I cheerfully admit to being somewhat obsessive. When I see absurd illogical arguments for God (ie, all of them) I obsessively point out their flaws. But when I see absurd and illogical arguments in papers I review I point them out also. I guess that makes me an obsessive engineer. Ditto many other areas of my life.
Only religion, it seems, is supposed to get a pass from critical evaluation.
Well, almost. It appears to be considered inappropriate for the author of one book of woo to criticize or even compare his or her woo with others.
I often see the word “preaching” used to mean “expressing beliefs different from mine.” Anyone who says “I’m an X” will get some non-Xes saying “why are you shoving that in my face?”
Because person b is using their purported rightness to justify telling me whom I may marry, how I may fuck, and when I may drink.
I really mostly want person b to stop telling me whom I may marry, how I may fuck, and when I may drink, but if deconversion is the only way to do that, so be it. If all Christians were like Mr. Rogers, minus testifying before Congress, I would be content – though I’d still be an atheist.
Atheist detest junk science as much if not more than they do superstition. The Nazis practiced science so junky it qualifies as an EPA superfund site.
Anti-atheist Christians point to the Holocaust and say “atheists did that!” But I can’t recall any Jews hammering on that. Which group has the most valid viewpoint on the issue? Should the viewpoints rest on their own merits: “therefore, don’t be an atheist” versus “therefore, don’t commit genocide?”
The Nazi party being atheistic is just pure fantasy.
The Nazi Party guaranteed freedom for all religious denominations not hostile to the State. They actively endorsed Positive Christianity to combat “the Jewish-materialist spirit.” They formed “proofs” that Jesus was not a jew and was an Aryan etc… One of their main supporting documents and propiganda pieces was an original of Luther’s “On the Jews and their Lies” during the annual Nuremberg rallies.
The claims that they were “atheist” are purely an attempt to wash their hands of of the ugliness of that time in history and to put the blame on a group that they are compelled by their holy book to hate and kill.
Nazis make a nice foil. Those obnoxious people that I vehemently disagree with, the nazis were just like them. And, of course, all the Reichsvolk were the same, all parts of their ideology were in complete gooselockstep for every person in Germany who did not protest [del]Bush[/del] [del]Obama[/del] Hitler.
Well if all Christians had been like the Jesuits in Nazi Germany then there would be a basis to report that most Christians opposed the Nazis. Unfortunately when one checks the past one finds many, many examples of people of faith that agreed with the Nazis and joined them, the item that gets many who are Agnostic or Atheists upset is finding that most of the ones who did so have attempted to white wash the past.
That IMHO is the best recipe to repeat that behavior as I saw it done again in some Latin American nations later, Christians not supporting Nazis mind you, but the same support to military fascists in the 50’s-80’s.
Where we run into difficulty is with people like Richard G. Butler of Hayden Lake Idaho, to name one. There have been a few organizations in the past seventy-odd years that tout Nazi ideology to some extent. I am too indifferent/biased to explore, but if anyone can point out to me one of those having strong atheist underpinnings, I might put a tiny modicum of stock in the “Nazi’s were atheists” assertion. Though, by the numbers, it looks to me, at first glance, like the christians are kind of winning the day with those people.
I simply don’t care what anybody else believes or not- I only become antagonistic when challenged or attacked personally/mentally. I do love a good debate, however.
Think about what Believers and Atheists have in common. Both groups are convinced they know Right from Wrong … Good from bad; both groups think they are right about everything and if you disagree with them, you are Evil. Admittedly, the motivations are different, the Bible for the Believers and Science, logic and progressive talking points for the Atheist
Points go to the Atheists on the subjects of Evolution and Global Warming, but when conversations turn to Abortion, alternative lifestyles, and the possible existence of a supernatural being, opinions and prejudices weigh against both parties. There aren’t any scientific facts that settle moral debates.
Both Atheists and Believers think they are right … if you disagree, you’re a horrible person. They are very similar to one another. They can both be obsessive.
If we call a theist evil, it is not based on what he believes but on how he acts on those beliefs. Sitting in church and praying - fine. Forcibly converting people, not so fine. Passing laws to enforce his religious code on everyone else, also not fine.
Unlike Christians we don’t think that someone who believes differently from us is going to hell.
Much as I’d like us to assume credit for this, scientific discoveries are not atheistic. They follow the facts, as attested to by extremely Catholic evolutionists. If the facts tend to contradict religious beliefs, that is not our problem.
I don’t get how alternative lifestyles affect anything. If you think a supernatural being exists, define it and show evidence for it. Saying you have faith does not cut it.
And as for abortion, I think we agree that there is no scientific definition of when something becomes human. That is why pro-choice is pro choice. It is the anti-choice faction that talks about unproven souls or defines life to begin at some point and then wants to impose that definition on the rest of us.
I’ve been in tons of scientific debates where two sides both think they are right. But in these contexts both sides bring facts and arguments. If one side defended its position by calling on faith, they’d get laughed out of the room and the building. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand.
“Evil” is a rather subjective concept that really belongs to the religious. Many atheists, giving it adequate consideration, hesitate to throw “evil” around because they lack the absolute apposite to reference it against.
Which is to say, believers may be inclined to call unbelievers “evil” based on their fixed doctrine, while the unbelievers are merely going to call the bulk of believers “delusional” and the annoying remainder “assholes”.
Assumptive makes an ass out of ass and umptive … exactly what position did I assume that is craptacular? I can see you shaking your fist; do you disagree that both camps think they’re “Right” and that anyone who disagrees with them are wrong?
For one thing, you submitted a binary claim that fails to actually describe the overwhelming majority of people on either side of the line. Had you begun your claim by noting that you were discussing only fundies of either stripe, you would have come closer to making a point. However, it is only the fundies that ascribe “evil” to the opinions or beliefs of their opponents or identify their opponents as “horrible persons.” A large number of atheists posting to this board have demonstrated tolerance for the beliefs of theists–provided that the theists do not attempt to use those beliefs to impose specific actions or prohibitions on society that the atheists find intrusive. Similarly, a large number of theists on this board recognize the actual positions of atheists and make no assumptions regarding the “evil” or “horrible” nature of atheists.
In that regard, your post did make a number of assumptions that were without merit.
If we call a theist evil, it is not based on what he believes but on how he acts on those beliefs.
By we, you mean Atheists? Voyager, you and For You aren’t agreeing on the use of “Evil”, so why don’t we discard the spiritually loaded word and say “Stupid and Wrong”, or just “Wrong” for short? Are you saying that if a Xtian posts Xtian beliefs and points of view on this board, but you don’t have proof that Xtian has ever forced a school to teach Creationism or ever blocked an abortion doctor’s doorway, then that’s hunky dory? Because, I don’t think that’s what happens. The typical thread where some poster proffers a Xtian view or set of beliefs/ opinions, that poster is deluged with replies along the lines of: “You’re stupid if you believe in a Supreme Being”, “Xtianity is responsible for (list) of heinous crimes, and if you’re a Xtian you are wrong about everything and responsible by association, etc.” Check out most of the replies in these two active threads:
Disregard the word Evil, let’s agree that posting as a believer garners condescension and criticism on the basis of being a believer.
**“Unlike Christians we don’t think that someone who believes differently from us is going to hell.”
**
Right … but since you don’t believe in Hell, why would you care?
“Much as I’d like us to assume credit for this, scientific discoveries are not atheistic. They follow the facts, as attested to by extremely Catholic evolutionists. If the facts tend to contradict religious beliefs, that is not our problem.
I don’t get how alternative lifestyles affect anything. If you think a supernatural being exists, define it and show evidence for it. Saying you have faith does not cut it.”
You’ve got that backwards, Atheists don’t own Science, but they certainly wield it as a club to berate Xtians. Re-read the end of the quote. You’re not concerned with the behaviors of our hypothetical Xtians, but with their beliefs. I gather Xtians like to post regarding their beliefs because they “believe” their Deity trumps Reality. That’s sort of the nature of a religion. It gets tedious when Atheists feel the need to constantly post, after a believer has made some completely irrational or impossible claim, “You’re wrong … that’s not scientific … you don’t have facts to back that up.” Well, no s*** sherlock … it’s a darned RELIGION, of course it’s not based on facts. Dur. I’d call that obsessive.
“And as for abortion, I think we agree that there is no scientific definition of when something becomes human. That is why pro-choice is pro choice. It is the anti-choice faction that talks about unproven souls or defines life to begin at some point and then wants to impose that definition on the rest of us.”
This is good. I agree it sucks when voters force the schools to teach Creationism or the Government to ban abortions. You’ve sort of got the motivation wrong here, though. While it sounds good, and may make for good press, for someone to argue when a fetus becomes a “Human”, I believe real Xtians are more concerned with when the “Soul” is attached to the embryo. If I’m not wrong, most serious Xtians think the “Soul” is imparted to the “Unborn Child” at conception … which is handy in that it pretty much cements their position and doesn’t allow for a lot of argument.
“If one side defended its position by calling on faith, they’d get laughed out of the room and the building.”
This is my favorite part. The person engaged in a “scientific debate” defends his position with faith. That happens often, does it? When you talk to a Xtian on any subject that relates to God, (and what doesn’t?) they will apply tenets of faith to their discussion at will. If they are the moderate Catholics you referred to earlier, they may be more judicious, but that doesn’t reflect their Xtianity, it illustrates their dissent from same. Laughing at someone for a predictable display of faith may not be obsessive, but this board is full of threads where Atheists dutifully rehash the same tired argument that fall on the deaf ears of Xtians, who engage in the same repetitive witnessing. Both sides are guilty of obsession. That there are a few on either side that avoid this pattern of behavior in no way proves my main point to be erroneous.
