08/07/2009 12:25:04 AM EST

A Humble Request and an Earnest Plea

posted by RegressivePartyChaplain

 
Sensibilities are a funny thing aren't they? What does or does not offend us as human beings baffles me. The only list longer than than the list of what might hurt someone in profound ways is the list of things that people will say without even registering they might be heaping coals upon someone else's head.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
 
Tonight I had to step out of TYT chat because of a topic that probably comes up every single day. Tonight was no different, save for the fact that I finally reached the point where I could no longer stomach the slander, straw-men, and double-standards that usually don't manage to get much deeper than a vigorous prick or two towards the heart.

But for some reason, tonight went deep. I don't know why it bothered me so much; After all, it was nothing but the same old things I've heard time and time again for my entire life.

 

Maybe that's why it got to me...

Your sensibilities (hopefully) dictate to you that it's wrong to throw out racial slurs haphazardly, or at all, because all human beings are of equal value, regardless of ethnicity, color, or race.

I agree.

Your sensibilities (hopefully) dictate to you that it's wrong to slander and misrepresent someone because honesty and truth are noble things, and everyone deserves to be criticized or praised only for what they truly have said or done.

I agree.

Your sensibilities (hopefully) dictate to you that education, logic, evidence, data, and counter-factual information should be explored fully, because these valuable insights inform what we know about reality, and the governance of our lives and the world around us.

I agree.

Your sensibilities (hopefully) dictate to you that to oppress, insult, or belittle someone just because they are different is wrong. This is not to say it's wrong to disagree with them on some levels, but when doing so it should be done in an atmosphere of mutual respect for both parties because this is how civilized dialogue progresses and anything less is childish, immature, and backwards.

I agree.

But for some reason, all of these altruistic standards and sensibilities seemed to be completely abandoned by we progressives once any topic at all pertaining to religion is introduced in the discussion. Things that people cherish and find their identity in are treated like rubbish by those who disagree in ways that could never fly in any racial, political, or social discussion. Rhetoric and language are instantly reduced to playground banter, people are cut down and insulted, and jumps are made with closed minds about the nature of a thing that those making the jumps may know next-to-nothing about.

With this, my fellow TYT army companions, I respectfully can not agree.

So what I write comes in two parts, as suggested by the title of this article:

1.) A humble plea: Apply the same sensibilities driven by our progressive worldview to the arena of religion. Treat her with the same intellectual and emotional respect you treat everything else with. Realize that she is just a much a part of who I, you, and many others are as is race, nationality, sexuality or gender.

2.) An earnest offer: If you would like to enter into a sincere dialogue on the topic, I'd be more than happy to do so here. I'm not talking about the rapid-fire-insult-laden banter of the chatroom, where one or two Theists have to answer a barrage of half-questions/half-jeers from twenty other people. I can speak only for Christians, not people of faith as a whole because the faith community that informs who I am is that of Christ and his Church. I have no intent of proselytizing, though I would certainly love that you think like me, this is certainly no forum to convert. All I ask is that you come with an open mind, and enter into a respectful, honest dialogue like any decent adult progressive should be more than happy to do.


Peace be with you,
RPC
< Cap and Trade vs National Clean Energy Independence | Time for the FBI to Move in on Glen Beck >
 Display:
A Humble Request and an Earnest Plea | 128 comments (128 topical, 0 hidden)
How difficult is this to understand? (none / 2)
Religious ideas are just other ideas that are as open to criticism as any idea.

Religious ideas DO NOT deserve the same respect as a person's inherent characteristics.  I was born blonde, blue-eyed, and white.  I can't help that.  I was also born with a pre-disposition toward thyroid problems.  I can't help that, either.  I should only be discriminated against when those inherent characteristics of mine would actually interfere with some task that must be accomplished.  For instance, my thyroid problem precludes me from taking long flights in outer space.

I understand that.  I can't help it, but that's just the luck of the draw.

On the other hand, if I believe that God created the universe in seven twenty-four-hour days, that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth, and that dead people can come back to life, I should be disqualified from teaching in public schools.  I neither respect nor understand either science or logic.  It is very likely that I would be a harmful influence on the minds of developing children.

And if your delicate sensibilities are offended by my saying that, then I've done my job.

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 12:50:31 AM EST

I completely agreed until the end (none / 1)

A fundamentalist can teach in public schools as long as they don't inject their personal beliefs into their lessons.

But yes, I don't believe that we have to respect specific ideas, rather we are only required to respect the right of others to believe them. If someone wants to believe that Elvis is alive and that the first moon landing was fake, fine, that's their business.

But if those topics are raised I'm not going out of my way to pretend they are rational ideas, even if the holder of those ideas believes them intensely and personally. Granted, we don't have to be complete jerks in our presentation.

by Tom Hanc on 08/07/2009 01:37:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What can a fundamentalist be trusted to teach? (none / 1)
Evolution?  Sex education that doesn't emphasize abstinence and that includes studies about contraception?  Astronomy?  Physics?  Social Studies?

Name a subject.  Any subject.  Every subject taught in public schools contains topics that emphasize ideas that directly contradict ideas prevalent in religion.  How could a fundamentalist be trusted to teach such subjects without revealing in some way his or her strong disagreement with those ideas?

Logic?  How could you trust someone to teach logic who is unable to apply it in a very fundamental way to his or her personal life?  Your fundamentalist must deny logic and its value in order to maintain his or her beliefs.

A person's religious values creep in, whether its through the disdain evident in the teacher's voice when teaching evolution, or through outright proselytizing.

I realize that it is impractical to keep religious people out of the schools.  There are too many of them.  But they must be policed.  They must keep their religious views out of their teachings.  They must not use their religions to influence students.

But there is no way to guarantee that, and we can only hope that our mental evolution isn't slowed too much by such teachers.

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 02:42:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
maybe... (none / 0)
Phys Ed?

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

by aidbo on 08/07/2009 03:19:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Lord, please help us to crush our opponent tonight (none / 0)
Let your love fill our hearts as we take the field to crush the other team and grind them into the ground.  Let us be guided by your light as we stomp on them and destroy their dreams of beating us this season.

In Jesus' name, Amen.

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 03:38:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It does do damage though (none / 0)

But yes, I don't believe that we have to respect specific ideas, rather we are only required to respect the right of others to believe them. If someone wants to believe that Elvis is alive and that the first moon landing was fake, fine, that's their business.

While I agree with this I also think that this credulity that we seem to have here in the U.S. is a big and growing problem, by that I mean the willingness to believe something that flies in the face of logic or physics or probability.   Such beliefs are used to control people, like when the health insurance companies tell people that the government is going to euthanize old people if healthcare reform passes.  For this reason I think it may be time to start hammering on people for their irrational beliefs, and to be willing in turn to search what we believe and discard things in our own belief inventory that may be irrational.

by bfaul on 08/07/2009 10:58:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I respectfully disagre (none / 0)
  1. Many studies indicate that the structure of your brain can give you a strong inclination to being religious or atheist. I don't believe it to be the main reason, but there is definitly an influence. That means disrespecting people because of the form their spirituality has taken is the same as disrespecting people because of the form their sexuality has taken.

  2. The old argument with the bad things religious people have done is pure BS. Religion introduces a set of ideas and can therefore be misused. Just take a deeper look at the way democracy started and you might find several arguments against democracy on the level of that Spanish Inquisition argument.

  3. The opposition against science and logic is absolutly rediculous. There are brilliant religious philosophers and scientists. Just look at Thomas Aquinas. And Einstein said:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."

4: It's always the idiots who get the most attention. Remember femynist? So that's what feminists are like. Please, remember:

All generalizations are wrong (except this one).

5: I'm pretty sure that we would live in a better world if we would behave the way Jesus wanted us to. It's a shame that religious fundamentalists can't see that.

I will add some further points later.

P.S.: A little piece of sex ed at the end:
The virgin birth is not as special as you might think. If during petting the man has ejaculated and some of it went on his hand, and he then touches the vagina with it that can in rare cases lead to pregnancy. The hymen doesn't completely seal  the vagina, as you should know.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/07/2009 10:09:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I like this (none / 0)

The virgin birth is not as special as you might think. If during petting the man has ejaculated and some of it went on his hand, and he then touches the vagina with it that can in rare cases lead to pregnancy. The hymen doesn't completely seal  the vagina, as you should know.

The "heavy petting with ejaculation" theory of the virgin birth?   Interesting.  I wonder how that would go over with the fundamentalists?

You make some good points above though.

by bfaul on 08/07/2009 11:04:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
rebuttal (none / 0)
1.  I think you have cause and effect reversed here.  The "structure" of your brain can be influenced by what you think about but that doesn't mean you were born ready to believe particular things.  For example, if you scan someone's brain and say the words "Bill Clinton,"  almost every person's exact same area of the brain lights up on the scan.  Does that mean that that part of the brain was made just for Bill Clinton?  Did your brain know before you were born that Bill Clinton would exist and you would know who he is?


2.  That is not a BS argument.  Good people have done bad things in the name of religion many times over.  One aspect of religion is that you cannot question it, it is right because it is "the word of God" or somesuch.  That is not the case in any other "set of ideas."

3.  Just because someone is a brilliant scientist or philosopher does not mean that they can't be wrong about some things.


4.  No arguments here.


5.  There is a huge problem here too.  How does anyone know exactly what Jesus would want?  What about people who don't know who Jesus is?  Are they incapable of acting morally?

P.S.  There are many religions that include an idea of some sort of "immaculate conception."  What's absurd about it is the insistence on a woman's "purity."  There is an obsession with controlling female sexuality in religion that many object too, especially when the obsession often does not include the same extent of control on male sexuality.

by reba on 08/07/2009 11:09:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Everybody, please read opiman000's post below (none / 0)
So much truth in it.

1: With the same argument you could say that gay people are not born gay. It's so against evolution, so it must be wrong, let's send them to straight-camps.
Just accept that people are born different. They think different, they feel different and, yes, they believe different.

2: It is no aspect of religion that you can not doubt it. Even Jesus had doubts.
People start doing bad things because of atheism. Look at what you have done to opi. I know, that is nothing compared to the Inquisition, but big things start small. Please, take a look at how tolerant you are towards people with opposing believes.

  1. Of course not. That was not my argument. My argument was: Just because you are religious you are not neccessarily stupid.

  2. So don't judge all Christians for the stupidity of some.

  3. When we read the New Testament carefully we can realise that there are basic principles that are always stressed.
And again you take the argument and twist it. What gives you the impression I think non-Christians can't act morally in my opinion?
Just that I said we would live in a better world if we all behaved like Jesus suggested?
We would also all live in a better world if we all behaved like Buddah suggested.
Most people don't study philosophy and don't know why we should behave morally, and what that means. The New Testament tells us how to behave in a way that is both easy to understand (if you try) and full of depth (if you can be bothered).

I have to stop this post again by asking all of you to read opiman000's post. It is very long, but if you can't be bothered to read something with more than 100 words I can't take your arguments seriously, anyway.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/07/2009 12:08:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
subject (none / 0)
For part 1.  I agree that people think, feel and believe differently but I cannot equate religious belief with sexual orientation.

For part 3, OK, I understand.

For part 5.  I wasn't twisting your argument.  I was using a rhetorical question, not telling you what your opinion was.  The problem with basing our morality on religious texts, is one, they are inaccurate, two, not everyone agrees on the same text.  How do we know if we are behaving as Jesus suggested?  What if we are atheist and don't believe in Jesus or Buddhist or any divinity?  We (all people, atheist or otherwise) can and do behave morally in spite of religious texts.

by reba on 08/07/2009 01:20:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
we're getting closer to agreement (none / 0)
For part one, that is your opinion and some scientists who did enormous research beg to differ.

For part 5. I didn't claim that people should believe in the Bible or some other holy text.
I just said that the basis moral behaviour in most of these texts is: Wouldn't it be great if we would all be nice to each other, for a change?

Please don't tell me you disagree with the implications of the last rethorical qusetion.

PS: I'm aware that the texts were often used for bad things, please don't go there , again.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/07/2009 01:35:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
a little bit (none / 0)
I just have to say for part 1, religious belief is something you can change.  You can go from one religion to another to none back to religion again.  You cannot do that with characteristics that you are born with.

by reba on 08/07/2009 02:11:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sexual orientation, too (none / 0)
You may be in love with one guy and than another and none of the relationships is less sincere (switching religions). Some people also have a loving relationship with a guy and can not imagine to be with a woman, until they meet one they fall in love with. That can go back and forth, without being insencere on any level (switching  between theism and atheism).

People are just incredibly different.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/07/2009 03:06:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No (none / 0)
You are born straight, gay or bi.  You are not born atheist, Catholic or Hindu. 

by reba on 08/07/2009 03:14:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Human Nature (none / 0)
I think it can be argued that human beings are born atheists. We need to be taught religion.
The only argument I have ever heard that COULD pose a problem is the neuroscience discussed in this post. That, however, is not strong enough evidence that we are predisposed to believe or not believe in a higher power.
Just sayin...

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 04:08:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Apples and oranges (none / 0)
That you're trying to make an invalid -- not to mention irrational -- equivalence speaks volumes.

A genetic component to religious belief?  What's to say that you haven't simply used the words "religious belief" when you should have used "stupidity".

Look at those "studies" again.  List them here.  Let's show those studies for what they are: pure propaganda.

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 03:23:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Here you are: (none / 0)
http://health.howstuffworks .com/brain-religion.htm

Just one of the first pages that comes up with a google search.

My problem is only that I would replace disorder with difference.

BTW: I suffer from epilepy, but I was born this way and have learned to accept it as something that's not only bad.

Cocerning your insults I have to say yhat there is a genetic connection to stupidity. That's why we don't insult retards.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/07/2009 03:58:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hmmmm... (none / 0)
First of all, howstuffworks is not the best resource for cutting edge scientific information. I study psychology and I find this type of research very interesting. Conclusions? None at this point...it is simply to early to know.
I also don't think Eveningstar was being particularly insulting.
Again....people are their beliefs should not be considered synonymous.

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 04:03:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sorry, I thought you were serious (none / 0)
I thought you were going to show us some actual, legitimate studies, like some double-blind studies, maybe even a peer-reviewed article or two.  But since the best you can do is this editorial piece, I'll assume that you've surrendered rather than that you actually intended to waste my time.

So what if Paul had epilepsy?  Are you saying that proves that religion is valid?

Please reply again.  You providing more wonderful evidence for my thesis that religious people are unable to employ logic.

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 04:13:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No (none / 0)
with this I'm not saying that religion is valid, I just say we can't do anything about it.

There is no point in proving it valid or not if our sensitivity to spirituality is hardwired into our brain. It's the same with homosexuality. You don't have to prove it valid, they are just born this way.

"I'll assume that you've surrendered rather than that you actually intended to waste my time.
Please reply again. You providing more wonderful evidence for my thesis that religious people are unable to employ logic."

Logic?

When I'm really bored I will search for more articles about the issue.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/07/2009 05:18:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Prove your case or quit (none / 0)
"...our sensitivity to spirituality is hardwired into our brain."

Prove it.

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 07:44:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You are the one (none / 0)
who always tries to be scientific. As far as I know things are never proven in science, they can only be disproven.
Therefore 'Theory of Gravity'.
I brought something that strengthens my argument. Try to find something that weakens it. A double blind test or some peer reviewed paper.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/08/2009 05:40:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Your ignorance about science is profound (none / 0)
"As far as I know things are never proven in science, they can only be disproven."

You should avoid talking about science whenever possible.  You look terribly foolish.

by EveningStarNM on 08/08/2009 06:21:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
If you say so (none / 0)
Philosophers, such as Karl R. Popper, have provided influential theories of the scientific method within which scientific evidence plays a central role. In summary, Popper provides that a scientist creatively develops a theory which may be falsified by testing the theory against evidence or known facts. Popper's theory presents an asymmetry in that evidence can prove a theory wrong, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. In contrast, evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory.

Summarized from:
Karl R. Popper,"The Logic of Scientific Discovery" (1959).

and

Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 2nd Ed. (2000), p. 71. Accessed May 13, 2007.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/08/2009 07:10:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Wow (none / 0)
Not sure what you are trying to say here. The beauty of science is that it is fluid and constantly self-correcting. This, by the way, is one of the problems with religion. It does not allow for this self-correction.
There is not enough room to post the actual studies, but here is a link and you can follow to find the relevant evidence for yourself if you are so inclined.

"Scientists investigating out-of-body experiences and other eerie sensations have found no sign of the supernatural. Instead, they are discovering that the feelings are the product of brain chemicals and nerve cells."

http://intl-brain.oxfordjou rnals.org/cgi/content/abstr act/127/2/243

by LadyFriend on 08/08/2009 12:37:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Puleeze. (none / 0)
I don't know why I'm bothering with this.  Perhaps it's simply to show how easy it is to refute such ridiculous arguments.  Maybe it's to show how foolish they really are.  Maybe I want to do it to show that I can refute religioun without being personally insulting -- although using suitable insults certainly is much more fun and tends to make religious people go away, which is a very satisfactory result.
  1. Many case studies indicate that some people are destined for stupidity.  That does no mean that we should not provide them with a remedial education and possibly medical treatment in order to help them overcome it.  I am singularly unimpressed by a study funded by a religious apologist.

  2. If you're trying to tell me that religion has not been used as the excuse for killing millions of people, you lose that argument.  Sure, the obvious argument is the the killers were not "true" adherents to that religion.  But if you deny that that defense is pure bullshit, you're not going win much respect.

  3. If you're trying to tell me that someone who defends the idea that Mary was a virgin and that dead people can come back to life is a friend of science, then please stop now.  You're not making any sense.
What was Einstein's definition of the word "God"?  That people use Einstein to justify their primitive beliefs while failing to understand the importance of that fundamental question proves the weakness of their argument.  Einstein said,
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony in what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
Einstein wrote an article for the New York Times expounding his religious beliefs (reprinted in "Ideas and Opinions"). He spoke of himself as having a "cosmic religious sense," which knows "no dogmas and no God made in man's image," which he said was shared with the great mystics; he compared himself with the likes of Democritus, St. Francis, and Spinoza. He also commented that one must have a poor moral sense if the only way one could act virtuously is if one expect rewards and punishments after death.
If you're going to cite Einstein then you should know what you're talking about.  Einstein was not a friend of religion.  Having no religious dogma, he was not such a friend to them as religious apologist like to claim.

  1. Your #4 didn't make any sense at all.

  2. Let me know when that happens, will you?  Besides, it's clear to me that we'll be better off when we shed the idea that relying on fantasies as the basis for our decisions when more accurate means are available is in any way helpful.
P.S.  Please don't rationalize the irrational.  You're trying to make an excuse belied by the plain text of the Bible.
Is 7:14: The virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
Mt 1:18-25: Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit. Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly. Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means "God is with us." When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home. He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.
Lk 1:26-27: In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary.
Nicene Creed (325), Constantinopolitan Creed (381): ...Who for us men and because of our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became human.
I would avoid trying to make that argument.  In fact, if you want to maintain any credibility here, I would avoid trying to justify religion ever again.  You cannot do so while obeying the rules of logic.  And if you stray outside of those rules then you might as well admit that you have lost the argument.

Besides, I find your attempt to use sexual petting to rationalize the virgin birth to be a sign of absolute surrender on your part.  Give up now before you hurt yourself even more.

All religious "knowledge" may be gained only from religious leaders, sacred texts ("scriptures"), and/or personal revelation.  In other words, it all comes from the unjustified musings of other people (puleeze don't tell me that some "God" had any part in it -- can you not recognize circular reasoning?).  The scientific method is much more reliable.

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 01:57:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0)
The thing with the "heavy petting virgin birth" was just a joke. Sorry if you couldn't see the humor because you are so angry.

To 1. I sent you another email regarding this.

To 2. I'm not telling this, but democracy has been used to defend the killing of people right from the start (eg French Revolution). I never said that they weren't "true" adherents because I can't be sure if my interpretation is right.

To 3. That's what I'm trying to tell you. There are millions of different interpretations of theism. therfore it is just as wrong to generalize about theists as it is wrong to genralize about any other group who shares a similiar set of ideas.

To 4. In the discussions about feminism there was much more attention paid to what femynist said than to what you said, just because her claims where outrageous. In discussions about religion much more attention is paid to what a few fundamentalists say than to what a majority of sensible people say. Maybe I just think so because in Europe the majority of Christians is sensible, but I don't want to go to the Europe clever America stupid prejudice.

To 5. To me it is clear that we would live in a better world when we would start being nice to each other, for a change. In my opinion that's the main point about what Jesus said. You can quote stuff from the Bible and say that is stupid and that...
I don't mind, because I try to concentrate on the good stuff and take it as inspiration to behave in a more ethical way.

"In fact, if you want to maintain any credibility here, I would avoid trying to justify religion ever again."

Does that mean when you disagree with a person on one thing all other arguments from that person are not worth considering?

PS: I hope you are proud to have played a part in getting rid of opiman000 since she was an idtiot in your opinion. Congratulations

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/07/2009 04:19:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You need to calm down (none / 0)
I haven't seen you around here very much, so maybe you are not familiar with some of the regular posters.
I have not heard anyone say that someone who is religious has invalid arguments for other topics. That doesn't make any sense.
Also, you don't know opi. I am hoping and expecting she will be back.
Your accusations are getting very annoying from someone with limited experience with some of the posters here. Perhaps you should do some post and comment research before you pretend you know these people.

""In fact, if you want to maintain any credibility here, I would avoid trying to justify religion ever again."

Does that mean when you disagree with a person on one thing all other arguments from that person are not worth considering?"
-In my opinion, (having had many many discussions with Eveningstar) that is not what he is implying. The implication is that you are not credible in the area of religion. Why don't you try posting about another topic (like your complaint - which was taken seriously, by the way - about mr. balls)? Your accusations are sounding pretty petty and uninformed at this point.

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 04:41:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Even if she's trying to say that (none / 0)
 and it can be very easily misunderstood. Does that mean you are only credible to write about religion when you are not trying to justify it?

Sure you are on credible on one subject when you share my opinion.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/07/2009 05:35:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sweet Jesus (none / 0)
You are seriously leaping to conclusions without justification. Go ahead. Do a post justifying religion. Will it be attacked? Of course. Will it be attacked on its merit? Absolutely. As I have said, I welcome real debate, so I am more than happy to hear different opinions.
Your attacks are getting really old.

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 06:11:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
See below (none / 0)
Nice of you trying to defend him, but as you see he meant what I assumed. So I was not jumping to conclusions.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/08/2009 05:50:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm a "he". (none / 0)
And no, I don't trust your credibility on any subject.  You have tried to pass your apologies for religion off as logic, even though your arguments violate every rule of logic.  In my eyes, that makes you either a liar or fundamentally ignorant.  In any case, I will be unwilling to take your word for anything.

You cannot have "respect" for your beliefs if you insist that they are logical or reasonable and that I should respect them.  You can only have my respect for your beliefs if you state them for what they are, your personal beliefs.  You don't need logic to defend them.  All you need to defend them is to say that you have them.  But if you try to justify them by abusing logic, I'm going to get pissed off.

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 08:01:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll speak for myself, if you don't mind. (none / 0)
And your closing comment has just earned you my utter disrespect.

I adore opiman000.  I despise ignorant liars like you who put words in other people's mouths, such as mine and even Einstein's, and who refuse to acknowledge the gaping holes that lie on the surface of your arguments.  Your fallacious conclusions are the reason that I oppose religion.  You seek to influence others and to gain respect and even approval for your primitive beliefs.

You will not even find acceptance from me.  You could have had it, but you chose instead to prove that reason is not in your repertoire of thought processes.

I don't mind "creative" thinking.  Just don't try to pass it off as logic.  If you do, I'll call you a liar.

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 07:53:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
your generalization is wrong about generalizations (none / 0)
All males have an X and a Y chromosome.
All dogs are of the genus Canis

All atheists don't believe in god.

by birdboy1 on 08/07/2009 02:17:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Can't you take a joke? (none / 0)
Ok let's try to take it seriously.

Some men have one X and two Y chromosomes.

The other two things are just definitions not generalizations.

Green thing are green is not a generalization, either.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/07/2009 04:22:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
can't YOU take a joke? (none / 0)
That was a joke...  I know they aren't really generalizations.

I didn't know about the men with one X and two Y chromosomes.  Is that common?  Are there any negative side effects?  

by birdboy1 on 08/07/2009 05:25:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Very rare (none / 0)
There are side effects, because some parts of them become extremly masculin. They tend to be very aggressive and so on.
If I remember correctly there is also a connection to autism, which is by some considered to develop because of an extremly male brain.
There are hardly any female autists.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/07/2009 05:39:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
As someone who does not hold a religious belief (none / 0)

You can't be expected to understand that a religious belief is just that, a 'belief', people do not choose to believe in God, Jesus etc, they just do. They can't help it, just as you can't help being blonde. Scientific experiments have shown that people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being that created the earth. If you said to me right now 'stop believing in God or your going to die' I would not be able to stop. This is a belief I hold, just in the same way that you hold that religious people should not be allowed to teach in schools, you would not be able to stop believing this simply because someone told you to.

You say that religious people cannot teach in schools because of their belief as it would be a harmful influence on children. But what about people who have different beliefs in regards to what's right or wrong, for example would you have a teacher who believes it is right to eat meat from dogs banned from teaching in a school? This is also a belief that could be harmful to the children. Or do you think that this person can suppress that belief in order to teach what they are told to, just as a person who holds a religious belief can?

Surely you were taught by a religious person in school, was this harmful to you? Are you saying that only people who were taught by atheists are going to have developed minds.

 

by stevewatto on 08/07/2009 11:41:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Education (none / 0)
I am an atheist. I am a freethinker. I try to be open-minded. I am pro-choice. I could go on.

I also went to 12 years of Catholic school.

Case and point.

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 12:18:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
read opiman000's post, below (none / 0)
I think to remember, that you agreed with her on most points. See what your 'open-mindedness' has done to her.
You were part of the anti-religious mob in yesterdays chat that pushed her a little to far.
Sorry for outing you on that behalf, but I'm really angry when people are pushed out of this forum, because of 'open-mindedness' like yours.

"Case and point."

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/07/2009 12:45:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Pushed"??? (none / 0)
Bullshit.  She didn't want to be there and left.  That was her decision.  And I don't blame her.  I wouldn't want to be around a bunch of people who thought that I was stupid, either, although the question of my stupidity might remain, at best, unresolved.

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 02:01:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Too bad (none / 0)
I really like opi and I feel bad if the way I assert my opinions make anyone feel 'inferior.' I think I explained in another comment on this post why I feel that I have the right to say what I think. I also hope that TYT believers do take a moment to see the difference between saying that a belief is stupid and saying that a person is stupid.
I don't feel 'outed' and honestly, I don't feel that there is any reason to apologize for my opinions.
I also do think I am open-minded. At one point during the earlier part of the chat-fight last night, addy called me out for being hypocritical. I agreed and acknowledged it. So, really? if you are going to insult my open-mindedness, I suggest you bring facts.

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 03:07:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Attacks on what/who (none / 0)

Lady, you're one of the better ones. I will say you put on a slightly different face in the chat than you do in private discussion, but all-in-all you still do a decent job of separating attacks on one's belief from attacks on oneself.

 I can't say the same for other "progressives" here.

by RegressivePartyChaplain on 08/07/2009 03:25:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Acknowledged (none / 0)
I do act very differently in the main chat than I do in private conversation. I find the chat to be a relatively impossible venue for such respectful dialogue. To be honest, what I say in the public chat and in private chats are both reflections of my beliefs. In private dialogue, however, I am interested in hearing what others have to say. This is almost impossible in the main chat environment. Some of the things I said that were probably bothersome from  last night is that "JESUS = MYTH" and similar comments. The truth is that I am not sold on the historicity of Jesus. However, this is definitely open for scholarly debate. I have not heard a truly convincing argument from either side on that issue. I do think that the revered (and arguably more important_ supernatural characteristics of Jesus are mythical. Such nuance is lost in the public chat.
Just wanted to clarify, and thank you for the praise/criticism.

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 03:34:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't think you made her feel inferior (none / 0)
She just couldn't stand it anymore to be constantly insulted.
Of course you have the right to say what ever you want to say.
However if you are talking about an issue that is sensitive to some you could maybe try to use a language that is less infuriating. Illogical instead of stupid for example.

The way we phrase things is very important.

If I would say I don't mind my neighbor being a n****r, you would complain about the language, too.

I'm sure you are intelligent enough to make your point without using insults.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/07/2009 04:34:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You keep missing the point here (none / 0)
First of all, I didn't hear insults coming from me. Did you? I doubt it. Please stop making assumptions about people you don't know. Stick to the facts and avoid ad hominem. If you are going to tell me to stop insulting people again, you need to provide an example.

"However if you are talking about an issue that is sensitive to some you could maybe try to use a language that is less infuriating. Illogical instead of stupid for example."
-This is exactly the problem. Religion is a sensitive subject. As posters have pointed out many times, I do not think religion deserves the reverence it tends to get in society. I feel that stifles discussion.
AGAIN, People and their beliefs are separate things.

"If I would say I don't mind my neighbor being a n****r, you would complain about the language, too."
-Again, I am not talking about YOU being anything. I am talking about religious claims and belief in god. AGAIN, these are separate things.

I assume you don't want religion off the table for discussion.

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 04:47:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Case and Point? (none / 0)
If your are a free thinker, an atheist and pro-choice then clearly being taught by religious teachers has done you no harm. Just as it does no one else harm to be taught by teachers who are teaching what they are told to teach, and not injecting their own beliefs into it.

by stevewatto on 08/07/2009 04:18:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yea... (none / 0)
That is the point I was making. I was defending the idea that religious people can be good teachers based on my experience.
I have to say, I am a bit curious why you misread my comment.
I think that at this point in this post, both sides are only hearing what they want to hear.

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 04:51:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Amen to that (none / 0)
The discussion has reached a point where answers come to several posts as soon as I have replied to one there are 2 new I want to answer to. Thereby my answers become less thought throug and I think I have to quit this discussion now. Maybe sometime I will send a message to you and EveningStarNM to discuss this more private and less heated.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/07/2009 05:43:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
LOL (none / 0)
You really need to acknowledge that you are doing the same thing.
As I said...it is going BOTH ways.

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 06:12:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Irony (none / 0)
Nevermind...i think that you were saying that too.
I think I just did what I was describing, lol

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 06:13:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My bad... (none / 0)
I thought someone else had written that comment.

by stevewatto on 08/09/2009 04:27:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's the internet (none / 0)
It's a blog.

It's a chat room.

If you've got thin skin you might want to go elsewhere.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 08/07/2009 12:58:45 AM EST

Honest Dialogue? (none / 0)

How can one have an honest dialogue when one believes that unbelievers will go to hell and the other thinks it is all bull?  When one denigrates or abuses another it is a because a: their ability to debate is limited by their IQ or b: the other person is so steeped in their dogma they refuse to consider any alternatives.

I might suggest that evangelicals fall into the category of b.  Since all the evidence of Christ comes from the Bible and the proof of Christ is in faith or anecdotal. As a scientist I would find it difficult to take a Christian seriously.

As a Christian it is your mission to save me from damnation and purgatory.  To do this you must convince me that I must accept Christ as my savior and forget my past life.  To an educated person this might be like forgetting all you have learned and replacing it with horoscopes and voodoo.

There is no middle ground and neither side can respect the other on an intellectual level.  Certainly good deeds win out, but when they have been done, there remains the fundamental argument of faith or science.

Intelligent design is a neat trick to bridge the two, but it is inherently non-monotheistic.  So if you can accept that there are many Gods maybe I might be willing to believe that Gods exist.  As there is no proof either way, I am willing to accept that something I have not proven may in fact be possible.  Christianity has as its basis, the Nicene creed, which is completely unintelligible and any scientist will reject it out of hand.

Just as Democrats desire to loath Republicans, scientists and people of faith will inherently loath one another.  Each remains attached to dogma that allows no compromise.  In the end they will fight to the death for their ideals and beliefs.  Casting disdain and recriminations is just the puffing before the fighting.

In the end you can ignore it or fight back.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 08/07/2009 01:03:55 AM EST

Honest dialogue. (none / 0)

Your post demonstrates one of the points of what I wrote, but not in nearly as malicious a way as some of these others so I'll happily respond to you before I finally catch some shut eye tonight.

 You, and almost everyone else, took one tradition (and a small set at that!) of Christianity and treated it as the whole. Religion is by no means opposed to science. As a scientist, which you claim to be, is there no history in your education to get there?

 The Catholic and Anglican churches (the 1st and 3rd largest Christian churches in the world, respectively) accepted the theory of revolution and took it as their official stance 100 years ago! Some of the scientific community hadn't even come out with such a strong endorsement by that point in time.

 And what's more, the big bang theory is the brainchild of a catholic priest- a catholic priest who even managed to get Einstein to recant on his theory of a static universe and say that not getting on board with said priest from the get-go was the biggest blunder of his academic career.

All that to say, for you to bring up  one single theory (one which is shoddy, to say the least) a theist has to offer the realm of science is dishonest at best. Though in your case I believe it was done in complete innocence, not with any intentional misrepresentation in mind. The sad fact is that theists and atheists alike, in America anyway, chose only to see the streams and traditions of a particular faith that best support their presuppositions.

Other comments in this thread speak for themselves in this regard. 

by RegressivePartyChaplain on 08/07/2009 04:06:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Are you an adherent to some religion? (none / 1)
If so, then you must believe things are true which cannot be true.  If you are a Christian then, as mcamelyne said, you adhere to the Nicene creed.  To say then that "religion is by no means opposed to science" is severely ignorant becuase the Nicene creed is in opposition to science at its core.

Religion itself espouses as historical facts thing which could never be except in fantasy.  When these contradictions to the laws of nature (which, by your theory, were given to us by God, who apparently allows contradictions to his laws of nature) are demonstrated, the religionist response is, "we can't understand all of God's works.  We have to take it on faith."

The fact is that we do not have to rely on faith for anything whatsoever.  We can rely on our abilities to answer questions, and we can accept when a question has no answer.  We do not have to make up answers in order to assuage some fear that we won't be remembered when we're gone or to relieve a fear of death.

Your anecdotes ignore the true nature of science, its scientific method and rigorous methods of observation and study.

I tell you that Mary was not a virgin, and Jesus did not rise from the dead.  As long as you believe those fantasies or the myriad other fantasies of whatever religion it is a that you espouse, then you hold ideas that humanity must relegate to the trash bin of history if we are to meet the challenges ahead.  And we must get rid of your ideas soon, because our problems are becoming more complex, with meaner consequences, and religion is holding us back.

We need clear thinkers, unencumbered by religious weakness.

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 07:20:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Can't you spell? (none / 0)
...Nicene creed is in opposition to science at its corps.

What about deists?

by birdboy1 on 08/07/2009 09:18:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm not a Marine. (none / 0)
I don't have to know how to spell it.

But what about deists?  I don't understand the question.

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 02:02:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Do deists apply (none / 0)
to your comments regarding religion?  Or were you specifically talking about the big 5?

by birdboy1 on 08/07/2009 02:06:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I disagree (none / 0)
I recognize that different denominations hold different beliefs.
Fundamentalists are brought up more often. On that point, you are correct. I think that the reason for this is political. Fundamentalists, by far, try to have a huge religious influence on American Politics. Rewriting our history, denying separation of church and state, creationism/intelligent design in schools, only claiming that Christians are valid for political office, harmful positions on reproductive rights and sex ed, denial of basic rights and respect for homosexuals...(I could go on). I think this is why such believers are addressed more often on TYT. This is a political forum. If you were to look to athiest forums, you would find much broader criticisms of different version of faith.
There are, however, some ideas that are common to all believers. Belief in a god. I find all arguments I have been presented with (which is a lot), up to this point, to be undefendable. The belief that Jesus lived, had supernatural powers, was born of a VIRGIN, and resurrected. I cannot find any strong arguments to defend these beliefs. I am always open to new theories, but I have heard what some would say are the best defenses and I find them poor and full of logical fallacies.

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 12:08:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The level your arguing on turned around (none / 0)
Just look what happens when all of a sudden atheists have the power.
Well, we all know about Stalin's Russia.

Did anybody here ever try to convince you of the Vigrin Birth?

I don't think so, so please stop trying to devalidate their arguments with that.

As far as I have seen no Christian on this forum has ever tried to convince, you concerning any argument, with texts from a holy book.
Could you please extend the same coutesy and discuss with them the points they bring up and not one of your I-say-that-everytime-I-meet -a-Christian arguments?
Nobody on this forum ever tried to convince someone to become a Christian (at least as far as I know), and nobody was ever insulted for being a atheist.
So let's please keep on discussing the issues and keep in mind that not all Christians are the same just as not all white people are the same.
How would you like it when people start telling you the whole time that white people started the Holocaust, had slaves...
These are usually arguments that are not about the issue and therefore are not mentioned.
Please show others the respect you want for yourself.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/07/2009 01:04:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So athiesm results in Stalinism? (none / 0)
Are you really trying to make that argument?

I don't go out of my way to argue with religious people.  I usually avoid it since they obviously are unwilling to observe the rules of logic, and I have no interest in debating dishonest people.  But if someone tells me that I should limit my behavior and respect someone's religious beliefs, as the OP did here, then I'm going to shove that bullshit back in his or her face.

Once you start justifying or apologizing for religion, you lose the trust that I am inclined to give people up front.  If you then say that you want respect, you're going to have to earn it back.  I gave you my respect, but then you insulted me by bringing up your penchant for religion.

Keep your religious beliefs to yourself and we won't have a problem.  But the very minute that you talk about it with me or with anyone, I'm going to have something to say that, hopefully, you will not like.  If you want to exercise your freedom of speech, then I will exercise mine.

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 02:11:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Of course I don't (none / 0)
I was just making the point that you can't say just because someone is religious or not doesn't mean they behave in a certain way. I chose an example that was extremly over the top to show how rediculous such a generalization is.

Keep your atheism to yourself and we won't have a problem.
Why are you so eager to say things that religious people won't like? Try to say something that could inspire them to consider your point of view. That would be much more helpful.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/07/2009 05:51:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
KEEP MY ATHEISM TO MYSELF??? (none / 0)
Now you're just being a creep.  I'm not the one who said that other people should change to accommodate my beliefs.  I'm not the one who brought up the subject of religion.  I'm not the one who demanded that religion be respected.  I'm not the one who started this discussion.  But once the discussion starts, I WILL speak my mind.  And I don't care if you don't like how I speak it.

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 08:07:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
not like this is uncommon (none / 0)
religious people play the victim cry wolf. then they face actual opposition, reason, facts, evidence, and legitimate criticisms then they go on the offensive and try to victimize other people. soon he'll go back to being the victim and cry about how he's all hurt and offended, then he'll try to repress your rights. back and forth we go.

by kingbane on 08/07/2009 08:21:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I was replying (none / 0)
to your post in which you told me to keep my religion to myself.
Now you're just being a creep. I'm not the one who said that other people should change to accommodate my beliefs.  I'm not the one who brought up the subject of religion. I'm not the one who started this discussion.  But once the discussion starts, I WILL speak my mind.  And I don't care if you don't like how I speak it.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/08/2009 05:44:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thus ends any hope of meaningful discussion (none / 0)
I consider you to be an utter waste of my time, and I will not give you any more of it.

by EveningStarNM on 08/08/2009 06:25:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ok then! (none / 0)
"I'm not the one who started this discussion.  But once the discussion starts, I WILL speak my mind.  And I don't care if you don't like how I speak it."
-This is exactly our point. We feel the same way. So, I assume you will then have no problem with how we describe and talk about our non-belief?

-Also, while you personally did not start the discussion, religion did. There would be no need for atheism without religion. Atheism asserts that theistic claims are false. Therefore, religion necessarily started this. A bit off topic, but true.

by LadyFriend on 08/08/2009 12:44:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
But (none / 0)
Our speech is not always meant as evangelism. Sometimes it is venting and there is nothing wrong with that.

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 09:07:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You are wrong (none / 0)
  1. Stalinism/Lenin/Mao, etc. performed atrocities in the name of their political ideologies and motivations. I see no way in which atheism can be blamed. Atheism doesn't assert anything. It is the DISBELIEF in a god. There is no dogma. The dogma lied in the fascism/communism.
  2. As I said, I went to 12 years of Catholic school. Belief in the 'virgin birth' was pretty much assumed and was ABSOLUTELY advocated. How many Christians do you know that don't believe Jesus was born to a virgin?
  3. I have acknowledged many times IN THIS POST that not all Christians are the same. I also acknowledged that the type of believers on TYT are more or less the type I have the most respect for.
  4. I explained the function that these arguments play for atheists and explained why they are comforting.

Also...you just said that atheism leads to policies like Stalin's. Don't you see that this is hypocritical?
Feel free to argue that point, but don't tell me that I'm being disrespectful (which I acknowledge I sometimes am) when you are doing the same.

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 03:14:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I wanted to expose your hypocrisy (none / 0)
You often assume that people do bad stuff because they are religious. I on the other hand assume that people do bad stuff because they want power and they use religion as an excuse.
Just like the republicans often use freedom (and religion) as an excuse when they want power.

The thing with the virgin birth is really strange and I don't know how well informed your religious teachers were about Catholic dogma. She was even a virgin after the birth. That's possible if you understand virginity (roughly speaking) as a metaphor for purity.
These things that you always go on about are in my opinion mainly metaphors with a deeper meaning.
Most European Cristians think like that.

We definitly agree that ALL people who interpret the Bible literally are idiots.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/07/2009 06:01:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Excuse me? (none / 0)
"You often assume that people do bad stuff because they are religious. I on the other hand assume that people do bad stuff because they want power and they use religion as an excuse."
-Nooo...I think people do bad things because people always have and always will do bad things. I think religion sometimes exacerbates the problems, but is rarely (if ever) the only cause.
-Again...where are you getting your accusations? Please give an example if you are going to criticize me. I dare you to find one. I double dare you.
Ok....not sure if you are a Catholic. Catholic dogma does not see the virgin birth as an analogy. Not by a long shot.
What things have I gone on about besides the virgin birth? Like I said, it might be more intelligent to see it as an analogy, but I was asked about Catholic dogma and I know what I am talking about. It is not seen as an analogy.

I am going to ask you AGAIN, to tone down your assumptions. If you keep insulting me without evidence I will be forced to declare e-war.
hehe

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 06:08:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sorry (none / 0)
I would never dare to get involved with you in an e-war.

I think I might have confused you with other posters and I sincerly apolygize.

About the analogy:
That's what I've been tought in Catholic religious education and it convinced me. Even though the church would propably object to the term analoy, because it is not 'deep' enough.

Let's focus on the good things:

"Man has the right to act according to his conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."

Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1782

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/07/2009 06:29:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ok, but... (none / 0)
You just totally side-stepped the argument. The virgin birth is not meant as an analogy. I have to say that I do not believe you were taught that in catechism. Perhaps you misunderstood. I have a pretty good and progressive grasp of Catholic teachings and the virgin birth is essential to their theology in the same way that communion is the literal body and blood of Jesus. Those are some points that they do not put up for debate.
What does that conscience clause have to do with anything? I know Catholics don't take the bible literally and I know they value freedom to choose beliefs. Again...what is your point??

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 09:12:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
In Europe (none / 0)
We are not tought catechism in school. We get a more open education, that teaches us the core values and believes of Christian theology and also other religions. We start with Catholicism and later we are educated about all world religions so maybe my teacher was not to convinced of some stuff.

It is true, that the believe in virgin birth is essential, but how it has to be interpreted is wildly discussed. There is no way denying that my first religous education teacher was heavily influenced by Eugen Drewermann, as was I in later years. He was allowed to teach that the virgin birth is not a biological fact at the university of Paderborn from 1979 until 1991. Many Catholic priests and religious education teachers in Germany are heavily influenced by him. Then he received to much media attention and his right to teach was revoked. He was and continues to be a very important figure for many Catholics in Germany.

I put the quote at the end as something that you, I and the Catholic church agree on. That is propably the only thing, that's why I wanted to end with it.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/08/2009 02:04:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Correction (none / 0)
When I wrote "in Europe" I meant in Germany. I can't speak about the schools in other European countries.

After living in three European countries I see myself much more as a European than as a German. From my experience the attitudes we Europeans have in common legitimize a distiction between Europe and America. Even though I have to admitt, that I base my image of America solely on second hand information, and I am aware, that I sometimes over-generalize.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/08/2009 02:18:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Dogma (none / 0)
I think I have made it very clear that I know there is a great variety of belief across the Christian spectrum. I would wager a guess that the vast majority of them do believe that Jesus was born to a virgin (one who got pregnant without intercourse).
My higher education has been secular. Through this (especially philosophy), I have learned an incredible amount about the diversity of religion.
There are 2 competing issues here. First is the type of beliefs encountered here at TYT. Second is the type of beliefs encountered out in the real world. I contend that these discussions reflect both of those realities. Yes. The believers encountered here are usually very very liberal theologically. However, the vast majority of believers in the world do not hold the same perspective. I don't think it's fair to say that atheists here should restrict their conversations to arguments about very liberal theology. As I said before, this forum can sometimes serve as a safe and comforting place to vent about some of the very real experiences non-believers have in the outside world. This brings us back to the difference between people and their beliefs. I someone is talking negatively about fundamentalist Christianity and a liberal christian inserts an argument. Are you required to then shift the argument to argue only in terms of liberal christianity? I don't think so.

by LadyFriend on 08/08/2009 12:53:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And.... (none / 0)
I accept and appreciate the apology. I meant to add that at the end.

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 09:14:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
uh huh.. (none / 0)
guy who killed abortion doctors. why do you think he did that? oh right his religion told him to. the crusades what made people do that? right religion did. persecution of jews in the old world, oh right cause jesus was killed by jews. i'm not going to mention constantine because he mostly conquered and jsut used religion as an excuse, or rather a catalyst, so it's not entirely fair to say he did it because of religion more like he used religion to succeed. what else, oh yea irish british catholic/protestant wars? those are ALL because of religion. you talk about those atheists killing people? let's think for a second did they kill peopl ebecause "my god told me to?" or "i killed them because my ungod told me to" how about any tenant of atheism that tells them to kill people. ooooh riiiight atheism DOESN'T HAVE ANY TENANTS. it has ONE line in it, "you dont believe in, or dont think there is enough evidence for a god" that's it, that's all. there's no holy books with thousands of lines of rules and laws many that are cruel and tell people to kill other people. so yea, it's entirely fair to say people kill other people because of their religion BECAUSE YOUR RELIGIONS SAY TO KILL PEOPLE. do you really want me to quote the many laws that tell you to stone people to death? to kill them? to torture them? i mean really?

by kingbane on 08/07/2009 08:26:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I would be really interested (none / 0)
in the lines in the New Testament advocating violence.

The Tiller killer was in my opinion insane. Please don't say: Of course, because he was religious. That would be childish.

The problems in Northern Ireland are really the most stupid example you could have mentioned.
In all the other cases (except NI) religion was used to justify the violence. That's different than causing it. Good ideas are so often used to justify terrible things. French Revolution (Reign of Terror), Stalinism etc. It is just easier for leaders to do terrible things when they claim to do it for a good purpose.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/08/2009 02:35:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
uh huh (none / 0)
why is it everyone uses the blanket excuse that oh it's new testament. jesus says he didn't come to change any of the rules. and without the old testament jesus is a nobody. without all the foreshadowing predictions and "prophecies" of the old testament jesus is a nobody. that's only if you believe in those things tho.

all the violent rules of the old testament still apply. but, let's go ahead and quote one.

matthew 10: 34-36
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword.

For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;

and one's enemies will be those of his household."

the sword is often used in the new testament many people say oh it's a metaphor. but it actually stems from the old prophecy of micah where it says jesus is to reconquer israel for the jews by the sword. that prophecy says by the sword in the sense that he conquers it physically through violence. my guess is that matthew and new testament "authors" tried to fit that into much of what jesus said. so ya, the new testament too preaches violence.

by kingbane on 08/08/2009 04:54:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
oh ya. (none / 0)
forgot to mention all the threats of hell. cause those aren't violent right?

Matt 13:40-42
As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Matt 12:30
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

John 3:36(Jesus speaking)
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

it's funny how people have to rationalize this by saying when jesus talks about life he means "2 kinds of life" riiiight. it's nice to rationalize violence by making up crap like 2 lives, spiritual life and life life. cause actual life would make the new testament pretty barbaric.

Luke 19:27(Jesus speaking in a parable)
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Gal 1:9
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

i think there are more quotes. but really it would be redundant.

by kingbane on 08/08/2009 04:59:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
answer (none / 0)
The Old Testament was the basis, because the teachings of the New Testament would otherwise be unintelligable.
When you have a child you don't start teaching them number theory you start with adding and substracting. Still number theory changes nothing about adding and substracting it just gets more challenging.

You really interpret that sentence as Jesus advocating people to kill their families?
I'm pretty sure it wasn't meant like that.

Wanna play a little game?
The loser is not allowed to post about religion on this forum when one of us admits defeat.

You bring one quote in which Jesus encourages violence and I bring 5 where he is against it to show that the general direction in which his teachings go are not violent.
Since the teachings of Jesus have to be seen in context I think a 5-1 ratio is ok.

Do you accept my challenge?

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/08/2009 05:32:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That is stupid. (none / 0)
5-1 is ok, and you don't see why that would be a problem? You don't see how that is a major problem in religions and that those contradictions are at the root of the arbitrariness of religion?

How about a code of law where 5 laws prohibit murder and one condones it... I would say that 1 time is too much and that the whole code has to be reviewed, reformed or discarded (I mean the literal text, the bible, yes)...

by eborujion on 08/08/2009 01:59:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
funny (none / 0)
where to start. i'll jsut go in order then shall i.

you talk about number theory. as you proceed through number theory does addition and subtraction suddenly become invalid? if this is your parallel then you think addition and subtraction is useless simply because they are the basis? if i follow your metaphor then old testament isn't useless as addition and subtraction clearly apply in all number theory.

you're PRETTY SURE it wasn't meant like that? gee that's alot less certainty in your words huh. if it was the word of god you'd think he's be pretty clear, concise, and eternal about it. no no it's vague open to "interpretation" via non literal metaphorical and allegorical means. yea suddenly the word of god isn't so concrete. or maybe men decided to interpret it differently maybe god did indeed advocate the murder of family members. why is it that you are interpreting gods words instead of taking them for what they are. do you consider yourself above god then?

wanna play a little game? ok i name a murderer who killed 50 people but he also fed 50 000 hungry kids. does that mean that guy's not a murderer? your logic that there is "more good in  the bible then evil" is stupid. the original argument wasn't even about that, you made the claim that there WAS NO VIOLENT quotes in new testament. i proved you DEAD wrong. so what do you decide to do? oh i know i'll reframe the argument into something else. by your 5 one ratio then everytime i do a good deed i'm allowed to go out and kill someone or something? yea it doesn't make sense any way you slice it. ratio's are only useful in math not morality, and least of all the absolute morality that the bible advocates.

you clearly cannot defend your position any longer. you are now simply grasping at straws and rationalizing whatever comes your way. i'll concede your mental gymnastics are impressive, but they're just that. dance moves that do nothing but show how weak your side is. am i being harsh? sure but your ignorance is rather infuriating.

by kingbane on 08/08/2009 08:12:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
heh (none / 1)
religion is treated like rubbish because it is rubbish. it's not something you're born with, it's not your race your sexual orientation it's a choice to ignore facts. it's a choice to believe in fairy tales. why is it ok for someone to criticize political beliefs but not religious beliefs? why is it ok to mock people's taste in art, interior design, fashion, favorite music, favorite band, but not religious flavor. how much would you laugh at me if i told you i believed in a zombie ape that raped his own mother to give birth to himself and pretended to die for 3 days, and that this ape could grant all my wishes anytime i asked for them. oh and that ape was responsible for everything in the world and he will judge everyone when they die and eternally torture them.

yea you'd probably say i was a lunatic. well your religion makes you look like a lunatic, whatever that religion is. you believe in fruity make believe invisible shit that controls everything, you're looney and i'm gonna mock you for it. it's tiresome to bring facts evidence and rational debate the religious argument over and over and over only to be met with ignorance and denial of facts and evidence. it's tiresome and sometimes the patience just runs out. in which case it turns into mocking cause at least when i mock you i can laugh.

by kingbane on 08/07/2009 01:07:10 AM EST

Wow. (none / 0)
A religion I could actually buy in to: "The Church of the Zombie Ape."

I find the paradox in the story very appealing.  It's very mysterious, so it must be true, right?

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 07:31:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
i know right? (none / 0)
wouldn't zombie ape be AWESOME? he'd be like a ground based FSM except also a ZOMBIE!

by kingbane on 08/07/2009 08:05:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I call bullshit, too (none / 0)
Religion is an opinion. It's not like race or ethnicity or skin color or even sexual orientation.

No, your precious religious sensibilities are not going to get special consideration here.

This is a political opinion site. Christians made the decision to go bringing religion, theirs and everyone else's,  into the political arena. Now it's fair game for political opinion.

Cry me a river.

by RedPossum on 08/07/2009 01:21:22 AM EST

>sniff< These responses... (none / 0)

Reading the original post, I thought of responding with "You say 'immature' like it's a bad thing."

But reading the responses - well, hell, I couldn't be any prouder of Forumites than if they could give me a good analogy here (what can I say? I can't think of any way that I could be prouder. Besides, I wouldn't be able to top the ape - why try?)

>sniff< Brings a tear to an old man's eye to see such cross generational sanity gathered in one place. I know too many otherwise rational people who insist on dragging their religion into the open instead of keeping it to themselves.

by MedfordTim on 08/07/2009 02:18:58 AM EST

analogy (none / 0)
I rather liked my alligator analogy.  But the ape one was good too.

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

by aidbo on 08/07/2009 03:22:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes, it was a good analogy. (none / 0)
I'm afraid that I'm going to have to confiscate it for my own use.

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 07:24:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Like my 8th grade english teacher? (none / 0)
"Is that COCAINE???!!??  Oh, I'm going to have to, um, confiscate that.  I'll call in the substitute teacher while I, erm, SNIFF deal with it.

by birdboy1 on 08/07/2009 09:21:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I may as well chime in here as well. (none / 1)
It seems as though all most of the resident non believers are responding here, so I thought I'd put my thoughts in as well.

If you are frequenting the chat room, it occurs to me that you may be asking for it. It's like your brushing your hair with bacon grease, putting your head in the aligator's mouth and then asking it politely not to chomp down.  I don't really frequent the chat room so I don't know the specifics of which you're speaking, but I can imagine the rhetoric that probably goes on there. What you have in a chat room is a combination of many factors that can accumulate to create a hostile environment to some. Humans can act rashly when in large groups like mobs. Add in the faceless anonymity that the Internet conveys and a minority viewpoint and you get some less than polite phrasing I am sure.

I prefer the forum to the chat room for a few reasons that may interest you.  Generally (but not always!) comments are of a more thoughtful nature, because these comments are "sticking around". Rather, in a chat room the comment simply scoll up into history, so people can be more crass.  If you are looking for more thoughtful dialogue, then here in the forum is where you will find it.

But let me also warn you about your humble plea:
"Apply the same sensibilities driven by our progressive worldview to the arena of religion. Treat her with the same intellectual and emotional respect you treat everything else with. Realize that she is just a much a part of who I, you, and many others are as is race, nationality, sexuality or gender."

That plea will most likely go unheaded in here for the reasons that most of the folks who have already spoken up have voiced.  Because religion may be a part of who you are but it is also a choice.  Choices have consequences and are subject to criticism.  And criticism is one of the things that we do best around here. No one in this forum is above criticism for the choices they make or opinions they voice. We try to keep the ad hominems to a minimum, and attack the idea not the person, but I make no guarantee.

I guess what I'm trying to say is welcome to the forum. I hope you stick around and you're welcome of course to voice your opinions. Most of us (with a few exceptions) are polite much of the time even when we are disagreeing. But do not expect special treatment just because you happen to believe in a deity.

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

by aidbo on 08/07/2009 02:26:42 AM EST

A different perspective (none / 0)
In the mid-1990's the Sci-fi show Babylon 5 started, I was unsure whether it would be any good until I saw this. The setup for this scene is a bit of political correctness where it is decided that all the main alien races will shared their "Dominant religious beliefs" with the other ambassadors on the station. The show highlights the 3 main alien races and the human commander is expected to showcase "Earth's dominate religious beliefs". Throughout the show there is no hint of what will be done for earth and it remains so until the last 1 minute of the show. This whole concept made me very uncomfortable and I was ready to just turn it off, however this scene convinced me that the author of Babylon 5 was brilliant.






I know I'm a sap, but this scene really effects me everytime I see it.

Last summer I met J. Michael Straczynski and thanked him for this scene and he told me this story. In this scene every person is a true member of the faith they represent, including the proper ceremonial dress and these are their real names. When this scene was to be filmed all the network executives made sure they were "on set" since nothing like this had ever been done before, or since.

by CptRich on 08/07/2009 08:39:33 AM EST

What I DIDN'T like about B5 (none / 0)

Because B5 got picked up, J. Michael Straczynski was forced be time considerations to give up his monthly column in Writer's Digest, one of my "turn to first" favorites.

Selfish, I know....

by MedfordTim on 08/07/2009 04:18:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Dear Regressive, this is long, but it's the last. (none / 0)
I haven't bothered to read the 16 comments I find this morning attached to your blogpost.

It's not worth it. I know already what they're going to say, and who's going to say it.

My dear dear sir. Good luck with this post. Good luck with TYT.

I am sure you will hear some platitudes from some of the 'nice' people...but don't worry.

They don't mean it.

You must accept Dear Regressive.

This is TYT.

It is not free, not open, most of all, not tolerant.

Limelight, for example, they tolerate...because mostly he keeps his belief to himself.

Sometimes...even he, is overwhelmed by the hypocrisy from the tyt crew, just as you were -- and his frustration at being called STUPID overcomes him.

Of course, this is their house. Their rules and that's .... okay.

But it isn't worth beating a dead horse. Really.

I never preach to anyone, I hold mostly ALL the same progressive values...I am more liberal than many here...

But it don't matter a lick.

I am still considered stupid as are you, and Limers, and oh...a few others they tolerate.

I say this with great disappointment.

I came here very excited at first...thrilled to find a site that seemed to share a such a similar view on government and politics. I received a lot of positive feedback which, unfortunately led me to believe that some people here accepted that there are progressives that exist who also hold a theistic world view. I was wrong.

They don't.

As soon as ONE religious person shows up that doesn't answer their questions to their satisfaction; kick em. Jewish people, not so much.

NOte last night...even the muslim was allowed to say "hey, watch your mouth about Islam" or "hey, watch your mouth about Jews" or "hey, watch your mouth about, well, whatever a moderator's personal thing is"

And....your kicked.

They talk here, behind your back, as it were, by paying lip service to the posters who they know are theists and who seem to agree with every OTHER point of view...

But as soon as your back is turned...LOOK OUT.

ONLY STUPID PEOPLE BELIEVE IN A GOD.

And that means you, regressive, and me, and Limelight.

Seriously, it's true.

An entire faculty of the philosophy department at the university in my city...lectured me in my own home as a teenager...

About the classic arguments which, according to them were pretty damn good...agnostics all, i might add...they proved that OF COURRRRRRSE, it is just as rational to believe in god as it is rational to NOT believe in god.

The people here mix this up horribly.

They assume, as is there style, that each and every theist, fits into THEIR own view of what a theist is.

Doesn't matter if you tell them your own view...and explain how on the same page you are...they don't believe you.

Instead, they take the crazy theist or the consertive rw christian...and use them as an example of why theists are stupid...

Last night, it was pretty funny.

Questions peppered the christian anti-abortionist with things like, "Did you know Christ was a JEW??!!"

What the fuck?????

Um. DUH. What the fuck is your point???!!!

Of course he was. And? Is there anything wrong with that??!!

Or "Jesus was a brown man, you know"

Again...so the fuck what? Is there anything wrong with that?

But you and I both know, regressive, that they don't ask that to advance an argument...they ask that to convict the person they're asking...don't they?

It's a trap they're hoping to set. They're trying to prove that 'real christians', a term inspiring much ridicule, real christians are racists and misogynists and violent and blah blah...

LexPix did his "Oh yeah??!! You follow Christ??? No you don't! Because you don't keep kosher or worship the Sabbath from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset like JESUS did! He was a JEW! Gotchya!:"

Well, for the last FUCKING time!

Are all Christians ASSHOLES who are STUPID and shouldn't be tolerated here on TYT???

Emphatically, YES !!!!! Here's why.

You can list the points of where you stand as a Christian. And as soon as you turn around...they ridicule EVERY SINGLE theist AGAIN as STUPID.

So here I go. One last time.

I am a Christian-esque person.

I don't have any idea if I am going to heaven. I don't care about going to heaven anyway. I just want one...for all the truly good people...and I want JUSTICE for all the fucking crap that has gone on...ESPECIALLY all the crap that has been done in the name of christ. Disgusting.

I want JUSTICE.

Torture is wrong.

Death penalty is wrong.

I am pro-choice.

I am Liberal.

I am completely into free speech. Even christ sodomizing christ pics...have at er hoss. That's your trip.  (As a side note...I find it cowardly, hypocritical and ball-less that these same 'liberals' don't have the guts to put their money where their mouth is...and post pictures of Mohammed...fucking, say, Christ...or a dog...COME ON....do it!!!

NO? Ohhhhhhh right, cause christians are stupid assholes...but muslims will kill you and your site for doing it.

So you pick your battles. How conveeeeeenient.

I believe in a complete and utter separation of any church and state.

I believe in freedom to marry whom you want.

I believe in universal health care.

I believe in a democratic system.

I believe in a truly free press.

I believe Christ was a Jew.

I worship from Friday at sunset to Saturday at sunset.

I keep kosher.

Why? Because it was Christ's custom as a JEW...what's good enough for Christ is good enough for me.

I believe in not judging ANYONE for their 'sins' because...it's not my fucking right since I am a completely fucked up person and I wouldn't want to be judged by YOU. So I keep my mouth shut, and my mind open to the idea that EVERY person is worthy of dignity and respect.

Except for Christians. They are too stupid too deserve respect.

You see, Regressive...you can yap til you're blue in the face...you can be more liberal than the liberals...

And just like all blacks eat watermelon...no matter they have a black PH.D in math in their midst...all blacks are stupid watermelon eaters.

You know, many people are that nutty in their racism against blacks. Right?

Same here at TYT for christians.

Doesn't matter if you're an educated pastor, who rolls with Wes Clark...doesn't matter if you're a liberal with progressive ideology...you are still a stupid fucking idiot who has no education, who doesn't understand reason, and who is racist or whatever else negative these guys think a christian or theist is.

It's hopeless.

Their intolerance and prejudice is so ingrained...their hatred so intense...theists will never be accepted here.

The education system...especially university courses in philosophy...in the states...are clearly a bit...ahem...lacking.

For this many people to actually believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a person of reason to believe in EVERYTHING EXACTLY THE SAME and god as well -- for this many people to ridicule people of intelligence and lump them into the same category as all the other rw religious nutjobs...

well... the bigotry in this is CLEAR.

I have never preached to anyone here...I have never said I have all the answers...I have always tried to make it crystal clear that my values are very liberal...cause they are.

Every time one of these these bigots yells a question at me...like "oh YEAH! Well, do you believe in the death penalty CHRISTIAN, huh do you?

I answer, I try to be patient, I try to stay away from arguing about my personal world view...and instead keep it about the secular world or at least the world we are all trying to live in together.

My biggest belief about the people here...watching all the kicking of people for simply having a different belief...sure some are idiots...absolutely...but for the most part...

People are accused of being trolls...accused of inciting anger...and yet they keep hugh trolls and snark trolls...and whatever.

They actually even discuss in PUBLIC on chat how they're gonna delete people's entire accounts here!!!!

Why? Cause they don't like your name. Oh, they allowed you to sign up with it. No problem there.

But if you say something, unlike Hugh, that they don't like...then, your name is wrong. You're out.

I thought that once everyone knew me, knew I was truly progressive, yet a theist, they would accept me as an intelligent, reasonable person, who, regardless of where I put my faith, if my ACTIONS, were progressive, if I consistently showed my liberal or progressive viewpoints in all things that touch us in our daily lives...they would accept me as intelligent enough to stick around.

Well...leave the room...and it's clear they don't.

They talk about me as STUPID, as if I DID in fact hold conservative views, which I don't, they talk about deleting me...(and if not me, personally, others like me)

They ridicule my intelligence and say right out loud...

"You can have an IQ worthy of mensa, You can have an education, You can follow great philosophers arguments that it is rational to put faith in a god system, you can believe in every single secular issue they do...

NO fucking matter. You are stupid...you are not worthy of even listening to...not even on secular topics, apparently...because you see...you are all wrong to begin with.

I don't care about being the only theist here.
I don't care about the intense flaming of my religion.

What I DO care about is the constant ridiculing of one's intelligence, then the fake turn around when pushed by a regular "Oh don't worry, baby, I didn't mean YOU...YOU are okay...you're not UNintelligent"

Spare me.

Femynist or Joan or antiliberal (and I am so opposite of her i can't tell you)...but these people here don't like you, regressive, or me, as an example of what it is to be a christian...

They only WANT anti liberal.......because it's like having a stupid, uneducated, violent, animalistic, watermelon eating, lazy, BLACK person --- proof in the pudding that blacks are like that...

If you put a black into the mix who goes against all the type...all the racist stereotypes...well that is not as much fun, now is it?

It makes it, perhaps harder, to heap abuse and hypocritical vitriol against them...

Stream of consciousness?

Yup, and for the last fucking time, too. What a waste of my time.

I really thought this site was progressive...

Then there's the story of Britain with the silly camera thing.

Oh my. The NERVE of people to want to correct this. The nerve of people taking it seriously that TYT JUMPS at the opportunity to go all Alex Jones on Britain.

After all, TYT isn't some kind of alternative NEWS org...they are NOT trying to get onto MSM...no no no...they do not need to get into responsible journalism...this TYT is about ridicule and ridicule alone.

Take a look at some of the most thoughtful, organized and open-minded posts here...and you will see...many many many come from OTHER countries.

The Americans on TYT...many show a typical lack of awareness of other countries and what's happening outside of the states. It's awful.

Even say, Canadians in the military.

Here's another example of TYT'ers being duh...

A little convo went on here about Red Eye and the comments made about the Canadian military and how this riled up the Canadians.

No one even corrected the misinformation. No one American seemed to even know about the role of the Canadian military in the theatres in the middle east.

And these are supposedly EDUCATED aware TYT'ers.

Holy shit.

Canada was NEVER in fucking IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!!!

Canada NEVER WENT TO IRAQ.

Canada DID go to AFGHANISTAN to SUPPORT our AMERICAN brothers and sisters in the fight to find bin Laden...

We went there at the VERY BEGINNING...and STAYED there, UNLIKE the Americans...who tripped off to fight a bogus war in Iraq.

We stayed there for YEARS and lost HUNDREDS UPON HUNDREDS of soldiers.

We depleted everything we have...yes it's not much...but by god we stayed for a LOOOONNNNG fucking time. Now we're done. We have nothing left.

Now the Americans, in all their wisdom...have decided it's time to come back to Afghanistan...okay then.

What really blows my mind is how unaware Americans are of what even their own ALLIES are doing with them and FOR them...no fucking clue.

And they laugh.

In my opinion...I wish we would get the FUCK out NOW. Of anything American. It's not worth the lives, it's not worth our money, and it's certainly not worth the hypocritical ridicule and the complete lack of appreciation.

Stream of consciousness? Fuck yah.

Who the fuck cares?

Burning bridges.

It's what I do.

Last thing...

Do you know who Hugh is?

I do.

Hugh is a man who is hired. For money. To troll this site and others like it...

He posts things for the specific purpose of getting to know your liberal talking points.

He brings these to his handlers and he travels his countryside, conferring with the various orgs helping to disrupt town hall meetings...conferring with his handlers so as to better mount their counter-'intelligence' campaigns...and he gathers any and all 'good' arguments found here...and passes them along to 'the powers that be' so as to better design the rethug offensive.

You think not?

Okay then.

Whatever.

Do your thing...tyt...in your 'progressive' bliss, you are absolutely correct that it's your club, your house...oh yeah...

But just like Fox News...fair and balanced...

Tyt is 'fair' and 'progressive' and 'open-minded' and 'liberal' and 'un-bigoted'.

When called on this...tyt's typical response is to say..."no...we're not. We never said that. We are a progressive site who does NOT TOLERATE theism. We do NOT TOLERATE opposing viewpoints. We do NOT TOLERATE stupid people. Or racists, or trolls...well...except for the ones we like. So fuck off, theists...it's our house. Get out."

Okay then.

Can't argue with that.

Hopefully, the thousands of peeps who watch tyt around the WORLD...the thousands of peeps who are truly PROGRESSIVE...but are theists of one kind or another...

Hopefully this wonderfully international audience you have, will overlook the clear bigotry on this site...they will overlook the false stories you post...because, hey, after all, it's FUNNY to find goofy stories about other countries...who needs truth in reporting? It's just a damn story.

Who cares?

Well, hopefully you're right...hopefully all these people from around the world interested in your show...don't care if you ridicule them on a regular basis.

Your membership should still grow. Well. If you catch all the atheists out there, anyway.

And that's all you really want, now, isn't it?

Atheists and Americans.

Even comments on chat like "I wonder why so many other nationalities watch American politics? Weird, huh? It's not even their country"

Oh my fucking gawd.

Typical American myopic view.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You want to be the king of the world, the best alternative for all society in all the world...you control financially, the outcome, realistically, of many a country on this planet...certainly your country affects every country on this planet.

Yet you continually ask 'why do are 'they' so interested in our business?'

Stupid myopic sillies.

Well, i guess i have burned all of them now...all the bridges are down and gone...

Loneliness of interest and enthusiasm and passion in my political life...oh well.

I'm a theist...I deserve to be gone...I am stupid...no point in listening to a goddamn word i say...

Got it.

by opiman000 on 08/07/2009 09:50:04 AM EST

some smart people that believed in God (none / 0)
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun.

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning.

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born.

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation.

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics.

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics.

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds.

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy.

Einstein quote--

 "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."

Additionally--

Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Stupid myopic silles indeed

Everyone has a right to their own beliefs regardless if anyone has the capacity to understand them.

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 08/07/2009 10:28:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Top Scientists Are Atheists? (none / 1)

I knew there are more recent numbers but they actually further the point, i.e. more top scientists are non-theists than even 11 years ago. From Nature 'Leading Scientists Still Reject God'

"...Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample <sup>[1]</sup>. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively..."

by Tom Hanc on 08/07/2009 12:03:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
There's more to it than that (none / 1)
Even if some scientists believe in "God", talking about it is meaningless until they have defined what they mean by the term.  Even I use the word "God" as a convenient means for representing an idea (my conception of God stems from the universal set in set theory, and is equivalent to using the word "Universe" capital "U").  But I always end up having to explain that idea because no two people have the exact same idea about what "God" means.

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 02:48:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My Thoughts on God (none / 0)
Summed up concisely here (by me).

by Tom Hanc on 08/07/2009 02:57:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ah! The Church of God the Utterly Indifferent! (none / 0)
I had once considered joining that church, but I couldn't fit the rituals into my schedule.

I adore Vonnegut.

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 03:29:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
well the response was to a person that posted (none / 0)
only stupid people believe in God.

obviously that is not true.

I would suspect that more Scientists prefer regular coke to classic coke too.

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 08/09/2009 04:37:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0)

Of course it's not true that only stupid people believe in God, although if I recall, the less educated you are the more likely you are to be a religious fundamentalist.

And the most educated/intelligent scientists are insanely more likely to be atheists relative to the general population or even less experienced/published/respe cted scientists (who themselves are much more likely to be atheists than the general population), per my previous link.

by Tom Hanc on 08/09/2009 05:00:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Deism (none / 0)
You are correct in the idea that many very smart people have been, and are, believers.
I believe that it is unfair to lump all of these 'believers' into the same box. For example, Einstein's god was deistic. This is a far cry from the religiosity of Isaac Newton.
Just saying, as has been argued throughout this thread by offended believers, all believers are not created equal.

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 12:16:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My Thoughts on God (none / 0)
summed up concisely here (by me).

by Tom Hanc on 08/07/2009 02:58:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
True (none / 0)
Well said.

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 03:24:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sure,... (none / 0)
...just so you remember that I also have a right to my beliefs and that I don't have to make any accommodations for yours.  Do that and we'll get along fine.  But the minute that you insist that I must behave in a certain way because of your beliefs, we will have a problem.

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 02:40:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Allow me to illustrate your fallacy (none / 0)
Argument from Personal Incredulity
I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true. Creationists are fond of arguing that they cannot imagine the complexity of life resulting from blind evolution, but that does not mean life did not evolve.

as blatantly copied from top 20 logical fallacies

also let me fix this for you:
"Most of the people in this forum (myself included) are not religious. But Only a fool is certain that God does not exist.

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

by aidbo on 08/07/2009 07:20:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I have never sought to challenge your beliefs (none / 1)
Personally, I don't care what religious beliefs anyone has until they tell me that I have to respect them.  I don't.

I don't have to respect any ideas that I find objectionable.

If you simply state that you believe something, well, why should I care?  I don't.  Believe what you want.  It's no skin off my back.  What I care about is your behavior.  I have always found your behavior to be exemplary.

But if someone says that I should alter my behavior to accommodate their beliefs, which you have never done but which the author of this article does propose, then I'm going to give such a proposal a very unfriendly welcome.

I have many close friends who have strong religious beliefs.  We don't argue because we respect each other.  When someone tells me what they believe, I accept it at face value.  I have no desire to persuade anyone out of their beliefs.  My religious friends also accept my beliefs, and that is the key to our relationship.  We have no problems whatsoever.

It is only when someone insists that I must make some accommodation for their beliefs or that I should somehow accept their beliefs into my life that I fight back.

If you observe the arguments over religion that occur in this community, you will find that they always begin on those grounds.  The non-religionists are never the instigators.

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 02:33:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sorry opi (none / 0)
You probably misunderstood what the people said.  You're not the stupid one.  It's the fundies.  You know, the people who think that the world is 6000 years old and that god said to stone gays to death.  

I don't exactly have all the facts here, but I'm pretty sure they were attacking the fundies.  For their irrational beliefs, and their actions based on them.  For example, the bible is notably sexist for our standards today.  5000 years ago, it would have been radical feminism because of all the "rights" women got under the bible.

Anyway, the bible is sexist for our standards today, but the fundie men think they're better than women because the bible said that women have to be in submission.

And then there are the gay haters, also stuck with irrational religious arguments.

the list goes on and on, but I'm pretty sure you're not a fundie.  And I'm pretty sure you aren't stupid either

by birdboy1 on 08/07/2009 02:41:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm almost ashamed of my reply. (none / 0)

Wow. That was incredible. You voiced in a powerful way some of the very same frustrations and glaring inconsistencies that have gotten under my skin so much.

In light of such a beautiful post I'm a bit embarrassed to pick this detail, of all things, to reply to specifically but I feel it prudent that I do.

 Unfortunately, I don't think it's accurate to say that I "roll with" Wes Clark. As awesome as that would be, I was just lucky enough to run a business that he patronizes every now and again, with quite a bit of time between "now" and "again". I hope such a frivolous detail doesn't seem belittling after your bore your heart but I just wanted to clear the air so my credibility wouldn't be shot over some misunderstanding.

Thank you so much opi, I'll reply to your message with a bit more of the respect it's due.

by RegressivePartyChaplain on 08/07/2009 03:33:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The difference between you and opiman000... (none / 0)
...is that you want us to alter our behavior to accommodate your beliefs.  You want us to accept what you propose without criticizing it.

No.

If you don't want criticism, don't ask us to alter our behavior.  If you do, this is what you get.

Yes, it's a paradox: you can only get our respect for your ideas if you don't demand it, because that is how you show respect for our ideas.  But once you do demand that respect, you're in for a lot of criticism.

According to our rules, all ideas are open to criticism, and we always play by our rules.  If you don't want that criticism, then don't insist that we not criticize.

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 04:24:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
To be fair (none / 0)
I'm not sure that Regressive really meant to advocate stifling ideas. I have a feeling it was more about tone.

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 04:58:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Tone. Not censorship. (none / 0)

Thank you Lady. I don't then EveningStar has really replied to one thing I actually said, I guess I should've been more clear. When I began writing this I meant to include an "I agree" paragraph about dissent and freedom of speech but it got super busy at work and I left off a good deal of what I had to write so my wife wouldn't have to sit up here with me till 2 or 3 AM.

This post was simply about tone.

by RegressivePartyChaplain on 08/07/2009 06:31:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not "stupid" (none / 0)

"Insane" would be a better term - on THIS subject. Because you expect a different outcome following the same path you've trod before. As does the original poster.

Yes, you DO possess all those charming attributes you listed - intelligence, compassion, etc., and we (I) am extremely happy to have you around.

Do you think that the reason you ARE all those things is because of your religious beliefs? Do you think that if you didn't believe the way you do that you would be the opposite of what you are? I don't. I have faith that you would be a good person no matter what.

by MedfordTim on 08/07/2009 04:43:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well said. (none / 0)
Except that the faith isn't necessary.  We have ample evidence that good people are good with or without religion.

by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2009 08:13:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
well (none / 0)
you haven't answered my posts in the other forums where i tried my best to talk to you calmly about religious things. here you seem angry and i can see why. but realize that this post started off as someone trying to repress someone else's free speech. yea i get that alot of times people say oh all religious people are stupid. kind of like when people say all rednecks are stupid (also not a true statement), or when people assume all rednecks are racist. etc etc. it's one of those things. they might not mean you directly but you get lumped in indirectly. anyway that's not the point i want to make really. my point is that this whole blog post is about some guy pissed off that people mocked his religion. well people mock other people's favorite bands, why's that not a big deal? what because religious people hold their beliefs sacred so it should get special treatment? fuck that. if it's something stupid i'm going to call it out as stupid. if i told you i still believed the world is flat would you think i wasn't a moron? shit if i believed the world was flat I WOULD THINK I WAS a moron. you're overreacting, nobody insulted you directly. most of the insults were directed to religion yes most of the time people go overboard and end up lumping all religious people into it. hell i do it too. BUT i explained why i dont think even moderately religious people are a good thing. to which btw i still patiently wait a reply as i would like to know what you think on my explanation of that.

what you have to realize is nobody burns bridges here over religion except religious people. you could talk to any atheist after you have a heated argument with them over religion, they wont give a crap. why? because they weren't offended, there wasn't anything they held dear that was assaulted. you didn't mock their mom, you didn't mock their favorite color, you didn't mock their sense of fashion. nothing. read back on the posts by the agnostics or atheists, nobody here threatened to leave, quit, or hate anyone else over any of this discussion. read again some of what the theists have written. how many are truely pissed, starting to hate, and wanting to leave. naturally you are free to hate leave or be pissed all you want, it's why it's called freedom. but you should also realize nobody is going to stop talking to you in a calm manner, or friendly manner whenever you discuss anything else. i think maybe you know but most of my friends are religious and i butt heads with them heatedly ALL THE TIME over religion. yet they are still my friends. i see no reason why the theists here couldn't be either.

they just have to realize when they bring up religion i'm going to go into my mode where i start insulting religion profusely as time passes.

i could even draw a nice exponential chart of my offensiveness on the y axis and time discussing religion on the x axis. just how it is.

by kingbane on 08/08/2009 08:36:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
a few last things (none / 0)
my position about being offended over religion is the same as my position about being offended over words. it's on you. you choose what to be offended about. nobody is directly insulting you when they insult your religion.

lastly dont confuse the word ignorant with stupid. they are not equivalent. ignorance is only insulting if you never seek to rectify it. when someone says you're ignorant it's kind of like saying you're tall or you're short, they are merely saying you do not know. you can easily prove you are not ignorant.

by kingbane on 08/08/2009 08:42:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Can you put yourself in their place? (none / 4)

Imagine that you are having a discussion about politics and someone starts to inject opinions based on references to Greek or Roman mythology.   He might say things like, "that would be against the laws of Zeus, and may make him angry enough to come down off of Olympus and wreak havoc."  Or "Venus forbade two mortal women from lying together sexually, so I am opposed to giving them any rights to form a marriage contract.'  You might be amused at first, maybe even impressed when he shows a deep and detailed knowledge of the ancient gods, but basically you're likely to write him off as a bit of a kook and you're not going to value his opinions much because they are based on myths and irrational beliefs that you cannot relate to and have no value in your life.   They may be interesting from some philosophical standpoint but that's about it.

This is the way I feel about Christian biblical mythology.  I'm going to quickly lose patience with someone who argues from that perspective because I have no stake in their beliefs, which I consider to be irrational.  If you want to avoid having people snap at you leave it out of the political discussions and save it for some theological group somewhere else where people can relate to your beliefs. 

Another analogy is this:  Let's say that you believed in Santa Clause up until the time you were around 6 years old.  You quit believing when you got old enough to apply reason to the mythology that a jolly fat man in a sleigh can distribute toys to a couple of billion kids in one night.  You have arrived at the conclusion that it's a lot of bull.  Now let's say that there are some people who can't leave it at that and they keep dogging you about why you should still believe in Santa Clause.   They talk about his magic sleigh and reindeer and all of his elves and how this makes it possible for him to do something that you know damn well is physically impossible.   How long will this go on before you start telling them to shut up already about Santa Clause and that you don't believe and you don't want to hear it anymore?

by bfaul on 08/07/2009 10:24:52 AM EST

Dialogue (none / 1)
Regressive - We have had such conversations and I am more than happy to continue our respectful dialogue in the future.
Last night reflected a the anguish and frustration that atheists regularly feel. AntiLiberal was on the attack. I see nothing wrong with giving opinion to counter his opinion.
I'm not sure how often you have experienced (outside of TYT) profound degradation of your beliefs. I, as an atheist am regularly accosted and told that I am deserving of nothing less than eternal torment. Not all believers hold this view, of course, but it is an attitude that atheists regularly encounter. I hope you can understand how that might affect us psychologically. Perhaps we are brutal, but I think that being told you deserve eternal torture is about as brutal as it gets. Because of this common attitude, is it any wonder that when given a forum, we feel the need to commiserate and basque in the comfort of having like-minded people identify with us? We don't have a community that we get to go to be affirmed. Sometimes places like this can reflect our version of a church community.

I also have to say something about Christians being made to feel stupid. Limelight told me last night that he felt that I thought he was stupid for being a Christian. Please allow me to clarify my opinion on this. I do not believe that Christians (the breed found here, anyway) are unintelligent. I think it's unfair that by attacking a belief, that is translated into a personal attack. I do think the reasons people accept god's existence are invalid. I might even go so far as to call the holder of this belief to be ignorant. Ignorance and stupidity, however are not the same thing.
So, for me, I would like to say clearly that I do not think the believers of TYT are stupid. I do think the belief in god is not founded in reality. These are different things

Finally, I have to say that I cannot abide by your request. I do enjoy respectful dialogue with those I disagree with. Hopefully that came through in our private discussion. TYT can serve as an outlet for non-believers to find the support and acceptance that almost never can be found in the outside world.

I can only offer one suggestion. The mockery of religion that seems to offend you is not going to stop. Perhaps you could separate the belief from the person. I don't think the majority of atheists wish to attack Christians personally. We do feel that it is justified to attack these beliefs that are often deemed immune from criticism.

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 11:58:29 AM EST

Tell that to opiman000 (none / 0)
Seriously.
I think it has gone a little to far and we should try to do something to keep her in this forum and calm the whole situation down.

You have to admit that her posts were always interesting and intelligent.

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/07/2009 01:12:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Opi (none / 1)
As I said before, I like opi very much. We have agreed on things many times. As I also said, I don't like that she feels like an outcast from the TYT community when it comes to religious arguments. I hope that she stays since she regularly contributes positively (even in this post).
I have to say again, that it is not my responsibility to make people of all views happy and feel welcome. We are probably a site with a majority of members who are both progressive and non-believers/non-religious . What happens when conservatives post on the forum or chat? Probably just as much mocking as when it comes to religion. I don't hear anyone saying that this is mean and inappropriate.

by LadyFriend on 08/07/2009 03:18:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
dayum, opi!! (none / 0)
Gracious, woman, I thought I was long-winded :)

For what it's worth, I am a pagan, not an atheist or an agnostic.

Here are some interesting things about Pagans -


  • We do not claim that other religions are false, nor do we claim that other gods are false.

  • We do not claim exclusivity for our gods.

  • We do not claim to have any exclusive lock on knowledge, wisdom or truth.

  • We have no professional priestly class.

Though I am not a Muslim, I honor the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as I honor Yeshua ben Joseph, and the Siddartha. I agree they were all holy men, inspired by the divine.

As a Pagan, I feel no need to address every issue. My faith does not provide an answer to every question. It does provide general guidelines to ethical thought and action, so that I may arrive at my own answers, right or wrong.

So, you see, I have no quarrel with Christianity or Christians, per se. What I do have a violent quarrel with is the attempt by any religious group to claim a place of primacy within my nation, or to enforce their beliefs upon others.

Unfortunately, Christians do both of those things on a regular basis, and with a degree of hubris which arises from a deep sense of entitlement. That sense of entitlement has to go. That hubris has to go. Then we can get along just fine.

For now, the ball is firmly in the Christian court. You can volley or you can cry. What would Jesus do? :)

by RedPossum on 08/07/2009 01:16:39 PM EST

I think I'm a pagan, too. (none / 0)
Even though a Christian one. If that makes sense. I agree with everything you say, but I find justification for it in my Christian belief.
When you go really in the depth of the Catholic dogma you would be surprised how tolerant it can be.

"Man has the right to act according to his conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."

Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1782

by MrMutantNinjaHilter9 on 08/07/2009 06:14:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I really don't care (none / 0)
You can have your beliefs if you want but don't get butt hurt when people talk down about them. I mean I don't get butthurt when people say some of my views are stupid and i don't tell them to stop saying it or ask them to stop, i just debate them. If you don't have the balls to debate with people then you can't say you are truly religious because the beauty of free speach is debate and if you truly believe your book you'd debate on why its a good book and if you were disproven in every aspect then maybe you should take another look at your beliefs.... just sayin'

jdiabla

by jdiabla on 08/07/2009 10:14:53 PM EST

sorry... (none / 0)
My post on paganism and wicca will be up tommorrow, sorry about the lateness of some of my posts in the series i may double up and do both pagan and wicca and the african religions

^.^ hope you guys enjoy

by jdiabla on 08/07/2009 10:17:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A Humble Request and an Earnest Plea | 128 comments (128 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: