My problem with Evangelical Atheism

[Gravekeeper]

Why does making something not perfect mean the maker is fallible?

Not what I said there, missing the point.

Also, just because everything we know was created by him does not mean that we know everything he created.

Also not what I said and missing the point.

This thread really is futile, isn't it?

[Rapscallion]

I keep trying to stay out of this. I've failed again.

See, the thread is fairly amusing to me, starting with a complaint that some atheists are pretty horrible in hurting someone's feelings. Yes, there's some bias in that statement. Live with it.

Then it degenerated into a whole slew of abrahamic theists desperately trying to defend their position instead of saying what a nasty lot we are. It's still at that point.

Most of the time, I'm a fairly live and let live kind of guy - if it doesn't affect people majorly then I'll not do anything about it. I sort of overlook some bits - such as collecting huge wealth in the hands of small numbers of people on the grounds that they're more holy than others, while there are people starving. Stuff like that. I'm not perfect. Debate forums are another matter.

Bearing that in mind, I have to look back at the last couple of pages and wonder what the theists are smoking.

"Maybe god decided to move on?" "Maybe a perfect being wanted to make an imperfect world?" That sort of thing.

You're making it up now. At least under the standard abrahamic texts there was the background of a slew of documentation that has survived centuries to use as citation. Where are you getting these concepts from? Has your god spoken to you and said, "Gone fishing. BRB LOL!" Have you got any sort of indication that this has happened, or that your god/supernatural being/spiritual warm fuzzies are both perfect and infallible, yet decided to make a beta version?

Anything like that?

Where's your citation, or are you guessing and hoping you're right?

As a side note, feel free to describe me as a hurtful atheist. That's what the thread started out as, and right now I can understand why Dawkins and Hitchens lost all patience and went harsh on it.

Rapscallion

[siead_lietrathua]

Why ask for citation? serious question.
the only books that speak of the abrahamic, or any other gods, were written by man. a collection of their theories and belifs at the time into a text form. it's not like science, where everything is provable in hard facts.
not only that, but the only books that exist have changed over their journey from oral history to the written word and then the multitude of translations and re-writings. it's been changed to a political machine and a tool of conversion that constantly contradicts itself.
in the end, most peoples belives in a deity resonates from something within themselves.
you cant take something that is generated by emotions and the abstraction of "feelings" and create a science on it, because each individual will respond diffrently to the things they are being told. some people hear the words of a faith, find it illogical and move on. others hear the words of a faith and it somehow clicks inside them, and feels right to them.
when it comes to trying to force theism or athiesm onto eachother, that is just the human inability to accept those diffrent from us and want to make everyone the same. both sides of the coin doing the same thing and calling eachother wrong. *shrug*

also it has come up alot in this thread and elsewhere, why is it i only hear athiests having a problem with abrahamic faiths? there are other gods and religions, but only this venom to one type. i have groups of friends of many faiths, from wiccan to discordian, asatru and athiest and buddist, yet the only ones getting slammed by the athiests are the christians. why call themselves athiests and not just go with anti-christs? it would at least be more honest in direction.

[Rapscallion]

I see evasive attempts to deflect the burden of proof from the abrahamic faiths onto other religions.

"Oh, I believe this, but accept that the basis of my belief in the form of this text is flawed, so I want to maintain my belief in it anyway."

I don't go out slamming theists, not usually. Debate forums are another matter. However, look at the subject of this thread - "Nasty atheists hurt my feelings, boo hoo!" Who is attacking whom? If you try to tell me that it's because of what atheists have said, then quite frankly I'll point out the only reason atheists turn nasty is the shite theists come up with.

Quite frankly, a deist has done more dissection of the abrahamic belief system in this thread than I could ever have done. When challenged on logicalities, the goalposts were moved, and now I ask what the reason is that they were moved I'm told I'm picking on one group rather than another. Now it's, "Oh, and it's our fault and not god's after all, but because it was some of us ages ago I'm not personally to blame."

Why abrahamic faiths? Why not? How many people of non-abrahamic faiths have piped up in this thread to say that they're upset at what an atheist has said? Most other religions are pretty chilled out. Most aren't even evangelical in nature. They don't go round knocking on doors trying to convert people, they don't form groups protesting soldier's funerals, and they are fairly relaxed outside of their groups in my experience. A few of the more repugnant elements have been taken out, such as the rite of suttee, but overall they're far more relaxed.

So, what's the basis for the fuzzy thoughts that maybe god decided to move to another universe/planet/reality and didn't leave a forwarding address? What are the grounds for claiming that your god is infallible, yet chose to make an imperfect world?

Citations would be nice.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

I like the assumption that I'm "defending my faith."

I don't care if you (generic or specific, it doesn't matter) don't believe in my faith. I do care if you call me simple-minded, stupid, childish, etc for believing my faith. I do care if you cite reasons for my faith being false but refuse to provide citations for those reasons. But whether anyone else believes in the same faith I do is completely and utterly irrelevant to me.

Also, someone early on claimed that I was somehow irresponsible for having that belief and when challenged to provide any proof at all to back up their claims, chose instead to ignore my entire post.

^-.-^

[siead_lietrathua]

i am not a christian, actually. or a follower of any abrahamic faiths. im a pagan really, a sort of sun-worshiper. i dont have a specific god but give glory to the universe as a whole. i have been taking this from the christian point of view since i know many christians and have heard their side of it. really from my own religious standpoint this entire debate is nothing but pointless entertainment with no real purpose. but i do like being entertained.

i dont see goalposts being moved, at least not by myself. you seem to be confusing goalposts being moves with bantering ideas.
for example, i brought up the idea of god leaving us to our own devices because he is busy elsewhere. i never said god HAS moved on. i never said to PROVE god hasn't moved on. those would be moving the goalposts. all i did was suggest the possibility. if we are calling possibilities absolutes, then i possibly have a horse to sell you.

i have also not claimed god is infallible. i belive i said god was a dick somewhere along the line, but not infallable. i was saying that, when you get right to the defenitions of those words, you cannot have an infallable god without having a perfect world, and that the only religion that claims to have an infallable god is the abrahamic ones.
other faiths do not have the idea that the world is perfect and gods are infallable. yet every time i mention that it gets overridden again by abrahamic-theists and the anti-thiests.

and the circle keeps going on. hahaha.

[Duelist925]

I see evasive attempts to deflect the burden of proof from the abrahamic faiths onto other religions.

Really? I didn't see that. I saw a question asking, as has been asked elsewhere, why so much atheist, for lack of a better term, bile, was thrown at the abrahamic faiths, rather than, say, hinduism, or wicca, or a dozen other religions. Bear in mind, I'm not re-asking the question, as I have my own opinions on such matters, based on various answers I've seen here and elsewhere.

I didn't seen any deflection of burden. Please quote the relevant post? Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong series of posts to see that. I'd very much love to see where anyone deflected any burden of proof.

"Oh, I believe this, but accept that the basis of my belief in the form of this text is flawed, so I want to maintain my belief in it anyway."

Thats a big assumption, that the basis of anyone beliefs here is a certain text. I've seen a number of ideas thrown out, some rather interesting to think of, but I didn't see anyone claiming their faith was based on one particular text.

Again, quote relevant post?

I don't go out slamming theists, not usually. Debate forums are another matter. However, look at the subject of this thread - "Nasty atheists hurt my feelings, boo hoo!" Who is attacking whom? If you try to tell me that it's because of what atheists have said, then quite frankly I'll point out the only reason atheists turn nasty is the shite theists come up with.

The original point of this thread, which has been lost for some pages now, was that evangilical atheism was fundamentally flawed. Mostly because of the (earned) reputation that most "evangelical" atheists were smug dicks.

To be perfectly fair, I consider most "evangelical" anyones to be smug dicks. I dislike evanglism of any religion/belief system. Telling me about something is one thing---trying to convert me is another. A much more annoying one.


Also, the only reason atheists turn nasty is the shit theists come up with? Oh how I laugh.

Ha.

Ha.

I've met and spoken with a number of people who identified as atheists who exuded such smug dickishness, such contempt of anyone who was "foolish" or "simple minded" to have any belief that I was hard pressed not to punch them in the dick. (Or, to be completely fair, the ovaries. )

Not because they were atheists mind you--because they were smug dicks.

And I fully admit, the same can be said of any number of theists I've met, dick-punching and all.

As I said--I dislike evangelism. I enjoy a good debate, but when it turns to "This is why you should believe this" I tend to start getting bored and/or annoyed. Especially when its presented in a smug, contempuous, dickish fashion.

Quite frankly, a deist has done more dissection of the abrahamic belief system in this thread than I could ever have done. When challenged on logicalities, the goalposts were moved, and now I ask what the reason is that they were moved I'm told I'm picking on one group rather than another. Now it's, "Oh, and it's our fault and not god's after all, but because it was some of us ages ago I'm not personally to blame."

I'm not opening the shitstorm of the debate from a few pages ago again. Its not worth it. That debate is dead, and done.

Why abrahamic faiths? Why not? How many people of non-abrahamic faiths have piped up in this thread to say that they're upset at what an atheist has said? Most other religions are pretty chilled out. Most aren't even evangelical in nature. They don't go round knocking on doors trying to convert people, they don't form groups protesting soldier's funerals, and they are fairly relaxed outside of their groups in my experience. A few of the more repugnant elements have been taken out, such as the rite of suttee, but overall they're far more relaxed.

Most freaking flavors of christianity arent evangelical. Hell, I receive more fliers and calls from political parties than I do any of the abrahamic faiths.

The reason you hear about more the evangelical abrahamic faiths is because its more freaking populous.

Oh, and protesting soldiers funerals? Nice. Nice. Seriously comparing the WBC to the mainstream? Thats almost funny. But, honestly, your right. They are, by the absolute BAREST technicalities, a christian group. Even if they're one that anyone with any sense of decency hates.

So, what's the basis for the fuzzy thoughts that maybe god decided to move to another universe/planet/reality and didn't leave a forwarding address? What are the grounds for claiming that your god is infallible, yet chose to make an imperfect world?

Citations would be nice.

Rapscallion

....Dude, there are none. No citations at any rate. It was a philosphical debate, gone out of hand, admittedly. What were proposed were ideas, and some personal beliefs. They were, exactly as you put them, "Fuzzy thoughts". No one is/was trying to convert anyone. It was a freaking discussion.


And incidentally, if you need us to restate our positions, the grounds for our arguments, then you didn't read a lot of this thread, did you? Since most, if not all, of that was posted pages ago.

[Rapscallion]

I like the assumption that I'm "defending my faith."

I'm interested now - just what is your religious position? I've been in debates about religion before with you, and despite the times we've gone back and forth I don't think you've ever specified what you believe in.

I don't care if you (generic or specific, it doesn't matter) don't believe in my faith. I do care if you call me simple-minded, stupid, childish, etc for believing my faith. I do care if you cite reasons for my faith being false but refuse to provide citations for those reasons. But whether anyone else believes in the same faith I do is completely and utterly irrelevant to me.

One again, as per previous discussions, the burden of proof is on the person claiming the supernatural exists. Still, that's another matter - tell me how and why I'm nasty.

Also, someone early on claimed that I was somehow irresponsible for having that belief and when challenged to provide any proof at all to back up their claims, chose instead to ignore my entire post.

^-.-^

I don't even know which faith you follow - are you a fundamentalist christian, a run of the mill church attender, a wiccan, a feel-good spiritualist? I don't know. I don't recall that you've ever mentioned.

Trust me, it's quite notable how many points and posts have been ignored. Usually when I suggest that people back their claims about their god up.

So, tell me in what way I'm nasty. I'm turning into what's been named 'snarly cat' due to the cobblers I have to read in here. If your faith isn't the same as others, fine, but then you run the risk of being thought of as getting involved on someone else's behalf.

i am not a christian, actually. or a follower of any abrahamic faiths. im a pagan really, a sort of sun-worshiper. i dont have a specific god but give glory to the universe as a whole. i have been taking this from the christian point of view since i know many christians and have heard their side of it. really from my own religious standpoint this entire debate is nothing but pointless entertainment with no real purpose. but i do like being entertained.

Then you take a similar view to me, oddly enough. I don't celebrate christmas, my birthday, or any other such time - I celebrate being alive all the time. The difference is that I don't ascribe that to the intervention of any sort of deity.

i dont see goalposts being moved, at least not by myself.

Then try looking at other posts.

you seem to be confusing goalposts being moves with bantering ideas.
for example, i brought up the idea of god leaving us to our own devices because he is busy elsewhere. i never said god HAS moved on. i never said to PROVE god hasn't moved on. those would be moving the goalposts. all i did was suggest the possibility. if we are calling possibilities absolutes, then i possibly have a horse to sell you.

Were I religious, I'd buy it.

They're not bantering ideas, though. If there were no good points to make against them, do you think they wouldn't be adopted immediately as a religious position?

i have also not claimed god is infallible. i belive i said god was a dick

This is where I have to give credit to Epicurus. I'll paraphrase him.

The claim from the abrahamic faiths is that god is all powerful and good. If he's all powerful, then why does shit happen to good people? If he can't prevent that, then he's not all powerful. If he can and decides not to, then he's not good. If he's admittedly kind of a dick, then why is he your god?

somewhere along the line, but not infallable. i was saying that, when you get right to the defenitions of those words, you cannot have an infallable god without having a perfect world, and that the only religion that claims to have an infallable god is the abrahamic ones.

And? Why are you taking issue, then?

I have to agree that the main issue is the abrahamic faiths.

Pop quiz time!

Who was it in the fifties who inserted 'under god' into the US pledge of alleigance?

A - A muslim.
B - Ernst Blofeld.
C - A hindu.
D - A sikh.
E - Those wacky, fun-loving christians!

Who was it who inserted the words 'in god we trust' on the currency and brought it to be the motto of the US?

I don't think I need to provide the multiple choice answers, but you can bet I'm going to give Mahatma Gandhi and Nanook of the North as some of the answers.

other faiths do not have the idea that the world is perfect and gods are infallable. yet every time i mention that it gets overridden again by abrahamic-theists and the anti-thiests.

I'm actually more accepting of those faiths that accept their gods as being fallible. I really like Greek, Norse, and other mythologies - very entertaining tales of flawed beings with more power than they really should be trusted with. More like facets of human nature - people you can relate to.

Still, tell me how I'm nasty. I've been wondering how I've been such an awful person for ... hurting feelings.

Do tell.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

I'm interested now - just what is your religious position? I've been in debates about religion before with you, and despite the times we've gone back and forth I don't think you've ever specified what you believe in.

I'm basically Christian, and I've mentioned it about a dozen times at least in various threads in this subforum.

I choose to believe that there is a god of some sort, although I don't trust the Bible to be untainted (because we know it's been fucked with), and am more a follower of the way of Christ and be the best person it's possible for me to be.

One again, as per previous discussions, the burden of proof is on the person claiming the supernatural exists.

This is a fundamental point which I'm not sure some people will ever really understand.

Claiming a belief in something is not quite the same as claiming that something. I could make a statement of "I believe that bananas are the best fruit ever." Whether or not bananas are the best or not is entirely irrelevant because how good bananas are or are not is not the topic. But it's a whole lot easier to choose to go after the merit of bananas than to attack someone's preferences for them, since there is no basis for the latter.

Honestly, this whole contention that people who chose to believe, absent evidence either way, that there is a God versus that there isn't a God should have to provide proof for His existence is the actual moving of goalposts. It's the creation of a straw man to be knocked down for an easy victory as opposed to actually getting at the true subject of the discussion.

So, tell me in what way I'm nasty. I'm turning into what's been named 'snarly cat' due to the cobblers I have to read in here.

You said:

I find someone going around saying, "I believe in something that can't be proven to exist, nor to not exist," fairly offensive. It's an abrogation of personal responsibility.

First off, why do you even care if someone wants to believe something? How is it that you're so invested in what I believe that you're "offended" by that belief?

Does my belief that coffee tastes vile and smells worse bother you? Does my belief that painted on eyebrows look ridiculous offend you? Does my belief that unicorns are cooler than dragons offend you?

If the answer is "no" to any of those, then why is it any different for the fact that my belief that there is a God over there not being one?

And you have yet to give any reason for why said belief is an abrogation of personal responsibility. And this isn't the first time I've asked, although the others who've parroted the same line ignored me, too.

If your faith isn't the same as others, fine, but then you run the risk of being thought of as getting involved on someone else's behalf.

And? That says a lot more about the people doing the "thinking of" than it does about me.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

I'm basically Christian, and I've mentioned it about a dozen times at least in various threads in this subforum.

I choose to believe that there is a god of some sort, although I don't trust the Bible to be untainted (because we know it's been fucked with), and am more a follower of the way of Christ and be the best person it's possible for me to be.

I don't have any objection to someone being the best person they can be, even based on a mythology that has large chunks stolen from other religions. The religion itself, that's where I have major issues.

This is a fundamental point which I'm not sure some people will ever really understand.

Claiming a belief in something is not quite the same as claiming that something. I could make a statement of "I believe that bananas are the best fruit ever." Whether or not bananas are the best or not is entirely irrelevant because how good bananas are or are not is not the topic. But it's a whole lot easier to choose to go after the merit of bananas than to attack someone's preferences for them, since there is no basis for the latter.

Honestly, this whole contention that people who chose to believe, absent evidence either way, that there is a God versus that there isn't a God should have to provide proof for His existence is the actual moving of goalposts. It's the creation of a straw man to be knocked down for an easy victory as opposed to actually getting at the true subject of the discussion.

First of all, there's a huge difference between saying, "I like coffee" and "There's this dead dude who is going to introduce us to eternal paradise at his daddy's house when we die, so we should act in this way."

Secondly, if you go around on a debate forum saying you believe in something, don't be surprised when someone else expects you to back your stuff up.

Now, tell me how I'm nasty.

You said:

First off, why do you even care if someone wants to believe something? How is it that you're so invested in what I believe that you're "offended" by that belief?

I raised a point a while ago - it's not the first generation who want to do good that are the real problem, but they are the root of it. It's the next generation who have been indoctrinated to ignore the fallacies. Religion snowballs.

"Look at my god, my god is amazing,
send him a prayer, he'll answer it if it's part of his divine plan and if he feels like it."

(I'm working on making the second line scan).

The next generation becomes,

"Shut up heathen, worship our god."

It's also the defiance of logic and observable facts that offends me.

Does my belief that coffee tastes vile and smells worse bother you? Does my belief that painted on eyebrows look ridiculous offend you? Does my belief that unicorns are cooler than dragons offend you?

Cofffe actually exists. That's fine. Like or like not, there is coffee. That's observable proof.

"Hey everyone - I've got this invisible friend who you've got to do as he says, or you're going to get eternal torment! It's what my parents taught me. Cool, huh? You'd better obey!"

That's a fairly significant difference. It's not down to whether I like christ or not. I find the philosophies ascribed to him of 'do no shit' quite appealing. I don't need to be threatened with eternal torment in order to be good, especially when the alternate to tormet is to sit around telling his daddy how wonderful he is.

Also, there's actually no proof of any of this being the case.

And you have yet to give any reason for why said belief is an abrogation of personal responsibility. And this isn't the first time I've asked, although the others who've parroted the same line ignored me, too.

Read up.

And? That says a lot more about the people doing the "thinking of" than it does about me.

^-.-^

They have to have a reason for thinking that.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

First of all, there's a huge difference between saying, "I like coffee" and "There's this dead dude who is going to introduce us to eternal paradise at his daddy's house when we die, so we should act in this way."

I never said that, though. You think I said that because that's what you expect my words to mean. And I've never told another person to act in any way based on my religious beliefs. I'm really tired of that particular assumption being thrown my way, particularly after it's been pointed out at least a few dozen times that most Christians never tell anyone else how to behave based on religious views. As has been pointed out by pretty much every camp, you can be moral without being religious, and as such, you can discuss morality without ever bringing religion into it.

I raised a point a while ago - it's not the first generation who want to do good that are the real problem, but they are the root of it. It's the next generation who have been indoctrinated to ignore the fallacies. Religion snowballs.

"Look at my god, my god is amazing,
send him a prayer, he'll answer it if it's part of his divine plan and if he feels like it."

(I'm working on making the second line scan).

The next generation becomes,

"Shut up heathen, worship our god."

It's also the defiance of logic and observable facts that offends me.

Except that none of that applies to me in any manner. Not one line.

Cofffe actually exists. That's fine. Like or like not, there is coffee. That's observable proof.

I like how you went for the coffee example and ignored the unicorns versus dragons. But whether or not coffee exists still provides no proof for coffee smelling vile or otherwise.

Read up.

Inapplicable.

You, personally, stated that my preference to believe that there is a God versus there not being a God was irresponsible. You made a personal attack on me and are continuing to refuse to back up how you can possibly say such a thing with anything other than broad generalizations and related religious bigotry.

They have to have a reason for thinking that.

That doesn't change the fact that it is more an indication of their bigotry than anything against me.

^-.-^

[siead_lietrathua]

Now, tell me how I'm nasty.

first of all, mad giggling at the innuendo.
but i dont recall anyone personally attacking you until you started inviting it with statements like this. we were talking about athiesm and (granted, abrahamic) religions. dragging it down to a level of personal attacks seems a bit mean, but i do not recall calling you nasty or insinuating that you were for being an athiest. however, you are free to make whatever assumptions you want.

to all: doesnt this whole thread seem like some bizzare twist on a schrodinger's(sp) cat/box experament. granted i was half asleep when this popped in my head, but it was funny enough to share.
see, god is or is not in the box. and on one side you have theists saying "god IS in the box, and when we die/gain enlightenment/etc we have the privlidge to open the box and see it". and anti-theists are saying "god ISNT in the box, and we simply havent developed the technology to open the box yet and see that it's empty"
then you get people like me, who are amused that they are fighting over the box. it cant be opened, it can't be seen through, so why not just belive what you want is in the box and get on with the wonderful things that are already outside the box.

[Andara Bledin]

then you get people like me, who are amused that you guys are fighting over the box. it cant be opened, it can't be seen through, so why not just belive what you want is in the box and get on with the wonderful things that are already outside the box.

Except that I'm not fighting over what's in the box. I'm fighting over my right to be able to choose to believe that God is in the box over choosing to believe that God isn't in the box without being called names and told I'm wrong.

^-.-^

[siead_lietrathua]

Except that I'm not fighting over what's in the box. I'm fighting over my right to be able to choose to believe that God is in the box over choosing to believe that God isn't in the box without being called names and told I'm wrong.

^-.-^

my apologies. i should have worded it "them" instead of "you guys" to keep it more genric.i will fix that
because other than those two words, everything else coinsided with your post here. why care about what other people think is in the box. think what you want, and move on from it.

[Rapscallion]

I never said that, though. You think I said that because that's what you expect my words to mean. And I've never told another person to act in any way based on my religious beliefs. I'm really tired of that particular assumption being thrown my way, particularly after it's been pointed out at least a few dozen times that most Christians never tell anyone else how to behave based on religious views.

If you follow the example of your christ, then you should do. He went out and spread the news of his father and arranged for his disciples to do the same. He made them 'fishers of men'. Matthew 28:19 is a handy google search away.

Why so defensive? I agree, it's what I expect your words to mean - being a christian comes with certain expectations. However, this thread started with what rotters we atheists are. It wasn't intended as 'defend your faith'.

As has been pointed out by pretty much every camp, you can be moral without being religious, and as such, you can discuss morality without ever bringing religion into it.

I don't know where morality came into it.

Except that none of that applies to me in any manner. Not one line.

Does this mean you only choose the bits of the faith you want to? I have a grudging respect for JWs - I think they're child-killing whackadoodles, but at least they walk all their talk, not just the bits that they feel comfortable with.

Pick and mix religion? Not so much. Still, it's about me and what a rotter I and my ilk are.

I like how you went for the coffee example and ignored the unicorns versus dragons. But whether or not coffee exists still provides no proof for coffee smelling vile or otherwise.

I ... am astounded. Two mythologies - which one's better, and you're asking this of an atheist? Unicorns every time, actually, but I can recognise a myth quite easily.

I'm also astounded that you think there's any logic to what you said.

Inapplicable.

You, personally, stated that my preference to believe that there is a God versus there not being a God was irresponsible. You made a personal attack on me and are continuing to refuse to back up how you can possibly say such a thing with anything other than broad generalizations and related religious bigotry.

I did explain - you might think nice, warm fuzzy thoughts about how the world's going to be ok in the end because of your special friend, but what of the next generation?

Several generations of the US populace have been indoctrinated by the words 'under god' in the pledge since the fifties, and the result?

http://jesusfetusfajitafishsticks.bl...christian.html - the girl who campaigned against a religious mural being lambasted by those who aren't mature enough to grow out of it. It's the natural result when - as a blogger wiser than I pointed out - there is no natural check. It's one thing saying be nice, and telling people to do what you're told, but then they start following that and become gradually more indoctrinated as generations go by.

I fully expect a response of 'I don't do that', but the simple truth is that the generation after will follow their version of your example. You might say 'be nice', but when they follow the nasty part of it your leader never appears to say, "hang on, you forgot this bit." There's no check on what the religious decide to believe that decade.

So, go on, tell me how cruel I am.

That doesn't change the fact that it is more an indication of their bigotry than anything against me.

^-.-^

Against you personally, or against religion? I have no personal quarrel with you. I don't accept your beliefs.

Rapscallion