Some may be merely paying lip service to one or the other conflicting belief, but most can rationalize a sincere belief that "The Bible is true" and "killing disobedient children is something we shouldn't do."
Well, there goes the authors claim. Thanks for at least admitting it.
You cannot claim anything about a person uttering teo inconsistent statements until you ask them about them and get clarification. Many mistakes are made in casual conversation and you can't hold someone to them without getting clarification. Like I said, the inconsistencies are bourne out under examination and it becomes obvious that the theist in question doesn't believe both statements but cannot back down. When asked they always use statements that start, "No, but . . ."
The notion that most religious people are "anti-science" is a cartoon stereotype. Apparently, this is one example of a case in which YOU hold inconsistent beliefs which you are unwilling to examine: you know that most religious people use computers and get their transmissions fixed by mechanics, yet you insist on the truth of this fictional version of reality in which they don't.
No, not at all. What I know is that they
can't believe science doesn't work and is only meant to lead good theists to the dark side because they, and all other theists, use the benefits of science. The inconsistency is not mine, it's theirs.
The implication for number 2 is that theists don't really believe what they say and more evidence the author is wrong.
They outnumber us 20 to 1. The fact that some insignificant minority would like to see a law against blasphemy doesn't change anything -- if MOST theists wanted it, it WOULD be a law. The Constitution would be amended, if necessary, and people would be fined and possibly arrested for blasphemy. Since that hasn't happened, the logical conclusion is that MOST theists in this country share your opinion that it SHOULDN'T be illegal.
That they even call for it is enough. That they want the Constitution interpreted within the framework of their religion is further proof that there is a fundamental difference between the way they think and the way I think.
Again, most theists agree with you, which is why the law protects rather than executing non-believers. And again, you refuse to confront your own inconsistent beliefs ("theists believe non-believers should be killed" / "killing non-believers is illegal in a country which is mostly theist").
That isn't an inconsistent belief. You are not looking at what I want as opposed to what they want. In order for your claim to be true, you have to show that theists and atheists all want the laws exactly as written. Let's face it, they don't. Take abortion for instance. The drive to outlaw it is generally from theists. Fundamental difference right there. Laws based on their religion.
Stem cell research continued unimpeded in South America, Mexico, Canada, Europe, and Asia, and while restricted in the United States, continued here as well with government funding for existing embryonic stem cell lines and non-embryonic stem cells, and private funding for everything. The fact that the medical advance you hope for has not happened yet may or may not be due to theist interference. There is really no way to know, since there is no way to know at this point whether the hypothetical advance is even possible.
It has happened, it just got held up for no reason other than people pining for theocratic government tried to force their religion onto others.
Which is why you're not being reasonable.
No, actually, like many theists you feel I am being unreasonable because I won't accept the lies and mistakes of the author of the article.
Can you find any articles written by theists telling other theists to stop being so militant against atheists? I haven't been able to. All I find are theists and religious apologists writing articles telling atheists to stop being so uppity when asking for their due in society.
I side with Dawkins, Hitchens, Sagan, etc., because they are the only ones who make progress. People like the author of that ridiculous article are living in a dream world.
