We certainly do. And a lot of people think they need religion to accomplish that, which is bullshit. There are enough loopholes in any major religion that allows assholes to do what they want to do anyway, only now, they have justification.
I’ve said it many times - it kinda pisses me off that it is pretty well impossible to have a decent religious-themed debate around here. It can happen, but generally not.
Except the last line which is basically nonsensical. I understand that Liberal uses the word god in a different way than most people, but still.
Based on his post, it sure sounds like he believes in the standard judeo-christian god. It speaks English and commands people to do stuff. He’s not following instructions, though.
I’m Agnostic but I wouldn’t call “christians” who torture Christian. Christ’s teachings are pretty pacifist. Plus that’s a broad brush you’re painting with. Is Buddhism as bad as rape? Wicca? Animism?
It dilutes the meaning of rape to throw it around so casually. Rape is a horrible crime.
Tom’s an exceptional poster, and so’s Polycarp for that matter. Does that mean it’s a good idea for atheists and nonbelievers to declare it open season and opt for regular hostility toward religious posters? I don’t think so- but that’s how it looks to me a lot of the time.
So the reason for the groupthink (or whatever you want to call it) is revenge? How’s that go with fighting ignorance?
Some religious people are offended everybody doesn’t share their views, but others are only offended when people express their disagreement in a confrontational and hostile manner. People like Richard Dawkins have raised the profile of atheism, but I’m not convinced they’ve moved us any closer toward tolerance of atheists or tolerance by atheists.
Hey, I appreciate the existence of Der Trihs. Sometimes I will start writing something vitriolic like Lib and then I stop myself with “No. You’re supposed to love him. This is not the righteous response to him, and letting yourself fall into hatred is to make yourself as miserable as he seems to be. Love him and treat him with love. Maybe he’ll see that Christians aren’t all jerks and maybe he won’t, but show him love nevertheless.”
Der Trihs helps me to be a better person, a better Christian. I know it would infuriate him to know this, and I apologize, but he is interested in truth. 
Nor do I. I am in the habit of saying “The devil take you!” when someone sneezes. No one seems to mind, though I get funny looks when this happens at Wal-Mart.
They still give me the discounts anyway.
I think you missed the point of his statement.
By an altogether galactic distance.
The problem is not religious intolerance.
The problem is tolerance of religion.
I’d say that both “groupthink” and “revenge” are pretty strong words for what I’m trying to express. Let me try an analogy–I don’t like swimming in clothes. Lucky for me, Oregon has many traditionally clothing optional recreation areas, including a couple state run facilities. As a result, since the state does maintain clothing optional areas, there are no overarching laws preventing nudity in any state facility. Same with National Forests, by the way. Now, if I were to go to an area that’s not considered to be customarily clothing optional I probably wouldn’t go bareassed in swimming, even though it’s not against the law, just because it would be a dick move and I’m a fairly polite person. Also, because I’d be very much in the minority I’d be putting myself out there for a bunch of harassment and possible danger. Okay, I can cope with this, although such harassment would technically speaking be violating my rights, since I’m not breaking any laws. It’s just the way things are.
Now let’s just say someone who thinks anyone being bareassed in public is a bad thing in general pays their three bucks to go to Rooster Rock–which is plainly marked as a clothing optional area–and then not only refuses to doff the swimsuit (thereby adopting the local mores) but in fact walks around chastising the nekkid people for offending them. Never mind that the nekkid people are IN GENERAL the minority and the clothes wearer is IN GENERAL a member of the overwhelming majority, this person has deliberately gone to a place where nekkid people like to go to hang out with the wang out, an area designated as such and has tried to impose the greater societal “norm.” This person will not be tolerated kindly, I’m thinking. This person has done a dick move and any wide eyed “but I’m in the majority, and the majority is RIGHT” handwringing is not justifiable–it’s still a total dick move, aggravated by the fact that they bypassed fifty thousand possible places they could go to NOT get nekkid and swim in order to fuck up one of only TWO such places where the nekkidly inclined can go to find a sanctuary free of fucking harassment. It’s not “revenge,” it’s just pure exasperation, and why SHOULD the nekkid people be “nice” about telling this person to fuck right the hell off?
I think that’s a close enough parallel–I’m sure I’ll hear from any who disagree… 
Right, and no true Scotsman would behave that way.
Golly. When you read
did you take that as anything other than saying “rape is horrible”? You seem to imply that I wrote approvingly of rape, which is probably disingenuous, at best indicative of poor reading skills, and at worst deliberately insulting.
I would like to encourage you to read for comprehension and in light of the entire discussion. In the post you quote, I was responding to an assertion that, because there seems to be an evolutionary element in the desire to believe in a deity, belief in a deity is somehow justified. In service of refuting this, I pointed out that there is a similar evolutionary basis for rape, which nonetheless is a vile and reprehensible action. If you’d like me to phrase my argument in less concrete terms, I can say that the mere fact that we have an evolutionarily-reinforced tendency to behave in a certain faction does not mean that such behavior is either right or wise.
I won’t speak to the history of Buddhism, as I don’t know enough about it, nor of Wicca, because its history is too brief and because Wiccans have never to my knowledge been in a majority in any country; nor of animism, as it is simply too diffuse a term. But though there are many Christians living today I respect & admire (as I wrote upthread), their mytholgy is quite bloody, and their history, bloodier. Consider Elisha & the she-bears. Consider Annas and Sapphira. Consider Yahweh’s command to destroy the nation of Amalek. Consider the Inquistion, the civil war in Rwanda, the Salem witch trials, the Thirty Years War, and countless others.
They have the capability to turn their invisibility on and off at will, and when they are visible, they’re pink. I thought that much was obvious.
Then they are invisible OR pink.
Similarly, neither the Vision nor the Martian Manhunter possess super-strength when they’re intangible, as they cannot touch anything. Also similarly, Vizh, MM, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, & Jesus are all fictional characters.
I hear bagpipes. Pass the porridge.
Maybe, but not always…I’d hesitate even to say usually. Take a “religious” person who doesn’t really practice and it’s not a significant leap to antipathy toward religion. Go a little further and you’ve got skepticism. Go a bit further and now you’re an atheist. And it didn’t take a major personal crisis at all.
I’m skeptical of that right there as a hard fact considering the source.
We know? Who knows? Religious people. Gotcha.
Then again maybe we can deign something useful from this guy’s theories:
That’s what atheists are essentially saying to theists (at times not quite so delicately). How does that constitute persecution? That’s saying, “Hey, your ideas are crazy. Here’s why…”
That’s patently ridiculous. I get so irritated when I hear people insinuate that non-religious people have no incentive to be nice. As a non-religious, happy person (I’m so glad I can say that now), I’m nice to people because internally it works for me. It makes me feel good about myself and the world around me. When I’m a bitch, it makes me feel cranky (unhappy) and when I’m cranky I tend to be bitchy. By and large, doing the right thing does not, for me, require fear of consequences, whether they be earthly or spiritual. I do what I do because I have ethics that are independent of threats of damnation. God doesn’t tell me what is the right the way to behave. I know the right way to behave because I benefit from doing the right thing in so many ways. Religious people have not cornered the market on the ethic of reciprocity.
I was teasing you a little the appearance of uncertainty as to what to call yourself. I appreciate your clarification. FTR, I consider myself agnostic and am open to the possibility that there are things that man does not understand, nor has the capability of understanding. I’m perfectly okay with the mysteries of life and the universe. I don’t really feel the need to know or claim to know. However, I do also believe that the only purpose religion actually serves is to placate people who aren’t comfortable with not knowing.
What bothers me most (other than violence in the name of religion) is that some people feel the need to convince others that they **must **have religion or there’s something missing in their lives.
This thread brings up a topic I’ve always found interesting: we, as a society, have generally decided that some points of view (such as racism) are so vile and discredited that neither they nor the people who hold them deserve any respect.
Where that line is drawn, how, and why is, as I said, always interesting to me, especially since said lines can change, sometimes radically, and in a very short time. Will we ever get to the point that we dismiss religion and religious people as easily as we dismiss the Phelps clan or the KKK? Should we? A lot of folks think that the streak of homophobia in American society will become smaller and smaller as time passes; how will that affect the above when dealing with religion?
I look forward to finding out the answers.
Now I can get on board with that argument. My objection was with the hyperbole of the rape comparison. Religion isn’t rape and I don’t think it’s a fair comparison. It’s too emotionally charged an issue. It’s practically Godwinizing it.
Show me one teaching of Jesus Christ that says to go out and torture and I’ll concede my point.
Response to Brown Eyed Girl’s post (#76):
As I stated above, I’ve made the mistake of trying to argue the merits of religion instead of what I should have done, which is to just argue that you should be nice to people. I still maintain that the antipathy toward religion around here is out of proportion to any harm it does (though antipathy can clearly go both ways, as Liberal has been so kind to demonstrate).
One of the best neutral takes I’ve ever seen of the atheists vs. religious people debate is here:
Here’s a quick summary of his main points:
- You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
- Both Sides Really Do Believe What They’re Saying
- In Everyday Life, You’re Not That Different
- There Are Good People on Both Sides
- Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them (This is an important one!)
- We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy
- We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too
- Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid
- Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table
- You’ll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence (This is an important one also!)
I highly recommend the article, as it strives hard to be neutral and the writer does a much more eloquent job than me.