6. The more knowledgeable you are about religion, the more likely you are not to believe it.
http://news.discovery.com/human/atheists-best-informed-about-religion.htm

Her reaction after she'd sat down and read the bible cover to cover was nothing short of hilarious.

However, with that 6, I'll add:

7. It's necessary to catch a lot of allusions in everything from fine literature to every day conversation. Example: Cook rummaging for a salt box, "Where is Lot's wife when we need her?"

...as opposed to being spiritual, often seems to work counter to being literate. Almost as if the two are mutually exclusive.

between literacy and religiosity?

Or is that just a part of your belief system?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201311/religiosity-and-intelligence-century-research

have a nice day.

1. Problems Caused by Religion Wont' Go Away if We Stop Looking:
Agreed, that's why we fight.

2. It's Important to Distinguish Between Martin Luther King Jr. and Mark Driscoll
Mark Driscoll's 'abuse' of religion is not possible without the prior acceptance of religion as 'real' by many people, including King.

3. There's a lot of Good in Religion
Terrible example. Yoga/meditation is not predicated upon religion. It is also practiced by Buddhists/sourced from ancient India, but there is nothing about it that requires a 'religion', and in fact, since it is non-theistic, most religious people do not recognize Buddhism AS a religion at all. Even the last pope took a crap on it. (A 'no true scotsman' fallacy, I think, but they do it.) I do yoga, it's a fitness tool. A rather good one.

4. A Religious Argument is Rarely One by Using Non-Religious Arguments
This is entirely set by the intent of the two parties engaged in the discussion. If the 'believer' side of the discussion is willing to use rational argument, logic, history, etc, then yes, the argument can be 'won' decidedly. (Nor does it need to be a 'win/lose' framed debate) I have CERTAINLY come away from debates/discussions in the past having opened the opponent's eyes to new evidence, or removed some/all of his/her premise from the discussion entirely.

5. Religion Isn't Going Away
No one said it IS, but it MAY.

Sorry.

You make absolutely no argument against the argument for literacy.

What do you mean by "we fight"? Do you think religion is more likely to go away if you are hostile, aggressive and antagonistic? Do you have any scintilla of historic evidence that would support this approach.

As part of your need to be a crusader, I would suggest that you completely missed the point here.

So... dunno.

I think it's highly useful to be religiously literate to combat religion. Sure. But only long enough for that stuff to go away, really. There are better things to do with our time in this universe.

"Do you think religion is more likely to go away if you are hostile, aggressive and antagonistic?"

Fight means many things. I see you have chosen colorful negative meanings. Mine are mostly defensive fights, keeping religious bullshit out of public schools, and the public sphere in the form of laws. I couple might be considered 'offensive' fights, again, to strip existing religious mores off public policy/law already on the books. I make no bones about that being a fight. Hell yes.

Your crusade to eliminate religion is a lot like Don Quixote, isn't it? Not that I would call you delusional or anything like that, but you sure are tilting at windmills.

I think we are all on the same side when it comes to keeping religion our of public schools and legislatures, but my experience of you is that you want to take that fight much, much further.

And it is generally hostile, aggressive and antagonistic. Hell yes.

Subtle difference. Not surprised you missed it. People DO exist. What they believe DOES matter in reality, even if what they believe is entirely fiction.

He's illiterate on the Yoga/meditation point. Particularly so on the meditation point, which is actually much older than the ancient India source, coupled to Yoga. Even within just that context, meditating for enlightenment isn't a theistic religious thing. (Ignoring that there are secular instances of it too.) Meditation can be spiritual/religious, but it is not a wholly owned subsidiary of religion, ignoring that Buddhism isn't generally recognized AS a religion, more of a philosophy.

I would be ignorant. So civil.

You are tilting at windmills, believing that there is some kind of crusade against religion that you might win.

And once you can show me that what religious believers believe is "entirely fiction", your credibility will increase tremendously.

But you can't, and that's what makes your quest the fiction.

The yoga/meditation issue is a complex one, but there is no doubt that at least parts of it has deep religious roots. And most religious people do consider Buddhism a religion, as do most scholars and most studies that look at different religions. He does not try to make the point that it is wholly religious, but I think you make his point for him. Yoga and meditation have become exercises for some that are devoid of religion and, as he says, have taken religiously rooted traditions and adapted them.

"but you sure are tilting at windmills."

You lost the civility high road right there.

Again, and in very slow, small words: I am tilting at real people who believe/act upon beliefs that have no place in law/public policy. I will not be silenced by people like you who want me to be quiet, and not agitate, in the face of human rights denials, and attacks upon real people, by real people, attempting to foist their beliefs on others, or who spend their time apologizing for people who do.


"He does not try to make the point that it is wholly religious, but I think you make his point for him."

No, he used it as an example of 'good things' that come from religion. Meditation isn't something that comes 'from' religion. It is something religions may ALSO practice, possibly in great quantities depending upon the religion, but it is not the exclusive source of meditation. So he was overstepping his reach when he attempted to claim meditation for religion as a product thereof.


"And most religious people do consider Buddhism a religion, as do most scholars and most studies that look at different religions."
At the very least it blurs the lines between religion and philosophy from it's own adherent's view:
http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/philosophy.htm

""Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.""

Yeah, sounds like religion, huh?

Do you consider popes to be 'religious people'? How are you defining 'most religious people' there? Oh, right, in a way that cannot be falsified. Sure. No matter how many primary religious leaders I cite, you'll weasel away from that claim with ZERO evidence.

Pope John Paul II called Buddhism 'atheistic in nature' in his 1994 'Crossing the Threshold of Hope'.
So, there's one leader of 1.2bn religious people for you, who couldn't tell the difference between Buddhism and philosophy.

Like "again, and in very slow, small words", lol?

Now you have me all confused.

Bottom line is that we share some of the same goals in terms of our beliefs in where religion does not belong.

The difference is that you appear to go to extremes in finding reasons that it doesn't belong anywhere, and there we sharply differ.

There is a difference, btw, between mincing words and using language that basically implies that the person is just too stupid to understand what you are saying.

"leading to the distortion of his perception and the wavering of his mental faculties".

That character is widely recognized, from the get-go, as addled. I found the comparison highly obnoxious, AND false, in the sense that I clearly stated in my objection (And you do not appear to have acknowledged, but rather doubled down on); I 'tilt' at real people who hold fictional, or metaphysical beliefs that they project into society, and I listed damaging ways in which they do it, that I specifically focus on.

As I have spelled out repeatedly across multiple threads, remove the threat of people legislating upon these beliefs, and my objections to 'religion' en total, largely vanish.


To get back to the 'literacy' issue, again, the author claimed Meditation/Yoga as a 'good' product of religion, when in fact, that isn't established. Not only are both practices not irreducibly complex such that they cannot be arrived at by secular means, but they are associated with a religion that is (excepting one small sect) non-theistic at all. Moreover, the ORIGINS of yoga are actually lost to human history. That it is ALSO practices by Buddhists, does not mean Buddhists CREATED yoga, let alone as a PART of or PRODUCT of Buddhism.

long discussions of contentious nature, wherein neither of us attacks the other.

But when you start making statements that imply that I am not capable of understanding what you are trying to say and that you must dumb it down for me, you are not really being polite.

Be the change you want to see, cbayer. Don't fault others for your own actions. Perhaps it will help you be taken more seriously.

t of my 'delusions' came chronologically before that point in the discussion.

But if you read him only as a mentally disturbed, addled and diminished character, I can see why you might feel insulted.

It's a frequent metaphor used to describe someone on a mission for which there is no hope. That's what I meant.

Why can he not be both addled, and a hero?

And if that was your view on the matter, doesn't that actually suggest you think I am, indeed, doing the right thing?

I'm so confused.

His cause is noble but doomed to failure.

Were it up to me, I would prefer you use your passion and intellect to promote what is good about religion and fight against that which is not, instead of advocating for it's elimination. That's because I believe that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not only a bad idea, but completely unachievable.

Man of la Mancha is one of my favorite stories and had a great impact on me as a child. I always imagined myself as Dulcinea.

Almost without exception, they do so. If one accepts or promotes what is good about them, whatever might be good, one is either ignoring or accepting the premise from which it originates.

I consider that sort of imbalance unhealthy. At the very least it doesn't resolve anything.

Particularly when the 'positive fruits' depending on how you define them, are accessible in other ways.


I don't 'aspire to faith', like some prominent atheists. I seek to show there are other ways to arrive at what is meaningful in life. Which I do a lot of, outside this venue. In this venue, it takes on a more caustic tone, because we are generally (all sides) delving at the root nuts and bolts, the premise of religion itself.

The author cited in the OP made an apologia for religion based on, among other things, some positive fruits 'religion' cannot even claim as it's property, with any credibility at this time. (Moreover, it is most associated with a 'religion' that many other religions reject as it even BEING a religion, so problems within problems.)

Perhaps if the author had cited less ambiguous 'positive fruits'...

It seems to be part and parcel of many cultures, many peoples, communities and traditions. Some for the better some for the worse. Some simply benign. The Bard may have touched on one aspect of the dichotomy -

"The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones." - W. Shakespeare

In fact, if you could get believers to accept that their religion is simply a product of human nature, we could make real progress against the problems it causes.

From whatever the earliest expressions of that sense were - animism? - throughout the various permutations over the years. The crux of it all (pun intended) seems how it's employed, its effect. Don't think we need to or can eliminate religion. That's the wrong goal, imo.
Accepting that, we can and ought to limit its role in the secular realm - legislation, education, etc.

That's a goal I support.

I must have missed that.

That's where so many of these discussion go downhill - dragging out the straw man that those of us speaking out against religion and its power in society want to forcibly eliminate it. While that does indeed make an excellent straw man, as you and very often cbayer demonstrate, it doesn't do much for discussion to even throw it out there as a "line of thought." Instead it just marginalizes and demonizes other points of view.

I use it in many settings to help define a center. That's where I sit. Somewhere in the middle of extremism of any issue. Doesn't always come across well.

And when using it to triangulate your personal position to be the most sensible, acceptable one, it's a very dishonest tactic.

Just curious - are there any "extremist" positions you take, or do you always look at the "extremes" and base your position on trying to park right in between them?

Or rights just for yourself (or your race, gender, and/or income group)?

Do you position yourself in the middle there, or are you an extremist?

I was an early member of ACT UP. At that time and place it was what had to happen. As with Stonewall as well. Both opened the door and led to change. Now, the equal rights movement has moved from the street, so to speak, to the mainstream. That's how change gets implemented. A wall is broken and a new path is laid down.

I support equal rights for you as well. And, yes, for myself.

Please don't make this a personal roundabout. I've no interest in parsing words or phrases here. No interest in questioning anyone's intent - yours, mine or anyone else's.

between the extremes.

Turns out that sometimes, the "extreme" position is an OK one to take, huh?

While religion may tell some about the nature of the universe, you don't have to believe that to see that there may be things about religion or coming from religious people/groups that you share and can support. In other words, you can ignore the belief part that you don't share.

It resolves a lot, imo. I don't have to be gay to support GLBT causes and rights. And that applies to just about everything. Finding alliances helps move things forward. Finding divisions slows them down.

You have found a way towards meaning in your life that makes sense for you. What is the problem with recognizing that others have found other ways? Particularly when you probably share goals.

He makes a broad example about what many consider practices with religious roots having value outside religion. You don't agree with some of his examples. But then again, if you can't find anything positive about religion, then you wouldn't agree with any examples I would guess.

But accepting those life-affirming positive things like (if you are the sort of person who asks such questions) 'why?' answers from a metaphysical source, that comes at a cost. The cost is imbuing it with credibility. In order for it to be comforting, you have to invest a measure of 'truth' to it. When you do that, and that source makes OTHER claims, such as instructions FOR you to live by, or to proselytize, or etc, you have invested enough credibility in it, that these other baggage items come along with it.


How does one, for instance, believe the claims of the new testament, around the idea of a redemption through Christ and everlasting life, without also imbuing the claims of his authority and origins, as detailed in the new and old testament along with?

One COULD do that I suppose, just believe in the character of 'jesus' and a place called 'heaven' in a vacuum, but I don't see many people actually doing it.

If you imbue the NT/Jesus with credibility, you do so for the book that prophesized his appearance, that the NT works backward to establish, and in which it is specified that homosexuality is a sin. Invest credibility in one, most people invest credibility in both. Otherwise, it looks a lot like building a house without a foundation. An unsupported... pun. Sorry. My bad.


But I jump the shark at the initial question. I don't ask 'why'. It's a non-sequitur. I view it as a question imposed on people to lead them to an answer to a question that didn't exist. Much like leading us to seek an afterlife that doesn't exist. But only if you pay the admission fee, underlined here...etc ad nauseum.


How to separate the good from the associated burden/cost of investing credibility in the whole thing?

I don't know that it can be done. I've never seen anyone do it.

if you don't share it.

I'm not a religious person, but I have deep respect for those that are. If they use their beliefs to harm or impinge on the rights of others, I am going to challenge them. If they use them to promote civil liberties, social justice and carrying for the neediest among us, I am going to support them.

It makes zero sense to me to reject all of their beliefs because they share a religion with some people with whom I vehemently disagree.

To me, that is merely bigotry. Should one condemn all muslims because of the behavior of some?

I could not be less interested in debating whether things in the bible are true or whether there are such things as redemption, an afterlife or even a god. Zero interest. But I am interested in allowing people to believe and to protect their rights to do so.

Trying to convince a believer that they are wrong makes just about as much sense to me as trying to convince a non-believer that they are wrong. Pointless, wrong headed and never resolved. It's just an exercise for those that like to argue and have a need to be right, even when there is no right answer.

You think that accepting that some religious people share some of your values and causes gives "credibility" to their beliefs? So what? That would only matter if you were on a crusade to rid the world of religion. And crusade would be the appropriate word, as it would mirror previous religious crusades in so many ways.

"is God OK with homosexuality?"

It's not necessarily the right one, if there is one at all.

God loves me and my lgbt brother and sisters.

(Respecting that each was built upon the former)

Moreover, how can a neutral or outside observer determine how you tell which is which?

Personally I believe almost all of the NT and the miracles and supernatural events of the life of Jesus. Revelation is my least favorite book and think a good argument it should not have been included in the NT. The epistles are good but we must remember that they were written in the culture that existed at the time.

The OT to me is a mystery. I believe some is allegory and some is true.

How do I determine what is real and allegory is hard to answer. Just what makes sense to me and what leap of faith I am willing to make.

How a observer see this is hard for me to tell but they must remember thd time it was written in.

Love the sinner, hate the sin, ya know. Who are you to say they are wrong? Perhaps you didn't listen to the Holy Spirit while you were reading Scripture?

sometimes I really do wonder if you aren't really a liberal Christian, but instead just a person who is trying to parody naive liberal Christian beliefs.

Because I tell you I find it rather insulting.

That is, after all, how you yourself brushed off the suggestion that someone could be offended by someone else mocking their beliefs.

I really loved something that Obama said during a 2004 interview that was dug up during the first campaign for Presidency. Something that REALLY torqued off the right wing:

"FALSANI: "Do you believe in sin?"

OBAMA: "Yes."

FALSANI: "What is sin?"

OBAMA: "Being out of alignment with my values."
"

Obviously, I am not a believer. Not even a little bit. But I *get* what he said there, and I love it. But here's the thing; I act on that. That's exactly what I am doing ALL the time when I am looking critically at people who claim to be religious. I'm like 'ok, show me your values, that I can compare your actions to your values and see what you are.'. But what you are suggesting here is, that the literal source documentation most people agree upon as valid, cannot be used as that 'values' statement for comparison.

So, your responses here leave me a little high and dry in figuring you/others out, because without that values statement that I can refer to... How can I possibly understand you, or in any way determine if you are indeed, within the scope of your values? I can guess much from the user icon you chose, but only in very general terms.

So, given that you discount certain parts of the OT, how am I to better understand your values as a Christian? Not to 'judge' you necessarily, but to understand.

Do unto others as you would have done unto you and love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind.

As for where I get my values it has always been a combo of my faith, family, and experience.

"It makes zero sense to me to reject all of their beliefs because they share a religion with some people with whom I vehemently disagree."

Never said that. Here's what I said.

"But accepting those life-affirming positive things like (if you are the sort of person who asks such questions) 'why?' answers from a metaphysical source, that comes at a cost. The cost is imbuing it with credibility. In order for it to be comforting, you have to invest a measure of 'truth' to it. When you do that, and that source makes OTHER claims, such as instructions FOR you to live by, or to proselytize, or etc, you have invested enough credibility in it, that these other baggage items come along with it."


Notice how it doesn't say a DAMN THING about PEOPLE sharing the religion, and me rejecting it by association? The entire post made NO such association.

"To me, that is merely bigotry."

Well, it's a good thing that's not what I did then, isn't it?

"But I am interested in allowing people to believe and to protect their rights to do so."

And I have made no attempts to prohibit people from believing. Opposing their beliefs when they air them in the public square isn't prohibition or NOT 'allowing' people to believe, and does not infringe on their rights to believe.

"Trying to convince a believer that they are wrong makes just about as much sense to me as trying to convince a non-believer that they are wrong."

Non-believers can usually be convinced by credible evidence. On the flipside, I have made good progress at least with individuals, in showing them that what they thought was on their side as evidence, was in fact, not. Once they saw it for what it is, they started questioning the beliefs, and testing its claims. Gotten a lot of good mileage out of that. At worst, I have certainly gotten people to admit, and agree that they are engaged in special pleading, without evidence, and that is good enough for them, and they would stick with it. I'm ok with that, especially since it helps others see they didn't actually have The Answer(TM) to begin with, they literally ONLY have 'faith' and that's it.

"Pointless, wrong headed and never resolved. It's just an exercise for those that like to argue and have a need to be right, even when there is no right answer."

How then, do you suggest we grow the ranks of atheists, or, where from do you think atheists come?

"You think that accepting that some religious people share some of your values and causes gives "credibility" to their beliefs?"

Nope. Never said that either.

"So what? That would only matter if you were on a crusade to rid the world of religion."

I WOULD like to see that world, sure. A lofty goal. (Edit: A world without religion, not a crusade, just to be clear)

"And crusade would be the appropriate word, as it would mirror previous religious crusades in so many ways."

See, I view this, and the 'bigot' line up above, as a roundabout attack. You have GOT TO BE JOKING that discussing/debating the root nuts/bolts/merits of religion from a 'none' position in any way mirrors arresting, trying, and punishing people for thought crimes. Please.

This is why I can never tell if you are being genuine about these discussions or not. It seems like... you are just looking for a chance to smear, name call, or associate people with, well, above, bigotry, and murder/war.

Yes, by all means, Cbayer, (an issue at random) trying to keep creationism out of public schools, and showing that creationism isn't science at all, is totally like the crusades. Sure. Whatever.

Again, this is where we part ways. You are doing something akin to proselytizing in order to achieve a stated goal.

I do not share your interest in this in any way. The only group I want to see increase is the group that allows for belief or disbelief without judgement based only on that piece of data.

You see what you want to see because I don't agree with your position and take the opportunity to point out why I don't agree with it. I have not smeared, name called or anything like that. I have said that similar positions could be classified as bigoted at worst, intolerant at best. I don't think you are a bigot, but you are quite intolerant when it comes to religious beliefs and believers, imo.

And we will probably remain at a stalemate at this point of contention. But I do hope that I achieve more success towards my goals than you towards yours.

I'm asking WHAT MEANS AM I PERMITTED TO GROW THE RANKS OF ATHEISTS. Not what YOU want.
Especially since the religions you are granting such deferral to, all proselytize, and almost all do so to the exclusion of others.

Do you similarly object to religions trying to find or convert people into their ranks?

"The only group I want to see increase is the group that allows for belief or disbelief without judgement based only on that piece of data."

Religious groups believe they have the right to spread their word/faith and recruit new members/adherents. Tell me, Cbayer, how judgmental are YOU of THEIR proselytizing?

Why do you object to mine?

"You see what you want to see because I don't agree with your position and take the opportunity to point out why I don't agree with it."
My position is that I A) have just as much right to try and de-convert people with REASON as any faith does to proselytize by ANY means and B) Such attempts to de-convert, OR firewall PUBLIC POLICY/LAW from religious interference do not constitute DENYING people the right to believe. (The antonym of this claim: "allowing people to believe and to protect their rights to do so.&quot


"I have said that similar positions could be classified as bigoted at worst, intolerant at best."

I'm intolerant of a lot of things. I've enumerated a bunch of them, like people injecting religion into law. Did you have some point associating that with bigotry? Or meeting with believers and discussing the merits/source beliefs AS THEY AIR THEM IN PUBLIC, associated with bigotry?

Am I not allowed to air MY opinion?
To discuss issues important to ME?
To reason with individuals of another mindset, and see if I can entice them to my side?

And I have consistently taken that position, you just don't see it because it would contradict what you already have concluded about me.

Wishing to eliminate religion is an extreme position and you have stated that as a goal repeatedly. It shows a total lack of regard and respect for people who are religious. It takes the position that you have the superior knowledge and everyone should be like you.

Call it whatever you wish. But it's the same thing whether you are trying to convert someone to a religion or to atheism.

And it sucks, imo.

'come check out christianity and here's XYZ reasons why'?

Really?

Because earlier you said:

"But I am interested in allowing people to believe and to protect their rights to do so."

Christians believe they have the right to proselytize. In fact, I believe they have a RIGHT to do so. Nor do I view it as a problem that they have such free speech. Nor that they do it to the exclusion of others. (You won't find a Christian proselytizing for islam, for instance)

"If they use their beliefs to harm or impinge on the rights of others, I am going to challenge them."

Proselytizing for christianity doesn't impinge on the rights of others. So they should be free to do it, right? They have the right to free speech and association, right?

RIGHT?

interested and in trying to convert or de-convert. The line may not always be clear, but I do object to anyone pushing their beliefs or lack of beliefs on others.

Everyone believes they have the right to proselytize if they think they are in the possession of the "one way". Some even think it's their obligation to do so and you have alluded to having some of those ideas yourself. People just have to be saved from their wrong headed ideas, right?

And generally they do have the right to do it. But I object to it and hate it when anyone does it from either side to me.

They are free to discontinue the conversation at any time.

Nor is halting them from injecting religious ideology into law/public policy 'pushing my beliefs' on them. It is, in fact, protecting myself, others, and even the believer him or her self, from the same thing.


In my experience, it is literally impossible to grapple with a pro-life voter/lobby member without getting to the nuts and bolts of faith, because the objection to abortion is, for them, intrinsically linked to their metaphysical faith. (Life begins at X, souls exist, fertilized ovum gets a soul, therefore it's the bar for personhood, etc)


As for proselytizing, people of faith have every damn right to do it. It's a civil right. I am boggled that you seem to want to draw a distinction between 'offering information' and trying to convert. They are both free speech issues. So, it sounds like you want to protect speech, as long as it's not too loud? By some arbitrary measure of loudness that you alone possess?

You are ALSO free to object, but your objection will be taken no more seriously by anyone else, than a believer's efforts to proselytize, or my efforts to engage in the claims they make.

"But I object to it and hate it when anyone does it from either side to me."

You cannot simultaneously claim that and this:

"But I am interested in allowing people to believe and to protect their rights to do so."

Because their right to speak is just as much a right as their right to believe. In fact, belief comes part and parcel with their speech.

Your position is not internally consistent.

I don't think that is something she cares about, given how many times it's been pointed out to her.

It is of course your right to do it. I just said that I personally object to it.

You can be as loud as you want. The only thing it will do is determine how quickly I walk away from you while you are trying to convert me.

The two statement are not contradictory. What I will tolerate personally is an entirely different matter than what is actually your right. You can also scream at me as I walk into an abortion clinic. That's your right, but I can certainly object to it. (that was a purely hypothetical scenario - I am not saying that you are a person who would do that)

So when you said 'allow', you meant 'not prohibited', not granting the other party space/time to speak interpersonally? (Allow as in keep it legal, but still object to it?)

I don't think I've ever objected to religious people proselytizing, as long as they are not threatening, genuinely disruptive to some official process, etc. I never want to silence others, whether by law, or by telling them to shut up or that they shouldn't speak. Easiest way to torpedo a bad idea, is to let someone air it. Sunlight/disinfectant.

And if you think the stuff that goes here is acerbic, (IIRC, you are not currently in the US? If you are, or are at some point) try rolling out with the Patriot Guard Riders to square off against the WBC clowns. It's an... experience.

Sunlight kills germs. It really does. Let people air ideas. And when I say 'let' I don't just mean 'don't prohibit'.

I'm not making it a law, I'm expressing my personal POV. I don't want to be preached to or for anyone to try to convert me. Never have and I doubt I ever will.

If you don't mind religious people proselytizing to you, good for you. I think you are a minority in that regard, but that's your choice.

Personally, when I lived on land, I would pretend not to be home when anyone came to my door to try and "sell" me something. But if you want to engage them, I am sure they are most grateful.

Frankly, I don't think it works anyway. And I think it's particularly ineffective when it's really in your face or employs the technique of treating the person you are trying to convert like they are an idiot.

Agree about sunlight, but I still wear my shades, a hat and some sunscreen.

Or do you oppose that as well?

Trying to eliminate just the "bad" parts of religion (not even touching on how you begin to define what those "bad" parts are without engaging in the very behavior you claim to deplore) hasn't really worked either.

In fact, the best examples we have - the ones that show when progress has occurred and human rights and dignity succeed - are associated with events that reduced the overall power and influence religion had in the lives of people. The Enlightenment, for instance.

But I think it would go a long way toward healing the animosity in this group, cbayer, if you could just bring yourself to apologize for what you clearly intended as a smear.

I download the "Bible Geek" podcast and listen to every one. Often it is way above my pay grade, but Robert M. Price makes it so entertaining -- with his cheesy accents and allusions to horror and comic books -- that it's often quite fun. The accents he uses delineate his Bible reading and help one understand what's being said. They are often humorous, too. Pentateuch is rendered as Charleton Heston. Jesus is rendered as Willem Dafoe. Paul is rendered as Paul Lynde. Etc.

Yes, the guy is a Republican and sometimes does not disguise that fact. But, I don't limit my associations to atheists and Democrats. He is a professed atheist and has two PhDs in the Bible.

But Dr. Price helps me understand the Bible and that helps me understand my atheism.

He also has another podcast called "The Human Bible" which acts as an introduction to the Bible.

Price might not be everybody's cup of tea, but I find his stuff fascinating.

I agree. Understanding this stuff is important, especially for non-believers.

R&K

I share with you the desire to hear things from different perspectives. Listening to extreme RW christian radio on a recent road trip was quite an eye opener.

I don't really do podcasts, but I know you are a big fan. Takes too much of my limited bandwidth.

Hope you are staying warm and dry, my friend.

Getting sick of this shit! Cannot wait for Spring.

Hope you are well.

It's a great excuse to turn on the fans and do virtually nothing for a few hours.

Spring will come, my friend. It always does.

being able to read and write

Thanks for stopping by again.

"Religiously Literate" still strikes me as a perfect oxymoron

Well, that explains a lot.