"I disagree with you, but i don't think you're Hitler"

[Rwandrall]

The 9/11 attacks were universally condemned by muslims worldwide. The actions of the Westborough Church are universally condemned by Christians.

The same Muslims who believe in a book that legitimizes killing apostates? The same Christians who argue for more faith in schools?

I don't care WHO they are. I care WHAT they believe in, as those same ideologues who condemn their own indulge in similar behaviors.

If the rapist condemns the murderer, does the victim feel better?

And how much does it really say when people who believe in an extreme fantasy reject their nutty outliers?

They are still magnitudes as corrupt and as flawed as those whom they criticize -- they just happen to be the average.

1. There are millions of Muslims living in developed countries. And they don't kill apostates. At all.

2. Christians arguing for more faith at school are a small minority in the US and in my country of France they essentially do not exist. The vast majority are NOT god-freaks.

3. Christianity says you should kill homosexuals. However hate-crimes against gays are rare: what does that say about how little they care about what their religion says ?

4. I cannot say this enough. The VAST majority of theists in developed countries (i cannot say for developing countries but it's probably true for many of them) are basically deists. They believe in a higher power, put a name on it (Jesus, Jahweh, etc) and that is IT, that is ALL that they see in their religion. Calling them "corrupt", and even worse "flawed" like they are inferior is exactly the rhetoric that is not going to lead to any kind of dialogue.

You only see the extremes and that is in no way a good thing in my eyes...

[Jaysyn]

There is no comparison at all between MSNBC and FOX. MSNBC makes it clear that they are giving you THEIR opinions. FOX acts like the have the word of fucking god to dispense.

And let us not forget the "FOX is allowed to lie & pass it off as news lawsuit".

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

---

The 9/11 attacks were universally condemned by muslims worldwide.

You mean, other than the ones that were dancing in the streets, right?

---

The actions of the Westborough Church are universally condemned by Christians.

Only when they protest at soldier's funerals. You don't live in the American South, so you can't possibly have any idea how bloodthirsty & backwards the Christians are around here.

[Angrboda]

If I was left wing though, I would expect me and other left wingers to stand up and fight Stalin. If I was right wing, I'd defend being right wing but also fight the exploitation of the masses. Whatever ideology I subscribed to I would expect to defend it's true position from extremes of any kind, the same thing I expect of religious folk. More so from religious folk, seeing as at least being right or left wing is subscribing to ideas that clearly exist. If you choose to be of whatever religion and claim it to be peaceful, when someone comes along and uses your religion to cause suffering you should be on the front-line of fighting them, otherwise don't bother with the religion because without the peaceful masses of any religion there is no way religion would have power to cause the evil it does.

In this same sense, all Americans 'caused' 9/11. All Americans are guilty of the wrongs that G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney committed while in office. I'm guilty for President Obama being in office, because I did not vote. And yes, perhaps all of the Weimar Republic was responsible for the murder of 6,000,000 Jews. What's missing here is a sense of proportion, and an acceptance that we can't -- perhaps even shouldn't -- eliminate all evils. Here we are, arguing whether we shouldn't "police our own", and I have to agree in the main that while I may not agree that being a dick is the most effective policy, so long as it hurts no one, then I don't feel inclined to pressure that person or persons to behave differently. Likewise, while I may not agree with the Fred Phelps of the world, I don't fault more moderate Christians for his existence. Sure, all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing -- but that's where most of us live, doing nothing. Who among you atheists have done something concrete today to oppose the evils of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Communism, Democracy, etc -- the list goes on indefinitely. Most of us are plenty busy just being who we are. And If I fault the moderate Christian for doing the same then I am a hypocrite. I did not make the evils of this world and if they gain sustenance by flying under a banner that I share [those few evil Taoists], then I do not feel shame if I do not spend my waking moments opposing them. Perhaps I bear some blame for allowing them to borrow the cloak of legitimacy from me, but it's not like I supplied the gun they used to kill someone with. The blame, if it exists, is proportionately less; way less.

[Autumnlicious]

1. There are millions of Muslims living in developed countries. And they don't kill apostates. At all.

That's all fine and dandy if you keep in mind that those Muslims are outnumbered and aliens in a land with secular law long established. Were they to indulge commonly in killing apostates, I'd worry about who's running whom.

But let me point out an even bigger flaw with your silly statement - there aren't a lot of apostates in the open anyways, so how can you truly argue there is no harm when the demographic we're trying to protect is inherently in hiding, because they are targets?

How many young women in Britain already have been brutally assaulted, violated and even murdered by their enraged Muslim relatives for straying outside of faith, dating non-Muslims or even wearing pants?

You astound me with your ignorance of the monster that is condoned, accepted and even fed by the religious.

2. Christians arguing for more faith at school are a small minority in the US and in my country of France they essentially do not exist. The vast majority are NOT god-freaks.

Wrong again, bucko. Let me slap you with some data, as opposed to your handwave-y "they're not ALL bad" mumbo-jumbo.
REF: http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=118

To sum up, in America (US), an astounding body of people desire faith in schools (creationism et al.) 'Nuff said.

3. Christianity says you should kill homosexuals. However hate-crimes against gays are rare: what does that say about how little they care about what their religion says ?

Hate crimes against gays are rare?!?! You know what, that's it, I am stopping there. You have no boundaries defined as to how much is too much, etc, so trying to have a dialogue with you about non-heterosexuality and society is already on shakey grounds.

4. I cannot say this enough. The VAST majority of theists in developed countries (i cannot say for developing countries but it's probably true for many of them) are basically deists. They believe in a higher power, put a name on it (Jesus, Jahweh, etc) and that is IT, that is ALL that they see in their religion. Calling them "corrupt", and even worse "flawed" like they are inferior is exactly the rhetoric that is not going to lead to any kind of dialogue.

You only see the extremes and that is in no way a good thing in my eyes...

No. Just no. Show me the data about their beliefs, else you have nothing to support your statement.

Here is my evidence against your statements, with respect to the United States:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while 16%, up slightly from years past, believe humans developed over millions of years, without God's involvement.

REF: http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-A...onism.aspx

Looks to me that they are not deists.

I wonder how other countries are doing?

[Rwandrall]

That's all fine and dandy if you keep in mind that those Muslims are outnumbered and aliens in a land with secular law long established. Were they to indulge commonly in killing apostates, I'd worry about who's running whom.

But let me point out an even bigger flaw with your silly statement - there aren't a lot of apostates in the open anyways, so how can you truly argue there is no harm when the demographic we're trying to protect is inherently in hiding, because they are targets?

How many young women in Britain already have been brutally assaulted, violated and even murdered by their enraged Muslim relatives for straying outside of faith, dating non-Muslims or even wearing pants?

You astound me with your ignorance of the monster that is condoned, accepted and even fed by the religious.

So in a secular land, Muslims actually let the Law of the Land take over the Law of the Lord. This is pretty damn big. And again, those with those extreme beliefs are still a minority, the majority are good, law-abiding citizens. Your view of Muslims is way too extreme, and again this absolutely stops any dialogue from happening.

Wrong again, bucko. Let me slap you with some data, as opposed to your handwave-y "they're not ALL bad" mumbo-jumbo.
REF: http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=118

To sum up, in America (US), an astounding body of people desire faith in schools (creationism et al.) 'Nuff said.

1. "In America": America has strong christian tendencies ? NO WAI !!?! Also America is not the whole world. In fact it's a a rather small part of it.
2. There is a HUGE difference between "wanting" something and "arguing" for it which was what i was talking about.

Hate crimes against gays are rare?!?! You know what, that's it, I am stopping there. You have no boundaries defined as to how much is too much, etc, so trying to have a dialogue with you about non-heterosexuality and society is already on shakey grounds.

80% of the US is Christian, and their religion asks them to kill gays. However there are still gays, and a great number of them too. How do you explain that if they are all crazy insane fanatics ?

No. Just no. Show me the data about their beliefs, else you have nothing to support your statement.

Here is my evidence against your statements, with respect to the United States:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while 16%, up slightly from years past, believe humans developed over millions of years, without God's involvement.

REF: http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-A...onism.aspx

Looks to me that they are not deists.

I wonder how other countries are doing?

First, being a creationist does not make you an extremist. It is a stupid belief to have but it is not something that makes you a murderer. It just makes you an idiot.
And in every single other developed country, creationists are a laughable minority


The majority of both muslims and christians, at least in developed nations, are reasonable people, and calling them retards and idiots will prevent any useful dialogue from occurring.

[Autumnlicious]

So in a secular land, Muslims actually let the Law of the Land take over the Law of the Lord. This is pretty damn big. And again, those with those extreme beliefs are still a minority, the majority are good, law-abiding citizens. Your view of Muslims is way too extreme, and again this absolutely stops any dialogue from happening.

First off, were they to not obey the local laws willy-nilly, they would've been deported, jailed or executed. Basic survival dictates that they follow enough laws to get by. Proof lies in the honor killings, riots, etc, that when push comes to shove, they would rather us kowtow to them, than vice a versa.

Still, it is patently obvious that through their actions in the majority of the Umma that left to their own devices, they'd rather force their beliefs and laws onto non-Muslims. See: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Malaysia et al. Without a dictator, the default behavior seems to be theocracy. Hopefully Egypt will change this dynamic, but I will not be holding my breath.

1. "In America": America has strong christian tendencies ? NO WAI !!?! Also America is not the whole world. In fact it's a a rather small part of it.
2. There is a HUGE difference between "wanting" something and "arguing" for it which was what i was talking about.

Pathetic. I grab data to advance my point and the best you can do is shriek "America is not the whole world"? All you are doing is "Nu-uh!"

The US is the easy case - how well do you think homosexuality is accepted in Mexico? Coptic Christians weren't standing around in circles protecting Muslims in Tahrir square from Muslims - they were protecting them from Coptic Christian attacks. This is the United States, with a rather solid population and civil code of conduct. If it is this wonky in America, what makes you think that other places aren't decidedly intolerant. In general, they are more intolerant.

Put some evidence up. Or is your point so weak that you cannot even muster a single datum?

Also, you're pulling an Existentialist with redefining terms and moving goalposts. I will not recognize or address said goalpost moving, which is in the form of splitting hairs between a populations desire and, guess what, desire.

Pro-tip: To argue for something, usually one must have some form of desire linked to it, from attorneys holding the desire to win for their client to a population favoring religious theocracy; we see that usually when a large enough group desires something, they will fight to get it. Arguments included.

80% of the US is Christian, and their religion asks them to kill gays. However there are still gays, and a great number of them too. How do you explain that if they are all crazy insane fanatics ?

Never did I state that they are all crazy fanatics - I made statements regarding the hypocrisy of the average condemning the fanatics while indulging in somewhat milder, but still damaging behavior.

To confront your statement about gays existing today, I will return with this gem from my friend:
In the history of Catholicism in Europe, there are many times when they slaughtered protestants, pagans, Jews indiscriminately. Anyone hear of the Spanish Inquisition? (all in the name of testing faith!) The reason Christians don't indiscriminately slaughter today is because laws were passed afterwards after enough times with severe enough punishments that only a few are now daring enough to break the law.

First, being a creationist does not make you an extremist. It is a stupid belief to have but it is not something that makes you a murderer. It just makes you an idiot.
And in every single other developed country, creationists are a laughable minority

Creationism is a facet of fundamentalism. Also, in the evidence I presented, I pointed out that quite a large body of people desire theocratic, anti-democratic solutions. That is, at the moment, a pretty damn big signifier of extremism. Also, with violence against gays and women in Christianity and Islam alike happening from Britain to sunny old Arizona, it is not fair to say there is no extremism.

The majority of both muslims and christians, at least in developed nations, are reasonable people, and calling them retards and idiots will prevent any useful dialogue from occurring.

What?

FYI - sometimes diplomacy involves insulting. That's a given.

What you're referring to is flower power hippie dialog.

Such a shame it doesn't work. Like a single tool doesn't always work.

There is a strong power of acerbic comments to slice through the crap, often times when we don't have infinite time.

[Rwandrall]

First off, were they to not obey the local laws willy-nilly, they would've been deported, jailed or executed. Basic survival dictates that they follow enough laws to get by. Proof lies in the honor killings, riots, etc, that when push comes to shove, they would rather us kowtow to them, than vice a versa.

You can say that about any population. You can say that without laws, everyone would be killing each other. It is still unprovable.

Still, it is patently obvious that through their actions in the majority of the Umma that left to their own devices, they'd rather force their beliefs and laws onto non-Muslims. See: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Malaysia et al. Without a dictator, the default behavior seems to be theocracy. Hopefully Egypt will change this dynamic, but I will not be holding my breath.

This is the case for basically any population. Before the 18th century there was either a dictatorship or a theocracy, or both, in every single country. It is not the Muslims that have theocracy and dictatorships as their default behavior, it's Humans.

Pathetic. I grab data to advance my point and the best you can do is shriek "America is not the whole world"? All you are doing is "Nu-uh!"

The US is the easy case - how well do you think homosexuality is accepted in Mexico? Coptic Christians weren't standing around in circles protecting Muslims in Tahrir square from Muslims - they were protecting them from Coptic Christian attacks. This is the United States, with a rather solid population and civil code of conduct. If it is this wonky in America, what makes you think that other places aren't decidedly intolerant. In general, they are more intolerant.

Put some evidence up. Or is your point so weak that you cannot even muster a single datum?

Also, you're pulling an Existentialist with redefining terms and moving goalposts. I will not recognize or address said goalpost moving, which is in the form of splitting hairs between a populations desire and, guess what, desire.

Pro-tip: To argue for something, usually one must have some form of desire linked to it, from attorneys holding the desire to win for their client to a population favoring religious theocracy; we see that usually when a large enough group desires something, they will fight to get it. Arguments included.

In the modern democraties, America is way more religious than the rest of the developed countries. So taking it as the basic standard is flawed. Europe or South-East Asia have much fewer religious fanatics.

As for the "argue" vs "desire": Just because someone has an opinion does not, in any way, mean that they will try to enforce this on others. I think people should not be religious. This does not mean i will try to outlaw religion. There is a big difference there. I don't ask for my opinions to be made Law.

Never did I state that they are all crazy fanatics - I made statements regarding the hypocrisy of the average condemning the fanatics while indulging in somewhat milder, but still damaging behavior.

To confront your statement about gays existing today, I will return with this gem from my friend:
In the history of Catholicism in Europe, there are many times when they slaughtered protestants, pagans, Jews indiscriminately. Anyone hear of the Spanish Inquisition? (all in the name of testing faith!) The reason Christians don't indiscriminately slaughter today is because laws were passed afterwards after enough times with severe enough punishments that only a few are now daring enough to break the law.

First, please don't use the Spanish Inquisition, because it only makes theists laugh. It actually killed a very small amount of people. Same for all persecutions that were pretty rare until the Church panicked about losing its influence during the Reformation.

And if you think theists only stop killing people because of these laws, realize that those who made and voted these laws...were statistically mostly religious themselves.

Creationism is a facet of fundamentalism. Also, in the evidence I presented, I pointed out that quite a large body of people desire theocratic, anti-democratic solutions. That is, at the moment, a pretty damn big signifier of extremism. Also, with violence against gays and women in Christianity and Islam alike happening from Britain to sunny old Arizona, it is not fair to say there is no extremism.

I never said there was no extremism. I said the extremism is a small fringe, not a good representation of the majority. For Creationists, yes it is crazy, but it is not dangerous.

What?

FYI - sometimes diplomacy involves insulting. That's a given.

What you're referring to is flower power hippie dialog.

Such a shame it doesn't work. Like a single tool doesn't always work.

There is a strong power of acerbic comments to slice through the crap, often times when we don't have infinite time.

Antigonizing someone makes any kind of dialogue MUCH harder. It can work, but i think diplomacy is the way to go. And re-read the first post i made, and what i quoted. Do you think THAT is a good way to convince theists that their positions are flawed ? And even if you think it is, do you really think this was the intention of that poster ? I'm pretty sure it was not.

If you look at debates, any debates, people are not insulting each other. I'm pretty sure there is good reason for that...We laugh at Bill O'Reilly for shouting at people on air and being rude, but when it's us doing it then it's fine ?

[Shell B]

(WARNING: Rant)

I have seen an alarming trend around the Internet: atheists insulting theists for the purpose of insulting. I mean i have nothing against attacking and challenging their beliefs, but some of the things i see around there are not the educated argument of someone who wants to change their mindset. It is petty, it is useless, and it is simply humiliating as an atheist to see others who share my (lack of) beliefs partake in that behavior. Likewise, saying that being religious means being an enslaved sheep who doesn't question anything he's told is idiotic and does not further the discussion in any way.

As an atheist, I am an individual, as are you. If people want to view us as a group and view the actions of one or many as the potential actions of all, then the joke is on them. I understand that you think these people are petty, but it is not as if atheists have a set of commandments or some such nonsense to live by. You are not "one of them" in the same sense that all Christians are part of the same group. You should not be humiliated by the actions of other atheists because you only share one lack of belief.

I hate the stereotype that atheists are bitter, angry people who like to act superior and condescending to anyone who does not share their views...but the problem is i see a LOT of people corresponding to that precise stereotype.
Acting as though being an atheist makes them superior as human beings.

I have a completely different feeling on this because I don't care what the "atheist stereotype" of the month is or who feeds into it. Why? Because I'm not part of a cult. That's like saying I should feel humiliated by the actions of other people who don't believe in ghosts. Our similar lack of belief is irrelevant because our "selves," so to speak, are made up of so much more than that one thing. I am not defined by my atheism. Therefore, I cannot be judged by the actions of other atheists.

Of course, this in no way concerns a majority, or even a big minority: it is only a few people, some of the time. An example that made me want to write this is right on these boards:

I guess i would need to know if you would need toilet paper in heaven. Am I going to have to take a shit every day in Heaven like I do on Earth? Does god have to take shits? Does he wipe his ass with Demon wings? If so then why does God have to take a shit?

I mean a statement like that brings absolutely nothing to the conversation. And is not that funny.

Forgive me if I am being obtuse here, but I don't really see why you care. It would be different if you were part of some sort of club and some of the members were breaking the rules, but you are not.

As to the title for that topic: Religion is ridiculous. From their beliefs to their traditions to their dogmas. But the theists themselves are not the ones to attack, their religion is. Ad Hominem attacks do not further the discussion and only reinforces stereotypes about atheists.

Without theists, there would be no ridiculous religions. I usually don't "attack" theists, but I do hold them responsible for their own beliefs, dogmas, behaviors, as it pertains to them. They are religion, in the sense that they perpetuate it. Furthermore, to a theist, attacking their religion is attacking them. There is no attacking religion without attacking them. So, if you really want all atheists to be inoffensive to theists, then we would all have to stop voicing our opinions.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for intelligent debate without ad homs, but who draws the line? Who says what is offensive and what isn't? Who gets to say when an attack on religion is funny and when it isn't? If left up to many theists, nothing any atheist said would be inoffensive or funny, if it pertained to religion. That is why the stereotype exists. Because nothing we say will ever be accepted as inoffensive. It's not because a few atheists go off their heads every now and then. In fact, I might go so far as to say atheists go off like that because of the stereotype. Because so many theists treat them like assholes when they ask legitimate questions and make logical statements. After awhile, it is just easier to go off than it is to struggle with niceties when either way gets you shit on.

[Rwandrall]

To Shell B.

I disagree with the idea that, as atheists, we are not part of a group. We share this lack of belief and that is enough to make us a group, we do not need any other common factors to be a group. This board is a good example of that.

Any action made by any member of a group reflects on how public opinion considers the other members of that group. This goes for any ideology or, in our case, lack of ideology. This is why we need to be civil, and have a reasonable discourse: the public opinion's eyes, how people see atheists, is a vital element: as long as that condescending douchebag stereotype stays, people are less likely to listen to our views.

Now, i do think the "politically correct" mindset is wrong as well, and even if it is offensive to them, we need to focus our efforts of attacking their beliefs...but not the theists themselves. Again, if you look at what i quoted in the first post you will see what i mean when i say some kinds of insulting, childish behavior are harmful. Same goes for generalizations like Minimalist's recent "fuck all catholics". Any generalization, of any group, is unhelpful and only helps antagonizing the other side, makeing dialogue impossible.

[thesummerqueen]

You have to remember though, Rwan, that Adrian made this board partly as a sanctuary where we COULD safely speak our minds.

Anyone who knows Min - ie, anyone who spends time on this board at any length, knows Min is smart enough to hate beliefs, not the person, and that he despises those who don't look at things like religion critically. He doesn't pretty up his words because he's on his turf at the moment - not theirs. That's why we have rules for theists, not atheists.

If you're a boy and come into my girls only clubhouse, you'd have to follow the same sort of thinking.

If anyone cares about my REAL opinion, I don't think eliminating the douchebags will change the stereotype. I think all of the reasonable, cordial, ethical and wonderful atheists there are in the world "coming out" would do way more to open people's eyes to how 'normal' they really are. After all...it's the sheer number of Christians that allows us to see the mix of good and bad, yeah?