What is the purpose of the universe?

[Czernobog]

Nope. No need. Humanity is outgrowing religion all on its own.

But you would if you could, right? I mean after all you do believe that religion is responsible for great evil and zero good, right?

How could you not want to abolish religion? How could that not make perfect sense given your argument? Please explain that to me because you are such a smart man who would never have such ridiculous logic. Plus who could possibly ever question your objectivity, right? I mean after all your belief that religion has done zero good and is responsible for the horrors of the world is such a balanced and well thought out position, right?

So please explain to me how abolishing religion is not the logical conclusion to you argument?

I've already explained the logic. It's not my fault that your rage has so consumed your intellect that you cannot understand simple English.

Well... no, you haven't. I mean after all if religion is the great evil that you think it is and if religion has added zero good, then the logical thing to do would be to ban all religions.

No, it wouldn't. Authoritarian thinking concludes that the only way to eliminate unhealthy behaviour is to legislate it out of existence. Logical thinking recognises that rational people respond rationally to reason. Therefore, the goal of atheists is not to "abolish" religion. It is to expose the irrational nature of magical thinking, allowing rational people to conclude, on their own, that such thinking is irrational, and unproductive. In the meantime, it is the goal of atheists to limit the ability of the religious to influence the lives, and choices of the non-religious. This is why we oppose so aggressively any legislation that forces the non-religious to behave in accordance with the dictates of the religious.

I believe that was what this guy was saying about you...

I'm not wasting my time watching some 8 minute video of some guy I don't even recognise. How about you paraphrase it for us. Assuming that you watched it...

 

[ding]

But you would if you could, right? I mean after all you do believe that religion is responsible for great evil and zero good, right?

How could you not want to abolish religion? How could that not make perfect sense given your argument? Please explain that to me because you are such a smart man who would never have such ridiculous logic. Plus who could possibly ever question your objectivity, right? I mean after all your belief that religion has done zero good and is responsible for the horrors of the world is such a balanced and well thought out position, right?

So please explain to me how abolishing religion is not the logical conclusion to you argument?

I've already explained the logic. It's not my fault that your rage has so consumed your intellect that you cannot understand simple English.

Well... no, you haven't. I mean after all if religion is the great evil that you think it is and if religion has added zero good, then the logical thing to do would be to ban all religions.

No, it wouldn't. Authoritarian thinking concludes that the only way to eliminate unhealthy behaviour is to legislate it out of existence. Logical thinking recognises that rational people respond rationally to reason. Therefore, the goal of atheists is not to "abolish" religion. It is to expose the irrational nature of magical thinking, allowing rational people to conclude, on their own, that such thinking is irrational, and unproductive. In the meantime, it is the goal of atheists to limit the ability of the religious to influence the lives, and choices of the non-religious. This is why we oppose so aggressively any legislation that forces the non-religious to behave in accordance with the dictates of the religious.

So basically... you are going to do the same thing that communists do but just not so publicly.

Not at all. The Communists made the same mistake that all authoritarians make - they thought that criminalising a behaviour will eliminate it. We don't wish to criminalise anything.

I see so what you are trying to say is that you want to abolish religion without having to actually do it.

 

[ding]

But you would if you could, right? I mean after all you do believe that religion is responsible for great evil and zero good, right?

How could you not want to abolish religion? How could that not make perfect sense given your argument? Please explain that to me because you are such a smart man who would never have such ridiculous logic. Plus who could possibly ever question your objectivity, right? I mean after all your belief that religion has done zero good and is responsible for the horrors of the world is such a balanced and well thought out position, right?

So please explain to me how abolishing religion is not the logical conclusion to you argument?

I've already explained the logic. It's not my fault that your rage has so consumed your intellect that you cannot understand simple English.

Well... no, you haven't. I mean after all if religion is the great evil that you think it is and if religion has added zero good, then the logical thing to do would be to ban all religions.

No, it wouldn't. Authoritarian thinking concludes that the only way to eliminate unhealthy behaviour is to legislate it out of existence. Logical thinking recognises that rational people respond rationally to reason. Therefore, the goal of atheists is not to "abolish" religion. It is to expose the irrational nature of magical thinking, allowing rational people to conclude, on their own, that such thinking is irrational, and unproductive. In the meantime, it is the goal of atheists to limit the ability of the religious to influence the lives, and choices of the non-religious. This is why we oppose so aggressively any legislation that forces the non-religious to behave in accordance with the dictates of the religious.

I believe that was what this guy was saying about you...

I'm not wasting my time watching some 8 minute video of some guy I don't even recognise. How about you paraphrase it for us. Assuming that you watched it...

Ignorance is often insolent. Let me summarize. Here is your MO.

1. de-moralize
2. de-stabilize
3. crisis
4. normalization.

 

[ding]

But you would if you could, right? I mean after all you do believe that religion is responsible for great evil and zero good, right?

How could you not want to abolish religion? How could that not make perfect sense given your argument? Please explain that to me because you are such a smart man who would never have such ridiculous logic. Plus who could possibly ever question your objectivity, right? I mean after all your belief that religion has done zero good and is responsible for the horrors of the world is such a balanced and well thought out position, right?

So please explain to me how abolishing religion is not the logical conclusion to you argument?

I've already explained the logic. It's not my fault that your rage has so consumed your intellect that you cannot understand simple English.

Well... no, you haven't. I mean after all if religion is the great evil that you think it is and if religion has added zero good, then the logical thing to do would be to ban all religions.

No, it wouldn't. Authoritarian thinking concludes that the only way to eliminate unhealthy behaviour is to legislate it out of existence. Logical thinking recognises that rational people respond rationally to reason. Therefore, the goal of atheists is not to "abolish" religion. It is to expose the irrational nature of magical thinking, allowing rational people to conclude, on their own, that such thinking is irrational, and unproductive. In the meantime, it is the goal of atheists to limit the ability of the religious to influence the lives, and choices of the non-religious. This is why we oppose so aggressively any legislation that forces the non-religious to behave in accordance with the dictates of the religious.

So basically... you are going to do the same thing that communists do but just not so publicly.

Not at all. The Communists made the same mistake that all authoritarians make - they thought that criminalising a behaviour will eliminate it. We don't wish to criminalise anything.

I see. You just want to control it.

 

[Czernobog]

I've already explained the logic. It's not my fault that your rage has so consumed your intellect that you cannot understand simple English.

Well... no, you haven't. I mean after all if religion is the great evil that you think it is and if religion has added zero good, then the logical thing to do would be to ban all religions.

No, it wouldn't. Authoritarian thinking concludes that the only way to eliminate unhealthy behaviour is to legislate it out of existence. Logical thinking recognises that rational people respond rationally to reason. Therefore, the goal of atheists is not to "abolish" religion. It is to expose the irrational nature of magical thinking, allowing rational people to conclude, on their own, that such thinking is irrational, and unproductive. In the meantime, it is the goal of atheists to limit the ability of the religious to influence the lives, and choices of the non-religious. This is why we oppose so aggressively any legislation that forces the non-religious to behave in accordance with the dictates of the religious.

I believe that was what this guy was saying about you...

I'm not wasting my time watching some 8 minute video of some guy I don't even recognise. How about you paraphrase it for us. Assuming that you watched it...

Ignorance is often insolent. Let me summarize. Here is your MO.

1. de-moralize
2. de-stabilize
3. crisis
4. normalization.

I don't wish to argue from ignorance, so let's take these one at t time. Let's start with de-moralize. What, precisely do you mean by that. I have my suspicion, but I don't wish to respond without know, for certain, you accusation. So, what do you mean by de-moralize?

 

[ding]

Well... no, you haven't. I mean after all if religion is the great evil that you think it is and if religion has added zero good, then the logical thing to do would be to ban all religions.

No, it wouldn't. Authoritarian thinking concludes that the only way to eliminate unhealthy behaviour is to legislate it out of existence. Logical thinking recognises that rational people respond rationally to reason. Therefore, the goal of atheists is not to "abolish" religion. It is to expose the irrational nature of magical thinking, allowing rational people to conclude, on their own, that such thinking is irrational, and unproductive. In the meantime, it is the goal of atheists to limit the ability of the religious to influence the lives, and choices of the non-religious. This is why we oppose so aggressively any legislation that forces the non-religious to behave in accordance with the dictates of the religious.

I believe that was what this guy was saying about you...

I'm not wasting my time watching some 8 minute video of some guy I don't even recognise. How about you paraphrase it for us. Assuming that you watched it...

Ignorance is often insolent. Let me summarize. Here is your MO.

1. de-moralize
2. de-stabilize
3. crisis
4. normalization.

I don't wish to argue from ignorance, so let's take these one at t time. Let's start with de-moralize. What, precisely do you mean by that. I have my suspicion, but I don't wish to respond without know, for certain, you accusation. So, what do you mean by de-moralize?

You'd have to watch the video that you don't have time for.

Do you believe your strategy to abolish or control religion is consistent with the strategy of militant atheism?

 

[Czernobog]

No, it wouldn't. Authoritarian thinking concludes that the only way to eliminate unhealthy behaviour is to legislate it out of existence. Logical thinking recognises that rational people respond rationally to reason. Therefore, the goal of atheists is not to "abolish" religion. It is to expose the irrational nature of magical thinking, allowing rational people to conclude, on their own, that such thinking is irrational, and unproductive. In the meantime, it is the goal of atheists to limit the ability of the religious to influence the lives, and choices of the non-religious. This is why we oppose so aggressively any legislation that forces the non-religious to behave in accordance with the dictates of the religious.

I believe that was what this guy was saying about you...

I'm not wasting my time watching some 8 minute video of some guy I don't even recognise. How about you paraphrase it for us. Assuming that you watched it...

Ignorance is often insolent. Let me summarize. Here is your MO.

1. de-moralize
2. de-stabilize
3. crisis
4. normalization.

I don't wish to argue from ignorance, so let's take these one at t time. Let's start with de-moralize. What, precisely do you mean by that. I have my suspicion, but I don't wish to respond without know, for certain, you accusation. So, what do you mean by de-moralize?

You'd have to watch the video that you don't have time for.

Do you believe your strategy to abolish or control religion is consistent with the strategy of militant atheism?

Sooo...you can't explain the words you, yourself, posted? Then I will choose to ignore the post for the gibberish that it is. Moving on. Any other areas in which you would like me to make you look stupid?

 

[ding]

I believe that was what this guy was saying about you...

I'm not wasting my time watching some 8 minute video of some guy I don't even recognise. How about you paraphrase it for us. Assuming that you watched it...

Ignorance is often insolent. Let me summarize. Here is your MO.

1. de-moralize
2. de-stabilize
3. crisis
4. normalization.

I don't wish to argue from ignorance, so let's take these one at t time. Let's start with de-moralize. What, precisely do you mean by that. I have my suspicion, but I don't wish to respond without know, for certain, you accusation. So, what do you mean by de-moralize?

You'd have to watch the video that you don't have time for.

Do you believe your strategy to abolish or control religion is consistent with the strategy of militant atheism?

Sooo...you can't explain the words you, yourself, posted? Then I will choose to ignore the post for the gibberish that it is. Moving on. Any other areas in which you would like me to make you look stupid?

That's your choice. Would you like to control religion?

 

[Czernobog]

I'm not wasting my time watching some 8 minute video of some guy I don't even recognise. How about you paraphrase it for us. Assuming that you watched it...

Ignorance is often insolent. Let me summarize. Here is your MO.

1. de-moralize
2. de-stabilize
3. crisis
4. normalization.

I don't wish to argue from ignorance, so let's take these one at t time. Let's start with de-moralize. What, precisely do you mean by that. I have my suspicion, but I don't wish to respond without know, for certain, you accusation. So, what do you mean by de-moralize?

You'd have to watch the video that you don't have time for.

Do you believe your strategy to abolish or control religion is consistent with the strategy of militant atheism?

Sooo...you can't explain the words you, yourself, posted? Then I will choose to ignore the post for the gibberish that it is. Moving on. Any other areas in which you would like me to make you look stupid?

That's your choice. Would you like to control religion?

No! Gods no! The last thing I want to do is control religion! Then I'm no different than any of the other con men feeding the sheep, and taking advantage of the gullible!

 

[zaangalewa]

I'm not interested in the books of Alexander Solshenizyn. Why should I?

Because his writings are relevant to the human condition.

Same with trillions of tons of other informations.

He has been on both sides; good and evil.

I live in an unipolar way in this world here which is created from god. My bipolarity is not "evil and good world"; my bipolarity is "I and god".

"in order for men to do great evil, they must first believe they are doing good." Alexander Solzhenitysn

What Alexander Solshenitsyn calls "great evil" I suspect, but I don't know. Good is everything what helps to exist all and every life; so Noah for example was a very good man although he was not able (or will not be able) to save the human race, but he was able to save himselve and his family by saving the innocent animals of this planet, which are often dying and suffering under our unhuman tyranny.

“It was granted me to carry away from my prison years on my bent back, which nearly broke beneath its load, this essential experience; how a human being becomes evil and how good. In the intoxication of youthful successes I had felt myself to be infallible, and I was therefore cruel.

?

In the surfeit of power I was a murderer, and an oppressor.

Good grief.

In my most evil moments I was convinced that I was doing good,

Either this is an empty blabla or he had a very serios problem. Immanuel Kant, categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."

and I was well supplied with systematic arguments.

or rhetorical indoctrinations. Most people use recipes instead or thougts. Recipes are fast - thoughts are slow. I guess 97% of all "arguments" then most people are using they don't understand on their own.

And it was only when I lay there on rotting prison straw that I sensed within myself the first stirrings of good. Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts.

"Right or wrong, my country" is for example an evil sentence most people in the world will agree with. Thinking so gives a lot of acceptance from lots of people all around and this acceptance may give people the feeling to be good.

This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years.

Not my experience.

And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains… an unuprooted small corner
of evil.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

Place a red button in an empty room with the words "Do NOT press this button. To do so destroys the world" then I'm sure someone will press the button.

But you are probably right, you don't need to read anything new that does not fit your narrative.

New ? The Archipel Gulag? "Arbeit macht frei" (="work makes free") was written on the concentration camp Dachau, the prototype of all german concentration and extermination camps. While the most people thought in this context once "Work is an instrument of the resocialization of criminals" thought the Nazis "Work is a method to eliminate our enemies". New in this context is for example: Someone stole some years ago this door of the concentration camp in Dachau and it looks like the police in Norway found it in their country last week. Astonishing. It's by the way a copy, because the original was stolen longer ago.

I don't have any idea what you are speaking about.

I know you don't, but you will.

I don't know why you think I will understand what you are not able to explain.

Tell me please how my breakfast tasted today in the morning, Dr. master of the universe.

I don't claim to be a master of anything, not even myself. I don't know how your breakfast tasted this morning, but you are getting low on milk!