Print
God Hates the World
Westboro Baptist Church
Reposted from:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/its_not_quite_we_are_the_world.php
It's not quite "We are the world"
http://view.break.com/278059 - Watch more free videos
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/its_not_quite_we_are_the_world.php
It's not quite "We are the world"
http://view.break.com/278059 - Watch more free videos
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, June 25, 2007 | PermalinkComments 151 - 200 of 282 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers152. Comment #52380 by Philip1978 on June 26, 2007 at 11:35 pm
DrBenway, I for one took my friend out for pizza last night and didn't say my prayers before I went to bed, how is that for good? :) Other Comments by Philip1978
153. Comment #52399 by Xenocratic on June 27, 2007 at 1:15 am
Hey, these people aren't so bad, one guy was flying a Canadian flag, after all...Other Comments by Xenocratic
154. Comment #52407 by scottishgeologist on June 27, 2007 at 1:36 am
Philip1978,Ah, but did you say grace before the pizza? Often wondered about this - they come out with all this formal crap before eating, making a big deal of it. Yet, do they have an equivalent before taking a whizz or having a dump? Why not? Just as important I would have thought.....
And anyway, the bible even mentions it:
Deut 23:12
"12 Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. 13 As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement. 14 For the LORD your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent and turn away from you."
Definitely need an "inverse grace" for that I would have thought....
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
155. Comment #52421 by BillySands on June 27, 2007 at 2:11 am
Dr Benway, I've been good too. I even helped a little old lady across the road last night. Now give us the secret of funny before my apparently poisoned mind goes on a fundie killing spree.
Oh and if DR is still reading, maybe he can explain how he got from my disgust of members of his church abusing their children to me being a sicko?
Other Comments by BillySands
156. Comment #52427 by Philip1978 on June 27, 2007 at 2:37 am
I did not say grace, I did call for an extra glass of red wine though! Jacob's Creek Shiraz in Pizza Hut, not bad!!I love that bible quote, how can you hide from your god to take a dump, the deity is supposed to know everything! But no, go take a dump where your enemy is most likely to tread and all is forgiven!
This reminds me of the Pope's latest wiffle about driving in Italy, making sure the Mirror Signal Manoeuvre is now started with Genuflect!
Other Comments by Philip1978
157. Comment #52435 by BillySands on June 27, 2007 at 3:08 am
What I find odd is the fact that he would make you in such away to do things that he finds disgusting, like jobbies and sticky white wee weesleviticus 15 16 "Whenever a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his entire body in water, and he will remain ceremonially unclean until the next evening.[c] 17 Any clothing or leather with semen on it must be washed in water, and it will remain unclean until evening. 18 After a man and a woman have sexual intercourse, they must each bathe in water, and they will remain unclean until the next evening."
Indeed, god must think women are jazz musicians, as he makes them hum at rag time:
Lev15:19 "Whenever a woman has her menstrual period, she will be ceremonially unclean for seven days. Anyone who touches her during that time will be unclean until evening. 20 Anything on which the woman lies or sits during the time of her period will be unclean. 21 If any of you touch her bed, you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening. 22 If you touch any object she has sat on, you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening. 23 This includes her bed or any other object she has sat on; you will be unclean until evening if you touch it. 24 If a man has sexual intercourse with her and her blood touches him, her menstrual impurity will be transmitted to him. He will remain unclean for seven days, and any bed on which he lies will be unclean."
Yet, we are to be fruitful and multiply?
Hmmm
- Loving god or misogynistic wanker?
Don't think the bible says anything about blow jobs though
Other Comments by BillySands
158. Comment #52442 by Corylus on June 27, 2007 at 3:28 am
Benway I've been good too. I saw a three people reading the TGD paperback in the course of my tube and train journey yesterday. (Didn't see anyone with David Robertson's book though).
I showed admirable restraint and refrained from cackling evily.
Other Comments by Corylus
159. Comment #52447 by Dr Benway on June 27, 2007 at 3:53 am
Crikey mates, you've outdone yourselves!Now I shall share with you the Three Objectively Funny Things:
1. Farts. Yours, mine, ours - it's all good.
2. An abrupt blow to the testicles. Preferably someone else's.
3. A red-faced, apoplectic Elmer Fudd reaction to "yer mum," and the like. Can be real or imagined.
Knowledge is power, my friends.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
160. Comment #52476 by The Wee Flea on June 27, 2007 at 5:19 am
It is with some degree of trepidation that I enter into the fray again! I think I have two major concerns with this thread.1) the level of rudeness and personal vitriol is quite astonishing for a site in which people claim that they are part of an oasis of clear and rational thinking. It is juvenile, abusive and certainly does the atheist cause no credit. I think downunder put it best.
"Aggressive attitudes, fanatic discussions, sarcasm and people who can't think above "navel level" are evident in many of the comments." _ Downunder
2) What is even more disappointing that even those who seem to be more reasonable and nice seem happy to allow this to continue. Although I received personal e-mails from some of you saying that this is not representative of the atheist cause, not one of you has the balls to criticise your fellow atheists on this site. And I'm afraid that Josh and Dawkins do carry some responsibility for this. I can assure you that it any Christian was to behave in such a way on our own site their feet wouldn't touch the ground as they were thrown off it.
Anyway onto some of the comments. Since many of them are making the same point I will not respond to everyone.
91. scottishgeologist
"David, I dont want to pop your balloon, but Phelps DOES get his stuff from the bible. If you look at his godhatesfags.com home page, it is full of biblical quotes. The same quotes that are often used by less extreme conservatives to justify their own homophobia!"
What I find extraordinary here is your simplistic naivete. Do you really think that just because people quote the Bible that that somehow makes them a Christian? Even the devil quoted to the Bible when he sought to tempt Jesus in the wilderness! Sure Phelps quotes the Bible, just as there are many people who quote scientific research, but do so out of context and in a hypocritical and unintelligent way. The trouble is that you're so desperate to attack religion that you take these extreme nut cases and use them as a justification for your own views your own hatred and your own prejudice.It is the ultimate in ad hominem.
.
"As for churcharson.com, this has been discussed before - it is a bunch of SATANISTS who are behind it. North European death-metal anarchist types. They are merely following another delusion. They are actually ANTI-humanist.
Sorry. Game set and match. "
The laugh is that you really believe that you have the game set and match! On the church arson site they claim to be atheist. They use the language that many atheists would use. They just go on to be more extreme. It is exactly the same with that God hates fags.com. And it is as wrong for you to use the Phelps as ammunition in your argument against Christianity, as it would be for me to use the church arson website as ammunition in my argument against atheism.
9 a. Thor the Mariner
"ut I do think we have a responsibility to expose dangerous hatred like this piece by piece. Ignoring it to protect other religions is not acceptable."
Who on earth is talking about ignoring it in order to protect other religions? It is only the crassly stupid who would take from this is the notion that somehow all other religions are to blame because of the Phelps' evil. The question you have to ask, and which has not been answered, is why RD posted this here in the first place? The answer to me it's fairly obvious. He's using it as an example to back up his claim that religion is child abuse. It is cheap, nasty and disgusting. Apparently it is also playing to the choir. You all buy into this rubbish, it feeds your prejudice and your sense of self righteousness and superiority.
"The Phelps could not make it any clearer that they are acting directly due to their religious beliefs."
Of course they do! But why do you believe them? Because you want to.
" also feel slightly embarrassed for you that you keep trying to undermine atheists by using religious terms like 'believers' and 'followers'. You (correctly) think that making atheism appear to be like a religion will make it seem less credible. What does that say about you real views on religion? "
Again you are completely missing the point. The point is that you seek to differentiate between the way that you believe and the way that religious people believe. Yet it is abundantly clear from this website that there is no difference between atheistic fundamentalists and religious fundamentalists. Despite the occasional protestations to the contrary, there is no real disagreement on this site, no real discussion and anyone who dares to disagree with your belief system and your prophet soon find themselves on the receiving end of a barrel of vitriol. So I will continue to use the language of fundamentalist belief which in general your behaviour and language deserves. If the cap fits wear it!
94. alovrin
"Ah Wee Flea its so touching the way you start some of your posts with the salutation Dear Dr Dawkins, as if it is a personal letter.
You seem rather desparate for Dr Dawkins to notice you, maybe respond to your book. "
Yes, I am fully aware that I have worn out my welcome. A welcome which was never there. And no your pop psychology doesn't cut any ice with me. And no I am not desperate for Dr Dawkins to respond to me. My life has a great deal more meaning and a whole lot more important issues than that. I do not share your fascination with him. I also do not expect him to respond. After all he is the one who promotes his book with the phrase 'join the debate'. And yet he is rarely willing to do so. He believes that people like me are fleas who are just out to make a living off his back. I find this a little bit rich coming from someone who will have made millions writing a book about the God he does not believe in! Anyway why should he respond? He knows he is right. And he knows that his devoted followers will deal with me and tell the world how right he is and how stupid I am. I also suspect that Dr Dawkins is a bit elitist and that whilst he is happy to discuss with the elites a Scottish Presbyterian plebe hardly comes onto his radar at all! Personally, I am interested in the arguments and in the discussion, not in the personalities or the number of books sales.
95. Comment #52022 by Quetzalcoatl
"or the record, I find it highly insulting being compared to those people."
Now you know what we feel like!
.
98. Comment #52025 by dgcoulson
"iving in Japan, this is such an oasis for me. Has there ever been as nurturing and liberating a web community as this? I am even considering flying over to Washington for the conference in September. "
Like I said, more evidence of the religious and cultic nature of this website. Welcome to the faith!
101. Comment #52034 by Robert Maynard on June 26, 2007 at 1:54 am
"here are no inductive arguments taking place here on the part of Dawkins. "
Sweet, naive and hopelessly out of touch. If you look over this thread you will see clearly the inductive argument that has been put forward by Richard Dawkins and which has been accepted by his followers. This is an example of religious abuse. Religion is terrible. In order to stop abuse we must defeat religion.
103. Comment #52036 by Corylus on June 26, 2007 at 2:04 am
") Freedom of speech, which is hugely important.
2) It's funny. (Unlike you apparently) I happen to be a grown up and I can take insults on the chin, as long as they are amusing.
This is because I enjoy rhetoric and new and inventive uses of language. I have to say that I did find this a hugely amusing comment: especially coming from such a tiny dickie bird. "
This is an interesting defence of abusive language. It does make me wonder why in passing, if this site is such a defence of free speech, that I have been banned four times? The fact that he thinks someone talking about having sex with my mother is somehow a contribution to the debate and humourous, says a great deal more about you than it does about anything else. The fact that it is allowed to remain on this website says a great deal about the site.
" you are listening please do not respond to Wee Flea's insults. It is all that he is hoping for, and it simply isn't worth it. "
Sigh! No my life is not so sad that all I am hoping for is for Richard Dawkins to respond to me. It comes way down the list of my priorities, probably just above a visit to the dentist.
104. Comment #52037 by Logicel
In your amateur psychology you do not seem to be aware or accept why I am upset. I don't know how to put it any more simply than to say I am upset because of the evil and the twistedness of the Phelps family, and the attempt to extrapolate from that, that somehow all religions are implicated. How difficult is it for you to understand that? Please leave the amateur psychology to others.
106. Comment #52040 by Shuggy
" would hardly to be an exaggeration to say that RD and "Rev" Phelps are basically in agreement about the nature of the God of the Hebrew scriptures/Old Testament; "...one of the most unpleasant characters ... malevolent bully" only Phelps likes him. "
Again this is why the video was posted. RD and Phelps do believe in the same God. Dawkins needs the likes of Phelps to bolster his argument. Fundamentalists on both sides need each other.
109. Comment #52044 by pewkatchoo on June 26, 2007 at 2:45 am
"ee Flea belongs to the wee free church in Scotland, which is the ultra-right wing branch of the presbyterian church. He is not that far away from Phelps and co. Which, incidentally, qualifies my abuse towards him. He and his lot have been abusing the Scottish people for centuries. My abuse is only words, theirs' has meant life and death in many cases. "
The kind of prejudice and nonsense I would expect from someone who thinks that telling someone to 'F off' is a useful contribution to a clear thinking oasis. My church is not remotely right wing and I suspect you could not name one instance where we have been responsible for death, never mind 'many cases'. But why let facts get in the way of ignorance and prejudice?!
110. Comment #52047 by steve99
"The media is already filled with sympathetic religious broadcasting, from Thought for The Day, The Daily Service and Sunday on Radio, to Songs of Praise on television. Just check the BBC's website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ to see the sheer volume of broadcasting, almost all of it uncritical."
You really need to learn to respond to what people are saying. I did not say that there is no religious broadcasting (virtually all of it inane and a good advert for atheism). I did say that documentaries are usually made about the nutcases etc.
123. Comment #52090 by chbg21808
"I think Richard Dawkins should use this video as a demo at lectures... When he's describing religion indoctrenation of children as child abuse."
Of course he should. And of course he will. And of course you will all think how wise, wonderful and true it is. None of you will admit the logical fallacy or inherent prejudice and hatred behind the use of this video.
124. Comment #52097 by LB on June 26, 2007 at 6:31 am
Thanks for your (partial) support. I doubt you will get any religious people on this board the level of abuse is more than most would be prepared to stomach. The notion that you want 'intelligent' debate is quite funny until one realizes that 'intelligent' means 'one who holds the atheist position because de facto the atheist postion is the reasonable and intelligent one, therefore if you do not hold it you cannot be intelligent or you must be hypocritical. You have it all sown up. And you wonder why I call you fundamentalist?
126. Comment #52100 by arildno on June 26, 2007 at 6:38 am
"re Matthew and the snake-handlers deluded, and wrong, on the point that strong believers are immune to snake poison?
Yes totally wrong. Totally nuts and totally unbiblical.
128. Comment #52104 by _J_ on June 26, 2007 at 6:53 am
"avid, it's nicely clever of you to call me clever and nice, but argumentationally that cuts no ice. I am very happy for people to criticise Dawkins. "
I'm sure you are. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I have not noticed any criticism of RD on this site.
"Why, for the love of [insert object of worship here] are we having this argument at all? Surely we have actually found something we can agree on?"
Jonathan, you may be very clever and be able to put a lot of words together but surely you can grasp that this video was not posted here in order to demonstrate how evil and sick the Phelps are, but rather to show that religion leads to child abuse. No matter how you try to worm out of it, that is why it was posted here. And that is the view of most people here. I have no problem agreeing that the Phelps are evil and disgusting. I also think using them to further your own agenda, and giving them the publicity they desire, is evil and disgusting.
129. Comment #52108 by Robert Maynard
"religious 'moderates' (including David, by comparison at least) are forestalling effective criticism of groups like the WBC because they're working from the same books, and this needs to change. "
Wrong. It is precisely because I believe and study the Bible that I can challenge the Phelps. Although in reality they have no real interest in the Bible.
" think David also needs to recognise that distancing himself from these weirdos and calling it poor form to try and draw connections between them and more diluted forms of the same thing, isn't going to work, and isn't going to improve any situation. "
Of course not. Because RD and acolytes actually want and need the Phelps to be representative of Christianity.
130. Comment #52109 by Feuerbach
"These people are best ignored. "
Amen.
131. Comment #52111 by Fedler
"o, of course not. What I was implying was that by turning the other cheek, religious groups can be seen as passively supporting this type of behavior (since the WBC calls themselves a church, even though they're not). That's not blame, it's an observation of group psychology. "
What do you want us to do? Beat them up?! We have no power over them. And we are not the ones giving them the oxygen of publicity.
134. Comment #52121 by keith
"I actually find it quite offensive and very unhelpful that you think that Richard Dawkins' views are typical of all atheists."
Glad please let me know where you think they are not typical?
"Finally, re your demand to have an apology and the video taken off the site. You sound remarkably like someone who goes to an Iron Maiden concert and after worming his way to the front, asks the band if they can't turn the noise down."
Yes you may well be right. It may well be the ethos and nature of this site to allow such sick videos and to use them in the way that you do. It stinks but maybe that's the reality. Just don't boast about being a 'clear thinking and rational oasis'.
145. Comment #52150 by Lauregon
"reat post.
Time and time again I've heard such prosetylizing on street corners.
There used to be a gang in Edinburgh who did roadside fire-and-brimstone preaching at festival-time. I'm pretty sure they weren't an act - they seemed a lot more keen on the world ending than on selling any tickets. People walked politely around them. "
J and Lauregon utter nonsense. Neither of you have heard time and time again people proclaiming 'God hates the world'. Why lie?
149. Comment #52242 by Déjΰ Fu
"s for "Wee Flea", he's simply another apologist among many others. The Godbots are threatened by the new wave of rationality -. Save a Soul - Eat a Nun for breakfast. "
Yep this is the new rationality and the new tolerance. Not very rational and not exactly tolerance.
151. Comment #52300 by Alkal
Yet again another poor soul who does not have the intelligence or suss to see the difference between Phelps and Christianity. What can one do in the face of such ignorance and prejudice? Oh, Richard, see the can of worms you have opened (but then you knew that didn't you?).
Other Comments by The Wee Flea
161. Comment #52480 by Coel on June 27, 2007 at 5:38 am
To wea flea (David Robertson)I think I have two major concerns with this thread. 1) the level of rudeness
Yes, but don't you recognise that YOU are as bad? The first paragraph of your "Dawkins Letters" is rude and sneering (as well as false and misconceived), and the rest continues in the same vein. If you want to claim the moral high ground you need to stand on it yourself, rather than being rude and sneering and then complain when people are rude back.
Oh, and refraining from repeatedly misrepresenting what Dawkins and other atheists have said would help also; people do often react badly when you persistently misrepresent what they say.
Just maybe, if you tried posting without rudeness, sneering or misrepresentation, then people might be more polite in return.
and personal vitriol is quite astonishing for a site in which people claim that they are part of an oasis of clear and rational thinking.There is no contradiction between clear, rational thinking and rudeness. A rude comment is not necessarily an irrational one.
Other Comments by Coel
162. Comment #52482 by CJ22 on June 27, 2007 at 5:41 am
Robertson, the definition of insanity is repeating the same actions over and over, expecting a different outcome.To you, reason is a purely subjective experience isn't it?
Other Comments by CJ22
163. Comment #52484 by Dr Benway on June 27, 2007 at 5:47 am
weeflea:What do you want us to do? Beat them up?! We have no power over them.I want you to say, "FAITH, OR BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE, IS NOT A SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR HURTING PEOPLE."
If you can't say that, you're just as vile as Phelps.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
164. Comment #52486 by Coel on June 27, 2007 at 5:50 am
Yet again another poor soul who does not have the intelligence or suss to see the difference between Phelps and Christianity. What can one do in the face of such ignorance and prejudice?Phelps is one variant of Christianity, just like you are another. You think your version is the correct one; Phelps thinks his is the correct one; you think you are interpreting the Bible correctly; Phelps thinks he is interpreting the Bible correctly.
. . . surely you can grasp that this video was not posted here in order to demonstrate how evil and sick the Phelps are, but rather to show that religion leads to child abuse.Nope, not "leads to child abuse" but "CAN AMOUNT TO child abuse". That is VERY different. If you agree with Dawkins etal that SOME versions of religion amount to child abuse then it is just a matter of where the line is drawn, so can we have a rational discussion of that without any of your hysteria about secular police raids taking children away from any home containing a Bible?
until one realizes that 'intelligent' means 'one who holds the atheist position because de facto the atheist postion is the reasonable and intelligent one, therefore if you do not hold it you cannot be intelligent or you must be hypocritical. You have it all sown up. And you wonder why I call you fundamentalist?Sure, you call us fundamentalist as part of your need to misrepresent and strawman us, just like you did there.
Other Comments by Coel
165. Comment #52487 by The Wee Flea on June 27, 2007 at 5:55 am
Dr Benway - Have a look at post 34 " No Faith (or lack of it) is a justification for hurting people. And no hatred of religion is a justification for posting comments, videos etc which hurt, defame and insult people. Agreed?"Perhaps you missed it the first time?
Coel, if you think my introduction to The Dawkisn Letters is as bad as the stuff that has been written here then I am afaid I cannot discuss with you. You obviusly have a different understanding of the English language.
By the way - churcharson.com are one version of atheism, you are another. You both think you are right...
Other Comments by The Wee Flea
166. Comment #52489 by Coel on June 27, 2007 at 6:00 am
To wee flea:On the church arson site they claim to be atheist.Can you point out where please? On a quick look there are "satanist" banners and "anti-humanism" banners, which doesn't sound like usual atheists.
Other Comments by Coel
167. Comment #52491 by Coel on June 27, 2007 at 6:09 am
To wee flea:By the way - churcharson.com are one version of atheism, you are another. You both think you are right...Even if those guys are atheists (which you haven't yet given evidence for) so what? "Atheism" is not an agreed set of doctrines, it is merely an absence of certain doctrines. There is no reason at all why I should agree with or feel responsible for some other atheist.
Other Comments by Coel
168. Comment #52493 by BillySands on June 27, 2007 at 6:16 am
David,Accusing folk of rudeness is rich coming from you, and your snide nature continues in your own posts despite your protestations about others. Also, I think people are rude because you are incredibly thick and never enter into discussion, but always bring it down to calling people naive and stupid. That is the basis of most of your last lot of comments. You never explain why you think these people are naive and stupid. You just cant say that and expect respect - especially when you never justify your position . I suspect if you actually tried that, then you would have to realise the bible is essentially evil with some good secular moral standards thrown in.
I am serious, I think you need to see a shrink about your style of relating to those who challenge you. I think you have some deep psychological deficiency.
I find your comments about your moral superiority very hypocritical. There are arse holes on your website - one even said burn the god delusion. Did you ban him? You even said that you hoped what people said on your site did not give people a bad impression of your church. Did you ban them? I challenged you to speak out about the small mindedness of members of your church - did you? Did you fuck! You seemed to deny that many wish to impose their will on others - I even posted newspaper links. You claimed a witch hunt exists towards creationist biochemists. I provided you with evidence that no such thing exists and asked you to retract it. You did not and still propagate the lie! I pointed out that a member of your church was mentally abused by the doctrine of hell. Rather than say how bad it is, you initially denied it even happen, then accused me of linking your church to the WBC. How does that work? Stop trying to defend bad things, or use it as an opportunity to abuse atheists.
TAKE A LONG LOOK IN THE MIRROR
BTW this hypothetical gay wee free minister, would you tell him he has to change?
Other Comments by BillySands
169. Comment #52494 by Coel on June 27, 2007 at 6:17 am
To wea flea (David Robertson)Personally, I am interested in the arguments and in the discussionOK, I'll take this at face value and attempt a reasonable discussion.
It seems from your comments on Phelps that you agree that SOME forms of imposition of SOME forms of religion on children amount to child abuse.
Good, so it seems that both you and we agree that (1) some forms of religion amount to child abuse, and that (2) not all forms of religion amount to child abuse (nope, Dawkins has not claimed that all religion is child abuse). Agreed so far?
If so, we can then start discussing calmly what is acceptable and which lines should not be crossed. I'll await your OK before proceeding. . .
Other Comments by Coel
170. Comment #52498 by BillySands on June 27, 2007 at 6:22 am
Even if those guys are atheists (which you haven't yet given evidence for) so what? "Atheism" is not an agreed set of doctrines, it is merely an absence of certain doctrines. There is no reason at all why I should agree with or feel responsible for some other atheist.
What's more, we dont do bad things because we believe in a holy book that has a significal amount of evil moral guidelines, and that is a big difference. Religion teaches people to be bad - unless you are one of those christian that cherry pick moral values using their Darwinianly shaped moral compass
Other Comments by BillySands
171. Comment #52502 by Philip1978 on June 27, 2007 at 6:26 am
David, I am still worried that your view of atheism is clouded by your experiences as a minister and a religious man. Honestly, I think you need to look at it this way, people do not do things because of their atheism, its not something I suddenly turn to when making decisions. I imagine that beyond your usual instincts your day to day decisions are motivated primarily with your beliefs in mind?( I could be wrong here so correct me if I am wrong)
My life is not guided by my lack of belief in a god, I don't use it to justify my reasons for doing things, I simply use my moral judgement. I don't turn to Professor Dawkins or Sam Harris when I need comfort or aid in my decisions, if I am in trouble I seen the advice of my friends and family if its that bad.
Please look at my last post as I think I am repeating myself here, I am confused by your train of thought,
cheers,
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
172. Comment #52503 by Dr Benway on June 27, 2007 at 6:30 am
weeflea:Dr Benway - Have a look at post 34 " No Faith (or lack of it) is a justification for hurting people.The word "no" confuses me. Perhaps because I'm a native speaker of American rather than British English. Can we leave that out and say "faith is not sufficient justification for hurting people?" I think that's what you mean.
I define faith in this context as "belief without evidence." The word "evidence" may require clarification. I mean the sort of evidence you can bring to court.
And no hatred of religion is a justification for posting comments, videos etc which hurt, defame and insult people. Agreed?"Well, people may have some valid reason for hating religion. Imagine those few young women who escaped from the Phelps group. Imagine apostate Muslims under threat of death. It would seem cruel to me to deny those people free expression of their feelings.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
173. Comment #52505 by BillySands on June 27, 2007 at 6:32 am
Personally, I am interested in the arguments and in the discussion
Lies, lies, lies lies
Remember micah 5:2, Isaiah 7:14, quirinius, paleopathology, morality, memes? etc etc? I disagreed with you. You provided no counter arguements, and just got abusive - Sweet little David, never does a thing wrong and is always the victim - Aye right!
Many theists come on here and are treated with respect by most. If every one here treated you with respect (which in your case has to be earned given what you have said in the past), you would make a big deal out of that one individual, and tar us all with the same brush.
Incidentally, who the hell are you that we should take moral lessons from? Most atheists I know are better people than most christian I know.
(what david hears: "All atheists are superior to all christians")
Other Comments by BillySands
174. Comment #52506 by Fedler on June 27, 2007 at 6:32 am
What do you want us to do? Beat them up?! We have no power over them. And we are not the ones giving them the oxygen of publicity.
Of course not. I know you have no power over them, but they are representing themselves as a church. I can understand the desire for most religious groups to not put their own name in the same sentence as these folks to avoid the possible association with them. However, there is also the risk of being associated with them simply for the fact they call themselves a church. For this fact alone I would think true, legitimate churches everywhere would want to very publicly denounce them and their activities to avoid the negative association. I don't see this happening. They may not be getting the 'oxygen of publicity' as you very eloquently described it, but religious groups don't seem to be trying to cut off their breathing, either. I know it's not specifically your problem, David, and I'm speaking in generalities, but as they're calling themselves a church, a stronger denouncement from the church community seems the logical place to start.
On a related note, it would be interesting to analyze WHY they call themselves a church in the first place. My first instinct is to think Fred Phelps did that to help make them immune to certain criticisms, which could go a long way in explaining how they've managed to stay around for almost 50 years.
Other Comments by Fedler
175. Comment #52508 by BillySands on June 27, 2007 at 6:41 am
Although I received personal e-mails from some of you saying that this is not representative of the atheist cause, not one of you has the balls to criticise your fellow atheists on this site.
You really do have a problem. You can't even take a show of humanity from an atheist without twisting it and attacking them. Methinks thou doest protest too much - closet atheist!
Like I said earlier, you dont have the integrity to criticise members of your own church
Other Comments by BillySands
176. Comment #52509 by Quetzalcoatl on June 27, 2007 at 6:43 am
Wee Flea-Yet again another poor soul who does not have the intelligence or suss to see the difference between Phelps and Christianity.- your comment to Alkal. So it would appear that insults are not confined to the atheist side of the debate.
None of you will admit the logical fallacy or inherent prejudice and hatred behind the use of this video- so now we are spreading hatred.
I do wonder about your constant need to see atheism in terms of fundamentalists, believers, and followers. You are naive indeed if you believe that atheists are indeed anything like that. And nobody here has ever claimed that the words of Richard Dawkins are infallible. We do not try to live our lives by his teachings.
You call us followers of RD because that is the context you are used to as a minister. Perhaps discussions could be more productive if you saw us for what we are, and not for what it is easier for you to believe.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
177. Comment #52511 by BillySands on June 27, 2007 at 6:52 am
I really dont seee why David is so offended - it must be a religious thing or his pathological hatred of atheists.Surely the important thing is that we should all be united in wanting to prevent the young girl being poisoned by this shit.
This won't get through DR's skull, but RD was right to show this as evidence of what religion can do (note use of the word can david).
I remember when I was living in St Andrews (only 10 miles from David), a fundie (called Mrs Ross - know her David?) used to go around all the doors. Her opening line was not hello, it was "you're a sinner" What a disgusting message. What if a young child opened the door, what if she started prattling on about Hell to the child like happened to the member of David's church that I know
Other Comments by BillySands
178. Comment #52514 by Dr Benway on June 27, 2007 at 7:02 am
weeflea, I don't have a relationship with Dawkins, and don't expect I ever will. We live thousands of miles apart. He appears to have quite a full life. I doubt he reads the posts here with any regularity.I enjoy the public Dawkins that I see. If he were in town, I'd be happy to take him out for a coffee and a couple of laughs. But the chances of that are slim to none, as the better half and I live in a tiny nest in the woods near Nowhere USA.
Call me a "follower" of Dawkins if you like. But the good professor might be my follower, for all you know. Not everyone gets named People Magazine's "Sexiest Titmouse Ever."
Other Comments by Dr Benway
179. Comment #52516 by Dr Benway on June 27, 2007 at 7:14 am
Philip1978:My life is not guided by my lack of belief in a god...Like planning your day by what you didn't eat for breakfast, innit?
Other Comments by Dr Benway
180. Comment #52517 by _J_ on June 27, 2007 at 7:15 am
163. Comment #52476 by The Wee FleaJonathan, you may be very clever
I'm not. I'll let you into a secret: it's all about who you stand next to. ;)
I have not noticed any criticism of RD on this site.
You criticise RD on this site. Various other posters darwin2, Dianelos etc disagree with him at impressive length. Massive discussions proceed from these disagreements the RD and McGrath thread is on 17 pages, now. If you mean 'I have not noticed the people who agree with RD criticising him on this site', then I think you can probably work out why that might be so.
I specifically gave you an example of a trivial criticism of TGD that I find reasonable. There's not much need to discuss it because it's not very interesting. Such matters aren't. This site is not about agonising in detail over whether or not Our Lord Who Art In Oxford is perfect. It's about ideas, reason and beliefs. Most people here find themselves in substantial agreement with Dawkins. You don't. We discuss. Problem?
this video was not posted here in order to demonstrate how evil and sick the Phelps are, but rather to show that religion leads to child abuse. No matter how you try to worm out of it, that is why it was posted here. And that is the view of most people here.
Honestly, in my view the video was placed here as a particularly shocking example of the dogmatic indoctrination of uncritical children that religions can, and do, give rise to and which can, when fairly severe, be reasonably considered a form of psychological child abuse.
The video does not suggest that all religious people are as guilty as the Phelps'. Neither does Dawkins' response to it. However his opinion, my opinion and the opinion (I think) of most posters here is that this is an example at the more shocking end of a wide spectrum. At one end there's liberal Sunday schools not really deserving of the word 'abuse'. At the other end there are little kids waving machine guns and 'Death the enemies of Allah' banners. The Phelps' child is on the wrong side of the 'abuse' line.
David, if you had come on here and said something like:
'This video really is disgusting and it disturbs me deeply to see people taking their religion to such appalling and irresponsible extremes. Extremists like this are an embarrassment to the more liberal, thinking religions and a warning to us all of the dangers of fundamentalism.
I think it is very important not to confuse this type of abusive idiocy with the practices of moderate religions. We should all be on the same side where respecting the rights of our children are concerned, whatever our personal beliefs.'
then this would have been quite a different discussion. Sure, we could still have had a debate about just how the details of your faith differ from those of the Phelps', but we'd have had a wonderful area of common ground, some basis for mutual respect and maybe even a hope in hell of actually getting somewhere.
But no, you had to go and polarise things, didn't you?
There used to be a gang in Edinburgh who did roadside fire-and-brimstone preaching
J and Lauregon utter nonsense. Neither of you have heard time and time again people proclaiming 'God hates the world'. Why lie?
David, only one of us is in the business of propagating fairy stories and it ain't me. Why on earth would I spend so long on drawn out chains of reasoning with you if I could just make up some punchy lies and slap you down with them? No, I haven't 'heard time and time again people proclaiming "God hates the world".' I have seen exactly what I claimed: a gang of apocalypse evangelisers in Edinburgh, waving banners about how we're all doomed by God's wrath unless we repent, with not a smiley face between the lot of them. It was some of the worst evangelism I've ever seen. They were idiots, just like the Phelps'. Anyone who didn't themselves totally believe their nonsense could immediately see what a pointless exercise in nihilism the whole thing was. But they came back, day after day. The Phelps' may be the current high-profile bogey men of Christian fundamentalist, but if you think they're the only ones, you are lying to yourself.
171. Comment #52493 by BillySands
Sounds like an interesting debate. Is this at the Free Church of Scotland? Which thread?
Other Comments by _J_
181. Comment #52523 by BillySands on June 27, 2007 at 7:36 am
Hi J,I think all those threads have been removed now. The site has been redesigned and heavily moderated. I was going to post on it recently, but my old log on details did not work. That coupled to the fact David has deleted posts of mine and Martin Gill's in particular made me decide it wasn't worth the effort of typing a lengthy post that would not be published - makes you wonder why he changed it really. I was even polite too, as not everyone there is abusive.
Interestingly, one of the posts that kept getting removed was one of his abusive posts that I posted in a thread where he made deliberately inaccurate statements about atheists
David, plenty of atheists have had minor quibbles with Dawkin's here. You are just being dishonest again, because I know someone had one on your own troll thread here.
BTW Mark Tauton's thread is 25 (nearer26)pages long, and I think most people on it (incuding Mark) are enjoying and benefiting from it. It is proper exchange after all - something David doesn't do http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,323,The-God-of-the-Bible-is-No-Delusion,Christadelphianorg
I hope he is able to come back soon
Other Comments by BillySands
182. Comment #52524 by celestial_T on June 27, 2007 at 7:39 am
Wow. I can see by the number of comments that I'm a bit late arriving at this particular party. These scary crazy people (in the video, not posting - although...) seem to have had quite a bit of attention lately. Clearly they are barking but there can be no doubt that their lunacy has been fed by the content of the bible and the authority they feel they have by quoting god. It's hard to see why people want to live with such hate inside them.And then, just when you think this is only an extreme case, along comes Wee Flea. Sir, doesn't it wear you down carrying so much bitterness? You seem to be so intent on having an argument (and most definitely the 'full half hour' at that) that you aren't stopping to make a rational assessment of other peoples' comments. It must be quite tiring being so angry all the time. But then again you do seem to have a lot of time on your hands so maybe it doesn't matter.
Urg that song is going round in my head now! where's itunes....
Other Comments by celestial_T
183. Comment #52530 by Dr Benway on June 27, 2007 at 7:52 am
weeflea:the level of rudeness and personal vitriol is quite astonishing for a site in which people claim that they are part of an oasis of clear and rational thinking. It is juvenile, abusive and certainly does the atheist cause no credit.Look, has anyone here made you into a cartoon character buggering a bald transvestite?
If you keep up these womanish protestations over language and a bit of ribbing in good fun, your testicles will retreat up into your belly out of shame.
Think of the boys at the Battle of Britain. Go rent Braveheart or something.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
184. Comment #52541 by keith on June 27, 2007 at 8:20 am
To The Wee Flea,My first sentence was actually a spoof on one of your postings that I'm not sure you picked up on, though this was probably more my fault than yours. The truth is that of course Richard Dawkins is representative of most atheists. How could he not be when atheist don't and can't differ in any important way? So although you may like to squabble with other denominations about what sex, colour, form, manifestation, history etc. your god has, we atheists are united in our assessment that he/she/it doesn't exist and therefore has no sex, colour, form etc. We have no details to argue about.
The point of my spoof was that I was hoping you would tell me in what way your religion differs from that of the WBC. It's possible that from your point of view, you are the pinnacle of rationality, while they are just a load of nutters who stand lightyears away from your views. I'll agree that you seem a little less unpleasant, though here I'm only talking for myself. I'm sure Billy Sands, Dr Benway et al may not agree. After all, they know you better than I do. Either way, from where we atheists stand, the difference between you and the WBC is much harder to spot than you might think. You both believe in a whole suite of beliefs that just seem odd to most rational people. The fact they have added on a twist here and there doesn't make a great deal of difference to their fundamental views. I'm sure Sam Harris would even argue that the WBC has simply been more rigorous in their reading of the bible while you have shied away from the moral implications they have drawn. Insofar as this is true, perhaps it is they who are the more rational, consistent and in possession of the true spirit of the bible. However, if you could just inform us about the way your beliefs differ substantially from theirs, we might be able to judge just how atypical they really are.
To put all this in more visual terms, we see the WBC as clowns, complete with stilts, whacky Ronald McDonald hair-dos, big shoes, white make-up and a red nose. We see you as pretty much the same, just minus the red nose.
Other Comments by keith
185. Comment #52577 by scottishgeologist on June 27, 2007 at 10:27 am
David:DR: "What I find extraordinary here is your simplistic naivete"
Yes, great way to start, patronising, condescending, just like you are with the dissenters on your own forum.
DR: "Do you really think that just because people quote the Bible that that somehow makes them a Christian?"
No, I dont, but that wasnt the point. But all the conservative Christians who have got anti-gay hangups all quote the same "portions of scripture" when dealing with the subject. The same verses that Phelps uses.
DR: "just as there are many people who quote scientific research, but do so out of context and in a hypocritical and unintelligent way.
I can assure you, that fraudulence in science seldom gets very far. If I were to try to publish a paper tomorrow in which I deliberately misquoted previous research, it would be picked up by the editors and binned. Science is a self-refining process and the peer-review process ensures that it works as smoothly as possible. To commit fraud in science is to commit professional suicide.
DR: "The trouble is that you're so desperate to attack religion that you take these extreme nut cases and use them as a justification for your own views your own hatred and your own prejudice.It is the ultimate in ad hominem. "
No, I am not "desperate" Religion does a pretty good job of making itself look ridiculous. It doesnt actually need much attacking. Anyway, whats the big deal - you once said yourself on this forum I think it was: "religion - I hate it!" (Of course I appreciate you were trying to be all clever and smart and distinguish between the concepts of religion and christianity.)
As for hatred and prejudice , as Dawkins himself said when interviewing the "Jew turned Muslim" fundie "I dont hate anyone". However when it comes to hate, I find plenty of it in the bible . Take Romans 9:13 "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" or Psalm 139:22 " I hate them with perfect hatred"
And plenty of hatred from those who consider this "innerant, inspired and infallible"
No, I dont hate; pity maybe, laugh at occasionally, get angry at, yes, but hate, no.
And if you get upset at the militancy shown here, well just think about it.
We are SICK TO DEATH of the poisonous effects of "faith" You just need to switch on the news to find out why. Science under attack, Conservative christianity driving American foreign policy. Muslim brainwashed nutters killing themsleves and others all the way from Gaza to Pakistan - an unbroken band of palpable hatred. Children being brainwashed. Children being sexually abused by priests.
And all of it predicated on "faith". That, David, is why atheists are angry.
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
186. Comment #52583 by _J_ on June 27, 2007 at 10:55 am
BillySands Thanks for the info! Other Comments by _J_
187. Comment #52647 by Jackson Ayres on June 27, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Wee Flea,I will say that I would not feel comfortable posting some of the rude & uncivil comments directed your way. However:
1. It seems a lot of the animosity comes from a history I'm unaware of
2. Rudeness from others doesn't bolster your arguments in any real way
3. I don't feel a need to apologize for others' behavior, or see it as diminishing a perceived "atheist cause."
You seem pretty shaken & angry about some of the reactions you've provoked, but I wonder why you're so surprised. Surely you're aware of the site you're posting on, and that you're the minority. I applaud you having the determination to come here to participate, but please remember you're horribly outnumbered. If I went and posted on a Christian site, I may (or may not) be greeted with profanity, but I'd probably be politely told I was going to Hell or, almost defintely, told condescendingly that I was being "prayed for." For me, that would be more insulting than told to "fuck off," or whatever.
I think the biggest problem with having a productive, civil conversaton can be found within one sentence of yours:
"Even the devil quoted to the Bible when he sought to tempt Jesus in the wilderness!"
What's more, with the irony clearly lost on you, the above quote almost directly followed this:
"What I find extraordinary here is your simplistic naivete."
Please understand that, for rationale, free-thinking people, it is *extremely* difficult to maintain a polite discourse with someone who HONESTLY BELIEVES that a half-man/half-god (yet who is God) born to a virgin with magical healing and transformative powers was tempted by the physical manifestation of evil, a former servant of the omnipotent/omniscent creator of everything who's inexplicably been here (everywhere) forever, found within everything (presumably, also evil), and listens to our private thoughts.
How can one have a rational discussion that does not deteroiate into insults when such nonsense forms the core of your worldview?
You must understand that trying to speak to someone who literally believes such stories (or even considers them anything more than pure fiction) is like banging one's head against a wall. If you haven't seen this great article by S. Harris yet, it might help clarify my point. Please check it out:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-witchcraft_b_53865.html
Lastly, in response to your prior rebuttal of my point that secularism is, in larege measure, responsible for your distinction between "your faith" and WBC: Well, if it's not secularism, than what is it? Harris has a wonderful point when he says that, if you actually read the books (Bible, Qu'ran), God is *not* a moderate. The liberalized, modern version of Christianity that you clearly represent cannot be a result of reading the books more closely and or taking them more seriously. They can only be the product of a more secular, rational (and civilized) mode of thought that questions and challenges the dangers, contradictions, and outright fallacies of religious belief.
~Jack
Other Comments by Jackson Ayres
188. Comment #52668 by Donald on June 27, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I think it is unhelpful to be insulting to David Robertson. I think there are only two good options - ignore him, or reply patiently, stating what we see as errors, non-sequitors or misrepresentations.With that in mind, I give below a couple of comments on the following sequence of extracts:
Donald: this video points to an underlying problem with people who believe the bible relays messages from "god".
DAR: Donald is yet another one who thinks that Phelps gets his message from the Bible. Yet Phelp's message is directly contrary to the Bible. But does that stop Donald and others lumping them altogether. And you encourage this kind of ignorance?
scottishgeologist, Donald et al post the exact biblical quotes Phelps uses, which show Phelps is quoting the bible, which has very clear homophobic statements.
Donald: David, you accuse me and others of ignorance. Are you sure it is me that is ignorant about where Phelps gets his message? You say "Phelps message is directly contrary to the bible". Yet Phelps quotes the bible as the source of his message.
DAR ignores Donald, and replies to scottishgeologist: What I find extraordinary here is your simplistic naivete. Do you really think that just because people quote the Bible that that somehow makes them a Christian?
Ok, lets look at some aspects of this.
(1) David seeks to avoid answering the original issue about people believing what is written in the bible. He avoided it by simply saying, without justification, that Donald and others are IGNORANT.
(2) When SG, Donald et al, produce evidence that Phelps is really using bible quotes (and accurately too), David does not attempt to provide alternative explanations. He rounds on scottishgeologist and claims he is SIMPLISTIC AND NAIVE.
(3) He also tries to switch the argument from whether Phelps gets his views from the bible, to whether Phelps is a Christian. We weren't talking about whether Phelps is Christian. That is a separate question.
One might wonder why David doesn't offer some reason interpreting the Phelps quotes as meaning something else, and doesn't suggest that these particular bible quotes are out of date or inappropriate today.
I think the answers are: (a) Those particular quotes are perfectly clear, so they don't mean anything else. (b) David is in a dead end, logically speaking. He has previously said the bible is inerrant. So he can't really be credible if he now says those quotes are inapplicable.
So, poor chap, boxed in and nowhere to go, he says YOU'RE IGNORANT, SIMPLISTIC AND NAIVE. I think he is capable of better.
It's a pity. If only David could do a Jonathan Edwards.
Other Comments by Donald
189. Comment #52683 by Lauregon on June 27, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Re: Post #163J and Lauregon utter nonsense. Neither of you have heard time and time again people proclaiming 'God hates the world'. Why lie? - Wee Flea
A God who decides that eternal punishment in hell is an appropriate response to human disbelief in supernatural doctrines of vicarious atonement for human "sin," is a God of hate, despite Bible verses that perversely describe that deity as a god of love--- and yes, I have indeed heard such Christian teaching time and time again on street corners and elsewhere, as well as on my front porch as I described in the post you've referenced. You, Wee Flea (like my three door-step prosetelyzers did), appear to imagine that belief (or "faith") accomplished through intimidation and threats of eternal punishment is a manifestation of divine "love." I don't---and that's the burden you carry as a true believer, Sir, trying to convince others that they should perceive your God according to your benign interpretation of scripture. Unfortunately for your efforts, your arguments obviously aren't convincing many readers here.
Other Comments by Lauregon
190. Comment #52704 by alovrin on June 27, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Josh and Dawkins do carry some responsibility for this
Hey David Robertson when god takes responsibility for the words and deeds of his followers thru time. Then it might be reasonable to hold Josh and RD responsible for some rude words on this web site that were written in your general direction.
Other Comments by alovrin
191. Comment #52727 by scottishgeologist on June 28, 2007 at 12:17 am
Donald, thanks for a bit of back up there - better put than I could! I couldnt believe Davids response to what I wrote - all I did was point out the fact that Fred Phelps quotes from the same bible using the same verses as others who are not so extreme, but still anti gay.However, such a response is par for the course , and also par for the course among his own dissenters.
The problem for David, as I see it is that he is painted into a corner. A 3 sided one.
He is an inerrantist (He has said in another thread that he cannot think of an instance where the bible has been shown to be wrong)
He is conservative (no not politically, he is always ranting on about "capitalism") but time and again he has said that he is against theological liberalism - he has actually been accused of "liberalism" by some in his own church, esp those who left in the schism of 2000
And thirdly he makes a big thing about his Calvinism - this binds him to certain doctrines which are the equivalent of a philosophical straitjacket. Calvinism is the most joyless, depressing theology ever devised.
If he budges an inch on any of these he'll get leapt on by the hounds of death that lurk in the shadowy corners of fundamentalism.
You know , I used to struggle with all this stuff at one time, maybe not so long ago either. Getting shot of this theological baggage was like a breath of fresh air.
One final point. The word hate has come up a lot. I mentioned the year 2000 when there was a schism in the Free Church and the conservatives left en masse to form, hey, wait for it, the Free church (Continuing) (Judean Popular Front anyone?!)
That ghastly incident and the years leading up to it were characterised by some of the nastiest most bitter in-fighting witnessed for a long time in the Scottish churches. Last time it happened was in , oh, 1988, when the Free Presbyterian Church had a split and the Associated Presbyterian Churches were formed. (Popular Front for the Liberation of Judea?)An equally vicious, nasty affair.
If you want to see hate or at least a complete and utter lack of "love" just look for a church schism - when Christian faith-heads fight, it sure aint pretty. Their weapons might not be AK47s and RPGs but the intent is little better.
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
192. Comment #52730 by Philip1978 on June 28, 2007 at 12:23 am
scottishgeologist SPLITTER!!!
Other Comments by Philip1978
193. Comment #52791 by _J_ on June 28, 2007 at 5:03 am
191. Comment #52668 by Donald It's a pity. If only David could do a Jonathan Edwards.
What a nice thought.
Seems that for Edwards, finishing his athletics career gave him the freedom on thought to realise how psychologically dependent he'd been on religion to support him in his profession.
Now, what does Rev. David Robertson do for a living...?
Oh.
Other Comments by _J_
194. Comment #52828 by GordonYKWong on June 28, 2007 at 6:35 am
Dear Wee Flea,Wow!! And I thought this thread was dead in the water... All it took was a simple post by you to breathe life back into this Lazarus and we are back up and running... Good on you Mr. Robertson.
You have mentioned that:
...Phelps quotes the Bible... but [he] do[es] so out of context and in a hypocritical and unintelligent way.
I have not studied the Bible in any depth unlike yourself, so I would be glad if you could theologically educate me in the way that Phelps took the Bible out of context.
- Which quotes were taken out of context?
- What are the proper context that are to be taken from those quotes?
- How is he being hypocritical?
Thanks for your knowledge David
Other Comments by GordonYKWong
195. Comment #52903 by The Wee Flea on June 28, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Just heading off for a well earned break but I did not think it would be fair to leave those who asked such nice polite questions to feel neglected so before heading for the sun ..169. Comment #52489 by Coel
"On the church arson site they claim to be atheist.
Can you point out where please? On a quick look there are "satanist" banners and "anti-humanism" banners, which doesn't sound like usual atheists. "
Sorry Coel, you are right. They do not use the word atheist. However they do state that they are anti-religious and specifically anti the theistic religions, Islam, and especially Christianity and Judaism. A couple of examples below which would not look out of place on this website.
"In summary, religion is crazy. It's fear of death made to look important and "official" but it doesn't help you a bit except by wasting your time. You start using "belief" to figure out your life, with reason taking a secondary seat. You think in terms of places like heaven and hell and terms like good or evil. You spend time worrying about a supernatural being for which there's no precedent in natural patterning. It makes more sense to get into anal llama porn than to become religious in the Judeo-Christian tradition."
"As of this date, there still remains zero scientific or philosophical proof that the supernatural realm described by Christianity and Judaism exists except as a method of control in the minds of its followers."
My point was, and is, that it would be grossly unfair to use the Church Arson website as an example of what anti-Christians (ant-theists or even atheists) do and are. Just as it is grossly unfair for RD and the majority of people posting here who imply or state that 'God hates the world' is Christian.
170. Comment #52491 by Coel
"Atheism" is not an agreed set of doctrines, it is merely an absence of certain doctrines. There is no reason at all why I should agree with or feel responsible for some other atheist. "
I'm afraid that this 'we believe nothing' line is beginning to wear a bit thin. You do believe lots of things and have a great many presuppositions. Empiricism, materialism and like sheep you all fall for the 'ooh look how bad and evil the Phelps are, they are just where Christianity inevitably leads you'.
172. Comment #52494 by Coel
"Good, so it seems that both you and we agree that (1) some forms of religion amount to child abuse, and that (2) not all forms of religion amount to child abuse (nope, Dawkins has not claimed that all religion is child abuse). Agreed so far?"
I agree. In fact I would go further and suggest that many people use religion in order to abuse and that it may even be the case (although hard to prove) that religion can cause abuse or at the very least exacerbate it.
I don't dispute that. Nor do I dispute that some non-religious people abuse their children. What I do dispute and what I strongly object to is RD posting this video here in defence of his views.
174. Comment #52502 by Philip1978
"Honestly, I think you need to look at it this way, people do not do things because of their atheism,"
I do not accept that as a blanket statement without any evidence. I do talk about this a little in my book and do not want to repeat myself here, but there is no logical reason why atheists should not do things because of their atheism. Let us take one simple example do you think the level of vitriol on this website is an expression of people's atheism (ie. They so hate God and any of his 'reps' that they just can't help themselves) or is it just that they are nasty people? Its like the Phelps. Are they good people who have been turned nasty by religion, or are they nasty people who use religion as a cloak for their own evil?
" I imagine that beyond your usual instincts your day to day decisions are motivated primarily with your beliefs in mind?( I could be wrong here so correct me if I am wrong)"
No I don't get up in the morning and think does God want me to have a cappuccino or an expresso today. My belief in God underlies my life but does not take away from my humanity rather I would argue it enhances it.
"My life is not guided by my lack of belief in a god, I don't use it to justify my reasons for doing things, I simply use my moral judgement."
Exactly. But what right do you have to absolutise your moral judgement? And where does that morality come from?
" I don't turn to Professor Dawkins or Sam Harris when I need comfort or aid in my decisions, if I am in trouble I seen the advice of my friends and family if its that bad."
I'm sure that is the case for you. But I am equally sure that there are those who love what Harris and RD say because it provides an intellectual justification for what they already believe and have decided.
175. Comment #52503 by Dr Benway on June 27, 2007 at 6:30 am
"The word "no" confuses me. Perhaps because I'm a native speaker of American rather than British English. Can we leave that out and say "faith is not sufficient justification for hurting people?" I think that's what you mean.
I define faith in this context as "belief without evidence." The word "evidence" may require clarification. I mean the sort of evidence you can bring to court."
I find this a bizarre post. First of all you once again define faith in terms which no religion would accept. Secondly you seem to be implying that belief with evidence would justify hurting people. In my view no belief system with or without evidence, justifies humans torturing other humans. Of course Harris would disagree but that is where we have to differ.
177. Comment #52506 by Fedler on June 27,
"Of course not. I know you have no power over them, but they are representing themselves as a church. I can understand the desire for most religious groups to not put their own name in the same sentence as these folks to avoid the possible association with them. However, there is also the risk of being associated with them simply for the fact they call themselves a church. For this fact alone I would think true, legitimate churches everywhere would want to very publicly denounce them and their activities to avoid the negative association. I don't see this happening."
You do not see it happening because the mainstream secular news media do not report what the churches are doing unless it is some kind of hypocrisy and immorality. It is catch 22. Let me give you one example there is a movement known as 'Christian Reconstructionism' or 'theonomy' which advocates the imposition of the civil penalies of the Mosaic Law in society today. My own denomination studied the issue, published a detailed report which condemned it as unbiblical and wrong, and also banned any office bearer in the church from being a theonomist. Was this reported by any news media? Nope. And yet years later I come across people when they hear about this kind of nonsense, saying 'why does the Church not say something'? Likewise with the Phelps. Numerous churches would and have condemned what they do. But who listens? Meanwhile some atheists and secularists are almost besides themselves with joy at such ammunition being given to them. Is it really the case that RD was so distraught by this awful behaviour that he felt compelled to share it with his people? Or did he think, 'this is great, it proves my point, I can really use this'?
"On a related note, it would be interesting to analyze WHY they call themselves a church in the first place. "
For two reasons. Firstly as an instrument of control and secondly because they get tax breaks. The American policy of a free for all on religion is absurd. Tax breaks should not be given to groups like the Phelps.
179. Comment #52509 by Quetzalcoatl
"None of you will admit the logical fallacy or inherent prejudice and hatred behind the use of this video
- so now we are spreading hatred."
Yes absolutely. Just witness the hatred fed and fostered on this and other sites. For example these came from the original site
127 - If you recognize Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy to be forms of Christianity, so must you recognize this. It involves picking and choosing as much as they do - it just emphasizes the things that the others tend to downplay.
ALL Christianity is as offensive as the Phelps' version. You just don't let yourselves acknowledge it.
144 - Why the fuck dont we take the same initiative the iraqi suicide bombers do and wipe these fucks out?
we're all going to hell anyway according to them, so why not enjoy the rest of our life we have and kill them all?
198 - Although this video may not be "representative of Christians everywhere", it certainly seems to be to representative of a self-appointed fringe that many "moderate" Christians secretly admire, and would emulate if they were as "brave enough" (to be completely irrational).
"I do wonder about your constant need to see atheism in terms of fundamentalists, believers, and followers. You are naive indeed if you believe that atheists are indeed anything like that."
Sorry I call it the way I see it. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck my immediate observation is that it is most likely a duck! If it behaves like a fundamentalist, reacts like a fundamentalist and has the same group herd mentality as a fundamentalist then I feel fairly safe in calling it a fundamentalist.
183. Comment #52517 by _J_
"Most people here find themselves in substantial agreement with Dawkins. You don't. We discuss. Problem?"
Yes. Almost all discussion which moves away from the very tight boundaries of 'rationalist empirical thought' (aka atheist fundamentalism) is immediately met with a barrage of abuse etc. You may call it discussion.
"The video does not suggest that all religious people are as guilty as the Phelps'. Neither does Dawkins' response to it."
You and I both know that that is not the case. If RD had wanted that to be the case he could have said that these people are particularly disgusting and I am in no way associating them with the vast majority of Christians who do not accept them. Given the irrational and fundamentalist type behaviour of some of his followers on this site, it is the very least he could have done to forestall the kind of posts that have been coming. Of course RD teaches that 'moderate' religion leads to extremist and RD shares the same theology of God as the Phelps. The opportunity to exploit this evil was far too much for him, and so he took it. There is not need to rush to his defence anyone with their eyes open can see why this video was posted here. It's just those who do not want to accept that their hero has feet of clay who have the problem!.
"But no, you had to go and polarise things, didn't you?"
Don't be silly. You should know that I, and every other Christian I know, loathe and are totally disgusted by the self-publicising Phelps cult. I asked some perfectly legitimate questions which of course cannot be answered because no dog praises its own fleas. If you really think that the posting of this video has nothing to do with polarizing things then you probably believe that TGD is an irenic, intelligent piece of work seeking to foster mutual understanding and respect between human beings!
"Why on earth would I spend so long on drawn out chains of reasoning with you if I could just make up some punchy lies and slap you down with them?"
I don't know. The one doesn't preclude the other. The long drawn out chains of reasoning would only be worthwhile if they were a) followed up by actions and b) were actually an attempt at dialogue, rather than seeking to show everyone how wise you are and how wrong they are.
"The Phelps' may be the current high-profile bogey men of Christian fundamentalist, but if you think they're the only ones, you are lying to yourself."
No they are not the only ones. I can take you to a few nutcases. But they are tiny, tiny minority. Yet this minority will be the ones highlighted on this site. Why?
187. Comment #52541 by keith on June 27, 2007 at 8:20 am
"How could he not be when atheist don't and can't differ in any important way?"
Yes I've noticed the clone like tendencies.
"However, if you could just inform us about the way your beliefs differ substantially from theirs, we might be able to judge just how atypical they really are."
How about 'God loves the world'?
188. Comment #52577 by scottishgeologist
DR: "just as there are many people who quote scientific research, but do so out of context and in a hypocritical and unintelligent way.
"I can assure you, that fraudulence in science seldom gets very far."
And I can assure you that fraudulence in religion seldom gets very far, except when you get the non-relgious trying to encourage it.
190. Comment #52647 by Jackson Ayres
"You seem pretty shaken & angry about some of the reactions you've provoked, but I wonder why you're so surprised. Surely you're aware of the site you're posting on, and that you're the minority."
That's not a problem. I am used to being in a minority. I'm a biblical Christian living in an increasingly intolerant secularist society. I expect it to happen more and more. But I am genuinely surprised that a site which proclaims itself as an oasis of clear thinking is in general so intolerant of those who do not share its views.
"Please understand that, for rationale, free-thinking people, it is *extremely* difficult to maintain a polite discourse with someone who HONESTLY BELIEVES that a half-man/half-god (yet who is God) born to a virgin with magical healing and transformative powers was tempted by the physical manifestation of evil, a former servant of the omnipotent/omniscent creator of everything who's inexplicably been here (everywhere) forever, found within everything (presumably, also evil), and listens to our private thoughts."
Of course that's why you cannot have a conversation because you never actually discuss with people who hold different points of view (you can't have a rational intelligent discussion because in your mind anyone who thinks differently cannot be rational and intelligent it is the ultimate in circular thinking!) and when you do 'discuss' you do so with yourself making up a caricature of what people believe and then ridiculing your own caricature!
"astly, in response to your prior rebuttal of my point that secularism is, in larege measure, responsible for your distinction between "your faith" and WBC: Well, if it's not secularism, than what is it?"
The Bible. And Jesus.
191. Comment #52668 by Donald
"onald: David, you accuse me and others of ignorance. Are you sure it is me that is ignorant about where Phelps gets his message? You say "Phelps message is directly contrary to the bible". Yet Phelps quotes the bible as the source of his message."
Why do you find it so easy to accept what Phelps says as the truth? Because you want it to be.
The mere fact of using bible quotes means nothing. It is the context in which they are used and the reason they are used that should be thought about. But you won't do that. Why? Because you want to be able to blame the Phelps on religion.
193. Comment #52704 by alovrin
"ey David Robertson when god takes responsibility for the words and deeds of his followers thru time. Then it might be reasonable to hold Josh and RD responsible for some rude words on this web site that were written in your general direction."
He does. And we will have to answer to him, far more than those who do claim to know nothing about him.
194. Comment #52727 by scottishgeologist
"Calvinism is the most joyless, depressing theology ever devised."
I see you've read the 'joy of Calvin' and 'The Wee book of Calvin'. Tremendous stuff. Seriously though you choose to live your life with prejudices and judgements upon people you know nothing about.
"If you want to see hate or at least a complete and utter lack of "love" just look for a church schism - when Christian faith-heads fight, it sure aint pretty. Their weapons might not be AK47s and RPGs but the intent is little better."
Just a wee bit hyperbole! And yes when Christians fight it is horrendous. But that's because we're human.
196. Comment #52791 by _J_ on June 28, 2007 at 5:03 am
197. Comment #52828 by GordonYKWong
"Wow!! And I thought this thread was dead in the water... All it took was a simple post by you to breathe life back into this Lazarus and we are back up and running... Good on you Mr. Robertson."
Thanks Gordon. I do my best to oblige
Which quotes were taken out of context? every one of them.
What are the proper context that are to be taken from those quotes? the context of the love of God, demonstrated in the person of Jesus Christ. The context of all human beings being sinners, irrespective of their sexuality and their religion, and the context of grace and mercy being offered to all.
How is he being hypocritical? so many ways. For example claiming to be against homosexual sex and yet having young children holding banners which portray anal sex by men. Claiming to preach the message of the Bible but teaching the very opposite. Distorting the Word of God so that instead of being the Word of Life and Love it becomes the Word of Hatred and Hypocrisy.
And with that I must go to visit the seven churches and have two weeks without any atheists, abuse or angst (or alliteration!).
Other Comments by The Wee Flea
196. Comment #52908 by Corylus on June 28, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I must have the last word! I must. I must. I MUST...(Stamps foot).
Or I'll scream and scream and scream until I'm sick!!!
Other Comments by Corylus
151. Comment #52348 by Phil Regal on June 26, 2007 at 8:17 pm
What is child abuse? If you rob children of their capacity to use their critical reason, that should count for something. If you rob them of the chance to be resonsible citizens that too should count. If you keep them in the bondage of fear of life, that should count. There ought to be a couple of points for teaching hate.These things seem worse to me than spanking, certainly.
What is sexual abuse of children? Much of it is using them selfishly instead of being properly caring and nurturing. Actually a lot of sexual molesters believe that they are being caring and nurturing and it takes therapy for them to see the errors of their ways. Does society have the right to say they are wrong? Do I have a right to complain about child abuse as a citizen and human being? You can guess that I do feel I have a right to complain about child abuse.
For me the issues are simple, and I am with Richard on this. Bbut of course the whole matter is technically difficult. Fortunately there is some sort of extensive literature on efforts to define the matter legally. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse
It would be worth trying to refine the concept in the present context.
Other Comments by Phil Regal