Yeah, sounds like a "well-duh" kind of question but bear with me.
I know a few atheists and consider them friends. Two of them have what I would consider a healthy attitude. They do not believe in gods but do not feel the need to campaign against those that do. Other atheists I know are hard core witnesses of the One True Enlightened Right Way. They will hound my friends of faith relentlessly until I tell them to lighten up. Usually they will take the hint.
I have seen similar behavior here. I have asked the same questions of friends showing the same behavior and it comes out like this:
1. They (those of faith) are always trying to convert me so give as good as you get!
I reply that it is part of their religion (for the most part) to witness to the unconverted. Point out the them that you are not interested and they will usually leave you alone. Again, this is my experience.
2. They are wrong and need to be shown the truth.
My reply is that they aren't wrong, they just believe differently than you. Is they an Athiest's bible that tells you to enlighten those not of your faith. (oh, they don't like it when I use the F word). What are they hurting in worshipping their religion.
2.a Religion causes war!
People cause war. If you were to eliminate religion their would be people fighting over non-religion, resources, and land along with anything else they could think up. Watch South Park.
For me, at least, it seems like a person (and this goes for those of any spiritual outlook) should be concerned with their conduct and personal beliefs more than converting the next person. Yes, if you feel the burning need, mention it but let it drop.
So, the point of the thread. Do the atheists of the board feel a burning need to convert/enlighten those of faith to the Truthiness of their convictions? If so, why?
Disclaimer: I am not a member of any church nor am I an atheist. I am honestly on the outside looking in and curious. I am not looking to make either group look bad nor do I have a hidden agenda.
Bill
I suspect an observer-phenomenon: Your view of the group as a whole is biased by the fact that a vocal minority commands much more attention than a silent majority.
It´s a US thing. I heard a radio show, in which that was discussed.They said some Atheist groups in the US are getting quite militant and cultish these days.
Over here, it´s a total non-subject.
Atheists proselytize for the same reasons that theists do, ranging from a need to belong, a need to feel superior, a need to "help others see the truth," a belief that "he can't really be happy if he believes that," or any of a thousand other possible desires, practically none of which is a good enough excuse.
Quote from: James McMurrayAtheists proselytize for the same reasons that theists do, ranging from a need to belong, a need to feel superior, a need to "help others see the truth," a belief that "he can't really be happy if he believes that," or any of a thousand other possible desires, practically none of which is a good enough excuse.
And, on post #4, James nails it.
Quote from: TonyLBI suspect an observer-phenomenon: Your view of the group as a whole is biased by the fact that a vocal minority commands much more attention than a silent majority.
I fully admit to the possibility of this being a lack of valid statisitcal population sampling on my part. I would go as far as to say, it is one of the motivations for this thread. I am hoping to hear, not only from the atheists, but also from those who know atheists to widen the population.
If it is only my experience as such,then that will be helpful to me as well in understanding the "why" of atheist proselytizers.
Bill
Quote from: TonyLBI suspect an observer-phenomenon: Your view of the group as a whole is biased by the fact that a vocal minority commands much more attention than a silent majority.
Perhaps, but as an atheist myself I am often embarrassed by those I term the "asshole atheists" (Madeline Murry O'Hair, is a prime example). I have noticed that many are ex-Catholics with a huge chip on their shoulders.
In the end, we all have to make sense of living on this rock-ball. I don't begrudge people the explanation that works for them as long as they afford me the same respect.
TGA
Quote from: Zachary The FirstAnd, on post #4, James nails it.
Bingo. What do we want to talk about now?;)
TGA
I forsee this ending badly. We've got too many people with too many philosophy degrees and not enough to do for it to go any other way.
And just so I can contribute instead of witness: This sort of thing isn't limited to the atheists and theists either. I've had freinds cast spells and charms on me, dispell curses etc... quite often without asking if I really wanted them to try to hoodoo me. I can see why some people get upset over that sort of thing. They (the friends) believe they are honestly doing right by me to 'protect' me from evil spells, intent or spirits (or whatever), so much so that asking is rather like a paramedic asking a victim of a car wreck if it's okay to stop the bleeding.
I think it's a natural tendency for people to think everyone believes as they do... obviously this isn't true, but rather than accept it they must assume the other people are wrong...
Quote from: James McMurrayAtheists proselytize for the same reasons that theists do, ranging from a need to belong, a need to feel superior, a need to "help others see the truth," a belief that "he can't really be happy if he believes that," or any of a thousand other possible desires, practically none of which is a good enough excuse.
I find it strange but true James. To me, an atheists' beliefs, as they have been explained to me, should be all internal. They should almost be happier in knowing they can live this life to the fullest as it will be their only chance to experience it.
Sadly, I have found Jehovah's witnesses (who I often invite in and have vigorous discussions on religion with) less pushy than some atheists I know.
I hope you understand that I agree with you but hope for some broader, less mundane explanation. I fear though, you have the whole of it.
Bill
Well, let me answer this for me. I can't say any broader than that because atheism isn't a unified philosophy or anything, its just people who don't believe in god/gods/the supernatural of any sort (depending on the person).
So, let's see...
Quote1. They (those of faith) are always trying to convert me so give as good as you get!
I reply that it is part of their religion (for the most part) to witness to the unconverted. Point out the them that you are not interested and they will usually leave you alone. Again, this is my experience.
In part this is true. I think in the past 'we', so much as we can be thought of as a collective group, were willing to let it slide. Science and liberal, rational thought seemed to be on the march, inexorably and it was just a matter of time until that won out. After all, science provides provable results and answers the overwhelming majority of questions - now - that were previously the province of religion.
Something in the zeitgeist has changed though and thus there is a feeling that seems to be growing, at least in the atheist and humanist talking shops that I participate in, that ignoring the problem is no longer enough. Its the 21st century now and, instead of flying to the moon in my personal rocket car I'm watching the news about new crusaders in the middle east fighting jihaddies, stem cell research being blocked, fights over abortion, 'Intelligent Design' being taught in schools, astrology and new age philosophy, the 'teen witch' phenomenon and all manner of other nonsense going on.
For me at least I've been feeling a profound sense of... reverse future shock since 9/11 related to this. That, and the events after it, really brought home just how deeply rooted the problem of faith (and not just religious faith) is still rooted in the human psyche.
It might be part of their religion to witness to people. My belief system requires me to do all I can to stop the spread of bullshit, counter their claims and do what I can to preserve the future of the human species, and yes, I do think the stakes are that high.
Quote2. They are wrong and need to be shown the truth.
My reply is that they aren't wrong, they just believe differently than you. Is they an Athiest's bible that tells you to enlighten those not of your faith. (oh, they don't like it when I use the F word). What are they hurting in worshipping their religion.
Again I can't speak for all atheists but I would say my choice isn't a faith, it is an absence of faith. I demand evidence before I believe something. In every other facet of someone's life than religion they will generally act the same way as I do in all aspects of my life. Making decisions based upon evidence.
It isn't just that they believe differently, many of these beliefs are demonstrably wrong and yet these people are making decisions based upon faith, not reason. Voting for things for the same reason, being played for suckers by leaders using religious rhetoric and it does impact on others. Anything you can do to counteract that, be it personal argument or stunts like The Blasphemy Challenge, why the hell not?
To me it seems like you're arguing that going after their faith is impolite. I agree with Dawkins and Harris on this matter. Religion should not be given a free pass when it comes to criticism of this sort any more than politics or what football team you support gets special reverence.
Quote2.a Religion causes war!
People cause war. If you were to eliminate religion their would be people fighting over non-religion, resources, and land along with anything else they could think up. Watch South Park.
Religion does cause war, and persecution, and it retards progress. Sure, other things cause war, resources being the best example, but these conflicts are often justified with religious or faith reasons. Do you think the war on Iraq would have been so supported had the given reason been 'We need to secure oil supplies, contain China and send a message to those considering changing to the petroeuro' had been the reasons given?
Religion divides by, mostly, giving each group the message that they are special and chosen, destined, correct above all others and leaving them with an irreconcilable position.
QuoteSo, the point of the thread. Do the atheists of the board feel a burning need to convert/enlighten those of faith to the Truthiness of their convictions? If so, why?
Not so much to convert/enlighten as to criticise and break down, to show the flaws and problems and try to educate. If I talk to someone about evolution, I'm not necessarily saying 'you must become an atheist like me', I'm just saying this is how we're pretty damn sure things actually happened. Here's why. What do you have to back up your belief?
Etc.
EDIT : Actually... not worth it.
Because a bad Christian touched them in a naughty place
Quote from: SpikeI forsee this ending badly. We've got too many people with too many philosophy degrees and not enough to do for it to go any other way.
I will say, this was a concern when starting this thread. I am waiting for the long-winded definition of Faith, Religion, Gods, and belief structures to pop up. To me, I was hoping for peoples views not resertations from college level philosophy books. But, I am sure we will get what we get. I have found the thread useful already.
Quote from: SpikeAnd just so I can contribute instead of witness: This sort of thing isn't limited to the atheists and theists either. I've had freinds cast spells and charms on me, dispell curses etc... quite often without asking if I really wanted them to try to hoodoo me. I can see why some people get upset over that sort of thing. They (the friends) believe they are honestly doing right by me to 'protect' me from evil spells, intent or spirits (or whatever), so much so that asking is rather like a paramedic asking a victim of a car wreck if it's okay to stop the bleeding.
I think it's a natural tendency for people to think everyone believes as they do... obviously this isn't true, but rather than accept it they must assume the other people are wrong...
To me, and I might be splitting hairs, it is much the same. These people believe in spells. It is their religion and their religion states they can do special things for their friends. I would suppose, more then just a sense of friendship, they are trying to "show" or "witness" to you the power of their faith.
That said, I am sure I am throwing around religion pretty loosely. Still, it seems to fit and I agree, such actions are not limited to the groups described here. Politics, athletics or any enthusiast can be so sited. For the purposes of this thread though, I am looking at atheists since it would seem they have no mandate (unlike most religious groups) to witness their beliefs on others and they are in direct opposition to those who do (i.e. religions and people of faith).
Bill
Quote from: The Good AssyrianBingo. What do we want to talk about now?;)
TGA
Boobs, gaming. Possibly a mix of the two.
Quote from: Hastur T. FannonBecause a bad Christian touched them in a naughty place
For some that's true, sure, there's a revenge trip.
But other than being forced to sit through prayers at Primary School when I just wanted to start eating I have no particular religious-based trauma :)
As the husband of a wonderfullly endowed woman, I can tell you that great boobs + gaming = Heaven on Earth. And no amount of atheist progandizing will convince me otherwise.
Quote from: GRIMWell, let me answer this for me. I can't say any broader than that because atheism isn't a unified philosophy or anything, its just people who don't believe in god/gods/the supernatural of any sort (depending on the person).
So, let's see...
In part this is true. I think in the past 'we', so much as we can be thought of as a collective group, were willing to let it slide. Science and liberal, rational thought seemed to be on the march, inexorably and it was just a matter of time until that won out. After all, science provides provable results and answers the overwhelming majority of questions - now - that were previously the province of religion.
Something in the zeitgeist has changed though and thus there is a feeling that seems to be growing, at least in the atheist and humanist talking shops that I participate in, that ignoring the problem is no longer enough. Its the 21st century now and, instead of flying to the moon in my personal rocket car I'm watching the news about new crusaders in the middle east fighting jihaddies, stem cell research being blocked, fights over abortion, 'Intelligent Design' being taught in schools, astrology and new age philosophy, the 'teen witch' phenomenon and all manner of other nonsense going on.
For me at least I've been feeling a profound sense of... reverse future shock since 9/11 related to this. That, and the events after it, really brought home just how deeply rooted the problem of faith (and not just religious faith) is still rooted in the human psyche.
It might be part of their religion to witness to people. My belief system requires me to do all I can to stop the spread of bullshit, counter their claims and do what I can to preserve the future of the human species, and yes, I do think the stakes are that high.
Thanks. Actually, this is just what I was asking. Your belief system says you should witness your beliefs on others. Just because there is not emoticon for it, no, I am not being sarcastic.
Quote from: GRIMAgain I can't speak for all atheists but I would say my choice isn't a faith, it is an absence of faith. I demand evidence before I believe something. In every other facet of someone's life than religion they will generally act the same way as I do in all aspects of my life. Making decisions based upon evidence.
It isn't just that they believe differently, many of these beliefs are demonstrably wrong and yet these people are making decisions based upon faith, not reason. Voting for things for the same reason, being played for suckers by leaders using religious rhetoric and it does impact on others. Anything you can do to counteract that, be it personal argument or stunts like The Blasphemy Challenge, why the hell not?
To me it seems like you're arguing that going after their faith is impolite. I agree with Dawkins and Harris on this matter. Religion should not be given a free pass when it comes to criticism of this sort any more than politics or what football team you support gets special reverence.
Quite the opposite. My intention is to look at the internal motivation of an atheist. This will be as varied as any group of people of faith you care to name. I am not saying "Don't pick on religion of people of faith". Heck, I do it all the time. I am more interested in why atheists feel the need to convert/witness to to people of faith. Your post has done a great job from your POV.
Quote from: GRIMReligion does cause war, and persecution, and it retards progress. Sure, other things cause war, resources being the best example, but these conflicts are often justified with religious or faith reasons. Do you think the war on Iraq would have been so supported had the given reason been 'We need to secure oil supplies, contain China and send a message to those considering changing to the petroeuro' had been the reasons given?
Religion divides by, mostly, giving each group the message that they are special and chosen, destined, correct above all others and leaving them with an irreconcilable position.
I disagree. People cause war. Religion might be the excuse or the tool to accomplish the ends but wars are caused by self interest. However, that is a whole different thread. ;)
Quote from: GRIMNot so much to convert/enlighten as to criticise and break down, to show the flaws and problems and try to educate. If I talk to someone about evolution, I'm not necessarily saying 'you must become an atheist like me', I'm just saying this is how we're pretty damn sure things actually happened. Here's why. What do you have to back up your belief?
Etc.
Good post. Thanks for your POV.
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltYeah, sounds like a "well-duh" kind of question but bear with me.
Should I slip in the "Why are the religious so anti-atheist?" counter-question, or shall we presume it as read?
QuoteI have seen similar behavior here. I have asked the same questions of friends showing the same behavior and it comes out like this:
Is there where I come in, having been the freshest on the topic? :keke: Alright, what the hey. I can only answer for me, and for my part I couldn't care less about converting people because I don't get in on Sisyphean struggles.
Quote1. They (those of faith) are always trying to convert me so give as good as you get!
I reply that it is part of their religion (for the most part) to witness to the unconverted.
I reply that's a non-starter. "You have to let me try to convince you of things you don't believe in, things you don't believe in say so!" I am not beholden to suffer the commands of the voices in anyone's head.
QuotePoint out the them that you are not interested and they will usually leave you alone. Again, this is my experience.
Or try harder, showing up more often. Or follow you down the street as you walk away, exhorting you about their gibberish. Or jump you, beat you, and leave you in a park spitting blood because you happened to mention the four accounts of the Resurrection have more contradictions than similarities. I, likewise, have only personal experience to work on.
Quote2. They are wrong and need to be shown the truth.
My reply is that they aren't wrong, they just believe differently than you.
Like Flat Earthers, phrenologists, and Nox, right? Nobody's wrong, they just believe differently.
Quick tip: Beliefs can in fact be wrong.
QuoteIs they an Athiest's bible that tells you to enlighten those not of your faith. (oh, they don't like it when I use the F word). What are they hurting in worshiping their religion.
I've found atheists tend to want more than one source for their information. :haw: But that was cheap, so let's move on.
I've got no problem with your use of "faith" here, if we're using it the same way it's used when people talk about their "faith"; fidelity. I hold to what can be proved and consider what we cannot prove, discarding the absurdly unlikely. And I'm assuming the third sentence is facetious, given the historical record of religious belief in general. If not, I ask it simply; "What are they hurting in just being fascists? They're not in power."
Quote2.a Religion causes war!
People cause war. If you were to eliminate religion their would be people fighting over non-religion, resources, and land along with anything else they could think up.
Oh, certainly. But there's nothing quite like religion to make an otherwise decent man feel
good about going to war and killing somebody from another tribe.
QuoteFor me, at least, it seems like a person (and this goes for those of any spiritual outlook) should be concerned with their conduct and personal beliefs more than converting the next person. Yes, if you feel the burning need, mention it but let it drop.
So, the point of the thread. Do the atheists of the board feel a burning need to convert/enlighten those of faith to the Truthiness of their convictions? If so, why?
For the record I haven't been converting anyone, but I make no bones about the fact that I do not offer a person's unfounded convictions, typically born of youthful indoctrination, the unquestioning respect that is often demanded. We don't feel obligated to respect delusions held by one person, and I don't think quantity of believers makes up for quality of evidence, or weight of evidence against. YMMV, and all that, but I can certainly try to hold my tongue if someone's getting scared by the unbeliever.
Recently, I discovered a site called whydoesgodhateamputees.com. It was eye opening because it was pretty much a summary of how I feel and have felt for many years on the subject.
On the same site was an essay about the word "atheist" which I found especially truthful and enlightening. The site says that being labeled an "atheist" is the same as being labeled a "communist" during the McCarthy era. I've found that true my entire life. And it really is rather backwards when you think about it. If I believed that unicorns were real and would appear whenever I asked, I'd justifiably be seen as insane. But, American culture labels the people who don't believe in the Unicorns as the dangerous people while the unicorn faithful are seen as the balanced ones.
As for why people who don't subscribe to religious beliefs get so militant, you'd need to look around their environment. The religious people are creating an incredibly hostile environment, and are being outright damaging in many areas by following the agenda of their imaginary supreme being by forcing everyone to obey laws from a history book of highly dubious accuracy. We all laugh at Chick tracts. Have you read the one where a secular government has established a fascist state where Christians are tracked and executed? Non-religious people can easily look at that tract and recognize that it's exactly what the fundamentalists would do to everyone labeled "atheist" if they got their way. And with what is going on in this nation right now, that future looms WAY too close.
To put my cards on the table. I think anyone who honestly believes in a god is being irrational, but everyone has little goofy things like that. If you believe in a god, I really don't care. But, if your beliefs restrict my rights as a human being, then not only are you irrational, but you're fucking dangerous. So, for most people, your religion is nothing more than a quirk to me. I don't give a fuck whether you believe in some Magic Deer or unicorns or whatever. But once you start telling me that I can't read certain things, can't play certain games, can't get certain medical care, that I have to pray to your Magic Deer, or that I have some kind of lesser status as a human being because of my dismissal of your Magic Deer, then you become someone I fucking loathe.
If other people are like me, then there's your answer right there. We look around and see our abilities to go on about our lives curtailed constantly by idiots and religious lunatics and idiot religious lunatics. The sane people are under attack by those who demmand everyone follow the way of the One True Unicorn.
Quote from: GRIMBut other than being forced to sit through prayers at Primary School when I just wanted to start eating I have no particular religious-based trauma :)
I'm at least half-convinced that Church of England Primary Schools are a satanic plot to inoculate children against real religion
Quote from: Christmas ApeShould I slip in the "Why are the religious so anti-atheist?" counter-question, or shall we presume it as read?
I was going to post a thread about this but it went too far to the "Well, duh" range. They are commanded to do so in their religious documentation (for the most part).
Quote from: Christmas ApeIs there where I come in, having been the freshest on the topic? :keke: Alright, what the hey. I can only answer for me, and for my part I couldn't care less about converting people because I don't get in on Sisyphean struggles.
I reply that's a non-starter. "You have to let me try to convince you of things you don't believe in, things you don't believe in say so!" I am not beholden to suffer the commands of the voices in anyone's head.
Or try harder, showing up more often. Or follow you down the street as you walk away, exhorting you about their gibberish. Or jump you, beat you, and leave you in a park spitting blood because you happened to mention the four accounts of the Resurrection have more contradictions than similarities. I, likewise, have only personal experience to work on.
Like Flat Earthers, phrenologists, and Nox, right? Nobody's wrong, they just believe differently.
Quick tip: Beliefs can in fact be wrong.
Sigh. Yes, i did not use a fully qualified statement. Religious beliefs.
And, please, for you and any others who want to bring it up. I would like this not to turn into a "Nox is wrong thread" or "You are Nox" thread. Please.
Quote from: Christmas ApeI've found atheists tend to want more than one source for their information. :haw: But that was cheap, so let's move on.
I've got no problem with your use of "faith" here, if we're using it the same way it's used when people talk about their "faith"; fidelity. I hold to what can be proved and consider what we cannot prove, discarding the absurdly unlikely. And I'm assuming the third sentence is facetious, given the historical record of religious belief in general. If not, I ask it simply; "What are they hurting in just being fascists? They're not in power."
Oh, certainly. But there's nothing quite like religion to make an otherwise decent man feel good about going to war and killing somebody from another tribe.
And he can feel equally good about killing a man for being proven inferior due to science. People propagate lies. Different people use different means and I am not trying to say that religion is good, that is your job.
Quote from: Christmas ApeFor the record I haven't been converting anyone, but I make no bones about the fact that I do not offer a person's unfounded convictions, typically born of youthful indoctrination, the unquestioning respect that is often demanded. We don't feel obligated to respect delusions held by one person, and I don't think quantity of believers makes up for quality of evidence, or weight of evidence against. YMMV, and all that, but I can certainly try to hold my tongue if someone's getting scared by the unbeliever.
Unfortunately, I feel you have missed the whole point of the exercise. That is not bad since it has given me another POV to review.
Bill
Quote from: Hastur T. FannonI'm at least half-convinced that Church of England Primary Schools are a satanic plot to inoculate children against real religion
I have this wishful dream that the CoE will become entirely secular and end up like the United Church in Alan Dean Foster's Humanx Commonwealth.
Quote from: HinterWeltAnd he can feel equally good about killing a man for being proven inferior due to science.
Objection.
Science has proven otherwise, though persons of faith have attempted to use science to back up faith based positions on this matter.
For my part, i'm not rabidly anti-religious. I just don't believe. What other people choose to believe is none of my business and what i choose to believe is none of theirs. And that's where the problems start for me. I don't go knocking on peoples doors or acost them on the street to tell them of my beliefs and ask them about theirs. I'm comfortable with my own views on the subject and don't need 'saving'. Effectively, bearing witness seems to be a licence to a lot of folks to poke their noses into other folks business. If i was interested, i'd go to church. Simple.
On a slightly more critical note perhaps, i got into a discussion with my niece the other day about life, the universe and everything. Things moved on and lots of ground was covered and finally the bible cropped up in conversation. Now, this is fairly ancient stuff for modern man and although there is some knowledge of the disciples and how the gospels were written etc, hard evidence is thin on the ground. She then said "Say in 2000 years time, after who knows what wars, plagues etc have happened in the interim, there is a new religion based on documents handed down during that time. The great prophet Harry Potter and his disciples cast down the evil *insert baddies name here*, created the miracle of the flying car among others...." you get the point.
Quote from: GabrielRecently, I discovered a site called whydoesgodhateamputees.com. It was eye opening because it was pretty much a summary of how I feel and have felt for many years on the subject.
On the same site was an essay about the word "atheist" which I found especially truthful and enlightening. The site says that being labeled an "atheist" is the same as being labeled a "communist" during the McCarthy era. I've found that true my entire life. And it really is rather backwards when you think about it. If I believed that unicorns were real and would appear whenever I asked, I'd justifiably be seen as insane. But, American culture labels the people who don't believe in the Unicorns as the dangerous people while the unicorn faithful are seen as the balanced ones.
As for why people who don't subscribe to religious beliefs get so militant, you'd need to look around their environment. The religious people are creating an incredibly hostile environment, and are being outright damaging in many areas by following the agenda of their imaginary supreme being by forcing everyone to obey laws from a history book of highly dubious accuracy. We all laugh at Chick tracts. Have you read the one where a secular government has established a fascist state where Christians are tracked and executed? Non-religious people can easily look at that tract and recognize that it's exactly what the fundamentalists would do to everyone labeled "atheist" if they got their way. And with what is going on in this nation right now, that future looms WAY too close.
To put my cards on the table. I think anyone who honestly believes in a god is being irrational, but everyone has little goofy things like that. If you believe in a god, I really don't care. But, if your beliefs restrict my rights as a human being, then not only are you irrational, but you're fucking dangerous. So, for most people, your religion is nothing more than a quirk to me. I don't give a fuck whether you believe in some Magic Deer or unicorns or whatever. But once you start telling me that I can't read certain things, can't play certain games, can't get certain medical care, that I have to pray to your Magic Deer, or that I have some kind of lesser status as a human being because of my dismissal of your Magic Deer, then you become someone I fucking loathe.
If other people are like me, then there's your answer right there. We look around and see our abilities to go on about our lives curtailed constantly by idiots and religious lunatics and idiot religious lunatics. The sane people are under attack by those who demmand everyone follow the way of the One True Unicorn.
hmm, I think things have gone off track but here goes.
I totally agree with you. Let me point out, if Pipe Layers Union were doing the things you note, I would fight them. I just do not believe (i.e. it is not my experience) that it is "Some Evil Religious Conspiracy TM" programming the faithful to suppress you atheist commies. It is people. Do not doubt, if you get beat up in the park "for believing as you do" it is those people who have decided to do harm. Sure, the church may be the social club or it might be the hunting club, or the knitting circle. Does this mean we need to dissolve all social clubs? Yes, absurd but to the point which is not the point of the thread. Let's just say, whether it is the pope commanding the faithful to invade a country or Bobby getting beat up on the playground because he is a catholic, it is still people making those choices. However, it is easier to say "Catholics are evil and stupid and dress funny". Now, that may sound like I am defending the Catholics but I equally abhor the in your face Christians who beat on non-believers. I personally believe the whole thing (on both sides) is silly as all get out. I believe if people took a little more time to worry about their own actions it would be much better than worrying about your neighbors;i.e. lead by example. Note: this does not mean inaction but acting against the points you wish to defend based on your beliefs. Fight injustice if that is what you believe in. It is a waste of time to convince someone that their long held beliefs are wrong unless they are looking for new beliefs. Yeah, how do you know if you do not ask? Ask, explain, but engage in discussion, not preaching.
That said, I am still very interested in personal views. I just hope it will help in the discussion if I share my views.
Bill
Quote from: GRIMObjection.
Science has proven otherwise, though persons of faith have attempted to use science to back up faith based positions on this matter.
It has now. 60 years ago, science "proved" the Jews inferior. It was used as a tool.
My point, before everyone goes off on the "Tired Nazi Argument", is that people will find justification for war. Religion as a social structure often facilitates this as the most convenient but is seldom the "cause" of war. People willing to kill their brothers over a piece of land, some resource or just because they are different will always be the root.
Again, let me point out that the above is just my view of it.
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltI totally agree with you. Let me point out, if Pipe Layers Union were doing the things you note, I would fight them. I just do not believe (i.e. it is not my experience) that it is "Some Evil Religious Conspiracy TM" programming the faithful to suppress you atheist commies. It is people.
Bill, it isn't the same thing as the Piper Fitters deciding to smash your head in, or whatever, because the Piper Fitter's charter doesn't say in its clauses and membership details 'Thou shalt dash Grim's head in with a monkeywrench' while religious texts DO contain many such intructions.
Quote from: HinterWeltIt has now. 60 years ago, science "proved" the Jews inferior. It was used as a tool.
I would still argue that this was due to prevalent religious opinion biasing both results and interpretation of those results.
Unlike religious dogma, however, science is self-correcting.
Quote from: One Horse TownFor my part, i'm not rabidly anti-religious. I just don't believe. What other people choose to believe is none of my business and what i choose to believe is none of theirs. And that's where the problems start for me. I don't go knocking on peoples doors or acost them on the street to tell them of my beliefs and ask them about theirs. I'm comfortable with my own views on the subject and don't need 'saving'. Effectively, bearing witness seems to be a licence to a lot of folks to poke their noses into other folks business. If i was interested, i'd go to church. Simple.
On a slightly more critical note perhaps, i got into a discussion with my niece the other day about life, the universe and everything. Things moved on and lots of ground was covered and finally the bible cropped up in conversation. Now, this is fairly ancient stuff for modern man and although there is some knowledge of the disciples and how the gospels were written etc, hard evidence is thin on the ground. She then said "Say in 2000 years time, after who knows what wars, plagues etc have happened in the interim, there is a new religion based on documents handed down during that time. The great prophet Harry Potter and his disciples cast down the evil *insert baddies name here*, created the miracle of the flying car among others...." you get the point.
Let me say, I am not keen on the "witnessing" either. I am willing to carry on discussions but I feel it is inherently wrong on a personal level. Witnessing, IMO, should be limited as you point out. However, I think many religions would be non-existent at this point if such commandments were not in place. I find it a minor inconvenience in the larger scheme of things. This is my view on it though, and I could see someone holding a much stronger objection to it.
Interesting perspective from your niece. How old is she? That seems very insightful.
Bill
Quote from: GRIMBill, it isn't the same thing as the Piper Fitters deciding to smash your head in, or whatever, because the Piper Fitter's charter doesn't say in its clauses and membership details 'Thou shalt dash Grim's head in with a monkeywrench' while religious texts DO contain many such intructions.
Wow, you rank high on the scale man! ;)
Do not get me wrong, I understand and admit the limitations of organized religion. That is not what I started this thread about but it is where we are wondering into.
So, I find most religions (especially Christian ones) to be pretty intolerant if their writings are strictly interpreted. The problem is, most times they are not unless they serve the purposes of the ones controlling the interpretations.
Religions evolve too. I do not know how many countries would answer the call of the Pope to invade the holy lands today. Sure, probably some Catholics would answer but I do not think the Pope would risk it.
Again, I come back to people doing the crimes. No argument that a social group can be a useful tool and in terms of social groups organized religion is the big boy.
Individuals are responsible for their actions.
Bill
Quote from: GRIMI would still argue that this was due to prevalent religious opinion biasing both results and interpretation of those results.
ahh,
people influencing the results of experiments.
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltahh, people influencing the results of experiments.
"You can criticise me, but never speak poorly of The Programme!"
- Homer Simpson
Anyway, I'm sidetracking your intent, so I'll shurrup now, until something else comes up :)
Quote from: HinterWeltHowever, I think many religions would be non-existent at this point if such commandments were not in place.
That's pretty telling in itself, i think. What you're basically saying is that without people preaching, there would be little religion in the world. To me, that says that the basic tenets of the world's reigions aren't enough on their own to sway peoples beliefs, and that an outside agent is required to do that. That sort of rules out the leap of faith thing wouldn't you say and more properly approaches conditioning? :p
QuoteInteresting perspective from your niece. How old is she? That seems very insightful.
Bill
16
Quote from: Zachary The FirstBoobs, gaming. Possibly a mix of the two.
Now *that's* a topic I fully support! For the record, I like boobs and I like games.
Discuss.
TGA
Quote from: One Horse TownThat's pretty telling in itself, i think. What you're basically saying is that without people preaching, there would be little religion in the world. To me, that says that the basic tenets of the world's reigions aren't enough on their own to sway peoples beliefs, and that an outside agent is required to do that. That sort of rules out the leap of faith thing wouldn't you say and more properly approaches conditioning? :p
Sorry, what I meant was not as prevalent or large. That is to say, I believe you would have thousands of religions local to the common pub. Religion, I have found, gives people reassurances that when they die, it is not for good. Churches adopt religions to provide social structures. So, if it was not witnessed to other tribes, a religion would either spread real slow or not at all.
Again, just a whacky theory and it might well be wrong.
Bill
Quote from: One Horse TownThat's pretty telling in itself, i think. What you're basically saying is that without people preaching, there would be little religion in the world. To me, that says that the basic tenets of the world's reigions aren't enough on their own to sway peoples beliefs, and that an outside agent is required to do that.
Oh come on. The book on the library shelf that you never read will
never convince you, no matter how strong and perfect its tenets.
Religion certainly isn't alone in being an idea that will not
on its own convince anyone. That's pretty much every idea, anywhere, ever.
I think that attempting to argue people out of religion is futile. Religion is a response to the world as it is, and if you want to get rid of religion you must first change the world.
Quote from: droogI think that attempting to argue people out of religion is futile. Religion is a response to the world as it is, and if you want to get rid of religion you must first change the world.
I think you would need to go even further and change mortality and the basis of being human.
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltI think you would need to go even further and change mortality and the basis of being human.
Bill
Now there I don't agree, or else we would all be religious.
Quote from: droogNow there I don't agree, or else we would all be religious.
huh? I meant if you wanted to rid get of religion you would have to change what humans are.
Bill
Quote from: HinterWelthuh? I meant if you wanted to get of religion you would have to change what humans are.
Bill
There's a monster debate lurking here about what humans really are, but for now I'll just repeat that i don't agree.
Quote from: James McMurrayAs the husband of a wonderfullly endowed woman, I can tell you that great boobs + gaming = Heaven on Earth. And no amount of atheist progandizing will convince me otherwise.
I'll chime in on that.
Quote from: TonyLBOh come on. The book on the library shelf that you never read will never convince you, no matter how strong and perfect its tenets.
Religion certainly isn't alone in being an idea that will not on its own convince anyone. That's pretty much every idea, anywhere, ever.
I never said otherwise Tony. For ideas to move and be adopted needs
people. People are far from perfect.
As far as the real debate goes, i'm with hinterwelt. Religion gives hope that death is not the end. A laudible goal in a time when the common man faced drudgery and disease for his 30 odd years on this earth. A laudible goal now as well. However, i can do without the trappings. If i want to believe or not believe, i'll do it in my own way and in my own time.
Quote from: HinterWelthuh? I meant if you wanted to get of religion you would have to change what humans are.
Bill
Replace it with boobs and gaming.
Or a nice tight butt if that's your thang.
Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Replace it with boobs and gaming.
Or a nice tight butt if that's your thang.
So:
huh? I meant if you wanted to get rid of religion you would have to change what boobs and gaming are.
That just seems wrong man! ;)
Bill
Don't you ever change boobs and gaming! Unless you're making them more universally to my liking.
Quote from: James McMurrayDon't you ever change boobs and gaming! Unless you're making them more universally to my liking.
Well, many gamers would like to figure out a way to bring the two together. And I ain't talkin' man-boobs.
That's what getting married is for.
Quote from: James McMurrayThat's what getting married is for.
I hate to break it to you bub but you don't need to be married to have access to boobs and gaming.
When did I say you did? I said the purpose of marriage is boobs and gaming, not that the only source of boobs and gaming is marriage. :D
Quote from: James McMurrayAtheists proselytize for the same reasons that theists do, ranging from a need to belong, a need to feel superior, a need to "help others see the truth," a belief that "he can't really be happy if he believes that," or any of a thousand other possible desires, practically none of which is a good enough excuse.
I'm a bit late to the game, but I'll echo Zachary's vote. I think you've pretty much nailed it, and what you wrote has been about the only way I've been able to get certain vehement atheists to shut the fuck up.
The only thing that I might add is that it may also be a sort of reaction formation. When faced with perceived fanaticism on one front, people sometimes assume an opposing fanaticism, not so much out of intellectual or philosophical conviction, but out of emotional need or defensive posturing. We have a text book case of this running about here on these fora.
!i!
Quote from: HinterWelt... They are wrong and need to be shown the truth.
My reply is that they aren't wrong, they just believe differently than you...
Quote from: HinterWelt... Sigh. Yes, i did not use a fully qualified statement. Religious beliefs...
Quibble: this makes no sense. If the proposition "astrology is bunk" is true, and someone else believes in astrology, then they
are wrong. Of course you might not
care that they're wrong. But they're still wrong. It doesn't matter if the proposition in question concerns a religious belief or not.
Anyhow ...
I don't care about 'converting' other people to atheism. However, I
do care about the widespread anti-atheist prejudice that exists in the U.S. – look here to see what I mean: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26611 .
What gets me involved in arguments with people over atheism is when they make some false claim about what atheism involves. I feel a natural desire to point out that their mistake. And then an argument gets going (well, sometimes).
QuoteAtheists proselytize for the same reasons that theists do, ranging from a need to belong, a need to feel superior, a need to "help others see the truth," a belief that "he can't really be happy if he believes that," or any of a thousand other possible desires, practically none of which is a good enough excuse.
I was going to leave this one but since people are popping up and agreeing with it, despite it being a crock of shit, I guess I'd better speak up.
Of the examples given...
If you want to belong, you knuckle under to the dominant view, that social pressure is how many religions/cults (same thing) perpetuate and pressure people.
A need to feel superior? No, I don't think so, after all there's no claim to absolute truth here, the scientific viewpoint is, after all, subject to change. One can certainly point to things like higher IQ, education level and lower crime and divorce rates amongst atheists as a group if one WANTS to feel superior though.
The happiness thing is an odd one, since happiness is considered a total irrelevence compared to truth in many arguments with theists. Some of us feel bad for people that they're wasting their one real life acting like its a waiting room for an eternal country club, but that's not quite the same thing.
I don't think the reasons are at all similar to the theist motivations which really boil down to 'Assimilate'.
Quote from: GRIMI was going to leave this one but since people are popping up and agreeing with it, despite it being a crock of shit, I guess I'd better speak up.
Of the examples given...
Well, focus on the real meat of the statement: "...or any of a thousand other possible desires, practically none of which is a good enough excuse." Do you disagree with that part? Do you disagree with my contention that it's sometimes a reaction formation?
The question James addresses isn't "Why do people become atheists?" It's "Why do (some) atheists become so anti-religious?"*
!i!
(*I added "some" myself in the hope of clarifying the question in the thread title.)
(P.S. I think your remark about theists wanting to assimilate is way off if you're referring to
all theists, or even
most.)
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaWell, focus on the real meat of the statement: "...or any of a thousand other possible desires, practically none of which is a good enough excuse." Do you disagree with that part? Do you disagree with my contention that it's sometimes a reaction formation?
(*I added "some" myself in the hope of clarifying the question in the thread title.)
(P.S. I think your remark about theists wanting to assimilate is way off if you're referring to all theists, or even most.)
Some are less evangelical than others but if they weren't about assimilation and continuance in some fashion they wouldn't perpetuate. Certainly the more successful religions are more aggressive and its written right into their 'memetic code'.
I think the why anti-religious argument has been pretty well answered, why become atheist is different for everyone but this was 'why evangelise it'.
I don't see what I do as being evangelical, rather I criticise and draw attention to the flaws in supernaturalist thinking. I don't generally go into the positives of my beliefs (beliefs, not faiths) unless somebody asks.
I agree that sometimes it is simply a counter-reaction to theist propagandising, but I don't agree that there's 'never a good enough excuse'. When people are propagating - successfully! - supernaturalist ideas, often dangerous ones, you're remiss in not countering that both for their sake and the sake of society as a whole. I think that's a very good, concrete and actual reason, compared to, say, oh 'I'm worried about your immortal soul'.
Akrasia and Grim, I appreciate you defending our honour but there really is no point.
For a while this topic was bottled up in the Kafka-esque nightmare of bullshit that is the 10 myths about atheism thread. Then we got the religion thread and the particularly nasty piece of trolling that is this thread.
This is a forum on which american christians call atheists zealots and bigots without a trace of irony. Note the use of identity politics language... identity politics that largely sprung up in response to the white christian concensus in US politics.
I really suggest that you leave them to their backslapping.
QuoteIf you want to belong, you knuckle under to the dominant view, that social pressure is how many religions/cults (same thing) perpetuate and pressure people.
Not if you want to belong to a counter culture, or belong and be rebellious, or any of a large number of other reasons someone might want to belong but not want to be Christian (or Muslim, or whatever).
QuoteA need to feel superior? No, I don't think so, after all there's no claim to absolute truth here, the scientific viewpoint is, after all, subject to change. One can certainly point to things like higher IQ, education level and lower crime and divorce rates amongst atheists as a group if one WANTS to feel superior though.
Are you claiming that there are no atheists that like to point out their superior intellect by bashing religions?
QuoteThe happiness thing is an odd one, since happiness is considered a total irrelevence compared to truth in many arguments with theists. Some of us feel bad for people that they're wasting their one real life acting like its a waiting room for an eternal country club, but that's not quite the same thing.
Wow, good thing I didn't say "this is an immutable and final list from which you must pick your reasons for proselytizing." :D
Quotebut I don't agree that there's 'never a good enough excuse'.
Then I guess it's a good thing I didn't say "there's never a good excuse." :D
Did you read what I said, or just look at it in little chunks of 5 words or less and get pissed off?
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalAkrasia and Grim, I appreciate you defending our honour but there really is no point.
For a while this topic was bottled up in the Kafka-esque nightmare of bullshit that is the 10 myths about atheism thread. Then we got the religion thread and the particularly nasty piece of trolling that is this thread.
This is a forum on which american christians call atheists zealots and bigots without a trace of irony. Note the use of identity politics language... identity politics that largely sprung up in response to the white christian concensus in US politics.
I really suggest that you leave them to their backslapping.
Are you saying I'm a white American Christian backslapper? Or is there room in your ideas about what this thread is for people to actually discuss things?
I don't know how to describe my own attitude towards religion. I can't quite call myself an atheist, or even an agnostic, but on the other hand I certainly don't qualify as a 'person of faith'.
That said, I have sympathy with militant atheists. Religious talk makes no fucking sense at all. It's like
Santa Claus...psych!
Easter Bunny...psych!
Tooth Fairy...psych!
God...oh, come on...haven't you gotten the fucking hint by now?
The reason I'm not an atheist, if I'm not, is just that I've had a lot of uplifting experiences of a certain kind, experiences of the beauty of the world and something that I'd nonsensically describe as 'the infinite worth of my fellow human beings', that I connect with a certain kind of religious sensibility, and I find in certain traces of religious language a connection to something so wondrous I can't quite bring myself to deny it, even if I also couldn't affirm it, and even if I certainly have no idea at all what it all means.
But it's quite likely that my attitudes here are a product of a sensitive psychology, childhood brainwashing, and maybe too many controlled substances, the combined effects of which I'm ultimately too weak-minded to throw off. I guess I hope that's not true, but I've got nothing to convince an atheist otherwise, and really nothing to convince myself either...I just can't quite let go of this dreamy I-know-not-what full of love and hope and beauty at the center of my mind. I don't feel good about having to admit that, but that's where I'm at.
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalAkrasia and Grim, I appreciate you defending our honour but there really is no point.
For a while this topic was bottled up in the Kafka-esque nightmare of bullshit that is the 10 myths about atheism thread. Then we got the religion thread and the particularly nasty piece of trolling that is this thread.
This is a forum on which american christians call atheists zealots and bigots without a trace of irony. Note the use of identity politics language... identity politics that largely sprung up in response to the white christian concensus in US politics.
I really suggest that you leave them to their backslapping.
WTF is your damage man. Do you think I am a Christian? A troll? A Christian Troll?
Man, you need help. You should seek it. Really. Persecution complexes are not healthy.
Bill
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThis is a forum on which american christians call atheists zealots and bigots without a trace of irony. Note the use of identity politics language... identity politics that largely sprung up in response to the white christian concensus in US politics.
But I'm
also calling you guys zealots and bigots, as well as a little bit loopy.
I didn't know I was an American Christian. I thought I was a Australian Jew.
So when you tell me I'm delusional and GRIM tells me I "enable" genocide, that's only because I want to feel a sense of identity with American fundamentalist Christians.
...
Wow, the shit you learn on t3h intarweb!
Quote from: CalithenaI don't know how to describe my own attitude towards religion. I can't quite call myself an atheist, or even an agnostic, but on the other hand I certainly don't qualify as a 'person of faith'.
That said, I have sympathy with militant atheists. Religious talk makes no fucking sense at all. It's like
Santa Claus...psych!
Easter Bunny...psych!
Tooth Fairy...psych!
God...oh, come on...haven't you gotten the fucking hint by now?
The reason I'm not an atheist, if I'm not, is just that I've had a lot of uplifting experiences of a certain kind, experiences of the beauty of the world and something that I'd nonsensically describe as 'the infinite worth of my fellow human beings', that I connect with a certain kind of religious sensibility, and I find in certain traces of religious language a connection to something so wondrous I can't quite bring myself to deny it, even if I also couldn't affirm it, and even if I certainly have no idea at all what it all means.
But it's quite likely that my attitudes here are a product of a sensitive psychology, childhood brainwashing, and maybe too many controlled substances, the combined effects of which I'm ultimately too weak-minded to throw off. I guess I hope that's not true, but I've got nothing to convince an atheist otherwise, and really nothing to convince myself either...I just can't quite let go of this dreamy I-know-not-what full of love and hope and beauty at the center of my mind. I don't feel good about having to admit that, but that's where I'm at.
Interesting position. Do you feel pressured to join an "established" church? Do you feel the need to convince people of your beliefs?
Would you describe yourself as having a "spiritual" view of the world? I am not saying necessarily believeing in a god so much as viewing that "greater than yourself" universal something you mention in your post as a universal presence. I am just interested in your views since you seem to be expressing an agnostic view but without acknowledging religions.
Thanks for your post. It is just the kind of thing I was shooting for with the original post.
Bill
Quote from: JimBobOzSo when you tell me I'm delusional and GRIM tells me I "enable" genocide, that's only because I want to feel a sense of identity with American fundamentalist Christians.
We're winning!
Oh wait, I'm not a fundamentalist anything, nor a Christian anything. Crap!
THEY'RE WINNING!!!!
I don't feel in the least bit persecuted. I think religion has too much power in my society but I'm not persecuted. I'm not gay for example. If I were gay I'd feel persecuted and be absolutely right to feel that way... even in this country.
What I object to is the consensus on here, demonstrated nicely above that atheists are essentially a variant of the "fundamentalist zealot" template whereby we all go around proselytising and have beliefs and are bigots. I object to that consensus and I object to the tone of the remarks on here.
The fact that people object to all theists being lumped together in a thread that is not only entitled "why are atheists so anti-religious" but also seems to conclude it's because we all want to feel supperior is frankly beyond belief... it really is.
My "damage" is that frankly I don't like the concensus that has emerged on here about the nature of atheism and I don't like adherrents of that consensus using language that you'd normally find coming out of the mouth of one of the people who are daily mistreated as a result of the attitudes of the christian majority in the US.
Frankly, the only place I've seen similar use of identity politics to defend a group with such entrenched and wide-reaching power is THIS (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/) place. While the self-delusion and political naievete on display here isn't quite at the levels of stormfront you seriously are heading in that direction.
I don't have a problem with people engaging in this kind of pointless and fruitless discussion that never changes any minds but I really could do without the victim rhetoric.
Quote from: GabrielBut, if your beliefs restrict my rights as a human being, then not only are you irrational, but you're fucking dangerous.
The Founders of the United States claimed, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." First, do you believe that all humans are equal and, if so, on what grounds (in what way are they equal)? Second, from where are your "unalienable Rights" endowed? Why do you claim that you have rights as a human being? What are they?
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalFor a while this topic was bottled up in the Kafka-esque nightmare of bullshit that is the 10 myths about atheism thread. Then we got the religion thread and the particularly nasty piece of trolling that is this thread.
Well, shit. Here I was going on about "reaction formations" to perceived fanaticism and someone steps up to the plate with a live example.
!i!
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThe fact that people object to all theists being lumped together in a thread that is not only entitled "why are atheists so anti-religious" but also seems to conclude it's because we all want to feel supperior is frankly beyond belief... it really is.
No, you're clearly not feeling persecuted. Nor engaging in identity politics. Nor victim rhetoric. You're reading all this clearly and objectively, without mis-step, and arriving at logical conclusions.
Whatever, man.
!i!
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalWhat I object to is the consensus on here, demonstrated nicely above that atheists are essentially a variant of the "fundamentalist zealot" template whereby we all go around proselytising and have beliefs and are bigots. I object to that consensus and I object to the tone of the remarks on here.
For a guy calling himself "Mr. Analytical", your reading comprehension skills are rather poor. The consensus is not that
atheists are zealots and bigots - some say they are, some don't - rather, the consensus is that
the atheists talking a lot about religion on therpgsite are zealots and bigots. That means you, Akrasia, GrimGent, etc.
There is argument about the qualities of atheists in general; there is little argument about the qualities of the atheists who are enthusiastic about discussing religion here. i.e., you.
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThis is a forum on which american christians call atheists zealots and bigots without a trace of irony. Note the use of identity politics language... identity politics that largely sprung up in response to the white christian concensus in US politics.
Let me ask you something out of curiosity. If white American Christians have a pretty good deal going, why shouldn't they do everything they can in their power to maintain their advantage, privilege, and position in society at the expense of others outside of their group? What's in it for them to help atheists and minorities?
Don't you see - they CAN'T be bigots or zealots because THEY'RE RIGHT. Its the religionists who are the benighted and mislead and need to have their views corrected.
I'll say it again - I'm an agnostic, but I do realise the contributions of religion to our Civilization, and feel that NO MATTER THE SOURCE of some of our laws and such, they're generally good rules to live by.
Also, to those living overseas who think they "know" what Christianity (mainline at least) is in the US, shut up. Your views come from movies like "Jesus Camp" and "unbiased" news reports about how gays are being rounded up an interred and how Bush is some far-right wacko (as I've said before, he's a frickin' METHODIST! The only thing seperating his denomination from Athiests is that he has to get up for church on Sunday morning) and horror stories about Tinky Winky and such. America is NOT like that any more than all Brits are gap-toothed football yobbos. Its just political or cultural "shorthand" for those unwilling or unable to do the research to find out the truth.
There are lots of Atheists that Don't make a big noise about it.
There are lots of Christians who don't make a big fuss about it all.
There are lots of Jews who don't make a deal about it.
There Muslins that don't make a big fuss about it.
These above groups are mostly average everyday people. Sometimes people from one of the above group can be friends with someone in the other groups - and the topic of Religion never come up.
If it does come up ..its more along the lines of : "Oh you have to go to a church (Or temple, Synagogue , Mosque) function that night? Then I guess we re-schedule that game for a different time ...How does next Tuesday work for you?"
I used to be an atheist. For close to 10 years I was. I was never a "pain in the Ass" about it with friends of mine that had beliefs or were faithful.
Its just a matter of simple manners.
Hell's Bells!... you might even find somebody game with or even date if you don't get too hung up about these things.
- E.W.C.
Quote from: John MorrowLet me ask you something out of curiosity. If white American Christians have a pretty good deal going, why shouldn't they do everything they can in their power to maintain their advantage, privilege, and position in society at the expense of others outside of their group? What's in it for them to help atheists and minorities?
Yup, sounds very Darwinian to me - survival of the fittest. Too bad they have to go and do all those charitable works and spend billions in private funds every year to screw up a perfectly good argument. :)
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaNo, you're clearly not feeling persecuted. Nor engaging in identity politics. Nor victim rhetoric. You're reading all this clearly and objectively and arriving at logical conclusions.
Firstly, it's rather fitting that you should take issue with that particular statement as I wrote it with you in mind as you seemingly have no problem talking in broad generalisations about atheists whilst whining about theists being lumped together.
Secondly, as I said, I don't feel persecuted. I know what persecution is and I'm not a victim of it. That doesn't mean that there's not unacceptable shit going on and the tone of "these atheists are basically just religious fundementalists" that permeates these discussions is clearly unacceptable. It's low level passive aggressive hostility.
Thirdly, atheists have been and continue to be a persecuted minority in the US and from the point of view of the planet as a whole, I am a member of a minority. Any theist that uses identity politics to put down or make the kind of generalisations I've seen on this forum about atheists is, frankly, beyond the pale. It's on a par with white guys who moan about political correctness gone mad or talk about feminazis.
I have no problem with people engaging in these discussions, but I do object to the tone in which they are conducted. Your response to my post is another example of this... you characterise me as someone who is claiming to be persecuted thereby pushing me into the realms of conspiracy theorists and other extreme nutjobs.
This is a forum on which we, supposedly, speak our minds and I'm aware I'm from a more secular culture than a lot of you lot are from but I'm saying, as an atheist I feel uncomfortable and if you were to change the tone of what you say I would feel less uncomfortable.
I mean, it's quite possible that Bill wasn't looking to troll when he started this thread but it looks to me like a rally for this board's consensus... namely that atheists are extremists. That's what I felt the original post was clearly about and, surprise surprise, I find a lot of people patting each other on the back about how right they are that atheists are proselytising inadequates.
I post on a number of forums where religion gets discussed and I know I used to argue religion back on RPGnet but on none of these forums is there the kind of low-level simmering antipathy that I feel right now on this forum.
So, I'm calling people on it. If we can cut out the clearly inflammatory language then maybe we can move forward. Hell, I don't even believe that most of you are that hostile to atheism... but the language says otherwise.
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI post on a number of forums where religion gets discussed and I know I used to argue religion back on RPGnet but on none of these forums is there the kind of low-level simmering antipathy that I feel right now on this forum.
I'm pretty sure it's not
low-level simmering.
Quote from: WerekoalaDon't you see - they CAN'T be bigots or zealots because THEY'RE RIGHT.
...is exactly what I'm talking about.
Passive-aggressive antipathy expressed either consciously or unconsciously through the selection of inflammatory terminology.
Quote from: Mr. Analytical...is exactly what I'm talking about.
Passive-aggressive antipathy expressed either consciously or unconsciously through the selection of inflammatory terminology.
I'm not being passive-agressive against athiests, though - I'm that way about anyone who digs in and claims that they need to "correct" people "misconceptions" about anything. Just happens that the discussion is about athiests at the moment.
I have NO problem with mainstream athiests OR Christians or whatever. Its the holy-rollers and Dawkinites that I have a problem with.
Quote from: James McMurrayAtheists proselytize for the same reasons that theists do, ranging from a need to belong, a need to feel superior, a need to "help others see the truth," a belief that "he can't really be happy if he believes that," or any of a thousand other possible desires, practically none of which is a good enough excuse.
Succinct and 100% accurate.
I'm not correcting anyone. In fact, I gave up discussing religion completely months ago because I'm not going to convince anyone and frankly I don't give a shit if you're going to live your life with a set of beliefs I don't agree with.
I'm not correcting anyone, I'm suggesting that people moderate the tone of their posts... and yet you felt compelled to throw the words "bigot" and "zealot" at me.
That sounds like A) you're full of shit when you say you're limiting yourself to people who want to correct others and B) you're contributing exactly to the phenomenon that I'm talking about.
So please... moderate your tone.
Quote from: ZalmoxisSuccinct and 100% accurate.
A post with no content other than to pat someone on the back for making unfavourable and groundless generalisations about atheists using needlessly inflammatory language.
Another case in point.
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalSo please... moderate your tone.
This word
moderate you keep using...it has no meaning here...:D
Regards,
David R
There are many reasons people choose to convince others of their viewpoints, even when it may be inappropriate or obviously fruitless to do so. Militant atheism is merely a specific instance of this general kind of behaviour, not a deviation from it.
That's why I'm inviting people to moderate the way they talk. Freedom to be an arsehole doesn't mean that you should automatically be one.
"Darwinists" is a singularly poor choice for the group of people you mean, WK.
There are no good arguments for the existence of God. That any number of geniuses (Descartes and Aquinas being two of the greatest) have tried and failed to make the idea convincing is not a proof that no such arguments exist, but it's about as good evidence as you can need. Especially when a college freshman can basically understand the fallacies. So in this sense I agree with Mr. Analytical that it's an unfair comparison: for centuries now you've had one group of smart people saying "bring it" and another group of people basically coming up with nothing on their side. The best stuff is the sort of neutral-ground skeptical apologia professed by e.g. William James, lamely protesting that if there's no evidence either way you're equally free to believe what you like, ignoring that (a) most of us (J. Arcane interestingly excepted) have no remotely clear idea of what we are even talking about when we talk about any sort of religious thing and (b) you could believe all sorts of stupid damn things with no evidence possible for or against them (a teacup inside every black hole! you can't prove me wrong!) if you were so inclined.
Among people who practice intellectual hygeine, in the current historical situation, the atheist has God on his side. Maybe the best arguments aren't completely 100% until the end of time decisive, but they're way stronger on his side of the argument.
None of this prevents us from acknowledging the historical contributions or failings of members of various religions.
Hinterwelt, I don't really think of myself as 'spritual' either. When I think of spiritual-but-not-religious people I think of some pagans, unitarians, yogis, who are alive to the spiritual dimension of the world, celebrate it and accept it, but don't necessarily connect it to any unified theology or conception of a higher power.
I'm alive to the spiritual dimension of the world as well, but I'm deeply suspicious of it, and it gives me a sort of vertigo bordering on nausea, but I can't shake it completely no matter how much I drink. And can't really honestly say that I want to, even though it terrifies me. I definitely don't know what any of it means, but I'm profoundly not at home in the cosmos. Kafka's "Castle" seems a pretty good portrayal of my religious sensibility, so long as you take it as a serious portrayal of religious life and not just as a parody.
People should believe true things, and it's all of our role to help our brothers and sisters to do that. It was Cain who suggested otherwise.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineMilitant atheism is merely a specific instance of this general kind of behaviour, not a deviation from them.
Speaking as not only an atheist but a secularist, I don't want to convince anyone that they're wrong. If you look at the National Secular Society (for example) you'll find no talk of convincing people that they are wrong. There are no great drives to convince anyone.
The focus of secularism is rather to remove religious privilege and have religion treated, at the political level, as just another belief system with no added benefits, special treatment or political powers. Even incredibly vocal political atheists in America (such as O'Hair) followed this model in trying not to ban religion or force atheism down anyone's throats but rather to remove institutional privilege towards religion.
To the extent that "militant atheism" is some great political movement to convert christians, I would argue that it simply does not exist.
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalA post with no content other than to pat someone on the back for making unfavourable and groundless generalisations about atheists using needlessly inflammatory language.
Another case in point.
did you read my post? Which of those are generalisations, given that I'm not attributing any of them to any speicific group, merely offering them as a small percentage of the myriad possible solutions?
Which are groundless? Are you saying no atheists ever want to be superior? No atheists want to provepeople wrong? No atheists think their opposites can't be happy because of their badwrong thought?
What language is inflammatory in my statement?
If you can answer all of those questions perhaps we'll talk. Until then, you're just another guy who hasn't read what he's talking about. Scroll up, look at the response I gave Grim when he made similar comments, and see if you can answer those as well.
No? didn't think so.
Mr. Analytical> You may be surprised to learn that as a particular person, your experience and attitudes are not typical of other persons in the world. I too am an atheist, and I have little to no interest in proselytising unless drawn into an argument, but we are neither aberrant nor typical in this regard. Many people who are atheists do choose to proselytise. They are the persons being dealt with in this thread.
Finally, someone who gets it. :)
Quote from: PseudoephedrineMr. Analytical> You may be surprised to learn that as a particular person, your experience and attitudes are not typical of other persons in the world. I too am an atheist, and I have little to no interest in proselytising unless drawn into an argument, but we are neither aberrant nor typical in this regard. Many people who are atheists do choose to proselytise. They are the persons being dealt with in this thread.
Thank you. Thank you so very much.
Bill
Blimey, this has blown up a bit since i last looked.
Some people believe and some don't. Deal with it.
In response to the title of this thread though, why are religious people so anti-atheist? They're still going to heaven right?
Much like the success of D20, the success of the Bible is because of the quality of the system. :mischief:
Yep the thread title is very militant. I would respond to this question if asked in person "Why do theist oppose freedom?" :D
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI'm not correcting anyone, I'm suggesting that people moderate the tone of their posts... and yet you felt compelled to throw the words "bigot" and "zealot" at me.
That sounds like A) you're full of shit when you say you're limiting yourself to people who want to correct others and B) you're contributing exactly to the phenomenon that I'm talking about.
So please... moderate your tone.
Hey, asshat - I didn't use the words "bigot and zealot" as an original production - I was paraphrasing someone ELSE who said you were - so sling your outrageous arrows at the right people.
Quote from: Calithena"Darwinists" is a singularly poor choice for the group of people you mean, WK.
I didn't SAY they were "Darwinists" - I said the concept of being very good at acquiring what you want and keeping what you get with no regard to others is very "Darwinian" - there's a difference.
I think folks need to be a bit more precise about who they're attributing what to around here.
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThe focus of secularism is rather to remove religious privilege and have religion treated, at the political level, as just another belief system with no added benefits, special treatment or political powers.
I learned the other day that any private school in Australia that has a church on its land does not have to pay land tax.
Quote from: CalithenaHinterwelt, I don't really think of myself as 'spritual' either. When I think of spiritual-but-not-religious people I think of some pagans, unitarians, yogis, who are alive to the spiritual dimension of the world, celebrate it and accept it, but don't necessarily connect it to any unified theology or conception of a higher power.
I'm alive to the spiritual dimension of the world as well, but I'm deeply suspicious of it, and it gives me a sort of vertigo bordering on nausea, but I can't shake it completely no matter how much I drink. And can't really honestly say that I want to, even though it terrifies me. I definitely don't know what any of it means, but I'm profoundly not at home in the cosmos. Kafka's "Castle" seems a pretty good portrayal of my religious sensibility, so long as you take it as a serious portrayal of religious life and not just as a parody.
Thanks Calithena, that clarifies things a bit. Just so you now, I do not view the word "spiritual" the way you have defined it. I meant, almost precisesly, the way you describe your beliefs. Essentially, whatever the specific belief, you hold them deep within yourself. Hmm, not expressing it anybetter than you have already. :(
Thanks again for your insight.
Bill
Quote from: PseudoephedrineMr. Analytical> You may be surprised to learn that as a particular person, your experience and attitudes are not typical of other persons in the world. I too am an atheist, and I have little to no interest in proselytising unless drawn into an argument, but we are neither aberrant nor typical in this regard. Many people who are atheists do choose to proselytise. They are the persons being dealt with in this thread.
People like this are a good example....
http://www.amazon.com/End-Faith-Religion-Terror-Future/dp/0393035158
I think maybe we've devoted plenty of digital space to this man elsewhere around here, have we not?
Why yes - yes we have.
http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3503
He was just "shooting down many of the silly objections that religious people (especially in the U.S.) level against atheism and atheists" - while writing a book declaring religion to be something that needs to be stamped out.
Haha. Silly religious people! See, Atheists aren't ALL out to get you! Only one's publishing best-sellers and being discussed seriously on RPG sites.
Please note: Yes, of course, we KNOW not ALL Atheists are like Mr. Harris. Its only the very small, vocal minority that feels the way he does. As usual, these rants are not directed at the vast majority of peace-loving Atheists who have no desire to press their views upon those who believe in a Magic Deer.
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalFirstly, it's rather fitting that you should take issue with that particular statement as I wrote it with you in mind as you seemingly have no problem talking in broad generalisations about atheists...
You mean like clarifying that this discussion is about
some atheists (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=78371&postcount=55) instead of misinterpreting it to pertain to
all atheists as you suggest (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=78393&postcount=65)? It's fitting that you now contend the exact opposite of what each of us has already clearly posted? You call for "moderation" in language and you see this as fitting? What the fuck are you on about, man?
!i!
Quote from: PseudoephedrineMr. Analytical> You may be surprised to learn that as a particular person, your experience and attitudes are not typical of other persons in the world. I too am an atheist, and I have little to no interest in proselytising unless drawn into an argument, but we are neither aberrant nor typical in this regard. Many people who are atheists do choose to proselytise. They are the persons being dealt with in this thread.
Word, dawg. It's perfectly possible to disagree on one's belief structure, without being a raging asshat to everyone who doesn't agree with it. You and I disagree I suspect quite strongly in our belief strustures, and yet somehow, I've never found reason to call you a bigot or an idiot, because you aren't one.
Mr. A and GRIM however are, and mistake being called on their behavior, for being called on their belief structures.
Quote from: CalithenaI'm alive to the spiritual dimension of the world as well, but I'm deeply suspicious of it, and it gives me a sort of vertigo bordering on nausea, but I can't shake it completely no matter how much I drink. And can't really honestly say that I want to, even though it terrifies me. I definitely don't know what any of it means, but I'm profoundly not at home in the cosmos.
Yanno, I feel very much the same way. I have experienced some things in my life that have made it abundantly clear to me that there is something going on here behind the curtain of everday life,
and it scares the living shit out of me.The presently lapsed state of my religious practice has, unfortunately, more to do with a profound terror of the supernatural than a shaking of belief.
Quote from: One Horse TownBlimey, this has blown up a bit since i last looked.
Some people believe and some don't. Deal with it.
In response to the title of this thread though, why are religious people so anti-atheist? They're still going to heaven right?
As I stated before, I thought of starting a thread about people of faith witnessing to atheists but it seemed self evident and already answered...there mandates (for the most part) tell them too. Atheists, as have been pointed out, do not have a uniform scripture. And, to reference my original post, I was nto saying all atheists are proselytizers, and I was hoping to see why some feel they should. I view a person's spiritual beliefs as very private. And while two atheists I know share this view, I know several who feel the need to convince you of their belief structure. I was wondering if atheists here have the same view and what their reasons were. As an extension, I also was interested in other non-atheist's experiences likewise.
However, to quote Spike, it seems he was correct.
QuoteI forsee this ending badly. We've got too many people with too many philosophy degrees and not enough to do for it to go any other way.
Bill
Quote from: JimBobOz... the consensus is that the atheists talking a lot about religion on therpgsite are zealots and bigots. That means you, Akrasia, GrimGent, etc...
Gee thanks for calling me a bigot. How helpful. And nice to see that you somehow speak on behalf of the 'RPGsite consensus'. :rolleyes:
I'm an atheist and I think that I have good
rational grounds for being an atheist. All I've done here is try to explain and defend those grounds (mainly against people who claim that atheism involves 'faith', a claim that I think is manifestly false).
I've generally tried to respond to your own arguments and claims in the 'other thread' in a reasonable manner.
I've
never said that people should be
forced to abandon their religious beliefs and practices (despite your wild accusations of 'totalitarianism', etc.). Naturally, as an atheist, I think those beliefs are
false, but I hardly see how that makes me a 'zealot' or a 'bigot'. After all, any religious person thinks that people who don't hold his/her religious beliefs are incorrect as well.
It seems that your definition of a 'zealot and a bigot' is simply someone who disagrees with you.
:shrug:
Thanks Hinterwelt for your cool questions as a follow-up. I was going to say some things about my issues (con and pro) with churches etc. but I think I've done enough soul-baring for one day. I think I need to go find some people and convince them that old-school D&D is better than their favorite game now instead.
Quote from: CalithenaThanks Hinterwelt for your cool questions as a follow-up. I was going to say some things about my issues (con and pro) with churches etc. but I think I've done enough soul-baring for one day. I think I need to go find some people and convince them that old-school D&D is better than their favorite game now instead.
I may just join you. ;)
Bill
Quote from: HinterWelt... I view a person's spiritual beliefs as very private. And while two atheists I know share this view, I know several who feel the need to convince you of their belief structure...
I don't know what you mean by 'spiritual beliefs' and 'very private'.
Atheists don't have 'spiritual beliefs' so the claim doesn't even make sense with respect to them. In any case, most religious people will say, if asked, 'I'm a Muslim/Christian/Buddhist/whatever'. Some of them will try to proselytize, and some won't. But belonging to those religions involve endorsing a particular set of beliefs and values. That's pretty public.
Atheists don't hold 'spiritual beliefs' and think that good
reasons exist for rejecting the supernatural conception of 'God' posited by extant religions (and supernatural beliefs more generally, so even religions that don't have an anthropomorphic conception of God, like Buddhism, are out).
Some are vocal in expressing their views, others aren't. In my case, I generally 'get vocal' when I encounter someone asserting something false about atheism. I don't view that as 'proselytizing'. If others do, I can't help that.
Quote from: Calithena... There are no good arguments for the existence of God....
Among people who practice intellectual hygeine, in the current historical situation, the atheist has God on his side. Maybe the best arguments aren't completely 100% until the end of time decisive, but they're way stronger on his side of the argument.
None of this prevents us from acknowledging the historical contributions or failings of members of various religions...
Exactly. :cool:
And yet, according to many people who frequent this forum, for an atheist to point this out in discussion is proselytizing.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: HinterWeltI was nto saying all atheists are proselytizers, and I was hoping to see why some feel they should.
Bill
Hey, no worries Bill :) It's a very emotive subject, as shown by this thread. The main problem with the bit quoted is that those who have expressed an opinion as to why they should proselytise have been jumped on to some degree. Of course, it does help if you use neutral language to do so, but the very expressing of an opinion is less than neutral. So it's sort of a forgone conclusion that things will get feisty.
Quote from: AkrasiaI don't know what you mean by 'spiritual beliefs' and 'very private'.
Forgive me please, I was speaking of my spiritual beliefs and their belief structure.
Bill
Quote from: AkrasiaAtheists don't have 'spiritual beliefs' so the claim doesn't even make sense with respect to them.
Sure it does, if you read it instead of reading into it. It's very possible for an atheist to acknowledge the existence of spiritual beliefs and think that those are or should be private. Nowhere does he say anything about the spiritual beliefs of atheists.
Quote from: Werekoala... Please note: Yes, of course, we KNOW not ALL Atheists are like Mr. Harris. Its only the very small, vocal minority that feels the way he does. As usual, these rants are not directed at the vast majority of peace-loving Atheists who have no desire to press their views upon those who believe in a Magic Deer.
I rather regret linking to that article by Harris, whom I now regard as unnecessarily shrill and whose style is wholly counterproductive to furthering the views he endorses (as I noted here (http://dailyakrasia.blogspot.com/2007/01/fellow-atheists-please-stop-sneering.html)).
But I find that considerable hostility is directed against atheists simply because they are willing to actually
debate and
critically examine religion. Sure some also want to 'proselytize', but most atheists I've encountered (including myself) don't really care that much about
convincing people to become atheists. Rather, it's the fact that they think that religious claims
can be critically evaluated that upsets religious people. People don't like to have their beliefs challenged (especially if those beliefs are based on faith).
Having learned something from the '10 myths' thread, I
do think that atheists need to be tactful and careful when engaging in critical analysis of religious claims. But that doesn't mean that the project itself is 'intolerant' or 'proselytizing'.
Quote from: HinterWeltForgive me please, I was speaking of my spiritual beliefs and their belief structure.
Bill
Quote from: James McMurraySure it does, if you read it instead of reading into it. It's very possible for an atheist to acknowledge the existence of spiritual beliefs and think that those are or should be private. Nowhere does he say anything about the spiritual beliefs of atheists.
Okay, fair enough. :)
You only care about convincing people their God doesn't exist, is that it? :)
Akrasia's pretty reasonable. He's certainly very forceful in his arguments, and he refuses to let folks get away with what he thinks are shoddy arguments, but neither of those are particularly dependent on his being an atheist (though obviously, they are part of the ground of his choice to become an atheist). He's not proselytising except in the loosest sense of the word.
Mainly because aethiests have studied history, and know that if unchallenged and unopposed religions will grow in power and spread thru society until you end up with witch burnings, the inquisition, jyhads, etc.
I think most atheists just don't want a religion forced on them and feel they must do what they can to "keep it down".
It takes two to live in peace and it takes two to live and let live, and history shows that religions usualy aren't willing to do those things. Much of human history has been written under a "Faith or the Sword!" mentality, and finally, after thousands of years of various religions being used to justify various forms of tyranny and oppression, some people are wusing up and wanting to fight against anyone trying to shove his brand of religion down their throats.
When you listen to people like fallwell, robertson, the promise keepers, etc, I am so glad there are people willing to stop them from having their way.
Dominus, do you acknowledge the good things religions have brought to the world, or is that one of your many blind spots?
Interestingly enough, Nox, witch burnings and other unsavory activities you mentioned weren't stopped by the rise of atheism. That leads me to conclude that they were therefore stopped by religious men.
So: Religious men do terrible things, thus religion is bad
But: Religious men put a stop to terrible things, thus religion is good.
Damn, dealing in generalities is confusing. :confused:
Of course, I enjoy people constantly mistaking my 'belief structure'... as they have done here so often, and even, yes virginia, on TBP as well.
Mr. A, you and GRIM (or was it Grimgent? Or both Grim and Grimgent?) were quite vocally proseletizing on this very site not all that long ago. Odd that you think mentioning it is misplaced. Maybe it's guilt by assosiation, and you don't feel you were actually doing anything of the sort, but face it... we DO have very vocal anti-religion atheists on this site, and when you stand up to be counted when they are spewing (and... maybe doing some of it yourself) you can't cry that atheists are being attacked when someone asks why teh atheists sometimes act up like the religious crowd does.
Dude, your arguments were embarrassingly dumb on that 10 myths thread. Whatever the merits of the arguments in favour of religious belief, very few people on that thread appeared capable of presenting them clearly and persuasively, and you were not one of them.
Quote from: James McMurrayDominus, do you acknowledge the good things religions have brought to the world, or is that one of your many blind spots?
Well, religion has done some good, but in the end I think it does more harm than good. For example, the catholic chrich tries to supply food to starving africans and such. OK, nice. But the catholic chruch fights tooth and nail to prevent education re birth control and contraception reaching africa, thereby contributing to overpopulation and starvation. Bad. Very bad.
By fighting against contraception and birth control the catholic church has caused a great deal of starvation and also contributed to the spread of aids in africa.
Maybe you could tell us some of the good works that religion has done for the world, since you don't seem to have the same blind spots I do. Then again with your head up your ass I gues you DO have a different set of blind spots than I do.
(BTW, that may have seem a little 'extreme" a comeback, but fuck, sometimes you get so sick of little mosquitoes constanting nipping at you it feels good to take one out with a shotgun blast.)
Quote from: SettembriniIt´s a US thing. I heard a radio show, in which that was discussed.They said some Atheist groups in the US are getting quite militant and cultish these days.
Over here, it´s a total non-subject.
That's a pretty shitty thing to say, and one with no real basis in reality. In my own experiences it's never been an issue, and I'd never be as crass to suggest that was unique to my nation.
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalA post with no content other than to pat someone on the back for making unfavourable and groundless generalisations about atheists using needlessly inflammatory language.
Another case in point.
Are you denying what he said? Because I have seen it first hand. Just because the truth is at odds with your limited ability to reason, doesn't make it any less true.
Quote from: Dominus NoxMainly because aethiests have studied history, and know that if unchallenged and unopposed religions will grow in power and spread thru society until you end up with witch burnings, the inquisition, jyhads, etc.
Uh, apparently you haven't studied history very closely. Take a look at the largest mass murders of civilians during the 20th Century (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM). Now, tell me which of those countries were officially atheist and which were motivated by a belief in God.
Quote from: Dominus NoxIt takes two to live in peace and it takes two to live and let live, and history shows that religions usualy aren't willing to do those things. Much of human history has been written under a "Faith or the Sword!" mentality, and finally, after thousands of years of various religions being used to justify various forms of tyranny and oppression, some people are wusing up and wanting to fight against anyone trying to shove his brand of religion down their throats.
Really? When was the last time you had a sword put to your throat?
Quote from: Dominus NoxWhen you listen to people like fallwell, robertson, the promise keepers, etc, I am so glad there are people willing to stop them from having their way.
Look at the demographic trends for religious people and atheists and then let me know who is going to be changing your diapers in the nursing home.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineDude, your arguments were embarrassingly dumb on that 10 myths thread. Whatever the merits of the arguments in favour of religious belief, very few people on that thread appeared capable of presenting them clearly and persuasively, and you were not one of them.
My arguments? I bowed out of that thread because Akrasia started blasting all about with the PoE arguement which is only relevant to a very tiny conception of God, and was quite rude for a while with his drunken rants.
But while I was expounding at one point my own philosophies, or at least the relevant portions of them I was hardly attempting to convert everyone to the worship of Doug, the cannabalistic uber-pikachu. You can see then that I wasn't attempting to persuade anyone of the merits of an religious beliefs at all. If you approached them from that perspective, of course they were horribly flawed and unclear.
If you mean someone elses arguements, then by all means, elaborate.
Hey Spike: are we in need of rap lyrics flood? It will sweep away the posts in this endless circle-jerk in a cleansing rush of circa-2000 hip hop.
But give the word and the posting will begin.
Quote from: fonkaygarryHey Spike: are we in need of rap lyrics flood? It will sweep away the posts in this endless circle-jerk in a cleansing rush of circa-2000 hip hop.
But give the word and the posting will begin.
Commence with the Rappitude!!! :cool:
Quote from: John MorrowUh, apparently you haven't studied history very closely. Take a look at the largest mass murders of civilians during the 20th Century (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM). Now, tell me which of those countries were officially atheist and which were motivated by a belief in God.
Really? When was the last time you had a sword put to your throat?
In the 20th century people may have been more likely to be killed for political rather than religious reasons by a small margin, but for the 1900 years preceeding that religion was the number one motivator for homicide.
Also remember thar most of the trouble in the mideast is religious based, or at least attributed to religion.
And the catholic church still fights against birth control, causing countless infants to be born only to starve, and opposes condoms, causing aids to continue to scythe thru africa. If you took all the deaths caused by babies being born in famine areas due to the vatican's opposition of birth control and all the aids victims created by the vatican's opposition to condoms you'd probably have a pile of bodies higher than the highest steeple in the vatican.
Quote from: SpikeMy arguments? I bowed out of that thread because Akrasia started blasting all about with the PoE arguement which is only relevant to a very tiny conception of God, and was quite rude for a while with his drunken rants.
But while I was expounding at one point my own philosophies, or at least the relevant portions of them I was hardly attempting to convert everyone to the worship of Doug, the cannabalistic uber-pikachu. You can see then that I wasn't attempting to persuade anyone of the merits of an religious beliefs at all. If you approached them from that perspective, of course they were horribly flawed and unclear.
If you mean someone elses arguements, then by all means, elaborate.
No, I meant you. You weren't the only one doing it, but you were certainly involved, and certainly spouting nonsense. Your "criticism" of Akrasia's point was pretty dumb. Your summary of it up there shows how you pretty clearly didn't read, or else didn't pay attention to, the part where he explained it was one of a set of problems and arguments that atheists used, and didn't exhaust all possible atheist arguments.
I also didn't accuse you of proselytising, so I don't care whether you think you were or weren't proselytising. To clarify my position though, you weren't proselytising, you were making a bad argument in defense of religion, one of such poor quality it wouldn't stand up in first year theology or philosophy classes. Though I didn't see him participating in the thread, you'd do well in future to take a page from J Arcane (and joeman over on rpg.net), both of whom have quite sophisticated conceptions of God and the eloquence and rigour to defend those conceptions in ways that don't bring shame to themselves.
Quote from: John MorrowUh, apparently you haven't studied history very closely. Take a look at the largest mass murders of civilians during the 20th Century (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM). Now, tell me which of those countries were officially atheist and which were motivated by a belief in God.
Sooooo tired of this one.
Lets take Stalin as case in point. Seminary educated, and apparently took his lessons very well indeed, he converted 'communism' (the USSR really wan't communist) into a faith and installed himself at the head of a personality cult. The purges etc were nothing to do with any atheistic beliefs he may or may not have held - because atheism HAS no motivational dogma - but instead to do with his own paranoia and desire to eliminate groups that could threaten his position.
Compare that to religions, which DO contain dogma - depending on the religion - to convert others, to destroy unbelievers, to treat them as inhuman and so forth.
Quote from: Dominus NoxIn the 20th century people may have been more likely to be killed for political rather than religious reasons by a small margin, but for the 1900 years preceeding that religion was the number one motivator for homicide.
Also remember thar most of the trouble in the mideast is religious based, or at least attributed to religion.
And the catholic church still fights against birth control, causing countless infants to be born only to starve, and opposes condoms, causing aids to continue to scythe thru africa. If you took all the deaths caused by babies being born in famine areas due to the vatican's opposition of birth control and all the aids victims created by the vatican's opposition to condoms you'd probably have a pile of bodies higher than the highest steeple in the vatican.
The problem is not whether atheism or the various religious traditions of the world done more good or bad than one another. The questions are which position is true, and what does the truth of this position mean we should do? If it turns out that Sunni Islam (or at least so-and-so's understanding of it) is in fact a true description of the world, down to its conception of the moral structure of human life, then we should all become Sunni Muslims. And so on with Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. Actions that might have previously seemed abhorrent to us would need to be re-evaluated in light of this rearticulation of the world's moral properties.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe problem is not whether atheism or the various religious traditions of the world done more good or bad than one another. The questions are which position is true, and what does the truth of this position mean we should do? If it turns out that Sunni Islam (or at least so-and-so's understanding of it) is in fact a true description of the world, down to its conception of the moral structure of human life, then we should all become Sunni Muslims. And so on with Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. Actions that might have previously seemed abhorrent to us would need to be re-evaluated in light of this rearticulation of the world's moral properties.
So, if a certain viewpoint turns out to be a true description of the world we should all embrace it? Shit, I hope no one ever proves that uncle 'dolph was right all along. I have a friend who's jewish.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineNo, I meant you. You weren't the only one doing it, but you were certainly involved, and certainly spouting nonsense. Your "criticism" of Akrasia's point was pretty dumb. Your summary of it up there shows how you pretty clearly didn't read, or else didn't pay attention to, the part where he explained it was one of a set of problems and arguments that atheists used, and didn't exhaust all possible atheist arguments.
I also didn't accuse you of proselytising, so I don't care whether you think you were or weren't proselytising. To clarify my position though, you weren't proselytising, you were making a bad argument in defense of religion, one of such poor quality it wouldn't stand up in first year theology or philosophy classes. Though I didn't see him participating in the thread, you'd do well in future to take a page from J Arcane (and joeman over on rpg.net), both of whom have quite sophisticated conceptions of God and the eloquence and rigour to defend those conceptions in ways that don't bring shame to themselves.
I understood Akrasia's point. In fact, my entire arguement with him, prior to bowing out was on that very point. It wasn't relevant to dismiss 'this idea of God' when talking about the possibility of God, especially when many faiths don't require God to be benevolent at all. The fact that he admitted it was so, then kept going on about it was part of why I left.
To clarify my position: I wasn't defending religion, I was attacking weak arguements uplifting atheism. I don't care if you have religion or not, I don't care if you are a devout atheist or not. I do care when people praise crappy shite simply because they agree with the message. Obviously, I need to work on my communication skills...
Look: When asked about the 'origins' of God, religious types spout 'The Alpha and the Omega' bullshit. It's hollow.
When asked about why they don't have to believe atehists spout "because we are rational". It's hollow. *
I call bullshit regardless of which side of the debate spouts it. It's just here that the atheists pop up more often in discussions I actually read.
* Look, I'm tired, okay. I'd totally give you a much better example if I had more time, energy or desire to look up actual quotes from threads here... then I'd have to find a different example from the religious crowd that more perfectly paralleled the example I gave for the atheist crowd. Lets just assume you got the gist of it, or are being deliberately obtuse and call it a night, shall we?
Quote from: Dominus NoxIn the 20th century people may have been more likely to be killed for political rather than religious reasons by a small margin, but for the 1900 years preceeding that religion was the number one motivator for homicide.
I know what you meant, but where does one draw the line between religion and politics? Much of the nastiness in human history that's been committed in the name of religion can really be boiled down to competing politics. Organised religion
is politics, with spirituality at the core of the doctrine instead of economics. And sometimes even
that is a hard distinction to make.
!i!
QuoteThat's a pretty shitty thing to say, and one with no real basis in reality. In my own experiences it's never been an issue, and I'd never be as crass to suggest that was unique to my nation.
Sorry. I did not intend to say it´s a problem for every US-citizen. But it´s definitely a non-subject here.
It´s one of those US specific discussions, whether you like it, or not.
Protestant sects, gun control, "racism", militant atheism, high school traumata etc. are all things in the general US discourse that are unfamiliar for outsiders. Our media do features on that stuff, to make us understand.
You´d never have such a discussion like this in a German forum.
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI know what you meant, but where does one draw the line between religion and politics? Much of the nastiness in human history that's been committed in the name of religion can really be boiled down to competing politics. Organised religion is politics, with spirituality at the core of the doctrine instead of economics. And sometimes even that is a hard distinction to make.
!i!
My history teacher once said to us what I thought was a very wise thing, and I think everyone would do well to understand: War, all war, is about resources. The rest is just excuses and justifications, whether beforehand or afterwards.
Religion has often been used as an excuse. It has very, very, very rarely been the true cause or reason.
Quote from: SpikeCommence with the Rappitude!!! :cool:
SPIKE HAS SPOKEN I MUST OBEY(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l241/fonkaygarry/Fgsfds35.jpg)
IN THIS THREAD: RAP LYRICSCrucial Conflict's Hay
Sittin on a quarter 'p of hay
Thangs is feelin good today.
I'm tore up,from the floor up
Sippin on some crown royal.
Trippin,in a circle of wood
Where everybody smoke they own bud.
Good ole' hay
How you feel today?
Fine,blowed and dandy.
Silly like i'm hype off candy.
Gotta big,thick chic named sandy.
In the farm in the middle of the barn
Where everybody's feelin crazy.
I went to visit granny's house.
Now i see why don't nobody leave.
We constantly,constantly,constantly smokin b's.
Too blitzed to even shake it off
But i still got my head up.
Coldhard finna go in the back of the barn
And get my big black peter sucked
Pass the hay you silly slut,
Blaze it up so i can hit that bud.
Git me zoned and i'll be on.
Cuz i love to smoke upon hay.
[chorus]
Smokin on
Haaayy in the middle of the barn.
Smokin on
Haaayy in the middle of the barn.
The hay got me goin through a stage
And i just can't get enough.
Smokin everyday
I got some hay
And you know i'm finna roll it up.
Make a cloud
I'm gonna take my mind away from all the
Bullcrap.
Bump my sounds
Lay back and roll
Mack to the freaks that's on the road.
Sometimes i wonder
When i was blowed on the streets.
Anybody wanna step to me,
I'ma see how rough they be.
In this session,manifesting
On myp's and q's
Never snooze cause i refuse.
Inhale,exhale the smell.
Smokin hay all by myself.
Wildstle,laughin loud.
Wit my homies by my side.
If somethin jump off let it ride
On my square when time is live.
Everybody throw it up
Go to the barn and get some hay.
When i get my choke on.
Fool you know i'm smokin on......
Hay now hay
We smokin up hay in the middle of the barn
And i'm lit up
Can't get up
My eyes are red
And my head is spinnin.
Took another pull
Ridin red bull
Got the goofies, can't stop grinnin.
Got a posse full of hoes playin in my braids
And we bout to get in em.
Over yonder is the barn where the pals be at
And everything funny.
Gotta pause some nigga tryin' to blow my high
Smokin all that hay with no money.
Now truly this bitch wanna do me
So i hit the 151bacardi
She high like the sun
Thick like cornbread,and i'm ready to party.
That hay got me so gotdamn horny
But i don't like that tramp.
The only reason I'm poppin that coochie
cause the hoe had a book of foodstamps.
And i got the munchies
I need soul food.
Collard greens or pinto beans.
If you smoke hay like the conflict do,
Then you know what the hell i mean.
[chorus]
Rollin down the block
Car full of flies and the flies tried to rise up out dat dorr crack.
Got my niggas in the barn smokin on that
Hay stack
Back up on the scene from smokin herb,
I creeped up on the wall and all i heard.
Was a bud of mine who dropped a needle in
The hay
With a funky dime word.
Couldn't be myself
Couldn't smoke wit nobody else
If i didn't pass it to the left.
Nigga would have lost my breath.
Open up the window 'fore i fall and faint
But i can't
Cause i roll around in dat barn ride.
Rollin up the hootie hoo
Roughest skin roller on dat west side.
Nigga come on in
I got some hay
Won't you close dat barn door
Nigga what you let them flies out for?
Ain't nobody to rich, we poor.
Lettin all the contact smoke up in the barn
The flies keep us chokin.
Thank you jesus christ
For all the hay you're givin usCause we'll keep on smokin'.
[chorus]
[/COLOR]
Now isn't this a damn sight better than philosophy majors sucking each other off?
Quote from: Dominus NoxSo, if a certain viewpoint turns out to be a true description of the world we should all embrace it? Shit, I hope no one ever proves that uncle 'dolph was right all along. I have a friend who's jewish.
I doubt you do have a friend, let alone a jewish one, you fucking troll.
But yes, if there is some proposition about the world that is true and that entails some moral consequence, we should act in accord with it, and reconcile our current moral understanding to it. We are fortunate that Nazism is not a good candidate for generating truths about the world that entail moral consequences.
If I found out what was objectively right, I can't honestly say I'd go along with it unconditionally. I might actually take advantage of others' sudden awareness of the truth for personal gain.
Quote from: fonkaygarryNow isn't this a damn sight better than philosophy majors sucking each other off?
Milo: You think you are so fucking cool, don't you? You think you are so fucking cool. But just once, I would like to hear you scream in pain...
Joe Hallenbeck: Play some rap music.
Quote from: GRIMPlay some rap music
Y CERTAINLY BUT FIRST A REMINDER!(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l241/fonkaygarry/Fgsfds35.jpg)
IN THIS THREAD: RAP LYRICS
Snoop Dogg's Murder Was the Case
[Verse One:]
As I look up at the sky
My mind starts trippin, a tear drops my eye
My body temperature falls
I'm shakin and they breakin tryin to save the Dogg
Pumpin on my chest and I'm screamin
I stop breathin, damn I see deamons
Dear God, I wonder can ya save me
I can't die Boo-Boo's bout to have my baby
I think it's too late for prayin, hold up
A voice spoke to me and it slowly started sayin
"Bring your lifestyle to me I'll make it better"
How long will I live?
"Eternal life and forever"
And will I be, the G that I was?
"I'll make your life better than you can imagine or even dreamed of
So relax your soul, let me take control
Close your eyes my son"
My eyes are closed
[Chorus:]
Murder... murder was the case that they gave me
Murder... murder was the case that they gave me
[Verse Two:]
I'm fresh up out my coma
I got my momma and my daddy and my homies in my corner
It's gonna take a miracle they say
For me to walk again and talk again but anyway
I get, fronted some keys, to get, back on my feet
And everything that nigga said, came to reality
Livin like a baller loc
Havin money, and blowin hella chronic smoke
I bought my momma a Benz, and bought my Boo-Boo a Jag
And now I'm rollin in a nine-trizzay El Do-Rad
"Just remember who changed your mind
Cuz when you start set-trippin, that ass mine"
Indeed, agreed proceed to smoke weed
Never have a want, never have a need
They say I'm greedy but I still want mo'
Cuz my eyes wanna journey some more, really doe (check it out)
Now I lay me down to sleep
I pray the lord, my soul to keep
If I should die, before I wake
I pray the lord, my soul to take
No more indo, gin and juice
I'm on my way to Chino, rollin on the grey goose
Shackled from head to toe
25 with an izzl, with nowhere to gizzo, I know
them niggaz from the other side recognize my face
Cuz it's the O.G. D-O-double-G, L-B-C
Mad doggin niggaz cuz I don't care
Red jumpsuit with two braids in my hair
Niggaz stare as I enter the center
They send me to a leval 3 yard, that's where I stay
Late night I hear toothbrushes scrapin on the floor
Niggaz gettin they shanks, just in case the war, pops off
Cuz you can't tell what's next
My little homey Baby Boo took a pencil in his neck
And he probably won't make it, to see twenty-two
I put that on my momma, I'ma ride for you Baby Boo
[Chorus 2X]
[flatline noise]
LL Cool J's Shut Em Down
[1st verse]
I can shut a nigga down so quick my sounds so sick
My talents spread around while I'm holdin my dick
My dingling shit flip emaculate
Evolutionary flows y'all want more dough
Make wit the best get the best all the rest hit 'em less
Rip a nigga from the East to the West
Just a lyrical maze lyrical days
God works in mysterious ways
I'm the warlord of war relieve the raw dog
Niggas ain't even comin close to my low score
Niggas fleein when I'm rippin on the hard core beat
That's slammin through your jeep like a 44 Mack to your back
Nigga L never got rip by a track
I don't fuck around, always come back
For the lyrical miracle day one platinum plaque right off the back
Looked at every nigga wit the mic on my arm
A time-bomb blowin up ring the alarm
Cool double O flow well to the LL
I'm leave the world looking hard as hell
[chorus 8x]
I shut 'em down
(Get Off Me!!, You Can't Hold Me!!)
[2nd verse]
To the next plateau niggas bet my flow
Betta bet I role wit more control
Gotta bring the heat that eliminate who can't compete
Spit razors to rip the beat
Relentless endless friendless when it comes to the lyrical mack
Now off my back stack 'em drag 'em now feds waggin
Hear you fassen place on the blood of my veins without passion
Mashin take a little time to think the rhyme out
How to find out
Bump and grind out
Pump the lines out
I'ma show what the microphone is all about without doubt
C to the double O bounce in the bubble eye limo
No I ain't checkin for you bull shit demo
Everytime you hear me in a battle I'm lethal
Nigga too sweet 'n low you aint equal
[chorus]
I shut 'em down [16x]
[after the 8th time] Get Off Me!!, You Can't Hold Me!!
[3rd verse]
I can take you to the level if I let my phantom
Nigga bout to rule the world wit one anthem
Kidnapped rap for a handsome ransom
Smoke a little Branson on the side of the mansion
Keep it thugged out even when a nigga dancing
Branson make that trans and keep it dancing
I'ma murder every nigga in the game
Can't stand the rain
Fuck a maintain
Gotta leave the world in flames
Nigga wanna live life stay out of my lanes
Tryin to read my name
Here's a murderous combo wit you on your pain
Sideways stimulator bringin the flames
Niggas wanna feel me spit the whole clips
Sing along it will split your lip
45 wit an name on the grip
Niggas said you wanna batlle
Nigga now talk shit
Notorious B.I.G.'s Hypnotize
Uhhh, uhhh, uh, c'mon
[Verse One:]
Hah, sicka than your average Poppa
Twist cabbage off instinct niggaz don't think shit stink
pink gators, my Detroit players
Timbs for my hooligans in Brooklyn
Dead right, if they head right, Biggie there every night
Poppa been smooth since days of Underroos
Never lose, never choose to, bruise crews who
do something to us, talk go through us
Girls walk to us, wanna do us, screw us
Who us? Yeah, Poppa and Puff (ehehehe)
Close like Starsky and Hutch, stick the clutch
Dare I squeeze three at your cherry M-3
(Take that, take that, take that, haha!)
Bang every MC easily, busily
Recently niggaz frontin ain't sayin nuttin (nope)
So I just speak my piece, (c'mon) keep my piece
Cubans with the Jesus piece (thank you God), with my peeps
Packin, askin who want it, you got it nigga flaunt it
That Brooklyn bullshit, we on it
[Chorus: sung in imitation of part of Slick Rick's "La-Di-Da-Di"]
Biggie Biggie Biggie can't you see
Sometimes your words just hypnotize me
And I just love your flashy ways
Guess that's why they broke, and you're so paid (uh)
Biggie Biggie Biggie (uh-huh) can't you see (uh)
Sometimes your words just hypnotize me (hip to)
And I just love your flashy ways (uh-huh)
Guess that's why they broke, and you're so paid (hah)
[Verse Two:]
I put hoes in NY onto DKNY (uh-huh)
Miami, D.C. prefer Versace (that's right)
All Philly hoes, dough and Moschino (c'mon)
Every cutie wit a booty bought a Coogi (haaaaah!)
Now who's the real dookie, meanin who's really the shit
Them niggaz ride dicks, Frank White push the sticks
on the Lexus, LX, four and a half
Bulletproof glass tints if I want some ass
Gon' blast squeeze first ask questions last
That's how most of these so-called gangsters pass
At last, a nigga rappin bout blunts and broads
Tits and bras, menage-a-tois, sex in expensive cars
I still leave you on the pavement
Condo paid for, no car payment
At my arraignment, note for the plantiff
Your daughter's tied up in a Brooklyn basement (shhh)
Face it, not guilty, that's how I stay filthy (not guilty)
Richer than Richie, till you niggaz come and get me
[Chorus:]
Biggie Biggie Biggie can't you see
Sometimes your words just hypnotize me
And I just love your flashy ways
Guess that's why they broke, and you're so paid (uh)
Biggie Biggie Biggie (uh-huh) can't you see (huh)
Sometimes your words just hypnotize me (hip to)
And I just love your flashy ways (uh-huh)
Guess that's why they broke, and you're so paid (uh)
[Verse Three:]
I can fill ya wit real millionaire shit (I can fill ya)
Escargot, my car go, one sixty, swiftly
Wreck it buy a new one
Your crew run run run, your crew run run
I know you sick of this, name brand nigga wit
flows girls say he's sweet like licorice
So get with this nigga, it's easy
Girlfriend here's a pen, call me round ten
Come through, have sex on rugs that's Persian (that's right)
Come up to your job, hit you while you workin (uhh)
for certain, Poppa freakin, not speakin
Leave that ass leakin, like rapper demo
Tell them hoe, take they clothes off slowly
Hit em wit the force like Obe, dick black like Toby (Obe...Toby)
Watch me roam like Gobe, lucky they don't owe me
Where the safe show me, homey.. (say what, homey)
[Chorus:]
Biggie Biggie Biggie can't you see
Sometimes your words just hypnotize me
And I just love your flashy ways
Guess that's why they broke, and you're so paid (uh)
Biggie Biggie Biggie (uh-huh) can't you see (uh)
Sometimes your words just hypnotize me (hip to)
And I just love your flashy ways (uh-huh)
Guess that's why they broke, and you're so paid (uh)
Biggie Biggie Biggie can't you see
Sometimes your words just hypnotize me
And I just love your flashy ways
Guess that's why they broke, and you're so paid (uh)
Biggie Biggie Biggie (uh-huh) can't you see (uh)
Sometimes your words just hypnotize me (hip to)
And I just love your flashy ways (uh-huh)
Guess that's why they broke, and you're so paid (uh)
Biggie Biggie Biggie can't you see
Sometimes your words just hypnotize me
And I just love your flashy ways
Guess that's why they broke, and you're so paid
[fades]
Goodnight, everybody!
Quote from: SpikeMr. A, you and GRIM (or was it Grimgent? Or both Grim and Grimgent?) were quite vocally proseletizing on this very site not all that long ago.
I've said that I think religious people are wrong and I've made it clear that I don't have a whole lot of respect for them qua religious people but I've never proselytised in my life. I simply don't give a shit what other people believe.
The use of the word "proselytise" to mean "argue" or "disagree" is clearly meant only to insult and inflame atheists. It's textbook trolling, up there with comparing the actions of Israel to those of the Nazis. It's taking the vocabulary through which a minority tried to protect themselves from repression and using it to repress them.
It's utterly beneath contempt and your continued usage of such terminology does no credit either to the position you hold or your worth as a person.
Arguing in favour of theism or atheism is not proselytising in the context of a thread specifically about that issue.
For example, the thread that will not die here in which Akrasia argues with a variety of theists about the PoE and existence of god and all. Nothing in that is really proselytisation, the thread is clearly labelled and people enter it in order to discuss those issues.
Proselytisation begins when you raise it outside the parameters of an agreed debate on the topic.
For example, if at work you were to ask me if I were religious and I replied that I was an atheist, and if you then asked me to explain why and I did so, I haven't proselytised. I've discussed my views in context. Similarly, my mate Simon who tried to enter the priesthood has spoken to me of his beliefs a few times, but only when it's come up naturally, that isn't proselytisation either.
Proselytisation is when you bring it up when nobody asked you to. If at work you asked me what I was doing this Sunday, and I used that as an excuse to speak of why the theist hypothesis was in my view incorrect, that's proselytisation.
You can tell proselytisation by the fact it tends to be rude.
So, posting militantly about atheism, Islam, the Catholic faith in a thread about those topics and their truth is fair enough, that's the debate. Posting militantly about those things in a thread about whether the d4 is a creation of Satan thus proving the manichean's correct is being a dick.
Being an atheist does not prevent you from also being a dick. If it did, then I really would proselytise for it.
Oh, there's also different types of proselytisation.
1. Sometimes people view the person with another opinion as essentially being fuckwitted, as if they were not fuckwitted they would see the rightness of the thing being proselytised. That's kind of annoying. Many theists and atheists sadly fall into this trap, though the majority of both happily avoid it.
2. Sometimes people just like arguing, so when it comes up they just keep going after they should have stopped. That's just being human.
3. Sometimes people proselytise for entirely selfish reasons, this is tied to certain faiths really, if a guy tells me about Jesus because he has to for his own salvation, that's an essentially selfish act on his part. Jehovah's Witnesses are the classic example, it's not that they necessarily give a fuck about my soul, it's that if they don't proselytise they lose heaven for themselves. No direct atheist equivalent here.
4. Sometimes people proselytise though for altruistic reasons, they think that genuinely you are putting yourself at risk by not accepting god or that you are leading a less fulfilling life than you could be. Atheists sometimes fall into this camp, but it's mostly religious guys, as atheists have more to lose by being wrong than the religious do as a rule. This may sometimes be annoying, but it is well meant. It's someone trying to help you out, it's the theist equivalent of telling a man walking next to a cliff to step carefully, they do it for the benefit of the person addressed rather than for their own.
There are probably other reasons too, personally I'm tolerant within reason of 2 and 4 as long as people don't push it indefinitely, 1 and 3 not so much.
Quote from: HinterWeltYeah, sounds like a "well-duh" kind of question but bear with me.
I know a few atheists and consider them friends. Two of them have what I would consider a healthy attitude. They do not believe in gods but do not feel the need to campaign against those that do. Other atheists I know are hard core witnesses of the One True Enlightened Right Way. They will hound my friends of faith relentlessly until I tell them to lighten up. Usually they will take the hint.
In answer to this specific question, Tony got it right in the second post. I've found more than once that particular friends were religious or atheists without it ever having come up over several years of friendship. The vocal of any persuasion are inevitably more evident.
As a case in point about religious types proselytising, in the last 24 hours, i've had 2 such persons knock on my door. Last night at 6.30 whilst i was eating my dinner, 2 young guys from 'The Ministry of Christ', whatever that is, turned up. They were aggressive from the get-go and i simply said, "i'm not interested thanks" to which the incredulous reply was, "you're not interested in the bible!" Thanks, but no thanks.
This morning at 10.30 an old duffer turned up and was generally sweet, so i just said that it wasn't for me thanks. He tried in a round about way to get me to stay talking, but i had to get back to work. I didn't have the heart to tell him that this work involved writing up rituals and rites for a nasty cult that will be appearing in a roleplaying game. He didn't deserve that...
Nox posting thread titles about haloheads is by the way militant atheism, Akrasia posting in a clearly labelled thread about his beliefs within the off-topic forum, I struggle to see how that is.
I mean, if I go into my local church and sit down next to the priest it's a bit rich for me then to complain if he talks to me about god. Nox though is like the guy in Piccadilly who shouts at passers-by with a megaphone about accepting Jesus.
Quote from: BalbinusI mean, if I go into my local church and sit down next to the priest it's a bit rich for me then to complain if he talks to me about god. Nox though is like the guy in Piccadilly who shouts at passers-by with a megaphone about accepting Jesus.
Yeah but Nox doesn't want to convert anyone. For him religious people are just another group he can shit on. I suspect that he posted that thread in order to be seen to pick a fight with people that have traditionally been hostile to RPGers thereby making us want to clutch poor Nox to our collective bosom.
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalYeah but Nox doesn't want to convert anyone. For him religious people are just another group he can shit on. I suspect that he posted that thread in order to be seen to pick a fight with people that have traditionally been hostile to RPGers thereby making us want to clutch poor Nox to our collective bosom.
True enough.
I do think people are being a bit unfair to Akrasia though, he posts in the off-topic forum in threads clearly labelled as being about atheism and gets quite a lot of shit for it, and I'm not really sure why. It's not like he pops up in threads about fantasy gaming talking about atheism or something like that (and I have seen people do that in the old days on rpg.net).
Actually, I miss those guys, on the militant atheist front it's quite funny to see someone in a D&D thread criticising the game for its sympathetic portrayal of religion and arguing that it lends credence to a philosophy that has led to the death of millions and so on. Truly fucktardtastic. We don't seem to get that quality of loon here, and if not here then where would we find them?
Quote from: BalbinusI do think people are being a bit unfair to Akrasia though, he posts in the off-topic forum in threads clearly labelled as being about atheism and gets quite a lot of shit for it, and I'm not really sure why.
This is one of the reasons why I got sniffy about the tone last night. If Grim and Akrasia were essentially going from thread to thread picking fights with theists then I think it would be justifiable for the forum to develop language and tone commensurate with low-level hostility to atheists, but all they're doing is discussing the issue and they're being called zealots and bigots and are being accused of proselytising.
It's needlessly antagonistic groupthink with no justification for it.
Oh Christ... the D&D thing sounds like the kind of thing I might have said in the past when I was in a bad mood. I know I've taken issue with the objective morality of the alignment system but I think that's more to do with a dislike of vanilla fantasy tropes. I don't think I've actually accused D&D of being sympathetic to the Albigensian crusade though... I don't think I've ever quite plumbed that particular depth.
I remember Lancelot du Lac who would call Christians pagans and claimed to worship Wotan before asking people what their favourite SS division was.
It is a source of great amusement to me that you're having to read a Tad Williams novel currently, it fits with my general view that the essence of comedy is terrible things happening to someone else.
There was another great loon on rpg.net who defended the pagans in The Wicker Man on the basis that theirs was a reasonable expression of their faith. He saw the film as sympathetic to paganism, which I'm not sure it was.
Interestingly, I have seen both hardcore atheists argue that the Wicker Man is about the absurdity of Christianity and devoted Christians argue that it is about the power of and need for Christianity to provide hope in the face of hopelessness. Good film.
Quote from: BalbinusI do think people are being a bit unfair to Akrasia though, he posts in the off-topic forum in threads clearly labelled as being about atheism and gets quite a lot of shit for it, and I'm not really sure why.
He's largely resonsible for turning that one into a 500+ post thread, or close enough, plus posting similarly annoying stuff in other threads. He's done this by being repetitive, obtuse, and focusing on small and tangential parts of people's arguments. He's not there to respond to what people have said, but has a few things he wants to talk about, and does his best to draw those topics out of whatever the person's said.
And we've barely seen him in the roleplaying section. That's the nature of a roleplaying site. Apart from rpg.net, if you go to a rolepaying site, so long as you talk interestingly about roleplaying, you can get away with pissing people off in other ways, they'll forgive it.
That's why he gets shit here. Repetitive, obtuse, focusing on irrelevant bollocks, and doesn't talk about rpgs much.
Quote from: BalbinusInterestingly, I have seen both hardcore atheists argue that the Wicker Man is about the absurdity of Christianity and devoted Christians argue that it is about the power of and need for Christianity to provide hope in the face of hopelessness. Good film.
Great film. I've always taken it as a vaguely anti-religious film. It was made at a time when more and more alternative religions were becoming popular and many people were seeing them as politically correct spiritual alternatives to the church. The Wicker man argues that the problem isn't really with the substance of any particular belief but the way in which it is practiced and the power it has over its worshippers. So the policeman is not only a representative of the British government, he's also a devout Christian but neither are enough to protect him from the Pagans. Similarly, the Pagans who were long oppressed by the Christians find themselves in a position of power and what do they do? practice human sacrifice.
I think the Pagans and the Christians come in for an equal amount of kicking.
Quote from: JimBobOzHe's largely resonsible for turning that one into a 500+ post thread, or close enough, plus posting similarly annoying stuff in other threads. He's done this by being repetitive, obtuse, and focusing on small and tangential parts of people's arguments. He's not there to respond to what people have said, but has a few things he wants to talk about, and does his best to draw those topics out of whatever the person's said.
And we've barely seen him in the roleplaying section. That's the nature of a roleplaying site. Apart from rpg.net, if you go to a rolepaying site, so long as you talk interestingly about roleplaying, you can get away with pissing people off in other ways, they'll forgive it.
That's why he gets shit here. Repetitive, obtuse, focusing on irrelevant bollocks, and doesn't talk about rpgs much.
It is his thread JimBob, he started it, I can't really blame him too much for continuing to post to it.
That said, I struggle to see what benefit he's gaining, but that's his problem, not mine.
It's not that he keeps posting to the thread he started, it's the tone and style of his posting, which pops up in other threads, too.
Combine annoying posting style with not talking much about rpgs, and the guy will get shit. Well, on any place other than rpg.net, anyway.
You can think that's fair or not, but you said you couldn't understand why he was getting shit, and I answered that question for you. It's like,
"Oh my God that guy got shot at. I don't understand why people are shootng at him!"
"Well, while people were walking around with guns, he fired in the air, then stood up out of cover. So he got shot at."
"That's not fair! He didn't mean any harm!"
"It may be fair, or not fair. I'm just answering your implied question about why he got shot at."
All of that just sounds like the normal self-serving rubbish that bullies use to justify themselves.
Quote from: JimBobOzIt's not that he keeps posting to the thread he started, it's the tone and style of his posting, which pops up in other threads, too.
Combine annoying posting style with not talking much about rpgs, and the guy will get shit. Well, on any place other than rpg.net, anyway.
You can think that's fair or not, but you said you couldn't understand why he was getting shit, and I answered that question for you. It's like,
"Oh my God that guy got shot at. I don't understand why people are shootng at him!"
"Well, while people were walking around with guns, he fired in the air, then stood up out of cover. So he got shot at."
"That's not fair! He didn't mean any harm!"
"It may be fair, or not fair. I'm just answering your implied question about why he got shot at."
A common meaning of the phrase "I don't understand x" is not literally "I do not understand why x is happening" but rather "I do not understand why people think x is justifiable".
Basically, he's being attacked for expressing his ideas. Given he is expressing them within his own thread in the off-topic forum, I think that's not ok.
I also don't particularly agree with your assessment of his conduct in that thread, but that's a tangent.
Frankly, it smacks to me of people gunning for him because he expresses an unpopular viewpoint. After all, unless one chooses to enter clearly labelled threads one has no exposure at all to his arguments, good or bad.
Quote from: Dominus NoxIn the 20th century people may have been more likely to be killed for political rather than religious reasons by a small margin, but for the 1900 years preceeding that religion was the number one motivator for homicide.
Exactly 1900 years? So something else motivated homicide before Jesus was born? And maybe that could have a little something to do with the fact that religion, culture, ethnicity, and politics weren't sharply distinct as they are now. In other words, a lot of what you are calling "religious reasons" were really cultural, ethnic, or political reasons masquerading as religious reasons, and often still are.
Quote from: Dominus NoxAlso remember thar most of the trouble in the mideast is religious based, or at least attributed to religion.
One of the biggest problems in the Middle East is the Kurds, which has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with ethnicity. The same with much of the inter-tribal conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And if you look at most of the other conflicts, you'll see that there is an ethnic and cultural divide, if not a political divide, that goes along with religious divide. Yes, it's often "attributed to religion" but that doesn't mean that it's caused by religion. Correlation does not equal causation.
Quote from: Dominus NoxAnd the catholic church still fights against birth control, causing countless infants to be born only to starve, and opposes condoms, causing aids to continue to scythe thru africa.
Which countries in Africa are predominantly Catholic and what percentage of the Catholics in Africa follow the Church's official policy on birth control?
If you want to blame religion for the spread of AIDS in Africa, you might want to turn our attention to the belief that the spirits of dead people will haunt their spouses unless they are returned to their family, which means that some cultures in Africa not only have a custom of a man marrying the widow(s) of his dead brother (who may have died of AIDS, and they may have it, too) but those widows demand to consummate the marriage in order to give the spirit back to the brother. Yeah, that happens in parts of Africa.
Of course maybe long-distance truck drivers frequenting prostitutes and the spread of AIDS among African prostitutes played a much bigger role than all of that. Or do you want to blame the Catholic Church for prostitution, too?
Quote from: Dominus NoxIf you took all the deaths caused by babies being born in famine areas due to the vatican's opposition of birth control and all the aids victims created by the vatican's opposition to condoms you'd probably have a pile of bodies higher than the highest steeple in the vatican.
Most of the recent famines in Africa have been artificial, to the extent that food is often available but the government withholds it for political reasons (e.g., Ethiopia) or the lack of food is caused by government mismanagement of farming (e.g., Zimbabwe). Why not blame the people causing the famines, who are generally motivated for political and ethnic reasons?
As for opposition to condoms causing AIDS, do you believe that the reason why gay men continue to have a well-above-average AIDS infection rate in the United States is because of the widespread Catholicism in the American gay community and their adherence to Catholic policy on condoms? Do you think the American gay community is more religious than the rest of American society? Or maybe just throwing condoms at people and educating them just isn't enough to control the spread of AIDS?
Quote from: GRIMSooooo tired of this one.
Yes, I'm sure you are.
Quote from: GRIMLets take Stalin as case in point. Seminary educated, and apparently took his lessons very well indeed, he converted 'communism' (the USSR really wan't communist) into a faith and installed himself at the head of a personality cult.
So one can create a "faith" and use that "faith" to support a personality cult without having to bring the supernatural into the picture at all, right?
Quote from: GRIMThe purges etc were nothing to do with any atheistic beliefs he may or may not have held - because atheism HAS no motivational dogma - but instead to do with his own paranoia and desire to eliminate groups that could threaten his position.
Accepting that interpretation, for the sake of argument, the point is that Stalin's purges were not caused by religion and his atheism didn't stop him. As you point out, "atheism HAS no motivational dogma". That cuts both ways. While that means it may not have motivated Stalin to kill, it certainly didn't give him any pause about killing, either.
Quote from: GRIMCompare that to religions, which DO contain dogma - depending on the religion - to convert others, to destroy unbelievers, to treat them as inhuman and so forth.
"Motivational dogma", as you put it, can cut either way. It depends on what the motivation is. Sure, it can motivate people to destroy unbelievers and treat them as inhuman but it can also motivate people to help the poor and outlaw slavery. And absence of "motivational dogma" also cuts both ways. Sure, it won't motivate a person to destroy the unbelievers or treat them as inhuman, but it also won't motivate them to help the poor or outlaw slavery.
Let's not pretend that humans haven't been treating each other horribly, long before formal religions and formal dogma was used to justify it. What Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot show is that while people can use God as a justification for their inhumanity toward others, they have little difficulty finding or creating other justifications in the absence of any belief in God. The abuse of religion to justify horrible things is not the problem. It's simply a symptom of the real problem.
Quote from: John Morrow"Motivational dogma", as you put it, can cut either way. It depends on what the motivation is. Sure, it can motivate people to destroy unbelievers and treat them as inhuman but it can also motivate people to help the poor and outlaw slavery. And absence of "motivational dogma" also cuts both ways. Sure, it won't motivate a person to destroy the unbelievers or treat them as inhuman, but it also won't motivate them to help the poor or outlaw slavery.
Let's not pretend that humans haven't been treating each other horribly, long before formal religions and formal dogma was used to justify it. What Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot show is that while people can use God as a justification for their inhumanity toward others, they have little difficulty finding or creating other justifications in the absence of any belief in God. The abuse of religion to justify horrible things is not the problem. It's simply a symptom of the real problem.
It's important also not to confuse motivation with justification, the justification for a particular slaughter might be religious, but it doesn't follow the motivation is.
I'll return to this shortly, the Albigensian crusade is a great example which I want to post about. The justification was religious, the motivation primarily economic.
Since we're posting lyrics, here's one man's answer to the original question:
Quote from: Bob DylanOh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.
Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.
Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.
Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.
When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.
I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.
But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.
In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.
So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.
Quote from: BalbinusInterestingly, I have seen both hardcore atheists argue that the Wicker Man is about the absurdity of Christianity and devoted Christians argue that it is about the power of and need for Christianity to provide hope in the face of hopelessness. Good film.
You get that when people write movies with plausible characters on both sides rather than plausible characters on one side and straw men for them to knock down on the other. That's why shows and movies with a political or religious axe to grind are often one-dimensional and why I consider writers like J. Michael Straczynski who, as a liberal athiest, can write plausible conservatives and religious characters (Karl Rove told Bruce Boxleitner that he and President Bush are fans of the show) to be so good.
Were I a Calvinist, I could answer this thread by simply noting that atheists have no choice in the matter.
Karl Rove is an atheist himself, though admittedly no liberal.
I honestly don't believe why people care. If Christians believe you must accept Christ to gain salvation, then why do they care about people who reject Christ? It is not the Christian's lot in life to judge others, nor does it matter... only God decides who gains salvation.
To the athiests I ask a similar question. If you reject God, if you believe God does not exist, then why do you care about arguing with those who do? It's not like anyone is likely to ever be swayed by your argument. The whole thing (from both sides) seems absolutely pointless to me.
Quote from: BalbinusA common meaning of the phrase "I don't understand x" is not literally "I do not understand why x is happening" but rather "I do not understand why people think x is justifiable".
Speaking for Americans, anyway, many seem to have a strong belief that if two people can just understand each other, they will naturally agree with each other, thus you see people implying agreement when they talk about understanding. You can see this idea at work in the people who think that all problems can be solved by two parties sitting down at a table and talking because they have a belief that if they could just understand each other, they could find agreement. Other cultures don't look at it the same way.
For example, when a Japanese person tells you "wakarimasu", they are saying "I understand" but it doesn't necessarily mean that they agree with you. It's sort of an, "I've heard what you have to say and you can stop talking now." rather than "I agree with you." and this has caused American businessmen no end of grief when they leave a meeting in which the Japanese side says "wakarimasu" and they interpret that to mean that there has been an agreement. The truth is, as the Japanese understand, you can understand another person or the points they are making without agreeing with them.
Quote from: CalithenaKarl Rove is an atheist himself, though admittedly no liberal.
And Bush is no atheist and arguably not a conservative.
Quote from: John MorrowSpeaking for Americans, anyway, many seem to have a strong belief that if two people can just understand each other, they will naturally agree with each other, thus you see people implying agreement when they talk about understanding. You can see this idea at work in the people who think that all problems can be solved by two parties sitting down at a table and talking because they have a belief that if they could just understand each other, they could find agreement. Other cultures don't look at it the same way.
I've encountered that, the world would be a nicer place were it true, but it ain't.
After all, to take an extreme example, it's not like Hitler didn't understand the Allies or we him, we just didn't agree. We understood each other pretty well though.
Equally, if I want your land because of minerals on it, understanding that you don't want to give it to me may not be sufficient to persuade me to desist.
Now, understanding is a good place to start, because you might find agreement or you might find a compromise which works for everyone, but it's a start rather than a solution.
Good example with the Japanese by the way.
QuoteSo one can create a "faith" and use that "faith" to support a personality cult without having to bring the supernatural into the picture at all, right?
Absolutely.
If I haven't been clear before I'm against ALL faith, not just religious faith. The pernicious unreason and inability to process data that is also present in most political ideologies and nationalism.
QuoteAccepting that interpretation, for the sake of argument, the point is that Stalin's purges were not caused by religion and his atheism didn't stop him. As you point out, "atheism HAS no motivational dogma". That cuts both ways. While that means it may not have motivated Stalin to kill, it certainly didn't give him any pause about killing, either.
Nope, that would depend on other views and moralities. Still, it wasn't motivating his purges, which is a step up on religious dogmas.
Quote"Motivational dogma", as you put it, can cut either way. It depends on what the motivation is. Sure, it can motivate people to destroy unbelievers and treat them as inhuman but it can also motivate people to help the poor and outlaw slavery. And absence of "motivational dogma" also cuts both ways. Sure, it won't motivate a person to destroy the unbelievers or treat them as inhuman, but it also won't motivate them to help the poor or outlaw slavery.
Or, given those examples, it can lead to the workhouse and runaway capitalism. (Protestant work ethic) or can lead to slavery (Curse of Ham, Dominionism).
Of course, without god people are more likely to turn to rational examinations of such things, which does seem to lead to perfectly functional moral codes and prohibitions against such behaviour.
QuoteLet's not pretend that humans haven't been treating each other horribly, long before formal religions and formal dogma was used to justify it. What Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot show is that while people can use God as a justification for their inhumanity toward others, they have little difficulty finding or creating other justifications in the absence of any belief in God. The abuse of religion to justify horrible things is not the problem. It's simply a symptom of the real problem.
It isn't abuse of the religion though, its a function of the religion's 'programming'.
Quote from: GRIMNope, that would depend on other views and moralities. Still, it wasn't motivating his purges, which is a step up on religious dogmas.
Not sure I follow this, why is mass slaughter for materialist dogma better than mass slaughter for religious dogma? From the perspective of the victims it all seems much of a muchness.
Dogma can be dangerous, I'm not sure it matters much whether that dogma is religious or otherwise.
Quote from: ZalmoxisTo the athiests I ask a similar question. If you reject God, if you believe God does not exist, then why do you care about arguing with those who do? It's not like anyone is likely to ever be swayed by your argument. The whole thing (from both sides) seems absolutely pointless to me.
Well the atheistic argument relies on evidence, so hope springs eternal that people will apply the same decision making criteria they do in every other area of their life to the question(?) of religion as well.
As to why.
Look at the US government, look at the mess in Africa, look at the continuing nonsense over abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage. Look at the Islamic situation, the tibetan situation, Northern Ireland (still) even.
If these illogical beliefs were entirely personal then there wouldn't be a need, but these people want to change the world for everyone based on their illogical nonsense.
So GRIM, is your firm belief that it's a mistake to hold firm beliefs?
Sounds like a dogma to me :D
Quote from: GRIMIt isn't abuse of the religion though, its a function of the religion's 'programming'.
I think that's simply wrong.
The Albigensian crusade was justified as a war of the faithful upon heretics, however at the time it was widely perceived as a land and property grab by Northern nobles against Southern. Correctly perceived as it happens. The justification was religious, but the motivation was fiscal.
The Salem witch trials were in large part inspired by religious hysteria, but analyses of property ownership before and afterwards has indicated that the accusers often ended up getting property previously held by the accused. Again, fiscal motivations were present, though here not the primary cause.
The conquest of the New World was motivated primarily by the desire for gold, read the pitch documents of the time promoting the conquest, religion was merely used as a justification.
The fact that people say they are doing something for god does not make it so, people lie, sometimes even to themselves.
As someone once said, the love of money is the root of all evil, including by and large religious evil. Justifications and motivations can and often are very different things.
Quote from: SettembriniYou´d never have such a discussion like this in a German forum.
Until now, I'd never had this discussion on an American Forum. I think you're allowing your own views to bias the discussion. While I would agree it is an issue in some parts of my nation, I wouldn't say the problem is the same as our news media makes it out to be.
As usual, the country portrayed by the news media and the country as it really exists are two separate, and often unequal things.
Quote from: BalbinusNot sure I follow this, why is mass slaughter for materialist dogma better than mass slaughter for religious dogma? From the perspective of the victims it all seems much of a muchness.
Dogma can be dangerous, I'm not sure it matters much whether that dogma is religious or otherwise.
It doesn't.
Religion tends to do it more 'efficiciently' though.
What I'm arguing against is this idea that 'atheism' somehow motivated Stalin, or Hitler or Pol Pot or any of the other's purges.
That's nonsense.
Quote from: GRIMWell the atheistic argument relies on evidence, so hope springs eternal that people will apply the same decision making criteria they do in every other area of their life to the question(?) of religion as well.
As to why.
Look at the US government, look at the mess in Africa, look at the continuing nonsense over abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage. Look at the Islamic situation, the tibetan situation, Northern Ireland (still) even.
If these illogical beliefs were entirely personal then there wouldn't be a need, but these people want to change the world for everyone based on their illogical nonsense.
Yeah, sure, but look at Stalin, look at Hitler, look at Rwanda or Yugoslavia (and that was not primarily a religious conflict, it was ethnic).
Tibet has bugger all to do with religion. As for Northern Ireland, it's tribalism, neither faith advocates the slaughter of the other, the fighting is simultaneously about faith and in contradiction of it.
People kill each other. Reasons vary. Take away one reason and we'll just find others.
Quote from: GRIMIt doesn't.
Religion tends to do it more 'efficiciently' though.
What I'm arguing against is this idea that 'atheism' somehow motivated Stalin, or Hitler or Pol Pot or any of the other's purges.
That's nonsense.
I'm not persuaded religion is better at it. Obviously atheism didn't cause Pol Pot or whatever, but dogma did. Whether that dogma is religious or materialist makes little odds.
Quote from: Hastur T. FannonSo GRIM, is your firm belief that it's a mistake to hold firm beliefs?
Sounds like a dogma to me :D
Its my firm belief that its a mistake to hold unevidenced and unverifiable beliefs :) I believe there to be sufficient proof of that.
Quote from: JimBobOzHe's largely resonsible for turning that one into a 500+ post thread, or close enough...
Simply because I
reply to what other people have said? Because I reply to their questions and challenges to my arguments, and in turn question and challenge them?
Anyhow, I don't recall
forcing you to take part in that thread. If you don't like it, ignore it. It's not hard to do!
Quote from: JimBobOz... plus posting similarly annoying stuff in other threads.
...
Like where?
Quote from: JimBobOz.... He's not there to respond to what people have said, but has a few things he wants to talk about ...
...
False.Check out my most recent reply to
you in the 'other thread':
http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=76747&postcount=496
You will note that I responded to
your points without even mentioning the gratuitous attacks that you made towards me in your post.
Quote from: JimBobOzAnd we've barely seen him in the roleplaying section.
...
BullshitI had over 400 posts, almost
entirely in the 'roleplaying section'
before that 'atheism' thread started almost 2 months ago. I continue to post in the RPG section regularly (see the Wilderlands threads, the threads that I've
started on Rolemaster, Elizabethan sourcebooks, etc.).
Just because
you don't read the RPG threads that I participate in doesn't mean that I'm 'not active' in the RPG section.
Quote from: JimBobOzThat's why he gets shit here...
You know what man, you're the
only regular poster who has 'given me shit' more than once here. Seriously.
If you find me so annoying, why do you keep replying to my posts, taking part in my threads, etc.? Why don't you just put me on your ignore list and put yourself out of my misery?
Look, despite some of our past run-ins JimBob, I've actually always thought that you were basically a decent, albeit prickly, guy.
Now I see that I was mistaken. You're a rude jerk. I can understand why Calithena has you on his ignore list.
Quote from: BalbinusI'm not persuaded religion is better at it. Obviously atheism didn't cause Pol Pot or whatever, but dogma did. Whether that dogma is religious or materialist makes little odds.
To me either. but historically, and in the present time, religion seems to me to be a more clear and present danger to that which I hold dear. Plus we're arguing religion in this thread :)
Quote from: GRIMIf I haven't been clear before I'm against ALL faith, not just religious faith. The pernicious unreason and inability to process data that is also present in most political ideologies and nationalism.
I think it is impossible to live without faith. I've yet to meet an atheist who doesn't hit a "just because" moment.
Quote from: GRIMNope, that would depend on other views and moralities. Still, it wasn't motivating his purges, which is a step up on religious dogmas.
Only if you assume that religious dogmas only motivate bad things and not good things.
Quote from: GRIMOr, given those examples, it can lead to the workhouse and runaway capitalism. (Protestant work ethic) or can lead to slavery (Curse of Ham, Dominionism).
Yes, you can keep selecting the bad and I can keep selecting the good and neither changes the fact that you can get bad
and good from religious dogma.
Quote from: GRIMOf course, without god people are more likely to turn to rational examinations of such things, which does seem to lead to perfectly functional moral codes and prohibitions against such behaviour.
Given that we've never had a perfectly dogma-free society without a religious heritage present in the culture, we don't really know. I do, however, know that nations who have gone out of their way to try to suppress religion have a pretty good track record of stepping all over individual rights.
Quote from: GRIMIt isn't abuse of the religion though, its a function of the religion's 'programming'.
Not really. Plenty of the abuses you are talking about directly contradict principles of various religions. There is a reason why so many modern totalitarian governments consider Christianity to a problem rather than a tool they can use.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineAkrasia's pretty reasonable. He's certainly very forceful in his arguments, and he refuses to let folks get away with what he thinks are shoddy arguments, but neither of those are particularly dependent on his being an atheist (though obviously, they are part of the ground of his choice to become an atheist). He's not proselytising except in the loosest sense of the word.
Thanks man!
Of course you realise that, in posting this, you're expressing a view dangerously contrary to the 'RPGsite consensus' (as declaimed by JimBobOz).
:p
Quote from: John MorrowNot really. Plenty of the abuses you are talking about directly contradict principles of various religions. There is a reason why so many modern totalitarian governments consider Christianity to a problem rather than a tool they can use.
Even the good is motivated by the bad.
Charitable works motivated by the opportunity to witness, to imprint and spread the meme to others.
Sure, most religions seem fluffy if you're very, very selective, but even John Lennon, new testament Jesus talked about swords and dividing people.
A religion that doesn't imprint new victims gets out evolved in 'mindspace'.
The reason totalitarian government regard it as a problem is that its a rival and it has people deferring to a different higher authority than them.
Quote from: GRIMEven the good is motivated by the bad.
Charitable works motivated by the opportunity to witness, to imprint and spread the meme to others.
Sure, most religions seem fluffy if you're very, very selective, but even John Lennon, new testament Jesus talked about swords and dividing people.
A religion that doesn't imprint new victims gets out evolved in 'mindspace'.
The reason totalitarian government regard it as a problem is that its a rival and it has people deferring to a different higher authority than them.
You know Grim, I spent a while in Akrasia's thread arguing on the atheist side, I'm distinctly on the atheist side of the debate and all, but this looks more like prejudice to me.
I mean, it's true of some religious folks I've met, but I've also met folks for whom clearly it has made a real difference and has helped them be better people.
This is the Dawkins fallacy, that religion is necessarily a force for ill, and it alienates people who might otherwise be persuaded. There are a great many people who would probably be happy identifiying themselves as atheists if that didn't implicitly put them in the same camp as guys who say that their religious friends, family and colleagues are dangerous wackjobs.
It just goes against the common experience of most people, the truth is the religious by and large ain't so different to the non-religious. And of those who do differ while some become clearly problematic others seem to benefit from it.
Any hypothesis which contradicts common experience needs solid evidence, and I just don't think you have any here for the hypothesis that religion is necessarily a bad thing. Personally, I just think it's wrong, like believing in the ether is wrong or believing that ufos kidnap US citizens. Wrong in the sense of incorrect or fallacious, not wrong in the sense of morally culpable.
I can believe that someone is incorrect on a point without it affecting our respect for each other, for example I think you're incorrect here, the moment I start thinking their beliefs are dangerous though I'd best have some good evidence on my side if I want to persuade anyone else that I'm correct.
Hastur is a Christian, accordingly I think he is incorrect in his assessment of how our universe functions. He thinks I'm incorrect in my assessment. That's just life, sometimes reasonable people reasonably disagree. I don't think it needs be some great culture war.
Quote from: GRIMEven the good is motivated by the bad.
Baloney
Quote from: GRIMCharitable works motivated by the opportunity to witness, to imprint and spread the meme to others.
Not all charitable religious people witness.
Quote from: GRIMSure, most religions seem fluffy if you're very, very selective, but even John Lennon, new testament Jesus talked about swords and dividing people.
I never said religion was "fluffy". Fluffy bunnies sit around, eat, crap, and get eaten by wolves.
Quote from: GRIMA religion that doesn't imprint new victims gets out evolved in 'mindspace'.
If that were true, there wouldn't be so many new invented religions and revival of old religions going on. You've got plenty of people buying crystals, dancing naked under the moon, and reading books about ancient mysticism even though nobody is "imprinting" those ideas on them. You might want to take a good look at John Walker Lindh. The Taliban didn't go looking for him. He went looking for the Taliban. In other words, atheism seems to have a problem with leaving many people feeling "unfulfilled".
As for evolution, the fact that religious people have lots of babies and atheists don't suggests that it will be atheism that's on the endangered species list in the long run.
Quote from: GRIMThe reason totalitarian government regard it as a problem is that its a rival and it has people deferring to a different higher authority than them.
You can subvert a rival so long as you can get it to go in the same direction. You can find examples where Christianity was subverted toward political ends and you can find other examples where it resisted subversion. You want to have it all one way.
For someone who thinks so badly of dogma and so highly of evidence, you sure seem to be intent on reading the evidence to support your beliefs, regardless of what the evidence actually shows. To claim that religion does no good is as false as a claim that religion does no wrong.
Quote from: BalbinusHastur is a Christian, accordingly I think he is incorrect in his assessment of how our universe functions. He thinks I'm incorrect in my assessment. That's just life, sometimes reasonable people reasonably disagree. I don't think it needs be some great culture war.
Unless, as they have been, the forces of unreason start to seriously affect the survival chances of the species.
Can you point at something religion does that's 'good' that doesn't also carry 'bad' with it? And isn't the spread and promotion of non-thought bad in and of itself?
Quote from: John MorrowBaloney
None of these make any difference to what is actually TRUE or not.
And a faith-lead humanity is far more likely to blow itself up before we acheive Type 1 civilisation.
Quote from: GRIMUnless, as they have been, the forces of unreason start to seriously affect the survival chances of the species.
Can you point at something religion does that's 'good' that doesn't also carry 'bad' with it? And isn't the spread and promotion of non-thought bad in and of itself?
Well, firstly I'm an atheist. I don't think concepts such as good or bad have any intrinsic meaning, as such I don't think anything can be bad in and of itself. It can only be bad if we decide to consider it such. Personally I would prefer we all saw the world as it is, but there is nothing intrinsically right about that preference. It's essentially an aesthetic choice on my part.
Secondly, the species is doomed whatever, it's just a question of how long really. Everything we are and do will ultimately be lost as if it never was, so it goes. Sucks to be us.
Thirdly, I think religion overall assists the survival of the species by encouraging cooperation and forms of conduct which increase the overall survival prospects of the group. I think that's why we evolved it most likely.
Fourthly, I'm not persuaded religion now threatens the survival of the species, I think the things threatening our survival that are in our own power are mostly utterly unconnected to religion. Mostly short sightedness and an inability to properly assess medium to long term risk.
Fifthly, I didn't say there is good without bad, merely that it isn't all bad. It's a mixed bag, like most human conceptual creations.
Quote from: GRIMUnless, as they have been, the forces of unreason start to seriously affect the survival chances of the species.
Please tell me how the various anti-reproductive policies of many atheists promotes the survival of the species. I'm really curious about that one.
I'm also curious why we should care about the survival of the species since as best science can tell, the universe will end or become inhospitable to life and we have no way of escaping it. What's the point of the species surviving?
Quote from: GRIMCan you point at something religion does that's 'good' that doesn't also carry 'bad' with it? And isn't the spread and promotion of non-thought bad in and of itself?
No, the spread and promotion of non-thought isn't bad in and of itself. That's your own personal bias speaking.
Quote from: GRIMAnd a faith-lead humanity is far more likely to blow itself up before we acheive Type 1 civilisation.
How do you know this? What makes you think we'll ever achieve a Type 1 civilization? Why should we even try? Given that the population is rapidly starting to contract in the most secular nations, what makes you think that, if the whole world were to become secular, we'd ever have enough people to need that much energy or even need to get off of the planet?
Quote from: BalbinusYou know Grim, I spent a while in Akrasia's thread arguing on the atheist side, I'm distinctly on the atheist side of the debate and all, but this looks more like prejudice to me.
I mean, it's true of some religious folks I've met, but I've also met folks for whom clearly it has made a real difference and has helped them be better people.
This is the Dawkins fallacy, that religion is necessarily a force for ill, and it alienates people who might otherwise be persuaded. There are a great many people who would probably be happy identifiying themselves as atheists if that didn't implicitly put them in the same camp as guys who say that their religious friends, family and colleagues are dangerous wackjobs.
It just goes against the common experience of most people, the truth is the religious by and large ain't so different to the non-religious. And of those who do differ while some become clearly problematic others seem to benefit from it.
Any hypothesis which contradicts common experience needs solid evidence, and I just don't think you have any here for the hypothesis that religion is necessarily a bad thing. Personally, I just think it's wrong, like believing in the ether is wrong or believing that ufos kidnap US citizens. Wrong in the sense of incorrect or fallacious, not wrong in the sense of morally culpable.
I can believe that someone is incorrect on a point without it affecting our respect for each other, for example I think you're incorrect here, the moment I start thinking their beliefs are dangerous though I'd best have some good evidence on my side if I want to persuade anyone else that I'm correct.
Hastur is a Christian, accordingly I think he is incorrect in his assessment of how our universe functions. He thinks I'm incorrect in my assessment. That's just life, sometimes reasonable people reasonably disagree. I don't think it needs be some great culture war.
This is the sort of thing I keep trying to post and failing miserably at apparently. Well, not all of it but the general gist of it. I am not trying to be pro-religion or anti-atheist, I just call people being cocksmocks when they act like cocksmocks (to steal a line from Jimmy).
I just get frustrated at the casual asumption that I must be some sort of bible thumper when I say 'that argument is shit' just because the argument in question is pro-atheist.:confused:
Quote from: BalbinusThirdly, I think religion overall assists the survival of the species by encouraging cooperation and forms of conduct which increase the overall survival prospects of the group. I think that's why we evolved it most likely.
laugh point.
Quote from: BalbinusHastur is a Christian, accordingly I think he is incorrect in his assessment of how our universe functions.
Oi! I think that the Scientific Method is the best method of accurately modelling the universe. That's practically a statement of faith for me. It's just not much good with singularities like the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Ascension, etc. etc.
(tangent, but Rowen has absolutely no problem in using the word "singularity" for points like that were our logic and reason completely break down and Orthodox ikonography has been representing them with black holes for centuries. There's an ikon of the Transfiguration that looks disturbingly enough someone has tried to paint Jesus standing in front of black hole complete with Swartzchild radiation. Freaky)
I think this thread is a good damn example of why atheists seem so anti-religious. What do I mean? Well, shit, I'll explain.
It's because religious people can talk about religion any damn time they want to. (In the United States midwest, where I've been brought up at least.) However, if you're an atheist, you have to keep your mouth shut.
Why? Several reasons. On this thread, atheists who talk about being atheist are immediatly phrased as preachers or bigots by some. Akraisa, whose posting I appreciated for example, gets called a bigot by JimBob because he had a thread about it and it got long. Oh, and because he had a prickly posting demeanor? (On the Rpgsite? Well I'll be damned. Besides the irony of JimBob talking about someone's caustic tone amazes me.)
Another reason? I know where I'm at, atheists don't get hired. They're not trusted. I know that, as a suspected atheist, people worry about my morals because they're not sent from God. Maybe that's not your experiance. Maybe that's not how you feel about me. I mean, I appreciate that, but I still get crapped on all the time and if I complain, I'm being unreasonable.
I mean, I was a Boy Scout for years. I'm an Eagle Scout. I couldn't ask anyone about my own doubts, if anyone asked me my denomination, I'd have to lie, and I'm glad they just assumed I was religious during my Eagle Review. If it came out that I was unsure of a devine presence or, worse, didn't care, I could be stripped of the rank I earned and am proud of. I know people who I lived with for years, and am on good terms with that absolutely would.
That's not life threatning and it's only one example. I'm not irritated at religion, even though I think it's kind of retarded. But religious people over here like to enforce it, and that gets old. Luckily, it's been years since I've been beaten for my religious preferences.
Quote from: Hastur T. FannonOi! I think that the Scientific Method is the best method of accurately modelling the universe. That's practically a statement of faith for me. It's just not much good with singularities like the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Ascension, etc. etc.
(tangent, but Rowen has absolutely no problem in using the word "singularity" for points like that were our logic and reason completely break down and Orthodox ikonography has been representing them with black holes for centuries. There's an ikon of the Transfiguration that looks disturbingly enough someone has tried to paint Jesus standing in front of black hole complete with Swartzchild radiation. Freaky)
I think it's a perfectly valid use of the term singularity.
Anyway, you got my point though I'm sure, we disagree on a few ontological details but that doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things.
Well, actually it means tons in the grand scheme of things. Hm, anyway, I think we can disagree on whether or not there is a god and still agree on tons of other stuff, while monumentally important it's also not that big a deal if that makes sense.
As for the scientific method, never occurred to me you didn't.
I'm a bit disappointed nobody posted about the PEAR lab closing though, I'd have thought that a natural spinoff from all this.
Quote from: Thanatos02Another reason? I know where I'm at, atheists don't get hired. They're not trusted. I know that, as a suspected atheist, people worry about my morals because they're not sent from God. Maybe that's not your experiance. Maybe that's not how you feel about me. I mean, I appreciate that, but I still get crapped on all the time and if I complain, I'm being unreasonable.
I mean, I was a Boy Scout for years. I'm an Eagle Scout. I couldn't ask anyone about my own doubts, if anyone asked me my denomination, I'd have to lie, and I'm glad they just assumed I was religious during my Eagle Review. If it came out that I was unsure of a devine presence or, worse, didn't care, I could be stripped of the rank I earned and am proud of. I know people who I lived with for years, and am on good terms with that absolutely would.
That's not life threatning and it's only one example. I'm not irritated at religion, even though I think it's kind of retarded. But religious people over here like to enforce it, and that gets old. Luckily, it's been years since I've been beaten for my religious preferences.
This is what I was hoping to find in this thread. This is so outside my experience that it seems fantastic to me. I have gone to literally hundreds of interviews (as a consultant it happens often) including ones for churches and religious organizations. I have never once been asked about my beliefs nor even tangentially come close to discussing them. No "What church to you attend". I have never had any reason to believe I did not get a job due to my beliefs. So, please, could you elucidate? Who would discriminate in this manner at an interview? What questions would they ask and were there witnesses present? It very well may be that we are talking about different industries but as a consultant, although I am in IT, I interview with members of many different industries.
As for religious discussions and talking over any doubts I have, for the most part I mimit this to people I know and trust. This is not a protect myself kind of thing. I just consider my beliefs to be a private thing. I like discussing peoples faiths and do so with friends often and have never had one who scorned me for doing so. However, I am particular in who I choose to call friends. This is not to say I only hang around with people who agree with me but I do not believe someone would want to be my friend if they were a fundamental Christian for example. So you site the Boy Scouts, do your friends scorn you as well (assuming you have friends in the Boy Scouts)? Again, I am merely asking since my course of action would be to either distance myself (assuming my interest in the group was such) or only be concerned with my beliefs and share them as appropriate. In the later, I would deal with the fall out as needed. Again, my experience has been such that no one has ever grilled me about my faith. If people ask, generally I will tell them my beliefs but I do not feel the need to volunteer them so I wonder how the Boy Scouts would find out. Would you volunteer the information or would it be asked of you?
Please, despite the tone of this thread, I am genuinely interested in your personal experiences. If you do not feel comfortable answering, by all means do not.
Thanks for the insightful post nonetheless.
Bill
I applied for a job once with a Christian organization and they asked my religious affiliation. That was the only time I have ever been asked that, directly or indirectly, by an employer.
Partially to Zalmoxis, but mostly to Thanatos02: Was it in America?
Asking that sort of stuff here should be reported. Whether you report it to the interviewer with a simple "I'm not comfortable answering that" or report it to a lawyer depends on the extent of the questioning and how much you want to try to squeeze them because of it. In some companies you could get a guy fired and be almost gauranteed a "please don't sue us" hiring for yourself.
I ought to clairify about the job thing. I've never been asked in an interview, so as long as I don't say anything, it's a non-issue. However, having met a lot of the managers of several buisnesses on off-time, (my parents are involved with a lot of these people on managerial/personal levels) adherance to religion is really important to many of them. I know that many of them simply have stated that religion is crucial to them and that people without a strong religious belief arn't trustworth people, ethically or morally.
When my parents have friends over, I'm instructed not to talk about my religious views or my political views because it could ostricize them. It's a really clubby atmosphere over here, so personal views are taken really seriously.
Of course, I could get dishwashing jobs or something, but that's not really what I was talking about.
Oh, and about the Scouts. Well, none of my friends gave me any trouble, but I doubt any but a very few are aware of my religious agnosticsm/indifference. But it was in America, yeah.
Never having been part of a religious culture like that I can't really understand it, but it definitely sounds crappy. I can definitely see where constant subjection to that sort of religious person might make one anti-religion, especially if there's a dirth of counter examples involving religious people that aren't like that.
Quote from: Thanatos02I ought to clairify about the job thing. I've never been asked in an interview, so as long as I don't say anything, it's a non-issue. However, having met a lot of the managers of several buisnesses on off-time, (my parents are involved with a lot of these people on managerial/personal levels) adherance to religion is really important to many of them. I know that many of them simply have stated that religion is crucial to them and that people without a strong religious belief arn't trustworth people, ethically or morally.
Are these people managers at places YOU work at? If not, why is it an issue?
Also, since being religious isn't required or discussed in your interviews, what difference does it make? Its not like they corner you in the stockroom or whatever and demand you recite the 10 Commandments, is it?
People can believe anything they want. Its when they ACT on those beliefs in the workplace that a problem occurs. And that's what laws and courts are for.
On the whole, this thread demonstrates that some people are far too worried about what other people think, and far less worried about minding their own business - that goes for both sides of the debate.
Quote from: SpikeMy arguments? I bowed out of that thread because Akrasia started blasting all about with the PoE arguement which is only relevant to a very tiny conception of God, and was quite rude for a while with his drunken rants ...
:imsorry:
Yes, I feel rather badly about my behaviour during one part of that thread. I've apologized for it a couple of times.
Quote from: SpikeI understood Akrasia's point. In fact, my entire arguement with him, prior to bowing out was on that very point. It wasn't relevant to dismiss 'this idea of God' when talking about the possibility of God, especially when many faiths don't require God to be benevolent at all. The fact that he admitted it was so, then kept going on about it was part of why I left...
You still don't get it, do you? The argument I mentioned is only
one among
many. And yes it is directed only against a particular conception of God, but so what?
Other arguments are available that address other conceptions – and indeed, the notion that we need to posit 'supernatural entities' at all (whether God
or not). The only reason that I 'kept going at it' with respect to that one argument was because people kept levelling objections against it, and I found these objections utterly unconvincing.
One thing that you don't seem to appreciate, Spike, is that arguments – especially rather formal arguments like the one that I mentioned as an example in that other thread – tend to have precise targets (e.g. specific conceptions of God, or specific accounts of 'souls', etc.). For the life of me, I couldn't understand why you failed to grasp this.
Quote from: Spike... I just get frustrated at the casual asumption that I must be some sort of bible thumper when I say 'that argument is shit' just because the argument in question is pro-atheist.:confused:
For the record, I
never assumed that you were a 'bible thumper' for declaring an 'argument is shit'.
I just thought that the reasons for your declaration were pathetic (as pointed out by Pseudoephedrine).
Quote from: James McMurray... Asking that sort of stuff here should be reported. Whether you report it to the interviewer with a simple "I'm not comfortable answering that" or report it to a lawyer depends on the extent of the questioning and how much you want to try to squeeze them because of it. In some companies you could get a guy fired and be almost gauranteed a "please don't sue us" hiring for yourself.
Having applied for philosophy jobs in the U.S. before, I know that many Christian colleges there require a 'Declaration of Faith' (or something analogous) as a condition of employment.
Now, they're private colleges, so I fully appreciate their right to do this (indeed, I would
defend their right to do this). But it means that atheist philosophers are far more constrained in the range of jobs to which they can apply. Given that something like 90+ percent of people with philosophy PhDs are atheists, that means that the small number of theistic philosophers seeking jobs have a
huge advantage.
Anyway, making generalizations about a country as big as the U.S. is meaningless. I lived in the Bay Area for three years (commuting to Stanford from San Francisco) and that area is about as 'atheist-friendly' as anywhere in the world. On the other hand, I've heard horror stories from colleagues who have lived in places like Alabama, Georgia, and Texas.
Can we please keep the 10 Myths thread inside the 10 Myths thread itself?
Quote from: AkrasiaHaving applied for philosophy jobs in the U.S. before, I know that many Christian colleges there require a 'Declaration of Faith' (or something analogous) as a condition of employment.
Now, they're private colleges, so I fully appreciate their right to do this (indeed, I would defend their right to do this). But it means that atheist philosophers are far more constrained in the range of jobs to which they can apply. Given that something like 90+ percent of people with philosophy PhDs are atheists, that means that the small number of theistic philosophers seeking jobs have a huge advantage.
Anyway, making generalizations about a country as big as the U.S. is meaningless. I lived in the Bay Area for three years (commuting to Stanford from San Francisco) and that area is about as 'atheist-friendly' as anywhere in the world. On the other hand, I've heard horror stories from colleagues who have lived in places like Alabama, Georgia, and Texas.
PRivate or not, they cannot, if they are an employer in the US, ask you about religion, marital status or race. I conduct a lot of interviews and get briefed many times on what is acceptable.
If you are truly being discriminated against in your job opportunities, you need to consult a lawyer. If you choose not to...well, my Dad always had a saying for that "If you wont do something about it, then the next guy sure wont."
Bill
Quote from: James McMurrayCan we please keep the 10 Myths thread inside the 10 Myths thread itself?
Seconded, please let's not have the PoE or any similar debates in this thread. This thread is about why atheists are sometimes or often depending on perspective utter dicks.
I think, I may be getting my atheism threads mixed up.
Quote from: Thanatos02I ought to clairify about the job thing. I've never been asked in an interview, so as long as I don't say anything, it's a non-issue. However, having met a lot of the managers of several buisnesses on off-time, (my parents are involved with a lot of these people on managerial/personal levels) adherance to religion is really important to many of them. I know that many of them simply have stated that religion is crucial to them and that people without a strong religious belief arn't trustworth people, ethically or morally.
When my parents have friends over, I'm instructed not to talk about my religious views or my political views because it could ostricize them. It's a really clubby atmosphere over here, so personal views are taken really seriously.
Of course, I could get dishwashing jobs or something, but that's not really what I was talking about.
Oh, and about the Scouts. Well, none of my friends gave me any trouble, but I doubt any but a very few are aware of my religious agnosticsm/indifference. But it was in America, yeah.
Again, with all respect, is this due to your living with your parents? If not, are you invited to similar social gatherings? Are you invited to a social function and need to act appropriately? For instance, they have business associates over and you are asked to dress nice and be polite. Being polite, just so you know, usually means avoiding discussing politics and religion.
Anecdote time:
When I was a freshman in college, far too long ago, I decided to announce to my mother (a devote conservative Lutheran), that I was not Christian. I am fairly sure she knew but I wanted to TELL her. So, at a Perkins, with her mother (my Grandmother) sitting next to her I told her with great bravado.
Her reply: No, you are Christian.
I was shocked at her insensitivity. Her intolerance. About five years later, it came up again and she was "Oh, yeah, I love you and am fine with that. Why wouldn't I."
Lesson of the anecdote: It is not necessarily what you say, so much as how you say it or when. Do the business associates of your parents need to know your religious beliefs? Do you need to present them in a confrontational manner? Is there even any reason to discuss it in company? There might be. I could imagine they might bring it up. I have been in situations where it is difficult to find a middle ground so I do sympathize.
Unfortunately, our modern society (IME) has grown towards if I speak the truth it should be loved no matter how I say it. You can take a critical approach to presenting your view and analyzing others or you can preach at someone. I have found, and this is my experience only, that if you a happy with your beliefs, you really do not need to convert anyone. Whether it is just me believing, or everyone on the planet does not matter.
I guess the point to my rambling is this. I do not know your situation but interacting with your parent's friends is their business not yours. Seek out friends who have similar interests. Some you will be able to talk about the local sporting event and others about your beliefs. One of the keys to happiness is knowing which your friends are.
Bill
Quote from: James McMurrayCan we please keep the 10 Myths thread inside the 10 Myths thread itself?
Oh yes, my apologies!
After 55 pages, I actually hope that the 10 Myths thread starts to fade away soon, let alone colonize other threads. My bad. (I just can't resist replying to people when they criticize me ... it's a sign of a weak character, I know ...)
Quote from: HinterWeltPRivate or not, they cannot, if they are an employer in the US, ask you about religion, marital status or race. I conduct a lot of interviews and get briefed many times on what is acceptable.
If you are truly being discriminated against in your job opportunities, you need to consult a lawyer. If you choose not to...well, my Dad always had a saying for that "If you wont do something about it, then the next guy sure wont."
Bill
I am positive that private religious colleges have this right. They're very open about it, declare it in their advertisements (in public job postings in the 'Jobs for Philosophers' section of the 'American Philosophical Association' website, etc.), and so forth.
If what they were doing was illegal, I am 100 percent positive that they would have been prosecuted by now, given all the legal philosophers and atheists in the U.S. who consult the publication in question.
My understanding is that only colleges that receive
federal funding are prohibited against barring people of particular religions from being employed by religious institutions. If a college receives
no federal funding then they -- just like a private club -- can deny membership on the basis of religious affiliation.
Quote from: BalbinusWere I a Calvinist, I could answer this thread by simply noting that atheists have no choice in the matter.
One of a number of reasons that my mother's only manifest -- and clearly proclaimed -- bigotry is against the Calvinists. :haw:
!i!
Quote from: AkrasiaI am positive that private religious colleges have this right. They're very open about it, declare it in their advertisements (in public job postings in the 'Jobs for Philosophers' section of the 'American Philosophical Association' website, etc.), and so forth.
If what they were doing was illegal, I am 100 percent positive that they would have been prosecuted by now, given all the legal philosophers and atheists in the U.S. who consult the publication in question.
My understanding is that only colleges that receive federal funding are prohibited against barring people of particular religions from being employed by religious institutions. If a college receives no federal funding then they -- just like a private club -- can deny membership on the basis of religious affiliation.
This seems to go against every EOE law I have heard unless it is a description of your job; i.e. you must be able to teach a certain way or method or something like a pastor must be of the denomination of the church they are hired for. However, that said, my experience is not in education. I mostly deal with IT and engineering positions.
hmm, learn something new every day.
Bill
I see I missed a lot of "fun" in the off-topic forum these last few...weeks is it?
Bill, the Civil Rights Act (http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html) has a loophole for religious institutions:
Quote2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a
school, college, university, or other educational institution or
institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular
religion if such school, college, university, or other educational
institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial
part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or
by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the
curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational
institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation
of a particular religion.
Note that the school doesn't even have to have an explicit goal of teaching religion. I.e., of course it would be silly to force Baptists to treat Catholics on an equal footing when it comes to training their ministers. But this paragraph says that a school can discriminate on the basis of religious belief simply because the school is run by a religious group.
I suspect that a school can even qualify for tax-exempt status while discriminating on religious grounds. At least this memorandum (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/olc4brs97.htm) suggests that--see section II. Of course the Bush administration has a habit of spurious and tendentious legal argument, but they provide a caselaw example. You can find the case, AMOS, 483 U.S. 327, over at Findlaw.
QuoteWhy? Several reasons. On this thread, atheists who talk about being atheist are immediatly phrased as preachers or bigots by some.
WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Pseudoephedrine is an atheist. No one called him a bigot. Balbinus is an atheist, no one called him a bigot.
GRIM got called a bigot, by me,
because he's a bigot. Dawkins got called a bigot,
because he's a bigot.I even explained what exact qualities which led to that analysis.
Rambling paranoid diatribes about how all them nasty religious folks are out to get you are bigotry. Period.
You are projecting your own real life experiences and imagining events that haven't happened.
"WRONG WRONG WRONG"
Maybe this isn't the place for it, but as soon as I saw it, I was curious what it would feel like to type out those big, bold letters. Kind of empowering, isn't it? Like you get to be the one to set some dumb fucker straight, eh?
I also got to see a typo of mine. I'm not a great speller, but it's more glairing in the quoted section. Kind of embarressing, but there it is.
Actually, J, I don't think GRIM is a bigot though he made be rude. Perhaps I ought to go and re-read his posts, because perhaps I missed something. With as charged as this discussion is, no doubt forgetting something could become a big deal.
I'm a little vague, though. Are you calling me a bigot?
I apologize at the forcefulness of my manner, but if you'd actually bothered to read any of the threads you've decided to leap in and get all defensive about, you might've noticed that your (bogus) claim has been adressed at least once before, and I tend to dislike repeating myself.
QuoteAre you calling me a bigot?
Can you point to anywhere in my post that I stated you were? Are you just here looking for excuses to get offended?
I rather like your new avatar, J Arcane. :)
Quote from: AkrasiaI rather like your new avatar, J Arcane. :)
Thanks!
Quote from: Thanatos02When my parents have friends over, I'm instructed not to talk about my religious views or my political views because it could ostricize them. It's a really clubby atmosphere over here, so personal views are taken really seriously.
The same sort of thing happens in reverse in other areas where the politics are more liberal and the people not very Christian. The problem is the "clubby atmosphere", not religion.
Quote from: John MorrowThe same sort of thing happens in reverse in other areas where the politics are more liberal and the people not very Christian. The problem is the "clubby atmosphere", not religion.
Bingo.
Quote from: AkrasiaAfter 55 pages, I actually hope that the 10 Myths thread starts to fade away soon, let alone colonize other threads. My bad. (I just can't resist replying to people when they criticize me ... it's a sign of a weak character, I know ...)
To make it easier for you, I've stopped replying to you there, not because I don't have anything else to say or think we couldn't go another 55 pages but because, as you pointed out, we were both spending way too much time on what's essentially supposed to be a casual hobby discussion.
Quote from: John MorrowThe same sort of thing happens in reverse in other areas where the politics are more liberal and the people not very Christian. The problem is the "clubby atmosphere", not religion.
I won't bother to ask you to return to my post, because I think I phrased it poorly, but I rather agree.
Quote from: J ArcaneI apologize at the forcefulness of my manner...
It's ok, but I hope you'll remember that I read it even without the giant caps.
Quote from: J Arcane...but if you'd actually bothered to read any of the threads you've decided to leap in and get all defensive about...
I have.
Quote from: J Arcane...you might've noticed that your (bogus) claim has been adressed at least once before, and I tend to dislike repeating myself.
Then I had missed it, or misread. And, I don't care if you dislike repeating yourself, really.
Quote from: J ArcaneCan you point to anywhere in my post that I stated you were? Are you just here looking for excuses to get offended?
Quote from: J ArcaneRambling paranoid diatribes about how all them nasty religious folk are out to get you are bigotry, period.
I didn't know if you were talking about just GRIM, referring to my experiances specifically, or were lumping us in together, so before I got irate I thought I'd ask. Why, do you go out of your way to offend?
QuoteI didn't know if you were talking about just GRIM, referring to my experiances specifically, or were lumping us in together, so before I got irate I thought I'd ask. Why, do you go out of your way to offend?
I was talking about GRIM. AS I believe I have adequately demonstrated at this point, if I thought you were a bigot, I'd have no qualms about calling you such.
All I've seen is you discussing your problems with living in a much more religiously conservative environment. I got no beef with that, I feel for you, it sucks to be an environment where you feel your beliefs are not respected or even looked down upon.
Believe it or not, even as a Christian I sometimes feel very much the same even from those who supposedly share my religion, because a lot of my views are not in line with the common orthodoxy. I've also spent a lot of time around people who belittle my religion constantly, because of my choice in hobbies, my choice in political leanings, and such things as that.
It was a source of much frustration and internal conflict for a very long time, until I finally found more people I felt I could be at home with, and in turn, learned to simply be who I am, believe what I believe, and not let other people's ignorance affect me.
My only issue with religion is that it's the popular club where I'm at. I suppose I mean that in the social organization, but I mean it more in the 'weapon' sense. Of course, most people are far more reasonable, but the non-religious are an easy target and, fair or not, typically are stand-ins for other popular bogymen such as liberals or a disenfrancised generation.
It's a complicated subject, in every case though. And a sticky one. I offered my experiances because many I know personally (non-religious, or just the wrong religion) blame Christianity and not the people who claim the religion for their problems. I'm not surprised that they tend to see the negative aspects before the positive, even if that's not fair.
Quote from: J ArcanePseudoephedrine is an atheist. No one called him a bigot.
Indeed, I'm properly a "jerk" not a "bigot". ;)
Quote from: John MorrowTo make it easier for you, I've stopped replying to you there, not because I don't have anything else to say or think we couldn't go another 55 pages but because, as you pointed out, we were both spending way too much time on what's essentially supposed to be a casual hobby discussion.
And I'm grateful for the armistice. :cool:
I agree that we could likely continue for another 55 pages (although our discussion primarily concerns 'meta-ethics' and 'moral psychology' now rather than 'atheism'). However, I think that I understand the overall structure of your position, so we would likely be focusing on various details at this point.
Quote from: droogI learned the other day that any private school in Australia that has a church on its land does not have to pay land tax.
And let's admit that's some lame bullshit right there. I'm a religious man (observing lent as we speak and not eating meat) and even I think the days of automatically not taxing religions should come to an end. I think religious groups need to prove their nonprofit status and report finances just like any other service organization, or admit they're cash cows and pay up.
Religion has often used its special status to hide its own corruptions without oversight from even it's own constituents, and that is a detriment to free society.
Quote from: JamesVAnd let's admit that's some lame bullshit right there. I'm a religious man (observing lent as we speak and not eating meat) and even I think the days of automatically not taxing religions should come to an end. I think religious groups need to prove their nonprofit status and report finances just like any other service organization, or admit they're cash cows and pay up.
Religion has often used its special status to hide its own corruptions without oversight from even it's own constituents, and that is a detriment to free society.
Religion is a bunch of people believing in an invisible magic giant who tells them they're better than everyone else because he likes them more, and that it's OK for them to attack, rob, murder or enslave people who believe in other invisible magic giants because their invisible magic giants aren't real.
Quote from: JamesVAnd let's admit that's some lame bullshit right there. I'm a religious man (observing lent as we speak and not eating meat) and even I think the days of automatically not taxing religions should come to an end. I think religious groups need to prove their nonprofit status and report finances just like any other service organization, or admit they're cash cows and pay up.
Religion has often used its special status to hide its own corruptions without oversight from even it's own constituents, and that is a detriment to free society.
I would argue that the people profiting from the action use religion to do so. But that is me, grumpy. ;)
Bill
Quote from: Dominus NoxReligion is a bunch of people believing in an invisible magic giant who tells them they're better than everyone else because he likes them more, and that it's OK for them to attack, rob, murder or enslave people who believe in other invisible magic giants because their invisible magic giants aren't real.
Change that to "some religions are" and I'll agree. Use it as a universal definition and you demonstrate your idiocy.
Quote from: Dominus NoxReligion is a bunch of people believing in an invisible magic giant who tells them they're better than everyone else because he likes them more, and that it's OK for them to attack, rob, murder or enslave people who believe in other invisible magic giants because their invisible magic giants aren't real.
Do you really think people need to believe in "an invisible magic giant" in order to find reasons to attack, rob, murder, and enslave other people?
They don't really need to, no. It does sometimes help broach the threshold, though. :(
!i!
Quote from: John MorrowDo you really think people need to believe in "an invisible magic giant" in order to find reasons to attack, rob, murder, and enslave other people?
Well, admittedly, some people have made other excuses for persecuting and destroying others. In america "patriotism" has been used a lot, not there's the great dogma of "Political correctness" which seems to be popular here.
Quote from: Dominus NoxWell, admittedly, some people have made other excuses for persecuting and destroying others. In america "patriotism" has been used a lot, not there's the great dogma of "Political correctness" which seems to be popular here.
You seem to be wearing a very selective set of blinders when it comes to seeing the worlds ills. In the big scheme of things, both of those don't come even close to the dogmas of central planning, wealth redistribution, and class warfare.
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThey don't really need to, no. It does sometimes help broach the threshold, though. :(
You might want to compare and contrast these charges with the charges critics level against role-playing games when they blame them for murder. The truth is that just about anything can set a deranged mind off.
Of course us athiests are anti-religious. I go to a Catholic school and every day I must pray and blah blah bout the 40 days of lent. I hate it. I am anti-religious/athiest/ if I were religious I would bow to the devil. Email medragonclan72@hotmail.com you anti relgious ppls.:pundit:
I smell a trap...
!i!
Quote from: SettembriniIt´s a US thing. I heard a radio show, in which that was discussed.They said some Atheist groups in the US are getting quite militant and cultish these days.
Over here, it´s a total non-subject.
Over there, the vast majority of the population are agnostic/nonpracticing. Its easier to not get in a knot about your atheism when you aren't surrounded by Jesus-freaks in positions of power.
RPGPundit
QuoteIt´s a US thing. I heard a radio show, in which that was discussed.They said some Atheist groups in the US are getting quite militant and cultish these days.
Over here, it´s a total non-subject.
Richard Dawkins, the bigoted fuckwit GRIM and Mr. A are so fond of, is English. so is Mr. A for that matter. I dunno about GRIM.
And as for the US religious population, well, there's a large percentage of the population here that yes, pays lipservice to being religion, and may even believe on some level, but the amount of active practitioners is much smaller.
Quote from: J ArcaneAnd as for the US religious population, well, there's a large percentage of the population here that yes, pays lipservice to being religion, and may even believe on some level, but the amount of active practitioners is much smaller.
Quite. Rather like the split between the number of poll respondents who clearly state that, while they identify with one religious denomination or another, they don't attend services regularly (or at all),
and they believe that angels affect their personal lives daily. It chalks up mostly to popular superstition and group association, not true religious fervor.
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaQuite. Rather like the split between the number of poll respondents who clearly state that, while they identify with one religious denomination or another, they don't attend services regularly (or at all), and they believe that angels affect their personal lives daily. It chalks up mostly to popular superstition and group association, not true religious fervor.
!i!
Exactly. It's a muddier concept than simply "All them 'Merikans is crazy religious folks!"
But people like silly blanket statements.
Quote from: J ArcaneRichard Dawkins, the bigoted fuckwit GRIM and Mr. A are so fond of, is English. so is Mr. A for that matter. I dunno about GRIM.
And as for the US religious population, well, there's a large percentage of the population here that yes, pays lipservice to being religion, and may even believe on some level, but the amount of active practitioners is much smaller.
The US has the largest percentage of regular churchgoers and self-described fundamentalists of any 1st world nation. No other 1st world country comes even close.
Ironically, Uruguay has the lowest rate of those, out of any latinamerican nation. It was the first country in South America to establish the separation of church and state, its unbelievably secular by third-world standards.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditThe US has the largest percentage of regular churchgoers and self-described fundamentalists of any 1st world nation. No other 1st world country comes even close.
I'm curious then, are they a majority of the population here in the United States or are they just a "really big group"?
Quote from: Serious PaulI'm curious then, are they a majority of the population here in the United States or are they just a "really big group"?
I'm inclined to say the latter (as indicated in my comments above), but I don't have the figures handy to prove it. I'd also like to see the demographics of these self-proclaimed church-goers and fundamentalists to see where they're concentrated. It's certainly not an even distribution across the nation.
!i!
According to the Pew survey in 2002, 59% of Americans claimed that religion was an "very important factor in their lives", making it the only country in the developed world where a MAJORITY of the respondents chose "very important" (in comparison, the UK was 33%, Canada was 30%, France was only 11%). 83% of the population claimed to practice some form of Christianity.
According to a recent Gallup poll, 41% of Americans claimed to practice regular church attendance, compared to 25% in Israel, 15% of the French, or only 7% in the UK.
RPGPundit
Americans are mostly a religious people, and I think that's a GOOD THING.
Quote from: ZalmoxisAmericans are mostly a religious people, and I think that's a GOOD THING.
Except when it's a BAD THING, of course. :)
!i!
Quote from: ZalmoxisAmericans are mostly a religious people, and I think that's a GOOD THING.
I don't.
Sometimes people use religion to keep themselves from doing Bad Things. It's like when Commander Adams told Morbius in "Forbidden Planet" "We're all part monsters in out subconscious, so we have laws, and religion!"
That was a very true line, and a very daring one form the 1950's hollywood. If FR hadn't been "scifi" I think it's writers would have been blacklisted as commies over the implication that religion was a tool humans used to control themselves, and not the absolute true word of god.
But other people use religion badly. They use it as an excuse to do Bad Things, like when Fred Phelps says god wants him to tormet the families of murdered gay kids and dead soldiers, or when some iranian mullah says that salman rishdie must die for writing the satanic verses.
All religions are false constructs humans create to deal with existance. Some of them get used constructively, others get used destructively, just like everything els ehumanity creates.
Quote from: RPGPunditAccording to the Pew survey in 2002, 59% of Americans claimed that religion was an "very important factor in their lives", making it the only country in the developed world where a MAJORITY of the respondents chose "very important" (in comparison, the UK was 33%, Canada was 30%, France was only 11%). 83% of the population claimed to practice some form of Christianity.
According to a recent Gallup poll, 41% of Americans claimed to practice regular church attendance, compared to 25% in Israel, 15% of the French, or only 7% in the UK.
RPGPundit
Religion covers a lot of ground here. Are we discussing solely christians, or all religions?
Also can we get a link to this survey? I'm just curious as to their methodology.
As an aside, let me pick 100 people I know. I bet I could come up with 99 atheists!
Could I just answer the title of the thread ?
Q: Why are atheists so Anti-religion?
A: They aren't.... really.
The atheists that cruise the chatboards and forums mnight be vERY 'anti-religion", but most of the atheists that the average person meets in daily life - don't even talk about it - if at all.
- E.W.C.
My new favorite hysterical term from Pundit:
"Jesus-freaks in positions of power"
Now back to your regularly scheduled Christian-bashing...
Quote from: James J SkachMy new favorite hysterical term from Pundit:
"Jesus-freaks in positions of power"
Now back to your regularly scheduled Christian-bashing...
I don't know where he gets the idea that Bush is some snake-handling Pentecostal. For someone who has a degree in, and teaches about, religion, he knows passing little about the American scene. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Bush is a Methodist. Methodists are damn-near Atheists, except they have to get up for church on Sunday. The only difference between Methodists and CoE is that the churches in England are older.
Now, if he were a Southern Baptist, then he might have a point.
Quote from: WerekoalaThe only difference between Methodists and CoE is that the churches in England are older.
Oh, the Anglicans have much better ceremony, I can assure you. Well, at least the trappings are nicer. But, yeah, the Methodistas are a real snore.
!i!
Bush's Methodism does seem to lean to the more evangelical side of the sect though. He's not a fundamentalist or a charismatic admittedly, which does make the "Jesus Freak" label a little ridiculous.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineBush's Methodism does seem to lean to the more evangelical side of the sect though. He's not a fundamentalist or a charismatic admittedly, which does make the "Jesus Freak" label a little ridiculous.
What evidence is there that this is so? Because he says "God" in public from time to time? Because liberals SAY he's a Jesus Freak who speaks in tongues (and not just during his public speeches)?
And if there's an evangelical side to the Methodist Church, I've yet to see it, aside from their new soft-focus TV ad campaign.
My take: Its all just more unfounded attacks on either a) a religion someone dosn't like, b) a President someone dosn't like, or more likely c) both.
Quote from: WerekoalaAnd if there's an evangelical side to the Methodist Church, I've yet to see it...
Regrettably, I could introduce you to a few of my less-favored relatives. I think that their "evangelical" nature is more politically motivated, though, as is the fervor of their chosen congregations. Sad, but true.
!i!
Quote from: WerekoalaWhat evidence is there that this is so? Because he says "God" in public from time to time? Because liberals SAY he's a Jesus Freak who speaks in tongues (and not just during his public speeches)?
And if there's an evangelical side to the Methodist Church, I've yet to see it, aside from their new soft-focus TV ad campaign.
My take: Its all just more unfounded attacks on either a) a religion someone dosn't like, b) a President someone dosn't like, or more likely c) both.
Wesleyanism, the intellectual foundation of Methodism, is also the basis of the evangelical movement. Methodism is basically Episcopalianism/Anglicanism plus evangelicalism. You're probably thinking of the charismatics with the "speaking in tongues" stuff. Evangelicalism is a fairly mainstream, if somewhat conservative, movement within Protestant Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism
Bush's evangelicalism is most clear in his emphasis on a personal testament of faith (His conversation narrative focusing on his recovery from irresponsible use of alcohol being a famous example) and in his belief that Christian moral principles and values have a relevance to the political conduct of the nation (as opposed to the private conduct of individuals). His emphasis on faith-based groups and his opposition to abortion are two examples of this belief in practice.
To be fair, Bush's views on Biblical inerrancy aren't known and it could turn out that he has a more liberal view on that issue, but even if he held that the Bible was "mostly right", I still think the balance of evidence shows him to fall within the broad tent of evangelicalism.
I am inclined to agree that mentions of Bush's evangelical beliefs serve generally rhetorical purposes rather than substantive ones. For one thing, most people don't distinguish between "charismatic", "fundamentalist" and "evangelical", so any use of the three terms tends to conjure up the most extreme behaviours of charismatic and fundamentalist Christians and then condemn through association. It's a low trick to pull in a discussion or disputation.
Well-responded to, Mr. P! I know that originally, Methodisim was a strong evangelical faith and very conservative, but I guess my point is that in recent years its become far more liberal, as it were, and is generally looked down upon by the more "right-wing" sects. That's why it makes me :rolleyes: every time the Pundy makes out like Bush is a Pat Robertson clone. Yes, he's a religious man, but that does NOT mean he's just dying to flip the switch on the next American Christo-Facist State. As you said, its a disingenuous tactic to pull on a man who has plenty of other faults to focus on. He may be many things, but he's not a bible-thumper.
It's true, it is the most liberal of the evangelical churches. Up here in Canada, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists are all part of the United Church of Canada (which is in bed with the Anglicans/Episcopalians these days) and it ordains gays, which no other evangelical communion I'm familiar with will do.
On the specific issue of Bush, it is worth pointing out that many Methodists do find him particularly conservative for a Methodist. You can see the evidence yourself by googling up "Bush methodist". Most of the articles on the first few pages complain about how he isn't as socially liberal as mainstream Methodism.
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaExcept when it's a BAD THING, of course. :)
!i!
I think religion does more good for people than bad.
Quote from: ZalmoxisI think religion does more good for people than bad.
And that's a very nice, concise, if unqualified, statement. Such is the nature of faith. On a more tangible level, though, the balance between personal faith and organised, hierarchical administrative structure throws your assertion into question. Is it the welfare of the individual we're discussing here, or the welfare of society at large? Because I'll give the spiritual welfare of the individual a lot of slack, while I'll throw down the stops when it comes to the political structure of organised religion.
!i!
Quote from: RPGPunditAccording to the Pew survey in 2002, 59% of Americans claimed that religion was an "very important factor in their lives", making it the only country in the developed world where a MAJORITY of the respondents chose "very important" (in comparison, the UK was 33%, Canada was 30%, France was only 11%).
Quite frankly, considering this was only the year after 9/11, I'm amazed this number polled as low as it did. I'll have to do some checking to see what, if any, the more recent numbers are.
The real question though, is which should Bush spend more time infusing his life with: Methodism or Methodone?
Quote from: MoriartyQuite frankly, considering this was only the year after 9/11, I'm amazed this number polled as low as it did. I'll have to do some checking to see what, if any, the more recent numbers are.
And previous numbers, too.
!i!
Quote from: James McMurrayThe real question though, is which should Bush spend more time infusing his life with: Methodism or Methodone?
You can OD on methodone, right?
Hey, Nox, is that a new and unintentionally hilarious .sig?
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAnd that's a very nice, concise, if unqualified, statement. Such is the nature of faith. On a more tangible level, though, the balance between personal faith and organised, hierarchical administrative structure throws your assertion into question. Is it the welfare of the individual we're discussing here, or the welfare of society at large? Because I'll give the spiritual welfare of the individual a lot of slack, while I'll throw down the stops when it comes to the political structure of organised religion.
!i!
I'm referring to religion itself, and not the mechanisms like churches, synagogues and mosques. While I have seen churches and religious groups do great things, I have also seen them perform some pretty horrific deeds. I was referring more to the individual.
Quote from: Serious PaulReligion covers a lot of ground here. Are we discussing solely christians, or all religions?
Given that 83% of Americans identify themselves as belonging to some kind of Christian denomination, we're pretty well talking about Christians, yes.
RPGPundit
Quote from: WerekoalaI don't know where he gets the idea that Bush is some snake-handling Pentecostal. For someone who has a degree in, and teaches about, religion, he knows passing little about the American scene. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Bush is a Methodist. Methodists are damn-near Atheists, except they have to get up for church on Sunday. The only difference between Methodists and CoE is that the churches in England are older.
Now, if he were a Southern Baptist, then he might have a point.
Bush is a methodist by denomination; in the sense that Daddy Bush and Babs are your standard east-coast WASP methodists. But Dubya is a born-again christian by personal experience... I mean, you can opine that all of that is just a lie; and that in reality he's just using the Religious Right; and you might be true.
But if you take the dude at his word, he's a born-again christian in practice. He's hardcore, and we know he has regular weekly meetings with various "leaders" of the Christian evangelical movement, including (until recently) that Ted Haggard fellow that got into the trouble with the gay prostitute...
This dude is not a mild-mannered methodist leading saturday night Bingo in a dusty chapel:
(http://starbulletin.com/2005/04/09/features/art1b.jpg)
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditGiven that 83% of Americans identify themselves as belonging to some kind of Christian denomination, we're pretty well talking about Christians, yes.
RPGPundit
Again I'd like to see where you're getting your numbers from. What are you basing your statements on? Experience? Studies? Polls? This is mostly to satisfy my curiosity.
Quote from: RPGPunditBut if you take the dude at his word, he's a born-again christian in practice. He's hardcore, and we know he has regular weekly meetings with various "leaders" of the Christian evangelical movement, including (until recently) that Ted Haggard fellow that got into the trouble with the gay prostitute...
He's hardcore? A hardcore what? Got proof?
Does he have weekly meetings with hard-right leaders - or do they meet with his staff? Are they on their knees in the Oval Office receiving direct brain-taps from the Almighty about how "We're Gunna Get Them Liburhals and Raghaids!" or is he shaking their hand on the way to a briefing so they can go back to their congregations and claim to have the Ear of the President?
If he's SO hard-Right and religious - how come the HardRight "base" is so disinchanted with him? He's certainly not acting on any aspect of their agenda, now is he?
And if he's NOT acting on it, what do appearances matter? You fear appearance, or action?
The Emperor Constantine wasn't a christian until (arguably) on his deathbed. Yet his entire career was spent with the appearance of approving the formal Christianization of the Roman Empire, and we all know how that turned out.
EVEN if your argument was correct, and it may or may not be, the appearance of the President sanctioning the likes of Haggard, Pat Robertson, Dobson, etc etc. is something that can have serious social and political consequences.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditThe Emperor Constantine wasn't a christian until (arguably) on his deathbed. Yet his entire career was spent with the appearance of approving the formal Christianization of the Roman Empire, and we all know how that turned out.
Constantine didn't convert until on his deathbed because he knew that as a Christian, he couldn't do the things he needed to do to make Christianity the dominant religion. He needed forgivness for the acts he committed. What does that have to do with Bush?
Quote from: RPGPunditEVEN if your argument was correct, and it may or may not be, the appearance of the President sanctioning the likes of Haggard, Pat Robertson, Dobson, etc etc. is something that can have serious social and political consequences.
And I'm asking YOU - what appearance are you talking about? I'm pretty up-to-speed on current events, and I'm not a Christian per se, but I certainly don't recall the White House doing much, if anything, giving the appearance of sanctioning the Wingnuts you mentioned. At BEST, there have been a couple of bones tossed to a block of voters he depended on to get elected, but what's new about that?
What I DO see is a bunch of LEFT wingers screaming about how Bush is one last drop of blood from turning the US into a Theocratic State.
I don't see it.
Where do YOU see it?
Quote from: WerekoalaWhere do YOU see it?
RPGPundit isn't from the United States, nor does he live there. Where do you think he sees it?
Quote from: John MorrowRPGPundit isn't from the United States, nor does he live there. Where do you think he sees it?
Well, there are plenty of people who do live here with the exact same point of view. MY questions could apply to any of them who care to answer them.
Quote from: WerekoalaWell, there are plenty of people who do live here with the exact same point of view. MY questions could apply to any of them who care to answer them.
Could be they "see" that warped version of things on whatever news media they watch or newspapers they read.
- E.W.C.
Better yet, what the heck does "sanctioned" mean, exactly?
What about Obama and Hillary in churches last week (or was it early this week)? They talked about politics form the pulpit, didn't they? Was there immediately a cry of "Separation of Church and State!"? Nope.
That's because of the group-think narrative from which Pundit draws his information and perspective: The Right is Crazy Religious and the Left is appropriately moral...
"Conservatves" have been winning the White House, and recently until 2006 the Congress, not because of some religious component, but the libertarian view that Regan espoused as part of his rhetoric. Sure the religious right makes up a part of the GOP, but I'd be willing to bet small-government is the real driver.
Quote from: WerekoalaConstantine didn't convert until on his deathbed because he knew that as a Christian, he couldn't do the things he needed to do to make Christianity the dominant religion. He needed forgivness for the acts he committed. What does that have to do with Bush?
Wow, that's a remarkably bizzare take on it, and remarkably forgiving of Constantine.
The truth is a little closer to the fact that right up to the end of his life he played the Cult of Sol Invictus and the Christians against each other, to make sure that he didn't get stuck with one group gaining too much power at one time. His conversion to Christianity at the very end was probably one-part pascal's wager and one part in remembrance to his mother, who was a very devout christian.
The point is, Constantine needed the Christians to be able to hold his empire together, to hold onto political power. He couldn't appear to be totally sold to them, so he kept things a little ambiguous, but at the same time he let them slowly take over every aspect of Roman society. I think the parallels are pretty fucking clear.
QuoteAnd I'm asking YOU - what appearance are you talking about? I'm pretty up-to-speed on current events, and I'm not a Christian per se, but I certainly don't recall the White House doing much, if anything, giving the appearance of sanctioning the Wingnuts you mentioned. At BEST, there have been a couple of bones tossed to a block of voters he depended on to get elected, but what's new about that?
What I DO see is a bunch of LEFT wingers screaming about how Bush is one last drop of blood from turning the US into a Theocratic State.
I don't see it.
Where do YOU see it?
Other than the weekly meetings with conservative evangelical religious leaders?
How about Faith-based initiatives for welfare; for education, vouchers, faith-based charities being favoured in national programs even if they're not even real charities (or even in the case of Hurricane Katrina, giving millions of dollars to a faith-based "relief" charity who's only "relief" was going to the afflicted areas to evangelize); not to mention abstinence-only education in schools (with public funding depending upon it), raising the legal drinking age, abstinence-only programs in Africa being a condition to the US paying its share of UN dues, theological litmus tests for US Supreme Court Judges (and Judges in general), the emboldening of religious groups to take over school boards and force "intelligent design" (aka young earth creationism) on science classes, forbidding stem-cell research, trying to turn back the clock on Roe Vs. Wade, and generally trying to blur the line in the separation of church and state at every turn?
Ah yes, not to mention invading Iraq because god told him to. Oh yes, and claiming that he won the presidency because god wanted it that way. The Divine Right at work, so much for those suckers who fought way back in 1776 to try to get rid of the very thing.
These are things, many of them, that even moderate christians do not support. And yet, there we go. Its what leads me to conclude that either Bush is a true believer, or, like the Emperor Constantine, a shockingly clever job of pretending to be.
RPGPundit
Quote from: James J SkachBetter yet, what the heck does "sanctioned" mean, exactly?
What about Obama and Hillary in churches last week (or was it early this week)? They talked about politics form the pulpit, didn't they? Was there immediately a cry of "Separation of Church and State!"? Nope.
There SHOULD be. The Democrats are just pathetic, if not worse, when they try to pull that sort of shit.
Note that the ONE president who was really and deeply religious as a Christian, Jimmy Carter, made a point of never using his faith as a weapon. When you compare him to a fuckhead like Bush, its pretty clear what a "good christian" really is; and yet the churchgoers throughout the fucking land buy into Dubya's "onward christian soldiers" bullshit. Which only goes to show, most of them aren't real christians either. They're fake christians wanting a fake christian president.
QuoteThat's because of the group-think narrative from which Pundit draws his information and perspective: The Right is Crazy Religious and the Left is appropriately moral...
No, the Right is Crazy-Religious (or have sold themselves to the same, in the case of the totally non-religious Neocons), whereas the Left are a gang of incompetent boobs who have long allowed themselves to be led into failure and idiocy by superannuated hippie marxist-feminists and fashionable nanny-staters.
Quote"Conservatves" have been winning the White House, and recently until 2006 the Congress, not because of some religious component, but the libertarian view that Regan espoused as part of his rhetoric. Sure the religious right makes up a part of the GOP, but I'd be willing to bet small-government is the real driver.
Oh fuck, please. Bush's entire margin of victory in 2004? it was from a massive movement on the part of the Religious Right in a single state. Lots of people like to talk about wanting small government (ironically, Bush has created the BIGGEST government, and most intrusive, in US history), but those people will generally not be motivated enough to go out and vote, not if they weren't going to otherwise. But wave JEEEZUS in their face, tell them that GOD wants them to vote George Bush, and that the Demycrats are going to force their kids to have gay weddings, and they'll come out like the fucking golden horde.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditOther than the weekly meetings with conservative evangelical religious leaders?
What proof do you have that he does? And I mean PROOF, not hearsay.
Quote from: RPGPunditHow about Faith-based initiatives for welfare; for education, vouchers, faith-based charities being favoured in national programs even if they're not even real charities (or even in the case of Hurricane Katrina, giving millions of dollars to a faith-based "relief" charity who's only "relief" was going to the afflicted areas to evangelize); not to mention abstinence-only education in schools (with public funding depending upon it), raising the legal drinking age, abstinence-only programs in Africa being a condition to the US paying its share of UN dues, theological litmus tests for US Supreme Court Judges (and Judges in general), the emboldening of religious groups to take over school boards and force "intelligent design" (aka young earth creationism) on science classes, forbidding stem-cell research, trying to turn back the clock on Roe Vs. Wade, and generally trying to blur the line in the separation of church and state at every turn?
Wow, that's one hell of an ambitious platform!
Now, exactly how many of those things HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN PROPOSED AND/OR PASSED by this Administration? Weed out all the others and tell me, exactly, what the Bush Administration has actually proposed?
You're big on making claims, I think its time you started backing them up with some links, at the very least. Or has this all become "common knowledge" that can't be refuted because "everyone knows" its true?
Quote from: RPGPunditAh yes, not to mention invading Iraq because god told him to. Oh yes, and claiming that he won the presidency because god wanted it that way. The Divine Right at work, so much for those suckers who fought way back in 1776 to try to get rid of the very thing.
I seem to recall paying VERY close attention to all the debate and all the speeches given around the time the Iraq War was being proposed. I don't think I caught the "God told me to" speech. Got a link to that so I can watch it on YouTube or something?
Also, when did he say God wanted him to be President? I mean, aside from the fact that, as a believing Christian, he must feel that God DID want it or it wouldn't have happened. I think believing that God wants things done a certain way is a pretty basic Christian belief.
And yet other presidents have managed to be christians without making it sound like voting for the other guy is a vote for the antichrist's rule on earth.
RPGPundit
Ok, to cleae things up for non americans, there are differences between using a church as a public forum to address a large number of people and using a church for political partisian ends.
If a church is used in a partisan fashion, as in supporting one party or one candidate while shutting out others, that's partisan and disqualifies a chrich from tax exempt status.
Examples: When Clinton ran in '92, some catholic ministers told their parishoners that it was a SIN to vote for clinton. That's crossing the line.
When catholic ministers told their flocks it was a mortal sin NOT to vote SOLELY for anti-choice candidates, that was crossing the line.
When a pastor at a chruch asked people who'd voted democrat in 2006 to stand up, then told them to leave the church, that was crossing the line.
Now when a church allows a candidate to speak at it, that in and of itself does not cross the line unless they refuse, as a public building, to allow other parties and politicians to have rallies there.
A church does not endanger it's tax exempt status unless it becomes openly partisan and attempts to influence politics in a one way fashion. it may serve as a public/community assembly/rallying area without loss of TES.
Now if it openly says it's only going to allow one political view to be expressed, or pushes one political view, then it can lose it's TES.
"openly" being the key word to partisanship. Its the worst-hidden secret in america that the evangelical churches, the baptists, and most of the other fundamentalist denominations have come out firmly on the side of Republicans, campaign for them, get people out to the polls to vote for them, etc etc. while they still retain their status by just barely avoiding that open endorsement that they have to avoid. They do ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING but that.
Meanwhile, there isn't exactly any massive movement of small-government socially open secular humanists out there influencing the Republican vote, the way James would like to pretend, certainly not on any level even close to the voter power things like the Christian Coalition, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Focus on the Family and other such groups bring in. Otherwise, you'd see a libertarian party that was actually a serious force.
RPGPundit
Again, most atheists are so anti-religion because they don't want to have religion forced on them, as religion has tended to do whenever it was in power, regardless of the religion.
In other words "We'd rather keep you down than take a chance on you getting up and keeping US down."
Quote from: RPGPunditMeanwhile, there isn't exactly any massive movement of small-government socially open secular humanists out there influencing the Republican vote, the way werekoala would like to pretend.
Where did I even give a whiff of a hint of a speculation of the merest thought of saying that I believed that?
When did this shift from being about Bush to being about the Republicans in general? Is it because now you can't prove Bush thinks he's the Messiah while at the same time merely a sockpuppet for Pat Robertson, as you seemed to think he was a few posts back? If the Republicans so closely hewed to the Religious Right's desires, why did they not vote for them in large numbers in the mid-terms? Why so much dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration and the formerly Republican Congress among the hard-core Right? And when are you going to answer my questions from my LAST post, or are you just going to let me win that one by default?
C'mon, you can do better than this.
Quote from: Dominus NoxIn other words "We'd rather keep you down than take a chance on you getting up and keeping US down."
Ah, now there's a sentiment we can all get behind.
Quote from: RPGPundit"openly" being the key word to partisanship. Its the worst-hidden secret in america that the evangelical churches, the baptists, and most of the other fundamentalist denominations have come out firmly on the side of Republicans, campaign for them, get people out to the polls to vote for them, etc etc. while they still retain their status by just barely avoiding that open endorsement that they have to avoid. They do ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING but that.
I have two words for you - labor unions. C'mon Pundit, you know better than that. It's politics frex.
Quote from: RPGPunditMeanwhile, there isn't exactly any massive movement of small-government socially open secular humanists out there influencing the Republican vote, the way werekoala would like to pretend, certainly not on any level even close to the voter power things like the Christian Coalition, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Focus on the Family and other such groups bring in. Otherwise, you'd see a libertarian party that was actually a serious force.
In all fairness to WK, that was me. And while your "margin of victory" is cute and all, there were quite a few other kinds of people who had to vote for Bush to get him to even so the margin would hold. I mean, that is if you believe the country is basically 30/60/30.
But I don't want to sidetrack WK's better questions. Theological litmus test for SC? You've got to be kidding. How about the pro-choice litmus test from liberals? You see, it's only a bad litmus test if you don't agree with its application. And there is nothing - NOTHING - in the American system of government that says a President shouldn't appoint SC Justices that are of a specific
ideological persuasion - that's one of the reasons you want your guy to be President. Other than National Defense, IMHO, it's the top issue voters shoiuld consider.
And don't give me that "they only went to evangelize business" for Katrina victims. My mother, a practicing Catholic, just spent her Thanksgiving in Mississippi helping rebuild houses and the sister parishes church - volunteered. She's 70. She worked the food kitchens for all the workers. So how does that square with your sources of information?
Quote from: WerekoalaWhere did I even give a whiff of a hint of a speculation of the merest thought of saying that I believed that?
Ah, whoops. My bad. It was actually James who said that, not you. I'm sorry.
But since we're on the topic, I guess that your rebuttal here means that you do admit that the Religious Right are a powerful voting bloc, powerful enough that their participation or lack thereof is usually what determines the Republican's success or failure in an election, and thus explains why the Republicans are sucking their collective cocks?
QuoteIf the Republicans so closely hewed to the Religious Right's desires, why did they not vote for them in large numbers in the mid-terms? Why so much dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration and the formerly Republican Congress among the hard-core Right?
Simple, because of the Gays.
I'd like to say it was because of the war, because there was a real "great awakening" in the American christian conscience and they all realized that no, Jesus would NOT have wanted them to send their sons off to murder other people's children in the name of oil company's wishes. That in fact, Jesus does not sit on the board of Halliburton, and that he's called the "prince of peace" not the "Prince of Bunker Busters", much less the "Prince of Sexually Torturing Illegally-Held Prisoners".
But no, it was because a congressMAN sent some perverted e-mails to a 15 year old BOY (had it been a girl, it would have been "shame on him", but not otherwise a big deal), and for once the democratic spin doctors managed to to do their fucking job and suddenly make it look like the entire Republican congress were now auditioning for the cast of The Birdcage.
QuoteAnd when are you going to answer my questions from my LAST post, or are you just going to let me win that one by default?
Dude, if you want to pretend that all those things I listed did not exist, and are not happening, you go right ahead. Maybe you're a diehard neocon republican who's in denial; there's a lot of those out there, rocking back and forth in a near-catatonic state trying to tell themselves that their party hasn't been completely subverted by a gang of apocalyptic loonies.
Or maybe you're actually one of the apocalyptic loonies, and are just being disingenuous with us.
But come on, I could quote you media sources, dozens of them, for the conferences Bush has on a weekly basis with Evangelical leaders (which is, incidentally, far more often than what he has with leaders of congress, or even did back when Congress was Republican). You'd claim that they were biased. Shit, if I told you the National Review or the Rush Limbaugh show had said it, you'd just claim they're "liberal east coast" reporting. So why the fuck would I bother?
Remember, this is the President, and now apparently the party, that "doesn't do reality".
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditSimple, because of the Gays.
But no, it was because a congressMAN sent some perverted e-mails to a 15 year old BOY (had it been a girl, it would have been "shame on him", but not otherwise a big deal), and for once the democratic spin doctors managed to to do their fucking job and suddenly make it look like the entire Republican congress were now auditioning for the cast of The Birdcage.
Boy did you mis-read that situation. It had nothing to do with the fact that the congressman was gay, it was the fact that it was spun as predatory behavior on a child and then a coverup. If it had been a girl page, same scandal would have been in place. Gay, in and of itself, meant virtually nothing to the scandal.
All of which calls into question, as I believe WK and I are doing, your interpretation of events. Where, exactly, do you get your information - or is this all speculation based on selected media reporting?
Quote from: RPGPunditDude, if you want to pretend that all those things I listed did not exist, and are not happening, you go right ahead. Maybe you're a diehard neocon republican who's in denial; there's a lot of those out there, rocking back and forth in a near-catatonic state trying to tell themselves that their party hasn't been completely subverted by a gang of apocalyptic loonies.
Or maybe you're actually one of the apocalyptic loonies, and are just being disingenuous with us.
But come on, I could quote you media sources, dozens of them, for the conferences Bush has on a weekly basis with Evangelical leaders (which is, incidentally, far more often than what he has with leaders of congress, or even did back when Congress was Republican). You'd claim that they were biased. Shit, if I told you the National Review or the Rush Limbaugh show had said it, you'd just claim they're "liberal east coast" reporting. So why the fuck would I bother?
Remember, this is the President, and now apparently the party, that "doesn't do reality".
Ahhhh...Riiiight...You're adding to my understanding of why people liken you to Ron Edwards. "I'd prove to you why you're wrong, but you're too stupid to even understand that."
Quote from: James J SkachI have two words for you - labor unions. C'mon Pundit, you know better than that. It's politics frex.
It certainly is, and there's no question that Labour Unions are almost entirely pro-Democrat.
But there's something of a difference in gravitas between a worker's right group, and a group that's supposed to be dedicated to the issue of your IMMORTAL SOUL. So you'll forgive me if I judge hypocrisy and worldliness on the side of one of those two groups to be a far greater crime than the other's.
QuoteIn all fairness to WK, that was me. And while your "margin of victory" is cute and all, there were quite a few other kinds of people who had to vote for Bush to get him to even so the margin would hold. I mean, that is if you believe the country is basically 30/60/30.
That division isn't the issue. The issue is whether you can get a certain block of voters out to vote. The Religious Right's greatest asset is that they can get a block of millions of people out to vote, and all to vote republican,
if they want to. Of course, if absolutely everyone else were to turn on the Republicans, it wouldn't be enough, which is why the Republican party can't sell itself completely over to the Evangelicals. But the bloc is so significant nonetheless that the Republicans do openly promote themselves with some very extremist views to satisfy the very extremist leaders of this movement.
QuoteBut I don't want to sidetrack WK's better questions. Theological litmus test for SC? You've got to be kidding. How about the pro-choice litmus test from liberals? You see, it's only a bad litmus test if you don't agree with its application. And there is nothing - NOTHING - in the American system of government that says a President shouldn't appoint SC Justices that are of a specific ideological persuasion - that's one of the reasons you want your guy to be President. Other than National Defense, IMHO, it's the top issue voters shoiuld consider.
I agree, that this is true. But the fact that the republicans put those litmus tests on their Judges proves that this is what their "specific ideological persuasion" is. The whole point in this argument is that you and Koala were trying to somehow claim that Bush and the Republicans are not really beholden to the Fundamentalist Evangelical Movement, or that if they were, that wouldn't really be so bad.
Your admitting that the Republicans do indeed have a litmus test for Judges, means that they are beholden, and that yes it is very bad, because it will destroy the very fabric of American secular democracy.
QuoteAnd don't give me that "they only went to evangelize business" for Katrina victims. My mother, a practicing Catholic, just spent her Thanksgiving in Mississippi helping rebuild houses and the sister parishes church - volunteered. She's 70. She worked the food kitchens for all the workers. So how does that square with your sources of information?
Good for your mom. Catholic charities are generally genuine charities, and whatever else you can say about the Catholic Church (and there's a lot bad you could say) they do at least put up more than just a pretense of "aid" before getting down to the "conversion" business.
But the fact that there were some legitimate charities down there doesn't mean there wasn't a SHITLOAD of what are basically FRAUDULENT "charities" that went down to evangelize, and got paid government money to do so.
Operation Blessing, a "charity" run by Pat Robertson, which has been known i the past to use its airplanes to transport mining equipment for Robertson's corrupt mining operations in Africa, received FEMA money for going in to the region to rebuild churches (robertson's churches) and evangelize.
The "Convoy of Hope", another fake charity run by the Assembly of God, is infamous for engaging in "stealth evangelism"; they are famous for going to some of the most miserable places on earth, where people are starving, freezing or otherwise dying, and offering them one meal a day in exchange for attending bible classes.
I could keep going: Christian Disaster Response (really a front for One Way Ministries), World Harvest (really a front for the Focus on the Family, Dobson's organization, Mission of Mercy (actually a front for Bethesda Christian, and a particularly vile charity that targets children, trying to get them to convert away from their parents' religion), World Relief, Mercy Ships (present themselves as a medical charity, keeping secret that they're in fact affiliated with Campus Crusade are are mostly dedicated to evangelizing to students), Global Hope Network, International Foundation of Hope (both "fake charities" set up by Focus on the Family), Churches of Christ Disaster Relief (a charity that has engaged in church planting in the third world and who's orphanages have come under investigation for horrible abuses), and World Emergency Relief (a group who are run by self-style "Christian Supremacists" that have been known to turn away non-christians).
Even relatively mild Christian charities, like Billy Graham's Samaritan's Purse, or the Salvation Army, groups that really DO give charity, why should taxpayer money go to these groups? We know that Samaritan's Purse, for example, refuses to accept volunteers who aren't evangelical christians (requiring that they have a letter from their Pastor backing them up). To me, that makes it pretty obvious that they have an agenda beyond just helping the needy.
And if you still aren't convinced by all of this, remember that Volunteer Ministers got money too. They are actually a front for the Church of Scientology (its funny, the Christian "charities" try to pretend they're nondenominational relief efforts, the Scientologists in turn try to pretend they're Christian).
RPGPundit
Quote from: James J SkachBoy did you mis-read that situation. It had nothing to do with the fact that the congressman was gay, it was the fact that it was spun as predatory behavior on a child and then a coverup. If it had been a girl page, same scandal would have been in place. Gay, in and of itself, meant virtually nothing to the scandal.
Now who's kidding themselves? The media coverage played up the Gay angle, and that's what the evangelicals caught onto as well. You saw the evangelicals getting this sense that "the congressmen don't share our values", by which they meant "They knew this guy was gay, and yet they let him be there".
Again, had it been a 15 year old GIRL, then for sure the Democrats would have scored a couple of points, the guy still would have been drummed out, but there's no way that the entire PARTY would have gone down with him. It was all because "JEEEZUS hates the gays".
QuoteAll of which calls into question, as I believe WK and I are doing, your interpretation of events. Where, exactly, do you get your information - or is this all speculation based on selected media reporting?
Where the fuck do you get yours? I'm a voracious reader, and politics is like my Football. Its my sport of choice. So I don't limit myself to just one source.
Now, where the fuck is your "·source" telling you that, no, the Evangelical leaders really didn't vote Republican this time around because they were really upset with the ballooning budget (because we've seen so many concerned reports about that from the Christian Coalition, budgetary concerns are virtually ALL they ever talk about :rolleyes:) or serious concerns about the bloodshed in Iraq (yeah, because so many of the Southern Baptist churches are holding protest marches about that :rolleyes:), and not because a Republican Congressman (and later, one of their own Evangelical pastors) was caught up in a gay scandal?
RPGPundit
Dude.
Everything you said the administration was pushing for was what the hard-core Religiious Right wants, NOT what the Administration has tried to accomplish. Not. One. Thing. On your list has been seriously attempted to be passed into law by the Bush Administration. I DARE you to prove me wrong. Go on, I'll wait.
YOUR problem is, your conspiracy-addled brain thinks there's no difference between Republican and Right-Wing ChristoFascist. You're so SO wrong. Unless you're telling me that there are enough Christo-Fascists in the US to elecet a Republican every time as President from here on out? If that's the case, then its over, 'innit?
Proof of your conspiracy-mongering is your long list of Christian Aid groups that are "fronts" for some dark, sinister Globe-Spanning conversion machine. Hey, got news for you - its not a) a secret or b) sinister. Evangalizing and spreading the Gospel is what Christians are SUPPOSED to do! Dosn't matter if they're a hard-right or gooey-left denomination, its their commission! There are these little groups of people called "missionaries" - maybe you've heard of them? Read the bible sometime. Fuck, I'm an agnostic and even *I* know that!
Are Republicans "beholden" to the Movement? Only inasmuch as they need them to be elected. Same way Liberals are "beholden" to wackjob Leftists like environmentalists and Che' shirt-wearing college students who think that Christo-Fascists Republicans are trying to turn the US into a Theocratic State (which incidentally you sound exactly like, in case you didn't know it). Does that mean they kow-tow to them? Not at all, or at best only in symbolic ways. Seriously - name ONE signifigant Religious Right Political victory in the last 8 years, that's all I'm asking for.
You've really, REALLY got a bug up your ass about this, don't you? I mean hell, I thought Nox was bad. How the hell did you end up on the same page on THIS of all things?
Quote from: RPGPunditNo, the Right is Crazy-Religious
No we're not.
Quote from: WerekoalaDude.
YOUR problem is, your conspiracy-addled brain thinks there's no difference between Republican and Right-Wing ChristoFascist. You're so SO wrong. Unless you're telling me that there are enough Christo-Fascists in the US to elecet a Republican every time as President from here on out? If that's the case, then its over, 'innit?
No, the reality of the situation is far more delicate than that. The Republicans can NOT afford to lose the religious right, but they can't completely cater to them either, not to the point of losing their moderates. At the end of the day, they need the Religious Right slightly more than they need the moderates, but the reality is they need them both to win. If the Libertarian wing of the republican government woke up tomorrow and realized that voting republican has done NOTHING to give them the guarantees they want, and that the religious intrusiveness of the religious Right's desired social plan for america is just as bad as the nanny-state left, then their leaving en masse could have a serious effect. Likewise if the related "small-government" fans, if they were to realize that in fact Bush's government (and most Republican governments including their hero Reagan) have been obscenely absurdly BIG-spending just as bad if not worse than the democrats, they would cost the Republican party election. The reality is that the republican party depends on the votes of at least two utterly different groups of people with often OPPOSING priorities.
However, it is also the reality that of those two groups, the ones that act as an organized bloc and have powerful and visible leaders who are able to move their bloc en masse to "get out and vote" or to stay home that Tuesday, are the Religious right. There is no libertarian or small-govt equivalent to the Pat Robertsons, James Dobsons, Jerry Falwells, etc. of the Religious Right. No celebrities that could take away millions of votes from the Republican Candidates, and thus far less reason to be activist and concerned about catering to that wing.
QuoteProof of your conspiracy-mongering is your long list of Christian Aid groups that are "fronts" for some dark, sinister Globe-Spanning conversion machine.
Clearly you misunderstand what I mean by "Front": I mean that these groups engage in what is called "stealth tactics". They pretend to be a unicef-like charity dedicated to helping starving childrens or tsunami victims, with no religious component, and that people who donate to them will be helping build houses or schools. When in fact the money goes to sending these starving children more bibles than gruel, and building churches.
There are legitimate christian charities that do not operate this way. But there's far too many that do.
QuoteHey, got news for you - its not a) a secret or b) sinister. Evangalizing and spreading the Gospel is what Christians are SUPPOSED to do!
Not if you're claiming to be a charity that deserves federal money.
Quotemaybe you've heard of them? Read the bible sometime. Fuck, I'm an agnostic and even *I* know that!
You do realize I'm a religious studies professor, specialized in the origins of christianity and mystical movements? I've probably read the bible from cover to cover more often than the average pastor. Certainly far more often than the average Christian.
QuoteAre Republicans "beholden" to the Movement? Only inasmuch as they need them to be elected.
Yes, that's what "beholden" means.
QuoteSeriously - name ONE signifigant Religious Right Political victory in the last 8 years, that's all I'm asking for.
The election, and subsequent re-election, of George W. Bush springs to mind.
QuoteYou've really, REALLY got a bug up your ass about this, don't you? I mean hell, I thought Nox was bad. How the hell did you end up on the same page on THIS of all things?
Nothing turns you off institutional religion faster than being a religious studies academic. I know these people, I've seen it all before, and I see it now, and I know how they think, and what they want, and what they'd do if they are allowed to.
You see, Nox is very wrong when he describes all Islam as evil. But any of the stuff he says, if you applied it solely to the Taliban, would probably be relatively close to even being correct.
These guys, the religious right in America, they're our taliban. They would be no better than the Taliban were in Afghanistan, if only they thought they could get away with it.
The real "clash of civilizations" that's happening today, I repeat, is not between Islam and "the West". Its between modern, democratic, SECULAR society, and religious fanaticism. The Muslim world just has a much harder struggle for the secular humanist side, but this war will really be won or lost here, in "the west".
RPGPundit
Quote from: ZalmoxisNo we're not.
By the standards of the rest of the developed world, yes, you are.
If you don't like it because you are not religious yourself, then I'd suggest you strongly reconsider who you're making your bed with.
On the other hand, if you are religious but don't care for the likes of Jerry Falwell, then you have no one to blame but yourself. Failing to organize a moderate christian movement to oppose your very own personal taliban is what has gotten you into this mess, and the rest of us with you.
RPGPundit
QuoteI've probably read the bible from cover to cover more often than the average pastor. Certainly far more often than the average Christian.
That´s not hard to do: reading it
once from cover to cover should suffice to back up that claim.;)
Quote from: RPGPunditBy the standards of the rest of the developed world, yes, you are.
Anyone who would make such a blanket statement is ignorant, regardless of nationality or numbers.
QuoteIf you don't like it because you are not religious yourself, then I'd suggest you strongly reconsider who you're making your bed with.
I'm a Christian who believes that the government should not favor one religion over another or force religious beliefs on others.
QuoteOn the other hand, if you are religious but don't care for the likes of Jerry Falwell, then you have no one to blame but yourself. Failing to organize a moderate christian movement to oppose your very own personal taliban is what has gotten you into this mess, and the rest of us with you.
RPGPundit
The Taliban overthrew a government and ruled as a strict theocracy. There is no fucking way in the universe of sanity that anyone with even the tiniest of brains could think that is close to happening in the US.
Quote from: RPGPunditNow who's kidding themselves? The media coverage played up the Gay angle, and that's what the evangelicals caught onto as well. You saw the evangelicals getting this sense that "the congressmen don't share our values", by which they meant "They knew this guy was gay, and yet they let him be there".
Again, had it been a 15 year old GIRL, then for sure the Democrats would have scored a couple of points, the guy still would have been drummed out, but there's no way that the entire PARTY would have gone down with him. It was all because "JEEEZUS hates the gays".
The whole party went down with him (the puns available there....) because of the "cover-up." I put it in quotes as I'm still not sure exactly how it all played out, but the appearence of what was going on should have sounded alarm bells for the leadership. You have someone like me - center right - looking at them and thinking they got what they deserved. Am I some religious right anti-gay fuckwad? No.
He got drummed out because of his actions - regardless of gay or not. The party got whacked because of the perceived, real or not, cover-up.
Unless you are so unhinged as to only take "he doesn't share our values" as "HE'S GAY!" as opposed to "we don't think it's right for a man in his position of power to take advantage of a young page."
Quote from: RPGPunditWhere the fuck do you get yours? I'm a voracious reader, and politics is like my Football. Its my sport of choice. So I don't limit myself to just one source.
From all over, but I tend to lean towards center right (as I've said before, a friend once called me a conservative libertarian, whatever the hell that means) - WSJ (http://www.opinionjournal.com/), Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/), Tigerhawk (http://www.tigerhawk.blogspot.com/), Belmont Club (http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/). That's pretty much everyday reading. That, of course, is in addition to the center left of the mainstream media, so it's a balance. I'm not as voracious about it as I was, say, 6 months ago. But I read every morning while I'm on the treadmill, so...
Quote from: RPGPunditNow, where the fuck is your "·source" telling you that, no, the Evangelical leaders really didn't vote Republican this time around because they were really upset with the ballooning budget (because we've seen so many concerned reports about that from the Christian Coalition, budgetary concerns are virtually ALL they ever talk about :rolleyes:)...
No, but that's not my point. My point is the Republicans could have held the House and Senate if they hadn't abadoned any semblance of the party of small government, enforcing the border, etc. So when the scandal hit, there was nothing to balance it out. You couldn't say, "ya know, they fucked up this scandal, but look at all the work they've done on insert-your-issue-here that I'll vote for them.
That's why they lost. But this illustrates you Republicans = Evangelicals hyperbole. There are Evangelicals that are Republicans. This does not make all Evangelicals Republicans, nor does it make all Republicans Evangelicals.
Quote from: RPGPundit...or serious concerns about the bloodshed in Iraq (yeah, because so many of the Southern Baptist churches are holding protest marches about that :rolleyes:),
I want to make sure I'm understanding your implication here...that Iraq is a religious crusade? I thought it was at the behest of Oil. Would you make up your conspiracy adled mind on this one? Regardless, there's very little concern about bloodshed in Iraq except as a political tool. It's a shame, really. But being concerned over the bloodshed is only one factor as to whether or not one believes it's right to have gone in and/or stay.
Quote from: RPGPunditand not because a Republican Congressman (and later, one of their own Evangelical pastors) was caught up in a gay scandal?
I don't know about evangelical pastors having anything to do with Republicans losing. If you truly believe that...
Yes, I do believe it was not GAY! that made the scandal.
Quote from: RPGPunditThese guys, the religious right in America, they're our taliban.
So many problems with this statement, so little time...
Your Taliban? You're a resident of the US? Has the religious right in the US provided safe haven for terrorists who have then physically attacked Uruguay or Canada? What does the religious right have to do with you whilst you oppress the underclass in Uruguay?
This doesn't even touch on the actual real differences between the Religious Right in America and the Taliban. Does the religious right in the US oppress women, ban music, stone adulterers, etc.? The fact that you equate them shows more about you than it does them.
For a religious studies academic, this is surprising. Perhaps you should take up bat penises too?
Quote from: WerekoalaDude.
Everything you said the administration was pushing for was what the hard-core Religiious Right wants, NOT what the Administration has tried to accomplish. Not. One. Thing. On your list has been seriously attempted to be passed into law by the Bush Administration. I DARE you to prove me wrong. Go on, I'll wait.
YOUR problem is, your conspiracy-addled brain thinks there's no difference between Republican and Right-Wing ChristoFascist. You're so SO wrong. Unless you're telling me that there are enough Christo-Fascists in the US to elecet a Republican every time as President from here on out? If that's the case, then its over, 'innit?
Proof of your conspiracy-mongering is your long list of Christian Aid groups that are "fronts" for some dark, sinister Globe-Spanning conversion machine. Hey, got news for you - its not a) a secret or b) sinister. Evangalizing and spreading the Gospel is what Christians are SUPPOSED to do! Dosn't matter if they're a hard-right or gooey-left denomination, its their commission! There are these little groups of people called "missionaries" - maybe you've heard of them? Read the bible sometime. Fuck, I'm an agnostic and even *I* know that!
Are Republicans "beholden" to the Movement? Only inasmuch as they need them to be elected. Same way Liberals are "beholden" to wackjob Leftists like environmentalists and Che' shirt-wearing college students who think that Christo-Fascists Republicans are trying to turn the US into a Theocratic State (which incidentally you sound exactly like, in case you didn't know it). Does that mean they kow-tow to them? Not at all, or at best only in symbolic ways. Seriously - name ONE signifigant Religious Right Political victory in the last 8 years, that's all I'm asking for.
You've really, REALLY got a bug up your ass about this, don't you? I mean hell, I thought Nox was bad. How the hell did you end up on the same page on THIS of all things?
http://constitution-first.org/
http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/list/fbci/index.html?src=qc
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/29/bush.faithbased.01/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/abstinenceonly-education.html
Took about 3 minutes with Google.
Quote from: ZalmoxisThe Taliban overthrew a government and ruled as a strict theocracy. There is no fucking way in the universe of sanity that anyone with even the tiniest of brains could think that is close to happening in the US.
That isn't the point. Their inability to do so is purely because they are not given the leeway to. But their ultimate goals are the real question. The point is not "can they do it", it is, "if the Christian Coalition had the power to do so, what society would they create? Would it be anything like America? Is it a place where you would want to live?". That's what you should be considering.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditThat isn't the point. Their inability to do so is purely because they are not given the leeway to. But their ultimate goals are the real question. The point is not "can they do it", it is, "if the Christian Coalition had the power to do so, what society would they create? Would it be anything like America? Is it a place where you would want to live?". That's what you should be considering.
RPGPundit
No, that's what
you should be considering, living in a country where someone with enough muscle could do so.
Perhaps the reason you have Americans fighting you on this is for the very reason you dismiss. We believe strongly in the their inability to do so.
You might get a different response if Americans thought the religious right could somehow pull of a coup...but most don't, which is why there isn't as much hysteria as you'd like.
Who the fuck cares what the Christian Coalition wants? They hold less power than most. I'm more worried about someone taxing me or telling me I can't smoke in my own car (it's for the kids!) than about whether or not the Christian Coalition condones what I do in my bedroom. That ship sailed long ago.
EDIT: I will be quick to point out that I don't know enough about Uruguay to know whether someone could, or not. It was just an example, and perhaps a bad one.
Quote from: James J SkachUnless you are so unhinged as to only take "he doesn't share our values" as "HE'S GAY!" as opposed to "we don't think it's right for a man in his position of power to take advantage of a young page."
So you are honestly, sincerely, claiming with a totally straight face, that the scandal would have had precisely the same level of impact, all other things being considered, if Foley's chosen "victim" had been a 15 year old girl instead of a 15 year old boy?
QuoteBut this illustrates you Republicans = Evangelicals hyperbole. There are Evangelicals that are Republicans. This does not make all Evangelicals Republicans, nor does it make all Republicans Evangelicals.
Who the fuck was saying that? I have been, over here, clearly stating that there's at least two opposing power blocs in the republican party, one of which are not religious in the least.
I'm talking about the influence of the Religious Right. I don't think I said, anywhere, that all evangelicals are republicans or vice versa.
QuoteBut being concerned over the bloodshed is only one factor as to whether or not one believes it's right to have gone in and/or stay.
Not if you're a real christian.
QuoteI don't know about evangelical pastors having anything to do with Republicans losing. If you truly believe that...
Yes, I do believe it was not GAY! that made the scandal.
Haggard was an outspoken supporter of the Bush regime. His fall, as much as Foley's, helped tarnish the voter base's perception of Bush.
In fact, the Haggard scandal was by far the more significant of the two; since it has now cast the leadership of the Religious Right into question among many religious voters, who had previously supported these guys unquestioningly. There is an increasingly large counter-movement going on among evangelicals that suggests that there's a reason why historically Evangelicals STAYED OUT of politics, and it was because of the kind of corrupting effects
politics has on
religion. The Haggard Scandal is giving more push to those in the Evangelical movement that favour completely dropping out of mainstream society into their own subculture, and ignoring american politics.
RPGPundit
Thanks, sigmund.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Sigmundhttp://constitution-first.org/
http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/list/fbci/index.html?src=qc
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/29/bush.faithbased.01/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/abstinenceonly-education.html
Took about 3 minutes with Google.
Hey, thanks Pundit! :rolleyes:
Now, again, what on the huge laundry list that Pundit posted has the Administration ACTUALLY DONE or even TRIED to do? Not one of those links you posted addressed ANYTHING he claimed that BUSH has tried to do, just what his supporters WANT him to do. But hey, at least you tried.
His BACKERS on the far Right might want those things. HE might personally be in favor of those things. But what has HE TRIED TO PASS that is on that list? Just one, that's all I'm looking for here.
Remember the halcyon days, when the Republicans controlled Congress and the White House? Man, those were the days of prayer in schools and no condoms and overturning Roe v. Wade. Woo, boy, I remember all those things being implemented quite clearly, don't you?
I remember a lost of screaming about how it was COMING ANY DAY! OMFG ChRIGHTstians!! Run for the hills! Grab you birkenstocks and vacuum hoses on the way out!
But I don't seem to recall anything actually happening. I guess I slept through the early '00s.
James, that overconfidence could be your undoing. I'm not saying that the Christian coalition will ruin American society tomorrow.
But I am saying that you should consider that the Roman Empire went from its peak period of persecuting Christians to embracing Christianity as official religion in about 30 years. Things can change very fast, if the right tactics are used. And you guys aren't exactly throwing the baptists to the lions, regardless of what some fundamentalists like to claim. Religious fundamentalism already has massive influence in America, especially at the grassroots level.
So you need to ask yourself whether or not the people running that movement envision something, for their preferred form of government, that seems anything like what you would call America, and where you would want to feel safe living in. And if the answer is "no", then you have to consider them your enemy, and be wary of them.
RPGPundit
Faith based charity ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Abstinence-only education ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Insistence on abstinence-only programs for UN aid in africa ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Outlawing stem-cell research ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
There's four, you stupid fucking cunt. Of course, you KNEW these things happened, but you were just playing a stupid rhetorical tactic to try to buy yourself wiggle space. Your next move will be to somehow ask me to "prove" these things happened, as if they didn't.
I mean, fuck you. If you seriously want to stake your bet in this debate on trying to claim that the Religious Right has less power and influence now in the U.S. than it did 8 years ago, you are doomed from the fucking start. Which is why you're nitpicking, because you know that in the bigger sense you don't have a rhetorical leg to stand on.
I'm going on tour in two days, I don't have time for this kiddy-crap bullshit. If you have a real argument, let's fucking hear it, otherwise stop wasting everyone's time.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditThat isn't the point. Their inability to do so is purely because they are not given the leeway to. But their ultimate goals are the real question. The point is not "can they do it", it is, "if the insert group here had the power to do so, what society would they create? Would it be anything like America? Is it a place where you would want to live?". That's what you should be considering.
RPGPundit
This could be said about any group with a strong, rigid agenda. It's also what makes America so great, that we can allow fringe groups to have a seat at the table while keeping them appropriately marginalized.
Quote from: RPGPunditFaith based charity ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Abstinence-only education ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Insistence on abstinence-only programs for UN aid in africa ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Outlawing stem-cell research ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
There's four, you stupid fucking cunt.
Actually only three of those actually happened... the government has not outlawed any form of Stem Cell research.
Quote from: ZalmoxisActually only three of those actually happened... the government has not outlawed any form of Stem Cell research.
And some state governments are moving to actively encourage it.
Federalism is
hell of a drug.
Quote from: RPGPunditFaith based charity ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Abstinence-only education ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Insistence on abstinence-only programs for UN aid in africa ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Outlawing stem-cell research ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Nice tries.
Faith-Based initiatives DID happen, but not to the exclusion of all else. This one is the closest thing you have to a win, by the way.
Federally mandated abstinence-only education HAS NOT happened, despite the best efforts of the Religious Right, and Bush has done nothing to try to push it through. There is not one school district in America that teaches abstinence-only sex education.
UN/Africa: Abstinence is being recommended IN ADDITION TO condoms and all the other goodies. Its not the ONLY thing going, so that's a non-starter. And I think the last time I checked, we're still paying our UN dues (but that's another subject).
Stem cell research is NOT outlawed, only
Federal Funding for certain types. There is plenty going on in the private sector.
So, that's 4 out of about 10+ you list. Not a good batting average, Pundy. Since you're so busy, I'll address alllll of your other points and you can reply if you like.
Quote from: RPGPunditHow about Faith-based initiatives for welfare; for education, vouchers, faith-based charities being favoured in national programs even if they're not even real charities (or even in the case of Hurricane Katrina, giving millions of dollars to a faith-based "relief" charity who's only "relief" was going to the afflicted areas to evangelize); not to mention abstinence-only education in schools (with public funding depending upon it), raising the legal drinking age, abstinence-only programs in Africa being a condition to the US paying its share of UN dues, theological litmus tests for US Supreme Court Judges (and Judges in general), the emboldening of religious groups to take over school boards and force "intelligent design" (aka young earth creationism) on science classes, forbidding stem-cell research, trying to turn back the clock on Roe Vs. Wade, and generally trying to blur the line in the separation of church and state at every turn?
Ah yes, not to mention invading Iraq because god told him to. Oh yes, and claiming that he won the presidency because god wanted it that way. The Divine Right at work, so much for those suckers who fought way back in 1776 to try to get rid of the very thing.
1) What ABOUT Faith-based initiatives fror welfare? Did all other forms of Welfare become illegal and I missed it? Its IN ADDITION TO, I believe.
2) Faith-based charities are being favored in Hurrican Relief? Really? This is in addition to the umpteen billions of FEMA aid and other disaster relief, or to the exclusion of it?
3) Raising the legal drinking age - as a National item? When did this come up before Congress for a vote?
4) Theological litmus tests for judges? What, you mean like requiring them to be pro-Choice? Oh wait, that's Democrats. I seem to recall lots of Chuck Schumer air-time devoted to soundbites about THAT, but not many about what religious faith a nominee was. In fact, not one judge that I can recall was EVER asked about his faith - since we're not supposed to do that, you see.
5) Religious groups taking over school boards? What, like the ones voted out in Kansas and Pensylvania for trying to have Darwinism declared a"theory" on a book sticker? And again, how is Bush or the Federal Government responsible for that?
6) Blurring the seperation of church and state at every turn? In what way? Do we have a National Religion now?
(Here's the part where I ask you to "prove" these things happened, as if they actually didn't, because since they DID, it must be all over the internet in news articles and such.)
YOU are the one making these claims, so it behooves you to support your arguments. You're an educated man, and a teacher, so you SHOULD be able to defend yourself with sourced facts as opposed to say-so. And I know you CAN - if you wanted to take the time.
Now, onward.
I never once said the Religious Right had LESS influence during the last 8 years, I only asked for an example of a clearly defined victory for their agenda. You can't provide one that is an unambiguous win for the Christo-Facists, apparently.
I'll ignore your ad-hominem attacks because I know its your style and you're under alot stress.
Quote from: WerekoalaHis BACKERS on the far Right might want those things. HE might personally be in favor of those things. But what has HE TRIED TO PASS that is on that list? Just one, that's all I'm looking for here.
I'd go farther and ask what actually passed. What people have tried to pass is pratically immaterial when discussing how America is led by/headed towards/in bed with/somehow related to any particular group. In fact, everything that group wants that tries to pass and fails is a point in favor of the "a religious government ain't gonna happen" crowd.
Quote from: James McMurrayI'd go farther and ask what actually passed. What people have tried to pass is pratically immaterial when discussing how America is led by/headed towards/in bed with/somehow related to any particular group. In fact, everything that group wants that tries to pass and fails is a point in favor of the "a religious government ain't gonna happen" crowd.
You'd thnk that, wouldn't you? Apparently not, at least 'round these parts.
Someone, I think it was Kat Harris, the harridan who helped keep the florida recount from being ran honeslty and gave w the white house, said that she didn;t care what the voters thought because "God picks america's leaders."
Holy Theocracy, Batman!
Seriously, if I had the resources to pull it off, I'd like to do a movie, or maybe a miniseries on cable, called "One nation, under God." about a near future when america is dominated by the ultra far right, with scenes of gays either being murdered, or taken to labs and subjeced to brain surgery to try to cure them.
Also women would be basically disenfranchised and silenced on all issues, under the biblical injunction that women are to be silent and have no authority over men.
I'd do one scene where a gamer refuses to let a 'god squad' confinscate and burn his game collection, and is shot for resisting them, because he'd rather die than live in that kind of world.
The god squads could also be seen confiscating all "unholy' books, art, personal belongings, etc, and forcing pepple to accept jesus or be shipped off to 'salvation camps'....
Sure, it'd piss the right off, that'd be the point. it would also be a way to scare a lot of people into voting against god squad types like bush and other conservatives.
Quote from: fonkaygarryAnd some state governments are moving to actively encourage it.
Federalism is hell of a drug.
QFT baby....god save the Republic...hehehe....
Wow...ummm...nox...yeah...all I ask is you keep agreeing with Pundy. It really helps bolster the opposite viewpoint. So thanks!
So let me see if I'm getting your point of view straight here: You're claiming that the Religious Right has managed to have no effect whatsoever on the political scene in the last 8 years, and yet you somehow admit that they do have MORE influence now than they had 8 years ago?
WTF?
RPGPundit
Quote from: WerekoalaNow, again, what on the huge laundry list that Pundit posted has the Administration ACTUALLY DONE or even TRIED to do? Not one of those links you posted addressed ANYTHING he claimed that BUSH has tried to do, just what his supporters WANT him to do.
What part of "Welfare reform has been one of the centerpieces of President Bush's domestic agenda since the onset of his administration. This was evident in the creation of key legislation and supporting executive orders designed to place government money into the hands of "faith-based" charity organizations." or "During President Bush's tenure as governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, for instance, with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females." are you not understanding here? Where does it say Bush didn't push these agendas, only his backers (apparently behind his back if you are to be believed)?
Quote from: WerekoalaThere is not one school district in America that teaches abstinence-only sex education.
http://www.siecus.org/policy/PUpdates/arch04/arch040123.html
Perhaps you should do more thorough research before making such sweeping assertions.
Quote from: SigmundWhat part of "Welfare reform has been one of the centerpieces of President Bush’s domestic agenda since the onset of his administration. This was evident in the creation of key legislation and supporting executive orders designed to place government money into the hands of “faith-based” charity organizations." or "During President Bush’s tenure as governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, for instance, with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females." are you not understanding here? Where does it say Bush didn't push these agendas, only his backers (apparently behind his back if you are to be believed)?
Bush as Governor of Texas 7 years ago =/= Bush as President of the USA now. Try again.
Quote from: SigmundPerhaps you should do more thorough research before making such sweeping assertions.
You are the one making "sweeping assertions". The link you provided was from 3+ years ago and its been struck down since then - and more importantly it was NOT pushed by the President of the USA on a national level. Try again.
Quote from: WerekoalaBush as Governor of Texas 7 years ago =/= Bush as President of the USA now. Try again.
It's still Bush pushing an agenda. Not these "backers' you seem to feel are truely running the gov.
QuoteYou are the one making "sweeping assertions". The link you provided was from 3+ years ago and its been struck down since then - and more importantly it was NOT pushed by the President of the USA on a national level. Try again.
How is a specific link refuting your broad statement "sweeping"? Once again, you said...
Quote from: WerekoalaThere is not one school district in America that teaches abstinence-only sex education.
... and the link I provided proved you are wrong for making that sweeping, all-inclusive statement because there is indeed at least one school district that has adopted the policy exclusively. Whether it has since been changed again does not change the fact that your statement is inaccurate. Stop pouting about it and move on to making an actual accurate point for once.
So, are we only allowed to include actions taken to further agendas in the last week? How about in the last month? Would that be ok? Oh, and they can only be policies that haven't been blocked/reversed/etc., right? Cuz we know that if Bush's administration fails at pushing through policies, then they didn't really want them anyway, right? Get real.
Quote from: SigmundSo, are we only allowed to include actions taken to further agendas in the last week? How about in the last month? Would that be ok? Oh, and they can only be policies that haven't been blocked/reversed/etc., right? Cuz we know that if Bush's administration fails at pushing through policies, then they didn't really want them anyway, right? Get real.
As much as it might seem disingenuous to exclude the one school district that had it's abstinence-only program struck down, it speaks to the point I think WK is making (and I said to Pundy at some point).
That point is, no matter how much you might want to say the Religious Right is about to make the US some kind of Christo-fascist state, it's not happening. It's the beauty of the system, to ameliorate wide swings and fringe elements from taking power.
Do they have an agenda they'd like to push? Sure, it's the right of every citizen and assembly of citizens to have that agenda. If the Religious Right can't have an agenda, then neither can the left. Agenda does not necessarily equal implementation. Otherwise, we'd have to run around shouting "the Left is trying to make us a Socialist (or Communist) state!!!" Usually, the people doing that are called wing-nut fanatics, right?
So does this mean calling those who equate the agenda with the inevitable instantiation of that agenda wing nuts too? I'd daresay we wouldn't equate pundy with raving lunatics, would we?
Quote from: James J SkachDo they have an agenda they'd like to push? Sure, it's the right of every citizen and assembly of citizens to have that agenda. If the Religious Right can't have an agenda, then neither can the left. Agenda does not necessarily equal implementation. Otherwise, we'd have to run around shouting "the Left is trying to make us a Socialist (or Communist) state!!!" Usually, the people doing that are called wing-nut fanatics, right?
The difference is that 98% of democrats do not, in their heart of hearts, want to create a communist state.
Whereas 98% of the Religious Right DO, in their heart of hearts, want to create a christian state, where non-christians are not allowed to vote, homosexuality is a crime (possibly punishable by death, the various wise reverend doctors of podunk university will debate that after the revolution), women must be covered to the ankles, the dubious practices of "cults" like the scientologists, muslims, buddhists and catholics will be seriously restricted, all education will be christian-based education, and abortion will be considered first-degree murder punishable by death (no debate on that one).
Fundamentalist Christians obviously constitute a minority, both in the United States as a whole, and probably in the Republican party. But they're a much BIGGER minority in the Republican Party, backed up by the vaguely religious (people who think they don't really care, but consider themselves vaguely "socially conservative", and will thus give these guys extra backing without really understanding what they want). And when we say minority, we're still talking a minority of MILLIONS in your country. And millions who think and act alike, all on the order of their religious leaders, and who've totally bought into dangerous apocalyptic concepts, are convinced that the end of the world is not only happening but should be HURRIED UP so they can go be with Jesus, and think that Christianity is MUCH more important than those worldly things like democracy or the constitution.
So there is considerably more call to be concerned about the actual "end-motives" in the heart of hearts of a substantial part of the Republican party, then that of the Democrats, who are lacking in sufficient spines, brains or balls to desire anything truly revolutionary or controversial.
RPGPundit
Since this has become a thread about Bush ... :rolleyes:
Quote from: James J Skach... I'd be willing to bet small-government is the real driver.
Pity Bush
loves BIG government. I can't imagine why any self-respecting libertarian would support him at this stage.
I can't imagine why any self-respecting anything would support him at this stage.
Quote from: RPGPunditThe difference is that 98% of democrats do not, in their heart of hearts, want to create a communist state.
Whereas 98% of the Religious Right DO, in their heart of hearts, want to create a christian state, where non-christians are not allowed to vote, homosexuality is a crime (possibly punishable by death, the various wise reverend doctors of podunk university will debate that after the revolution), women must be covered to the ankles, the dubious practices of "cults" like the scientologists, muslims, buddhists and catholics will be seriously restricted, all education will be christian-based education, and abortion will be considered first-degree murder punishable by death (no debate on that one).
OK..let's take these...umm...extreme...positions one at a time.
First, the two percent of Democrats that want to create a Socialist state abut equal the 98% of the "Religious Right," certainly as you define them later in the post. Because you're comparing two different sets. In other words, the "Religious Right" as you define them certainly DO NOT make up 98% of the Republican party.
Second, are you sure you want to assert that there's an overwhelming super-majority (which doesn't even really get close to the 98% you claim) of Religious Right who want to:
Allow only Christians to vote.
Make Homosexuality a crime.
Make women cover themselves to the ankle.
Restrict other religions.
Make abortion first degree murder.
About the only ones I've ever seen being seriously pushed by any significant group of people is the abortion issue – a debate I think we should leave to another thread. Even homosexuality is wodely accepted – with only a few states that even have/enforce sodomy laws anymore. Gay marriage or protected status is a separate issue - again, another discussion we should probably leave to another thread. But I seriously can't recall anyone significant talking about making homosexuality a crime. The other issues you mention are, quite literally, absurd. I mean, I've never even heard of a desire on the part of anyone to allow only Christians to vote, make women cover to the ankle, or restrict the practice of other religions.
It makes me ask: Who is telling you that this is the desire of any significant movement in America? I mean, I really have to question your source, or the way in which you are interpreting it. It's such a huge disconnect between what you're asserting and the reality in the US, I'm really perplexed.
Quote from: RPGPunditFundamentalist Christians obviously constitute a minority, both in the United States as a whole, and probably in the Republican party. But they're a much BIGGER minority in the Republican Party, backed up by the vaguely religious (people who think they don't really care, but consider themselves vaguely "socially conservative", and will thus give these guys extra backing without really understanding what they want).
Ummm, yeah. Well, see, you are now putting together people who are socially conservative with people who want to have only Christians vote. That's like saying people who want to socially liberal are the same as the International Communist minority in the Democrat party.
And it's interesting what I think you miss. This is horse-trading. Will social conservatives use the Far Right to get elected? Absolutely as much as the social liberals will use the Far Left. And then...well...you see what happens – they both run into middle America, which despite all the lovely jabs about how bland and hickish it is, seems to have an amazing amount of wisdom. So when the Far X tries to push it's agenda they get turned back. Are there incremental changes? Sure, that's the ebb and flow of politics. Are we headed towards right wing fascism? No more than the 2006 election meant we are headed for full-blown socialism.
Quote from: RPGPunditAnd when we say minority, we're still talking a minority of MILLIONS in your country. And millions who think and act alike, all on the order of their religious leaders, and who've totally bought into dangerous apocalyptic concepts, are convinced that the end of the world is not only happening but should be HURRIED UP so they can go be with Jesus, and think that Christianity is MUCH more important than those worldly things like democracy or the constitution.
Again – this makes me ask just where this comes from, being as disconnected from reality as it is. Are there millions of Christians? Sure. Are there millions of fundamentalist Christians? Most likely there are. Are there millions of Fundamentalist Christians who believe abortion should be illegal? It's likely there are. Are there millions of Fundamentalist Christians who believe any of the other things you mentioned? I highly doubt it. Much less that listen to leaders who have bought into "dangerous apocalyptic concepts," or think the end of the world "should be hurried up." Where, really, do you get this stuff? I'm not asking to be confrontational, I'd love to see the source as I've heard NOTHING about this kind of thing in any serious discussion of politics in America.
Quote from: RPGPunditSo there is considerably more call to be concerned about the actual "end-motives" in the heart of hearts of a substantial part of the Republican party, then that of the Democrats, who are lacking in sufficient spines, brains or balls to desire anything truly revolutionary or controversial.
Ooooh...now it's a substantial part of the Republican part again? And I don't happen to think trying to make the US socialist or communist is particularly "revolutionary." I mean, it would doom the world to misery until such time as it was reversed, but that's about it. The whole Socialism=Revolution concept died long ago. Socialism is as bourgeois as Capitalism frex. We agree on their lack of spines and brains - except that I'd say it extends to most politicians of either party.
Quote from: AkrasiaPity Bush loves BIG government. I can't imagine why any self-respecting libertarian would support him at this stage.
I couldn't even find where I said that, but I assume my point was that republicans were shown to be, when left in power too long, as susceptible to the lure of Big Government as the Democrats. Another reason they got whacked.
Quote from: James J SkachAs much as it might seem disingenuous to exclude the one school district that had it's abstinence-only program struck down, it speaks to the point I think WK is making (and I said to Pundy at some point).
That point is, no matter how much you might want to say the Religious Right is about to make the US some kind of Christo-fascist state, it's not happening. It's the beauty of the system, to ameliorate wide swings and fringe elements from taking power.
Do they have an agenda they'd like to push? Sure, it's the right of every citizen and assembly of citizens to have that agenda. If the Religious Right can't have an agenda, then neither can the left. Agenda does not necessarily equal implementation. Otherwise, we'd have to run around shouting "the Left is trying to make us a Socialist (or Communist) state!!!" Usually, the people doing that are called wing-nut fanatics, right?
So does this mean calling those who equate the agenda with the inevitable instantiation of that agenda wing nuts too? I'd daresay we wouldn't equate pundy with raving lunatics, would we?
That may be, but WK was so adamant that not one school district has adopted the program. All I'm saying is for someone who wants to try and call others on verifiable "facts" to themselves be so loose with the "facts" is a bit silly.
I don't really agree fully with Pundit either, I usually vote republican, and I voted for Bush myself, but I don't like the president's pushing of religious programs even a little bit. I agree with you mostly, yet I feel saying he has no agenda along those lines (and I know that's not what
you are saying) is either a mistake born of ignorance or a deception. I just don't feel it's anywhere near the impending crisis Pundit seems to. I am willing to at least consider it however as I constantly demonstrate to myself that I don't know everything :)
Whatever Bush's agenda may be, in two years his ability to push that agenda all but disappears. There is no fear of America becoming a tool of the Christian right because we'll soon have a Democrat in the office.
Skach: You obviously haven't been actually paying enough attention to the things Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, etc are saying to their true believers (and remember, each of these guys represent a multi-million dollar organization with millions of supporters, in some cases bigger than many famous corporations), and occasionally even saying when not among the "faithful".
You should try reading, just for starters, Chris Hedge's book, American Fascists. The guy is hardly a "left-wing hack" or something like that, he's a respected foreign correspondent, a devout presbyterian and a graduate of Harvard Divinity School. This is a real christian responding to the hijacking of his religion, and the attempted hijacking of his country.
RPGPundit
Quote from: James McMurrayWhatever Bush's agenda may be, in two years his ability to push that agenda all but disappears. There is no fear of America becoming a tool of the Christian right because we'll soon have a Democrat in the office.
I wouldn't be totally sure of that Democratic Victory just yet. I have learned the hard way to NEVER underestimate the ability of the Democratic party to try their absolute hardest to lose an election. And if they try as hard at that as they usually do, they might do just that.
RPGPundit
I don't' know how, but I totally missed this Pundit response. It looks like he's on vacation now, but I'm going to respond in case he checks in and fells like continuing...
Quote from: RPGPunditIt certainly is, and there's no question that Labour Unions are almost entirely pro-Democrat.
But there's something of a difference in gravitas between a worker's right group, and a group that's supposed to be dedicated to the issue of your IMMORTAL SOUL. So you'll forgive me if I judge hypocrisy and worldliness on the side of one of those two groups to be a far greater crime than the other's.
Perhaps the funniest thing in this response is equating Labor Unions to Worker's Rights Group. I judge them equal for the reason that the worldly Labor Unions affect peoples' lives in the here and now. Who knows what happens in the afterlife or if the hypocrisy is worth a red cent.
Quote from: RPGPunditThat division isn't the issue. The issue is whether you can get a certain block of voters out to vote. The Religious Right's greatest asset is that they can get a block of millions of people out to vote, and all to vote republican, if they want to. Of course, if absolutely everyone else were to turn on the Republicans, it wouldn't be enough, which is why the Republican party can't sell itself completely over to the Evangelicals. But the bloc is so significant nonetheless that the Republicans do openly promote themselves with some very extremist views to satisfy the very extremist leaders of this movement.
I don't know about extremist views with which the Republican party associates – you'd have to elaborate. If it's abortion, we should debate that in a separate thread; likewise for Gay Marriage or Gay Rights. You may see them as extreme, but there are quite a few people who are not fundamentalist Christians that think otherwise.
Now as to the importance of the votes of the Religious Right – similar to what I've said in what turned out to be subsequent posts - it's no different than the influence of the Anti-War Left on Democrats. Look at how that is perplexing the Democrat party leaders. Politics is about how to get voters to vote for you (unfortunately). This sort of horse-trading goes on all the time. In fact, you could take the abandoning of Republicans in the 2006 election as a sign that the Religious Right did not get what it wanted. I know it also supports the idea the Religious Right is a large block within Republicans, but I think you'd see the same if, for example, the Labor Unions abandoned Democrats in an election.
Quote from: RPGPunditI agree, that this is true. But the fact that the republicans put those litmus tests on their Judges proves that this is what their "specific ideological persuasion" is. The whole point in this argument is that you and Koala were trying to somehow claim that Bush and the Republicans are not really beholden to the Fundamentalist Evangelical Movement, or that if they were, that wouldn't really be so bad.
Your admitting that the Republicans do indeed have a litmus test for Judges, means that they are beholden, and that yes it is very bad, because it will destroy the very fabric of American secular democracy.
Ummm...I admit no such thing. What I admit is that it's perfectly fine to have an ideological test for the judges that you, as President, appoint. For example, does the candidate believe in the Constitution as a "living document" or does the candidate believe in reading in more strictly. That's a litmus test. The fact that someone likens that to the abortion debate tells you more about the abortion debate than the SCOTUS. Which is more dangerous, Ginsberg or Roberts? See, you seem to think someone would answer Ginsberg because she's pro-choice, as opposed to someone who would say Ginsberg because she believes the SCOTUS can find rulings in sources other than the Constitution itself. The reverse would be true for the other side of the ideological debate.
Quote from: RPGPunditGood for your mom. Catholic charities are generally genuine charities, and whatever else you can say about the Catholic Church (and there's a lot bad you could say) they do at least put up more than just a pretense of "aid" before getting down to the "conversion" business.
I sincerely hope you are not insinuating that my mother did any converting or attempt any. My sister and her went down there and worked. Not one bit of proselytizing. The only time I heard my devout Catholic parents ever try to argue/convert was with me – and that's completely understandable, don't you think? It's also how most of America practices religion – whether you choose to believe it or not.
Quote from: RPGPunditBut the fact that there were some legitimate charities down there doesn't mean there wasn't a SHITLOAD of what are basically FRAUDULENT "charities" that went down to evangelize, and got paid government money to do so.
My lord (no pun intended), do you really want to get into the fraud angle on this? Have you not heard the reports of people using FEMA cards to buy lap dances and big screen TV's? I'd be interested to see how much was given to "faith based initiatives" and how much in direct aid from the Feds (FEMA, etc), then compare how the money was actually put to use. Who do you think would win that contest, hmm?
Quote from: RPGPunditOperation Blessing, a "charity" run by Pat Robertson, which has been known in the past to use its airplanes to transport mining equipment for Robertson's corrupt mining operations in Africa, received FEMA money for going in to the region to rebuild churches (robertson's churches) and evangelize.
The "Convoy of Hope", another fake charity run by the Assembly of God, is infamous for engaging in "stealth evangelism"; they are famous for going to some of the most miserable places on earth, where people are starving, freezing or otherwise dying, and offering them one meal a day in exchange for attending bible classes.
I could keep going: Christian Disaster Response (really a front for One Way Ministries), World Harvest (really a front for the Focus on the Family, Dobson's organization, Mission of Mercy (actually a front for Bethesda Christian, and a particularly vile charity that targets children, trying to get them to convert away from their parents' religion), World Relief, Mercy Ships (present themselves as a medical charity, keeping secret that they're in fact affiliated with Campus Crusade are are mostly dedicated to evangelizing to students), Global Hope Network, International Foundation of Hope (both "fake charities" set up by Focus on the Family), Churches of Christ Disaster Relief (a charity that has engaged in church planting in the third world and who's orphanages have come under investigation for horrible abuses), and World Emergency Relief (a group who are run by self-style "Christian Supremacists" that have been known to turn away non-christians).
Wow, fronts and infamy and accusations. I honestly don't know squat about these, and could care less. Show me the money and the results. Then we can both denounce them for wasting tax-money or truly evangelizing with the money instead of helping. Until then, please forgive me if I take with a grain of salt what you and people who are opposed to faith based charities getting tax money say, ok?
Quote from: RPGPunditEven relatively mild Christian charities, like Billy Graham's Samaritan's Purse, or the Salvation Army, groups that really DO give charity, why should taxpayer money go to these groups? We know that Samaritan's Purse, for example, refuses to accept volunteers who aren't evangelical christians (requiring that they have a letter from their Pastor backing them up). To me, that makes it pretty obvious that they have an agenda beyond just helping the needy.
Yeah, because just helping people out of the kindness of their hearts would be so foreign to a Christian – right? I mean, aren't you the one saying that if they were true Christians, they would act this way or that way (say, be against OIF). Are you now calling into question their Christianity?
But the larger issue is your opposition to Faith-based Initiatives. That's a valid debate we can have in a separate thread. But to use that as a reason to fear all fundamentalist Christians as the next Nazi state in Amerika is ridiculous.
Quote from: RPGPunditAnd if you still aren't convinced by all of this, remember that Volunteer Ministers got money too. They are actually a front for the Church of Scientology (its funny, the Christian "charities" try to pretend they're nondenominational relief efforts, the Scientologists in turn try to pretend they're Christian).
We can snicker all we want at the Scientologists. But my question is if they get results. Does Volunteer Ministries help people turn their lives around and become productive, self-sufficient citizens? What the fuck do I care if some percentage of the people they help become Scientologists in the bargain? In fact, you do a disservice to your argument by pointing out that Scientologists get money as well as Christians. How does this support your assertion that the Fundamentalist Christians, who railroaded this desire for Faith-based Initiatives over the objections of a screaming American public, have the goal of repressing the practice of other religions if the fucking
Scientologists are getting money?
My theory in response to the OP, is that Satan whispers these thoughts into atheists ears, lacking Christ in their hearts they have no protection from his influence you see.
On an unrelated note, Bush's Christianity is not as evident in his policies as the left tends to think, if it were the Christian right wouldn't be so fucked off with him, as someone said upthread. He manages the remarkable trick of pissing off the liberals and many in the centre with occasional faith based policies while not implementing enough of them to satisfy the Christian right.
It takes a special gift to annoy so many people. Bush's problem is that he is incompetent, not that he's Christian.
Quote from: RPGPunditSkach: You obviously haven't been actually paying enough attention to the things Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, etc are saying to their true believers (and remember, each of these guys represent a multi-million dollar organization with millions of supporters, in some cases bigger than many famous corporations), and occasionally even saying when not among the "faithful".
You should try reading, just for starters, Chris Hedge's book, American Fascists. The guy is hardly a "left-wing hack" or something like that, he's a respected foreign correspondent, a devout presbyterian and a graduate of Harvard Divinity School. This is a real christian responding to the hijacking of his religion, and the attempted hijacking of his country.
See, I don't pay as much attention to them for a reason - they just don't have that much power. I know you
think they do. I know some people think they do - whether hard-core secularists who think any whiff of religion leads directly to fascism do not pass go do not collect $200, or people who (rightly) believe their religion is being hijacked by some nut ball. But it's not my religion and I don't think religion is automatically a bad thing.
Perhaps the last is the real culprit. There is a narrative out there that says anything to do with the federal government that is touched by religion - however slight or whether or not it has good effects - is tainted. The seemingly logical conclusion is a fear that America is headed for Religious Totalitarianism. But that's just not how this place works. Odd, but true.
But I will take your suggestion and see if I can get my hands on a copy of Hedge's book.
But let me just make this a numbers game. How many blinded-by-the-light followers of those three preachers are there? Let's say that that are 5M people who buy into the Religious Right vision as you claim it to be - religious oppression, oppression of gays, women, etc. How many of them vote? How many voters are there in the US? What percentage of Republican voters is this? And that's a huge number to swallow - that there are 5M people who want the end of the world hurried up so they can meet jesus.
My point is that even if I were to agree with Hedge (that Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson are preaching crazy shit and people are lapping it up), I'm just not convinced
that it matters in the grand scheme of American politics. It's a red herring. It's hyperbole to win elections. It's a distraction from serious issues like Justices, War, Taxes, etc.
The Religious Right's hatred for other religions is easily trumped by their desire to get millions of dollars from the federal government. At least since the time of Ralph Reed onwards, the Religious Right's strategy has always been to win each step in their effort by whatever means necessary, including going to bed with people they despise. They realized a long time ago that this was a winning way of doing things. So they don't like that the Scientologists get money too, shit, they'd illegalize Scientology if they could, but ever since the early 90s they've developed a powerful sense of priorities that lets them look the other way at all kinds of hypocrisies.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditThe Religious Right's hatred for other religions is easily trumped by their desire to get millions of dollars from the federal government. At least since the time of Ralph Reed onwards, the Religious Right's strategy has always been to win each step in their effort by whatever means necessary, including going to bed with people they despise. They realized a long time ago that this was a winning way of doing things.
Yeah, it took them 40 years in the minority, losing to Democrats who got in bed with anyone to win. What's the saying - politics makes strange bedfellows?
Quote from: RPGPunditSo they don't like that the Scientologists get money too, shit, they'd illegalize Scientology if they could, but ever since the early 90s they've developed a powerful sense of priorities that lets them look the other way at all kinds of hypocrisies.
This is the part I just don't get, Pundy. Really. You've mentioned Hedge's book, and I'll certainly give it a look. But are you really of the opinion that there's any significant, serious movement in the US that has as its philosophy the opression of other religions to the point of making them illegal? I just can't express how perplexing this is.
As an ultimate goal, yes. At the end of the day, the Religious right looks at these people, be they Hindus, atheists or even catholics, as part of a Satanic deception.
Pat Robertson has said as much, that non-christians should not be allowed to vote in the united states:
"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" --from Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 218.
"It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into (our) institutions (today) are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation."--Pat Robertson, New York Magazine
A couple of other quotes:
"How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?"
-- Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p. 227
"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore."
-Pat Robertson, address to his American Center for Law and Justice
We have enough votes to run the country. And when the people say, "We've had enough," we are going to take over.
-- Pat Robertson, speech given to the "Washington for Jesus" rally, quoted from Robert Boston, The Most Dangerous Man in America, p. 29
Individual Christians are the only ones really -- and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 11, 1985, defending his stance that only Christians and Jews are fit to hold public office
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditAs an ultimate goal, yes. At the end of the day, the Religious right looks at these people, be they Hindus, atheists or even catholics, as part of a Satanic deception.
Pat Robertson has said as much, that non-christians should not be allowed to vote in the united states:
"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" --from Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 218.
"It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into (our) institutions (today) are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation."--Pat Robertson, New York Magazine
A couple of other quotes:
"How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?"
-- Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p. 227
"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore."
-Pat Robertson, address to his American Center for Law and Justice
We have enough votes to run the country. And when the people say, "We've had enough," we are going to take over.
-- Pat Robertson, speech given to the "Washington for Jesus" rally, quoted from Robert Boston, The Most Dangerous Man in America, p. 29
Individual Christians are the only ones really -- and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 11, 1985, defending his stance that only Christians and Jews are fit to hold public office
I mean, besides the nutball angle - I actually don't see anything about only allowing Christians to vote. He's saying that Christians (and maybe Jews) are the only ones qualified to rule. That's a different, although similarly crazy, statement.
And let's just think about what it would take to get that viewpoint instantiated in the American government. First, you'd have to tear up the Constitution as you can't constitutionally discriminate based on religion. So you can't not hire an athiest.
Once that happens, all hell breaks lose and you'd have a war on your hands. Which is why it will never happen - because people are smart enough to see where it all would lead and there are more of us than those who believe as Pat does. Which has been my point all along.
It's worth pointing out that the "Religious Right" is actually an ideologically-charged umbrella term for a variety of movements with disparate, and even irreconcilable goals. The effect of regular use of the term (both within the group and out) is to cover over these differences and present the entirety of conservative Christian movements and groups as a doctrinally, politically and socially unified group.
It's also worth pointing out that the "Right" in America is disintegrating (that is to say, the ideological origin of the term "Right" is becoming more apparent as it departs from accurately describing political groupings), and has been since early 2002. The libertarian, neoconservative, paleoconservative, and theoconservative groupings are each going their own way with their own publications, think tanks, and institutions. At least two groups (libertarians and the aforementioned "Religious Right", theoconservatives) are imploding even as this divergence is going on.
In both cases, attributing coherent positions to more than individuals or small groups is problematic. Things are falling apart.
Quote from: RPGPunditYou should try reading, just for starters, Chris Hedge's book, American Fascists.
Not that there's anything wrong with the book, but you might want to broaden your sources of information beyond controversy-driven infotainment. Bringing that book out is like bringing out an Ann Coulter book and holding it up as a symbol of truth.
Ahhh, Pat Robertson. Thank god for him, he does so much harm to the christian reich.
Remember that this guy has claimed to have ordered a hurricane to change course thru the power of god, and that anyone claiming to have had a close encounter of the third kind should be stoned to death.
May he live a long life, and help expose the lunacy of the far right every day of it.
Quote from: ZalmoxisNot that there's anything wrong with the book, but you might want to broaden your sources of information beyond controversy-driven infotainment. Bringing that book out is like bringing out an Ann Coulter book and holding it up as a symbol of truth.
First, its pretty absurd to compare a book written by a guy with Hedge's credentials, and the kind of work he put into it, with the likes of Ann Coulter.
The dude isn't exactly anti-christian, he's neither a michael moore nor a dan savage...
Second, you might have missed the fact that I've been studying these fuckers for years now (religious studies academic, remember?); one has to just look at the incredible shadow-economy they've created with their international "church planting" efforts to get an idea of their monumental level of corruption. I mentioned "American Fascists" because its recent, topical, and accessible, just in case if anyone on the other side of this really and sincerely wanted to bother to get a clue about what all the fuss was about, and weren't just demanding this kind of information for the sake of argument.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditFirst, its pretty absurd to compare a book written by a guy with Hedge's credentials, and the kind of work he put into it, with the likes of Ann Coulter.
The book is a steaming pile of shit meant to inflame people. In other words, it the same kind of pseudo-intellectual diatribe he accuses the "religious Right" of using.
QuoteThe dude isn't exactly anti-christian, he's neither a michael moore nor a dan savage...
No, but he has cashed his chips in on this supposed "Dominionism" danger, which puts him in the same category as the folks who yammer on about the Illuminati and Trilateral Commission and Area 51.
QuoteSecond, you might have missed the fact that I've been studying these fuckers for years now (religious studies academic, remember?);
No offense is intended to you, as I like you, but you are flat out clueless on the "religious Right". I spent 30 years in the American south. I grew up with "fundamentalist" Christians. I'd be happy to debate about the idiotic views of this group or that group inside the "religious Right", but if you are going to tell me they're a
real danger, I'm afraid I'm just going to have to laugh at your ignorance.
Quoteone has to just look at the incredible shadow-economy they've created with their international "church planting" efforts to get an idea of their monumental level of corruption.
So the fact they use money to set up churches is a... danger? :raise:
Actually pundit is right about the religious right in america hating other religions, and other people in general.
A prominent catholic, who's name wasn't worth remembering but who has lead a lot of crusades against things he doesn't like, such as "the da vinci code" movie, openly refers to gays as "queers" in a derogatory tone.
As to religions hating each other, look at the chick tracks in which jews are shown as going to hell for being jews and catholicism is portrayed as evil and satanic.
My fucking god, with some of these nuts it's not enough to believe in jesus, you have to believe in him their way and by their trappings.
BTW, the religious right is mostly baptist, tho they will align with the "satanic, hell bound" catholics to do a gang bang on other groups.
When you have baptists saying that catholics are satanic and evil, that shows real religious intolerance. They both believe in the same god, the same jesus, etc, but because of some fairly minor differences the baptists believe the catholics are satanic hereitcs doomed to everlasting hellfire.
Now that's intolerance, and I guess it fits that people so intolerant create intolerant gods in their image.
Quote from: RPGPunditPat Robertson has said as much, that non-christians should not be allowed to vote in the united states:
What? Are you willfully blind, trolling, or stupid? Read your own quotes and rethink your statement.
Quote from: Dominus NoxActually pundit is right about the religious right in america hating other religions, and other people in general.
A prominent catholic, who's name wasn't worth remembering but who has lead a lot of crusades against things he doesn't like, such as "the da vinci code" movie, openly refers to gays as "queers" in a derogatory tone.
As to religions hating each other, look at the chick tracks in which jews are shown as going to hell for being jews and catholicism is portrayed as evil and satanic.
My fucking god, with some of these nuts it's not enough to believe in jesus, you have to believe in him their way and by their trappings.
BTW, the religious right is mostly baptist, tho they will align with the "satanic, hell bound" catholics to do a gang bang on other groups.
When you have baptists saying that catholics are satannic and evil, that shows real religious intolerance.
Listen man... Jack Chick is on the far, FAR fringe... even among the people commonly referred to as the "religious Right". He's almost in Fred Phelps country. Many Pentacostals, Baptists and other evangelicals I have met ARE judgmental, and DO have some kooky ideas... but a danger? No way. Certainly not nearly as much of a danger as Pundit is saying.
Quote from: ZalmoxisListen man... Jack Chick is on the far, FAR fringe... even among the people commonly referred to as the "religious Right". He's almost in Fred Phelps country. Many Pentacostals, Baptists and other evangelicals I have met ARE judgmental, and DO have some kooky ideas... but a danger? No way. Certainly not nearly as much of a danger as Pundit is saying.
They've got a president in the oval office and plenty of crogressman, governors and such in office. That's dangerous, and some of us want to keep them from getting any more dangerous.
Quote from: Dominus NoxThey've got a president in the oval office and plenty of crogressman, governors and such in office. That's dangerous, and some of us want to keep them from getting any more dangerous.
How are they a danger? Because they are 1. Republican and 2. Christian?
Quote from: ZalmoxisSo the fact they use money to set up churches is a... danger? :raise:
Not that they do it, the way they do it. And its not that they use money, its the fact that they MAKE millions upon millions of dollars off the third world doing it.
Its interesting, someone did their homework over here the day before yesterday when the local anarcho-marxists marched through the streets of Montevideo in protest against the Bush visit. They were mostly pacific, with the exception of two businesses that they utterly trashed: the first was McDonalds, the second was the "Dios Es Amor" (God is Love) evangelical church. Some of my friends were totally confused about that one, on account that the Dios Es Amor church seems to be a Brazilian-based church with Brazilian pastors (they have a late-night TV program on local television, and there's a lot of laughs gained by the Uruguayan populace making fun of their pastors speaking spanish in awful brazilian portuguese accents).
But these guys had clearly read up on their literature, and realized that "Dios Es Amor" are actually a satellite church who's money ultimately ends up in the coffers of a southern US evangelical megaorganization.
These parasites are slowly milking billions of dollars off the third world. These aren't the old victorian missionaries in the mud hut trying to save the native's souls. These are a multinational corporation.
RPGPundit
Quote from: ZalmoxisWhat? Are you willfully blind, trolling, or stupid? Read your own quotes and rethink your statement.
Is this really where you guys are going to make your last stand? With: "Pat didn't say that non-christians shouldn't vote, he
just said they shouldn't be allowed to hold public offices of any kind..."
Oh yeah, that's much better. :rolleyes:
I mean fuck, you can kind of deduce from there that if he thinks non-christians aren't morally fit to hold public office, they obviously aren't morally fit to decide who should occupy said offices...
RPGPundit
Quote from: ZalmoxisHow are they a danger? Because they are 1. Republican and 2. Christian?
They're a fdanger in that they believe a "higher power" dictates how things are to be without regard to the wishes of the people, which is what should run things in a democratic republic.
Quote from: Dominus NoxThey're a fdanger in that they believe a "higher power" dictates how things are to be without regard to the wishes of the people, which is what should run things in a democratic republic.
What if "the people", in sufficient numbers, believe that? Isn't that an inherent danger of Democracy? Or should we only live by the will of
certain people?
Quote from: RPGPunditIs this really where you guys are going to make your last stand? With: "Pat didn't say that non-christians shouldn't vote, he just said they shouldn't be allowed to hold public offices of any kind..."
Oh yeah, that's much better. :rolleyes:
I mean fuck, you can kind of deduce from there that if he thinks non-christians aren't morally fit to hold public office, they obviously aren't morally fit to decide who should occupy said offices...
RPGPundit
Pat said, in his opinion, that Christians and Jews are better choices to run government than people who don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God.
Quote from: ZalmoxisPat said, in his opinion, that Christians and Jews are better choices to run government than people who don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God.
Because, obviously, people who think the end of the world is coming and genocide is perfectly excusable with 'divine mandate' are great choices for political leadership and long term vision.
Quote from: GRIMBecause, obviously, people who think the end of the world is coming and genocide is perfectly excusable with 'divine mandate' are great choices for political leadership and long term vision.
That might be your opinion but I disagree.
Quote from: ZalmoxisThat might be your opinion but I disagree.
With what? That apocalypse cults are good rulers? That's snark. That christians are all fundimentally part of said apocalypse cults? Clearly they arn't. That the people in charge are catering to the minority of apocalypse cults because they tacitly agree, and thus they make poor rulers? This is nuanced, do you disagree this is the case, or do you disagree that this being the case, they'd make poor rulers? There's more, but this is a key sticking point in the discussion where it's easy to talk at cross-purposes.
Grim was being a smartass so I threw it right back at him.
Quote from: ZalmoxisGrim was being a smartass so I threw it right back at him.
That's fine, and all, but I personally don't understand what it means. Like, what's the point of that statement?
Grim made an obviously sarcastic and moronic statement. Zalmoxis ignored the sarcasm and attributed the idiocy directly to Grim.
Quote from: James McMurrayGrim made an obviously sarcastic and moronic statement. Zalmoxis ignored the sarcasm and attributed the idiocy directly to Grim.
Sarcastic yes, moronic no.
Does nobody aside from critics actually read these people's scripture?
Quote from: GRIMSarcastic yes, moronic no.
Does nobody aside from critics actually read these people's scripture?
Nope, not even most Christians read their own scriptures.
Quote from: James McMurrayNope, not even most Christians read their own scriptures.
I find its usually best to read the small print before you sign up to something.
How many EULAs have you read?
Just as an observation here that will probably be too high up the intellectual ladder for most users here to get, but years ago when India joined the nuclear club, some comedian made jokes about being worried that people who believed in reincarnation now had "the bomb".
Personally I think that by and large believing in reincarnation would make someone less likely to use nuclear weapons than someone who believed in the christian afterlife.
After all, a christian believes he's not coming back to earth and is supposedly going to heavan, especially if he dies fighting the "godless commies". Let's not forget that the mottot of the 1950's american right, when it came to nuclear war, was "Better dead than red!"
Now, someone who believes in reincarnation might believe that if he used nuclear weapons to make earth a poisoned hell, he might be fated to reincarnate and live on it as karmic justice.
So, who's more likely to use nukes?
Quote from: James McMurrayHow many EULAs have you read?
Clever, but it
is different by an order of magnitude. If I thought my immortal soul was on the line, I would read very carefully
indeed.
Quote from: James McMurrayNope, not even most Christians read their own scriptures.
Quite correct. If most christians knew what their scriptures really said they'd be outraged. For example, christianity forbids women to teach, hold power or speak freely. ("I do not allow a woman to teach or hold power over men. She must be silent.") So this keeps women from running for office as christians.
It also allows fathers to sell their daughters into marriage sans the daughter's consent.
It decrees that eating shellfish is "an abomination". (Quick, go burn down the nearest red loster restraunt in the name of god!)
Wearing clothing made from two fabrics is forbidden in the bible.
Most christians think jesus breought peace. But he openly said that he did not bring peace but a sword. He also decreed that people should and must love him more than their own parents, and that it was better to love him and hate your parents than to love your parents as you loved him.
Like youn said, most christians have zero idea what's really in the bible.
Most of the prohibitions you're quoting are Jewish, and your reading and interpretation of them would that of a very dumb and ill-educated Jew. The understanding in Christianity is that Jesus forms a new covenant that supercedes the older covenants. There's a big debate in Christianity about what is superceded and what isn't.
It should also be pointed out that most Christians are not fundamentalists. The kind of interpretation you are offering is fundamentalist in method, even if it directed against fundamentalists. You are unlikely to convince a Catholic, for example, that most of the prohibitions of Leviticus apply to him because the Church has decided that the vast majority of them don't (with doctrinal support from St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.). Considering that Catholicism remains the largest community of Christians in the world, an argument against "Christianity" that simply doesn't apply to it has significant problems.
What Pseudoephedrine said, with the addition that the vast majority of the world's Christians believe the Bible to be product of the Church rather than the other way around. A quick read of the front-piece of a modern translation of the Bible (where the editors talk outline the thinking that went into deciding which manuscripts to use and how to translate them) should be enough to convince you of that
Dominus, are you aware that the Bible describes the ideal woman as (among other things) educated, financially idependant, making land deals and running a business. As far as whoever wrote Proverbs 31 is concerned this isn't just things that are permitted for women, these are things that women should be doing
In the passage, that begins "I do not allow..." Paul is describing his practice at that time. Given that later in his career he's sending greetings to women in positions of authority in the church it appears that he changed his mind
GRIM: just because someone doesn't match your prejudices about how a Christian should behave doesn't necessarily mean they're not a Christian. It could just mean that your prejudices are clouding your judgement
Quote from: Hastur T. FannonGRIM: just because someone doesn't match your prejudices about how a Christian should behave doesn't necessarily mean they're not a Christian. It could just mean that your prejudices are clouding your judgement
Oh I don't genuinely expect people to ACTUALLY follow the tenets, laid out in black and white, of their faith. I just haven't decided whether that's because I think better of humanity overall (They have more sense) or worse (They don't bother to understand what they decide to call themselves).
There's a whole host of excuses given for not following levitical laws, the usual one being 'Jesus did away with all that' which doesn't actually follow if you read the New Testament, but what the hell.
All it does really is help prove my point. Here's this 'divine word of god' or 'inspirational text' but people are reading it entirely selectively based upon their own ideas of what is right or wrong, reinforcing their own prejudices, cherrypicking that which they believe in and that which they don't - varying from person to person, some do take it literally. All that shows to me is that they're making their moral, spiritual and other choices seperate to their cultural religion and then squeezing the religion to fit their viewpoint, massaging the two together.
And I suppose the ideal woman stuff, contradicted elsewhere, makes up for the rape, murder and sacrifice common elsewhere eh?
What about Judges 19?
What about Genesis?
What about 1 Tim 2:12-14?
Gen 3:16
1 Cor 11:3
1 Cor 11:9
Eph 5:22-24
Deut 21:10-14, 24:1-4; Judges 5:30; Esther 1:20-22; Rom 7:2; 1 Col 3:18; Titus 2:4-5; 1 Peter 3:1; Lev 12:2, 5; Gen 3:20
And on and on and on.
Quote from: GRIMOh I don't genuinely expect people to ACTUALLY follow the tenets, laid out in black and white, of their faith.
Genuine question - what do you think the "tenets, laid out in black and white" of my faith are?
Quote from: GRIMThere's a whole host of excuses given for not following levitical laws, the usual one being 'Jesus did away with all that' which doesn't actually follow if you read the New Testament, but what the hell.
I'm assuming here that you're talking about Matthew 5:17-20, right?
Quote"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
But this was said by a guy who not only routinely broke Levitical law, but encouraged others to do the same. So there's a tension here, an apparent contradiction and it's in the middle of a sermon where he's laying out a moral standard that is actually higher and harder to follow than the Levitical law ("Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."). Now, if you're interested, we can talk about this apparent contradiction and we can talk about what kind of "great moral teacher" would set a moral standard that no-one can follow. Or you can dismiss the whole thing as bollocks. Your choice
Quote from: GRIMWhat about Judges 19?
Judges 19-21? A truely fucked up folk tale. When was it set? "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit."?
Quote from: GRIMWhat about Genesis?
What about it? It's a long book - you're going to need to be a bit more specific
Quote from: GRIMWhat about 1 Tim 2:12-14?
I think I just addressed that passage
Quote from: GRIMGen 3:16
Gen 3:20
Oh, it's this bit of Genesis, right? I'm missing the significance of verse 20, but verse 16 is part of God's curse to Adam and Eve. Anyone who tries to use it to support male dominance over females really ought to be growing all his own food. Or you can read it as saying that male dominance is as much as a consequence of the Fall as death is - and both were defeated by Jesus's death and ressurection
Quote from: GRIM1 Cor 11:3
1 Cor 11:9
The first half of 1 Corinthians 11 makes no sense to anyone - seriously. I mean WTF does he mean by "because of the angels"? In verse 11, he seems to be advocating equality between the sexes and in verse 13 he seems to be asking the reader to check his reasoning. Well I have and I don't see a problem with a man praying while wearing a hat and if Paul wants to convince me he's going to have to come up with something better than arguing from "the nature of things."
Quote from: GRIMEph 5:22-24
That passage starts at verse 21
Quote from: GRIMDeut 21:10-14
"My mother made me promise to stick to the looting and pillaging until I found a nice girl."
Quote from: GRIMDeut 24:1-4
Regulation of divorce law. As good as, if not better than anything else that was around at the time
Quote from: GRIMJudges 5:30
You know, I hadn't noticed this part of the Song of Deborah before, thanks for pointing it out to me. Looks like there's going to be some weddings in the next few days
Quote from: GRIMEsther 1:20-22
I have no idea what your point is here. Xerxes was neither a Christian or a Jew
Quote from: GRIMRom 7:2
What's your point here?
Quote from: GRIM1 Col 3:18
I assume you mean Col 3:18. Same context as Eph 5
Quote from: GRIMTitus 2:4-5
"Subject" does not imply unconditional obedience
Quote from: GRIM1 Peter 3:1
Same context as Eph 5 and if you actually knew your Bible rather than C&Ping some stuff you found on a website you'd be throwing verse 7 at me
Quote from: GRIMLev 12:2, 5
Ritual purity laws and less harsh towards women than many tribal peoples of that time. Of only historic interest for Christians
Have you heard of the idea of "progressive revelation"? The idea that as humanity develops, God reveals more about Himself and how he wants humanity to live?
With the OT stuff, God is dealing with a tribal people who have to be told that personal hygine is a Good Thing and sacrificing children is a Bad Thing. The Levitical code is an improvement on what they had before.
With the NT stuff, those passages where written by a recovering religious fanatic who never married and a barely literate fisherman, who, if he ever married, any wife died quite young and he never re-married. Neither of them are Germaine Greer. You seem to be expecting them to be, which seems rather unfair to me.
Interesting that you couldn't find any of Jesus's words to support your thesis that Christianity is inherently misogynistic...
What about Luke 3:7 - And then I said unto her, wash my feet bitch! And lo, we were married and had us some chiluns, mainly to freak out the Christians 2,000 years from now.
How is that not misogynistic?
Quote from: James McMurrayWhat about Luke 3:7 - And then I said unto her, wash my feet bitch! And lo, we were married and had us some chiluns, mainly to freak out the Christians 2,000 years from now.
Luke 3:7?
"John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?"
Well thank you for reminding me of that verse, but I can't see how it is pertinent to our present discussion.:haw:
Quote from: Hastur T. FannonBut this was said by a guy who not only routinely broke Levitical law, but encouraged others to do the same. So there's a tension here, an apparent contradiction and it's in the middle of a sermon where he's laying out a moral standard that is actually higher and harder to follow than the Levitical law ("Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."). Now, if you're interested, we can talk about this apparent contradiction and we can talk about what kind of "great moral teacher" would set a moral standard that no-one can follow. Or you can dismiss the whole thing as bollocks. Your choice
Well, if you're comfortable having a public discussion about your bollocks ;)
Quote from: GRIMWell, if you're comfortable having a public discussion about your bollocks ;)
:D
Forking the thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=86719#post86719)
Quote from: Hastur T. FannonLuke 3:7?
"John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?"
Well thank you for reminding me of that verse, but I can't see how it is pertinent to our present discussion.
:haw:
Ur bible's busted, son. Check my post for the real text. I know it's true, a professor on wikiedia vouched fer it.