We’re in agreement there.
:smack: Permit me to rephrase that:
The hypothetical Jehovah would be far nastier than the real Jackson or whoever wantonly killed off a big chunk of one’s group, if he existed.
I can see why you would say that. I do, however, see it differently and for a reason that I would not expect you to accept. I just wouldn’t expect you to reason that because I accept something you don’t, I am worthless.
Liberal pitting Der Trihs. It’s a perfect storm of nutjobbery.
Nope, I don’t automatically think less of you. I wonder how you can reconcile that faith with “thou shalt not coerce,” though.
I chose the wording intentionally. The difference is I did not shout at her nor did I hit her with a brick nor do I think it would be appropriate to do either. The point is, while I may harbor irrational intense feelings, I never, not for a single instant believe that some super being with authority whispers in my ear that it is ok to hit little old women with bricks. And if I did hear a voice telling me that I would seek psychiatric help. Listen to religious right rhetoric, watch what religious people do all over the world then tell me it’s all about peace and love. They pay lip service to it but their actions speak louder.
The problem with this is that atheist governments do the same damned thing. Look at the Soviet Union and North Korea. Governed by avowed atheists, they systematically sought to overthrow religious orders to “free” their people, many of whom got wiped out right alongside their religion. Look at China. Being an outspoken Christian in China is a good way to get killed or sent to a happy camp. It’s not just the religion talking here.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Religions aren’t peaceful or violent. People are peaceful or violent, and they cloak their peace or violence in religious terms. Take away the religion, and you’ll find they’re just as awful to each other. The only thing that changes is the rhetoric.
The same religions that tell violent people to hit each other with bricks (which, I might add, that old woman wasn’t prepared to do, unless you left something out of the story) tell peaceful people to build orphanages and schools, give to charities, and generally go out of their way to be nice to people.
So you’re worried that religion might take hold of the law and segregation of church and state might be damaged? I am too, but I don’t blame religion in general for that, nor do I blame all religious people. The answer to this threat is to get politically active and defeat the groups who do this, not to scream your head off about how religious people are teh crazy. Believe me, when you and DT do this, it helps the religious loonies more than all the street preachers in the world, because when you do this, the theists look at people like me and lump us in with people like you. Then they vote for laws that damage separation. Do you want to give the religious nutjobs more power? Just keep this shit up.
I’m not saying he avoids Pit threads ingeneral, just pittings of himself.
Oh, and John? Fuck you, too.
Well, coercion is nonresponsive (i.e., initial) force. Libertarianly, one may think of God as the owner of the universe. If He uses force to defend His property, it is not coercive. (And no, that’s not what I was alluding to before.)
Merry Christmas.
Well, now you’re just being mean.
Funny, to me it’s religious people that need a god that presupposes that their son died ONLY FOR THEM that could be said to be in need of getting over themselves.
It’s the agnostic’s view that the universe is impersonal and doesn’t care. That’s about as “over yourself” as one can get, it seems to me.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Religions aren’t peaceful or violent. People are peaceful or violent, and they cloak their peace or violence in religious terms. Take away the religion, and you’ll find they’re just as awful to each other. The only thing that changes is the rhetoric.
As a practical matter, I think you’re right that any attempt at removing religion society-wide is by necessity seemingly borne of the same absolutist thinking that dogs religion in the first place so the best practice is to do what you suggest at the end of your thread: maintaining separation of church and state.
In theory though, I do think that some ideas are more harmful than others when taken together with their sum totals of assets and liabilities to mankind. There’s a whole thread (Religious Evil) about my view on that so I won’t belabor the idea here, and I certainly wouldn’t claim that it’s conclusive and self-evident that religion is obviously the ‘cause’ of evil behavior in every case, but I don’t think it’s conclusive and clear that the world would be the exact same in terms of net good/bad without religion.
As for tactics, while I have found myself afoul of DT once or twice and vice versa and I have to agree on someone’s point upthread that he seems to often jump into a thread to comment in a way that hijacks it, I have to also say that he’s often right though tactless and that I think change needs people like him; I think ultimately both the MLK and Malcolm X approaches are needed (to make a comparison) to eventually affect change notwithstanding Malcolm’s ultimate ideological adjustments. In the Middle East, Fatah and Israel are negotiating because Hamas is over there taking the heat off of Fatah making them look moderate by comparison.
So, while I do think he can be a dick and is certainly not trying to be diplomatic AT ALL (even when it may serve his interests), I’m glad his positions are presented in such clear, unambiguous terms. It’s clarifying and sometimes a breath of fresh air from what seems to me to be the obfuscating, fuzzy thinking of the religious.
One thing that some atheists overlook is that some of us Christians are just as worried about the segregation of church and state being damaged. I may be Christian, but I’m against prayer in schools and for gay marriage and keeping abortion legal. Not to mention, my father’s an agnostic and one of my best friends is Wiccan. When the revolution comes, while I may not be up against the wall with Linty Fresh and Der Trihs, I figure I either won’t be far behind them or I’ll be working like hell for the resistance.
America’s founding fathers had experience with state-run and state-imposed religion and chose to reject it, something some of my co-religionists overlook. In England, Catholics were persecuted and seen as dangerous until well into the 1700’s and Catholics weren’t granted the same rights as Anglicans until after the American Revolution (information from here). Somehow, I get the feeling that if the current lot opposing the separation of church and state gets their way, Anglicans may fare about as well under them as the Catholics did under the Anglicans! :eek:
I don’t agree with this statement.
Just what are you talking about. I don’t go around posting my disgust with religion in every thread. I made comments in this thread because they were pertinent to this thread. Or do you just want to shout down anyone who voices a divergent opinion.
As to your tired counter argument of China and the Soviets, the only reason they persecuted the religious was because those institutions tended to detract from their absolute control of the populace. Neither regime wants a competitor for the hearts and minds of its population. They did not persecute the religious in the service of atheistic beliefs. Atheists are not like religionists we are not a group we are not defined by what we believe but simply what we do not believe.
I agree. By the way, that quote you’ve got as me was actually a quote of someone else that I was including in my reply just to clarify.
But yes, and then you’re just left with the countermanding considerations of people’s right to guns, etc. but I do believe religion contributes to evil in a way that goes beyond its mere use as an excuse. I think there is such a thing as people who are genuinely motivated by their religious beliefs to do evil, as I’ve stated about 9/11.
I’m with you, askeptic. The only adjustment I (try) to make is that I suppose (for the sake of my own sanity) that when a little old lady adds that other jesus loves you part (which can be seen as condescending), it’s just her way of saying ‘drink milk, it’s good for your bones’ – in other words, to her it’s just trying to be helpful.
It’s delusional, of course, there is no jesus and she’s mistaken in my view but I just have to ascribe it to using religion to be pushy about trying to help or have power.
Besides, there’s never any bricks around LOL
Tell that to the Russian Jews under Stalin.
Me neither, I was incorrectly quoting; I forgot to put quotes around the bold part.
Yes, that’s very much equivalent to askeptic taking someone’s statement of general faith as a personal insult. You’ve made a very strong point by that comparison.