I admit.  I'm stumped.  What are you getting at?

Probably, but I would never say that. 

Asserting that there is a *true* anything is just complete crap. Once a group has a clear definition, you either fit into that group or you don't. You don't have to think that stem cell research is immoral to be a *true* Christian, just like you don't have to accept evolution to be a *true* atheist, whatever the hell that even means.

Edit: Honestly, don't you hear this *true* stuff a lot more from the religious themselves than from the non-religious? Every other Christian that comes to this forum seems to consider their themself a *true* Christian while the other Christians are *lost*.

There's no doubt about that. They really shouldn't change though, since religions hold their beliefs to be infallible.

 Ok... I'm trying again...

You mean atheists are pulling a "No True Christian" on theists who happen to have some rational views?  That seems... odd.  Being a Christian just involves believing in Jesus as God, right?

Or, do you mean that atheists are pointing out that the exception doesn't disprove the rule?  If you manage to find a Christian who believes there is no God, that Jesus is a myth, and that the philosophies espoused in the Bible are worthwhile enough to call oneself a Christian... well, that doesn't somehow negate the fact that the vast majority of Christians believe Jesus existed and was God.  It's not that one is a "true" Christian and the other isn't.  It's that it's bad argumentation to deflect from the generally accepted parameters of "Normal" Christianity just because you can find exceptions.

Hmm.  I didn't know the opinion of the majority was such a big issue on this.  I thought it was about the legislation being passed.  I know it's kind of a tangent, but I've always said (on any issue... not just religious) that if you're not actively opposing something that sucks, you're condoning it.  I honestly don't give a rat's ass about what the majority of Christians think of stem cell research.  I care about whether or not legislation gets passed.  I've yet to see any efforts by that majority who think it's ok to outvote, outargue, or otherwise oppose the efforts of their religious compatriots.

Why do you think this majority remains silent?  If most Christians are ok with stem-cell research, why the perception that all Christians are against it?  Do they just not care?  Are they feeling pressure from the minority?  What's your take?

Naturally.

So... your main point is that atheists are screwing up their critical thinking by trying to force all of Christianity into an older version of the religion?

Sounds... anecdotal.

Pineapple, you're comparing a science to a religion, you should go to your room and think about what you've done. Bad Pineapple! Are you unable to see that as advances in Physiology were made we also became better at treating the body. The same cannot be said for retelling of the same tired fairy tales in different and more violent ways.

I hate that phrase anywhere near the word religion.

Yes, in some religions there are changes, generally changes that allow the rule of those men in fancy clothes to continue. I'd call it cynical self-interested change, not progress.

And then there are religions like islam. Change? Not as such......

Then I agree with you.  Some atheists do fall into the trap of caricaturing Christians.  It's my (anecdotal) observation that most American Christians are basically decent people who subscribe to a version of theism that more or less matches their own personality and outlook on life.  Theists are just like atheists in this respect -- even within ingroups, there will be a wide variety of genuine beliefs.

It's difficult to separate something as complex as theism from all other personality and behavioral traits.  It's even harder for an observer to be pedantically precise in talking about people with a certain trait.  When I asked in the other thread whether you have examined your own ingroup bias of atheists, I was getting at something like this.  Let's take something I say from time to time:

"Theists, by definition, are less rational in at least one area than atheists, since theism is, by definition, an irrational belief."

When you hear me say that, do you automatically leap to the conclusion that I think all theists are broadly "less rational" than atheists?  Or do you take the sentence for only what it does say -- that simply by identifying as atheist or theist, a person is committing to a position that is either rational or irrational?  Do you take the "at least one area" phrase as an insinuation that they're probably irrational in others, or do you take it as a precise use of logical language to indicate that it neither dictates nor precludes irrationality nor irrationality in any other specific area?

Actually Hamby it's your blog that got me to write this.

You're basically saying the Relgious people can't be tolerant, and if they are, then they are not following their religion. Which is why I argue religion is NOT monolithic, it would have to be for your argument to be valid.

[EDIT]

Oh and you still haven't proven that the "exceptions" are the minority in the non-anecdotal sense

[/EDIT]

I used the chart as an example of an assertion failing. It popped in my head after your stem cell topic.

Also, in my experience according to many bloggers I've seen, beliefs tend to magically oscillate.

For example, the Dover trial, teaching Intelligent Design was ruled unconsitutional seeing as ID is religious, not scientific.

But when something like Stem Cell research happens, than America is suddenly in a "Theocracy".

I mean, the people who don't support federal funding for stem cells, could be Libertarians who think it is better funded by private businesses.

Also, to my knowledge abortion is still legal, and laws sent to change it have been shot down.

I just don't get it. How can America be "losing it's religious death grip" and be "spiralling into a Theocracy" at the same time?

I just feel that this is confirmation bias.

What you end up with are areas controlled by evangelical leaders, which usually are dominant over rural areas..and urban areas with people that have a large diversity of ideas.

States with larger rural areas push their religion into law in this country, and states with larger urban areas tend to try and keep religion out of the law to prevent lawsuits.

If higher courts override things in the rural controlled states, they tend to go to terminology changes instead to get the same effect. Like redefining what a "person" is to effectively stop abortion in that state.

Gay marriage is a huge example of church-driven bigotry being pushed into law. Many countries have had it legal for years, and there is no reason the state should have interest in preventing equal rights. The religious claim it is "stepping on their rights" though, because they might have to teach in school that "being gay isn't wrong or evil". Yeah. Shame, that.

Tell you what, Kevin, find me a quote of me saying that they weren't Christians.

Go ahead, I have never denied that they were Christians

Never said that, so fail.

Oh and BTW I put some other names on the "religious apologist" list in that thread including a video by Atran[who's an atheist] explaining it.

That was actually a rather recent on the front page of his blog in fact.

So tell me Kevin, do you acknowledge that at least some atheists do what I said in the OP?

Geez, this was so hard: 

Now, while we're in this region...

...Really? You 'never said that'?

I guess Somebody must've been logged into your account, then.

It was a retouched old article. It was also a quote mine (not that you denied that, anyway).

Sure, some atheists are assholes. Answers in Gene Simmons comes to mind. I can be a pretty big vagina sometimes, too. EXC is usually a douchebag. 

...So, what's your point? Some atheists painting theists with a (deservedly) broad brush is not the same as 'just about every atheist blog on the internet' doing the same thing. Where are these blogs, Alison? Where are your quotes from them? You provided one grossly out of context quote from an article on 'Life Without a Net', and while I like Hamby's blog, it's not exactly the most widely read secular blog on the net. 

Yay!!!1!11!!! I made number one!!!1!!!!1!!!

This is just the natural result of not following a rational process to decide things. People are all over the map with what the implication of their belief really mean. I think this is just that fact that if rational processes are followed their is division about what can be known. This just demonstrates religion is a human invention.

Of course, religion is all about convenience.

Of course it's fantasy island. You can have whatever fantasies and delusions you choose. Whatever rules you like as well. How convenient.