Christian right disrupts first Hindu prayer in the Senate. - Page 2

And Death Surge does hit on what pisses me off about this. After however many years of seeing this "vocal minority" exert more and more political power, slowly attempting to transform the US into a theocracy, bolstered by a President and administration that panders to them at every opportunity, I really don't believe this silent majority actually exists. I really no longer believe that it's just a few fringe elements, rather a hijacking of religion in this country at an almost cellular level.

And Death Surge does hit on what pisses me off about this. After however many years of seeing this "vocal minority" exert more and more political power, slowly attempting to transform the US into a theocracy, bolstered by a President and administration that panders to them at every opportunity, I really don't believe this silent majority actually exists. I really no longer believe that it's just a few fringe elements, rather a hijacking of religion in this country at an almost cellular level.

It's exactly this sort of knee-jerk negativism that probably prevents most moderate Christians from speaking out against fundamentalists, though. The increased theocratic tendencies you mentioned have so polarized Christians and atheists in the minds of atheists that there's an all-or-nothing baby-with-the-bathwater mentality that's emerged (see Dawkins and Hitchens*). There are so few on the non-believer side of things who will even hear out a moderate religious viewpoint that the notion of speaking up has little appeal.

* Okay, here's another thing. If religious moderates are supposed to be outraged about people like Phelps and Falwell, why the fuck aren't more atheists speaking up about the fact that these two douchebags are supposed to represent our point of view? They certainly don't represent my point of view.

It's exactly this sort of knee-jerk negativism that probably prevents most moderate Christians from speaking out against fundamentalists, though. The increased theocratic tendencies you mentioned have so polarized Christians and atheists in the minds of atheists that there's an all-or-nothing baby-with-the-bathwater mentality that's emerged (see Dawkins and Hitchens*). There are so few on the non-believer side of things who will even hear out a moderate religious viewpoint that the notion of speaking up has little appeal.

* Okay, here's another thing. If religious moderates are supposed to be outraged about people like Phelps and Falwell, why the fuck aren't more atheists speaking up about the fact that these two douchebags are supposed to represent our point of view? They certainly don't represent my point of view.

Because nobody listens to them, anyhow.

I'm an agnostic, personally. I have no problems with the religious, regardless of their denomination. Maybe it's just because I live in the south, but I don't SEE moderate Christianity anymore. It's more or less all or nothing around here at this point. And I find it hard to believe that, given the inordinate amount of power the far right side of the spectrum has wielded in the past decade, that they're the marginalized fringe people want to think they are. If that's negative, so be it. I see very little evidence to the contrary.

Because nobody listens to them, anyhow.

I'm an agnostic, personally. I have no problems with the religious, regardless of their denomination. Maybe it's just because I live in the south, but I don't SEE moderate Christianity anymore. It's more or less all or nothing around here at this point. And I find it hard to believe that, given the inordinate amount of power the far right side of the spectrum has wielded in the past decade, that they're the marginalized fringe people want to think they are. If that's negative, so be it. I see very little evidence to the contrary.

The argument was based on moderates who don't wish to be stereotypically be associated with extremist viewpoints. Outsiders don't really have a vested interest one way or the other. If the moderate truly wishes to clearly define their position, then they need to no longer associate themselves with a broad brush stroke definition of calling themselves "Christian". Create a seperarist sect within the faith with clearly defined tenants ("We accept homosexuality as a human condition and welcome all members regardless of gender preferences", etc.), come up with a nifty title for that sect ( "The first church of Jesus Christ and latter day lovers of Barbra Streisand") and you've made a rather loud proclamation of where your personal beliefs stand.

Otherwise, accept that humans tend to view the world via stereotypical categorizations, and remain passively silent despite your dissagrements.

The argument was based on moderates who don't wish to be stereotypically be associated with extremist viewpoints. Outsiders don't really have a vested interest one way or the other. If the moderate truly wishes to clearly define their position, then they need to no longer associate themselves with a broad brush stroke definition of calling themselves "Christian". Create a seperarist sect within the faith with clearly defined tenants ("We accept homosexuality as a human condition and welcome all members regardless of gender preferences", etc.), come up with a nifty title for that sect ( "The first church of Jesus Christ and latter day lovers of Barbra Streisand") and you've made a rather loud proclamation of where your personal beliefs stand.

Otherwise, accept that humans tend to view the world via stereotypical categorizations, and remain passively silent despite your dissagrements.

That's a good point, but that problem is at the fundamental organizational failing of Athiests and Agnostics: We don't have a reason to organize. Religious organizations are built around their faith, which brings them together both physically and financially. They have a built in infrastructure to launch communications and exert political pressure. Other than as a political organization to refute religious political organizations, you probably couldn't find 20 athiests/agnostics who would get together for any reason that didn't also involve free beer. With no central organization, the only speakers on our behalf are those who have risen to prominence individually.

That's a good point, but that problem is at the fundamental organizational failing of Athiests and Agnostics: We don't have a reason to organize. Religious organizations are built around their faith, which brings them together both physically and financially. They have a built in infrastructure to launch communications and exert political pressure. Other than as a political organization to refute religious political organizations, you probably couldn't find 20 athiests/agnostics who would get together for any reason that didn't also involve free beer. With no central organization, the only speakers on our behalf are those who have risen to prominence individually.

Oh, but they do. I'm constantly amazed at how many people I see reading Dawkins' last screed and using his rationale as the basis for dismissing religion outright. The opportunity to feel smugly intellectually superior is a big selling point for a certain type of mushy-headed non-believer who feels he's been persecuted.

Granted, this is a small segment of the overall population. But it seems like it might be a surprisingly large one within the atheist population, and I find this pretty discouraging.

And maybe it's because I live in an urban area of the midwest that I know more moderate, left-leaning Christians (and Jews, for that matter) than fundies. I acknowledge that if I travel about two hours north, things are quite different. The thing is that I suspect most moderates feel about as removed from Phelps as I do from Phelps. "Christianity" is a broad enough term to encompass everything from Catholicism to Mormonism - it's not like we expect Lutherans to make a public statement every time the Pope says something with which they might disagree. It's just acknowledged that his views have no bearing on Lutherans.

Oh, but they do. I'm constantly amazed at how many people I see reading Dawkins' last screed and using his rationale as the basis for dismissing religion outright. The opportunity to feel smugly intellectually superior is a big selling point for a certain type of mushy-headed non-believer who feels he's been persecuted.

Granted, this is a small segment of the overall population. But it seems like it might be a surprisingly large one within the atheist population, and I find this pretty discouraging.

And maybe it's because I live in an urban area of the midwest that I know more moderate, left-leaning Christians (and Jews, for that matter) than fundies. I acknowledge that if I travel about two hours north, things are quite different. The thing is that I suspect most moderates feel about as removed from Phelps as I do from Phelps. "Christianity" is a broad enough term to encompass everything from Catholicism to Mormonism - it's not like we expect Lutherans to make a public statement every time the Pope says something with which they might disagree. It's just acknowledged that his views have no bearing on Lutherans.

There ARE mainstream Christian groups out there that have those clearly defined tenants. The United Church of Christ, a major Protestant denomination, states, "For more than 30 years the national setting of the UCC has been on a clear course of welcome and inclusion, calling for serious study of human sexuality, supporting the civil rights of LGBT, and in 1985 adopting the Open and Affirming (ONA) resolution." (http://www.ucc.org/lgbt/). They believe that they are following the teachings of Christ, and their name reflects that perfectly. Why should they change it to The Church of Christ and Believers of the Reach Around?

The Methodist Church, in telling their parishoners how to approach their faith, "Finally, our own careful use of reason, though not exactly a direct source of Christian belief, is a necessary tool. We use our reason in reading and interpreting the Scripture. We use it in relating the Scripture and tradition to our experience and in organizing our theological witness in a way that’s internally coherent. We use our reason in relating our beliefs to the full range of human knowledge and in expressing our faith to others in clear and appealing ways." (my emphasis in italics) (http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1Lt..._Our_Faith.htm)

The Quakers have been fighting for reason, tolerance, and equality since the group's inception. It's the cornerstone of their mission.

All of these, as well as many other major groups that I didn't take time to look up, have "clearly defined tenants" that defy what the fucktards are doing.

Who is remaining passively silent? The UCC airs commercials, as often as it can afford to, that talk about their beliefs. My church marched on the capitol as a group for gay marriage rights, immigrant rights, and against the war. We wrote letters to the Kansas and Pennsylvania school boards.

There ARE mainstream Christian groups out there that have those clearly defined tenants. The United Church of Christ, a major Protestant denomination, states, "For more than 30 years the national setting of the UCC has been on a clear course of welcome and inclusion, calling for serious study of human sexuality, supporting the civil rights of LGBT, and in 1985 adopting the Open and Affirming (ONA) resolution." (http://www.ucc.org/lgbt/). They believe that they are following the teachings of Christ, and their name reflects that perfectly. Why should they change it to The Church of Christ and Believers of the Reach Around?

The Methodist Church, in telling their parishoners how to approach their faith, "Finally, our own careful use of reason, though not exactly a direct source of Christian belief, is a necessary tool. We use our reason in reading and interpreting the Scripture. We use it in relating the Scripture and tradition to our experience and in organizing our theological witness in a way that’s internally coherent. We use our reason in relating our beliefs to the full range of human knowledge and in expressing our faith to others in clear and appealing ways." (my emphasis in italics) (http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1Lt..._Our_Faith.htm)

The Quakers have been fighting for reason, tolerance, and equality since the group's inception. It's the cornerstone of their mission.

All of these, as well as many other major groups that I didn't take time to look up, have "clearly defined tenants" that defy what the fucktards are doing.

Who is remaining passively silent? The UCC airs commercials, as often as it can afford to, that talk about their beliefs. My church marched on the capitol as a group for gay marriage rights, immigrant rights, and against the war. We wrote letters to the Kansas and Pennsylvania school boards.

Yeah, but he'll just have to get it removed again after its second coming.

Yeah, but he'll just have to get it removed again after its second coming.

The increased theocratic tendencies that you mention came entirely from the Christian side of the argument. Blaming atheists for responding negatively to it is as ridiculous as Wehman saying that black people are just as responsible as the police for the animosity that often occurs between the two groups.

That's the nature of "speaking up". It's not limited to religious issues, or one side of any issue. I'm more than willing to listen to religious viewpoints, but the only person who ever seems willing to calmly discuss them is a sympathetic atheist (you). The Christians themselves tend to either stamp their feet and yell (fundamentalist) or shrug off any discussion with some variation of "my beliefs are my own, and I don't need to bother defending them" (moderate).

That's just my experience, but I find it incredibly frustrating when people identify themselves with a large group and won't even take the time to differentiate themselves from the parts of that group that reflect poorly on them. And I've found this attitude to be more prevalent in Christians than Democrats, Republicans, Browncoats, or whatever.

1. When an atheist administration takes over the federal government and starts bulldozing the Bill of Rights and causing preventable deaths by the tens of thousands, you can count on me to become more vocal about it.

2. Atheists aren't as numerous, accepted, or organized as Christians, and pretty much by definition are more individualistic in nature. Hitchens, Dawkins and I don't share anything except for not believing something. It's not as if we identify ourselves as part of the same, millennia-old organization that claims to have one set of governing rules arising from the same book.

We've had this argument before, and I still think you're wrong to treat the lack of faith as another form of faith. This compounds when you try to equate atheism with an organized religion. It's not even comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to not having any fruit.

Finally, as an aside, this kind of forced equivalency is maddening to me, and I think it's poisoning our media and political process. The idea that every argument has two sides, and we have to spend equal time on both, no matter how asinine, is just wrong. "Unbiased" doesn't necessarily mean "balanced", and weighing all sides of an issue doesn't guarantee that the scales will even out in the end.

Edit: All right, a lot of this has been covered. And once more, I know that not all Christians are assholes. I just think they have more need to differentiate themselves from each other than non-believers who aren't identifying themselves as part of a larger organization/movement.

The increased theocratic tendencies that you mention came entirely from the Christian side of the argument. Blaming atheists for responding negatively to it is as ridiculous as Wehman saying that black people are just as responsible as the police for the animosity that often occurs between the two groups.

That's the nature of "speaking up". It's not limited to religious issues, or one side of any issue. I'm more than willing to listen to religious viewpoints, but the only person who ever seems willing to calmly discuss them is a sympathetic atheist (you). The Christians themselves tend to either stamp their feet and yell (fundamentalist) or shrug off any discussion with some variation of "my beliefs are my own, and I don't need to bother defending them" (moderate).

That's just my experience, but I find it incredibly frustrating when people identify themselves with a large group and won't even take the time to differentiate themselves from the parts of that group that reflect poorly on them. And I've found this attitude to be more prevalent in Christians than Democrats, Republicans, Browncoats, or whatever.

1. When an atheist administration takes over the federal government and starts bulldozing the Bill of Rights and causing preventable deaths by the tens of thousands, you can count on me to become more vocal about it.

2. Atheists aren't as numerous, accepted, or organized as Christians, and pretty much by definition are more individualistic in nature. Hitchens, Dawkins and I don't share anything except for not believing something. It's not as if we identify ourselves as part of the same, millennia-old organization that claims to have one set of governing rules arising from the same book.

We've had this argument before, and I still think you're wrong to treat the lack of faith as another form of faith. This compounds when you try to equate atheism with an organized religion. It's not even comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to not having any fruit.

Finally, as an aside, this kind of forced equivalency is maddening to me, and I think it's poisoning our media and political process. The idea that every argument has two sides, and we have to spend equal time on both, no matter how asinine, is just wrong. "Unbiased" doesn't necessarily mean "balanced", and weighing all sides of an issue doesn't guarantee that the scales will even out in the end.

Edit: All right, a lot of this has been covered. And once more, I know that not all Christians are assholes. I just think they have more need to differentiate themselves from each other than non-believers who aren't identifying themselves as part of a larger organization/movement.

Moderate Christianity, just like moderate Islam or moderate fascism, is an oxymoron. The Bible/Koran says what they say: and what they say (amongst other things) is that jihad is justified, women are inferior, that homosexuals are not to be tolerated, and that non-believers are going to hell. Sure, they have a lot of other concepts thrown in, too, but it is the believers who may be moderates, not the underlying religious dogma.

Tolerant/moderate religious belief amongst the Judeo-Christian monotheisms is a modern invention with no basis in scripture. Probably on a subconscious level, adherents are uncomfortable with the literal meaning or demands of their religion, so they refuse to accept what their holy book actually says and instead inject their personal moral code into the equation.

I suspect one reason "moderate", "mainstream" religious groups don't act out more aggressively against "radical" fanatics is because deep, deep down, they realize the fanatics are actually preaching the exact word of God as both the moderate and fanatic believe it to be.

Moderate Christianity, just like moderate Islam or moderate fascism, is an oxymoron. The Bible/Koran says what they say: and what they say (amongst other things) is that jihad is justified, women are inferior, that homosexuals are not to be tolerated, and that non-believers are going to hell. Sure, they have a lot of other concepts thrown in, too, but it is the believers who may be moderates, not the underlying religious dogma.

Tolerant/moderate religious belief amongst the Judeo-Christian monotheisms is a modern invention with no basis in scripture. Probably on a subconscious level, adherents are uncomfortable with the literal meaning or demands of their religion, so they refuse to accept what their holy book actually says and instead inject their personal moral code into the equation.

I suspect one reason "moderate", "mainstream" religious groups don't act out more aggressively against "radical" fanatics is because deep, deep down, they realize the fanatics are actually preaching the exact word of God as both the moderate and fanatic believe it to be.

Are you saying that atheists have as much to fear and hate from Christians as black people do from cops? This is not an attacking question - I just want clarification so that I can answer it.

First, I agree with your definition of "speaking up." By its nature, speaking up never speaks to a very receptive audience.

However, I disagree with the second part of your quote. I understand that I don't debate nearly as well as DaveB (who does?), but I try to state my views in these threads when I can. Unfortunately (fortunately), most of my points are already mentioned much more quickly and cogently by others by the time I get here. There are others here as well. Capt Eucalyptus doesn't seem to be around here anymore, but he always jumped in. To say that the only ones who are willing to calmly discuss them are sympathetic atheists is to miss what you're looking at.

People are doing that all the time. Please look at the links I put in the previous post, and do some research. Churches are releasing statements all the time outlining their position on issues of the day. They just don't make good news, and most groups don't know how to better make their voices heard.

As a humanist, or as an atheist? All the Christians I know are actively vocal about this administration and its false claims of Christianity, but those protests are not always church organized events (although church sanctioned demonstrations are not uncommon) - but of course, like DaveB, I live in a liberal town in the northern midwest, and I don't really know what it's like in the south.

Actually, atheism is as much an act of faith as any religion. You have faith that you are correct in your understanding of the universe, and that our comprehension is deep enough to eventually understand everything that occurs. That's fine and I can respect that, as there is absolutely no way that I can prove you wrong.

Agreed. The fundies get an inordinate amount of press and attention because they have an inordinate amount of power, and they are royally fucking up this country. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that. However, any broad stereotypes will always illicit a reaction.

Again, agreed. Believe me, there are many of us out there who are trying. We just haven't figured out how to make it known.

Are you saying that atheists have as much to fear and hate from Christians as black people do from cops? This is not an attacking question - I just want clarification so that I can answer it.

First, I agree with your definition of "speaking up." By its nature, speaking up never speaks to a very receptive audience.

However, I disagree with the second part of your quote. I understand that I don't debate nearly as well as DaveB (who does?), but I try to state my views in these threads when I can. Unfortunately (fortunately), most of my points are already mentioned much more quickly and cogently by others by the time I get here. There are others here as well. Capt Eucalyptus doesn't seem to be around here anymore, but he always jumped in. To say that the only ones who are willing to calmly discuss them are sympathetic atheists is to miss what you're looking at.

People are doing that all the time. Please look at the links I put in the previous post, and do some research. Churches are releasing statements all the time outlining their position on issues of the day. They just don't make good news, and most groups don't know how to better make their voices heard.

As a humanist, or as an atheist? All the Christians I know are actively vocal about this administration and its false claims of Christianity, but those protests are not always church organized events (although church sanctioned demonstrations are not uncommon) - but of course, like DaveB, I live in a liberal town in the northern midwest, and I don't really know what it's like in the south.

Actually, atheism is as much an act of faith as any religion. You have faith that you are correct in your understanding of the universe, and that our comprehension is deep enough to eventually understand everything that occurs. That's fine and I can respect that, as there is absolutely no way that I can prove you wrong.

Agreed. The fundies get an inordinate amount of press and attention because they have an inordinate amount of power, and they are royally fucking up this country. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that. However, any broad stereotypes will always illicit a reaction.

Again, agreed. Believe me, there are many of us out there who are trying. We just haven't figured out how to make it known.

This argument fails at every level.

Atheism is based on evidence and proof; i.e., there is no proof that any particular religion is correct, or that leprechauns exist, so I do not adhere to that religion or accept that leprechauns exist.

Atheism is not based on any "understanding of the universe", except perhaps the understanding that the universe contains observable phenomena, and it is from evaluating this observable phenomena, rather than ancient books, that we gather knowledge about our world. Not sure where you're going with the "comprehension" line, since it contains a typo, but there isn't an atheist out there who won't admit that modern science (and probably future science) cannot prove or explain everything at this point. But, it is subject to review and improvement as new evidence is obtained, a concept that is anathema to religion (I bet Jesus would love to have that "there are people alive today who will still be alive when I return" promise back).

As for proving an atheist wrong, it is the easiest thing in the world. Just offer proof that whichever dogma you ascribe to is correct! Atheists would love to believe. Most of them became atheists after years of painful internal struggle. Perhaps the happiest day in my life would be the day that someone proves to me the existence of God or an afterlife. Hasn't happened yet, and appealing to my faith with an obviously implausible and ridiculous 2000 year old tome, or philosophical/logical arguments that a first year rhetoric major could poke holes in, isn't going to do it.

This argument fails at every level.

Atheism is based on evidence and proof; i.e., there is no proof that any particular religion is correct, or that leprechauns exist, so I do not adhere to that religion or accept that leprechauns exist.

Atheism is not based on any "understanding of the universe", except perhaps the understanding that the universe contains observable phenomena, and it is from evaluating this observable phenomena, rather than ancient books, that we gather knowledge about our world. Not sure where you're going with the "comprehension" line, since it contains a typo, but there isn't an atheist out there who won't admit that modern science (and probably future science) cannot prove or explain everything at this point. But, it is subject to review and improvement as new evidence is obtained, a concept that is anathema to religion (I bet Jesus would love to have that "there are people alive today who will still be alive when I return" promise back).

As for proving an atheist wrong, it is the easiest thing in the world. Just offer proof that whichever dogma you ascribe to is correct! Atheists would love to believe. Most of them became atheists after years of painful internal struggle. Perhaps the happiest day in my life would be the day that someone proves to me the existence of God or an afterlife. Hasn't happened yet, and appealing to my faith with an obviously implausible and ridiculous 2000 year old tome, or philosophical/logical arguments that a first year rhetoric major could poke holes in, isn't going to do it.

Overlord, it's biblical literalism that's really the modern invention. The rise of scientific rationalism that came with the Enlightenment made some religious leaders feel compelled to reimagine their holy texts as if they had some sort of unshakable, one-to-one correspondence with reality. The central texts of the Abrahamic faiths are, in reality, highly flexible, contradictory, and open to interpretation. I have, for my own edification, studied a few weekly Torah portions and can tell you that there is almost no end to what one can do with a section of a holy book. Moreover, I've worked as a librarian at a religious school. I've seen thousands of shelf feet devoted solely to housing bible commentaries and other interpretive texts. Each book of the Bible has its own dedicated call number in Library of Congress Classification. It's incredible. I know it makes the argument against religion easier if we pretend that those shelves don't exist and that the ham-handedness with which fundamentalist Christians deal with the Bible applies to all Christians and, in turn, all Jews and Muslims, but it's just not true.

I don't believe for a second that moderate and progressive believers aren't more visible because they secretly believe that the fundamentalists have got it right. As DaveB said, I know way too many moderate and progressive religious people to know that that's simply not true. I think that, like us, they believe that there's really no point in trying to argue belief with a fundamentalist and that the best way to counter them is to simply live one's life. The fundamentalist will continue to believe what he/she believes and the dogmatic atheists will continue to assume that every Christian is a whackjob, every Jew is Orthodox, and every Muslim wants to own an AK-47 and blow up buildings.

eta: For what it's worth, portions of that "obviously implausible and ridiculous tome" (btw, think it's assertions like that that make your conversations with believers futile?) are actually closer to 4,000 years old.

Overlord, it's biblical literalism that's really the modern invention. The rise of scientific rationalism that came with the Enlightenment made some religious leaders feel compelled to reimagine their holy texts as if they had some sort of unshakable, one-to-one correspondence with reality. The central texts of the Abrahamic faiths are, in reality, highly flexible, contradictory, and open to interpretation. I have, for my own edification, studied a few weekly Torah portions and can tell you that there is almost no end to what one can do with a section of a holy book. Moreover, I've worked as a librarian at a religious school. I've seen thousands of shelf feet devoted solely to housing bible commentaries and other interpretive texts. Each book of the Bible has its own dedicated call number in Library of Congress Classification. It's incredible. I know it makes the argument against religion easier if we pretend that those shelves don't exist and that the ham-handedness with which fundamentalist Christians deal with the Bible applies to all Christians and, in turn, all Jews and Muslims, but it's just not true.

I don't believe for a second that moderate and progressive believers aren't more visible because they secretly believe that the fundamentalists have got it right. As DaveB said, I know way too many moderate and progressive religious people to know that that's simply not true. I think that, like us, they believe that there's really no point in trying to argue belief with a fundamentalist and that the best way to counter them is to simply live one's life. The fundamentalist will continue to believe what he/she believes and the dogmatic atheists will continue to assume that every Christian is a whackjob, every Jew is Orthodox, and every Muslim wants to own an AK-47 and blow up buildings.

eta: For what it's worth, portions of that "obviously implausible and ridiculous tome" (btw, think it's assertions like that that make your conversations with believers futile?) are actually closer to 4,000 years old.

Don't forget that every atheist wants you to attend a mandatory mass homobortion wedding and evolutionary doctrine seminar.

Don't forget that every atheist wants you to attend a mandatory mass homobortion wedding and evolutionary doctrine seminar.

You probably already know this, but it bears noting in this thread: "Under God" is a Cold War relic which was injected into the pledge as a result of Rev. George Docherty's sermon (attended by Eisenhower himself), in which he stated:

Eisenhower agreed with this statement. Several days later, Sen. Homer "Turd" Ferguson (R-MI) sponsored a bill to add "Under God" to the pledge, and it was signed into law.

In other words, Under God was a PR tool to distinguish God fearing Americans from godless communists. The Cold War was a catalyst for a great deal of state-sponsored religious bullshit like "Under God" or morning prayer breakfasts.

You probably already know this, but it bears noting in this thread: "Under God" is a Cold War relic which was injected into the pledge as a result of Rev. George Docherty's sermon (attended by Eisenhower himself), in which he stated:

Eisenhower agreed with this statement. Several days later, Sen. Homer "Turd" Ferguson (R-MI) sponsored a bill to add "Under God" to the pledge, and it was signed into law.

In other words, Under God was a PR tool to distinguish God fearing Americans from godless communists. The Cold War was a catalyst for a great deal of state-sponsored religious bullshit like "Under God" or morning prayer breakfasts.

Typo fixed.

My point was that there is no way that we will ever know everything about the world in which we live. Maybe some day there will be evidence to irrefutably prove that God exists or doesn't exist. Until that occurs, there always has to be the possibility that the other belief is correct.

There was no proof that all living things are made up of cells, or that DNA is the universal blueprint for earth's organisms. To believe that before there was proof was not incorrect, as the possibility existed. It was not really wrong to disbelieve it either, until it could be adequately explored.

All belief in the world is faith.

ETA: Please don't believe for a second that statements like, "there always has to be the possibility that the other belief is correct" is an argument for things like teaching ID in school, etc. Besides the whole essential separation of church and state, there are things that are definite scientific fact because they are observable and provable, and should be taught as such.

Typo fixed.

My point was that there is no way that we will ever know everything about the world in which we live. Maybe some day there will be evidence to irrefutably prove that God exists or doesn't exist. Until that occurs, there always has to be the possibility that the other belief is correct.

There was no proof that all living things are made up of cells, or that DNA is the universal blueprint for earth's organisms. To believe that before there was proof was not incorrect, as the possibility existed. It was not really wrong to disbelieve it either, until it could be adequately explored.

All belief in the world is faith.

ETA: Please don't believe for a second that statements like, "there always has to be the possibility that the other belief is correct" is an argument for things like teaching ID in school, etc. Besides the whole essential separation of church and state, there are things that are definite scientific fact because they are observable and provable, and should be taught as such.

Highly flexible, contradictory, and open to interpretation...sounds like another way of saying "muddled, incoherent, mess". Which I'd agree with. The fact that there is "almost no end to what one can do with a section of a holy book" is not a positive in my eyes. The central text of the Christian "abrahamic faith" is that only those who believe in the redemptive power of Christ and existence of God can ascend to heaven; all others are damned to hell. Please explain to me how that is open to interpretation?

I'd give you a hundred quotes that leave no room for interpretation (for example, for example, what both the "Old" and "New" Testament have to say about homosexuals), but I think I'd be wasting my time.

Highly flexible, contradictory, and open to interpretation...sounds like another way of saying "muddled, incoherent, mess". Which I'd agree with. The fact that there is "almost no end to what one can do with a section of a holy book" is not a positive in my eyes. The central text of the Christian "abrahamic faith" is that only those who believe in the redemptive power of Christ and existence of God can ascend to heaven; all others are damned to hell. Please explain to me how that is open to interpretation?

I'd give you a hundred quotes that leave no room for interpretation (for example, for example, what both the "Old" and "New" Testament have to say about homosexuals), but I think I'd be wasting my time.

Actually, a recent survey actually found that the majority of Christians find Athiests untrustworthy and disliked them more than they did Islamists. You can't make an apples to oranges comparison to law enforcement and African Americans, but it's a rather telling situation.

Actually, a recent survey actually found that the majority of Christians find Athiests untrustworthy and disliked them more than they did Islamists. You can't make an apples to oranges comparison to law enforcement and African Americans, but it's a rather telling situation.

Stop equating an ambiguous "god" concept with religion. Even atheists will tell you that there could be a "god", or "gods" out there, as we understand the term, as it is a big universe and who knows. We just haven't seen evidence for them yet. They'll probably tell you, though, that we've seen tons of evidence disproving just about every religion in existence, so there is every reason to disbelieve their veracity.

And not all belief is faith. I believe that if I drop my pen, it will hit the floor. Because my entire life has given me ample evidence that this is so.

Stop equating an ambiguous "god" concept with religion. Even atheists will tell you that there could be a "god", or "gods" out there, as we understand the term, as it is a big universe and who knows. We just haven't seen evidence for them yet. They'll probably tell you, though, that we've seen tons of evidence disproving just about every religion in existence, so there is every reason to disbelieve their veracity.

And not all belief is faith. I believe that if I drop my pen, it will hit the floor. Because my entire life has given me ample evidence that this is so.

I don't have a problem with atheists responding negatively to that. I have a problem with atheists equating those theocratic and fundamentalist tendencies with "religion."

Later in your post, you complain about a "forced equivalency" between faith and the lack of faith. I don't see a forced equivalency there. Rather, I see it between dogmatic faith and dogmatic disbelief. See below:

Considering that there are centuries and centuries worth of practice and philosophy that suggest that Overlord is completely wrong, I'm seeing some seriously dogmatic and un-critical thinking behind his quote.

I don't have a problem with atheists responding negatively to that. I have a problem with atheists equating those theocratic and fundamentalist tendencies with "religion."

Later in your post, you complain about a "forced equivalency" between faith and the lack of faith. I don't see a forced equivalency there. Rather, I see it between dogmatic faith and dogmatic disbelief. See below:

Considering that there are centuries and centuries worth of practice and philosophy that suggest that Overlord is completely wrong, I'm seeing some seriously dogmatic and un-critical thinking behind his quote.

Individual people can practice moderation in exercising their religious beliefs, or have a moderate amount of faith in a particular religion, but the underlying religion does not share these qualities. Moderation requires tolerance of other beliefs and accepting the possibility of change; these principles are anathema to the great monotheisms of the world.

People practice religion moderately, but religion is, by its very definition, unchanging, unchangeable, and inflexible.

Individual people can practice moderation in exercising their religious beliefs, or have a moderate amount of faith in a particular religion, but the underlying religion does not share these qualities. Moderation requires tolerance of other beliefs and accepting the possibility of change; these principles are anathema to the great monotheisms of the world.

People practice religion moderately, but religion is, by its very definition, unchanging, unchangeable, and inflexible.

That's not 100% true. Even the Catholic Church has made some attempts to modernize itself. Just look at the Bible; huge chunks of the Old Testament were changed with the coming of Jesus. Even today, religious scholars debate what the meaning of various passages are.

It it's very base, though, religion is only what people practice, it's not an entity in and of itself. You can believe that Jesus was God's son, and still be moderate when it comes to dogma.

That's not 100% true. Even the Catholic Church has made some attempts to modernize itself. Just look at the Bible; huge chunks of the Old Testament were changed with the coming of Jesus. Even today, religious scholars debate what the meaning of various passages are.

It it's very base, though, religion is only what people practice, it's not an entity in and of itself. You can believe that Jesus was God's son, and still be moderate when it comes to dogma.

No, the words on the page are unchanging, unchangeable, and inflexible (leaving translation out of this for a moment). If you don't understand how practice and interpretation are far more important than mere words on a page in terms of defining a religion, I'm not sure why we're even having this discussion. Even literalism is simply interpretation. In literature (and these texts are literature, regardless of what you or even its followers have to say about that), meaning and interpretation are quite fluid. There's no such thing as "an underlying religion" in any faith. The religion is the interpretation of the holy text, so even when that interpretation happens to be considered by its practitioners "literal," it's still just interpretation. There's no true authority. If there were, all Christians would believe identically.

No, the words on the page are unchanging, unchangeable, and inflexible (leaving translation out of this for a moment). If you don't understand how practice and interpretation are far more important than mere words on a page in terms of defining a religion, I'm not sure why we're even having this discussion. Even literalism is simply interpretation. In literature (and these texts are literature, regardless of what you or even its followers have to say about that), meaning and interpretation are quite fluid. There's no such thing as "an underlying religion" in any faith. The religion is the interpretation of the holy text, so even when that interpretation happens to be considered by its practitioners "literal," it's still just interpretation. There's no true authority. If there were, all Christians would believe identically.

I'm not being an apologist for these ignorant Senators, nor am I an apologist for "Operation Save America". For all I know, probably have more in common with them than me, since American fundamentalist Christians generally think we are the spawn of Satan. Maybe you should be the one denouncing them.

I'm not being an apologist for these ignorant Senators, nor am I an apologist for "Operation Save America". For all I know, probably have more in common with them than me, since American fundamentalist Christians generally think we are the spawn of Satan. Maybe you should be the one denouncing them.

I tried to read Dawkins' book once, and I didn't understand who it was written for. I flipped through pages going "yeah, I know, but you don't have to be such a cunt about it".

As for Hitchens, I don't read much of anything he writes as it's always so obvious an attempt for attention and to piss people off. He's like Rush Limbaugh in that I'm pretty sure he doesn't even believe half of what he says, he's just trying to get a rise out of you.

I tried to read Dawkins' book once, and I didn't understand who it was written for. I flipped through pages going "yeah, I know, but you don't have to be such a cunt about it".

As for Hitchens, I don't read much of anything he writes as it's always so obvious an attempt for attention and to piss people off. He's like Rush Limbaugh in that I'm pretty sure he doesn't even believe half of what he says, he's just trying to get a rise out of you.