Christianity is a religion of tolerance and other assorted myths

[Achilles]

Can you prove to me that it is not some form of atheist crusade against religion you are promoting?

No, Nancy. No one can prove something doesn't exist, that's why the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim - in this scenario: you.

 

If it is not then why do you insist in spewing forth your hateful bile against it?

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referencing.

[Nancy Allen``]

Things such as your ad hominem comments rather than addressing the topic. If you have a point to make then make it. The trolling and flame baiting ends now. You will not be warned again.

[Achilles]

Things such as your ad hominem comments rather than addressing the topic.

Ooo, afraid you might be confused as to what that actually means. No ad hominems have been used here. Perhaps I can dig up the post where Spider AL offered a similar correction as clarification?

 

If you have a point to make then make it.

I have made it and as per usual we now appear to be dancing around it.

 

The trolling and flame baiting ends now.

I've done neither. In fact, if anyone is distracting from the conversation, it's you. If you look at my post, I'm actually trying to engage the topic while you appear to be moving away from it.

 

From post 45, I'm waiting for your argument as to why religion should not be held accountable for it's doctrines.

 

From post 47 & 49, I'm waiting for suggestions on how we break our apparent impasse.

 

Also from post 49 (and 51), I'm waiting for a counter-argument as to why anyone other than you is expected to support your assertions.

 

Would you care to engage any of these points or would you prefer to level more baseless assertions at me?

 

You will not be warned again.

Warned against what?

[ET Warrior]

There has been no flame baiting nor trolling. Post #43 was non-conducive to actual debate, but was not any real violation of the rules of the Senate Chambers.

[Nancy Allen``]

If you want to drag up posts from that crazy creepy crawly you go right ahead, just keep in mind that the rock spider publicly argued with the mods and admin on this.

 

You seem to be under the impression that all theists are to be punished for the crime of one, and yet atheists are not to be held accountable for their crimes. Such as when Stalin and Mao killed those who practiced religion, apparently atheism is not to blame for that. However one act commited by a Christian is enough for all of religion to be condemned. Pretty double standered.

 

Another example. People make the claim that homosexuals are the reason for aids, yet we have been able to grow from treating them as second class people. Why then should it be any diffirent for religion? People claim it is some great evil, an insult to

everyone who practices it. Do you really believe that every theist is that ignorant?

 

This is a registered trademark pof ET Warrior, copyright 2007.

 

You are in a debate forum. People are going to debate with you when they believe you are stating things that are not correct.

 

Now given your words and actions it would seem that your feelings towards religion go beyond mere atheism. In fact I would go so far as to say that you harbour a deep hatred for it, as well as anyone who defends the right for people to follow it. Is this assessment wrong? Then why does this intolerance and desire to persecute religion so clearly show in your comments?

[Achilles]

If you want to drag up posts from that crazy creepy crawly you go right ahead, just keep in mind that the rock spider publicly argued with the mods and admin on this.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Emphasis mine.

 

None of my comments attempted to discredit the argument based on the source (i.e. Nancy doesn't know what she's talking about because she's a girl, etc). I have attempted to discredit the argument based on lack of evidence or the fact that it's obvious conjecture, but these are prefectly acceptable reasons for an argument to be considered discredited. I can't help it if that's uncomfortable for you.

 

You seem to be under the impression that all theists are to be punished for the crime of one, and yet atheists are not to be held accountable for their crimes.

Punished? That would appear to be another argument from your imagination that you will need to support.

 

Such as when Stalin and Mao killed those who practiced religion, apparently atheism is not to blame for that.

Right because there is no causal relationship. All you have to do is produce evidence of a central atheist doctrine that calls for the persecution of theists and your causal relationship will be established and your argument defendable.

 

However one act commited by a Christian is enough for all of religion to be condemned. Pretty double standered.

An extreme example, but not a double-standard by any means.

 

A) Bible promotes killing => Religious people kill => Causal relationship.

B) Totalitarian regime promotes killing => members of both atheist and theist totalitarian regimes kill => Causal relationship for totalitarianism, but not for athiesm.

 

Another example. People make the claim that homosexuals are the reason for aids, yet we have been able to grow from treating them as second class people. Why then should it be any diffirent for religion?

Sorry, you'll have to help me understand how that's a relevant example of your point.

 

People claim it is some great evil, an insult to everyone who practices it. Do you really believe that every theist is that ignorant?

I think the adage is "truth hurts". No one is denying that people sometimes do good things in the name of religion. However people that do those things would probably do them without religion and the ones that wouldn't aren't genuinely good anyway, so what's the point?

 

In contrast, evil people have been using religion doctrine as justification for their actions for centuries. Religion probably didn't make them evil, but it certainly allowed them to be.

 

This is a registered trademark pof ET Warrior, copyright 2007.

<snip>

And?

 

Now given your words and actions it would seem that your feelings towards religion go beyond mere atheism. In fact I would go so far as to say that you harbour a deep hatred for it, as well as anyone who defends the right for people to follow it. Is this assessment wrong?

Yes. I'm not sure how one hates something conceptual. I'm not a big fan of irrational thinking and dogmatism, but "hating" them seems to make about as much sense as declaring war on "terror".

 

I welcome the opportunity to learn from others that have viewpoints that differ from mine, but I can't think of a single time that I've been tempted to adopt a viewpoint that was less intellectually rigorous or logically sound. As such, you're more than welcome to defend whatever you'd like. It's not like I can stop you. It would probably be in your best interest to actually have some valid points if you wish to engage me though.

 

PS: I find it amusing that you presume to judge my actions considering that you've probably never had an opportunity to see me act in any capacity.

 

Then why does this intolerance and desire to persecute religion so clearly show in your comments?

Sorry, I don't know how I'm supposed to present evidence that supports your conjecture. Perhaps you have some examples of where I've actually been intolerant or sought to persecute religious people?

[Nancy Allen``]

Let me try and put this as simply as I can. I believe that people can follow any religion they choose to, or no religion. That's their right. You can pine for a return of Communist Russia if this is a view you do not agree with.

[Achilles]

Let me try and put this as simply as I can. I believe that people can follow any religion they choose to, or no religion.

This is the part where Nancy resorts to non sequitur statements to avoid having to address anything I've said.

 

You can pine for a return of Communist Russia if this is a view you do not agree with.

Considering that I've never been to communist Russia, how could I possibly return there?

[Nancy Allen``]

Oh up here for thinking will ya? You know why I, as you put it, resort to non sequiter comments? Because my normal posts seem to be too much for you. As I said people have the right to religion. Don't like it? Tough. Short of an antitheist crusade or another Communist uprising religion is allowed. I'm not a Pagen, I'm against the ways of Islam (such as how it treats women for example), but people have the right to follow these religions so I leave it well alone. The same for atheism, people have a right to not believe and I have no problem with it. The problem arises when someone comes along and wants to pick a fight.

 

Just on that, do we blame atheism for people who want to cause trouble for religion or the individual?

[Samuel Dravis]

So:

 

1. People have the right to believe as they will.

2. People have the right not to believe.

 

Both statements apply only to unprovable things. After all, we would consider it insane for someone to justify his killing someone by the idea that 'he wasn't really killing them.'

 

In order to ensure #2, #1 must be qualified: People can believe what they want so long as their actions do not impose that belief on others.

 

Achilles' point was that religion specifically says to impose particular restrictions on other people, regardless of their own will.

 

Atheism does not purport to be a guiding set of moral values, and does not issue directives on action - 'atheist' is only descriptive of the non-belief in god(s). Thus, simply being atheist does not mean that a murderer killed because he was one; it simply means he had some reason to kill. Stalin killed people because he was terrified of opposition. His being an atheist did not direct him to kill them; his fear did, and probably many other factors as well. He may have had less inhibitions about killing people than a given religious person, I admit. Of course, even I have more inhibitions than Stalin, so I'd venture to say that the religion or lack thereof has little to do with the killings in this case.

 

Religion (and I mean specific institutions, not so much the general idea of religion) has historically done harm in that many times #1 did not have the qualification we supplied - it did not care whether or not people believed in it. This has led to many tragedies, including such things as suicide bombers and various persecutions, perpetrated by whoever happens to be in power at the time. It also creates situations where one party is of the belief that their actions are endorsed by God and are "God's Will." This, of course, is clearly dangerous to the qualification on #1: religion/action must not be forced on belief alone. After all, if God wills something it cannot be wrong, and it is easy to believe that you are doing the nonbelievers a favor by forcing them to act virtuously (usually not considering the fact that forced action is amoral, if anything). Overall I would argue that religion in general is getting better about this, but still doesn't quite get it yet.

 

Achilles was simply pointing out that religion cannot expect to be allowed to dictate to others what to do. Its role, insofar as it exists today, should be to lead people, not push them. But when a religion does push - well, all I can say is that it had better be ready to get pushed back. People don't like to be told what to do, and if you can't give an understandable reason they probably will like it even less. Thus, the much-vilified 'antitheists'... they are, quite simply, products of religion that has seen fit to go outside of its legitimate bounds. Even Achilles would probably not be talking about this if no one was trying to force some type of religious constraint upon the infidels.

 

Few people really care about what doesn't affect them. Have you ever wondered why so many people up in arms about religion? Perhaps they may have legitimate complaints, just as you find problems with some teachings of Islam.

 

Just on that, do we blame atheism for people who want to cause trouble for religion or the individual?

You can't really blame atheism, because there's nothing to blame. A non-belief in god(s) does not have a causal relationship with attacking that belief in others.

 

For someone simply causing trouble without reason, I suppose you could blame them for their own actions. If their reason for 'causing trouble' was created by overzealous religious activity, however, there's little to blame but that religion itself.

 

 

 

If I accidentally misrepresented Achille's arguments I am sorry - I just read through the thread quickly. If so, please consider the ideas in this post my own only.

[Achilles]

As I said people have the right to religion. Don't like it? Tough.

I've never implied that they don't. In fact I believe that I've clearly stated on multiple occasions that I support religious freedom. Hence why these comments make it appear as though you might not be paying attention to the discussion.

 

Short of an antitheist crusade or another Communist uprising religion is allowed.

Or until there are no more gaps for god to hide in. Or until people begin to put superstition aside and choose to look at things rationally. Or until professed beliefs in mysticism becomes so embarrassing in the cultural context that people abandon faith for reason.

 

You seem rather bloodthirsty, Nancy. You seem to want to paint things in the most violent light possible. Why is that?

 

I'm not a Pagen, I'm against the ways of Islam (such as how it treats women for example), but people have the right to follow these religions so I leave it well alone.

What if Islamists started conducting monthly terrorist attacks on U.S. soil? Would you continue your doctrine of tolerance (which I don't buy for a second, btw, considering how you harass and misrepresent non-theists)? What if these attacks started to affect people that you know or even yourself? At what point would you decide that beliefs of others being imposed on you had gone too far?

 

The same for atheism, people have a right to not believe and I have no problem with it. The problem arises when someone comes along and wants to pick a fight.

There's a difference between picking a fight and having a discussion. As I've pointed out before, participation in these discussion is completely voluntary. If you don't like having your religion questioned, no one is keeping you here.

 

Just on that, do we blame atheism for people who want to cause trouble for religion or the individual?

Because atheism has no central doctrines, we can only look to the individual (unless there is another doctrine at work, such as fascism, etc). Conversely with religion we have doctrine and individual actions, so we have to look at both.

 

@SD: Nice post

[Nancy Allen``]

So:

 

1. People have the right to believe as they will.

2. People have the right not to believe.

 

By that people are allowed to follow religion, or not to. You'll get the extremists who think that it should be their way and their way only, and that applies for atheism as well as religion. My experiance is that while I see the nuts wanting to force the world to...to whatever, it's always the crazies that we pay attention to and not the mass majority, the 99% of those who pay what other people think no mind.

 

Atheism does not purport to be a guiding set of moral values, and does not issue directives on action - 'atheist' is only descriptive of the non-belief in god(s). Thus, simply being atheist does not mean that a murderer killed because he was one; it simply means he had some reason to kill.

 

My experiance sadly is that atheists wish for there to be some form of ban on religion. That's what's so sad about this, that people are making it look bad. The same as theists do for their religion. To answer the question on religious action I can answer several specific examples. On suicide bombers, Islamic terror, religion is misinterpreted, or centering on one piece of scripture while ignoring the rest. It's that or someone with an axe to grind using religion to justify murder, your pick. The same can also be said for much of religious evil. God saying to kill, this isn't God saying to kill, this is rather God saying to carry out the law of the land, which was, to kill. The Crusades? This was to defend Europe from being conqured by Islam.

 

Even Achilles would probably not be talking about this if no one was trying to force some type of religious constraint upon the infidels.

 

Do two wrongs make a right? Because religion interferes with people's lives that entitles atheists to do the same? If so then atheists do exactly what they criticize religion for. People who act this way, they're either jerks with such a huge religious chip on their shoulder or very clever theists portraying atheism in a very negative light.

 

Few people really care about what doesn't affect them. Have you ever wondered why so many people up in arms about religion? Perhaps they may have legitimate complaints, just as you find problems with some teachings of Islam.

 

Does that give people the right to attack others because of their beliefs?

 

Or until there are no more gaps for god to hide in. Or until people begin to put superstition aside and choose to look at things rationally. Or until professed beliefs in mysticism becomes so embarrassing in the cultural context that people abandon faith for reason.

 

How about until religion can be conclusively proven? Until there is a backlash against the hounding and atheists choose to back off? Until people who get a hard on over trying to control people's lives grow up?

 

You seem rather bloodthirsty, Nancy. You seem to want to paint things in the most violent light possible. Why is that?

 

Bloodthirsty? Well if you play in the jungle you have to play by the jungle rules, and someone who is provoked by certain comments can be downright mean, but in this particular case something like the Crusades is something atheists like to point to and go "See? See? Religion is evil."

 

What if Islamists started conducting monthly terrorist attacks on U.S. soil? Would you continue your doctrine of tolerance (which I don't buy for a second, btw, considering how you harass and misrepresent non-theists)? What if these attacks started to affect people that you know or even yourself? At what point would you decide that beliefs of others being imposed on you had gone too far?

 

Don't buy for a second huh? Well in reply to that I say you're just itching to attack religion every chance you get. You say you don't but clearly you do. You go on about things such as the rapture so you can make religion out to look bad, even though you know as an atheist that it's a hoax. If you weren't so blinded by your hatred of religion you wouldn't make the comments you do.

 

To answer your question however how much of the Islamic world do you think makes up Al Qaeda? Right, now take away religion from the equation and look at all the other reasons they seek to kill.

 

There's a difference between picking a fight and having a discussion. As I've pointed out before, participation in these discussion is completely voluntary. If you don't like having your religion questioned, no one is keeping you here.

 

It's a shame then that you don't know the first thing about which is which. What isn't liked is for the bigots, the fanantics, the logic Nazis and the like to swoop in here and attack the people involved in the discussion rather than the discussion itself. It makes the people who act that way look like they have an overwhelming capacity to hate when they act like this, as well as cowards of the lowest order because the smart money says that they wouldn't act this way if they weren't safely behind a computer. It's almost as bad as those who use their smarts to beat thise into the ground who don't immediately put them in their place.

 

Just some food for thought here. I would say on many levels people need religion to be able to become better people, and there is every chance there might be one nut among the group but historically people overreact by worrying over everyone else and not the one nut. If it helps you better able to accept it then think of religion as a way for people to become as logical, to attain the same moral fibre and rigour that atheists pride themselves on more than overstuffed royal peacocks strutting about like the cock of the world.

[Achilles]

By that people are allowed to follow religion, or not to. You'll get the extremists who think that it should be their way and their way only, and that applies for atheism as well as religion.

You want to paint this as an extremism issue, but it's not. Anyone living in a democracy that has a vote is a cog in wheel. Do you put your christian sensibilities aside when you step into the voting booth to cast your ballot on a proposal or an election? The choices of the majority affect everyone and a "christian" majority means that christians get to determine what is right and what is wrong for everyone.

 

My experiance is that while I see the nuts wanting to force the world to...

be denied access to medical abortions, not be able to benefit from embryonic stem cell research, be subjected to prayer in school, etc.

 

My experiance sadly is that atheists wish for there to be some form of ban on religion.

Wow. Next time you come across one of these atheists, please point him or her out to me so that I know what one looks like. It's amazing to me that out of all the atheist books I've read, lectures I've viewed, and discussions that I've had, I've never once met an atheist that promoting anything like this. Apparently I run in different circles.

 

On suicide bombers, Islamic terror, religion is misinterpreted, or centering on one piece of scripture while ignoring the rest.

Who are you to dictate which parts of islam are misinterpreted? Have you read the qu'ran? It seems as though you wish to speak as an authority on a subject which I suspect you know very little.

 

It's that or someone with an axe to grind using religion to justify murder, your pick.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge all the other options that the people much more familiar with the religion give you to choose from?

 

Do two wrongs make a right? Because religion interferes with people's lives that entitles atheists to do the same?

Examples please? Are you going to once more point to the completely voluntary religious threads on various message boards that contain posts protected by free speech as examples of how atheist "persecute" theists?

 

Does that give people the right to attack others because of their beliefs?

Define "attack".

 

How about until religion can be conclusively proven?

Sure. When did you guys plan on getting started on that?

 

Until there is a backlash against the hounding and atheists choose to back off?

You mean when certain theists complain because they don't like having their beliefs questioned? No amount of complaining in the world is going to magically make the irrational rational.

 

Until people who get a hard on over trying to control people's lives grow up?

Hypocrite much?

 

Bloodthirsty? Well if you play in the jungle you have to play by the jungle rules, and someone who is provoked by certain comments can be downright mean, but in this particular case something like the Crusades is something atheists like to point to and go "See? See? Religion is evil."

But the Crusades actually happened. Christians have killed in the name of god.

 

How this explains why you think modern atheists feel compelled to somehow reciprocate for something that happened centuries before any of us were born is a little beyond me. False dichotomies are bad enough, but yours always seem to involve bloodshed and people dying for some reason.

 

"You can either be disembowled or beheaded"

"Um...I'd really rather just have a nice slice of cake please"

 

Don't buy for a second huh? Well in reply to that I say you're just itching to attack religion every chance you get.

Again, define "attack". Yes, I look do enjoy posting in religion-related thread because I'm hoping that some reasonable person might be persuaded to look at their beliefs and realize that there are some holes that they had never really considered before. Similarly, I hope that my loud-mouth antics might inspire other atheists that have been cowed into thinking that speaking out against religion is wrong to ignore those taboos.

 

Does that make me a bloodthirsty lunatic looking to initiate theocracide? Not even close. And before you respond, I already know that you firmly believe that thoughts are dangerous and people are incapable of speaking out rather than grabbing a machete and heading for the streets, but you're just going to have to accept that you're wrong on this one.

 

You say you don't but clearly you do.

Not in the sense that you use the word. I've never denied that I enjoy speaking out (not that it's ever come up)

 

You go on about things such as the rapture so you can make religion out to look bad, even though you know as an atheist that it's a hoax.

I draw attention to the loony doctrines of religion so that everyone can see how loony they are. It's not like I'm making the stuff up. Don't blame me, I'm not the one that put it there.

 

If you weren't so blinded by your hatred of religion you wouldn't make the comments you do.

I've already addressed this.

 

To answer your question however how much of the Islamic world do you think makes up Al Qaeda? Right, now take away religion from the equation and look at all the other reasons they seek to kill.

This doesn't answer any of my questions at all. Please try again.

 

It's a shame then that you don't know the first thing about which is which. What isn't liked is for the bigots, the fanantics, the logic Nazis and the like to swoop in here and attack the people involved in the discussion rather than the discussion itself.

Nancy, if you look, you'll notice that I started this thread. If anyone swooped in and pooped on it, it was you. I'm not angry though, because it's a freakin' message board and you have a protected right to free speech. If you don't like what I have to say, then don't read my posts. It really is that simple.

 

However if you wish to engage me, that's fine. But please don't cry when I don't just roll over, suspend my ability to think, and mindlessly accept everything that you say.

 

Oh and good job on the name calling. That doesn't make your earlier reported post appear hypocritical or anything, so don't you worry.

 

It makes the people who act that way look like they have an overwhelming capacity to hate when they act like this, as well as cowards of the lowest order because the smart money says that they wouldn't act this way if they weren't safely behind a computer. It's almost as bad as those who use their smarts to beat thise into the ground who don't immediately put them in their place.

These are rather deep insights. I'm sure some therapy could help you sort though some of these feelings that you're having.

 

Just some food for thought here. I would say on many levels people need religion to be able to become better people, and there is every chance there might be one nut among the group but historically people overreact by worrying over everyone else and not the one nut. If it helps you better able to accept it then think of religion as a way for people to become as logical, to attain the same moral fibre and rigour that atheists pride themselves on more than overstuffed royal peacocks strutting about like the cock of the world.

Such language.

Yes, I understand that some people need the crutch that religion provides them, however that does nothing to make religion any more valid. Even if we were to accept that this was sufficient reason to keep our superstitious beliefs, it is not sufficient justification for allowing said superstitions to dictate the course of out lives.

[Nancy Allen``]

All I'll say for now if that if you don't like others acting nasty towards you then maybe you shouldn't act nasty towards them. You just sit and think about that until I have time to properly address the relevent points and leave out the petty childish BS.

[Nancy Allen``]

Excuse the double post, but why should we allow religion? Why should we absolve it of the crimes individuals who practice it commit? Because it's the right thing to do. That's reason enough. Go after those who do wrong by all means but do not prosecute the innocent as well as the guilty.

[Samuel Dravis]

By that people are allowed to follow religion, or not to. You'll get the extremists who think that it should be their way and their way only, and that applies for atheism as well as religion. My experiance is that while I see the nuts wanting to force the world to...to whatever, it's always the crazies that we pay attention to and not the mass majority, the 99% of those who pay what other people think no mind.

I don't think that all religious people are oppressive theocrats, of course not. Nearly all of the religious people I know are pretty good people. That doesn't mean they don't endorse small things, such as forced prayer time, etc, in schools. A small thing, to them; a bigger thing to the nonbeliever. I'd rather they not do things like this.

 

My experiance sadly is that atheists wish for there to be some form of ban on religion. That's what's so sad about this, that people are making it look bad. The same as theists do for their religion.

Perhaps I have a different perspective on what atheists wish, but for my part I see them as wanting non-interference, not the ban of religion outright. Granted, some do hate religion and would do away with it if they could. I will not excuse their actions nor do I condone them in any way.

 

To answer the question on religious action I can answer several specific examples. On suicide bombers, Islamic terror, religion is misinterpreted, or centering on one piece of scripture while ignoring the rest. It's that or someone with an axe to grind using religion to justify murder, your pick. The same can also be said for much of religious evil. God saying to kill, this isn't God saying to kill, this is rather God saying to carry out the law of the land, which was, to kill. The Crusades? This was to defend Europe from being conqured by Islam.

The problem is that religion can be used in such a way. It can be used to say "God wills it" and so the law of the land is put above the wellbeing of the constituents of said land.

 

This problem exists because theism connects God with morality. Atheism does not have a similar problem, because morality and atheism are separate and distinct subjects, both able to be argued for and against individually. If there is a problem with an atheist's actions, it's unlikely his atheism has much to do with it. You would have to investigate his moral framework to find out why he does things.

 

 

Do two wrongs make a right? Because religion interferes with people's lives that entitles atheists to do the same? If so then atheists do exactly what they criticize religion for. People who act this way, they're either jerks with such a huge religious chip on their shoulder or very clever theists portraying atheism in a very negative light.

If you mean interfering as in stopping the theists from forcing their beliefs on others, than I think it's acceptable. If interfering means forcing atheism on those who would believe otherwise, then no, it is not right. Like I said before, I will not excuse nor condone the actions of this kind of person.

 

Does that give people the right to attack others because of their beliefs?

If they have a legitimate complaint of abuse of power, then quite frankly they have every right to complain about it. If they simply attack you for the pleasure of attacking (without invitation), then that, I believe, constitutes harassment.

[Achilles]

All I'll say for now if that if you don't like others acting nasty towards you then maybe you shouldn't act nasty towards them.

I don't recall voicing any complaints about people behaving nastily toward me. Where did this come from?

 

You just sit and think about that until I have time to properly address the relevent points and leave out the petty childish BS.

Did you just put me in time out?!

 

Excuse the double post, but why should we allow religion?

For the same reason we should allow people to grow mullets and listen to polka music. It's a free country. Doesn't make an individual's choice a good idea, but we can't protect people from themselves. This doesn't mean that I'm not in favor of some reasonable restrictions, but I recognize that this is ultimately an all-or-nothing proposition.

 

Why should we absolve it of the crimes individuals who practice it commit?

With the possible exception of insanity or mental retardation, I don't think that we should (obvious exceptions for accidental death, murder in self-defense, etc).

 

Go after those who do wrong by all means but do not prosecute the innocent as well as the guilty.

How is this relevant to the thread? Doesn't the Senate already have a thread on the justice system?

[Nancy Allen``]

I could reply to the **** that's put up rather that what's valid to the topic, however I know I'm better than that and it's time I started showing it.

 

Do you put your christian sensibilities aside when you step into the voting booth to cast your ballot on a proposal or an election?.

 

I vote according to what I believe will best benefit the people. Does religion play a part? Of course. That doesn't mean I won't vote for abortions, stem cell research and the like.

 

The choices of the majority affect everyone and a "christian" majority means that christians get to determine what is right and what is wrong for everyone.

 

If you don't like the way things are nobody's forcing you to stay.

 

Who are you to dictate which parts of islam are misinterpreted? Have you read the qu'ran?.

 

Yes I have. I also research what Islamist experts interpret from the holy book. Perhaps a better question is who are you, an atheist quick to condemn religion, to claim your interpretations as the holy writ?

 

Why do you refuse to acknowledge all the other options that the people much more familiar with the religion give you to choose from?.

 

How is this relevent?

 

Examples please? Are you going to once more point to the completely voluntary religious threads on various message boards that contain posts protected by free speech as examples of how atheist "persecute" theists?

 

Freedom of speech is not an ultimate right. People are entitled to not be upset by what is posted. Besides, message boards do not abide by any freedom of speech, what is and isn't allowed is dictated by those who run it.

 

Define "attack".

 

You pick it, any form of condemnation of others on the basis of their beliefs.

 

Sure. When did you guys plan on getting started on that?

 

Maybe when you're ready to listen.

 

You mean when certain theists complain because they don't like having their beliefs questioned? No amount of complaining in the world is going to magically make the irrational rational.

 

Picture how racism is condemned and you'll have a fair idea of what I mean with this.

 

Hypocrite much?

 

That would be kind of hard, considering.

 

But the Crusades actually happened. Christians have killed in the name of god.

 

I already explained this to you. It was to defend Europe from Islam. In referring to atheism this is one of the evils they so dearly love to show religion as evil. Right, and you think the world would be a lot happier if it was the same as the Middle East?

 

Again, define "attack". Yes, I look do enjoy posting in religion-related thread because I'm hoping that some reasonable person might be persuaded to look at their beliefs and realize that there are some holes that they had never really considered before. Similarly, I hope that my loud-mouth antics might inspire other atheists that have been cowed into thinking that speaking out against religion is wrong to ignore those taboos.

 

All I'll say about this is if this is the way you choose to behave then fix your attitude before someone does it...no, actually you go and find out the hard way.

 

Does that make me a bloodthirsty lunatic looking to initiate theocracide? Not even close. And before you respond, I already know that you firmly believe that thoughts are dangerous and people are incapable of speaking out rather than grabbing a machete and heading for the streets, but you're just going to have to accept that you're wrong on this one.

 

So why is it then that you feel so threatened by religious thoughts if it is wrong to think that thoughts are dangerous.

 

I draw attention to the loony doctrines of religion so that everyone can see how loony they are. It's not like I'm making the stuff up. Don't blame me, I'm not the one that put it there.

 

It's a conspiracy theory cooked up to discredit religion. Nothing more.

 

This doesn't answer any of my questions at all. Please try again.

 

You think religion is the reason for Al Qaeda's war on the world?

 

 

How is this relevant to the thread? Doesn't the Senate already have a thread on the justice system?

 

It's relevent in that crying out for religion and those who practice it to share the blame for crimes committed by theists means you prosecute the innocent as well as the guilty.

[Achilles]

I could reply to the **** that's put up rather that what's valid to the topic, however I know I'm better than that and it's time I started showing it.

I look forward to interacting with the new and improved Nancy Allen''

 

I vote according to what I believe will best benefit the people. Does religion play a part? Of course.

And there it is. Non-christians at the whim of a christian majority.

 

If you don't like the way things are nobody's forcing you to stay.

Indeed. However this is my country too and I have a right to be here. One option is to leave. Another is to try to be a voice for change. I'd rather not abdicate my social responsibilities, therefore I choose the latter.

 

Yes I have. I also research what Islamist experts interpret from the holy book. Perhaps a better question is who are you, an atheist quick to condemn religion, to claim your interpretations as the holy writ?

Who says they are my interpretations? You stare right past Al-qaeda and the Taliban and call them "my interpretations". Nice.

 

How is this relevent?

It's relevant because in the same thread in which you accuse me of interpreting holy writ of islam, you presume to do exactly that. People that are actually followers of islam will tell you that their actions are in complete accordance with their religion, yet you accuse them of "misinterpreting" and "having an axe to grind". So who died and made your interpretation the correct one? You're not even muslim.

 

Freedom of speech is not an ultimate right. People are entitled to not be upset by what is posted. Besides, message boards do not abide by any freedom of speech, what is and isn't allowed is dictated by those who run it.

Does this mean you won't be providing any examples?

 

You pick it, any form of condemnation of others on the basis of their beliefs.

You tell me to pick it and then operationally define it anyway. Hmmm....

 

That's not "attacking" someone. That's "disagreeing" with them. If you can't distinguish between the two, please let me know and I'll explain further.

 

Maybe when you're ready to listen.

The christian community is waiting on me before it begins trying to prove the validity of its doctrines? I'm not sure I follow.

 

Picture how racism is condemned and you'll have a fair idea of what I mean with this.

Ok, I'm picturing it but I'm still not understanding your point.

 

Questioning religion is not the same thing as practicing racism. It's not even close. First, questioning religion is not discrimination. Second, religious people choose their faith (to whatever degree their enculturation allows them to), while minorities do not choose to be minorities. Third, religious people are not a persecuted minority. Fourth, atheists do not have a discriminatory central doctrine like the KKK, the Aryan brotherhood, or any of the abrahamic religions.

 

I'm a firm believer in using analogies to make a point, however I've found that it usually helps when the analogy is actually somewhat related to the thing is it being used to describe.

 

I already explained this to you. It was to defend Europe from Islam.

Well first off, there goes your attempt to portray islam as a religion of peace. Second, both christianity and islam were expanding during that time period, so let's call it what it is: religious expansion by military means. The muslims had their marching order from our god, christians their orders from their god. This "enemy at the gates" portrayal is inaccurate at best.

 

In referring to atheism this is one of the evils they so dearly love to show religion as evil. Right, and you think the world would be a lot happier if it was the same as the Middle East?

I think the world would have a much better chance at being happy if 60% of its population could quit bickering about whose imaginary friend is better than everyone else's. I don't pretend that atheism is a magic key to world peace, but I do think it will at least succeed in removing all the superstition from the discussion.

 

All I'll say about this is if this is the way you choose to behave then fix your attitude before someone does it...no, actually you go and find out the hard way.

This has inspired me to create a thread titled "Christianity is a religion of tolerance and other assorted myths". Oh wait...

 

So why is it then that you feel so threatened by religious thoughts if it is wrong to think that thoughts are dangerous.

Why worry about thoughts when you can have print? Its the bible thumping fundies that know their holy texts chapter and verse that scare me (i.e. the ones that do more reading and less thinking). The moderates that sheild the fundies from criticism (you know, kinda like what you do here at LF) sadden me more than they scare me....most days.

 

It's a conspiracy theory cooked up to discredit religion. Nothing more.

The holy bible is a conspiracy theory cooked up to discredit religion? I'm not sure I understand your argument.

 

You think religion is the reason for Al Qaeda's war on the world?

Err...yeah. Where have you been?

 

Also, this is now my third attempt to get you to answer my questions. Could you please simply answer them and stop introducing these diversionary tactics?

 

It's relevent in that crying out for religion and those who practice it to share the blame for crimes committed by theists means you prosecute the innocent as well as the guilty.

Nancy, the only one talking about persecuting anyone for any crimes is you.

Setup of a straw man

 

One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

 

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

2. Quote an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy).

3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.

4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

5. Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.

Emphasis mine. Enjoy the read.

[Nancy Allen``]

If you are going to continue to be belittling you don't deserve an answer to your questions.

[Achilles]

If you are going to continue to be belittling you don't deserve an answer to your questions.

Ok. See you later.

[Totenkopf]

*pictures Nancy sticking her fingers in her ears and singing 'lalalalala' when ever someone points out that religion is responsible for its various doctrines*

 

 

*pictures Achilles putting his thumb to his nose and waving his fingers, while sticking out his tongue at Nancy and once again asserting that religion is the root of all/most evil in the world *

[Nancy Allen``]

You know why atheists act that way? They want revenge.

[Alexander the Great]

Some people seem to get the idea that all atheists are out to destroy religion. Some people seem to get the idea that all Christians are trying to convert everyone. These people are ignorant fools.

 

The literal meaning of atheist is someone who lives without a higher being, "a" meaning without, "theist" meaning a person believing in a higher being. Let's see... No "against" or "opposing" anywhere in that.

 

Now, I'm not really an all-out atheist. I could be leaning towards atheism, but I prefer not to rule out the idea of a higher force completely. There are facts to support both sides, but there is nothing to prove either side wrong. You aren't to be condemned for what religion you are, and no religion is wrong. Your beliefs are yours, and no one can change them except you.

 

I do believe, however, that parents shouldn't force any religion on their children. I'm fortunate enough to have been born into a nonreligious and tolerant family, so I've formed opinions that are completely my own. I just wish that everyone could have that opportunity.

[Totenkopf]

Probably b/c there are atheists that should lable themselves as antitheist, as that is often the way many of them argue. I do agree with your opening, though. Most people don't have the "missionary impulse".