That's like saying Paul Bernardo didn't believe young girls should be raped and killed because he once denied doing just that.
No. What you offer here is not an instance of someone holding conflicting beliefs, but an instance of someone lying.
That's where the anger and hostility we see comes from. They can't and don't believe both. They simply don't examine their beliefs.
You may be right about this being a source of anger, but you're wrong when you say "They can't and don't believe both." Clearly, in many cases, they do, however inconsistent that seems to you. 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."
Oh, no. It has implications for #2 unless you think science really is the work of the devil. It is the same as the theists who come to the JREF and tell via a computer, hooked up to an internet, that science doesn't work and is really a tool of the devil used to turn unsuspecting theists towards Satanic cults where their children will be sacrificed on an alter at midnight under a full moon.
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.
That proves my point and is exactly what I said. The fact that blasphemy isn't a law is irrelevent. You will never hear me call for it to be one and yet you will hear many theists calling for it. Fundamental difference right there.
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.
In fact, most of those texts call for the death of non-believers which is another point I disagree with theists on.
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").
What you and the author are saying is that all the trivial things in life, theists and atheists do the same so I should learn to love theists but the fact that they held up stem cell research and procedures that could save my niece's life and immensely improve the quality of that life, well that's just unimportant ****.
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.
Unless you yourself are engaged in embryonic stem cell research, your day to day life didn't change because of that policy change. What you call "the trivial things" represent the vast majority of how both you and the theists spend most of the most precious resource you have.
I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more with you and the author.
Which is why you're not being reasonable.
