A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Bells]

https://bdhilling.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/stuff-a-fetus/

Did you read the actual article and then read what it was about?

Because that question was actually asked in the abortion debate...

Or are you just offended that he used that quote to make a point about the ridiculous nature of not giving women her rights over her body? You know, to argue just for argument's sake?

To the other, why is it wrong to quote from here? People do it on other forums all the time.

 

[Tiassa]

Eye for an Eye? Or maybe something useful, instead?

You keep trying to connect the fear and loathing of American fundamentalism, specifically as it has entered the social/political policy arenas, as opposition to religion in general.

Ah, so this is about "American fundamentalism", and not "religion" in general? Hey, that's a new one, although I admit I can see where that one comes from, since many atheists continually pretend that American fundamentalism, Islamic suicide bombers, and pedophile Catholic priests constitute "religion".

But, hey, as long as you want to start making the distinction, that's a positive step.

Then from that stance you allege that the critics have redefined religion? It's you who is redefining things.

Tell me, AI, what do you think is rational about making a random assertion in contradiction of the record without offering any supporting evidence?

Good thing that commitment to rationality ends at the assertion that there is no God, else you might look silly for being so irrational. So, to reiterate, see "Insulting Religion", from November of last year.

The aversion is specifically directed to the fundies and, in a narrower range of topics, the orthodox Christians.

Intersting. How is it, then, that these people become the whole of "religion"?

You can't have it both ways. You can't on one hand insist that there is a right and a wrong way for atheists to behave, and then, on the other hand, demand that they do not take the high road and denounce harmful conduct when they encounter it.

Given the evidence of your irrationality, there is no surprise about your utter lack of comprehension. The point is about being rational, which explains why you're confused.

It's one thing to denounce harmful conduct. It's another to claim the right to abject bigotry just because "they started it". It would seem that as much as many atheists openly disdain religion, they are also envious, and would very much like to justify themselves by the principle of an eye for an eye.

 

[Balerion]

I'm sure you understand if I prefer a more, hm, scholarly source such as Merriam Webster over... Whatever dictionary that was

Then why do you ignore one of their definitions?

Anyway, I got it from Dictionary.com, which quotes the World English Dictionary published in 2009 by HarperCollins.

As Fraggle would no doubt tell you, there is no "official" English dictionary.

 

[billvon]

I'm sure you understand if I prefer a more, hm, scholarly source such as Merriam Webster over... Whatever dictionary that was

I find that once the person you are arguing with starts trying to alter the definition of words, and starts hunting for dictionaries that support him, any useful exchange has long since ceased.

 

[Balerion]

I find that once the person you are arguing with starts trying to alter the definition of words, and starts hunting for dictionaries that support him, any useful exchange has long since ceased.

Who's altering the definiton of words? Besides Bells, I mean. Certainly you're not suggesting that the word "evangelize" is strictly religious in nature?

 

[Tiassa]

Thelema Is No More ... For a Reason

To the other, why is it wrong to quote from here? People do it on other forums all the time.

I'm not sure where the rule came from, or how Sciforums would expect to enforce it, especially given the number of copyright violations we tolerate here from the membership; maybe it is time for strict enforcement of F.5. We can even call it the "Trooper Rule", in honor of the member who finally brought this particular integrity to the site.

But I do recall a bit of history in which a preacher came to Sciforums, tried to set people up, and then deliberately misrepresented them on his church website. That's the sort of thing that might annoy us a bit, I suppose. I would not be surprised if that episode, or something similar, motivated the inclusion of the rule. We'll have to ask the authors of the current ruleset what they meant and how they intend to enforce it.

If Trooper truly wishes to make an issue of the point, well, she can have at it. If Capracus would like to attach his real name to the quote, I will be happy to properly attribute it.

Meanwhile, the turn to the personal in this context is hardly unexpected. Nor is it unexpected that one would eventually become so desperate as to invoke a rule that would virtually destroy Sciforums in order to make that turn.

It may not say much about morality, but Trooper's ethic seems exceptionally myopic, nearly Thelemic in its self-indulgence.

 

[Bells]

Ah, so this is about "American fundamentalism", and not "religion" in general? Hey, that's a new one, although I admit I can see where that one comes from, since many atheists continually pretend that American fundamentalism, Islamic suicide bombers, and pedophile Catholic priests constitute "religion".

And for many, it does. Those who are repressed or their rights denied because others have a particular religious belief that deems it so.

As someone who is against conservative politics in the US in general, surely you can see where he may be coming from? To put it another way, when the Catholic Church goes out of its way to protect paedophile priests, to the point of whisking them to the Vatican so they can escape arrest, and defend these individuals, then it is fair to say that many will apply negative connotations to the religious denomination itself.

Intersting. How is it, then, that these people become the whole of "religion"?

Who says they do?

Given the evidence of your irrationality, there is no surprise about your utter lack of comprehension. The point is about being rational, which explains why you're confused.

It's one thing to denounce harmful conduct. It's another to claim the right to abject bigotry just because "they started it". It would seem that as much as many atheists openly disdain religion, they are also envious, and would very much like to justify themselves by the principle of an eye for an eye.

I think that is unfair.

The same could be said for one's political ideology.

While I disdain "religion", it is because of what people do in its name which infringes on my basic human rights and that of others. Religion is highly political now and it is used as a political tool. Either stand with us or stand with the devil or the murderer or any other label given to those who are not of the conservative side of the political divide.

You cannot ignore the immorality of religion's intrusion into the political arena simply because its intrusion endangers lives and denies people their basic fundamental rights. The change to that can and does come from the inside. But even they recognise the negative role it often plays in the public arena and even in the private arena.

There seems to be a 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' thing going on here. The system is very much broken and needs to be fixed.

Sadly, the response to this dangerous intrusion is fanatical atheism. While I don't approve of that either, I don't think labeling all atheists who identify themselves as "atheists" as being fanatical is the way to go either.

I am an atheist and while I would like to imagine that I am somewhat a rational human being, I am also against religion's intrusion into the public sphere. And I don't think I am a bigot for speaking out against it.

 

[Bells]

Who's altering the definiton of words? Besides Bells, I mean. Certainly you're not suggesting that the word "evangelize" is strictly religious in nature?

Oh for goodness sake. This discussion is about religion and atheism. Using the word "evangelical" can be applied to either side. If one is an evangelical atheist, then one likes to push it down people's throats as if it is the only truth, you know, like evangelical theists like to push their beliefs down people's throats.

 

[Balerion]

Oh for goodness sake. This discussion is about religion and atheism. Using the word "evangelical" can be applied to either side. If one is an evangelical atheist, then one likes to push it down people's throats as if it is the only truth, you know, like evangelical theists like to push their beliefs down people's throats.

I would argue that the only push coming from atheists is a push back, against the "intrusion of religion into the public sphere," as you put it. Where are these evangelical atheists? Where are the door-knockers you threaten to slam your door in fhe face of? That's my point. Equating atheism with religion is ridiculous, especially since your primary complaint seems to be that some atheists are angry.

 

[GeoffP]

Ah, so this is about "American fundamentalism", and not "religion" in general? Hey, that's a new one, although I admit I can see where that one comes from, since many atheists continually pretend that American fundamentalism, Islamic suicide bombers, and pedophile Catholic priests constitute "religion".

Not seeing the need for the hyperbole here. It carries on into the last sentence: in what way are atheists "envious" of religion? Is this recycled from an evangelical site? In what way does 'rationality' project beyond the argument that there is no God? Actually, I'm not so sure your opener really was intended as hyperbole, even if it read that way: do you think that atheists feel that all religion is extremism? If so, on what basis? Please support. Thanks.

 

[Bells]

I would argue that the only push coming from atheists is a push back, against the "intrusion of religion into the public sphere," as you put it. Where are these evangelical atheists? Where are the door-knockers you threaten to slam your door in fhe face of? That's my point. Equating atheism with religion is ridiculous, especially since your primary complaint seems to be that some atheists are angry.

Analogy..

Look it up sometime.

 

[Trooper]

I'm not sure where the rule came from, or how Sciforums would expect to enforce it, especially given the number of copyright violations we tolerate here from the membership. We can even call it the "Trooper Rule", in honor of the member who finally brought this particular integrity to the site.

I like it.

But I do recall a bit of history in which a preacher came to Sciforums, tried to set people up, and then deliberately misrepresented them on his church website. That's the sort of thing that might annoy us a bit, I suppose. I would not be surprised if that episode, or something similar, motivated the inclusion of the rule. If Trooper truly wishes to make an issue of the point, well, she can have at it. If Capracus would like to attach his real name to the quote, I will be happy to properly attribute it.

And the two of you deliberately misrepresented Capracus's intention.

Meanwhile, the turn to the personal in this context is hardly unexpected.

I thought it was you who made it personal by implying that I was mentally impaired. Isn't that exactly what you wanted us to stop doing to the pious.

We'll have to ask the authors of the current ruleset what they meant and how they intend to enforce it.

Let me know, eh? I didn't know this shit was up for grabs. I could start my own blog and mine the hell out of this place.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I like it.

Make it in 2 parts and it becomes The Trooper Rules.

Ah, so this is about "American fundamentalism", and not "religion" in general?

As I said the polemic is not one that engages higher philosophical issues, but rather, the melee on the ground.

Hey, that's a new one, although I admit I can see where that one comes from, since many atheists continually pretend that American fundamentalism, Islamic suicide bombers, and pedophile Catholic priests constitute "religion"

That's all part of what's happening on the ground, not philosophy. So now you're in violent agreement with me.

But, hey, as long as you want to start making the distinction, that's a positive step.

I doubt anything positive will come of this. You're drawing too many lines in the sand.

Tell me, AI, what do you think is rational about making a random assertion in contradiction of the record without offering any supporting evidence?

You're the plaintiff. The burden is on you to create the factual predicate. At present I'm just the alleged hostile witness who won't go with your program. Or is my analysis of your invective under some different rules of evidence than you admit to?

Good thing that commitment to rationality ends at the assertion that there is no God, else you might look silly for being so irrational.

How irrational is it to distance the real-world polemic from the one you're trying to drum up? Hypocrite! You must first remove the straw from you own eye so that you can see to remove the speck from mine.

So, to reiterate, see "Insulting Religion", from November of last year.

Some people did a thread. If you didn't like it, that was your place to dump your vitriol. If this thread is supposed to be a post-mortem on that one, then you should have given it in the opening post. Instead you just left it up to us to drag out of you what your bitch was. The main complaint I was able to get you to admit to was:

evangelical atheists remind constantly that their hatred of religion leads to or is the result of extraordinary ignorance of history, psychology, anthropology, and art. Once upon a time, evangelical atheists were proud to boast of their intelligence; but once society obliged and paid attention, they proved themsleves as stupid as the religious people they hate with such focused passion

As far as I know I have responded to fundies with more content about "history, psychology, anthropology, and art" than any other poster here. So obviously even a person who meets that bar still is still stupid. So what where you saying about being irrational?

Intersting. How is it, then, that these people become the whole of "religion"?

By surgically removing the polemic from its context in the real-world policy wars. But go ahead and pretend that you're not doing that.

Given the evidence of your irrationality, there is no surprise about your utter lack of comprehension.

Attacking my competence won't restore yours. You have miles to go before you can justifiably cast aspersions on me.

The point is about being rational, which explains why you're confused.

I guess if you were my daddy I'd take offense to that. :shrug:

It's one thing to denounce harmful conduct.

It's laced throughout the "insulting religion" thread. Of course implicit in all such threads is that the members are not living under a rock.

It's another to claim the right to abject bigotry just because "they started it".

Whoa, utter copout. And backwards at that. Not to mention regressing to the infantile state. Now let's put it back in perspective: mean, stupid people, operating under color of religion, are doing copious harm, for which the critics are attacking them. As I said, none of these threads would exist without the chronic public policy irritants. But just keep pretending that the real world is irrelevant.

It would seem that as much as many atheists openly disdain religion, they are also envious, and would very much like to justify themselves by the principle of an eye for an eye.

That sounds almost neurotic. And, frankly, really vacuous. People get mad when they see underdogs being bullied. The voice that responds to this by bringing indictments is one that moves in pursuit of remedy. (Note the Code of Hammurabi did at least make some of the earliest known forays into victim restitution.) But just keep pretending the polemic is taking place in a vacuum, and you can ignore all of this. Kind of ironic, that.

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

As someone who is against conservative politics in the US in general, surely you can see where he may be coming from? To put it another way, when the Catholic Church goes out of its way to protect paedophile priests, to the point of whisking them to the Vatican so they can escape arrest, and defend these individuals, then it is fair to say that many will apply negative connotations to the religious denomination itself.

You might be changing terms there.

The religious denomination? Hey, have at it. Unless, of course, common identity has no connection to the effects of that identity. But, hey, if you're not one of those who wants the rewards of solidarity while ducking its burdens, you can skip the preceding sentence.

Who says they do?

Really?

Okay, I'll get back to you when I finish the post-by-post survey.

No, really?

I think that is unfair.

Perhaps it is; I forget that the insufficiently atheistic are supposed to sit in silence and accept whatever misrepresentations the proper, sufficient, real atheists put forth.

AI chose to defend against a straw man; and that comes on the heels of specific unsupported assertion in conflict with the evidence on record. What, in your opinion, would be fair?

Furthermore, as to eye for an eye, consider that while one might acknowledge that "Pat Condell is a bit of a dick", the justification for that behavior is that "He's fed up". And then comes the bit about how "He's tired of you religious folks insulting him and he's the moron?"

And then there's the curious exchange between Franklin and (Q):

Franklin: He never said how religion insulted him first, probably because it didn't.

(Q): Yes, he did, were you not paying attention?​

Eye for an eye?

And as another member noted of Franklin's point, "Somebody didn't watch the video".

Yeah, eye for an eye.

Envy of what we hate is hardly uncommon among human beings. If you watch closely, many American Christians envy the fundamentalist, militant Muslims. After all, Christians are to turn the other cheek; Muslims are to fight until the oppression is over. Many who claim the U.S. is a Christian nation would also send our troops to war at the drop of a hat; they refuse to turn the other cheek according to their alleged beliefs.

And that's a problem that comes up in many dualistic conflicts; a side might call itself the "good guys", but often really, really wants to act like the declared "bad guys". Torture? Shock and awe to terrorize people into submission?

The same could be said for one's political ideology.

Come on, how often do politicians complain that the other party started it? In the U.S., it's a traditional practice; it's one of the reasons I worry about marketplace validation of sleazy politics.

While I disdain "religion", it is because of what people do in its name which infringes on my basic human rights and that of others. Religion is highly political now and it is used as a political tool. Either stand with us or stand with the devil or the murderer or any other label given to those who are not of the conservative side of the political divide.

You cannot ignore the immorality of religion's intrusion into the political arena simply because its intrusion endangers lives and denies people their basic fundamental rights. The change to that can and does come from the inside. But even they recognise the negative role it often plays in the public arena and even in the private arena.

Will you feel better if what people do to infringe on your basic human rights is disconnected from religion? I mean, hey, maybe women will still be second class citizens, but at least it's an atheistic second class and not religious?

The ideas of "religion" and "religious people" are apparently interchangeable. How convenient, since atheism is so coincidentally not interchangeable with atheists.

But since we're on the notion of "religion", and it is clear that only atheists get to define "religion"—you know, (Q), Balerion, Aqueous Id—and less arbitrary, more studied historical considerations are disqualified on the atheist's say-so, we might as well start exploring the question:

• "believing in God IS religion"

• "The aversion is specifically directed to the fundies and, in a narrower range of topics, the orthodox Christians."​

Which definition is accurate? To borrow a phrase from Aqueous Id, you can't have it both ways. As it is, it would seem that "religion" is defined according to the convenience of the atheist.

• • •​

I thought it was you who made it personal by implying that I was mentally impaired.

That's your reading comprehension problem; don't make it mine.

So you wrote something so stupidly evangelical that one could mad-lib it into an idiotic appeal to Christian faith that even a developmentally impaired person could write. You're not the first person in the world to offer up something at puerile, and you certainly won't be the last. Please show where I implied you were mentally impaired.

Meanwhile, would you please explain what that blog post has to do with atheism at Sciforums? Seriously, when you're changing the subject in order to complain about the person, it's a bit different from denouncing stupidity offered in the course of the discussion topic.

Let me know, eh? I didn't know this shit was up for grabs. I could start my own blog and mine the hell out of this place.

That would be something to see. Indeed, it might even increase site traffic.

 

[Bells]

And the two of you deliberately misrepresented Capracus's intention.

Sadly no.

He really did ask that question in relation to the abortion debate and he was quite serious about it.

It was his intention that those of us participating in that discussion took it seriously and he was quite offended when we did not and became quite rude when I scoffed. I mean how could you not scoff?

In all of my years of debating abortion on this site, it was the first time someone ever turned a woman into a turducken.

And to this day, that is what the abortion debate has become for me on this site. The turducken..

 

[Bells]

You might be changing terms there.

The religious denomination? Hey, have at it. Unless, of course, common identity has no connection to the effects of that identity. But, hey, if you're not one of those who wants the rewards of solidarity while ducking its burdens, you can skip the preceding sentence.

Raises eyebrows..

I have yet to call a Catholic a paedophile because they are a Catholic. But I don't see what would be wrong in pointing out that the organisation has harbored paedophiles and even protected them on too many occasions to count. I won't insult your intelligence like you just insulted mine by asking you if you can tell the difference. Just as I often criticise the Catholic Church of risking women's lives in their hospitals.. Does not mean that I point fingers at Catholics and accuse them of doing the same thing.

Really?

Okay, I'll get back to you when I finish the post-by-post survey.

No, really?

Well as an atheist and self proclaimed and someone who identifies as an atheist, it would mean I would be included, wouldn't I?

Perhaps it is; I forget that the insufficiently atheistic are supposed to sit in silence and accept whatever misrepresentations the proper, sufficient, real atheists put forth.

Perhaps you can explain why atheists are supposed to sit down in silence instead? Should I not criticise the Catholic Church for their wrongdoings because it might offend Catholics?

AI chose to defend against a straw man; and that comes on the heels of specific unsupported assertion in conflict with the evidence on record. What, in your opinion, would be fair?
Furthermore, as to eye for an eye, consider that while one might acknowledge that "Pat Condell is a bit of a dick", the justification for that behavior is that "He's fed up". And then comes the bit about how "He's tired of you religious folks insulting him and he's the moron?"

Soooo, this applies equally to all who are atheists?

Do we all look and sound the same?

There is no rational thought in hatred and bigotry, but this goes both ways. The video is a rant. Would your thoughts have been different if it was a woman in the video who felt insulted because she was denied an abortion or the contraceptive pill because of the religious beliefs of the providers?

And then there's the curious exchange between Franklin and (Q):

Franklin: He never said how religion insulted him first, probably because it didn't.

(Q): Yes, he did, were you not paying attention?​

Eye for an eye?

And as another member noted of Franklin's point, "Somebody didn't watch the video".

Yeah, eye for an eye.

Okay..

If I say that the Catholic Church has no business running hospitals. Do you think it's an eye for an eye? Am I insulting all Catholics for being offended that the Church does run hospitals?

Envy of what we hate is hardly uncommon among human beings. If you watch closely, many American Christians envy the fundamentalist, militant Muslims. After all, Christians are to turn the other cheek; Muslims are to fight until the oppression is over. Many who claim the U.S. is a Christian nation would also send our troops to war at the drop of a hat; they refuse to turn the other cheek according to their alleged beliefs.

And that's a problem that comes up in many dualistic conflicts; a side might call itself the "good guys", but often really, really wants to act like the declared "bad guys". Torture? Shock and awe to terrorize people into submission?

I never claim I am the good guy. But I can tell right from wrong.

When I criticise the thirst for war and religious war mongering, such as the whole 'God wanted me to invade Iraq', is it insulting religion to make fun of this statement? Is my position one of irrationality as an atheist? Or should I not say that I think my position in that debate is rational, because I am an atheist?

Perhaps you should stop focusing on the 'rational' in the debate. No one is saying that every atheist is rational. Far from it. There are stupid people everywhere, regardless of their religious or non-religious affiliations.

Come on, how often do politicians complain that the other party started it? In the U.S., it's a traditional practice; it's one of the reasons I worry about marketplace validation of sleazy politics.

I think you should worry about more things in politics than just that. And blaming the other side as having started it first is what politics has become.

Will you feel better if what people do to infringe on your basic human rights is disconnected from religion? I mean, hey, maybe women will still be second class citizens, but at least it's an atheistic second class and not religious?

Really Tiassa?

Are you fucking shitting me with that question?

The ideas of "religion" and "religious people" are apparently interchangeable. How convenient, since atheism is so coincidentally not interchangeable with atheists.

It is if you partake in behaviour or actions in the name of your religion or your God, such as handing out foetus dolls to small children.

But since we're on the notion of "religion", and it is clear that only atheists get to define "religion"—you know, (Q), Balerion, Aqueous Id—and less arbitrary, more studied historical considerations are disqualified on the atheist's say-so, we might as well start exploring the question:

• "believing in God IS religion"

• "The aversion is specifically directed to the fundies and, in a narrower range of topics, the orthodox Christians."​

Which definition is accurate? To borrow a phrase from Aqueous Id, you can't have it both ways. As it is, it would seem that "religion" is defined according to the convenience of the atheist.

Neither.

Perhaps you should stop pigeonholing atheists in a similar fashion. You can't have it both ways either.

I get that you don't want to identify as atheist because of the evangelicals amongst us, but at present, you are doing the exact same thing as I would say Q and his ilk do, which is to lump all into the one. People have different opinions.

Even atheists like me.

 

[Balerion]

Analogy..

Look it up sometime.

It wasn't an analogy, Bells. You said evangelizing and attempting to convert people was "religion in itself." That is a literal statement.

But okay, you can't support your statement. Fair enough.

 

[Balerion]

Sadly no.

He really did ask that question in relation to the abortion debate and he was quite serious about it.

It was his intention that those of us participating in that discussion took it seriously and he was quite offended when we did not and became quite rude when I scoffed. I mean how could you not scoff?

In all of my years of debating abortion on this site, it was the first time someone ever turned a woman into a turducken.

And to this day, that is what the abortion debate has become for me on this site. The turducken..

I think Trooper is referring to your superficial interpretation of the comments. You ignore the point and have an eye roll at the phrasing, as if the phrasing somehow renders the point moot. You do this quite often, especially when you don't have a good answer otherwise.

 

[Bells]

I think Trooper is referring to your superficial interpretation of the comments. You ignore the point and have an eye roll at the phrasing, as if the phrasing somehow renders the point moot. You do this quite often, especially when you don't have a good answer otherwise.

So you think asking 'what if you re-attached the umbilical cord and stuffed the baby back into the mother' is a valid question?

Or are you just arguing because you have nothing better to do and do not really have anything constructive to add except to try to once again pick a fight? You know, arguing for argument's sake...

 

[Trooper]

He really did ask that question in relation to the abortion debate and he was quite serious about it.

Yes, but as usual, you deliberately misrepresented his intention.

That would be something to see. Indeed, it might even increase site traffic.

How so? I would be too embarrassed for anyone to know that I post here. I wouldn't mention it or provide a link to Sciforums, did you?

Well, there’s nothing left to say. You made a couple of valid points. The atheist movement needs more support groups and the term "developmentally impaired person" is more politically correct. Does everyone understand that? From now on use only this term when dealing with a religious person.

Well done, hotshot.