Very sorry for the duplication of one small portion of above post.
Netscape was doing funny things when I tried typing it up in it (too long?). Crashed at one point, and I lost a quarter of what I had typed, so I did it in Vi and cut and pasted into Netscape. Unfortunately, I cut n pasted one section a bit too liberally.
Who said we were debating whether WB is a good person? You asked why people treated his question in a particular fashion, and I gave what I consider to be the correct answer.
-Ben
I believe the accepted PC term for athiests is “spiritually challenged”. Or maybe that’s just for agnostics.
Call me whatever you want. It makes absolutely no difference to me. I don’t think it makes you a very good Christian, though.
This whole game of “How would YOU like it if I did this to YOU?” is just about as anti-Christian as I can imagine.
Turn the other cheek. Unless that’s a part of the Bible you don’t happen to want to take literally. (In which case, don’t worry. You’ve got lots of company if you’re a Fundamentalist Christian.)
Wildest Bill wrote:
And here I thought it was because of the turbans…
I like all the nicknames just fine 
But I suppose this is what I’ve come to expect from the mystics of spirit…their general attempts to slaughter the human spirit through attempts to force mindless devotion and guilt onto others. I won’t make this into (too) much of an Objectivist rant, but suffice it to say that I have very strong moral/ethical reasons for my objections to religion.
Actually, I’ve always preferred the term ‘Apatheist’, but I really don’t care what anybody calls me. I have thick skin.
Reminds me of a label I ran into somewhere.
apathetic agnostic
don’t know, don’t care.
Hm… which god…
Tetragrammmaton Jehovah: People go to Heaven, a city made of precious metals.
Allah: People go to a lush garden with wine and beautiful virgins of both sexes.
Sign me up, Effendi.
Qadim el-Dan
Wildest, I can see only one advantage to everyone not using durogatory terms to describe Christians who are far right-wing hatefilled pieces of scum(NOT all Christians, which I am sure people are sick and tired of explaining to you).
If the terms never pop up, you get to pretend that these people don’t exist, you don’t have to confront them(it wouldn’t be the “Christian” thing to do, would it?
), and you get to put forth the idea that Christianity has no faults.
And if I hear the tired old refrain,“But those aren’t real Christians!” one more time, I’m gonna hurl. This business of disavowing those who set a bad example looks like a coverup when the CIA, FBI and NSA tries it, it it looks the same when you try it. When the hand of GOD comes down and touches you on the forehead, and the voice of GOD says to the whole earth,“This man speaks for me and his interpretation of the Bible is the one true way!”, I’ll accept your right to pick and choose what Christianity is or isn’t, and who is or isn’t a Christian.
O.K.
Rant off.
I’m confused. What’s wrong with ‘childless’? It is accurate - I don’t see that it is perjorative. I mean… I have no home, I am homeless, I have no hair, I am hairless, I have no kids, I am childless. Where is the problem with this?
Just bemused by the whole thing…
Those who would like their views to be respected would do well to hold respectable views. I mean ‘respectable’ as in ‘capable of being respected’. If one maintains views which are silly, or self-contradictory, or outdated, or merely arbitrarily-selected extracts from assorted medieval superstitions, then it is unsurprising if other people find it hard to ‘respect’ these beliefs. I do not advocate hatred or contempt for those who are so in the grip of the religion mind-virus that they cannot see the fatuousness of their statements. But I fail to see why they feel entitled to respect unless and until that advance beliefs which are respectable.
Personally, with regard to religious beliefs, I respect the person, and the person’s right to maintain whatever beliefs they wish (subject to the usual prevailing social and cultural mores), but I do not see that I have the choice to respect the beliefs themselves, since they are not respect-able. Well, not unless one wants to start ‘respecting’ nonsense, which I do not.
A man who proclaims that Big Purple Spoons With Watering Cans For Heads roam freely in his backyard, and have some sort of determining effect on his behaviour and ethics, may complain that his views find little respect among his peers. However, his entitlement to respect diminishes the more he advances what are plainly silly statements. A belief in ‘God’ is no better-founded than a belief in the Big Purple Spoons mentioned above.
The religious-virused, in the final analysis, have no stronger argument to offer than something which equates to ‘inner personal experience of God’, which is a demonstrably fatuous way to arrive at any significant conclusion having a determining effect on one’s behaviour or ethics. Or would they accept that their own ‘inner personal experience’ is of no greater validity than that of the Big Purple Spoons worshipper?
On the other hand, there is nothing nonsensical about having skin of a given colour, or a particular ethnic heritage, or a given sexual orientation, and hence all may be respected and, in my book, should be.
Jeez, you got troubles. If I were hairless (some kind of genetic mutation, you poor thing?), living on the streets with no kids to take care of me, I’d be bemused too, at the very least. Where can we send contributions?
S-Terry Dan wrote:
Correction: According to the Koran, only men get to be surrounded by beautiful virgins in Paradise. Women get the short end of the stick, so to speak, in the Islamic afterlife.
Dinsdale said:
Yes, there are three types of heresy: heresy by thought, heresy by word, heresy by deed, and heresy by action – four types of heresy . . . (you know you were asking for that ;))
Anyway, I’m kind of torn on this issue. Certainly **WB’s ** “epithets” don’t offend me, but I think it really is preferable to attack the substance of a person’s actions/beliefs/statements, rather than resorting to name-calling. On the other hand, I must admit some fondness for the term “cretinist” to describe anti-evolution crusaders. I guess I’ll have to try to restrain myself in the interest of polite and logical discourse.
Wildest Bill, if you look at the more current thread started by** Fenris**, you’ll see that your point is finally getting some serious attention.
What’s the difference between action and deed?
I sure hope I haven’t missed out on anything fun!
That’s a reference to the Monty Python Spanish Inquisition sketch.
Personally, I prefer being referred to as a “Commie Pinko Faggot”. (I think this implies the whole godless commie thing). Of course I belong to a Second International party rather than a third or fourth, but I have worked with them in coalitions, and don’t mind being associated with them. Pinko is a little problematic, since I’m not really pink, my colouring is more like that of a fish belly, but what the hell, my ancestors are from boggy places. Definitely a faggot.
Of course I tend to refer to myself as a born-again atheist, but not the door to door missionary type.
So, OPer, I’ll let you know when you come up with a label that bugs me. K?
I personally don’t think “fundie” is that big of an insult (see more detailed reply in the other “fundie” discussion thread). So if Wildest Bill wants to call me a “damned godless atheist,” that’s fine by me. 