Posted by maypost Weird, I live in WV, a VERY evanelical area. I get "bible knockers" all the time. I tell them "I am Jewish, my path is set but thanks for your time" They always say, ok, sorry to bother you, have a nice day" then I never hear back from them again. I have NEVER been bothered by the same church twice

I was referring to politicians who want to push their religious views on everyone via public policy. Door knocking religious folks are one thing - it's far worse to have "warning stickers" on textbooks and to have creationism taught in schools, for example (among many others).

I looked at "Priests tearing down the door telling you how to live" as an analogy for zealot politicians pandering to their proselytizing constituency.

They enable thought like this: https://news.chang...al-to-execute-gays

Posted by splumer I've had this conversation with Jeepdave before. Yeah, you might be pretty self-sufficient, until you get sick and need a doctor, or need a mechanic for your car, or need clothes, or need food and don't raise and slaughter your own pigs, etc. Yeah, you can be a hermit in a cave, but if had done that since the early days, where would be today? How much UE would you have done if someone hadn't said "Hey, check this place out!" Enlightened self-interest.

exactly, whatever's in your best interest...

Posted by Samurai exactly, whatever's in your best interest...

self interest isn't mutually exclusive from collective interest, nor is the inverse.

Wow.

The OP criticizes accommodationists for special pleading in the name of religion and there is four pages of posts saying you should not be allowed to criticize religion.



I object to the label atheist since the difference between, say, a christian and myself is that I simply don't believe in one more god than they don't believe in.

There are two terms: strong atheism and weak atheism.

Stong atheists say there is definitively no god.


"Weak" atheists say there is simply no good reason to believe in a god. The distinction is important. I think this is the more intellectually honest position. I am open to ANY new evidence - but that standard of evidence is higher than most believers require for themselves.

That, I suggest, is the difference between the arguments. The faithful believe things that are impossible to prove wrong - they are unfalsifiable. By definition you will never convince a believer that god does not exist.

This is compounded, as is evident here, by emotional arguments and the simple fact that it appears the only reason to believe in a higher power is wishful thinking. It would be undoubtedly nice to survive my own death and meet friends and relatives on the other side. But I can find no evidence for this.

It would be nice to sum up the entire universe as having a plan that includes me, but I am more curious than that.



On the other hand, if you provide evidence that god exists, the "weak" atheist will be open to examine the evidence.



As far as westboro baptist church goes, I agree it would be wrong to say this represents all christians.

but what, in christian texts, shows that thier interpretation is wrong?


As far as violent jihadist islamic terrorists go, I agree it would be wrong to say that they represent all muslims, but how exactly, according to the koran and th hadtihs, have Osama and his gang gotten the idea of islam wrong?


The argument that religion is a force of good was well handled in the blog post - but the argument was still repeated here.

You do not need to believe unreasonable things to do good things. There are plenty of social programs that are not faith based - and the simple fact the dubya had to fund the faith based charities with government funding is pretty telling on the state of religious charity in the USA.

Posted by tekriter As far as westboro baptist church goes, I agree it would be wrong to say this represents all christians. but what, in christian texts, shows that thier interpretation is wrong? As far as violent jihadist islamic terrorists go, I agree it would be wrong to say that they represent all muslims, but how exactly, according to the koran and the hadiths, have Osama and his gang gotten the idea of islam wrong?

Good point, but I would argue that christianity and Islam today are not the Christianity and Islam of their respective founding times.

I'm essentially a socialist, but Karl Marx's writings don't really apply in a modern context. The same, I think, can be said of religion. The rub is that religious texts are held as sacred, whereas political ones are not.

Posted by splumer Good point, but I would argue that christianity and Islam today are not the Christianity and Islam of their respective founding times.

I agree. But I note the following:

1) they have been bastardized through the ages for different motivations, but our best insight into their meaning is through their own texts - would you agree?

2) The fact that these texts, teachings, judgements and other literature from the first century are open to interpretation is a key problem in and of itself.

Posted by splumer I'm essentially a socialist, but Karl Marx's writings don't really apply in a modern context. The same, I think, can be said of religion. The rub is that religious texts are held as sacred, whereas political ones are not.

How has the context of modernity affected the interpretations of the bible or the koran?

Westboro baptists lives in modern times and they make the logical interpretation of the bible in many cases. Many modern x-tians choose to ignore parts of the bible they find distasteful, or imagine new interpretations that reach farther and farther from the best guess at their historical meaning.

I have so far been unsuccessful at locating where it says in the bible exactly what passages to ignore and which distastful portions can be reinterpreted and how that is to be done.

I could quote seemingly endless passages of the koran that have very few possible meannings - but I'll keep my book on the shelf to avoid the inevitable flames that follow any mention of the prophet's holy words.

Posted by splumer The same, I think, can be said of religion. The rub is that religious texts are held as sacred, whereas political ones are not.

Yeah, verily.