The Atheist Apocalypse

[ihatemostthings.livejournal.com]

Subnormality

source
thanks to a_human_bean for posting it in antitheism

Comments

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

I can't help but feel there's something ironic about a the speech about equality despite the fact that the four people who decided on an apocalypse amongst themselves were all white males.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

Not to mention that the concepts of science, progress, reason and equality are all personified as white men too.

[overstim.livejournal.com]

I didnt notice: I dont see color. I guess you're racist.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

The problem with racism is that it tends to seep into people's attitudes and actions without them being aware of it. Sitting down to think seriously about race issues and pay attention to them does not make a person racist, it helps them prevent it.

In the same way, I can quite believe that many people don't notice people's 'whiteness' because they consider it a societal norm, but that doesn't make them not racist.

[jestingrabbit.livejournal.com]

Totally agree. Colourblind racism for the lose.

[syndicalist.livejournal.com]

It also looks like Christopher Hitchens is the one talking about equality, which is hilarious.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

[jestingrabbit.livejournal.com]

Who is reason do you think?

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Valid point, but it's probably worth mentioning that (I'm pretty sure) the four horsemen are supposed to be Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchins and Sam Harris. Four Atheists who recently made a popular documentary called "The Four Horsemen".

Just because you see, doesn't mean it's there... However, we could go in to the whole discussion about why academia is made up largely of white males, but that's pretty easy to answer too, more white men used to go to university than other groups, and it takes time to become respected in your field. But, at least in Australia, that's not the case any more (proportionally, indigenous women attend university more than white men; that's some progress right there :D)

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

You do have a point, but the "four horsemen (http://richarddawkins.net/article,3625,The-Four-Horsemen-HD---Now-on-YouTube,Richard-Dawkins-Sam-Harris-Christopher-Hitchens-Daniel-Dennett)" depicts four actual white males, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet, and Christopher Hitchens. Check out the video, its enlightening.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

The fact that it's hosted by a domain name using Richard Dawkin's name is a bit off-putting.

I've enjoyed some of this books talking about evolution, but when he turns to religion I don't find him too impressive.

May take a look at some point though.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I'm suspicious of Guruism too, but apparently we will have to suffer with the stigmata of Oxford's top evolutionary biologist name.

Its on youtube, that was just the first link on google that had the youtube link.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=CFE979715AE46A0E

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Now that you've been shown why its those four folks in the cartoon, who are indeed white and male, and its been shown why that link was on the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science's website, I'm hoping your suspicions are sufficently averted so you can listen to the discussion itself. Its worth it. Its not overtly racist or self promotional. Its a serious discussion about religion and implications on society by four really bright folks. If that's your cup of tea, I suggest checking it out.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I've enjoyed some of this books talking about evolution, but when he turns to religion I don't find him too impressive.

I've read "The Selfish Gene", "The Ancestors Tale" and "Climbing Mount Improbable", however I did enjoy "The God Delusion", I'll admit.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

I've read The Selfish Gene and Climbing Mount Improbably and I thought both were very good.

I've only seen him speak about religion on television but found his thoughts in that regard to be rather unsophisticated.

At some point I'll probably get around to reading The God Delusion, but I'd be surprised if I make much of it.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

He's adopted a wide range of approaches, mostly due to the failures of earlier more sophisticated attempts, perhaps he's dumbed it down a bit. He wouldn't have bothered had religion left science alone. I can definitely see his motivation being an evolutionary biologist.

Dawkins is a 1/4 of that table though, it was Sam Harris who impressed me, but I hadn't heard him before. He seemed to be thinking beyond traditional atheism.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

It's really ideas like 'religion leaving science alone' that bother me. As if religion was some homogeneous thing that can be talked about in that way. Very crude.

I take the same attitude towards people who think they can provide simple disproofs of 'God' without taking into account the immense variety of concepts and dieas that the word represents.

That and I just don't see the importance. Religious views have had very little negative impact upon me.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Very crude.

I notice you didn't describe my use of the world "science" to encompass mathematics, physics, biology, astronomy, etc. as "crude". Why not? If I am to be declared crude for using a word such as "religion" to describe the actions of various churches, surely I can be declared crude for grouping all the studies under the word science.

How old the earth is, what made the diversity of flora and fauna, does the earth revolve around the sun, all questions that have been historic battles between religion and science. Look at the scopes monkey trial in the states, or the creationist/ID hogwash that is plaguing our school system here in America. I guess its a bit less in your face over there, but we've got a shitload of people around these parts who think the earth is 10,000 years old, homosexuality is a sin & abomination, and the only things that should be taught in science class is Jesus loves you and abortion is murder.

I take the same attitude towards people who think they can provide simple disproofs of 'God' without taking into account the immense variety of concepts and dieas that the word represents.

That the word God represents such a wide variety of concepts is one indication that at least most of the theists are incorrect....we just go one further. Dawkins is pretty clear up front about his definition of God. He does account for the subtle differences between the god of the bible, and the deistic creator of the universe god.

However, the true flaw with the argument that atheists haven't dis-proven Thor, Isis, Zeus, or Yahweh/Jehovah is this: the burden of proof rests upon the one making the original assertion. The theists have yet to prove god exists, so no need to disprove something that has never been proven. Russell's teapot and all that...

The only thing they can prove is we exist. Then they see a reflection of their own essence in the vast mysterious universe and they call it god.

I just don't see the importance. Religious views have had very little negative impact upon me.

You are privileged enough to live in a largely secular society, but you're still on the planet earth and even in your neck of the woods every so often religious fanatics blow up subways. I hear even your religious folk are not so hip on the alternative lifestyles as well.

Tony Blair's new faith foundation will heal all that I suppose.

Anyway, carry on.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"I notice you didn't describe my use of the world "science" to encompass mathematics, physics, biology, astronomy, etc. as "crude". Why not? If I am to be declared crude for using a word such as "religion" to describe the actions of various churches, surely I can be declared crude for grouping all the studies under the word science."

I didn't criticise the notion of 'religion' as a grouping, however, generalising from specific instances to the entire concept is very crude and foolish.

In a lot of cases, saying that a specific group of religious people are 'not leaving science alone' is indeed inaccurate because they may only object to specific parts of science and by no means it all.

"How old the earth is, what made the diversity of flora and fauna, does the earth revolve around the sun, all questions that have been historic battles between religion and science"

Again, a statement that treats religion as a homogeneous entity, which is detached from reality.

" Look at the scopes monkey trial in the states, or the creationist/ID hogwash that is plaguing our school system here in America. I guess its a bit less in your face over there, but we've got a shitload of people around these parts who think the earth is 10,000 years old, homosexuality is a sin & abomination, and the only things that should be taught in science class is Jesus loves you and abortion is murder. "

So criticise them for it, not religion as an entire entity.

What you've done is moved from criticising the actions of American fundamentalists to criticising religion itself. This is comparable to criticising the notion of government because of the actions of the American state, or the notion of law and order due to specific unjust laws, or motion pictures because you've seen some rubbish movies lately.

"That the word God represents such a wide variety of concepts is one indication that at least most of the theists are incorrect....we just go one further."

I find the idea that there can be any strong disproof of all God concepts to be rather dubious. In fact, provided a wide enough definition, some notions of 'God' do exist in the world given that the term can be attached to things and people empirically observed to exist.

In any case, the point was not an argument that God exists or can't be argued against, merely that treating this concepts in such a simplistic manner is silly.

"However, the true flaw with the argument that atheists haven't dis-proven Thor, Isis, Zeus, or Yahweh/Jehovah is this: the burden of proof rests upon the one making the original assertion. The theists have yet to prove god exists, so no need to disprove something that has never been proven. Russell's teapot and all that..."

The true flaw is the idea that people need to justify their beliefs to other people.

True enough, if someone comes to your door and asserts there is a God and you should believe this, then the burden of proof is on him/her.

However, if you march up to a religious person and claim that his/her God doesn't exist, you are now the one making a claim (albeit a negative one) and it's your burden.

The person who is happy to believe what they believe without being evangelical about it need justify him or herself to no one. There is no logical necessity for them to do so.

"ou are privileged enough to live in a largely secular society, but you're still on the planet earth and even in your neck of the woods every so often religious fanatics blow up subways. I hear even your religious folk are not so hip on the alternative lifestyles as well."

A large amount of people in alternative lifestyles are religious. Heck, I've personally dated a pagan and a Christian.

I'm aware of being good friends with a lot of religious people, including an Anglican reverend. In a lot of cases I wasn't even aware these people were religious until a long time after knowing them... it's just not that important.

There are religious loonies as well and the proportion of religious people that are okay people and that are loonies varies by region but the mere fact that there are a large number of morally good, sane and intelligent religious people is enough for me not to talk in derogatory terms about all religion.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

generalising from specific instances to the entire concept is very crude and foolish.

Faith, the foundation of all religions, is belief without evidence which is antithetical to science.


In a lot of cases, saying that a specific group of religious people are 'not leaving science alone' is indeed inaccurate because they may only object to specific parts of science and by no means it all.

Most religious people will seek modern medical care when their children are sick, but not all, such cases generally involve Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse potentially life--saving blood transfusions, Christian Scientists who refuse any form of medical care, or fundamentalist Christians who rely solely on faith healing here in America. There is a ubiquitous religious belief that prayer can heal the sick. Some more mainstream folks will accept DNA evidence within a murder trial, but will shun DNA evidence for Darwinian evolution/natural selection. Sheer cognitive dissonance. There is one constant here, religion.


Again, a statement that treats religion as a homogeneous entity, which is detached from reality.

You just don't find the word "religion" useful. Okay. How about "The Church" then? "Faith based reasoning"? "Deluded Godheads". I don't see any better categorical grouping other than religion. The shoe fits. I'm painting with a wide brush, yes, and I'll address why below.


What you've done is moved from criticising the actions of American fundamentalists to criticising religion itself.

I'm citing specific examples of specific religious people going off the rails, sure. I can cite the examples of Muslims in Turkey who denounce evolution. Europe has a long history of this. I cite examples of religious folks all over the planet who, because of their faith, their religion, actively attack science and civilization.

There's a theme, and that theme is religion. The exception would be deistic folks who think god is just whatever lit the cosmic firecracker that was the big bang, yet accept all science beyond that. I respect that more, but they are still just imagining.


This is comparable to criticising the notion of government because of the actions of the American state, or the notion of law and order due to specific unjust laws, or motion pictures because you've seen some rubbish movies lately.

I see your point. It presumes a positive side to religion. Can you name a positive act that cannot be done by the non-religious (ie, requires religion to occur)? I can name some negative ones.


The true flaw is the idea that people need to justify their beliefs to other people.

I'm fine with anyone believing what they want, its when they try to inject their faith into the society at large that stirs my ire.

Malcolm X said that if people kept their religion between themselves and their god, there wont be any fight. He was trying to get black Islam and black Christianity to work together to fight racial oppression in America and he recognized that it would be a divisive force. His solution: your god ends at your nose. The problem is that the religious just don't do that, quite by design and edict. They don't leave scientists alone, not the other way around. They don't let their children choose their religion (or sexuality) all too often.

We grant them that ability too. If someone claims their 6 month old child is a democrat capitalist bisexual, we would protest at applying such labels to someone who obviously can't choose them for themselves. If someone baptizes their child Catholic, we're silent. Why is religion afforded such freedom from criticism?

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"Faith, the foundation of all religions, is belief without evidence which is antithetical to science."

(1) 'Faith' is a term that itself that has various meanings.

(2) In general, I don't think having faith somehow dispute science or means a person can't appreciate science and the scientific method

(3) Not all religions base themselves in faith. Your comment makes me even more inclined to think that when you say 'religion' you really refer to particular brands of Christianity.

"Most religious people will seek modern medical care when their children are sick, but not all, such cases generally involve Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse potentially life--saving blood transfusions, Christian Scientists who refuse any form of medical care, or fundamentalist Christians who rely solely on faith healing here in America. There is a ubiquitous religious belief that prayer can heal the sick. Some more mainstream folks will accept DNA evidence within a murder trial, but will shun DNA evidence for Darwinian evolution/natural selection. Sheer cognitive dissonance. There is one constant here, religion."

The constant is one you've picked out yourself... I know atheists who believe that evolution is rubbish, who choose belief based on what they want to believe rather than what the evidence suggests, who will seek out 'alternative/natural medicine' instead of scientifically established medicine, et cetera.

Meanwhile, a large number of religious people do believe in evolution, who approach belief in a rational manner and who use modern medicine.

Given that the examples you point out actually only represent a minority of religious persons I don't know why you think you can generalise from them. It's certainly not the sort of conclusion that would be accepted in social science.

"You just don't find the word "religion" useful. Okay. How about "The Church" then? "Faith based reasoning"? "Deluded Godheads". I don't see any better categorical grouping other than religion. The shoe fits. I'm painting with a wide brush, yes, and I'll address why below."

'The Church' is hardly any more useful, given that there is no one Church and the Churches that do exist vary so much. You can't exactly compare a Church for Unitarian Universalists with the Roman Catholic Church mind, or, for that matter, the Satanic Church (who often are not spiritual except in a metaphorical sense at all).

And, of course, a majority of religious people don't even attend a Church...

I also have no objection to leaps of faith. I have a problem if they expect me to take the leap with them, but otherwise it does no harm. In a non-religious sense, I've been known to make certain leaps of faith myself (in myself, other people, hopes...)

"'m citing specific examples of specific religious people going off the rails, sure. I can cite the examples of Muslims in Turkey who denounce evolution. Europe has a long history of this. I cite examples of religious folks all over the planet who, because of their faith, their religion, actively attack science and civilization."

There are very few religious people who can be said to 'attack civilisation', although the type they might want may be different from your preference.

In any case, what we're still talking about is specific instances of religion that may clash with parts of accepted scientific belief and might also try to enforce that clash into everyone's lives. Not all religious people are like this. An awful lot aren't.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

(2) In general, I don't think having faith somehow dispute science or means a person can't appreciate science and the scientific method

If you mean faith about the unknown, okay. If you mean faith that contradicts the proven, I disagree.

(3) Not all religions base themselves in faith.

No? Which ones don't?


Your comment makes me even more inclined to think that when you say 'religion' you really refer to particular brands of Christianity.

You're correct. Monotheism. The big three: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. I'm fairly ignorant of ancient religions or ones from other cultures. I'm no expert, you're right to point out.

a Church for Unitarian Universalists with the Roman Catholic Church mind, or, for that matter, the Satanic Church (who often are not spiritual except in a metaphorical sense at all).


The UU's do seem like cool folks. I thought Satan was a Christian concept? Are they using the term tongue and cheeck?

I have a problem if they expect me to take the leap with them

We agree. Good point.

An awful lot aren't.

They need to work on the ones in their flock who are.

We're all human, so in a way, that is what I am doing too.

You're obviously versed enough and have done enough lifting on the subject to weigh in on the discussion. Hell, you could have a seat on that table and hold your own.

Peace.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"If you mean faith about the unknown, okay. If you mean faith that contradicts the proven, I disagree."

In fairness, spiritual matters are largely outside empirical investigation.

Some religious claims extend beyond the spiritual and into the empirically observed world, but there's nothing about religion that makes this necessary.

"No? Which ones don't?"

The two main contenders are religious experience and reason.

People who have had direct experiences with divinity are working on something a bit more than simple faith. Regardless of whether you or me would interpret those experiences differently, for them they may have -met- their God. That's not just 'having faith', that's evidence-based belief.

Other religious people try to reason their way to belief. This was certainly more plausible in earlier time periods but even for a person today, if they've reasoned their way there (even if you and me think thier reason is faulty) then they are not basing their belief on faith.

"The UU's do seem like cool folks. I thought Satan was a Christian concept? Are they using the term tongue and cheeck?"

Put simplistically, it's often a metaphor for a certain kind of self-love/self-worship. It's actually quite silly to my mind, but it doesn't make any supernatural claims in any case.

Some varieties of Buddhism make very few or no supernatural claims as well.

"They need to work on the ones in their flock who are."

I think that supposes a certain kind of shared responsibility that isn't really the case.

I'm not sure if everyone of the same 'flock' does have that shared responsibility, but also not all religious people are of the same 'flock'. 'Religious' is a fairly wide term covering a lot of very different people, just like 'atheist' really. I certainly feel no particular responsibility for ill-behaving atheists.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"There's a theme, and that theme is religion."

Only because you spend yourself picking out examples of religious people that fit your stereotype.

I could list lots of black people who are criminals, and in my list there would be the constant that they are all black people, but it would be absurd to then associate blackness with criminality.

"Can you name a positive act that cannot be done by the non-religious (ie, requires religion to occur)? I can name some negative ones."

You haven't named any so far...

The requirement is bogus anyway. Religious people don't have to justify the positive impact on society that can't be replicated elsewhere without it. All they need to know is that it's good for them, and if it is and it does no harm to anyone else (which it very often doesn't) then there's no reason to hassle them about it.

"I'm fine with anyone believing what they want, its when they try to inject their faith into the society at large that stirs my ire."

Most religious people don't.

Richard Dawkins does so more than most religious people I know. My reverend friend is less evangelical (in fact, he's barely evangelical at all in the sense you would imagine)

"The problem is that the religious just don't do that, quite by design and edict."

I'll remind you of a fact from my personal life that I mentioned before.

I've known people for years without ever releasing they are religious. I have some friends who I only barely know are religious because it came up in conversation once and never again. I probably have a ton more religious friends who I don't even know are religious. You probably do as well I'd bet.

"We grant them that ability too. If someone claims their 6 month old child is a democrat capitalist bisexual, we would protest at applying such labels to someone who obviously can't choose them for themselves. If someone baptizes their child Catholic, we're silent. Why is religion afforded such freedom from criticism?"

There's a fair argument for that, yet that's not a criticism against religion... it's a criticism against baptising young children.

I have Christian parents but I was never baptised. In fact, I was actively encouraged to make my own mind up and am now an atheist.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Only because you spend yourself picking out examples of religious people that fit your stereotype.

They are most difficult to ignore. Especially when they are assaulting oneself and friends. Perhaps I'm a bit shell shocked.


I could list lots of black people who are criminals

We do not choose our skin color. We do choose our religious beliefs, if we're lucky to have parents like yours.


You haven't named any so far...

The penalty for apostasy in Islam.


All they need to know is that it's good for them, and if it is and it does no harm to anyone else (which it very often doesn't)

I agree with the exception that this ignores the harm it all too often occurs.


I've known people for years without ever releasing they are religious

You're living in a largely secular society, thankfully.


Richard Dawkins does so more than most religious people I know.

It was his job (promoting science) for a while. He's definitely reacting to the (?) attack on science that the Selfish Gene etc. produced. Really, if they had left it alone, Dawkins would be more happy studying biology purely.

The Pope once told Stephen Hawking that he could study everything that came after the big bang, but what came before it was god's realm. Stephen did not solicit, or obey, this advice.

it's a criticism against baptising young children.

It's why the religion meme spreads so effectively. Children have evolved to obey their parents. If you ignore them at a young age, you're dead. So, the viral nature of religion is thus explained.

I have Christian parents but I was never baptised. In fact, I was actively encouraged to make my own mind up and am now an atheist.

We need more people like your family.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"They are most difficult to ignore. Especially when they are assaulting oneself and friends. Perhaps I'm a bit shell shocked."

That's quite true for most groups. The loudest and most vile members of the group are the ones that get all the attention.

The ones that aren't often don't get noticed and sometimes aren't even known to be a member of the group.

"We do not choose our skin color. We do choose our religious beliefs, if we're lucky to have parents like yours."

That is a difference and quite a big one, but I'm not sure it's relevant here.

The example was meant to be an illustration of the jump between 'some/a lot/most of the people in this group are bad' to 'this group is bad'.

It's a logical fallacy that is very accepted in discussions of race of course, but it's not more logical elsewhere.

If it was a musical subculture like Goth or Punk it would still be quite silly, even though people choose to be a member of those communities.

"The penalty for apostasy in Islam."

I think it's very important to recognise that Islam is a diverse religion and the consequences for leaving the religion depends a lot on the specific religious community in question.

That being said, negative consequences for leaving a group are not specific to religion. I'm sure that similar has happened in politics for instance. I'm now speculating due to lack of knowledge, but I suspect that it may be present in some parts of gang culture as well.

"I agree with the exception that this ignores the harm it all too often occurs."

In cases where a person's religious belief leads them to actions that cause harm to others then that can be opposed (although, I tend to oppose the actions rather than the belief).

However, the vast majority of religious people I know are not any more inclined to bad behaviour than the non-religious people I know, and the times in which they do behave badly they don't seem to be religiously-motivated. Regardless of the exact proportions involved, I am reasonably self-assured that there are large numbers of religious people whose beliefs cause no one any harm.

"You're living in a largely secular society, thankfully."

The head of the UK government is actually the Head of the Church of England, which is the state religion. Our state is secular in behaviour, but not in nature.

According to studies (I just looked them up on wikipedia) at least half of the people in the UK identify as Christian. About one in ten UK citizens attend Church. That's quite a lot of religious people with little ill-effect observed on my part.

wikilinky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uk#Religion)

The problem doesn't seem to be the amount of religious people in a nation, but rather the type.

"It was his job (promoting science) for a while. He's definitely reacting to the (?) attack on science that the Selfish Gene etc. produced. Really, if they had left it alone, Dawkins would be more happy studying biology purely."

I think there is a big gap between responding to criticism and attacking religion.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

A large amount of people in alternative lifestyles are religious. Heck, I've personally dated a pagan and a Christian.

Christianity is mostly a designer religion. People pick and choose. How true was this Christian to their choice of holy book? Did they believe Leviticus? Everytime I go into a hotel room (the bible is in every hotel in america) I always tear out that page in Leviticus that says to lie with another man is an abomination and one should be killed for it.

I live in the Bay Area, where we have lots of lgbtg churches. They just ignore the bits of the bible that say they are godless heathens and no one fucks with them because they don't fuck with anyone else. However I do have a problem with even that form of religion and its this: The moderate props up the extremist. The moderate says, "yes god exists, yes the bible is the word of god, but you don't have to follow the letter". The extremist (one who actually follows what the bible says) only goes one small step further, "yes god exists, yes the bible is the word of god, and you must obey the letter". The moderate props up and justifies the framework that the extremist needs to commit nefarious acts of violence.


I'm aware of being good friends with a lot of religious people, including an Anglican reverend. In a lot of cases I wasn't even aware these people were religious until a long time after knowing them... it's just not that important.

That's nice, but then they have to ignore scripture to do so. Those who buy into it whole hog will cast the stones our direction in a heartbeat.

There are religious loonies as well and the proportion of religious people that are okay people and that are loonies varies by region but the mere fact that there are a large number of morally good, sane and intelligent religious people is enough for me not to talk in derogatory terms about all religion.

Believing in a talking snake, or turning water into wine, is neither sane nor intelligent. They may be otherwise brilliant, its amazing how they can split their minds so.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"Christianity is mostly a designer religion. People pick and choose. How true was this Christian to their choice of holy book? Did they believe Leviticus?"

Why does it matter? I don't have any interest in debating how faithful to her scripture she was. The point was that she was religious. She self-identified as Christian, believe there was a God and believed that Jesus died on the cross for our sins.

That's rather religious and thus a relevant example for this discussion.

Now, if you were talking about only Christians who believe that Leviticus must be followed word for word then you'd have a point, but they are rather rare.

"I live in the Bay Area, where we have lots of lgbtg churches. They just ignore the bits of the bible that say they are godless heathens and no one fucks with them because they don't fuck with anyone else. However I do have a problem with even that form of religion and its this: The moderate props up the extremist. The moderate says, "yes god exists, yes the bible is the word of god, but you don't have to follow the letter". The extremist (one who actually follows what the bible says) only goes one small step further, "yes god exists, yes the bible is the word of god, and you must obey the letter". The moderate props up and justifies the framework that the extremist needs to commit nefarious acts of violence."

You've not in any way shown how that is the case, or even explained how it could be the case.

Moderate Christians tend to be very critical of extremist Christians to my experience.

Liberal non-Christians can be very critical of Christianity in general.

"That's nice, but then they have to ignore scripture to do so."

I honestly don't know why you care. I don't.

I judge religious people by their values and actions, not by how they derive them.

I'd rather meet a religious person who has derived good values and a good attitude from a book of nonsense that doesn't actually support what they believe than atheist who is hateful and bigoted.

"Everytime I go into a hotel room (the bible is in every hotel in america) I always tear out that page in Leviticus that says to lie with another man is an abomination and one should be killed for it."

I don't approve of vandalism of books that you don't agree with. I'm not homophobic and disapprove of that verse, but would never vandalise a bible (or any other book) in such a way.

"Believing in a talking snake, or turning water into wine, is neither sane nor intelligent."

Not all religious people believe such things...

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Why does it matter?

We're fighting for our survival on this planet.

I don't have any interest in debating how faithful to her scripture she was. The point was that she was religious. She self-identified as Christian, believe there was a God and believed that Jesus died on the cross for our sins.

Believed in Hell and sin too, apparently. If she keeps it to herself, she is okay in my book. But as soon as she declares me or my friends sinners, we shall resist. Also, she will prop up the framework for the extremist, so I object to that on principle, but I would only bring that up in this type of context.


Leviticus must be followed word for word then you'd have a point, but they are rather rare.

I really wish they were rare everywhere, then it wouldn't be on my radar.

"That's nice, but then they have to ignore scripture to do so."

I honestly don't know why you care. I don't.

Again, I wouldn't care if they kept it to themselves, but they don't. You're ignoring quite a bit of religiously motivated oppression, which is your right, but not everyone is so lucky. In a mere 42 years of experience, I could relate quite a few horror stories.

You've not in any way shown how that is the case, or even explained how it could be the case.

Its one thing to say you believe in a sky ghost. Its another thing to have the majority of a given society pressure you into believing there is a sky ghost. Someone declares god is real, and this book is the word of god. Now, god's book says some people are sinners and should be killed, but only some people pay attention to that part, most don't, but some do.

Less would pay attention if we didn't afford such reverence to the concepts in the first place. We scare children into believing this stuff in the first place. Tell them they will burn in fire if they sin. A small percentage are not going to react well and overcome it. Some people believe that Elvis still exists, but we laugh at those people so the meme doesn't spread. However if they believe in a talking snake, they are defended. So the person who takes it one step further and suicides himself for Allah is merely following a path laid out for him by the moderates. Ask any fanatical believer, they will tell you that they other people don't have the religion right, but they do. The very fact that we accept it as "right" in the first place builds a foundation for the extremist to leap from.

I'd rather meet a religious person who has derived good values and a good attitude from a book of nonsense that doesn't actually support what they believe than atheist who is hateful and bigoted.

Crude, bigoted, hateful, foolish. You sure sling it. Anyway, okay, bully for you, but you don't really have any answer to the problem of fundamentalism and nothing to offer the victims other than "don't blame religion".

I don't approve of vandalism of books that you don't agree with. I'm not homophobic and disapprove of that verse, but would never vandalise a bible (or any other book) in such a way.

Oh sure, destruction of property gets your goat, but you know what gets mine? I don't approve of murdering gay people. Its happened to friends.
Tearing out a page that condones and promotes their murder is my small expression of resistance. If it offends you, well, too bad, you'll just have to get over it. I wish my friends were still alive, and I have to get over that too. Wanna trade offenses? At least we're finally getting some justice on that end (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/22/transgender.slaying.trial/index.html).

"Believing in a talking snake, or turning water into wine, is neither sane nor intelligent."

Not all religious people believe such things...

All religious people believe in some weird faith based idea, else we'd call them secular. You complained I was being too broad, so I got specific.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"We're fighting for our survival on this planet."

I'm not sure that shows why the rationality of religion is relevant to your claims.

I'm a non-religious and non-spiritual atheist, I don't believe religious people are correct in thier claims. I do definitely think that religious people go wrong -somewhere-. In the right time and place, discussing that is something I find interesting.

But I don't find it relevant to moral criticism of the religious. When that's the issue, I want to look at the values they live by and their behaviour. Scrutinising the rationality of thier religious beliefs doesn't seem relevant. Hence, a person that says they live by a book that says evil things but actually has good values and behaves well is someone I call a morally good person. Okay, they may not be very intelligent, but that's rather different from evil.

"Believed in Hell and sin too, apparently. If she keeps it to herself, she is okay in my book. But as soon as she declares me or my friends sinners, we shall resist."

I think there's a big difference between thinking someone to be a sinner, or even saying that they are a sinner, and commiting actions against them. In the last case, there is something to resist, whilst the former doesn't really give you anything to resist against.

"Also, she will prop up the framework for the extremist, so I object to that on principle, but I would only bring that up in this type of context."

I think she challenged it as much if not considerably more than she ever supported it.

For instance, given that she was a feminist, is it really fair to say that her specific form of Christianity props up the sexist parts of Christianity? (of which she was not a member.)

"Its one thing to say you believe in a sky ghost. Its another thing to have the majority of a given society pressure you into believing there is a sky ghost."

If this could be said to be a fault of religion, then it would seem convincing, but it's not. Nothing about religious belief implies the above being the case.

" Ask any fanatical believer, they will tell you that they other people don't have the religion right, but they do. The very fact that we accept it as "right" in the first place builds a foundation for the extremist to leap from."

I really don't think radical Islam is going to have it's mind changed if all the moderate members lost thier faith. There seems a real possibility that the removal of these 'good influences' from the Islamic community may cause it to be worse.

I really don't think that Muslims who oppose terrorism can be in any way said to be supporting Islamic Terrorists.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"Crude, bigoted, hateful, foolish. You sure sling it. Anyway, okay, bully for you, but you don't really have any answer to the problem of fundamentalism and nothing to offer the victims other than "don't blame religion". "

In fairness, that is a rather different issue and one I haven't attempted to tackle.

I was simply pointing out that attacking religion is not rationally justified by some religious people being awful people. Nor do I think it really helps anything. Those fundamentalists are not going to feel persuaded to be less awful by any attacks on religion, in fact, they're feel vindicated by them.

Look at Westboro Baptist Church. The fact that everyone hates them, including the vast majority of Christians, makes their faith and hate stronger, not weaker.

"Oh sure, destruction of property gets your goat, but you know what gets mine? I don't approve of murdering gay people. Its happened to friends."

When a bible murders a gay person then I'll support taking vengeance upon it. I naturally have no desire to defend homophobes that murder gay people and share your disapproval.

I don't think attacking free expression helps in any situation to be honest and the printing of the bible, including any vile sentiments in it, is a form of free expression.

"All religious people believe in some weird faith based idea, else we'd call them secular. You complained I was being too broad, so I got specific."

I don't think this addresses that criticism.

Now, if you were simply bringing up those examples in order to attack those examples, that would be fine.

However, you seem to be implying that those examples can be used to attack religion in general, which is not true.

Meanwhile, many religious people have faith-based claims that refer only to the supernatural and not about the natural. A person that believes that there is a God but does not make claims counter to science regarding the working or creation of the world is not making such clearly absurd claims.

[polyanarch.livejournal.com]

Did Jack Chick write this?

It's about that bad, 'cept for he's not quite an atheist. TL;DR at about the 7th or 8th frame.

Bored now...

[darkblood777.livejournal.com]

No, if it were written by Jack Chick then there would doom and gloom, and then there would be a place where you can checkmark if you want to be saved or not.

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

and a guy in a sports jacket would tell you how to be saved!

me? im still waiting for the real power. ive been roleplaying for more then five years now, and im still not able to kill people with my mind god dame it

JACK CHICK LIED TO ME!!!

[neonleonb.livejournal.com]

I think it's kind of cute. I especially like the free dictionary from the Gideons :)

[torasama.livejournal.com]

There's a number of things that could use a little tweaking, but I like the jist of this.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

It seems in the Atheist Apocalypse, pigeons will have far less to eat.