This comment has been moved here.

Did you read the whole thread? And if so can you point out our hypocrisy, because nobody else has done so yet. Maybe you can help them out.

What tactics specifically have we taken that Evangelical Christians have taken, other than get our message to as many people as possible? Im curious, lay them out for me let's take em one by one, and see if there is anything wrong with them, or if they're valid, or invalid.

(note: me asking these questions is the direct opposite of what an evangelical Christian would do. This thread remaining on this board is the direct opposite of how an evangelical Christian board is run)

And by the way, saying that atheists and agnostics can be evangelical is extremely condescending considering you can't find a single definition for evangelical that doesn't include you being a Christian. Calling me a Christian is worse than calling me a fucking asshole... so thanks for that. (I'm hoping I was supposed to read between the lines)

DEFINITIONS OF EVANGELICAL

Will do.

Eh?

No. Where did I say anything like that?

You're on my side, yet just used yet another word that denotes god belief?

You did it again. Very smug.

Pious: having or showing a dutiful spirit of reverence for God or an earnest wish to fulfill religious obligations.

Where's the hypocrisy? I don't see this claim proven yet. Where did we claim we don't want people to abandon superstitious beliefs while we ask people to abandon superstitious beliefs?

Where is the hypocrisy?

I agree. That's why we don't "force" anybody, ever.

I suggest you reread the post. Don't imagine some sort of defensive inflection and notice that most of what I am doing is asking questions open and honestly. It would however seem to me that you are projecting your defensiveness.

Ironic, because virtually every Christian argument is a "projection," something you seem to be doing right now. So we're on an equal playing field then. We both think the other is acting Christian, now let's get back to that hypocrisy charge. I'd love to see someone prove how we are hypocritical, as it's something I don't want to be, and if proven hypocritical I will make sure to change our ways.

Relevant? It still loosely denotes god belief. You've also gotta jump to definition 5 to have anything that even comes close to what we're doing. The point is moot, I said to you "(I'm hoping I was supposed to read between the lines)." All you had to do was say "Yes, please read between the lines. I wasn't calling you Christian, I was mereley stating that you had a lot of zeal and enthusiasm pertaining to atheism." See then you wouldn't have come off so defensive and against us... while claiming I was defensive and you weren't against us. Jeez, seeing that... I'm beginning to wonder if this hypocrisy charge is yet another "projection."

Someone... anyone please... prove to us how we are hypocrites.

Interesting considering that in this same post you later call us hypocrites again.

No it wouldn't. You're having a hard time understanding definitions again. You'd simply have to show how we claim to have certain beliefs but then our actions show completely otherwise.

I didn't get any definitions from the infidelguy.

Do you realize that my source for the OED being the most accurate dictionary actually comes from "the common population?" I am not above the "common population" in this sense, I am simply adhering to the thoughts that the common population have come up with. Wikipedia is an encylclopedia created by the "common population," an encyclopedia that I've happened to never contribute to.

While we're on the topic of definitions from the "common population" in wikipedia let's look at something they say about agnosticism:

Is it you, in fact that is trying to act "above the common population?"

Considering that I was actually adhering to the viewpoint of the "common population" (wikipedia) instead of acting above it, this point is moot, no response needed.

What consitutes an RRSer or nonRRSer in your mind?

This doesn't fit the definition of hypocrisy. But nevertheless... I'd never say theists are unintelligent, I would have no problem claiming that almost all are brainwashed and superstitious. I also would never "dismiss them as not worthy of recognition or consideration." In fact it is because I think completely the opposite that we are here trying to help them.

Ever hear the story of the scientist who spent 15 years of his life lecturing about a scientific principle that he worked on and helped create? He was speaking at Oxford (I believe) about his lifes work, and teaching everyone what he had learned. A student got up and with ease in less than a minute he showed the scientist who had dedicated his lifes work to this cause, that his thinking was completely flawed and that he was wrong. The scientist proceeded to shake the students hand and thank him profusely for correcting him, for showing him the error, for erasing 15 years of his life... metaphorically speaking I am that scientist.

I will reitterate... I would love it if you could show me my hypocrisy, so I can change the error in my ways. I would be grateful.

If we lived our life trying to adhere ourselves to fixing what people incorrectly perceive about us, we'd be changing ourselves all the time. If I change something based on your incorrect perceptions about me, people I respect are likely to change their perceptions of me, in a negative manner.

To some degree we are. In the sense that we're all human and have certain rights equal to all, no... we aren't. In the sense that our beliefs are more tenable than the beliefs of theists, you're damn right we're above them.

This claim is simply ridiculous. If we were above reproach, your view wouldn't be allowed here. I was recently told by a few people who I respect greatly and that our community (InfidelGuy/RRS) respect greatly, that my strong suit was my ability to take criticism.

Watch this film. 13 minutes and 30 seconds into Part 1, Richard Dawkins explains the story as he remembers witnessing it.

I was however mistaken... it wasn't a student, it was an American researcher. Richard didn't give a name, as it was unimportant to making his point.

While you're there you might as well watch both videos all the way through. Maybe you'll appreciate where we're coming from a little better.

I think it's important to note while I have been addressing the real issue the whole time in addition to words and their usage, this hypocrisy claim has yet to be proven. Ironic statement to make considering you haven't addressed my issues or questions fully.

How many arguments will you make that seem like projections?

What I actually said was calling me an evangelical which is a word used to describe Christian preachers is more offensive than calling me a fucking asshole.

I see this was answered already, but I'll chime in.

You're equivocating on your usage of the word 'belief'. In the first sense, 'belief' means acceptance of a claim. In the second sense, belief is use to denote 'any thought you might hold'

Atheism is a lack of belief in the first sense of the word. I don't believe X.

So your argument here amounts to a game. Any lack of belief is itself a belief, because it involves a thought!

Here's a better way to define atheism: a lack of belief in the claims of theists, concerning theism.

Yes, but these beliefs would not be a part of atheism.

If I reject the claims of theists based on the principle of rationality, the principles of rationality themselves would not be atheism.

A nonbelief is simply a lack of a belief. Whatever motivates it, whether emotion or reason, would not be part of the non belief itself.

It helps separate the fact that non belief is the fallback position in this debate, as non belief does not require anything.

*** Nice post, anti-faith.

Why? Why should you have been able to figure THAT out when so many other obvious things slip right through your understanding?

Exactly.
She had to tell them that was a she. We posted what 'atheist' means and it was argued for three friggin' pages. How obtuse is that?

I was not arguing about the definition of atheist--that would have been you, I have a great deal of understanding, the problem (yours) appears to be that you can't conprehend the fact that someone may think differently than you and still be right.

I can see the obtuse-ness here. It's kind of what boxers do when fighting in a ring. No matter what stance your opponent takes, you move in the opposite direction. I am not surprised by it. It is yet another example of the hypocrisy of this forum. The moto here is to free the minds of those with what you consider a disorder. But, you have little or no compassion for the ignorant. You seem to prefer to drive the stance home, beat the person into submission, I was asking questions, most of what I got was insults.

Trying to have a debate around here is ridiculous--if one has a different view than you. It reminds me of having a baseball game but never getting to bat--I can't win, so why should I play? But, that's what you want anyway isn't it? You get all defensive and hostile if someone comes along and rocks the boat!

Oh...and why do I think I should have been able to tell Luna was a female? Because it is so easy to pick out the dicks around here!

I'll rest on the arguments of Todangst. Good job bud.

Yes really. I do it all the time. I enjoy talking about these issues, that is why I am here.

I understood your questions. Your problem is that you struggled with the answers to them.

No, that's not true. I already dealt with your corrected version of your question. I just returned to your intial confusion to demonstrate a point - that you started out here employing an internally contradictory question.

"Technicality"? Your original question was internally contradictory. And your revised version incorrectly confused disbelief for denial.

These were the basic errors.

If you want more clarification, ask.

Is it really necessary for me to go and count how many times the same points were repeated here? It may well go over 23 times.

Ask the same question, and you'll get the same answer, because 2+2 will continue to equal '4'. Repeating the same point to you is not a hypocrisy! You're desparate to accuse someone of hypocrisy, but you can't even muster a proper example.

I'm sorry, but this is simply false. I posted this to demonstrate precisely why it has been so difficult to get through to you.

You did attempt to correct this error, but please recall that I responded to the equally-erroneous second edition of your argument as well. So to say that I am "ignoring your point' is a lie.

I'll post my response to the second version of your question to demonstrate that, and then you can apologize to avoid being a hypocrite yourself.

A 'doubter' is not an active believer, ergo anyone who doubts is functionally an atheist. They lack belief.

Your error is that you have equated disbelief with denial. One can disbelief, without denying.

That is the solution to your dilemma.

I don't see how it comes off as denial, seeing that I provide you with reasons for why I hold to what I hold to. These reasons are here for you to examine. So let's stick to the argument and stay away from attacking character.

Technically?! That is what the word means! To not believe is to not believe.

Yes. The problem is that you don't seem to be able to grasp that we not only see it, but have shown why your claims are in error.

You are confusing disbelief for denial.

If you want clarification, ask nicely, and stop tossing insults every 10 seconds.

See what? That disbelief IS denial? That's an error.

What you interpret as 'brow beating' I interpret as your desire to avoid being wrong.

Not really. There's just you and your refusal to see that disbelief does not entail denial. Agree to that, and we're done.

Why is it such a shock that people who focus their attention on atheology would know more about atheology than people who do not study the concept at all?

No one ignores the fact that the general public gets the terms wrong. We recognize that many people misuse the word.

I've already explained myself here on this issue as well, but I will repeat my points again. Words change in meaning. Sometimes, an erroneous understanding of a word will be popularized. As long as this erroneous use of the word continues to take place in the new context, the usage is 'correct' as per common (mis)understanding.

The only error that takes place is when someone tries to import this new meaning of the word back into the original context where the word was used and correctly understood as meaning something else.

So, if a person wants to say that they are agnostic on the choice of paper or plastic, that's fine. But if they want to import this meaning into a theological discussion, they are in error.

And this error is made clear by the fact that attempts to describe this 'agnosticism' lead to the sort of errors contained in your original question: what's the word for a person who believes and doesn't believe?

The mistake comes out here.

There is belief, and then there is non belief. There are many types of belief and non belief

gnostic theism
agnostic theism

and then there is weak and strong atheism.

The first is disbelief, the second is a more active denial.

No one is saying we are 'better than they are' - stop projecting all sorts of things onto 'us' and stop this desparate attempt to call us hypocritical when you don't even seem to know how to use the word.

All we are saying is that we know what the word 'agnostic' means, and that many people who don't bother to focus on these issues, don't. That does not imply that we are superior, only that we know the meaning of a word that many others don't bother to investigate in the first place.

Short wave radio enthusiasts know more about short wave radio than non enthusiasts...

Right?

doctors know more about medicine than non doctors

Right?

fans of madonna know more about madonna than non fans

Right?

napolean dynamite fans know more about napolean dynamite than non fans

Right?

historians tend to know more about history than non historians

Right?

model builders know more about models than non builders

Right?

stock car racing fans know more about stock cars than non fans

Right?

wheat famers know more wheat than most non farmers

Right?

and informed atheists know more about terms atheists use than lesser informed atheists, or non atheists.

Why does only the last example strike you as 'hypocritical'? and 'haughty or 'superior'? We know what the word 'agnostic' actually means. We can point you to the creator of the word. We can demonstrate, logically, why disbelief does not entail denial.

We have reasons, grounds, arguments, for why we hold to what we hold. It's our field of interest. Naturally, we know a few more things about such terms than does a random guy with no interest in this field.

They don't have a valid perception if they think it is possible to believe and not believe at the same time. Yet this is the sort of definition of 'agnostic' that I've seen dozens of times, not just from you. This error occurs because most people don't spend as much time as we do considering these topics and exploring them.

As for your revied form of your question, you confuse disbelief for denial. Again, most people don't devote themselves to considering these things.

Which means that they simply lack a belief. Atheism. Weak atheism. Implicit atheims. Whatever.

You think there is either belief or "disbelief' which you interpret as active denial. This is a false dichtomy, because disbelief is not denial.

There are varying degrees of belief and doubt. If one doubts but still believes to some degree, then one is a believer. If one no longer believes, then one enters into atheism. If one denies that there can be a god, then one enters into strong atheist.

There's no real 'middle ground' in the sense that you employ the concept. Why? Because any 'neutral' zone would automatically involve a lack of belief (you're not a theist), ergo the neutral position is weak atheism.

You want to keep trying to hold that there is a position that is neither theist nor atheist, but if you are not a theist, then you must be an atheist. The 'middle' ground actually takes place within atheism itself - weak atheism, or strong atheism.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Before you were just saying that I was smarter than you. So, now, I'm a dumbass. Which means that a dumbass is smarter than you.

I don't call you a liar for expressing your thoughts, I call you a liar because you've claimed that you don't get a chance to bat... but here you are, posting. So that's your turn at bat.

I don't think I've cited the OED. You got the wrong fella.

Anyway, a hypocrite decries the very behavior that they themselves employ. They claim to have some set of higher moral standards, but they end up employing that which they decry.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

wow. This thread is still ticking and look at me still reading and replying to it. --- damn you all, damn you all to hell!!!1 (<--- that's a joke people! OMFGLOLWTF!)

Listen Sapient, I have a ton of respect for you, your position, the fact that you are in charge here and the efforts you and the staff here have put in as well as the passion that gets put into a movement like this. I'm just going to say don't turn into something you despise --- it can happen subconsiously --- don't turn into one of "them."

Heck, I know what it's like to be bashed and you are trying to run a board and you spend your time and energy setting up web sites, etc.... I've done it. I own and manage a board myself and it has been a hard struggle.

I'm not going to split hairs with you on words or this issue any longer.

peace.

I am pretty sure in one of the earliest attempts, I did make reference to people who deny the existence of god(s).

Yes...you have dealt with it! That doesn't mean that it has been accepted, or was adaquate.

I retract the feeble attempt in claiming you are a dumbass. sorry! That wasn't really what I was attempting though. That was because I was pressed for time and it seemed to fit at the time. I actually though you would disect the term much like the others and it would be more clear what I meant. Obviously that didn't happen.

Perhaps I did confuse you with someone else regarding a previous response. If so, I apologize for that.

I thought that was very clever to posit that you admit some people use the term(s) in error. That's a slick one I need to try and remember. I have seen the ploy before, it just keeps slipping my mind when it could be an effective tool in some debates. While it is a slick trick, it only works for some people, and I can generally see through the falicy of it pretty easily. These were pretty easy though. I hope your arm doesn't hurt from patting yourself on the back.

I still hold fast to the belief that you are well aware of what I am trying to point out, but just refuse to compromise and admit those people do exist--and I am not talking about the ones who use the term improperly....which I am confident you will come back with a shining example of how that might compromise your character, and can't be tolerated.

I am disappointed that you didn't refer to the OED regarding hypocrisy, and continue to refer to the same one the majority of the population uses. That's quite telling in itself there! Funny how you deny websters definition of agnostic, but refer to that definition of hypocrite, rather than the OED definition that I was referring too. It's pretty easy for you to claim I am using the term(s) improperly, when you keep flip-flopping on which source you are referring too. I think I saw that ploy used in other debates. If I recall correctly--it was some six years ago--that person appeared quite proud of himself for what he saw as a proven point, when the reality was that a great many people saw right through it and were laughing at him and he falsely perceived them to be laughing at his opponent.

It proves my point to me, and I don't care whether you agree, disagree, deny, believe or disbelieve there are people who are undecided about what they feel about the existense of god(s).

If you want to use your lastest discription of a hypocrite, then this board definately fits that discription. This board fights against something it doesn't even believe in; under the guise of helping people to attain free-thinking and understanding of the "truth."

It is "their" truth that they proport they are trying to help people undestand. It's not the real truth, merely the RRS perception of the truth. Anyone who doesn't believe that, is obviously ignorant of the truth, and if you don't believe it, just ask and they will be more than happy to show just how ignorant you really are.

More energy is spent redefining the terms being used, rather than trying to understand the conditions under which those terms are used. It becomes an argument about the argument...it's stupid. It's futile. It is a waste of time and energy to try and point that out around here.

Do you really think I posted in here and thought that by some miraculous word usage anyone (RRSer) would come back a comment like "Wow, I hadn't thought of it like that, yeah, I can see where that's hypocritical." Would the pot EVER call itself black? Well, maybe...because I do realize I have employed some of the same attitudes as some around here. It is so frustrating that I have lowered myself to name calling. But that is a pretty minor thing in comparison to the entire foundation of the RRS, and their stance against God, Christians, and anyone else who doesn't hold firm to their atheists beliefs.

Finally...there needs to be another term to classify the RRS attitude, because athiest really doesn't cut it in regards to indentifying the nature of a good many members around here. The sad thing is that RRS and Christians and Muslims are now competing for the same souls! Unfortunately, that later two are much more upfront about their goals, while RRS uses the pretense of freethinking and knowledge.

I will give you this though...most Christians do see things along the same definative terms as RRS. People are either "believers" or "nonbelievers." There is no middle of the road or middle ground. So RRS isn't that much different in those terms. There seems to be people dedicated to learning anti-theologic knowledge, and learning to refute the claims of theology--which I find very ironic. It is amazing to me that someone would study so hard and spend so much time and energy learning about something that themselves believe to be false, and are so totally against, is quite...unbelievable to me--or would have been if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes.

The reality of it is, it is quite fulfilling of Jesus' prophecies.

Maybe a person would think it is wrong to think of this as a war but when religion shapes the world I have a right to treat it as such.

Thank you for the term. It does seem to fit the theme of RRS better than a simple (weak or strong) athiest. After reading the link you provided, militant atheism seems to fit even better, in discribing the general belief and purpose of the RRS. Which is insightful, but becomes confusing when you follow it with.....

When you have stated several times that you think a belief in god(s) is irrational--among other things. (this is actually more wishy-washy, or flip-flopping than hypocritical).. I also noted that you confined that notion to 'belief in god', rather than simply god.

While I think you may be open to the fact that people have a belief in god(s), you don't appear to be "waiting" for any evidence of god, or open to the possibility of an existence of god(s), at all. It seems you have closed your mind to that possibility and feel confident there is no "proper" evidence. It seem you feel all evidence has been presented and the jury has returned a verdict.

Here's another interesting contradiction (imo) ....

I think you are forgetting at least one field of scientists--those that call themselves anthropologists. I am pretty confident they would disagree with the strict interpretation of that statement. The "strict interpretation" being that you began the comment by saying "people." (I like how you present arguments that can't be recounted, but aren't accurate representations of reality either.)

Anthropologists are continually searching for a creature that is neither human, nor monkey/ape; that search for the "missing link" that keeps them funded and supported in order to keep searching--technically, it could be argued that this would be the "first" human. Some claim to have found it, only to be refuted by other scientists. But that missing link wouldn't technically be human as we know humans, but a branch in the evolutionary tree leading to the present day human.

Which brings me back to a point you made earlier.

Do you really think these people would "love" to be proven wrong if it were proven no "missing link" existed? Do you think Dr. Meave Leakey would actually feel graditude toward that person? Do you really think she would thank someone who has just flushed her (and her husband's) life time of work and recognition down the toilet?

On the contrary, I do think you--and the rest of the Rational Response Squad--would be grateful if it were proven to you all that God existed and was real.

Which, is yet another example of the hypocricy displayed by RRS. You claim to support free thinking, and imply you encourage open mindedness, but the reality is, you place such restrictions and limitations (by allowing or disallowing resources, ideas, interpretations and disregarding others) on thinking, that it isn't openminded at all. Ironically, you seem to be too near sighted to see this.

I didn't intend libel or slander...those are my opinions and insight on how it comes across to ME! I apologize for arguing poorly, and that it came across as an attack.

I didn't mean to personally attack you. I admit I am frustrated by the inability to make a point, and use harsh methods of argument that have obviously been interpreted as direct attacks. However, I have refrained from making comments like.....

"So do me a favor asshole and go fuck yourself for continuosly leveling a charge at me that is dishonest."

I did not charge you dishonestly! Perhaps I made poor comparisons, and implied assumptions as being factual, that were less than accurate. Which in my thinking they are, but, obviously we see things much differently and therefore percieve a tone and demenor that is not accurate.

Thank you for your generosity for allowing me to express myself stupidly.

I'm actually getting a little sick and fucking tired of fake fucking apologies that are only meant to try and take one more jab at an argument that was lost three pages ago. In my opinion.

lie2

• noun 1 an intentionally false statement. 2 a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression.

• verb (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) present a false impression.

— PHRASES give the lie to serve to show that (something assumed to be true) is not true.

*sigh*
Not that it matters(because you'll accuse me of playing with semantics), I meant "snap" as in "spoke sharply and rudely",
"Put that Drano down!" Sheila snapped at the boy.
NOT "went 'angry go nuts'"
Finally, Glamourkat and a bunch of RRS'ers snapped and got admitted to the looney bin.

We're people here too. We have emotions and limits and sometimes people push them. Sapient runs this place. He technically COULD have deleted this and banned you when you started getting hostile. But as he's NOT a hypocrite(I don't believe he or any of the mods are), and I assume he wanted to give you a fair chance, he didn't. Doesn't that count for something? I think it does. I'd like to point out that that my earlier post was my first wander into this topic, and I wasn't expecting to get such vitriol from you, elnathan.

elnathan,
No actually. It isn't 'all in good cheer'. It's a waste of valuable time and effort to re-hash the same old shit post after post.

You're right. There is no reason to 'go outside' because the rest of the site gets to check in here when there is a new post and see just how ridiculous this discussion with you has become.

Personally, if your intent to engage in 'deception or mistaken impression' was 'harmless' then I think it would be apparent.

You have yet to point out any hypocritical behavior or reasoning behind the motivations for this site to me or anyone else requesting your evidence.

However, the 'swine' have been force fed bad fodder and it has turned rancid in their stomachs. One must expect a certain amount of vomit in that situation upon both the feeder and the fed.
Perhaps a swine would be the perfect allegory to fit at least one side of this story. I would leave that judgment to the other readers.

It isn't MY time that you are wasting. There are other people more worthy of attention from the rrs than a troll like you in my opinion.

As I recall, it was your posts that got this thread moved from 'Killing them with kindness' Let me check. Yep. Page 1. Right after I expressed my viewpoint concerning your blatant refusal to admit that the idea of agnosticism as a 'middle ground' was flawed. I also pointed out that it isn't theists that are the problem being dealt with, it is theism.

What's that feel like? To be so deluded that no one can respond to your obvious misconceptions concerning atheism. You cry about wanting open-mindedness and then proceed to close your own.

I threw the 'swine' comment back at you because it seemed as though you viewed everyone as contemptible in your posts. I reached a point right there where you allowed me to view you as hypocritical and you still have not altered that perception in my mind.

Not true! I don't hold anyone in contempt! You seem to have read way more into those posts than were implied. I am not feeling threatened here! Though I would have good reason to assume that possibility.

The whole "swine" thing....that was kind of off the wall on my part. I had hoped the implications and references would have been more positively received. Perhaps I am the only one that thinks I write effectively, but it seems I may have just as well thrown it to the pigs, and would have been better off for it? Actually...I was implying the feeling (you) may have had when you threw your pearls of prose to me, and were quickly consumed and gone. It was actually your writing that I thought you may have felt it was wasted and treated like slop! It was just a mere over sight due to time restrictions.

Yeah...I am hypocritical too. I profess to have a higher standard than I actually reflect by my actions. I think sometimes we sway into a hyper-critical state that may actually more adaquately define the issues at hand. We pick and choose the things we respond to and adress. Examining every minute detail of just certain things we, each with a subjective and personal preconceptions. Those conceptions cause us to choose aspects we choose to focus on? !
Granted, I expect better behavior from others, before I actually reflect those attitudes myself. Not a good thing.

*************************************************
But the argument is not about whether "I" am a hypocrite!

The thread regards the possibility of a hypocrical view being held by some member(s) of the RRS.

Before I get into all..... T H A T ... Let me put this one thing STRAIGHT!

I confirm and accept the concept that---There are theists and there are atheists! One or the other...no third division.

I got it. I acknowedged that a long time ago! It was not the technical terms and their definitions that I wanted to discuss. Let's get past that okay|?|

Then go serve those other needs to those who are more worthy!!

You call me a troll, but I am just standing right here! I am not going to other threads responding to your posts. Visions of Trolls, reminds me of goulish things that hide under bridges and snatch unsuspecting passers-by. If my posts offend you, why are you compelled to continue to read and address them? If others are more worthy of attention, why not attend to them, and not keep coming back here?

I think it has been several days since I have posted in any other thread. So I really don't think that would in any conceivable way, indicate that I partake in trollish activity! I think you should take that back darth_josh...sir !

I know I left a lot of stuff out, but I want to see what Sapient said, then I think I will be done for the evening. Pork steak and potatoes for dinner and all.

Sorry I didn't get to this and the other post last night. I was nearly finished writing and ready to post when the electricity went out and all was lost--and why I didn't logout. Which is probably just as well, because now we are moving on...thanks.

Let's take your signature as an example...

Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's divisive and it's dangerous.

I assume, since you chose that as a sig, you hold to that belief. Granted, that may not be the case--perhaps you don't really belief religious faith discourages independent thought--but, I perceive that you do have that same perception. I still don't understand the perception of "danger" in religion. Of course there is the radical muslim that is destined to kill the infidels, but I don't think such radicals actually represent the perceived threat of danger from Christianity.

So....RRS....has chosen to open the minds of those who have religious belief? You claim that theists have a "mind disorder." Your stance is that people should be "free thinkers." At first, it seems like you would allow that people are free to think whatever they like. It projects an idea of open mindedness--one having a mind open to new ideas and positions. Granted, religion is nothing new, but it can be a new concept to some. RRS claims that one of the problems with religion is that it is a dividing force, that seperates people from each other. Yet you contradict these these precepts with your posts, and opinions, [by insisting on a division between theists and atheits--that's a division, and creating the same problem you blame on religion] and take a similar approach to winning converts as Christians.

RRS is close minded on the notion that God(s) may exist. The board is litered with examples that indicate that concept. You claim those who have religous belief are "brainwashed" and then employ brainwashing techniques yourselves.

Here's a little ditty I found at wikipedia...

Another definition says "Brainwashing agitates victims into submission."

Perhaps you don't see some of the posts as agitative, but, that would be yet another example of the close-mindedness I pointed out earlier.

So...you want to reform and re-educate theists, and weak atheists, You (Sapient) have already shown that you think it neccessary to repeat your self over, and over, and over, in order to get your point across. That is a brainwashing technique. One employed by the neo-conservatives I might add (if they tell people a lie enough times, it will become the truth). Yet, you strike out at religous groups because you claim they brainwash people. That's hypocritical.

The claim for "free thinking" is also hypocritical because you disallow people to express an opinion of considering the existense of god(s) and restrict such possibilities. Let me try to clarify that. You don't restrict them from expressing those opinion, you just reply negatively and emphatically and repetatively, under the guise of helping them to see the truth--with a few insults thrown in for good measure.

You refer to those theists with very negative conotation and accuse them of being narrow minded and ignorant of reality. Wanting to argue the definitions of terms, rather than addressing the subject. Granted, one must set a definition if one is going to use certain terms, but to continue to harp on those definitions, rather than the actual subjects is more like ignoring the issue, rather than dealing with it. Then claim to have dispelled said issue, but only to your own satisfaction, and not that of your opponent. A false victory--if you will. That's a form of hypocricy right there! /\

RRS is seen as hypocritical because of the stated belief that one should have an open mind and be allowed to think freely. Yet deny that a person who has chosen to believe in god(s) is doing so of free choice. Claims of brainwashing, indoctrinations, and blindness abound, regarding that persons belief. You, (RRS) claims that religion is forcing it way into American (or any) society and effecting the laws for their own purpose, and are strongly ridiculed for that. Yet, you do the same thing. The claim to support free thinking is belied by the fact that the only accept the beliefs that are aligned with RRS--especially in regard to religion.

side note: I plan to venture out into the political discussions where this theory can be more fully tested.

The October five rally is a good example. Now, don't get me wrong here....I think that is a noble cause. I too would like to see GWB ejected from office. But it is a fine example of how you want to influence the government with YOUR perspective, yet you ridicule "religion" for doing the same thing. But, it isn't hypocricy because you are right and they are wrong....correct?

Funny how you think that because you have dispelled the agnostic position that you have eliminated the charges of hypocricy. Which brings up another interesting point...the use of the word ..."charge"... We are talking about an image being perceived here. Whether RRS is really hypocritical or not doesn't really matter if it is seen as being hypocritical. It is the avoidance of the "perception of hypocricy" that Skiminal was trying to warn about (I think). The original post wasn't a charge or even an accusation. But the tyrantical responses and continued repetition and aggrevation are what re-enforced the accuracy of the term fitting here.

No one ever said...."I can understand how you might get that perception, but what we really mean is ________ ." No...you continued to insist that I didn't understand the meaning of the word atheist. You ignored the fact that I wanted to discuss those people that haven't made a commitment regarding their confirmed belief yet, but rather, continued to insist that person was already made a commitment to a belief or lack of belief.

RRS fits quite snuggly into the discription of militant antitheism. Yet, terms like strong/weak atheist are thrown about as being representative, instead. I am interested to know if this is an offensive term to RRS'rs? It shouldn't be. It fits VERY well. If it is offensive, then it is even more evidense of hypocricy.

I am quite confident that terrorists DO NOT see themselves as terrorists. Al-qaeda members probably don't even know they are al-qaeda (it is actually a term given to them by the US, and not one they use). The US claims to be fighting for "freedom" and is willing to kill people who are not receptive to that idea, and want to be free to govern themselves as they see fit, not as the US dictates. That is hypocricy

RRS claims to be fighting for a freedom of thought--as long as those thoughts don't include god(s). If you don't see that as hypocritical, then there is no point in continuing in this thread.

Would someone please be so kind as to point me in the direction of a good political thread?