No but it is an orientation toward religion, thus a ‘persuasion’. 
No, not acceptable(to me at least). I think you are fully aware of the connotations of the phrase “religious persuasion”.
I’m not really an honoring-parents kind of guy, actually. I’m nice to them and all, but there are limits.
Cherry-picking and blind rule-following each have their own sets of pitfalls. Blind rule-following obviously makes you a tool of whatever agenda wrote our rules, which will put you somewhere on the continuum between inflexible and retarded and dangerous, depending. Cherry-picking, on the other hand, is only bad if you’re inconsistent about it. That is, if you yank out the table and claim that one of the bottles is still supported by the table. If you’re not doing that, then arugably you’re not cherry-picking at all.
It really comes down to 1) why to you accept the bits you accept, and 2) why do you say you accept the bits you accept. If either of those is “because the Good Book says so”, then you’re cherry picking, intellecually bankrupt, etc. If they’re both “because it seems like a good idea to me”, then, well, you’re not really referencing the text at all, are you? You could have just as well read the Koran or a philosophy text and gleaned the same ideas from them, or just thought your good ideas up on your own. If the fact it’s in the bible/given by God is irrelevent to your acceptance or claimed acceptance of it, then you’re not cherry-picking - you’re in the same boat as the atheist who says “okay, not everything in the bible is the product of a black and tainted soul - some of the ideas in there are okay. They didn’t come from any God, though.”
I’m not sure it’s possible to be a christian and do this, though - to do so you have to mentally deny that there is a shred of divinity in Christ or the bible, lest it give your selections unjustified weight.
Here are what I see as the alternate approaches: merely screening out the obviously bad ideas and keeping the rest due to faith in the bible and God, which is cherrypicking/dishonest/immoral/etc.; and just doing whatever you want and using a brutally-cherrypicked bible as a deliberate justification for your repugnant attitudes and action, which is obviously even worse. So you have to watch out for these - and as I said, I think if you’re a self-proclaimed Christian you almost have to be doing at least the former, at least to some degree.
The thought did recently cross my mind that Pat Robertson has been doing a heckuva job making our case for us for years and years. Still, it’s not like we made up Pat Robertson, and I’m pretty sure he hasn’t secretly been on the take from the Atheist Conspiracy all this time. And Pat Robertson isn’t, say, Fred Phelps, who gets a lot of attention but who really is an isolated, near-universally loathed nutcase whose followers would fit in a (smallish) room. Pat Robertson really has been a major figure in American religion and politics for decades; his influence and that of his organizations have waned, but he has been replaced by newer groups and leaders on the Religious Right/“social conservative” wing of American politics who are probably better than he is only to the extent that they don’t shoot their mouths of quite so much as Pat (or the late Jerry Falwell).
I think Der Trihs is exaggerating, but he is literally telling the truth about atheists being “the top in distrusted groups”–at least, that was true as of March 2006. As of 2007, over half of Americans would still be unwilling to vote for an atheist for President (not some specific atheist, mind you, but just the concept of an atheist as President of the United States).
The equation of “atheist” and “immoral” has been widespread and deep-seated in America (and the Western world in general). It’s good that non-fundamentalist believers, at least, are beginning to get away from that. But it’s still very much out there, and I don’t think everyone who is responding to these polls can be some snake-handling whack-job.
I think it’s rather confusing cause and effect to suggest that distrust of atheists is really caused much by “hostility from atheists”. Those attitudes I cited above didn’t come about in response to the “new atheism”–which is, after all, new. In fact, things have almost certainly been getting better. At least in theory, nearly half of Americans would vote for an atheist for President! I’m sure that number would be lower in 1986, and way lower in 1956. During earlier decades, it was routine for public leaders of all stripes to dismiss atheists as “un-American” (and presumptively Communistic) without that being even a remotely controversial idea (from 1954, “An atheistic American is a contradiction in terms”); whereas several recent presidents (including even George W. Bush) have included throwaway references to “Americans of no faith” (as being still good Americans) in speeches.
The angry, militant, in-your-face “new atheism” is a reaction to generations of distrust and hostility, coming not just from fundamentalists but from (previous generations, at least) of “mainstream” religious leaders as well. (Add in the fact that we’re not even confronting the admittedly truly atheistic Communists any more, but are now in a “long twilight struggle” against groups of fanatic mass-murdering monotheists, and it makes continued atheist-bashing all the more infuriating.)
Like the “mad as hell and not gonna take it any more” wings of similar movements for minority rights or acceptance, this newfound militance can be pretty strident, and probably sometimes goes overboard or paints with too broad a brush. The fact is, though, that few movements for social change succeed solely with words of sweet reason and gentle persuasion.
You’re right I am.
Do you honestly not know what he meant? Fundie Christians and Fundi atheists are equally certain about something that neither can prove or disprove.
It’s one thing to say, “I don’t belive in God, a god or gods.” Quite another to say, “I affirmatively know that there is no God, a god or gods.” The latter is infested with the same arrogance and delusion that convinces the young earth creationists that the fossils were planted by evolutionists.
What about “I don’t believe in God, a god, or gods; and I affirmatively know that there is no God or gods of definitions a, b, or c?”
(I’m guessing “omnipotent, omniscient, good”) - I still think “know” is a little strong. You don’t. “Believe,” fine. “Know,” nope.
How about “the God of the Holy Trinity, who inspired the 66 Books of the Old and New Testaments as His perfect and inerrant Word, and Who created the world–and separately, all kinds of living things–within the last 10,000 years, as recounted in Genesis, and thereafter sent a Deluge over the whole surface of the world, leaving behind abundant evidence of His work which can only be denied out of human pride and wickedness”?
Which is an awfully specific definition, I’ll admit, but hardly one I just made up out of whole cloth.
Also, what standard of proof do you apply to Zeus or Thor or Quetzalcoatl?
Depending on who you think you’re painting with “fundie atheist” (what a bizarre term!), you’re wrong. I’m a strident and argumentive atheist, but the position I hold so firmly (to put it succinctly) isn’t that I’m right, it’s that you’re wrong. There is a huge difference between being certain that no god or godlike creature whatsoever exists, and being certain that the Christian god is a load of hooey. The former is unprovable, but very strong arguments can be made for the latter.
I can’t tell you that there are no gods. But God? Yeah. It’s not arrogance and delusion, no matter how much theists might wish to drag us down to their level.
If it looks like a theist and quacks like a theist it must be atheist. 
I consider “believe with 100% certainty” and “know” to be synonymous phrases.
And I believe with 100% certainty that the POE has never been countered.
ETA: well, not effectively countered, anyway.
This would be a funnier pun if it weren’t slanderous.
It might also be funnier if you weren’t super-sensitive about areligion.
Why is it bizarre? A fundmanetalist is a strict adherent. No room for doubt. How is it bizarre to describe someone’s atheism as fundamentalist?
Assuming you mean the general “you” and not specifcially me (since you have no idea what I belive), okay, that seems to mean you’re not a Christian. You do realize you can be “not Christian” and still not be atheist, right?
Again? Is “God” supposed to be the Christian god? Because right now, you’ve convninced me you’re not Christian and you’re sure the Christian god doesn’t exist. I don’t know how that makes you an atheist, especially when you admit that you “can’t tell me that there are no gods,” which I interpet to mean you can’t be certain that there is no such thing as a god. Might I introduce you to agnosticism
Sensitivity is relative, my friend - all any insult is is the assignment of a person to an undesireable category (like, for example, moron or shithead). Some people might like a given category that others might find undesirable (like “girl”). But to deliberately apply a category that you know is undesired is, well, not allowed in this forum when applied to a person specifically. They way you’re doing it is merely insulting and deliberately rude.
They’re not. One is subjective. One is objective.
Might I introduce you to a bit more in-depth discussion of atheism and agnosticism?
Seriously? You’re upset that he compared atheists to theists? Insulting? Rude? Somebody’s athinskinned.
Oh, garbage. Saying “I know there is no God” is no more arrogant that saying there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny.
The argument you are making is just yet another attempt to insist that religion get special treatment. If it was some other claim that had no evidence, was wildly inconsistent and contradicted physical law, saying that “I don’t believe in X” would be unexceptionable. But because it is religion, we are all supposed to pretend that some of the silliest, most self indulgent fantasies ever created are actually worth taking seriously. We are supposed to pretend that there is a real chance that the believers are right.