Morgan travels to Nashville, TN – the buckle of the Bible Belt – to become a guest preacher at an atheist church, a controversial and growing movement in the U.S. Along the way, he visits evangelical mega-churches, Baptist gospel churches, mosques, Mormon gatherings, and more to try and figure out exactly why people need religion in their lives, why it creates so much conflict in this world, and what his own message is for his Sunday sermon.

See Morgan take to the pulpit and preach from the "Book of Morgan" on "Morgan Spurlock Inside Man" Sunday, May 11 at 10pm ET. Only on CNN.
http://insideman.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/ ... -religion/

Perhaps something to discuss in the chat room? Looks like he talks to that British dude who is attempting to set up a chain of atheist "churches".

LanDroid wrote:

Morgan travels to Nashville, TN – the buckle of the Bible Belt – to become a guest preacher at an atheist church, a controversial and growing movement in the U.S. Along the way, he visits evangelical mega-churches, Baptist gospel churches, mosques, Mormon gatherings, and more to try and figure out exactly why people need religion in their lives, why it creates so much conflict in this world, and what his own message is for his Sunday sermon.

See Morgan take to the pulpit and preach from the "Book of Morgan" on "Morgan Spurlock Inside Man" Sunday, May 11 at 10pm ET. Only on CNN.
http://insideman.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/ ... -religion/

Perhaps something to discuss in the chat room? Looks like he talks to that British dude who is attempting to set up a chain of atheist "churches".

why it creates so much conflict in this world

in the whole WIDE WORLD?
really?

There's no denying that there exists some theocratic states
But tell me, what's the comparison look like with non theocratic states in the world?

Our country is proof that it's possible to build a political consensus for secularism and toleration in a religious dominated society.
Did you read the article I posted by the atheist who asks not to be called an atheist?

"so much conflict in the world" is a horrible shame. that is absolutely True.
But the world is not conflicted so much by religion as it is by politics, lack or resources, repressive regimes, and huge disparities in wealth.

Once again, this whole religion causes so much trouble in the world mantra is pronounced mostly by atheists deeply distorting and conflating religiosity, irrationalism, and "evil acts" that are much more complex than this overly simplistic analysis.

I don't need a list of states engaging in oppression and murder motivated or justified by outdated fundamentalism.
But to say there is so much conflict in the whole wide world BECAUSE OF RELIGION is a grossly overblown misconception.

ant wrote: There's no denying that there exists some theocratic states
But tell me, what's the comparison look like with non theocratic states in the world?

Non-theocratic states are not ruling by the tenets of atheism. Because there aren't any. If you're an atheist murderer, then the "atheist" label is not relevant to your crime.

I know you think that's unfair, but that's the way it is. People disbelieve in lots of things.

You also can't credit atheism for good actions, either. I believe you can sometimes credit religious belief for good actions. So there you go. It works both ways.

"so much conflict in the world" is a horrible shame. that is absolutely True.
But the world is not conflicted so much by religion as it is by politics, lack or resources, repressive regimes, and huge disparities in wealth.

No one is arguing that religion causes all conflicts, you're creating an instant strawman. Again. And again.

Yeah, genius.
The deadly issue with history's most notorious self proclaimed atheistic tyrants was by sheer coincidence (which is actually what you're implicitly advancing here) they so happened to single out believers to murder and oppress by the millions.

This is a strong case for a brand of atheism that insists they can not be held morally accountable for any actions because of their disbelief in Thor, Zeus, and teapots.

There is a pathological denial at work here. The need to defend disbelief again and again and again is a pathological obsession.
It makes zero sense.

But please continue to jump to the defense of non belief. It's a fascinating study.

ant wrote:Yeah, genius.
The deadly issue with history's most notorious self proclaimed atheistic tyrants was by sheer coincidence (which is actually what you're implicitly advancing here) they so happened to single out believers to murder and oppress by the millions.

This is a strong case for a brand of atheism that insists they can not be held morally accountable for any actions because of their disbelief in Thor, Zeus, and teapots.

There is a pathological denial at work here. The need to defend disbelief again and again and again is a pathological obsession.
It makes zero sense.

But please continue to jump to the defense of non belief. It's a fascinating study.

Everyone else will easily see your ridiculous lapse of logic.

You lose, again.

Another mindless coincidence in nature, people!
Disbelievers marginalizing and murdering believers!
No motive here, people! Those dirty believers would have died anyway.
Move along!!

AHHA!!

The world is filled with happy coincidences!
Another logical victory for spiritual materialists!!

ant wrote:The need to defend disbelief again and again and again is a pathological obsession. It makes zero sense.

let's look in the mirror

ant wrote:Yeah, genius.

The need to attack disbelief again and again and again is a pathological obsession.

But please continue to jump to the attack of non belief. It's a fascinating study.

ant wrote:Our country is proof that it's possible to build a political consensus for secularism and toleration in a religious dominated society.

One nation under God?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/opini ... .html?_r=0

looking forward to the show, should be fun.

youkrst wrote:

ant wrote:The need to defend disbelief again and again and again is a pathological obsession. It makes zero sense.

let's look in the mirror

ant wrote:Yeah, genius.

The need to attack disbelief again and again and again is a pathological obsession.

But please continue to jump to the attack of non belief. It's a fascinating study.

No one made the accusation that atheism is currently responsible for all the conflict in the entire world today.
You're ignorantly jumping to the defense of Dexter's own strawman.

The link LanD provided implied that religion is creating/responsible for "so much conflict" globally when in fact a bird's eye, objective view indicates that when compared to secular /non theocratical States currently experiencing turmoil for a wide variety of non religious reasons, there IS NO COMPARISON - more of the global village and its citizens are troubled by non religious matters.


No one is denying religious fundamentalism is responsible for crimes against people. But the statement "religion is responsible FOR SOOO MUCH CONFLICT globally" is melodramatic when contrasted with the MILLIONS of other non religious related ills. What's happening in Russia now is just one example.

The tendency is for certain people with certain agendas to focus only on religion.
If religion also is to be credited (as Dexter said himself) for the good that it motivates, then it's not religion that should be denounced, it's OPPRESSION of any kind that should be denounced. The bone being picked here is against religion. F**ing DUH!

There's no question that anything can be twisted in to an ideology, that includes your precious "Atheism"

Self proclaimed atheist leaders have in the past denounced THEISTS and have marginalized and murdered them particularly for being THEISTS.
Atheism went beyond mere disbelief in those cases. And millions died as a result. It wasn't a coincidence. That form of atheism was harmful and murderous.
The fact that Dexter continually jumps to the defense of simple disbelief whenever I mention atheism in this light is probably a desire to separate himself from Pol Pot's flavor of atheism. That's fine, dandy, and understandable. I don't believe Dexter is a Pol Pot in the making.

Conflating religion, irrationality, and oppression, and holding religion as the primary motivator makes zero sense when in the same breath you deny atheism was not responsible for irrational oppression during certain segments in history.

If the claim is that atheism was not responsible for the atrocities Stalin committed, rather, it was his politics, the same defense can be introduced when church and state were so intertwined there was virtually no distinguishing between the two.
Power politics are often in play.

Putting religion on trial and not atheism in these situations is just exposing the religious bigotry that has effectively been brainwashed into the heads of people that idolize these current celebrity atheists.
It's easy to see.

Please think before you defend a fellow disbeliever.

You're ignorantly jumping to the defense of Dexter's own strawman.

no ant, i was pointing out how the very thing you were using as an accusation was in fact accusing you.

you were saying repeated defence of atheism was pathology but it is your own repeated pathological attack of atheism that would make any defence neccessary.

ant wrote:You're ignorantly jumping to the defense of Dexter's own strawman.

no, you are ignorantly assuming you understood my post, or purposely evading.

ant wrote:There's no question that anything can be twisted in to an ideology, that includes your precious "Atheism"

i thought you would have figured it out by now, i'm not an atheist.

i'm not a theist either

i just like toying with ideas to see how close they get to making sense.

ant wrote:Please think before you defend a fellow disbeliever.

please think before you spew out a bunch of patronising drivel as if it is supposed to be self evident truth.