Posted by G to the Race I do? Really? If so my "rote dogma" is atheist, believe what you want, religious person, believe what you want, both of you leave G-race to do whatever it is that he wants to do and don't preach to him about your beliefs. And, since when is leaving people alone morally indefensible?

Some of your views may be atheist, but simply repeating the same statement over and over and applying your simplified view of the world to any situation is dogma.

Many "atheists" are also skeptics. You don't seem to be.

Your position has always been morally indefensible.

Take the example of the nice germans who watched the rise of hitler and the spread of nazism and did nothing. They may not have agreed, but they said that everyone is entitled to respect for their beliefs.

Beyond being ironic, it was also tragic for millions of humans.

Your position is evangelical APATHY.

Posted by MutantMandias Well, to be technical, leaving people alone could be morally indefensible if they need help, but that's not the issue. What he's saying is that "everyone should just mind their own business" is never going to be reflected in reality, because the very nature of people's irrational beliefs shapes culture, education, and politics in awful ways. It's just another of many concepts that do nothing but make people sit quietly and accept nonsense, while allowing themselves to believe that they are doing the right thing. The only people who are served by "let people believe anything" are the people who have amassed the greatest power. Its exactly the same as "the government did it, so its okay."

Excellent explanation, I clearly wasn't going that deep, or maybe I was giving people too much credit; I figure I can leave people alone, other should be able also. My entire experience w/atheism has been thus: my old boss was an atheist, I was talking about going to church once and he said he didn't because he didn't believe, end of story; the internet is full of atheists who sole purpose is to mock Christianity w/out any intellectual heft at all, it is childish and annoying.

Now, MM and Tekriter have shown to have at least some intellectual muscle behind their beliefs and I applaud them for that, though tekriter sounds more shrill, I will put that down to developing rhetorical skills. I am in no way here to defend any religion. I just know from my experience good people who were and are believers and I respect them, they are not "idiots" nor "fundies" and they certainly don't want to hurt anyone.

Takeaway for me: ignore internet atheists.

Posted by tekriter Some of your views may be atheist, but simply repeating the same statement over and over and applying your simplified view of the world to any situation is dogma. Many "atheists" are also skeptics. You don't seem to be. Your position has always been morally indefensible. Take the example of the nice germans who watched the rise of hitler and the spread of nazism and did nothing. They may not have agreed, but they said that everyone is entitled to respect for their beliefs. Beyond being ironic, it was also tragic for millions of humans. Your position is evangelical APATHY.

And, as a nonbeliever, tell me the consequence of evangelical apathy. Absolutely nothing; the average believer is no better/worse off than the average nonbeliever. Furthermore, as endgame what I believed or didn't hasn't been proven to amount to a hill of beans after I die. Now, if we let those who pretend to claim to hold those beliefs into power and they do us wrong (ala North Carolina) then yeah, my attitude would be wrong. However, I live in a place where many beliefs are practiced and accepted harmoniously, I guess I'm just lucky.


Wait! I figured it out! Those on both sides of this "issue" that would force their beliefs on others are bullies. That's why I find them reprehensible, they are "evangelical" bullies. Ha! I knew I was smart and now I have self-validated!

Yes, there are Atheism Dicks for sure, but I have never seen the result of Atheism Dicks be anything more than annoyance, while Jesus Dicks cause a great deal of problems for mankind (and of course, Other God Dicks do to).

Posted by MutantMandias Yes, there are Atheism Dicks for sure, but I have never seen the result of Atheism Dicks be anything more than annoyance, while Jesus Dicks cause a great deal of problems for mankind (and of course, Other God Dicks do to).

True story. I just don't want to give in to dicks of either side, though I agree that throughout history religion dicks have fucked us hard. That doesn't mean being an atheism dick is the answer; tone down the vitriol, persuade with logic and reason, leave the being a dick to those who do it well, the Jesus Dicks.

Posted by G to the Race though I agree that throughout history religion dicks have fucked us hard.

Priest joke!

It's human nature to argue against things that seem unbelievable or outlandish to you. That's why people rail against religion.

Posted by MutantMandias Yeah, I gotstagree, hate is always wrong.

What about hating those who hate others?
If you believe that hate is always wrong, then I can see why you would believe that Jesus wasn't holy or whatever you want to call it.

We got to Nazism on page 2! Must be a new record!

Posted by G to the Race Excellent explanation, I clearly wasn't going that deep, or maybe I was giving people too much credit; I figure I can leave people alone, other should be able also. My entire experience w/atheism has been thus: my old boss was an atheist, I was talking about going to church once and he said he didn't because he didn't believe, end of story; the internet is full of atheists who sole purpose is to mock Christianity w/out any intellectual heft at all, it is childish and annoying.

Consider this scenario: a Christian gets elected to the local school board. His intent isn't to necessarily "shake things up," but just to do school board stuff. Someone comes to the board with a proposal to put condoms in vending machines at the school to hopefully counter a rise in teen pregnancy rates. Should he abandon his beliefs that premarital sex is wrong for the practical benefit of preventing pregnancy? We all know that teens are gonna do the nasty regardless, so it would seem a good idea to make condoms more easily available to them, but at what point should he stick to his guns? How do you balance your personal beliefs with the duties of your job?

Posted by HarvestmanMan What about hating those who hate others? If you believe that hate is always wrong, then I can see why you would believe that Jesus wasn't holy or whatever you want to call it.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying. It sounds like "I think hate is wrong, so Jesus wasn't God." That implies that Jesus is hate, which I don't think many people would agree with. Even if hate is perpetuated in his name, he seemed like a fairly hip dude.

Posted by splumer We got to Nazism on page 2! Must be a new record! Consider this scenario: a Christian gets elected to the local school board. His intent isn't to necessarily "shake things up," but just to do school board stuff. Someone comes to the board with a proposal to put condoms in vending machines at the school to hopefully counter a rise in teen pregnancy rates. Should he abandon his beliefs that premarital sex is wrong for the practical benefit of preventing pregnancy? We all know that teens are gonna do the nasty regardless, so it would seem a good idea to make condoms more easily available to them, but at what point should he stick to his guns? How do you balance your personal beliefs with the duties of your job?

It's not that he would have to accept that premarital sex is okay to allow condom vending machines, but that is one of the logical flaws that fuzzy thinking religious people often make. Just like evolution has nothing whatsoever to say one way or the other about the existence, omnipotence, or salvation of God. Or facts of the matter have nothing to do with weather or not we send hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths for a holy war.

Posted by MutantMandias It's not that he would have to accept that premarital sex is okay to allow condom vending machines, but that is one of the logical flaws that fuzzy thinking religious people often make. Just like evolution has nothing whatsoever to say one way or the other about the existence, omnipotence, or salvation of God. Or facts of the matter have nothing to do with weather or not we send hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths for a holy war.

But I think it does. By allowing condoms in vending machines, he would be giving tacit approval to premarital sex and also to non-procreative sex, if married staff members also used the machines.

This scenario isn't that far-fetched. When I was in community college in the '80s, I was in student government and I proposed asking the vending machine company to put condoms in one machine. The board said no, citing a desire not to give tacit approval to behavior that some might find immoral.

Okay, yeah, I see your point. But that is one of those things where the good of society easily outweighs one's personal beliefs.

I would like to see beautiful naked women every few feet everywhere I go, but I accept that we should probably not set that up.

Posted by MutantMandias Okay, yeah, I see your point. But that is one of those things where the good of society easily outweighs one's personal beliefs.

But does it? For us, it's a no-brainer, but for someone with different beliefs, perhaps not. What if one's boss asked one to pad an invoice? Again, a scenario in which I was involved. I don't think I would have been fired if I hadn't, but I know my boss would have remembered it and treated me differently in the future; the whole "not a team player" scenario.

Posted by splumer But does it? For us, it's a no-brainer, but for someone with different beliefs, perhaps not. What if one's boss asked one to pad an invoice? Again, a scenario in which I was involved. I don't think I would have been fired if I hadn't, but I know my boss would have remembered it and treated me differently in the future; the whole "not a team player" scenario.

Not sure where you're going there. "Padding" an invoice would be wrong by just about any analysis. It might be beneficial to the company, unless it is discovered, but it is harmful (dishonest/cheating) to the recipient. If it becomes a standard practice, it increases risk to the company, so the benefit is questionable.

I have been asked to do things at a previous company which was legally within the company's rights to do (set up a process to monitor all incoming and outgoing email). In certain situations, I might have been okay with it (if it was always a standard policy that such things were on the table), but this place was a startup, with lots of freedom as part of the company culture, and the alcoholic, rage-prone CEO was asking me to do it, with what seemed to be less than entirely honorable motives. I eventually handled the situation by essentially convincing him that there were too many technical difficulties in doing what he wanted to do with the technologies that we were using (primarily linux machines where the individual machines sent mail directly outbound).

In the end, there was single person who was really suspect (and happened to be a Windows user), so I told the guy I needed to back up his computer, and while doing so, I made a copy of his PST for the CEO to peruse one night while he drank scotch at his desk.

So, yeah, beautiful naked chicks all over the place.

Posted by G to the Race And, as a nonbeliever, tell me the consequence of evangelical apathy.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."


The things you believe determine how you act toward your fellow human beings.

Suppose for a second that you believe that if you die in the service of your imaginary friend that you will be eternally rewarded and survive your own death in a paradise.

Then suppose that your imaginary friend has pointed out to you in a written message that those people that don't believe in him are a threat to everything you hold dear including your family. The same message suggests that killing these "non-believers" in a lake of fire might guarantee your trip to paradise as well as all your family.

When someone comes along with an airplane and asks you to crash it into a building, given the above belief, it is completely logical from that point on to grab a box cutter and board the plane.

Maybe if more people stood up and objected to these foolish beliefs, less people would be burned to death in fiery explosions.

Posted by tekriter "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." The things you believe determine how you act toward your fellow human beings. Suppose for a second that you believe that if you die in the service of your imaginary friend that you will be eternally rewarded and survive your own death in a paradise. Then suppose that your imaginary friend has pointed out to you in a written message that those people that don't believe in him are a threat to everything you hold dear including your family. The same message suggests that killing these "non-believers" in a lake of fire might guarantee your trip to paradise as well as all your family. When someone comes along with an airplane and asks you to crash it into a building, given the above belief, it is completely logical from that point on to grab a box cutter and board the plane. Maybe if more people stood up and objected to these foolish beliefs, less people would be burned to death in fiery explosions.

That isn't evangelical apathy but rather an apathy about your real condition. Whether people die in death camps or from a plane flown into a building has nothing to do with evangelism and everything to do w/why people fall prey to evangelizers, which is mostly because their economic conditions make them an easy mark. Should we stand up to St. Vincent DePaul and say, "Hey, quit feeding those poor people, you papists!"? No, the papist is doing good, regardless of his or her motive. Because I believe I should leave my fellow human beings alone about whatever it is that supports them when they lie awake wondering what's on the other side of life doesn't mean that I'm not going to reach out and help them when they are in need. I deal in the concrete every day, the abstractions w/which we choose to delude ourselves are not my concern. So, I will work to change the world for the better of my community. However if before it gets better you need help working with your local government to make your life better I can help, if you are in prison I can come visit you, if you are hungry I can give you a fish and I can teach you to fish. Whether or not you will go to the pearly gates, reach Nirvana, get 72 virgins or rot in a box doesn't concern me.

BTW, your examples are far too extreme, use something more believable and relate-able and you may get further. Look @ how mutantmandias does it, he's much less abrasive and thus that much more persuasive.

Modify: grammar

Posted by G to the Race Look @ how mutantmandias does it

Thanks dude, but I'm not into guys.

Posted by MutantMandias Thanks dude, but I'm not into guys.

Posted by MutantMandias I'm not sure I get what you're saying. It sounds like "I think hate is wrong, so Jesus wasn't God." That implies that Jesus is hate, which I don't think many people would agree with. Even if hate is perpetuated in his name, he seemed like a fairly hip dude.

That's not exactly what I meant.

I was trying to convey that Jesus hated those who hated. Thus, if Jesus hated, then he was sinful and wasn't God in any form.

Or am I confusing things?

consider several things:

first, has anyone stopped and considered that god is not an external entity, but rather an internal expression of what could be called the human condition, or human spirit? Could it be that the Bible was an oversimplified and uneducated attempt at expressing that and was hijacked by nefarious individuals bent on their own agendas of control?

second, consider for a moment that yes, there was a jesus figure. Consider that the same guy was probably also Mohammed and Buddha? Rather than this guy being a supernatural figure, perhaps he was a really good storyteller with a flair for the theatric? It didn't take much to impress people from that period and they'd probably believe whatever BS you served them if it made sense or was catchy.

So if you consider just those two concepts, that would mean that 2000 years of dogma and bullshit were just that, bullshit.

just wanted to get that out there.