are a lot of religions that have harmed society. As for saying most I don't think anyone can say that considering all the religions from the beginning, every personal experience in someone's life that a religion has made, etc etc.

However, I will not accept someone saying that my religion has done a disservice to society. From VAST charitable contributions and programs, to the women's suffrage movement, to education, etc. My religion has always been concerned about the welfare of everyone.

 

[Ennui]

I certainly will agree that there are a lot of religions that have harmed society. As for saying most I don't think anyone can say that considering all the religions from the beginning, every personal experience in someone's life that a religion has made, etc etc.

However, I will not accept someone saying that my religion has done a disservice to society. From VAST charitable contributions and programs, to the women's suffrage movement, to education, etc. My religion has always been concerned about the welfare of everyone.

Was this concern for welfare intrinsic or obligatory, and moreover, was it done in the name of your church/religion? There's a point where it just becomes an advertisement no matter the social benefit. It obviously still helps, but from the idea (that I think is fairly reasonable) that religion has the potential to harm society, the social services are overridden by the fact that it's another way of spreading religion.

I'm getting a little out of my vein, here, because I don't feel like religion is a virus or anything. My main goal is for people to look at things from every angle, and in following have the ability and inclination to monitor their faith so it stays within reasonable bounds (and they don't go kill someone in the name of their religion, and retain tolerance, etc).

 

[JNightshade]

I certainly will agree that there are a lot of religions that have harmed society. As for saying most I don't think anyone can say that considering all the religions from the beginning, every personal experience in someone's life that a religion has made, etc etc.

However, I will not accept someone saying that my religion has done a disservice to society. From VAST charitable contributions and programs, to the women's suffrage movement, to education, etc. My religion has always been concerned about the welfare of everyone.

I have to admit, the worst thing the Mormons have done is annoyed the occasional homeowner

 

[Uriel]

I have to admit, the worst thing the Mormons have done is annoyed the occasional homeowner

Hahaha, I'll be going back out on my mission. I didn't like knocking on people's door all that much, but reason why we're doing it is because we're concerned about the welfare of your soul, whether you believe if one exists or not.

You know you can ask them to volunteer to help you out with most things. Heck, I shoveled dog poop and cleaned a dog kennal.

 

[Ennui]

Atheism doesn't mean one doesn't believe in a soul

 

[Uriel]

Atheism doesn't mean one doesn't believe in a soul

I'll avoid the battle of "define atheism"

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Not all religious people are stupid

More accurately, not all religious people are stupid, but all religious beliefs are stupid.

Sorry, but Christians generally are a lot more reasonable than Muslims. The vast majority of Christians hold their beliefs for little more than comfort, tradition or community and are, for the most part, indistinguishable from the rest of the population unless you actually hold a discussion about religion.

There is a VAST difference between "reasonable" and "passive".
Christians are generally more passive than muslims, but they aren't the slightest iota more reasonable.
You need to use reason to be reasonable, which is something that all religions fundamentally lack.

And when I say christians are passive, I mean passive-agressive. They vote instead of fight, but the results are often indistinguishable.

On the other hand, 99%+ of Christians think that Fred Phelps is a whackjob.

I very much doubt the accuracy of that figure, and your definition of "extremist" for that matter.

When talking about religion, all religious people are ideologically extremists. It's extremist to say a single-cell is a human being. It's extremist to think ghosts control your life, or that there is a hell and heaven. It's extremist to believe in ghosts and spirits.
Our standards are so low that we neglect to consider that 80% of human beings are extremists who deny science.

Christians are just as extreme as muslims. The only difference is that they're winning. They don't need to blow up buildings, but they would if they thought they were being oppressed too far (and they do; look at Iraq and "god's" message to Bush asking him to invade and stop a nuclear apocalypse). The standards are lower, but the insanity is the same. It's just become complacent.
Like Murray pointed out: he doesn't care about people going to hell because he's lazy - but he still refuses to so much as consider changing his mind and calls me "prejudiced" just for attempting a discussion.

What you have to realise is that Islam is not just a religion, it's an insiduous totalitarian entity that seeks to govern all aspects of life for all people all over the world.

I do "realise" that. I haven't done all this research just to ignore Islam's horrific offenses. My favorite was the huge list of quotes from the Qua'ran celebrating the burning of infidels that was too big to fit in a single post.
You are wrong, however, in your belief that christians do not have totalitarian ambitions.

Last I checked, there was no Christian equivalent of Sharia law. It's like fascism, only without the technical and scientific accomplishment.

Dead wrong. The bible demands theocracy. It's ingrained into its core. The entire bible itself is the pre-written legal system of a christian theocracy. It's called God's Law for a reason.
It saw partial practice in the middle ages, and the goal of what you call "extremist" christians is to make that a reality again.

As detailed in the book Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism by Michelle Goldberg (which I suggest you all read, it's a great book) details the main tactics used by the religous right to gain control over american politics. The book then compares these tactics with those used by rising facist nations and finds that they are identical.

This includes creating their own version of reality.
There is now "Christian History" - not the history of christianity, but history re-written in christianity's image. ("America is a christian nation" they say, using fake evidence that real historians have proven false).
There are "Christian Scientists," which I am sure you are aware of. They're the ones who are saying dinosaurs co-existed with Noah and that the grand canyon was caused by the great flood, again based on falsified evidence. I'm pretty sure there is "Christian Math" too. there is definitely "Christian Physics".

The goal is to redefine reality as we know it, to divide and conquer the populace.
These are sciences in name only, just like when the kansas school board decided to redefine "science" to mean "not science". They redefined it to include the supernatural, which is by definition not scientific!
This is called "the wedge strategy", more publically known as "teach the controversy".
The idea is to force religion into all aspects of life, so that even if they fail, they get media coverage. It's viral marketing mixed with Foxnews' version of "fair and balanced".Meaning that everyone gets equal airtime, even if they are liars.

See, the "extremists" (by your definition) aren't nutjobs. They are actually the smartest, best christians. They have read the bible - the entire bible - and they know that what I'm saying is correct:
Christianity's core values violate the american constitution, and science fundamentally contradicts religion.

Their conclusion, however, is that this means America is wrong, and that Science is wrong. After all, the bible can't be wrong!
So they redefine what Science and America mean. America is a christian nation all of a sudden, and Einstien was a christian, and Darwin suddenly doubted evolution existed.
Those are all lies, but they are lies that don't contradict the bible - which means that, to these christians, they are absolutely true.

You'd have to be rather naive to assume this is only 1% of christianity. I'd place it at around 35-40% of them, as an estimate based on voting trends. We've had dozens of them show up on this forum alone.

Only stupid people confuse anti-Islamism or any kind of anti-Islamic sentiment with racism. Solaris is a hypocrite whichever way you look at it.

Oh, obviously. But remember that the purpose of this thread and others like it is invariably to directly confront stupid people and/or stupid ideas.
Remember, Murray called me prejudiced just for attempting to talk to him.
I'm sure he's not a stupid person, but stupid ideas can cloud anyone's judgement.

Neither can you show me how all religions are the same, other than placing them in a broad and general category.
You cannot state all religions have and are harming society.

All religions are illusions.
Spending time and effort chasing illusion is harmful because it is inherently wasteful.
You do not get the results of your effort. It's a scam.
And that is the best case scenario. That is the scenario where you don't try and convert people and nobody dies.

This is not a broad general catergory. This is what all religions are.
It is up to you to prove that your religion is based on reality.
Or, failing that, that your religion is better.
Or, failing that, that your religion is at least not too harmful.

You've failed all three.
It's not my fault you make an inadequate amount of sense.

I tried asking you to make sense, but everyone refuses.

 

[Uriel]

All religions are illusions.
Spending time and effort chasing illusion is harmful because it is inherently wasteful. You do net get the results you seek.

This is not a broad general catergory. This is religions are.
It is up to you to prove that your religion is based on reality.
Or, failing that, that your religion is better.
Or, failing that, that your religion is at least not too harmful.

You've failed all three.

It's not my fault you make inadequate amounts of sense.

O

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Ha ha.
You're a clever kid, which is what makes this so painful.
Stop saying "opinion" like that suddenly makes you immune to criticism.

This is not subjective like a favorite colour or icecream flavour. We are dealing with facts, and facts are not opinions. They are facts.
Stop redefining reality, please.
Your fantasy does not have equal status with reality.

Here is your chance to show me up:
What is your reason for believing in these things that are not factual by definition?
Why is your opinion better?

Why do you refuse to demonstrate that you aren't worshipping air, when simple probability says that the existence of god is near-infinitely unlikely?

 

[Asuka]

Im not religious at all and i think this guy is a idiot.

Extremely immature.

 

[el Chi]

I wish this guy would hold back on the swearing and crass mocking. Mock, but do it cleverly - swearing will just stop people listening to you.
He's good, but frankly I've heard better.

Yes, because Isaac Newton had an undeveloped brain.

There was also a lot less to go on in the 18th century that suggested that God was not real.
It is thanks to many a scientist (like Newton himself, ironically) and philosopher that we can see more than one, mystical explanation.

 

[Uriel]

Ha ha.
You're a clever kid, which is what makes this so painful.
Stop saying "opinion" like that suddenly makes you immune to criticism.

This is not subjective like a favorite colour or icecream flavour. We are dealing with facts, and facts are not opinions. They are facts.
Stop redefining reality, please.
Your fantasy does not have equal status with reality.

Here is your chance to show me up:
What is your reason for believing in these things that are not factual by definition?
Why is your opinion better?

Why do you refuse to demonstrate that you aren't worshipping air, when simple probability says that the existence of god is near-infinitely unlikely?

I have a testimony of Jesus Christ and our Heavenly Father through my feelings, experiences that I have had, the experiences and testimonies of others, and the actions that have followed afterward depending how I am living my life.

It would be easier to go through life believing there is no God and taking part in those things I have a desire to do. But I cannot because of my experiences. I would not be true to myself if I did.

My experiences have been so profound I am willing to go through life and try my very hardest to never drink, smoke, lie, have sex before marriage, etc. It's so hard sometimes not to do the following or others, but you have to understand, there is reason behind why I do this, why I believe.

Even though those things are hard to abstain from, I am happy. I am full of joy when I do what I have been taught was is right. I wouldn't do it otherwise.

I am an intelligent individual and I can see your perspective, but please see mine. There is good reason behind my beliefs and the beliefs of many others.

I don't want to show you up, nor do I want "win" any debate. I want you to understand why I believe in what I do.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Well you're making that really difficult to understand your good reason when all did in that post is allude vaguely to "experiences".

Lots of people have "experiences."

I "experienced" eating a bowl of oatmeal today.

You need to be more specific about what actually happened during these experiences.

This isn't about winning or losing. It's about aquiring knowledge.
I'm not here to convert people. I'm here to understand them, and through that knowledge understand my own mindset better by contrast.
When I ask you why you don't follow the bible, that's not an attack. That's a genuine question about how you can simultaneously worship Jesus and ignore huge chunks of what he said.
I don't even believe in god, but I still went over the book with a fine-toothed comb and then did an analysis of its logical framework. I discovered, in what could be considered a scientific manner, that Paul and Jesus contradict eachother.

Given that your religion is based mainly on Paul's presumably less accurate version of events, you'd think that this would be essential knowledge, but every christian I mention it to doesn't really seem to care.

 

[spookymooky]

I don't know that any of this will contribute to the conversation, that you care, or that it's true, but here are some vaguely relevant things i think. These are generalizations, for the most part.

First off, people will almost never make decisions based on fact. People believe whatever they want to believe. Maybe the facts make them want to believe it, maybe there are other reasons, but emotion is almost always first, for both atheists and theists, reason is secondary.

That said, "facts" are pretty much all bullshit anyways. The only thing I know of physics, religion, or anything I have not directly experienced is what people tell me. In this sense,Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica and the Bible are equal. Only is sufficiently able to predict future events, and the other isn't, in my experience.

Now, I don't really know how much direct experience can be trusted either, but I won't go into that.

I think one of the principle problems with religion is that it gives people a sense of entitlement. The idea of a kingdom of heaven, or that other people should act as you see fit creates this. Anything can create this feeling, but religion seems to encourage it. It seems to me that feelings of entitlement are basically the only reason for suffering. Being on fire doesn't bother you if you don't expect or want anything better.

Once again, this isn't an attack, just a faintly related observation. Religion is often obsessed with the concept of "love thy neighbor". This can lead to a lot of pain in and of itself. I happen to think that love is the most intense form of greed any human can feel.

Also, any search for happiness is inherently dangerous, just like large groups in any sort of agreement.

Finally, keep in mind that all life is a form of masturbation, so any feelings of holiness or whatnot on either side of this debate are probably crap anyways.

Well, yeah!

 

[delusional]

However, I will not accept someone saying that my religion has done a disservice to society. From VAST charitable contributions and programs, to the women's suffrage movement, to education, etc. My religion has always been concerned about the welfare of everyone.

You tell that to the Indians who were tortured until they believed Jesus is there savior

I have a testimony of Jesus Christ and our Heavenly Fatherthrough my feelings, experiences that I have had, the experiences and testimonies of others, and the actions that have followed afterward depending how I am living my life.

Testimonies usually isnt the best proof for something. Since all the testimonies ive heard for christianity usually states that there lives were changed and that they have a purpose in life or that a void in there heart was filled, among other things. But in reality, just because something is beneficial does not mean it is right. anything can fill that need, it just happened that christianity filled it and gave them a purpose. I personally dont understand the hole in the heart situation since im content with my situation. When i was a christian i remember my pastor saying that non-christians try to fill a hole in their heart with sex, drugs, and sin and that only Jesus can only fill that hole, but i have come to the conclusion that is false. im sort of ramblin but whatever, shoot me.

Even though those things are hard to abstain from, I am happy. I am full of joy when I do what I have been taught was is right. I wouldn't do it otherwise.

Again, just because something is beneficial, it does not make your religion correct. But i wont stop you from being happy, i guess.

 

[Max35]

I believe it was the philosopher Immanual Kant that had the belief that human reason wouldn't be sufficient to know if there was a God. I could have that wrong.

I used to be an Atheist. But, I am agnostic now, for some reason. Why? I couldn't tell you. I just don't like shutting out any possibility. Perhaps that's just being too chicken to stick to a concrete idea.

EDIT:

Egyptian Proverb: "Listen to your conviction, even if they seem absurd to your reason." Take that as you will.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

That's a nice inspirational pro-religious quote from the egyptians.

The eqyptians who enslaved whole populations to build vast, useless monuments to the gods and buried all their fabulous riches in holes so that they could carry them the underworld.

Those egyptians.

 

[Ennui]

Egyptian Proverb: "Listen to your conviction, even if they seem absurd to your reason." Take that as you will.

If you were raised Christian... that's not very useful, as generally being taught that you have a personal connection to God facilitates a sort of conditioned response to the idea, which, upon maturity, can seem like a genuine spiritual force.

I prefer to draw off myself.

 

[Ome_Vince]

Edit:
had a whole post here, but generally speaking, who cares. This discussion is pointless anyways.
All i have to say is, its funny how the ones living the Bible/Quran to the last letter, the most top notch religious ppl like the Pope are working for peace, and constantly are attempting to heal relations between Muslims, Jews, Christians destroyed by greedy foreign politics of certain countries.
How priests, imams etc travel all over the world spending their life in helping other people, giving them food, education and hope.
Yes, they must all be bad for humanity.

 

[Stigmata]

Edit:
had a whole post here, but generally speaking, who cares. This discussion is pointless anyways.
All i have to say is, its funny how the ones living the Bible/Quran to the last letter, the most top notch religious ppl like the Pope are working for peace, and constantly are attempting to heal relations between Muslims, Jews, Christians destroyed by greedy foreign politics of certain countries.
How priests, imams etc travel all over the world spending their life in helping other people, giving them food, education and hope.
Yes, they must all be bad for humanity.

You clearly either haven't understood what this discussion is about, or you skimmed four posts and missed everything important.

If the people "living the Bible/Quran [sic] to the last letter" were really living their respective books to the last letter, you and I would probably have been killed by now.

 

[Ome_Vince]

I actually did, reread the post plz. I'm not commenting on those cherry-picked phrases from a thousand+ page book nobody ever heard of. I'm referring to its implementation.
I'll dig up a bible somewhere in an attempt to see if the message of the bible was war and murder instead of peace.

 

[Stigmata]

I'll let Mecha take care of this.

Protip: Jesus wants you to kill people.

 

[Absinthe]

"Born atheists" -- what a dipshit.

And hold still.

You're born agnostic, technically. Without any mental development on if there is a god, or if there isn't.

Well, most realistically, kids just don't believe anything at all, because it's all irrelevant to them.

Technically, you are born as an atheist. You have no belief in God. Like many people here, you two fail to understand just what the **** agnosticism is.

ADDED: I've read five pages into this topic and I'm getting pissed.

If you dipshits want to challenge me on what a ****ing atheist is and what an atheist isn't, then step right up.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

I'm an agnostic until you come home, Absinthe. Come hooome, man.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Max35]

If you were raised Christian... that's not very useful, as generally being taught that you have a personal connection to God facilitates a sort of conditioned response to the idea, which, upon maturity, can seem like a genuine spiritual force.

I prefer to draw off myself.

Good point. But...the "self" can lie to you just as much as religion. In a sense anyway.

Anyway, Absinthe (with hopes of not being called a dipshit) I would like to present an alternative view on "Technically, you are born atheist" side of things. You can not be born either agnostic OR atheist because each of these require a belief, and after just being born, you couldn't possibly have a belief one way or another. Hope this doesn't seem like a logical fallacy, but I tried to look at it as technically as possible.

 

[Solaris]

Atheism does NOT require any beliefs.

It is the absence of belief in God/s

 

[Max35]

Atheism does NOT require any beliefs.

It is the absence of belief in God/s

Hello, Mr. Ignorant. Time to prove you wrong.

Definition of Atheism: the belief that God does not exist. In case that wasn't clear enough, it is a BELIEF. The lack of a particular belief doesn't matter and is not logical. It is a belief system in and of itself.

 

[Solaris]

Hello, Mr. Ignorant. Time to prove you wrong.

Definition of Atheism: the belief that God does not exist. In case that wasn't clear enough, it is a BELIEF. The lack of a particular belief doesn't matter and is not logical. It is a belief system in and of itself.

Anyone can make up incorrect definitions.

look:
****tard: Max321


Nah kidding, but can you source that definition?

 

[Pulse]

Atheism is a belief; the belief in all absence of God and/or higher beings/entities. If you truly didn't believe in God you would not associate your own beliefs with that of others; you would remain an individual. For you see, what do we call a large group of people who all share and practise a common belief? That's right, a religion! Ultimate irony there Atheists!

 

[Stigmata]

Atheism is a belief; the belief in all absence of God and/or higher beings/entities. If you truly didn't believe in God you would not associate your own beliefs with that of others; you would remain an individual. For you see, what do we call a large group of people who all share and practise a common belief? That's right, a religion! Ultimate irony there Atheists!

Well technically, we go out of our way to not practice anything

Besides which, the problem atheists have with religion isn't the idea of religion, it's the fact that millions of people are basing their lives (and things that affect other people's lives, like the government for example) around a book written over two thousand years ago, full of dated, archaic, and fundamentally immoral statutes of practice and enforcement.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Atheism is a belief; the belief in all absence of God and/or higher beings/entities. If you truly didn't believe in God you would not associate your own beliefs with that of others; you would remain an individual. For you see, what do we call a large group of people who all share and practise a common belief? That's right, a religion! Ultimate irony there Atheists!

Hello, Mr. Ignorant. Time to prove you wrong.

Definition of Atheism: the belief that God does not exist. In case that wasn't clear enough, it is a BELIEF. The lack of a particular belief doesn't matter and is not logical. It is a belief system in and of itself.

Looks like people need to read things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

'Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities.

Various dictionaries give a range of definitions for disbelief, from "lack of belief" to "doubt" and "withholding of belief" to "rejection of belief", "refusal to believe", and "denial".'

Atheism is a wide range of different philosophies characterized by, at minimum, a basic doubt concerning the existence of ghost-men.

You know, I read the bible to make sure I had no misconceptions.
Right now, it's like you're calling all christians catholics.
It's a dumb thing to do, especially when you're bragging about how not-ignorant you are.

 

[Max35]

I originally got the definition from my WordPerfect program (actually Atheism). But this refutes it apparently, in one sense:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Atheist

But Atheism is described as a belief (or disbelief) that God does not exist.

Also, don't call me a ***tard even jokingly. You're in no position to judge or mock my intelligence. Although you could turn my own words against me and call me 'ignorant' I suppose.

 

[Pulse]

Looks like people need to read things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

'Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities.

Various dictionaries give a range of definitions for disbelief, from "lack of belief" to "doubt" and "withholding of belief" to "rejection of belief", "refusal to believe", and "denial".'

Atheism is a wide range of different philosophies characterized by, at minimum, a basic doubt concerning the existence of ghost-men.

You know, I read the bible to make sure I had no misconceptions.
Right now, it's like you're calling all christians catholics.
It's a dumb thing to do, especially when you're bragging about how not-ignorant you are.

Atheism
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

Never did I state how 'not-ignorant' :| I was. I am merely disclosing the whole irony shrouding Atheism; their dismal of other's religious beliefs, when they themselves follow and practise rules similar to that of any religion:

Religion

A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

 

[repiV]

There is a VAST difference between "reasonable" and "passive".
Christians are generally more passive than muslims, but they aren't the slightest iota more reasonable.
You need to use reason to be reasonable, which is something that all religions fundamentally lack.

And when I say christians are passive, I mean passive-agressive. They vote instead of fight, but the results are often indistinguishable.

Yet there are no Christian theocracies on the planet. Many, if not most, Muslim countries are theocracies. Islam is the only religion that is also used as a form of government. Doesn't that speak volumes?
Not to mention, Jesus was actually a pretty cool guy, regardless of his followers. Mohammed, on the other hand, was a thief, a murderer, a terrorist, a rapist and a pedophile. Islam loses from its very outset.
Over 90% of Americans are Christians, and Christianity is a much more powerful force in the US than in any other country in the world, yet the USA is not a theocracy. More people still want to live in the US than in any other country in the world. Still hardly anyone wants to live in the Middle East. Why do you think that is? It's not a coincidence.

I very much doubt the accuracy of that figure, and your definition of "extremist" for that matter.

I've never spoken to anyone, ever, who thought Fred Phelps was anything but a complete scumbag. And I speak to a lot of American conservatives.
But even an old friend of mine who I didn't even consider particularly religious, totally ordinary guy and very, VERY English in his behaviour and personality, is now an Islamic extremist - in spirit and possibly in deed. I had to report him to MI5, and I wouldn't hesitate to kill him if I knew he was a threat. He's not the same person I used to know. I don't know of any other mainstream force that can twist ordinary people into evil lunatics with such ease.

When talking about religion, all religious people are ideologically extremists. It's extremist to say a single-cell is a human being. It's extremist to think ghosts control your life, or that there is a hell and heaven. It's extremist to believe in ghosts and spirits.
Our standards are so low that we neglect to consider that 80% of human beings are extremists who deny science.

Yet none of those beliefs are in themselves harmful. So it's basically irrelevant.

Christians are just as extreme as muslims. The only difference is that they're winning. They don't need to blow up buildings, but they would if they thought they were being oppressed too far (and they do; look at Iraq and "god's" message to Bush asking him to invade and stop a nuclear apocalypse). The standards are lower, but the insanity is the same. It's just become complacent.
Like Murray pointed out: he doesn't care about people going to hell because he's lazy - but he still refuses to so much as consider changing his mind and calls me "prejudiced" just for attempting a discussion.

They're not. Most Christians are completely ordinary people who you couldn't tell apart from anyone else. They certainly are in the UK.
If Christians were as extreme as you say, the US would be a theocracy and it wouldn't be a scientific and technological pioneer and world leader in all fields.
Muslim nations contribute ****ing nothing to this world at all. The entire Middle East could go up in flames tomorrow and the only thing the rest of the world would miss is the oil.
Christian or historically Christian nations, on the other hand, lead the world in every field.
The evidence for Christians being just as unreasonable or backwards as Muslims is just not there at all.

I do "realise" that. I haven't done all this research just to ignore Islam's horrific offenses. My favorite was the huge list of quotes from the Qua'ran celebrating the burning of infidels that was too big to fit in a single post.
You are wrong, however, in your belief that christians do not have totalitarian ambitions.

Totalitarian "ambitions". "Ideologically" extremist. The proof is in the fact that you have to qualify every accusation you make that equates Christianity with Islam. Christianity is centuries ahead of Islam, that is the simple and undeniable truth, whatever "ambitions" you may say Christians have. If the majority, or even a large minority, of Christians believed as you say they do, the US would undoubtedly be a theocracy. Who would stop Bush making it so? Kerry the Christian? Hilary Clinton the Christian? Bush's voters? America's largely Christian military?
It doesn't wash.

Dead wrong. The bible demands theocracy. It's ingrained into its core. The entire bible itself is the pre-written legal system of a christian theocracy. It's called God's Law for a reason.
It saw partial practice in the middle ages, and the goal of what you call "extremist" christians is to make that a reality again.

Yet it's not a reality. It hasn't been a reality since the Middle Ages, and even then it wasn't even approaching the extent of Islamic theocracy even today. I deal in realities, not hypotheticals.

As detailed in the book Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism by Michelle Goldberg (which I suggest you all read, it's a great book) details the main tactics used by the religous right to gain control over american politics. The book then compares these tactics with those used by rising facist nations and finds that they are identical.

This includes creating their own version of reality.
There is now "Christian History" - not the history of christianity, but history re-written in christianity's image. ("America is a christian nation" they say, using fake evidence that real historians have proven false).
There are "Christian Scientists," which I am sure you are aware of. They're the ones who are saying dinosaurs co-existed with Noah and that the grand canyon was caused by the great flood, again based on falsified evidence. I'm pretty sure there is "Christian Math" too. there is definitely "Christian Physics".

The goal is to redefine reality as we know it, to divide and conquer the populace.
These are sciences in name only, just like when the kansas school board decided to redefine "science" to mean "not science". They redefined it to include the supernatural, which is by definition not scientific!
This is called "the wedge strategy", more publically known as "teach the controversy".
The idea is to force religion into all aspects of life, so that even if they fail, they get media coverage. It's viral marketing mixed with Foxnews' version of "fair and balanced".Meaning that everyone gets equal airtime, even if they are liars.

I'm not denying that Christian extremists exist and are a threat. However, there is one very important point here - they are only a threat in the USA. The rest of the world laughs at them. You can't compare Christianity in the States to Christianity in Europe, or Christianity in Canada. It's a completely different beast.
They're never going to accomplish their goal of total theocracy, and even if they did, it's a uniquely American problem. Islamic terrorism is a global problem.

See, the "extremists" (by your definition) aren't nutjobs. They are actually the smartest, best christians. They have read the bible - the entire bible - and they know that what I'm saying is correct:
Christianity's core values violate the american constitution, and science fundamentally contradicts religion.

Their conclusion, however, is that this means America is wrong, and that Science is wrong. After all, the bible can't be wrong!
So they redefine what Science and America mean. America is a christian nation all of a sudden, and Einstien was a christian, and Darwin suddenly doubted evolution existed.
Those are all lies, but they are lies that don't contradict the bible - which means that, to these christians, they are absolutely true.

I speak to a lot of Americans...by extension Christians, and the vast majority of them are completely in support of the separation of church and state. And America still isn't a theocracy. You're vastly overstating their numbers. Their influence, perhaps not, but a small number of people can certainly have a huge influence over a much larger number.

You'd have to be rather naive to assume this is only 1% of christianity. I'd place it at around 35-40% of them, as an estimate based on voting trends. We've had dozens of them show up on this forum alone.

You don't have to be a Christian extremist to vote for George Bush. You don't have to be religious at all. Had you ever considered that the alternative may actually be worse?
If I had to choose between Bush and Kerry (what a choice to have...), it would be a very difficult decision.

Oh, obviously. But remember that the purpose of this thread and others like it is invariably to directly confront stupid people and/or stupid ideas.
Remember, Murray called me prejudiced just for attempting to talk to him.
I'm sure he's not a stupid person, but stupid ideas can cloud anyone's judgement.

Indeed.

 

[Solaris]

I originally got the definition from my WordPerfect program (actually Atheism). But this refutes it apparently, in one sense:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Atheist

But Atheism is described as a belief (or disbelief) that God does not exist.

Also, don't call me a ***tard even jokingly. You're in no position to judge or mock my intelligence. Although you could turn my own words against me and call me 'ignorant' I suppose.

Yeh well do go around calling people Mr.Ignorant when you're wrong and they're right.

 

[Max35]

Looks like people need to read things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

'Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities.

Various dictionaries give a range of definitions for disbelief, from "lack of belief" to "doubt" and "withholding of belief" to "rejection of belief", "refusal to believe", and "denial".'

Atheism is a wide range of different philosophies characterized by, at minimum, a basic doubt concerning the existence of ghost-men.

You know, I read the bible to make sure I had no misconceptions.
Right now, it's like you're calling all christians catholics.
It's a dumb thing to do, especially when you're bragging about how not-ignorant you are.

Admittedly, I'm stupid

But, you're not completely right on Atheism it is also described as

"the doctrine or belief that there is no God."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Atheism

And Pulse, I think Mecha was referring to me bragging about being 'not-ignorant,' which is not entirely true. But whatever.

"Right now, it's like you're calling all christians catholics."

Was that directed towards me? (as well as the not-ignorant comment, I assume) it was under the quote, and you seem to be addressing me

 

[Max35]

Yeh well do go around calling people Mr.Ignorant when you're wrong and they're right.

I was going on faulty information, admittedly. But, it's my own fault I didn't check it out further.

 

[NeptuneUK]

Repiv wins at the moment. Respect.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I want Repiv to run in Government.