The War Against Christianity

[UnrepentantSinner]

That's not even the worst of it. Everytime I come on here, I am assaulted by the multitude of people who seem to think that this place is an amegalospodist forum. All the amegalospodists force their amegalospodist arguments on to me, unable to realise after all this time that megalospodism and skepticism are not mutually exclusive.

Were you trying to be insipid or does it just happen naturally when commenting on this particular subject?

We did atacoism here three years before you joined.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

If you are trying to seperate skeptic and atheism here, good luck. are you saying that atheistically skeptical persons here have to refrain from expressing that form of skeptisism here?

surely not.

Ummm, I'm not quite sure how you got that from what I wrote. I am an atheist and a skeptic. I was just noting that this is a skeptics forum, not an atheist forum. Some around here seem to be confused (or perhaps suffering consternation) about that fact.

 

[biomorph]

Ummm, I'm not quite sure how you got that from what I wrote. I am an atheist and a skeptic. I was just noting that this is a skeptics forum, not an atheist forum. Some around here seem to be confused (or perhaps suffering consternation) about that fact.

So. please define what this forum is about then, as I've obviously (to you) missed the point.

I am far from confused. Except when i read what you wrote probably. of course, thats my problem.

could you be more specific?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

If you are trying to seperate skeptic and atheism here, good luck. are you saying that atheistically skeptical persons here have to refrain from expressing that form of skeptisism here?

surely not.

Let me try again. Of course I am not. Express that sort of skepticism all the time. My point was that this is a forum for skeptics, be they religious or atheist and some around here don't like that fact.

So. please define what this forum is about then, as I've obviously (to you) missed the point.

At the top of this pages it reads James Randi Educational Foundation (not American Atheists or Freedom From Religion Foundation) and below that it reads "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way" (not the same with "unless you're religious then you're not welcome here you stupid woo, and we won't be friendly").

Non-skeptical religious people obviously deserve to be torn to shreds (see any thread started by DOC), but for some reason that "friendly" part still gets thrown out the window if the religious person is a skeptic.

 

[articulett]

So. please define what this forum is about then, as I've obviously (to you) missed the point.

I am far from confused. Except when i read what you wrote probably. of course, thats my problem.

could you be more specific?

Most people have him on ignore... he's a vigilante apologist who imagines his seniority gives him the right to tell vocal atheists to "tone it down". We have a few of them here.

(Hey, I'm flattered that you quoted me in your sig... Did I misspell "superfluous"?)

 

[biomorph]

Most people have him on ignore... he's a vigilante apologist who imagines his seniority gives him the right to tell vocal atheists to "tone it down". We have a few of them here.

Right gotcha, point taken.

(Hey, I'm flattered that you quoted me in your sig... Did I misspell "superfluous"?)

Yes , but i misspelled your name also (I put an e on the end), but ive corrected it since.

 

[kmortis]

I like rush too, but I don't recall bringing that up, maybe a typo.

I get your point here, I'm one of the "vocal few" that worry you I guess also.

What exactly concerns you over this? Do you think there is something to what i say? Is that your worry?

Or do you think some religious zealot is going to make me wear a bhurka (nevernevernevernever), or perhaps decapitate me?
Maybe I'm destined for Hell?

Perhaps you consider the direct approach I employ a little harsh on the believer?
Whats the worry there?

That I might be treading non too lightly on someone's feelings?

Oh, poor dears, there, there......

I detect your kindness and your tolerance of these issues, I used to be far more tolerant myself. I find that position less easy these days. thats all.

It occurs to me that you are possibly not understanding that religion as we know it here in the west is a campaign. An active process of converting the unconverted.

So we are not dealing with a passive "live and let live" belief here. Allowing any wriggle room gives such things room to expand. It needs to breed. It wants to infect not just the believers immediates, but everyone does it not?
I'm in a position of sociological defence. A large proportion of my fellow inhabitants around me are under the influence. Large and imposing features are erected in order to advertise the attractiveness of being a convert. It is pretty much inescapeable.

In this climate upsetting the above status quo is seen as unfair, but its gone unchallanged far too long IMO. That is why its as prevelant as it is.

that is why i take the stand i do. Can you understand that?

lemon only for me on the pancake please, I like a little bitterness........LoL

Rush was referring to the whole Dionysus/Apollo thing. It's from Hemispheres. Oh, never mind, the reference was lost and unimportant.

I'm very well aware of the active conversion tactics going on. I used to be on the other side, I used to actively convert people. Or try to. I don't think I was ever terribly successful.

Believe it or not, I fully understand your stance. I just think that it's not an effective stance to take, if you want to have conversations as opposed to screaming matches. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, challenge all the falsifiable claims that anyone, woo, skeptic, religious, atheist or whatever brings up that you feel qualified to address.

I hope you are never forced to wear a burka. I don't see that as a real possibility here in the States, but I could see some of the equal rights legislation being turned back if the extreme Christians were to get in control...to protect the poor women. That's the man's job, after all.

I guess the question I think about is, do you react to all theists equally? In other words, if you were to find out someone was a Unitarian, do you react as vehemently to them as you would Fred Phelps? If so, can you see the reason why I call that into question? Is a Methodist equal to an al Queda member in your eyes?

 

[biomorph]

Rush was referring to the whole Dionysus/Apollo thing. It's from Hemispheres. Oh, never mind, the reference was lost and unimportant.

i'll check it out though, thanks for the clarification, I'm not that well read in that area.

I'm very well aware of the active conversion tactics going on. I used to be on the other side, I used to actively convert people. Or try to. I don't think I was ever terribly successful.

Believe it or not, I fully understand your stance. I just think that it's not an effective stance to take, if you want to have conversations as opposed to screaming matches. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, challenge all the falsifiable claims that anyone, woo, skeptic, religious, atheist or whatever brings up that you feel qualified to address.

I havn't started screaming yet, though some on doubt would differ on that.
My delivery may be direct, I may use striking adjectives to outline my opinion. I am no personal attacker though.

I hope you are never forced to wear a burka. I don't see that as a real possibility here in the States, but I could see some of the equal rights legislation being turned back if the extreme Christians were to get in control...to protect the poor women. That's the man's job, after all.

not sure what you mean here...........ah, I think i've got it, (*taking you off ignore*) as my sarcasm detectoro dial has a bent needle, set on max.

I guess the question I think about is, do you react to all theists equally? In other words, if you were to find out someone was a Unitarian, do you react as vehemently to them as you would Fred Phelps? If so, can you see the reason why I call that into question? Is a Methodist equal to an al Queda member in your eyes?

Good point, I'd try not to be too vehement with any of them.

Um, as for the methodist vs al queda, on a basic, foundational level yes.
On developing a discrete strategy for dealing with the particulars those ideologies, no.

I use a sort of hierachical method, and fine tune it to the task in hand individually.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

...SNIP...
So we are not dealing with a passive "live and let live" belief here. Allowing any wriggle room gives such things room to expand. It needs to breed. It wants to infect not just the believers immediates, but everyone does it not?
SNIP...

This can be said of many things. Political beliefs, fashion, commercial products. Don't you yourself want everyone to think rationally? Wouldn't you want that idea to "breed," to "infect" everyone? A pluralistic society requires an open marketplace of such ideas.

Granted some are more controversial than others, some even dangerous. But the "live and let live" belief does not mean letting someone else's ideas trample you at will. It means allowing those ideas their breathing room up until they interfere with your right to live as you would.

Live and let live, in other words, is not a "passive" strategy. It's a way of marking the boundary between when to act and when to let slide. If religious belief in principle crosses that boundary for you, I'd argue your boundary is too constricted.

 

[kmortis]

i'll check it out though, thanks for the clarification, I'm not that well read in that area.


I havn't started screaming yet, though some on doubt would differ on that.
My delivery may be direct, I may use striking adjectives to outline my opinion. I am no personal attacker though.

not sure what you mean here...........ah, I think i've got it, (*taking you off ignore*) as my sarcasm detectoro dial has a bent needle, set on max.


Good point, I'd try not to be too vehement with any of them.

Um, as for the methodist vs al queda, on a basic, foundational level yes.
On developing a discrete strategy for dealing with the particulars those ideologies, no.

I use a sort of hierachical method, and fine tune it to the task in hand individually.

Yeah, sorry about that. I tend to be a touch sarcastic at times. My therapist says it's because I have sort of displaced anger. I think it's because most people are just morons.

The weird thing is, since I started into serious misanthropy, I've become more tolerant. Once you realize that all humans are horrible creatures, you can take that into account in dealing with them.

 

[biomorph]

This can be said of many things. Political beliefs, fashion, commercial products. Don't you yourself want everyone to think rationally? Wouldn't you want that idea to "breed," to "infect" everyone? A pluralistic society requires an open marketplace of such ideas.

I'm not directing my opinion at anything other than religion, dragging some generalistic comparison into the discussion i feel is useful, but misplaced.

Granted some are more controversial than others, some even dangerous. But the "live and let live" belief does not mean letting someone else's ideas trample you at will. It means allowing those ideas their breathing room up until they interfere with your right to live as you would.

Religion does, in my opinion, trample on and interferes with many , many rights to "live as one would". Including mine on a regular basis, I might add.

Live and let live, in other words, is not a "passive" strategy. It's a way of marking the boundary between when to act and when to let slide. If religious belief in principle crosses that boundary for you, I'd argue your boundary is too constricted.

It is a passive stratetgy, IMO as it removes the right to fight back at an expansionist, nonpassive ideology.

 

[biomorph]

Yeah, sorry about that. I tend to be a touch sarcastic at times. My therapist says it's because I have sort of displaced anger. I think it's because most people are just morons.

No worries, your sarcasm saved you, I almost thought you were serious there, for a brief mistaken moment......

The weird thing is, since I started into serious misanthropy, I've become more tolerant. Once you realize that all humans are horrible creatures, you can take that into account in dealing with them.

I never took you for misanthropic, well there's news.

I just see them as victims a lot of the time, and I can't dislike them for that, in my particular worldview.

As for my utter disbelief and reaction to belief, it comes from a pretty effective past destruction of my personal system of assuming anything, including some fundamentals about my own personal place in the world.
I fell back on the only thing i could rely on at the time, scientific fact and medical diagnosis..

For me the reliabilty of scientific evidence is now something i have to have, in order to make sense of my world. That may change in the future, but i can't see when, or how. If I do not get that type of reliability, my life, at a very fundamental level, becomes something I cannot base a sane existance on.

This might explain my resorting to reality as a foundation based on facts, and my inability to suspend my disbelief.....

i guess i might have some anger issues too..........

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

I'm not directing my opinion at anything other than religion, dragging some generalistic comparison into the discussion i feel is useful, but misplaced.

My point does need work. I’m partly objecting to the implication that religion deserves very different treatment from, say, politics. Perhaps that is a different discussion. I'm trying to decide.

Religion does, in my opinion, trample on and interferes with many , many rights to "live as one would". Including mine on a regular basis, I might add.

I don't disagree. My argument revolves around the question of whether we should therefore remove religion entirely from society, or direct our energies toward fighting back on those occasions where it tramples the rights of others.

Suppose religion could exist without interfering with anyone else's rights. Would it be okay to let it exist freely then?

It is a passive stratetgy, IMO as it removes the right to fight back at an expansionist, nonpassive ideology.

My concept of "live and let live" doesn't only mean that I must do so, but that everyone else is similarly obliged. In those places where religion oversteps that obligation, we’re perfectly within our rights to fight back -- with extreme prejudice, as they say.

I'm advocating a mutual tolerance, in other words. Not surrender.

 

[kmortis]

No worries, your sarcasm saved you, I almost thought you were serious there, for a brief mistaken moment......

Yeah, general rule of thumb for interweb forums, if something confuses, re-read as if it were a joke and see if makes sense. That rule has saved me from making a total ass of myself more than twice.

I never took you for misanthropic, well there's news.

I just see them as victims a lot of the time, and I can't dislike them for that, in my particular worldview.

As for my utter disbelief and reaction to belief, it comes from a pretty effective past destruction of my personal system of assuming anything, including some fundamentals about my own personal place in the world.
I fell back on the only thing i could rely on at the time, scientific fact and medical diagnosis..

For me the reliabilty of scientific evidence is now something i have to have, in order to make sense of my world. That may change in the future, but i can't see when, or how. If I do not get that type of reliability, my life, at a very fundamental level, becomes something I cannot base a sane existance on.

This might explain my resorting to reality as a foundation based on facts, and my inability to suspend my disbelief.....

i guess i might have some anger issues too..........

I'm only misanthropic every other day and alternating Thursdays. The other days I just hate people.

As far as using scientific evidence as a basis for your world view, we're in total harmony there. It's taken me a long time, but I've managed to shake the last vestiges of my fundy past. Personally, I like that there isn't a god. To me it adds to the mystery. There's no longer that deus ex machina that can spring something on you. You might not understand why or how something happens, but you can be assured that it has a logical explanation., even if you can't immediately see it.

 

[kmortis]

My point does need work. I’m partly objecting to the implication that religion deserves very different treatment from, say, politics. Perhaps that is a different discussion. I'm trying to decide.



I don't disagree. My argument revolves around the question of whether we should therefore remove religion entirely from society, or direct our energies toward fighting back on those occasions where it tramples the rights of others.

Suppose religion could exist without interfering with anyone else's rights. Would it be okay to let it exist freely then?



My concept of "live and let live" doesn't only mean that I must do so, but that everyone else is similarly obliged. In those places where religion oversteps that obligation, we’re perfectly within our rights to fight back -- with extreme prejudice, as they say.

I'm advocating a mutual tolerance, in other words. Not surrender.

How do you enforce "live and let live"?

And yes, as far as I am concerned, there isn't much difference between religion and politics in what we're discussing. Both have caused great harm over the years, especially when they're combined. Both have illogical premises, and faulty reasoning built in.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

How do you enforce "live and let live"?

Where your rights are being trampled, you take it to the law. Where there are no laws in place, you lobby for them. Where your representative does not represent you, you campaign for the other guy/gal.

Western democracies do a pretty good job of enforcing live and let live. Imperfect, by all means. But perfection is for idealists.

And yes, as far as I am concerned, there isn't much difference between religion and politics in what we're discussing. Both have caused great harm over the years, especially when they're combined. Both have illogical premises, and faulty reasoning built in.

As I understand biomorph (and others), this means that politics should be abolished.

 

[biomorph]

My point does need work. I’m partly objecting to the implication that religion deserves very different treatment from, say, politics. Perhaps that is a different discussion. I'm trying to decide.

I can see that, I think it is a different discussion, on a reality check basis really. When you've made your mind up , let me know.

I don't disagree. My argument revolves around the question of whether we should therefore remove religion entirely from society, or direct our energies toward fighting back on those occasions where it tramples the rights of others.

IMO directing our energies to fighting back when it tramples on the rights of others does mean with the aim of eventually getting rid of it altogether. It tramples on the rights of all its partakers, whether they are aware of it or not, I feel.
You seem to think the tiger can be tamed, I think history and current events speak otherwise. I respect your opinion to hold that view, I cannot hold that view myself however..

Suppose religion could exist without interfering with anyone else's rights. Would it be okay to let it exist freely then?

That, from my personal perspective, is an impossibilty. And if so, I'd have to see an example first, and offer it up to examination. Then I'd decide.

My concept of "live and let live" doesn't only mean that I must do so, but that everyone else is similarly obliged. In those places where religion oversteps that obligation, we’re perfectly within our rights to fight back -- with extreme prejudice, as they say.

I'm advocating a mutual tolerance, in other words. Not surrender.

Ah, mutual tolerance. that old and useful peacemaker.

I'm afraid that the most active converters will use that effectively to nullify ones defences.
the religious communtity knows full well how to deal with such , in their eyes, fencesitters.

 

[kmortis]

Where your rights are being trampled, you take it to the law. Where there are no laws in place, you lobby for them. Where your representative does not represent you, you campaign for the other guy/gal.

Western democracies do a pretty good job of enforcing live and let live. Imperfect, by all means. But perfection is for idealists.




As I understand biomorph (and others), this means that politics should be abolished.

Heehee...good luck on that. In fact, good luck on getting religions outlawed/abolished.

 

[kmortis]

I can see that, I think it is a different discussion, on a reality check basis really. When you've made your mind up , let me know.


IMO directing our energies to fighting back when it tramples on the rights of others does mean with the aim of eventually getting rid of it altogether. It tramples on the rights of all its partakers, whether they are aware of it or not, I feel.
You seem to think the tiger can be tamed, I think history and current events speak otherwise. I respect your opinion to hold that view, I cannot hold that view myself however..

That, from my personal perspective, is an impossibilty. And if so, I'd have to see an example first, and offer it up to examination. Then I'd decide.


Ah, mutual tolerance. that old and useful peacemaker.

I'm afraid that the most active converters will use that effectively to nullify ones defences.
the religious communtity knows full well how to deal with such , in their eyes, fencesitters.

Well, ya see, you "L&LL" for all the ones that follow the same. Then when you come across that jackass that abuses the system, you eject them from the tribe. Or smother them in peanut butter and leave them for a pack of wild dingos.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Suppose religion could exist without interfering with anyone else's rights. Would it be okay to let it exist freely then?

That, from my personal perspective, is an impossibilty. And if so, I'd have to see an example first, and offer it up to examination. Then I'd decide.

I'm glad you (sort of) asked. How about the Buddhists, Quakers, reform Jews, Amish, Unitarian Universalists, Baha’is, Pagans, Wiccans, etc., and all the mainstream Christians, Muslims and Hindus who are as mortified by the extremists in their religions as we are?

I can't help seeing your solution as a baby-with-the-bathwater kind of deal.

I'm afraid that the most active converters will use that effectively to nullify ones defences.
the religious communtity knows full well how to deal with such , in their eyes, fencesitters.

A genuine danger. It may be that our takes on the solution to that will never be reconciled.

Ah, well. Live and let live.