Algher, I hope you’re okay with the potential of you being viewed as Polycarp ver. 2.0
Seriously, good job in the thread.
The “faith” comes in under the assumption that what makes you feel bad, is morally wrong.
Do you accept the existence of God because someone told you that believing in God feels right?
Regards,
Shodan
Where did I say that things that make me feel bad are morally wrong?
No, I’m an atheist. I don’t believe in God because I don’t see any evidence for the existence of God. Feelings don’t really enter into it.
What a great big, impressive wall of text. I retort with but a few simple points, so they don’t get lost in self-righteous jibber-jabber:
-
This is about one of the Duck Dynasty Robertsons, not Pat Robertson. If you can’t be troubled to even read the OP’s link before you unload there’s nothing I can do for you.
-
Boo hoo, poor put-upon atheists. Every category of people has had their turn in the barrel at some point. You are not special in that regard.
-
What a magnificent response to my post, which when simplified, says that if you are going to pin this jerk on me, you have to accept responsibility for your own jerks. It’s as simple as that.
[QUOTE=Happy Fun Ball]
I have never declared my atheism to anyone except my wife and my closest friends.
[/QUOTE]
Good for you. I’m sure people cared one way or the other, too.
No, they probably didn’t. And don’t.
Oh, right, a well formed argument that destroys your points is a “great big wall of text” and dismissed because it’s thorough.
Whatever. Who cares? My point is that religious people like him (and in this way, this asshole and Pat Robertson are pretty similar) hate atheists because of their nature, because they have the audacity to deny something as simple and as obvious as the existance of the bearded sky dude. It has nothing to do with Richard Dawkins and the “new” atheist movement who dare to speak critically of religion as you’d speak of any other magical mythology because it stems from a tradition of thousands of years of hating atheists. It’s not a recent invention. You are a shitbag who’s trying to blame the victim in this case. It’s like someone saying “I hate gays because of those really outspoken ones” - no, you hated gays in the first place, you’re just using the outspoken ones as some sort of excuse.
Wait, so, it’s cool that atheists are maligned and hated like other groups are? Would you say this same thing to Jews that were complaining of systematic mistreatment in Germany in the 1930s? “Boohoo, everyone gets hated at some point”? What about gays in the 1980s?
Besides which, do you think today is the pinnacle of discrimination, hatred, oppression towards atheists? Not at all. Today is the golden age. We’re merely looked upon as the lowest of the low by a significant portion the US, we aren’t actively killed if we dare identify ourselves. What period in history do you think atheists had it pretty good?
What jerks are you talking about? My whole point is that merely applying the same scrutiny that you would to any other magical mythology besides religion to religion gets a reaction as if you were the Fred Phelps of atheism. I usually go out of my way in these sorts of debates not to attack specific people for being religious, but only attacking ideas. If I attack a person, it’s for some shitty thing they’ve said, like your “oh boo hoo, oppression happens to everyone at some point, stop whining” garbage.
I’ve brought up this example before, but years before the internet, years before I actually saw Richard Dawkins for myself, he was invariably described to be as this screaming, hateful, seething, intolerant, militant, scary man. He’s actually polite, careful, well spoken, and attacks ideas rather than people. But that’s the whole thing in a microcosm - by religious standards, someone has to be Fred Phelps tier to be considered intolerant, but an atheist merely has to say “I’m an atheist and I think your religious beliefs are wrong” to be treated as though they were some screaming bully.
Religion cannot stand up to scrutiny, so it invests a huge amount of its social capital in making criticism of religion a verboten subject, a significant part of which is to characterize people who criticize it as raving militant madmen.
What points did it destroy? I made no point except that the only atheists you hear from are the ones that talk shit on religion, and sure enough, here you are, doing exactly that. Did you think that religious people would be lined up to listen to you denigrate their faith? No, they think you’re a prick, and since you’re doing all the talking you’re the face of atheism. Moderate atheists ought to put the kibosh on you. I mean, since I’m expected to smack down this Robertson guy, I should expect no less from moderate atheists.
Cool story, bro. I don’t care what you think, but thanks for offering your thoughts on the matter.
The difference is that there was no hesitation in inserting the word “atheists” into that sentence, was there? Would you be just as willing to repeat that sentence, only substituting the words “African- Americans”, “Jews”, “females” etc.?
Are you asking if things would be different, if things were different? 
Right, because if you had to stop and actually listen to someone that was thinking, you wouldn’t be able to cling to your precious little fairy tales anymore. Like a small child with your fingers in your ears, yelling “La La La!!! I can’t hear you!!!”.
I’m pretty sure there is a difference between I can’t hear you and I heard you, but you’re not very convincing.
You can’t use reason to change an unreasonable position, not unless the person WANTS to listen to reason.
No, I simply have different beliefs, and I don’t find the atheist argument convincing. You do. Good for you.
Then why are you being so sarcastic and combative?
People can listen to your position and still reject it. That seems like a reasonable position to hold.
Because from the very fucking beginning of this thread I have been told it is my fucking fault, as a moderate, white Christian, that this Robertson fellow won’t shut his piehole. I expressed my displeasure, and then was told that that wasn’t good enough.
Then the atheist attacks began, and boy, didn’t I invite attacks when I retorted with the same words that I apparently am obligated to say to Mr. Dick Dynasty.
I. Don’t. Owe. You. Anything. I bear no responsibility whatsoever. I didn’t create the monster, I didn’t create the world where apparently everybody unjustifiably hates on atheists, but according to this thread I am to carry the burden for both. Why wouldn’t that piss me the fuck off?
In The BBQ Pit forum?
So you’re saying “Jesus walked on water” is a reasonable position???
Yeah, I hear you. That would be frustrating. But the problem is it is a polarized and emotional issue. That’s what you are actually reacting too. If it was some neutral topic and the story of a family getting raped and murdered, you denounce it immediately!!! Furthermore, when the Atheist shot those 3 muslims last month, my reaction wasn’t, “He doesn’t represent me!!!”. My reaction was “That guy deserves the death penalty!!!”
The idea that anyone who dares speak on atheism or criticize religion is an “extremist” atheist. The idea that atheists are hated mainly because of these “extremist” atheists rather than there being a thousand years long history in which atheists were oppressed as much as any other group has ever been. The idea that atheists don’t face (or, later, deserve to face) the same unwarranted oppression as some other groups have historically - or worse.
What is a moderate atheist to you? Someone who is just secretly an atheist? Or perhaps someone, who if asked directly, will sheepishly and apologetically admit they are an atheist? One that knows their place and stays quiet while religions use their power to pass religiously-empowering or discriminatory laws?
I’m not attacking individual posters for their religious beliefs, generally. I don’t come into threads about random subjects and shit all over them by dragging religion bashing into it. Do I go to a message board with open discussion and then post my thoughts to topics specifically dealing with talking about religion and the implications thereof? Yes.
Just because I fucking participate in discussions on message boards about religion doesn’t mean I walk the streets with a bullhorn telling everyone they’re stupid for being religious. Nor do I spit in someone’s face if they say “I’m praying for you” or say “HERP DERP YOU’RE A RETARD” when my friends tell me they’re going to church.
My intentions derive from a place of humanism - I want humanity to overcome our primitive, harmful, outdated ideas that we once clung to. I want to eliminate racism, sexism, oppression - and, yes, one of those ideas that we discard as we become more advanced is religion. And the world is heading that way - the people who are the most socially progressive, who are the least racist, sexist, oppressive, etc. also tend to be the least religious. And the ones who cling so hard to their religion are usually backwards in those other ways too.
The whole idea that people who aren’t hiding, or sheepishly copping to, and apologizing for their atheism are extremists is bunk. It’s just one more way in which religions attempt to stifle scrutiny because they can’t withstand it.
I get what point you’re trying to make. “This loud, ignorant, hateful guy is making Christians look bad. Well, you’re the atheist equivalent of that!”
Except I’ve never done anything like this guy. I’ve never mischaracterized people who believe differently from me so grossly. I don’t have the level of hatred that he has for the individuals with the affliction of having other beliefs. I’ve never thought that all religious people are, evil, incapable of morality, or even stupid. I do think they lack the ability or willingness to evaluate those views critically. I tend to attack ideas, not people, and from a place of wanting to stop harm or promote happiness rather than a place of wanting to oppress or satisfy hatred. I’ve never implied that horrible shit should happen to religious people because they had it coming to them the way he does.
This is the whole crux of the thing - false equivalence. “Religious extremists are bad, atheist extremists must be equally bad” - except no, I am not the equivalent of that guy at all. It’s extremely lazy and bigoted to just assume this.
Don’t come to a fucking message board designed to facilitate discussion and reduce ignorance of you are unreceptive to such things. Or at least stick to the football threads or something where you might not be so overwhelmed.