JSB says it’s intolerant to object to intolerance by Christians. If “tolerance” were an absolute virtue, then it would indeed be wrong ever to object to anything. But there is no virtue in being tolerant of religious bigotry. There is no virtue in tolerating a senator who attacks her opponent for talking to people who don’t share her religion.

But of course JSB thinks that intolerance of intolerance is wrong. Nice and selective, there.

Not in my case. Try your pop psychology on another sucker.

Not trying to convert anyone. Rrrrriiiigggghhhht.

Actually, go ahead and attack anyone here because of one’s views. Patton loved it when the Germans shot at him because then he knew where they were. Sensible.

JSB, near as our interests don’t conflict, I have no anger toward anyone. Vis-a-vis religion, I accept the natural right of an individual to believe whatever he or she wants to believe (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, anyone). As long as our interests don’t conflict. If a religious person respects my lack of religion, we’re gold. Often, it does not work out that way, especially if a professed “atheist” were to run for political office.

I have found that my beliefs can stand the light of reason, whereas religionists beliefs tend to be very insular and fragile when confronted by reason. That’s my experience, it’s not universal by any means, but my experience is common to many. Just read arguments between theists and “atheists” on religious boards. It’s almost always the theists who abandon logic and argue from emotion or ad hominem or some other logical fallacy. It is very predictable, like being unable to teach a pig to sing.

As for that metaphor (an old joke as we all know from this election season), I don’t believe for a second that you are genuinely offended by it, and if you are, you are embarrasingly sensitive. You made a strawman argument and appealed to emotion to avoid the main contention, which is that Christian persecution relative to Christian population is vanishingly small in comparison to “atheist” persecution relative to “atheist” population, which manifests itself in the near-total exclusion to public office.

It takes a lot of balls to claim persecution as a Christian in the country. That being said, if Christians (and other religionists) would publicly announce that there is no logical basis for their belief and stop forcing their illogical beliefs on the rational among us, I could live in harmony with you guys to the end of my days.

Shall I risk another metaphor? Why not.

I think monkeys will fly out of my ass first.

If I were planning on voting for Liddy (which I wasn’t), this ad would have changed my mind.

If you could point out examples of the “anti-Christian” sentiment you find here, I’d appreciate it. What I see are “anti-theist” or “anti-fundamentalist” attitudes, but nothing specifically against Christianity. This thread is about the bigotry of the cultural right as evidenced by Mrs. Dole’s campaign ad, so some venom is to be expected.

And you have to expect some hostility when you imply that people cannot be moral without adhering to a major tenet of your personal philosophy (a belief in god/religion).

Also, I don’t doubt you and I can completely disagree and be civil at the same time. It’s actually essential, I think.

“Take it from me, engaging FWB or anyone of his/her ilk in a logical debate on religion is doomed to failure.

You will NOT teach the pig to sing.

You WILL waste your time.”

This very well illustrates the mentality that I mentioned previously. The problem lies in the fact that each person in such a “debate” will see the other’s logic as being flawed in some way simply because neither side will admit to being wrong. So even if I employ flawless logic in some debate, I would imagine that there would still be quite a few people saying “your logic is flawed…you are a close-minded fool…it’s hopeless trying to talk to you” simply because an atheist will not accept a Christian’s arguments and vice-versa.

I just want to know why there is a resentment towards people who are commenting here who are Christians…I’ve never done anything to harm any of you, and I’ve never wished harm on any of you here, and yet the very mention that I’m a Christian and an individual feels the need to immediately label me as a pig. Why should somebody who simply says “I’m a Christian” be insulted so quickly?

And I’m not even trying to convert anybody here…I’m simply saying that I really wish this anti-Christian sentiment would be explained. I know most of you don’t believe in any deity, so I can understand that this can be a source of your angst, but is that all it is?

At any rate, I do want to point out that I will not attack anybody here simply because I disagree with their views…and I think that civility can go a long way in helping ease the tensions that always arise when Christianity is brought up.

You will NOT teach the pig to sing.

You WILL waste your time.

Knock yourselves out.

As someone who hit the daily double (anarchist/atheist), I am aware of the impossibility of this point of view being respected by the mainstream. Thank “God” for that!

As for “godlessness,” well, just like everything else, politics is godless. God is imaginary. Go read “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees” for several days/weeks worth of entertaining and logically valid and sound proofs of the imaginary nature of “God.”

The very imaginary nature of “God” renders the term “atheist” objectionable. Why should what I believe be expressed in terms of something that only exists in the irrational human mind? Therefore, the new term for “atheist” is “rational.” Or “sane.”

There is no way a professed rational (atheist) can win elective office in the United State. Talk about political repression, a gay minority female theist has it all over a straight white male atheist. Add “statist” to the equation and I and others like me are just about the most oppressed individuals on Earth, if we choose to be.

Not just Christians, FWB, but fundamentalists. And maybe the types who think that secular folks must, logically, be incapable of being moral.

So my question is, why is it that every other conceivable practice is defended and supported but if one even dares to mention that he/she might believe in Christianity that person is immediately hated and labeled as untrustworthy regardless of what they say.

This is not a good question, because you can’t show that “every other conceivable practice is defended and supported but if one even dares to mention that he/she might believe in Christianity that person is immediately hated and labeled as untrustworthy regardless of what they say.”

It’s just not happening. It would be like me saying, “Why is it that agnostics are being burned alive and people think that’s okay?”

I’m just so tired of the double-standard by all of those who proclaim that they are “tolerant” to other beliefs…until they encounter a Christian.

Again, I don’t know what you’re talking about. Like Muslims and Jews and Hindus and atheists and everything else, there are different kinds of Christians. Most deserve to be tolerated and some don’t. The ones that don’t are the ones who would deny equal rights to people who don’t share their particular interpretation of Scripture. Those people have always been on the wrong side in the battle for increased liberty.

People say some terrible things in campaigns, but as far as putting iit into an ad, this might be the worst. Regardless of what readers here feel about the role of religion in politics, given the people and voters involved, this was beyond the pale.

Are you saying that people raised in atheist homes, or homes that are not actively religious etc. Are still influenced in their moral developmental in a very significant and meaningful way simply by having human contact?

The question you believe is left unanswered is “whether or not humans would have any morals w/o God/religion.” Why doesn’t the fact that many morally upstanding peopel exist who have not been raised in any religion or practice no religion currently serve as a resounding answer to that question in the affirmative?

So my question is, why is it that every other conceivable practice is defended and supported but if one even dares to mention that he/she might believe in Christianity that person is immediately hated and labeled as untrustworthy regardless of what they say.

And I know the big argument against Christians is the whole “well they aren’t tolerant of other people’s beliefs”…but that in itself is being intolerant of an individual’s belief.

Whatever…I know a long stream of comments will probably result all of which state how stupid I am, or how there is no god, or how everything I believe in is a lie. I’m just so tired of the double-standard by all of those who proclaim that they are “tolerant” to other beliefs…until they encounter a Christian.

No, it doesn’t. There are many good humans who have lots of morals and thoroughly reject God/religion. Indeed, morality based on fear of eternal punishment from an all-powerful authority is not really morality at all, but rather behavior modification, and a weak form of it at that.

“But it still leaves/begs the question of whether or not humans would have any morals w/o God/religion.”

What exactly about this thread/post “begs” that question?

“Since no one that I know was raised in a sound proof box with absolutely no external moral or otherwise inputs, the question goes unanswered. Someone must volunteer a future child. That child must be totally isolated from all human contact until reaching adulthood. At that point, around age 25, when the mind is fully formed or close to being fully formed, the person can be evaluated to determine the extent of moral development.”

Your ridiculous experiment wouldn’t answer the question either way. If the kid turned out to be a murderous, thieving sociopath, theists would claim that growing up without God caused him to be that way. However, if he turned out to be a perfectly moral human being, theists would claim that he must have received his morals from God because he couldn’t possibly have learned them from humanity. Heads you win, tails I lose.

“There ain’t no separation of church and state in the Constitution. There is a separation of state from church.”

Explain how you get one without the other.

“Besides, the voters choose whom they wish. Should one move to an area and not like the currect elected public servants, one is free to 1) vote against them or 2) move on.”

That just about sums up why I don’t vote.

As an atheist with a strong moral sense, I find such questions annoying. Though I have encountered people who probably would have done bad things had they not been afraid that the big G was watching. Scary.

There ain’t no separation of church and state in the Constitution. There is a separation of state from church.

Besides, the voters choose whom they wish. Should one move to an area and not like the currect elected public servants, one is free to 1) vote against them or 2) move on.