Religious Absurdity And Modern Psychological Baggage.

[The Atheist]

And back for part 2.

You're confusing certain extemist elements with the whole. Most religious people that I know just want to be left alone to go about their business.

Again, so do atheists. More tit-for-tat.

I'm not confusing extremist elements with the whole at all - if you check, I'm pretty sure I've been careful not to tar them all with the same brush.

Secondly, you're making a large assumption that these things wouldn't exist without religion. Certainly many of these things are justified, even perhaps caused, by extremist interpretations of religion, but it is still a large assumption to sugges that these things wouldn't exist without religion. It's perfectly possible in a world without religion that some other means would have been used to justify these horrific things.

Nope, that's just wrong. Those things exist solely because of religion. If there were secular anti-abortionists, we'd see them now. There are small numbers of atheists who believe the earth is made out of dragon fossils, but I can't imagine them demanding it be taught in schools. I know a few atheist misogynists (mostly because they're complete geeks!), but I've never seen one demanding his Mrs wears the ninja costume or tells her she can't even talk to another man.

There are 1.5 billion atheists in the world, so that's plenty to find extremists in - where are they?

Phelps/Hinn/Potter/Tamaki could not exist in a secular world. Certainly other frauds like Sylvia Browne and Kelvin Cruickshank would exist, but while those people are insane, they aren't telling anyone they're going to hell.

I think it's a very small assumption to think those things I quoted wouldn't exist - in noteworthy numbers - in a secular world.

Except our comments made complete sense, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

I meant making sense as in reflecting reality.

Not to belabour the point, but to equate tolerance of religion with tolerance of atheism, you'd need to show where atheists do any more than sneer at theists. As I've explained, theists often do a lot more than sneer.

I am opposed to all those things as well, except the first. I consider the propagating of religious beliefs to be one more discourse in the free market of ideas. They have every right to try and convince others to become Christians, as annoying as that can sometimes be. You also have every right to shut the door on their faces, ignore them, or add your own discourse to the conversation about how annoying you find Christian proselytizers or Theists in general.

Which is what we do here, don't we? Anyone feeling threatened or upset by the topic, the initial article, or any kind of anti-theism is free not to join in.

Going by the numbers who visit Religion against visitor numbers, it seems that most people take that advice!

[Redzeppelin]

Did you miss that I said "christians and theists"? Are you also seeking to play the persecution card?

No and No.

To verify what I said, find out how many countries stone adulterers and rape victims, then add in countries where abortion is banned for religious reasons and toss in several parts of USA which have tried to force creationism into the classroom. For heaven's sake, you're a fan of Behe, you know very well that these things have happened.

No generalisation involved, those things are factual - in many places.

You stated that it was "clear" that in "many places" the "majority" of "[C]hristians and [T]heists behave" in ways that you find objectionable ("demanding" various things). I simply challenged the source of the "clearness" of your knowledge of the "majority."

Secondly, "stoning adulterers and rape victims" is not part of Christian theology. So either you are mixing Islam and Christianity together (a serious error in precision in a debate) or you're discussing a country where culture has infected Christianity in a horrible way. Abortion isn't really a solution to the majority of complications that can arrive from unwanted sex/unintentional pregnancy. Christians see all life as valuable (not sure why you find fault with the idea of valuing all life) not just life which we wanted here or that is convenient to have here. What's wrong with a balanced view of how we got here? What makes evolution any more credible? Neither one is ultimately provable; and, a truly "open-minded" person would consdier all options, not just the ones that strike them as more "reasonable" or "scientific." That's one of the biggest fallacies atheists often toss around - that they're more "open-minded" than Christians - yet they are just as quick to reject theories/explanations that don't fit their world view.

Red, you can make whatever generalisations you like, but as I've just explained, I didn't need to use any generalisations, what I wrote was demonstrably correct.

I suggested a hypothetical statement and asked you to explain how it was different from yours, if you found such a statement equally as fair as yours. Typically, you didn't respond. That says all I need to know.

Meh, no. That is why it is a gross generalization when someone claims that religious people are gentle and tolerant, because God does not force anyone doing anything. Since I am the one claiming you will find religious people doing the "Nicest" things ever not otherwise, you could just pretend you agree with me. (Someone who does all things that we condem are still religious people , either you say "religious" Or religious, since it is not your judgment that will made them be or not).
And I would hardly do any effort. Catholic church still condem people who use condoms. My father cann't marry a second time because Catholic church wont accept it since for them he would still be married with my mother, despite the fact they do not tolerate each other anymore. The open channel (not public) that fights for the second place in Brazil belongs to the Universal Church (a protestant church) and they are filled with crime records accusations and only the protection brazilian law give to churchs keep them safely. A catholic doctrine (creationism) still pushed in US schools. Sarah Palin. Osama Bin Laden. India social lawyer based on religious status. The second biggest universitary system in brazil belongs to Catholic Church. The women who work for my father still kicked her daugher out of her house and humilated her in public because caugth her with her fiancee having sex before the wedding under the guindance of the priest of the church. It was not that hard.



Son, this is the internet. My posts are registered. Anyone can read them. You do not have to pretend you are answering to me, but if you do, at least talk about things I have not even said.
Saying that I used sterytypes about Christians when I did not even talked specifically (Or even used the therm Christian, something dumb when I mention religious war which would mean two different religious groups) about Christians is ridiculous. It is a bit ridiculous pretending to have an argument if you do not even bother to know or read what you are replying.

1. I am not your "son."
2. I understand you have some issues with the Catholic church. No one forces anybody to be a Catholic. You are free to not be a Catholic and are free to avoid them and reject their doctrines. Slamming all Christianity or all religion is misguided and involves you making huge generalizations based upon your problems with one denomination.
3. As far as your 2nd paragraph, I have no idea what you're saying. Much of your posts are generally a few degrees shy of being incomprehensible. I simply asked that you be precise in whom you are attacking: is it Catholicism? Christianity? Or religion in general? Your argument's validity changes depending upon which one you choose.

[Pendragon]

1. People who kill abortion doctors are not practicing true Christianity.
2. How much of abortion is actually for rape and incest victims? Most is for people who should have made the decision about children before they got pregnant

[Wintermute]

1. People who kill abortion doctors are not practicing true Christianity.
2. How much of abortion is actually for rape and incest victims? Most is for people who should have made the decision about children before they got pregnant

Hi Dale,

I hope the today finds you well and happy.

1. I agree. Is capital punishment Christian?

2. Beats me, but I bet you are correct. I still don't think I have a right to tell someone else not to have an abortion though because I don't think life is precious or a rare gift given by a universal creator, and I don't consider a fetus a human being. I could be wrong about this and if so, I invite the universal creator to come into my heart and present evidence of its existence and then I might change my opinion.

From my admittedly human, agnostic perspective, it would seem to be an act of absolute love and utter selflessness for a Christian woman to have an abortion. From what I understand, she would be guaranteeing her baby a place in heaven. Instead of having to roll the dice between heaven or hell here on this violent little planet, the soul would get a direct pass to the promised land. And she would be doing so at great risk to herself--not only physically, but mentally and spiritually. And, she risks going to hell herself, no?

Be safe my friend,
Doug

[JCamilo]

1. I am not your "son."
2. I understand you have some issues with the Catholic church. No one forces anybody to be a Catholic. You are free to not be a Catholic and are free to avoid them and reject their doctrines. Slamming all Christianity or all religion is misguided and involves you making huge generalizations based upon your problems with one denomination.

Sorry for the son, but I assumed you are very young since your capacity of interpretation is a bit... limited. For example, I did not slammed any christian - Again I did not even used the word. I did not even said anything as something all christians did. You said It would hard to find black spots - As anyone can understand, it is very hard to find black spots in the back of a black panther, so only you, because it is your only way to argument, can consider that list as if I was saying all christians (Despite the simple fact I liked member of hindus and muslims also) are the samething there.

So, I will repeat for the sake or good education: I have made no generalization. The word means using a part of the whole to define the whole. I have not even defined this whole. I have done no such thing and the post are there for anyone to quote. Other that , as you obssessive use of christians shows, you are just giving mechanical answers based on your own biased views.

3. As far as your 2nd paragraph, I have no idea what you're saying. Much of your posts are generally a few degrees shy of being incomprehensible. I simply asked that you be precise in whom you are attacking: is it Catholicism? Christianity? Or religion in general? Your argument's validity changes depending upon which one you choose.

You seems to not know the meaning of the world generalization and seems to see Christian written where it is not. So, do not blame myself alone for the lack of understandment between us.
As far I must say:
You have never asked anything at all (I suppose you cannt even understand your own posts?) Drkshadow asked to me and I answered him (Her, sorry, No idea). You accused me straigth away of generalization and attacking christians despite no such things ever happened.

[The Atheist]

Secondly, "stoning adulterers and rape victims" is not part of Christian theology. So either you are mixing Islam and Christianity together (a serious error in precision in a debate) or you're discussing a country where culture has infected Christianity in a horrible way.

Fortunately, it isn't a debate, it's simple fact.

As to theism (which isn't a proper noun in any way) whether you like it or not, muslims believe in exactly the same Abrahamic god that you do. I'm not blaming christianity for the sins of islam, but it is true that interpretation of divine messages is used for justification of islamic sins just as it is in christianity.

That's why I asked whther you'd read what I said, because you seem to be disagreeing for the sake of rather than because I was wrong - which I wasn't.

Abortion isn't really a solution to the majority of complications that can arrive from unwanted sex/unintentional pregnancy. Christians see all life as valuable (not sure why you find fault with the idea of valuing all life) not just life which we wanted here or that is convenient to have here.

Not a word of which answers the statement I made about abortion. I find it the idea that abortion would be withheld from a rape victim to be at least as abhorrent as stoning adulterers. I never made any comment about abortion in general - aside from christians attacking abortion doctors. I also made no comment on valuing life - I am looking at one specific reason for abortion: rape.

What's wrong with a balanced view of how we got here? What makes evolution any more credible?

What makes evolution more credible than creationism?

Let me see... try this:

One - evolution - is a scientific theory backed by millions of items of evidence and believed to be largely right by almost all scientists in the world. The other - creationism - is a bad joke supported by no evidence whatsoever, and whose prime driver, Michael Behe, has admitted is not science.

There is nothing balanced about putting non-scientific theories next to scientific ones.

And don't be fooled that I'm going to be drawn into a debate on creationism - the above is all I have to say on the subject as it isn't worth discussing.

3. As far as your 2nd paragraph, I have no idea what you're saying. Much of your posts are generally a few degrees shy of being incomprehensible. I simply asked that you be precise in whom you are attacking: is it Catholicism? Christianity? Or religion in general? Your argument's validity changes depending upon which one you choose.

I know that this is directed at JCam.

Red, this is extremely rude.

JCamillo is clearly a Brazilian writing in English. Before griping about his standard of English, would you please respond to him in your second language to see how comprehensible it is. (I strongly suggest an apology is in order. I have no trouble understanding what he means)

1. People who kill abortion doctors are not practicing true Christianity.

I didn't say they were, but they sure aren't atheists!

2. How much of abortion is actually for rape and incest victims? Most is for people who should have made the decision about children before they got pregnant

This is exactly the same as Red's red herring. I don't seek to argue the rights and wrongs of abortion in general, but am focusing on one specific piece.

Do you believe a rape victim who gets pregnant should be forced to bear and give birth to a child?

[Nightshade]

OK how is this for a compromise can we not agree that history paints very few people in overwhelmingly positive light and that far too many have far too much blood on their hands. And that in the over whelming majority of cases In group-out group psychology comes into play and that for alot people anything that is different can and often is perceived as alien threatening and wrong, and is often hated and despised merely because it is different.

Fanaticism is a word too liberally used to describe a certain category of person when in fact fanatsism is more of a personality type I think, and people can be fantaical about anything from an ideology to a brand of cheese.

Then we get to Fred Phelps, Benny Hinn, Bert Potter, Brian Tamaki, the late and completely unlamented Jerry Falwell, et al, young earth creationists, anti-abortionists, suicide bombers and the stoning of adulterers and rape victims: these things exist because of belief in gods.

.

Now see that is a point I cant agree with, I dont think religion created them I think that there are types of people who just need an excuse and that if it wasnt religion it would be something else like race or another completely arbitrary point of argument.

[togre]

Do you believe a rape victim who gets pregnant should be forced to bear and give birth to a child?

Should a person was mugged, stabbed and ultimately lost his/her arm be forced to go throw life with that terrible reminder and suffering? Naturally no. What if the only way to remove the reminder and alleviate the suffering (provide a new arm) involved killing some stranger off the street and taking his arm and sewing it on? Who would sanction such an act?

Is it a tragedy, not only that a woman was raped, but that a pregnancy creates additional mental and physical anguish? Most certainly! But if the "solution" involves taking a life, how can that be sanctioned? If life begins at conception (as I am convinced it does) the resulting relief for the rape victim cannot negate that fact that a life is being taken.

[Drkshadow03]

Seems to me that our mild disagreement is two things:

1 Whether the article tries to say "all religious people are mad"

2 Whether it's deserved, or whether attacks should be made on religion.

In the case of #1, you think it does, while I think it doesn't. Maybe we're just srguing different interpretations what we're reading based on our own individual stances?

Not worth arguing about, from my seat.

I'm assuming by the "G-d" that you're Jewish? I've only ever seen that done by people of Jewish faith is why I ask.

I am Jewish as I already indicated in a previous post in this thread.

The “mild disagreement” was where the argument originally began so it does have significance. As I claimed The Countess post was a reasonable response to the original post. I was correct on this assertion as I already demonstrated.

This isn’t a matter of interpretation. I didn’t go through the post paragraph by paragraph for my health. Your “interpretation” is untenable. It’s not an interpretation, it’s a blatant misreading.

It's no strawman.

If people are attacking theists, I'd say it's 100% likely that they will be atheists, since she specifically referred to people not holding those beliefs, and as we've discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, atheist = "does not believe in god", so people attacking theists must surely be atheists?

It is a Strawman because I’m specifically only including atheists who espouse anti-religious viewpoints. I’m not including EVERY atheist, meaning anyone who simply “does not believe in G-d.”

Your response to my original quote was the following:

“I know of no atheists kept awake by religious belief in others and I don't know anyone who hates people who wish to just live their lives according to doctrine.”

You attack my quote by using the EVERY atheist. Of course, there are atheists that don’t care about the existence of religious folk. However, I wasn’t talking about every atheist. But there quite obviously are many who do care that religious folk do exist and that we don’t live in a secular world, that don’t mind their own business, that are consistently patronizing simply because you happen to believe in G-d. I was addressing those latter people.

In other words, your response is irrelevant; it has nothing to do with the group I am talking about. The fact that you personally know of no atheists who are anti-Religion (except you admit you do later in the post I’m currently replying to when you mention Dawkins, making your point here even more irrelevant than it already was) has no bearing on the topic, and is especially disingenuous from someone who I am pretty sure has claimed in past discussions over in other threads that they get frustrated in some atheist forums because there is a fervent anti-Religious attitude.

To restate this I am talking about anti-Religious atheist only. You are reading it as if I am talking about atheists generally and responding. Since I am not talking about that group and your response only has validity if I were, you are committing a strawman.

To me, this seems like the persecution card. If you are, as I suspect, Jewish, you should have a great grounding in what it feels like to actually be persecuted because of cultural association. (Not you personally, but Jews have been persecuted on and off for quite a large number of centuries.)

Is the persecution card sort of like the race card? What exactly are you trying to say? Also, labeling a “card” doesn’t invalidate the comment, though it is offensive.

And what do you call this:

“You mean the way theists hate atheists? How the theists' handbook states that god will damn families of unbelievers "even unto the fourth generation", despite atheists being no danger to an omnipotent god? Or the way that atheists are perceived in USA as the lowest grouping on the trust scale?”

Divine Truth by appealing to your authority? Or just plain being a hypocrite.

The number of atheists who attack religion simply because it's religion is incredibly small. Richard Dawkins and his 300 fans, plus the bloke who wrote the article in the OP, I imagine.

So you do admit there are some atheists who attack religion simply because it’s religion. You haven’t, however, demonstrated in any fashion that their number is that small. You simply assert it. Assertion does not equal demonstration. In all fairness, I imagine something like this would be very difficult to prove one or another.

On the other side of that, check out Red's attitude to it all:

. . .

On one hand, it is a reminder - completely unnecessary - that his brand of theism sees atheists sent to hell. There may or may not be an element of schadenfreude in the comment, but it's something which atheists hear with startling regularity. You talk of hatred, well what kind of hatred does it require to to suggest that an entire family is going to go to hell because someone thinks gods are childish? I don't know whether you live in USA, but it's an extremely common response to atheists in that country and they probably get sick of it.

No, it’s a completely common response to non-Christians, not specifically atheists. Believe me I have to hear this crap too. On the other hand, nothing Red said came off as hatred towards you, just his genuine cosmological beliefs. What he genuinely thinks is going to happen to non-believers. I’m not disagreeing that one can easily get sick of it and find it offensive.

I have no problem with you responding back as I already stated. We’ll get to what specifically I have a problem with at the very end of this post.

Even in our delightfully secualr land, I have a horror story. My kid was at high school as a senior last year. He told me how groups of Samoan christians would go around his school in search of atheists and if they ever found one, would beat the crap out of them. Fortunately, most atheists are smart and when asked by eight 120-kilogram (280lbs) Samoans whether they believed in god or not, were smart enough to hand out a little white lie.

Now, please tell me wherever such a thing would happen in reverse.

Well, we could bring up Communism again, but then you’d start appealing to your own authority again.

I must say that I find it incredibly ironic, theists trying to play the persecution card.

Why Theists can’t be persecuted? You assume just because the persecutions rarely turn physical--I also have my doubts that the anecdote you provided above is a frequent occurrence in most secular countries—that Theists cannot be persecuted by atheists verbally.

Now I’m not necessarily saying atheists are persecuting theists, but personally I don’t see someone telling me that “I am destined for hell” to be all that much more annoying than an atheist informing me “all religious people are stupid and unintelligent” (something I have heard before).

No, I'm not confusing your religion with those, I just didn't separate it as the exception. See what I said about persecution before, though? You obviously at least see the bigotry.

I'll finish later, hit send in error.

I’m going to skip the rest of your comments and get to the main point as I think your quote here is nice jumping off point for why we are still having this conversation.

You wrote some posts back:

“The category error is that many theists just wish to just live their lives and leave others alone.”

Comment: Your claim here is that it is an error to believe that many theists just wish to live their lives and leave other alone. Not Christians, not Islam, not Hinduism, not specifically Judaism, but ALL groups of theists. That is in fact what this says based off how it is worded. Somehow it is an error to believe that many theists just wish to live their lives and leave others alone, despite the fact that it probably is true that the majority of Theists just want to worship in peace and be left alone.

“If that were true, I doubt atheists would even exist in any kind of organised resistance as they do now, let alone lose sleep over it. Far from being content to just worship, theists are wont to tell atheists that they and their children are going to burn in hell for not believing in their particular sky-daddy. That's not really keeping it to themselves, is it?”

Commentary: I am skipping the first sentence because it has little to do with my point. It’s there to explain atheist motivation to resist Theism.

More importantly is the second line. You’re still talking about a general group of theists without differentiating specific religions as evidence that Theists, not necessarily only Christians, do not keep to themselves.

“Then we get to Fred Phelps, Benny Hinn, Bert Potter, Brian Tamaki, the late and completely unlamented Jerry Falwell, et al, young earth creationists, anti-abortionists, suicide bombers and the stoning of adulterers and rape victims: these things exist because of belief in gods. That's not really lying down and allowing the world to go on, is it?”

Comment: Then in your next paragraph you bring up a variety of Christian figures (some of whom I don’t recognize, but I’m too lazy to google at the moment), and then throw in suicide bombers (particularly a tactic of Islamic extremists) and the stoning of adulterers and rape victims (which predominantly happens in Muslim countries). But then your last sentence builds on the previous paragraphs, which was talking about Theists in general. The group not “lying down and allowing the world to go on” that you established are theists. You have differentiated other groups. The extreme examples are meant to be representative somehow since what you're centrally trying to prove the following Thesis statement: "The category error is that many theists just wish to just live their lives and leave others alone.” You're implying that Theists in general are not "lying down and allowing the world to go on."


The Problems are pretty obvious and glaring: Not all Theists are Christian or Muslims. Most Theists that I know and interact with do in fact just want to be left alone to worship. Providing extreme examples of some Christians and some Muslims does not demonstrate that there is an error in the belief that “many theists just wish to just live their lives and leave others alone.” The reason being that Theism does not consist ONLY of Christians and Muslims, or of the particular extremists you mentioned within those sub-groups. This is blatantly confusing the parts with the whole because of poor choice words since you seem to be implying in your most recent post that this wasn't your INTENT. Fair enough. Then have the good grace to admit you had a poor choice of words and none of that was what you meant.

Ironically, I’m reacting to the very thing that in the other thread you claimed to hate that people do to atheists. Stop lumping my particular brand of Theism with all the others! Thank you!

[Redzeppelin]

Fortunately, it isn't a debate, it's simple fact.

*sigh*
A "debate" is what happens when one poster (say you, for example) posts something and another poster (say me, for example) challenges the assertions of the above mentioned post. Your conflation of the Christian God and Islam is an imprecision in debate.

As to theism (which isn't a proper noun in any way) whether you like it or not, muslims believe in exactly the same Abrahamic god that you do. I'm not blaming christianity for the sins of islam, but it is true that interpretation of divine messages is used for justification of islamic sins just as it is in christianity.

Sloppy and imprecise. I'm not defending Islam - their vision of who God is in in opposition in a number of crucial ways with how Christians see God. I think your use of "theist" and "Christian" lacks specificity, which allows you to make claims that may only connect in a tangetial way. If you wish to say "radical Islam condones the stoning of adulterers and rape victims" you will find no challenge from me, except to say that their vision of God is wrong. Perhaps part of the problem between you and I is that your terminology is imprecise and - as such - prone to being misunderstood.

That's why I asked whther you'd read what I said, because you seem to be disagreeing for the sake of rather than because I was wrong - which I wasn't.

Of course not, good sir - from what I've seen you never are.

Not a word of which answers the statement I made about abortion. I find it the idea that abortion would be withheld from a rape victim to be at least as abhorrent as stoning adulterers. I never made any comment about abortion in general - aside from christians attacking abortion doctors. I also made no comment on valuing life - I am looking at one specific reason for abortion: rape.

The assumption that killing a potential life somehow erases the trauma of rape is unfounded. The potential person is also partly the woman. I'm not going to deny the horrible nature of the experience; I would suggest that abortion - while it erases the "problem" does little to actually heal the victim. But some people would contend that in bringing a new life into this world and letting someone else adopt it, that the victim has turned a tragedy into a thing of beauty in someone else's life.

Advocating abortion suggests a disregard for the sanctity of life.

What makes evolution more credible than creationism?

The fallacious view that it is more "scientific" than creationism leads many to believe it is a more valid view of our origins.

Let me see... try this:

One - evolution - is a scientific theory backed by millions of items of evidence and believed to be largely right by almost all scientists in the world. The other - creationism - is a bad joke supported by no evidence whatsoever, and whose prime driver, Michael Behe, has admitted is not science.

I'm not interested in a discussion of evolution - it has been discussed ad nauseum in other (now locked) threads. Like it or not, the "millions of items of evidence" have not proven evolution as a fact. Those who think so are simply revealing their presuppositional idea that materialism/naturalism is the proper philosophic view of the universe.

Mr. Behe is a proponent of intelligent design - that would be the more precise term.

There is nothing balanced about putting non-scientific theories next to scientific ones.

Again: your use of "scientific" suggests that empiricism is the basis of our knowledge. Not all knowledge is empirically understood/established. Intelligent Design uses science to verify the existence of a designer. That the chain of logic ends with "God" doesn't make the process any less "scientific."

And don't be fooled that I'm going to be drawn into a debate on creationism - the above is all I have to say on the subject as it isn't worth discussing.

I'm no more interested than you in doing so - hearing you say how right you always are and how wrong I always am is indeed tiresome.

Red, this is extremely rude.

JCamillo is clearly a Brazilian writing in English. Before griping about his standard of English, would you please respond to him in your second language to see how comprehensible it is. (I strongly suggest an apology is in order. I have no trouble understanding what he means)

Calling a post "incomprehensible" is not a value judgment on JC; nor is it a critique of his/her writing ability. It is a statement of fact: I cannot understand some of his/her points because of the way they are phrased. There are sentences that directly contradict what I said and I'm lost in some of the points he/she is making. No harm was intended (though s/he came out of the gate as pretty critical of me).

This is exactly the same as Red's red herring. I don't seek to argue the rights and wrongs of abortion in general, but am focusing on one specific piece.

Do you believe a rape victim who gets pregnant should be forced to bear and give birth to a child?

And since you butted into another conversation, I'll do the same: no red herring, my friend - the trauma of rape doesn't justify the response of killing a potential life. That innocent child-to-be is not the problem - why should it suffer? Why doesn't it get a chance at life as well? Why does the life of a child-to-be become expendable simply because "dad" was a scumbag?

[Bitterfly]

the trauma of rape doesn't justify the response of killing a potential life

There you are, you said it yourself: a "potential life", not a life in itself. If something really gets my goat, it's anti-abortionists. Why should a "child-to-be" (not yet a child, therefore) have more value than a woman's choice? And what about free will?

[The Atheist]

OK how is this for a compromise can we not agree that history paints very few people in overwhelmingly positive light and that far too many have far too much blood on their hands. And that in the over whelming majority of cases In group-out group psychology comes into play and that for alot people anything that is different can and often is perceived as alien threatening and wrong, and is often hated and despised merely because it is different.

Nope.

1 If only history were the problem, there wouldn't be a problem. I have no worries about the history of the church; it's the way they behave now which bothers me.

2 At what stage do we stop fighting ignorance and oppression? The ultimate slippery slope is a world where everyone believes everything to the detriment of all. You may or may not accept this point, but it might be worth your while in asking "What's the Harm?" in irrational beliefs.

You seem to be arguing that no matter how crazy something is - demanding creationism be taught in schools, for instance - that we should let it happen.

Doesn't work.

Fanaticism is a word too liberally used to describe a certain category of person when in fact fanatsism is more of a personality type I think, and people can be fantaical about anything from an ideology to a brand of cheese.

Funny you should mention that - I am indeed fanatical about cheese. In fact entire continents are fanatical about things just like that. Try going to Europe and attempt to sell some mis-labelled camembert!

Now see that is a point I cant agree with, I dont think religion created them I think that there are types of people who just need an excuse and that if it wasnt religion it would be something else like race or another completely arbitrary point of argument.

I agree that religion didn't create them - they were created by men under the guise of corrupted religion. The point stands that they exist solely because the religion of the majority leaves them room to do so.

Should a person was mugged, stabbed and ultimately lost his/her arm be forced to go throw life with that terrible reminder and suffering? Naturally no.

This is an excellent example.

If you are beaten and disfigured, just about every government in the world provides for its hospital and medical systems to repair the damage as far as possible. If you lose an arm, you will be given an artificial one. Obviously, damage can't yet be repaired to original specifications, but every attempt is made to alleviate the suffering of the victim.

Perfect analogy. In the case of a rape victim, the system, instead of looking to alleviate the damage, increases it by forcing the woman to go through months of pregnancy and ultimately a labour - both of which tend to leave permanent scars, in case you didn't know.

What if the only way to remove the reminder and alleviate the suffering (provide a new arm) involved killing some stranger off the street and taking his arm and sewing it on? Who would sanction such an act?

This, however, isn't an analogy of any kind whatsoever. You might make a case for removing the assailant's arm and replacing the victim's with it - that would make sense and I'd agree wholeheartedly. Pretty good plan in fact. Can't say I've ever heard of someone losing an arm in an assault, but when it happens, you have the perfect answer!

Is it a tragedy, not only that a woman was raped, but that a pregnancy creates additional mental and physical anguish? Most certainly!

That's good, you see that it causes additional and ongoing harm to the woman. Wouldn't "causing mental and physical anguish" quite deliberately be basically torture?

But if the "solution" involves taking a life, how can that be sanctioned? If life begins at conception (as I am convinced it does) the resulting relief for the rape victim cannot negate that fact that a life is being taken.

I'm glad you claim to know when life counts as life. That you believe it to be so doesn't make it right, unfortunately.

How do you get on with a case of incestual rape? It is by far the most common cause of pregnancy in rape victims as the rapes are usually ongoing and frequent, giving high likelihood of pregnancy. Do you still just apply the biblical rule against abortion, or does the biblical rule against incest overrule it?

This isn’t a matter of interpretation. I didn’t go through the post paragraph by paragraph for my health. Your “interpretation” is untenable. It’s not an interpretation, it’s a blatant misreading.

I'm going to leave you with this subject as you're basically saying I'm lying. I know how I interpret it and if you choose to do so differently, you're welcome. Subject closed.

You attack my quote by using the EVERY atheist. Of course, there are atheists that don’t care about the existence of religious folk. However, I wasn’t talking about every atheist. But there quite obviously are many who do care that religious folk do exist and that we don’t live in a secular world, that don’t mind their own business, that are consistently patronizing simply because you happen to believe in G-d. I was addressing those latter people.

Here, you've definitely missed my point. My meaning was that atheists who attack religion solely because theists believe in god are an incredible minority. The atheists I know - lots and lots - who attack religion do so because they think it's bad for exactly the reasons I've stated.

....and is especially disingenuous from someone who I am pretty sure has claimed in past discussions over in other threads that they get frustrated in some atheist forums because there is a fervent anti-Religious attitude.

Conflating two different ideas incorrectly. The reasons I get annoyed at atheists have nothing to do with what you're saying.

To restate this I am talking about anti-Religious atheist only. You are reading it as if I am talking about atheists generally and responding. Since I am not talking about that group and your response only has validity if I were, you are committing a strawman.

Yes, but as noted time and again, anti-theists are almost all switched on by outrage against religion for reasons which have nothing to do with people calmly believing in god and nothing else.

Divine Truth by appealing to your authority? Or just plain being a hypocrite.

No.

This shows what I mean.

Sorry, but I find clear bigotry to be a long way away from respectfully worshipping and minding their own business.

The Problems: Not all Theists are Christian or Muslim. Most Theists that I know and interact with do in fact just want to be left alone to worship. Providing extreme examples of some Christians and some Muslims does not demonstrate that there is an error in the belief that “many theists just wish to just live their lives and leave others alone.”

Which is not what I was trying to do. I'm giving lots of different reasons to show that people despise religion for reasons vastly different to the kind you're espousing.

We clearly disagree on what constitutes a majority of theists, so I'll leave this subject as well.

[Drkshadow03]

Calling a post "incomprehensible" is not a value judgment on JC; nor is it a critique of his/her writing ability. It is a statement of fact: I cannot understand some of his/her points because of the way they are phrased. There are sentences that directly contradict what I said and I'm lost in some of the points he/she is making. No harm was intended (though s/he came out of the gate as pretty critical of me).

Red, I agree with The Atheist. Writing: "Much of your posts are generally a few degrees shy of being incomprehensible" is rude. If you were speaking in a second-language I doubt you would want someone in that language to respond to you in such a way.

You easily could have restated it: "I am not sure what you are trying to say. I am not certain who you are attacking: is it Catholicism? Christianity? Or religion in general? Your argument's validity changes depending upon which one you choose. Can you please be more precise?"

I'm going to leave you with this subject as you're basically saying I'm lying. I know how I interpret it and if you choose to do so differently, you're welcome. Subject closed.

Never accused you of lying. I'm not saying you made up your interpretation and that you don't sincerely believe that is what it says. I am saying you misread the original quote, that there is no way one could interpret it the way you did from what it ACTUALLY DOES SAY. The interpretation is invalid because the quote is not amibiguous at all; it straightforwardly claims that religious belief should be classified as mental sickness. It never once talks about religious people hearing voices in their head. Simple as that.

To put it another way there is nothing in the text to support your interpretation, no matter how much you fervently believe that's what the guy was saying.

Also, you don't get to decide when a subject is closed. This is not your blog, your own moderated forum, your website, nor are you my mother, my father, or anyone with any authority over me. If you don't wish to continue talking about a subject that you're clearly wrong about, then stop responding to me on this particular point.

Here, you've definitely missed my point. My meaning was that atheists who attack religion solely because theists believe in god are an incredible minority. The atheists I know - lots and lots - who attack religion do so because they think it's bad for exactly the reasons I've stated.

That's probably true.

Conflating two different ideas incorrectly. The reasons I get annoyed at atheists have nothing to do with what you're saying.

This is definitely true. I admit I didn't bother to look up what you had said here and I probably should have spent the time because I figured something like this would happen.

Yes, but as noted time and again, anti-theists are almost all switched on by outrage against religion for reasons which have nothing to do with people calmly believing in god and nothing else.

Again probably true, but why must the average religious moderate who DO just want to mind their own business have to listen to atheists incessantly railing against them and anyone who believes in G-d.

I find when these people get switched on so to speak it never stops with just the extremists, orthodox, or fundamentalists, but they then move on to the moderates. In fact, certain atheists have blamed the existence of moderates for being the bigger problem that allows the extremists to exist.

So how exactly is that letting the people who do want to practice their religion in peace live without being bothered?

Instead of excusing the behavior or rationalizing it, we should all agree with the basic principle that everyone should be able to practice what they wish assuming it causes no harm to others (in a realistic sense of the word "harm"). If you think violating this basic principle is wrong, then it doesn't suddenly become right when you do it (by "you" I mean anti-religious atheists in general).
If your problem is with Christians proselytizing and condemning your family to a hell you don't believe in, then criticize THEM, not Theists in general.

If I am expected to talk about which groups of atheists I mean, don't be surprised that you're held to that same standard.

I don't disagree with you on most of your specifics as I already stated. I don't want Creationism taught in my schools I want Evolution, I don't particularly relish the idea of living in a Christian Theocracy anymore than you do, and many of your other points that you made. The problem comes when opposing these extremisms and generally bad ideas, one makes generalizations about Theists, particularly the moderates. I do think your dichotomy between Atheism and Theism is problematic becauses it's not an atheist versus Theist issue at all really. Almost all the issues you oppose affect me and my hypothetical future children too, the only difference being I happen to believe in G-d and practice a particular religion.

[The Atheist]

Of course not, good sir - from what I've seen you never are.

Nah, I'd go with almost never.

The assumption that killing a potential life somehow erases the trauma of rape is unfounded.

That assumption hasn't even been made, has it?

I contended that forcing a woman to carry and deliver the baby is more trauma.

But some people would contend that in bringing a new life into this world and letting someone else adopt it, that the victim has turned a tragedy into a thing of beauty in someone else's life.

I'm glad I don't know any of those "some people", because - to me - the idea is completely unpalatable.

... - the trauma of rape doesn't justify the response of killing a potential life.

But religious views can justify forcing ongoing trauma to the victim.

Nice.

[JCamilo]

Red, I agree with The Atheist. Writing: "Much of your posts are generally a few degrees shy of being incomprehensible" is rude. If you were speaking in a second-language I doubt you would want someone in that language to respond to you in such a way.

You easily could have restated it: "I am not sure what you are trying to say. I am not certain who you are attacking: is it Catholicism? Christianity? Or religion in general? Your argument's validity changes depending upon which one you choose. Can you please be more precise?"

I do not get offended by it at all. I know, specially while writing on the internet, where I am faster than carefull, that the flowing of the text is not convencional. Also I like to write, even in portuguese, in a certain style that some may call confusing.

So, it is rather easier for people who have absolute no wish to debate with anyone to take jabs at that. I really do not mind.

RZ managed to throw an interpretation of what I said and in the next paragraph attacked the text as incomprehensible. It is strange to imagine that he consider that I am talking about christians and catholics (while I never used those therms while talking here) and I use generalizations about them and then claim that he have no idea about what I was talking.

You, when in doubt, asked me what I meant. As it seems you are more interessed on exchanging ideas because Interpretation is job meant to both sides, not just one. RZ throwed a answer that have nothing to do with what I said at any point of this thread which just means it is some defensive discuss that is repeated ad nauseum and as The Atheist said, there is a point of no debate. So, I really am not offended as It is ridiculous to throw offenses against people you do not know, more even to be offended by those.