That’s just the state-sponsored “persecution” (granting that we haven’t defined this term), but I hope you can admit that it is substantive evidence against your position. That would be the logical thing to do.

It’s not. We were talking specifically about persecution in the US and the worst that you could bring up was some old state constitutional amendments that no atheist under the age of 60 can claim to have suffered from. As I said, most talk about religious or anti-religious persecution in the US is hyperbole. Most of it would go away tomorrow if the 14th amendment were repealed or replaced with a sane amendment that didn’t give the federal courts de facto veto over every single act of a state or local government based on how the judge wants to read the incorporation clause.

JOR (#54): “They’re mostly ignorant idiots, which is my real problem with them.“

As opposed to the people who believe the Earth is 4,000 years old and the creator everything from billions of galaxies down to the subtleties of quantum physics cares about your sex life?

“Well, almost all ideologies are stupid or at least false…“

Calling atheism an ideology is stupid and false.

It’s the absence of any theistic ideology. It’s saying, “I don’t know,” when that is the only rational answer.

I won’t vouch for the politics of people like Hitchens and Dawkins, but on matters of faith and science, they are clearly quite brilliant. For fun, go to YouTube and find samples of them tearing apart believers in debate forums.

They’re mostly ignorant idiots, which is my real problem with them. I couldn’t care less about their tone or how “militant” or “radical” they are, personally, and people who go on about those qualities (such as they are) as an excuse for assholes mistreating atheists in everyday life are missing the point (missing several I’d say). Then again I feel the same way about “moderate” atheists, conservative theists, liberal theists, moderate theists . . .

Well, almost all ideologies are stupid or at least false, but it’s also the case that most critiques of most ideologies come from one of those other ideologies that is stupid, or at least false, and so most things people say about Teh Evulz of Christianity/Islam/Conservatism/Liberalism/atheism/socialism/whatever are going to be stupid, or at least simply false.

newshutz (#51): “The economy might have been better under president McCain, but I am sure everything else would have been worse.“

So McCain would increase troop levels in Afghanistan, keep troops in Iraq for years, go to war in Libya, keep Guantanamo open, continue federal persecution of medical marijuana, reduce transparency? He’d have Americans lining up to stand in nude scanners or be punished with molestation-type “patdowns”?

Of course, you have ObamaPelosiCare, which wouldn’t have come from McCain. Along with that came all the extra payoffs. ObamaPelosiCare prohibits any physician-owned hospitals from being built, or even being expanded, as a payoff to the American Hospital Association for backing the bill. Then there was the payoff to unions, the consequence of which is that we pay taxes now that union members don’t.

Speaking of unions, GM investors had a large portion of their ownership stolen and given to unions in the “restructuring”. Obama had the NLRB prevent Boeing from opening the SC plant (without giving in to the extortion recently).

Then there’s Solyndra, XL pipeline, gulf drilling.

McCain would have been a rotten president and he’s worse than the vast majority of Republicans on economics, foreign policy, and individual rights. But short of going to war with Iran, I can’t imagine the lives of the average Americans being any worse under any other candidate, either McCain or even Hillary Clinton.

If you vote Libertarian, you still agree to abide by the outcome of the election, whether it’s Obama or the Republican.

Me? I’ll skip the election, once again. They don’t get to claim that they have my agreement on any of this.

Protestors who want to shut down global trade conferences are generally wanting more government, but they are commonly referred to as anarchists.

The economy might have been better under president McCain, but I am sure everything else would have been worse. Gingrich is McCain with a more pleasant demeanor, less leadership ability, and a few more IQ points.

(The IQ points make him more interesting to listen to, but maybe more frightening in power.)

Stalin opposed the Russian Orthodox church as a threat to the mental control of his subjects. If it had served his purposes, he would have made the official state religion Scientology or Rastafarianism.

“The Union of Soviet Rastafarian Republics*” does have a quirky appeal.

*”CCPP” (Cyrillic acronym) or “USRR” by the English acronym.

I had a brief exchange with Penn Jillette on Twitter over this. He stated that only atheists can be completely moral, on the grounds that theists are motivated by fear or reward. I argued that was too general, but given the limits of Twitter, it’s not easy to make a nuanced argument. We got as far as him responding, “Bullshit!” Maybe he was plugging his Showtime series.

But I essentially agree with him. A person is truly moral only when they respect the rights of others for rational reasons, not out of fear. I still think that a theist can do good things for rational reasons, in spite of what fundamentalist leaders might want them to do instead.

The argument that all atheists are evil because some atheists, like Stalin, did terrible things is as absurd as blaming all Christians for Hitler, The Spanish Inquisition, mass slaughters in the crusades, slaughters of natives during colonialism, organized protection of child rape, etc.. Stalin opposed the Russian Orthodox church as a threat to the mental control of his subjects. If it had served his purposes, he would have made the official state religion Scientology or Rastafarianism.

Cara Jennings, anarchist, city commissioner, Lake Worth, FL

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/profile-cara-jennings-the-radical-cheerleader-of-lake-720983.html

It is possible, but unconfirmed, that Arcata, CA (near Humboldt) also has elected anarchist(s) to the city council. I invite you to do the research.

Of course, it is somewhat specious to claim to be an anarchist while holding the power of public office, so take it all with a grain of salt. It also depends on how one defines an anarchist. The mainstream definition is synonymous with “bombthrower.” My definition is “anyone who believes that there is no right to treat another human like property and acts on that belief.” Insert your own definition here.

As for atheists, Rep. Pete Stark(D)-CA is the highest elected atheist official I could find, the first openly atheist member of Congress. Isn’t that just the damnedest thing? That there were openly gay members of Congress before there was an openly atheistic member of Congress?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark

In America, it’s braver to come out of the atheist closet than it is to come out of the gay closet. That’s perspective.

The other part was that atheists are less trusted than blacks, women and gays. Why are we up in arms over, “someone who chooses to disagree with me is less trustworthy than a random chance of birth in another person?”

I would trust someone who makes a reasoned, sincere, honest effort to objectively determine right from wrong far more than I would trust someone whose determination of right from wrong amounts to “because someone else said so” or “God says I’m not allowed to apply critical thinking to it.”

I would describe myself as religious, though I don’t fit into any known denomination I’d even describe myself as Christian. Can a book, religion or other object contain wisdom or good knowledge? Of course. But ultimately, you’re reading the interpretation of the divine filtered through someone else’s imperfect understanding of it. They won’t go to hell in your place if they’re wrong, nor will you get a free pass for doing evil because someone told you to. Everyone is ultimately responsible for their own behavior, whether they are an atheist or not.

the fact is that when they got power, atheists were utterly savage and brutal in their use of the state.

All Christians rape kids. Right?

I might have been too subtle in #39 post.

Lord, protect me from your followers.

Most atheist persecution talk is not only hyperbole, but…

Look, I don’t want to start any trouble. Lemme just leave this here and maybe it proves that you’re using “hyperbole” incorrectly:
http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Laws_and_other_rules_against_atheists_and_agnostics

That’s just the state-sponsored “persecution” (granting that we haven’t defined this term), but I hope you can admit that it is substantive evidence against your position. That would be the logical thing to do.

the fact is that when they got power, atheists were utterly savage and brutal in their use of the state. Even Ivan the Terrible did not come even close to what the Soviets did.

Holy Smokes! Did you just pose as fact that atheists are savage/brutal statists because “Stalin Lenin Communist Russia”? Is this is serious argument from you?

Moving on: I used to run into Madalyn Murray O’Hair and her family a lot. Not pleasant to be around as a person, but you need to understand the world was extremely different for atheists than it is today. Is she one of those who “used the courts as a cudgel”? Good. Murray v. Curlett was too damn important to forget.

All three are essentially the same religion to me, why why would you assume my animosity level is different for any particular branch of it?

Okay, I will grudgingly admit Islam gets a couple points since the shahada does start off “There is no god…” Kudos Islam! Granted it’s all downhill from there, but I stop listening after the 4th word anyway.