Is there really a war on Christianity?

[Jim_MDP]

Why is it that Christians play victims? They want the government to enforce their right to persecute others ie; gays, lesbians, people of other faiths and of course atheists. And when others object to being stomped on Christians play the poor victim card. They object to the secular mythology around Christmas but of course ignore the fact that without Santa and a Christmas Carol etc few people would celebrate it.

They're the Big Dog, the Bully on the Playground for the Western world.

And thanks to their incessant proselytizing and missionary work, which they consider being "all inclusive and welcoming with open arms" they think that means the world should, must, or does agree with them.

Oops.


(Too much? )

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why is it that Christians play victims? ....

It's the most basic us vs them rallying the troops meme.

Christian Persecution Meme Generator

Persecutor Complex

When you've been persecuting a group of people for so long, that not being able to do it anymore feels ironically just like being persecuted

Think about it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not sure what the difference would be. You could read that as just two ways of saying the same thing. But I think you mean to ask whether we can determine who the aggressor is in the debate between religious and non-religious folk, especially over public policy.

I tend toward the "fighting back" interpretation, but casting Christianity as an aggressor is too simplistic a historical interpretation. Granted the first European arrivals to the Americas made no attempt to hide their desire to impose Christian faith on the inhabitants, or to practice their particular form of faith in relative peace. Despite the attempts to make the United States a secular nation, we have allowed holdover behavior that meant for many years most of our discussions of policy and morals were based on Christian faith. Sunday was a de facto day off work, etc.

From the religious believer's point of view, what's happening in these later decades is an erosion of a status quo that for several generations accepted a certain parallel between public policy and religious belief. Christians weren't fighting anything because, by and large, they didn't have to. I think we (meaning America) went from the Catholic and Protestant invasions of the colonial period to a long term of laissez-faire acceptance of religious influence over policy. If there can be said to be a resurgence of asserting religion in public policy, I'd look to the transition of the U.S. Republican Party over the past few election cycles and the accession of the Tea Party.

From the nonbeliever's point of view, there is an increased recognition of how much public policy has been or is being influenced by Christian doctrine, and a shifting public perception for how much this should be allowed. These policies are sometimes very much at odds with populist sentiment, and are thus perceived as the result of an oligarchy of (usually unelected) leaders.

Case in point. Utah has a law requiring a so-called "Zion Curtain," a two-meter tall translucent barrier separating the area in a restaurant where alcoholic drinks are prepared. This is ostensibly intended to prevent children from seeing this activity. Not unexpected in a state where the vastly dominant religion forbids alcohol. But 70 percent of Utah residents oppose the policy -- including a majority of Mormons. The governor opposes it. Restauranteurs detest it, especially national franchises who typically build according to standardized architect plans. There is no evidence it has any effect on underage drinking or alcohol-related crime. Our office of economic development quantizes the loss to our state from this and other silly liquor laws at hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Every year, including this year, a resolution is presented in our legislature to do away with the Zion Curtain, and every year (probably also this one, but time will tell) the measure is defeated. Because every year the Mormon church issues a policy statement supporting keeping the Zion Curtain in place. This is an example of behavior that probably rightly stirs opposition to religion.

It's the classic church versus state argument, and at times religions and religious people overstep their boundaries to bear upon the state. That we have historically not opposed these oversteps does not mean they are justified in perpetuity. And, shifting back to the believers' perspective, this may be why some of them have concluded that a war has "suddenly" been declared on them. They have heretofore defined "religious freedom" as including the status quo oversteps that are now being challenged, and thus see it as having to retreat from a previously held position.

I think there are affirmative acts on both sides of the debate. We have more and more challenges to public policies that seem to have an inappropriate religious basis. And we have legislatures attempting to restore a definition of religious freedom that include now-forbidden practices such as certain acts of discrimination. The "war" terminology is, I think, just hyperbole. The struggle to find a balance between religious and civil liberties is (and probably ever will be) ongoing, and the rhetoric of the debate just changes from time to time.

For the record, this is a very good exposition of the concept of religious privilege, and could easily be extended to encompass the concept of privilege in its entirety.

 

[Peregrinus]

snip Granted the first European arrivals to the Americas made no attempt to hide their desire to impose Christian faith on the inhabitants, or to practice their particular form of faith in relative peace.snip

Don't forget the 1653 letter from the Massachusetts General Assembly authorizing the capture of William Penn and his followers so they could be sold into slavery in the Caribbean. The offense "justifying" such action? They sought to practice their particular form of faith in relative peace. Note also those hanged in Massachusetts because they refused to renounce Quakerism.

 

[dudalb]

Yes, there is a war on Christianity. You see it all over the place on this site in general in a bigoted, biased and hypocritical way. Bigot and biased you should understand easily; hypocritical in the sense that you never see anything bad about Islam or, especially, Judaism written about on these forums; especially the jews.

Haters will always hate whether it is rational, fair, right or just.

Gee,I have seen plenty of nasty things about Islam on this site.

I agree that there is a lot of over the top dislike of Christianty on this site; but that is probably because it is the dominant religion in the countries where the posters live and naturally comes in for the most fire.



But that DOES not amount to a war on Christianity.

Judaism is not much discussed here because it does not actively seek converts the way that Islam and Christinity do. That sort of puts it below the radar.

BTW you might want to repharse your comments about Jews,it sounds an awful lot like the language you see the Jew haters use.

 

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by jakesteele View Post
Yes, there is a war on Christianity. You see it all over the place on this site in general in a bigoted, biased and hypocritical way. Bigot and biased you should understand easily; hypocritical in the sense that you never see anything bad about Islam or, especially, Judaism written about on these forums; especially the jews.

Haters will always hate whether it is rational, fair, right or just.

Gee,I have seen plenty of nasty things about Islam on this site.

I agree that there is a lot of over the top dislike of Christianty on this site; but that is probably because it is the dominant religion in the countries where the posters live and naturally comes in for the most fire.

But that DOES not amount to a war on Christianity.

Judaism is not much discussed here because it does not actively seek converts the way that Islam and Christinity do. That sort of puts it below the radar.

BTW you might want to repharse your comments about Jews,it sounds an awful lot like the language you see the Jew haters use.

I disagree that it is over the top. I'd also disagree with Jake's suggestion that opposing religion makes me a hater. I don't hate Christians or Muslims or pretty much anyone. That said, I consider myself not just an atheist but an anti-theist. Does it manifest itself more with Christianity? Absolutely and you nailed down the reason. Which is what I wish that everyone would use when it comes to religion.

 

[Jules Galen]

I often see the term "war on Christianity". Is there really activity against Christians in the free world? I guess in Muslim countries there may be but not in America or Europe or anywhere else in the world.

Yeah...there really is a war on Christianity. And the war doesn't come from the "Skeptics", or the "Atheists", it comes from the people who profit by mocking Christianity...like Hollywood, Radio, Music, Advertising, Comedy...all slipping subtle attacks on Jesus. And the intention is not so much to prove Jesus or Christianity wrong, but to mock it so fiercely that people lose respect for it.

And this will go on, and on, and on. And this is how Christianity will be slowly, but surely, destroyed. Isn't that cool?

Think about it...the more people mock Christianity (i.e, Comedians and Hollywood) the more more money they make and the more reason they have to mock Christianity! It's a cycle of death that Christianity can not avoid.

And forget "Richard Dawkins" and whatever Atheist "flavor of the month" who pops up - they mean nothing. The big trend is the profitability that is associated with hammering Christianity...and that won't stop for 100 years.

As a result, Christianity will be worn down to a laughable cult within 20 years. Watch it happen.

 

[Marcus]

Yeah...there really is a war on Christianity. And the war doesn't come from the "Skeptics", or the "Atheists", it comes from the people who profit by mocking Christianity...like Hollywood, Radio, Music, Advertising, Comedy...all slipping subtle attacks on Jesus. And the intention is not so much to prove Jesus or Christianity wrong, but to mock it so fiercely that people lose respect for it.

And this will go on, and on, and on. And this is how Christianity will be slowly, but surely, destroyed. Isn't that cool?

Think about it...the more people mock Christianity (i.e, Comedians and Hollywood) the more more money they make and the more reason they have to mock Christianity! It's a cycle of death that Christianity can not avoid.

And forget "Richard Dawkins" and whatever Atheist "flavor of the month" who pops up - they mean nothing. The big trend is the profitability that is associated with hammering Christianity...and that won't stop for 100 years.

As a result, Christianity will be worn down to a laughable cult within 20 years. Watch it happen.

Why yes, that is cool, I would love for everyone to see the light and lose their belief in the various fantasies, not just Christianity. That said, although I feel it is okay to mock theists here, within reason, it's not something I would do in real life. They are people too, sometimes very nice and intelligent people, despite their blind spot when it comes to supernatural beliefs.

 

[Jules Galen]

Why yes, that is cool, I would love for everyone to see the light and lose their belief in the various fantasies, not just Christianity. That said, although I feel it is okay to mock theists here, within reason, it's not something I would do in real life. They are people too, sometimes very nice and intelligent people, despite their blind spot when it comes to supernatural beliefs.

You are absolutely right. I don't think people should be directly mocked. And this is not what's essentially happening with Comedians and Hollywood and Radio and so on... But, the belief is being mocked.

In this country (the USA), it used to be that there were no Public Forums that tolerated the mocking of Religion. Sure, Norman Lear did it covertly in his sitcoms and there was Monty Python's Movie, but that was about the extent of it. However, as a result of "The Moral Majority" and it's ilk, people began to accept a little direct mocking and guys like Sam Kinnison were there to make it happen - at least on Cable TV channels like HBO, Showtime, etc..

Still, not a huge audience reached on a daily basis. And then, 9/11 happened, and it made a lot of people re-think how highly they regarded religion. Coupled with this was the Catholic Church Scandals of those priests molesting boys and Vatican covering the deeds up. As a result, the mocking of Religion went mainstream and there was nothing that could put it back into the box into which it had been. I would guess the date that Christianity became so weak it could no longer develop a response to the mocking was 16 May 2007 when the Atheist Christopher Hitchens went on Fox News and delivered the all-time most-mocking Eulogy for the recently-departed Reverend Jerry Falwell. That's the day....that's the day you can point to with certainty and say "At this point, Christianity in America is beleaguered and getting weaker and weaker, and will never recover".

The beautiful thing about openly mocking religion is that the attack can not be parried. In the old days, if someone wanted to take down religion, they had to get into a long, drawn-out argument where the Religious defender would Gish Gallop, Move the Goal Posts, or whatever to defend his position. It was tiresome and took a lot knowledge and patience - and a tonne of skills if you went the debate route. However, with mocking - just pointing out the absurdities of Religion - even the most erudite defenders of Religion are left defenseless. So, what Dr William Lane Craig can do with one hour worth of faulty logic and Gish Galllop can can be undone by the likes of an average comedian within seconds.

That's how Christianity loses.

 

[acbytesla]

Yeah...there really is a war on Christianity. And the war doesn't come from the "Skeptics", or the "Atheists", it comes from the people who profit by mocking Christianity...like Hollywood, Radio, Music, Advertising, Comedy...all slipping subtle attacks on Jesus. And the intention is not so much to prove Jesus or Christianity wrong, but to mock it so fiercely that people lose respect for it.

And this will go on, and on, and on. And this is how Christianity will be slowly, but surely, destroyed. Isn't that cool?

Think about it...the more people mock Christianity (i.e, Comedians and Hollywood) the more more money they make and the more reason they have to mock Christianity! It's a cycle of death that Christianity can not avoid.

And forget "Richard Dawkins" and whatever Atheist "flavor of the month" who pops up - they mean nothing. The big trend is the profitability that is associated with hammering Christianity...and that won't stop for 100 years.

As a result, Christianity will be worn down to a laughable cult within 20 years. Watch it happen.

I think you are right to a certain degree but not for the reasons that you suggest. Do some comedians mock Christianity today? Yes, but that is because it is ridiculous. Good ideas survive and bad ideas are appropriately mocked. It's a chicken and egg issue. I just watched on YouTube Ricky Gervais doing a hilarious routine on the bible.

All religions are under fire because people are smarter and have more freedom and independence to speak their minds.

Christianity biggest problem is that modern morality and science has passed it by. It's based on a never changing ancient text which clash with what we know today. At its core it clashes with the generally accepted mores of modern society. Most people in America now don't think homosexuality is an abomination as it says in Leviticus or think the stories of Abraham, Jeptha and Ezekial are moral. Sure, they like the Jesus hippie stuff about loving thy neighbor, forgiveness and grace, but they have to twist themselves into logical knots making excuses about the rest of the nonsense. There is no getting around the misogyny and tribalism in its text.

Do some people make a living mocking Christianity? Probably. But it's a pittance when you compare it to the money that churches rake in.

 

[mgidm86]

Nice to see you argue on the side of reality for a change (although you lose points for the "anti-religious" slur, and for the superstitious salutation...).

You insult a fellow poster, then you accuse him of being insulting.

On topic - I never met a Gawd who wasn't a psychotic dick, Christian or otherwise. I'm at war with anyone who wants to force their religion into my life, whether it be via policy or any other method. That's about all I got for the religion forum.

Cheers!

 

[Jules Galen]

You insult a fellow poster, then you accuse him of being insulting.
On topic - I never met a Gawd who wasn't a psychotic dick, Christian or otherwise. I'm at war with anyone who wants to force their religion into my life, whether it be via policy or any other method. That's about all I got for the religion forum.

Cheers!

Hey...that's an essential part of being a God! Don't ya' know that Gods are Psychotic?

Just joking. You are 100% Right.

 

[Nova Land]

On topic - I never met a Gawd who wasn't a psychotic dick, Christian or otherwise. I'm at war with anyone who wants to force their religion into my life, whether it be via policy or any other method.

I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that by Gawd you are referring to people who believe in a god?

I'm religious, and I have no desire to force anyone to adopt my religious beliefs. Indeed, that's been an important tenet of my religion (Quaker) since its beginnings in the 17th century -- that people's religious beliefs should be their own, of their own free choosing, and that it is extremely wrong to coerce people to express beliefs, participate in rituals, or provide support (financial or other) to a religion if they do not freely choose to do so.

That's why our religious services do not include group prayer or group hymn singing and why there is no passing of a collection plate, and why Quakers don't go door-to-door attempting to convert people or stand on street corners passing out Quaker leaflets. (We have been known, however, to stand on street corners or in public squares vigilling or passing out leaflets in an attempt to influence people's beliefs on social issues. As Ralph Waldo Emerson famously said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.")

Since childhood many of the people I admire most have been atheists. Atheists have an excellent record of being key figures in important social change movements, especially in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Madalyn Murray O'Hair is someone I especially admired for her work in getting involuntary prayer out of our public schools. In my teens I would often go to the periodical room of the university library, where I was able to read and enjoy her American Atheist magazine. (For some reason our local public library didn't carry it.)

I agree there are many religious people who are excessively eager to convert others to their beliefs ("psychotic dicks", if that's the term you prefer), just as there are many anti-religious people with the same propensity. Fortunately that is not true of all religious people or all anti-religious people. Personally I'm more concerned with how people live out their beliefs than with what their professed beliefs are.

I think the reason why some atheists have the impression all religious people want to force their religion on others is that the obnoxious religious folks, by the very act of being obnoxious, are more noticeable and more likely to impress themselves in our thoughts. It's easy to overestimate exactly how prevalent they are.

I think that's also true in the other direction -- that one reason some Christians mistakenly think there's a war on Christianity is they tend to overestimate the small number of obnoxiously anti-Christian people in the population because those are the people whose words and actions make the most impression on them and stick most in their thoughts. It then becomes easy to view any words or actions critical of their religious beliefs through that lens and think there's an army of folks out there trying to suppress them.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You insult a fellow poster, then you accuse him of being insulting.

On topic - I never met a Gawd who wasn't a psychotic dick, Christian or otherwise. I'm at war with anyone who wants to force their religion into my life, whether it be via policy or any other method. That's about all I got for the religion forum.

Cheers!

Oddly thin-skinned definition of insult you have, there...

Cheers.

 

[acbytesla]

I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that by Gawd you are referring to people who believe in a god?

I'm religious, and I have no desire to force anyone to adopt my religious beliefs. Indeed, that's been an important tenet of my religion (Quaker) since its beginnings in the 17th century -- that people's religious beliefs should be their own, of their own free choosing, and that it is extremely wrong to coerce people to express beliefs, participate in rituals, or provide support (financial or other) to a religion if they do not freely choose to do so.

That's why our religious services do not include group prayer or group hymn singing and why there is no passing of a collection plate, and why Quakers don't go door-to-door attempting to convert people or stand on street corners passing out Quaker leaflets. (We have been known, however, to stand on street corners or in public squares vigilling or passing out leaflets in an attempt to influence people's beliefs on social issues. As Ralph Waldo Emerson famously said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.")

Since childhood many of the people I admire most have been atheists. Atheists have an excellent record of being key figures in important social change movements, especially in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Madalyn Murray O'Hair is someone I especially admired for her work in getting involuntary prayer out of our public schools. In my teens I would often go to the periodical room of the university library, where I was able to read and enjoy her American Atheist magazine. (For some reason our local public library didn't carry it.)

I agree there are many religious people who are excessively eager to convert others to their beliefs ("psychotic dicks", if that's the term you prefer), just as there are many anti-religious people with the same propensity. Fortunately that is not true of all religious people or all anti-religious people. Personally I'm more concerned with how people live out their beliefs than with what their professed beliefs are.

I think the reason why some atheists have the impression all religious people want to force their religion on others is that the obnoxious religious folks, by the very act of being obnoxious, are more noticeable and more likely to impress themselves in our thoughts. It's easy to overestimate exactly how prevalent they are.

I think that's also true in the other direction -- that one reason some Christians mistakenly think there's a war on Christianity is they tend to overestimate the small number of obnoxiously anti-Christian people in the population because those are the people whose words and actions make the most impression on them and stick most in their thoughts. It then becomes easy to view any words or actions critical of their religious beliefs through that lens and think there's an army of folks out there trying to suppress them.

I don't attack Christians, I attack Christianity. And Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Zoorastrism, Scientology, Mormonism or any new age crap that comes along. It's not just the proselytizing, it's the promotion of false ideas. Voltaire said 'if you can get people to believe absurdities, you can make them commit atrocities'. And while certain denominations of Christianity do not proselytize and are definitely better then others, it is still Christianity. The idea that we should base our morals on what I consider to be an intrinsically immoral and false book is wrong.

I would imagine that some Christians see me as that obnoxious atheist. But I see no choice sometimes in expressing my opinion lest the world believe that the rest of us share that dominant position of society. An opinion many of us believe is wrong. What I've noticed is that regardless of how polite I am, my opinion is so offensive to what many Christians have been taught there is no escaping the 'obnoxious' tag. I'm the devil and I am trying to lead them away from God. They are only half right.

But I'm like you. I don't knock on people's door to share the 'good news'. I don't pass leaflets around and I don't street preach. But I do believe we need many more atheist voices. I'm a college educated white male, but simply by admitting to not believing in a sky being that no one can provide a shred of evidence for I become unelectable for high office.

It's like the world is the Twilight Zone on this. There is no more evidence that there is a god, any god then that Elvis is still alive. Yet if I said that Elvis was still alive, but you can't see him you would laugh. If I went further saying that if you too had faith in Elvis, he would sing you to sleep with a personal rendition of 'Love Me Tender' and wake you up with 'Hound Dog' you'd start to worry about me.

Somebody has to say that the Emperor is without clothes.

 

[Marcus]

I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that by Gawd you are referring to people who believe in a god?

I'm religious, and I have no desire to force anyone to adopt my religious beliefs. Indeed, that's been an important tenet of my religion (Quaker) since its beginnings in the 17th century -- that people's religious beliefs should be their own, of their own free choosing, and that it is extremely wrong to coerce people to express beliefs, participate in rituals, or provide support (financial or other) to a religion if they do not freely choose to do so.

That's why our religious services do not include group prayer or group hymn singing and why there is no passing of a collection plate, and why Quakers don't go door-to-door attempting to convert people or stand on street corners passing out Quaker leaflets. (We have been known, however, to stand on street corners or in public squares vigilling or passing out leaflets in an attempt to influence people's beliefs on social issues. As Ralph Waldo Emerson famously said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.")

Since childhood many of the people I admire most have been atheists. Atheists have an excellent record of being key figures in important social change movements, especially in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Madalyn Murray O'Hair is someone I especially admired for her work in getting involuntary prayer out of our public schools. In my teens I would often go to the periodical room of the university library, where I was able to read and enjoy her American Atheist magazine. (For some reason our local public library didn't carry it.)

I agree there are many religious people who are excessively eager to convert others to their beliefs ("psychotic dicks", if that's the term you prefer), just as there are many anti-religious people with the same propensity. Fortunately that is not true of all religious people or all anti-religious people. Personally I'm more concerned with how people live out their beliefs than with what their professed beliefs are.

I think the reason why some atheists have the impression all religious people want to force their religion on others is that the obnoxious religious folks, by the very act of being obnoxious, are more noticeable and more likely to impress themselves in our thoughts. It's easy to overestimate exactly how prevalent they are.

I think that's also true in the other direction -- that one reason some Christians mistakenly think there's a war on Christianity is they tend to overestimate the small number of obnoxiously anti-Christian people in the population because those are the people whose words and actions make the most impression on them and stick most in their thoughts. It then becomes easy to view any words or actions critical of their religious beliefs through that lens and think there's an army of folks out there trying to suppress them.

That's well said, Nova Land. People like yourself are why I don't automatically disrespect someone because they are religious, even though i don't respect their beliefs.

 

[Nova Land]

I don't attack Christians, I attack Christianity. And Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Zoorastrism, Scientology, Mormonism or any new age crap that comes along. It's not just the proselytizing, it's the promotion of false ideas that I see as bad.

I agree that the promotion of false ideas is bad and worth opposing. The way to do that is to address the false ideas, explaining as clearly and reasonably as one can why these ideas are false.

"I never met a Gawd who wasn't a psychotic dick, Christian or otherwise" does not address the ideas you believe are false. It addresses the people you believe hold the false ideas.

For many years I subscribed to and delighted in reading Farrell Till's Skeptical Review (until, alas, he discontinued the print version and went entirely online at a time I had very limited computer access). Till, a former fundamentalist who became an atheist, wrote many very good articles and engaged in many informative debates about specific Christian ideas he believed were false, such as biblical inerrancy. And because he knew the Bible as well as (or better than) the people he was arguing with, he was able to make detailed well-informed substantive arguments (rather than simply trade insults, as too many people do).

If your aim is to attack false beliefs, Till's approach would be a good one to emulate. He was not shy about saying uncomplimentary things about the people he was debating, but his focus was on addressing their ideas. Therefore what he wrote was much more interesting and much more valuable to me than the approach your psychotic dicks comment takes.

 

[acbytesla]

I agree that the promotion of false ideas is bad and worth opposing. The way to do that is to address the false ideas, explaining as clearly and reasonably as one can why these ideas are false.

"I never met a Gawd who wasn't a psychotic dick, Christian or otherwise" does not address the ideas you believe are false. It addresses the people you believe hold the false ideas.

For many years I subscribed to and delighted in reading Farrell Till's Skeptical Review (until, alas, he discontinued the print version and went entirely online at a time I had very limited computer access). Till, a former fundamentalist who became an atheist, wrote many very good articles and engaged in many informative debates about specific Christian ideas he believed were false, such as biblical inerrancy. And because he knew the Bible as well as (or better than) the people he was arguing with, he was able to make detailed well-informed substantive arguments (rather than simply trade insults, as too many people do).

If your aim is to attack false beliefs, Till's approach would be a good one to emulate. He was not shy about saying uncomplimentary things about the people he was debating, but his focus was on addressing their ideas. Therefore what he wrote was much more interesting and much more valuable to me than the approach your psychotic dicks comment takes.

I don't think you see me insulting people. I didn't write the psychotic dick comment.

BTW, I am amazed that the average atheist in the US knows more about the bible then the average Christian. But I am convinced it is true especially among former Christians. In fact, it was reading the Bible that made me an atheist. I specifically remember the passage that sealed it for me. I always had problems with the creation and Noah story, but treated them as metaphorical. It was the story of Jeptha. A Jewish general who promised to God if he returned home victorious he would offer in sacrifice whatever being that greeted him first. It turned out to be his daughter.

Anyone who thinks that book is moral hasn't read it.

 

[Nova Land]

I don't think you see me insulting people. I didn't write the psychotic dick comment.

My apologies. I shouldn't be posting today, as I'm behind on a lot of other things at the moment, but can't resist turning on computer occasionally, saw mgidm86's comment about psychotic dicks, and impulsively wrote a reply rather than sensibly turning computer off and getting back outside. When you replied to my comment I mistakenly thought you were the person I had written my reply to (and was in too much of a hurry to check up thread more carefully, as I should have done).

My comment should have been addressed to mgidm86. I agree that your comments and mgidm's are quite different.

From a quick glance at your comments on this page, on the whole I think your comments are fairly reasonable -- but I also think you may be prone to over-generalize a bit. For instance, you wrote:

Why is it that Christians play victims?

I think it would be more accurate to write: Why is it that some Christians play victims? Or, if you prefer, Why is it that many Christians play victims? But while there are many who do, there are many who do not.

(I think there are more who don't than who do -- and that the ones who do are simply louder and have more access to echo-chamber media -- but that's just my impression. I don't know of any accurate polling on this. Clearly there are a lot of conservative Christians who act this way, but it's no more accurate to say all Christians act this way than to say all atheists act in a way that some noticeable segment of the atheist population does. Christians, like atheists, are a very diverse group of people. If you were to put a group of people from the Church of Christ in with a group of people from the United Church of Christ, for instance, you might find more disagreements than if you'd put the United Church of Christ people in with a group of atheists.)

Similarly, I think you're mistaken to write:

They want the government to enforce their right to persecute others ie; gays, lesbians, people of other faiths and of course atheists.

Again, there are some Christians who want that; there are a great many who don't.

BTW, I am amazed that the average atheist in the US knows more about the bible then the average Christian.

That depends on how you define atheist. A hundred fifty years ago, a hundred years ago, even fifty years ago I'd say that was true, if we define atheists as people who publicly called themselves atheists. It took a fair amount of courage to do that, and many of the people who did that took it upon themselves to read the Bible and be well-versed in it in order to defend their views.

But today there are many who define atheist as simply someone who lacks a clear belief in god. That greatly increases the number of people who can be claimed as atheists (especially if you count babies as atheists, as some folks now do), but it also greatly lowers the amount of knowledge of the Bible held by the average atheist. It's true that many Christians are not that knowledgeable about the actual contents of the Bible, apart from a few parts that are repeatedly brought up; but it's also true, I think, that many atheists are similarly not that knowledgeable about the actual contents of the Bible.

That's why I found Farrell Till's Skeptical Review so enjoyable: because he did have very extensive knowledge about the topics he wrote about. In contrast, many atheist websites I've visited engage in the same kind of echo-chamber copy-pasting (without bothering to verify the material they're copying and echoing) that political and religious conservatives too often do.

And now I'm going to turn the computer off and get back outside where I belong at this time of day. Again, my apologies for confusing you with mgidm86.

 

[Marcus]

The only reasonable definition of an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in God. Being familiar with any particular holy book is not a requirement. If an atheist is familiar with the religion that is predominant in your area, that is a bonus.