something for our "militant atheists"

[Peter T. Daniels]

Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick with
William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity -- religion in general,
actually -- is (as opposed to the "militant atheist" obsessions with
literal interpretation and contradictions of Scripture and with the
existence of God).

https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/william-barber-and-the-question-of-faith-and-politics

Scroll down to the second audio link for just the 23-minute cut,
though the second piece in the program is about Biden's Catholicism
(contrasted with his predecessor's whatever) and might also be of
interest

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick with
William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity -- religion in
general, actually -- is (as opposed to the "militant atheist"
obsessions with literal interpretation and contradictions of
Scripture and with the existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists. In fact
I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be pacifists. It's rare
for an atheist to start a war.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 09:23:02 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick with
William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity -- religion in
general, actually -- is (as opposed to the "militant atheist"
obsessions with literal interpretation and contradictions of
Scripture and with the existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists. In fact
I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be pacifists. It's rare
for an atheist to start a war.

Just as all atheists are now "militant", everyone on the left is now a
member of the "radical left", everyone on the right is on the "far
right", and there's a vacuum at the center.

Espousing government programs that benefit the public is "rampant
socialism" and government programs that benefit the already-rich are
"free enterprise" or "capitalism at work".

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 09:23:02 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick with
William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity -- religion in
general, actually -- is (as opposed to the "militant atheist"
obsessions with literal interpretation and contradictions of
Scripture and with the existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists. In fact
I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be pacifists. It's rare
for an atheist to start a war.

Just as all atheists are now "militant", everyone on the left is now a
member of the "radical left", everyone on the right is on the "far
right", and there's a vacuum at the center.
Espousing government programs that benefit the public is "rampant
socialism" and government programs that benefit the already-rich are
"free enterprise" or "capitalism at work".

In short, a convenient cliché. Referring, in this case, to the twin
obsessions I mentioned.

[Lewis]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick with
William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity -- religion in
general, actually -- is (as opposed to the "militant atheist"
obsessions with literal interpretation and contradictions of
Scripture and with the existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists. In fact
I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be pacifists. It's rare
for an atheist to start a war.

It's a way of painting atheists as innately bad people, and is just a
term of hatred used in an effort to exclude and demean.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick with
William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity -- religion in
general, actually -- is (as opposed to the "militant atheist"
obsessions with literal interpretation and contradictions of
Scripture and with the existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists. In fact
I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be pacifists. It's
rare for an atheist to start a war.

It's a way of painting atheists as innately bad people, and is just a
term of hatred used in an effort to exclude and demean.

We need the "caption-over commentary" heard in 2001 ASO.
Darn it (Dang it) it's not a clip most people want from the film, I can't
give a utube link.

[Paul Carmichael]

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick with
William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity -- religion in
general, actually -- is (as opposed to the "militant atheist"
obsessions with literal interpretation and contradictions of
Scripture and with the existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists. In fact
I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be pacifists. It's rare
for an atheist to start a war.

It's a way of painting atheists as innately bad people, and is just a
term of hatred used in an effort to exclude and demean.

Here in catlick land, they say "a los ateos, les da igual" or atheists don't give a shit
about anything or anybody. We are bad.

[Snidely]

Paul Carmichael suggested that ...

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick with
William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity -- religion in
general, actually -- is (as opposed to the "militant atheist"
obsessions with literal interpretation and contradictions of
Scripture and with the existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists. In fact
I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be pacifists. It's rare
for an atheist to start a war.

It's a way of painting atheists as innately bad people, and is just a
term of hatred used in an effort to exclude and demean.

Here in catlick land, they say "a los ateos, les da igual" or atheists don't
give a shit about anything or anybody. We are bad.

I think PTD's point is that a class of atheists cares very strongly
about telling non-atheists how wrong they are.

Which is just a instatiation of the general principle of
ClassX(subclassY) cares very strongly about telling ~ClassX how wrong
they are.

Grammar, religion, monetary policy, political stance, pick a ClassX.

/dps

[Lewis]

Post by Snidely
Paul Carmichael suggested that ...

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick with
William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity -- religion in
general, actually -- is (as opposed to the "militant atheist"
obsessions with literal interpretation and contradictions of
Scripture and with the existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists. In fact
I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be pacifists. It's rare
for an atheist to start a war.

It's a way of painting atheists as innately bad people, and is just a
term of hatred used in an effort to exclude and demean.

Here in catlick land, they say "a los ateos, les da igual" or atheists don't
give a shit about anything or anybody. We are bad.

I think PTD's point is that a class of atheists cares very strongly
about telling non-atheists how wrong they are.

Which is not true. There is a class of atheists that will not put up
with bullshit spread by religious zealots trying to tell other people
how to live, behave, and believe. I've never met a single atheist who
has told someone not to be religious, only to stop trying to force their
religion on people who do not want it.

Evidently, the religious zealots think it is their right to spread
their bullshit while simultaneously believing no one has the right to
contradict them, ridicule them, or point out their errors in doctrine
according to the very religion they claim to follow.

Post by Snidely
Which is just a instatiation of the general principle of
ClassX(subclassY) cares very strongly about telling ~ClassX how wrong
they are.

Xian zealots in the US love to talk about how oppressed they are, and
how the majority of people are evil atheists and that the Xian faith is
under assault. This is horseshit, of course.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 22:06:27 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
Evidently, the religious zealots think it is their right to spread
their bullshit while simultaneously believing no one has the right to
contradict them, ridicule them, or point out their errors in doctrine
according to the very religion they claim to follow.

Do you do it, though?

I don't. I'm an atheist, and I've been around many people who have
attempted to initiate a conversation pertaining to some religious
subject. They've ranged from the moderate to the full-blown, Holy
Roller, the Bible is inerrent types.

I've never contradicted, ridiculed, or argued with any of them. I
grunt an non-explicit "unh-hunh" and extricate myself from the
conversation at first oppotunity.

There's no point to do otherwise.

[Lewis]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 22:06:27 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
Evidently, the religious zealots think it is their right to spread
their bullshit while simultaneously believing no one has the right to
contradict them, ridicule them, or point out their errors in doctrine
according to the very religion they claim to follow.

Do you do it, though?

Depends on the circumstances. I've been known to quote Matthew to people
who are belligerently ignoring the Bible's prohibition of public prayer¹,
but someone has to be bing a pretty big asshole before I'll engage. The
prohibition always comes as a surprise to them since so few of these
zealots actually read their own bullshit.

I have plenty of friends and family who are religious, and even a priest
in the family. We get along fine because they don't tell me I'm a
horrible person for not being religious.

Post by Tony Cooper
I've never contradicted, ridiculed, or argued with any of them. I
grunt an non-explicit "unh-hunh" and extricate myself from the
conversation at first oppotunity.

Again, it depends on how obnoxious they are or how inappropriate I feel
they are being. When and employee at the DMV wished me a "blessed day" I
complained, as I find that to be an entirely inappropriate comment from
a government employee. Or any employee, actually.

Post by Tony Cooper
There's no point to do otherwise.

I will never pretend to be religious just because someone might be
offended, not even to the point of a un-meant agreement with what they
are saying.

Where you say "uh huh" I would say "you do you" or "believe what you
want" which is usually enough to get someone to shut the hell up about
their beliefs around me. If it's not, I will be clearer.

But if someone says asks me if I've accepted Jesus into my life I am
pretty likely to reply "Hail Satan."

Someone's freedom of religion ends about a foot away from me, as far as
I am concerned.

¹ when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy
door, pray to thy Father

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 22:06:27 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
Evidently, the religious zealots think it is their right to spread
their bullshit while simultaneously believing no one has the right to
contradict them, ridicule them, or point out their errors in doctrine
according to the very religion they claim to follow.

Do you do it, though?

Depends on the circumstances. I've been known to quote Matthew to people
who are belligerently ignoring the Bible's prohibition of public prayer¹,
but someone has to be bing a pretty big asshole before I'll engage. The
prohibition always comes as a surprise to them since so few of these
zealots actually read their own bullshit.
I have plenty of friends and family who are religious, and even a priest
in the family. We get along fine because they don't tell me I'm a
horrible person for not being religious.

While you tell them they are horrible persons for being religious.

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
I've never contradicted, ridiculed, or argued with any of them. I
grunt an non-explicit "unh-hunh" and extricate myself from the
conversation at first oppotunity.

Again, it depends on how obnoxious they are or how inappropriate I feel
they are being. When and employee at the DMV wished me a "blessed day" I
complained, as I find that to be an entirely inappropriate comment from
a government employee. Or any employee, actually.

You would do well to discover what "blessed" means.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 22:06:27 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
Evidently, the religious zealots think it is their right to spread
their bullshit while simultaneously believing no one has the right to
contradict them, ridicule them, or point out their errors in doctrine
according to the very religion they claim to follow.

Do you do it, though?

Depends on the circumstances. I've been known to quote Matthew to people
who are belligerently ignoring the Bible's prohibition of public prayer¹,
but someone has to be bing a pretty big asshole before I'll engage. The
prohibition always comes as a surprise to them since so few of these
zealots actually read their own bullshit.
I have plenty of friends and family who are religious, and even a priest
in the family. We get along fine because they don't tell me I'm a
horrible person for not being religious.

Post by Tony Cooper
I've never contradicted, ridiculed, or argued with any of them. I
grunt an non-explicit "unh-hunh" and extricate myself from the
conversation at first oppotunity.

Again, it depends on how obnoxious they are or how inappropriate I feel
they are being. When and employee at the DMV wished me a "blessed day" I
complained, as I find that to be an entirely inappropriate comment from
a government employee. Or any employee, actually.

That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

[Lanarcam]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Lewis
Again, it depends on how obnoxious they are or how inappropriate I feel
they are being. When and employee at the DMV wished me a "blessed day" I
complained, as I find that to be an entirely inappropriate comment from
a government employee. Or any employee, actually.

That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

Why are militant atheists particularly intolerant?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Lanarcam

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Lewis
Again, it depends on how obnoxious they are or how inappropriate I feel
they are being. When and employee at the DMV wished me a "blessed day" I
complained, as I find that to be an entirely inappropriate comment from
a government employee. Or any employee, actually.

That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

Why are militant atheists particularly intolerant?

They subconsciously recognize how precarious their position is?

The only rational approach is agnosticism. Atheism is exactly as
much a matter of faith as theism is.

[Lanarcam]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Lanarcam

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Lewis
Again, it depends on how obnoxious they are or how inappropriate I feel
they are being. When and employee at the DMV wished me a "blessed day" I
complained, as I find that to be an entirely inappropriate comment from
a government employee. Or any employee, actually.

That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

Why are militant atheists particularly intolerant?

They subconsciously recognize how precarious their position is?

They are insecure, they fear something terrible and need reassurance.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
The only rational approach is agnosticism. Atheism is exactly as
much a matter of faith as theism is.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Lanarcam

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Lanarcam

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Lewis
Again, it depends on how obnoxious they are or how inappropriate I feel
they are being. When and employee at the DMV wished me a "blessed day" I
complained, as I find that to be an entirely inappropriate comment from
a government employee. Or any employee, actually.

That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

Why are militant atheists particularly intolerant?

They subconsciously recognize how precarious their position is?

They are insecure, they fear something terrible and need reassurance.

More turning upside down.
The insecure ones are the religionists.
They know, deep down, how absurd their belief system is.
They reassure themselves that it can't be too bad
by trying to convert others.

Succes with it reassures them,

Jan

[Lanarcam]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Lanarcam

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Lanarcam

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Lewis
Again, it depends on how obnoxious they are or how inappropriate I feel
they are being. When and employee at the DMV wished me a "blessed day" I
complained, as I find that to be an entirely inappropriate comment from
a government employee. Or any employee, actually.

That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

Why are militant atheists particularly intolerant?

They subconsciously recognize how precarious their position is?

They are insecure, they fear something terrible and need reassurance.

More turning upside down.
The insecure ones are the religionists > They know, deep down, how absurd their belief system is.

So, why are they insecure?

Post by J. J. Lodder
They reassure themselves that it can't be too bad
by trying to convert others.
Succes with it reassures them,

If one day you encounter God, will you
still be an unbeliever?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Lanarcam

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Lanarcam
Why are militant atheists particularly intolerant?

They subconsciously recognize how precarious their position is?

They are insecure, they fear something terrible and need reassurance.

More turning upside down.
The insecure ones are the religionists.
They know, deep down, how absurd their belief system is.
They reassure themselves that it can't be too bad
by trying to convert others.

Let us suppose that there are five billion "religionists" in the world.

How many of them, in total, "try to convert others"?

[Ross Clark]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Lanarcam

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Lewis
Again, it depends on how obnoxious they are or how inappropriate I feel
they are being. When and employee at the DMV wished me a "blessed day" I
complained, as I find that to be an entirely inappropriate comment from
a government employee. Or any employee, actually.

That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

Why are militant atheists particularly intolerant?

They subconsciously recognize how precarious their position is?
The only rational approach is agnosticism.

Does that make you a "militant agnostic"?

Atheism is exactly as

Post by Peter T. Daniels
much a matter of faith as theism is.

And your problem with faith is...?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Ross Clark

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Lanarcam

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Lewis
Again, it depends on how obnoxious they are or how inappropriate I feel
they are being. When and employee at the DMV wished me a "blessed day" I
complained, as I find that to be an entirely inappropriate comment from
a government employee. Or any employee, actually.

That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

Why are militant atheists particularly intolerant?

They subconsciously recognize how precarious their position is?
The only rational approach is agnosticism.

Does that make you a "militant agnostic"?

Do I ruthlessly attack people who are not agnostics?

Look at how one of our "militant atheists" regularly attacks someone
who posted here years ago from a fundamentalist Christian position.

Look at how one of our "militant atheists" constantly attacks all
religion on the basis of what must have been some pretty traumatic
experiences in his childhood in Mexico.

Post by Ross Clark

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Atheism is exactly as
much a matter of faith as theism is.>

And your problem with faith is...?

That atheists claim that their position is _not_ faith-based.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ross Clark

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Lanarcam

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Lewis
Again, it depends on how obnoxious they are or how inappropriate I feel
they are being. When and employee at the DMV wished me a "blessed day" I
complained, as I find that to be an entirely inappropriate comment from
a government employee. Or any employee, actually.

That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

Why are militant atheists particularly intolerant?

They subconsciously recognize how precarious their position is?
The only rational approach is agnosticism.

Does that make you a "militant agnostic"?

Do I ruthlessly attack people who are not agnostics?

You've just told them they're not rational.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Look at how one of our "militant atheists" regularly attacks someone
who posted here years ago from a fundamentalist Christian position.

"Our" again?! I don't recognize either person from your description.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Look at how one of our "militant atheists" constantly attacks all
religion on the basis of what must have been some pretty traumatic
experiences in his childhood in Mexico.

He's a bit extreme on various subjects. So?

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ross Clark

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Atheism is exactly as
much a matter of faith as theism is.>

And your problem with faith is...?

That atheists claim that their position is _not_ faith-based.

Some do, I guess. So you're saying you know better, and they're wrong?
And if you met an atheist who said their position was faith-based, what
would you say to them?
"Faith" is a peculiar concept anyway -- a technical term within
Christianity, which nowadays we like to think must be apply to all other
religions. (I like the old definition: "Faith means believing things you
know aren't true.") Do you have a good reason for attributing faith to
atheists? Or have you just picked up this old adage from the same people
I heard it from decades ago?
And what's agnosticism anyway? I thought it was a fairly strong
philosophical position about how we couldn't possibly know about God and
stuff like that. Surely you would need a certain amount of faith to hold
such a view?

Philosophically, I think there is a basis for saying one /can't/ know for sure
whether God exists. If there's no God in the usual sense but there is a being
immensely more powerful than us, that being could convince us that there
is a God. And if an omnipotent God exists, They could cause us to believe
that They don't exist, for instance by causing erroneous arguments to appear
rational to us. (That's the Reversed Lewis argument--I mean C. S. Lewis, not
a participant in this thread.)

Or does agnosticism just mean refusing to have an opinion?

Both meanings are in use. AHD says:

"1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true
atheism."

It defines atheism as "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods."

There seems to be some overlap around the position of believing there's no
disproof of the existence of God or gods, but there's no more reason to
take the possibility into account than there is for the Tooth Fairy. A lot of
arguments over "atheism" and "agnosticism" seem to be about that overlap
area and feature people who are certain the definition they use is the only
one possible.

[Ross Clark]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ross Clark

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Lanarcam

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Lewis
Again, it depends on how obnoxious they are or how inappropriate I feel
they are being. When and employee at the DMV wished me a "blessed day" I
complained, as I find that to be an entirely inappropriate comment from
a government employee. Or any employee, actually.

That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

Why are militant atheists particularly intolerant?

They subconsciously recognize how precarious their position is?
The only rational approach is agnosticism.

Does that make you a "militant agnostic"?

Do I ruthlessly attack people who are not agnostics?

You've just told them they're not rational.

How is that a "ruthless attack"? It's a simple application of logic.

Well, the "ruthless attack" is part of your personal definition. And of
course the "simple application of logic" is your self-description of
your own mental processes. So where would an argument go from here?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Look at how one of our "militant atheists" regularly attacks someone
who posted here years ago from a fundamentalist Christian position.

"Our" again?! I don't recognize either person from your description.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Look at how one of our "militant atheists" constantly attacks all
religion on the basis of what must have been some pretty traumatic
experiences in his childhood in Mexico.

He's a bit extreme on various subjects. So?

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ross Clark

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Atheism is exactly as
much a matter of faith as theism is.>

And your problem with faith is...?

That atheists claim that their position is _not_ faith-based.

Some do, I guess. So you're saying you know better, and they're wrong?
And if you met an atheist who said their position was faith-based, what
would you say to them?

I would congratulate them on their insight.

while still claiming they were not rational?

"Faith" is a peculiar concept anyway -- a technical term within
Christianity, which nowadays we like to think must be apply to all other
religions. (I like the old definition: "Faith means believing things you
know aren't true.") Do you have a good reason for attributing faith to
atheists? Or have you just picked up this old adage from the same people
I heard it from decades ago?

I figured out, all by myself, that it is no more possible to prove that (a)
g/God does not exist than it is to prove that one does exist.

A conclusion many have come to. So any belief that isn't "proved" is
based on "faith", hence not rational?

And what's agnosticism anyway? I thought it was a fairly strong
philosophical position about how we couldn't possibly know about God and
stuff like that. Surely you would need a certain amount of faith to hold
such a view? Or does agnosticism just mean refusing to have an opinion?

There's no "stuff like that." It is simply recognizing that the existence of g/God
is not something that can be known.

A belief which you have not "proved".

[Madhu]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Look at how one of our "militant atheists" regularly attacks someone
who posted here years ago from a fundamentalist Christian position.

"Our" again?! I don't recognize either person from your description.

I was not here when that person was posting, but I see repeated attacks
on the person, which can only be the result of deep scars from the
person and a fundamental conviction (which has to be denied at all
costs) that the person was right and the reactions were wrong.

The attacks just cover up the insecurity and the fundamental errors ,
and the cohorts joining in is reassuring and every few months we have
the circle jerk in aue of the militant atheists rejoicing and glowing in
their comraderie

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Madhu

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Look at how one of our "militant atheists" regularly attacks someone
who posted here years ago from a fundamentalist Christian position.

"Our" again?! I don't recognize either person from your description.

I was not here when that person was posting, but I see repeated attacks
on the person, which can only be the result of deep scars from the
person and a fundamental conviction (which has to be denied at all
costs) that the person was right and the reactions were wrong.

Not so. There have been other evangelical or fundamentalist Christians
here--John Seeliger some years ago, and Wayne Brown posted as recently as
last April. They said sensible things about English usage and other topics,
and nobody attacked or attacks them.

The person PTD is probably talking about insisted repeatedly, despite many
refutations, that "faith" was literally a verb and that 0.99999... is not equal
to 1. Lots of people here got frustrated. Even I took a whack at the Tar
Baby. No one had a fundamental conviction that she was right. I don't think
anyone debated Christianity with her. Any scars came from other sources--
mostly frustration, I think, as I said.

Post by Madhu
The attacks just cover up the insecurity and the fundamental errors ,
and the cohorts joining in is reassuring and every few months we have
the circle jerk in aue of the militant atheists rejoicing and glowing in
their comraderie

Though an atheist/agnostic (depending on your definition), I have
occasion to point out my "comrades'" oversimplifications at times.

However, in my opinion it's not a good idea to suggest psychological
reasons for what you believe to be other people's errors.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Lanarcam

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Lewis
Again, it depends on how obnoxious they are or how inappropriate I feel
they are being. When and employee at the DMV wished me a "blessed day" I
complained, as I find that to be an entirely inappropriate comment from
a government employee. Or any employee, actually.

That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

Why are militant atheists particularly intolerant?

They subconsciously recognize how precarious their position is?
The only rational approach is agnosticism. Atheism is exactly as
much a matter of faith as theism is.

Yes, and not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Do you really need to recycle all that?

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by J. J. Lodder
Yes, and not collecting stamps is a hobby.

How so?

Post by J. J. Lodder
Do you really need to recycle all that?

Do you really need to stick your oar into _every_ canal?

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 22:06:27 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
Evidently, the religious zealots think it is their right to spread
their bullshit while simultaneously believing no one has the right to
contradict them, ridicule them, or point out their errors in doctrine
according to the very religion they claim to follow.

Do you do it, though?

Depends on the circumstances. I've been known to quote Matthew to people
who are belligerently ignoring the Bible's prohibition of public prayer¹,
but someone has to be bing a pretty big asshole before I'll engage. The
prohibition always comes as a surprise to them since so few of these
zealots actually read their own bullshit.
I have plenty of friends and family who are religious, and even a priest
in the family. We get along fine because they don't tell me I'm a
horrible person for not being religious.

Post by Tony Cooper
I've never contradicted, ridiculed, or argued with any of them. I
grunt an non-explicit "unh-hunh" and extricate myself from the
conversation at first oppotunity.

Again, it depends on how obnoxious they are or how inappropriate I feel
they are being. When and employee at the DMV wished me a "blessed day" I
complained, as I find that to be an entirely inappropriate comment from
a government employee. Or any employee, actually.

That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

"Have a blessed day" is commonly heard in this area. White
evangelicals, for sure, but mostly said by black people.

I don't object to it, and I don't utter a response, but I don't think
it's any more or less appropriate when said by a government employee.
I don't see how the person's employer has anything to do with it.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 22:06:27 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
Evidently, the religious zealots think it is their right to spread
their bullshit while simultaneously believing no one has the right to
contradict them, ridicule them, or point out their errors in doctrine
according to the very religion they claim to follow.

Do you do it, though?

Depends on the circumstances. I've been known to quote Matthew to people
who are belligerently ignoring the Bible's prohibition of public prayer¹,
but someone has to be bing a pretty big asshole before I'll engage. The
prohibition always comes as a surprise to them since so few of these
zealots actually read their own bullshit.
I have plenty of friends and family who are religious, and even a priest
in the family. We get along fine because they don't tell me I'm a
horrible person for not being religious.

Post by Tony Cooper
I've never contradicted, ridiculed, or argued with any of them. I
grunt an non-explicit "unh-hunh" and extricate myself from the
conversation at first oppotunity.

Again, it depends on how obnoxious they are or how inappropriate I feel
they are being. When and employee at the DMV wished me a "blessed day" I
complained, as I find that to be an entirely inappropriate comment from
a government employee. Or any employee, actually.

That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

"Have a blessed day" is commonly heard in this area. White
evangelicals, for sure, but mostly said by black people.
I don't object to it, and I don't utter a response, but I don't think
it's any more or less appropriate when said by a government employee.
I don't see how the person's employer has anything to do with it.

I suspect a cheery "Thanks!" would be a suitable response. Or,
for those so inclined, "You too!"

[Ross Clark]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 22:06:27 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
Evidently, the religious zealots think it is their right to spread
their bullshit while simultaneously believing no one has the right to
contradict them, ridicule them, or point out their errors in doctrine
according to the very religion they claim to follow.

Do you do it, though?

Depends on the circumstances. I've been known to quote Matthew to people
who are belligerently ignoring the Bible's prohibition of public prayer¹,
but someone has to be bing a pretty big asshole before I'll engage. The
prohibition always comes as a surprise to them since so few of these
zealots actually read their own bullshit.
I have plenty of friends and family who are religious, and even a priest
in the family. We get along fine because they don't tell me I'm a
horrible person for not being religious.

Post by Tony Cooper
I've never contradicted, ridiculed, or argued with any of them. I
grunt an non-explicit "unh-hunh" and extricate myself from the
conversation at first oppotunity.

Again, it depends on how obnoxious they are or how inappropriate I feel
they are being. When and employee at the DMV wished me a "blessed day" I
complained, as I find that to be an entirely inappropriate comment from
a government employee. Or any employee, actually.

That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

"Have a blessed day" is commonly heard in this area. White
evangelicals, for sure, but mostly said by black people.
I don't object to it, and I don't utter a response, but I don't think
it's any more or less appropriate when said by a government employee.
I don't see how the person's employer has anything to do with it.

I'm just as irritated by "have a nice day" and similar wishes offered to
me by supermarket employees.

[charles]

Post by Ross Clark

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 22:06:27 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
Evidently, the religious zealots think it is their right to spread
their bullshit while simultaneously believing no one has the right
to contradict them, ridicule them, or point out their errors in
doctrine according to the very religion they claim to follow.

Do you do it, though?

Depends on the circumstances. I've been known to quote Matthew to
people who are belligerently ignoring the Bible's prohibition of
public prayer¹, but someone has to be bing a pretty big asshole
before I'll engage. The prohibition always comes as a surprise to
them since so few of these zealots actually read their own bullshit.
I have plenty of friends and family who are religious, and even a
priest in the family. We get along fine because they don't tell me
I'm a horrible person for not being religious.

Post by Tony Cooper
I've never contradicted, ridiculed, or argued with any of them. I
grunt an non-explicit "unh-hunh" and extricate myself from the
conversation at first oppotunity.

Again, it depends on how obnoxious they are or how inappropriate I
feel they are being. When and employee at the DMV wished me a
"blessed day" I complained, as I find that to be an entirely
inappropriate comment from a government employee. Or any employee,
actually.

That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

"Have a blessed day" is commonly heard in this area. White
evangelicals, for sure, but mostly said by black people.
I don't object to it, and I don't utter a response, but I don't think
it's any more or less appropriate when said by a government employee. I
don't see how the person's employer has anything to do with it.

I'm just as irritated by "have a nice day" and similar wishes offered to
me by supermarket employees.

A collegue gave the perfect reply to such an utterance.
"Unfortunately, I've made other arrangements."

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Ross Clark

"Have a blessed day" is commonly heard in this area. White
evangelicals, for sure, but mostly said by black people.
I don't object to it, and I don't utter a response, but I don't think
it's any more or less appropriate when said by a government employee.
I don't see how the person's employer has anything to do with it.

I'm just as irritated by "have a nice day" and similar wishes offered to
me by supermarket employees.

These days it's "Have a nice rest of the day."

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 22:06:27 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
Evidently, the religious zealots think it is their right to spread
their bullshit while simultaneously believing no one has the right to
contradict them, ridicule them, or point out their errors in doctrine
according to the very religion they claim to follow.

Do you do it, though?

Depends on the circumstances. I've been known to quote Matthew to people
who are belligerently ignoring the Bible's prohibition of public prayer¹,
but someone has to be bing a pretty big asshole before I'll engage. The
prohibition always comes as a surprise to them since so few of these
zealots actually read their own bullshit.
I have plenty of friends and family who are religious, and even a priest
in the family. We get along fine because they don't tell me I'm a
horrible person for not being religious.

Post by Tony Cooper
I've never contradicted, ridiculed, or argued with any of them. I
grunt an non-explicit "unh-hunh" and extricate myself from the
conversation at first oppotunity.

Again, it depends on how obnoxious they are or how inappropriate I feel
they are being. When and employee at the DMV wished me a "blessed day" I
complained, as I find that to be an entirely inappropriate comment from
a government employee. Or any employee, actually.

That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

"Have a blessed day" is commonly heard in this area. White
evangelicals, for sure, but mostly said by black people.
I don't object to it, and I don't utter a response, but I don't think
it's any more or less appropriate when said by a government employee.
I don't see how the person's employer has anything to do with it.

I've never encountered it, but the response

"Thanks, but I have other plans."

seems about right

[Jerry Friedman]

...

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Lewis
Again, it depends on how obnoxious they are or how inappropriate I feel
they are being. When and employee at the DMV wished me a "blessed day" I
complained, as I find that to be an entirely inappropriate comment from
a government employee. Or any employee, actually.

That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

"Have a blessed day" is commonly heard in this area. White
evangelicals, for sure, but mostly said by black people.
I don't object to it, and I don't utter a response, but I don't think
it's any more or less appropriate when said by a government employee.
I don't see how the person's employer has anything to do with it.

I've never encountered it, but the response
"Thanks, but I have other plans."
seems about right

"Don't tell me what kind of day to have."

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Sam Plusnet

"Have a blessed day" is commonly heard in this area. White
evangelicals, for sure, but mostly said by black people.
I don't object to it, and I don't utter a response, but I don't think
it's any more or less appropriate when said by a government employee.
I don't see how the person's employer has anything to do with it.

I've never encountered it, but the response
"Thanks, but I have other plans."
seems about right

You're planning to have a cursed day?

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Adam Funk
That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

What matters for the learner:

It's [ˈblɛsɪd], not [blɛst] (as in "(...)pressed",
"embarrassed", "possessed", "stressed", ...).

[Ross Clark]

Post by Stefan Ram

Post by Adam Funk
That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

It's [ˈblɛsɪd], not [blɛst] (as in "(...)pressed",
"embarrassed", "possessed", "stressed", ...).

I guess that's right. (Fortunately I don't hear that one much.)
But beware: If you're going for the celebrity-spiritual touch of using
"blessed" to mean "fortunate" it has to be [blɛst], as in

“I'm so blessed God gave me such an understanding Mom.”

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Ross Clark

Post by Adam Funk
That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

It's [?bl?s?d], not [bl?st] (as in "(...)pressed",
"embarrassed", "possessed", "stressed", ...).

I guess that's right. (Fortunately I don't hear that one much.)
But beware: If you're going for the celebrity-spiritual touch of using
"blessed" to mean "fortunate" it has to be [bl?st], as in
“I'm so blessed God gave me such an understanding Mom.”

Two different words. The person who says "Have a blessed day"
pronounces it "bless-ed". Your sentence has the "blest"
pronunciation.

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ross Clark

Post by Adam Funk
That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

It's [?bl?s?d], not [bl?st] (as in "(...)pressed",
"embarrassed", "possessed", "stressed", ...).

I guess that's right. (Fortunately I don't hear that one much.)
But beware: If you're going for the celebrity-spiritual touch of using
"blessed" to mean "fortunate" it has to be [bl?st], as in
“I'm so blessed God gave me such an understanding Mom.”

Two different words. The person who says "Have a blessed day"
pronounces it "bless-ed". Your sentence has the "blest"
pronunciation.

I see no evidence for treating tham as "different words".

| Pronounced (blest ) for meaning [sense 1], and (blesɪd ) for meaning
| [sense 2].
<https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/blessed>

Even so, the two meanings are so close that I have to think about it.

For "blessed are the peacemakers", I quickly find both pronunciations on
Youtube. The reason may just be that "it's biblical".

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 18:54:06 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ross Clark

Post by Adam Funk
That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

It's [?bl?s?d], not [bl?st] (as in "(...)pressed",
"embarrassed", "possessed", "stressed", ...).

I guess that's right. (Fortunately I don't hear that one much.)
But beware: If you're going for the celebrity-spiritual touch of using
"blessed" to mean "fortunate" it has to be [bl?st], as in
?I'm so blessed God gave me such an understanding Mom.?

Two different words. The person who says "Have a blessed day"
pronounces it "bless-ed". Your sentence has the "blest"
pronunciation.

I see no evidence for treating tham as "different words".

In speech, they are not at all interchangeable. That, to me, makes
them very different.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 18:54:06 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 11:37:45 +1300, Ross Clark

Post by Ross Clark

Post by Adam Funk
That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

It's [?bl?s?d], not [bl?st] (as in "(...)pressed",
"embarrassed", "possessed", "stressed", ...).

I guess that's right. (Fortunately I don't hear that one
much.) But beware: If you're going for the celebrity-spiritual
touch of using "blessed" to mean "fortunate" it has to be
[bl?st], as in
?I'm so blessed God gave me such an understanding Mom.?

Two different words. The person who says "Have a blessed day"
pronounces it "bless-ed". Your sentence has the "blest"
pronunciation.

I see no evidence for treating tham as "different words".

In speech, they are not at all interchangeable. That, to me, makes
them very different.

If somebody said "Have a blest day" it wouldn't bother me too much. But
the archaic "blessèd" is used only by the Ned Flanders types, so to me
it sounds like dog whistling. It leaves me tempted to answer "I'm not a
member of your sect".

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 14:16:02 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 18:54:06 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 11:37:45 +1300, Ross Clark

Post by Ross Clark

Post by Adam Funk
That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

It's [?bl?s?d], not [bl?st] (as in "(...)pressed",
"embarrassed", "possessed", "stressed", ...).

I guess that's right. (Fortunately I don't hear that one
much.) But beware: If you're going for the celebrity-spiritual
touch of using "blessed" to mean "fortunate" it has to be
[bl?st], as in
?I'm so blessed God gave me such an understanding Mom.?

Two different words. The person who says "Have a blessed day"
pronounces it "bless-ed". Your sentence has the "blest"
pronunciation.

I see no evidence for treating tham as "different words".

In speech, they are not at all interchangeable. That, to me, makes
them very different.

If somebody said "Have a blest day" it wouldn't bother me too much. But
the archaic "blessèd" is used only by the Ned Flanders types, so to me
it sounds like dog whistling. It leaves me tempted to answer "I'm not a
member of your sect".

While I hear it quite a bit, I don't know anyone who says "Have a
blessed day". It could be a shop clerk, someone on the phone, or
someone who I've had only the briefest contact with.

I assume they are well-meaning and sincere, but I don't assume they
are attempting to foist their beliefs on me. I don't conjecture
about what type of person they are.

[Ross Clark]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ross Clark

Post by Adam Funk
That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

It's [?bl?s?d], not [bl?st] (as in "(...)pressed",
"embarrassed", "possessed", "stressed", ...).

I guess that's right. (Fortunately I don't hear that one much.)
But beware: If you're going for the celebrity-spiritual touch of using
"blessed" to mean "fortunate" it has to be [bl?st], as in
“I'm so blessed God gave me such an understanding Mom.”

Two different words. The person who says "Have a blessed day"
pronounces it "bless-ed". Your sentence has the "blest"
pronunciation.

That's what I just said. Two different pronunciations, but you might get
an argument about "different words".

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Ross Clark

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ross Clark

Post by Adam Funk
That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

It's [?bl?s?d], not [bl?st] (as in "(...)pressed",
"embarrassed", "possessed", "stressed", ...).

I guess that's right. (Fortunately I don't hear that one much.)
But beware: If you're going for the celebrity-spiritual touch of using
"blessed" to mean "fortunate" it has to be [bl?st], as in
“I'm so blessed God gave me such an understanding Mom.”

Two different words. The person who says "Have a blessed day"
pronounces it "bless-ed". Your sentence has the "blest"
pronunciation.

That's what I just said. Two different pronunciations, but you might get
an argument about "different words".

Oh, there can be an argument about anything. You can say "address"
and "address" are not two different words, but the pronunciation
clearly determines which word you mean.

[Lewis]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ross Clark

Post by Adam Funk
That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

It's [?bl?s?d], not [bl?st] (as in "(...)pressed",
"embarrassed", "possessed", "stressed", ...).

I guess that's right. (Fortunately I don't hear that one much.)
But beware: If you're going for the celebrity-spiritual touch of using
"blessed" to mean "fortunate" it has to be [bl?st], as in
“I'm so blessed God gave me such an understanding Mom.”

Two different words. The person who says "Have a blessed day"
pronounces it "bless-ed".

Some do. Some don't. I'd say it's the majority, but "blest day" is
common enough.

[Lewis]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 22:06:27 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
Evidently, the religious zealots think it is their right to spread
their bullshit while simultaneously believing no one has the right to
contradict them, ridicule them, or point out their errors in doctrine
according to the very religion they claim to follow.

Do you do it, though?

Depends on the circumstances. I've been known to quote Matthew to people
who are belligerently ignoring the Bible's prohibition of public prayer¹,
but someone has to be bing a pretty big asshole before I'll engage. The
prohibition always comes as a surprise to them since so few of these
zealots actually read their own bullshit.
I have plenty of friends and family who are religious, and even a priest
in the family. We get along fine because they don't tell me I'm a
horrible person for not being religious.

Post by Tony Cooper
I've never contradicted, ridiculed, or argued with any of them. I
grunt an non-explicit "unh-hunh" and extricate myself from the
conversation at first oppotunity.

Again, it depends on how obnoxious they are or how inappropriate I feel
they are being. When and employee at the DMV wished me a "blessed day" I
complained, as I find that to be an entirely inappropriate comment from
a government employee. Or any employee, actually.

That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

You think? How do you think she would have reacted if I'd wished her a
orgasmic day> Think she would have been offended and complained? How
about if I wished her the blessings of Ba'al or told her to "go with
Satan"?

Blessings are religious, and religion has no place in the government.

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 03:33:24 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 22:06:27 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
Evidently, the religious zealots think it is their right to spread
their bullshit while simultaneously believing no one has the right to
contradict them, ridicule them, or point out their errors in doctrine
according to the very religion they claim to follow.

Do you do it, though?

Depends on the circumstances. I've been known to quote Matthew to people
who are belligerently ignoring the Bible's prohibition of public prayer¹,
but someone has to be bing a pretty big asshole before I'll engage. The
prohibition always comes as a surprise to them since so few of these
zealots actually read their own bullshit.
I have plenty of friends and family who are religious, and even a priest
in the family. We get along fine because they don't tell me I'm a
horrible person for not being religious.

Post by Tony Cooper
I've never contradicted, ridiculed, or argued with any of them. I
grunt an non-explicit "unh-hunh" and extricate myself from the
conversation at first oppotunity.

Again, it depends on how obnoxious they are or how inappropriate I feel
they are being. When and employee at the DMV wished me a "blessed day" I
complained, as I find that to be an entirely inappropriate comment from
a government employee. Or any employee, actually.

That's a crazy overreaction to the mere word "blessed".

You think? How do you think she would have reacted if I'd wished her a
orgasmic day

If you don't see the difference between "Have a blessed day" and "Have
an orgasmic day" spoken to you by a total stranger, then it's you who
doesn't understand what is and what is not appropriate.

Post by Lewis
Blessings are religious, and religion has no place in the government.

You are not being blessed by the person saying "Have a blessed day".

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Lewis

Post by Snidely
Paul Carmichael suggested that ...

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick with
William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity -- religion in
general, actually -- is (as opposed to the "militant atheist"
obsessions with literal interpretation and contradictions of
Scripture and with the existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists. In fact
I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be pacifists. It's rare
for an atheist to start a war.

If a war, it's a moral war. It rouses deep feelings precisely because it
appears to be aimed at undermining people's inner lives.

Post by Lewis

Post by Snidely

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Lewis
It's a way of painting atheists as innately bad people, and is just a
term of hatred used in an effort to exclude and demean.

Here in catlick land, they say "a los ateos, les da igual" or atheists don't
give a shit about anything or anybody. We are bad.

I think PTD's point is that a class of atheists cares very strongly
about telling non-atheists how wrong they are.

Which is not true.

Isn't Dawkins a counter-example? I am only going by reports, which may
not be accurate. I haven't studied his attacks carefully.

But I'm replying by force of coincidence, stemming from my interest in a
particular local rabbi here, which led me to a book he'd written more
than 12 years ago as a response to Dawkins' /The God Delusion/. Here's
an article about it from the Catholic Herald in 2008:
<http://archive-uat.catholicherald.co.uk/article/14th-march-2008/9/rabbis
-reply-to-dawkins>

Rabbi Sybil Sheridan puts her finger on it. Religion is experiential,
and Dawkins is irrelevant to that.

Post by Lewis
There is a class of atheists that will not put up
with bullshit spread by religious zealots trying to tell other people
how to live, behave, and believe.

Now, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with one person trying to tell
another how to live, behave and believe. Philosophers do it all day
long.

Post by Lewis
I've never met a single atheist who
has told someone not to be religious, only to stop trying to force their
religion on people who do not want it.

Forcible religious conversion is very rare in civilised countries.
There's a thing in India these days, with scare stories being circulated
by Hindus about Muslim men trying to forcibly convert Hindu wives. It
looks like fake news, a la Trump.

Post by Lewis
Evidently, the religious zealots think it is their right to spread
their bullshit

Come now, that is surely permitted under the much-vaunted American
Constitution.

Post by Lewis
while simultaneously believing no one has the right to
contradict them, ridicule them, or point out their errors in doctrine
according to the very religion they claim to follow.

No comment, beyond saying this is a circular complaint, if those
'religious zealots' are defined as being the Americans holding those
views. We outsiders don't know whether they are numbered in tens or in
multitudes.

Post by Lewis

Post by Snidely
Which is just a instatiation of the general principle of
ClassX(subclassY) cares very strongly about telling ~ClassX how wrong
they are.

Xian zealots in the US love to talk about how oppressed they are, and
how the majority of people are evil atheists and that the Xian faith is
under assault. This is horseshit, of course.

This looks like an internal problem in your country.

[Quinn C]

[...]

Post by Paul Wolff
<http://archive-uat.catholicherald.co.uk/article/14th-march-2008/9/rabbis
-reply-to-dawkins>
Rabbi Sybil Sheridan puts her finger on it. Religion is experiential,
and Dawkins is irrelevant to that.

Sure, just like ghosts are experiential and thus immune to the arguments
against their existence.

Behind this is weak epistemology. Both of my long-term partners believed
in ghosts and claimed to have experienced ghosts. I came to the
conclusion that I might have had the same experience, but I wouldn't
explain it as being a ghost, whereas this explanation was natural in the
(sub-)cultures they grew up in.

I see religion the same way. God and his ilk are explanations culture
offers for certain experiences, but there are better explanations.

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Lewis
There is a class of atheists that will not put up
with bullshit spread by religious zealots trying to tell other people
how to live, behave, and believe.

Now, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with one person trying to tell
another how to live, behave and believe. Philosophers do it all day
long.

Who ever are these philosophers you know? That seems extremely atypical
for a field whose most famous representative said "I know that I don't
know."

Philosophy is trying to catch a black bird in a darkened room.
Theology is the same, only while doing it, you keep shouting "I got it!
I got it!"

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Lewis
I've never met a single atheist who
has told someone not to be religious, only to stop trying to force their
religion on people who do not want it.

Forcible religious conversion is very rare in civilised countries.
There's a thing in India these days, with scare stories being circulated
by Hindus about Muslim men trying to forcibly convert Hindu wives. It
looks like fake news, a la Trump.

It's not about forced conversion. It's about all proselytizing, or about
spreading lies like that not having religion or having the wrong
religion will lead to immoral behavior.

My mother left the church behind because she found that people in the
congregation fared worse *by their own standards* than people not
claiming to be religious (much simplifying, of course.)

[Arindam Banerjee]

Post by Quinn C
[...]

Post by Paul Wolff
<http://archive-uat.catholicherald.co.uk/article/14th-march-2008/9/rabbis
-reply-to-dawkins>
Rabbi Sybil Sheridan puts her finger on it. Religion is experiential,
and Dawkins is irrelevant to that.

Sure, just like ghosts are experiential and thus immune to the arguments
against their existence.

They are not experiential to atheists.
Atheists give up both their soul and sprit, by adopting atheism.
For them there is no life after death.
And indeed there is none. They do have just this one life to live, for as they
do not believe in rebirth, there can be no afterlife for them.
We all get what we want, when we so deserve.
Atheists don't want an afterlife, so they don't get it.

Post by Quinn C
Behind this is weak epistemology. Both of my long-term partners believed
in ghosts and claimed to have experienced ghosts. I came to the
conclusion that I might have had the same experience, but I wouldn't
explain it as being a ghost, whereas this explanation was natural in the
(sub-)cultures they grew up in.

There is never any argument with believers in the spirit world and the deniers.
It is a matter of adjustment.
Civility implies agreeing to disagree peacefully.

Post by Quinn C
I see religion the same way. God and his ilk are explanations culture
offers for certain experiences, but there are better explanations.

None, really. All inspiration comes from the spirit realm.
Such inspiration creates wealth and power.
Which leads to certain people thinking they are too smart.
These people are generally atheistic.

Post by Quinn C

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Lewis
There is a class of atheists that will not put up
with bullshit spread by religious zealots trying to tell other people
how to live, behave, and believe.

Now that is where the atheists earn their keep.

Post by Quinn C

Post by Paul Wolff
Now, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with one person trying to tell
another how to live, behave and believe. Philosophers do it all day
long.

No, most thinkers are self-absorbed, not busybodies.

Post by Quinn C
Who ever are these philosophers you know? That seems extremely atypical
for a field whose most famous representative said "I know that I don't
know."
Philosophy is trying to catch a black bird in a darkened room.

Philosophy is love for the truth.

Post by Quinn C
Theology is the same, only while doing it, you keep shouting "I got it!
I got it!"

Theology is a degraded outcome of spirituality, when zealots are involved.
Otherwise it is a guide to the best behaviour when it seeks to explain the
ways of the Gods and Goddesses.

Post by Quinn C

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Lewis
I've never met a single atheist who
has told someone not to be religious, only to stop trying to force their
religion on people who do not want it.

Never met any Marxist, I see.

Post by Quinn C

Post by Paul Wolff
Forcible religious conversion is very rare in civilised countries.
There's a thing in India these days, with scare stories being circulated
by Hindus about Muslim men trying to forcibly convert Hindu wives. It
looks like fake news, a la Trump.

It is called love jihad. It is often accompanied by murder when there is resistance.
Unfortunately there are real cases reported by the press.
It is by no means confined to India and its neighbouring counties. Just that the
mainstream media hushes it up.

Post by Quinn C
It's not about forced conversion. It's about all proselytizing, or about
spreading lies like that not having religion or having the wrong
religion will lead to immoral behavior.
My mother left the church behind because she found that people in the
congregation fared worse *by their own standards* than people not
claiming to be religious (much simplifying, of course.)

Any church is ultimately a business organisation, collecting tithes or whatever.
Its purpose is to unite people for social purposes, leading to business
opportunities, welfare, sociability, education, etc.
All very good, but like all businesses a particular church may fail.

Post by Quinn C
--
It gets hot in Raleigh, but Texas! I don't know why anybody
lives here, honestly.
-- Robert C. Wilson, Vortex (novel), p.220

[Quinn C]

Post by Arindam Banerjee

Post by Quinn C
[...]

Post by Paul Wolff
<http://archive-uat.catholicherald.co.uk/article/14th-march-2008/9/rabbis
-reply-to-dawkins>
Rabbi Sybil Sheridan puts her finger on it. Religion is experiential,
and Dawkins is irrelevant to that.

Sure, just like ghosts are experiential and thus immune to the arguments
against their existence.

They are not experiential to atheists.
Atheists give up both their soul and sprit, by adopting atheism.
For them there is no life after death.
And indeed there is none. They do have just this one life to live, for as they
do not believe in rebirth, there can be no afterlife for them.
We all get what we want, when we so deserve.
Atheists don't want an afterlife, so they don't get it.

Now you've triggered a joke that one of my nephews used to love (tell it
again! tell it again!), much to the dismay of his Catholic dad.



Guy dies in an accident, next thing he knows, a snazzy gent in a
sportscar drives up to him and says "Hop in, I give you a tour of your
new environs."

Weird, but ok, let's go with the flow. Is that horns though, on the head
of the driver?

First they wind their way up a beautiful mountain to an overpass with
people enjoying the splendid view over a cuppa in a cute café. After a
little break, the street continues down, and finally, they arrive at a
pristine beach, people playing or enjoying cocktails.

You can stay at any of these places, the driver says, your choice.
Is there more?
Sure, we have a little city with museums and theaters, if that's your
jam. Let's have a look.

As they approach the city, at the side of the road, there's a number of
giant cauldrons with fires under them, and you hear pained cries.

Wait, wait a moment, what's that now? Is that part of the deal, too? I
knew it!
Ah, the devil says with a dismissive gesture, no, no. That's just the
Christians, they want it that way.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Quinn C
Guy dies in an accident, next thing he knows, a snazzy gent in a
sportscar drives up to him and says "Hop in, I give you a tour of your
new environs."
Weird, but ok, let's go with the flow. Is that horns though, on the head
of the driver?
First they wind their way up a beautiful mountain to an overpass with
people enjoying the splendid view over a cuppa in a cute café. After a
little break, the street continues down, and finally, they arrive at a
pristine beach, people playing or enjoying cocktails.
You can stay at any of these places, the driver says, your choice.
Is there more?
Sure, we have a little city with museums and theaters, if that's your
jam. Let's have a look.
As they approach the city, at the side of the road, there's a number of
giant cauldrons with fires under them, and you hear pained cries.
Wait, wait a moment, what's that now? Is that part of the deal, too? I
knew it!
Ah, the devil says with a dismissive gesture, no, no. That's just the
Christians, they want it that way.

That brings to mind another joke.

Someone dies and goes to heaven, and is being given a tour of the place.
"That's Valhalla over there", says his guide, "and over on your right is
the Muslim heaven. A little further up ..."

"But tell me", interrupts the man, "What's that big wall over there?"

"Oh, behind the wall is where the Catholics go."

"Why do you put them behind a wall?"

"They think they're the only ones here."

[Paul Wolff]

On Sun, 31 Jan 2021, at 19:09:38, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
[...]

Post by Paul Wolff
<http://archive-uat.catholicherald.co.uk/article/14th-march-2008/9/rabbis
-reply-to-dawkins>
Rabbi Sybil Sheridan puts her finger on it. Religion is experiential,
and Dawkins is irrelevant to that.

Sure, just like ghosts are experiential and thus immune to the arguments
against their existence.
Behind this is weak epistemology. Both of my long-term partners believed
in ghosts and claimed to have experienced ghosts. I came to the
conclusion that I might have had the same experience, but I wouldn't
explain it as being a ghost, whereas this explanation was natural in the
(sub-)cultures they grew up in.
I see religion the same way. God and his ilk are explanations culture
offers for certain experiences, but there are better explanations.

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Lewis
There is a class of atheists that will not put up
with bullshit spread by religious zealots trying to tell other people
how to live, behave, and believe.

Now, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with one person trying to tell
another how to live, behave and believe. Philosophers do it all day
long.

Who ever are these philosophers you know? That seems extremely atypical
for a field whose most famous representative said "I know that I don't
know."

I was thinking of ethics from A to Z (Aristotle to Zeno of Citium?) and
beyond of course. "All day long" was full-on hyperbole.

Post by Quinn C
Philosophy is trying to catch a black bird in a darkened room.
Theology is the same, only while doing it, you keep shouting "I got it!
I got it!"

I see why these discussions on a.u.e are pointless.

Post by Quinn C

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Lewis
I've never met a single atheist who
has told someone not to be religious, only to stop trying to force their
religion on people who do not want it.

Forcible religious conversion is very rare in civilised countries.
There's a thing in India these days, with scare stories being circulated
by Hindus about Muslim men trying to forcibly convert Hindu wives. It
looks like fake news, a la Trump.

It's not about forced conversion. It's about all proselytizing, or about
spreading lies like that not having religion or having the wrong
religion will lead to immoral behavior.
My mother left the church behind because she found that people in the
congregation fared worse *by their own standards* than people not
claiming to be religious (much simplifying, of course.)

[Quinn C]

Post by Paul Wolff
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021, at 19:09:38, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Lewis
There is a class of atheists that will not put up
with bullshit spread by religious zealots trying to tell other people
how to live, behave, and believe.

Now, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with one person trying to tell
another how to live, behave and believe. Philosophers do it all day
long.

Who ever are these philosophers you know? That seems extremely atypical
for a field whose most famous representative said "I know that I don't
know."

I was thinking of ethics from A to Z (Aristotle to Zeno of Citium?) and
beyond of course. "All day long" was full-on hyperbole.

Ethicists (in the age of specialization, now a small subset of
philosophers, but sure, in the ancient times, most of them touched the
field) do certainly write about what they think a good life is, or,
nowadays more likely, how to come to that determination.

But very few of them are in the business of going around convincing
people, and even fewer have built organizations for this purpose in a
long time. "Humanist" communities built in the image of religious
organization tend to wither away pretty quickly.

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Quinn C
Philosophy is trying to catch a black bird in a darkened room.
Theology is the same, only while doing it, you keep shouting "I got it!
I got it!"

I see why these discussions on a.u.e are pointless.

Because you can't get all of us to agree to certain arbitrary ideas as a
starting point, not based on evidence, but on societal hegemony?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Paul Wolff
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021, at 19:09:38, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Lewis
There is a class of atheists that will not put up
with bullshit spread by religious zealots trying to tell other people
how to live, behave, and believe.

Now, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with one person trying to tell
another how to live, behave and believe. Philosophers do it all day
long.

Who ever are these philosophers you know? That seems extremely atypical
for a field whose most famous representative said "I know that I don't
know."

I was thinking of ethics from A to Z (Aristotle to Zeno of Citium?) and
beyond of course. "All day long" was full-on hyperbole.

Ethicists (in the age of specialization, now a small subset of
philosophers, but sure, in the ancient times, most of them touched the
field) do certainly write about what they think a good life is, or,
nowadays more likely, how to come to that determination.
But very few of them are in the business of going around convincing
people, and even fewer have built organizations for this purpose in a
long time. "Humanist" communities built in the image of religious
organization tend to wither away pretty quickly.

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Quinn C
Philosophy is trying to catch a black bird in a darkened room.
Theology is the same, only while doing it, you keep shouting "I got it!
I got it!"

I see why these discussions on a.u.e are pointless.

Because you can't get all of us to agree to certain arbitrary ideas as a
starting point, not based on evidence, but on societal hegemony?

Actually, I suspect, because you chose to brandish an opaque metaphor
(or metaphorical insult) instead of addressing the point.

[Quinn C]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C

Post by Paul Wolff
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021, at 19:09:38, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Lewis
There is a class of atheists that will not put up
with bullshit spread by religious zealots trying to tell other people
how to live, behave, and believe.

Now, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with one person trying to tell
another how to live, behave and believe. Philosophers do it all day
long.

Who ever are these philosophers you know? That seems extremely atypical
for a field whose most famous representative said "I know that I don't
know."

I was thinking of ethics from A to Z (Aristotle to Zeno of Citium?) and
beyond of course. "All day long" was full-on hyperbole.

Ethicists (in the age of specialization, now a small subset of
philosophers, but sure, in the ancient times, most of them touched the
field) do certainly write about what they think a good life is, or,
nowadays more likely, how to come to that determination.
But very few of them are in the business of going around convincing
people, and even fewer have built organizations for this purpose in a
long time. "Humanist" communities built in the image of religious
organization tend to wither away pretty quickly.

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Quinn C
Philosophy is trying to catch a black bird in a darkened room.
Theology is the same, only while doing it, you keep shouting "I got it!
I got it!"

I see why these discussions on a.u.e are pointless.

Because you can't get all of us to agree to certain arbitrary ideas as a
starting point, not based on evidence, but on societal hegemony?

Actually, I suspect, because you chose to brandish an opaque metaphor
(or metaphorical insult) instead of addressing the point.

What point did I not address?

The metaphor is easy to understand (if you want to) and it points to the
reason why religious types are in fact much more likely to tell people
what to do than philosophers: because they may think they have *the*
right answer.

Philosophers, like scientists, usually come with the attitude "This is
the best answer I can come up with, let's discuss."

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Paul Wolff
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021, at 19:09:38, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Lewis
There is a class of atheists that will not put up
with bullshit spread by religious zealots trying to tell other people
how to live, behave, and believe.

Now, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with one person trying to tell
another how to live, behave and believe. Philosophers do it all day
long.

Who ever are these philosophers you know? That seems extremely atypical
for a field whose most famous representative said "I know that I don't
know."

I was thinking of ethics from A to Z (Aristotle to Zeno of Citium?) and
beyond of course. "All day long" was full-on hyperbole.

Ethicists (in the age of specialization, now a small subset of
philosophers, but sure, in the ancient times, most of them touched the
field) do certainly write about what they think a good life is, or,
nowadays more likely, how to come to that determination.
But very few of them are in the business of going around convincing
people, and even fewer have built organizations for this purpose in a
long time. "Humanist" communities built in the image of religious
organization tend to wither away pretty quickly.

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Quinn C
Philosophy is trying to catch a black bird in a darkened room.
Theology is the same, only while doing it, you keep shouting "I got it!
I got it!"

I see why these discussions on a.u.e are pointless.

Because you can't get all of us to agree to certain arbitrary ideas as a
starting point, not based on evidence, but on societal hegemony?

Certainly not. It's because it all too soon becomes a duel of words
between people who see the world very differently, while each party is
pressured to score a killer point, and there's always an opponent who
makes confident but wrong assertions but who won't bow to my/your
knowledge and experience. And every passing cynic throws a facile
generalisation into the exchanges.

That's why further debate is pointless for someone who is only here for
intellectual pleasure and for English language enlightenment. A saint
might enjoy debating God with atheists, but I'm no saint. I know I'm
enjoined to love my neighbour, but that's as far as I'm willing to go.

I do hope I'm not misreading the situation by turning down an invitation
from the atheists to try and change their minds? I thought not.

[Quinn C]

Post by Paul Wolff
That's why further debate is pointless for someone who is only here for
intellectual pleasure and for English language enlightenment. A saint
might enjoy debating God with atheists, but I'm no saint. I know I'm
enjoined to love my neighbour, but that's as far as I'm willing to go.
I do hope I'm not misreading the situation by turning down an invitation
from the atheists to try and change their minds? I thought not.

No, if that was your goal.

Right now, I was only discussing the comparative behavior of religious
vs. atheistic, or more broadly philosophical types.

Believe me, I don't consider inflammatory rhetoric useful. Where it's
important in practice, as when deciding on a law or school curriculum, I
rather go with "leave the arguments based on a specific religion at
home, because these rules and curricula are meant for all people, not
just the members of your faith."

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Paul Wolff
I do hope I'm not misreading the situation by turning down an
invitation from the atheists to try and change their minds? I thought
not.

The one certainty in this kind of discussion is that nobody is going to
change anybody's mind.

Personally, I find it useful to avoid the (far too many) people who
think they have a duty to convert me.

[Lewis]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Paul Wolff
I do hope I'm not misreading the situation by turning down an
invitation from the atheists to try and change their minds? I thought
not.

The one certainty in this kind of discussion is that nobody is going to
change anybody's mind.

Only one side is trying to change people's minds. My attitude toward
religion is the exact same as my attitude toward astrology, power
crystals outside of video games, or Pegasus. I don't much care about the
stories, but people who try to tell me they're factual can fuck right
off.

I've only met a few people who insist astrology is real, and hey are just
as deluded as those who worship magic sky fairies. But as long as they
keep it to themselves it's nothing at all to me. But no, I am not
getting my chart done or going to confession.

Post by Peter Moylan
Personally, I find it useful to avoid the (far too many) people who
think they have a duty to convert me.

Exactly.

[Jack]

On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 19:09:38 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
[...]

Post by Paul Wolff
<http://archive-uat.catholicherald.co.uk/article/14th-march-2008/9/rabbis
-reply-to-dawkins>
Rabbi Sybil Sheridan puts her finger on it. Religion is experiential,
and Dawkins is irrelevant to that.

Sure, just like ghosts are experiential and thus immune to the arguments
against their existence.
Behind this is weak epistemology. Both of my long-term partners believed
in ghosts and claimed to have experienced ghosts. I came to the
conclusion that I might have had the same experience, but I wouldn't
explain it as being a ghost, whereas this explanation was natural in the
(sub-)cultures they grew up in.
I see religion the same way. God and his ilk are explanations culture
offers for certain experiences, but there are better explanations.

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Lewis
There is a class of atheists that will not put up
with bullshit spread by religious zealots trying to tell other people
how to live, behave, and believe.

Now, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with one person trying to tell
another how to live, behave and believe. Philosophers do it all day
long.

Who ever are these philosophers you know? That seems extremely atypical
for a field whose most famous representative said "I know that I don't
know."
Philosophy is trying to catch a black bird in a darkened room.
Theology is the same, only while doing it, you keep shouting "I got

[Lewis]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Lewis

Post by Snidely
Paul Carmichael suggested that ...

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick with
William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity -- religion in
general, actually -- is (as opposed to the "militant atheist"
obsessions with literal interpretation and contradictions of
Scripture and with the existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists. In fact
I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be pacifists. It's rare
for an atheist to start a war.

If a war, it's a moral war. It rouses deep feelings precisely because it
appears to be aimed at undermining people's inner lives.

Post by Lewis

Post by Snidely

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Lewis
It's a way of painting atheists as innately bad people, and is just a
term of hatred used in an effort to exclude and demean.

Here in catlick land, they say "a los ateos, les da igual" or atheists don't
give a shit about anything or anybody. We are bad.

I think PTD's point is that a class of atheists cares very strongly
about telling non-atheists how wrong they are.

Which is not true.

Isn't Dawkins a counter-example? I am only going by reports, which may
not be accurate. I haven't studied his attacks carefully.

Dawkins engages in debate with people who insist on losing debates to
him. He's not out there preaching atheism.

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Lewis
There is a class of atheists that will not put up
with bullshit spread by religious zealots trying to tell other people
how to live, behave, and believe.

Now, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with one person trying to tell
another how to live, behave and believe.

Yes there is.

Post by Paul Wolff
Philosophers do it all day long.

Not in my experience.

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Lewis
I've never met a single atheist who
has told someone not to be religious, only to stop trying to force their
religion on people who do not want it.

Forcible religious conversion is very rare in civilised countries.

Forcibly passing laws that favor one religions beliefs is extremely
common. Until quite recently, it was illegal to buy alcohol here on
Sundays. Not that long before that stores could not be open more than 5
hours on Sundays. Many countries have laws that protect the established
religion.

It is still common, though less so, for parents to pay for their
children to be tortured when they discover the child is gay.

Nearly all children are forced into their parent's religion.

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Lewis
Evidently, the religious zealots think it is their right to spread
their bullshit

Come now, that is surely permitted under the much-vaunted American
Constitution.

Read the rest of the sentence.

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Lewis
while simultaneously believing no one has the right to
contradict them, ridicule them, or point out their errors in doctrine
according to the very religion they claim to follow.
Xian zealots in the US love to talk about how oppressed they are, and
how the majority of people are evil atheists and that the Xian faith is
under assault. This is horseshit, of course.

This looks like an internal problem in your country.

I think you will find it is a favored tactic in many countries.

[Quinn C]

Post by Lewis
Forcibly passing laws that favor one religions beliefs is extremely
common. Until quite recently, it was illegal to buy alcohol here on
Sundays. Not that long before that stores could not be open more than 5
hours on Sundays. Many countries have laws that protect the established
religion.

I grew up with most stores and services being closed on Sundays. It was
no doubt based in religion originally, but the unions developed quite an
interest in keeping it that way.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Lewis
Forcibly passing laws that favor one religions beliefs is extremely
common. Until quite recently, it was illegal to buy alcohol here on
Sundays. Not that long before that stores could not be open more than 5
hours on Sundays. Many countries have laws that protect the established
religion.

I grew up with most stores and services being closed on Sundays. It was
no doubt based in religion originally, but the unions developed quite an
interest in keeping it that way.

Bergen County, New Jersey -- the county at the western end of the George
Washington Bridge, and where many New Yorkers go to shop (lower sales
tax and all that) -- still has what originated as a blue law: most retail businesses
are not allowed to operate on Sundays. (This is a selling-point for competitors
in nearby Passaic County.) Every so often a ballot measure is proposed to
repeal the provision, but the merchants of Bergen County _like_ to have a day
off, and the people of Bergen County _like_ to have a day with far less traffic
congestion.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Lewis
Forcibly passing laws that favor one religions beliefs is
extremely common. Until quite recently, it was illegal to buy
alcohol here on Sundays. Not that long before that stores could not
be open more than 5 hours on Sundays. Many countries have laws that
protect the established religion.

I grew up with most stores and services being closed on Sundays. It
was no doubt based in religion originally, but the unions developed
quite an interest in keeping it that way.

Yes, because the notion that one should have a regular rest from work is
a belief common to many cultures. And now that religion is weakening
[1], the unions are almost the only ones left protecting that benefit.
If you killed off the unions, we'd all be back to working seven days a week.

It's unfortunate that different religions have different designated rest
days, but that's just a conflict that we have to work around.

[1] The unions too are getting weaker, so we're gradually approaching a
condition that will be heaven for the mega-rich and hell for everyone else.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 23:11:27 GMT, Paul Wolff
[Dawkins, ultra-atheist]

Post by Paul Wolff
Isn't Dawkins a counter-example? I am only going by reports, which may
not be accurate. I haven't studied his attacks carefully.
But I'm replying by force of coincidence, stemming from my interest in
a particular local rabbi here, which led me to a book he'd written
more than 12 years ago as a response to Dawkins' /The God Delusion/.
<http://archive-uat.catholicherald.co.uk/article/14th-march-2008/9/rabb
is -reply-to-dawkins>
Rabbi Sybil Sheridan puts her finger on it. Religion is experiential,
and Dawkins is irrelevant to that.

It's quite amazing what happens to a sleep or oxygen-deprived brain.

[]

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 23:11:27 GMT, Paul Wolff
[Dawkins, ultra-atheist]

Post by Paul Wolff
Isn't Dawkins a counter-example? I am only going by reports, which may
not be accurate. I haven't studied his attacks carefully.
But I'm replying by force of coincidence, stemming from my interest in
a particular local rabbi here, which led me to a book he'd written
more than 12 years ago as a response to Dawkins' /The God Delusion/.
<http://archive-uat.catholicherald.co.uk/article/14th-march-2008/9/rabb
is -reply-to-dawkins>
Rabbi Sybil Sheridan puts her finger on it. Religion is experiential,
and Dawkins is irrelevant to that.

It's quite amazing what happens to a sleep or oxygen-deprived brain.

Yes, it was rather late when I wrote. I should have turned the other
cheek to Lewis's onslaught. MDBIF.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Lewis

Post by Snidely
Paul Carmichael suggested that ...

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David
Remnick with William Barber that can illuminate what
Christianity -- religion in general, actually -- is (as
opposed to the "militant atheist" obsessions with literal
interpretation and contradictions of Scripture and with the
existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists.
In fact I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be
pacifists. It's rare for an atheist to start a war.

It's a way of painting atheists as innately bad people, and is
just a term of hatred used in an effort to exclude and
demean.

Here in catlick land, they say "a los ateos, les da igual" or
atheists don't give a shit about anything or anybody. We are
bad.

I have certainly encountered people who think that "atheist" and
"satanist" are synonyms. Which, now that I think about it, is almost the
opposite of what you just said. Satanists do care.

Post by Lewis

Post by Snidely
I think PTD's point is that a class of atheists cares very
strongly about telling non-atheists how wrong they are.

Which is not true. There is a class of atheists that will not put up
with bullshit spread by religious zealots trying to tell other people
how to live, behave, and believe. I've never met a single atheist who
has told someone not to be religious, only to stop trying to force
their religion on people who do not want it.

Dawkins was mentioned upthread. His main message, as I understand it, is
directed against people who want lies to be told in schools based on
what their cult teaches. If you are trying to protect the science
syllabus, a certain amount of campaigning is justified.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis

Post by Snidely
Paul Carmichael suggested that ...

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David
Remnick with William Barber that can illuminate what
Christianity -- religion in general, actually -- is (as
opposed to the "militant atheist" obsessions with literal
interpretation and contradictions of Scripture and with the
existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists.
In fact I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be
pacifists. It's rare for an atheist to start a war.

It's a way of painting atheists as innately bad people, and is
just a term of hatred used in an effort to exclude and
demean.

Here in catlick land, they say "a los ateos, les da igual" or
atheists don't give a shit about anything or anybody. We are
bad.

I have certainly encountered people who think that "atheist" and
"satanist" are synonyms. Which, now that I think about it, is almost the
opposite of what you just said. Satanists do care.

It depends on which "Satanists" --- there are some who are actually
atheists but use the trappings & terminology of Satanism.

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis

Post by Snidely
I think PTD's point is that a class of atheists cares very
strongly about telling non-atheists how wrong they are.

Which is not true. There is a class of atheists that will not put up
with bullshit spread by religious zealots trying to tell other people
how to live, behave, and believe. I've never met a single atheist who
has told someone not to be religious, only to stop trying to force
their religion on people who do not want it.

Dawkins was mentioned upthread. His main message, as I understand it, is
directed against people who want lies to be told in schools based on
what their cult teaches. If you are trying to protect the science
syllabus, a certain amount of campaigning is justified.

[Madhu]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Peter Moylan
I have certainly encountered people who think that "atheist" and
"satanist" are synonyms. Which, now that I think about it, is almost
the opposite of what you just said. Satanists do care.

It depends on which "Satanists" --- there are some who are actually
atheists but use the trappings & terminology of Satanism.

PM or probably those who he is quoting misunderstood it, the atheists
may be doing the doing the will of Satan but that does not make them
Satanists. Most do it unwittingly.

(This is analogous to the oft-repeated CS Lewis apologism on "Satan
being a hammer" - but with atheists being satan's tools instead of God's
tools and with them acting unwittingly instead of unwillingly)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Lewis

Post by Snidely
Paul Carmichael suggested that ...

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick with
William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity -- religion in
general, actually -- is (as opposed to the "militant atheist"
obsessions with literal interpretation and contradictions of
Scripture and with the existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists. In fact
I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be pacifists. It's rare
for an atheist to start a war.

It's a way of painting atheists as innately bad people, and is just a
term of hatred used in an effort to exclude and demean.

Here in catlick land, they say "a los ateos, les da igual" or atheists don't
give a shit about anything or anybody. We are bad.

I think PTD's point is that a class of atheists cares very strongly
about telling non-atheists how wrong they are.

Which is not true. There is a class of atheists that will not put up
with bullshit spread by religious zealots trying to tell other people
how to live, behave, and believe. I've never met a single atheist who
has told someone not to be religious, only to stop trying to force their
religion on people who do not want it.

If Lewis were to listen to the linked conversation, he might just
possibly discover how absurdly wrong he is.

Post by Lewis
Evidently, the religious zealots think it is their right to spread
their bullshit while simultaneously believing no one has the right to
contradict them, ridicule them, or point out their errors in doctrine
according to the very religion they claim to follow.

Lewis seems to think that every religious person is a "religious
zealot." He doesn't have the decency to use scare quotes, as I '
have done every time I have mentioned "militant atheists."

Post by Lewis

Post by Snidely
Which is just a instatiation of the general principle of
ClassX(subclassY) cares very strongly about telling ~ClassX how wrong
they are.

Xian zealots in the US love to talk about how oppressed they are, and
how the majority of people are evil atheists and that the Xian faith is
under assault. This is horseshit, of course.

If Lewis thinks "Xian zealots" -- presumably a subclass of "religious
zealots" rather than zealots who are viewed within Taoism as immoral,
or zealots from the ancient Chinese city at the terminus of the Silk Road
-- constitute a majority, or even a significant minority, of religious people
in the US, he's got another think coming.

[CDB]

On 1/31/2021 11:17 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

[sectarian wars]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
If Lewis thinks "Xian zealots" -- presumably a subclass of
"religious zealots" rather than zealots who are viewed within Taoism
as immoral, or zealots from the ancient Chinese city at the terminus
of the Silk Road -- constitute a majority, or even a significant
minority, of religious people in the US, he's got another think
coming.

ObHanyupinyin: That's "Xi'an".

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Lewis

Post by Snidely
Paul Carmichael suggested that ...

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick with
William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity -- religion in
general, actually -- is (as opposed to the "militant atheist"
obsessions with literal interpretation and contradictions of
Scripture and with the existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists. In fact
I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be pacifists. It's rare
for an atheist to start a war.

It's a way of painting atheists as innately bad people, and is just a
term of hatred used in an effort to exclude and demean.

Here in catlick land, they say "a los ateos, les da igual" or atheists don't
give a shit about anything or anybody. We are bad.

I think PTD's point is that a class of atheists cares very strongly
about telling non-atheists how wrong they are.

Which is not true. There is a class of atheists that will not put up
with bullshit spread by religious zealots trying to tell other people
how to live, behave, and believe. I've never met a single atheist who
has told someone not to be religious, only to stop trying to force their
religion on people who do not want it.
Evidently, the religious zealots think it is their right to spread
their bullshit while simultaneously believing no one has the right to
contradict them, ridicule them, or point out their errors in doctrine
according to the very religion they claim to follow.

Post by Snidely
Which is just a instatiation of the general principle of
ClassX(subclassY) cares very strongly about telling ~ClassX how wrong
they are.

Xian zealots in the US love to talk about how oppressed they are, and
how the majority of people are evil atheists and that the Xian faith is
under assault. This is horseshit, of course.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Lewis

Post by Snidely
Paul Carmichael suggested that ...

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick with
William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity -- religion in
general, actually -- is (as opposed to the "militant atheist"
obsessions with literal interpretation and contradictions of
Scripture and with the existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists. In fact
I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be pacifists. It's rare
for an atheist to start a war.

It's a way of painting atheists as innately bad people, and is just a
term of hatred used in an effort to exclude and demean.

Here in catlick land, they say "a los ateos, les da igual" or atheists don't
give a shit about anything or anybody. We are bad.

I think PTD's point is that a class of atheists cares very strongly
about telling non-atheists how wrong they are.

Which is not true. There is a class of atheists that will not put up
with bullshit spread by religious zealots trying to tell other people
how to live, behave, and believe. I've never met a single atheist who
has told someone not to be religious, only to stop trying to force their
religion on people who do not want it.
Evidently, the religious zealots think it is their right to spread
their bullshit while simultaneously believing no one has the right to
contradict them, ridicule them, or point out their errors in doctrine
according to the very religion they claim to follow.

Post by Snidely
Which is just a instatiation of the general principle of
ClassX(subclassY) cares very strongly about telling ~ClassX how wrong
they are.

Xian zealots in the US love to talk about how oppressed they are, and
how the majority of people are evil atheists and that the Xian faith is
under assault. This is horseshit, of course.

I don't seem to have written anything there.

Anyway, I've met plenty of atheists, but never a militant atheist. For
practical purposes they don't exist.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis

Post by Snidely
Paul Carmichael suggested that ...

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick with
William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity -- religion in
general, actually -- is (as opposed to the "militant atheist"
obsessions with literal interpretation and contradictions of
Scripture and with the existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists. In fact
I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be pacifists. It's rare
for an atheist to start a war.

It's a way of painting atheists as innately bad people, and is just a
term of hatred used in an effort to exclude and demean.

Here in catlick land, they say "a los ateos, les da igual" or atheists don't
give a shit about anything or anybody. We are bad.

I think PTD's point is that a class of atheists cares very strongly
about telling non-atheists how wrong they are.

Which is not true. There is a class of atheists that will not put up
with bullshit spread by religious zealots trying to tell other people
how to live, behave, and believe. I've never met a single atheist who
has told someone not to be religious, only to stop trying to force their
religion on people who do not want it.
Evidently, the religious zealots think it is their right to spread
their bullshit while simultaneously believing no one has the right to
contradict them, ridicule them, or point out their errors in doctrine
according to the very religion they claim to follow.

Post by Snidely
Which is just a instatiation of the general principle of
ClassX(subclassY) cares very strongly about telling ~ClassX how wrong
they are.

Xian zealots in the US love to talk about how oppressed they are, and
how the majority of people are evil atheists and that the Xian faith is
under assault. This is horseshit, of course.

I don't seem to have written anything there.
Anyway, I've met plenty of atheists, but never a militant atheist. For
practical purposes they don't exist.

Some of them are dead. Whether you actually met Christopher Hitchens
is of no interest whatsoever.

You might try understanding the use of "scare quotes."

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 06:44:38 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Anyway, I've met plenty of atheists, but never a militant atheist. For
practical purposes they don't exist.

Some of them are dead.

It's too bad they aren't still able to communicate with us. Being
dead, they are finally in a position to tell us whether or not there
really is an afterlife.

If they were right, we wouldn't hear from them.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick with
William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity -- religion in
general, actually -- is (as opposed to the "militant atheist"
obsessions with literal interpretation and contradictions of
Scripture and with the existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists. In fact
I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be pacifists. It's rare
for an atheist to start a war.

"Militant atheists" is an existing term. It refers to atheists who won't
shut up (like Dawkins and Hitchens and O'Hair, and for that matter
B. Russell) while making the same generally invalid points over and
over again. It has nothing to do with militarism.

Did you listen to the conversation?

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick with
William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity -- religion in
general, actually -- is (as opposed to the "militant atheist"
obsessions with literal interpretation and contradictions of
Scripture and with the existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists. In fact
I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be pacifists. It's rare
for an atheist to start a war.

All that because religionists couldn't take it
that Dawkins emphasised their being delusional.
After that all atheists who said anythng at all
became 'militant', in certain circles,

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick with
William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity -- religion in
general, actually -- is (as opposed to the "militant atheist"
obsessions with literal interpretation and contradictions of
Scripture and with the existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists. In fact
I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be pacifists. It's rare
for an atheist to start a war.

All that because religionists couldn't take it
that Dawkins emphasised their being delusional.
After that all atheists who said anythng at all
became 'militant', in certain circles,

"Delusional" only about the two topics I noted. Why are the haters
interested in nothing else? Listen to the conversation.

[None]

... the haters

To the christard militant atheist-haters, atheists are "militant" and
"haters." LOL.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Post by None

... the haters

To the christard militant atheist-haters, atheists are "militant" and
"haters." LOL.

Hate religion, forgive the sinner; isn't it?

[Snidely]

Post by None

... the haters

To the christard militant atheist-haters, atheists are "militant" and
"haters." LOL.

You don't understand what Peter is saying, because you are too busy
trying to fit things into the pigeonholes you want people to be in.
Grow up.

/dps

[Peter Moylan]

Post by None

... the haters

To the christard militant atheist-haters, atheists are "militant" and
"haters." LOL.

But not so militant that they'd be willing to kill a commie for Christ.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick
with William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity --
religion in general, actually -- is (as opposed to the
"militant atheist" obsessions with literal interpretation and
contradictions of Scripture and with the existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists. In
fact I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be
pacifists. It's rare for an atheist to start a war.

All that because religionists couldn't take it that Dawkins
emphasised their being delusional. After that all atheists who said
anythng at all became 'militant', in certain circles,

"Delusional" only about the two topics I noted. Why are the haters
interested in nothing else? Listen to the conversation.

Having an opinion on the existence of gods is almost the definition of
an atheist. If you avoid that topic, there is no possibility of a
conversation.

The arguments about contradictions in scripture are directed at those
who insist on a literal interpretation of that scripture. I think we're
all agreed that those people are only a minority of religionists.
Unfortunately for them, those are the ones who are an easy target for
comedy.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick
with William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity --
religion in general, actually -- is (as opposed to the
"militant atheist" obsessions with literal interpretation and
contradictions of Scripture and with the existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists. In
fact I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be
pacifists. It's rare for an atheist to start a war.

All that because religionists couldn't take it that Dawkins
emphasised their being delusional. After that all atheists who said
anythng at all became 'militant', in certain circles,

"Delusional" only about the two topics I noted. Why are the haters
interested in nothing else? Listen to the conversation.

Having an opinion on the existence of gods is almost the definition of
an atheist. If you avoid that topic, there is no possibility of a
conversation.

That's simply not true. The fourth kind of Judaism, Reconstructionist,
whose "guru" was a professor at Jewish Theological Seminary in NY,
does not postulate the existence of a deity. (JTS is the principal
institution promoting Conservative Judaism, contrasted with Yeshiva
University for Modern Orthodoxy and Hebrew Union College for
Reform.)

Are you refusing to listen to the conversation in which Rev. Barber
contrasts the trumpism of 2017 with what Christianity stands for?

Post by Peter Moylan
The arguments about contradictions in scripture are directed at those
who insist on a literal interpretation of that scripture. I think we're
all agreed that those people are only a minority of religionists.
Unfortunately for them, those are the ones who are an easy target for
comedy.

So the main purpose of "militant atheism" is amusement? It's hard
to get that from the vicious prose of, especially, Hitchens.

[Paul's link to the UK Catholic Herald of 2008 yields "Page Not Found."]

[J. J. Lodder]

[-]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan
The arguments about contradictions in scripture are directed at those
who insist on a literal interpretation of that scripture. I think we're
all agreed that those people are only a minority of religionists.
Unfortunately for them, those are the ones who are an easy target for
comedy.

So the main purpose of "militant atheism" is amusement? It's hard
to get that from the vicious prose of, especially, Hitchens.

OK, so you must be given up as a hopeless case.
If Hitchens couldn't amuse you nothing can,

Jan

[CDB]

[-]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan
The arguments about contradictions in scripture are directed at
those who insist on a literal interpretation of that scripture. I
think we're all agreed that those people are only a minority of
religionists. Unfortunately for them, those are the ones who are
an easy target for comedy.

So the main purpose of "militant atheism" is amusement? It's hard
to get that from the vicious prose of, especially, Hitchens.

OK, so you must be given up as a hopeless case. If Hitchens couldn't
amuse you nothing can,

I don't agree with all of his opinions, but I love his sense of timing.
He knows exactly when to resume speaking so as to derail an opponent's
response.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by CDB

[-]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan
The arguments about contradictions in scripture are directed at
those who insist on a literal interpretation of that scripture. I
think we're all agreed that those people are only a minority of
religionists. Unfortunately for them, those are the ones who are
an easy target for comedy.

So the main purpose of "militant atheism" is amusement? It's hard
to get that from the vicious prose of, especially, Hitchens.

OK, so you must be given up as a hopeless case. If Hitchens couldn't
amuse you nothing can,

I don't agree with all of his opinions, but I love his sense of timing.
He knows exactly when to resume speaking so as to derail an opponent's
response.

Alas, he died much too young.
I have seen one of his appearances, and it was brilliant.

I think Hitchens would have preferred 'anti-theist' to 'atheist',
as a description of himself,

Jan

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick
with William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity --
religion in general, actually -- is (as opposed to the
"militant atheist" obsessions with literal interpretation and
contradictions of Scripture and with the existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists. In
fact I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be
pacifists. It's rare for an atheist to start a war.

All that because religionists couldn't take it that Dawkins
emphasised their being delusional. After that all atheists who said
anythng at all became 'militant', in certain circles,

"Delusional" only about the two topics I noted. Why are the haters
interested in nothing else? Listen to the conversation.

Having an opinion on the existence of gods is almost the definition of
an atheist. If you avoid that topic, there is no possibility of a
conversation.

That's simply not true. The fourth kind of Judaism, Reconstructionist,
whose "guru" was a professor at Jewish Theological Seminary in NY,
does not postulate the existence of a deity. (JTS is the principal
institution promoting Conservative Judaism, contrasted with Yeshiva
University for Modern Orthodoxy and Hebrew Union College for
Reform.)
Are you refusing to listen to the conversation in which Rev. Barber
contrasts the trumpism of 2017 with what Christianity stands for?

Post by Peter Moylan
The arguments about contradictions in scripture are directed at those
who insist on a literal interpretation of that scripture. I think we're
all agreed that those people are only a minority of religionists.
Unfortunately for them, those are the ones who are an easy target for
comedy.

So the main purpose of "militant atheism" is amusement? It's hard
to get that from the vicious prose of, especially, Hitchens.
[Paul's link to the UK Catholic Herald of 2008 yields "Page Not Found."]

It works in my file copy of my post. This alternative shortened link to
the same page also works for me: <https://tinyurl.com/yxcttaxk>.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick
with William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity --
religion in general, actually -- is (as opposed to the
"militant atheist" obsessions with literal interpretation and
contradictions of Scripture and with the existence of God).

You keep using the word "militant" when mentioning atheists. In
fact I've noticed that atheists are highly likely to be
pacifists. It's rare for an atheist to start a war.

All that because religionists couldn't take it that Dawkins
emphasised their being delusional. After that all atheists who said
anythng at all became 'militant', in certain circles,

"Delusional" only about the two topics I noted. Why are the haters
interested in nothing else? Listen to the conversation.

Having an opinion on the existence of gods is almost the definition of
an atheist. If you avoid that topic, there is no possibility of a
conversation.

That's simply not true. The fourth kind of Judaism, Reconstructionist,
whose "guru" was a professor at Jewish Theological Seminary in NY,
does not postulate the existence of a deity. (JTS is the principal
institution promoting Conservative Judaism, contrasted with Yeshiva
University for Modern Orthodoxy and Hebrew Union College for
Reform.)
Are you refusing to listen to the conversation in which Rev. Barber
contrasts the trumpism of 2017 with what Christianity stands for?

Post by Peter Moylan
The arguments about contradictions in scripture are directed at those
who insist on a literal interpretation of that scripture. I think we're
all agreed that those people are only a minority of religionists.
Unfortunately for them, those are the ones who are an easy target for
comedy.

So the main purpose of "militant atheism" is amusement? It's hard
to get that from the vicious prose of, especially, Hitchens.
[Paul's link to the UK Catholic Herald of 2008 yields "Page Not Found."]

It works in my file copy of my post. This alternative shortened link to
the same page also works for me: <https://tinyurl.com/yxcttaxk>.

It doesn't work for me either. The error message is clear enough ("The
server is down") but I don't remember seeing it before.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels
[Paul's link to the UK Catholic Herald of 2008 yields "Page Not Found."]

It works in my file copy of my post. This alternative shortened link to
the same page also works for me: <https://tinyurl.com/yxcttaxk>.

That one works -- excellent article, thank you.

It says that Dawkins basically doesn't know what he's talking abiut
-- he argues against centuries-old views that no longer exist.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels
[Paul's link to the UK Catholic Herald of 2008 yields "Page Not Found."]

It works in my file copy of my post. This alternative shortened
<https://tinyurl.com/yxcttaxk>.

That one works -- excellent article, thank you.
It says that Dawkins basically doesn't know what he's talking abiut
-- he argues against centuries-old views that no longer exist.

If they no longer exist, who is trying to suppress the teaching of
evolution in schools?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels
[Paul's link to the UK Catholic Herald of 2008 yields "Page Not Found."]

It works in my file copy of my post. This alternative shortened
<https://tinyurl.com/yxcttaxk>.

That one works -- excellent article, thank you.
It says that Dawkins basically doesn't know what he's talking abiut
-- he argues against centuries-old views that no longer exist.

If they no longer exist, who is trying to suppress the teaching of
evolution in schools?

Looks like you didn't look at the article to see what the rabbis'
responses actually were. Nothing to do with your hobbyhorse.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan
The arguments about contradictions in scripture are directed at those
who insist on a literal interpretation of that scripture. I think we're
all agreed that those people are only a minority of religionists.
Unfortunately for them, those are the ones who are an easy target for
comedy.

So the main purpose of "militant atheism" is amusement? It's hard
to get that from the vicious prose of, especially, Hitchens.

His foreword to the Amis compilation _Everyday Drinking_ is funny, but
probably not typical.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan
The arguments about contradictions in scripture are directed at those
who insist on a literal interpretation of that scripture. I think we're
all agreed that those people are only a minority of religionists.
Unfortunately for them, those are the ones who are an easy target for
comedy.

So the main purpose of "militant atheism" is amusement? It's hard
to get that from the vicious prose of, especially, Hitchens.

His foreword to the Amis compilation _Everyday Drinking_ is funny, but
probably not typical.

That seems to be, or to have been, a major industry in England:
famous writers getting paid to write prefaces for each other's books.

[None]

... "militant atheist" obsessions ...

Most normal people leave their imaginary friends behind long before
adolescence. Those who don't are really touchy about it.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by None

... "militant atheist" obsessions ...

Most normal people leave their imaginary friends behind long before
adolescence.

In advanced countries, yes.

Post by None
Those who don't are really touchy about it.

[Ross Clark]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick with
William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity -- religion in general,
actually -- is (as opposed to the "militant atheist" obsessions with
literal interpretation and contradictions of Scripture and with the
existence of God).
https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/william-barber-and-the-question-of-faith-and-politics
Scroll down to the second audio link for just the 23-minute cut,
though the second piece in the program is about Biden's Catholicism
(contrasted with his predecessor's whatever) and might also be of
interest

I don't find anything in the Barber interview that's addressed to, or of
special interest to, "militant atheists". Perhaps you could mention the
points you think are of particular relevance. And while you're at it,
just who are "our" m.a.'s that you're recommended this to the attention of?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Ross Clark

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick with
William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity -- religion in general,
actually -- is (as opposed to the "militant atheist" obsessions with
literal interpretation and contradictions of Scripture and with the
existence of God).
https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/william-barber-and-the-question-of-faith-and-politics
Scroll down to the second audio link for just the 23-minute cut,
though the second piece in the program is about Biden's Catholicism
(contrasted with his predecessor's whatever) and might also be of
interest

I don't find anything in the Barber interview that's addressed to, or of
special interest to, "militant atheists". Perhaps you could mention the
points you think are of particular relevance. And while you're at it,
just who are "our" m.a.'s that you're recommended this to the attention of?

I take it you didn't bother looking at the rest of the thread.

"Militant atheists" conveniently ignore all the good work done
under religious auspices.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
John 15:13

That is Barber's message.

Not to mention art, architecture, and music.

[Ross Clark]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ross Clark

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's a 2017 conversation of The New Yorker's David Remnick with
William Barber that can illuminate what Christianity -- religion in general,
actually -- is (as opposed to the "militant atheist" obsessions with
literal interpretation and contradictions of Scripture and with the
existence of God).
https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/william-barber-and-the-question-of-faith-and-politics
Scroll down to the second audio link for just the 23-minute cut,
though the second piece in the program is about Biden's Catholicism
(contrasted with his predecessor's whatever) and might also be of
interest

I don't find anything in the Barber interview that's addressed to, or of
special interest to, "militant atheists". Perhaps you could mention the
points you think are of particular relevance. And while you're at it,
just who are "our" m.a.'s that you're recommended this to the attention of?

I take it you didn't bother looking at the rest of the thread.

I did. Hence my post. I saw you repeatedly urging others to listen to
the interview. None of them self-identified as militant atheists, but
perhaps you would consider sme of them them to be. Otherwise why the "our"?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Militant atheists" conveniently ignore all the good work done
under religious auspices.

Oh. I don't know any, and I haven't read any of the famous ones.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
John 15:13
That is Barber's message.

A curious way of summarizing it.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Not to mention art, architecture, and music.

OK, I won't.