On Tuesday, my colleague Jonathan Kay criticized the controversial new breed of militant-atheist intellectuals that has suddenly shot to prominence in a world where the discussion of religion has gained a terrible new political urgency. Taking the British biologist Richard Dawkins as their leader and model, he called them “atheistic jihadis.” It would be unfair to take too much umbrage at a metaphor, but surely it is somewhat damaging to Jon’s case for the permanence and value of religious faith that this creates such a bizarre mental image.

A vein or two may occasionally pop forth in Prof. Dawkins’ forehead during the metaphysical debates he conducts, alone and armed with nothing but eloquence, in the nests of American creationism. But the idea that he would ever raise a hand in anger to an interlocutor — let alone turn up at Oral Roberts University girdled with dynamite — is simply comical. A sarcastic bon-viveur like Dawkins cannot possibly inspire fear, except insofar as the listener is afraid of what he has to say.

Which may be why magazine and newspaper columnists finding fault with the New Atheists have quickly overwhelmed the output of the “movement” itself. The journalism trade, even at conservative organs like National Review, is dominated by politely irreligious people who tend to group themselves under the buck-passing rubric of “agnostic.” (This was certainly the case at Alberta Report, the now-defunct Christian newsmagazine where I apprenticed for years alongside countless unbelievers.) But an agnostic, as the philosopher Will Wilkinson recently reiterated, is just an atheist who is “confused about ontological commitment.” Either one grants a role to a God in one’s framework of causal explanation, or one doesn’t; there is really no third option. What the “agnostic” is really signifying by his label is deference to the social dominance of religion.

This is apparent from Jon’s column: he says of himself that “I’ve never had to reach for a higher power to make sense of things,” making him a dictionary-definition atheist, but he also writes “it’s clear that something in the human soul requires a belief that life has a purpose that transcends the material plane.” One doubts, reading these statements within almost the same paragraph, whether their author is even firmly convinced of his own existence, let alone God’s.

If it’s true that some form of religious faith is positively required for a satisfactory human life, then there is no need to oppose Richard Dawkins at all; any minute now, the professor is bound to see through the miserable shallowness of being a bestselling author, holding a chair at the world’s greatest university, and enjoying marital bliss with a beautiful television actress. In the meantime we are confronted with the spectacle of Dawkins and thousands of other unabashed atheists going about their business without becoming deranged by existential nausea. On the evidence, they seem to become more common, not less, as one ascends the ladders of income, education, or cognitive ability. Nothing much visibly distinguishes their behaviour or fate except a notable tendency toward smugness.

Any one of them can attest that contentment and sanity do not require “a purpose that transcends the material plane.” But it’s not thought quite right to say so too loudly — perhaps especially in Canada, which hasn’t generated many crusading public atheists. On one hand, we are more secular in sentiment than the United States, and on the other, our lack of a formal principle of church-state separation allows us to work around some of the religious bickering that takes place in American public schools and government institutions. It is still true, however, that professed atheists face challenges in participating in Canadian public life. You won’t find many in Parliament, with good reason. Svend Robinson was criticized and punished much more harshly for trying to eliminate the word “God” from the Constitution (actually, just for introducing a petition favouring it) than he was for advocating the legalization of teenage buggery.

We also still encounter controversies like the one now going on in several Ontario municipalities, where secular groups have quarrelled continually with religious conservatives over the right to commence council meetings with public prayer. If prayer works, there should be no reason elected Christians cannot ask God’s blessing on their work in private. Evidently they’re not fighting for the right to pray, which no one proposes to deny them, but for the right to make a collective gesture of exclusion — to seek public sanction for the supremacy of religious faith and, by implication, the supremacy of believers. What has Richard Dawkins ever said or done that is uglier or more dangerous to social peace than this?

Source
-------------------------------------------------------
Kind of amusing people who go against religion are "atheistic jihadis". A religious term being used correctly to bash anti-religious people. When in fact jihadists are part of a major religion who are senselessly slaughtering or plotting to slaughter innocent men, women and children right now. Yeah for religion!

Atheist Jihads! That metaphor certainly sets the stage for the mentality one is dealing with when they follow up that phrase with their "reason" for feeling the term applies to non-theists. I don't think someone needs be armed with a PhD in comparative religion, or philosophy, to speak of Atheism from a personal standpoint. Like Mr. Dawkins, referenced in this article. In the realm of theists and non, Atheists have no thing to defend. There's no god that shall take umbrage, no souls damned eternally. There's no supplication, to a ghost for it's suicide to relinquish the sin it's second self/father, created to be overcome. There is no "good news" one need zealously spread to all the world because the news one already subscribes to is deemed unworthy of the respect of being left alone.

I don't think Atheism needs a defense. I think theism does. It needs to defend a bloody history of oppression, intolerance and sadism in the name of make believe.

I don't see athiesm as in need of defending itself, its a giant leap towards tolerance, as i made the leap once there are many athiests on here and not a one is hate filled or jhihads lol, in tolerance there is no need to defend only in percieved insults would there be a need to defend lol, relgion misconstrues alot of things,
Athiesm is about unity and coming together, Its not unusual for interest groups such as christainity to paint a picture of athiesm as hate filled, this is done in so many things for the purpose to scare people away from considering it, It is a very common practice to one way or another silence the percieved competition.....Try as they might Ahtiiesm is growing as well as many, many alternate paths away from dogmas that seperate and intolerate.

Well, at the end of the day Dawkins is still going to leave his distinguished job at the world's top university for a well-appointed home and a beautiful actress wife. I don't think he'd be too stressed at having names called at him. Doesn't say much for the theists if their best repsonses are taunts.

--Jaylemurph

Actually I think the taunts say a great deal for those that believe that imparts they are faithful to any creed wherein it is deemed proper to do that.

If god is god, why would it know that and damn for eternity any mortal that doesn't believe?! But if one doesn't believe in god, that means they don't believe in the controls that are applied in gods name. And that means one stands outside the herd, and is therefore suspect as an outsider. It's the same in any social model. It's a matter of fitting in and feeling that sense of personal security and strength, in numbers. If one stands alone, they're outnumbered by those that stand together. But in standing alone, they set an example to all that there may be something to not standing with others. And that inspires curiosity as to just what that reason might be. And if anyone is curious enough, they might just leave that group to find out what's different outside of it.

So really, the taunts are a reflection of the fear which would necessarily imply insecurity in that sense of what should hold all people together. And that is when ego takes offense because it is being told, either directly or indirectly, that it's wrong for believing the way it does. Which means it may not know the truth, like it claims it does. And since the truth is what keeps people looking to join that group, anyone claiming what the group believes is not truth, is a threat. What's amazing though is that of all the religious wars in history, what man is fighting about is man made. So really, it's not a war to insure god's dominion on the earth, but mans and which one has the power to declare what god means, to all the earth. Mono-theism! A most absurd expectation in a world of billions of minds that must choose to hold faith, in a god that always seems to look and favor, them exclusively! Ever listened to a debate about the color or race of god or even jesus? I've sat for hours, without saying a word, nursing a cup of herb tea and been amazed at how far we'll go to fight for what we believe.

Just curious here, but is there anything in this article that actually points to it being theists attacking atheism here? After reading over the article, that seems not to be the case at all:

On Tuesday, my colleague Jonathan Kay criticized the controversial new breed of militant-atheist intellectuals that has suddenly shot to prominence in a world where the discussion of religion has gained a terrible new political urgency. Taking the British biologist Richard Dawkins as their leader and model, he called them “atheistic jihadis.”

Then shortly thereafter.....

This is apparent from Jon’s column: he says of himself that “I’ve never had to reach for a higher power to make sense of things,” making him a dictionary-definition atheist....

It appears the disgruntlement over "atheistic jihadists" is written by another atheist

That's newspaper columns for you

Regards, PA

Jonathan Kay is an agnostic. In his article he was talking about how he may fall into religion because of the ignorance is bliss it offers.

Linky

That's why he's against the force of atheism that is becoming more popular in today's world. He leans more into religion then he does into atheism.

Careful in believing someone elses truth, after reading someone else's comment about what that truth must be! Else you're liable to choke on the spit from that whistle.




Jonathan Kay

Beat me by a minute Kratos!

You've made a good point. There is no critisim from thiests. It's like how athiasts say religious believers cant criticise other religous ideas made by other people of their religion that they think are wrong because its all from the same religion. If religous believers cant what justifies an athiast's critisism? Its still athiast belief like it or not.

My mistake on the atheist/agnostic development. Regardless, you cannot lay the blame of "atheistic jihadists" onto the theists, however you wish to paint him. An agnostic is not a theist, even if Kratos wants to try and say that they are. Since you all already knew this about Jonathan Kay (judging by your replies, at least), i can only assume your attempt to blame theism for this attack on atheism to be a known subterfuge on your part. Don't let anything get in the way of a good attack on theism, though. Go right ahead......







And from another thread:

Fine, he's a religious sympathizer.

It's funny though, you came in here and smirked in your post to jab at athesim. Now you're accussing me of attacking theism and it's now wrong. Double standards are a nasty thing. You're not high and mighty. You should practice what the you preach because all you do is look like a hypocrite.

I don't think it matters what anyone else thought or knew. You're been proven to be wrong about your allegation that the commentary was written by an Atheist, as if that was a reflection upon Atheist thinking. That's what matters. To whom would an Atheist jihad matter, but theists fearing as much!?

No jabbing done by me, I'm afraid. I was just pointing out something conveniently overlooked. My most recent comment was made more towards others though, who actually referred to Jonathan Kay as "theist", then corrected me when I made a mistake about him being an atheist. So we were both wrong. I'm not trying to lay blame, nothing like that at all. I just got confused when reading this thread that somehow had turned into religion bashing when it was written by a non-religious person for a non-religious audience

edit: I apologise for referring to him as an "atheist". I'm sorry if I've offended any atheists in this matter.

Oh?

I did just go over the comments before you posted, which one of them against said he was indeed a theist? I know I didn't. Please, point them out if there are indeed any.

Well, if we just need to see a Christian use the term "atheist jihad" you can have a look see at Bill Muehlenberg's site, Culture Watch. He's an Australian writer who talks all about how militant atheists are.

Link 1 to atheist-hating spewing.
Link 2 to atheist-hating spewing.
And
Here's where you can read about his views on global warming.

Ah yes, Bill Muehienberg! One of the many mouthpieces for the christian right, of Australia. I love all the military parlance that is brought into those articles attentions to Atheism. "Storm Troopers", Jihad, militant, etc.... I imagine it would scare a right wing christian conservative to imagine the non-theist community might decide to commit as much zeal to offending the theist mind set, as the theist mentality has zealously sought to impart across the globe and thereby rule the world through exclusionary tactics.

Sort of like: "Oh my god, the godless aren't intimidated by us anymore! Fear for your life, they're just as dedicated to saying there is no god as we are to saying there is!" Well hell, how could omniscience be surprised by even that, or humans not expect tit for tat!? Alls fair in faith and war. Right!? If some psycho thinks they have a right to kill people to convert survivors to their god, other people have a right to smack hell out of that psycho and say there is no god to slaughter life for! It's a matter of who thinks they have a right to be right. It'll never work, but it will certainly lend an example each side has a cause to keep up the good fight, by pointing to their opponents examples and saying; see? That's what we have to fight against! Personally, I think a campaign to promote Atheism is absurd! But that's just me. I don't think you have to advertise with zeal, disbelief in god myths, to anyone capable of critical thinking or free thought.

The direction this thread has taken is most amusing. 6 people have posted on this thread. Three out of the first four posters took this thread as a theist-attack (ie, Christian) on atheism. The fourth poster complains that the article was using a religious term - jihadist - in a negative manner, and then calls the person in question a "religious sympathizer" a loaded term also, and just as negative. Then when it is brought up that the comments were not made by a theist, instead of the thread discussion actually making discussion out of the subject matter, it goes to an attack on the one that brought it up (me) because of a mistake in the person's religious affiliations, to which I admitted the mistake and even apologised for any issue I may have raised (something I see others who made the "theist" mistake did not do - not yet, at least). Then a sixth poster deflects discussion from the original article to attack a Christian that has used the term "Atheist Jihadist", conveniently ignoring an agnostic who did the same (many atheist organizations allow membership for agnostics, by the way).

In a nutshell, those are summaries of the posts made at this point. At least we know what the real point of this thread was now. Why don't we just rename this thread "religion bashing time".

Generalizations, Ignorance, Stereotypes, Bashing, Discrimination, Misinformation, and Fanatics...the seven deadly sins of Spirituality v.s. Skepticism.

Lol, how true is that!
(Now, seriously, I recognize I've fallen under one of those "sins", and I'm sorry for that. But, who hasn't?)

I agree PA its par for the course on this site. The point seems to be lets bash believers at any chance we get, gleefully and with blinders on. And then lets talk about how believers should be more tolerant while we bash then over the head with insults and page long posts about how we know better...because we're.....well they don't really have any reason except they are sure of their superiority. YAWN.

I am an atheist and I think its ridiculous that they are talking about Dawkins WIFE like a trophy that he has to prove he's somehow worthy???? What a sexist comment to make. First of all its not his first wife so the idea that he's just dancing in marital bliss is ridiculous. He's a person just like everyone else with human flaws. One of his flaws is his exceedingly patronizing and hostile attitude towards believers.

Distain is not how any person should be treated based on their religious beliefs. Frankly people who believe in alien abduction are treated with more respect.

But the hostility comes from have to live in a believers world when you are not a believer.

I think the onus in the believer communities to wake up and realize how much damage their beliefs when pushed collectively have caused the world.

If you want to believe then do so, in the privacy of your own life. But religion should not be included in any social structure. The minute God is part of the social contract it warps it into absurdity.

My personal opinion as for my choice for me. I don't slam people for their personal choices for themselves.



ETA Can't help but laugh at yet another attempt to bump your thread!

You really need to stop obsessing with snide remarks, thinking yourself clever! It's a reply in context of your hypocrisy.
and name calling, as you attempted to berate people for hypocrisy and name calling. If you see that as a bump, so be it. I see it as a reply to what is being criticized of others for offering their personal opinion on the OP. Furthermore, your personal opinion that calls all that you claim to defend on behalf of your offense at the tenor of this thread, and it's address to theists, is a personal attack when you call faithful practices or philosophies "Coping mechanisms of the weak"! That attacks everyone of faith in one broad swing of contempt.

I need to stop? LOL Ok whatever. Plus take a chill pill it was a joke.

I was speaking from an evolutionary standpoint. I don't need to defend my opinion of believers because my reputation speaks for itself.

I don't flaw anyone for their belief systems because I see it as a coping mechanism. And coping mechanisms are part of the evolutionary process. So when I say coping mechanisms of the weak I mean we as humans are overwhelmed by the unknown factor of our very existence. To sit and ponder this in an all consuming way can take away from the enjoyment of life. For some this answer is God, for others spirituality, for others scientific explanation. For others like me I can just accept that "we don't know and will never know" but its a hard thing to accept. We are naturally curious about this.

Constantly berating Christians for their belief system while clinging to an agnostic or spiritual answer is the height of hypocrisy in my book. If you sneer at someone for believing in make believe but cling tightly to your "answer" you are no different than a religious person who thinks their god is the better one. And I extend this to science as well.

We are all the same in this yearning. I believe its hard wired into our systems in a sense much in the way Dawkins discusses memes.

But the slamming of a persons personal choice is arrogant and wrong. In my opinion.

Are you referring to my post? I'm confused, because you refer to the 6th poster, who was actually ND-Dave and he was agreeing with you. But, if you simply miscounted and you are referring to my post, are you kidding me? Do you really consider what I posted to be an attack? Seriously, don't you think that'a bit of an over-statement?

What I posted didn't deflect discussion from the original article. Kratos ended his original post with:

Did you read the articles I posted? They fit in perfectly with the original topic.

Chill pill in hand. With you it's hard to discern when your joking and when your serious. Unless of course you'd like to interject a Smilie, to give a clue which side of you is speaking. Humor or otherwise. Just a few examples there.



Excellent! It's good to learn you have evolved from who you were in that link/quote.

However, when one discusses the philosophy of faith(s) in a critical way it can be construed as slamming peoples personal choice because what one is doing is dissecting the merits of that personal faithful choice. It is meted out in arrogance, because feeling one has a right to delve deeper into faith, rather than just accept what is the myth on the surface, is audacious. Especially as a minority. (Atheist) However, I do not engage in discussions or debates, about theist philosophies, principles and practices, thinking I'm going to change any believers mind. Now that would be hubris! I respect peoples free right to choose what they give their life to. It's their life. My opinion is meaningless to their living it.

It is a very real part of life that religionists populate every aspect of our society. Some are quiet and sedate and comfortable in their sense of peace, in the spirit of their faith. While some, as we see all over media, are militant and blood thirsty to make a point about monotheism and infidels. And I think when an article levy's a personal attack on a community on non-theists, it is as valid to dissect that platform that seeks to assault the beliefs of , in this case Atheists, as it is for theists (on these forums) to feel the need to respond in kind, in defense of their own practices and beliefs. What is happening in this thread is objected to by a theist that feels it unfair to criticize people calling non-believers Jihadist's. But call a christian a Jihadist and watch what responds to that. I think the contempt some feel for the tenor of a thread that addresses the bias and bigotry of believers, is to distract from the very real reality that there is much to hold contempt for, amid the community of bigoted believers. If it wasn't there to comment on, no one would have cause to say a word. As the OP article in this thread, clearly proves. Someone sees Atheists as the equivalent of a jihadist. It's only logical that Atheists not holding to that ideology, respond so as to affirm we're not all like that. Which is no different than the christians and other faithful, that respond in the same way to the theist topics that would imply a criticism or militant indictment against them.


edit to fix "jihadists" spelling error.

RachelM - Oops, I typed out a dozen different versions of that post because every time I finished and re-read it, it sounded too accusatory and inflammatory. I did have ND-Dave in there in my first version, i guess I forgot about him when I wrote the later versions Concerning him (the sixth poster), he posted an agreement to me, at that time not having the knowledge that was later garnered about Kay being an agnostic. You then were indeed the seventh poster.

Hope that clears things up

PA - Yes, it does. Except that you didn't let me know if you really thought my post was an attack.

I didn't see it as an attack at all, Rachel. It's a worthy discussion point, because there are Christians who think in militant terms, just as there are militants in almost everything, from religion to computer game whizzes. What I thought was what I said. In the context of the discussion we were having, your post had the effect of deflecting the discussion away from the original post to a new rationale to discuss religious extremists.

I'm not implying that you intentionally posted just to deflect the topic. It's possibly just the natural evolution of this discussion topic. I'm just saying that whether it was meant or not, that's the effect that your post had.

Militancy like stupidity is not an exclusive characteristic of a particular group but rather particular individuals. You can usually tell them by their "ranting" type attitudes going on and on to the degree that people don't even bother reading or listening to what they say because it comes across as a slow leak of their balloon of a brain where it all comes hissing out.

I think that the point PA is making and the article is that "jihadist" mentality is not exclusive to religious people and many agnostics and atheists also demonstrate this "attack dog" manner when discussing religion.

But people who act like this are only as significant as those who choose to discuss the matter with them. When you see a small group in agreement basically discussing amongst themselves you realize that saner people have simply backed off and ignored them.

I would no more discuss religion with these types of people than I would with Pat Robertson. Its a pointless conversation.

Show us then where they did. I see comparing of theists and actions. So if they're so out there, show us.

Religion bashing time? Poor poor PA being always attacked. Get over yourself. This is a Spirituality vs Skepticism forum, if you don't like it, stay the hell out! Just because I have a different opinion then you do, doesn't mean I'm attacking. If that's the case, all believers on this board are attacking non-believers! But nope... You think you're high and mighty and only people that agree with you are allowed to discuss.

Kratos are you really that freaking stupid that you don't see telling someone they are "high and mighty" and telling them to stay the hell out is antagonizing and hostile and attacking?

Name calling and hostility. Its pretty much par for the course. The title of the forum is spirituality and skepticism not spirituality and trashing you up one side and down the other.

If you can't have a conversation without resorting to this then its not a conversation. Its a rant.

And here I thought I was the only one who thought this......

I think it was a rant.....but I still agree with it.

I think the interesting part of this thread is how it's gone off topic, because people decided to turn the discussion on the respondents and OP, and their motives for participating in the thread at all, to one instance wherein "theist" was credited to one of the OP article/link authors. And so now , while that's all suppose to have been apologized for and past us, it keeps on that tract thanks to theists and theist sympathizers. Turning this thread into an example of what an Atheist Jihad platform would have cause to address! Theist apologetics and exclusivism!

Theists take this thread off topic by implying the attentions to the reporting in the OP, is an attack on them! Thereby deferring the import of the topic about Atheists having cause to assume Jihadist offensives, and the commentary relative to that non-theist issue, to their opinion of why they feel attacked and then defending why they shouldn't have to feel that way, if people would just stop attacking theists. Let's keep it on topic. Recognize the absurdity at work when someone makes snide innuendos by allusion, toward people in this thread so they can send the message they object to snide innuendos and allusions, about those coping mechanisms of the weak. How weak is it to hide while casting aspersions from behind a transparent cloak of BS, that calls for tolerance!? Judge and be judged! Now imagine what I think of you. TrueThat and more! See that thumb?! The chill pill is spinning right at the end of that well manicured sucker!


Keep it on topic and thwart the model that makes militant defense necessary against a militant theistic offense that imparts tactics like this to dissuade discussion about the issue in the OP. If they resort to words to play the victim, imagine what their real life tactics are. That's what's at the heart of a militant zealot platform discussion. What's sad is theists that claim their more spiritually inclined, resort to expressing it on boards.

I fail to see what PA has posted that comes across as high and mighty other than the fact that he pointed out that a non believer is the one throwing the jihad title around. Basically came across as a black person trying to say that white people are freaky cause look at Michael Jackson.... Or an American calling Madonna a chav..... its like dude, don't shove him off on us, he's one of yours! It was an ironic statement that seemed to strike a nerve.

I'm responding to his claims he's being attacked. People are using examples of religion and pointing them out from what I have seen. Perhaps religion should stop doing what it does so atheists/nonbelievers can't point it out? It's because I have a different opinion then he does, is he's coming in here and ranting about this thread. But hey, it's perfectly already for believers to think atheists are all sinners, immoral humans with no limits and more. But if a nonbeliever so much as pokes their head up against religion they're labled bad right away and it's attacking. No, simply it is not.

Now if you don't mind, I'm sure we can get back onto the topic of the thread.

Um I think this is what PA was referring to. The person who used the term "atheist jihadis" is a Non believer in traditional terms and PA was saying not to blame religious people for this term because the person who said it was a non believer. So I fail to see how this is 'high and mighty"

Seems to me that some people on here don't like to be challenged and when they are the claws come out. Which is why only a few people respond to their posts and they are pretty much ignored by the many other posters on the site.

This thing has gotten so out of hand that.... please, close it. So far this isn't going nowhere.

Yeah, I know... If you even read my other posts I knew the writer was an agnostic. The high and mightly came afterwards when he was then claiming the thread is just attacking religion. People are using examples of religion to discuss this issue, that's not wrong. Jihadists is also a religious term... So you'd assume in that discussion there would be... Religious talk. I don't want to be compared to a jihadist because I don't rape/beat women, slaughter little children and torture grown men.

If I didn't want to be challenged, I won't be posting here, now would I? It's funny to cause now you're taking a stab into the dark trying to find me. When in fact it was PA who started this all by claiming the thread is here just to attack religion. Nonbelievers post, it's attack religion. Believers post, they're defending their faith BUT not attacking nonbelieves. It's hypocritical.

I don't understand why people think this way. You can ignore people quite easily. Clicky!

The topic is a worthy one and I hate seeing threads closed! Back on topic~!

Another coping mechanism of the weak. Casting aspersions so as to keep this thread OT. All the time saying yet again they don't like to be challenged! You'd be amazed at the PM's I receive about you. You're so predictable in your erratic emotions, and assaultive behavior that people map out your next move when you attack me, because they've read you before, so that I can see it coming. And sure enough! There you are. The allusive fearful erratic one. That spits pleadings for tolerance while venom drips from her lips.

Not ALL Jihadists do that darlin. You say you don't want to be accused of "stereotype" because you are not a "stereotype" so why is it OK for you to constantly lump all religious people under the same umbrella but when you actually DO what people accuse you of you flip out and say you are being "accused"

Who's the one complaining of getting picked on now? You?


Definition of jihad.....





Notice how the such rules include not killing women, children and non-combatants? Reading it, it seems like you are acting precisely as jihad is described. So what's the complaint?

Oh wait ((((Slaps head)))) you continually stereotype muslims and the definition of jihad and so you can't understand what the writer (a non believer) is actually trying to say.

oops posted twice.

Then perhaps you'd like to explain what has happened over the ages by Muslims on jihad and even what is happening today.

It's just like the Crusades for the christians.

So yes, actions do make up quite a bit of it.



Read the thread topic. It's always been that way in this thread.

As I have said before I agree with a lot of what you say but you seem so hostile towards this aspect of religion that you don't see that on a personal level religion rarely has these implications.

On a grander scale you can argue that silence equals complicity and I agree with you in a way. But here we sit in the US while people are slaughtered world wide in our name. Do we stand up daily and insist that this be stopped? We don't. Posting on a message board might be akin to the Christians talking amongst themselves during the crusades or Muslims upset with the fanatics. Its the same amount of effect.

There is more to Christian faith than just the crusades and nut jobs. There is more to Islam than jihad terrorists. So why is it if you are truly interested in dialogue that you dismiss the other realities of religion.

I believe the key to stopping these kinds of acts is keeping faith a private and personal thing. Keep it out of the social contract.

Well, see up there in your other post where you said that I attacked a Christian? That's where I got the idea that you thought my post was an attack. I guess I misunderstood.

So people should just ignore the worst parts of religion because there is some "good" in it? Perhaps people should also then ignore the racist part of the KKK because they as well do some "good" in communities?

Even if you aren't doing those actions, if you believe in that faith, you carry it's history and what it has done.

The US is a country and well it's not a religion. The slaughtering being done is being done in the name of self-defense and/or toppling bad people. If there was wrong, then yes I do speak up.

Ahh, there you go again. I'm not going to ignore those aspects of faith just because there is "good". It's the entire culture that is causing problems like discrimination, hatred, backward ways and more.

If you think I'm being hostile because I bring these items up, well that's all on you. This is a discussion board where both sides are welcome. If religion is causing or has caused misery in the past/present it will be brought up.

You know as well as I do that faith isn't being kept a personal private thing on the grand scale of things.

I think why it bothers me is that really on a personal level faith is no different than being a Trekki or an avid Harry Potter fan.

I have never said ignore the bad. I have never said the bad doesn't count. But if you look at the bad, for the most part its only that bad because politics is somehow involved.

I am not saying you shouldn't post these things because I find a lot of the topics you start are interesting.

But you stereotype religious people and hold them all accountable for the misdeeds of the minority in religion.

KKK? Most KKK members haven't ever lynched a black person. But KKK is not a religion. Its a different discussion. Its a political group.

By using extremes only to make your point you've already lost the argument. It doesn't take a lot to realize that most Muslims for example ARE NOT jihad terrorists. In fact most Muslims I have met are very nice people. So you come across as bashing because you are painting all these nice people as terrorists when they are not.

Likewise most black people are not gang members who do drive by shootings and deal drugs. The reality is this DOES occur in the black community. As well as the white and other communities. By suggesting that the majority of a group is to be held accountable for the misdeeds of the minority, well then you are stereotyping

Kinda like how the KKK justifies their hatred of non whites you continually justify your hatred of believers. The KKK has plenty of evidence and arguments as well.

But they are ugly.

I don't just paint them all crusaders or terrorists. I disagree with the faith because of those but there is more to it then that. There is also the matter of the holy book verses and other actions over the ages leading up to today.



Ahh, I see it now. You're allowed to use non-religious groups to defend your ideas but I am not. Interesting.



I'm not using only extremes, like I said earlier. There are more evil things in islam then just jihadists.

Yes, but black people aren't a religion and can't be grouped together because they don't hold a single belief but rather a skin color they couldn't choose on their own.

My disagreeing with belief is much different then skin color. Perhaps an intelligent repsonse would have seen that. One can be choosen and one cannot be.

That's a good point but you don't know what you are talking about with most of what I have seen you say about religious beliefs. I mean this will all due respect, I'm not trying to pick on you personally but a lot of what I have seen you post are STEREOTYPES about the religion.

So you want to "hold them all responsible for their beliefs" but when people who know better than you say "These are not the tenants of the religion" you just ignore that.

You did that in the Islam thread. You are going on and on about what Jihad means and you obviously, very very obviously have educated yourself on the topic by perusing websites online. You don't understand that there is a difference between the way a thing is actually practiced and the way it is stated in the religion.


From my perspective the books are all made up by people. I am an atheist. To me once you see a flaw in the book then you KNOW that the books are not written by a perfect God.

It seems to me quite often your arguments are written to suggest that you believe that their beliefs are flawed. Full stop. There is no god so why are you arguing as if there is a god? I don't see you responding like this but starting threads and it doesn't make sense to me.

It IS a personal attack if you are attacking people's personal beliefs. If you think there is no God then why argue as if there is? Only one reason. A personal attack.

Step 2

Dealing with the flaws in the bible from a religious perspective.

Once you get passed that point a person realized that in order for the individual to continue believing in god they need to adjust their beliefs to accomodate these lapses in God. So the offensive passage is altered to be taken a different way.

Once this happens your original accusation is null and void. Ex. Chrisitanity must bear the burden of slavery. Well slavery doesn't exist any more as it did and I don't see too many Christians fighting to have it reinstated because it says so in the Bible. for ex. So obviously the way the religion is practiced has changed has it not?

So when you talk about "the beliefs" what exactly are you talking about? You can't hold modern believers responsible for the earlier believers because the religion has changed since then.

You basically are attacking people for the beliefs of others and insisting that its their belief as well. And quite obviously it is not.