Someone’s got his magic underwear on too tight. Loosen them up a bit and you’ll feel a lot better!
No. It is only you, right now, who annoys me. You don’t share their experiences, either. You can sympathize, empathize, and advocate. You do NOT know what it is to be gay in Christian Africa or a Muslim country.
Religion was a good idea.
So what? Are you suggesting that it’s a virtue to ignore the suffering of others if you haven’t experienced it yourself?
I was responding to this:
You can afford that patronizing “evangelical atheists are just as annoying” attitude only because you have the privilege to live in a secular society where your social niche is largely free from persecution.
Cite?
I could get behind “Spirituality” is a good idea, because hey it gives one a sense of deep meaning to life and some measure of comfort. I’m totes on board with spirituality. But it starts going south when you try to get someone else on board with your gut feelings about the universe (religion) at the expense of a little bit of their own opinions.
Dude, you live in a society where your social niche is largely free from persecution. In this society, we are down to obsessing over whether bakers must make cakes for same-sex weddings.
You keep repeating this as though it’s a disputed point. Stipulated that we both live in a similar society, and we are both reasonably free from persecution.
But of the two of us lucky enough to be in this privileged position, only you are making the claim that
I’m sure you’ll continue to willfully avoid my actual point: that the many LGBT people around the world who still are suffering persecution from religions extremists might not share your supercilious desire to tone police the atheists who are just too strident in their criticism of religious privilege.
Tone policing is the idea that you are wrong because of your tone. It does not mean you cannot object to certain rhetorical tactics.
I am a Christian myself. But I am willing to join you about religious privilege. No religion or lack thereof should be privileged above another. But if you also attack me and my beliefs, then you lose me as an ally.
Furthermore, hateful proselytizing is as convincing to Christians as it is to atheists. It’s not a good idea. Neither is using the same level of “arguments” that evangelicals use. I consider those who do either of these things to be “evangelical atheists,” and I do not think they help your cause or our mutual cause at all.
I join with you on true freedom of religion, which includes your right to not believe. I agree that religion is not an excuse to break the law. I don’t join with those who wish to belittle those who are religious. I do not agree with those who treat religion as this inherent great evil.
What a phenomenally stupid article.
What a phenomenally meaningless retort.
Wow, a reasoned, rational and tolerant view of your own beliefs and their overall importance in the grand scheme. Treasonous behaviour at the Straight Dope.
Well, you do have an intimate understanding of phenomenal stupidity, guess I’d better take your word for it.
Aren’t you the fucking witty one. Sorry, let me try again.
I know you are but what am I?
Did you read the fucking thing? Nope, didn’t think so. Spout off with no foundation or shame. Typical really.
Not retort, criticism. How is it meaningless? Grammar and syntax are good, word choice clearly conveys the idea. Please do tell me how it is meaningless.
You do realize Church of the Sub Genius was a parody religion, right?
Discordianism wasn’t nudged out, because it identified itself as the opposite of religion. All its holy texts were unholy, there was no link between god and man, and those who spread the word of Discordianism were actually converting those who listened to Discordian priests, because that’s the defining tenet of Discordianism: advocating that it’s anti-religion.
Serious question. Tomorrow it is undeniably 100% proven to everyone’s satisfaction that there is no God. What do you think changes that is of any importance?
Do you think the anti-gay people will suddenly embrace tolerance. Do you suppose that anti-semites will love their Judaic bretheren? Do you think pedophiles and molesters will stop seeking out jobs with maximum exposure and minimum risk?
What substantive benefit do you believe society will derive from the utter end of religion?
For starters, the catholic church (among numerous other religious groups) probably has to stop hiding and protecting pedophile priests. Without the clout of “we are a direct pathway to the one true god”, their actions look a lot less forgivable (and far more obviously worth cracking down on legally). In fact, this is a very common trend. For example:
Maybe not! But they lose their strongest weapon against the target of their ire. In every gay rights case, it has been “protect the rights of LGBT from discrimination” vs. “protect the rights of Christians to discriminate”. Take away the religious justification, and what’s left? “I hate gay people because…” Strip away religion, and you’ll find that for many people, there is no “because”, and even for those remaining, that “because” loses most of its intellectual (and all of its legal) pull when it’s not appealing to religious freedom. Once you lose that clout, that ability to appeal to “but my religion says”, what’s left is far less potent.
But okay, let’s discount the cases where appealing to a religion explicitly grants a person legal and social power in ways other rationalizations wouldn’t. What’s left? Answer: every harmful tenet of religion.
[ul]
[li]JWs would have no more reason to shun people who leave their cult[/li][li]Religious families would have no reason to expel atheist family members[/li][li]Muslims and Jews could enjoy a goddamn baconator[/li][/ul]
And so on and so forth. There are countless religious rules and laws that make no fucking sense whatsoever without the religion. Things that are simply nonsensical. And things which are really harmful. JW beliefs about blood. Christian Scientist beliefs about medicine. Snake handler beliefs about… Crap, I forgot, gimme a moment, it’ll come to me… And while I’m sure you’d still have plenty of non-sectarian violence in the middle east, you cannot tell me that it would be so easy to recruit suicide bombers if they didn’t think they had god on their side.
Shall I continue?
Sweetie, you’re the one who replied to the link with “it’s dum!” without any actual, yanno, substance. If that’s the level you start on, why should I bother with depth?
But here, let me kiss your ass to make you feel better:
Golly, Zeke, what is it about that piece that you find so “phenomenally stupid?” I’m interested in your opinion!