51. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86939 by mejdrich on November 10, 2007 at 1:32 pm

krisking,

I think that the problem that atheists have not yet realised about their position is that their own system of morals is based on Christian morality and does not just come out of thin air...

Does it, really? If you want to claim the foundation of our morals on Christianity, you need to offer evidence, and a lot of it.

Your first problem is the assertive claim, since even monkeys have moral thinking. Not to mention that almost everything you find in the Bible is found in other societies across the globe without Christian exposure. The Golden Rule, for instance, was independently discovered all over the world, long before the Jews wrote it down in their books. Do you honestly believe that nobody had figured out "Thou Shalt Not Kill" until Moses scribbled it on a tablet?

There is also the argument against. The immoral teachings of the Bible are many. You reject the stories of the human sacrifice of children, (Issac, Moab, and God himself in your celebrated crucifixion), you reject God's commandment to ethnically cleanse your disbelieving neighbors, you reject stoning anyone who works on the Sabbath, you reject the enslavement of women, and slavery itself, even though all of these are the moral teachings of the Bible. So where is YOUR basis of morality, since it is obviously not the Bible?

It's simple, really. Ideas about how to build a good sky-scraper come from inside our brains, just like ideas on how to build a durable society and a good life come from within our experiences.

52. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86934 by mejdrich on November 10, 2007 at 1:10 pm

"Please (re)read post 378"

ADH, I am quickly loosing patience with you.

God's being all-powerful doesn't mean that He can do the logically impossible.

All-Powerful: having or exercising exclusive and unlimited authority; omnipotent.
Unlimited: without any qualification or exception; unconditional.

This is very simple. If you qualify God's power by the condition of logical possibility, then he is not All-Powerful. Period. Either you are a rational person, or you aren't. Which is it?


And the repost: how you can tell your children that, unless they believe what you do (a thought crime), not only will you abandon them to be with God, but they will experience the worst feelings possible to suffer, forever. You haven't explained why this isn't "coercion" or a "fear tactic", even leaving aside the issue of child abuse.

53. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86922 by mejdrich on November 10, 2007 at 12:50 pm

steve99, Told you so. ;) Religious fundamentalism has had it's influence in the U.S.


ADH,

You keep avoiding my questions, so I'm just going to repost: you still haven't addressed how you can tell your children that, unless they believe what you do (a thought crime), not only will you abandon them to be with God, but they will experience the worst feelings possible to suffer, forever. You haven't explained why this isn't "coercion" or a "fear tactic", even leaving aside the issue of child abuse.

I'm also waiting for you to admit the obvious contradiction in this statement of yours:

God's being all-powerful doesn't mean that He can do the logically impossible.

54. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86905 by mejdrich on November 10, 2007 at 12:10 pm

steve99,

You've fallen into his trap! You seem to be forgetting that christians believe that God is the "first cause", the origin of the Universe. In their view, he literally designed all of the laws of nature, including Pi, the Primes, and logic itself.

If logic preceded God, he isn't the first cause.

If logic is a law that God must obey, he isn't All-Powerful.

I suppose a creative Christian philosopher might say something elusive, like "God IS logic", but then they have a lot of explaining to do regarding their deep need for Faith. Look, it's all nonsense, but if you're going to believe in things like an all-powerful god, there are things that follow. You can't have an all-powerful god who isn't all-powerful.

55. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86897 by mejdrich on November 10, 2007 at 11:50 am

Epeeist,

You're right on, but modest. This was dealt with over two millenia old:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus

I brought it up in #277 and I'm still waiting for ADH to deal with it. If he isn't able to admit such a vulgar contradiction, like "God's being all-powerful doesn't mean that He can do the logically impossible", then he really can't expect anything but our scorn.

If God created the Universe, as ADH has claimed, then he also created logic. To make anything at all outside God's power is to admit he is not All-Powerful or the "first cause". People always say that you can't disprove God, but Epicurus at least disproved a Good, All-Powerful, All-Knowing one, which is the one most "thinking" christians believe in.

56. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86893 by mejdrich on November 10, 2007 at 11:35 am

ADH,

The sweeping majority of Christians accept the plain meaning of Hell as described in Matthew and Revelations. So, if we take your analogy, you are the dissenting voice arguing, "the poor lady has been sitting there ... for the last 50+ years!!"

You have taken the imaginings of C.S. Lewis and said they are a more accurate picture then the one given by the Bible. So, yes, in the case of Hell, you have made C.S. Lewis a greater authority than the Bible.


That aside, you still haven't addressed how you can tell your children that, unless they believe what you do (a thought crime), not only will you abandon them to be with God, but they will experience the worst feelings possible to suffer, forever. You haven't explained why this isn't "coercion" or a "fear tactic", even leaving aside the issue of child abuse.

I'm also waiting for you to admit the obvious contradiction in this statement of yours:

God's being all-powerful doesn't mean that He can do the logically impossible.

57. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86881 by mejdrich on November 10, 2007 at 11:15 am

ADH,

You haven't even tried to address my other points, in post #356, and what you are now saying defies credulity.

If the Bible is such poetry that the plain meaning of it's words can't be taken as true, on what basis can you say, as you have, that there is a Hell or Heaven in the first place? Or the miracles (including the resurrection) of Jesus every happened? You can't. They could just be poetry.

In any case, you are now saying that poetry is not an "authority" for anything.

58. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86874 by mejdrich on November 10, 2007 at 11:02 am

CS Lewis does not supersede Scripture.

Then why have you been saying all of this nonsense about "separation from God"?

As Walk pointed out several times, the Bible is very clear on Hell:

In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

"In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ."

Revelation 20:15 says, " And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE."

59. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86871 by mejdrich on November 10, 2007 at 11:00 am

Coretemprising,

Let me add my voice to your concern. The nonchalance of ADH in, from what all appearances, seems to be his admitted abuse of his children makes my skin crawl.

The fact is that religion, on the whole, has had an active agenda of persecution since the 80's, and is dangerously close to making the U.S. unlivable for many of us. Anyone who has followed the fights over gay-marriage, abortion, etc know the stakes. It seems like politeness, at this point, is a little overrated. As Richard Dawkins said, three impolite books have done more for Atheism than decades of friendly conversation.

60. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86863 by mejdrich on November 10, 2007 at 10:46 am

ADH,in post #296, you say:

you ask me for historical evidence that human evil originated in an act of human rebellion. Needless to say I have none. I accept it on authority - yes, the authority of Scripture.

It begs the question, why do you choose to ignore the authority of Scripture when it comes to Hellfire? As Walk pointed out in post #99, the Bible is vividly clear that Hell is a place of fire. If the authority of scripture can be superceded by C.S. Lewis, in regards to Hell, why do you reject the higher authority of astronomers and physicists in their areas of expertise?


You seem to have missed my post #277, so I guess I'll have another go:

Regarding the questions on Hell. It is true that I have used the words "separation from God" rather than "Hell" in relation to my own kids. But eternal separation from God is Hell, and vice versa.

Children are quick to understand euphemisms, especially if they are brought to church where C.S. Lewis's quaint apologies aren't being preached from the pulpit. You may have dressed up Hell in the fiction of The Great Divorce, but you seem to admit that this separation is just as bad as Hellfire. I can't help but point out that, to a child who is wholly dependant on parents for survival, "separation" is literally a death sentence.

But just to be clear, you told your children that, unless they believe what you do (a thought crime), not only will you abandon them to be with God, but they will experience the worst feelings possible to suffer, forever. Can you honestly say this isn't "coercion" or a "fear tactic"?

God's being all-powerful doesn't mean that He can do the logically impossible.

Your words, an obvious contradiction. Suck it up and say so. If you want to even pretend to be having a rational conversation, you must at least be able to see and admit this.

61. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86531 by mejdrich on November 9, 2007 at 1:23 pm

Steve99,

I am afraid not :) I have read very little of CS Lewis, even though our household is packed with his Narnia books. By the way... I do intend reading more of his works.

Having read it all back in the day, I would recommend to start with Mere Christianity. Many Christians still see it as the handbook to dealing with atheistic doubts. As you would expect from the author of the Narnia series, his vivid imagery is superb, but his philosophy, while well explained, lacks the depth you are probably use to running in these circles.

In my opinion, the best book he ever wrote was The Horse and His Boy, which still can bring me to tears.


P.S. - Kudos to the pict. You look relaxed, yet distinguished.

62. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86525 by mejdrich on November 9, 2007 at 1:07 pm

ADH,

I happen to have read "The Great Divorce" along with every other book C.S. Lewis wrote. Even his Christian contemporaries understood that Lewis was a great storyteller, not a great philosopher. What follows is a twisted rationalization that is even painful to watch. Take this Lewis-inspired example of what you said earlier:

… No inconsistency has been demonstrated between God's being all-loving and some people's going to hell. For given that God has created us with freedom of the will, it follows that He cannot guarantee that all persons will freely give their lives to Him and be saved. The Bible makes it very clear that God desires every person to be saved, and by His Spirit He seeks to draw every person to Himself. The only obstacle to universal salvation is therefore human free will. It's logically impossible to make someone freely do something. God's being all-powerful doesn't mean that He can do the logically impossible. Thus, even though He is all-powerful, God cannot make everyone freely be saved.

Well, the inconsistency has been demonstrated by Epicurus over two millennia ago*, much to the contortions of religious philosophers. But overlooking that, you still beg the question: if God is all-powerful (as you claim), why did he design 'free will' so as to interfere with 'universal salvation'?

I would like you to be able to admit that the bolded sentence simply contradicts itself. Obviously, if there are things impossible to God, then he cannot be all-powerful. If you want to even pretend to be having a rational conversation, you must at least be able to see and admit this.

Regarding the questions on Hell. It is true that I have used the words "separation from God" rather than "Hell" in relation to my own kids. But eternal separation from God is Hell, and vice versa.

Children are quick to understand euphemisms, especially if they are brought to church where C.S. Lewis's quaint apologies aren't being preached from the pulpit. The plain meaning of Hell is a place of torture, and kids know it.

Did you teach your children that they would go to Hell if they don't believe what you do, or not?

If any parent were to threaten their children with torture for any reason, we call that child abuse. If your Christian brethren have decided to look the other way (so they can also indoctrinate their kids), don't expect the other 20% of the country to give you an exemption.

*Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus

63. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86305 by mejdrich on November 9, 2007 at 12:49 am

Don't worry Steve I will be back with an answer to those questions.

Well, do you what want to do, but if a little conversational pressure got under your skin that easily, it may not worth your or our time.

Good luck getting over your illness.

64. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86186 by mejdrich on November 8, 2007 at 3:28 pm

It's been an interesting discussion folks. But I think e should call it a day. I have other places be be rather than in the inellectual bull ring with you guys, stimulating though it has been. ... In the meantime divide the carcass fairly among yourselves.

Were we really that bad? Sure, we leaned on him, but I thought the pressure was intellectual, not personal, and to my mind we applied it with appropriate moderation.

It's been a long time since I've trolled on a Christian forum. Unfortunately for me, I was raised and confirmed Lutheran, so I had plenty of time to get that kind of fight out of my system. As I remember, the circles I ran in weren't nearly as polite as we were to him. Maybe times have changed?

Here's my question: when y'all take a dive into a Christian forum, are you treated with as much respect as we gave ADH?

(edit - excluding that list bit from DalaiDrivel, which was over the top)

65. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85954 by mejdrich on November 7, 2007 at 3:17 pm

ADH said:
God does not "torture" his beloved creatures. On the other side there will be "weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth"

walk said:
Which is it? Doesn't "weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth" sound like someone is being tortured?

In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

"In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ."

Revelation 20:15 says, " And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE."

I'd like an answer to this as well.


I do think this is an issue of raising awareness. It wasn't that long ago that all manner of child abuse was acceptable (or ignored) by mainstream society. It's not surprising how people will rationalize the brainwashing and emotional abuse of their own children, but it is a challenge. Teaching children that they will be tortured with fire for eternity, as the "moderate" majority of mainstream churches in this country preach, is child abuse. This will only stop when churches stop preaching Hell to children.

66. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85908 by mejdrich on November 7, 2007 at 1:01 pm

ADH says, "The fact of stating my beliefs in their presence hardly amounts to child abuse!"

Did you or did you not tell your children that you believe they will be tortured with fire for eternity if they don't believe what you do?

It really baffles me. Even if someone in another context said that they had threatened to torture their children if they didn't behave, they would be admonished without mercy and perhaps reported to the police. Why do christians expect some sort of 'pass' because their religion teaches them to abuse their children?

67. Debate between Sam Harris and Reza Aslan

Comment #85867 by mejdrich on November 7, 2007 at 11:11 am

This is my second time watching, too.

I can't help but notice that Reza opens up with an ad homenim and an appeal to authority. His entire disagreement with Harris seems to rely on the special pleading that religion is simply "language". Intellectually, Reza got trounced, and I even like the guy.

I guess I agree with Reza's appeal appeal to not hate on muslims, but that's not what Harris is even advocating. If this is the difference a simple degree in philosophy makes, sign me up.

68. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85844 by mejdrich on November 7, 2007 at 10:07 am

Nightripper,

I have to agree with Keith, Walk, and Coretemprising on this one. ADH is a guest (as we are) on a Richard Dawkins forum, and he is being politely provocative, but without supporting himself (yet) with good argument. In the Dawkins tradition, when we hear bad ideas, we respond robustly.

As Walk points out, we still are waiting for ADH to clarify what, on the surface, looks to be the admitted abuse of his children. Christians aren't use to the idea, that teaching a child that they will be forever tortured with fire for a thought crime, is abuse. Yet, this is the mainstream, "moderate" position on Hell, to which we must assume he is referring to when he says "They know what we believe about the consequences of shutting God out of their lives. We don't mince our words about that." At the very least, he can't reasonably say this isn't "coercive" or a "fear tactic".

As for Martin Luther, "In no way is faith a rejection of logic" is what ADH had to say. Not as opinion, but as fact. Pointing out that the founder of the second largest Christian branch in the world certainly is fair game, as would quoting any of the popes, or the legions of Christians who believe that reason undermines faith. Of course, it begs the question, on what basis is he throwing out so much established dogma? Why doesn't he throw out dogma all together?

Another bit to CoreTempRising- your post was refreshing. The "nice guy" act has got Atheists nowhere, as RD pointed out in his lecture. The days where we should be content to wait for progress to slowly march forward ended abruptly in the twin fireballs of NYC. As RD, Harris, and Hitchens repeatably say, human civilization cannot afford religion anymore. It's time for to expect our religious neighbors to grow up.

69. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85716 by mejdrich on November 6, 2007 at 11:34 pm

The "debate" with Lennox was a sham. Dawkins was not allowed to respond to anything Lennox said, but for 2 minutes at the end (and this was, in their words, "Christian charity"). Dawkins was breaking the rules of the moderator every time he addressed anything Lennox said. This they called a "debate".

It's very revealing that they didn't trust their man, Lennox, to a debate on equal ground. They wanted to create the illusion of victory, and apparently, to the Christian audience, they did.

70. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85664 by mejdrich on November 6, 2007 at 6:40 pm

Now this was a very sugar coated version of Catholicism and might not be theologically in keeping with the official dogmas. But I honestly don't feel I was traumatized.

I'm glad for you, but I wonder if you are an exception to the rule.

Richard Dawkins was talking about raising awareness, and I think this is an important one. The very idea of Hell is to coerce "good" behavior with the threat of burning you alive, forever. What part of this isn't abusive?

To borrow a phrase from Sam Harris, while it may be possible to squint hard at the Bible, it still makes a remarkably good field guide for child abuse. All it takes is for someone to actually believe it.

71. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85639 by mejdrich on November 6, 2007 at 2:49 pm

"I am hoping and praying that they come to faith. But I am not going to alienate them by coercion. They know what we believe about the consequences of shutting God out of their lives. We don't mince our words about that. But we will not resort to fear tactics."

I desperately hope that ADH hasn't done what he has said. To tell a child that they must believe certain things or be eternally tortured with Hellfire - yes, it is "coercive", it most certainly is a "fear tactic", and Richard Dawkins has been right to point out what it really is: child abuse.

72. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85422 by mejdrich on November 5, 2007 at 8:21 pm

Nice. The crowd loved him, too. Did anyone else notice how much more warmly the good Doctor was received, even in comparison to Harris and Hitchens?

73. AAI 07

Comment #84423 by mejdrich on November 2, 2007 at 3:15 am

briancoughlanworldcitizen says: So in my view this is a critical issue, even more so than the other issues you mention because they activley motivate the religious against us, while universal health care can actually be presented as an issue both atheists and the religious can agree on. This isn't "their" wedge, it should be our wedge!!

The difference is that, in the case of stem-cell, abortion, and gay-rights, the arguments in opposition are almost completely religious. I simply have never met an Atheist who is against stem-cell research, or who believes abortion is murdering an ensouled baby. There is a real advantage to pressing these issues - to support abortion forces someone to admit that an unborn human child does not have a soul. Stem cell does the same while making an open advertisement of the achievements of science. Universal health care does not share these advantages.

To illustrate the problem, imagine if Richard Dawkins tomorrow announced an "Atheist" position on the war in Iraq. He then produced casual linkage between war and religiosity to support this position. The problem is that 26% of Americans still support the war. If the demographics of Atheists even remotely resemble the national averages, they represent a large portion who the good Dr. Dawkins has just alienated.

Just run the issues as hypothetical scenarios: We take up gay-rights, we begin making bonds with the gay lobby. The abortion issue makes us friends with women's rights advocates. But universal health care gains us some support among Democrats, but only at the cost of Libertarian Atheists. Is that worth it? At this point, I think 'no'.

I actually find the idea that Atheism flourishes under Universal Health Care very interesting. I'm just arguing the political realities of America, atm.

74. AAI 07

Comment #84394 by mejdrich on November 2, 2007 at 1:30 am

Yes - there isn't any argument going on, just a series of ad hominems of both types.

Agreed. Five hundred posts in, no progress made, and no end in sight. This kind of clusterfuck of a thread is why I said this in post #5:

"My thought on that is that atheism already has it's hands full, as is. Being an atheist almost necessitates that you are pro-choice, against anti-gay legislation, and pro-stem cell research. These are some of the most controversial issues in American politics. The LAST thing we need is to start weighing in on immigration and universal health care."

This thread is what happens when you take on wedge issues. Atheism isn't libertarian or socialist.

75. AAI 07

Comment #83993 by mejdrich on November 1, 2007 at 1:12 am

USA_Limey said:

I was just commenting on how the thread started, (am I really so badly mis reading the intial dozen or so posts? I thought it was about the merits of the cause taking a policy stance?) and why I thought it morphed.

No, you're right. That is the direction we were going before the thread got derailed. This is what happens when a loud, overzealous voice gets away with itself.

It's all so absurd to me, because as an Atheist, I don't have any real problems with Libertarians. Take Ron Paul. By all indications, he really does practice what he preaches, and has been preaching it consistently, with very little spin, for almost twenty years. That is rare enough in American politics to be novel. In any case, while many Atheists are passionate about universal health care, one way or another, I don't see it as a core issue. Not anything worth alienating ourselves from Libertarians or liberal Democrats.

Libertarians want to stop religion from telling them how to live their lives, just like we do. That could make us good allies. Just like we can be allies with the gay community over issues of banning same-sex marriage and women's rights lobbyists on abortion.

If I had a question, it would be, what other allies do we have out there?
Does the religiosity of Republicans mean we're all going to end up voting Democrat, anyway?

76. AAI 07

Comment #83992 by mejdrich on November 1, 2007 at 1:10 am

Has anyone considered the possibility that scooter and notsobad may actually be theist trolls?

To be honest, the thought had crossed my mind, so I googled "ScooterNYC". I can put your fears to rest, he is an Atheist.

He's also just as much of an emotional train wreck and troll, on other sites, as he is here. Here's a post I found from townhall.com from a few days ago:

campagnolo writes: Sunday, October, 21, 2007 6:39 PM greg wirth (aka scooternyc)
Okay Greg, I've read some of your other posts. So you are an atheist zionist Republican zealot ideologue who is obviously conflicted on many levels. Here is one of your posts I found on Tusconcitizen.com:

"This is disgusting! This man doesn't understand for a moment why Pat gave his life for this country..." "This man has recinded his patriotism.Besmirched the honor of Pat Tillman. Is pathetic and living amongst the bottom feeders of society. Someone said that Cindy has a dance partner, I'm sure they must be lovers by now. How sickening! "

People, Greg (aka scooternyc) was talking about Pat Tillman's brother, Kevin Tillman, who also served in the Army and wrote a scathing rebuke of the Army's actions to cover up the friendly fire incident that killed Pat.

Greg, you are one sick being. You even dishonor your prestigious alma mater, Western International University. Sally would be in tears.

Here's hoping we've heard the end of him for a while…

77. AAI 07

Comment #83813 by mejdrich on October 31, 2007 at 11:29 am

326. Comment #83717 by scooternyc on October 31, 2007 at 3:27 am
I care not that anyone disagrees with me. However, I will not let the over-emotional types think that just because they want to spew their emotional tirades on the site that we should all just allow it to happen. That's the message these people received at some point in their lives thinking this behavior was appropriate, it's not. Stick to the issue and not the over-emotional rants.

Here we go. Do I even bother replying?

Scooter's issue with "emotional tirades" is a red harring to the issue of his inappropriate behavior. Not to mention the apparent hypocrisy in his describing others as "over-emotional types".

Most, of those "names" as you call them refer to a person's "position" or "statement(s)". There is a difference, ya know, why don't you learn it.

I have. If I had included where Scooter used inflammatory name-calling antics against ideas, his list of ad hominems would be much longer than ignorant, uneducated, unintelligent, uncivilized, arrogant, dogmatic, irrational, emotional, selfish, self-pitying, lazy, irresponsible, idiotic, bigoted, racist, dishonest, extremist, and continues to compare them to theists (posts #309 & 312 are the latest).

Besides, as a point of fact, what Scooter just said is false. He went so far as to call Bonzai an "idiot", "bigot and racist" point blank. He should practice what he preaches, take responsibility for his actions, and apologize.

47. Comment #82743 by scooternyc on October 27, 2007 at 12:58 pm
So, you've assumed that ALL poor people will drop out of high school.
ALL black people will eventually go to jail for drug possession.
Thanks for revealing yourself. You're an idiot as well as a bigot and racist.

49. Comment #82746 by Bonzai on October 27, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Perhaps you should learn to read. ***personal attacks will not be tolerated, OBC***

90. Comment #82866 by scooternyc on October 28, 2007 at 4:34 am
yes, yes, Bonzai, your feelings were hurt; you were offended, I've heard the mantra all before by those that cannot handle the heat. I've reworded the statement, not because I disown the statements to you, but because the site has a standard that I will respect, not you, the site.

You can't argue the points so you want to attack the person - me. If you were honest you would argue the points and not attack the person. Yes, I just said you were dishonest - add that to your list.

It was already on the list. How revealing.

Frankly, I don't care about Scooter's Libertarianism. What gets my attention is the hypocrisy in calling someone a "bigot and racist" and while complaining of attacks on his person. Others in this thread have managed to present their opinions without resorting to name-calling and obscene tirades, so should Scooter.

The American Libertarian versus European Socialism debate is interesting, but watching Scooter on a personal trolling quest is not. If we arn't going to get anything resembling rational conversation from Scooter, we should all just ignore him. Eventually, he will 1) start presenting worthwhile ideas without insulting people, or 2) he'll go away.

78. AAI 07

Comment #83686 by mejdrich on October 30, 2007 at 11:58 pm

317. Comment #83678 by keith on October 30, 2007 at 10:20 pm:

Mejdrich

...Yes? [edit] I see you've edited my name out of your post - getting cold feet?[/edit]

If you are suggesting that everyone is having a peachy time, and I'm trying to "take your ball away", then I wonder what thread your reading. People have been more than rude, tempers have been flaring, and all for what - to fight over Libertarianism? What happened to the good Matthew Chapman?

ScooterNYC has called those who disagree with him ignorant, uneducated, unintelligent, uncivilized, arrogant, dogmatic, irrational, emotional, selfish, self-pitying, lazy, irresponsible, idiotic, bigoted, racist, dishonest, extremist, and continues to compare them to theists (posts #309 & 312 are the latest).

Just what does ScooterNYC have to say to meet your standard of "verbally abusive", Keith? Personally, if someone called me half of those things, "get fucked you dickhead" is just how I would get warmed up.

ScooterNYC has been trolling, simple as that. His posts have been overflowing with ad hominems attacks, sweeping generalization, and straw men. No surprise that other people have gotten upset. I hope he'll start exercising that self-discipline that he's talked so much about and control his tongue. Once you force a moderator to step in, things get ugly.

79. AAI 07

Comment #83591 by mejdrich on October 30, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Rtambree,

There might be a delusion implicit within "The God Delusion" - that you can use rationality to persuade theists to discard their beliefs.

Looking at "Converts Corner" on this website should leave you with no doubts as to whether rationality is a delusional tactic.

Is there any evidence after all the thousands of entries between theists and atheists on these websites, that any of them have changed their minds?

When Alister McGrath and Christopher Hitchens debate, no one expects one of them to end by recanting. It's the lurking moderates, who's mind is not yet made up, that is the target.

At the time of the Iraq invasion, almost half of Americans believed Iraq was responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11. At the same time, the Republican Talking-Points machine, led by Bush, was spewing out volumes of propaganda to that effect. Words shape beliefs.

If we are to win any political lobby as Atheists, we're going to need good talking points of our own.

My problem with this thread is that I have yet to see how a debate on economics strengthens our position. Even if we are going to be in the business of strategic alliances with other minorities, I can't see how our position is helped by taking a stand, either for or against, Ron Paul or the (comparative) socialism in Europe. The whole thing seems like a non-sequitur to me.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113579153636833083-Xd1XL6NfsXVhzTL0_JKthJ9Wiic_20061229.html?mod=blogs

80. AAI 07

Comment #83577 by mejdrich on October 30, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Seriously, people.

Bill O'reilly is the most-viewed 'newsman' in America. He would take one look at us and laugh, "the Atheists can't decide if they're Anarchists or if they're Communists."

Do any of you honestly think I'm wrong? How many times have you all had to deal with the 'Hitler/Stalin was an atheist' meme? How many times has someone told you that you can't have morality without Jesus? In America, this is the norm.

This problem is not going to go away while you fight about economic models.

81. AAI 07

Comment #83546 by mejdrich on October 30, 2007 at 11:29 am

Lol - Thanks, Limey. By quoting the Bible in my support, I think you may just killed all of my credibility. ;)

82. AAI 07

Comment #83538 by mejdrich on October 30, 2007 at 11:06 am

Colonel Dan wrote:

236. Comment #83460 by Veronique on October 30, 2007 at 5:01 am

I trust I am not the only lurker who has flagged this comment as offensive. Based on the policies of this site, you should be banned in short order.

Civility should be upheld in this situation by way of a formal consequence in response to your inappropriate choice. ScooterNYC and others like him not only speak their truth but also speak the thoughts held by many of us without faith.

And I'm sure this was in no way effected by your self-proclaimed bias. *rollseyes* I trust, in the spirit of fairness, you also flagged ScooterNYC's posts #221, 225, 228, and 230 as either offensive or troll (and that's just from page 5).


For crying out loud, people, you are flaming each other over a few comments Chapman made, in honest response to a direct question, about something he isn't claiming to be an expert on! He was talking for almost an hour, and this is all you heard?

I've been saying since the beginning of this thread that a passionate debate of economics on an atheist website is bad news, and some of you keep proving me right. Are we all atheists or not, for getting-rid-of-Christ's sake!?


Our European friends - stop trying to frame libertarians as immoral people.

Our Libertarian friends - remember who's guest we are, on this site, and stop alienating everyone in Europe.

83. AAI 07

Comment #83357 by mejdrich on October 29, 2007 at 7:23 pm

notsobad

that is some anecdotal evidence you have there. Also, you don't understand the theory of minimum wage and why it lowers someone's buying power.
Minimum wage would increase their wages, but it would also increase everybody else's wages. And that would lead to higher prices, thus a lower buying power.

Please don't be rude.

The story of three guys I talked to was anecdotal, but it does set a threshold. Where I grew up, in Minnesota, I never heard anything as crazy as what I'm hearing down in Texas. Besides, the fact is that Ron Paul, the crusader of libertarianism in America today, is from Texas. My first hand experience in this state is that he is not a minority.

Please don't make ridiculous assumptions, like "you don't understand the theory of minimum wage". While it's true that raising the minimum wage is a driving force for inflation, the people who's wages are driving that inflation are not going to experience reduced buying power unless the entire economy goes into recession.

Besides, this is entirely beside the point. I would rather live in a Religion-free world than a Libertarian-free world. Wouldn't you?

84. AAI 07

Comment #83348 by mejdrich on October 29, 2007 at 6:35 pm

notsobad

Texas is libertarian? One of the states that has some of the worst punishments for victimless crimes? You gotta be kidding.

No, I'm not kidding. Texas is the largest state (of seven) to have no state income tax. It's a right-to work state. Ron Paul, if you forgot, has been a Texas Representative for almost twenty years. The list goes on.

Not to mention, every other person I meet here talks like ScooterNYC does. I was talking with some guys about the raise in minimum wage: these guys, who made minimum wage, were convinced it would not only kill the economy, but reduce their personal buying power. That's right, they thought after getting a raise, they would be able to buy less things.

So, yea, I think Texas is a libertarian hotspot.

85. AAI 07

Comment #83325 by mejdrich on October 29, 2007 at 4:36 pm

What can I tell you, Steve?

I live in Dallas Texas, one of the hottest places in the country for both libertarianism and religion. I can tell you, next to the religious people I have to deal with every day, Scooter is a compassionate friend.

The reality of our situation is that libertarianism isn't threatening to cast a shadow over the U.S. - Religion is. The Congress is still fighting hard for Health Care against a President who has a little over a year left of his term. Hillary Clinton (the current Presidential front-runner, by wide margin) made her splash trying to create Universal Health Care. You are going to get your way on Health Care, sooner or later.

Meanwhile, religion is still on a war path. Frankly, you and I can't afford to loose everyone that disagrees with us on economic reform. Stay on message. We need our separation of church and state. We need to mute the political voice of the Religious Right. Frankly, I'm surprised I'm the only one here who is saying that Fundamentalists are more dangerous than Libertarians. Seriously, people. Who's website are we on, again?

86. AAI 07

Comment #83320 by mejdrich on October 29, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Phil, Steve, and Bonzai,

Of course I vote, and of course I care about the uninsured poor and needy (I'm practically one of them).

My point is that, in America, Universal Health Care is a wedge issue. An intimidating chunk of the population sees it as socialist, and (I'm sad and embarrassed to say) most see socialist as a polite word for communism.

We already have stem-cell, abortion, and gay-rights as wedge-issues that we stand for. Those issues have religion directly at the heart of the opposition's argument. The supporters of Universal Health Care, on the other hand, are not opposing it due to religious arguments.

I think the divisive cost of having this debate just isn't worth it. Notice how many of the 200 posts on this thread have been alienating one atheist from another - accusations of flaming, lack of empathy, and immoral thinking. This, while Eddie Tabash is warning us that we are 1 supreme court justice away from loosing our protections under our constitution. We have bigger fish to fry, my friends.

Personally, I can't disagree more with the libertarians on health care, as I imagine we disagree on a number of issues. But if they are atheists, and if they believe in the seperation of church and state, then they are my brothers and sisters in arms. I would love to have a lively debate about economics, but I'd like to do it after Religion is back safely behind Jefferson's wall.


I'm curious, though: how many American Libertarians, here, plan on voting Republican (assuming Ron Paul does not get the nomination)? How many Democrat?

87. Cheney and Obama: It's Not Genetic

Comment #83307 by mejdrich on October 29, 2007 at 3:12 pm

Anyone guess why the Cheneys made this public, in the first place?

My guess is that since Cheney is so unpopular, the chance to link him, in any way, to a Democratic front-runner was seen as a good political move. Otherwise, I'm baffled.

Any thoughts?

88. AAI 07

Comment #83299 by mejdrich on October 29, 2007 at 2:46 pm

Through this entire argument, I keep imagining what Bill O'Reilly and the Republican Hate Machine would do to both sides. They would be giddy at our infighting.


Look. Everyone in Europe. You've got universal health care. I honestly envy you. But in America, that issue is beyond our ability to influence, as Atheists.

The future looks bleak. Sure we've had the books of Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins, but don't forget that two are British. This may be a surprise to some of you (or maybe it won't), but most Americans see the British as barely one-step better than the French. Sure, YouTube recently has had a strong, vocal Atheist movement, but the internet still isn't touching mainstream America (as seen in the lack of success of Ron Paul, even though he enjoys unbelievable YouTube popularity).

Atheists are fighting to survive in America. We have less political clout than even the most hated minorities. The last thing I care about is your preference of economic theory. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that matters is what choice of politics is going to keep the atheist movement alive.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but living in Dallas Texas I have to deal the realities of libertarian style government and the worst part of the bible belt. Religion makes life far more uncomfortable for me than the economics (and I'm not well off, if you're wondering). Every day I drive to work past a megachurch with a cross at the crest of the flagpoll, right above the US flag. It's hard to forget is running the government, here.

89. AAI 07

Comment #83005 by mejdrich on October 28, 2007 at 1:46 pm

The "flying Jewish Zombie" said let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

This is a little off topic, but that particular story was added by a creative monk who sketched it in the margins of his copy of the bible, and was eventually translated in as canon. FYI.

90. AAI 07

Comment #82982 by mejdrich on October 28, 2007 at 12:29 pm

I guess I am just sulking. I feel totally disenfranchised by the whole damn lot of them.

Man, do I empathize with you.

91. AAI 07

Comment #82966 by mejdrich on October 28, 2007 at 11:23 am

Limey, I never really thought we disagreed. :)

The Professor summed it up quite well when he said that, in America, a candidate cannot hope to be elected if they are simultaneously intelligent and honest.

Bluntly, I think pure libertarianism is silly. So what? I can't tell you how much I would enjoy debating economics with you - after Religion is out of the political scene. Let me put it this way. If my choices were Ron Paul, Pat Robertson (who ran in '88), or even Al Sharpton (ran in '04), I'd take Ron Paul any day. If our friends in Canada and Europe don't understand why, take a look at this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SkgyJApotZg

Still, this whole debate shows why we need to focus on the issues we agree on, or we'll never have a strong enough voice to matter.

92. AAI 07

Comment #82952 by mejdrich on October 28, 2007 at 10:45 am

Limey:

Saying things like "Though I can imagine you choking on your half-caff double latte mochachino in indignation when you read that" is inflammatory.

I understood your point the first time, and you seem to be getting distracted by the idea of "pandering". What is important is that the Republican candidates are far more religious than the Democratic ones. They take in a lot of money and a lot of votes from those with religious agendas.

I'm not advocating that we throw in with the Democrats, but we can see in them a common ally, like we see the gay lobby, the environmental movement, those for stem-cell, etc. Not everyone in those groups are atheist, but their positions rest on non-religious ideas and are opposed by the religious right.

93. AAI 07

Comment #82923 by mejdrich on October 28, 2007 at 9:21 am

USA_Limey:

My point was not that the Democrats have more established links with the religious groups but that they are trying to establish them. This again is pandering. And it is dishonest.

Three of the republican candidates claim they don't believe in Evolution. Every Democratic candidate is pro-choice. If the Democrats are pandering, as you claim, they are doing a shit job.

Though I can imagine you choking on your half-caff double latte mochachino in indignation when you read that.

What a substantive argument.

94. AAI 07

Comment #82920 by mejdrich on October 28, 2007 at 8:59 am

Your emotional, irrational, un-integrated experiences from the past serve you nothing except to re-injure you and keep you in the thought of being a victim.

Ease up, Scooter. The US stands alone as the only modernized country that doesn't offer universal health care. I hope you aren't trying to say that the rest of the world is having "emotional" issues. *rolls*eyes*

Personally, I agree with our European (and Canadian) brothers and sisters in arms on this one, but who cares? Is this why we're all on the Richard Dawkins webpage, because of our passion for Health Care?

However broken health care is in the US, it isn't hurting this country nearly as bad as the unrecognized disease-of-mind that is religion.

I don't know if anyone's noticed, but there is a substantial effort to overturn Roe v Wade in this country. Individual states are doing everything they can to ban abortion. Meanwhile, Bush has virtually banned research into Stem-Cells and we are falling further behind. Then there are gay-rights under seige, where states across the country are trying to deny gay couples the rights of marriage. And that doesn't even touch on the game of chicken we are playing with the Environment. All of these are religious issues (well, the environment is a science v irrationality issue). Universal health care is NOT a religious issue. I don't believe that Chapman even said it was.

We have our hands full, people. If you believe in Universal Health Care, vote Democrat, but realize that as atheists we have bigger fish to fry.

95. AAI 07

Comment #82779 by mejdrich on October 27, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Diacanu

Ah, well, my only beef with libertarians is the whole "piss on the homeless", thing, but that's a bridge I can cross after the whole "wipe out religion with enlightenment", project is over.

Exactly. I can't tell you how much I would enjoy bickering about economic theory AFTER we've crushed religion. Can we all be friends again, at least until the Pope stops the condom-genocide of AIDS infected Africa?

96. AAI 07

Comment #82755 by mejdrich on October 27, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Bonzai and ScooterNYC

Look at us. Instead of brainstorming ways to promote atheism, we're fighting about health care. This is a problem.

Universal health care is undoubtably important. So is the war in Iraq and dozens of other issues. When atheists get a lobby, they are going to have maybe one shot at nation-wide acceptance. If they blow it on this issue, atheism as a whole looses.

Remember, Dawkins isn't even that interested in fighting over Evolution being taught in schools. To paraphrase the good professor, its one battle in a greater war.

So quit fighting and start working together, you stubborn cats!

97. AAI 07

Comment #82732 by mejdrich on October 27, 2007 at 11:50 am

Bonzai, it's a tactical issue. Proclaiming atheists in favor of (what is seen in America) as specific, divisive political issues is going to kill us. We already are pro-choice and for gay rights. In many minds, that already makes us liberal nut jobs. (I live in Dallas Texas - I hear it every day)


Universal Healthcare is seen as a social issue. People don't want poor children to go without health care, but the debate is whether the solution is government or a church.


Stem cell research, on the other hand, is a perfect issue because it shows where Christians are blind to the suffering of others. Their dogma has backed them into a corner.

98. AAI 07

Comment #82697 by mejdrich on October 27, 2007 at 8:59 am

As atheists, we are going to get more traction talking about moral issues, not social. Catholic condoms in AIDS-ridden Africa should make EVERY American outraged.

Instead of socialized medicine, lets talk about stem-cell research. Most of the country already agrees with us, and every time the debate comes up, the religious zealots look more and more ridiculous (and callous). That issue is a 'win'.

Lets be honest - the 'end game' of atheism is probably more socialist than we have today in the US. But selling our votes to the Democrats will be the end of us. Lets mobilize, get a voice, and then let the political parties fight for our vote.

99. AAI 07

Comment #82593 by mejdrich on October 26, 2007 at 8:56 pm

My thought on that is that atheism already has it's hands full, as is. Being an atheist almost necessitates that you are pro-choice, against anti-gay legislation, and pro-stem cell research. These are some of the most controversial issues in American politics.

The LAST thing we need is to start weighing in on immigration and universal health care.

If nothing else, the Evangelical movement shows us the danger. The only thing they gained from their marriage to the Republicans, is an unfaithful spouce. Tactically, it would be a disaster for atheists to tie themselves to Democrats or even liberals.

That being said, I'll be voting Democrat next election. ;)

100. Pascal's Wager

Comment #81557 by mejdrich on October 24, 2007 at 10:46 pm

Why do YOU expect to get into heaven? Whatever your priest/preacher told you, the *Bible* says you are going to hell. (video from GodIsImaginary.com)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dzzORZhnCao