That’s sweet, but until your girlfriend spends millions on advertising and influencing politicians her opinion on Christianity won’t mean jack shit to anyone but her close friends. Can any of you come up with top tier people that represent Christianity as you believe it should be? You know-the ones that can get on the major networks to make their points, and pay for the big stadiums in major cities for rallies? The ones that do this represent Christianity to the public at large whether you like it or not.
His views are not extremist at all. He simply chooses more blunt language to present them than most would, including myself, becuase I prefer to avoid confrontation with crazies.
Well, I would consider that extremist- there is no compromise with him. It’s all or none.
He believes not in Religion and Atheism being equally tolerated and equally respected, and having equal say (which is what I believe should be the middle ground), but rather in one side being HEAVILY favored over the other.
I’d rather just have Atheists have a completely equal footing, and to have a separation of church and state. If an individual is religious that’s not a concern to me, much like their sexuality. It’s only if they choose to impose their beliefs on me would I have an issue with it.
That’s I think the middle ground.
I’m thinking DT probably wants MORE than that.
Problem being that everyone else shushes him. It’s not very effective is it? One of the funny (and sometime quite annoying) things about human interaction is that many people have tremendous respect for and will listen to likeable personable polite idiots who are totally wrong while ignoring abrasive impolite people who are completely correct.
What I am pointing out is that I am entirely on board when it comes to the question of what religion might deserve, but I think there is another question namely what will be effective against it.
Can you name some atheists that get listened to by religionists?
Reverand Spong? Eh, I guess NPR doesn’t count.
Responding to what you said upthread, most Americans receive their exposure to Christianity… via their local church. The Salvation Army, AA, etc. also play a role. It’s the nonchristians for whom Christianity seems equivalent to Fundamentalism.
One problem is that mainline Christians and pre-Fundamentalist churches often believe religion to be a private matter. So engaging with the Falwells, Robertsons, Bakkers and other showbiz types sort of defeats the purpose. “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.”
Promoting traditional quiet piety is a challenge.
Polycarp listens to everybody. And quite a few religionists like ecumenicalism and have gotten over their problems with atheism.
ETA: Point taken though. It’s not like politeness changes minds all that well.
Heck, the religions didn’t spread through politeness, either. It was all conquest and conversion and putting folks to the sword and such.
Giving equal respect and equal say is only of merit if both sides are valid viewpoints. But religion and atheism are not equally valid: one is the most probable explanation based on our current understanding of the world, and the other is a bunch of illogical bronze-age mumbo-jumbo.
You know, it’s really annoying when people act like neutrality has inherent merit, no matter how one-sided the situation really is.
That’s because the religious side is completely and utterly baseless, not to mention silly. WHY should religion be given “equal time”? Why, exactly, should it be treated any more seriously than someone claiming that the world is secretly run by invisible gnomes?
Atheism is and should be the logical default; there IS no rational reason to believe there is any such thing as a god. When some actual evidence of gods shows up; THEN you can reasonably claim that equal consideration should be given to both sides. But until then, there’s no reason to look at religion as anything other than baseless nonsense that happens to be popular and powerful. I rather doubt you’d be calling me extreme if I was mocking the claim that the world is hollow and filled with chocolate; a claim that is actually more plausible than the existence of God.
And yet both are inferior to empirical agnosticism, the only truly rigorous belief system. Via supreme coincidence it happens to be what I subscribe to.
Czarcasm, me for a start. I have a number of friends who I have gradually influenced away from religion. I wouldn’t even be friends let alone have influenced them if I’d just told them they were insane and their beloved church was evil. Even if they were insane and their church evil.
I don’t think this is right. Of course what you say has occurred, but a lot of religion is spread by procreation, by love-bombing and providing a community focal point, by giving people comforting answers. The superstition stuff is sold as part of a package, and most of the package is community support and involvement. Even if the underlying basis is actually quite subtly insidious, it is politely done.
Furthermore, even to the extent that you are correct, it’s irrelevant to my particular point which is that **Der Trihs’ **tactics are ineffective. Atheists aren’t in a position to fight religion by conquest and conversion, since we don’t have the numbers (not that I’m suggesting it would be the right thing to do anyway, but you see my point).
The other thing to bear in mind is that Militant atheism seems to be a largely US phenomenon. Sure, I see people at uni reading “The God Delusion” or any of the other Richard Dawkins books, but really, my experience is that people in Australia and New Zealand really don’t care if you’re religious or not, as long as they don’t have to hear about it one way or the other.
Well, to simply things, I view it as Linus and his Security Blanket. For some people, religion is that security blanket. It’s something that not everyone needs, but it doesn’t harm him to HAVE it per se (though in peanuts he did tend to get all religious and try to spread the word, but still).
Basically, that’s how religion should be- it should be there for the people who need it, and the people who don’t can pass on it. I say if it doesn’t HARM someone, then why not allow them to have it. Like meditation, acupuncture, or placebos. As long as they are not skipping out on actual medical cares, or trying to force others to follow it, what harm is there in allowing it to occur? Now I admit that most religions don’t work this way at all, that’s why I do find myself agreeing with.
But in MY perfect world, I think religion would be a valid option but not something that needs to be for everyone. As long as it doesnt harm anyone else, there is no reason that I should dictate your beliefs, views, or practices. It’s only when your such things start to affect my own views should I begin to be concerned about them.
That’s because Australia and New Zealand aren’t as religious as the US. You don’t see the dark side of the thing as much, although there have been some issues with Muslims at least in Australia.
That’s a racial/xenophobial issue rather than a religious one, unfortunately.
There’s nothing wrong with hating an institution. If he was out there “hating” people, i.e., physically harming them, or blocking the doors to their religious buildings, you’d have an argument. I hate on an emotional level, too. That doesn’t mean it spills over into actions that harm people. Der Trihs’s vocalization of his anger toward religion IS productive. There’s nothing wrong with saying, “Back off. You’re HARMING me,” which is what religion is doing in this country. It’s self-defense. Sometimes we need to speak louder than the voices in their heads.
::starts digging::
See? Proof that Der Trihs words do influence people!
IMO, the worst you can say about Der Trihs is that it appears as if he engages in debating the retarded, and he doesn’t cut them any slack. That makes a lot of people uncomfortable, as if he was beating up on one of Jerry’s Kids.