Something awful

[pzmyers]

Literally (http://www.somethingawful.com/#articleID).

It's a beautiful flame. Read it not as a serious proposal, but as representative of how atheists feel they are treated by the theist majority.

[freemonkey]

Wow, that was some rant. Thanks.

There's a pic/link at the end of the article re: the Swedish boy who may have been kidnapped from a hospital, the link goes to the God Hates Fags site. I don't have the stomach to read that site right now. Does anyone know if that sentiment actually came from them?

[viscousmemories]

Damn, some atheists have some serious issues. Then again I'd probably be pretty furious too if I were a scientist or the parent of a kid in the school system. As it is religion doesn't have much of a noticeable impact on my daily life.

I'm really pissed at Antony Flew right now, though. I can't help but think he either didn't consider the political ramifications of his deist meanderings or he's angling for a much larger audience for his next book. The dummy.

You owe me freemonkey, I went to that festering shithole godhatesfags and verified that the story did indeed originate there. Every time I see that site it gets harder and harder to believe it's not a satire, as vile as it is.

[pzmyers]

Then again I'd probably be pretty furious too if I were a scientist or the parent of a kid in the school system.

Some of us are both, and are also educators and have to deal with kids warped by this crap. And look at the religious fruitcakes running our country -- you and all of us are going to suffer from this.

[seebs]

I think the problem is conflating the theist majority with the vocal minority, such as Phelps.

[Petra]

....and are also educators and have to deal with kids warped by this crap.

Yep.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1176301-oil-power-and-empire.html
Apparently, Ann Coulter is considered by some to be part of a balanced education.



That was a great rant, and I was struck dumb by the GodHatesFags stance on kidnapping of the Swedish boy. Phelps is one sick fuck. :eek:



Seebs, I hope you're right about them being a minority. Can't deny that they are a growing minority with an aggressive recruiting campaign, though - just look at the recent PotUS elections! They scare me. :(

[viscousmemories]

Seebs, I hope you're right about them being a minority. Can't deny that they are a growing minority with an aggressive recruiting campaign, though - just look at the recent PotUS elections! They scare me. :(
Wait, everyone who voted for Bush was recruited by psychotic hatemongering religious fanatics? I'm surprised I can go to the grocery here in Texas without getting attacked! :eek:

[seebs]

Seebs, I hope you're right about them being a minority. Can't deny that they are a growing minority with an aggressive recruiting campaign, though - just look at the recent PotUS elections! They scare me. :(

I can't tell whether they're growing, or just organizing better. I do know that I've seen a few of 'em run into the real world and start being a lot more reasonable, so at least it's curable.

[Goliath]

Oh dear gods, that article is brilliant! (http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2595) (link put in because the link in the OP doesn't point to the original article).


I think the problem is conflating the theist majority with the vocal minority, such as Phelps.


Please surprise me this time, and actually give me evidence of this assertion. Please?

[seebs]

Please surprise me this time, and actually give me evidence of this assertion. Please?

Hmm. Well, as an obvious case, if people like Phelps were a real majority, the country would be in much worse shape (at least from my perspective) than it is now. We wouldn't have a lot of the rights we do.

For another way of looking at it, consider that Phelps doesn't have (last I heard) any formal connection left to the rest of the Baptist church, because they can't stand him.

[Goliath]

Hmm. Well, as an obvious case, if people like Phelps were a real majority, the country would be in much worse shape (at least from my perspective) than it is now.

That isn't even close to obvious. Has it ever occurred to you that if fundies like phelps aren't a minority, then this country would be better off if they were?

Phelps doesn't have (last I heard) any formal connection left to the rest of the Baptist church, because they can't stand him.

Evidence, please?

[Roland98]

A nice rant, a bit too venomous for my taste, but kudos to him for the Kirk Cameron suggestion. And the forced cloning. :giggle:

[seebs]

Phelps doesn't have (last I heard) any formal connection left to the rest of the Baptist church, because they can't stand him.

Evidence, please?

Well, Phelps says he's "no longer affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention". The exact reasons aren't specified, but I've never yet met a Southern Baptist who didn't repudiate Phelps.

[Godless Dave]

Phelps is marginalized and isolated, but Jerry Falwell is mainstream - he gave the invocation at the Republican National Convention. And Falwell is a nutjob. Blaming gays, feminists, and the ACLU for the September 11 terrorist attacks is even nuttier than blaming Iraq.

[livius drusus]

A nice rant, a bit too venomous for my taste, but kudos to him for the Kirk Cameron suggestion. And the forced cloning. :giggle:

Agreed. The charred angel manequins were pretty funny too.

[Goliath]

Well, Phelps says he's "no longer affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention".

...says you.

Citation, please?

[Goliath]

The charred angel manequins were pretty funny too.

:yup:

[seebs]

Well, Phelps says he's "no longer affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention".

...says you.

Citation, please?

I found it through Google, but I'm too lazy to find it again.

I think GD's point is good; the scary thing isn't Phelps, who's clearly marginalized, but Falwell, whose beliefs are still a minority opinion in Christianity as a whole, but much closer to mainstream.

I mean, consider creationism, which is a solid minority worldwide, but fairly common in America.

[Corona688]

Well, Phelps says he's "no longer affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention".

...says you.

Citation, please?

I found it through Google, but I'm too lazy to find it again.

I think GD's point is good; the scary thing isn't Phelps, who's clearly marginalized, but Falwell, whose beliefs are still a minority opinion in Christianity as a whole, but much closer to mainstream.

I mean, consider creationism, which is a solid minority worldwide, but fairly common in America. I'm gonna have to go with goliath on this one. If you can't support any of your views with factual evidence, what good are they?

[seebs]

I'm gonna have to go with goliath on this one. If you can't support any of your views with factual evidence, what good are they?

What we're seeing here is at least partially the question of what things we consider reasonable assumptions. Given that I've seen a great number of fundamentalists openly condemn Phelps, I don't think the claim that his views are a minority position is particularly exceptional.

I guess... Here we see a case where I have a perfectly reasonable position, and you do too, and neither of us has yet convinced the other. I'm too lazy to do a whole lot of research on Phelps (frankly, he disgusts me too much), but that doesn't make me wrong; it just leaves you with no obligation to believe me. But if you want me to believe his opinions are not a minority position, you'll have to come up with some kind of evidence, too...

[Goliath]

But, seebs, you are confusing Corona and I with people who have made an assertion about Phelps and his ilk (i.e. you).

Stop it. It won't work.

[seebs]

But, seebs, you are confusing Corona and I with people who have made an assertion about Phelps and his ilk (i.e. you).

Well, you have made statements which only make sense if Phelps is typical of a majority of Christians.

BTW, the "his ilk" thing is a little silly. If your definitions are so broad that Phelps and I are of an ilk, well, then so are you and Phelps, or my cat and Mao Zedong.

[Goliath]

Well, you have made statements which only make sense if Phelps is typical of a majority of Christians.

I have not. Again, you are the one making a claim about Phelps. I am the one doubting your claim. Please stop trying to shift the burden of proof. You've never successfully shifted said burden upon me, and you won't be able to do it this time, either. Give it up.


BTW, the "his ilk" thing is a little silly. If your definitions are so broad that Phelps and I are of an ilk, well, then so are you and Phelps, or my cat and Mao Zedong.

Pay attention folks: It's bullshit like the quote above that is part of the reason why I prefer to read what you people say with no connotation whatsoever. When seebs uses connotations and informal language, it's just fine and dandy, but when I do the same, I get my skull cracked open for it. So, in order to avoid bullshit like this, it's best to avoid the reading of any connotation whatsoever.

[livius drusus]

Phelps pickets the SBC for being too soft. It's pretty common knowledge. Here are a couple of Google results.

From the Baptists Press (http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=15606):

Because of Phelps' prominence, and because he's in Kansas, Fox has had to set the record straight many times: Phelps is not a Southern Baptist; he's far from it.

"I'm quick to tell [people] that he has picketed our churches and our convention," Fox said.

[...]

For his part, Phelps claims that Southern Baptists are involved in "kissy-pooh" preaching infatuated with God's love. He has picketed Southern Baptist Convention annual meetings, Southern Baptist churches and the SBC Building in downtown Nashville (twice already in 2003).

Even Focus on the Family (http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/departments/a0003686.cfm) rejects Phelps:

"It's inflammatory, and it hurts, rather than helps, the problem," added Terry Wilder, an assistant professor of New Testament at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. "To say that God hates [homosexuals] is an errant understanding of God's grace and mercy. God hates sin. . . . [Romans 9:13] is being taken out of context to support an errant argument."

The protest was organized by the Rev. Fred Phelps and members of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan. Phelps is well-known for brandishing his controversial signs at funerals and gay pride parades.

"He does not speak for Baptists," Wilder said. "He especially does not speak for the Southern Baptist Convention."

Indeed, when Citizen called Phelps' church to find out to which Baptist convention the church belongs, the answer was a curt "none."

[Goliath]

Wait a minute! On a rereading, I can see that I've probably been totally unclear:



But, seebs, you are confusing Corona and I with people who have made an assertion about Phelps and his ilk (i.e. you).



The part in bold should be modifying "people" not "Phelps and his ilk". My apologies for unintentionally putting forth the latter insinuation.

[seebs]

I have not. Again, you are the one making a claim about Phelps. I am the one doubting your claim. Please stop trying to shift the burden of proof. You've never successfully shifted said burden upon me, and you won't be able to do it this time, either. Give it up.

Hmm. Fair enough, you haven't made an assertion; you're just holding a position. Okay, go ahead. I'm not going to do the research, because the claim is sort of dull.

Pay attention folks: It's bullshit like the quote above that is part of the reason why I prefer to read what you people say with no connotation whatsoever. When seebs uses connotations and informal language, it's just fine and dandy, but when I do the same, I get my skull cracked open for it. So, in order to avoid bullshit like this, it's best to avoid the reading of any connotation whatsoever.

Well, that's the thing. In what way am I of Phelps's "ilk"? We're both Christians? Sure. So what? We're also both hominids. Phelps and I have less in common politically than you and I do, by far. For that matter, Phelps and I probably have less in common politically than he does with some fairly famous atheists.

The implication is that there is some relevant connection between me and Phelps, and I just don't see it.

Anyway, for a quick summary of how you can tell that Phelps isn't in a majority position, consider that the Catholic Church is a majority of Christians worldwide, and repudiates pretty much everything he stands for. (I'm not sure which if either of those claims you'd want a citation for, but they both seem pretty obvious to me.)

[Goliath]

Interesting...thanks for the links, liv. It's good to know that there is more infighting amongst the xians than I thought.

And that's a good thing. The more that the xians are hating and fighting themselves, the less energy they'll have to fight us atheists.

Onward, xian soldiers! Onward!

[Goliath]

Hmm. Fair enough, you haven't made an assertion; you're just holding a position.



Wrong again, I am merely doubting your claims. You are confusing a position with a lack of a position.

Next!

[seebs]

Wrong again, I am merely doubting your claims. You are confusing a position with a lack of a position.

Perhaps -- but in practice, you're acting as though the fundamentalists were much closer to a majority than they are. Of course, that depends on my assertion... But your actions and discussion of Christianity consistently reflect a response primarily to specific subsets of Christianity.

[Goliath]

but in practice, you're acting as though the fundamentalists were much closer to a majority than they are.


Irrelevant, as you are still confusing a claim with a lack of a claim.

[seebs]

but in practice, you're acting as though the fundamentalists were much closer to a majority than they are.


Irrelevant, as you are still confusing a claim with a lack of a claim.

Ahh, but I'm a pragmatist. If you hold a position or attitude which presupposes a claim, I'll treat the claim as made, whether or not you're trying to advance it.

It's sort of comparable to the way that a natural response to evangelists asking you to accept Jesus is to question their claim that there even is a "Jesus" to accept; the claim is implicit in something they're doing.

[Goliath]

If you hold a position or attitude which presupposes a claim, I'll treat the claim as made, whether or not you're trying to advance it.


That's your problem, and not mine.

[Sweetie]

Interesting...thanks for the links, liv. It's good to know that there is more infighting amongst the xians than I thought.

:roflmao:

Infighting? Noooooo.......

You must know at least, that to many Fundamentalists Catholics are just as bad as Atheists and Muslims. No, maybe worse, the Pope is the anti-christ or the false prophet though I think that theory is going down the tubes because this one is almost dead and he doesn't seem to have enough energy I guess, to help the anti-christ. :D The Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, we're all pagan, etc. Obviously there is enough of a difference between us if they declare us their self-proclaimed enemy. Well, everybody is their enemy, we're just lucky enough to be nearer the top of the list. :P

Nuthin' says luvin' like Chick tracts in your honour. :D

[viscousmemories]

Well ignoring the semantic quibbling, in my opinion anyone who thinks Phelps represents the majority theist view in America is more dangerously delusional than him.

[Sweetie]

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#families

These stats are two or three years old already:

Catholic
Baptist
Methodist/Wesleyan
Lutheran
Presbyterian
Pentecostal/Charismatic
Episcopalian/Anglican
Latter-day Saints/Mormon
Churches of Christ
Congregational/
United Church of Christ
Jehovah's Witnesses
Assemblies of God

Lutherans are iffy on the issue I think, JW's and Assemblies of God, who knows.

The ones in red it is almost certain they wouldn't side with Phelps. Within the Baptist heading, there would be alot of people of a more non-denominational type, and I think many of those are taking a more Liberal ideology. There was a massive shift to Fundamentalism how many years ago and I think the tides are turning.

Think of how much the homosexual community is making itself heard and we know for a fact they are a minority. Just because a group is loud doesn't mean they are a majority, in fact, sometimes I think that's what some might want one to think on various different issues.

[Goliath]

anyone who thinks Phelps represents the majority theist view in America is more dangerously delusional than him.

Well, as far as I'm aware, no one in this thread seems to think that.

[aeroz19]

Literally (http://www.somethingawful.com/#articleID).

It's a beautiful flame. Read it not as a serious proposal, but as representative of how atheists feel they are treated by the theist majority.

Ok, this makes no sense at all. This is some of the lowest stuff I've read in a long time. I feel brain cells dying from lack of intellectual stimulation (reminds me of how I feel when I watch an annual episode of Simpsons)...

[Goliath]

Ok, this makes no sense at all.

What, specifically, are you confused about with respect to the OP?

[LadyShea]

The link in the OP takes me to an article on hot sauce.

[Ensign Steve]

The hot sauce is awful!

[Goliath]

The link in the OP takes me to an article on hot sauce.

Try this link (http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2595).

[pzmyers]

Even Focus on the Family (http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/departments/a0003686.cfm) rejects Phelps:

You make my point for me when you have to scrape the slime of Focus on the Family up from the hellish well of Christianity to defend religion. Dobson rejects Phelps because his tactics are offensive, but he's playing the same game: you know he has spun off a new political action group to fight for the Federal Marriage Amendment (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39429), right?

I think there are individual Christians who are good people in spite of their damnable faith. I don't believe most Christians are gibbering evil lunatics like Phelps. But I am disgusted with this kind of constant double think from the religious -- this self-congratulatory back pat they give themselves, "Well, at least we're not as bad as Phelps!"

This is representative of a large fraction of Christians in this country. (http://flamingojones.blogspot.com/2005/01/we-are-in-deep-trouble.html)

David Barton, of the Wallbuilders organization, spoke to a packed church-full of politically active Christians. It was quite the eye-opener. Barton is an "expert" on the Constitution and America's Founding Fathers. He was here to call Christians to fight the current Constitutional battles facing Christianity today. Read: "Gay Marriage BAD. Be afraid. Be very afraid." At one point, he actually had the audacity to argue that legalizing gay marriage would lead to more unwedded mothers, and therefore more juvenile crime, and therefore higher taxes. And he said it with a straight face.

Immediately after that little gem, he flashed a picture of two men kissing, on his giant Power Point screen. The room erupted in a collective horrified gasp. From the smirk on Barton's face at that moment, I guess that's the reaction he was hoping for. He said "I know that's a very offensive image, but this is what your children's generation is going to have to deal with."

After the November elections, this tired excuse that 'most Christians aren't like that' has lost its power. Yes, most Christians are like that. You can play the anecdote game and point to your sainted Aunt Tillie who works for progressive causes while going to church every Sunday, but it just doesn't impress -- the statistics tell us the answer, and for the majority, religion is a great sucking vortex of ignorance that is hurting our country. Religion is a wretched business that has mobs of people hooked on stupidity. It's time to stop making apologies for it.

And you know all those good, nice people who go to church all the time? They'd be even better if they'd abandon that superstitious bullshit.

[livius drusus]

What statistics are those? seebs' atheist mom thinks neo-cons make piles of sense and I'm pretty sure the 48% of voters who cast a ballot for Kerry were overwhelmingly Christian. So all your trademark rhetoric aside, what statistics are you talking about and how exactly do they confirm that for the majority of people religion = ignorance = hurting the US?

[Sweetie]

After the November elections, this tired excuse that 'most Christians aren't like that' has lost its power. Yes, most Christians are like that. You can play the anecdote game and point to your sainted Aunt Tillie who works for progressive causes while going to church every Sunday, but it just doesn't impress -- the statistics tell us the answer, and for the majority, religion is a great sucking vortex of ignorance that is hurting our country. Religion is a wretched business that has mobs of people hooked on stupidity. It's time to stop making apologies for it.

And you know all those good, nice people who go to church all the time? They'd be even better if they'd abandon that superstitious bullshit.

Did somebody say bull-shit?

[pzmyers]

What statistics are those? seebs' atheist mom thinks neo-cons make piles of sense and I'm pretty sure the 48% of voters who cast a ballot for Kerry were overwhelmingly Christian. So all your trademark rhetoric aside, what statistics are you talking about and how exactly do they confirm that for the majority of people religion = ignorance = hurting the US?

Like this? (http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=171)
The significance of the faith factor cannot be overlooked in Campaign 2004. President Bush’s strongest support comes from evangelical Christians who are likely to vote: 90% of them plan to vote for the incumbent while only 2% plan to support Mr. Kerry. Non-evangelical born again Christians, who constitute about two-fifths of the likely voters, also strongly favor Mr. Bush (54% to 36%). Together, all born again Christians (evangelical and non-evangelical combined) are estimated to provide about half of the votes cast in November.

GW Bush is president right now, and he got there on a campaign of inciting fear and pandering to the religious right. The support of Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson should have prompted the immediate defection of all of these hypothetical "good Christians" and led to his defeat at the polls. It didn't.

Compare the US to Europe. What's one of the major differences? The pernicious influence of religion on government. Look at the Bush policies on science, the environment, energy, war -- he's a disaster. And he's the most openly religious president we've had in some time. And Kerry reminded us of his faith in just about every speech; are we surprised that Christians were willing to vote for him? What would have happened if he'd said he was an agnostic?

Look, I'm willing to give most people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're decent all the way through (and I also don't think atheism is an automatic indicator of goodliness.) But there is not one virtue to faith, and I have never met a person who was improved by a belief in an invisible sky fairy. The credulity, the trust in authority, and the rank vileness of the current crop of authorities they are following like sheep is damaging, and there is just no way around that.

[Sweetie]

The significance of the faith factor cannot be overlooked in Campaign 2004. President Bush’s strongest support comes from evangelical Christians who are likely to vote: 90% of them plan to vote for the incumbent while only 2% plan to support Mr. Kerry. Non-evangelical born again Christians, who constitute about two-fifths of the likely voters, also strongly favor Mr. Bush (54% to 36%). Together, all born again Christians (evangelical and non-evangelical combined) are estimated to provide about half of the votes cast in November.

If America is only 19% Baptist, really though I'll take newer stats, how does that make up the 50 some percent majority, that's assuming that 19% would vote for Bush.

Fuck, if I was an American I wouldn't know how to vote, it would be like choosing between dumb and dumber or as a Christian would put it, having to choose between two evils and having to decide which is the lesser of the two. Get better candidates or get a party that can take the swing votes and you'd probably have different results.

[Beth]

No, maybe worse, the Pope is the anti-christ or the false prophet though I think that theory is going down the tubes because this one is almost dead and he doesn't seem to have enough energy I guess, to help the anti-christ. :D The Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, we're all pagan, etc. Obviously there is enough of a difference between us if they declare us their self-proclaimed enemy. Well, everybody is their enemy, we're just lucky enough to be nearer the top of the list. :P

Nuthin' says luvin' like Chick tracts in your honour. :DSweetie, you do not understand Fundamentalist biblical prophecy. The fundamentaists do not think the current Pope is antichrist. In fact, many fundamentalists are in sympathy with the Pope in many things. Many believe he is still going to hell, but that god is using him as an agent of his will. They feel that the current Pope is actually holding back the ushering in of the antiChrist.

Actually, Fundamentalists is even too broad a term, the End-time Fundamentalists believe that the next Pope will be apostate and the false prophet of Babylon, not the anti-Christ. The false prophet must deny the immaculate conception of Christ, the ressurection of Christ, and the Holy Trinity. This is what is, in fact, being taught. Sure some of the more ignorant people who study the prophecy texts may make stupid statement that the current Pope will be antiChrist, but they are not the avid studiers of Biblical prophecy. There are fundamentalists who believe that the sects that teach end time prophecy are Cultist and apostate.

Much of the worship of the Saints is actually rooted in paganism, so they are not too far off to say the Catholic Church is pagan.

[livius drusus]

Like this? (http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=171)

Those are projections, not actual statistical breakdowns of the way the vote went, but even if they are accurate they only speak to what percentage of a specific minority voted for Bush, not to the majority you said were mired in country-damaging ignorance. Besides, what about that 36% of those non-Evangelical born againers who planned to vote for Kerry? Are they hurting America too?

GW Bush is president right now, and he got there on a campaign of inciting fear and pandering to the religious right. The support of Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson should have prompted the immediate defection of all of these hypothetical "good Christians" and led to his defeat at the polls. It didn't.

It didn't even prompt the immediate defection of all atheists, so why would should it prompt that of Christians? Voting out an incumbent during war is a hard task no matter what the religious beliefs of the populace. It's amazing the race was as close as was.

Compare the US to Europe. What's one of the major differences? The pernicious influence of religion on government.

And yet, there are right-wing governments in Europe right now playing along with Bush. My own Italy is foremost in those ranks, and Britain doesn't even have the excuse of a nationalist government to explain its allegiance.

Look at the Bush policies on science, the environment, energy, war -- he's a disaster. And he's the most openly religious president we've had in some time. And Kerry reminded us of his faith in just about every speech; are we surprised that Christians were willing to vote for him? What would have happened if he'd said he was an agnostic?

I don't know, but if Christians voted for him then your blanket condemnation doesn't really work regardless of their motivations. Kerry's Catholic-humping was, imo, a tailored appeal to that big chunk of evangelicals who wouldn't have voted for him if even if he were the returned Christ himself, not to the liberal Christian majority who don't vote on theological issues anyway.

The credulity, the trust in authority, and the rank vileness of the current crop of authorities they are following like sheep is damaging, and there is just no way around that.

Again, they aren't all following around the current crop of authorities or Kerry wouldn't have even gotten 10% of the vote because at least some of that atheist 10% voted Republican or Libertarian or not at all.

[Sweetie]

Sweetie, you do not understand Fundamentalist biblical prophecy. The fundamentaists do not think the current Pope is antichrist. In fact, many fundamentalists are in sympathy with the Pope in many things. Many believe he is still going to hell, but that god is using him as an agent of his will. They feel that the current Pope is actually holding back the ushering in of the antiChrist.

LOL, that's only because their previous "prophecy" didn't work out, it's no longer viable.

Actually, Fundamentalists is even too broad a term, the End-time Fundamentalists believe that the next Pope will be apostate and the false prophet of Babylon, not the anti-Christ. The false prophet must deny the immaculate conception of Christ, the ressurection of Christ, and the Holy Trinity. This is what is, in fact, being taught. Sure some of the more ignorant people who study the prophecy texts may make stupid statement that the Pope will be antiChrist, but they are not the avid studiers of Biblical prophecy. There are fundamentalists who believe that the sects that teach end time prophecy are Cultist and apostate.

I distinguish between Fundamentalist and Fundamentalist. I have though, put the more tolerable and less rabid Fundamentalists into the category of Evangelical. Evangelicals are of course, Fundamentalists to a point, but that's my own distinction, Fundamentalists and then Fundamental Evangelicals whom I just call Evangelical.

Much of the worship of the Saints is actually rooted in paganism, so they are not too far off to say the Catholic Church is pagan.

If that is true than the worship of the God-Man can also be shown to be rooted in paganism. They don't see it of course.

[pzmyers]

And yet, there are right-wing governments in Europe right now playing along with Bush. My own Italy is foremost in those ranks, and Britain doesn't even have the excuse of a nationalist government to explain its allegiance.

Obliterating religion is not a cure -- there are plenty of other paths down the road to fascism. But at least it would be a step in the right direction, and it would remove one source of the problem, and one particularly easy handle that demagogues use to manipulate people.

But here's another problem: have you noticed how many liberals and atheists and secularists are so ready to pussyfoot around and make excuses for religion and conservativism? You cannot criticize them without someone rushing to say "...but..." and "...well,..." and "...on the other hand...". It sure would be nice to have someone stand up unabashedly for the principle.

I'm going to be doing it.

I'm willing to speak plainly on it.

Religion is a shameful thing, a foolish collection of outdated dogma and superstition, and the first step to getting it out of people's heads is to admit it and stop making apologies for it. And we need more people to get off the fence and join in the condemnation.

[Sweetie]

Obliterating religion is not a cure -- there are plenty of other paths down the road to fascism. But at least it would be a step in the right direction, and it would remove one source of the problem, and one particularly easy handle that demagogues use to manipulate people.

But here's another problem: have you noticed how many liberals and atheists and secularists are so ready to pussyfoot around and make excuses for religion and conservativism? You cannot criticize them without someone rushing to say "...but..." and "...well,..." and "...on the other hand...". It sure would be nice to have someone stand up unabashedly for the principle.

I'm going to be doing it.

I'm willing to speak plainly on it.

Religion is a shameful thing, a foolish collection of outdated dogma and superstition, and the first step to getting it out of people's heads is to admit it and stop making apologies for it. And we need more people to get off the fence and join in the condemnation.

Sounds like you and people like you are the problem, Fundamentalists? You are a Fundamentalist. Lacking education? Ignorant? Know everything? My worldview is the only correct worldview and all other worldviews must succumb to it, etc? If they don't agree with me, they don't know what they are talking about, are stupid and are wrong? They're blind, they don't see, only I see their sin? We have to evangelize them, get them to repent, show them the error of their ways, condemn them so they know they are condemned, etc., etc?

Walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it might be a duck.

[Beth]

Sweetie, you do not understand Fundamentalist biblical prophecy. The fundamentaists do not think the current Pope is antichrist. In fact, many fundamentalists are in sympathy with the Pope in many things. Many believe he is still going to hell, but that god is using him as an agent of his will. They feel that the current Pope is actually holding back the ushering in of the antiChrist.

LOL, that's only because their previous "prophecy" didn't work out, it's no longer viable. From what I understand, this was taught for sometime. It was difficult to conceive that John Paul would commit the commiting the blashemy the False Prophet must commit. I think that earlier prophecy studies. I also think that as time has passed they have realized that it would be impossible for the world not to be suspicious of a Pope being the political leader of the world, so the theory has evolved to one that a diplomat or polititian will be antiChrist. The main thing that the end time people are concentrating on is the Palestinian-Israeli situation. If you ever want some fun, watch Manna Fest with Perry Stone. Hoah boy!

Actually, Fundamentalists is even too broad a term, the End-time Fundamentalists believe that the next Pope will be apostate and the false prophet of Babylon, not the anti-Christ. The false prophet must deny the immaculate conception of Christ, the ressurection of Christ, and the Holy Trinity. This is what is, in fact, being taught. Sure some of the more ignorant people who study the prophecy texts may make stupid statement that the Pope will be antiChrist, but they are not the avid studiers of Biblical prophecy. There are fundamentalists who believe that the sects that teach end time prophecy are Cultist and apostate.

I distinguish between Fundamentalist and Fundamentalist. I have though, put the more tolerable and less rabid Fundamentalists into the category of Evangelical. Evangelicals are of course, Fundamentalists to a point, but that's my own distinction, Fundamentalists and then Fundamental Evangelicals whom I just call Evangelical.[/quote] I have two categories as well. I call the rabids ones Fundies and the moderate Fundamentalists, Fundamentalists.

Much of the worship of the Saints is actually rooted in paganism, so they are not too far off to say the Catholic Church is pagan.

If that is true than the worship of the God-Man can also be shown to be rooted in paganism. They don't see it of course.
True, you could, and it is. ;)
Many would just say that it was Satan's counterfeit of God's truth. You know, Satan trying to muck up God's plan way ahead of time. I particularly think that the prayer to the Saints and the pagan aspect of the Catholic Church is more natural, fitting more to human nature and the desire to be fulfilled religiously, than the more Fundamentalist aspects of Christianity does.

[Sweetie]

True, you could, and it is.

similis hoc ergo propter hoc - similar to this therefore because of this? :wink:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Is_Catholicism_Pagan.asp

[Beth]

True, you could, and it is.

similis hoc ergo propter hoc - similar to this therefore because of this? :wink:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Is_Catholicism_Pagan.aspThis page proved absolutely nothing and if it was supposed to be some sort of end to an argument, then you should do better, especially if you are in a debate (which I am not in).

I do not understand why it seems to be so threatening for someone to accept that their religion has pagan elements in it that actually predated their religion. Gee, does that make them think that they are being accused of following a religion that was created by man, rather than divinity?

[viscousmemories]

But here's another problem: have you noticed how many liberals and atheists and secularists are so ready to pussyfoot around and make excuses for religion and conservativism? You cannot criticize them without someone rushing to say "...but..." and "...well,..." and "...on the other hand...". It sure would be nice to have someone stand up unabashedly for the principle.
I haven't seen this happening, but then you think the virulently anti-religious environment at IIDB coddles theists, so we're not likely to agree on that. But what's with this crazy rhetoric? You're one of us or one of them. You're either vocally anti-religion and its adherents or an apologist and enemy of America? Is that seriously how you see things?

I believe in fighting the issues: CSS, abortion rights, protecting teaching evolution, etc. but I will never believe that people who believe in a god are damaged goods and I think the idea of targetting 'religion' is absurd. Religion is not going away. It seems more practical to try to convince believers to adopt a more humanistic (from my perspective) philosophy.

[Beth]

If that is true than the worship of the God-Man can also be shown to be rooted in paganism. They don't see it of course.Others may correct me if I am wrong but, Sweetie, after reading the site over again, your throwing similis hoc ergo propter hoc as an argument was simply wrong. Your statement spoke of the God-Man, not specifically Christ. My statement was true and you made a false assertation about my statement in regard to the God-Man.
Even my statement about the worship of the Saints being rooted in paganism so I can understand them believing the church to be pagan is not a similis hoc ergo propter hoc argument or fallacy because I did not make the claim that the church was pagan; rather that I can understand the reasoning in Fundamentalist minds. (Although the sentence displayed poor grammar.:p)

Many Christian holidays, such as Easter and Christmas definitely have pagan customs and roots that are incorporated into the Christian observance of them. To deny this or to call it a pagan influence fallacy is ridiculous. The page did not mention these holidays specifically but rather Halloween, the holiest day in many early European pagan religious calendars! It is complete and utter ignorance to deny that the Catholic Church did incorporate pagan observances and symbolisms in order to better influence the pagans and and as a tactic in convincing them (although some history will claim that pagans were forced or coerced) to convert. It even seems more ridiculous to claim that we do not have enough archeological evidence of early European religious practice, which incidentally pre-date Roman Catholicism, to not know whether the Catholic Church influenced pagan customs or vice versa.

Do I think the church is pagan? No. But there are paganistic aspects to the church that appeal to me more so than many other of the Christian sects. Do I think that modern Wicca and paganism is the same as the paganism pre-Roman Catholicism? No. (Well, Wicca did not exist then.)

I do understand some of the reasons the Jesuits wrote that web page. It is true that the Church is accused of many things such as it being Mystery Babylon or some evil, pagan religion. I never made that claim.

I do lurve Chick tracts because they are hilarious but I do not believe any of the garbage in it for one second, but I can understand the annoyance that some Catholics may feel, its just that most mainstream people-even many Fundamentalists- don't really believe in the stuff he says. They might believe there is a little truth in the tracts, but also they also believe they are peppered with a buncha lies. I know of several Christian boards I could post the tracts up in and we will laugh and make fun of them- atheist and Christian alike.

I do have issues with the church, the main thing is contraception. I believe the church's stance is subjugating to women. If I were to attack the church, I would not go the route of something as silly as paganism, I would state issues I have with that patriarchal system.

Also, the core of Catholicism is similar to Protestantism. I wonder if they are lumping all protestants into the 'Fundamentalist' category. Because there are quite a few Catholics that I lump into the Fundy or Fundamentalist categories as well.

[pzmyers]

But here's another problem: have you noticed how many liberals and atheists and secularists are so ready to pussyfoot around and make excuses for religion and conservativism? You cannot criticize them without someone rushing to say "...but..." and "...well,..." and "...on the other hand...". It sure would be nice to have someone stand up unabashedly for the principle.
I haven't seen this happening
You haven't? Here you go:
But what's with this crazy rhetoric?

[viscousmemories]

I haven't seen this happening
You haven't? Here you go:
But what's with this crazy rhetoric?
Calling your comments "crazy rhetoric" is pussyfooting and being an apologist for conservatives and believers? Okay. So how would you characterize your own preface to this article on your blog?



For the godless ONLY. Others, don’t click on this link!

Oh, my. This is rather, um, intemperate, but oh, how I can sympathize with the emotional catharsis, at least. And for sure I can agree with the conclusion, even while I deplore the cartoonish excesses of his proposal:
Is that also pussyfooting apologism for the conservatives and believers?

[pzmyers]

I haven't seen this happening
You haven't? Here you go:
But what's with this crazy rhetoric?
Calling your comments "crazy rhetoric" is pussyfooting and being an apologist for conservatives and believers? Okay. So how would you characterize your own preface to this article on your blog?



For the godless ONLY. Others, don’t click on this link!

Oh, my. This is rather, um, intemperate, but oh, how I can sympathize with the emotional catharsis, at least. And for sure I can agree with the conclusion, even while I deplore the cartoonish excesses of his proposal:
Is that also pussyfooting apologism for the conservatives and believers?No. What I deplored in the article was the proposed punishments for people -- I do not believe in tatooing people's forehead for believing in jesus, for instance.

But we can still be uncompromising in our criticism of blind, foolish religion. The weird thing is that pointing out that god is nonexistent and that religious dogma is baseless and insane gets all the namby-pamby secularists worked up and making excuses and trying to be conciliatory to all the poor believers offended by such unthinkable rudeness.

Just stop it.

There is no excusing the irrationalities of religion. It's sad to see agnostics and atheists even trying.

[aeroz19]

The link in the OP takes me to an article on hot sauce.

Try this link (http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2595).

Oooohhhhhh ok!!!

[viscousmemories]

But we can still be uncompromising in our criticism of blind, foolish religion. The weird thing is that pointing out that god is nonexistent and that religious dogma is baseless and insane gets all the namby-pamby secularists worked up and making excuses and trying to be conciliatory to all the poor believers offended by such unthinkable rudeness.

Just stop it.

There is no excusing the irrationalities of religion. It's sad to see agnostics and atheists even trying.
I hear what you're saying, but I still don't know who you're talking about. It doesn't bother me that some people have different priorities and more or less tolerance for religious beliefs than me. The only reason I don't personally attack belief more vigorously is because I'm more interested in learning than evangelizing (or whatever the secular equivalent of that is), and I'm not so confident that my 'naturalistic' philosophy - as I personally understand it - is unassailable.

I think people in general are credulous and tend to latch onto the intellectual coattails of others. But I don't think any such people deserve praise and encouragement simply because they've jumped into my bandwagon, and I don't think anyone deserves to be attacked for not jumping into my bandwagon. I try to be respectful to people generally not only out of empathy, but because I also truly believe that being an example of a non-believing nice guy is more effective.

In my opinion many of the atheists at IIDB couldn't argue their way out of a wet paper bag, and don't have the first clue about the nuts and bolts of metaphysical naturalism, much less the finer points of evolution and/or constitutional law as it pertains to CSS. Yet any one of them is free to make the most mind-bogglingly substanceless posts and be ignored at the worst, showered with not-worthy's at the best. Why should I suffer these fools and attack the self-identified religious folks?

[aeroz19]

Seebs, I hope you're right about them being a minority. Can't deny that they are a growing minority with an aggressive recruiting campaign, though - just look at the recent PotUS elections! They scare me. :(

I can't tell whether they're growing, or just organizing better. I do know that I've seen a few of 'em run into the real world and start being a lot more reasonable, so at least it's curable.

They've finally learned how to network online; they're organizing better. And that's not all. Because of the escalation of the debate on gay marriage and abortion, they have become even more extreme in their opinions on those issues. When I was a member of the religious right I was getting newsletters from the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, the ACLJ, and about 5 others just like those.

Then I found out about their stand on women's rights and the feminist movement. And I immediately got off the mailing lists.

But yeah, they have formed an immense online network where they zap out emails weekly, and some are even daily. They have contact information for every politician in every state, and they send you the info in the newsletters. They have formed a massive lobby for their ignorant and bigoted agendas.

[pzmyers]

In my opinion many of the atheists at IIDB couldn't argue their way out of a wet paper bag, and don't have the first clue about the nuts and bolts of metaphysical naturalism, much less the finer points of evolution and/or constitutional law as it pertains to CSS. Yet any one of them is free to make the most mind-bogglingly substanceless posts and be ignored at the worst, showered with not-worthy's at the best. Why should I suffer these fools and attack the self-identified religious folks?That is a most peculiar interpretation of my comments. Where did I suggest that we should be nice to fools who happen to be atheists? Or that atheism confers infallibility on people?

I'm saying that religion is patent nonsense, and we ought to be more vigorous in stating that. If nothing else, booting theistic idiocy out of the discussion right off the bat will let us get to more interesting issues quickly -- like correcting the errors of those atheists.

[viscousmemories]

That is a most peculiar interpretation of my comments. Where did I suggest that we should be nice to fools who happen to be atheists? Or that atheism confers infallibility on people?
Sorry, I was probably projecting that opinion on you since some others in recent months have accused me of coddling theists for daring to challenge the weak arguments and histrionics of atheists in various debates.

I'm saying that religion is patent nonsense, and we ought to be more vigorous in stating that. If nothing else, booting theistic idiocy out of the discussion right off the bat will let us get to more interesting issues quickly -- like correcting the errors of those atheists.
And all I'm saying is there's a time and a place, which is why I quoted your blog. You obviously take care not to be broadly offensive there, just as I do in philosophical discussions here. Early in this discussion you made it sound like people should take a vocal anti-religious stance at all times. I just don't think it's always productive to do so.

But I fully agree with having a zero tolerance policy for religious perspectives under certain circumstances, like for example in technical threads about evolution or whatever at a forum devoted to raising science awareness. Frankly I'd rather see the E/C forum at IIDB become just Evolution Science and have creationism relegated to GRD or something. I see no point in conflating creationism with real science.

[pzmyers]

But I fully agree with having a zero tolerance policy for religious perspectives under certain circumstances, like for example in technical threads about evolution or whatever at a forum devoted to raising science awareness. Frankly I'd rather see the E/C forum at IIDB become just Evolution Science and have creationism relegated to GRD or something. I see no point in conflating creationism with real science.Yes, although I haven't even glanced at iidb in I don't recall how long.

And I would add that among the places we should have zero tolerance for the religious perspective are: politics, education, international relations, the military, all science, environmental issues, family planning, economics, and many more.

An understanding of religion is essential for studying history, sociology, and psychopathology.

It would be nice to someday pare that last list down to just history.

[livius drusus]

Just to pick one example from your list, I don't see the difference between someone holding a political position because of their religious beliefs and someone holding the same or equivalent position because of personal non-religious moral standards. What's wrong with opposing slavery or supporting gay rights because of your reading of the Bible? Why should I care about where a moral stance comes from to the point of wishing religious perspectives eradicated?

[wildernesse]

Off topic, but pz, I could shake you for ever posting about Something awful on your blog. (Hands are not for hitting, TAC.) Do you know how many stories from there that RA has retold to me since then?!? Way, way too many, that's how many.

[seebs]

Indeed; I don't think we have a way to get away from the essentially arbitrary nature of human moral values, unless we presuppose an objective morality... In which case, we may as well admit that we don't know what it is yet.

[pzmyers]

Just to pick one example from your list, I don't see the difference between someone holding a political position because of their religious beliefs and someone holding the same or equivalent position because of personal non-religious moral standards. What's wrong with opposing slavery or supporting gay rights because of your reading of the Bible? Why should I care about where a moral stance comes from to the point of wishing religious perspectives eradicated?

Ends justify the means, how we arrive at an answer doesn't matter so long as we get the right answer? Are you really suggesting that?

It matters because you won't have any way to judge whether the answer you came up with is the right answer. Relying on the moral authoritarianism of religion is a crippling handicap.

If you derive your ethics from some simple, human principle like the Golden Rule, you'll have a metric for determining rightful action that isn't contingent on some godawful mess of archaic rules for xenophobes, or worse, the crazed interpretation of same by some ranting geezer.

Look at the evil wretches in our government trying to justify Abu Ghraib and torture. Good christians all. It doesn't look to me like religion has proven to be a very sensible guidebook for civilized behavior at all.

[livius drusus]

Sometimes it has; sometimes it hasn't. My point is not that I see no moral difference between the ends, but that I see no moral difference between the means.

I learned the Golden Rule from the Bible too, after all. I was a liberal non-denomenational Christian/apatheist until 6 or 7 years ago and I assure you my moral standards were very much informed by my interpretation of Christianity. I hold to the vast majority of them today. Does that mean my perspective should be eradicated too?

[wade-w]

I submit, pz, that the problem is not religion per se, but fanaticism. And fanaticism comes in all kinds of flavors, not just the religious.

[seebs]

Maybe I'm biased, but I don't see much difference between one person demanding that other views be excluded from government and another. The claim "moral values should not be grounded in religion" is as untestable an assertion as any other moral claim. No one's yet offered a way to get to moral claims without some serious assumptions involved.

The problem of people abusing an ethical system, or subverting it to their own ends, is not unique to religion. Should we rule out every belief system thus afflicted? The resulting rule ("no sapient life in government") does have its appeal sometimes, but I remain slightly skeptical that
it would be a very great improvement.

Who should set the rules about which belief systems should be excluded from government? By what authority?

[aeroz19]

Obliterating religion is not a cure -- there are plenty of other paths down the road to fascism. But at least it would be a step in the right direction, and it would remove one source of the problem, and one particularly easy handle that demagogues use to manipulate people.

But here's another problem: have you noticed how many liberals and atheists and secularists are so ready to pussyfoot around and make excuses for religion and conservativism? You cannot criticize them without someone rushing to say "...but..." and "...well,..." and "...on the other hand...". It sure would be nice to have someone stand up unabashedly for the principle.

I'm going to be doing it.

I'm willing to speak plainly on it.

Religion is a shameful thing, a foolish collection of outdated dogma and superstition, and the first step to getting it out of people's heads is to admit it and stop making apologies for it. And we need more people to get off the fence and join in the condemnation.

Until you can prove there is no god or supernatural, you shouldn't be so militant about it.

[Goliath]

Until you can prove there is no god or supernatural, you shouldn't be so militant about it.

Until you learn what atheism actually is, you shouldn't be so snide and dismissive of atheists.

[seebs]

Until you learn what atheism actually is, you shouldn't be so snide and dismissive of atheists.

Ahh, but she wasn't talking to atheists in general; she was talking to someone who was advancing specific claims.

[Goliath]

Ahh, but she wasn't talking to atheists in general; she was talking to someone who was advancing specific claims.

Where has pz claimed that no gods exist?

[aeroz19]

Until you can prove there is no god or supernatural, you shouldn't be so militant about it.

Until you learn what atheism actually is, you shouldn't be so snide and dismissive of atheists.

I was not snide and dismissive of atheists. And I do know what an atheist is. What you have said in rudeness to me is indicative that you simply don't like what I said.

Look, I come here because I like the open-mindedness. But this new sense of religious-hating fanaticism and extremism is not very much fun.

[aeroz19]

Until you learn what atheism actually is, you shouldn't be so snide and dismissive of atheists.

Ahh, but she wasn't talking to atheists in general; she was talking to someone who was advancing specific claims.

Exactly, seebs. Thank you.

[livius drusus]

It's not new, aeroz. A couple of people on this forum have espoused religion-hating from the very beginning. They're a tiny minority here, though.

[aeroz19]

Ahh, but she wasn't talking to atheists in general; she was talking to someone who was advancing specific claims.

Where has pz claimed that no gods exist?

It is blatantly assumed in all the anti-religious talk.

[aeroz19]

It's not new, aeroz. A couple of people on this forum have espoused religion-hating from the very beginning. They're a tiny minority here, though.

Yes I can see that...

[seebs]

Ahh, but she wasn't talking to atheists in general; she was talking to someone who was advancing specific claims.

Where has pz claimed that no gods exist?

Religion is a shameful thing, a foolish collection of outdated dogma and superstition

This makes no sense at all without strong atheism, and advancing a claim implies advancing its logical prerequisites.

[Goliath]

I was not snide and dismissive of atheists.

You certainly seemed that way to me.

And I do know what an atheist is.

An atheist is one who does not believe that any gods exist.

What you have said in rudeness to me is indicative that you simply don't like what I said.

Not just that, but it seemed to me like you were yet another xian drone who admanatly confuses atheism with strong atheism and refuses to acknowledge the fact that not all atheists are strong atheists. I can see now that you are not such a drone. My apologies.

But this new sense of religious-hating fanaticism and extremism is not very much fun.

Now you have a taste of how I feel almost every time that I tell someone irl that I am an atheist.

[aeroz19]

I haven't seen this happening, but then you think the virulently anti-religious environment at IIDB coddles theists, so we're not likely to agree on that. But what's with this crazy rhetoric? You're one of us or one of them. You're either vocally anti-religion and its adherents or an apologist and enemy of America? Is that seriously how you see things?

lol...

I believe in fighting the issues: CSS, abortion rights, protecting teaching evolution, etc. but I will never believe that people who believe in a god are damaged goods and I think the idea of targetting 'religion' is absurd. Religion is not going away. It seems more practical to try to convince believers to adopt a more humanistic (from my perspective) philosophy.

Yeah...some people, however, do believe this....

[Goliath]

This makes no sense at all without strong atheism,

Not really, no.

[aeroz19]

Ahh, but she wasn't talking to atheists in general; she was talking to someone who was advancing specific claims.

Where has pz claimed that no gods exist?

Religion is a shameful thing, a foolish collection of outdated dogma and superstition

This makes no sense at all without strong atheism, and advancing a claim implies advancing its logical prerequisites.

Thank you seebs, you beat me to it.

[Goliath]

It is blatantly assumed in all the anti-religious talk.

Wrong. I do not believe that no gods exist, and I'd be damn surprised if you could find another person on the planet who hates xianity more than I.

[aeroz19]

This makes no sense at all without strong atheism,

Not really, no.

"Religion is a shameful thing, a foolish collection of outdated dogma and superstition" clearly indicates the assumption that there is no god.

Do we agree?

[Goliath]

Do we agree?

Of course not.

[aeroz19]

It is blatantly assumed in all the anti-religious talk.

Wrong. I do not believe that no gods exist, and I'd be damn surprised if you could find another person on the planet who hates xianity more than I.

xianity was not mentioned.

RELIGION was mentioned, and therefore includes all subsets of all religions, therefore exluding God as a possibility.

You aren't thinking logically today.

[Goliath]

xianity was not mentioned.

RELIGION was mentioned.

Fine. I do not believe that no gods exist, and I doubt that you could find anyone who hates RELIGION more than I.

Are you happy, now? Are you ever happy?

And you don't seem to understand the difference between not believing that any gods exist and believing that no gods exist. A lack of belief is not a belief.

[aeroz19]

xianity was not mentioned.

RELIGION was mentioned.

Fine. I do not believe that no gods exist, and I doubt that you could find anyone who hates RELIGION more than I.

Are you happy, now? Are you ever happy?

Oh ok, so then you are an agnostic who hates religion.

[Goliath]

Oh ok, so then you are an agnostic who hates religion.

I do hate religion, but I am not an agnostic. I am a weak atheist.

[Dragar]

aeroz, while I woudn't dare speak for Goliath, here are the definitions I believe he may be using, so that you may better understand him:

Weak atheist - a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods.
Strong atheist - a person who believes in the non-existence of god or gods.

[Goliath]

Weak atheist - a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods.
Strong atheist - a person who believes in the non-existence of god or gods.

Correct.

[aeroz19]

Anyway, my claim was that the statement "Religion is a shameful thing, a foolish collection of outdated dogma and superstition" would, 99.999999% of the time indicate that the person stating it does not believe in the existance of a god.

The last part of the sentence specifically seems to indicate that belief in a god at all is superstitious, and therefore seems to claim that it is untrue.

Amazing how we can argue so much over the meaning of one sentence.

But I believe I am seeing your point now.

You think weird. ;)

[Dragar]

The last part of the sentence specifically seems to indicate that belief in a god at all is superstitious, and therefore seems to claim that it is untrue.

It doesn't claim it's untrue. It claims there is no reason to believe it is true. This is a crucial part.

[Goliath]

Anyway, my claim was that the statement "Religion is a shameful thing, a foolish collection of outdated dogma and superstition" would, 99.999999% of the time indicate that the person stating it does not believe in the existance of a god.

And I do not believe that your claim is true.

Amazing how we can argue so much over the meaning of one sentence.

Details are important.

But I believe I am seeing your point now.

That you are able and willing to comprehend the difference between atheism and strong atheism puts you far, far ahead of many (probably most) xians.

[aeroz19]

The last part of the sentence specifically seems to indicate that belief in a god at all is superstitious, and therefore seems to claim that it is untrue.

It doesn't claim it's untrue. It claims there is no reason to believe it is true. This is a crucial part.

Now we're getting somewhere.

And I, in response to THAT, am saying that unless there is a valid and proven reason for not believing in a god, or believing that there is no god, then the militantism is unjustified.

EDIT: FORGOT TO INCLUDE ESSENTIAL DATA
Assuming this for people who are in fact weak and strong atheists; not refering specifically to anyone.

[Goliath]

...unless there is a valid and proven reason for not believing in a god

Simple: I have yet to encounter a proof of the existence of a god.

[aeroz19]

...unless there is a valid and proven reason for not believing in a god

Simple: I have yet to encounter a proof of the existence of a god.

That isn't proof in and of itself, and it certainly isn't a justified reason for such militantism.

However, this (the italicized part) is subjective.

[Goliath]

That isn't proof in and of itself,

Correct. Now, pay attention:

I have never claimed, and will more than likely never claim that no gods exist.

[Sweetie]

This page proved absolutely nothing and if it was supposed to be some sort of end to an argument, then you should do better, especially if you are in a debate (which I am not in).

I do not understand why it seems to be so threatening for someone to accept that their religion has pagan elements in it that actually predated their religion. Gee, does that make them think that they are being accused of following a religion that was created by man, rather than divinity?

Beth, I am quite aware of what my religion is all about, I am aware of the things you can say against it, but I'm also aware of the rebuttles. If you say "it seems to be so threatening for someone to accept that their religion has pagan elements", you missed the point of my response. Similar to this therefore because of this, after this therefore because of this? You would have to show direct causation in order for you claim to stand, you would have to prove which one was newer, etc. Too, Catholicism is built on Judaism, Judaism itself is an ancient religio, even pointing to a time when there was a priesthood and believers, Abraham and Melchilzadek, but no really direct reference to how it was the Melchiazadek became a priest of this religion, in order to serve Abraham. It could be possible that Judaism, the foundational elements of Judaism came first. Too, Catholicism teaches of a God who is known in the heart, and too, who has expressed Himself in nature or in His creation. It is very possible for people to see him and try to personify Him in various different ways, etc., etc. There's alot to the subject and people have spent alot of time studying the subject. Now, if you had read an article or a book that says something different and you claim it as fact, ie: say there was an image expressed way back when of a Mother and her son and people say, oh, that's a pre-Christian thing in the pagans, I mean that claim would be ridiculous. There's alot of Mothers and Sons in this world, to claim causation and similarity in such an instance would be absurd.

Even St. Paul, when evangelizing the Romans, pointed to something in their very own belief system and said, "here, here is the God who was hidden, you already have some of Him." That's true of almost all religions, that is why Catholicism claims not to be the Truth while everybody else is in error but the Fullness of the Truth whereas pieces of Truth so to speak, can be seen in other relgions. We are not threatened by such claims, I am merely questioning the certainty of your opinion that a) Catholicism has pagan roots, not that Pagans have Jewish roots, etc. and the like. b) That Catholicism is Pagan.

Anyways, that's just what comes to my mind at the moment, but yes, I didn't really want to have a debate about it but as to the certainty of your claim, well, it is just not so obviously certain in the way you have stated it, not to me at least.

[aeroz19]

That isn't proof in and of itself,

Correct. Now, pay attention:

I have never claimed, and will more than likely never claim that no gods exist.

I'm done talking to you. Time for you to get a blood pressure reading.

[livius drusus]

:chuckle:

[Goliath]

I'm done talking to you.

So be it.

Time for you to get a blood pressure reading.

Not really, no. I'm actually relatively calm (but, now that you mention it, I'm getting really fucking sick of explaining to people that I'm calm when they refuse to believe otherwise).

I thought that you were both able and willing to understand the difference between atheism and strong atheism. I guess I was wrong.

[viscousmemories]

Ahh, but she wasn't talking to atheists in general; she was talking to someone who was advancing specific claims.
Where has pz claimed that no gods exist?
Religion is a shameful thing, a foolish collection of outdated dogma and superstition
This makes no sense at all without strong atheism, and advancing a claim implies advancing its logical prerequisites.
So wait, you mean we're just supposed to take pz's statement that religion is "a shameful thing, a foolish collection of outdated dogma and superstition" as evidence that he's not religious? Not on your life, buddy. I want proof.

[Beth]

Even St. Paul, when evangelizing the Romans, pointed to something in their very own belief system and said, "here, here is the God who was hidden, you already have some of Him." That's true of almost all religions, that is why Catholicism claims not to be the Truth while everybody else is in error but the Fullness of the Truth whereas pieces of Truth so to speak, can be seen in other relgions. We are not threatened by such claims, I am merely questioning the certainty of your opinion that a) Catholicism has pagan roots, not that Pagans have Jewish roots, etc. and the like. b) That Catholicism is Pagan.

Anyways, that's just what comes to my mind at the moment, but yes, I didn't really want to have a debate about it but as to the certainty of your claim, well, it is just not so obviously certain in the way you have stated it, not to me at least.Sweetie, I'm sorry, I do not quite fully understand the full post to really comment too much on it and I have learned from trying to interpret others.

What I do gather is that you believe that the Catholic Church is the fullness of the truth, which to me means the same as "the only really good and true religion because everyone else has only bits of the truth".

I also know that you made a false claim as to me saying the church is pagan. I clearly stated that I never made such a claim. I do hold firm to the claim that some of the church practices and observances have pagan roots. That does not mean that the church is, itself, pagan, it just means there are some religious practices withing the church that seem to incorporate paganism and Christianity. Please show me in the OT where worship or prayer to the dead (Saints) is allowed and was not thought to be a pagan practice.

And I do not understand what you mean about the uncertainty of what I had said. I thought I was very direct and concise. If you will, what did you not understand about it?

[Sweetie]

[QUOTE=Sweetie]


[quote]What I do gather is that you believe that the Catholic Church is the fullness of the truth, which to me means the same as "the only really good and true religion because everyone else has only bits of the truth".

The point, in context, was that the claim is not threatening which you asked, "why is it so threatening?" It's not, is the point.

But yes, I happen to think the Catholicism is true or I would not be Catholic. If I thought atheism was true/most accurate expression of reality, etc., then I would be an atheist. If I thought Buddhism was true, then I'd be Buddhist.

As it stands as is, however, I think there is some truth to atheism and Buddhism, but that which I think is true is already reflected in my own religion.

"And I do not understand what you mean about the uncertainty of what I had said.----> I do hold firm to the claim that some of the church practices and observances have pagan roots.

Just for the sake of clarity. You may stand firm in that claim, my question is, can you demonstrate causality and I was just saying that I do not think that claim is as certain as you think it is, even though you are certain/stand firm in that opinion.

The Jews believed in sheol and there's the instance of Samual being awoken from the dead. I think he supposedly said something like, "why did you wake me up" with the impression that it was a disturbance. Of course, our doctrines of the afterlife are extensions of Jewish doctrines. Sheol/hell=hades/prison/the dead ---->Christ descended to the dead/hell/sheol and set some of the captives free. Prior Christ, there were no saints in heaven to pray to. Hmmm, then there's, hm, the Jews, when someone dies, pray for them and offer sacrifices for them for a year, I think it's called? What is it called? Ack, what is this practice called? Can't remember.

Prayers for the dead is an example of the Communion of Saints. As the Church would put it:

The Church Militant - Church on earth.
The Church Penitent - Church in purgatory.
The Church Triumphant - Church in heaven.

Those on earth can request prayers from those in heaven and can pray for those in purgatory. Those in purgatory cannot pray but can receive the products of prayers, those in heaven cannot receive the product of prayer because of course, they are already in heaven, but they can pray for those on earth and in purgatory I think, though I'm not sure about whether they can pray for those in purgatory, hm.

[Beth]

The Jews believed in sheol and there's the instance of Samual being awoken from the dead. I think he supposedly said something like, "why did you wake me up" with the impression that it was a disturbance. Sheol was used in 1 Sam. 2:6 :
"The Lord kills and makes us alive; He brings down to the grave (Sheol) and brings up." Sheol was traditionally referred to as a place for the dead, both unrighteous and righteous, it was a place of silence in the Jewish faith.

Saul committed a sin by seeking a medium to commune with Samuel. Incidentally, mediums, those who communed with the dead, were to be put to death by stoning.

Torah-ists do not see a specific example of heaven or hell, nor demons in the Torah and they believe the Torah is the only divinely inspired text. They believe that the concept of hell and demons come from influences of Babylonian religions that were introduced during Babylonian exile and from introduction to Zoasterism. There are susequent symbolisms and elusions to such things in the Talmund and the Prophets. They believe that sheol is simply the grave.


Of course, our doctrines of the afterlife are extensions of Jewish doctrines. Sheol/hell=hades/prison/the dead ---->Christ descended to the dead/hell/sheol and set some of the captives free. Prior Christ, there were no saints in heaven to pray to. Hmmm, then there's, hm, the Jews, when someone dies, pray for them and offer sacrifices for them for a year, I think it's called? What is it called? Ack, what is this practice called? Can't remember.
The Kaddish is the mourner's prayer it is a prayer that is recited for 11 months. It goes like this:
May His great Name grow exalted and sanctified (Cong. Amen.) in the world that He created as He willed. May He give reign to His kingship in your lifetimes and in your days, and in the lifetimes of the entire Family of Israel, swiftly and soon. Now respond: Amen. (Cong Amen. May His great Name be blessed forever and ever.)
May His great Name be blessed forever and ever. Blessed, praised, glorified, exalted, extolled, mighty, upraised, and lauded be the Name of the Holy One, Blessed is He (Cong. Blessed is He) beyond any blessing and song, praise and consolation that are uttered in the world. Now respond: Amen.
(Cong. Amen).
May there be abundant peace from Heaven, and life upon us and upon all Israel. Now respond: Amen. (Cong. Amen). He Who makes peace in His heights, may He make peace, upon us and upon all Israel. Now respond: Amen. (Cong. Amen)

This is the prayer usually prayed, not really for the purification of the dead, but to make the mourner publicly reaffirm his faith in God every day to keep him from hating God or denying faith in God. The Macabbees does speak of sacrifices made for soldiers slain who wore pagan good luck charms, but I see no other offering for the dead. The Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) is the traditional holy day that the chatat was offered for sacrificial Atonement for sin.

I do not see a strong example in Kaddish that the Jews are praying for their dead relatives. Nor do I see that as a Jewish root in the prayer to and the communion of the Saints.

[Clutch Munny]

aeroz, here is the situation: pz says religion is bunk. You say he has to be able to prove there is no god, if he's going to say that.

But your claim is wrong twice over.

First, the claim that religion is bunk is logically unrelated to the existence of gods. One could believe fervently in one god or twenty, while holding that religion, the collection of institutions that grow up among many such believers, is daft, harmful, a den of superstition and a breeding ground for hatred. Conversely one could find all manner of benefits in a religion that countenanced little or nothing like Abrahamic theism. Some Eastern belief systems are sometimes described as atheistic religions.

Second, even if one thought that religion's being bunk rested on some belief about the existence of gods, there is no requirement to prove the non-existence of any god in order to reject the claim that there is one. Compare: Anyone claiming that there exist flying horses is a wingnut. Really, nutty. And that's a reasonable assessment of the situation even though nobody can prove to a logico-mathematical certainty that there are no flying horses. It's enough that there's none of the evidence that we'd expect to see if there were some.

None of this is to say that pz's complaints about religion are correct, though.

[viscousmemories]

First, the claim that religion is bunk is logically unrelated to the existence of gods. One could believe fervently in one god or twenty, while holding that religion, the collection of institutions that grow up among many such believers, is daft, harmful, a den of superstition and a breeding ground for hatred.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I use 'religion' to mean "belief in the supernatural", and "organized religion" when I'm referring to the collection of institutions built up around that belief. So I took pz's expressed disdain for religion as an implicit denial of the existence of god(s). Hence my flippant tacit agreement with seebs earlier that pz's comments make no sense coming from someone who believes in god(s). But I agree of course that pz needn't prove god(s) non-existence to assert his unbelief.

[seebs]

First, the claim that religion is bunk is logically unrelated to the existence of gods. One could believe fervently in one god or twenty, while holding that religion, the collection of institutions that grow up among many such believers, is daft, harmful, a den of superstition and a breeding ground for hatred.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I use 'religion' to mean "belief in the supernatural", and "organized religion" when I'm referring to the collection of institutions built up around that belief. So I took pz's expressed disdain for religion as an implicit denial of the existence of god(s). Hence my flippant tacit agreement with seebs earlier that pz's comments make no sense coming from someone who believes in god(s). But I agree of course that pz needn't prove god(s) non-existence to assert his unbelief.

Well, to a certain extent, we have the advantage of being able to look at a long history of posting, and not having to look at a single post out of context; from that, we can draw reasonable conclusions about pz's positions.

[aeroz19]

First, the claim that religion is bunk is logically unrelated to the existence of gods. One could believe fervently in one god or twenty, while holding that religion, the collection of institutions that grow up among many such believers, is daft, harmful, a den of superstition and a breeding ground for hatred.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I use 'religion' to mean "belief in the supernatural", and "organized religion" when I'm referring to the collection of institutions built up around that belief. So I took pz's expressed disdain for religion as an implicit denial of the existence of god(s). Hence my flippant tacit agreement with seebs earlier that pz's comments make no sense coming from someone who believes in god(s). But I agree of course that pz needn't prove god(s) non-existence to assert his unbelief.

That's what I was initially doing. If someone believes in the existance of a god or anything supernatural, that makes them religious.

[Beth]

Sweetie, I also want to add that I respect your opinion and that I was not trying to slight you by saying I did not understand your post. I feel kinda sick and have been homebound for a while, so I am a little terse. So I apologize if i hurt your feelings.

[Clutch Munny]

First, the claim that religion is bunk is logically unrelated to the existence of gods. One could believe fervently in one god or twenty, while holding that religion, the collection of institutions that grow up among many such believers, is daft, harmful, a den of superstition and a breeding ground for hatred.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I use 'religion' to mean "belief in the supernatural", and "organized religion" when I'm referring to the collection of institutions built up around that belief. So I took pz's expressed disdain for religion as an implicit denial of the existence of god(s).

pz's denial of the existence of gods is explicit; as seebs notes, we needn't guess at it. My post concerned that specific claim that in order to call religion a shameful thing, one must be able to disprove the existence of gods.

It's enough for the first problem I raised that the use of 'religion' is vague on the question of whether it essentially requires theism; vagueness alone would block the inference from criticizing religion to criticizing theism.

The more important problem, in any case, and the one Goliath seized upon, is that rejecting the existence of god does not require proving their non-existence.

Hence my flippant tacit agreement with seebs earlier that pz's comments make no sense coming from someone who believes in god(s). But I agree of course that pz needn't prove god(s) non-existence to assert his unbelief.

Without exhaustively combing through his remarks, I think most of what he said could coherently have been said by a curmudgeonly deist holding superstition and interventionist theism in contempt. But I'm not wedded to the idea. As I say, the question I was raising is not what pz actually thinks, but rather what the claim in question commits one to.

[viscousmemories]

The more important problem, in any case, and the one Goliath seized upon, is that rejecting the existence of god does not require proving their non-existence.
In my opinion Goliath didn't seize on an important problem, he created one. Aeroz never asserted that one must prove god(s) non-existence before rejecting it. Her initial comment to pz was:

Until you can prove there is no god or supernatural, you shouldn't be so militant about it.

That seems like a relatively uncontroversial opinion to me. I've re-read all the posts since a couple times, and I don't see her making any assertions or demanding any evidence of god(s) non-existence. It seems to me she's just arguing that militancy without certainty is unreasonable.

[pzmyers]

Until you can prove there is no god or supernatural, you shouldn't be so militant about it.

That seems like a relatively uncontroversial opinion to me. I've re-read all the posts since a couple times, and I don't see her making any assertions or demanding any evidence of god(s) non-existence. It seems to me she's just arguing that militancy without certainty is unreasonable.

And that is a ridiculous argument. Of course it is reasonable to oppose irrationality where ever one finds it.

It's also typical theistic tactics. When one holds absurd opinions, asserting the existence of the invisible, intangible, and undetectable, it's very convenient to be able to throw the burden of evidence on the other guy.

[Clutch Munny]

Until you can prove there is no god or supernatural, you shouldn't be so militant about it.

That seems like a relatively uncontroversial opinion to me. I've re-read all the posts since a couple times, and I don't see her making any assertions or demanding any evidence of god(s) non-existence. It seems to me she's just arguing that militancy without certainty is unreasonable.

Sorry, you missed me. First, of course it's a demand for proof, in the sense of "prove it or else stop being so militant". Second, if it's uncontroversial that militancy without certainty is unreasonable, then it's uncontroversial that all militancy is unreasonable. Certainty is the Sasquatch; sometimes glimpsed, never found. In essence, the same considerations showing that certainty is not required for rejecting the existence of gods show that certainty is not required to justify strong measures, strong opinions, or righteous anger.

Again, none of which is to say that pz is right in this case.

[viscousmemories]

Sorry I missed the last two posts until now.

And that is a ridiculous argument. Of course it is reasonable to oppose irrationality where ever one finds it.
She said militancy, not opposition. I think there's a signficant difference.

Sorry, you missed me. First, of course it's a demand for proof, in the sense of "prove it or else stop being so militant".
Not sure why you thought I was trying to "get you", but anyway...

Aeroz stated an opinion that people who aren't certain of themselves shouldn't be militant in promoting their views. It's an opinion I happen to agree with, and as far as I'm concerned the claim that her opinion is invalid because she was supposedly demanding proof of something unprovable is specious.

I see absolutely no difference between what she said and saying people shouldn't be arrogant pricks in general, given the fact that we're all presumably just doing the best we can to understand and make judgements about the world with what information and faculties we have; which is another opinion I hold.