Yes I’ve read Darwin and Dawkins. Darwin was one hell of a scientist and Dawkins is a very poor philosopher.

I won’t even touch the rest of this. The author lives in no world I am familiar with and speaks with no people I have ever met. Since what he says is largely fantasy content, I imagine he can arrange to win almost any debate.

But as someone stated above, blogs like this are not about sharing ideas or coming to the truth. My advice to the author is go to church. But since he’s not likely to do that, I advise him to get drunk. It would be more rational than what he’s doing.

Behind the pacifist and loving speech, the majority of the religions promote in fact the destruction of everything that represents freedom and pleasure. They hate the body, the desires, the sexuality, the women, the intelligence and all the books, except one. The religions promote the submission, the chastity, the blind and conformistical faith on behalf of a fictitious paradise after the death.

Only an atheistic person can be free, because the idea of a god is incompatible with the freedom of the human being. The idea of a god promotes the existence of a divine dimension, which denies the possibility to choose your own destination and to invent your own existence. If god exists, the Is is not free; on the other hand, if god does not exist, the Is can be free. The freedom is never given. It is acquired day by day. However, the basic principle of a god is an inhibiting impediment of the autonomy of the man.

It means that when a person does not content himself only in believing dully, but starts to make questions on the sacred texts, the doctrine, the teachings of the religion, there is no way not to reach these conclusions. It is about not to leave the reason, with capital R, in second plan, behind the faith, and to give to the reason the power and the nobility that it deserves.

The mechanism of the religions is of an illusion. It is like a mysterious toy we try to decipher by breaking it. The enchantment and the magic of the religion disappear when we see the mechanism and the reasons behind the beliefs.

The priests are limited to use only one handful of words, texts and references that allow to better assure the control on the bodies, hearts and souls of the followers. The mythology of the religions need simplicity to become more efficient. The religions make a permanent promotion of the faith, the belief before the intelligence and the reason, the submission of the followers against the freedom of the independent thought, the darkness against the light.

The necessity of cultivate culturally a god is based in ridicules ideas. We don’t have nothing in the brain beyond what we put in it. Have you seen a child believing in gods? Religions and gods are human beings inventions, just like philosophy, arts and metaphysics. These creations have been made to answer the necessities of confront the anguish of the death; But, we can react in other ways: For example, using the philosophy.

The believe in a god is an impotence signal. We must be conscious of our possibilities. When we cannot prove something is necessary to recognize these limitation and not make concessions to tale-stories or mythology. The idea of the divine child is a species of infantile illness of the reflective thought.

The majority of the people is allured by the elected icons of the media, and believe more in them than in the physical truth. The truth is that the role of the religions was not the best one: Attacks against Galileu, genocide during the crusades, the Muslim radicalism, silence before the holocaust, etc. What history show is that the religions instead promoting peace, love, fraternity, friendship between the people and the nations, for the most part produced most of the time the opposite. It does not seem very worthy that the monotheists generated some good here and there. In compensation, they generated extreme human barbarity; and this seems much more important as prove of the impotence of the doctrines.

We cannot make much about it, except to say what it is truth. The Christians have little moral to disapprove old truths, when they themselves promote old errors until today. The philosophy can allow each one of us the comprehension of what is the world, of what can be our morals, our justice, the rules of the game for a happy existence between the humans, without the necessity of appealing to a god, to the holy ghost, to the sacred one, to the skies, to the religions. It is necessary to pass from the theological age to the age of the mass philosophy.

The weakness, the fear, the anguish before the death, are the sources of all the religious beliefs, and they will never abandon the humanity.

The history of the Christianity has just as much value as the mythology of Santa Claus. It is in the same level of the fairies stories, where the animals talk and the witches eat little kids. A thought that only serves the children.

It is necessary to allow the free construction of ourselves as independent beings. To develop the counter-history of the atheist, sexualist, hedonist and anarchist philosophy.

Gino Barcal

I’m not talking about ‘rational’ in all its many senses. I’m talking about ‘rational’ in the sense having to do with beliefs being backed up by evidence. I’ve been extremely clear about this. Please pay attention.

If someone boasts of being rational in one sense, and then you point out they’re not being rational in another sense, you are missing the point and wasting everyone’s time.

You really think the /r/Atheism crowd was rational? You really think this defined them: “having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.”

I call it irrational mean-spirited childishness.

Call it mean-spirited childishness. But rationality is completely beside the point.

Attacking a girl because you don’t agree with her beliefs is rational? I think we might have different definitions of the word.

If you want to criticize the attack, feel free. But this ‘gotcha’ point involving rationality is just plain stupid.

haha, you haven’t been on reddit long have you? they aren’t trying to change anyones mind. they are a giant circlejerk of hateful socially retarded losers. rational debate, hah. 99% of their submissions are mocking someone.