Is Christian Evangelism a threat to our way of life?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Catholics are getting in on the willful ignorance market too!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 2889.story

Let's dig him up and burn him at the stake!

[Pappa]

Catholics are getting in on the willful ignorance market too!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 2889.story

Hehe... I love this quote:

But Ken Ham, founder of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., said the Bible is silent on geocentrism.

[JimC]

The bible is also silent about calculus...

[Svartalf]

Catholics are getting in on the willful ignorance market too!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 2889.story

They nev er left it since the 1400s, they had just stopped being so aggressive in getting shares on it.

Also, you'll notice that this is not the Church, just a handful of nutters who happen to come from it. It would have been too nice if all the absolute morons had migrated from Catholicism to more hardline versions of chretinity.

[Svartalf]

The bible is also silent about calculus...

but it sets pi at exactly 3

[hiyymer]

There is no "Religious Right" or "Dominion Christianity" organized in any way that poses a political threat today. Our religions are too fractured and powerless to have any substantive effect in creating a theocracy. That potential was destroyed with the decline of the Catholic church as government more than a thousand years ago.

These are not simplistic states but balances of opposing instincts. There are very substantive changes in the United States in a theocratic direction over the last few decades. The whole ID movement is self-described as an attempt to achieve theocracy by attacking the rational enlightenment tradition. The main funder of the ID movement is an avowed theocrat. If you doubt their influence consider the number of localities that have instituted ID instruction in the scientific classroom, waiting for constitutional challenges. While abortion has been upheld as legal, the drive to legislate morality is constantly fueled by the evangelical minority and it's Catholic allies and in some states it is almost impossible as a practical matter to get an abortion. The destructive war on drugs has it's roots in the evangelical mission. No one can run for national office without at least professing a Christian faith, if not a record of church attendance. Religious based organizations are being funded by the government to carry out government policy. Every attempt to maintain the first amendment is characterized as an attack on Christians. The theocratic aspirations of the population does not require a single organized focal point to gradually become the reality of life in the US of A. So far the reins of the Republican Party have been firmly held by the money men using the theocrats as a source of votes by paying lip service to their demands, but the pressure will increase to do something more substantive to maintain the allegiance of that growing sector of the population.

[Seth]

Maybe not so much a threat to my way of life, Seth. In fact, I'm not sure what "a threat to my way of life" means exactly That may be a little melodramatic. But the fact that so many members of my family are religious loonies, or otherwise loony, means I essentially have no family.

Melodramatic indeed. No, it means that you are an intolerant ass who cares more about your own bigoted ideological biases than you do your family.

I have, actually, fucked off and left them to their own devices.

How very selfish and self-centered of you.

They can certainly do as they wish, and have every right to do as they wish.

Thank God for that. But I note that many people here (and certainly at Ratskep) would enshrine anti-religious bigotry and oppression into law if given the chance to do so.

But my father is born-again, my twin sister is born-again, my step-sister is born-again, and my mother is insane, so far into the lobster trap of (in her case non-religious) woo that she'll never find a way out, and my little sister is brain damaged as the result of an accident. So for all intents and purpose I have no family. I suppose it's a threat to my way of life in that I no longer have a family life.

Hoist on your own petard, I'd say, if you'd give up all your family relations over such a petty thing as their harmless delusions.

All you have to do to have your family back is give up your intolerance and bigotry and accept that they are human beings who hold beliefs different from your own and allow them to live their lives in ways that make them happy without being an arrogant, judgmental, supercilious prick who thinks their own opinions and beliefs are perfection incarnate and is fearful that those beliefs are so very weak and insubstantial that even associating with family members who hold different opinions will tarnish and corrode that ignorant bigotry. You don't have to agree with them, all you have to do is tolerate their religious beliefs, and that's not really very hard at all. I do it every day.

Maybe they know something about happiness that you don't. After all, when 80 percent of the planet believes in "woo" and live happier lives as a result, perhaps it's you that's the errant fool, not them.

I don't understand the last line of your post.

Gay bashing and religious bashing come from exactly the same motivation: bigoted intolerance of those not like you. A bigot is a bigot, no matter who the target is. Cloaking it in self-righteous atheistic moralizing doesn't change the fact that you're an anti-religious bigot by your own admission.

By the way, how does it feel to be excoriated, attacked and reviled for your beliefs? Not very nice, is it? There's a lesson there for you if you have the wit to see it.



*** This post is currently under staff discussion. ***

*** Seth was suspended for 24h for this post. ***

Seth was enjoying the 4th of July holiday fireworks and doesn't give a flying fuck about the suspension because the sentiments stated are simply reflections of the sentiments stated by atheists about people of faith on a regular basis and Seth thought it might be instructive to apply a little sauce to the gander by way of illuminating the hypocrisy of intolerant religion bashing, particularly of one's own family members.

[Seth]

Even Islam, with its awful beliefs in religious intolerance and oppression against outsiders, is, internally, a very peaceful and stable society in which to live. It's ordered and controlled and those MEN who accept it enjoy substantial benefits from that order and control.

The benefits for women seem a little more nebulous, however.

Depends on who you ask I suppose. There appear to be a great many Muslim women who are satisfied with their place in society. Still, I was talking about overall social order and stability, not necessarily universal individual human liberty and satisfaction.

Most people, in any society, tend to prefer the known to the unknown. That doesn't mean that they are actually better off. Had Hitler's millennium-long Third Reich come to fruition, I am sure that "those who accept it would enjoy substantial benefits from that order and control."

So "overall social order and stability" is important in islamic states but individual freedom rules in your backyard, does it? Nobody on this site has championed the cause of individual liberty more than you have, yet now you extol the benefits of order and control? Pull the other one, Seth.

I wasn't extoling religious political control, I was merely pointing out that there's a very good reason why it exists, and has existed for millennia, and why people might prefer religion to secularism and/or anarchy.

Theocracy does not support individual rights very well, but it does provide order to society, which is what many people want, given the alternatives.

[Seth]

There is no "Religious Right" or "Dominion Christianity" organized in any way that poses a political threat today. Our religions are too fractured and powerless to have any substantive effect in creating a theocracy. That potential was destroyed with the decline of the Catholic church as government more than a thousand years ago.

These are not simplistic states but balances of opposing instincts. There are very substantive changes in the United States in a theocratic direction over the last few decades.

Nonsense. If anything the trend has been towards secularism, not theocracy.

The whole ID movement is self-described as an attempt to achieve theocracy by attacking the rational enlightenment tradition.

Nonsense. The ID movement is a small-scale attempt on the part of some religious persons to control the content of public education that they feel infringes upon their children's religious rights. Even if the proponents have theocratic intentions, so what? They are not likely to succeed, and it's actually their right to argue for their interests before government. It's called "petition for redress of grievances."

The main funder of the ID movement is an avowed theocrat.

And who is that? And why should I care what some individual religious zealot thinks? Our system is robust enough to survive the desires of a few theocrats.

If you doubt their influence consider the number of localities that have instituted ID instruction in the scientific classroom, waiting for constitutional challenges.

How many is that, exactly?

And what does controlling public school curricula have to do with instituting theocracy. Every attempt at inserting ID I've seen has been both tossed and has been an attempt to "teach the controversy" by asking for equal time for ID arguments, not suppression of evolution as a scientific theory.

While abortion has been upheld as legal, the drive to legislate morality is constantly fueled by the evangelical minority and it's Catholic allies and in some states it is almost impossible as a practical matter to get an abortion.

Which has to do with a strong belief on the part of a good many people that life begins at conception and that abortion kills a living human being. That is not a religious or theocratic notion, it's both scientifically supported and a matter of moral judgment, not attempted theocracy.

The destructive war on drugs has it's roots in the evangelical mission.

Remarkable assertion, but short on actual evidence of factual truth.

No one can run for national office without at least professing a Christian faith, if not a record of church attendance.

That is a complete, bald-faced lie. The Constitution in fact prohibits any "religious test" for public office. That voters may refuse to vote for atheist candidates is irrelevant. We have Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Catholics, Protestants and even self-avowed socialists and atheists serving in Congress at at every level of government, so your asssertion is complete bullshit.

Religious based organizations are being funded by the government to carry out government policy.

Propagandistic mischaracterization. Government makes grants to religious organizations to fund secular, non-religious public service programs that the charitable religious organizations are better equipped to provide than a duplicative government-run service. The funds are carefully segregated and there are strict accounting procedures in place to ensure that government money is not spent on religious programs. This is nothing more or less than a money-multiplying policy of government intended to make social welfare programs MORE effective and LESS costly to the taxpayers by avoiding having to duplicate the existing infrastructure, and the programs have been approved of by the Supreme Court.

Every attempt to maintain the first amendment is characterized as an attack on Christians.

Nonsensical idiocy and hyperbolic mendacity.

The theocratic aspirations of the population does not require a single organized focal point to gradually become the reality of life in the US of A. So far the reins of the Republican Party have been firmly held by the money men using the theocrats as a source of votes by paying lip service to their demands, but the pressure will increase to do something more substantive to maintain the allegiance of that growing sector of the population.

Unlikely to the point of being vacuous idiocy. For the most part, people of religion just want government not to oppress their religion and not force socialist, atheistic indoctrination of their children in the public schools.

But let's suppose that all you fear comes true. Let's say that three-fifths of the state legislatures amend the Constitution to create a theocracy and the population ratifies that decision. So what? It's the right of a free people to choose their form of government, and if they believe that a theocracy best serves their needs and their happiness, then that's their decision to make, and those who disagree are free to found their own secular, atheist nation somewhere else.

[Robert_S]

I think DeGrasse Tyson has the best case for how these types of religious extremists are a danger to our way of life. I can't find the short video, but to paraphrase his point:

Our future economy depends on innovation. When ID thinking happens, further investigation stops (Goddidit!). Therefore, we should expect to see a fewer new innovations coming from populations with high incidences of ID thinking.

Add that to other indicators like high poverty rates, high abortion rates, High ten pregnancy rates and high violent crime rates that seem to follow higher rates of religiosity, and you have a pretty strong case for a bit of caution.

Also, merely having a lot of religious freaks thinking this, that and the other are abominations that people ought to be killed over is a threat to a great number of people minding their own damn business. Sorta like if a large number of voters, police, and military officers thought that all libertarians were actively plotting the violent overthrow of the United States it would be a threat to the way of life of some members of this forum.

[Seth]

I think DeGrasse Tyson has the best case for how these types of religious extremists are a danger to our way of life. I can't find the short video, but to paraphrase his point:

Our future economy depends on innovation. When ID thinking happens, further investigation stops (Goddidit!).Therefore, we should expect to see a fewer new innovations coming from populations with high incidences of ID thinking.

Not necessarily. The obvious next question is "how did God do it?" followed by, "what is the nature of God?" Indeed, much of early science revolved around investigating the nature of God. Besides, there are adequate numbers of scientists in the world to ensure innovation even if some people don't care to go beyond "goddidit." Your argument is a red herring argument and a fallacy because it presumes falsely that the only thing that can possibly come from the idea of intelligent design is the cessation of rational thought, which is historically and obviously not in the least bit true.

Add that to other indicators like high poverty rates, high abortion rates, High ten pregnancy rates and high violent crime rates that seem to follow higher rates of religiosity, and you have a pretty strong case for a bit of caution.

Where is your proof that high violent crime rates "seem to follow higher rates of religiosity?"

Also, merely having a lot of religious freaks thinking this, that and the other are abominations that people ought to be killed over is a threat to a great number of people minding their own damn business. Sorta like if a large number of voters, police, and military officers thought that all libertarians were actively plotting the violent overthrow of the United States it would be a threat to the way of life of some members of this forum.

This is a deliberate and mendacious mischaracterization of the vast majority people of faith. You falsly impute the motives of a very small splinter segment of religious zealotry to the majority of people of faith in order to smear and malign everyone with the same calumnies that only apply to the smallest number of people.

[Robert_S]

I think DeGrasse Tyson has the best case for how these types of religious extremists are a danger to our way of life. I can't find the short video, but to paraphrase his point:

Our future economy depends on innovation. When ID thinking happens, further investigation stops (Goddidit!).Therefore, we should expect to see a fewer new innovations coming from populations with high incidences of ID thinking.

Not necessarily. The obvious next question is "how did God do it?" followed by, "what is the nature of God?" Indeed, much of early science revolved around investigating the nature of God. Besides, there are adequate numbers of scientists in the world to ensure innovation even if some people don't care to go beyond "goddidit." Your argument is a red herring argument and a fallacy because it presumes falsely that the only thing that can possibly come from the idea of intelligent design is the cessation of rational thought, which is historically and obviously not in the least bit true.

Granted it might happen that one can be led by ID to further study "How god did it", but it also gives a handy excuse to stop thinking and not worry about it because God has a handle on that anyway.

Add that to other indicators like high poverty rates, high abortion rates, High ten pregnancy rates and high violent crime rates that seem to follow higher rates of religiosity, and you have a pretty strong case for a bit of caution.

Where is your proof that high violent crime rates "seem to follow higher rates of religiosity?"

What's the proportion of my lot in jail for violent crimes verses religious people?

Also, merely having a lot of religious freaks thinking this, that and the other are abominations that people ought to be killed over is a threat to a great number of people minding their own damn business. Sorta like if a large number of voters, police, and military officers thought that all libertarians were actively plotting the violent overthrow of the United States it would be a threat to the way of life of some members of this forum.

This is a deliberate and mendacious mischaracterization of the vast majority people of faith. You falsly impute the motives of a very small splinter segment of religious zealotry to the majority of people of faith in order to smear and malign everyone with the same calumnies that only apply to the smallest number of people.

Do they or do they not circulate a book which calls for intolerance toward gays? If we have found that it is no longer necessary or desirable to do so, then those passages can be omitted from the newer editions of the Bible?

[Gallstones]

I know you are on a short break but I had to respond to this,

[quotemine]...snip......

Maybe they know something about happiness that you don't. After all, when 80 percent of the planet believes in "woo" and live happier lives as a result, perhaps it's you that's the errant fool, not them.
[/quotemine] ......snip....

.

The world owes all its onward impulses to men ill at ease. The happy man inevitably confines himself within ancient limits. ~Nathaniel Hawthorne.


Take that argumentum ad populum!

[Seth]

I think DeGrasse Tyson has the best case for how these types of religious extremists are a danger to our way of life. I can't find the short video, but to paraphrase his point:

Our future economy depends on innovation. When ID thinking happens, further investigation stops (Goddidit!).Therefore, we should expect to see a fewer new innovations coming from populations with high incidences of ID thinking.

Not necessarily. The obvious next question is "how did God do it?" followed by, "what is the nature of God?" Indeed, much of early science revolved around investigating the nature of God. Besides, there are adequate numbers of scientists in the world to ensure innovation even if some people don't care to go beyond "goddidit." Your argument is a red herring argument and a fallacy because it presumes falsely that the only thing that can possibly come from the idea of intelligent design is the cessation of rational thought, which is historically and obviously not in the least bit true.

Granted it might happen that one can be led by ID to further study "How god did it", but it also gives a handy excuse to stop thinking and not worry about it because God has a handle on that anyway.

So? The vast majority of people think neither about how God did it or how gluons work on quarks. Big deal. Those who are interested in such things can research either, or both, to their heart's content, and neither interferes with the other.

Most people are too busy trying to feed their families to spend much time worrying about how the universe works. They are just glad it does.

Add that to other indicators like high poverty rates, high abortion rates, High ten pregnancy rates and high violent crime rates that seem to follow higher rates of religiosity, and you have a pretty strong case for a bit of caution.

Where is your proof that high violent crime rates "seem to follow higher rates of religiosity?"

What's the proportion of my lot in jail for violent crimes verses religious people?

Dunno. You tell me. If true, which is unproven, perhaps it's because 80 percent of people are religious. Then explain how the phrase "correlation does not mean causation" applies to your claim.

Also, merely having a lot of religious freaks thinking this, that and the other are abominations that people ought to be killed over is a threat to a great number of people minding their own damn business. Sorta like if a large number of voters, police, and military officers thought that all libertarians were actively plotting the violent overthrow of the United States it would be a threat to the way of life of some members of this forum.

This is a deliberate and mendacious mischaracterization of the vast majority people of faith. You falsly impute the motives of a very small splinter segment of religious zealotry to the majority of people of faith in order to smear and malign everyone with the same calumnies that only apply to the smallest number of people.

Do they or do they not circulate a book which calls for intolerance toward gays?

Dunno. Who, exactly, are you talking about? And so what if they do? Gays and atheists are far more intolerant of people of faith in general than vice versa in my experience. I've seen a lot of bigotry against people of religion on atheist forums, but very little anti-gay bigotry. Everybody I know who is religious is accepting of the person but they may disapprove of the conduct, which is their right. There is no mandate, requirement or moral precept that says that everyone has to show approval of everyone else's lifestyle, nor are all groups required to associate with all other groups. People are free to decide for themselves if homosexuality is sinful, disgusting, objectionable, morally wrong, acceptable or simply of no consequence. Heck, my girlfriend's daddy is in high dudgeon over the fact that she's "living in sin" with me, and she's on her way to move her things out of his house at this very moment because he's being a hypocritical judgmental ass. But that's his right, and it's his house, so she's disassociating from him because she's happy living with me. It's sad, but neither of us is angry at him, because it's his problem to overcome, and it's his right not to overcome it and continue to be a hypocritical judgmental ass.

If we have found that it is no longer necessary or desirable to do so, then those passages can be omitted from the newer editions of the Bible?

God might not like that, so I wouldn't hold my breath. Besides, the Bible is also a historical document, and leaving it in is a useful comparison of today's practices to practices of the past.

Besides, what leads you to the belief that anybody is under any sort of compulsion to be accepting of homosexuality? The best you can expect is benign tolerance. And that's what you should have, and what you get from many people, of faith and otherwise. But you don't get that by being a judgmental ass towards 80 percent of the population of the planet, most of whom don't give a fig one way or another where you put your penis as long as you don't wave it in their faces. When you point to the occasional judgmental ass and hold them up as representatives of the behavior and beliefs of the majority, you're just being as much of a bigoted judgmental ass as the occasional anti-gay bigoted judgmental asses that are around.

Wearing a chip on your shoulder about something written in a book without acknowledging that today the vast majority of people are satisfied to ignore the passages and live and let live does not advance the notion that gays are just plain old ordinary people who just want to be left alone to live their lives in peace and toleration of diversity of belief and practice. Such antics make gays look like moralizing judgmental asses who are trying to force their agenda on everyone else.

[Robert_S]

Seth, hurry! we can get you into a re-education cam and rid you of this filthy sinful Christian orientation before the Judgement!