The War Against Christianity

[Fnord]

It's now a shooting war, as both sides have opened fire.

LINK (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22174890/)

We're often ridiculed for being weak-minded victims. Now we'll be ridiculed for being gun-toting hypocrites.

Sorta reminds me of the time I threw someone through a plate-glass window after he and his buddies attacked me for bringing a Bible to school.

They left me alone after that, but used my act of self-defense as "evidence" for "Typical Christian Hypocrisy."

[NeilC]

I don't get what you are trying to say.

[Fnord]

I don't get what you are trying to say.


We're fighting back.

[NeilC]

We?

Fighting back against what?

[ImaginalDisc]

Wow, good job on assuming. You have no idea why the attacker chose those victims. Who is ridiculing you, precisely? Certainly not that rather straightforward article. You don't even know why those people were attacked. The attacker might have been a Christian who found the beliefs of some other Christians deloprable, or he might have been hearing messages from his neighbor's dog.

You don't cite anything or know anything to support your case, but you're certainly prepared to hang yourself on a cross.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

What a curious world Mr/Ms/Mrs Fnord lives in. Not one I would want to live in . . . or even visit. :(

[Btodd]

It's great when Christmas rolls around, so you can see Christianity ramp up its persecution complex. "We're under attack!". Yawn.

As was pointed out, you don't know why this tragedy occurred, but are all too ready to claim persecution. Bo-ring.

[becomingagodo]

Is Ted Haggard gay, maybe it is a attack against gayness.

Saying that I usually round up my atheist posse and commit random acts of violence against christian.

Note: I don't have a atheist posse.

[Silly Green Monkey]

So who, in this story, is 'fighting back'? The guy with a gun who found a cluster of people and shot at them?

[Slimething]

Fnord,

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the shooter turns out to be an atheist and he did it for what he believed to be good for atheism. How does that start a shooting war? That individual in no way represented me or any other atheist I know.

One of the problems of this adherents against atheism viewpoint is that the adherents assume that atheism is a religion in its own right. It's not. It's just a grouping of individuals who don't believe in god. There's no organization. No agenda. Not only do I condemn the actions of this idiot, no matter his motivation, but I also applaud your standing up for yourself against bullies of any stripe.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Sorta reminds me of the time I threw someone through a plate-glass window after he and his buddies attacked me for bringing a Bible to school.


Did they physically or verbally attack you for bringing your bible?

[tsg]

Conclusion jumping taken to new heights in the quest to portray the poor persecuted Christian. Film at eleven.

[Mister Agenda]

Huh. In my city churches don't generally see a need for armed security. What is going on up there?

[Darth Rotor]

The violence began about 12:30 a.m. Sunday, when a man opened fire at the Youth With a Mission office after he had been denied a request to spend the night there.
OK, someone had a beef.
Witnesses told police that the gunman was a 20-year-old white male, wearing a dark jacket and a cap, who had a handgun.
This tells us little to nothing.
More than 12 hours later, at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, a gunman with a high-powered rifle entered the church's main foyer and opened fire, Colorado Springs Police Chief Richard Myers said.
Apparently a different guy. Guess we won't know if he did this for the Great Atheistic People's Revolution, since he is dead. Report was that he brought a lot of ammo, so it is a good thing the security guard got the drop on him, from early reports.

DR

[Sefarst]

I didn't realize it was Ted Haggard's old church. That place has got some bad luck.

Does anyone else find it strange that the Church has security guards? I've been to many churches, including several large and wealthy ones, and I've never seen one with their own security. Nevertheless, I guess it's good they did.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Apparently a different guy. Guess we won't know if he did this for the Great Atheistic People's Revolution, since he is dead.

Unless the Colorado GAPR battalion has gone rogue, I can assure you we had nothing to do with it. We would never bust into a church to kill Christians. We prefer to take them alive, as the lions seem to enjoy it more that way.

[Cleon]

Well, gee, Fnord, looks like it's not so much a "War Against Christianity" as a civil war.

The shooter was apparently a disgruntled former worker at the missionary center (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html)*.



(* It took a substantial amount of effort not to say he had a "missionary position.")

[LibraryLady]

I didn't realize it was Ted Haggard's old church. That place has got some bad luck.

Does anyone else find it strange that the Church has security guards? I've been to many churches, including several large and wealthy ones, and I've never seen one with their own security. Nevertheless, I guess it's good they did.

They apparently drafted some members as security guards after the first shooting at the missionary center. They don't normally have guards.

[ImaginalDisc]

(* It took a substantial amount of effort not to say he had a "missionary position.")

He was clearly not satisified in the missionary position.

[Michael Redman]

They left me alone after that, but used my act of self-defense as "evidence" for "Typical Christian Hypocrisy."Are you claiming it isn't, or simply that it's unfair to characterize all Christian on the basis of your bad example?

[ponderingturtle]

It's now a shooting war, as both sides have opened fire.

LINK (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22174890/)

We're often ridiculed for being weak-minded victims. Now we'll be ridiculed for being gun-toting hypocrites.

Sorta reminds me of the time I threw someone through a plate-glass window after he and his buddies attacked me for bringing a Bible to school.

They left me alone after that, but used my act of self-defense as "evidence" for "Typical Christian Hypocrisy."

Thank you for demonstrating the standard Christian persecution complex.

[Sefarst]

They apparently drafted some members as security guards after the first shooting at the missionary center. They don't normally have guards.
It still boggles my mind. The first shooting happened at 12:30 AM, 65 miles away. Within 12 hours, New Life Church had armed guards at the entrance of their church. I just think it's strange that they would assume "we're next" after a shooting 65 miles away. I'll be interested when more of the details start to really come out about this guy and his relationship with these two organizations.

[Michael Redman]

That is very interesting.

I wonder how many of the members of this fundamentalist Christian church have concealed carry permits.

[Hokulele]

The moral of this thread? There are bad people who are Christians, there are bad people who aren't. Life is full of bad people, so make sure you doubly enjoy the good ones you know.

[VulcanWay]

The moral of this thread? There are bad people who are Christians, there are bad people who aren't. Life is full of bad people, so make sure you doubly enjoy the good ones you know.
Or the alternate moral is: Christian or Atheist...pack heat. It's always good to hedge your bets no matter what your "side." :p

[Hokulele]

Mine is nicer, but yours is way more practical. :D

[becomingagodo]

I would say the moral of this story is that Christians our paranoid, and their greatest enermy is theirself.

Back on topic. So a atheist did not commit the shooting. This kind of makes this thread stupid.

Sorta reminds me of the time I threw someone through a plate-glass window after he and his buddies attacked me for bringing a Bible to school.

This proves nothing. Also, it is pretty sad that this is the best you can come up with. I would have came up with this http://youtube.com/watch?v=7GdXRwCsMRg you know I frought the atheist with a sword and won.

[Abe_the_Man]

Well, gee, Fnord, looks like it's not so much a "War Against Christianity" as a civil war.

The shooter was apparently a disgruntled former worker at the missionary center (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html)*.

(* It took a substantial amount of effort not to say he had a "missionary position.")

We atheists don't actually make war on Christians we get other Christians to do it for us. But they keep figuring it out that we're behind it damn them!

[joobz]

Sorta reminds me of the time I threw someone through a plate-glass window after he and his buddies attacked me for bringing a Bible to school.

I must say I find this story somewhat alarming. It's just enough details to induce an emotional response, but not enough details to know what that response should be.

Should I be outraged that someone attacked you with intent to cause bodily harm?

or should I be outraged that you would respond in such a way that would greatly escalate the level of violence?

Obviously the answer to this depends on what you mean by "attack".

The part that makes me sad to think it may be the later due to your statement
We're Fighting Back

For no other reason than it assumes that one party is the obvious initiator in this feud and there is no proof of that.


However, most importantly, I regret that you were attacked and I hope that you are alright. Please, take care of yourself.

[Piscivore]

I'm just waiting for someone to claim he went to "The Golden Compass" right before the attack.

[Dunstan]

Damn, and just when I was hoping for a ceasefire while we finish off those damn Zoroastrians.

[Slimething]

Damn, and just when I was hoping for a ceasefire while we finish off those damn Zoroastrians.

Yesss, my preciousss. First, the Shakers; now, the Zoroastreans. :cool:

[KateHL]

They apparently drafted some members as security guards after the first shooting at the missionary center. They don't normally have guards.I was dragged to a church in Missouri back in 2001 that DID have security guards. I don't remember them being armed, but once the service began they blocked the doors. This was distressing a few moments later when a man began writhing about on the floor screaming in 'tongues.' So, yeah, I wasn't going to stick around for that. When I and my friends went to leave, the guards did not step aside. I stared one down, reached behind him, grabbed the door handle and bumped him with the door. It shocked him into moving out of the way and we were out of there.

I'm just writing this to say that there IS, at least, in one church, the mentality of needing guards. I should add that I have no knowledge of this church's history and if they endured threats or violents in the past. It seemed more like the guards were there to discourage leaving. All in all it was a rattling experience.

[ImaginalDisc]

Ahem (http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2007/12/10/colorado-new-life-church-shooting-suspect-identified-as-matt-murray-matthew-j-murray/):


Matt Murray 24, son of a Denver Neurologist and living with his parents in their Englewood home, has been identified as the shooter in the Colorado Church shootings at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs.

Fnord, please find a doctor to help you with your raving paranoid schizophrenia.

[scotth]

Well Fnord.... did you mean xians shooting at xians? Both side are xian?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_on_re_us/church_shootings;_ylt=Am9aUUMvASh9DFec1iDCa38DW7oF

The gunman was identified as Matthew Murray, 24, who was home-schooled in what a friend said was a deeply religious Christian household.

[Ladewig]

Sorta reminds me of the time I threw someone through a plate-glass window after he and his buddies attacked me for bringing a Bible to school.

They left me alone after that, but used my act of self-defense as "evidence" for "Typical Christian Hypocrisy."

I don't think I would label it "Typical Christian Hypocrisy," but I might label it hypocrisy given that Jesus clearly and unequivocally stated that one should always turn the other cheek. Of course, I could be completely wrong in that viewpoint. I am curious as to how you see it, Fnord. Do you think there should be limits to "turn the other cheek"? Do you think it is outdated? Is there some other reason why you chose the exact opposite of what Jesus taught?

[tsg]

Well Fnord.... did you mean xians shooting at xians? Both side are xian?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_on_re_us/church_shootings;_ylt=Am9aUUMvASh9DFec1iDCa38DW7oF

Don't you worry. Fnord wont let a few pesky facts get in the way of a perfectly good BS claim.

I can hear him oiling the wheels on his goalposts as I type....

[DoubtingStephen]

I think this is clearly a case of the white people having an uprising against their white overlords. Everybody involved, shooter and victims were all white, right?

[Davidlpf]

Do not really have to fight them they just shot themselves in the foot all by themselves.

[bokonon]

Well Fnord.... did you mean xians shooting at xians? Both side are xian?
If it's the Young Earth Creationists vs the Old Earth Creationists, I'm not going to know who to root for.

[Mobyseven]

So, let me get this straight. A Christian walks into a church and shoots up some other Christians - and this is a war against Christianity how exactly?

It sounds like a lone nut. If it is a war, it's a civil one. Don't be expecting to form an alliance with the elves, as they're helping the atheists build up some defences before the storming of Minas Randith.

[shadron]

I didn't realize it was Ted Haggard's old church. That place has got some bad luck.

Does anyone else find it strange that the Church has security guards? I've been to many churches, including several large and wealthy ones, and I've never seen one with their own security. Nevertheless, I guess it's good they did.

The church took on extra security as a result of word about the first shooting in Arvada the nigh/early morning before. The guard who confronted this person was a female member of the church who offers her security services to the church pro bono. [My opinion: Apparently a good shot, too. In an interview she confessed to being scared when she heard the shots, but she did what police have always done.]

The man in question is/was a Christian; he was a student at the Arvada missionary in the past. His family, living in Englewood, CO, is described as devoutly Christian. His father is a surgeon.

The two killed in Colorado Springs were sisters, 16 and 18 years old. Their father was also shot and is in the hospital, and is expected to live.

For those who don't happen to know, Colorado Springs is a hotbed of evangelistic protestantism. This is due to many reasons: it has always been known as a great place to retire, and many military who pass through the area in service often return there (it is home of the US Air Force Academy, Peterson AFB, Falcon AFB, the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) and Ft. Carson Army base). Conservatism is really rampant there; Focus on the Family and many other evangelical orgs, large and small, are based there. More churches per square yard than almost anywhere this side of the Atlantic. And it's still a great place to live, though it's sprawling like a floozy at a kegger. He likely had some sort of ties to people down there, though why he'd want to shoot it up, I have no idea. Who can fathom that sort of mind?

[Elizabeth I]

We're fighting back.

"We"? You have a mouse in your pocket?

[tsg]

If it's the Young Earth Creationists vs the Old Earth Creationists, I'm not going to know who to root for.

I'll be happy not to get caught in the crossfire.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think I would label it "Typical Christian Hypocrisy," but I might label it hypocrisy given that Jesus clearly and unequivocally stated that one should always turn the other cheek. Of course, I could be completely wrong in that viewpoint. I am curious as to how you see it, Fnord. Do you think there should be limits to "turn the other cheek"? Do you think it is outdated? Is there some other reason why you chose the exact opposite of what Jesus taught?

Exactly Jesus was not at all against violence, he did declare that those who would not do as he command be brought before him and executed.

[scotth]

If it's the Young Earth Creationists vs the Old Earth Creationists, I'm not going to know who to root for.

Root for a protracted battle with high attrition on both sides. :D

[scotth]

Exactly Jesus was not at all against violence, he did declare that those who would not do as he command be brought before him and executed.

And there was that also that bit about "bringing the sword" and others. He's only the Prince of Peace if you engage in a selective reading of the Bible. If you read the whole thing, it kind of falls apart.

[linusrichard]

Sorta reminds me of the time I threw someone through a plate-glass window after he and his buddies attacked me for bringing a Bible to school.

They left me alone after that, but used my act of self-defense as "evidence" for "Typical Christian Hypocrisy."

I won't criticize the action you describe, but I will say that it is not truly an act of self-defense, and that it is hypocrisy coming from someone who is defending the religion of "blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness' sake" and "love your enemy" and "turn to him the other [cheek] also" and "forgive not seven times but seven times seventy."

It sounds like your human dignity got the better of your Christianity... Kudos for that!


Christians are "fighting back"? Against other Christians? That doesn't sound very christian to me.

[GeeMack]

Oh, poor baby Fnord. All that persecution and stuff. So Fnord, how about a hardy, "Okay, I was wrong?" Could it be you simply lack the honesty and integrity to acknowledge that you made a dumb mistake here? Or maybe you're a little too embarrassed by your knee-jerk display of paranoia to come back and participate in the discussion you started? :)

[ponderingturtle]

And there was that also that bit about "bringing the sword" and others. He's only the Prince of Peace if you engage in a selective reading of the Bible. If you read the whole thing, it kind of falls apart.

Of course it will be peacefully, once everyone does exactly as they are told by our lord and savior, everything will be perfect.

Remember Christianity, putting the Total in Totalitarian, you never get out of the Lords Gulag.

[skeptical]

I predict this story will quietly die, since it seems pretty clear this guy was a Christian himself. If the shooter _had_ been an Atheist or Theist of any other stripe (i.e. Jew, Muslim, etc) I shudder to think of the magnitude of the Christian persecution PR campaign.

I am always amazed that this persecution mentality can exist in a country that is 80% or more Christian.

[Michael Redman]

They'll still say this was the result of the war on Christianity. It's not like they're locked into a rational worldview.

[Belz...]

It's now a shooting war, as both sides have opened fire.

LINK (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22174890/)

We're often ridiculed for being weak-minded victims. Now we'll be ridiculed for being gun-toting hypocrites.

Sorta reminds me of the time I threw someone through a plate-glass window after he and his buddies attacked me for bringing a Bible to school.

They left me alone after that, but used my act of self-defense as "evidence" for "Typical Christian Hypocrisy."

Well, at least you get to run for presidential elections.

[sackett]

Okay, okay, so fnord let fly with a premature, immature volley. Perhaps (I only say perhaps) he was referring to that armed Chrrristian woman who put a window in the shooter. Maybe that's all he meant by fighting back.

Anybody who plans a shooting war on Xtians in the U.S. had better bring puh-lenty of iron to the fight, because they've got 80% of the population and who knows what percentage of the guns.

Haven't we heard before about fnord throwing somebody through a window? Must have been a defining life moment for him.

[skeptical]

Okay, okay, so fnord let fly with a premature, immature volley. Perhaps (I only say perhaps) he was referring to that armed Chrrristian woman who put a window in the shooter. Maybe that's all he meant by fighting back.

Anybody who plans a shooting war on Xtians in the U.S. had better bring puh-lenty of iron to the fight, because they've got 80% of the population and who knows what percentage of the guns.

Haven't we heard before about fnord throwing somebody through a window? Must have been a defining life moment for him.

That's exactly what I thought he meant. It still doesn't fit into the persecution complex meme because the attacker was Christian. I think he assumed the attacker must be a non-Christian, which was a very large leap.

[Sefarst]

For the record, the news is now reporting that he might not have been Christian. Between shootings, he apparently got on some message board and made some posts about being angry at Christians and hating them. It's not clear if he had actually left Christianity completely and gone atheist or if he had embraced some other religion. Or he may have still been Christian, but just angry at the hypocrisy he saw.

[Slimething]

IIRC, Dawkins once said that good people do good and bad people do bad but it takes religion for good people to do bad. Religion may allow a cynical few to coerce sheepish obedience from the crowd but this type of tragedy is almost certainly an unintended consequence of this tool taken too far. The perp wanted to belong to this group who served a god that would torture him in eternity if he failed. He failed. What unpredictable and inappropriate actions is a person who still believes the lie but is denied the remedy capable of?

Unless truly deranged, I can't see an atheist building up that much rancor, animosity or malevolence as to take out anyone but his/herself.

[Mobyseven]

Seems Fnord has flown in the face of facts.

How typical of him.

[kmortis]

Seems Fnord has flown in the face of facts.

How typical of him.

Maybe his IRL name is Matt....

[Big Les]

Looks like a post-and-run. Shame.

[Dunstan]

IIRC, Dawkins once said that good people do good and bad people do bad but it takes religion for good people to do bad.

FYI, I believe you're correct, but Dawkins was quoting physicist Steven Pinker.


Unless truly deranged, I can't see an atheist building up that much rancor, animosity or malevolence as to take out anyone but his/herself.

But... but... but... I've been assured repeatedly that atheists are so angry! They're ANGRY, ANGRY, ANGRY!

[The_Animus]

http://cectic.com/078.html

http://cectic.com/comics/078.png

[kmortis]

FYI, I believe you're correct, but Dawkins was quoting physicist Steven Pinker.




But... but... but... I've been assured repeatedly that atheists are so angry! They're ANGRY, ANGRY, ANGRY!

Psssst. Pinker is a neurolinguist, not a physicist. Thought I might tell you before you say otherwise and look silly.

[Elizabeth I]

Root for a protracted battle with high attrition on both sides. :D

...or, as we football fans say, "Hope for a scoreless tie with lots of injuries."

[Dunstan]

Psssst. Pinker is a neurolinguist, not a physicist. Thought I might tell you before you say otherwise and look silly.

Ah. I'm blaming whoever described as a physicist on another site I was on recently. Because if I can't rely on vaguely recalled third-hand information, what's the world coming to?

[articulett]

Psssst. Pinker is a neurolinguist, not a physicist. Thought I might tell you before you say otherwise and look silly.

And it was Steven Weinberg who said it, not Steven Pinker...

[articulett]

Ah. I'm blaming whoever described as a physicist on another site I was on recently. Because if I can't rely on vaguely recalled third-hand information, what's the world coming to?

I think there are two Steve Jones... one is a physicist in the US; the other an evolutionary biologist in the UK.

So many smart steves.... it's hard to keep them straight. Not that there is anything wrong with not keeping them straight.

[Dunstan]

And it was Steven Weinberg who said it, not Steven Pinker...

Damn you! I had just looked that up and was on my way to correct it.... but at least Weinberg is a physicist, right, so I get that point back?

[joobz]

angry! They're ANGRY, ANGRY, ANGRY!
You seem angry. Why you so angry?:p

[Dunstan]

You seem angry. Why you so angry?:p

Because I keep misattributing quotes! Oh, the shame....

[Egg]

Damn you! I had just looked that up and was on my way to correct it.... but at least Weinberg is a physicist, right, so I get that point back?

Well, whoever it was who said it first certainly wasn't a psychologist or he'd have known of such studies as Stanford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment) and Milgram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment).

[Slimething]

Because I keep misattributing quotes! Oh, the shame....

Hell, I started it! Don't rob me of my righteous anger! :blush:

Note to self: do the damn research before posting a quote.

Sorry about the hubbub. I was at work and didn't want to do the search for the source although I was slacking anyway.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Fnord doesn't strike me as one our resident Monster Shouters (or at least none of his posts that I have seen had that sort of tone) so I'm hoping he'll come back to this thread and clarify what he meant in the OP.

[kmortis]

And it was Steven Weinberg who said it, not Steven Pinker...

Well, that's ok then, 'cause Weinberg IS a physicist.

[Mobyseven]

Well, whoever it was who said it first certainly wasn't a psychologist or he'd have known of such studies as Stanford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment) and Milgram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment).

Those studies are damn scary if you ask me. The Stanford experiment especially - with Milgram the 'teacher' was at least being given a direct order, in the Stanford experiment things got ugly not because of any order, but just because the guards, who were your average everyday person, were given power that they then abused horribly.

[Cleon]

Fnord doesn't strike me as one our resident Monster Shouters (or at least none of his posts that I have seen had that sort of tone) so I'm hoping he'll come back to this thread and clarify what he meant in the OP.

And I'm hoping he isn't stockpiling weapons... :boxedin:

[joobz]

Any news on how the war is going?

[kittynh]

hhmmm, maybe the Xians should take preventive action. Like when they burned Jews in the Middle Ages (they caused the Black Death you know).

Yep those Xians have always been a peace loving people. Ask any Middle Eastern person how they feel about the crusades. Or how about the Inquisition? They really DID use comfy pillows!

Then there is all the great Xian on Xian action! Nothing like the French Catholics vs. French Protestants! And the old question, can anyone BUT a Catholic go to heaven. Answer from the Pope - NOPE!

If you really did throw some people through a window at school, were you suspended? Did you have to pay for the window? WWJD? Bet your behavior converted those guys in a hurry (remember, you are supposed to convert...read that Bible you tote around dude!) I mean that window cost MONEY, and you broke it. At the very least I hope you paid up. If not, that's stealing (read your Bible dude!)

[scotth]

Any news on how the war is going?

I guess it is on hold until next time we hear about sectarian violence in the news. (should be a short hold) (and yes, I know this story doesn't fall neatly into the category of sectarian violence)

As an aside: I've informally asked a number of religious believers what the oft heard (in the news) phrase "sectarian violence" meant. Only one knew that it meant religous vs religious conflict. It seems it just does not register in the ears of many that the bulk of the international killing in the news is because people differ in religious views.

[Abe_the_Man]

I guess it is on hold until next time we hear about sectarian violence in the news. (should be a short hold) (and yes, I know this story doesn't fall neatly into the category of sectarian violence)

As an aside: I've informally asked a number of religious believers what the oft heard (in the news) phrase "sectarian violence" meant. Only one knew that it meant religous vs religious conflict. It seems it just does not register in the ears of many that the bulk of the international killing in the news is because people differ in religious views.

From my own experience it seems most think it has something to do with secularism. I mean just look how close the words are "sectarian" "secular". The problem is most Christian churches think of themselves as "denominations" and not sects. Otherwise they would probably know that sectarian violence is between to sects or denominations of a single religion.

[sackett]

When this story broke, did anybody NOT instantly think, "A crazed christian with a gun!" Who else would be motivated to do such a thing?

[Cainkane1]

It's now a shooting war, as both sides have opened fire.

LINK (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22174890/)

We're often ridiculed for being weak-minded victims. Now we'll be ridiculed for being gun-toting hypocrites.

Sorta reminds me of the time I threw someone through a plate-glass window after he and his buddies attacked me for bringing a Bible to school.

They left me alone after that, but used my act of self-defense as "evidence" for "Typical Christian Hypocrisy."

I admire the security guard lady who had the guts to shoot it out with a lunatic armed with an assault rifle and all she had was a handgun. Most atheists are very sorry this happened. Nobody wants harm to come to Christians. We just aren't Christians ourselves. I congratualte that lady. I don't condemn her or any other armed responsible law abiding citizen. I happen to be one myself.

[Mister Earl]

It's now a shooting war, as both sides have opened fire.

LINK (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22174890/)

We're often ridiculed for being weak-minded victims. Now we'll be ridiculed for being gun-toting hypocrites.

Sorta reminds me of the time I threw someone through a plate-glass window after he and his buddies attacked me for bringing a Bible to school.

They left me alone after that, but used my act of self-defense as "evidence" for "Typical Christian Hypocrisy."

Considering the new information (Shooter wasn't an atheist, but a Christian himself), I think Fnord owes us atheists an apology here. He jumped to conclusions and started waving the blame finger. Being wrong is one thing, but insinuating that there's some kind of war between atheists and christians, and that they're "Fighting back" and not saying "I was wrong" when proven so *is* kind of hypocritical.

[scotth]

From my own experience it seems most think it has something to do with secularism. I mean just look how close the words are "sectarian" "secular". The problem is most Christian churches think of themselves as "denominations" and not sects. Otherwise they would probably know that sectarian violence is between to sects or denominations of a single religion.

Yes, exactly.

[Lonewulf]

Fnord seems to be doing less "fighting" in this thread than "ducking and hiding".


Sending a PM to him so he can get back to the good fight and show us eeeevil atheists what for.

[Ladewig]

If you really did throw some people through a window at school, were you suspended? Did you have to pay for the window?

On the plus side, Fnord can now use the word "defenestrate" in everyday conversation more easily than the rest of us can.

[Lonewulf]

Fnord, I just want you to know, whenever you want to throw me through a plate glass window for being an evil atheist, I'll give you my home address and even pay your way into Germany.

Be warned, though, that I fight dirty. :)

[Cainkane1]

It's now a shooting war, as both sides have opened fire.

LINK (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22174890/)

We're often ridiculed for being weak-minded victims. Now we'll be ridiculed for being gun-toting hypocrites.

Sorta reminds me of the time I threw someone through a plate-glass window after he and his buddies attacked me for bringing a Bible to school.

They left me alone after that, but used my act of self-defense as "evidence" for "Typical Christian Hypocrisy."

I used to belong to the FFRF which stands for Freedon From Religion Foundation and once they had a meeting at a building in Birmingham AL and there was a disturbance outside the building because the townspeople didn't want atheists in town. The police had to be called to break up the crowd. Nobody got hurt but the atheists had started nothing anything. I wasn't there which is good. Overall I bet atheists have more to fear from militant believers than they have to fear from an atheist. I hope we don't get caught up in a shooting situation. We're outnumbered very badly.

[Tanstaafl]

I used to belong to the FFRF which stands for Freedon From Religion Foundation and once they had a meeting at a building in Birmingham AL and there was a disturbance outside the building because the townspeople didn't want atheists in town. The police had to be called to break up the crowd. Nobody got hurt but the atheists had started nothing anything. I wasn't there which is good. Overall I bet atheists have more to fear from militant believers than they have to fear from an atheist. I hope we don't get caught up in a shooting situation. We're outnumbered very badly.


Ah, but they fear our rationality. They fear our questions.

[Egg]

As an aside: I've informally asked a number of religious believers what the oft heard (in the news) phrase "sectarian violence" meant. Only one knew that it meant religous vs religious conflict. It seems it just does not register in the ears of many that the bulk of the international killing in the news is because people differ in religious views.

I thought "sectarian violence" referred to any factional fighting from within one school of thought. I don't think the definition is just a religious one.

I would also argue that most of the religious fighting we see in the news has a political agenda behind it.

[scotth]

I thought "sectarian violence" referred to any factional fighting from within one school of thought. I don't think the definition is just a religious one.

I would also argue that most of the religious fighting we see in the news has a political agenda behind it.

On count one - It is possible that if you looked widely enough, you might find a defintion that is so wide. But, in conventional usage (and certainly the way the media uses it) you would be wrong.

On count two - Actually, just the opposite is true. Most of the political fighting has a religious agenda behind it. But, feel free to try to support your arguement.

ETA: as examples, have a study of Northern Ireland, Sunni-Shia, and Balkans conlicts. And just so you aren't thrown off by the way the primary media covered the Balkans, know that Serbs = Orthodox Christians and Croats = Catholics.

[ponderingturtle]

WWJD?
see
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me

[Ladewig]

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me

So, the right thing to do was to slay them?

[normdoering]

Mister Earl wrote:
"Considering the new information (Shooter wasn't an atheist, but a Christian himself), I think Fnord owes us atheists an apology here. He jumped to conclusions and started waving the blame finger."

He's not the only one. On my blog I've got a list of all the ugly and vile spin some Christianists put on the Colorado church shootings:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/12/ugly-and-vile-spin-some-christianists.html

The most ignorant and vile of the spin I've seen so far came from future toddler chopper Vox Day who is himself, in all probability, mentally ill and I suspect he will one day do something violent himself.

Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council, tried to cast a little blame on “the secular media” and the nut jobs over at Uncommon Descent, as expected, tried to find a way to blame Richard Dawkins but it could have been worse. Remember when Falwell tried to get away with blaming abortionists, gays and the ACLU for the 911 terrorist attacks?

[Mobyseven]

Fnord? I'm thinking that now would be a good time to come and apologise.

[Lonewulf]

Fnord? I'm thinking that now would be a good time to come and apologise.

Yeah, what gives?

Seems like Sergeant Fnord has gone AWOL.

Does the Christian Front have court martials?

[UnrepentantSinner]

When this story broke, did anybody NOT instantly think, "A crazed christian with a gun!" Who else would be motivated to do such a thing?

I didn't. But then again we had a crazy person with a gun shoot up a church in Fort Worth a few years ago so I tend to focus more on the crazy than who the person is or that they had a gun.

[kmortis]

I didn't. But then again we had a crazy person with a gun shoot up a church in Fort Worth a few years ago so I tend to focus more on the crazy than who the person is or that they had a gun.

Yeah, crazy is crazy. It don't matter if the crazy is Christian, Muslim or atheist, if they've a screw loose, they're gonna let go. Or as HST once said "you can turn you back on a druggy, but you can never turn your back on a drug".

[sackett]

Okay, so it was a disgruntled postal worker. I mean, a disgruntled Christian. Same difference.

Seriously, who but a religionist would give that much of a damn? You say he was crazy? Yes, crazy with religion. He felt rejected, I suppose, and turned that into a feeling of being scorned. Hell hath no fury, etc.

And now I'm done with the topic. Nausea is Nature's way of telling you to lay off.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Okay, so it was a disgruntled postal worker. I mean, a disgruntled Christian. Same difference.

Seriously, who but a religionist would give that much of a damn? You say he was crazy? Yes, crazy with religion. He felt rejected, I suppose, and turned that into a feeling of being scorned. Hell hath no fury, etc.

And now I'm done with the topic. Nausea is Nature's way of telling you to lay off.

I hope you won't beg off because it's such a tenet of orthodoxy amongst the militants here (not saying you're one, just replying to your comment since it lends itself to what others have said...) - are you trying to suggest that one might go crazy and shoot up places because one is disgruntled at working in the Post Office is the same as one going crazy due to a religious upbringing (or will according to some members here) and shoot up places because one is disgruntled with their parents/social circle/theology/whatever?

I'm sorry to disappoint you (and others) that think all religion is mental and child abuse, but I don't think religion is a sign of mental illness. I think mental illness is a sign of mental illness and shooting up any location, be it a Postal Office, Mall or Church is a manifestation of that mental illness, not one of being religious.

[tsg]

I hope you won't beg off because it's such a tenet of orthodoxy amongst the militants here (not saying you're one, just replying to your comment since it lends itself to what others have said...)

Here we go with the God Hater crap again.

- are you trying to suggest that one might go crazy and shoot up places because one is disgruntled at working in the Post Office is the same as one going crazy due to a religious upbringing (or will according to some members here) and shoot up places because one is disgruntled with their parents/social circle/theology/whatever?

I can't speak for sackett, but I took it to mean that intense religiosity is just one way that mental illness can manifest itself, just as a postal worker, well, going postal is.

I'm sorry to disappoint you (and others) that think all religion is mental and child abuse,

Are we even discussing child abuse here? Has anyone other than you even mentioned it?


but I don't think religion is a sign of mental illness.

No one, as far as I can tell, said it was.

I think mental illness is a sign of mental illness and shooting up any location, be it a Postal Office, Mall or Church is a manifestation of that mental illness, not one of being religious.

As far as I can tell, that is exactly what sackett was saying.

[Lonewulf]

It's always funny how the people who rail about the EVIL MILITANT ATHEISTS seem to work quite hard to try to provoke them by bringing up entirely irrelevant points...

I'm beginning to think I should put the atheist hater on my ignore list.

[tsg]

It's always funny how the people who rail about the EVIL MILITANT ATHEISTS seem to work quite hard to try to provoke them by bringing up entirely irrelevant points...

I'm beginning to think I should put the atheist hater on my ignore list.

It never ceases to amaze me how often people who detest a certain behavior so readily exhibit it themselves.

[Mobyseven]

Fnord?

Did you PM him yet, Lonewulf?

[Dunstan]

Latest report from the front: Christians assault Jew for daring to say "Happy Hannukah"; Muslim comes to rescue (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/12/subway.attack/index.html)

Go Team Jesus! Fight bravely, you persecuted majority!

[becomingagodo]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9NYPLU92Kgk God warrior.

Has Fnord completely abandon this thread?

When he realized the person was a mentally ill christian, not a atheist. I guess its hard finding out that your side is the evil side.

[Hawk one]

Latest report from the front: Christians assault Jew for daring to say "Happy Hannukah"; Muslim comes to rescue (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/12/subway.attack/index.html)

Go Team Jesus! Fight bravely, you persecuted majority!

Well, Hassan Askari is fricking brave for standing up to ten people like that. Quite probably braver than I would be (I would think that many of those watching without reacting were simply afraid).

[DoubtingStephen]

Of course it is despicable that these hate-monger punks attacked the Jewish people in the first place, but what a remarkable story that an Arab gentleman came to their defense. What a hero! This man should be publicly honored by the City of New York, he is a model citizen.

This is a great opportunity to promote healing among Jewish and Arab people, I'd hate to see it not recognized as such.

I guess it started as a result of the Christmas war on non-Christians.

I remember when the holiday season was all about people just being nice to each other, and spreading good cheer. But with the Christians so desperate to paint themselves as a poor persecuted minority/majority the increase in intolerant responses to anyone that does not drink the Kool Aid is very, very unfortunate.

Of course when they are trying to force their idiocy on the whole nation they go on about how they are the majority. But when they want to play the martyr card it seems everybody is picking on them. So with everybody picking on them they are obviously in the minority.

Either way it sure is one dumbass religion.

[Lonewulf]

Fnord?

Did you PM him yet, Lonewulf?

Yes, I did.

C'mon, Sargent Fnord! Get your act together, soldier!

I'll send another PM, asking him to either admit defeat or continue the good fight... cowardice is hardly befitting a soldier, tut tut!

[UnrepentantSinner]

It's always funny how the people who rail about the EVIL MILITANT ATHEISTS seem to work quite hard to try to provoke them by bringing up entirely irrelevant points...

I'm beginning to think I should put the atheist hater on my ignore list.

You mean I'm a self-hating atheist? Oy vey! :rolleyes:

[Mr Clingford]

see Luke 19:27

So Jesus would tell parables, then, as that line is from one.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Here we go with the God Hater crap again.

I stopped using that phrase as a rhetorical device because it was confusing some supposedly "logical" members, and since I was referring to the undeniable demand for atheist orthodoxy amongst skeptics by some on this forum, I don't know why you'd even mention it.

[articulett]

Yes, I did.

C'mon, Sargent Fnord! Get your act together, soldier!

I'll send another PM, asking him to either admit defeat or continue the good fight... cowardice is hardly befitting a soldier, tut tut!

Did you tell him that apologizing and seeking forgiveness is the "Christian" thing to do?

Christians tend to suck at this supposedly Christian virtue. I guess they get forgiveness from the invisible guy and figure they're done with it.

[articulett]

It's always funny how the people who rail about the EVIL MILITANT ATHEISTS seem to work quite hard to try to provoke them by bringing up entirely irrelevant points...

I'm beginning to think I should put the atheist hater on my ignore list.

I've never regretted it!

He's one that is big at noticing faults in others that are far more evident in himself.

[ponderingturtle]

So Jesus would tell parables, then, as that line is from one.

And it was about jesus saying it.

[scotth]

Is this another example of the war on Christianity? I can't tell.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/another_reason_to_avoid_debati.php

:boggled:

[tsg]

I stopped using that phrase as a rhetorical device because it was confusing some supposedly "logical" members, and since I was referring to the undeniable demand for atheist orthodoxy amongst skeptics by some on this forum, I don't know why you'd even mention it.

Because you aren't doing anything different except using different words to do it. You're taking broad swipes at an entire group for the actions of a few. And not just here, in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101134) as well.

I happen to know that you would be first in line to correct someone attributing fundamentalist behavior to all Christians, but gross mischaracterizations of atheists/skeptics based on the actions of a few are okay? Sorry, that's hypocritical and bigotry.

If you have issues with some posters, take it up with them.

[Lonewulf]

You mean I'm a self-hating atheist? Oy vey! :rolleyes:

Can't understand rhetorical devices, Sinner?

Tsk.

Oh, I guess you can!

I stopped using that phrase as a rhetorical device because it was confusing some supposedly "logical" members

So you're just a willing hypocrite then, aren't you? :D

And here I was expecting better from a supposedly "logical" member.

Tsk.

[Belz...]

Did you tell him that apologizing and seeking forgiveness is the "Christian" thing to do?

Christians tend to suck at this supposedly Christian virtue. I guess they get forgiveness from the invisible guy and figure they're done with it.

Why bother keeping your baser instincts in check when you can just get a clean slate from the bearded sky-father ?

[linusrichard]

what a remarkable story that an Arab gentleman came to their defense.

I agree with your post, and don't want to sidetrack the thread too much, but according to the story, he was from Bangladesh. Odds are he was a Bengali, and not an Arab. Not a big deal, but it's good to remember that not all Arabs are Muslims, and not all Muslims are Arabs. In the U.S., I believe about 1/4 of each group belongs to the other.

[GeeMack]

I agree with your post, and don't want to sidetrack the thread too much, [...]


Sidetrack? Fnord has been posting in other threads, so apparently he doesn't have the decency, honesty, or integrity to return to this one to apologize and admit his error. Seems that makes sidetracking somewhat moot. Oh well, he's not the first Christian to come in here crying persecution, even if it means lying to do it, and he likely won't be the last.

[Mobyseven]

Fnord has been posting in other threads, spreading the Christmas vitriol around. Seems he can't be bothered to return to this thread and apologise though. Shocker.

[Lonewulf]

Fnord has been posting in other threads, spreading the Christmas vitriol around. Seems he can't be bothered to return to this thread and apologise though. Shocker.

I responded to another thread, requesting a response.

This kind of posting has a name. Hit and Run Posting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_posting).

It's one of the many favored techniques of Trolls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29).

Seems that Christian Warriors use nothing more than cowardly tactics... ;)

[Mr Clingford]

Originally Posted by Mr Clingford
So Jesus would tell parables, then, as that line is from one.
And it was about Jesus saying it.That doesn't appear to be the case. What evidence is there to show that the king of the story is Jesus?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Because you aren't doing anything different except using different words to do it. You're taking broad swipes at an entire group for the actions of a few. And not just here, in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101134) as well.

I'm sorry, but my issues with those demanding atheist orthodoxy and calling religious people who consider themselves skeptics woo or crazy is not analagous to saying mass muderers are crazy above and beyond whatever other issues they have.

I happen to know that you would be first in line to correct someone attributing fundamentalist behavior to all Christians, but gross mischaracterizations of atheists/skeptics based on the actions of a few are okay? Sorry, that's hypocritical and bigotry.

Where have I done that or are you erecting and knocking down a straw man? I'm biting my tongue right now because I've delved into several Christian dominated forums - aka the Lion's Den - and battled against people who claim Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were inspired or ordered by atheism or evolution to commit their crimes against humanity hundreds of times over the years. I've been in the on-line trenches defending atheism against such libel for almost 10 years now so I'd love to see you produce an example on this forum alone of my criticising bad actions on the part of atheists because of their atheism.

You want a revelation tsg? Try searching the TAM subforum for "stolen towels" and see if a thread I started after TAM.. no number, the original, that I started shows up commenting on how a conference of mostly atheists didn't result in a single traffic ticket, sexual assault or even the Marroitt Plantation reporting a stolen towel or ashtray before you try and presume what sort of behaviors I do or do not excuse M'kay?

If you have issues with some posters, take it up with them.

I have. Why did you feel the need to weigh in if you think I should have kept it personal?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Fnord has been posting in other threads, spreading the Christmas vitriol around. Seems he can't be bothered to return to this thread and apologise though. Shocker.

I'm a bit shocked though I've begged out of threads where my pride prevented me from responding. I am disappointed he hasn't returned to explain exactly what he meant by the OP though.

[kmortis]

I'm a bit shocked though I've begged out of threads where my pride prevented me from responding. I am disappointed he hasn't returned to explain exactly what he meant by the OP though.

He's not going to, so we can probably stop asking him to.

Besides, this thread has become the US-tsg show, which is far more entertaining, I can tell you. ;)

[Mobyseven]

I'm a bit shocked though I've begged out of threads where my pride prevented me from responding. I am disappointed he hasn't returned to explain exactly what he meant by the OP though.

If his OP has been misunderstood, it would be good of him to come back here and explain what he meant. As it is, his OP is incredibly insulting, factually incorrect and very poorly worded if he meant it as something different to how it has been generally interpreted.

If it was the first time he had done something like this it'd be excusable or at least understandable, but this seems to be a recurring motif in his posting habits...

[tsg]

I'm sorry, but my issues with those demanding atheist orthodoxy and calling religious people who consider themselves skeptics woo or crazy is not analagous to saying mass muderers are crazy above and beyond whatever other issues they have.

What the hell are you talking about?

Where have I done that or are you erecting and knocking down a straw man?

I have seen you do it. If you seriously want to dispute the claim I will dig up quotes. All I need do is a search on the term "god hater".

I have. Why did you feel the need to weigh in if you think I should have kept it personal?

Because you're condenming an entire group of people based on the behavior of a few, an action which, if the roles were reversed, you would be the first to condemn.

You're an atheist basher and a bigot. Nothing more.

[tsg]

Besides, this thread has become the US-tsg show, which is far more entertaining, I can tell you. ;)

The egoist in me wants to take that as a compliment. My insecurity warns me I may be overreacting. The skeptic in me says I should ask which is right. So i guess I'm asking your opinion, kmortis, as it happens to be one I respect.

[articulett]

You're an atheist basher and a bigot. Nothing more.

I have come to the same conclusion... he pretends to want to be open minded and all inclusive, but he really wants to jam his opinions down others' throats and pretend that he's speaking in defense of others. But there are no others he is speaking for. He's just playing the "holier than thou" card to prop up whatever beliefs he has and keep them from undergoing scrutiny. He appears to leave a bitter feeling among many forum members. If you put him on ignore, he'll only show up when the people you respect think he's worth quoting.


He seems to demand respect for his opinions that he's not willing to give to anyone else.

[Lonewulf]

If you have issues with some posters, take it up with them.
I have.
And a liar on top of it.

Go figure.

Here's a tip: Talking to OTHER PEOPLE about SOMEONE ELSE taking issue with the "god hater" thing, while simultaneously not responding to them even when they corrected your mistaken assumption, is not taking it up with them.

Continue to spout out your nonsense, though. It's amusing. :)

Here's another tip: Someone commenting on how silly a convention is doesn't mean that they don't understand it as a convention. Though I'm sure you'll never understand that. It doesn't make you feel RIGHTEOUS enough against those indignant people that DARE suggest that "God Hater" is silly rhetoric.

Of course, "Atheist Hater" is silly, because it doesn't fit in with your palate, but why be consistent? Only "militants"* are consistent, and you don't wanna be like them, right?

I mean, hating atheists while being an atheist is far less logical than hating a being that you don't actually believe in, right?





*Still lovin' my AK :D

[kmortis]

The egoist in me wants to take that as a compliment. My insecurity warns me I may be overreacting. The skeptic in me says I should ask which is right. So i guess I'm asking your opinion, kmortis, as it happens to be one I respect.

It was supposed to be a friendly dig at two posters that I, under normal circumstances, enjoy reading. It seems that the two of you are getting under each other's skins for reasons that I find to be more founded in misunderstanding than any true philosophical difference.

It's a backhanded compliment, really.

[tsg]

It was supposed to be a friendly dig at two posters that I, under normal circumstances, enjoy reading. It seems that the two of you are getting under each other's skins for reasons that I find to be more founded in misunderstanding than any true philosophical difference.

It's a backhanded compliment, really.

I can accept that.

[kmortis]

What the hell are you talking about?



I have seen you do it. If you seriously want to dispute the claim I will dig up quotes. All I need do is a search on the term "god hater".



Because you're condenming an entire group of people based on the behavior of a few, an action which, if the roles were reversed, you would be the first to condemn.

You're an atheist basher and a bigot. Nothing more.

I have come to the same conclusion... he pretends to want to be open minded and all inclusive, but he really wants to jam his opinions down others' throats and pretend that he's speaking in defense of others. But there are no others he is speaking for. He's just playing the "holier than thou" card to prop up whatever beliefs he has and keep them from undergoing scrutiny. He appears to leave a bitter feeling among many forum members. If you put him on ignore, he'll only show up when the people you respect think he's worth quoting.


He seems to demand respect for his opinions that he's not willing to give to anyone else.

And a liar on top of it.

Go figure.

Here's a tip: Talking to OTHER PEOPLE about SOMEONE ELSE taking issue with the "god hater" thing, while simultaneously not responding to them even when they corrected your mistaken assumption, is not taking it up with them.

Continue to spout out your nonsense, though. It's amusing. :)

Here's another tip: Someone commenting on how silly a convention is doesn't mean that they don't understand it as a convention. Though I'm sure you'll never understand that. It doesn't make you feel RIGHTEOUS enough against those indignant people that DARE suggest that "God Hater" is silly rhetoric.

Of course, "Atheist Hater" is silly, because it doesn't fit in with your palate, but why be consistent? Only "militants"* are consistent, and you don't wanna be like them, right?

I mean, hating atheists while being an atheist is far less logical than hating a being that you don't actually believe in, right?





*Still lovin' my AK :D

Here's the thing. "God hater" fits some posters on this forum. There are certain posters that seem to have a difficult time finding any redeeming value in religion at all. It is difficult to have a rational discussion about religion with them around, because as soon as you bring up a point that seems to be in support of religion, you get labeled "apologist" or that you're "making excuses". In that vein, "god hater" is an apt rhetorical label.

You do not have to hate religion to not follow one, ya dig? Personally, I like the stories from all religions. I find them fascinating studies into the culture's psyche. I like to learn about the rituals, to learn more about the character of the people that practice them. I don't like the dogmas that keep people trapped in subservience to a corrupt hierarchy, and if I could figure out a way to separate the one (the cultural benefits) from the other (the dogma) without destroying the former, I would.

Now, I'm not going to defend US as I feel he's fully capable to do that, and I've not read all his posts. I've never seen him use the term, although he has copped to it. I will, however, defend him as far as to point out that there are asshats on both sides of this issue. There are skeptics that are irrational whenever religion is discussed, and there are religionists that couldn't reason their way out of a wet paper sack with written instructions. From what I have seen of US, he seems to be waving a red flag to atheists who do nothing but bash religion. That IS a real problem. If all you can muster in a religious discussion is to rip your opponent a new one, maybe you should step back and listen for a while. Cool down. Come back when you're no longer seeing red. Or don't, but if that is the path you take, never expect anyone to accept your point of view except those that already think like you.

Of course, like I said in another post, we do need both camps. We need to destroy the less appetizing part of religion, and we need to preserve the good bits. What we don't need is infighting.

ETA: I chose the preceding quotes not because I feel that the three of you are necessarily "god haters", but more because you seem to be piling on the anti-UnrepentantSinner bandwagon.

[Lonewulf]

Here's the thing. "God hater" fits some posters on this forum. There are certain posters that seem to have a difficult time finding any redeeming value in religion at all.

Sure, and some people have a difficult time finding any redeeming value in atheism at all.

It's when they start actually hating on atheists that they become "atheist haters".

Claiming I'm hating on God is kinda silly. Am I hating on Sauron when I call him an ass? I guess so, but when you point that out, it's kinda funny.

Either way, I find it hilarious when a guy mocks me for ridiculing him over calling me a "God hater", and then simultaneously failing to perceive the irony when he ridicules me over calling him "atheist hater".

And he gets backhanded by calling me "supposedly logical"; though said in such a way that says more like I'm calling myself logical, instead of me being normally logical.

Either way, very backhanded, offensive, and nasty. So I really don't have any time to waste trying to respect his "opinion".

It is difficult to have a rational discussion about religion with them around, because as soon as you bring up a point that seems to be in support of religion, you get labeled "apologist" or that you're "making excuses". In that vein, "god hater" is an apt rhetorical label.

It is difficult to have a rational discussion about religion when someone continually brings up old points that have little to nothing to do with the current discussion.

You do not have to hate religion to not follow one, ya dig?
Yet there are things about religion that are worthy of criticism. Have you even read the bible? The Old Testament?

But we're supposed to be all right with what's written in there because it's religion? If it was a philosophy written by a philosopher, we'd all be calling the philosopher an egotistical asshat.

Personally, I like the stories from all religions. I find them fascinating studies into the culture's psyche.
Historically, yes, they're cool. Fictionally, sure. Though I prefer Lord of the Rings one thousand fold to the Bible. It's just boring.

But as a moral guide or principle? They don't tend to work out very well. And I'm not just being Christian-based here. Hinduism, and even Buddhism (some Buddhist groups aren't exactly all peaceful) have allowed their own things. State Shinto was used to justify the Emporer's reign in WWI and WWII; he was called the God that Walks as a Man, said to be a Kami. Divine providence seems to be pretty common in religious beliefs.

In short, I'm fine with religion... when it has no power. When religion starts getting power and telling others how to act? Then I have a problem.

But I'm supposed to pay it some sort of undeserved respect because it has "nice stories". Yeah, okay.

I like to learn about the rituals, to learn more about the character of the people that practice them. I don't like the dogmas that keep people trapped in subservience to a corrupt hierarchy, and if I could figure out a way to separate the one (the cultural benefits) from the other (the dogma) without destroying the former, I would.
You want the stories as fiction, and the rituals done for fun. That's fine. But that's not really religion.

Here's the thing... remove the Heaven and Hell from Christianity or Judaism, and what are you left with? If you logically accept the existance of heaven and hell, then you should try to get people into heaven. It's a moral imperative to try to help people. It's hard to convince me away from that.

Now, I'm not going to defend US as I feel he's fully capable to do that, and I've not read all his posts. I've never seen him use the term, although he has copped to it.

He did use the term "God Hater", in response to Articulett.

I pointed out, right after, that it was silly, just as Articulett did.

US then essentially made it out to be that we were stupid or ignorant because we didn't get it as a "rhetorical device".

Then he similarly mocks me when I say "atheist hater" as a "rhetorical device".

Perhaps you should look into the history here before you comment?

I will, however, defend him as far as to point out that there are asshats on both sides of this issue.
Sure.

But the problem is, the people that point out the harm of religion tend to have facts on their side. Like I said, religion is just fine, when it has no power; over the body or the mind.

The reason why religion is so "okay" relatively nowadays, and not like it was five hundred years is because of precisely that reason... it's lost it's power. Even the religious fanatics aren't quite as fanatical as you'd find people in Church in the 1000's.

And even then, religion is still a threat today, both in the Middle East and in the U.S. Government. And for that precise reason: It still has power, politically and in the minds of those that believe in it.

There are skeptics that are irrational whenever religion is discussed, and there are religionists that couldn't reason their way out of a wet paper sack with written instructions. From what I have seen of US, he seems to be waving a red flag to atheists who do nothing but bash religion.
Sure, while simultaneously insulting anyone that happens to disagree with him... and simultaneously also practicing hypocrisy.

Pardon me if I'm not all that impressed.

That IS a real problem. If all you can muster in a religious discussion is to rip your opponent a new one, maybe you should step back and listen for a while. Cool down. Come back when you're no longer seeing red. Or don't, but if that is the path you take, never expect anyone to accept your point of view except those that already think like you.
Of course, this assumes that my point on this forum is to try to convert people.

No offense, but that seems kinda... uh... wrong to tell me what I should and shouldn't do to "convert" people, unless that were my goal.

Of course, like I said in another post, we do need both camps. We need to destroy the less appetizing part of religion, and we need to preserve the good bits. What we don't need is infighting.

I don't get the "need" to preserve the "good" bits. How do we define "good" bits here?

Oh, another thing:

"Infighting"? I'm sorry, but I did not sign an "Atheist Club" pamphlet. I did not sign my way into a club, or a fraternity. The only thing I share with other atheists is my sharing of their lack of belief in a God or gods. Believe me when I tell you that, if all you share with others is a lack of something, there really isn't much to make a "group" out of. When I join an atheist club, then maybe what you said actually might make sense.

When US can make his point cogently and without his silly statements, then maybe I'll listen to him. Until then, I do not have any interest.

[kmortis]

<sigh>
I can see that this is quickly turning into one of those things that, if we were sitting around with a beer or three, we could easily discuss and work out the kinks. Barring that, however, we'll be in lock-horns quickly enough. I'll bow out now.

[ImaginalDisc]

Did Fnord admit to jumping the gun yet?

No? I thought not.

[Slimething]

<sigh>
I can see that this is quickly turning into one of those things that, if we were sitting around with a beer or three, we could easily discuss and work out the kinks. Barring that, however, we'll be in lock-horns quickly enough. I'll bow out now.

If you ever get to the beer stage, please let me sit in. I might even feign interest in their "disagreement". :D

[tsg]

Here's the thing. "God hater" fits some posters on this forum. There are certain posters that seem to have a difficult time finding any redeeming value in religion at all. It is difficult to have a rational discussion about religion with them around, because as soon as you bring up a point that seems to be in support of religion, you get labeled "apologist" or that you're "making excuses". In that vein, "god hater" is an apt rhetorical label.

My specific complaint with the rhetorical label is that it is no better than the position he so vehemently opposes by using it. The haphazard way in which phrases like "atheist orthodoxy", "militant-" or "angry atheist" are thrown around without specifically stating at whom they are aimed grossly mischaracterizes a whole group of people for the actions of a few. This thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101134) is a prime example of that.

Now, I'm not going to defend US as I feel he's fully capable to do that, and I've not read all his posts. I've never seen him use the term, although he has copped to it. I will, however, defend him as far as to point out that there are asshats on both sides of this issue. There are skeptics that are irrational whenever religion is discussed, and there are religionists that couldn't reason their way out of a wet paper sack with written instructions.

Agreed. But I think it's far more constructive to confront the individuals who exhibit that behavior than to throw around labels. The problem with labels like "god hater" and "angry atheist" (as it is for "bleever", etc) is that it makes it all to easy to ignore the arguments being made by attacking the arguer instead of the argument. If the arguer has no argument, it shouldn't make any difference whether or not he's an atheist. If he does, then labeling him dismisses it without even acknowledging there's an argument being made.

From what I have seen of US, he seems to be waving a red flag to atheists who do nothing but bash religion. That IS a real problem. If all you can muster in a religious discussion is to rip your opponent a new one, maybe you should step back and listen for a while. Cool down. Come back when you're no longer seeing red. Or don't, but if that is the path you take, never expect anyone to accept your point of view except those that already think like you.

I don't disagree. What I really get frustrated with is the smug, self-righteous way US makes vague accusations leveled at an entire group in a manner that makes it impossible to argue against. I have no doubt there are people who behave in the manner he describes. That doesn't mean that who he is talking about is necessarily guilty of it. And if his complaint is the manner in which some posters condemn all people in a group because of the actions of a few, he ought not to be engaging in the same behavior.

Of course, like I said in another post, we do need both camps. We need to destroy the less appetizing part of religion, and we need to preserve the good bits. What we don't need is infighting.

ETA: I chose the preceding quotes not because I feel that the three of you are necessarily "god haters", but more because you seem to be piling on the anti-UnrepentantSinner bandwagon.

I am guilty of labeling US as an "atheist hater", largely out of frustration and anger with his statements. I can only defend it as a ploy to make him see the hypocrisy in his position. But I at least made it known at whom the comment was directed so that he might have a chance to defend his actions.

<sigh>
I can see that this is quickly turning into one of those things that, if we were sitting around with a beer or three, we could easily discuss and work out the kinks. Barring that, however, we'll be in lock-horns quickly enough. I'll bow out now.

To clarify, I'm not trying to argue that I'm right and you're wrong. I'm only attempting to clearly state what it is about US's comments that get me so wound up.

I'll take your advice and walk away for a little bit.

US, if I overreacted or misunderstood your position, I apologize. All I ask is that, if you are going to accuse people of a certain behavior you find distasteful, at least give them the chance to defend it.

[VulcanWay]

Did Fnord admit to jumping the gun yet?

No? I thought not.
Actually, he's over HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101502) (today) jumping the same gun...

[skeptical]

Actually, he's over HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101502) (today) jumping the same gun...

I'm new to these forums, but judging from his post and run approach, and his seeming obsession with this topic, he seems to have a serious chip on his shoulder and is more than just a bit paranoid.

He has thousands of posts according to his profile count, are they all just "one and done" making sweeping generalizations and complaining about how he got beat up in the past? That and his avatar combined are more than a little creepy.

[kmortis]

I'm new to these forums, but judging from his post and run approach, and his seeming obsession with this topic, he seems to have a serious chip on his shoulder and is more than just a bit paranoid.

He has thousands of posts according to his profile count, are they all just "one and done" making sweeping generalizations and complaining about how he got beat up in the past? That and his avatar combined are more than a little creepy.

No. He does engage in discussion. I have been noticing this hit and run technique becoming more common though. HE's been taking a bit of flack from other poster, so maybe that's what the issue is.

As for his avatar, it's a Blue Oyster Cult album cover ("Fire of unknown origin"), and yes, it is a bit creepy.

[-Fran-]

About US.

He's right that there sure are asshat "god hating atheists". But I must say that I have several times seen US jump at just those atheists around here that are really trying not to be disrespectful. It does kind of invalidate his criticism a bit in my eyes, at least. In this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=99188

Several of us tried to show in many, many posts that we did not mean to, or even wanted to exclude skeptics that may also have a belief in a deity, just because we were discussing something that we saw as an inconsistency. But we were jumped on several times, by US, who accused people of doing just that, and/or wanting to do just that. (Others did too, but since tsg's views on US was discussed above, I mention him.) He also said we were damaging to the "mission", when we "wanted to exclude skeptic theists", which, again, most of us did not want at all.

If US wants to fight the tehist-haters, I suggest he's being more careful in deciding who these people really are. Criticising a god belief in itself does not automatically make you into such a hater of theists. It seems to me that he sees anger and hate where there really is none. I think he means well, but he is really not being fair half of the time in his criticism of other atheists.

[Lonewulf]

I think he means well
Road. Hell. "Good intentions".

Take that rhetorical device, bitch!

[Mobyseven]

It appears that Fnord has still not returned. That's okay. I can wait.

[bokonon]

"Waiting for Fnord"?

Help me get my boots off...

[Mobyseven]

Godot was 'ere.

[Ladewig]

Fnord, is the War on Christianity the same thing as the War on Christmas?

[Mobyseven]

It's cute. Ladewig thinks he's going to get an answer... :p

[UnrepentantSinner]

I stopped reading this thread a while back because I was letting my frustration with a handful of people and some major changes in my life over the past two months at work get to me I took it out on people should not have.

I wish to apologize for that and I want to thank those of you who gave me the benefit of the doubt.

I've tried to adopt a new tack when it comes to my honey/vinegar argument and hopefully won't be a jerk on this particular issue in the future.

..though I'm sure I find other ones to be a jerk about. :D

[kmortis]

I stopped reading this thread a while back because I was letting my frustration with a handful of people and some major changes in my life over the past two months at work get to me I took it out on people should not have.

I wish to apologize for that and I want to thank those of you who gave me the benefit of the doubt.

I've tried to adopt a new tack when it comes to my honey/vinegar argument and hopefully won't be a jerk on this particular issue in the future.

..though I'm sure I find other ones to be a jerk about. :D
Why do you always have to be a jerk?








:p

[UnrepentantSinner]

Why do you always have to be a jerk?

Because I hate America. :D

(I've come to terms with my 20% pay cut, $80/mo. rent hike, gas being $.30 higher than 3 months ago, Scarlett throwing up might not meaning her being on her last legs, my mom falling and not being able to drive any more not meaning she's a total invalid and the fact that some forumites consider the JREF an alternate AA or FFRF.)

I'm sure I'll still find things to be a jerk about though... I didn't chose UnrepentantSinner because I'd actually read Askin's book. ;)

[bignickel]

As for his avatar, it's a Blue Oyster Cult album cover ("Fire of unknown origin"), and yes, it is a bit creepy.
His avatar needs more cowbell.

[Ladewig]

It's cute. Ladewig thinks he's going to get an answer... :p

It could happen.

[kmortis]

It could happen.

* kmortis pats Ladewig on the head.

No, it couldn't.

[tsg]

It could happen.

You could also get struck by lightning twice while simultaneously winning two separate lotteries with the numbers 1-2-3-4-5-6.

My money is against it.

[Nogbad]

The OP is waiting for a deranged atheist to run amuck in a church and then return triumphantly with a

"Told you so"

[Leicontis]

It would seem that the opening poster is not interested in discussion - just posting an unsubstanciated rant and fleeing to greener pastures when challenged.

[Kochanski]

Since Fnord has abandoned this thread, I have let my mind wander on the idea of a War Against Christianity and I think I have found a way to start one, sort of, well in the USA, at least.

There are lots of Christians in the US who seem to believe that this is a Christian nation and not a secular one or should I say that is the meme that many are attempting to spread. I think the best way to start a War Against Christianity is to tell them, yes the USA is indeed a Christian nation, but they have to tell us which brand of Christianity it follows. After all, there can only be "One True" Church, with "One True" version of the Bible, and "One True" Religious leader, head honcho and protector of the faith. So, they will have to duke it out between themselves for that honor. Sure, the "One True" Church can allow the others to have some status and acceptance in the USA, but there has to be one that is chosen.

Then all secular individuals can sit back and watch the fur fly. We won't have to do or say another thing. The various versions of Christianity will have to fight it out between themselves. Whether it comes to physical blows or just lots and lots of shouting, they will be locked in battle until they come to the realization that the only way that the individual versions of Christianity can all exist with a decent level of authority and therefore followers and funds (you know the church leaders don't want to lose the power and freedom they currently enjoy) is if they agree that the USA is indeed a secular nation.

So, we can win without striking a blow or saying anything mean ;-) Credit Doctor Who for my inspiration here, when the Doctor brings down Harriet Jones with just the few simple words "Don't you think she looks tired". Hee hee

[thaiboxerken]

Sorta reminds me of the time I threw someone through a plate-glass window after he and his buddies attacked me for bringing a Bible to school.


Was that before or after you found the ancient ring of Shazam?

:rolleyes:

[Lonewulf]

Since Fnord has abandoned this thread, I have let my mind wander on the idea of a War Against Christianity and I think I have found a way to start one, sort of, well in the USA, at least.

There are lots of Christians in the US who seem to believe that this is a Christian nation and not a secular one or should I say that is the meme that many are attempting to spread. I think the best way to start a War Against Christianity is to tell them, yes the USA is indeed a Christian nation, but they have to tell us which brand of Christianity it follows. After all, there can only be "One True" Church, with "One True" version of the Bible, and "One True" Religious leader, head honcho and protector of the faith. So, they will have to duke it out between themselves for that honor. Sure, the "One True" Church can allow the others to have some status and acceptance in the USA, but there has to be one that is chosen.

Then all secular individuals can sit back and watch the fur fly. We won't have to do or say another thing. The various versions of Christianity will have to fight it out between themselves. Whether it comes to physical blows or just lots and lots of shouting, they will be locked in battle until they come to the realization that the only way that the individual versions of Christianity can all exist with a decent level of authority and therefore followers and funds (you know the church leaders don't want to lose the power and freedom they currently enjoy) is if they agree that the USA is indeed a secular nation.

So, we can win without striking a blow or saying anything mean ;-) Credit Doctor Who for my inspiration here, when the Doctor brings down Harriet Jones with just the few simple words "Don't you think she looks tired". Hee hee

Yeah, but it's kinda a one-sided battle. Evangelists have the numbers.

[biomorph]

Yeah, but it's kinda a one-sided battle. Evangelists have the numbers.

well you want a bigger target?...........its like shooting ratz in a barrel.....

[Lonewulf]

well you want a bigger target?...........its like shooting ratz in a barrel.....

Or going against the Chinese during Vietnam?

[biomorph]

Or going against the Chinese during Vietnam?

well, thats a good point, however Sth Vet's allies did not exercise the nuclear option, as in ww2. They fought on the enemies terms , well sort of,.....we don't have to be so kind. :cool:

[Lonewulf]

well, thats a good point, however Sth Vet's allies did not exercise the nuclear option, as in ww2. They fought on the enemies terms , well sort of,.....we don't have to be so kind. :cool:

So... you're advocating nuclear bombing Christians? :confused:

I'm confused.

[kmortis]

So... you're advocating nuclear bombing Christians? :confused:

I'm confused.

That would give a new meaning to "I have seen the light!".

[Lonewulf]

That would give a new meaning to "I have seen the light!".

Reminds me of the Children of the Holy Flame (or whatever) in Fallout 1...

[biomorph]

So... you're advocating nuclear bombing Christians? :confused:

I'm confused.

my most reactionary reply to you is "well, they want to get to heaven? lets send 'em there.".......but...

however i'm not advocating the literal physical harm employed in the horror that combat provides. nor any type of physical violence (well kicking a JW is probably ok!)

The weapons of my choice are the Dawkins, Hitchins et al of the world. If you'd like to know what (not neccessarily possible!) steps i'd personally like to see employed against all religion, i'd start with a list like below;

1/Heavy taxation
2/Classifiy places of worship as business.
3/Make new church buildings subject to strict planning controls, and difficult to build through red tape.
4/Make public advertising or cold calling recruitment illegal. Remove all media presence, leafletting and the like.
5/ Remove all state funding.
6/ Remove all religious education, especially in church schools whether they get funded by the govt or not.
7/ Make Religious representatives and organistatons liable for their actions and words. If they say god caused a flood, then sue the church.
8/ Encourage public/media debate which involve showing the fallacy of religion.
9/Make it illegal to convert under 21's. Especially by the parents.

As for your analogy of being outnumbered (vastly?), well putting the boot in via rhetoric and generally showing up the patent stupidity in such ideas means a bit of practice.

The ease with which the too few current detractors publicly reduce religion's certainty in the world comes somewhat from the hot forging of better tactics through debate.

that is possibly not so easy in the wild, where an opinion is only that, and given equal merit whether it is part of reality or not.........so being out numbered is good in some ways, lots of targets, lots of practice, and indicative of the base fact that religion has been allowed its head for far too long.


That'll do for now...........I guess you've realised that i don't like them much, well that's due to my past experiences I guess. Ok my hand is ~OFF~ the big red button now.....;)

[Ladewig]

1/Heavy taxation
2/Classifiy places of worship as business.
3/Make new church buildings subject to strict planning controls, and difficult to build through red tape.
4/Make public advertising or cold calling recruitment illegal. Remove all media presence, leafletting and the like.
5/ Remove all state funding.
6/ Remove all religious education, especially in church schools whether they get funded by the govt or not.
7/ Make Religious representatives and organistatons liable for their actions and words. If they say god caused a flood, then sue the church.
8/ Encourage public/media debate which involve showing the fallacy of religion.
9/Make it illegal to convert under 21's. Especially by the parents.


Some of these are already practiced against existing businesses such as topless bars and adult bookstores, but others seem a bit of a stretch.

Six, for instance. If homeschooling and private schooling are acceptable then it does seem a bit unfair to outlaw private schooling by a religious organization. Number four appears to run afoul of more than one part of the First Amendment.

As for seven, the Falwell types seldom say God caused the damage. The prefer to say teh Gays and the secularists caused the destruction.

[biomorph]

Some of these are already practiced against existing businesses such as topless bars and adult bookstores, but others seem a bit of a stretch.

True but, i feel, needed.

Six, for instance. If homeschooling and private schooling are acceptable then it does seem a bit unfair to outlaw private schooling by a religious organization.

Education is fine, schooling is fine, just leave the stupid god bit out. Stop them indoctrinating kids with lies.

Number four appears to run afoul of more than one part of the First Amendment.

well get it changed, make religion a special case.
and over here in good ol GB any so called "amendment" means nothing. thats USA law not the rest of the world.

As for seven, the Falwell types seldom say God caused the damage. The prefer to say teh Gays and the secularists caused the destruction.
and just who is doing the destroying? I don't see any gays manipulating the weather. If they do claim the god they have is responsible, then make them responsible for his actions (and reactions). They are doing the praying, they can take the flack. And the blame. Make them pay, loudest most and first. set an example.

[Lonewulf]

Number four appears to run afoul of more than one part of the First Amendment.
well get it changed, make religion a special case.
!!!!!!

Uhm... no.

[Fiona]

And again, No.

[biomorph]

gosh! I've hit a nerve there, haven't I?

Over here and in the states (I think) cold calling is in practice illegal some places, gated estates come to mind......

i guess the 1st is about free speech is it not?
well free speech is fine, and should be protected.

so maybe not so acceptable is number 4. but its not my problem that the 1st is flawed, allowing the mass indoctrination by the absurd.
Free speech is a right, and should not (IMO)be open to abuse.
if it is abused, then that right needs taking away from the abusers.
Its not that the states sticks with it anyway. i may be mistaken (and no doubt properly admonished if i'm wrong here) but the freedom of speech in the US is a distorted and manipulated old law that needs revision, when religion forces garbage down kids throats and into the minds of the more gullible.

i guess thats not quite like nuking 'em. but it'll do.

[BenBurch]

If there were a war on Christianity you wouldn't be debating it here.

You'd either be fighting for you life in the streets or feeding the worms.

So, you can drop the idiotic pretense that there is a War on Christianity.

Which reminds me; I have to get down to the range soon... ;)

[Lonewulf]

so maybe not so acceptable is number 4. but its not my problem that the 1st is flawed, allowing the mass indoctrination by the absurd.
Or it is your fault for falsely seeing the 1st amendment as flawed.

If reading a pamphlet is mind control to you, then anything should be treated as such. You should silence all media that prints things you disagree with.

[biomorph]

Or it is your fault for falsely seeing the 1st amendment as flawed.

yes thats true, and I admit that. Not living in the states with all them guns and the like...point taken.


If reading a pamphlet is mind control to you, then anything should be treated as such. You should silence all media that prints things you disagree with.

your right, but i wouldn't.
not if what i disagreed with is true, which religion is not.

maybe modifing the 1st is not practical then, so for now I withdraw that motion. perhaps its usefulness outweighs my position, which i understand.

[Lonewulf]

yes thats true, and I admit that. Not living in the states with all them guns and the like...point taken.
I love how paranoid people are about the U.S. and guns. It's like they really do believe that people in the U.S. go around and get into gunfights every other day at the mall.

Hilarity personified.

[biomorph]

If there were a war on Christianity you wouldn't be debating it here.

no we'd be out there actually giving them the hell they promise to give others, well maybe.....

You'd either be fighting for you life in the streets or feeding the worms.

so much for love thy neighbour then. if you think that is so, my case , i feel, is made.

So, you can drop the idiotic pretense that there is a War on Christianity.

Yeah right "onward christian soldiers" and all that guff. there is no war thats true. and a shooting one is undesirable IMO

Which reminds me; I have to get down to the range soon... ;)
happy target practice, don't forget to line up the CROSS on your long range sights there, my boy.....

[biomorph]

I love how paranoid people are about the U.S. and guns. It's like they really do believe that people in the U.S. go around and get into gunfights every other day at the mall.

Hilarity personified.

yeah but several thousand miles away your 1st amendment allows us to get that impression......its a media portrayal, and no doubt an incorrect one.
shame, cos iknow there is a lot more to the USA than what we see on the media over here sometimes (and pretty often too)

ps glad you had a chuckle over that one.

[Lonewulf]

yeah but several thousand miles away your 1st amendment allows us to get that impression......its a media portrayal, and no doubt an incorrect one.
I'm pretty sure you mean second amendment. First is free speech and that the government will pass no law regarding religion. The second is the right to the militia and (as is often translated), the right of the people to possess firearms for self defense.

Either way, this is not the thread to discuss gun control or gun rights issues. However, I am an advocate of gun rights. I feel that taking firearms away from the individual merely ensures that they are powerless, and that a powerless people are one that is not difficult to control. A government should be afraid of it's people and all that.

[biomorph]

I'm pretty sure you mean second amendment. First is free speech and that the government will pass no law regarding religion. well striking out that second bit wouldn't be so hurtful now would it?
The second is the right to the militia and (as is often translated), the right of the people to possess firearms for self defense.

Either way, this is not the thread to discuss gun control or gun rights issues. However, I am an advocate of gun rights. I feel that taking firearms away from the individual merely ensures that they are powerless, and that a powerless people are one that is not difficult to control. A government should be afraid of it's people and all that.

ah! you are so right there, i agree totally with your opinion on this. and no i'm not, but maybe ought to be , up on your legislation. but i live here. across the pond. Ok i could do more research. i will actually. it'l do me good, and stop me winding up the good US citizens of this world , of which there are many and varied.

[tsg]

well striking out that second bit wouldn't be so hurtful now would it?

That depends on whether or not you think that giving government the power to tell you what you can and can't believe is a good idea. Personally, I don't.

[kmortis]

1/Heavy taxation
Why heavy? I agree with taxation, at least for the non-charitable portions (e.g soup kitchens).
2/Classifiy places of worship as business.
Again, for the day-to-day operations. Worship is a service just like carpet cleaning, just much less tangible.
3/Make new church buildings subject to strict planning controls, and difficult to build through red tape.
Um...no. Now you're just getting vindictive.
4/Make public advertising or cold calling recruitment illegal. Remove all media presence, leafletting and the like.
Again, no. If certain private communities (e.g. gated communities) want to restrict it, that's one thing, the government here in the states cannot establish or prohibit any religious practice.
5/ Remove all state funding.
In as far as they do for other corporations. What's good for Chrysler is good for Christ. Remove ALL corporate subsidies and I'll agree.
6/ Remove all religious education, especially in church schools whether they get funded by the govt or not.
No. If parents want to send little Johnny, Susie, Ishamel, or Rebekka to a parochial school, that's their right.
7/ Make Religious representatives and organistatons liable for their actions and words. If they say god caused a flood, then sue the church.
Ok, part A, making them responsible, only works for actions. So long as they are not inciting a riot, then they still have freedom of speech. The second part isn't even feasible. Suing a church because the pastor said that god did something? How do you show liability?
8/ Encourage public/media debate which involve showing the fallacy of religion.
That's not the government's job and it's being done.
9/Make it illegal to convert under 21's. Especially by the parents.
no. I don't care what the militant arm of the atheists say, under normal circumstances, religious training is not child abuse. Until you can provide hard evidence to the contrary, rather than just a knee-jerk hatred for all-things religion, you cannot take away a parent's right to indoctrinate their children. The government cannot show deference to any religious practice, conversely, they cannot show undue prohibition to the same. This does not include life-threatening practices like not allowing medical treatment, that IS child abuse. Teaching johnny that Jesus dies for his sins (whatever that may mean) isn't. Flagellating Johnny to get him to understand what Jesus went through is, see the difference?

Look, I know that it's really popular right now to slam on religion as if it's totally unnecessary, immoral and useless. I keep coming back to the same thought, if that was the case, and religion is so dangerous to our survival, we would not have a part of our temporal lobe that evolved to produce "transcendent" signals. Could organized religion be a corrupted outgrowth of this, yes, however it does show that there is some reason that it's there.

[Lonewulf]

That depends on whether or not you think that giving government the power to tell you what you can and can't believe is a good idea. Personally, I don't.
+1


Look, I know that it's really popular right now to slam on religion as if it's totally unnecessary, immoral and useless. I keep coming back to the same thought, if that was the case, and religion is so dangerous to our survival, we would not have a part of our temporal lobe that evolved to produce "transcendent" signals. Could organized religion be a corrupted outgrowth of this, yes, however it does show that there is some reason that it's there.
Eh? Argument by Evolution?

Rather odd, given that I find ideas less to be about "hardware" and more about "software"... or else I could say, "I'm a liberal because I was born that way!" But that's just me.

[kmortis]

That depends on whether or not you think that giving government the power to tell you what you can and can't believe is a good idea. Personally, I don't.

+1

+2

Or is that not allowed?

[biomorph]

That depends on whether or not you think that giving government the power to tell you what you can and can't believe is a good idea. Personally, I don't.

I don't think i'd go that far......but some measure of restricting the infliction of such belief on others might have some effect.
perhaps it's the slippery slope.
i'm not advocating throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but restricting the right of religion to intrude into other's lives surely has some merit?
pehaps you disagree. :o

[Lonewulf]

I don't think i'd go that far......but some measure of restricting the infliction of such belief on others might have some effect.
perhaps it's the slippery slope.
i'm not advocating throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but restricting the right of religion to intrude into other's lives surely has some merit?
pehaps you disagree. :o

I do not see pamphlets or information distribution as "intruding on other's lives". I see preventing people from distributing information you do not like to be more of an intrusion.

[tsg]

Look, I know that it's really popular right now to slam on religion as if it's totally unnecessary, immoral and useless. I keep coming back to the same thought, if that was the case, and religion is so dangerous to our survival, we would not have a part of our temporal lobe that evolved to produce "transcendent" signals. Could organized religion be a corrupted outgrowth of this, yes, however it does show that there is some reason that it's there.

I think Dawkins covers this pretty well in "The God Delusion". In short, quick pattern recognition at the expense of accuracy is an aid to survival in the "eat or be eaten" past, but less so in the present day where correct information is more important and useful. Seeing intelligence (and faces, for that matter) where there is none is simply a side-effect of that pattern recognition. So yes, there is a reason for it. That does not make it useful, though.

[kmortis]

I don't think i'd go that far......but some measure of restricting the infliction of such belief on others might have some effect.
perhaps it's the slippery slope.
i'm not advocating throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but restricting the right of religion to intrude into other's lives surely has some merit?


no

If you allow this kind of censorship, what's to stop them when you say something they don't like? And believe me, being an outspoken atheist is more likely to get you looked at askance than an Evangelical here in the states, having been the later and currently am the former, it's more dangerous speaking up for atheism right now. Not a good idea. Free speech is a third rail.

[tsg]

I don't think i'd go that far......but some measure of restricting the infliction of such belief on others might have some effect.
perhaps it's the slippery slope.
i'm not advocating throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but restricting the right of religion to intrude into other's lives surely has some merit?
pehaps you disagree. :o

Well, in that religious belief cannot inflict itself on anyone without his permission, there is little threat. Certainly not enough to warrant gutting freedom of speech to protect against it.

As much as I despise religion, ideally it should collapse under its own weight with all people deciding, for themselves, it's a silly thing to believe. When they can see the gaps of the unknown they are trying to fit their god in become so small as to make it unnecessary, it will happen. Forcing the dissolution of religion will only serve to strengthen it. Few things are more effective at making people want to do a thing than telling them they aren't allowed to.

[kmortis]

I think Dawkins covers this pretty well in "The God Delusion". In short, quick pattern recognition at the expense of accuracy is an aid to survival in the "eat or be eaten" past, but less so in the present day where correct information is more important and useful. Seeing intelligence (and faces, for that matter) where there is none is simply a side-effect of that pattern recognition. So yes, there is a reason for it. That does not make it useful, though.

I'm not talking about pattern recognition. I'm talking about the part of the frontal lobe that creates a transcendent feeling. Look at the 47:00 mark (http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/watch/watch.php?Video=Session%204) to see what I'm talking about. V.S. Ramachandran talks about temporal lobe seizures. THAT'S the section I'm talking about.

[biomorph]

Why heavy? I agree with taxation, at least for the non-charitable portions (e.g soup kitchens). i think soup kitchens are charitable, taking money from the gullible is not.

Again, for the day-to-day operations. Worship is a service just like carpet cleaning, just much less tangible.
yup

Um...no. Now you're just getting vindictive.
you are so right
Again, no. If certain private communities (e.g. gated communities) want to restrict it, that's one thing, the government here in the states cannot establish or prohibit any religious practice.
Ok shame though, and there's the problem
In as far as they do for other corporations. What's good for Chrysler is good for Christ. Remove ALL corporate subsidies and I'll agree.
look you buy a car from chrysler, what do you buy with religion.
No. If parents want to send little Johnny, Susie, Ishamel, or Rebekka to a parochial school, that's their right.
and its their right to have that child suffer? to be fed lies and inanity? where is your value of human rights?
Ok, part A, making them responsible, only works for actions. So long as they are not inciting a riot, then they still have freedom of speech. The second part isn't even feasible. Suing a church because the pastor said that god did something? How do you show liability?
if they claim the god they worship did it, and they say thats true, then surely they are culpable somehow? maybe not.
That's not the government's job and it's being done.
true but the govt is there to protect, it is not doing it.
no. I don't care what the militant arm of the atheists say, under normal circumstances, religious training is not child abuse.i have to dissagree. sorry i just do. Until you can provide hard evidence to the contrary, rather than just a knee-jerk hatred for all-things religion, you cannot take away a parent's right to indoctrinate their children.Well theres a rake of that sort of thing goes on, are you telling me it never happens? The government cannot show deference to any religious practice, conversely, they cannot show undue prohibition to the same. This does not include life-threatening practices like not allowing medical treatment, that IS child abuse. Teaching johnny that Jesus dies for his sins (whatever that may mean) isn't. Flagellating Johnny to get him to understand what Jesus went through is, see the difference? yup , but one is a breeding ground for the other.IMO

Look, I know that it's really popular right now to slam on religion as if it's totally unnecessary, immoral and useless.which i think it is I keep coming back to the same thought, if that was the case, and religion is so dangerous to our survival, we would not have a part of our temporal lobe that evolved to produce "transcendent" signals. Could organized religion be a corrupted outgrowth of this, yes, however it does show that there is some reason that it's there.there is no reason, its a hijack, by a timewasting falsehood . if religion is actually useful evolution wise, then i'd like to see the evidence....

[Lonewulf]

if religion is actually useful evolution wise, then i'd like to see the evidence....
In this case, yes, I'll agree.

If religion is something that shouldn't be criticized because it has some hidden benefit, I would like to know what exactly that benefit is.

[Ladewig]

Well, this thread has gone to hell in a handbasket.

[biomorph]

Well, in that religious belief cannot inflict itself on anyone without his permission, there is little threat. Certainly not enough to warrant gutting freedom of speech to protect against it.I disagree with your first point. i agree with your second. gutting ids not needed, just some judicious pruning.

As much as I despise religion, ideally it should collapse under its own weight with all people deciding, for themselves, it's a silly thing to believe. When they can see the gaps of the unknown they are trying to fit their god in become so small as to make it unnecessary, it will happen.it hasn't yet, but as an ideal i agree with you Forcing the dissolution of religion will only serve to strengthen it.i'm not sure that disolution is forceable. i'm just up for the idea of making as unattractive as possible Few things are more effective at making people want to do a thing than telling them they aren't allowed to.well, that swings both ways, yup gotcha there......but i'm not saying, hey, don't be religious, just make it really, really hard to be such..

[Upchurch]

I stopped reading this thread a while back because I was letting my frustration with a handful of people and some major changes in my life over the past two months at work get to me I took it out on people should not have.

I wish to apologize for that and I want to thank those of you who gave me the benefit of the doubt.
I consider myself a fan of irony. I just wanted to point out that the above heart-felt apology came from a person whose login is "UnrepentantSinner".

Bravo, US. Bravo.


Of course, you had to ruin my perfectly ironic moment with the following:
I've tried to adopt a new tack when it comes to my honey/vinegar argument and hopefully won't be a jerk on this particular issue in the future.

..though I'm sure I find other ones to be a jerk about. :D
Which is good and unrepentant.

[kmortis]

Why heavy? I agree with taxation, at least for the non-charitable portions (e.g soup kitchens). i think soup kitchens are charitable, taking money from the gullible is not.



Again, for the day-to-day operations. Worship is a service just like carpet cleaning, just much less tangible.
yup
Good, so we agree on something.

Um...no. Now you're just getting vindictive.
you are so right
Why? Why be so vindictive?
Again, no. If certain private communities (e.g. gated communities) want to restrict it, that's one thing, the government here in the states cannot establish or prohibit any religious practice.
Ok shame though, and there's the problem
Why? Why is having a government that nominally respects all religions (in this case I'm including atheism as a religion only from the "check box" stand point) a bad thing?

In as far as they do for other corporations. What's good for Chrysler is good for Christ. Remove ALL corporate subsidies and I'll agree.
look you buy a car from chrysler, what do you buy with religion.
Some would say "peace of mind" or "comfort". There's a part of religion which is the community. Religion isn't just doctrine and dogma. It's church picnics and pastoral bed side visits when you're in the hospital.

No. If parents want to send little Johnny, Susie, Ishamel, or Rebekka to a parochial school, that's their right.
and its their right to have that child suffer? to be fed lies and inanity? where is your value of human rights?
Wow, back on the vindictive train. In your lexicon, yes. It IS their right to teach, or cause to have taught, their children in whatever manner they find fit. Remember, if you can take their children away and indocrinate them in you fashion, they can do the reverse to yours.

Ok, part A, making them responsible, only works for actions. So long as they are not inciting a riot, then they still have freedom of speech. The second part isn't even feasible. Suing a church because the pastor said that god did something? How do you show liability?
if they claim the god they worship did it, and they say thats true, then surely they are culpable somehow? maybe not.
Then it's the fictional character "god" who's at fault. Good luck subpoenaing him.

That's not the government's job and it's being done.
true but the govt is there to protect, it is not doing it.
To protect all, including the religious.

no. I don't care what the militant arm of the atheists say, under normal circumstances, religious training is not child abuse.i have to dissagree. sorry i just do.
Ok, present hard evidence that religion is child abuse. Not opinion, evidence. Yes, religious people abuse children. That's humans. Show that ALL religion is abusive by nature. I know it's cool and edgy to make this claim ever since Dawkins wrote it in "The God Delusion", but I claim ******** until there's evidence.
Until you can provide hard evidence to the contrary, rather than just a knee-jerk hatred for all-things religion, you cannot take away a parent's right to indoctrinate their children.Well theres a rake of that sort of thing goes on, are you telling me it never happens?
No. I freely admit that religious people abuse children. Atheist people abuse children. Adults abuse children. We should tackle the child abuse, not the religion of the people doing the abuse. Humans are fan-freaking-tastic at rationalizing their actions, that they use religion to add credence is not a huge surprise. You take it away and they'll find something else to rationalize with.
The government cannot show deference to any religious practice, conversely, they cannot show undue prohibition to the same. This does not include life-threatening practices like not allowing medical treatment, that IS child abuse. Teaching johnny that Jesus dies for his sins (whatever that may mean) isn't. Flagellating Johnny to get him to understand what Jesus went through is, see the difference? yup , but one is a breeding ground for the other.IMO
Evidence?


Look, I know that it's really popular right now to slam on religion as if it's totally unnecessary, immoral and useless.which i think it is
Ok, why?
History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.
I keep coming back to the same thought, if that was the case, and religion is so dangerous to our survival, we would not have a part of our temporal lobe that evolved to produce "transcendent" signals. Could organized religion be a corrupted outgrowth of this, yes, however it does show that there is some reason that it's there.there is no reason, its a hijack, by a timewasting falsehood . if religion is actually useful evolution wise, then i'd like to see the evidence....
I posted part of Ramachandran's "Beyond Belief" presentation about temporal lobe epileptics. He speaks about finding the "god lobe".

Religion helps strengthen the tribal unit.

[kmortis]

Well, this thread has gone to hell in a handbasket.

Glad to be of service.

[biomorph]

In this case, yes, I'll agree.

If religion is something that shouldn't be criticized because it has some hidden benefit, I would like to know what exactly that benefit is.

Me too, thank you lonewulf, i guess i've stirred up a hornets nest here, i'd like to back peddle like crazy, but my brain will not let me do that easily.
i have not been in the thick of one of these discussions here much, so i'm sorta outa breath. (puff, puff).

Not to mention out of time, i have to go. Things outside of here are happening......
I'd like to thanK you all so far for an amazing debate which no doubt i'll be partaking of again sometime. Breathtaking, and thanks for all the fish
you guys are cool.
Happy New year and i'll be back.....xxxx

ps i'l deal with you later kmortis....and i'll try to be less vindictive, even though i feel it is justifed, but possibly not fair. look forward to agreeing with you more too. if i can.x

[kmortis]

In this case, yes, I'll agree.

If religion is something that shouldn't be criticized because it has some hidden benefit, I would like to know what exactly that benefit is.

Me too, thank you lonewulf, i guess i've stirred up a hornets nest here, i'd like to back peddle like crazy, but my brain will not let me do that easily.
i have not been in the thick of one of these discussions here much, so i'm sorta outa breath. (puff, puff).

Not to mention out of time, i have to go. Things outside of here are happening......
I'd like to thanK you all so far for an amazing debate which no doubt i'll be partaking of again sometime. Breathtaking, and thanks for all the fish
you guys are cool.
Happy New year and i'll be back.....xxxx
Lemme just say that I will never say that religion shouldn't be criticized. I just don't think it should be unjustly bashed. Yes there are religious asshats, but I think that they'd be atheistic asshats, given the chance.

Remember, religion is a human construct. It's got all the foibles that come from being one.

One thing that I know that I have to remember is that I need my more militant atheist brethren and sistren to help keep me honest. I hope that you can use me in a similar manner. Don't let your dislike of the piss poor actions of certain theists make you totally negate the role of religion in humanity. I hope, too, that it eventually collapses under its own weight, but humans have shown a certain resilience against violent change. I think the Canadian ideal of "evolution, not revolution" is the name of the game here. Yeah, it takes longer, but the universe has time.

[tsg]

I'm not talking about pattern recognition. I'm talking about the part of the frontal lobe that creates a transcendent feeling. Look at the 47:00 mark (http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/watch/watch.php?Video=Session%204) to see what I'm talking about. V.S. Ramachandran talks about temporal lobe seizures. THAT'S the section I'm talking about.

Okay. It need not necessarily be a useful thing to survive through evolution. As long as not having transcendent feelings doesn't increase the odds of survival, it's not likely to be a characteristic for natural selection to act on. At the end of his presentation (around 55:00), Ramachandran gives two possible hypotheses why this behavior is present in some people. One is that the religious structure and hierarchy is beneficial to society. The other is that it is a byproduct of some other function of the brain. In other words, the reason it is there is not necessarily that it is useful to our survival.

[kmortis]

Okay. It need not necessarily be a useful thing to survive through evolution. As long as not having transcendent feelings doesn't increase the odds of survival, it's not likely to be a characteristic for natural selection to act on. At the end of his presentation (around 55:00), Ramachandran gives two possible hypotheses why this behavior is present in some people. One is that the religious structure and hierarchy is beneficial to society. The other is that it is a byproduct of some other function of the brain. In other words, the reason it is there is not necessarily that it is useful to our survival.

True, but that means that it cannot be totally ruled out as an evolutionary force either. It needs more research.

In any case, it did get you to watch V.S. and that's never a bad thing. :D

[tsg]

I disagree with your first point.

Care to expand on that?

[tsg]

True, but that means that it cannot be totally ruled out as an evolutionary force either. It needs more research.

I don't disagree. Maybe I misunderstood, but I took your comment to mean "it's survived evolution, therefore there must be a beneficial reason for religious thinking."

In any case, it did get you to watch V.S. and that's never a bad thing. :D

I'll have to sit down and watch the whole thing when I have time. Very interesting stuff.

[kmortis]

I don't disagree. Maybe I misunderstood, but I took your comment to mean "it's survived evolution, therefore there must be a beneficial reason for religious thinking."
If I gave that impression, I apologize. My point is that since it has survived, we cannot rule out that there may be, or may have been, a environmental stress that it was addressing. I'm hoping that it's either a neutral (as you indicated) or a past stressor and it's in process of being eliminated. In either case, I'm not saying that it's right and correct (that would be the naturalistic fallacy), but that maybe we should understand why it's there and address that, rather than making other humans lives miserable by taking away their security blankets just because we don't need them (or we use something else).

I'll have to sit down and watch the whole thing when I have time. Very interesting stuff.
If you want to watch all the sessions (and they're worth it), the general list is here (http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/watch/).

[thaiboxerken]

Lemme just say that I will never say that religion shouldn't be criticized. I just don't think it should be unjustly bashed.

Can you give examples of "unjust bashing" of religion?

[kmortis]

Can you give examples of "unjust bashing" of religion?

Yes, using logical fallacies to create the attacks. Vis:
All religions are evil
All religions are usless
All religious practices are child abuse


Making a general out of a specific is bad form. If you want to talk about specific practices that are harmful, be my guest. Waging what amounts to an ad hom argument writ large against this mythical beast called "religion" is just silly.

[articulett]

But people hear "all religions" even if you just mean religion in general. To repeat what I said over here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102219&page=2

When you say elephants are gray, it is understood that it means "elephants in general"--not all elephants... the same goes for religions... a statement about generalities is not made false by specific contradictory examples. When we say "smoking causes cancer"... an example of all the people who didn't get cancer who smoked does not invalidate the statement.

Sure, you can say, that "smoking increases a persons risk for cancer--specifically lung cancer..." but it would be tedious... generalities should be understood--and it seems that when religion is used as a generality, it often is a an excuse to derail a thread and beat up the person that dared to say something bad about "religion in general" because not all religions are bad.

But that's what is meant by this whole thread... THAT is how religions get special treatment... people do have a meme to defend them... even if they are atheists... it's this idea that there is something sacred or noble or good about faith, I think. It feels like you cannot even note that faith is a bad way to find truth without the faithful feeling personally attacked for whatever faith they have.

[BenBurch]

happy target practice, don't forget to line up the CROSS on your long range sights there, my boy.....

I'll just print out a few pictures of Benny Hinn for targets, if you don't mind. Hard to hit the crucifix.

[QBinBee]

Yeah, but it's kinda a one-sided battle. Evangelists have the numbers.

True, but the Mormons and Catholics have the money!

[The Grave]

A .454 for some real thump!

[thaiboxerken]

All religions are evil

Is an opinion. I happen to agree with this opinion. Can you name a religion that is not evil?

ll religions are usless

Oh, I think people agree that religions are useful for controlling masses of people and elevating the status of a few as well as making those few wealthy.

All religious practices are child abuse

This sounds like pure straw man to me.

[kmortis]

But people hear "all religions" even if you just mean religion in general. To repeat what I said over here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102219&page=2

When you say elephants are gray, it is understood that it means "elephants in general"--not all elephants... the same goes for religions... a statement about generalities is not made false by specific contradictory examples. When we say "smoking causes cancer"... an example of all the people who didn't get cancer who smoked does not invalidate the statement.

Sure, you can say, that "smoking increases a persons risk for cancer--specifically lung cancer..." but it would be tedious... generalities should be understood--and it seems that when religion is used as a generality, it often is a an excuse to derail a thread and beat up the person that dared to say something bad about "religion in general" because not all religions are bad.

But that's what is meant by this whole thread... THAT is how religions get special treatment... people do have a meme to defend them... even if they are atheists... it's this idea that there is something sacred or noble or good about faith, I think. It feels like you cannot even note that faith is a bad way to find truth without the faithful feeling personally attacked for whatever faith they have.

What? You can't hear what is going on inside my head?

I guess I should have been more specific. In my list, I was referring to a logical "all", rather than a more colloquial "all". It should be compared to a logical "some" or "no"/"none".

No matter, I take you point, and to an extent, I agree with you. In general usage, it would be very tedious to have to qualify everything you say. However, I'm an engineer by trade, so I'm used to that mode of speech. ;)

Re-read what I say, though. I'm not saying that religion is sacred (excuse the pun) and cannot be questioned. Question away, please. There's much of it that needs to be gotten rid of. I will maintain that for a vast population of this world, they are better off with their religion. They practice the local equivalent of the Golden rule, they use the religion to impart some form of meaning on their lives, the couch their celebrations of joy in its terms, and find solace in it as well. They are not trying to take over anyone. They're just trying to live their lives.

Are there jerks trying to couch their own personal psychosis in terms of their religion? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Should they be fought? At every turn. I maintain that they are not the majority. I doubt they're even a plurality. but, with there being nigh 5 billion religious (assuming 6 billion total population, and 90% having some form of faith, just rough numbers mind you) if even 1% are those kinds of jerks that still leaves 50 million, aka a buttload, twice the population of Tokyo.

[articulett]

True, but the Mormons and Catholics have the money!

I think the Catholics might even have the numbers considering immigrants and the general propensity of Catholics to spawn... Evangelicals are louder--but the Catholics have the Supreme Court and the Pope and that Donohue guy... My bet is on the Catholics...

But I do encourage them to figure out the one true brand of religion and then we'll let them sit at the grown ups table for discussion.

[Slimething]

I think the Catholics might even have the numbers considering immigrants and the general propensity of Catholics to spawn... Evangelicals are louder--but the Catholics have the Supreme Court and the Pope and that Donohue guy... My bet is on the Catholics...

You forgot the Spanish Inquisition. The one no one ever expects! :D

[BenBurch]

"all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." - Declaration of Independence.

[Lonewulf]

kmortis, a claim I often make that has yet to be truly contested is this:

The more power religion has -- over the state, or the mind -- the worse off it tends to be.

Something that is personal and does not affect someone's actual reasoning ability, is a much more harmless version of, say... the way most religion is handled in any country (even Buddhism or Hinduism, just that their injustices aren't quite as commonly touted).

Even then, I have seen no benefit of religion at all, even from an evolutionary viewpoint. If you can point out one, I'd like to see it.

"It helped make sense of the world once upon a time" counts about as much as liberals or conservatives are part of religion IMO.

This "religion trigger" I'd like to see more evidence for.

[Silentknight]

If you'd like to know what (not neccessarily possible!) steps i'd personally like to see employed against all religion, i'd start with a list like below;

1/Heavy taxation
2/Classifiy places of worship as business.
3/Make new church buildings subject to strict planning controls, and difficult to build through red tape.
4/Make public advertising or cold calling recruitment illegal. Remove all media presence, leafletting and the like.
5/ Remove all state funding.
6/ Remove all religious education, especially in church schools whether they get funded by the govt or not.
7/ Make Religious representatives and organistatons liable for their actions and words. If they say god caused a flood, then sue the church.
8/ Encourage public/media debate which involve showing the fallacy of religion.
9/Make it illegal to convert under 21's. Especially by the parents.
The only ideas of yours that I disagree with are the ones that would violate the First Amendment. In order for skeptics and atheists to keep our right to say what we wish about religion, we have to let them spew whatever crap they want to as well. Ideally in a free society, the way you counter objectionable speech is with more speech of your own, not by censorship.

Consider as well that when religious representatives get up in public and say stupid things, it exposes them for the nutjobs that they are. If you don't like what they've said, then fire your own speech right back at them. If they're going to put themselves in that position, then they're just asking for mockery, because that's all they really deserve.

In other words, you had the right idea when you said this:
The weapons of my choice are the Dawkins, Hitchins et al of the world.

[thaiboxerken]

Lonewulf brings up a point. If religions are good then why is it that when religions gain more power, they do more evil deeds? Are there examples of theocracies that weren't bad?

[articulett]

And one thing that really bothers me about religion is the way that they promote this idea of "divine truths" that you can only access through faith. I think it's weird and wrong to assert divine truths and then the corollary lie that faith is a good means of knowing them.

If you believe in "divine truths" than you are vulnerable to whoever convinces you they have access to them. And most, if not all religions, even the most benign seem to proffer this notion of "higher truth" that you can feel or find through faith. It makes for a world of people convinced they have some higher truth, but they don't agree with each other and there's nothing objective about each version of this "truth".

I think it's dangerous and wrong to be claiming to have "special truths" and that "faith is a gift" and that "belief is good". It's weird, untrue, divisive, and dangerous. If faith is good--then extreme faith is better. And you cannot reason with faith. Encouraging faith is like encouraging the opposite of skepticism and critical thinking.

[biomorph]

The only ideas of yours that I disagree with are the ones that would violate the First Amendment.
I've heard this one before, and i'm going to have to counter this argument right here and now.
Let me quote you from
http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/history.php
"Only two Supreme Court justices, Justice Hugo Black and Justice William O. Douglas, insisted the First Amendment rights are absolute and their dissenting opinions fell to the wayside. Most court cases involving the First Amendment involve weighing two concerns: public vs. private. Also, the Supreme Court has often defined certain speech, also known as “at risk speech,” as being unprotected by the First Amendment:
Burning draft cards to protest draft – prohibited because of superior governmental interest.
Words likely to incite imminent violence, termed “fighting words.”
Words immediately jeopardizing national security.
Newspaper publishing false and defamatory material – libel."

So the 1st is not absolute. It has had some flaws which were corrected by the supreme court.
Religion's practise encourages libel and slander (lies). As in the last paragraph.
Unless one considers that printing "If you do not convert to our god you are a sinner and will go to hell", to be true. That is not the only example.

If it's not true (that is factual) then is that not false and defamatory material? False because its a lie, and defamatory because to call one a sinner is just that. It states that one is something one is obviously not, and to the detriment of the person who is not converted.

Let me quote from that site again, with your kind permission.

"While some Supreme Court justices have declared that First Amendment freedoms are absolute or occupy a preferred position, the Court has routinely held they may be limited so as to protect the rights of others (e.g. libel, privacy), or to guard against subversion of the government and the spreading of dissension in wartime. Thus, the Court’s majority has remained firm – the First Amendment rights are not absolute."

And I see here we have

"to protect the rights of others (e.g. libel, privacy)"

Again, even in the unconverted child all religion as regard to privacy (Thrusting unwanted literature into ones hands in the street too in adults etc) has contravened this because religion is given, directly from the 1st, a special place in the legislation. This is a historical legacy, at the time in history when it was written the concept was that persecution from the English was about religious values. Those settlers from Europe were, as a top priority, trying to escape religious persecution.
That is why they left Europe.
The concept of church as state and government was also in effect to a high degree. the only freedom those settlers were really after was religious freedom.
Any atheistic tendancies where "works of the devil", and non-believers did not have the tools of scientific knowledge we have now. They were, in effect, censored by the 1st.

How is it then that now atheists have the tools, they still defend the absurd and freedom destroying religous institutions rights embedded in the 1st to inflict brainwashing inconsistancies on the populace and their innocent childrenwithout restriction?
If they do, and that is my assumption here, and only that.

So to me the place of religious freedom in the 1st is to me then is a historical oddity, an error, relevant to the time 200 yrs ago, and not now.

also I think that the protection of religion by the 1st has allowed erronious, divisive, maliciously platitudinous religious bullys to be regarded as "special".
Now there we have the foundations of religious radicalism and fundamentalism.
That special place, a womb for the biggoted , misbegotten and so-called "beneficial" baby of erronious thought.
A place reserved in law for lies and absudity.
If you look at Islamic states, where religion is the law, then thats nearer to how Europe and the US was 200 yrs ago than we are now. The 1st was written on that type of basis, and could not have been written in any other way, because of the mindset of the early Americans.
So I put it back on the agenda, postulating that it is a valid tactic to modify the 1st amendment. It's been done before, and it needs doing again. I know this may seem odd or just plain wrong to some, and maybe my quotes from another website are wrong. But my argument does i feel carry validity.

In order for skeptics and atheists to keep our right to say what we wish about religion, we have to let them spew whatever crap they want to as well. Ideally in a free society, the way you counter objectionable speech is with more speech of your own, not by censorship.

Well you said it. crap..... Objectionable speech is not the issue. Whether the viewpoint is correct or incorrect is the issue. not whether someone thinks it is. The facts speak for themselves. If a person considers a fact of reality to be objectionable, then they are the ones who will be disappointed, not reality.
Consider as well that when religious representatives get up in public and say stupid things, it exposes them for the nutjobs that they are. If you don't like what they've said, then fire your own speech right back at them. If they're going to put themselves in that position, then they're just asking for mockery, because that's all they really deserve.
Well thats a fine and good analogy, but gives the impression that free speech is the same as the equal opportunity to do so. Religion also has a long history of trying to suppress free speech and rational thought. It starts by indoctrinating children with false dogma. After that its all downhill.

In other words, you had the right idea when you said this:
The weapons of my choice are the Dawkins, Hitchins et al of the world.
Thanks, my point here is though, that these are too few and far between...
I know i'm going to get flack for my views here, as in the recent past.
I urge those detractors to try and understand the points i'm making here, rather than fall foul to gross generalisation and lack of historical context (given that my history is correct, if it isn't then that is fairplay)
I am not insulting the essential and great freedoms of the US citizen, merely i wish to point out the priviliged position that religious activity enjoys could be curtailed by a legal system that reduces it to a mere absudity, which is what it is.
I have my asbestos knickers on too, so flaming will not be effective. not that there is much of that here, but, well, they feel nice......ok thats too much detail. ......

[Lonewulf]

Religion's practise encourages libel and slander (lies).
Wrong. Libel and slander directly involves another person, and it cannot be prosecutable unless it can show demonstrable harm. If I claim that you are a pedophile, and because of this claim you lose money in sales because I spread this as a deliberate attack on you, I can be prosecuted with libel. Libel does not just mean "a lie".

You'd have to work very hard, to the point of Orwellian editing, to get it to mean that religion is "libelous" or "slanderous".

You'd also have to prove, in court, that religion is an intentional "lie" and not a belief system.

Just because you don't agree with a belief system, does not make it a "lie". I wish someone people would understand that...

[biomorph]

Lemme just say that I will never say that religion shouldn't be criticized. I just don't think it should be unjustly bashed.

I can see your point here, however the usage of "unjustly" implies that there is some merit to it.
I have difficulty with that concept.
You are playing by religion's own rules are you not?

I think there is no injustice in breaking the hold of a terrible misconception that has supressed rational and scientific thought in order to perpetuate a myth.
There is no way in my mind that it can be considered unjust to free humanity from an alienating, restrictive, reproductively active infection of the mind.
An infection that has tried stop women getting anesthetic when it was invented, while allowing males to have it for instance. There are many examples of this type of restriction, even today.
Yes there are religious asshats, but I think that they'd be atheistic asshats, given the chance.

My opinion is that they would be less inclined to be asshats if religion was unavailable. knowledge and understanding of the reality we live in would hopefully be the replacement.
There will always be asshats of course, but feed them religion and you have an asshat with attitude do you not? The world does not need the attitude part of that equation from my perpective.


Remember, religion is a human construct. It's got all the foibles that come from being one.

the keyword here for me is construct. This only a human mental construct. and as such I take it to be a false one. Demolishing that false construct takes only an level of observation of the world. Observation shows it to be an inaccurate construct of the mind, nothing more surely?


One thing that I know that I have to remember is that I need my more militant atheist brethren and sistren to help keep me honest. I hope that you can use me in a similar manner.
Don't let your dislike of the piss poor actions of certain theists make you totally negate the role of religion in humanity.
Certain theists?, the only reason they are there is because they have the basic foundations of the less radical to support them. And the role that religion plays is only restrictive, repetitive and blatently dishonest. It needlessly divides families, it creates divisions where there need be none. Religions net effect is negative, no i'll correct that. not the net effect , the only effect.
Good and kind people are not made so by religion, it just hijacks the best and the worst in humanity's natural predisposition to be either.

I hope, too, that it eventually collapses under its own weight, but humans have shown a certain resilience against violent change. I think the Canadian ideal of "evolution, not revolution" is the name of the game here. Yeah, it takes longer, but the universe has time.

Thats to me is like saying that "I hope malaria cures itself", i know that is not what you've actually said, but to me that is how it sounds. like malaria it needs treatment, it is not enough to stand by and watch your fellow humans suffer surely?. That is the whole point of what I've posted in this thread. I'm not that much of a radical either , really, just rational. (well maybe not always!)

As regards some sort of intellectual and legal supression of religion, that is surely the only recourse of the rational in the face of the priviliged, biased and intrusively destructive nature of the self perpetuating myth that infects the human mind through religion. Or do you have other weapons?

[biomorph]

Wrong. Libel and slander directly involves another person, and it cannot be prosecutable unless it can show demonstrable harm. If I claim that you are a pedophile, and because of this claim you lose money in sales because I spread this as a deliberate attack on you, I can be prosecuted with libel. Libel does not just mean "a lie".

You'd have to work very hard, to the point of Orwellian editing, to get it to mean that religion is "libelous" or "slanderous".

You'd also have to prove, in court, that religion is an intentional "lie" and not a belief system.

Just because you don't agree with a belief system, does not make it a "lie". I wish someone people would understand that...

ok i might be at fault on a legal premise here, i am no lawyer (i don't prefer carrion). I will have to think about the libel and slander sider of things a bit more.......
however, my agreement or not with a belief is not the issue.
The factualness of that belief is though, isn't it?

And if religion is not an intentional lie, what is it? are you saying that the practitioners of perpetuating this falsehood think they are being honest? Really?

[biomorph]

also Lonewulf, am i anywhere near the mark on the 1st amendment?
I await your response with anticipation, and expect a good and critical reply as you can muster. Or are you going to agree with me?

regards and happy new year

if libel and slander are out, what about fraud? any good?

[biomorph]

I think it's dangerous and wrong to be claiming to have "special truths" and that "faith is a gift" and that "belief is good". It's weird, untrue, divisive, and dangerous. If faith is good--then extreme faith is better. And you cannot reason with faith. Encouraging faith is like encouraging the opposite of skepticism and critical thinking.

And ignoring it, is in my opinion, tanatamount to encouragment......again Articulett, i must say I find your words agreeable.

[Lonewulf]

The factualness of that belief is though, isn't it?
It cannot be proven that any religious belief is entirely wrong, especially in any place such as a court of law or even the court of science.

Uninteresting, maybe, especially with unfalsifiable hypothesis', but not 100% certain to be wrong.

And if religion is not an intentional lie, what is it? are you saying that the practitioners of perpetuating this falsehood think they are being honest? Really?
I am saying that practitioners usually believe in what they are preaching, yes.

Do you have evidence that they are not?

if libel and slander are out, what about fraud? any good?
You'd still have to prove intentional dishonesty.

Some televangelists, though (and hell, some evangelists) I can see that working on.

[kmortis]

kmortis, a claim I often make that has yet to be truly contested is this:

The more power religion has -- over the state, or the mind -- the worse off it tends to be.
I can agree with this. Any mode of thought that gains too much control of the brain can cause problems. Personally, I think that those who become too heavenly conscience that they're no earthly good, no matter the impetus, have either made a horrible mistake (in some cases) or are mentally ill (in some other cases). Think of OCD. Is there anything really wrong with double checking the locks, especially if you live in an urban area? No. It's when that impulse becomes uncontrollable that it's an issue.

Something that is personal and does not affect someone's actual reasoning ability, is a much more harmless version of, say... the way most religion is handled in any country (even Buddhism or Hinduism, just that their injustices aren't quite as commonly touted).

Even then, I have seen no benefit of religion at all, even from an evolutionary viewpoint. If you can point out one, I'd like to see it.
About the only thing that I can think of, and mind you that I'm not a evolutionary biologist, I just like puzzles, is that religion reinforces the tribal unit. Stop thinking about modern religions. Think about the animistic and polytheistic ones that our stone-bronze aged ancestors had. Hell, look at the Roman Myths. Roman paganism was all about the strength of the state. If the proper rituals were followed, then the state prospered. If they weren't, it lagged or failed. Sure, that's one example, but we could go on. It's not a coincidence that there were a lot of divine kings, if the gods were happy, the tribe prospered. If you didn't keep the gods happy, then the tribe failed, and it was your fault.

Even in ancestor worship, it amounts to the same thing. Keep the ancestors happy...and so on. An idea that I've had for a while, but I've no way of proving it is that the "god lobe"'s strength ebbs and wanes across the spectrum of humans (you know, like every other biological thing). Those that have it the strongest become the most religious, sometimes to the point of fanaticism. Those that don't feel it at all were the atheists of the day. However, it wasn't safe to buck the system, so they would mouth the words and dance the dances and move on.

Now that a good portion of the stigma against atheism has been removed (as evidenced by us being able to discuss this openly) now it's easier for atheists to breed with other atheists. If I'm right and a portion of atheism/theism is genetic, we should start seeing a decline in theists and an increase in atheists. Granted, that trend could also be a general lessening of the stigma, but I think those are confounding factors. More atheists = lessening of stigma, which leads to more openness which leads to more "really" atheistic babies (IOW babies that are not only born atheistic, but stay that way).


"It helped make sense of the world once upon a time" counts about as much as liberals or conservatives are part of religion IMO.

This "religion trigger" I'd like to see more evidence for.
I don't understand this part. Could you expand it, please? It may be that I've not had enough coffee yet.

[Lonewulf]

I don't understand this part. Could you expand it, please? It may be that I've not had enough coffee yet.

I'd like to see more evidence of this "god lobe", and any of it's genetic details.

Ascribing an idea like religion to a biological organ seems... rather odd to me.

[kmortis]

Lemme just say that I will never say that religion shouldn't be criticized. I just don't think it should be unjustly bashed.

I can see your point here, however the usage of "unjustly" implies that there is some merit to it.
I have difficulty with that concept.
You are playing by religion's own rules are you not?

I think there is no injustice in breaking the hold of a terrible misconception that has supressed rational and scientific thought in order to perpetuate a myth.
There is no way in my mind that it can be considered unjust to free humanity from an alienating, restrictive, reproductively active infection of the mind.
An infection that has tried stop women getting anesthetic when it was invented, while allowing males to have it for instance. There are many examples of this type of restriction, even today.
No, I don't think I'm playing by religions' rules. I'm a misanthropic humanistic discordian, I'm not all that interested in what organized religion is cooking.

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it. If there's an injustice that you see, fight it. If that anesthesia story is true (and I don't doubt it, I just have no direct evidence), then that needs to be corrected (and it sounds like, in that particular example, it has).

I think our entire argument can be as follows. I think you should go after the person or persons that are performing the offending actions. You think that religion needs a global RICO act to get to the underlying corruption.

Yes there are religious asshats, but I think that they'd be atheistic asshats, given the chance.

My opinion is that they would be less inclined to be asshats if religion was unavailable. knowledge and understanding of the reality we live in would hopefully be the replacement.
There will always be asshats of course, but feed them religion and you have an asshat with attitude do you not? The world does not need the attitude part of that equation from my perpective.
I still think that if religion were to go away tomorrow, those same asshats would find a new path of oppression. WE humans are really inventive when it comes to lording over our own kind.



Remember, religion is a human construct. It's got all the foibles that come from being one.

the keyword here for me is construct. This only a human mental construct. and as such I take it to be a false one. Demolishing that false construct takes only an level of observation of the world. Observation shows it to be an inaccurate construct of the mind, nothing more surely?
I doubt it. See my discussion about the temporal lobe elsewhere.



One thing that I know that I have to remember is that I need my more militant atheist brethren and sistren to help keep me honest. I hope that you can use me in a similar manner.
Don't let your dislike of the piss poor actions of certain theists make you totally negate the role of religion in humanity.
Certain theists?, the only reason they are there is because they have the basic foundations of the less radical to support them. And the role that religion plays is only restrictive, repetitive and blatently dishonest. It needlessly divides families, it creates divisions where there need be none. Religions net effect is negative, no i'll correct that. not the net effect , the only effect.
Good and kind people are not made so by religion, it just hijacks the best and the worst in humanity's natural predisposition to be either.
See, I disagree with that assertion. I know that Dawkins wrote it, but I disagree with him. How do the Unitarians support al Queda? How does the Taoist priest support the Falun Gong? It's nice that Dawkins can make that assertion, but he forgot the most important part, the evidence that supports his theory.



I hope, too, that it eventually collapses under its own weight, but humans have shown a certain resilience against violent change. I think the Canadian ideal of "evolution, not revolution" is the name of the game here. Yeah, it takes longer, but the universe has time.

Thats to me is like saying that "I hope malaria cures itself", i know that is not what you've actually said, but to me that is how it sounds. like malaria it needs treatment, it is not enough to stand by and watch your fellow humans suffer surely?. That is the whole point of what I've posted in this thread. I'm not that much of a radical either , really, just rational. (well maybe not always!)

As regards some sort of intellectual and legal supression of religion, that is surely the only recourse of the rational in the face of the priviliged, biased and intrusively destructive nature of the self perpetuating myth that infects the human mind through religion. Or do you have other weapons?
Well, given a virulent enough strain of malaria and enough time, it could be bred out of humanity. :D

I think we're both rational (Lake Woebegon Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_woebegone_effect), anyone? ;)), it's just that a similar data set is passing through different filters, producing different results.

I don't think it's ever a good idea to suppress ideas. That has a bad tendency of just making them stronger, in the long run.

[kmortis]

I'd like to see more evidence of this "god lobe", and any of it's genetic details.

Ascribing an idea like religion to a biological organ seems... rather odd to me.

Well, as soon as I become a neurologist, I'll pass it along. :D

Actually, I posted a video clip of Dr. Ramachandran talking about it. I don't know if he's the one who discovered it, but he's the first one I heard about it from. I know that it was discovered by observing temporal lobe ecliptics while they were having a seizure. This paper (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web2/Eguae.html) says that it was Ramachandran who discovered it in 1997. I can't find anything else on the web.

[Fiona]

Wrong. Libel and slander directly involves another person, and it cannot be prosecutable unless it can show demonstrable harm. nal "lie" and not a belief system.


Sorry to interrupt when the discussion seems to have moved on but I just wanted to ask: is there protection for atheists from discrimination in employment etc in US law? I know that in the uk it is illlegal to discriminate on the basis of religion: atheism is not a religion but that is not very important here because there is not strong anti-atheist feeling. At least not in my experience.

But I read somewhere else in the forums that there is quite strong anti-atheist feeling in at least some part of the US. It could presumably lead to demonstrable harm to characterise someone as an atheist in those circumstances.

Having said that libel and slander laws would not help because the attribution would be true if the victim is atheist and truth is a defense to such a charge. So even if there is harm and even if it could be prosecuted it could only be prosecuted by a relgious person .

I am still curious though :)

[kmortis]

Sorry to interrupt when the discussion seems to have moved on but I just wanted to ask: is there protection for atheists from discrimination in employment etc in US law? I know that in the uk it is illlegal to discriminate on the basis of religion: atheism is not a religion but that is not very important here because there is not strong anti-atheist feeling. At least not in my experience.

But I read somewhere else in the forums that there is quite strong anti-atheist feeling in at least some part of the US. It could presumably lead to demonstrable harm to characterise someone as an atheist in those circumstances.

Having said that libel and slander laws would not help because the attribution would be true if the victim is atheist and truth is a defense to such a charge. So even if there is harm and even if it could be prosecuted it could only be prosecuted by a relgious person .

I am still curious though :)

From a stand point of EEOC and Census, atheism would be a religion. From a belief system, it's not. The religious discrimination laws would apply to atheism.

[Fiona]

Thank you :)

[biomorph]

It cannot be proven that any religious belief is entirely wrong, especially in any place such as a court of law or even the court of science.

Uninteresting, maybe, especially with unfalsifiable hypothesis', but not 100% certain to be wrong.

I knew we would get to this one, I've had this out with a few in my time. let me explain my personal reasoning here....

The reason is that religious belief makes claims. those claims are not backed up by any evidence, and never have been.

To claim something is real (and that is what is being done) means the onus is on the party doing the claiming. As an example I provide the following illustration.

A bank gets robbed in your town.
You were in the bank at the time of the robbery.
All the forensic and eyewitness accounts point to you not being the robber in a manner that is hard (let us say almost impossible) to dispute.

According to the hypothesis you put forward here, there would always be some doubt as to whether you were the robber. You were there after all.

However according to this type of argument even if you did not in actuality rob the bank that doubt would still be there, would it not? I think it would.

But you know that you did not rob the bank, and all the (substantial) evidence supports that knowledge that you have not done so..

So for some person (a detective maybe) to say that you might have or actually (according to his belief) have robbed the bank would not be based on evidence.

Because the many and all the evidences produced do not only point to you not doing it, but point away from you as the robber.

So, in this type of case if you went to court over that allegation to defend yourself, the prosecution would have to find irrefutable, and possibly extraordinary evidence to convict you. Not evidence that flys in the face of reason, but evidence that is so reasonable as to be leading to a firm conviction and on top of that, to disprove all the other evidence that you did not rob the bank......a tall order you may think, and you'd be right.

The court correctly finds no evidence that you are guilty, and you know you are not. (and you did not do it of course) However our pet detective refuses to believe the courts decision, simply on the basis of belief.

Did you rob the bank?
No of course not.
Is the detective wrong? Yes. what the detective believes does not matter, and is simply false, and the incredibly tiny amount of probability that you did rob the bank is reliably and accurately reduced to zero. Practicality steps in and takes over.

If it did not, then we would be living in an untenable world of fantasy based on an inaccurate and (for all practicle purposes) unworkable system of thought, and that is just what religion does, as it goes..........

And even if there is still some doubt in the less well informed (uneducated) minds out there (the detective goes to the press!!) it can be discounted as in error....why? because in reality you actually did not rob the bank, and there is no evidence to support such an (outlandish) claim.

So a negative is proved enough for a very reliable (read realistic) judgment. One side is simply wrong.......and proveably so by evidence against, and no evidence for.


I am saying that practitioners usually believe in what they are preaching, yes.


Do you have evidence that they are not?
Yes. one word. Hypocrisy. And whatever they personally believe is irrelevant, either they are lying or not. And they are....

You'd still have to prove intentional dishonesty.

Intention is not the issue, come on, you know that, unintentional dishonesty is still dishonesty to the recipient is it not? . I need prove nothing on this one I think and you know it, don't you? Really?.....maybe not........


Some televangelists, though (and hell, some evangelists) I can see that working on.

so can I.....
Intention is not the issue to me, unintentional fraud is still a class of fraud. though i can see where you are going with this, though i consider this type of intellectualism pure rhetoric, nothing else.
This is akin to what i call the "Robin Hood" syndrome. He thought what he was doing was an upright and moral duty. He was still a robbing S.O.B. the people he robbed still suffered from the losses he inficted on them............

Look, religion asserts that it is highly probable that some sort of god exists.
Evidence shows us that any gods of such nature are highly improbable.

One cannot sit on the fence with this, just because one may have a small, highly improbable suspicion that the evidence is not complete. That to me is madness.

[biomorph]

No, I don't think I'm playing by religions' rules. I'm a misanthropic humanistic discordian, I'm not all that interested in what organized religion is cooking.Ok fair enough

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it. If there's an injustice that you see, fight it. If that anesthesia story is true (and I don't doubt it, I just have no direct evidence), then that needs to be corrected (and it sounds like, in that particular example, it has). It was, I think, I had a good link but I can't find it now...damn and double damn.

I think our entire argument can be as follows. I think you should go after the person or persons that are performing the offending actions. You think that religion needs a global RICO act to get to the underlying corruption.
Yes, sort of, mu attitude is go for the most vocal, and the most prominent. we could finish off the rest for tea.

I still think that if religion were to go away tomorrow, those same asshats would find a new path of oppression. WE humans are really inventive when it comes to lording over our own kind.
You are entitled to think that and i respect that, and i cannot refute it, so I 'll say yup, i'll go with that one.

I doubt it. See my discussion about the temporal lobe elsewhere.
I think the temporal lobe stuff is a derail. i wait to be proven wrong though. Genetices has nothing to do with it. Religion has simply not been around long enough to prove its benefits. Humans are way, way, older than religion. (I think)

See, I disagree with that assertion. I know that Dawkins wrote it, but I disagree with him. How do the Unitarians support al Queda? How does the Taoist priest support the Falun Gong? It's nice that Dawkins can make that assertion, but he forgot the most important part, the evidence that supports his theory.
That sort of cross polination does not happen so much, the assertion desribes a radicalisation of moderate views within a given meme. Cross transferance happens, but not much. Thats a protective feature of the individual viruses.

Well, given a virulent enough strain of malaria and enough time, it could be bred out of humanity. :D
I doubt this very strongly. Evidence supports outside intervention as the really effective cure. And why wait?
I think we're both rational (Lake Woebegon Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_woebegone_effect), anyone? ;)), it's just that a similar data set is passing through different filters, producing different results.
Agreed.

I don't think it's ever a good idea to suppress ideas. That has a bad tendency of just making them stronger, in the long run.

I cant subscribe to that view, suppresion of the flat earth system is nearly complete. forced suppression is not, in a classical sense the answer either. the answer is to remove the foundational, fundamental right for it to thrive. Under mine it and watch it fall, though you might think my suggested tactics are not a fine example of this method. That might well be true!

[Herzblut]

Look, religion asserts that it is highly probable that some sort of god exists.
Evidence shows us that any gods of such nature are highly improbable.

Quantify that probability, please.

[tsg]

See, I disagree with that assertion. I know that Dawkins wrote it, but I disagree with him. How do the Unitarians support al Queda? How does the Taoist priest support the Falun Gong? It's nice that Dawkins can make that assertion, but he forgot the most important part, the evidence that supports his theory.

If it's the statement I think it is, what Dawkins is saying is that the mindset of religious belief, the unconditional acceptance of that which cannot be observed, and the encouragement of others to engage in that behavior by moderate believers is what enables the fundamentalists to act as they do. The only difference between moderate belief and fundamentalist belief is how far you take it. As articulett has said, the meme that faith is good is the underlying cause of fundamentalism.

[articulett]

I'd like to see more evidence of this "god lobe", and any of it's genetic details.

Ascribing an idea like religion to a biological organ seems... rather odd to me.

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=197496
http://www.slate.com/id/2165004/

We actually evolved to associate correlation with causation, trust those in authority, form in-group attachments as a kind of insurance policy, detect agency, and tell stories to pass on knowledge-- religion hijacks some of these things...

In some ways it rides along primal instincts (fear of death) and hijacks them to spread itself similar to the way a venereal disease uses the sex drive of animals to spread itself.

Not all of them are dangerous, but they all do support this notion of "divine truths"-- that can be accessed by faith... I think that is dangerous. We have mental quirks that make us very vulnerable to believing this, and it simply is not true. And truths arrived at via "faith" are not controllable or subject to reason-- as long as people believe someone has access to divine knowledge, they are vulnerable to whomever can convince them that it's they who has that knowledge. And I think society, with it's silence, encourages this notion that faith IS good-- a means of knowledge--necessary for morality, happiness, and salvation.

[articulett]

If it's the statement I think it is, what Dawkins is saying is that the mindset of religious belief, the unconditional acceptance of that which cannot be observed, and the encouragement of others to engage in that behavior by moderate believers is what enables the fundamentalists to act as they do. The only difference between moderate belief and fundamentalist belief is how far you take it. As articulett has said, the meme that faith is good is the underlying cause of fundamentalism.

And it's the underlying theme of most religions. It's a general paradigm that we are taught not to speak up against or question. If no one talks about it then everyone gets the idea that people are in agreement with this notion that there are divine truths and that faith and feeling can access them. We never discuss if that's true, much less rather we should be telling kids and trusting people that it is. And once you've agreed that there are divine truths, you have no right to say that your truth is more likely to be truer than another's conflicting divine truth--because you've both built your truths on a faulty premise.

A materialist could say to the hijackers, "how do you know that consciousness can survive death?" But a theist has already agreed that it can-- so who cares whether the theist thinks your heavenly plan is unlikely... their heavenly plan is equally unlikely--their god isn't the true one. A rationalist says, "there is no evidence for any life after death--you are trusting people whom you should examine more closely", but a theist can only say, "your religion is wrong and mine is right" with nothing to back it up with.

A theist makes a bargain with the devil-- in exchange for not probing his special delusions too closely, he agrees not to look too closely into anyone else's delusions... and then the ugliness festers underneath sacred platitudes.

It doesn't matter to me that most faiths are harmless--what matters to me is that we live in a world where it's really too dangerous to continue propping up this notion that "faith is good". What is it good for? Where are the stellar examples of people made fabulous by faith? It's weird, because people really do believe that they'd be wanton and immoral without religion...so maybe such people do need it-- but the evidence sure isn't there to show that this is the case. And if religion worked for boosting morality, would there be any pedophiliac clergy? Any witch hunts? Any suicide bombings? Would we need prisons and jails and laws and rules that involve rights and protecting the life liberty and property of others?

[JoeEllison]

Yes, using logical fallacies to create the attacks. Vis:
All religions are evil
All religions are usless
All religious practices are child abuse


Making a general out of a specific is bad form. If you want to talk about specific practices that are harmful, be my guest. Waging what amounts to an ad hom argument writ large against this mythical beast called "religion" is just silly.

Why do you dismiss those positions out of hand as "fallacies", without showing your own logical process? I can tell you that my personal view that all religion is harmful by definition is the furthest thing from an "ad hom argument writ large."

[kmortis]

Why do you dismiss those positions out of hand as "fallacies", without showing your own logical process? I can tell you that my personal view that all religion is harmful by definition is the furthest thing from an "ad hom argument writ large."

The three examples I gave are some of the more common comments I read when these topics come up. Sure I may have stripped away some of the more flowery language, but it comes down to a variation of those themes. Here, let me drop you a hint, and then maybe you can follow what I'm saying.

To say that "all religions are useless" you'd have to research all religions that have ever existed, and then measure what they provided to the community that they were a majority force (we'll use this filter to reduce possible confounding factors). IF it is a negative impact, then it's not useless, just harmful. If it's positive then there is some utility. To be useless, then they could have no impact on the society that they are resident in. Get cracking, go and track down what paleolithic religions were like. The same research has to go for the other two statements as well.

Basically, what I'm saying is that it's a fallacy to take a few discrete instants and generalize them to all places and times. It is true to say that some religious practitioners are evil, but that's not quite as pithy or edgy or cool as saying "all religions are evil", right? It's true to say that some religious practitioners are of minimal use to their communities, but again, it's not as noticeable as "all religions are useless" is it? Doesn't get headlines. Why? Because the first statement is rather obvious, human behavior spans the gamut of nice guy to jackass pretty uniformly. Hell, some people can be both, depending on the audience.

So, if you want to say that all religion is harmful, then go on out and show that all religion is harmful. Good luck on that. When you happen across your first Catholic soup kitchen in a neighborhood that has nothing else, don't forget to discount it somehow, I recommend pedophile priests, it's rather popular these days.

[kmortis]

And it's the underlying theme of most religions. It's a general paradigm that we are taught not to speak up against or question. If no one talks about it then everyone gets the idea that people are in agreement with this notion that there are divine truths and that faith and feeling can access them. We never discuss if that's true, much less rather we should be telling kids and trusting people that it is. And once you've agreed that there are divine truths, you have no right to say that your truth is more likely to be truer than another's conflicting divine truth--because you've both built your truths on a faulty premise.

A materialist could say to the hijackers, "how do you know that consciousness can survive death?" But a theist has already agreed that it can-- so who cares whether the theist thinks your heavenly plan is unlikely... their heavenly plan is equally unlikely--their god isn't the true one. A rationalist says, "there is no evidence for any life after death--you are trusting people whom you should examine more closely", but a theist can only say, "your religion is wrong and mine is right" with nothing to back it up with.

A theist makes a bargain with the devil-- in exchange for not probing his special delusions too closely, he agrees not to look too closely into anyone else's delusions... and then the ugliness festers underneath sacred platitudes.

It doesn't matter to me that most faiths are harmless--what matters to me is that we live in a world where it's really too dangerous to continue propping up this notion that "faith is good". What is it good for? Where are the stellar examples of people made fabulous by faith? It's weird, because people really do believe that they'd be wanton and immoral without religion...so maybe such people do need it-- but the evidence sure isn't there to show that this is the case. And if religion worked for boosting morality, would there be any pedophiliac clergy? Any witch hunts? Any suicide bombings? Would we need prisons and jails and laws and rules that involve rights and protecting the life liberty and property of others?

Wow, articulett, I agree with that. I think you're softening. ;) We'll make an apologist of you yet. :p

[JoeEllison]

So, if you want to say that all religion is harmful, then go on out and show that all religion is harmful. Good luck on that. When you happen across your first Catholic soup kitchen in a neighborhood that has nothing else, don't forget to discount it somehow, I recommend pedophile priests, it's rather popular these days.You're engaged in another lapse in logic here. I say "all religion is harmful", not based on any individual behavior, but on the concept of religion, and the religious mindset. So, your attack has nothing to do with my position. Secondly, I don't have to prove that all religious people act in evil ways... that's just your strawman. Most people fall somewhere around the middle, don't they? Basically ok folks, on average. Most people are also religious, so that means... most religious people are basically ok folks, on average! What a shock!

That doesn't mean that religion isn't harmful, though... it just means it doesn't do as much damage to some as it does to others. :D

[kmortis]

If it's the statement I think it is, what Dawkins is saying is that the mindset of religious belief, the unconditional acceptance of that which cannot be observed, and the encouragement of others to engage in that behavior by moderate believers is what enables the fundamentalists to act as they do. The only difference between moderate belief and fundamentalist belief is how far you take it. As articulett has said, the meme that faith is good is the underlying cause of fundamentalism.

Well, I guess if Dawkins said it, we can take it on faith then? :p

I disagree with him. I think it's a rather large stretch to say that moderates and liberals encourage fundamentalists. Speaking as a former fundy, they look down their noses at the more milquetoast members. "Pew warmers" or "C&E" Christians, I used to call them. They'd come on Christmas and Easter, or if they were really "devout" most Sundays. They come and get Holy for the Week. They didn't Gird Themselves with the Armour of God! They aren't out there Fighting against the Evil One.

Seriously, there are plenty of moderate and liberal theists who would love it if their own particular Buttheads for God were to disappear. Hell, there are some of the more conservative ones who'd like to see it too, it makes them all look bad. I'm sure that there are plenty of moderate Muslims who are ashamed of what the fundamentalists have done to what they see as Islam's good name. It's the people who do kill in the "name of god", who shoot abortion doctors, who destroy property that need to be controlled. It's the actions, not the thoughts.

And yes, I do see the slight irony of me "preaching" a message that boils down to "hate the sin, love the sinner".

[biomorph]

Evidence shows us that any gods of such nature are highly improbable.
Quantify that probability, please.
Zero. prove me otherwise smartypants.:cool: read the rest of my post on why highly improbable means zero in reality.

Ok, this going to be ripped apart wholesale by the maths guys here, of that i'm sure. And rightly so.
And I'm no maths expert, actually. and from the demonstration below that will be obvious.
so........just for fun......

let "god exists" be valued at 1 (or greater), and "nonexistance" be valued at 0

gods existance relies on the sum of evidence that can be valued at 1 (one piece of indisputable evidence) or greater.

However the sum of the evidence for the existance of god is a known value it is 0. (there is none)

If the sum of the evidence x god exists = 1 (or greater) then god exists.
If the sum of the evidence x god exists = 0 then god does not exist.
However the value of the evidence for existance is already 0.
therefore 0x1=0, god does not exist.

If any evidence for gods existance can be demonstrated at a value greater than 0, then god must exist.

Otherwise gods existance is valued at 0, non existance

i'm reaching for my asbestos knickers again......:)

[kmortis]

Why do you dismiss those positions out of hand as "fallacies", without showing your own logical process? I can tell you that my personal view that all religion is harmful by definition is the furthest thing from an "ad hom argument writ large."

You're engaged in another lapse in logic here. I say "all religion is harmful", not based on any individual behavior, but on the concept of religion, and the religious mindset. So, your attack has nothing to do with my position. Secondly, I don't have to prove that all religious people act in evil ways... that's just your strawman. Most people fall somewhere around the middle, don't they? Basically ok folks, on average. Most people are also religious, so that means... most religious people are basically ok folks, on average! What a shock!

That doesn't mean that religion isn't harmful, though... it just means it doesn't do as much damage to some as it does to others. :D

How is me saying that you said that "all religion is harmful" a strawman? To prove that you'd have to research all religions. All of them. I didn't say that you had to show that all theists behave in harmful ways, but that the religions they subscribe to are harmful. It's not a strawman to have your statement challenged.

At least we agree that most people are ok. Well, my misanthropic side rears up and says "naa, they're still ****heads" but it's new years day and I just saw "Bee Movie" so I'm in a good mood. :D

[biomorph]

Wow, articulett, I agree with that. I think you're softening. ;) We'll make an apologist of you yet. :p

I doubt it, and don't you dare!:jaw-dropp

[JoeEllison]

How is me saying that you said that "all religion is harmful" a strawman? To prove that you'd have to research all religions. All of them. I didn't say that you had to show that all theists behave in harmful ways, but that the religions they subscribe to are harmful. It's not a strawman to have your statement challenged.

At least we agree that most people are ok. Well, my misanthropic side rears up and says "naa, they're still *********" but it's new years day and I just saw "Bee Movie" so I'm in a good mood. :D
I don't have to research all religions to know that religion is harmful. The whole idea is just bad juju. I'm not talking about any specific sect, or set of beliefs... I'm saying that viewing the world through the lens of religious belief is fundamentally flawed, and holding a fundamentally flawed worldview does harm to the person holding it. It strikes me,to some degree or another, as being intentional ignorance. That's no good, in my book.:cool: