An evening without Richard Dawkins

[Seth]

How could the OT not apply? Without the OT there is no original sin and therefore no reason for Jesus to die for the weekend to temporarily fix it. Remove the OT and the assumptions on which the NT are grounded (however nebulous they are) are also removed. Would be like Harry Potter without Voldemort, pointless.

Simple system, cherry picking rules religion. So if they want to disown all the evil shit in the OT, they simply ignore it. It's the Holy Bible, but it's wholly ignored when they need to.

So? What business is it of yours what they pick and choose as their religious beliefs? Don't you think that rejecting the commandment to burn witches is a good thing? Or are you mad because they aren't still supporting burning witches because it denies you the ability to use it as an excuse for anti-Christian bigotry and prejudice?

As I said, Atheists love to pull out the Wayback Machine fallacy as a rationalization for their mindless hatred of people of faith, even when the people they are so bigoted against aren't doing the evil things that the Atheists want to use.

It's mindless unreason and irrationality on the part of supposedly-rational Atheists.

[Seth]

How could the OT not apply? Without the OT there is no original sin and therefore no reason for Jesus to die for the weekend to temporarily fix it. Remove the OT and the assumptions on which the NT are grounded (however nebulous they are) are also removed. Would be like Harry Potter without Voldemort, pointless.

Now YOU'RE trying to tell Christians how to worship. That's irrational. What's important, the ONLY thing that's important, is how Christians ACTUALLY WORSHIP TODAY, and they DO NOT burn people, or advocate burning people, or keep kosher, or do most of the other things called for in the OT that Atheists like to drag out of the Wayback Machine as justification for bigotry and hatred.

Their interpretation of their holy book may be irrational to you, particularly if you want to be able to use particular now-discredited and unused OT commandments and practices as a reason to disparage and demean modern-day Christians, but it's not irrational to them, and what counts is what they do NOW, not what some other people did five thousand years ago.

These sorts of attacks on Christians, using the Old Testament as some sort of "proof" that they are evil people, is bigoted, biased, hateful, irrational, unreasoning and juvenile. If you can point to some act that some particular Christian does that's immoral or wrong TODAY, then by all means voice your opinion of that practice, but to smear all the billions of good, honest, loving, caring Christians of the world based on your antipathy towards religion and bigotry based in irrational references to five-thousand year old writings that haven't been practiced by anyone but ignorant barbaric savages in more than a thousand years is one of the very good reasons why Atheists are soundly and justifiably rejected, marginalized and ignored by most of society, some 80 percent of which holds some religious belief or other. It's unreasoning, mindless hatred, prejudice and bigotry that is unbecoming of a rational, civilized person, and it's no surprise that society views Atheists with suspicion and scorn. Most of them deserve it.

Wow, you got all that out of my pointing out that part two doesn't scan without part 1?

It may not "scan" to you, but then your ignorant of the details of the religion, so you fail to understand why select bits of the OT are no longer practiced. If it "scans" to Christians, that's all that counts, and all that's rationally up for critique Atheists is how Christians practice their religion NOW, not how it was practiced five thousand, two thousand, one thousand or one hundred years ago. It's only rational to critique how the religion is practiced TODAY, and it's only rational to acknowledge that not all people who profess to be "Christians" believe the same exact thing or practice in the same exact way, which means that the only rational targets for Atheist opprobrium are those who practice their religion in non-peaceable ways that hurt others, like people-burning Nigerian barbarians who claim to be Christians, but aren't.

But that doesn't suit the mindless institutionalized Atheist bigotry and hatred nearly as satisfactorily as tarring every person of religion with the crimes of a few malefactors.

Projection much?

Bigoted and prejudiced much?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

By comparison, no.

[Loki]

Anyone who claims privilege over others due to their beliefs bears a duty to explain why their beliefs deserve such privilege.
Anyone who claims the privilege of indoctrinating my children in a place of learning without my consent can bloody well explain how and why their precious book makes sense and why they should be afforded such privilege based on it.
Your "people can believe what they want" bullshit is just that when they insist on using my tax dollars to teach this drivel to my children.
On the day when theists quietly believe their mindless rubbish without claiming privilege over others with it then I will happily leave them alone to get on with it.

Yes I am very prejudiced against people who think they deserve more than others because they happen to believe some ancient bullshit. Bigoted? no that's your patch, wouldn't want to cramp your style.

[hiyymer]

Anyone who claims privilege over others due to their beliefs bears a duty to explain why their beliefs deserve such privilege.

Not really. Privilege over others is an entirely natural prerogative of the group. If you can make it stick, that's all the explanation required.

[Loki]

Anyone who claims privilege over others due to their beliefs bears a duty to explain why their beliefs deserve such privilege.

Not really. Privilege over others is an entirely natural prerogative of the group. If you can make it stick, that's all the explanation required.

True I suppose, though there comes a point where you really do have to explain why your Emperor is waltzing down the street sans attire. It only works while the onlookers aren't pointing and laughing.

[Schneibster]

In the words of the Blue Flutterby, let's take a look at this, shall we?

A person after my own heart.

Nice job.

[Schneibster]

Anyone who claims privilege over others due to their beliefs bears a duty to explain why their beliefs deserve such privilege.

Not really. Privilege over others is an entirely natural prerogative of the group. If you can make it stick, that's all the explanation required.

What group, precisely? My group is "citizens of the US" and has a set of rules called "The Constitution" that says that religious groups don't have that right.

[hiyymer]

Anyone who claims privilege over others due to their beliefs bears a duty to explain why their beliefs deserve such privilege.

Not really. Privilege over others is an entirely natural prerogative of the group. If you can make it stick, that's all the explanation required.

True I suppose, though there comes a point where you really do have to explain why your Emperor is waltzing down the street sans attire. It only works while the onlookers aren't pointing and laughing.

Nope. It doesn't matter. As anyone can see.

[hiyymer]

Anyone who claims privilege over others due to their beliefs bears a duty to explain why their beliefs deserve such privilege.

Not really. Privilege over others is an entirely natural prerogative of the group. If you can make it stick, that's all the explanation required.

What group, precisely? My group is "citizens of the US" and has a set of rules called "The Constitution" that says that religious groups don't have that right.

That's the making it stick part. The Constitution is just an agreement. It can be changed. There's nothing rational about a "right".

[Schneibster]

Anyone who claims privilege over others due to their beliefs bears a duty to explain why their beliefs deserve such privilege.

Not really. Privilege over others is an entirely natural prerogative of the group. If you can make it stick, that's all the explanation required.

What group, precisely? My group is "citizens of the US" and has a set of rules called "The Constitution" that says that religious groups don't have that right.

That's the making it stick part. The Constitution is just an agreement. It can be changed. There's nothing rational about a "right".

The usual response is likely to involve pitchforks and torches. Has quite a bit in the past, in fact, enough that they decided to put it in there and make it extraordinarily hard to change.

Just because, don'cha know.

[hiyymer]

The usual response is likely to involve pitchforks and torches. Has quite a bit in the past, in fact, enough that they decided to put it in there and make it extraordinarily hard to change.

And opined that they wouldn't be surprised if it did. To me getting into an ideological pissing match with religionists is just giving up my freedom, when I could be defending it instead. I want to live under the bill of rights because that's what I irrationally want pure and simple and for no other reason. The founders understood the difference between a godless state, and a godless country and eschewed the latter. If I don't recognize someone else's entitlement to their beliefs and freedom to talk about it, how can I expect them to respect mine. It's just stories, and at the end of the day what matters to me is whether they'll help me sustain the constitution. The likes of R. Dawkins are my enemies, because they implicitly advocate the ideological rule of the mob; being right and on top and making other people wrong.

[Schneibster]

Your opinion is that their delusion is OK with you and folks ought not rock the boat.

My opinion is that their delusion is a delusion. Whether it's OK with me, or you, is immaterial; it's a delusion. As such it leads to pathological behavior; they will not leave you be, no matter what you think.

[Seth]

Anyone who claims privilege over others due to their beliefs bears a duty to explain why their beliefs deserve such privilege.

Including you? And what "privilege" are you referring to, exactly?

Anyone who claims the privilege of indoctrinating my children in a place of learning without my consent can bloody well explain how and why their precious book makes sense and why they should be afforded such privilege based on it.

I couldn't agree more, but evidently if you live in the UK, by majority democratic rule, your kids are subject to some sort of religious education in public schools. Your choice is, of course, to remove your children from public school and educate them yourself or sent them to a private school at your expense. That's the nasty little downside of Democracy, particularly a democracy that doesn't have a foundational document guaranteeing that your children will be free from state-sponsored religious indoctrination. If you don't like the democratic nature of the UK, I suggest you emigrate to the US, where such public school religious indoctrination is strictly prohibited.

Your "people can believe what they want" bullshit is just that when they insist on using my tax dollars to teach this drivel to my children.

That's a democratic decision is it not? Are you now saying that you don't believe in socialism and democracy and you object to the tyrannical rule of the majority and want to be individually free to determine how your tax dollars are spent? Why, you're beginning to sound positively Libertarian to me! Welcome to the fold.

On the day when theists quietly believe their mindless rubbish without claiming privilege over others with it then I will happily leave them alone to get on with it.

Is it theists claiming privilege or citizens exercising their rights under social democracy to impose majority rule? I suppose you're fine with the socialist majority imposing THEIR will on the theists, right? Well, guess what, that knife cuts both ways, which means it just sucks to be you and you have no license to complain about it because you support social democracy, right? Live by majority rule, die by majority rule I'm afraid.

That's why I like the US, which is NOT a democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic that uses certain LIMITED democratic processes.

Yes I am very prejudiced against people who think they deserve more than others because they happen to believe some ancient bullshit.

You mean like Marxists?

Bigoted? no that's your patch, wouldn't want to cramp your style.

big·ot
noun \ˈbi-gət\
Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic [and I would add religious] group) with hatred and intolerance
— big·ot·ed \-gə-təd\ adjective
— big·ot·ed·ly adverb

That pretty much describes your attitude as far as I'm concerned.

Also:

prejudiced
adj
Definition of PREJUDICED
: resulting from or having a prejudice or bias for or especially against

1prej·u·dice
noun \ˈpre-jə-dəs\
Definition of PREJUDICE
1
: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2
a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

Thanks for the admission of ignorance and irrational hostility.

[Seth]

The usual response is likely to involve pitchforks and torches. Has quite a bit in the past, in fact, enough that they decided to put it in there and make it extraordinarily hard to change.

And opined that they wouldn't be surprised if it did. To me getting into an ideological pissing match with religionists is just giving up my freedom, when I could be defending it instead. I want to live under the bill of rights because that's what I irrationally want pure and simple and for no other reason. The founders understood the difference between a godless state, and a godless country and eschewed the latter. If I don't recognize someone else's entitlement to their beliefs and freedom to talk about it, how can I expect them to respect mine. It's just stories, and at the end of the day what matters to me is whether they'll help me sustain the constitution. The likes of R. Dawkins are my enemies, because they implicitly advocate the ideological rule of the mob; being right and on top and making other people wrong.

Extremely well put.