1. Pastors Challenge Law, Endorse Candidates From Pulpit

Comment #197260 by Fedler on June 21, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Maybe it's just my mood today, but this is exasperating.

There is a distinction between the pastor and the pulpit," said a Democratic Party official. "We've made a significant effort to reach out to faith voters this year, but we're always making sure people know the law and the guidelines."

Yeah, but the problem is...the sheep don't care, so to speak. Faith voters don't care what the law is or what the guidelines are. Deep down I think they know what the rules are, they just honestly don't care because they feel religion is exempt from scrutiny so, by default, religion wins. They don't care about the law. I realize that the Democratic party is reaching out to faith voters like never before (how can you not? they're tripping over themselves practically every night in the evening news to "court" the religious voter), but does the party seriously think they can rope in faith voters, while still touting the necessity of the separation of church and state? That seems like an oxymoron in this day and age. Why? Because the religious moderates who hold the middle ground and mostly recognize the obvious cognitive dissonance, refuse to acknowledge the problem in order to correct it. Why? Because they think it doesn't really effect them. Turst me, I've been there. It's like the large elephant in the room that no one will talk about. They may condemn it casually in passing, but then they don't give it a second thought. They figure it's someone else's problem.

American's United for Church and State and the FFRF seem to be frowned upon because they seem so anti-religion at every turn. But people don't realize that the reason they seem anti-religion at every turn, is because religion is AT EVERY TURN! It's so pervasive where it shouldn't be and no other religions - or religiuos believers - seem to care. Why would they? Would Bill Gates complain that too many people are using Windows?

This is where we could strike out on new ground. If we could figure out a way to do positive community projects in our own right, without any mention of religion or our personal feelings about religion, then slowly people may begin to realize that non-believers do exist and our values are just as important as any faith voter. Probably more so since freethinkers/secularists are generally not "one issue voters" like many religious believers. We don't have magic 'trump card' ideals that candidates can pander to (i.e. abortion or homosexuality).

So, please, become active in local or national secular/freethinking organizations. We need all the help we can get!

2. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #196266 by Fedler on June 19, 2008 at 2:48 pm

David,

Since you seem to be spending so much time on this site rather than your own - despite how much you claim to despise this site - may I ask you to please answer my question posted on your site. The question was posted back on page 2 of your conversation with Richard Morgan.

Here's the link: http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=25.30. It's reply #38, regarding your perception of atheist satisfaction posted back in April. When you have a moment....

3. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #158337 by Fedler on April 10, 2008 at 11:06 am

Back on topic, the worst person in the world has apologized...sort of:
http://www.wbbm780.com/Lawmaker-Apologizes-For-Comments-Against-Atheist/1980701

4. Fleabytes

Comment #158308 by Fedler on April 10, 2008 at 10:10 am

My question about DR's reply to RM is when he said this:

After reading your post I went to the Dawkins website 'Fleabytes' thread to see how they responded.

This seems a highly irregular thing to do. This of course is followed by all of DR's 'predictions' about what he would find on the site (pretty convenient since he just ran to the website to figure out how to respond) and, lo and behold, he sees exactly what he wants to see.

Regarding RM's post on FCOS: I can't say this is very surprising. Just in what little I've seen from RM he has never appeared to be comfortable with the in-your-face approach of some posters here. Let's be honest, some posters do come across as angry. That has probably more to do with trying to communicate through written word more than anything. Emotions, or lack thereof, get lost. Communication is largely non-verbal through gestures, body language, or tone, which is entirely missing on forums.

According to RM's message on FCOS he's still an atheist. Apparently he just appears to want a softer approach. Good or bad, that's his choice, and he's not to be faulted for personal choice. (And no, DR, if you're reading this is not the 'pseudo psychological analysis' you talk about on your site, just an observation).

Incidentally, it was interesting to hear DR talk about "pseudo psychological analysis" but forgetting to mention his own pop psychology of 'atheist beliefs', which he made up to satisfy his own presuppositions. Interesting, that.

5. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154675 by Fedler on April 3, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Honestly, I don't see why we keep putting David in the news. Sure, he's an easy punching bag, but I see no need to spend any more time on him, no less put him in the 'Featured' section.

Just my two cents...

6. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #149915 by Fedler on March 26, 2008 at 10:28 am

The very first post on this thread highlights the most despicable part of this story. So they want all the monotheisms together at a meeting? Great. Whooppee. Big deal. Although they can't tolerate dissenting viewpoints, except when that other viewpoint is also another religion. So, the moral of the story...you must believe in some sort of god, or else. Apparently if you dissent and don't believe in a god, you're not even worth talking to. Such tolerance, indeed!

7. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149252 by Fedler on March 25, 2008 at 10:24 am

Phillip1978:

The list goes on as to why they [Hitler, Stalin, etc.] did the horrific things they did but for goodness sake I advise people like yourself David, who take every opportunity to make people look bad by twisting and distorting facts about atheism, to SHUT UP about it, its sodding pathetic!

Atheism is a complete absence of a belief in Gods, the supernatural etc That's it! Finished, Case closed!

Indeed. David, any implications or presuppositions you make regarding any atheist 'philosophy' are yours alone, and that doesn't make them true. There is no 'philosophy' inherent in atheism, only ones you make up to satisfy your presuppositions.

8. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146062 by Fedler on March 18, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Of course religion makes people happy. When was that ever in dispute? It's the factual basis for religious belief that is nonexistent. So you can be happy and deluded, or happy and non-deluded. I know what I pick.

9. Fleabytes

Comment #145812 by Fedler on March 18, 2008 at 7:01 am

DR: Anyway hope you have fun. Will respond to all your real questions on my return from Darkest Englandshire. Including Fedlar - Sorry what did I miss?

Sorry, David, I really don't know what you're talking about here.

10. Fleabytes

Comment #145589 by Fedler on March 17, 2008 at 6:40 pm

Ah. 6K here we come :-)

11. Fleabytes

Comment #145576 by Fedler on March 17, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Mr Robertson, I notice you have not responded. Which is fine, it is obvious you have been thoroughly crushed by my argument.

Don't be too hard on him, Pathfinder. He is just not used to such profound 'point's' from anyone on this site. Your capital letters are truly dizzying! The poor man probably has vertigo.

Come on, clairpenser. Don't let Pathfinder steal your thunder!

12. Fleabytes

Comment #145562 by Fedler on March 17, 2008 at 5:56 pm

Scoff all you like atheist fools.

OK, thanks!

Pathfinder too will not like the heat which is his reward for going against the Lord's will. A will that was transmitted to me in a vision splendid.

This really is a thread fabulous!

13. Fleabytes

Comment #145549 by Fedler on March 17, 2008 at 5:41 pm

Give 'em some, Pathfinder!

This is even better than when Jerry Falwell died.

*Passes al-rawandi juju bees*

I like Pathfinder better. He uses more capital letters so he must REALLY mean it. I don't even care if this is a spoof or not.

14. Fleabytes

Comment #145519 by Fedler on March 17, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Wow, a battle of the fundamentalists. Everybody, get your seats!

15. Fleabytes

Comment #145515 by Fedler on March 17, 2008 at 5:03 pm

I am youre worst nightmare, for when the END TIME'S COME you will be the one wheeping and gibbering for sanctuary from the PURIFYING FIRE of God's goodness!

I just love how fundamentalists can mix good/bad metaphors. A mixture of hellfire and brimstone for us heathens, along with a purifying fire of god's goodness. God must be bipolar.

16. Fleabytes

Comment #145400 by Fedler on March 17, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Pathfinder,

Do you have bombs attached to your vest right now? I'm asking seriously, because your attitude is commonly associated with that action.

You do know you have to go to a crowded public place to do damage and not just sit behind your keyboard, right?

17. Fleabytes

Comment #145002 by Fedler on March 17, 2008 at 6:57 am

DR: "I'm sorry Sharon but just repeating the mantra does not make it true."

Like fundamental atheism, atheists provide no evidence, this site is not a clear thinking oasis, you won't accept my evidence, atheism is just another faith position, why won't RD debate me?, etc. Gee, David, where have I heard all that before? Oh yes, from you in just about EVERY damn post. Take your own advice, David.

And have just wasted another couple of hours typing up these responses.

You wouldn't need to spend hours on this site if you didn't keep spouting your perceived mantras all over the place. Just FYI.

18. Fleabytes

Comment #143892 by Fedler on March 14, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Paula and D'Arcy,

DR has said that nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is 6000 years old. He has said it on other threads. I'm sorry I don't have the time to look right now, though.

Of course following the dates of the chronologies contained within the bible may lead to the 6000 year old mark, but the bible does not explicitly say "the earth is 6000 years old." I think it's inferred more than anything.

19. Fleabytes

Comment #143170 by Fedler on March 13, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Re: Comment #143111 by Diacanu

Thanks, Diacanu. I have to admit finding The Age of Reason a little strange in that Paine can so thoroughly point out the contradictions inherent in the Bible, yet he is still a strong deist and often cites 'the wonder of creation as the Word of God' yet, like so many faithful, provides no real evidence for that, other than the assumption that it must be obvious. He uses logic to wreck the validity of the bible, yet reverts to mere poetic phrases to explain his deism and why deism is the one true religion.

But it is a great read so far, all in all.

20. Fleabytes

Comment #143012 by Fedler on March 13, 2008 at 10:57 am

Speaking of the immoral bible, I'm currently reading The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. Has anyone else read it? I would be interested to know if his criticisms of the bible have held up to scrutiny. They seem solid and very thorough so far, but it's the only critique of the bible I've read.

If not, any other suggestions?

21. Fleabytes

Comment #142047 by Fedler on March 11, 2008 at 7:11 pm

"...the nature of gods in the minds of believers doesn't call for evidence. Indeed, in some cases the very lack of evidence is proof of gods. But by the same token, the theists have to try and understand the minds of those they wish to argue with, especially if they like to come here..

Good point, but how does one work to understand the theistic 'psychosis', for lack of a better term? (bearing in mind, of course, there is an equal but opposite atheistic 'psychosis' from the religious point of view). I used to be one, but even I find the theistic beliefs incomprehensible now.

Any psychologists on this thread that might give understanding or at least a starting point? I'm out of my element, but willing to learn.

22. Fleabytes

Comment #142041 by Fedler on March 11, 2008 at 6:22 pm

Paula,

I just saw your post on David's Free Church site and his reply. After being given every assurance that the Inverness event was unmoderated, uncensored, not pre-screened and entirely open, he still has the gall to scream "Foul!"? Any more open and the event would need the police to intervene. I was appalled and just wanted to tell you that you have have been more than generous in your patience in dealing with him.

23. Fleabytes

Comment #139248 by Fedler on March 5, 2008 at 11:38 am

On a serious note: would it be possible for me to get a copy of this as a pdf?

Frankus, if you go to the top of Paula's article, just above the title there is a print feature. If you have the full version of Adobe Acrobat, you could probably print this thread into PDF, including comments. It's likely to be hundreds of pages long, but that's where I'd start. Perhaps Josh could do it for you. Or send me a PM and I'll see if I can do it for you.

24. Fleabytes

Comment #135025 by Fedler on February 28, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Welcome, PMurdock.

Those are great questions, and I'm sure others will respond. I won't, because I'm usually too slow to to keep with the discussions (since I'm at work) and many others are far better at explaining themselves than I am, but I just wanted to say welcome.

25. Fleabytes

Comment #134913 by Fedler on February 28, 2008 at 10:10 am

Robotaholic,

I think Robertson's last post was #1436.

EDIT: sorry, #1503

26. Fleabytes

Comment #134854 by Fedler on February 28, 2008 at 9:06 am

Can I just throw in a maladjusted wombat to the fray?

27. Fleabytes

Comment #134292 by Fedler on February 27, 2008 at 2:42 pm

I don't see theists trying to prove their assumptions false. Again, if I am wrong on this front please provide me of evidence of how you go about this.

Frankus1122, I've asked David this once before. I asked him where are church scientists seeking to verify their claims or where are the reports investigating alleged miracles. He said the reports exist, but did not say where they could be viewed. He didn't reply to (or ignored) the bit about church scientists seeking to verify its claims.

28. Fleabytes

Comment #134118 by Fedler on February 27, 2008 at 9:23 am

DR to Dawkins: Personally I think that the real reason that you do not like the book is that you struggle to answer it.

Or it could be that you misrepresent him so badly, or that you don't deal directly with his points in TGD, or that you have proven yourself not to be worth the oxygen of publicity?

Mostly, though, any rational person would have trouble answering your book. It's impossible to counter vague, translucent, shadowy, and interpretive claims with actual logic. My guess based on discussions here and on your own site is that he would end up chasing a caricature of your wishful thinking and it would be a waste of his time.

29. Fleabytes

Comment #132734 by Fedler on February 25, 2008 at 7:08 am

Fedler: So when other people (like Dawkins) use the Fred Phelps's of the world to illustrate a point against theism I think that's fair game in order to illustrate whatever point is trying to be made.

DR: That is ridiculous and you know it. It is like me citing NMCs death threat as typical of how atheists think or Mengele as a typical scientist. It is the ultimate ad hominem.

No, I'm afraid I don't know it is ridiculous. As my post said, it's fair game to illustrate the point being made, i.e. the TYPE of thing being discussed or what psychology is at work in religious believers and/or situations. A weak example does not illustrate the point as well. That's just common sense.

And it's not an ad hominem at all. No one is being personally chided or attacked, it's simply using an illustration to make a point. Geez…*slaps head on forehead*

30. Fleabytes

Comment #131985 by Fedler on February 23, 2008 at 6:36 pm

Paula: Finally, he claims to find Christian claims "wonderfully liberating" (from what, I wonder?) and that they "best fit the facts as far as I can see them". It would seem unkind to question his eyesight, but less so to ask for his evidence for that assertion. None is given, however.

David: Freedom from the depressing view that the universe is cold and meaningless and that I am just a blob of carbon, floating from one meaningless existence to another. Freedom from the power and oppression of sin. And Freedom from a philosophy which says that all that is, is chemical. It is wonderfully liberating. You should try it some time! Know the Truth and the Truth will set you free.

David, I would be depressed, too if I thought atheism was as you described it above. No wonder you hate it so much. However, that is a pretty big presumption on your part, but I think I can understand why. A love of science is often correlated with atheism, but one does not follow from the other.

Take me for example. I'm very inept at science subjects. I have a music degree, but I work in healthcare. I've read some popular science books, but that's about it. I certainly don't claim to be an academician who knows great things. Yet, I no longer believe in gods. You yourself have even mentioned how many scientists still believe in god, also. So obviously, science does not lead to atheism.

However your first and third sentences above (about carbon and chemicals) are essentially scientific statements, and not statements about atheism. The second sentence about oppression and sin is just a bare assertion with nothing to support it. If you think an atheist 'tenet' (the ones you won't outline for Epeeist) is to think what you state above, then I really don't think there are any atheists on this site.

However, because you incorrectly think atheism is as depressing as you mention above, then obviously any opinions you form of it afterward will be wrong. Atheism is just lack of belief in gods. Period. No philosophy is implied. To prefer a scientific worldview (i.e. trusting to find answers in science rather than religious dogma or other ideology) is a separate thing altogether. So, when you make your scientific statement above, you are condemning a scientific worldview, not atheism. It appears you are missing the target.

One other point, you said (and have said repeatedly) that you thought it is disingenuous to use the extreme fringes of religion (a.k.a. Fred Phelps) as representative of theism in general. To a certain extent, I'm not sure I agree with that anymore. I just finished reading The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James. In that book James uses the most extreme examples of religious 'conversion' experiences, where people sometimes instantaneously become "born again" believers. He admits that these are extreme cases, but they best serve to illustrate the various points he makes. That seems fair. So when other people (like Dawkins) use the Fred Phelps's of the world to illustrate a point against theism I think that's fair game in order to illustrate whatever point is trying to be made. I would describe it more as a literary tool though, rather than actually making a correlation.

31. Fleabytes

Comment #131546 by Fedler on February 22, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Paula, thanks for the backstory on David's "offer" to Richard to write a review.

Steve, can I say I just love your analogy about the gate in the middle of the dessert ala Blazing Saddles. I love that movie and that point in particular. What I wouldn't give for a "shitload of dimes" sometimes.

32. Fleabytes

Comment #130962 by Fedler on February 21, 2008 at 3:00 pm

David Elden,

Robertson does have a long history here so newer posters aren't familiar with him as much, but I don't think 'giving offense' was the main reason. It may have contributed somewhat, but he mainly was flagged for jumping into threads, making inflammatory comments and ruining discussions, then using the hostile comments he received in return as proof to fill his book with 'samples' of how full of hatred we are. That, and he just kept repeating the same old 'arguments' over and over again. Some of us really, honestly tried.

I recommend Donald's response #330 for a small sample.

33. Fleabytes

Comment #130757 by Fedler on February 21, 2008 at 8:39 am

Jiten,

I've updated my comment. Thanks for the reminder.

34. Fleabytes

Comment #130755 by Fedler on February 21, 2008 at 8:33 am

While I'm all for David being allowed back on to respond to Paula's review, I can't say I hold out any hope that anything would change. There are only so many times one can watch a video of a car wreck before it gets boring. The outcome is always the same. Even the few comments he's proffered so far are in the same old vein as before.

Is the threat to be banned ridiculous? Probably. But no more ridiculous than any conversation we could have if he was allowed to post a full reply. I just don't see how this time would be any different.

35. State Approves Evolution As 'Scientific Theory'

Comment #130156 by Fedler on February 20, 2008 at 6:34 am

Very good point Wendy.

36. Battle of the Chambersburg billboards

Comment #124780 by Fedler on February 10, 2008 at 8:30 am

Nationalism is the New Racism.

37. Apologetic billboard replaces atheistic sign

Comment #124425 by Fedler on February 9, 2008 at 12:04 pm

LocalAtheist,

Apart from the fallacies in that newspaper ad, I find it more interesting that the religious have turned nationalism into the new racism. Equating religious views with nationalism is a convenient way to distract the public into condemning atheists for an altogether unrelated (and incorrect) reason. I think it shows how far out of their way they will go to avoid the real issues.

38. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122881 by Fedler on February 6, 2008 at 8:51 am

Hi Hobbit,

I had thought of that myself. The other thing I had thought of was to somehow get hold of the goals, etc. from the University's religious club (Campus Crusade for Christ), copy them word for word except changing any reference to religion/Christ to secularism, then see if it gets accepted. That would be interesting to see what happened.

39. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122401 by Fedler on February 5, 2008 at 8:30 am

SOS and LifeRing seem like great organizations to support. I'll have to research if they have anything like that here in Iowa.

Perhaps if the freethought group at Wilifrid Laurier University advocated themselves as a secular worldview alternative (not necessarily for or against religion), they might achieve some level of success. In that sense, too, they would not need to say they are FOR anything (per Steve's suggestion), other than a secular worldview. Just thinking out loud...

EDIT: Good point about the resolutions :-), however those resolutions are the sorts of things the religious could cite to back up their case for a theocracy.

40. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122372 by Fedler on February 5, 2008 at 8:08 am

Thanks for the clarification, Anna. I've revised my previous post.

41. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122343 by Fedler on February 5, 2008 at 7:50 am

wednesdayguevara,

I'm not thinking covert ops, or Watergate or anything. But, for instance, the U.S. House of Representatives recently introduced HR888, which is a nice revisionist piece of legislation stating how wonderful Christianity is and how the U.S. is based on Christian principles. Perhaps the freethought community should push for a science resolution advocating science, rational thinking, and no superstition. Or perhaps a national atheist association could open up drug treatment centers so we could help treat drug users, while promoting the scientific worldview (much like the religious do promoting god on drug users and prisoners). That's the kind of sneaking I meant. Perhaps sneaking was the incorrect choice of words.

42. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122330 by Fedler on February 5, 2008 at 7:41 am

Steve,

I understand your point and wholeheartedly agree. However, to the religious mindset of North America, being a non-believer means being an angry, hate-filled, baby-eating cretin. That's their perception, invalid as it may be.

If we say we stand FOR something, I think we're more likely to be taken seriously, and then we can sneak in the non-belief. Being decent people and standing FOR things because we're decent people is nice and should be done, but I doubt it will help promote the logic, reasoning, and superstition-free world non-believers want.

43. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122315 by Fedler on February 5, 2008 at 7:23 am

Re: post #43

If your club's proposal and goals were to be revised to include only the promotion of your own beliefs, instead of the active promotion of living life "without religion", then your club's proposal would pose no problem as I see it.

As hideous as this blatant discrimination is, the person who wrote this has a point somewhat. As non-believers we ought to stand FOR something, not just against something else. If the goal statement was revised to "to promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life" and drop the religious bent, this may be better. I know, I know, this is like giving in, but I think we need to start by sneaking in our views as discreetly as possible. With atheist groups being banned from MySpace and other social networking sites, and now being left out of campus activities, I'm beginning to think we need to be as sneaky as the religious believer in getting our views out there. Being forthright and honest doesn't seem to be getting us very far. Perhaps I'm just frustrated.

44. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #121967 by Fedler on February 4, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Such is the nature of religious belief that intelligent people cannot even conceive of an alternative. Does 'tolerance for others beliefs' not include tolerance for disbelief? Tolerance needs to flow both ways to be truly tolerant, otherwise tolerance is just a convenient excuse by which to exclude others. And I don’t know anyone, anywhere who would define tolerance as the exclusion of others.

45. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121790 by Fedler on February 4, 2008 at 7:09 am

When I was younger I wanted so badly to be an airplane pilot. However, since I am blind in one eye I knew I could never pursue that career because I could never have passed the vision test at the time. So I had to rule out that career. There were very good safety reasons for not allowing a one-eyed person to fly a plane. I didn't complain about how the aviation community needed to change their rules for me and all one-eyed people everywhere. That would have been childish.

Am I to presume then that medical professionals in predominantly Muslim countries don't have to roll up their sleeves (i.e. take the universal precautions taken by most other professionals in the same profession)? If that's the case, then fine. Let them practice in their own country. This isn't being prejudiced, it's being realistic.

46. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #118990 by Fedler on January 31, 2008 at 8:50 am

Happy Birthday, Josh! I hope you have a good one!

47. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111620 by Fedler on January 15, 2008 at 7:14 am

Best wishes, Mr. Scales, for a smooth procedure and a speedy recovery!

Scott Fedler
Iowa, USA

48. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #110489 by Fedler on January 11, 2008 at 10:37 am

Cheers!, Ms. Condon. I trust your dog - or any other pet - is still well :-). Good to have you aboard.

49. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107331 by Fedler on January 4, 2008 at 11:58 am

Good idea, quill.

I really ought to get some work done today, myself...

50. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107328 by Fedler on January 4, 2008 at 11:55 am

Thank you for that, Rtambree :-)