Total Biscuit's - Atheism does not make you clever

Maybe it doesn't..... in the same way that Religion doesn't make you a moral person.
Religion also "dumbs down" a person because they don't need to think as much, Jesus/God is the answer to everything.
Why are we here? GOD...etc etc.

a reply to: blupblup

That's not exactly true though.
As a general rule perhaps, but not all religious believers are alike.
Just like not all atheists are alike.
Or all anyone of anything really.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

HAHA well if the current trends continue they'll be shifting the test back to where the average was a few years ago.

I didn't mean to derail your thread. I was just trying to give people a background on the man behind the words.

As to the OP; he said a lot. After saying all that he makes no conclusions. No real points. I would believe that there is one of two causes for this. The first is that he is writing a soul searching open letter to try and help him cope with his feelings. The latter, is that he is just trolling for traffic because making over 15000 pounds a month isn't enough.

My personal feelings toward him:

I liked the guy. I watched quite a few of his let's plays with my kids but after he turned to trolling I turned away. I have little respect for people that belittle others. It hurts the people, the internet, and the lessens the quality of the good that people could be doing.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

I kind of expected what your edit talks about.
But I decided to not let that stop me from putting it out.

I'm glad you did, some people might benefit from it, even some who's knee jerk reaction wouldn't seem to indicate it.

He's a youtube personality and you're putting too much stock into his opinions, what is the mind blowing conclusion he makes... Ummm believe what you want to believe, keep looking for answers, knowledge is the sum of all your experience??? I have never heard these mind blowing philosophies ever talked about before ever...

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: blupblup

That's not exactly true though.
As a general rule perhaps, but not all religious believers are alike.
Just like not all atheists are alike.
Or all anyone of anything really.

Na I know... there are plenty of religious scientists and plenty of moronic Atheists.
I think as a general rule - As a GROUP, religious people are far dumber than Atheists.
I don't know why I posted really because I hate labels and hate division.... but I think that religion and religious people have had the rule of the roost for almost ALL of history.

If it wasn't for religion, we'd be so far ahead of where we are now... as a species, in terms of technology, mentally evolved etc.
Religion has held mankind back for far too long and continues to in some instances.
Religious people outlawed most scientific curiosity for long periods of our history and killed and imprisoned so many great minds and destroyed so much knowledge and so many books of wisdom.
Also killed many, many mentally ill and handicapped people because they were "evil" or "cursed" and still does now in many African countries and elsewhere.

Religion in principle can be a force for good... but it has done so, so much damage and harm too.


I'd just add that Religion is the single most awful and destructive thing in the history of humanity and has done far more damage than anything else in our history.

a reply to: rockn82
In order.

I have a problem with the whole idea of IQ anyways.
So it would not surprise me in the least.

It's not a problem.
Your derail was entertaining.
And I've found staying completely on topic 100% of time almost impossible for myself.
So I don't expect any better from anyone else.

I think he was trying to make a point.
And I think he did.
imwilliam highlights it better than I ever could.

a reply to: miss_sky

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

And your agenda is showing.

a reply to: blupblup

If it wasn't for religion, we'd be so far ahead of where we are now... as a species, in terms of technology, mentally evolved etc.... religion has held mankind back for far too long and continues to in some instances.

I rather doubt that.
I get the feeling you're refering to what historians generally believe is the badly named "Dark Ages".
Am I correct?

Religion in principle can be a force for good... but it has done so, so much damage and harm too.

It's a two edged sword.
Like everything is.
I mean, are we to judge science by weapons technology developments and their impact?
Do we demonize it for the atom bomb?

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Took me a little while to catch on... You are using a troll and defending a known troll therefore......... I know exactly what this thread is, I won't be participating anymore, I feel bad for even wasting my time...

a reply to: miss_sky

Um.
No.
But does that mean you will no longer "participating"?

I understand that the post has somehow offended you.
But that was, at least, not my intention.
And seeing as to how you refuse to discuss well anything and just continually make nitpicking declarations and broad statements.
I don't see how I have any recourse other than what I have already taken.
I tried to be nice at first.
But you're having none of it.

So, good day ma'am.

I think it was a decent essay.
Read the whole thing!

This is the only issue I had with it (typo/spelling errors notwithstanding):

Not surprising really as we mammals only use 10% of our brains.

This ^^ is not true.

Proven by modern science/brain scans, etc.

Other than that, the author's point is taken and well-delivered.

Here's a nifty 10-minute vid that Benevolent Heretic shared in another thread, which explains more about the point:

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: blupblup

I rather doubt that.
I get the feeling you're refering to what historians generally believe is the badly named "Dark Ages".
Am I correct?

Yep the Dark Ages, Catholicism and many others throughout history.

(A quick google finds a lot of info)

www.vexen.co.uk...

Also you can doubt all you like but Religion is STILL holding back mankind, peace and people's freedoms.


Middle East conflict (Israel/Palestine)
Gay Marriage
Wars in Middle East

Plus many other things I have neither the time nor inclination to list

It's a two edged sword.
Like everything is.
I mean, are we to judge science by weapons technology developments and their impact?
Do we demonize it for the atom bomb?

Well I didn't say religion was at fault for EVERYTHING.... I said it was the single biggest evil, not the only thing.
Mankind sadly still has violent tendencies... religion just gives a reason for it.
There are sadly people who want to hurt others and wars will be waged (far less would be without religion)

Religion is not to blame for ALL of the worlds ills, but definitely for many of them.


Anything, as you said, can be a double edged sword... but I'd argue lives saved, medical advancements, understanding of our anatomy and all manner of other scientific positives, far outweigh the negatives of science.

On the other hand, the ills and horrific acts committed in the name of religion, far outweigh anything positive like bake sales, charity, looking after the poor etc that religion does.


Even if we leave aside The Dark Ages, the Crusades, the Wars, the persecution of anyone different...suppression of knowledge and education across and throughout our history.

www.vexen.co.uk...

Religion is divisive, Fear based, turns people against one another, keeps people ignorant.

Only sheep need a shepherd.


I think Hitchens says it best "God is Not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything."


Here's a brief overview of his argument

a reply to: blupblup

I think you, Mr Hutchins, and many others are blaming religion for the faults of people.


On a side note in reference to the "Dark Ages":

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: blupblup

I think you are blaming religion for the faults of people.

No.... people commit the acts, Religion inspires them.

No point in debating as I learned a long time ago.... people's minds are made up/closed.

Enjoy the thread

a reply to: blupblup

People need little inspiration when it comes to all the negative aspects we encompass.
Otherwise those things wouldn't be done in the name of so many other things.
Like racism and nationalism for example.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Otherwise those things wouldn't be done in the name of so many other things. Like racism and nationalism for example.

I think there is a lot of truth in that. I think it's a given that large numbers of people on many different occasions in history have been manipulated into doing "bad things" through the use of religion by others, (The PTB if you like), to "rally the troops" so to speak. But I think it's less often the case that religion was the true motivation of the PTB and that their motives were much more along the lines of greed then their religious beliefs.

I mean to say that if someone uses your otherwise good principals/beliefs/ideas to manipulate you into doing something bad, does that make your otherwise good principals/beliefs/ideas "bad"? Does responsibility for the bad acts lie with your good principals/beliefs/ideas or in the manipulation and twisting of those beliefs to bad ends? To me, that's a call to come to a better understanding of your principals/beliefs/ideas so that you're less easily manipulated, rather than just chucking them out the window.

As you said, if a set of religious beliefs wouldn't motivate otherwise "good" people to commit "bad" acts or if someone couldn't twist them to justify those "bad" acts, isn't it likely that the "manipulators", acting from some motivation like greed, wouldn't just find something else . . . racism, nationalism and etc. to use as a tool for manipulating others into committing "bad" acts?

Add to that the idea that sometimes people are able to twist otherwise "good" beliefs and etc. to justify their own "bad" acts in their own minds which doesn't make their "good" ideas/beliefs/ideas bad in and of itself, it's their manipulation of those things and their consequent acts that are "bad"

Of course, if one thinks about it, its very difficult to assemble a factual "score card" for religion because it's very difficult to say how many times and to what effect "bad" acts have NOT occurred and how many times "good" acts have occurred because of someone's religious beliefs.

On a more factual and less speculative note. I don't see how much of a historical case can be made for the notion that religion has been responsible for most wars, (or even a substantial percentage), and the casualties attendant upon those wars.

Huffington post has an interesting article you can find here:

Is Religion the Cause of Most Wars?

The article addresses the assertion that "religion is the major cause of conflict" and states that history doesn't support it.

Citing the book, "Encyclopedia of Wars" by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod, the author of the article states that religious conflicts only amount to 7 percent of wars and 2 percent of all war casualties. Not exactly an over whelming portion.

For those that like to talk about the crusades and consider their motivations to be exclusively religious, the total number of casualties is estimated at one to three million. That's a horrendous number of deaths, but to put it in perspective here are a few other casualty counts for wars that were secular in nature:

World War 1 16- 40million
World War 2 60-85 million
Mongol Conquests 30-60 million
Taiping Rebellion 20 million
Napoleonic Wars 3.5-6 million

and etc. You can find a much larger list here on Wikipedia:

Wars By Death Toll

It's also worth noting that the article on Huffington Post puts the deaths attributable to Communist China and Russia at around 100 million in the last century.

a reply to: BestinShow

"Evangelical Fundamentalist morons, get your overly simplistic, judgmental, dogmatic Crayola God out of my face, you have about as much understanding of the universe as a wet lettuce. That does not make you holy, pure, or guaranteed a private booth at the big game in the sky, it makes you a bloody sheep hiding behind a cloak of propaganda that you only believe because you're told to"

a reply to: imwilliam

Well put, I will add a point.
The Crusades are largely held as an example of religiously motivated violence.
But, I am inclined to believe that direct access to the Silk Road and it's riches was more of a motivation than the supposed birthplace of Jesus.
Just the latter was used as an good excuse to make people want to give them access to the former.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

I agree that the motivations for the Crusades included things other than religious convictions and that economics was among those.

You know, there is a story, sorry I can't remember where I read it, though I could hunt it down if anyone felt it was necessary, about a battle during the crusades being halted by both sides to allow a caravan to pass between the armies.

Kind of suggests at least mixed motivations, to say the least.