So I was Reading The Book Of Luke... Vol. Jesus Christ Is Amazing.

[mo matik]

^Great video. Did not know all that before.

What's very much worth noting is that the position presented in the video of the original texts and original followers is that which Islam has been arguing for 1400 years.

That Jesus, peace be upon him, was man and not God. He was a servant of God. A Prophet of God. And that others had changed the original message.

The parallel shouldn't go overlooked. It may be more than just coincidence.

 

[mo matik]

^Great video. Did not know all that before.

What's very much worth noting is that the position presented in the video of the original texts and original followers is that which Islam has been arguing for 1400 years.

That Jesus, peace be upon him, was man and not God. He was a servant of God. A Prophet of God. And that others had changed the original message.

The parallel shouldn't go overlooked. It may be more than just coincidence.

 

[whywesteppin]

I'm amazed by how intellectually dishonest some people can be.

I'm also amazed by Meth's patience in this thread. Props be upon him.

 

[whywesteppin]

I'm amazed by how intellectually dishonest some people can be.

I'm also amazed by Meth's patience in this thread. Props be upon him.

 

[Gill Baka Esq. LLC.]

Originally Posted by whywesteppin

I'm amazed by how intellectually dishonest some people can be.

I'm also amazed by Meth's patience in this thread. Props be upon him.

Very true, I really tried to stay away from this thread just like what meth mentioned in his reply being that this being a pub and guys just are waiting to pick a fight.  I've said it in other threads and i'm going to say it again if a person is living their life without harming anyone in the process, who are you or anyone else to tell them anything about it?
Some of the points Method Man mentioned in his reply are very close to what I was writing in a reply when I was about 4 paragraphs long I just looked at what I was doing, which was probably going to add more fuel to this fire and I just said "no" and I just x'ed the screen.

What we have in this thread are atheist's at one end of the extreme, by practically saying that if there is not scientific evidence of it, it does not exist.  What this reminds me of are religous fanatics that try to shove their religion onto other people.  The way I see it is that atheism is starting to become it's own religion, the idea of believing in only what can be scientifically proven but in my eyes not everything in this life is quantifiable, quantitative or can be explain through science.

There is a way to discuss atheism and it's positive messages but this thread was definitely not it and did not convey anything good as far as i'm concerned.

 

[Gill Baka Esq. LLC.]

Originally Posted by whywesteppin

I'm amazed by how intellectually dishonest some people can be.

I'm also amazed by Meth's patience in this thread. Props be upon him.

Very true, I really tried to stay away from this thread just like what meth mentioned in his reply being that this being a pub and guys just are waiting to pick a fight.  I've said it in other threads and i'm going to say it again if a person is living their life without harming anyone in the process, who are you or anyone else to tell them anything about it?
Some of the points Method Man mentioned in his reply are very close to what I was writing in a reply when I was about 4 paragraphs long I just looked at what I was doing, which was probably going to add more fuel to this fire and I just said "no" and I just x'ed the screen.

What we have in this thread are atheist's at one end of the extreme, by practically saying that if there is not scientific evidence of it, it does not exist.  What this reminds me of are religous fanatics that try to shove their religion onto other people.  The way I see it is that atheism is starting to become it's own religion, the idea of believing in only what can be scientifically proven but in my eyes not everything in this life is quantifiable, quantitative or can be explain through science.

There is a way to discuss atheism and it's positive messages but this thread was definitely not it and did not convey anything good as far as i'm concerned.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by Method Man

I would love for that to happen. I'd acknowledge their point but I'd endlessly enjoy talking about why I think morality is important. Wouldn't be offended at all. Even if it got to the point I didn't have the best answers in the discussion. Bring on the egoists as well.

And this is part of my concern, and the reason for the unwilling MMA sparring recruit analogy.  You guys enjoy these debates.  That's fine, and NikeTalk should be a good place to have them respectfully.  
The problem is that you don't often find willing partners to play with you.  So, what do you do?  The Colosseum's all set up, but you don't have any gladiators!  Well, you may as well just drag some people in and force them to fight, right?  How are you any better than the guy who likes to pick fights in bars?  Really, that's what it comes down to.  

On this message board I don't see us dragging ppl in to our threads. They choose to engage in discussion. I'd have to assume they enjoy it as well or have a good reason to be explaining their reasons for why they are theists and answering other questions.

Personally, I don't enjoy arguing - but unfortunately on this board some people try to bait me into it by saying inflammatory things about issues I care deeply about.  I find that utterly selfish, manipulative, and, for lack of a better word, simply obnoxious.
I think it's rather obvious to detect when someone is trying to bait others in to an argument or "set a trap" and even easier to ignore or not directly engage in to the argument if I do post despite deeply caring about the topic. During my time here there's been threads I've read through and just not posted in. "Oh there's another race thread." I'd

and move on to find some lulz. If those ppl doing that are aware that they're doing those things there's no helping them and they keep doing it until that one time they get no opposition so that they can feel that they are right and act as such from other who have read the thread. Especially when it's something heavily opinionated or when an extreme bias is placed on it.

I don't think that's case with these arguments when you look at the core argument.

This is something people hold very dear.  It's important to them.  They draw strength and inspiration from it.  You can call it a crutch, but that's your opinion.  What you're doing, though, is exploiting the strength of people's devotion to make them defend it, which gives you guys sparring partners.
And I'd like to know why they hold it so dearly. If it's the values and morals then they can still have that without religion. If all it comes down to is wanting their to be an afterlife and the peace of mind that you'll be in a better place then that's something personal to them they shouldn't be arguing if they aren't willing to accept that it doesn't make sense given all the other options/possibilities and how it was presented/indoctrinated to them. If they refuse to realize that, they should refuse to be a sparring partner. I don't see how I can be held accountable for someone being mad about an argument they chose to be involved in, especially if they're gonna claim they're being attacked or disrespected. I said it before but discussion shouldn't be shaking their faith since they should've already asked themselves similar questions. If they're too sensitive about this they should recognize that and bow out. 

Some of you see the missionary mindset at play in society, you see how people attempt to violate the separation of church and state, you see how people try to ram their religions down your throat and use it to control you without your consent, and you're understandably upset about these things, but rather than looking at these instances as an example of the misuse of religion, you assume that religion itself is a universal bad and that you, therefore, have the right to call any religious adherent to the carpet and hold them accountable for it.
It's my understanding that on a global scale religion right now is being constantly misused. I don't see it as a universal bad but it doesn't help that some religions holy text preach intolerance or that the majority of the religious can not prevent themselves from judging others when that is also something their religion preaches. I don't get in these discussions assuming the person I'm arguing with is an advocate of the Spanish Inquisition or witch hunts. Most of them start off by us asking theists whether or not they take their holy texts literally or contextually or just a big book of metaphors, allegories, etc. and then it goes from there. I'd put aside what's been done in the name of their religions and try to specifically discuss what they believe.

Imagine, for a moment, that you're an American traveling abroad.  You visit a pub to relax with your fellow travelers, yet as you're attempting to settle in you feel a swelling sense of unease in the room and the pub's regulars begin to gather around your table.  They're angry.  They're angry about America's foreign policy.  They're angry about Western exploitation of the rest of the world.  They're angry about America's central role in aggravating climate change and its intransigence to reform.  They're angry about our militarism and lack of meaningful humanitarian aid.  

How SHOULD they express that?  IF they'd approached you and said, "Oh, you guys are Americans, huh?  Well, I'm sorry if you find some people here unfriendly.  We're pretty frustrated with your government's stance on....."  then you could choose to enter into that conversation and present your thoughts in support of those particular decisions, you could distance yourself from them and find common ground, or you could simply make it clear that you're not looking for any trouble and that you're just here on business/vacation/whatever and agree to disagree.   
That's not what tends to happen in these threads.  It's more like if the pub regulars started spilling their drinks on the Americans, made fun of their economic woes and military failures, and set about calling them fat, lazy, and stupid.  Their criticism of Americans may contain complaints about foreign policy, economic exploitation, environmental issues, and what have you - but it's presented such that if you ARE an American, you ARE an idiot - and the ONLY way to avoid that comparison is to emigrate to another country.  Odds are, you're not going to respond to bar bullying by renouncing your citizenship.

Sticks and stones Meth. In that kind of setting with ppl who are on the edge like that I'm not gonna bother getting in to some nonsense especially if I don't feel like it. Seems in that scenario those ppl would rather yell at me about their problems and what my gov't has done rather than an actual discussion. I lack the pride needed to get in to a conflict like that. I'd sooner have said I aint American from the jump and if not that it wouldn't be hard for me to explain why I'm not responsible for the actions of the American gov't.

I can't equate that example to these online arguments/discussions.

In my opinion, you need to frame your discussions responsibly, avoid baiting or bullying, and focus your criticism such that you refrain from the sort of massive generalizations and stereotypes that pervade posts like this one.  You should also consider self-policing.  If someone's doing a disservice to your positions by being disrespectful, you should call them on it.  Too often, it seems utterly cliquish - like a cheering circle or a roving gang.  Even if I weren't an administrator, I'd still have spoken up about this because I think the way some of you are carrying yourselves is deplorable and I'm ashamed to be associated with it.  Some of you truly are reproducing many of the behaviors that led you to despise organized religion to begin with.
I agree and I have at times voiced disagreement with certain arguments with other atheists in these threads. It's not many that I've had issue with though. I also must be missing these deplorable posts especially if they've been unprovoked.

Of course, you could take that entire excerpt and replace religion with science if you wanted to.  "Science is merely a tool; one that history shows humans will misuse and abuse given the chance."  Much was made recently about the how Gabrielle Giffords' shooter was an atheist and how the shooting spree was motivated by nihilism. 
Yeah, I've spoke on that in my last post. However, I've also mentioned the fundamental difference between religion and science repeatedly in all these threads.

Well, I think that's representative of a modernist or absolutist perspective wherein one universal truth exists and, through the application of science, humanity is inching ever closer to its discovery. Through the benefit of hindsight, we've found that sort of mistaken certitude has characterized most of our rebuked paradigms. A couple of generations ago, schoolchildren would learn that electrons were the smallest particles in existence.  People truly believed that.  Now, when you make a new discovery at the subquantum level, do you have the hubris to say that THIS TIME you've finally apprehended the "true" foundation of matter, or do you acknowledge the possibility that quarks or what have you may represent just another step in a potentially infinite progression?
We're constantly revising our understanding of reality.  Many of the "laws" we've postulated have been appended, contextualized, or refuted outright.  It's sort of arrogant, in the present, to sit there and say that the consensus view of reality is inherently stronger and better founded than the antiquated paradigms it replaced.  Were the fabled dinosaurs of the Mesozoic era objectively "better" than the ancient creatures of the Paleozoic era, 95% of whom perished in the Permian extinction?  Well, they were newer species.  Newer often connotes "better," "more advanced."  Dinosaurs themselves evolved over 150 million years.  *%@+ sapiens have been evolving for but a minute sliver of that time, under 200,000 years by some estimates.  That's a lot of "progress."  Dinosaurs succumbed to extinction not because they weren't evolved "enough," but simply because, if we're to accept prevailing wisdom, they were ill-suited to their suddenly changed environment. 

It is but I'd disagree that science will give us all the answers or that there even is a universal truth. I wouldn't call science the alternative if that's a person's goal. That's why I can't equate religion to science. I can agree that science may be on cusp of some huge mankind changing discoveries but science only provides the best possible truths as we understand them.

We may discover something tomorrow that completely invalidates much of our prevailing understanding of the universe.  In that sense, the subscribers of ANY given paradigm could easily be characterized as the devotees of pseudoscience through the benefit of hindsight.
This is where I disagree. Saying the electron is the smallest particle and then discovering on a subquantum level that quarks or w/e else found were actually the smallest is not in any way the same as eugenics. Scientists are suppose to be impartial to the evidence. There isn't suppose to be a hidden agenda. Just because we find new evidence that changes or discards a scientific theory held in high regard does not make that theory and it's entire study pseudoscience. It's science because it can be objectively tested, experimented on without foul play or secret motive.

Unfortunately, if something is being passed off as science and is accepted by the masses we can only look at it as pseudoscience in hindsight, until the truth of the matter is revealed. Upsetting as it may be that's the case when humans are involved. Science isn't perfect, I'm not at all trying to sneak that in.

Now, you can take this and say, "well, that's true, but it IS ignorant to cling to a paradigm that has been disproven, and that's exactly what Christians are doing."  However, that's still a subjective value-judgment.  Scientists are still making use of theories today that lack universal explanatory power.  In other words, we may believe that a black hole can defy the "laws of physics," but we don't consider those "laws" a fairytale.  They're useful in helping us make sense of our reality here on Earth.  Further discovery has served to situated and contextualize what we once considered universal.  

Saying, "I believe in God and heaven" isn't the same as saying "Jesus rode a dinosaur."  

It's important to situate our own scientific traditions and bear in mind that these practices, too, are cultural and relative.  

This is where I think people can really benefit from an epistemological grounding.

I'm sorry but as subjective as it may be I don't see how believing in things without (objective) support will ever be a right way of thinking. Unless critical thinking, logic, reason, and ration don't matter in the matter. I mean even the apostle Thomas got proof when he demanded it and then Jesus goes on to say those who blindly believe are blessed.

Funny enough ppl have said things like there are dinosaurs in the bible in some of these threads.

And I assume you wouldn't enjoy being mocked or harassed for your secularism due to those abuses.
I'd be open to discuss it. I'd enjoy that. I try my best not to let it affect me and I can't say it's a matter of if I'd enjoy it or not when the medium that's being used to mock or harass is an internet forum. It's the same way I handle racism.

And this reads like "yeah, we're gonna push you to believe what we do and if you're bitter, too bad.  You'll either get over it or die.  Either way, people like you are en route to extinction.  That's progress." 
That strikes me as intolerant.

It is progress. Were the Europeans not getting on board with the world being round after Columbus came back from the new world victims of intolerance? People that have not accepted that their towns have been desegregated and don't have the money to send their children to a predominantly white school victims of intolerance?

Yo don't tolerate intolerance. That's not how cultural relativism works.

I'd think if ppl have paid attention to history they'd take caution in what they believe in, critically think about it, constantly question themselves, and not base it off a feeling before making a decision. Can anyone tell me the flaw in not believing before having some support or evidence for a claim? (given that it's been tested for credibility) But we all know the flaws in believing in something blindly don't we? They start cults that commit mass suicide, people or groups that get you to sell all of your possessions because the end of the world is tomorrow, etc.

If it's okay for people to "go ahead and tithe, pray, and worship, etc.", then why isn't it okay for them to have a thread like this?  The OP made it clear early on that he WASN'T looking for a fight and that he was resentful of the way atheists had been going around trolling in other areas of the board.  Apparently, some people considered that a call to arms.  "Oh, how dare they call us trolls!  Come on boys, let's invade their thread!!"  No irony there.
Well for one, I think the OP was trolling with this thread. I'm not the only one among NTers, atheist or not. Even before the (intolerable) arguments started I feel NTers in general were posting sarcastically or just trying to prevent the inevitable with pics. Looking at the beginning of this thread I can't say the mentality was to invade this thread and war with the theists.

How often in relationship advice threads do you see people come in to call the participants sinners for discussing premarital sex?  In 11 years here I've been subjected to a lot of negativity and insults, but not once has anyone told me that I'm going to hell for toiling on the sabbath. 

Neither do atheists though. We're not in a big booty thread quoting posters replying to a pic of Kim K's butt that says "OH MY GOD" saying "

What proof do you have that GOD exists? HAHA you're such an idiot for saying that."

But your right maybe one of the atheists NTers should make an official atheist thread and keep it all in there.

If you want to start a thread that's specifically about questioning religion, that's fine - but it doesn't have to be a constant thing the way TBONE was CONSTANTLY trolling to rile up the Libs and you certainly don't need to go into threads where people just want to discuss their own faith in peace and try to freak out the squares.  We do have to SHARE this board, after all, and part of that is realizing that we don't have the right to try and commandeer the community to advance our own personal agendas.  

This thread had nothing to do with evolution vs. creationism.  It had nothing to do with converting NikeTalk members to Christianity.  It seemed to me that people just wanted to discuss passages from a book they found inspiring.  I don't see what's so horrible about that.  The worst you can say is that the OP wanted to see if he could "get away" with such a post within the current climate - and if that's so, I think it's fair to say that you guys failed the tolerance test.


It probably would've continued to go that way a little longer or just get derailed until the OP pretended like that book that they find inspiring didn't have things that preached
 intolerance and other despicable things.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by Method Man

I would love for that to happen. I'd acknowledge their point but I'd endlessly enjoy talking about why I think morality is important. Wouldn't be offended at all. Even if it got to the point I didn't have the best answers in the discussion. Bring on the egoists as well.

And this is part of my concern, and the reason for the unwilling MMA sparring recruit analogy.  You guys enjoy these debates.  That's fine, and NikeTalk should be a good place to have them respectfully.  
The problem is that you don't often find willing partners to play with you.  So, what do you do?  The Colosseum's all set up, but you don't have any gladiators!  Well, you may as well just drag some people in and force them to fight, right?  How are you any better than the guy who likes to pick fights in bars?  Really, that's what it comes down to.  

On this message board I don't see us dragging ppl in to our threads. They choose to engage in discussion. I'd have to assume they enjoy it as well or have a good reason to be explaining their reasons for why they are theists and answering other questions.

Personally, I don't enjoy arguing - but unfortunately on this board some people try to bait me into it by saying inflammatory things about issues I care deeply about.  I find that utterly selfish, manipulative, and, for lack of a better word, simply obnoxious.
I think it's rather obvious to detect when someone is trying to bait others in to an argument or "set a trap" and even easier to ignore or not directly engage in to the argument if I do post despite deeply caring about the topic. During my time here there's been threads I've read through and just not posted in. "Oh there's another race thread." I'd

and move on to find some lulz. If those ppl doing that are aware that they're doing those things there's no helping them and they keep doing it until that one time they get no opposition so that they can feel that they are right and act as such from other who have read the thread. Especially when it's something heavily opinionated or when an extreme bias is placed on it.

I don't think that's case with these arguments when you look at the core argument.

This is something people hold very dear.  It's important to them.  They draw strength and inspiration from it.  You can call it a crutch, but that's your opinion.  What you're doing, though, is exploiting the strength of people's devotion to make them defend it, which gives you guys sparring partners.
And I'd like to know why they hold it so dearly. If it's the values and morals then they can still have that without religion. If all it comes down to is wanting their to be an afterlife and the peace of mind that you'll be in a better place then that's something personal to them they shouldn't be arguing if they aren't willing to accept that it doesn't make sense given all the other options/possibilities and how it was presented/indoctrinated to them. If they refuse to realize that, they should refuse to be a sparring partner. I don't see how I can be held accountable for someone being mad about an argument they chose to be involved in, especially if they're gonna claim they're being attacked or disrespected. I said it before but discussion shouldn't be shaking their faith since they should've already asked themselves similar questions. If they're too sensitive about this they should recognize that and bow out. 

Some of you see the missionary mindset at play in society, you see how people attempt to violate the separation of church and state, you see how people try to ram their religions down your throat and use it to control you without your consent, and you're understandably upset about these things, but rather than looking at these instances as an example of the misuse of religion, you assume that religion itself is a universal bad and that you, therefore, have the right to call any religious adherent to the carpet and hold them accountable for it.
It's my understanding that on a global scale religion right now is being constantly misused. I don't see it as a universal bad but it doesn't help that some religions holy text preach intolerance or that the majority of the religious can not prevent themselves from judging others when that is also something their religion preaches. I don't get in these discussions assuming the person I'm arguing with is an advocate of the Spanish Inquisition or witch hunts. Most of them start off by us asking theists whether or not they take their holy texts literally or contextually or just a big book of metaphors, allegories, etc. and then it goes from there. I'd put aside what's been done in the name of their religions and try to specifically discuss what they believe.

Imagine, for a moment, that you're an American traveling abroad.  You visit a pub to relax with your fellow travelers, yet as you're attempting to settle in you feel a swelling sense of unease in the room and the pub's regulars begin to gather around your table.  They're angry.  They're angry about America's foreign policy.  They're angry about Western exploitation of the rest of the world.  They're angry about America's central role in aggravating climate change and its intransigence to reform.  They're angry about our militarism and lack of meaningful humanitarian aid.  

How SHOULD they express that?  IF they'd approached you and said, "Oh, you guys are Americans, huh?  Well, I'm sorry if you find some people here unfriendly.  We're pretty frustrated with your government's stance on....."  then you could choose to enter into that conversation and present your thoughts in support of those particular decisions, you could distance yourself from them and find common ground, or you could simply make it clear that you're not looking for any trouble and that you're just here on business/vacation/whatever and agree to disagree.   
That's not what tends to happen in these threads.  It's more like if the pub regulars started spilling their drinks on the Americans, made fun of their economic woes and military failures, and set about calling them fat, lazy, and stupid.  Their criticism of Americans may contain complaints about foreign policy, economic exploitation, environmental issues, and what have you - but it's presented such that if you ARE an American, you ARE an idiot - and the ONLY way to avoid that comparison is to emigrate to another country.  Odds are, you're not going to respond to bar bullying by renouncing your citizenship.

Sticks and stones Meth. In that kind of setting with ppl who are on the edge like that I'm not gonna bother getting in to some nonsense especially if I don't feel like it. Seems in that scenario those ppl would rather yell at me about their problems and what my gov't has done rather than an actual discussion. I lack the pride needed to get in to a conflict like that. I'd sooner have said I aint American from the jump and if not that it wouldn't be hard for me to explain why I'm not responsible for the actions of the American gov't.

I can't equate that example to these online arguments/discussions.

In my opinion, you need to frame your discussions responsibly, avoid baiting or bullying, and focus your criticism such that you refrain from the sort of massive generalizations and stereotypes that pervade posts like this one.  You should also consider self-policing.  If someone's doing a disservice to your positions by being disrespectful, you should call them on it.  Too often, it seems utterly cliquish - like a cheering circle or a roving gang.  Even if I weren't an administrator, I'd still have spoken up about this because I think the way some of you are carrying yourselves is deplorable and I'm ashamed to be associated with it.  Some of you truly are reproducing many of the behaviors that led you to despise organized religion to begin with.
I agree and I have at times voiced disagreement with certain arguments with other atheists in these threads. It's not many that I've had issue with though. I also must be missing these deplorable posts especially if they've been unprovoked.

Of course, you could take that entire excerpt and replace religion with science if you wanted to.  "Science is merely a tool; one that history shows humans will misuse and abuse given the chance."  Much was made recently about the how Gabrielle Giffords' shooter was an atheist and how the shooting spree was motivated by nihilism. 
Yeah, I've spoke on that in my last post. However, I've also mentioned the fundamental difference between religion and science repeatedly in all these threads.

Well, I think that's representative of a modernist or absolutist perspective wherein one universal truth exists and, through the application of science, humanity is inching ever closer to its discovery. Through the benefit of hindsight, we've found that sort of mistaken certitude has characterized most of our rebuked paradigms. A couple of generations ago, schoolchildren would learn that electrons were the smallest particles in existence.  People truly believed that.  Now, when you make a new discovery at the subquantum level, do you have the hubris to say that THIS TIME you've finally apprehended the "true" foundation of matter, or do you acknowledge the possibility that quarks or what have you may represent just another step in a potentially infinite progression?
We're constantly revising our understanding of reality.  Many of the "laws" we've postulated have been appended, contextualized, or refuted outright.  It's sort of arrogant, in the present, to sit there and say that the consensus view of reality is inherently stronger and better founded than the antiquated paradigms it replaced.  Were the fabled dinosaurs of the Mesozoic era objectively "better" than the ancient creatures of the Paleozoic era, 95% of whom perished in the Permian extinction?  Well, they were newer species.  Newer often connotes "better," "more advanced."  Dinosaurs themselves evolved over 150 million years.  *%@+ sapiens have been evolving for but a minute sliver of that time, under 200,000 years by some estimates.  That's a lot of "progress."  Dinosaurs succumbed to extinction not because they weren't evolved "enough," but simply because, if we're to accept prevailing wisdom, they were ill-suited to their suddenly changed environment. 

It is but I'd disagree that science will give us all the answers or that there even is a universal truth. I wouldn't call science the alternative if that's a person's goal. That's why I can't equate religion to science. I can agree that science may be on cusp of some huge mankind changing discoveries but science only provides the best possible truths as we understand them.

We may discover something tomorrow that completely invalidates much of our prevailing understanding of the universe.  In that sense, the subscribers of ANY given paradigm could easily be characterized as the devotees of pseudoscience through the benefit of hindsight.
This is where I disagree. Saying the electron is the smallest particle and then discovering on a subquantum level that quarks or w/e else found were actually the smallest is not in any way the same as eugenics. Scientists are suppose to be impartial to the evidence. There isn't suppose to be a hidden agenda. Just because we find new evidence that changes or discards a scientific theory held in high regard does not make that theory and it's entire study pseudoscience. It's science because it can be objectively tested, experimented on without foul play or secret motive.

Unfortunately, if something is being passed off as science and is accepted by the masses we can only look at it as pseudoscience in hindsight, until the truth of the matter is revealed. Upsetting as it may be that's the case when humans are involved. Science isn't perfect, I'm not at all trying to sneak that in.

Now, you can take this and say, "well, that's true, but it IS ignorant to cling to a paradigm that has been disproven, and that's exactly what Christians are doing."  However, that's still a subjective value-judgment.  Scientists are still making use of theories today that lack universal explanatory power.  In other words, we may believe that a black hole can defy the "laws of physics," but we don't consider those "laws" a fairytale.  They're useful in helping us make sense of our reality here on Earth.  Further discovery has served to situated and contextualize what we once considered universal.  

Saying, "I believe in God and heaven" isn't the same as saying "Jesus rode a dinosaur."  

It's important to situate our own scientific traditions and bear in mind that these practices, too, are cultural and relative.  

This is where I think people can really benefit from an epistemological grounding.

I'm sorry but as subjective as it may be I don't see how believing in things without (objective) support will ever be a right way of thinking. Unless critical thinking, logic, reason, and ration don't matter in the matter. I mean even the apostle Thomas got proof when he demanded it and then Jesus goes on to say those who blindly believe are blessed.

Funny enough ppl have said things like there are dinosaurs in the bible in some of these threads.

And I assume you wouldn't enjoy being mocked or harassed for your secularism due to those abuses.
I'd be open to discuss it. I'd enjoy that. I try my best not to let it affect me and I can't say it's a matter of if I'd enjoy it or not when the medium that's being used to mock or harass is an internet forum. It's the same way I handle racism.

And this reads like "yeah, we're gonna push you to believe what we do and if you're bitter, too bad.  You'll either get over it or die.  Either way, people like you are en route to extinction.  That's progress." 
That strikes me as intolerant.

It is progress. Were the Europeans not getting on board with the world being round after Columbus came back from the new world victims of intolerance? People that have not accepted that their towns have been desegregated and don't have the money to send their children to a predominantly white school victims of intolerance?

Yo don't tolerate intolerance. That's not how cultural relativism works.

I'd think if ppl have paid attention to history they'd take caution in what they believe in, critically think about it, constantly question themselves, and not base it off a feeling before making a decision. Can anyone tell me the flaw in not believing before having some support or evidence for a claim? (given that it's been tested for credibility) But we all know the flaws in believing in something blindly don't we? They start cults that commit mass suicide, people or groups that get you to sell all of your possessions because the end of the world is tomorrow, etc.

If it's okay for people to "go ahead and tithe, pray, and worship, etc.", then why isn't it okay for them to have a thread like this?  The OP made it clear early on that he WASN'T looking for a fight and that he was resentful of the way atheists had been going around trolling in other areas of the board.  Apparently, some people considered that a call to arms.  "Oh, how dare they call us trolls!  Come on boys, let's invade their thread!!"  No irony there.
Well for one, I think the OP was trolling with this thread. I'm not the only one among NTers, atheist or not. Even before the (intolerable) arguments started I feel NTers in general were posting sarcastically or just trying to prevent the inevitable with pics. Looking at the beginning of this thread I can't say the mentality was to invade this thread and war with the theists.

How often in relationship advice threads do you see people come in to call the participants sinners for discussing premarital sex?  In 11 years here I've been subjected to a lot of negativity and insults, but not once has anyone told me that I'm going to hell for toiling on the sabbath. 

Neither do atheists though. We're not in a big booty thread quoting posters replying to a pic of Kim K's butt that says "OH MY GOD" saying "

What proof do you have that GOD exists? HAHA you're such an idiot for saying that."

But your right maybe one of the atheists NTers should make an official atheist thread and keep it all in there.

If you want to start a thread that's specifically about questioning religion, that's fine - but it doesn't have to be a constant thing the way TBONE was CONSTANTLY trolling to rile up the Libs and you certainly don't need to go into threads where people just want to discuss their own faith in peace and try to freak out the squares.  We do have to SHARE this board, after all, and part of that is realizing that we don't have the right to try and commandeer the community to advance our own personal agendas.  

This thread had nothing to do with evolution vs. creationism.  It had nothing to do with converting NikeTalk members to Christianity.  It seemed to me that people just wanted to discuss passages from a book they found inspiring.  I don't see what's so horrible about that.  The worst you can say is that the OP wanted to see if he could "get away" with such a post within the current climate - and if that's so, I think it's fair to say that you guys failed the tolerance test.


It probably would've continued to go that way a little longer or just get derailed until the OP pretended like that book that they find inspiring didn't have things that preached
 intolerance and other despicable things.

 

[antbanks81]

Ignore the negativity OP..JC is amazing, I hate I missed church this morning, I needed that spiritual feeding today. I am trying to read all of Psalms right now...I usually try a chapter a day.

 

[antbanks81]

Ignore the negativity OP..JC is amazing, I hate I missed church this morning, I needed that spiritual feeding today. I am trying to read all of Psalms right now...I usually try a chapter a day.

 

[its that dude]

You remember TBONE during the '08 election?  THAT is how some of you are acting.  Sorry.
Before he was banned, TBONE did nothing but dredge Drudge and repost it on NT.  ACORN "scandal?"  Oh, you'd better believe that's a topic.  Obama may not have been born in the US?  Oh baby, wait til the pinkos on NT get a load of that!  The libs are fawning over Obama's performance in the debates?  Let me at 'em!!!  

At a certain point, it wasn't even about the issues.  It was like tribalism.  That's what I mean by poisoning the well. 

If Sarah Palin were a member of this community, I wouldn't call her a moron.  Even if I think she is a moron, I don't, by extension, call everyone who admires her a moron.  That's just argumentum ad hominem. 

Oh dear God, I hope we're not being like TBONE.  But yes, some *ahem* have taken it overboard by posting a thread about religion  every. single. day.  




I don't assert that all Christians are bigots because of what the Westboro Baptist Church does.  Did I do that somehow?  What we do is go straight to the text that is the basis of the hate spewed by the WBC, and we call them out on it.  




But for clarification, can we ridicule the concept of God, religious scriptures, and anyone that is not an NT member who spouts religious nonsense?  It seems like we can if you can ridicule Sarah Palin for her beliefs.

If it's okay for people to "go ahead and tithe, pray, and worship, etc.", then why isn't it okay for them to have a thread like this?  The OP made it clear early on that he WASN'T looking for a fight and that he was resentful of the way atheists had been going around trolling in other areas of the board.  Apparently, some people considered that a call to arms.  "Oh, how dare they call us trolls!  Come on boys, let's invade their thread!!"  No irony there. 

I just want to re-re-reiterate that it was the OP himself who took the first shot at atheists in the 7th post of this thread by.  In fact, there was no atheist comment or any religion bashing on the first page.







Looks like he successfuly trolled us atheists...

 

[its that dude]

You remember TBONE during the '08 election?  THAT is how some of you are acting.  Sorry.
Before he was banned, TBONE did nothing but dredge Drudge and repost it on NT.  ACORN "scandal?"  Oh, you'd better believe that's a topic.  Obama may not have been born in the US?  Oh baby, wait til the pinkos on NT get a load of that!  The libs are fawning over Obama's performance in the debates?  Let me at 'em!!!  

At a certain point, it wasn't even about the issues.  It was like tribalism.  That's what I mean by poisoning the well. 

If Sarah Palin were a member of this community, I wouldn't call her a moron.  Even if I think she is a moron, I don't, by extension, call everyone who admires her a moron.  That's just argumentum ad hominem. 

Oh dear God, I hope we're not being like TBONE.  But yes, some *ahem* have taken it overboard by posting a thread about religion  every. single. day.  




I don't assert that all Christians are bigots because of what the Westboro Baptist Church does.  Did I do that somehow?  What we do is go straight to the text that is the basis of the hate spewed by the WBC, and we call them out on it.  




But for clarification, can we ridicule the concept of God, religious scriptures, and anyone that is not an NT member who spouts religious nonsense?  It seems like we can if you can ridicule Sarah Palin for her beliefs.

If it's okay for people to "go ahead and tithe, pray, and worship, etc.", then why isn't it okay for them to have a thread like this?  The OP made it clear early on that he WASN'T looking for a fight and that he was resentful of the way atheists had been going around trolling in other areas of the board.  Apparently, some people considered that a call to arms.  "Oh, how dare they call us trolls!  Come on boys, let's invade their thread!!"  No irony there. 

I just want to re-re-reiterate that it was the OP himself who took the first shot at atheists in the 7th post of this thread by.  In fact, there was no atheist comment or any religion bashing on the first page.







Looks like he successfuly trolled us atheists...

 

[mrben23]

Method Man, if you wrote a book, I'd buy it.

And I'm glad the OP found inspiration. Why hate on that?

 

[mrben23]

Method Man, if you wrote a book, I'd buy it.

And I'm glad the OP found inspiration. Why hate on that?

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik




Yeah, Jesus was pretty amazing.�

Truly a beautiful story.� Worth it if you have the time.� Brings tears to my eyes.

Dude's voice was mad creepy and in the beginning the way the words appeared was as well

I always enjoy the videos that have that type of word animation though.

Anyway as for the story it was pretty good. The part with the liar just made it seem like you shouldn't lie to a magician that pretty much knows you're lying to him. The rest would just make a good movie. Some unlucky thieves and an unlucky liar. The moral of the story is a good one but I think that's where it should stop.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik




Yeah, Jesus was pretty amazing.�

Truly a beautiful story.� Worth it if you have the time.� Brings tears to my eyes.

Dude's voice was mad creepy and in the beginning the way the words appeared was as well

I always enjoy the videos that have that type of word animation though.

Anyway as for the story it was pretty good. The part with the liar just made it seem like you shouldn't lie to a magician that pretty much knows you're lying to him. The rest would just make a good movie. Some unlucky thieves and an unlucky liar. The moral of the story is a good one but I think that's where it should stop.

 

[knowledgethefoundation]

Originally Posted by Method Man

Lemme dumb is down for him

See where I'm going with this? Or do I need to dumb it down a little further for you.
These are just flagrant rule violations.   



I keep seeing people say "oh, but religion's not a fixed, protected category like race, gender, or ethnicity."  Neither is being a Lakers fan.  Is it acceptable to go around calling Lakers fans stupid at every opportunity?  Not on this forum, at least.  "Oh, you're an APPLE fan?  Macs are for sheep."  "You live in DETROIT?  Oh my god, kill yourself.  Or, better yet, just stick your head outside the window for 30 seconds and let someone else do it for you. LOLOLOL"




What this boils down to is that you guys think you have the right to insult and harass people who don't believe what you believe.  I don't agree with that. 

Dr. King's courage inspired a tremendous good. Not his religious faith, maybe I'm assuming and you meant his faith in mankind to live civily together. Many before him held the same stance.

That's not supported by his writing, his interviews, his sermons/speeches, by the accounts of his family and colleagues, or by pretty much any serious treatment of his life and work.  I've studied Dr. King more than most and it's patently obvious that his faith was central to his work - and his ability to apply internal leverage by highlighting the incongruities between racism and Christianity proved enormously powerful.  Similarly, anyone who's so much as read the Autobiography of Malcolm X knows just how central his faith was to his own activism.  Faith-based movements have had the effect of attacking and eroding inequities in our society (including scientific racism,) just as it could be argued that secular influences have made religious groups more egalitarian.  



It's a mistake to assume that cultural change is inherently secular, that only secular beliefs can jar religion from its ancient moorings.  Belief systems adapt to the sociocultural environment.  That goes for the secular/scientific as well as the spiritual/religious. 

Seeing as it wasn't actually science that was being used to justify racism. Just racist scientists with a strong bias that attempted to look to science to justify their racist beliefs. Eugenics is pseudoscience, measuring the size of skulls is not science. I was just watching part of The Power Of Illusion documentary couple days ago that covered this. You can't call that a black mark on science when the people at fault were a select few scientists with a racist agenda.
What is now deemed "pseudoscience" was once science proper.  



If you trace the ideological evolution of racism, you'll find that secularism and "the Enlightenment" actually had the effect of facilitating the spread of racist ideology.  The problem with science - as you see it, as a singular mode of thought that seeks nothing less than universal hegemony and the replacement of all local explanations in establishing a universal truth - is much the same as the problem with monoculture.  Diversity has the effect of creating firewalls.  If you have 1,000 different varieties of corn, you're less prone to famine and the collapse of the global food system than you are if you only use ONE patented variety.  Christian racism could be Christian racism.  It could be contained more easily than the brushfire/holocaust of scientific racism.  




I mentioned, before I left, George Frederickson's A Short History of Racism.  I'd like to quote a relevant passage, as he does a good job of explaining how the Enlightenment and its rebuke of Christian universalism and its emphasis on the soul and the afterlife, paved the way for contemporary racism:

On a popular level the great curses served to make it easier for Christians to treat other human beings as less than human.  Europeans might seek to affirm their status and self-worth through the allegation that the blood in their veins was superior to that of people descended from Jews, or because the color of their skin made them the natural masters of Africans.  And they could find passages of the Bible that seemed to confirm their prejudices.  But to achieve its full potential as an ideology, racism had to be emancipated from Christian universalism.  To become the ideological basis of a social order, it also had to be clearly disassociated from traditionalist conceptions of social hierarchy.  In a society in which inequality based on birth was the norm for everyone from king down to peasant, ethnic slavery and ghettoization were special cases of a general pattern – very special in some ways – but still not radical exceptions to the hierarchical premise.  Paradoxical as it may seem, the rejection of hierarchy as the governing principle of social and political organization, and its replacement by the aspiration for equality in this world as well as in the eyes of God, had to occur before racism could come to full flower. 

I'm not categorically attacking science by any means, but you have to understand that science, in practice, is hardly objective and it continues to create rationalizations for social inequality.  It's fine to call such attempts an abuse of science - just understand that you could describe the homophobia of conservative Christians in the same way.  






It used to be the case that people could use science to attack LGBT citizens under a very similar rationale you're using to attack religious adherents.  That is to say, "it's a belief system and something you can change.  It's not fixed like race or gender.  People CHOOSE to be ignorant to their biology.  They're confounding the sexual reproduction that propagates our entire species and perverting the natural order."  Studies were produced to demonstrate that you can't be born gay, etc.  Even now, many LGBT activists take umbrage with attempts to "naturalize" sexual orientation because they feel it is one's right TO choose as they see fit.  




As Steven Seidman writes in Difference Troubles: Queering Social Theory and Sexual Politics,

“I came to view science as a powerful practical-moral or social force.  I learned that science’s claim to truth carried a social authority that made it productive of forms of personal and social life.  Its power lay not only in its capacity to rationalize the denial of moral legitimacy for same-sex desire or to justify the denial of civil rights or claims to social inclusion.  Through its cultural and institutional authority, science could inscribe in our bodies and minds a sexual/social regime – one that made desire into an identity, one that made gender preference into a master category of sexual and social identity, one that made hetero/homosexual identities mutually exclusive, and one that purified a heterosexual life while polluting a homosexual life.â€

 

[knowledgethefoundation]

Originally Posted by Method Man

Lemme dumb is down for him

See where I'm going with this? Or do I need to dumb it down a little further for you.
These are just flagrant rule violations.   



I keep seeing people say "oh, but religion's not a fixed, protected category like race, gender, or ethnicity."  Neither is being a Lakers fan.  Is it acceptable to go around calling Lakers fans stupid at every opportunity?  Not on this forum, at least.  "Oh, you're an APPLE fan?  Macs are for sheep."  "You live in DETROIT?  Oh my god, kill yourself.  Or, better yet, just stick your head outside the window for 30 seconds and let someone else do it for you. LOLOLOL"




What this boils down to is that you guys think you have the right to insult and harass people who don't believe what you believe.  I don't agree with that. 

Dr. King's courage inspired a tremendous good. Not his religious faith, maybe I'm assuming and you meant his faith in mankind to live civily together. Many before him held the same stance.

That's not supported by his writing, his interviews, his sermons/speeches, by the accounts of his family and colleagues, or by pretty much any serious treatment of his life and work.  I've studied Dr. King more than most and it's patently obvious that his faith was central to his work - and his ability to apply internal leverage by highlighting the incongruities between racism and Christianity proved enormously powerful.  Similarly, anyone who's so much as read the Autobiography of Malcolm X knows just how central his faith was to his own activism.  Faith-based movements have had the effect of attacking and eroding inequities in our society (including scientific racism,) just as it could be argued that secular influences have made religious groups more egalitarian.  



It's a mistake to assume that cultural change is inherently secular, that only secular beliefs can jar religion from its ancient moorings.  Belief systems adapt to the sociocultural environment.  That goes for the secular/scientific as well as the spiritual/religious. 

Seeing as it wasn't actually science that was being used to justify racism. Just racist scientists with a strong bias that attempted to look to science to justify their racist beliefs. Eugenics is pseudoscience, measuring the size of skulls is not science. I was just watching part of The Power Of Illusion documentary couple days ago that covered this. You can't call that a black mark on science when the people at fault were a select few scientists with a racist agenda.
What is now deemed "pseudoscience" was once science proper.  



If you trace the ideological evolution of racism, you'll find that secularism and "the Enlightenment" actually had the effect of facilitating the spread of racist ideology.  The problem with science - as you see it, as a singular mode of thought that seeks nothing less than universal hegemony and the replacement of all local explanations in establishing a universal truth - is much the same as the problem with monoculture.  Diversity has the effect of creating firewalls.  If you have 1,000 different varieties of corn, you're less prone to famine and the collapse of the global food system than you are if you only use ONE patented variety.  Christian racism could be Christian racism.  It could be contained more easily than the brushfire/holocaust of scientific racism.  




I mentioned, before I left, George Frederickson's A Short History of Racism.  I'd like to quote a relevant passage, as he does a good job of explaining how the Enlightenment and its rebuke of Christian universalism and its emphasis on the soul and the afterlife, paved the way for contemporary racism:

On a popular level the great curses served to make it easier for Christians to treat other human beings as less than human.  Europeans might seek to affirm their status and self-worth through the allegation that the blood in their veins was superior to that of people descended from Jews, or because the color of their skin made them the natural masters of Africans.  And they could find passages of the Bible that seemed to confirm their prejudices.  But to achieve its full potential as an ideology, racism had to be emancipated from Christian universalism.  To become the ideological basis of a social order, it also had to be clearly disassociated from traditionalist conceptions of social hierarchy.  In a society in which inequality based on birth was the norm for everyone from king down to peasant, ethnic slavery and ghettoization were special cases of a general pattern – very special in some ways – but still not radical exceptions to the hierarchical premise.  Paradoxical as it may seem, the rejection of hierarchy as the governing principle of social and political organization, and its replacement by the aspiration for equality in this world as well as in the eyes of God, had to occur before racism could come to full flower. 

I'm not categorically attacking science by any means, but you have to understand that science, in practice, is hardly objective and it continues to create rationalizations for social inequality.  It's fine to call such attempts an abuse of science - just understand that you could describe the homophobia of conservative Christians in the same way.  






It used to be the case that people could use science to attack LGBT citizens under a very similar rationale you're using to attack religious adherents.  That is to say, "it's a belief system and something you can change.  It's not fixed like race or gender.  People CHOOSE to be ignorant to their biology.  They're confounding the sexual reproduction that propagates our entire species and perverting the natural order."  Studies were produced to demonstrate that you can't be born gay, etc.  Even now, many LGBT activists take umbrage with attempts to "naturalize" sexual orientation because they feel it is one's right TO choose as they see fit.  




As Steven Seidman writes in Difference Troubles: Queering Social Theory and Sexual Politics,

“I came to view science as a powerful practical-moral or social force.  I learned that science’s claim to truth carried a social authority that made it productive of forms of personal and social life.  Its power lay not only in its capacity to rationalize the denial of moral legitimacy for same-sex desire or to justify the denial of civil rights or claims to social inclusion.  Through its cultural and institutional authority, science could inscribe in our bodies and minds a sexual/social regime – one that made desire into an identity, one that made gender preference into a master category of sexual and social identity, one that made hetero/homosexual identities mutually exclusive, and one that purified a heterosexual life while polluting a homosexual life.â€

 

[itsgettinhot]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by ItsGettinHot

Religious people - 1

Aspiring scumbags - 0

For you to seriously cross out my response to Meth (obviously didn't read it) and bring up something from a completely other thread proves you're a troll.

Unless you can explain to me what that thread has to do with this or that post you quoted. You seriously want to do the point for point nonsense. You keep score? Seriously?

You said in that post that you enjoy doing scumbag things and you wanted to be more scumbaggish.

Who really cares what you say after that?  I didn't get the impression you were joking.  Who's really interested in a scumbag's philosophy?

 

[itsgettinhot]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by ItsGettinHot

Religious people - 1

Aspiring scumbags - 0

For you to seriously cross out my response to Meth (obviously didn't read it) and bring up something from a completely other thread proves you're a troll.

Unless you can explain to me what that thread has to do with this or that post you quoted. You seriously want to do the point for point nonsense. You keep score? Seriously?

You said in that post that you enjoy doing scumbag things and you wanted to be more scumbaggish.

Who really cares what you say after that?  I didn't get the impression you were joking.  Who's really interested in a scumbag's philosophy?

 

[south sole]

GOT EM'

^

 

[south sole]

GOT EM'

^

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by ItsGettinHot

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by ItsGettinHot

Religious people - 1

Aspiring scumbags - 0

For you to seriously cross out my response to Meth (obviously didn't read it) and bring up something from a completely other thread proves you're a troll.

Unless you can explain to me what that thread has to do with this or that post you quoted. You seriously want to do the point for point nonsense. You keep score? Seriously?

You said in that post that you enjoy doing scumbag things

Yeah to certain ppl for lulz.

Who's really interested in a scumbag's philosophy?

Depends on what they got to say.

As if saying I got a blunt for a session and instead bring a roach to a

cypher or "forgetting my $5 at home" (

) or not ordering food but then ask my friends for some of theirs has ANYTHING to do with this topic.

Looking at the thread I've seen you've asked me a question so I'll reply now. Haven't been in it since and I missed a lot of lulz.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by ItsGettinHot

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by ItsGettinHot

Religious people - 1

Aspiring scumbags - 0

For you to seriously cross out my response to Meth (obviously didn't read it) and bring up something from a completely other thread proves you're a troll.

Unless you can explain to me what that thread has to do with this or that post you quoted. You seriously want to do the point for point nonsense. You keep score? Seriously?

You said in that post that you enjoy doing scumbag things

Yeah to certain ppl for lulz.

Who's really interested in a scumbag's philosophy?

Depends on what they got to say.

As if saying I got a blunt for a session and instead bring a roach to a

cypher or "forgetting my $5 at home" (

) or not ordering food but then ask my friends for some of theirs has ANYTHING to do with this topic.

Looking at the thread I've seen you've asked me a question so I'll reply now. Haven't been in it since and I missed a lot of lulz.

 

[Methodical Management]

And I'd like to know why they hold it so dearly. If it's the values and morals then they can still have that without religion. If all it comes down to is wanting their to be an afterlife and the peace of mind that you'll be in a better place then that's something personal to them they shouldn't be arguing if they aren't willing to accept that it doesn't make sense given all the other options/possibilities and how it was presented/indoctrinated to them. If they refuse to realize that, they should refuse to be a sparring partner. I don't see how I can be held accountable for someone being mad about an argument they chose to be involved in, especially if they're gonna claim they're being attacked or disrespected. I said it before but discussion shouldn't be shaking their faith since they should've already asked themselves similar questions. If they're too sensitive about this they should recognize that and bow out.  
I'm intrigued by the human response to momma snaps.  It's my contention that words can't hurt you and that aggressive defenses of a woman's "honor" are base and irrational.
To sate my intellectual curiosity, I plan to publicly insult your fat, ugly, ignorant mother in order to gauge your response.  I've also brought along a bunch of my friends, who aren't intellectually curious as such, but find momma snaps hilarious.  In order to engage you, I'm going to stake out my turf someplace that I know you frequent.  It could be the gym, it could be a park, it could be a store.  Whatever.  I'll be there, and I'll have just as much right to be there as you. 

If you'd prefer not to engage, you can either endure my ridicule or cede this ground to me in order to avoid my harassment.  Don't want me to insult your mother and be laughed at?  Well, I guess you shouldn't have gone to the gym then.  If you're too sensitive to endure harassment, don't go out in public. 

And really, what's the harm?  They're not blind.  They already know their mothers are fat.  I'm simply revealing the truth to them in a clever way. 

Well for one, I think the OP was trolling with this thread

And, if that is the case, I suppose you think we should allow that, what, since they're just words and all. 

Yo don't tolerate intolerance. That's not how cultural relativism works.
You're assuming that the core of religion is intolerance.  People used to cite the bible to justify overt racism and sexism.  You don't see that as much these days, do you?  Religions are capable of reform precisely because their texts, much like the data we interpret in the sciences, are subject to interpretation.  
Faith-based movements have contributed a great deal to social justice.  

This is where I disagree. Saying the electron is the smallest particle and then discovering on a subquantum level that quarks or w/e else found were actually the smallest is not in any way the same as eugenics. Scientists are suppose to be impartial to the evidence. There isn't suppose to be a hidden agenda. Just because we find new evidence that changes or discards a scientific theory held in high regard does not make that theory and it's entire study pseudoscience. It's science because it can be objectively tested, experimented on without foul play or secret motive.   

Unfortunately, if something is being passed off as science and is accepted by the masses we can only look at it as pseudoscience in hindsight, until the truth of the matter is revealed. Upsetting as it may be that's the case when humans are involved.
But the "truth of the matter" isn't invariably revealed.  The paradigm is simply replaced - and it isn't necessarily replaced with "the truth."  Rather, it's supplanted by an idea that better suits the current sociocultural environment. 

Can anyone tell me the flaw in not believing before having some support or evidence for a claim?

You can ask the average atheist "why does matter exist" and the average Christian "who created God" and both explanations will likely be pretty much the same.  ("It/he always existed" or "It/he simply emerged from nothing.")  

There's more common ground there than you might think and it's important to encourage, not discount, the ability of religious ideologies to adapt and change.  

Instead, what this is creating is an overly simplistic binary opposition, not unlike how the TBONE political troll threads progressed.  It's less about position than affiliation.  Case in point, useless, counterproductive replies like this:

Religious people - 1

Aspiring scumbags - 0

When you frame the discussion as secular vs. spiritual, all you're doing is creating a spiral of defensive responses.  Everyone feels attacked by association.  

Your actual problem doesn't seem to be about religion per se so much as its misuse.  The old cliche, "if you accept your opponent's framing, you've already lost," applies in this regard. 

If someone were to say "atheists are pompous, condescending, and sophomoric," it's difficult not to take offense at that if you're included by association.  That framing immediately puts you on the defensive.  It's not only adversarial, but adversarial on a personal level.  You're not just talking about ideas in the abstract; you're defending yourself and, perhaps, peers and family, against an attack.  

The upsetting thing about all of this is that it seems that this is actually what some of you want.  If you're concerned about the causes of broad-scale social conflict, more fundamental than religious strife is sectarianism, and it seems as though that, rather than mutual understanding, is what you're actually producing here.  

But your right maybe one of the atheists NTers should make an official atheist thread and keep it all in there.

That seems like it would be a solution everyone could live with.  Clearly the existing strategy has produced far more heat than light. 

Oh dear God, I hope we're not being like TBONE.  But yes, some *ahem* have taken it overboard by posting a thread about religion  every. single. day.  I don't assert that all Christians are bigots because of what the Westboro Baptist Church does.  Did I do that somehow?  What we do is go straight to the text that is the basis of the hate spewed by the WBC, and we call them out on it.  But for clarification, can we ridicule the concept of God, religious scriptures, and anyone that is not an NT member who spouts religious nonsense?  It seems like we can if you can ridicule Sarah Palin for her beliefs.

I had a feeling the TBONE comparison would hit home.  Sorry, but that's exactly how some of you are coming across right now.  
A lot of this is perpetuating itself because of the sectarianism.  Some people seem to be starting these threads because they know there's a built-in audience that will reward them for it.  Don't.  You're helping them make us all look bad.  Don't laugh when they insult others.  Tell them that, although you agree with their ideas, you don't agree with their presentation.  Refuse to participate in their threads and make it clear:  we've had enough already and this is making it far more difficult for you to have a meaningful and respectful discussion that you'd actually enjoy.  They're doing this stuff to impress you.  Stop encouraging it. 

As far as NT rules go, let me clarify this way:

I think Kobe Bryant is overrated.  Surely, I'm entitled to that opinion.  If there's a game day thread or a playoff series thread involving the Lakers, I can express that view if I like.  What I can't do is call Kobe fans idiots.  What I can't do is go into the Lakers season thread and start trolling.  What I can't do is start a post every single time Kobe has a bad run or misses a shot with the game on the line.  In short, I can't be a jerk about it.  

I don't have a problem with creating a thread to discuss Bill O'Reilly's "if there's no God, how come the tide goes in and out" rant.   That's fine.  It's the constant trolling, insults, and personal disrespect shown towards others that I find so problematic.  Let's face it, some of you guys enjoy getting people upset in this thread.  That should be your first indication that something's wrong.  Personally, I don't think some of you are being entirely honest with yourselves regarding your methods or your motives.