I'm not in.

Dawkins and Robertson are nowhere approaching equivalent in their virulence and influence. However unpopular Robertson may be, he's still a problem and problems ought to be addressed.

points, imo.

Whenever there is a debate about institutional racism or misogyny, some white man feels the need to stand up and declare, "Not all white men are racists or misogynists!" That is precisely what the author is doing here.

No, not all white men are racists or misogynists, and not all Christians are whack-a-doo theocrats, but some are. If the argument is framed around them, it is because they are the problem. If you don't buy into Pat Robertson's garbage, then terrific. You aren't part of the problem. You may therefore rest assured the vast majority of the vitriol espoused by "angry atheists" isn't directed at you, and you needn't get upset about it.

The problem is that at least some atheists claim that Pat Robertson is representative of all Christians. So the author is saying "stop pretending that Robertson is a typical Christian, and we won't pretend that when Dawkins defends pedophilia, he is being a typical atheist."

Oh, and "tone trolling" is a euphemism for "if we act like arseholes, and you complain about it, YOU are at fault for complaining, rather than us being at fault for being arseholes."

Surely you aren't going to misrepresent what Dawkins said to such an extent that you make the claim he "defends pedophilia." That's pretty unChristian. And pretty shitty.

And don't pretend it's not. Lying is unacceptable for any, Christian or atheist or whatever. Defending pedophilia is even less acceptable.

But, hey, don't let reality get in the way of a good old fashioned Dawkins Bashing Fest. I know how much some people enjoy those.

Don't use quotation marks if it's not a quotation.

And heed your own words, please. "Lying is unacceptable for any, Christian or atheist or whatever."

And you know it. Lying is unacceptable for any, Christian or atheist or whatever, so why are you lying?

If you cannot provide a cite which shows Dawkins said these exact words:

"pedophilia isn't that bad"

Then I'm not the one who is lying.

Do you imagine that no one can read your post #64 just below where you say "No, he did not use those exact words"? And see that you said that in response to a request to prove that Dawkins actually said what you directly quoted him as saying in your post 60: "pedophilia isn't that bad"?

You admitted yourself that your quote was false, and now you're saying you didn't fabricate the quote? And you're calling other people liars for pointing out the incredibly obvious?



Btw, welcome back to the "cesspit of atheist bigotry". Guess you enjoy it more than you let on.

Show us where he used those exact words.

Oh...right..you can't, because he never did. Just more dishonest crap you've invented to smear him and other other atheists in range.

Really pathetic, and totally at odds with your own admonition about bearing false witness.

He said, "I suffered a bit of pedophilia when I was a boy, and it didn't hurt me". Or, IN OTHER WORDS, pedophilia is not all that bad.

Any claim to the contrary is simply a lie.

You know, there are those who insist that Dawkins is the defender of truth, justice and the British way. He isn't. When I was in this forum last time, there were those who were claiming that Dawkins was incredibly brave in denouncing Islam in a lecture hall at University College London. He wasn't brave, just showing his loathing of religion in a perfectly safe setting.

He now defends pedophilia as not all that bad, and you leap to his defense. He has also said that raising a child to be a believer is worse than child abuse. He is a bigot, and a rather ignorant one at that.

OK, I am clearly unwelcome in this cesspit of atheist bigotry. Goodbye.

Last edited Thu Sep 19, 2013, 07:19 PM - Edit history (1)

You lie through you teeth to smear someone falsely, and when you're caught at it, you respond with more of the same.

No, the "other words" for Dawkins statement are NOT "pedophilia is not all that bad". They are that the ONE particular instance of molestation that he was a victim of did him no long-term, serious psychological damage. He's said nothing whatsoever to the effect that pedophilia in general is not a bad thing.

I mean seriously, how do you even read what you wrote and pretend it is based on reality.

You are completely ignoring where he talks about the horrors of pedophilia. Where he says that the 30 seconds he endured (which he is very clear to say that for HIM ONLY and those that he talked to that had the same very brief experience) was nothing even close to the exposed horribleness that is pedophila for so many people.

He gets to talk about his experience. He gets to say what marks his experience left on him.

What about the money he has donated and the help he has brought out from others to try and bring the RCC to justice for the bullshit they did? How is that possibly saying pedophilia isn't bad.

But, you know what, I know you will never stop with the Dawkins bashing. You will never stop misrepresenting and lying about what he said. My only purpose in even replying to you is to make sure that those that are reading you utter bullshit lies get some indication of what the truth actually is.

And I wish I could believe your declaration of an exit from this group but I'm sure you'll be back again. And trust that at least some of us (that you so freely peg with your ad hom of bigot because we dare to do it) will point out your bullshit and lies when you do it again.

The religionists here are totally on board with the label "cesspit of atheist bigotry" for this room.

regardless of who it comes from. Atheists and believers alike. Really. They do. They say they do all the time. Granted, I never see it, but it is probably on threads I don't read.

"Back again" turned out to be "almost immediately"

I was molested when I was a kid, and my experiences weren't that bad, but when I say this, some people freak out and misinterpret what I am saying because pedophilia evokes such strong emotional reactions that people can't often hear what you're actually trying to say. You can't talk about it with anyone because of this. The people who claim to be supportive of pedophilia victims are the ones who force us into silence.

Robertson has really harmed a lot of people, while Dawkins is pretty benign. She probably would have gotten more traction if she had spoken more generally about those who represent the religious right and those who represent the anti-theists.

And I agree entirely with you about tone trolling.

a tone argument at times.

You can dismiss this by putting one of the labels on it, but I still like her overall position on this.

And anyone can generalize about any group, including atheists. Some are bigoted jerks. If you aren't one of them, terrific! You can rest assured that the vast majority of vitriol isn't being aimed at you and need not get upset about it.

Is that how it works?

Or do you really think the "bigoted" opinions of a fraction of a tiny numerical minority carry the same weight as those of a significant fraction of an overwhelming majority? What can an atheist say--however derogatory--that will affect you in some measurable way?

Not a goddamn thing.

The "tone" argument is as intellectually dishonest as one may get--aside from, perhaps, equivocating various definitions of "bigotry" to make it seem as if there is some faction of oppressive atheists out there making life miserable for this country's hundreds of millions of Christians. It is deployed by those incapable of addressing, or otherwise too lazy to address, an argument on its own merits, instead taking exception to the manner in which the argument is put forth.

An ad hominem is an ad hominem, regardless of how you choose to dress it up.

up that privilege pole as I am.

No, I do not think that the bigoted opinions of a fraction of a tiny numerical minority carry the same weight, but they are bigoted and not necessarily representative just the same.

I think that what Dawkins has said on many subjects affects some people in a measurable way. While I have acknowledged that Pat Robertson is much more harmful and that Dawkins is relatively benign, that doesn't detract from the fact that he has said some harmful things and that he does not represent atheists in general.

We will just have to disagree about the tone argument. There are times when a person's tone really is the issue. While it made be made to avoid having the real dissuasion, there are other times when a discussion can't be had because a person's tone is so hostile, aggressive or bullying that engagement is impossible.

It's a good thing to be able to differentiate which is the case.

As a Christian, you have the privilege of living openly as you are without fear of ostracism or retaliation. Most people assume, by virtue of your faith, you're a good, honest, and trustworthy person. You can invoke your faith whenever, wherever you so choose, and will not have to worry about people thinking less of you for it. To top it all off, your beliefs are shared by those in power, who have repeatedly shown bias and favoritism towards them, and, against the better wishes of the Founding Fathers, granted them an exalted position in the national discourse.

Clearly, there's quite a bit you're taking for granted.

You didn't just assume that because I don't agree with you, did you? That would be, well, not very rational.

So all of your assumptions are wrong.... and at least as wrong as the bigoted assumptions you say others make about you.

See how that works?

... and whether not this assumption is correct does not entirely invalidate my point. Even if you acknowledge a higher power--unless you now mean to tell me you do not--you are still assumed to be more trustworthy than the average rapist.

Of course, if you don't believe me, you can always tell your friends and family members, your neighbors, and your employer that you've lost your faith and are now an atheist. Let us know how that works out for you.

that you are a white, straight, educated, employed male. So, who's got the point of privilege here?

It not only invalidates your point to assume I am a christian or that I believe in a higher power (whatever that is), but it highlights the dangers of making assumptions about other people without any data to support it and promotes discriminatory behavior.

Oh, the rapist data that you are quoting is extremely flawed and has never been replicated. Not very rational or scientific to include it in any argument.

Lost my faith? What faith? You continue to make completely unsubstantiated assumptions about me.

You may have had personal negative experiences around letting people know you are an atheist. I would like to see that diminish and disappear. I think we are moving in that direction.

I've been here long enough to have witnessed a number of your dealings. If the roles were reversed, what would you think of me?

But that's neither here nor there. Your attempt to chasten me for "bigotry" (there you go equivocating again) is wholly beside the issue. Regardless of whether or not you actually believe, the author of this ridiculous article most certainly does. And while you may contend believers don't enjoy a privileged position in society, I most certainly contend that they do. Gallup, it seems, would agree.

What I may be--aside from my lack of faith--is also wholly irrelevant. Privilege isn't relegated to WASPs. The privilege pole is very tall, indeed, and your allotted position is determined by myriad arbitrary qualities. Virtually anyone can find themselves on the dominant or submissive side of practically any imaginable demographic. So no, I do not think all believers are at the top under every set of possible circumstances, but where issues of church and state, free speech, or public trust are concerned believers typically hold a more exalted position than atheists.

And that's why tone trolling is such an abhorrent, cowardly tactic. It is a demand for argumentative immunity where religious beliefs are concerned, an immunity that is decidedly not afforded to atheists. The author, in short, is simply saying, "It's alright if you're an atheist. Just shut the fuck about it already."

I most likely would have asked you. That's cause I like actual data and stuff.

I never argued that believers, and christians in particular, don't hold a position of privilege. They certainly do. You used that as leverage to try and undermine and discount my POV and I merely pointed out that you are likely to hold an equally, if not more, position of privilege than I.

So why is my point of privilege relevant, but yours is not?

Who's tone trolling anyway? The writer is requesting detente and I don't see anything wrong with that. She's not telling you to shut the fuck up. She's asking that she not be painted with the same brush that really belongs to the assholes like Robertson. I fully agree with that request.

Oh, and you want to see tone trolling? Try looking at the reactions that go on around here anytime precious Dawkins is criticized. Now, that's some tone trolling.

Thanks for asking, though.

or atheists.

Like this guy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121894541

What's wrong with that?

I don't agree with some of the things Dawkins says, but he's right about a lot of things, IMHO.

I agree with nothing that Pat Robertson says. Nothing. He's a lunatic, a liar, and a scam.

There are lots of progressive, thoughtful and inclusive people believers and non-believers.

What she is asking is that we promote them and not generalize to a whole population some of the more provocative spokespeople who always find a way to get themselves into the spotlight.

Not a bad proposal, imo.

At least not until the so-called liberal religious stand up against the utter madness perpetrated in the name of religion.

I take a strong stand against what Dawkins says when he speaks rubbish. But I think he is substantially correct in his characterization that religion can be very bad when it achieves political power, or when it stands in opposition to science.

There are some liberal religious people who are standing up, like the link you posted up thread. But there is little organized opposition to the kind of lunacy exhibited by the likes of what is happening all over.

If religion is to be the positive influence so often claimed by it, there is an obligation by everybody to speak out loudly and forcefully against the extremists.

I do not consider Dawkins to be extreme. He says some things that make me cringe sometimes, but I believe him to be substantially correct on many of the core issues. I am not afraid to take on Dawkins when I disagree.

My opinion is more aligned with Daniel Dennett's, however (as I have often stated in this forum).

I find Dawkins extreme because of his anti-theism. He refuses to see, let alone support, the good that progressive/liberal religious people do. In that way, he reminds me of fundamentalists.

The extent that religious do not speak out against the more extreme of their behaviors is the extent that I have no other choice but to condemn the whole affair.

I admit that this may be just from a lack of organization and outreach -- in which case Dawkins' position is wrong. But we don't know that, at least not yet. That's why I align with Dennett who wants to study religion and its influences. It's the focus of his most excellent book, "Breaking the Spell" which I often pitch here.

Until we know for sure though, Dawkins' hypothesis may very well be correct. I have to at least hold it in a provisional status.

I also take Hitchens' warning seriously. If we don't solve this problem, I fear for humankind's future.

One problem, as I see it, is that when progressive religious people do speak up, they get attacked by real anti-theists. Even when they do it on progressive/liberal websites like this one.

Condemning the whole affair does nothing to solve to the problems that the religious right have brought.

You can't chastise the religious left for not taking a strong enough stand and then oppose them every time they do.

This "problem" has been going on since recorded human history and is not going away. The challenge is to help it do what is good and fight it when it is doing bad.

But I have some sympathy for Sam Harris' claim that the liberal religious provide cover for the extremists.

I just wish I was smart enough to know how to bring about a kind of alliance between believers and non-believers on this matter. Because we all own this thing together.

And even after his death, Hitchens' warnings loom large in my mind. I think we, as a world, need to do this. The sooner, the better. We may have no other choice. And I'd hate for the world to find that out too late.

As always.
My best regards.

They have been disorganized and ineffective. I would also agree that this allowed the religious right to run roughshod, but that has been changing.

There are a growing number of coalitions and movements, but they don't get much press or support. Bill Moyers remains a hero of mine and he showcases them as much as he can.

I thin the way to build alliances is to push back against those who wish to divide, against those who want to continue this as a team sport where theists are pitted against atheists.

When I first started posting in this group, the team sport aspect ruled. There were literally posts that would say "SCORE!!" or "One for the team!!". That made me sick.

That's changed quite a bit, and I am glad for it.

It's always great to talk with you, longship.

when it comes to dividing people into teams is YOU. You did it right in that very post - claiming there are people who want to build alliances vs those who want to divide.

Problem is, just about everyone you've defined on the 2nd "team" doesn't actually want to divide anyone. You've just slapped that label on them. You're doing the dividing. You're defining them, categorizing them, marginalizing them, and/or passive-aggressively ignoring them.

Things can change, but you too need to be part of this change. I realize that you almost universally refuse to respond to me, because you've categorized me on the "enemies" team. That's bullshit and you really need to get past this petty team-labeling that you yourself are doing.

Are you willing to try? Or will you keep dividing, and keep treating me and others as enemies?

My opinions are not set in stone. (Therein lies madness.) When one enters into a discussion one must always be willing to adapt ones views to accommodate new data. That's what a rational person does.

You have to be willing to admit that you were mistaken. That's not always so easy.

One of the things I like about on-line dialogue is actually what is not happening. IRL, it so often occurs that you or the person you are talking to begin to form a response shortly after the other person starts talking. In doing so, you miss almost everything that they are trying to say.

It takes discipline not to do that, but it's much easier on-line.

For good brews and discussion. We call it "The Sunday Seminar" after a weekly similar confab that I attended for many years when I lived in Wichita, KS.

Indeed, I have often tried to steer the discussion a certain direction, usually failing miserably. But I am the only science guy in the crowd, so I don't always expect much results with my favorite topic. We are all highly educated people but the discussion often gets a bit discordant, but with respect.

Nothing is off the table. Politics and religion are common topics. In a bar! The owner of the place treats us like royalty every week, whether we are two, or a dozen. And the brew is micro-brewed on tap. And a huge pine tree used to grow through the middle of the ceiling. (Now the very heavy trunk hangs over the bar.)

I've learned when to keep my yap shut over the years of attending these affairs.

and talk about all kinds of things for hours. And I've had some good conversations in bars as well.

When we make our big road trips, we stop in and stay with many friends that can have these kinds of evenings.

And most of my friends are very effective at telling me when I need to keep my yap shut, lol.

Maybe someday you'll stop trying to divide, but I won't be holding my breath.

And they can get a bit rowdy.

We had one last Friday night. I had to bow out early because of allergies -- damned goldenrod blooms! But our dinner parties have been known to go until sun up. Yapping all the way.

At the "Sunday Seminar" we solve all the enigmas in the universe every week. Unfortunately, by the next week all of our hard fought work unravels and we have to do it all over again.

It's hard work. And DUers have no idea how much it takes to keep propping up the universe every damned week. You all owe us. Thank goodness there's micro-brewed beer to grease the wheels.

Funny story. I used to just sneak off to bed. My friends would tease me about this. One night, I woke about an hour later and they had all moved their chairs into my bedroom and were continuing their discussions around my bed! Hilarious.

I had a great community before Katrina and miss it. We had regular "meetings" as well. So I really treasure the times when I can spend a week or so with friends carrying on the old traditions.

Thanks for keeping the world going for the rest of us, longship. I know that I appreciate it.

I take great exception to your minimizing my omnipotent power. I have a degree in physics! The Sunday Seminar props up the entire universe, not any mere world.

Of course, it takes a lot of brew to accomplish this.



Sorry. Couldn't resist.

I was flying through all my chemistry, biology and calculus classes...

then I hit physics.

First off, I had a really bad prof with tenure. But I just couldn't get it.

So, I have the deepest respect for those that do, and even more for those that can explain it.

I tend to like to quote people either line by line or if its long their main points and respond to each one. That way it shows what I'm responding to and that I read and understood what they say. Sometimes I will reply to something they cover later on and I have to go and redo my previous reply though.

That said, I find I come off far more harsh, unthinkingly, and arrogant online than I do in RL. Online I find I am not nearly as inhibited by my anxiety as I am with people face to face. In a way its a good thing, but it also has a dehumanizing quality to it as well. If one is not careful, as I learned on another message board, you can easily one day read one of your very own posts and not recognize, or even like, yourself.

While it may be easier to listen to others online, one must discipline oneself to remember that there is more than an icon on the other side of the screen as well.

As for real life, your post reminds me of the Houyhnhnms, the race of horses that ruled the final island visited by Gulliver in the novel Gulliver's Travels. In the Novel it was the Houyhnhnm's tradition to never immediately reply to anything. Rather they always took a moment to gather their thoughts before speaking.

I think the world would be much better off if we all followed that tradition

If my impulse is to be harsh (and I recognize that, which does not always happen), I try to step back.

But it's hard and I have also read posts of mine, as you have, where I don't recognize or like myself.

Immediacy is such part of internet dialogue that the whole discussion may be over if your don't reply quickly. People come to sites like this to interact and the rapid response can be really gratifying.

But it is also more likely to lead to things being said carelessly or to bickering.

Anyway, you are a thoughtful and interesting poster who is always civil, in my experience. So whatever technique you are using, it appears to be working well for you.

Like longship, I am an anti-theist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

god with contempt and ridicule based on that single aspect.

That's bigotry, my friend. There is no other way to describe it.

Longship is not really an anti-theist. He doesn't care for religion and would like to see it go away. But he is respectful and thoughtful when it comes to individuals and their beliefs. He may call himself whatever he likes, but, when it comes down to it, he's just a great guy.

The actual definition is opposition to belief in god and/or to organized religion. longship and I are anti-theists by its actual definition.

And I would agree that contempt makes one a bigot but not necessarily that ridicule does. To lay out a series of facts and then claim that certain beliefs are ridiculous in light of those facts does not constitute bigotry. Some other ridicule may be bigotry, I suppose, but I think that would be ridicule that is more contempt than reason.

As in "active opposition".

If one is merely passive about it, I don't think that anti-theism label really applies or means much.

But if one takes an active opposition, as some of the more notorious atheists have, that's a different matter.

I don't know you well enough to really have a sense of where you are on this spectrum, but I have gotten to know longship pretty well. I have found him to be very receptive to incorporating news ideas and he has taught me a lot as well. That kind of tolerance is very refreshing.

if it is applied to all members of a group. We know that from a reliable source.

But if contempt for creationists make one a bigot, lots of people here would qualify. They know who they are.

Many atheists have taken on Dawkins for the kooky things he says sometimes.

I'd like to see the same from the religious, and we're not seeing that. There are a few, but they are disorganized and some are penalized for speaking out. That doesn't work out too well, then.

I would proudly stand next to liberal religious in this goal because I have absolutely no problem with people believing in gods, only the way some of them act when they do.

Dawkins is weird sometimes but he unlike Robertson is sane.

Pat Robertson has caused tremendous harm to the country with his "Religious" Right. Dawkins has hurt no one.

A pass for institutionalized horror, against a stupid comment from a guy that oughta know better?

No deal.

who like to create the impression that the behavior of individual atheists says something important about atheism as an intellectual position. It doesn't. And their supposed concern for the reputation of the atheist "movement" is not very convincing.

who like to create the impression that the behavior of individual theists says something important about theism as an intellectual position. It doesn't.

the claims that theism is morally superior to atheism. And it certainly does.

I thought you had voluntarily left this group due to your inability to control your behavior?

and the reason why this is a false equivalency. Atheism and atheists do not claim that believing in a god makes it impossible to be a moral person.

And no.. That was a different poster..one with a bigot fetish.

I thought I would look into it again.

First of all for every Dawkins there's like five Pat Robertsons - even if you set Robertson aside you should be able to find plenty of things that Crazy Christians say. Secondly the Robertsons of the world have far more political power than the Hawkins - at least based on their religious beliefs (Hitchens has clearly been influential, but it's not because he's an atheist).

Bryant

I'll take False Equivalence for a thousand, Alex. Let's compare the two, and look at their sins.

Dawkin's worst sins are miscommunicating, and being insensitive about the issue of child molestation. Perhaps he assumed too much because he'd actually been there, having experienced 30 seconds of ick when he was a child, at the hands of a creepy schoolmaster. However, he apologized, acknowledged the suffering of those who have endured far worse and more extreme abuse, and he's spent much of his life speaking out against, among other things, child sexual abuse by Catholic priests, and the systemic cover-up by the RCC.

Dawkins committed a minor transgression, and apologized. He's essentially a good person, despite the efforts of people to tar him and demonize him.

Pat Robertson, OTOH, is the fucking Antichrist.

He made billions of dollars by swindling little old ladies out of their Social Security checks. He peddles nonsense like faith-healing, leading people with illnesses to forego real treatment. He's demonized countless groups from the LGBT community to role-playing gamers, literally declaring them in league with Satan. And he took some of his millions, which he told his followers was going to relieve suffering from the genocide in Uganda, and invested it in African blood diamonds.

Pat Robertson is a truly vile, evil, reptile of a man.

It's simple. Dawkins committed a minor mistake, and deserves forgiveness. Pat Robertson committed so many acts of evil, clothed in his "faith", that there will be millions of people coming to his funeral when he dies... to verify that he's actually dead, and to make sure of it by cutting off his head, stuffing his mouth with garlic, and driving a wooden stake through his heart.

Excellent response.

Might include taking credit for the work actually done by the Médecins Sans Frontières.
One of his more audacious lies.

He hired a bunch of planes, using the money from his followers, supposedly to deliver supplies to the Médecins Sans Frontières field hospitals, along with fundies to pray over the wounded and dead, and to evacuate the most grievously wounded, but instead those planes were used to cart equipment to those lucrative blood diamond mines. Pat sure had his priorities...

is really very sad.

And the fact that EVERY Sunday YOU support them, and give them money so they can defend themselves. And most "chrisitans" preach hate against the gays. You can NEVER get rid of that.

I don't know who you mean when you say "you guys".

He's the leader of the largest single denomination.

Then they make broadbrush blanket statements where they purport to know what all christians think or believe.

It shouldn't stand when done to any group - latinos, GLBT people, women, the disabled, etc. etc. etc.

...unless the speaker or writer is very clear that he or she is making a general statement that does not apply to everyone. I'm certainly not going to judge my Christian friends and relatives by what Pat Robertson says. Most of them would find the suggestion that clothes can be haunted by gay ghosts to be rather far fetched. Reifying is actually my biggest criticism about some of the popular atheist writers like Dawkins and especially Sam Harris. Muslims do this and Muslims do that. Well, that's a billion people. Which ones do you mean? Yeah, it takes only a few miscreants to create a lot of suffering and fear, like on Sept.11, '01, still, it is worth noting that on that day a billion Muslims did not attack America. Still, Dawkins's observation that religious moderation provides a safe environment for extremism to survive has some merit to it.

Equating Robertson and Dawkins in this article was a mistake, imo. Dawkins has done some good in terms of shining a light on the harm that religion can do and opening doors for non-believers. However, I think he goes too far and reject his anti-theism and broad brushing of all things religious.

But, overall, I agree with the position that this writer takes. We are better and stronger when we recognize what we have in common instead of what makes us different.

I have known many good Christian people, they are not like the crazy right wing groups I see every day. Our country was founded on the idea that we could be free to worship as we choose or not to worship if that is our choice.

What hurts Christians in America are the same things that hurt good Muslims in Afghanistan, the fringe elements of their group. They are the ones who yell the loudest and most of the time misinterpret the Bible and the Koran.

I worked for a lovely woman who lived Christian values, she never shoved them down our throat, she just walked the walk, went to church, gave to charity, prayed when she needed to (but never in public) and saw her religion as something very personal. Once it stopped being personal and started being political it was hard to tell which Christians were the religious right and which ones were just believers who have the right to that belief.

I have to say, it does go both ways, Christians can assume that all of us think as they do, and many of us do not. I think those of us who do not identify as Christian are guilty of using the dinosaur reference a bit more than is necessary, and the Christian group questions where those of us on the other side are going in the end more than they should.

I am not an atheist but I do not identify with organized religion and would not call myself a Christian. I was raised by a Catholic and a Presbyterian and now attend a Unitarian Church.

Thanks for attempting to explain to some of the Angry Atheists here,

that MOST Christians are NOT of the Right Wing Fundamentalist Variety.

...although I do not believe everyone is necessarily respectable. Respectability comes from actions, not beliefs. Beliefs influence actions, so I realize it is not a clear distinction. Nevertheless, ideas are not people and ideas may be unfounded, irrational, or even contrary to evidence. Such ideas, in my judgment, are not respectable and are always fair game for public criticism.

Do i agree with those who expect me to think like they do or else NO! BUT...what makes our party different is our tent is bigger. If some DUers insist on making it smaller I would remind them that is the tea party began and how they have destroyed the opposing party.

I do not support the Christian right but I do not demonize all Christians. I also remind you that I am a non Christian person but one who respects all religions that are tolerant.

Actually, very few. I know that humans are basically instinctive with some capacity to be rational, so I cannot blame people for accepting their parents' religious norms. As a former adherent, I have some sympathy for those stuck in magical thinking. But I still think central premise of Christianity, that the supernatural exists and that we all deserve to go to hell, to be factually and morally wrong. I'm not willing to misrepresent that or my view on it for the sake of something as transient as party politics, although as a practical matter, I generally don't mention it at all. Whatever my convictions are, I still have to live here. Oddly, many of the best people I know and most of the worst have all been Christians. Some of the most generous, caring people I have met have been devout Muslims.

I am not aware of any tolerant, successful religions, at least in doctrine. There is of course not reason to think believers always accept official doctrine, of course. Mercifully, almost no one thinks we should use Old Testament ideas of justice, for example, and Roman Catholics who are allowed to do so happily ignore their church's teaching on birth control. For the kind of monotheistic, salvation religion to endure and prosper, it has to be exclusive, damning in advance any effort to introduce infidel ideas into the community. Apostasy is universally considered a mortal sin by the three major Abrahamic religions (4 if you count Mormonism) and I suspect for others as well. The Old Testament admonishes people to become informant and executioner--even of ones own brother (it does not mention women)--if he were to discuss non-Jewish religion.

As far as party politics, this is ostensibly a secular state, though clearly not a secular nation. So religion should not even be relevant to the discussion. Unfortunately, religion has a way of intruding into politics so that if we are going to give children a solid science education, we must reject the creationists. Likewise, if we are going to to protect the personal freedom of everyone, we must reject those who--on religious grounds--call for official misogyny or racism.

are belittling and dismissive.

Are you not aware of the more progressive protestant denominations? Disciples of Christ? United Church of Christ? Episcopalians? You are painting markedly different subgroups with the same brush, a mistake often made by those who want a way to belittle or dismiss all religion.

There are many people and groups of faith that share your ideals and goals. You just have to be willing to see them.

Those churches still believe in the "fallen" nature of humanity and a need for supernatural salvation. We may well agree on specific social issues, but that says nothing about the validity of their religious beliefs.

I dismiss them all because they are all based on a false assumption: God/s exist. Given the properties that people give their gods, evidence of their existence really ought to be everywhere. So far, it is nowhere and positively excluded from anything to do with life on Earth. Also, we know enough about the evolution of human perception and our tendency to believe authority, and to protect naturalized narratives to understand why people believe in the impossible. It doesn't matter how brilliant the theology or how uplifting the message is if it is based on a factual falsehood. If the basic message is based on hide-bound authority rather than an imperfect, but changeable, understanding of the evidence, people will suffer needlessly.

I'll refer to my previous post about not judging people by their religion unless it turns them into assholes.

saying that you have a superior POV and are better/smarter. Of course, that's not true, as you have no more access to what is true than anyone else and your POV is no more valid than anyone else's.

You can make pronouncements about the exist or lack of existence of god. You can call other beliefs false. Your arguments are ancient and only serve to support your own position. Which is fine. No one expects or asks you to believe.

But you have absolutely no standing to call others believes false.

Assholes are assholes whether they believe or not. One is as likely to turn into an asshole based on their beliefs as they are based on their non-beliefs, in my experience.

You have called their beliefs false. You have done the same with many other individuals and groups of people.

It is the fucking height of hypocrisy for you to then turn around and lecture someone else.

That some people here just can't admit they're wrong, even when they know it. That they are so horrified by the idea of letting people they despise win a point (even though they decry the idea of "winning" and "losing" in here), that they can't just say honestly, "Yes, it was wrong of me to say that, and I regret it". And that's all it would take.

My views are based on verifiable evidence. I would change those views if there was a real reason to do so. Basing beliefs on traditions, authority, gut feelings, and confirmation bias is not as good as basing it actual proof. Evolution does in fact exclude any sort of divine influence on life. That is true whether one believes in it or not. The key is to make ones beliefs match reality and not the other way around. Yes, yes, we construct our own personal "realities," but those are how we perceive and naturalize reality, not reality itself.

Here's one for you: there was no Moses and the Hebrews never lived in Egypt. This is a fact demonstrated by historians and archeologists. The story was slowly invented in Canaan based on stories that reached them from those who actually were former slaves from Egypt. The story was adopted, internalized, and made part of the Abrahamic mythology. The factual underpinning of three major religions is a complete fabrication. Others have made the case of the falsity of religious claims far better than I have.

So if some beliefs are better supported factually than others, how can you say some are not superior to others? As extreme examples, the Nazis felt their beliefs justified mass murder on a gigantic scale. Are those beliefs just as good as any others? What about neo-liberals (libertarians) who believe that the poor deserve poverty and the rich deserve opulence? Is that as good of a belief as the Beatitudes?

The belief that Jesus died for our sins in a very real sense has made suffering, including the vicarious suffering of others, a virtue. That is the rotten core at the foundation of Christianity. And what ever positive Christianity can offer or can claim to offer cannot get past the idea that suffering is often a good thing.

valid and be mine.

I find this to be particularly true in cases where there really is no evidence to support any of several POV's.

When it comes to religious beliefs, you can make all the arguments presented in your post, but others will make equally convincing and contrary arguments. I don't find yours superior at all. They bolster your position, but they do that primarily for you and you alone.

Certainly some beliefs have better support than others. That's science, where results can be validated and replicated.

When a person's beliefs impinge on the rights of others, I think there is much room for judgement. Clearly that is the case in your examples of Nazis and libertarians. Their beliefs can be directly linked to harming others.

I was raised christian, but never taught that suffering was a virtue. I was taught that those who suffer deserve the most care and attention. What you interpret as "the rotten core" formed the basis of my liberal and progressive views on social justice and civil rights.

I don't think my views are superior to yours, just different. It always pings my radar when people insist that they have the higher road when it comes to personal religious beliefs or lack of beliefs.

First, my description of the foundational doctrine of Christianity is historically accurate. Pretty much all of the medieval theology supports this view and while modern churches tend to down-play hell, it remains part of the doctrine of all Nicean Churches. For an fascinating reading on the extremes to which some took this view, try Barbara Newman, From Virile Woman to WomanChrist (in the context of gender studies).

Second and more to your point, for reason expressed below, I have no choice in this matter. My understanding of the facts means that I must accept the atheist view and reject the religious view as impossible.

I will make one concession to religion. I reject the Marxist claim that religion was developed by elites and cynically used by them as a means of social control. While I don't want to broad-brush it, for the most part, elites who have claimed to act on behalf of religious motives were telling the truth (although it was not always the whole truth). When a nobleman granted land to a monastery claiming it was to save his soul (as monastic charters explicitly state), it was at least one major reason for the transfer.

Believing means one takes some purported fact about the world to be true--not individually or metaphorically--but actually true in the common reality in which we exist. If I believe it is raining, I mean everyone in the town will be effected by it, not just me. So in that context, the belief that water is falling from the sky is more valid--closer to reality--than the belief that it never rains in that location.

You are implicitly arguing S.J. Gould's NOMA idea. Gould stated (rather casually, I thought) that science and religion simply have nothing to do with each other. No religious assertion is open to scientific verification or negation. They are all purely subjective. All religious claims, therefore, are equally valid (a generous concession, as without evidence it should be that they are all equally invalid) so the kind of ecumenicism that modern moderate and liberal churches enjoy with moderates and liberals of other religions is possible and even virtuous. In other words, it sounds like backward reasoning to me. Being a scientist and being depend to a large degree on public funding for himself and the whole scientific community, he wanted to take a position that would not piss people off. After all, at the time cosmologists and life scientists of all descriptions were discovering unsettling things about the nature of the universe and of human consciousness. So Gould was effectively saying--yes, we discovered that all your decisions are dictated by instinct and more specifically by which hormone washes over your brain. Consequently, free will does not exist and the idea of sin is outmoded, but don't you worry your pretty, little head, because God is still real for you. Evolution had effectively removed God from the development of life, but few scientists were publicly willing to explain that implication. Reminds of the Dear Virginia letter. If you can see it in the sky, Santa is real.

If God is real two things must be true.
1. He must fit the commonly understood definition of a God.
2. The definition precludes a NOMA position.

To be God, He must intervene in the physical world. Indeed, he must have created the physical world and all life on it. Consequently, the universe must look as though it were made on purpose. The evidence for creation out to be everywhere--not in some sappy, metaphorical sense, but everywhere and clearly. So far we have seen none. Granted, we have not seen dark matter either, but we know it exists by the gravitational effect it has on things we can see. There is no similar example to infer God anywhere. In plants and animals the examples contradicting a purposeful creation are too numerous to mention. One could write a dissertation just on the ass-backward design of the eye. Besides, two things drive evolution: random chance and elimination of any change that does not promote survival and further reproduction due to incompatibility with the environment. In other words, given that change is random, most of them will be lethal, and will join the scrapyard of evolution. That explains everything. Add to that the fact that neurologists and psychologists know exactly why people think and believe the way we do--all natural explanations, no supernatural intervention is necessary--and there is no mystery. We believe in God/goads because our brains make us want to believe.

While I feel the same about the religious right as liberal Christians do, it is for a different reasons. Most liberal Christians believe the RW is perverting Christ's true message. That may well be as there seems to be very little support for deliberate greed in the Bible. For me, it doesn't matter who is perverting what message, because human suffering is always bad and allowing it to happen unnecessarily is always immoral. I believe on some level we all feel that way (making it instinctive and undercutting the humans-are-evil assumption), but some of us unfortunately have embraced their inner sociopath. Us versus them, instead of us and more of us. Unfortunately, there is Biblical support for each positions. Each side follows its own instinct to the interpretation that agrees with their preconceptions.

Still, I agree with the religious conservatives and take issue with the liberals in one keep respect. Both I and the conservatives each know that one of us (perhaps both of us) must be wrong. If all that reject Christ are going to spend eternity in the lake of fire, then I am pretty much screwed. That is an undeniable fact. I have committed apostasy, blaspheme, dishonored my parents, made graven images, encouraged tolerance for homosexuality and abortion, entertained ideas from Jews, Muslims, Marxists, and generic atheists. If Jerry Falwell is right, I am fucked. Conversely, if I a, write, believers--especially the fire and brimstone ones--have wasted the one life they had and suffered needlessly and made others suffer for no reason. There will be no Easter morning--for anyone--and we will have to be content with one capricious life and stop being afraid of the dark.

Individual reality--the implication for all beliefs are valid--is the liberal position, based on the inability either to give up ones God while at the same time being unable to condemn unbelievers for an accident of birth. While it is good practice politically, it makes no sense. If the Koran is the true and final word of God to humanity, then Christianity, Buddhism, etc. all must be wrong. If failure to take Jesus as lord and savior sends a person to hell, then Islam etc. must be wrong. So you can be accepting or you can be honest, not both. As I have said many times, as a practical matter I do not comment on people's religions without an invitation to do so (like this forum). But that does not mean I think my religious friend are right on the subject of religion.

This brings me to another awkward point. I cannot choose what I believe. The best I can do is to pretend everyone has an equally valid perspective, but I cannot make myself believe it. When people talk about the real problem of a loving God making a hell or suffering generally and how they anguish over this intractable dilemma, I do not volunteer the view that it is only a dilemma if God is real, loving, omnipotent, and omniscient. Eliminate any one property and the dilemma is gone. I accept there is no God--it took me a long time to admit it to myself--because of what I know about life and the universe. Frankly, making sense of anything without a loving, guiding creator is so much easier than trying to bend the universe to fit my iron-age, prescientific religion. All that tortuous logic can be eliminated at once, leaving only something close to common sense.

So you see, I must accept that religious views are invalid in the scientific sense. Having seen the evidence, I have no choice.

You have come to where you are in terms of religion because you feel there really is no choice for you in the matter.

I would propose that some religious people feel exactly the same. Whether they have had some kind of experience or that just feel it, I think some people's belief in a god or gods is not a choice. It is just a part of who they are.

If they hold certain beliefs (like creationism) that flies in the face of validated, replicated scientific research, that's an issue.

But if their belief is in a god, for which there is no contradictory evidence, I don't think that should be an issue.

Neither your position nor theirs is superior. It can't be because neither of you have any evidence to support your positions.

The position that in order for there to be a god he has to be interventional is false, imo. The position that only one religion can be correct is false as well, imo.

I'm not very interested in doctrine, but I am interested in individual rights, including people's rights to hold whatever beliefs they want to as long as they do not impinge on others. The debate about whether there is a god or not is circular, and to me, very boring.

Frankly, I don't care if there is a god or not. It would change nothing about the way I live my life.

Again, I find the position that I am right and you are wrong distasteful whichever area it comes from when it comes to religious beliefs. I also find proselytizing distasteful.

Lastly, I know that there is such a thing as personal perspective and there is data to prove it. Individuals can walk away from identical experiences with markedly different experiences. Unless one has data that can prove that one is wrong and one is right, it is impossible to say who's perspective is real.

A non-interventionist god essentially can't do anything in the universe. His/her existence would simply be irrelevant. That's not the god religions describe and not the god people believe in or pray to. That god created people, answers their prayers, controls nature, and sends people to heaven or where ever. A non-interventionist god defines itself out of existence.

Some people believe that their god hears every prayer and can response.

Other that there have been a few events that indicated some intervention or a message, but that their god does not intervene in much else.

Your point is valid is one has an absolute definition of intervention only.

of something terrible about atheists--he was unclear as to what.

My response was that I didn't recall having him elected pope, although given the habits of the godly, maybe a man who had been sexually abused as a kid would be appropriate.

After he rebooted, the jerk wandered off silently.

My only aim with atheist bashers is to dispose of them as quickly as possible. If I burn out a few circuits in the process, it's all good.

I really could not care less what they believe

nothing else that anyone says matter except for the guy quoted so much in the new testament, no atheist, priest, no one.
If you put your faith in those words and works, thats whats important.

And the only thing Dawkins did wrong, if anything, was overly generalize on the child sexual abuse remark. It may not have done him any lasting harm, but that does not mean others feel the same way. As far as noble prizes, it is either factually true or else it isn't.

You keep your myth and superstition to yourselves and out of my government, schools, and community and I'll continue to ignore you!

Oh, and keep your hands off our boys! Savvy?!!

Well, that would be a first amendment violation, wouldn't it?

I find it really amusing when someone who claims to ignore religion posts in the religion group.

Welcome!

...when religionists murder abortion providers?



As I said, believe what you want...just stay out of my politics, schools, and community...

And stay away from my community's young males...

by religion, should stay out of your community. I think everyone would agree with that.

By choosing the most extreme examples, generalizing that to all religions and then saying that you don't want any religion in your community, you are proposing a violation of the first amendment, which protects an individuals ability to practice the religion of their choice.

And I agree with you that pedophiles should be prevented from having contact with young males, whether they are coming from a church, a boy scout troop or a public school.

I don't know about boy scouts or schools. I don't think these groups believe themselves "morally superior," at least based on myth and superstition.

As a non-believer, I never claimed to be morality superior to anyone else.

When a priest or pastor is exposed as a child molester and their leaders as cover-up agents, it only shows that the myth and superstition of religion is pure hypocrisy...

Some religionists follow the teaching that the weakest, neediest and most marginalized are the superior group, at least in the eyes of their god.

And some atheists believe they are superior to theists. This knife cuts both ways.

When you call beliefs myth and superstition, you most certainly do take the position that you are superior, because you are saying that while religionists are stupid or delusional, you have attained some higher ground, even though you really have no basis for making that claim.

I totally agree about the hypocrisy of the RCC enabling and protecting child molesters.

I just equated religious "beliefs" with "myth and superstition."

But let's compare definitions:

religion [rɪˈlɪdʒən]
n
1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny

myth (mth)
n.
1.
a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society

What's the difference?

The Ten Commandments--
Christians believe in the "Ten Commandants" as a document for living a moral life. However, only three of these "commandments" provide the foundation of our society and result in laws prohibiting murder, theft, and lying. And these were around long before Christ.

H.W.F. Saggs' book Civilization before Greece and Rome does a nice job in pointing this out.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s take a look at those commandments, shall we? Remember, violation of these “laws” means eternal damnation and, in some cultures, maiming and death—
1) You shall have no other gods before me—does not apply to the third largest (non-) belief system in the world;
2) You shall not make for yourself an idol—ditto, if this were enforced, the pop-culture industry would disappear overnight;
3) You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God—ditto. If you don’t believe in God, then how can you use His name wrongfully?
4) Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy—ditto. As a former bartender, it was very difficult for me to "keep the Sabbath holy" when I got home from work at 4:00 o’clock on a Sunday morning;
5) Honor your father and mother—if this were enforced, just about every teenager in America would be in jail;
6) You shall not murder—okay, now we’re getting down to the nitty-gritty. Civilizations before Judea-Christian heritage had laws forbidding this.
7) You shall not commit adultery—does this really need to be addressed?
8) You shall not steal—again, this predates the Judea-Christian heritage.
9) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor—another that predates Judea-Christian heritage.
10) You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or anything that belongs to your neighbor—if this was really enforced, the entire marketing and advertising industry would crumble.

Let’s tally ‘em up—
•30% (nos. 6, 8, and 9) are found in civilizations before the “Judea-Christian” heritage, and are the bedrock of civilization. It stands to reason that writing laws and proscribing punishment for murder, perjury, and theft are necessary for the betterment and advancement of society;
•40% (nos. 1-4) are merely instructions on how to worship some other guy’s God;
•And 30% (nos. 5, 7, and 10) make up a "wish list."

So there you have it—and some folks think we'll be “better Americans” if these were posted on the walls of public institutions.