It has been explained elsewhere. We focus on Christianity, beacuse we live in a predominately Christian populace and because the Chrisitan Right has significant sway on US domestic and foreiegn policy. We all as a squad also happen to be Christian Apostates - we cand tackle what we know.

We DO deal with other religions and other irrationality like psychics and what not though. Just last week we had a Muslim guest, for example. 

The Blasphemy Challenge WAS directed at Christians, obviously. Quite frankly we did not think "Drawing Mohammed" would get the same response in the US. Though we do plan such things in the future. 

We have special interest in Christianity because this is an American based forum, and the USA is a predominantely Christian country where the religion holds a great deal of political power. That is not to say that I do not express my distaste for other religions as well. If you go into Essay Submissions, under the category Write a letter to a theist imploring them to leave their irrational worldview behind, then click on submssions go here, there is an article I wrote dedicated exclusively to Islam, it should be the most recent entry.

Irrational beliefs should be mocked. Just like we'd mock a person who said the moon was made of cheese. Ridicule is a powerful tool, and it really only ever gets under the skin of people who deep down know such mockery has truth behind it. Thus demonstrating your complete misconception of what the theory of evolution actually says. 

No, the term was coined by Fred Hoyle, and coined mockingly no less. The man credited for developing the idea of the Big Bang was a Christian, a Jesuite priest named Geroge Lemaître. Evolution and biology never came up in the discussion - only spiral nebulai and their recessional speeds. Hoyle was a peanut gallery, at best, but probably better informed than you are.

 

What about the end of Buddhism? Well, insofar as Japan has the lowest violent crime rate of any country in the world, and the TAR won't take up arms against the Chinese because in the end, violence only breeds more violence, most don't see a need. Beyond that, there's the fact that Buddhism has no deity, a Buddhist is an atheist. Read some more about Buddhism before throwing it in as though it were a faith system.

 

 

To the first, are they OK? They're not "OK" in the same sense that someone believing in the Norse gods or the gods of ancient Egypt gods would be not "OK". However, do you think we'd reach many Hindu here in North America speaking English? The point is that Christianity is the dominating power in this region of the world, and that's why people here focus on it. If a person of Hindu faith or Muslim faith came to these boards, they wouldn't be treated any differently than a Christian.

 

To the second, what's your "feeling"? I won't think you're crazy, I just might think you're wrong

If it looks, feels, smells and tastes like and apple, then chances are, it's an apple.  If it looks, feels, smells, and tastes like the intolerance of one religious group (Christians), then it's most likely intolerance.  Everyone bears fruit.

I disagree.  No one should be mocked, but taught.  This shows the true colors of your movement.  You guys try to paint a picture like you're doing something good, then you go and say that Christians deserve to be mocked.  Last I checked, any rational thinker despite their beliefs would say that mockery produces little to no results.  What good is their in mockery?  Sounds hypocritical if you ask me.  And who's to say who is rational and who is not?  Yellow Number 5?  I've heard plenty Christian apologetics that make way more rational sense than atheism.  So until the world can determine which line of thought is the irrational one (like we have determined that the moon is not made of green cheese) than you cannot assuredly say that the Christian position is irrational.  To do that is irrational.  Hence the birth of this web siteGod can be proven through evidential proof, just like gravity.

And I want you to actually make sense.  And I want my posts to actually post.  Speaking of irony...

Please remember this is the Kill 'Em With Kindness thread and the rules are more stringent here.

Please, no personal insults.

Thanks! 

"Ridicule is a powerful tool"

Yes it is. But be careful. Too much ridicule can be used against you.

Irrationality which affects the world is more important though. We could write essays mocking people who believe Elvis is still alive, but seeing as they don't affect politics and our daily lives it's more a waste of time.

Go ahead...

How can you teach someone who has made a prior decision to believe something with no regard for evidence? Since faithful people have rejected reason, one must find another way to convince them that their beliefs are wrong. One way to do that is to make fun of them. I don't feel it's the most effective or nicest way, but if it makes even one theist think twice, it's worth the effort. Wrong. It may point to the character of certain individual atheists, but unlike Christians we aren't all required to think and act alike. You are wrong. Christian theology specifically and purposefully rejects reason as a route to knowing God. Faith is the a priori mindset of the good Christian, and all information is meant to be filtered through this lens. Do some reading about your own religion before you come on here and try to tell us who is on the side of rationality. Just the other day I saw a preacher on TV saying that Christians are concerned with the "who" and "why" of how the earth was created; the "how" and "when," while interesting questions, are deemed to be less important. This was so revealing, and so damning to Christianity. You see right there how the Christian is expected to wall himself off from certain information and impose assumptions and skew on all the data before he even begins to learn. The message is crystal clear: real facts and real knowledge of of secondary importance to belief in God. This is not reason, it is faith and religion. The two are different, and opposed. [MOD EDIT - fixed quotes] 

"Christian theology specifically and purposefully rejects reason as a route to knowing God." 
"You see right there how the Christian is expected to wall himself off from certain information and impose assumptions and skew on all the data before he even begins to learn. The message is crystal clear: real facts and real knowledge of of secondary importance to belief in God." 
I would suggest reading more theology, since the way you put things is not what the theological tradition assumes. I don't know of any well-respected theologian who would denounce reason as such and who would endorse the idea that Christians should wall themselves off from information.  And, a TV preacher (and I really can't stand them), is a far cry from a trained theologian.  

I realize that point: but being a Christian does not imply having an in-depth knowledge of the theological tradition. The same goes for atheism: being an atheist does not imply having an in-depth knowledge of the texts (and I understand texts quite broadly to include scientific statements) that have helped shape the atheist position.  The point that I want to draw out is that, in criticizing a position, it would seem only fair to criticize the best statements of that position; this applies to Christianity, atheism, and all other positions.  So, for example, it would be unfair if someone were to dismiss atheism as such on the basis of what some 15 year old kid thinks about the subject through his discovery of Nietzsche (there is a funny Sopranos episode on this).  Likewise, it is unfair to dismiss Christianity on the basis of what some TV preacher says about it.  I have no problem if one wants to dismiss Christianity; however, I do have a problem when people make blanket statements that ignore the complexity of the latter. In other words, I object to "straw men."  

This has the trappings of those blanket statements people have used to justify all sorts of selfish and destructive behaviors. Pity your reasons boil down to this.

You seem to be reading a lot of your own prejudice into this person's statement (and really, a TV preacher, do we have to answer for them? ) It seems to me as if this person was saying that a Christian will get more personal benefit from knowing that there's a benevolent, all-powerful being who created them personally and is ready, willing and able to be involved in their life than they will from knowing the facts of evolution. Seems to me to be simply some practical personal/spiritual advise.

It certainly is religion but I disagree that they are opposed. It's like saying a hammer is opposed to a screwdriver...sure, you can only use one at a time, but they are really just two tools at one's disposal.

Just a reminder as I pass through ~ ~ ~

This is the Kill 'Em With Kindness Forum.

No insults.  No name calling.  No swearing.

Thank you.

You may continue your conversation now. 

Always been a conspiracy against Christianity?

I love when the majority cries foul about how persecuted they are while doing the persecuting themselves left and right and justifying that as acceptable because they are the majority.

This mentality is the exact reason why minority rights should not be voted on by a majority of people in any population.

Here is one!

THE MURDER OF LARRY HOOPER

By Arlene-Marie

December 20, 2005
(Edited for punctuation and clarity.)

On October 18, 2004, Arthur Shelton, a self described Christian and Eagle Scout, murdered his friend and roommate, Larry Hooper, because Hooper didn't believe in God.

On December 18, 2005, after many months of postponements, Arthur Shelton, with his defense attorney, Seymour Swartz, appeared at the Frank Murphy Hall of Justice in Detroit, Michigan, before Judge Gregory D. Bill to face charges of murder in the first degree brought by Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Christina Guiruis.

The trial began with the taped phone call Arthur Shelton placed to the Taylor police department in Taylor, Michigan, October 18, 2004, at precisely 12:44 AM. Shelton sounded calm and pridefull when he told the dispatcher he had just shot "the devil himself" with a revolver and a shotgun because "he (Hooper) didn't believe in God." Shelton told the dispatcher he was "still armed and ready to shoot again in case he moves. I want to make sure he's gone." When the dispatcher asked how many times he shot the victim Shelton replied, "hopefully enough."

Throughout the 15 minute phone call Shelton often repeated, "I'm a Christian and an Eagle Scout and I wouldn't lie," and "don't worry about me, I'm fine, but he's the devil." The dispatcher struggled to persuade Shelton to lay down his weapon and go outdoors with his arms raised. Shelton resisted, as he feared Hooper might not be "dead enough", but eventually complied.

Dead enough was an understatement. When the police arrived they were confronted with the grizzly scene of Hooper sitting upright on the couch with his head blown away and his brain laying on his hand. The autopsy report presented by the prosecutor was gruesome to be sure, but, for the record, Larry Hooper tested negative for all narcotics and alcohol.

Testimony by the arresting officer and the officers transporting Shelton to the police station revealed that while the officers were interested in gathering details about the incident, Shelton was obsessed with talking about God, the Eagle Scouts and stating he "would not talk to anyone who didn't believe in God but that he would talk to the police because he felt they believed in God."

On the second day of the trial the court played the videotape of the late night interrogation with Arthur Shelton. He appeared calm, cooperative and enjoyed the cookies and milk he was served. Once again Arthur was obsessed about talking about God and the Eagle Scouts. He stated he "was not sorry for a second that he killed Hooper." He stated, "In the eyes of the law I was wrong and will probably spend the rest of my life in prison, but in the eyes of God I have killed an evil person -- the devil himself." And when Arthur took the witness stand in his own defense he reiterated much of the same ideas.

Day three of the trial we heard summary arguments. The defense had little problem proving that Arthur is obsessed with religion, God and Eagle Scouts and pleaded for a verdict of not guilty due to insanity. The prosecution had little problem proving that Arthur was competent, knew the difference between right and wrong and called for a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. As this was a wavered trial Judge Bill rendered his verdict quickly -- guilty of second-degree murder with mental illness.

On December 19, 2005, we returned to Judge Bill's court to witness sentencing of Arthur Shelton. The prosecution asked for the 'high end' of punishment - 25 to 45 years, while the defense was still pleading for not guilty due to insanity or, at the very most, a soft sentence at the 'low end' of punishment 15 to 22 years. Judge Bill invited Shelton to make a statement and after fumbling for words Shelton stated he was sorry that Larry was dead but he did a job that had to be done. He stated that he actually, "saw fire and smoke coming from Larry's eyes and knew he was the devil himself."

Judge Bill proceeded to tenderly read letters written to him from Shelton's family members pleading for leniency. Shelton sat facing the audience and blew kisses to his tearful and sometimes sobbing family. In the end, the now stern-faced Judge Bill pronounced sentencing -- 25 to 45 years. Shelton was stunned and tried to negotiate the sentence stating, "I'm 50 years old and that is as good as a life sentence." Judge Bill responded, "Mr. Shelton you gave Larry Hooper a life sentence by committing one of the most heinous murders to come before my court." (In a private conversation, the prosecutor, Ms Guirguis, explained that Michigan law requires that Shelton must serve 25 years before being eligible for parole.)

I add now a disgusting chain of events that took place in the courtroom, the hallways, the lobby of the court building, the staircase outside of the courthouse and even the ladies bathroom. George Shiffer and myself attended day one of the trial. Upon arrival we were asked who we were and I gave the court my American Atheist business card. Word that we were Atheists traveled fast in this court room that offered very limited seating and the only others in attendance were 11 members of Shelton's family who immediately began taunting George and me with "the people from hell, evil, and devils." At breaks they waited for us in the hall and continued with more of the same while adding "God loves you" and blowing us kisses and shoving their crosses (worn on chains around their necks) in our faces. Several of the women even followed me into the bathroom and did their best to intimidate me with their crosses. Through it all George and I never flinched, but at the conclusion of the day I reported this taunting to the Officer of the Court who admitted that they were aware of the problem and escorted us to the elevator, past and to the disappointment of the waiting group of 'good Christians'.

On Day two when George and I, together with Joe Milon, entered the court room the taunting began immediately. Within an hour the Judge announced that those making gestures and faces had better cease or they would be removed. For the balance of the day the Christians wore their neck crosses on their backs, as we were seated in the back row, while constantly flopping them about with their hand. When we returned from lunch (without court escort) the Christians were waiting for us on the seventh floor and lunged at us with small signs they had painted -- 'Jesus lives', 'God loves you' -- and, again, thrusted their crosses within 2 or 3 inches from our noses. Tempers flared and a brief shouting match began. Brief because the court officers were there in a flash.

Day three found Atheist Lee Helms in the same taunted position of the previous days though he was not known to the court or the Christians. At the conclusion of the day an officer of the court detained him stating they have been having trouble with 'those people' (Christians) and escorted him to the elevators.

Even with all that behind us, December 19th, the day of sentencing, was still a horrific experience for myself, George Shiffer, Joe Milon, Lee Helms and Marty Maier. When leaving the courtroom the 'Christian' Shelton family lay in wait for us in the hallway. Their tears dried, they surrounded us shouting these comments: "The one good thing of all of this is that another Atheist is dead and the world is better off for it" and "The only good Atheist is a dead Atheist."


Submitted by:

Arlene-Marie
Michigan State Director
American Atheists
[email protected]
www.michiganatheists.org
O Box 0025
Allen Park, MI 48101

 

Let me guess, this wasn't really a christian? Blah....

Furthermore I would like to point out that atheism has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.  I will openly admit to having not the slightest clue as to the origin of the universe or the origin of life.

I think you're perhaps attributing a full fledged belief structure to atheism rather than just the simplistic form which is a disbelief in a supernatural being.  And I think that jump in assumption is a misguided and incorrect one.

Different people will have different expertise and knowledge and belief about what the scientific explaination is, but I don't think you can apply a specific belief or theory to all atheists and suggest that we claim it as fact. 

Regardless of what theology and the theological tradition say, the Bible pretty clearly says you're supposed to wall yourself off from knowledge that questions Christianity:

2 Cor 10:5 "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." (NIV)

The effect this thinking would have on scientific research is pretty clear in statements like this one I saw the other day on the anti-evolution site Answers in Genesis.  The statement was written in reply to the suggestion that there's no scientific evidence that carnivores ever ate plants as the Bible claims:

" Biological evidence cannot give specifics about how animals were originally designed. The ultimate authority is the Bible, which was written by men who were inspired of God....We need to be discerning and realize when others want us to give up the Bible and instead use biological (or other) “evidence” as the final authority. We need to refuse to do so, and then show the falsity in doing so (Proverbs 26:5) so that the non-Christian will not assume his position is the only correct one..they need to give up their reliance on man-made ideas about the past and instead use the Bible!"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/18/feedback-proof-for-plants-in-biology

I've been looking for a catchy name for this argument because calling it the "Paul is not making a general statement here (unless he is) argument" is not very glib. Not to get sidetracked into this argument, but you can't expect any credulity for the picking and choosing of some parts of the epistles as "general" and some as "context-specific," especially when your audience has seen the same parts categorized as both or either depending on the expediency of the person making the claim.

I don't want to put you in the position of defending what AiG says. I was citing it as an example of the worst case scenario of the inhibiting effect of dogma on intellectual curiosity.

But since you have taken religion courses, you must be familiar with the long tradition of anti-intellectualism and anti-reason currents in theology.

For instance, is Martin Luther considered "absolutely ridiculous" these days?  He's the one who wrote "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has," and "Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason," and "Reason should be destroyed by all Christians."

That was a very measured and fair reply, spiritisabone.   I respect that.

I'll resist the temptation to paint all Christians with the same brush and concede that you're right: the fact that a system of belief is used by some to suppress reason or intellectual curiosity doesn't mean that everyone is actively using the system that way.  

 I'd argue that issues of hermeneutics apply differently, though, for people who claim that the Bible is inerrant, literal, 100% consistent truth.  If the claim is that the document is perfect, then there's a higher standard.  The meaning of an inerrant document should be immediately and universally apparent, and "context" can't be used as a magic escape hatch to make inconsistencies go away (as it sometimes is by Bible literalists).

If you're not one of these, then I respect your reading much more.

 Atheists like to dismiss theistic arguments claiming we go to bias sources. So, I'm going to do the same thing. I reject the story of Shelton because it comes from a biased/atheist source. Can you give me an non-atheist source substantiating the article above?

Remember the Columbine shooting? One of the killers held a gun to a girls head and asked her if she was a Christian. She replied in the affirmative. He then shot her. This was reported on national television.

This does not mean there is a conspiracy against Christians! There are always madmen out there, from Josef Stalin to Osama Bin Laden to Pope John Paul II. Josef Stalin was an atheist correct, he did not believe in God, we do not deny this but it was not his atheism that led to the killing of millions of people, he was a paranoid sociopath, he was mentally ill! He also believed in an oppressive ideology and was a power hungry, egomaniac, megalomaniac, narcissistic lunatic. I on the other hand am a peace-loving, caring, ethically living person as are all the atheists here. It is the Christian right who tell us we're not trustworthy, some of whom think we are Satan's warriors. Indeed the persecuting here is done by Christians on atheists. I'm not saying there is an evil conspiracy, but that extreme Christian memes perpetuate ideas that inevitably lead to the persecution and demonisation of atheists.

The RRS, target Christianity as has been said because Christianity is not only the major religion of America but many Christianity is seen as a destructive force that has ruined the lives of many atheists. There are people in this forum who've been alienated from their families, who've been beaten in the army, who are sneered at daily for the rational absense of a belief in something which contradicts everything we can know through studying the universe. We are not saying Christians are evil, indeed many of them are well meaning, but that such fallacies as Christianity preaches have harsh consequences on their lives. I do not agree that all irrational belief is harmful, so long as people do not push it or force it on others. There are theistic scientists who compartmentalise irrational belief in God away from the logic and reasoning that goes with their daily work. These people are not dangerous but in making it seem ok to believe anything on no reasonable grounds is harmful.

 

Have you got a reply Theo?