My problem with Evangelical Atheism

[Duelist925]

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.

Yeah, except, yaknow, assuming the bible is true, Christ could kinda back his words up. "I am the son of god."
"Prove it."
"Stand up"
"...Holy...Oh my....wow. Your dad. My legs work!"

And he generally wasn't a dick about his spreading the word. Most evangelicals, theist or otherwise, today lack those traits.

Generally, I approve of following christs example, since he seemed like a nice dude. But then, thats assuming the bible is 100 percent accurate, which I highly doubt Andara does based on things she's said in this and other threads, and I know I don't -_-

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'.

Expectations? Well, yes. Every belief system has expectations, depending on who you ask.

Christians are either expected to preach and shout and rain hellfire down on everyone the bible says to, which is, well, everyone, or they're mostly decent people who are expected to live according to some basic rules. Ie, dont be a dick, be kind, rewind, kinda shit.


Wiccans are, depending on who you ask, either expeted to be silly nature nutters, talking to flowers, witches and warlocks who've made pacts with satan, or people adapting old ideas and traditions to a new religion that calls for just a few basic rules. Dont be a dick, golden rule, etc.


Atheists, depending on who you are, are either a bunch of smug, arrogant, holier then thou, pricks who show utter contempt for anyone silly enough to believe, and think faith is a sign of mental illness. Or, their generally decent people who don't believe, and dont want belief shoved down their throats.


Fact of the matter is: Expectations? Bullshit. The expectations vary on any group, depending on who you ask. Hell, ask a thousand christians what being christian means, of what should be expected of a christian, you'll get a thousand different answers. Same as with any group.

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.

-_- Seriously? *sigh* I get so sick of this accusation, as if pick and choose faith was somehow lesser than any other. By Great Gygaxes Gallumphing Gonads, its annoying.

Heres the thing: Pick and choose makes SENSE in todays world. So much of the bible is simply outdated. Antiquated. Many of the things it puts down are simply not applicable by todays standards, which makes sense considering how long ago it was written, and how many times its been fucked with since then. So yeah, picking the things that makes sense to oneself makes freaking sense, especially if you don't consider the bible to be the be all end all of thought.

With a book that old, its the only thing that makes sense. Life changes. Morals change. What is "Right" Changes as time marches on.

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

I'll be answering this little tidbit lower down.

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.

Oh but there is. ^_^ If you had actually gotten her meaning, rather than assigning your own to it.

Her point, to spell it out in the simplest terms possible, is that she is not trying to prove anything other than that she has her belief. Her opinion, if you will. Which is cooler, unicorns or dragons? Unicorns, to her.

Yet time and again people say "Neither exist, your arguement is flawed" Rather than actually presenting an argument against her reasoning.

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?

Actually I honestly hope the next generation follows Andara's example. You know, being a generally good person, not obnoxiously shoving their faith down anyone elses throat, that kind of thing. Honestly, she sets a fairly good example. So she is, perhaps, a poor choice for your argument about the next generation of believers.

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.

Dicks will be dicks, will be dicks. These kids? Dicks unto the 10th power. Dicks beget dicks---these kids would be dicks regardless of their religious views, because they;re DICKS. If they're parents raised them to use their faith as a weapon like this, then the parents are to blame--not the faith. The parents didn't set a good example--their religion has nothing to do with it. They'd be dicks wether they were christian, atheist, wiccan, atheists or freaking pastafrians. They simply wouldnt be angry about this--they'd be pissed off over some other bs issue.

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.

"Leader"....? Which one, the pope? He only has sway over catholics. And even then, its freaking limited.

What leader? I'm sorry, but this argument is completely worthless. There is no one leader of christianity, or any freaking religion. Hell, there isn't an atheist leader for that matter.Instead we have, oh, hundreds, thousands of "Small" leaders. Pastors of local churches, that kind of thing. And their opinions range just as much as ANY other human beings.


And by the way? If someone sets a good example, and the next generation doesnt....how in the flying fuck is it the first parties fault? Lets use Andara. She sets a good example. She DOES her job. She tries to be a good role model....So if anyone models their behaviour off her, and fails to live up to it, is NOT her fault.

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

....Dude? Stop saying that. Its freaking childish.

The original point of this thread is that evangelical atheism doesn't work since most "evangelical" atheists are smug dicks who mock instead of try to actually reason and convert. See my previous post re: Dick-punching.

Since then, its evolved into what was a rather interesting philosophical debate that got out of hand and ended.

You? Aren't the subject at hand. Atheists in general aren't the subject at hand.
Evangelical atheists were the original subject. That subject was gradually dropped.

It was never about you. It was never about how every atheist is a nasty prick. It was about evangelical ones, specially the majority who spread the "Smug dick" Steryotype.

So stop the "Tell me how nasty I am" "Tell me how cruel I am" bullshit. All it proves is your either trying to troll, or you didn't read the original discussion at all. And frankly, its incredibly annoying seeing someone I like and respect so much stoop to such things.

[Rapscallion]

Apologies - important stuff demanded my attention.

Yeah, except, yaknow, assuming the bible is true, Christ could kinda back his words up. "I am the son of god."
"Prove it."
"Stand up"
"...Holy...Oh my....wow. Your dad. My legs work!"

That's an issue - all the assumptions that the bible is true. Let's be fair - he was beaten to the resurrection thing by mithras, and from memory there was one of the buddhas who did the healing people before he was claimed to do so.

Why aren't you worshipping them? They're older. Same amount of evidence.

And he generally wasn't a dick about his spreading the word. Most evangelicals, theist or otherwise, today lack those traits.

The merchants at the temple might differ.

Expectations? Well, yes. Every belief system has expectations, depending on who you ask.

Fact of the matter is: Expectations? Bullshit. The expectations vary on any group, depending on who you ask. Hell, ask a thousand christians what being christian means, of what should be expected of a christian, you'll get a thousand different answers. Same as with any group.

What's bullshit about expectations?

"I associate with group A."

"Group A is associated with drinking lemonade on a Thursday as a holy rite."

"Well, I don't do that."

Why would anyone not follow the tenets of their group? Using that same logic, I'm also a member of the Bloods and the Crips, just without using identifying clothing, tattoos, and getting into turf wars.

-_- Seriously? *sigh* I get so sick of this accusation, as if pick and choose faith was somehow lesser than any other. By Great Gygaxes Gallumphing Gonads, its annoying.

It's very much lesser and I regard it as almost contemptible. Try it from this side. Hey, if the theists in question were honest about it, I wouldn't mind so much, but the general attitude is that this is their god, he made everything, and we should worship him - except if you don't fancy doing that bit, in which case the theist in question is actually creating the god they want. The main concept of abrahamic religion in particular is that their god created them - not the other way around.

Heres the thing: Pick and choose makes SENSE in todays world. So much of the bible is simply outdated. Antiquated. Many of the things it puts down are simply not applicable by todays standards, which makes sense considering how long ago it was written, and how many times its been fucked with since then. So yeah, picking the things that makes sense to oneself makes freaking sense, especially if you don't consider the bible to be the be all end all of thought.

It doesn't make sense unless you accept that the god in question isn't actually perfect and omnipotent. If your god is perfect and omnipotent, as has often been taught by the religious, then the rules are both good and impervious, and nobody could fuck with the rules without facing some sort of effect. All we actually get is that is some vague threat that things might be nasty in an unprovable way later on.

With a book that old, its the only thing that makes sense. Life changes. Morals change. What is "Right" Changes as time marches on.

Then you're redefining your creator's wishes without any particular ability to cite why.

Oh but there is. ^_^ If you had actually gotten her meaning, rather than assigning your own to it.

A theist accusing me of assigning my own meaning? Amusing.

Her point, to spell it out in the simplest terms possible, is that she is not trying to prove anything other than that she has her belief. Her opinion, if you will. Which is cooler, unicorns or dragons? Unicorns, to her.

Yet time and again people say "Neither exist, your arguement is flawed" Rather than actually presenting an argument against her reasoning.

The difference that you miss is unicorns and dragons are acknowledged as being mythological, and divinities are an excuse for people to tell others what to do - even if it's against the current accepted version of the divinity.

Actually I honestly hope the next generation follows Andara's example. You know, being a generally good person, not obnoxiously shoving their faith down anyone elses throat, that kind of thing. Honestly, she sets a fairly good example. So she is, perhaps, a poor choice for your argument about the next generation of believers.

The next generation or two are the wankers. Fifties US put in all the stuff about god into the constitution and onto currency. A generation or two later and what do we have? Candidates for the US presidency being 'biblically qualified'. Evangelicals raising huge sums of money. Twenty or so years back Tammy Faye Bakker and others who were in the religious promotion schemes were able to claim that god told them to collect money from people, and this money was given because people have been indoctrinated to think that god is good and to ignore critical thinking.

Dicks will be dicks, will be dicks. These kids? Dicks unto the 10th power. Dicks beget dicks---these kids would be dicks regardless of their religious views, because they;re DICKS. If they're parents raised them to use their faith as a weapon like this, then the parents are to blame--not the faith. The parents didn't set a good example--their religion has nothing to do with it. They'd be dicks wether they were christian, atheist, wiccan, atheists or freaking pastafrians. They simply wouldnt be angry about this--they'd be pissed off over some other bs issue.

Dicks caused by the constant influence of religion working on tribalistic impulses. Are you really saying that followers of the prince of peace wouldn't beat up on someone disagreeing with them based on that?

"Leader"....? Which one, the pope? He only has sway over catholics. And even then, its freaking limited.

What leader? I'm sorry, but this argument is completely worthless. There is no one leader of christianity, or any freaking religion. Hell, there isn't an atheist leader for that matter.Instead we have, oh, hundreds, thousands of "Small" leaders. Pastors of local churches, that kind of thing. And their opinions range just as much as ANY other human beings.

I was thinking of the actual religious leader - the god involved. Not that any such being has been out and about for the last few thousand years and such.

And by the way? If someone sets a good example, and the next generation doesnt....how in the flying fuck is it the first parties fault? Lets use Andara. She sets a good example. She DOES her job. She tries to be a good role model....So if anyone models their behaviour off her, and fails to live up to it, is NOT her fault.

Interesting point. You know all of this how? Every time I try to ask her something about one aspect of her religion, that bit doesn't apply to her. Which bits do you know of her religion that apply to her?

....Dude? Stop saying that. Its freaking childish.

I suggest you read the thread. It started with talking about how evangelical atheists are unpleasant because they ... hurt feelings. After a few of the atheists said we don't really act that way, a whole dogpile of theists jumped in and started to defend their faith, which is downright obnoxious. When the defences were taken to pieces by a deist who is a critical thinker, the furore continued with the demands not to be expected to think (just my impression on that last one, but it amuses me to think this), despite the unanswered arguments.

Quite frankly, it's about that point that I got good and angry and wanted to go out and picket a salvation army band. It's theists that create angry atheists. You even managed to drive off someone who is more accepting of the possibility of a deity from the thread with the pig-headed arguments.

The original point of this thread is that evangelical atheism doesn't work since most "evangelical" atheists are smug dicks who mock instead of try to actually reason and convert. See my previous post re: Dick-punching.

I'm quite happy to be a more outspoken atheist after this thread.

Since then, its evolved into what was a rather interesting philosophical debate that got out of hand and ended.

You? Aren't the subject at hand. Atheists in general aren't the subject at hand.
Evangelical atheists were the original subject. That subject was gradually dropped.

Then theists got involved and started going on about how their particular faith couldn't be challenged when it wasn't the subject of the thread and whallop - shit happened.

It was never about you. It was never about how every atheist is a nasty prick. It was about evangelical ones, specially the majority who spread the "Smug dick" Steryotype.

I'm now proud to be in the 'smug dick' camp.

So stop the "Tell me how nasty I am" "Tell me how cruel I am" bullshit. All it proves is your either trying to troll, or you didn't read the original discussion at all. And frankly, its incredibly annoying seeing someone I like and respect so much stoop to such things.

We've got plenty of thread for theism versus atheism. I would encourage you to read them. This one is for how nasty we are.

The worst I can see is that we could be pointed at for hurting feelings.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

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?

Nope, not letting you dodge this, again.

We're not talking the next generation, you didn't direct your comment at some fantastical people who don't exist, you said that I was irresponsible.

Because someone coming along behind might think the wrong thing about something I said and be an asshole? That's the best you've got? That's not even strong enough to be worth laughing over.

You said that I was irresponsible and still have yet to back that up with anything other than wild speculation based on supposition and assumptions and outright hypocritical bigotry.

Your side is supposed to be about the facts, and you've got nothing.

If you're tossing out wild speculations and casting unfounded aspersions on random people's characters based on a checkmark next to a demographic arker and not based on words, actions, or deeds, who are you to judge?

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

Nope, not letting you dodge this, again.

No dodging involved. The cause of the christian creep into daily life - such as the daily pledge of alleigance - has been partially responsible for creating a demonisation of those who either believe in different gods or don't ascribe to any supernatural philosophies, and thus the example I linked.

We're not talking the next generation, you didn't direct your comment at some fantastical people who don't exist, you said that I was irresponsible.

Your actions affect them just as much as mine do. I don't claim that I'm doing good because of a bunch of tales from a tribal culture in the middle east. I do what I do because it's the right thing to do.

Besides, those 'fanstastical' people who 'don't exist' - do you really think there are going to never be any other generations? This species is disturbingly good at breeding.

Because someone coming along behind might think the wrong thing about something I said and be an asshole? That's the best you've got? That's not even strong enough to be worth laughing over.

I never said you were an asshole. I said that such behaviour breeds assholes in future generations.

You said that I was irresponsible and still have yet to back that up with anything other than wild speculation based on supposition and assumptions and outright hypocritical bigotry.

Er, no? I've got the points above to back me up.

Your side is supposed to be about the facts, and you've got nothing.

I don't actually need facts to begin with. Theists present their thoughts on why they think the world is as it is, atheists are then able to point out flaws. Under scientific methodology, the theistic side would either modify their considerations based on the evidence, or do more research to back up their proposition. That's not happening. The theistic side just tries to weasel their way out of it to stick with their original thoughts as much as possible, and when science says, "We're still working on this bit," the theists jump up and down and say, "That's god doing that. Woo!" When asked for citation, things go very quiet.

If you're tossing out wild speculations and casting unfounded aspersions on random people's characters based on a checkmark next to a demographic arker and not based on words, actions, or deeds, who are you to judge?

^-.-^

It's not wild speculation. The insertion of the divine into every day life has created a culture of unthinking acceptance that has created situations such as I mention above.

By the way, I'm pleased to see you back in the debate. I was thinking you weren't going to be allowed to speak for yourself.

Rapscallion

[siead_lietrathua]

this seems to have gone from a battle of religion to a battle of ego-stroking and personal insults veiled in fancy sentances, from both sides. maybe it's time for a thread-lock.

[Rapscallion]

Mmmm, stroking...

Rapscallion

[siead_lietrathua]

pfft, lol.

seriously though, its kinda like watching people going "i'm right and your wrong so nyahhhhh :P"
and its kinda beneath the age levels we got going on here. so maybe it's better closed.

[Duelist925]

Apologies - important stuff demanded my attention.


That's an issue - all the assumptions that the bible is true. Let's be fair - he was beaten to the resurrection thing by mithras, and from memory there was one of the buddhas who did the healing people before he was claimed to do so.

Why aren't you worshipping them? They're older. Same amount of evidence.

*shrugs* I'd never heard of them before I found google? Those particular religions don't feel right?

Why aren't I worshiping hte egyption pantheon? The greek? Any others? Why aren't I one of the umpteen bajillion flavors of christian?

Religion is a deeply personal aspect of someones self identity. How they see themselves. As closely tied as ones sexuality, race, all that jazz.

And for the record, I don't believe the bible is the %100 word of god truth yada yada. Hell, not even all christians do. Its something thats debated amongst christian sects pretty fiercely.

The merchants at the temple might differ.

The merchants in the temple were pretty much dicks themselves, considering, well, holy space and all, which was taken much more seriously then than it is now.

What's bullshit about expectations?

"I associate with group A."

"Group A is associated with drinking lemonade on a Thursday as a holy rite."

"Well, I don't do that."

Why would anyone not follow the tenets of their group? Using that same logic, I'm also a member of the Bloods and the Crips, just without using identifying clothing, tattoos, and getting into turf wars.

Which group? Methodists? Calvinists? Baptists? Catholics? Evangelicals? Fred Phelps and his bastards demonspawn of a church?

Not all jews keep kosher. Not all hindu's refuse beef. Not all muslim women are clothed from head to toe to prevent any skin from showing. Not all Atheists are Dawkins.

But these are traits that are very much related to "expectations".

Expectations are bullshit because unless you are rediculously specific of the portion of the group within the group within the group that you associate with, people will expect all kinds of shit that you don't do.

People expect the whole to act like the vocal minority. People expect most xtians to act like evangelical assholes, or fire and brimstone nutjobs. People expect atheist to act like smug, self rightrous dicks, because the vocal minority is like that. People expect muslims to be terrorists, because of a very vocal minority. People expect a lot. Their usually wrong.

It's very much lesser and I regard it as almost contemptible. Try it from this side. Hey, if the theists in question were honest about it, I wouldn't mind so much, but the general attitude is that this is their god, he made everything, and we should worship him - except if you don't fancy doing that bit, in which case the theist in question is actually creating the god they want. The main concept of abrahamic religion in particular is that their god created them - not the other way around.

Why is trying to make ones religion match with reality contemptable? Why shouldn't anyone who freaking thinks try to do this, rather than try to live as they did back when sandles were the leading edge in traveling accessories?

Pick and choose religion is not about "I dont fancy that bit". Its about "That bit does not work in todays world". Hence why I eat shrimp. Bible says not to--mostly because, back then, it could kill ya. Nowadays? Theres no reason not to eat shrimp.

It doesn't make sense unless you accept that the god in question isn't actually perfect and omnipotent. If your god is perfect and omnipotent, as has often been taught by the religious, then the rules are both good and impervious, and nobody could fuck with the rules without facing some sort of effect. All we actually get is that is some vague threat that things might be nasty in an unprovable way later on.

Why's that the only option? Hell, heres another one that makes about as much sense: The bible that sets down most of those rules was written by man, who are far from perfect. THey added their own bs to it, based on needs during their time, their own bigotry, etc.

Hell, the bible, the supposed rulebook, has been translated so many times its amazing it makes any sense at all anymore.

Assuming god is perfect and omnipotent, so what? He wasn't the one that held the freaking pen.

Then you're redefining your creator's wishes without any particular ability to cite why.

No, I'm redefining and ancient book that could very well be filled with mistranslations and lies put in by people trying to push their own agenda, to try to work in todays day and age.

A theist accusing me of assigning my own meaning? Amusing.

And true. ^_^

The difference that you miss is unicorns and dragons are acknowledged as being mythological, and divinities are an excuse for people to tell others what to do - even if it's against the current accepted version of the divinity.

What you miss is that their being mythological was not the point--it was Andaras opinion of them that was the point. Which was never addressed.

The next generation or two are the wankers. Fifties US put in all the stuff about god into the constitution and onto currency. A generation or two later and what do we have? Candidates for the US presidency being 'biblically qualified'. Evangelicals raising huge sums of money. Twenty or so years back Tammy Faye Bakker and others who were in the religious promotion schemes were able to claim that god told them to collect money from people, and this money was given because people have been indoctrinated to think that god is good and to ignore critical thinking.

A: The candidate in question that was "biblically qualified' did that as a last ditch stunt because she knew she had NO chance, and was desperate. And people, christians included, fucking laughed at her for it. Because it was that fucking stupid.

B:I've already stated my view in evangelicals of most stripes: I hate them. I reeallly dislike them. And they've been doing this shit for hundreds of years. Mostly as con men. Which means that they are really, really, really good at tricking gullible people out of money. That money was given because those people were either stupid, or were lied to. Not becaue they were "indoctrinated".

Dicks caused by the constant influence of religion working on tribalistic impulses. Are you really saying that followers of the prince of peace wouldn't beat up on someone disagreeing with them based on that?

I'm saying their dicks--and they'll use any excuse to BE dicks. In this case, their using religion. If not this, they'd be being dicks about something else.

I was thinking of the actual religious leader - the god involved. Not that any such being has been out and about for the last few thousand years and such.

Yep, that'd be nice. And is also incredibly arrogant to expect, if one believed.

Interesting point. You know all of this how? Every time I try to ask her something about one aspect of her religion, that bit doesn't apply to her. Which bits do you know of her religion that apply to her?

I'm not discussing her religion--I'm discussing her as a role model for future generations. I consider her a friend, and through conversation, I've come to consider her to be hardworking, intelligent, funny, interesting to talk to, and a generally decent person.

As such, I think she makes a fairly good role model. Shes done her job, by setting a good example. If a future generation doesnt follow her example that is not her fault--its theirs.

I suggest you read the thread. It started with talking about how evangelical atheists are unpleasant because they ... hurt feelings. After a few of the atheists said we don't really act that way, a whole dogpile of theists jumped in and started to defend their faith, which is downright obnoxious. When the defences were taken to pieces by a deist who is a critical thinker, the furore continued with the demands not to be expected to think (just my impression on that last one, but it amuses me to think this), despite the unanswered arguments.

I read that thread from beggining to end. Hell, I posted within the first 3 pages of it.

Point of order: Not because they "hurt feeling". But because the evangelical portion mock and deride religion rather than engage in actual debate. And it was not that they are unpleasent: Its that that tactic doesnt work. Evangelical anything won't work if you simply heap contempt and smug dickery onto whoever your trying to convert.

Trolling or mocking a group will not convert that group. Hence, the original discussion.

Quite frankly, it's about that point that I got good and angry and wanted to go out and picket a salvation army band. It's theists that create angry atheists. You even managed to drive off someone who is more accepting of the possibility of a deity from the thread with the pig-headed arguments.

All theists? Everywhere? Just the assholes? Please be a bit more specific.

And is this a personal You, or a general You?

I'm quite happy to be a more outspoken atheist after this thread.

As long as your not a smug contemptuous dick about it, I don't care. Same for any outspoken deist.

Then theists got involved and started going on about how their particular faith couldn't be challenged when it wasn't the subject of the thread and whallop - shit happened.

Thats a pretty gross over generalization, and, well, misrepresentation of a number of arguements. Care to cite any particular examples? Or are you going to lump over 20 pages of discussion, arguement, and yes, shitstom, into that once sentence?

And yes, shit happened.

I'm now proud to be in the 'smug dick' camp.

And there goes a good chunk of my respect for you.

Why should anyone bother to debate with you then? Hell, why are you glad to place yourself into a camp that includes the absolute worst of atheism, christianity, etc?

Why should anyone give you the time of day if you are, as you say you are proud to be, a smug dick?

We've got plenty of thread for theism versus atheism. I would encourage you to read them. This one is for how nasty we are.

I've read plenty. Most turn into idiocy from both sides within a few pages. This one lasted a fair bit longer and was fairly interesting to read, especially considering that a fair chunk of both sides arguments were torn apart.

And again, this thread was never about atheists in general. It was about "evangelical" ones. Who tend to be smug dicks. Which is why evangelical anything is usually hated by anyone not apart of that evangelical group.

[Andara Bledin]

No dodging involved. The cause of the christian creep into daily life - such as the daily pledge of alleigance - has been partially responsible for creating a demonisation of those who either believe in different gods or don't ascribe to any supernatural philosophies, and thus the example I linked.

How is the cause of smug dicks my cause?

You can see, based on my posting here alone, that I patently don't support the creep of the religious into the political or other space where it absolutely does not belong, such as court or school, and regularly vote to keep church and state separate.

Your actions affect them just as much as mine do. I don't claim that I'm doing good because of a bunch of tales from a tribal culture in the middle east. I do what I do because it's the right thing to do.

Yet you judge me by a single comment on my preference for positive belief as opposed to negative belief rather than my actions. Repeatedly. Your statement to me was that no matter what I do, because I choose to believe, I'm not worth the same respect you demand for yourself.

Besides, those 'fanstastical' people who 'don't exist' - do you really think there are going to never be any other generations? This species is disturbingly good at breeding.

And they won't be mine or around me during their formative years because I don't like children and do my best to keep away from them and keep them away from me. There's only 1 child in all my extended family or group of friends that I have any contact with, and that's a couple of days around the holidays, and she has no idea, and will continue to have no idea, what religion I am.

I never said you were an asshole. I said that such behaviour breeds assholes in future generations.

No, you said that my belief breeds asshole in future generations. You've said nothing about my behavior because you have no basis for making claims about my behavior because you don't have the first foggiest idea who the hell I am other than my claim to believe in God, at which point you turned your mind off and went with your gut and labeled me as "abdicating my responsibility" absent all other proof.

Er, no? I've got the points above to back me up.

Those aren't points. They're the justifications of a bigot trying to claim he isn't one.

I don't actually need facts to begin with. Theists present their thoughts...

We're not talking about "theists," however, you made a statement about me. Not everybody who claims the label of Christianity; you specifically called me out for "abdicating responsibility" and have yet to show a single case in which I have done so.

It's not wild speculation. The insertion of the divine into every day life has created a culture of unthinking acceptance that has created situations such as I mention above.

Name one instance, ever, where I have "inserted the divine into every day life" in any manner. Just to reiterate, you aimed the comment at me, specifically, not at "most deists" or even "most Christians" so you don't get to backpedal and claim you weren't talking about me.

By the way, I'm pleased to see you back in the debate. I was thinking you weren't going to be allowed to speak for yourself.

Really? You can't engage in an honest debate without making juvenile comments?

I don't need, nor did I ask anyone to speak for me. That someone chooses to do so is nice, but if you've learned even a single thing about me in the two and a half years and 3400+ posts I've made to this site, you'd know that I am more than capable of speaking for myself.

^-.-^

[KabeRinnaul]

The next generation or two are the wankers. Fifties US put in all the stuff about god into the constitution and onto currency. A generation or two later and what do we have? Candidates for the US presidency being 'biblically qualified'. Evangelicals raising huge sums of money. Twenty or so years back Tammy Faye Bakker and others who were in the religious promotion schemes were able to claim that god told them to collect money from people, and this money was given because people have been indoctrinated to think that god is good and to ignore critical thinking.

First up, yeah, Bachmann was never really expected to go very far in an election. She's too extreme. And that little "Biblically Qualified" slogan was her campaign's dying breath. One last gasp for attention before the crazy lady went away forever. Also, the main problem in our country is the fact that those people 50 years ago who got that stuff on the currency and such? They're still pretty much the only ones voting.

I don't actually need facts to begin with. Theists present their thoughts on why they think the world is as it is, atheists are then able to point out flaws. Under scientific methodology, the theistic side would either modify their considerations based on the evidence, or do more research to back up their proposition. That's not happening.

But you said theists aren't allowed to do that. If they modify their beliefs based upon new evidence, they're picking and choosing, right?

It's very much lesser and I regard it as almost contemptible. Try it from this side. Hey, if the theists in question were honest about it, I wouldn't mind so much, but the general attitude is that this is their god, he made everything, and we should worship him - except if you don't fancy doing that bit, in which case the theist in question is actually creating the god they want. The main concept of abrahamic religion in particular is that their god created them - not the other way around.

So... if scientific evidence invalidates any portion of your belief system whatsoever, the only option is to immediately abandon the entire system?

Nowadays? There's no reason not to eat shrimp.

Except for it's kind of gross. Kheldarson says it's not, but I know for a fact that meat should not squish.

[Duelist925]

Except for it's kind of gross. Kheldarson says it's not, but I know for a fact that meat should not squish.

To a point, I agree, but I enjoy the little bastards battered and deep fried.

Mmm. Deep fried sea roach.

[siead_lietrathua]

ok, the food thing actually drives me nuts, because i hear it come up constantly in debates. "well if they are really chrstian why are they eating x/y/z"
BUT christian implies following Christ's teachings. which would be (and i'm using "the message" version cuz i love the wording for it):

"Mark 7: 18-19 Jesus said, "Are you being willfully stupid? Don't you see that what you swallow can't contaminate you? It doesn't enter your heart but your stomach, works its way through the intestines, and is finally flushed." (That took care of dietary quibbling; Jesus was saying that all foods are fit to eat.) "

so, leave my shrimpies alone nomnomnom

[bunnyboy]

And for the record, I don't believe the bible is the %100 word of god truth yada yada. Hell, not even all christians do. Its something thats debated amongst christian sects pretty fiercely.

And this is the problem I personally have with the as they've been called, militant, new, or evangelical atheists. Having come from a Christian background, and even looking into ministry work before I went to my current position (so called soft atheism.) I know that half of what folks like Dawkins, the atheists on certain boards I used to frequent, and certain people here use is believed by the very loud, very crazy, not at all mainstream side of not only Christianity, but also theism in general.

Hell, I think I've been told I'm not a real atheist because I don't care if Timmy Christian worships a bearded man in the sky/great cosmic force/Jehovah, as long as it's not actually affecting me. I might even applaud them if they're doing some good in this world, and even do the completely heterodox action of helping them.

Seems I'm one of the silent minority who thinks religion isn't some great evil that needs to be abolished. Personally I see it as a hammer. It can build wonderful things, or cave a man's skull in, it's all in what it's being used for.

[Andara Bledin]

Seems I'm one of the silent minority who thinks religion isn't some great evil that needs to be abolished. Personally I see it as a hammer. It can build wonderful things, or cave a man's skull in, it's all in what it's being used for.

You're not in the minority at all.

Just as most Christians tend to just do their thing without making a fuss and are happy to go with a live and let live attitude, most atheists are similar.

It's unfortunate that the ones that make the most fuss (no matter what the issue) are usually the domineering, de-humanizing, "everybody must think like us" fucknuts.

I read a post and comments over on the Slactiverse recently that had quite a number of atheists commenting about how evangelical atheists made them feel unwelcome as atheists because they weren't poster-children for the awesomeness that atheism is supposed to be.

^-.-^

[draco664]

Hell, I think I've been told I'm not a real atheist because I don't care if Timmy Christian worships a bearded man in the sky/great cosmic force/Jehovah, as long as it's not actually affecting me. I might even applaud them if they're doing some good in this world, and even do the completely heterodox action of helping them.

Seems I'm one of the silent minority who thinks religion isn't some great evil that needs to be abolished. Personally I see it as a hammer. It can build wonderful things, or cave a man's skull in, it's all in what it's being used for.

Minority or not, I'm with you. So long as it doesn't affect me or mine, I don't care what others believe. Your religion is your business, and not mine. Good luck to you.