FinnAgain, you may remain an atheist as long as you understand that you differ from all other atheists and that the atheist that you are today is not the atheist that you will be tomorrow.
No problem Zoe. I remember the night of january 31, 2000. My atheism is always evolving and I’m far too fond of my ego to think I wasn’t unique 
Anyways, in case you left the hitler pit thread too soon, I included a final note for you since I couldn’t email you. Also would be curious to see you in my GD thread. Ah well, have a good weekend 
Which would be one of the reasons I didn’t mention the Episcopal Church. I am aware of the relationship between the two churches, and would have mentioned them separately. It is, by the way, completely possible that saying that the church only split “for a little while” isn’t as strong a recommendation for their love and understanding as you might think it is.
Well, no he didn’t, now that you mention it. I thought that subtext. It would be interesting for Polycarp to clarify if he feels that the people preaching hatred in the name of his lord and saviour are fringe groups, or if he feels that they represent mainstream Christianity. I had given him the benefit of the doubt, but now that you mention it, he does not claim that CEs are a fringe group. Would you say that CEs are, or are not, a fringe group?
No, he didn’t say the bible was easy to interpret, he said:
Did I claim that I said that he said the bible was easy to interpret? Are you refering to my suggestions as to how the suggestions to look after oneself might be intrepreted?
I did not suggest that Polycarp is responsible for all of the people who hold his view. His god does, though. If he decides to forego the dictates of his god, that’s his business.
That said, this isn’t a bright line kind of thing. Few people, for instance, argue that Seventh Day Adventists are evil because of the actions of the Branch Davidians, and those who did would probably not find much of an audience. That said, I have certainly felt uncomfortable, and spoken against, officials of companies I worked for when I felt they were acting unethically. So, clearly (to me), there is some ground between no responsiblity whatsoever and some responsbility. It is completely possible that he might feel his denomination is so without sin that the next appropriate group of people due for chastisement are those who make fun of him on a message board, rather than those who, you know, get on national television and make a mockery of him, his religion, and his god. As I point out in the last lines of my post, that’s really his decision to make.
That said, when a sizeable minority goes unchallenged, and a person who claims to oppose that minority spends his time posting not to challenge those who have stolen the name of his faith but rather those who do mock those who have stolen his faith, one cannot help but wonder if, perhaps, his failure to mock isn’t, at the end of the day, secret agreement. We can but hope Polycarp will soon return and enlighten us as to why atheists are more worthy of his time than those who break the commandments of his god.
You’ve been here four and a half years and you are attempting to accuse Polycarp of not challenging “those who have stolen the name of his faith”? You really need to go read a lot more of his posts before you make that spurious accusation. If there is any group which Poly has consistently challenged over the course of his posting history it has been those who (in his view) worship the bible instead of their Lord or who define God as a vengeful monster or describe Him in terms that make him out to be “The Divine Weasel.”
If you wish to assert that some Christian majority has not done enough to distance itself from its more bigoted minority brethren, you can argue that point, but you are simply in clear error if you attempt to lump Poly among those who have not spoken out–sufficiently or otherwise.
You are, of course, correct, and I would extend that same courtesy to the fairly-new siege who is first into the fray when people come in with spurious statements about her god.
In this thread, however, Polycarp does spend his time questioning the intellectual rigor of atheists, and he does fail to see the point that a few of those…I fear being insulting to Polycarp when I say this, but let’s go with…Co-religionists have stolen the good name of his religion.
You know what, all hyperbole aside, that really is the key problem with this rant. It has reached the point where polycarp doesn’t understand why there are people who are bent out of shape at the way a vocal group of Christians have acted over the last, say, twenty years. He doesn’t get (according to this OP - obviously I’ve read his annoyance with various people) that, no, really, the loud and cheering section of Christ’s fan club really is getting annoying and until someone can get them to shut up, it’s going to be hard to take even the outstandingly well-read and understanding posters here seriously. When Polycarp comes up with something like this, it becomes apparent that good Christians, good people, really don’t understand that the small and vocal part of their religion needs to be reigned in.
Polycarp has, as you have said, spent a lot of time over the years educating his co-religionists. Here, he is attempting to educate atheists. I think, while his efforts have been noble, he may find it more profitable to make sure that the vocal group isn’t giving offense than to chastise message board atheists for taking offense.
Polycarp, I’m quite new here, but I’ve really appreciated reading your posts over the last couple of months. And I agree with what your getting at in the OP. I have a slight nit with this, though (emphasis mine):
The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, at least, teaches that the bible is the ultimate authority (“Sola Scriptura”). In fact they contrast themselves with the RCC’s acceptance of the authority of church tradition.
Now they certainly do believe that their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one (as summed up in the Augsburg Confession, IIRC). But it’s not the same interpretation as the Fundamentalist, literal inerrantist types you refer to in the OP.
I can’t really defend the doctrines of the LCMS as I stopped being a believer years ago. but I thought the point worth making.
[QUOTE=PolycarpMost of the people who call themselves atheists seem to be able to articulate clear reasons why they do not believe in such an entity as the Christian God.[/QUOTE]
The Christian God? Who’s that? I am an atheist from a Jewish background.
Let’s try this again.
The Christian God? Who’s that? I am an atheist from a Jewish background
You’re an atheist? That means you’re an asshole. The atheists who get the most attention in the news tend to be assholes, so that means you’re an asshole. Don’t like being an asshole? Clean your house, and then maybe I’ll stop considering you an asshole.
Oh, and I assume you’re also white. That means you’re either a serial killer, Michael Jackson, Martha Stuart, or some other notorious criminal. After all, most of the white people you see on TV are one of those, so you must be too. You don’t like being Michael Jackson? Clean out your fucking house, and then I’ll stop thinking your Michael Jackson.
Danmit, he’s right. It is too bad that saying that public display of a movie prop makes me a complaining asshole, who will not let anyone have their fun.
There was more than a little irony intended in my OP.
What I was saying in it was, essentially, that I did not relish not only having the CE group try to redefine Christianity to exclude me and mine, but having people like gobear and scott_plaid buy into their definition and be condemnatory or me and mine on the basis that we are wearing the name that the CEs have corrupted. So, sardonically, I told them that if they’re going to buy into the CE definition for a penny, they might as well buy into it for a pound and recognize “what an atheist really is,” again by the CE definition.
And you all are right, it’s unimportant. Except to the people who are hurt by it. Better I should have addressed a major issue, like SUVs taking up two parking places.
I guess this means that you expect to be shat upon by athiests, we being assholes et al. No skin off my nose either way.
It’s amazing to see the lengths some people go to cover their fear of the eternal darkness.
Do I hate God? No, just the idiocy that is done in his name. I want these people to be in charge of our daily lives just as much as I would want to go back to “nature” and non-sentience. Frankly, both depend on fear of the unknown.
Better you should keep your religion to yourself, for belief in sky pixies is only important in as far as it causes strife for people who prefer to be free from religions.
Pretty much. Until they can prove that O’Hare is truly dead and that they’re all nice people, I’m going to have to define “atheist” to mean “someone who doesn’t believe God exists, and is an asshole.” If they don’t like that, they’ll just have to clean their house. They can start by making up some press releases, like maybe “Atheists Aren’t Assholes,” and they can also go to churches and do good works and give money. That’d be a start–if a lot did that, I might consider reredefining “atheist” to mean “someone who doesn’t believe in God, and is an asshole-minus.”
Unfortunately, by means of existing, atheists provoke the question, “Why is religion so bad?” and an answer, no matter how politely phrased, makes waves, a.k.a. is asshole behavior.
P.S. Re: Making this about S.U.V.s instead is a bad idea. This has provoked some great responses.
No no no–you’re totally missing the point.
You’re not an asshole because you don’t believe in God, you’re an asshole because someone who also describes themselves as an “atheist” may have stabbed someone in the hand with a fork for saying “God bless you.”
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! :eek:
You and Polycarp are making a logical error in comparing atheists and Christians. Christians go to church, they belong to denominations which have rules and ordinances governing belief and conduct, and one can be thrown out of one’s church or denomination for misconduct. Atheism, by contrast, is merely a school of thought. Even though there are groups like American Atheists, they’re just meet-up groups that don’t rule over their members’ behavior or lives. If I were to join an atheist group, they wouldn’t kick me out for reading Harry Potter or sleeping with men.
If a CE holds a mistaken view of the nature of atheism, as in “atheists really believe in God, they’re just rebelling against Him,” that doesn’t affect me or any atheist. It merely indicates that that particular CE is an idiot. People thought that Madilyn Murray O’Hre spoke for all atheists, but she only spoke for herself, and not even for members of AA because she didn’t, couldn’t define atheism or declare doctirne that all atheists must feel bound to accept. Even if a CE or all CEs thought otherwise, it still wouldn’t bother me. Other people’s delusions are their problem, not mine.
Religion is not analogous to lack of religion.
Yes, but just as I had problem understanding that Christmas in not celebrated everywhere, *despite * my having been raised jewish, they have problems seeing that the viewpoint of Atheist A, is diffrent from Atheist B.