My thoughts concerning the theist/non-theist dialogue here.

First, I'd like to say there are many perfectly sensible people here who can talk about religion while reserving the more vitriolic sentiments for the radical rightists.

That having been said, a recent post wondered how the two groups could talk to each other without believers freaking out. I have some thoughts concerning the reasons for that perception. I feel that the reason could be that many self=identified Christians here do not believe or feel the need to tell non-theists they are going to hell and other vicious sentiments. So when a very small number of atheists compare religion to mental illness and delusion, blame all of humanity's poor treatment of each other on religion, talk about "the big sky daddy" or whatever, it feels like they are not playing fair, by not refraining from the more outrageous statements they have about believers, while many Christians here do refrain.

P.S. I am not defending Christians who do tell atheists here that they are going to hell. I am sad for them, that they think they are certain. Perhaps all people with unibrows are going to hell, perhaps all people who can't dance the foxtrot, or people whose favorite color is orange. Perhaps all of us are going, or none of us. Maybe hell doesn't exist, or is beyond our comprehension. I don't know, and neither does anyone else, not for sure. I am more sure that telling people they going to hell is equally as rude as telling them that their religion is a mental illness.

Also, it's hard to separate criticism of a believer's religion, from criticism of the believer thenself, because religious identification is very close to some people's core identities, so attacking is like attacking them.

Just one person's thoughts. *puts on flame-retardant suit*

I grew up in the Bible Belt, and I've been an atheist since I was about 15. I've gotten my fair share of antagonism from fundis. All that pent up frustration can come out from time to time, though I try to remember the difference between a nasty little fundy running around screaming at me that I'm going to burn in hell forever and he feels 'sorry' for me, when all I was trying to do was walk from my car to the grocerystore, and a normal, rational person with a religious faith.

I think it's just a way to vent. Not that it's fair, or rational, just that I think that's where it comes from. Confusing "Christians" with "asshole fundi's" can happen from time to time, when you've been driven to a far enough point in frustration and irritation.

I realize that not all Christians are hate-filled brain-dead mouth-breathing fascists, but those who aren't tend to mollycoddle those who are.

Have you noticed that it always seems to be the secular media who expose and call to task the worst players in American Christianity? What we get from the "Good Christians" in such instances is usually a big load of silence.

This is because they're all working the same scam to some degree, and if one goes down (no matter how corrupt they may be) the unspoken fear in Christian circles is that they and their mini$try might be next.

I say to all the "Good Christians": If you lie down with dogs, you rise up with fleas.

First, I'm not a christian. Second, I'm not a theist. So let's just start there.

But I'm also no ignorant. I can give you a list ten pages long of the Chrisitian organizations actively, agressively working not only for social and economic justice but speaking out boldly against the fanatical religious right.

That's why 115 religious leaders were arrested in Washington DC during a protest organized by Christian groups against the immoral budget that passed by Congress. That's why progressive Chrisitan leaders such as Jim Wallis and others publically condemned Pat Robertson for his ridiculous actions.

Ever heard of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice? Well, planned parenthood international has - they work togehter with this group all the time and use their material to help people trying to deal with religious fundamentalist families, or guilt associated with that religious background. http://www.rcrc.org/

Interfaith Alliance? Check them out as see the Chrisitian leaders partnering with religious leaders of many faiths actively working against the hatred of chrisitan fundamentalists. http://www.interfaithalliance.org/

Ever heard of Soujourner's? http://sojo.net/

Here is a list of chrisitan acitvism organizations - many or most of which actively speak out against and combat the evil and injustices perpetuated by the radical right.

A SHORT list of other Christian people involved in the fight for social and economic justice and involved in resisting the radical religious right

Christian

Christian Humanism is a growing exploration of the increasing overlap between the values of modern humanism and the current trend in liberal Christian theology and practice toward naturalist, utilitarian Christianity. It is not affiliated with any church or organization; rather it is part of a research project into the evolution of modern Christianity by one hopeful Christian.

Common Sense Christianity is a online resource for books, articles, reviews and other materials that explore ways to "hold Jesus central in our faith-lives, without calling him God or adopting doctrines developed for the Roman Empire -- and without abandoning modern science, ignoring suffering in the world, or pretending that we have all the answers."

CrossLeft is a grassroots organization created to address questions like: What if our faith and our politics could clearly come together? What if we were no longer made to feel like we had to choose? What if we, as progressive Christians, could help to reframe the ongoing conversation about faith?

CrossWalk America - "where Christian compassion meets progressive action" - shares a vision of walking in response to God's Spirit calling from within to live an emerging Christian faith - one marked by love of God, neighbor and self.

The Ecumenical Order of Charity is an ecumenical, non-clerical, religious order of men and women who come from a wide variety of backgrounds, denominations, orientations, lifestyles, and employment.

The Effective Living Centre (ELC) provides a broadly based outreach program helping people explore their full potential through courses, seminars and events. Our programs are particularly in the areas of: relationships, parenting, self-worth; social justice issues; men’s issues; sacred and creative. ELC is home to the Progressive Christian Network (PCNet-SA).

Eramos offers a forum and support for individuals and communities to explore, express and deepen their spirituality within an Australian context.

Faith Matters Radio is a a radio show that presents the progressive point of view, "a distinct alternative to the substance and style of broadcasting common to the religious right."

The Foundation for Contemporary Theology is a non-profit, educational organization whose mission is to present the most compelling theological issues of our time in order to promote in depth reflection by the largest possible audience.

Futurechurch is a network of progressive Christians in New Zealand.

Hope for Peace and Justice equips progressive people of faith to be champions for peace and justice. "Morality is not the exclusive domain of the right."

The Institute for Servant Leadership is an educational ministry grounded in the understanding that the servanthood of God was manifested in the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.

Kairos Commotion hosts conversations regarding Progressive Christianity.

The New Patmos group is a cyber-community of faith for "Christian Exiles".

North American Coalition for Christianity and Ecology encourages churches to become centers of creation awareness and to teach reverence for God's creation.

Preaching Peace offers a set of reflections and sermons on non-violence based on the texts of the Revised Common Lectionary. Influenced by the work of Rene Girard.

Progressive Christians Uniting (formerly Mobilization for the Human Family) is a movement of progressive Christians whose mission is to be a prophetic presence in the Church and in the world, steadfastly proclaiming the radically inclusive love of God and faithfully working for the inclusion of and justice for all God's children, regardless of sexual orientation, gender, age, race, ethnicity, or socio-economic status.

Protestants dans la ville. Un pasteur, une journaliste, un théologiens’ expriment librement.

Radical Faith, providing resources to explore the fundamentals of faith in a changed world, is a project of the Society of the Sacred Mission (SSM).

Realistic Living focuses on Christian resurgence, metaphorical translation of the Bible, theological and ethical education, interreligious dialogue, science and religion, social justice, ecology, bioregionalism, and strategies for social change. Many of their books, essays, poems, and reviews are available as free downloads.

Sojourners is a Christian ministry whose mission is to proclaim and practice the biblical call to integrate spiritual renewal and social justice. Subscribe to a printed magazine or an online news bulletin.

Speak from the Heart Webzine presents the views of “progressive” Christians who seek to present, apply, and live out the Gospel of grace, faith, love, reconciliation, and inclusiveness.

Westar Institute is an independent research and education organization that promotes religious literacy by promoting and disseminating contemporary biblical and religion scholarship to a wider audience. Through its well known JESUS SEMINAR project, Westar has made a significant contribution to the rediscovery of Jesus' distinctive vision of life under the divine domain.

The Journal of Unitarian Christianity is an independent project that brings together Christians who believe in one God and revere Jesus as a teacher and exemplar, and provides a voice for those Christians who cannot adhere to doctrines such as the Trinity, predestination, eternal damnation, and sacrificial theories of the Atonement.

Zion's Herald is one of the oldest truly progressive religious publications in the U.S., created in 1823. It's had a largely Methodist and New England identity but today is a national bi-monthly with an ecumenical/interfaith editorial outlook. Since reviving in 2000 in its current magazine format, it has earned national/international recognition, and is reaching a growing readership across the U.S.



Christian, Denominational

The Alliance of Baptists is an alliance of individuals and churches dedicated to the preservation of historic Baptist principles, freedoms, and traditions, and to the expression of their ministry and mission through cooperative relationships with other Baptist bodies and the larger Christian community.

FutureChurch is a network of progressive Catholics concerned about the related issues of women in ministry, optional celibacy, inclusive language, and Church decision-making that involves all the faithful.

Lift Every Voice! (Anglican/Episcopalian) offers a religious way of speaking to vital issues affecting American society and the world. They have created a declaration that "speaks from our commitments to be faithful to a God who cares about the poor and oppressed, who heals the sick and brokenhearted, and who proclaims liberty, peace, and justice for all." The declaration "provides a faithful Christian vision, an alternative to the Christian right."

Louie Crew's Anglican Pages contains information about the Episcopal Church in the United States and the world-wide Anglican Communion.

The Modern Churchpeople's Union was founded in 1898 and still serves the Anglican Communion worldwide, standing for freedom of enquiry in the continuing search for truth, dedicated to sound learning, honesty, openness and integrity. Among other things, the MCU members are concerned about the rising tide of conservatism and fundamentalism within the Churches, the failure of the Church of England fully to accept the role of women in all aspects of the organisation, and the increasing polarisation of the Church of England.

Order of Servants of Christ is an inclusive and diverse worldwide ecumenical Benedictine community serving Christ and serving community.

Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh ("PEP") is an organization of clergy and laypersons living and worshiping in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. Their website provides links to similar groups of Episcopalians throughout the U.S.

Society of the Franciscan Servants of the Poor is an ecumenical community of vowed men and women in service to the Church universal.

The Sophia Network is a community of lay and ordained Episcopalians united by online conversations and local and national gatherings. They are dedicated to liturgy, scholarship, and spirituality, and their conferences are designed around the renewal of the liturgist and the art of liturgy.

The Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship serves Christian Unitarians and Universalists according to their expressed religious needs; upholds and promotes the Christian witness within the Unitarian Universalist Association; and upholds and promotes the historic Unitarian and Universalist witness and conscience within the church universal.

The Witherspoon Society provides news and networking for progressive Presbyterians.




Interfaith

Beliefnet is an enormous, multi-faith online community designed to help you meet your own religious and spiritual needs -- in an interesting, captivating and engaging way. They are independent and are not affiliated with a particular religion or spiritual movement. Articles, discussion groups, and more. They even have a progressive Christianity message board!

The Centre for Progressive Religious Thought, located in the Australian Capital Territory, is open to any and to all who wish to explore a more progressive, open theology and spirituality in a safe environment. It stands in deep contrast to a general tendency which often requires that our theology and spiritual journey be built on what should be believed.

The Clergy Laity Network: United for Justice seeks a new commitment to active participation in the political processes of our nation by those members of religious communities who hold views larger than sectarian interests or narrow ideologies and who serve, beyond private advantage and any claim of spiritual superiority, the moral vision of the common good.

The Council for a Parliament of World's Religions works to cultivate harmony between the world's religious and spiritual communities and foster their engagement with the world and its other guiding institutions in order to achieve a peaceful, just, and sustainable world.

Ecumenical Women 2000+ "Working within our faith traditions to raise the status of women and advance human rights around the world."

Equal Partners in Faith is a multi-racial, multi-faith national network of religious leaders and people of faith committed to equality and diversity.

Faith Futures Foundation exists to facilitate the interaction of scholarship and religion for the sake of re-envisioning the forms and roles of religion.

Faith Voices strengthens religious and progressive organizations working together for the common good by engendering new ideas and language, educating the public, building consensus, and developing leadership.

The Interfaith Alliance is a nonpartisan, interfaith organization committed to three main goals: promoting the positive role of religion as a healing and constructive force in public life, encouraging the renewal of religious values within our families and neighborhoods, and providing people of faith with an alternative voice to that of the radical religious right.

The Jefferson Center for Religion and Philosophy seeks to draw on the world’s wisdom traditions to promote a humanitarian ethic and a spirituality of love, freedom, social justice, compassion for all people, and reverence for the Earth.

Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance is an inter-faith group which promotes religious tolerance as a universal human right. Their web site contains thousands of essays which describe many faith groups, provide religious information, and describe controversial topics -- from abortion to suicide -- from all points of view.

The Pluralism Project was developed by Diana L. Eck at Harvard University to study and document the growing religious diversity of the United States, with a special view to its new immigrant religious communities.

PRO-S.O.C.S. is dedicated to preserving separation of church and state and provides intelligence about the activities, connections, and intentions of various facets of the radical right and their handlers through networks and affiliations with other national anti-extremist organizations.

Religion Online is a database of almost 5,000 articles by a range of writers and scholars on religion.

Sea of Faith explores and promotes religious faith as a human creation.

SnowStar Institute of Religion advances religious literacy and tolerance in the Canadian context by helping interested individuals and communities find solidarity, make informed choices, and access educational materials.

Tom Harpur, a Rhodes Scholar, is Canada's best known religion writer. His newspaper column appears in The Toronto Star on Sunday, and his many books focus on spiritual growth.

United Religions Initiative is building a permanent public forum where people of many faiths gather in mutual respect to pursue justice, healing and peace, with reverence for all life. The United Religions will have global visibility and stature, and will be a vital presence in communities all over the world.



Lesbian/Gay/Bi/Trans

Alliance of Lesbian and Gay Anglicans (ALGA) An international coalition of Anglicans who are united in working for the unconditional inclusion and full participation of lesbian and gay people in every facet of the Church's life throughout the Anglican Communion.

The Oasis - a mission and ministry of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark with gay and lesbian people and their family and friends

Outspirit - a pluralistic spiritual presence serving the LGBT community.

The Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN) is a growing movement of United Methodist individuals, congregations, campus ministries, and other groups working for the full participation of all people in the United Methodist Church.

Soulforce is an interfaith movement committed to ending spiritual violence perpetuated by religious policies and teachings against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) people.

Whosoever is an online magazine for GLBT Christians.

Witness Our Welcome: An ecumenical forum for Christian congregations, communities and individuals that welcome and affirm persons of all sexual and gender orientations.




Publications

ARTS Magazine is a magazine dedicated to the "Arts in Religious and Theological Study." The ARTS Society was organized to provide a forum for scholars and artists interested in the intersections between theology, religion, and the arts to share thoughts, challenge ideas, strategize approaches in the classroom, and to advance the discipline in theological and religious studies curricula.

CrossCurrents is a global network for people of faith and intelligence who are committed to connecting the wisdom of the heart and the life of the mind. "In print, online and in real time, we bring people together across lines of difference."

Killing the Buddha is a religion magazine for people made anxious by churches, people embarrassed to be caught in the "spirituality" section of a bookstore, people both hostile and drawn to talk of God...

Living the Questions is a 12 week DVD and web based, samll group study course about Progressive Christianity.

The Positive Atheism Magazine discusses the history and philosophy of atheism -- promoting liberty, responsibility, and peace of mind.

reVision is an international journal from New Zealand devoted to biblical and religious literacy and practice, continuing the quest of the historical Jesus.

The Symposium is a magazine for college students published by the Self Knowledge Symposium. Also helpful for campus ministers and others who have an interest in the spiritual life of students or younger people. Free student subscriptions or free trial issues for non-students are available.



Weblogs
The TCPC Digest of Weblogs

Other progressive resources
An annotated bibliography of resources in the area of spirituality and health/healing.

Axiom Media, dedicated to awakening American understanding of the struggles faced by the Palestinian people.

Common Dreams News Center is a non-profit news service providing breaking news and views for the Progressive Community

Disability, Spirituality, and Healing resource packet intended for both people with disabilities and people wanting to minister with them. Includes a syllabus for a course intended to give students an introduction to ministry with people with physical and mental disabilities, including mental retardation.

The Interfaith Climate Change Network (ICCN) is a collaborative effort of the Eco-Justice Working Group of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA and the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life. The ICCN’s goal is to pursue justice for the poor around the world and protect all life on Earth by taking action to address global climate change.

Political Research Associates monitors and analyzes anti-democratic, authoritarian, and racist movements and trends, conducts research, and publishes educational materials.

Washington-Baltimore Center of the A. K. Rice Institute promotes and advances the study of groups, organizations and social systems in the tradition of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London, England.


These are just a few. If you haven't heard of them, just think about why you don't hear much from progressive liberals in the mainstream media either. Just because mainstream media would rather put up insane quotes from someone like Pat Robertson, than listen to the reasonable, thoughtful counter message of someone else, doesn't mean that "Christians don't speak up." I could say "Liberals" don't speak up by your reasoning that you don't see them enough in the media, but that would be just as stupid.

I would add that Americans United, which is the first line of defense against the radical rightists, has a database of hundreds of clergy who support the separation of church and state. I should know, it was my job to update it when I worked for them as an intern in D.C. The head of that organization is a minister, the Rev. Barry Lynn. So was my boss, the Director of Religious Outreach. Its very large and very old, so Rev. Lynn is usually the go-to guy for quotes in the media against the radical rightists, not all those other organizations you mentioned.

Despite all the ostensibly high-minded organizations on your list, the visible and vociferous Christian Right continues to have their way.

The fact that you don't see representatives of such groups on Meet the Press each week? Gee, why would that be I wonder...

I could argue that progressive liberals are useless and have no voice - I could say that I've lost all respect for ALL progressives because I don't see them on the mainstream media, and I could - if I were ignorant enough - conclude that therefore they must be silent, complacent and doing nothing to act.

But I'd be wrong.

It's hard to get mass media airtime for a sensible message. Not when you want ratings - then, a crazy man suggesting we should assisinate foreign leaders is much more appealing. That doesn't mean they aren't active or involved. Mainstream media will never be the tool of progressive liberal or progressive christian change.

I think you should consider the possibility that you're not particularly versed on this subject and predisposed to think what you want to think rather than actually trying to find out what's going on.

That's pretty funny coming from someone who made this statement
after posting this:




Perhaps you should take your own advice.

I note that you've said nothing to actually challenge the points made, just personal attacks. For a person of reason, which I assume you would claim to be, you must concede that irregardless of any other scenario, a call for evidence to support claims is fair.

I've read these boards for years. I just posted elsewhere. Thats long enough to see how many times christians here (not in generally, but here which is what I said) - though I am not one - have to spend an inordinate ammount of time trying to explain that they don't actually think about things the way they are accused of thinking about things, don't actually believe what they are accused of believing, and so on. That's not always the case. But it is the case often enough to be worth noting.

Which is it?

Why should anyone take your word for anything when you misrepresent yourself?

And since you have provided no evidence to back up YOUR claim that "many" christians
"have to spend an inordinate ammount(sic) of time trying to explain that they don't actually think about things the way they are accused of thinking about things, don't actually believe what they are accused of believing, and so on",
I'll draw my own conclusions.

That you don't know this, is telling of a great many things. I do not believe the tennants of theism, classically defined. I do however hold personal, spiritual beliefs which are private and none of your concern. I'm not interested in getting into a personal tit for tat with you. You're the one doing that. I'd rather stick to the issue at hand.

You're right, I didn't provide you links to forum threads in which christians have spent their time trying to explain to atheists that they don't actually believe what they are being accused of. You can do that on your own - or not, and choose to reject my claim.

That still doesn't change the fact that what I said in my original response, which you interrupted, remains accurate. But you seem more interested in personally harassing me than having a real converstation, so this is the last time we'll talk.

without anything to back up their inflammatory claims.

I sincerely doubt that you lurked here or posted elsewhere, otherwise you would realize that you are expected to back up ridiculous claims.

Telling a poster who questions your claim that they need to "look it up themselves" and that they are "harassing" you are dead giveaways that you can't.

It's also the signature of a disruptor.

And the fact that you think I "interrupted" you is more evidence that you never lurked here.



You have no credibility and you've misrepresented yourself more than once, so either back up your claim or stop accusing and maligning me and my fellow atheists.

are my concern when you spout them in response to something said in here. The contradictions you make indicate there are questions about your honesty. If there is something you want to clear up, then go ahead and do it. If you don't want to share that and want to keep it private, then stop sticking it in everywhere and contradicting yourself and you won't find me giving a shit about what your personal views are. But, again, if you say in the atheist forum that you are not a theist and then say in the GD forum that you believe in god and that god was vital to the design/creation of the earth, then be prepared to have me, BMUS, and others on your ass for your hypocrasy.

He questioned another poster about their lack of evidence, then preached to me about it:



And then in his very NEXT POST he weasels out of it:




And now he's playing the "poor me I'm being harassed" card.

to my two requests for him to clarify his position. I will assume that makes me correct.

I looked up the definition of the word 'theist'

From Wiki: Theism is the belief in one or more gods or goddesses. More specifically, it may also mean the belief in God, a god, or gods, who is/are actively involved in maintaining the Universe. This secondary meaning is shown in context to other beliefs concerning the divine below.

Answers.com: One who believes in the existence of a God; especially, one who believes in a personal God; -- opposed to atheist.

wordnet.princeton: of or relating to theism
one who believes in the existence of a god or gods

And from wordreference.com: one who believes in the existence of a god or gods


It seems like it would be pretty difficult to believe in a god and not be covered by the broad definition of the word 'theist'.

I wish they all used the broad definition of the word 'atheist'.

Sorry i'm not at the computer 24/7.

You refer to contradictions - I'm not sure what those contradictions are. If you can help me out there, then I can try to clarify.

You also refer to something I've said in the atheist forum - but I've never been in the atheist forum as far as I know, so I'm not sure what you're refering to.

You also refer to something in the GD forum -- saying I believe in god and god was vital to the creation of the earth - to the best of my knowledge I've ever - ever - made such a post. Is there someone with a nickname similar to mine you are confusing with me?

Perhaps this is why I'm getting such hostility -- becuase I can't for the life of me fathom why I am. Am I being mistaken for someone else?

perhaps, just for the record, you could state what exactly it is you DO believe, so as to clear up what is apparently some confusion on the subject.

Oh, and by the way...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1998196#1998715

Exiled In America: The issue here isn't that anyone who believes God is part of the creation process is a moron. I believe God was.

Yes, in a thread in which I was vehemently arguing against the legitimacy of teaching intelligent design in schools, I mentioned that the problem with teaching intelligent design is not people who have some kind of belief in God - the problem is that it isn't science. Saying "I believe God was" was a short hand way of saying "I have my own spiritual beliefs, and yet even I recognize ID cannot be taught as science, i.e. you don't have to be a non-believer to be on the right side of that issue."

If the thread had been more about my actual beliefs, I would have had to say, "I believe god* was," then go into a lengthy definition of how what I mean when I use that term is entirely different than the way it is used by Christians or anyone believing in the personal god-being of classical theism. But that felt unnecessary at the time. I had no idea that there would be a bunch of people so fixated on what I actually believe.

Anyway, these are the things that I will say about what I believe. I grew up in christian tradition, but left the church. So I am certainly most familiar with the concepts of traditional christianity. But I myself am not a Christian - I no longer belong to any religious institution, or church of any kind.

When I say I am not a theist, I realize this causes confusion. Webster's dictionary defines theism as "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world." But it is the last part of that definition that is the issue for me. Theologically speaking, "classical theism" refers specifically to belief in a certain kind of "god" -- a personal super-natural "being" characterized by omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and immutability. These categories of classical theism are a problem for me, and I reject them. I don't believe in a god "being" defined in these classically theistic ways.

So when I speak in the future, I will try not to say "I am not a theist" and instead more specifically say "I don't believe in the god of classical theism" if that helps.

Finally - as far as my specific beliefs go, this is all I feel incline to say about it (after all, I'm not on trial and don't feel the need to explain any more than what is specifically relevant to the matter at hand.) This is from something I wrote in another post.

Look at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1998196#1998715

Exiled in America: I believe there is a god too.

If you believe in a god, of any kind, you are a theist.

If you don't, you're an atheist.

You can't even be honest about your beliefs. How can you expect to be taken seriously?

If you want to call me a theist, call me a theist. That doesn't bother me. I couldn't possibly care less about whatever you want to "label" me. I've explained several times that what I mean when I said I am not a theist is that I reject the tennants of classical theism. You however, are taking the broadest possible defintition and saying anyone with any kind of believe in any sort of transcendent reality is a theist. So ok, you've defined your meaning, and I don't give a damn about arguing with you about it. You can call me anything you want. Whatever you label me won't change what I think.

I am curious though, would you call a Buddist a theist? Most people I know would not, and yet Buddism certainly has beliefs that I would call spiritual. Just an example of how "either you're a theist or you're an atheist" might not work. It also wouldn't work, I don't think, if you were a pantheist - correct?

As long as it is clear that I don't believe in any of the tennants of classical theism, as long as its clear I don't believe in a supernatural "being." Then you can call me a theist all you want. Or label me whatever else you want for your own purposes.

You're the one that seems to be obsessed with needing to put everyone into a neat little box. It really doesn't matter to me at all, what you want to call me as long as you don't claim I believe things I don't believe.

Label yourself how you want - contrary to what you seem to think, I don't need to put you in a box.

But I will put you in a box, called the Ignore box, if you continue to misrepresent yourself.

To this point, you've used the phrase "I'm not a theist" as a sort of prologue that's supposed to give your opinions some kind of extra validation, especially when criticizing the opinions of atheists.

There is nothing about theism that says you must believe in a "classical" god, only that you believe in some kind of god. Which you have admitted you do.

Theist and "classical theism" - I treated them as though they are the same thing. It wasn't deliberate.

Definition of classical theism: Classical Theism means generally the theology of the nature of God as developed by the Church Fathers and carried forward in all Christian traditions until at least the middle of the 19th Century.

I am not that.


If you want to call me a theist, or anything else you'd like to call me, that's fine. As long as you don't distort the fact that I reject classical theism.

According to your own words, you do.


If you believe in at least one god, then you are a theist. The very word itself is descended from the Greek word theos for god. Over time the meaning has only become more specific.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=theist&searchmode=none

If you do not believe in any gods, then you are a form of atheist ("without god").

If you believe in a generalized nonconscious spirit that embodies the universe then you are some form of supernaturalist. This is a subset of atheism and there are a good number of atheists who believe this way.

However, you specifically say you believe in a god. Therefore you must be a theist. That's what the word means. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

"If you believe in a generalized nonconscious spirit that embodies the universe then you are some form of supernaturalist. This is a subset of atheism and there are a good number of atheists who believe this way."

That sounds closer to what I believe. Though I don't really like the term super-natual, as I believe there is a dimension of depth and order/destiny to existence that is the culmination of the entire natural order - not outside of it, but through it all and because of it all.

What I have been doing for quite a while in my life, is taking beliefs that seem to be closely related to what you wrote above, and trying to define that as "god" for me. So I would say "I believe in god" but mean more of a dimension of depth and direction grounding all life rather than a personal super-being.

Does that seriously mean that I am some kind of atheist? I've never been called that before. :D

:-)

Don't shy away from the term supernatural though. It's taken on a very whacked sense of ghosts, werewolves, etc. in our culture. It really refers (off the cuff quick definition) just to that which is outside of nature. A materialist like myself would say that there is nothing outside of nature; i.e. there is nothing that can be understood apart from matter and interactions of matter (relativity of course tells us that energy is a form of matter and vice versa).

Check out the wikipedia article on theism. It's really pretty good and goes into the various subsets of both atheism and theism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theist

oh wait, she's dead, isn't she?

Well, how about Intelligent Design, they sure scored a huge victory in Dover, PA...Oh wait, no they didn't, the school board that was pushing it all got voted out, then the judge wrote a smackdown opinion, and Rick Santorum, one of their biggest supporters, flip-flopped on ID. Then Pat Robertson told them that God had abandoned them. Well, guess that didn't go so well.

Of course, who could forget Justice Sunday, when the fight against activist judges was...lost. No nuclear option for them, eh?

Finally, there is Ralph Reed, poster boy for the Christian Coalition, up to his eyeballs in the Abramhoff scandal.

Now if I was going to make wild generalizations in the face of this evidence, I might conclude from all these examples that the radical rightists reign supreme. But since I live in the reality-based world, I have to accept this as evidence that the radical rightists are no longer getting their way on everything. I might have to actually take a look at what is happening, and stop reflexively believing whatever is most convenient for attacking people.

How about you, Bob?

The recent embarrassments and setbacks of the Christian Right agenda that you note may be perceived by the hopeful as being fatal chinks in Fundamentalist armor, but I think such "defeats" will only help Christo-fascists streamline their tactics.

Lets face it: They have strongholds in every city and small town in America. Thanks to the horrific degradation of the public education system, they enjoy an endless supply of potential recruits (as does the military). Their craving for more power and more money knows no bounds.

It's going to take prolonged, intense high-profile action from a large coalition of "Good Christians" to raise public consciousness about what's going on. And it will have to come from a strictly religious perspective, not from a cacaphony of pseudo-religious groups which are mainly interested in promoting a leftist agenda.

Good luck with that.

I will keep looking at Alito. And at "good upstanding christians" on this website that tell atheists that they should shut about about the crosses in Utah because all it does is give the fundamental right "more ammunition" to win the next election.

and that is why you started a new one. I have no problem with that, but you think it is an answer to my question of how we can not piss each other off to talk about:

1. Schiavo
2. ID/Dover
3. Santorum
4. Robertson
5. Justice Sunday
6. Ralph Reed

Cause that don't seem like an answer. It seems like a list of things you are putting out to argue that the radical right is not in power. I then gave you a couple things that show they are. Sorry if I was moving too fast for ya.

that started this whole thread. The list you cite was in response to what Bloodblister Bob said in post #9.

The reason why I pointed out that it was your question that sparked my OP was that it seemed like you were speaking as though you were above such questions with talk of Alito and the Utah crosses while Bob and I have our "lovefest".

Next time, though, I think I'd rather what I have to say get lost in the shuffle, rather than enable the engendering of more bad feelings as evidenced by the donnybrook below.

donnybrook. THe history of that goes WAY back.

A simple search of DU will find that you profess to believe in a god. Why do you now claim (and claim in other discussions) that you do not believe in god? Puts what you have to say in an interesting light.

But you can call me whatever you want. :)

While there are rude people who post on DU;I think that, for this time of year, things have been really civil. I also think that it's not the subject matter that makes a person rude it's his or her own personality showing thru on posts. I have seen alot of posts on DU which can be considered rude that have absolutely nothing to do with religion.

:-)

Also, it's hard to separate criticism of a believer's religion, from criticism of the believer thenself, because religious identification is very close to some people's core identities, so attacking is like attacking them.


The same could be said of a person's lack of belief as well. :-)

That being said, I have to think that there's something else going on with this constant infighting. Here's my version:
Liberal Christians are basically caught between a rock and a hard place, to use the old cliche. In the media, we see Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell ranting about homosexuality, abortion and such issues, and they tend to be taken as representative of all of Christianity. Liberal Christians see what Jesus would see, Falwell and Robertson as hypocrites and liars, using Christianity to wage a war of hate. As much as we all know this is true, there aren't that many people out there combating these normal perceptions of Christian morality. Liberal Christians see their religion being hijacked, without them able to do anything about it. This, I think we would all agree, makes them more sensitive to skeptics questioning their faith. It's worth pointing out that people in general take their religion very seriously, and their rage is often taken out on doubters of their religion, often because they have doubts themselves. When their religion is called a myth, an invention by weak creatures, et cetera, they consider them personal insults, no matter how they were intended.
On the other side we have atheists, who face a similar dilemma. Whether we admit it or nor, atheists are a persecuted minority in this country. Right-Wing Christians such as Robertson and Falwell are attempting to reintroduce school prayer, make belief in God a requirement for holding public office, and many other things, which our born-again president can't wait to do. Athiests see themselves being crushed beneath the feet of a new theocracy in the United States, and they often don't want to admit that they are atheists, for fear of persecution. The Internet offers a chance for them to speak anonymously, and many of them see it as a place where they are free to challenge the beiefs of believers, wthout fear of retrubution, which of course it is. As I've said before, believers tend to get touchy when their beliefs are challenged in such an open manner, and so that's where the acrimony comes from.
I hope I've judged the motives of both sides correctly, and I'm sorry for any misstatements or anything I may have left out. I hope my comments made some sense.

It's having our concerns for separation of church and state being blithely dismissed.

It's being told that our speaking up is "costing Democrats votes."

It's being told that we really believe something that we keep saying we don't.

All these and more are just as frustrating and insulting as some might find being told their beliefs are a fairy tale.

So no, Christians here don't refrain. Christians engage in plenty of irritating and offensive behavior, too.

Your absolutely correct, many christians on this board do not refrain, at best atheists are tolerated but at worst atheists are scapegoated for the woes of the democratic party, a fringe group, not to be taken seriously by the mainstream, a mainstream which has faith.

Not just the Xians. Look thru the R&T threads and note how many times a comment, or even a simple question, brings out the Mighty Persecution Chorus to wail about "religion-bashing" and "condemning an entire faith because of a few bad apples." This happens even if the poster makes it clear they're not attacking the entire faith.

The tactic seems equally true of all DU religionists, though the two late-comers in the Monotheism Scam use it most often. (The Xians and Muslims, if I'm being too obscure.)

Their complaints remind me of Richard Dawkins' snarky comeback, when a religionist said his attacks on religion were "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." IIRC, Dawkins fired back: "But when it comes to religion, there's no baby IN the bathwater."

...better at avoiding mass generalziation.

We ALL do too much of that.

I don't KNOW that there is no "baby" in the bathwater. To me that comment seems to miss the point. I'm not interested in trying to undermine someone else's beliefs. I don't have an opinion about their accuracy beyond whether or not they work personally in my life. If they do, I apply them. If they don't I don't. When I comment on the kind of religious things that I can't stand, I try to be specific. I don't hate christians, nor do I want them to change if it works for them. But I do hate fundamentalist religious zealots out to undermine my freedom and liberty. That's a small, small, sub section of professing Christians out there - and its good to clearly make that distinction.

when you say they are a "small, small, sub section." Catholics, by their dogma, feel that homosexuals are an abomination and, according to the last pope, the biggest problem facing the world. And the new pope hasn't made it seem like that view is different. I think that the number of Christians out there trying to undermine my freedom and liberty are a large section. And those that don't overtly want to do so are not vocal enough in trying to hold the others down.

Are there good people that are Christians? Yes. Plenty. But the format of the religion and the required dogma are not usually that good.

Know how many self-professing caltholics believe that church dogma? There are plenty of things in church dogma that many catholics discard. I'm not here to debate whether they have any right to call themselves catholics if they don't agree wholesale with every single thing the church ever says. I can't think of a single organization I am affliliated with where I agree wholesale with everything they say. But there is a major difference between a generic, universal "church dogma" and the opinions of individuals of faith.

You can think the number of Christians out there trying to undermine freedom and liberty is large, but you'd have no concrete evidence to substantiate this claim beyond the purely anecdotal.

I'm not sure why it matters whether we "crunch the numbers" on this. Where there are wrong actions that lead to threats to our freedoms, we oppose them. I don't need to do inferential speculative generalization about how "many" Christians think what.

I say the catholic dogma is harmful because of X (I'll use the gay issue again). You say not a lot of catholics believe that (though I bet the numbers are in my favor, not yours) but you don't want to debate whether they are really catholics. Well too bad. They say they are. They can't pick and choose dogma. And worse, even if they don't believe that gays are a heinous abomination, they are still giving money to the church that does, giving a numbers count to the church that does so the church can have more political clout. That is bad enough.

I think that it is important that we "crunch the numbers." I imagine you don't because they wouldn't be in your favor. The number of people that say they are catholics are giving clout to the anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-a lot of shit dogma that is the church. Claiming they "don't really believe that" doesn't take away the political power and money they provide.

According to adherents.com, the 2005 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches (used in U.S. Government publications) showed that in 2003, the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) had 16,400,000 members in the United States.

From the same site, NRSI and ARIS data put the number of christians in this country in 2001 at 159,030,000.

Also according to NRSI and ARIS data, 76.5% of Americans identify themselves as christian.

I did the math.

I don't feel comforted.

Do you?

Not a Christan, and I agree with your points - they are true. Unfortunately they are true on both sides.

Some Christians blithely dismiss concerns over separation of church and state, but not all - and certainly not a majority of the Christians who post here. So we ought to make that distinction. Just like some non-theists blithely dismiss concern over issues that some Christians raise, such as a feeling of a declining moral decency in our society and a continuing slide into the ugliness, violence, and suffering of decadence. But certainly that would not be most of the non-theists here, and that distinction ought to be made.

Your second point is not one I have heard a lot, but I have heard it at least once so I accept it. But Christians hear the same thing every time progressive christian action organizations are "not welcome" to participate or contribute to the broader debate because they are "religious."

Your third point is very well taken because that does indeed happen all the time. But it happens just as often to Christians here on these boards as it does to atheists and other non-religious folk. Christians here spend the bulk of their time having to explain to atheists that they don't actually believe the things they are being accused of believing. So that certainly cuts both ways.

A statement like "Christians don't refrain" is too broad. Just like it would be too broad if I change the word from "Christians" to "Atheists." Some Christians engage in bad behavior. We all know that. But not the majority of the ones posting here. Some atheists engage in bad behavior. We all know that too. But not the majority of the ones posting here. And this original post was not about some childish tit for tat of who started what with who or who did more than who. It was just a good observation that is essentially true and we would all do well to remember it.

Haven't you seen any of the threads regarding Michael Newdow and his work to try and get "under God" out of the pledge? Or the lawsuit against the Utah highway crosses? A clear majority of the Christians on those threads were of the opinion that not only were these issues completely inconsequential, any attempt to support them was automatically going to cost Democrats votes. Hey, here ya go. Check out this poll taken during the Utah cross discussion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=39724

Christians here spend the bulk of their time having to explain to atheists that they don't actually believe the things they are being accused of believing.

Not the same. If atheists were insisting that Christian Democrats listened to and agreed with Jerry Falwell, THEN you might have a similar situation.

And my "Christians don't refrain" comment wasn't meant to be broad, it was in response to the poorly-stated OP which was basically a one-sided criticism of a small group of atheists which made it seem like the many, many Christians who feel unfairly attacked were never guilty of any provocation themselves, that it was only the few who tell people they're going to hell. I think my post pretty much addressed that.

Not the same. If atheists were insisting that Christian Democrats listened to and agreed with Jerry Falwell, THEN you might have a similar situation.

I don't know of many (or any) Christians here who are doing anything like that.

...any of the threads where believers insist that atheists have a belief system regarding god?? They're hilarious!!

That's what you said. That's what I responded to. You said Christians demanding such things made threads all over the place here - I asked to see a couple.

Now you're giving me something else.

I am not trotsky. Ask him.

You asked to see examples, and I gave you some. Christians insisting that I "don't believe god exists" even when I say that no, that's not how I think.

And over and over again, they keep insisting it.

Read up.

Christians on DU, unless they're disruptors, tend to have very little in common with the likes of Falwell.

BUT, were I to insist that they did, despite their protestations to the contrary, THEN I believe you would have a similar situation compared to when even liberal Christians insist that we atheists have "faith" or "religion" or a "belief system."

This is not a minor quibble like do you believe in a virgin birth or not. This goes right to the heart of the belief/non-belief divide. And the total lack of understanding and respect shown by the theists who continue to assert that atheists have "faith" is, in my opinion, equivalent to someone saying they support Falwell.

Got it?

How the hell would you know?

You've been posting here for how long?

You've posted on a total of four threads in this forum.


Yeah, we'll take your word for it because I'm sure you've got all kinds of evidence to back up that claim.:sarcasm:

to say it is false?

It is true that you misrepresent and generalize.

It is also true that you are incapable of using logic in an argument. THAT much is backed up by quite a bit of evidence, namely, all of your delusional posts.

Personal attacks are.

The poster has nothing to back up his baseless accusation and neither do you.

are the only thing you have. I've seen your posts and every argument you have ends up the same way. You playing the poor victim, sidestepping, diverting the discussion when you are clearly wrong and the like.

The poster has quite a bit of support. Actually, you are a poster boy of why s/he does.

You came into this thread and attacked me for something that has NOTHING to do with my post.

Your interest in me borders on obsessive.

Get help.

playing the victim. I could set my watch to this.

Furthermore, I responded on the subject of projection and strawmen arguments. The fact is that you use this heavily, and my discussion with you has simply shown me this even more.

Your delusion borders on insanity.

on edit, is seeing something one disagrees with and expressing that disagreement now "stalking"? I guess everyone that replies to you on this board in more than one thread is now "stalking" you....:eyes:

stop following and trying to continue an argument from another thread.

Your obsession with me is flattering but unsettling nonetheless.

Good job diverting the argument yet another time. I wonder if you are capable of holding an actual discussion. I won't hold my breath.

I have not mentioned the subject of misuse of atheism or religion, which was our previous discussion, so why do you bring it up? This is on the subject of misrepresentation and generalization, something I wanted to share my views on, being on a forum and all.

So now anyone who replies to your posts in multiple threads is "obsessed"? Get a grip.

another thread is obsessive.

Like I said, get help.

more like having a disagreement and calling someone out on petty tactics. I made a statement on this subject, and somehow you connect it to something else. Good job with the diversion, but it's pretty obvious.

Like I said, get a grip.

argument....:eyes:

Get help for both of your medical conditions.

another post devoid of thought. You are like clockwork with your delusion.

nobody has shown a thread where theists were accused of believing in something that they did not claim they believed in. There are plenty of examples of that going the other way around, though; I can give you links to the "atheists actually have a belief system in god" threads, but I believe you were there for that fun fest.

just read some of these threads. Generalizing all Christians as fundamentalists forms the basis for many of the arguments I've seen here.

On the other side, that is not the same sort of argument. Many have generalized on what theists believe, whereas some here (including myself) would say that atheists have beliefs when it comes to the subject of god (I didn't say anything about believing IN god, please see that distinction).

Since there's so many of them, that shouldn't be difficult.

Show us where theists were accused of believing in something that they did not claim they believed in.

That is, after all, exactly what you do to atheists every chance you get.

But, here's something:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x43164#43166

Try post #2. I doubt theists claim to believe in a "drug".

He is stating what he believes, and he believes religious people are wrong.

He isn't saying that they don't believe what they think they believe.

S/he claimed all religion is a drug. Again, I doubt theists claim to believe in a drug.

Whether it was said as "I believe x", or "x" is insignificant, for it still says people believe in something they do not. Furthermore, the statement was not qualified, and it was made in a strident way, so we can safely rule out the "I believe x" possibility.

Is English your first language?

You claimed you could provide examples where theists were accused of believing in something that they did not claim they believed in.

I'm still waiting.

All religion is a drug. All believers believe in religion.

All believers believe in religion = All believers believe in a drug.

If I said "Michael Jackson is a pedophile" and I said this to friends of Michael Jackson, that would be the equivalent of saying that they "like pedophiles" and thus be a smear.

If you said:

"All musicians are pedophiles"

That is asserting:

"All people who listen to musicians listen to pedophiles"

He said what he said. You can't say that he said what he didn't say.

Get it?

S/he said what s/he said. That means what it means.

"All religion is a drug!" means that people who believe in religion believe in a drug.

...thats what it means.

Shouldn't concrete arguments not be open to interpretation??? Shouldn't the direct quote be enough, without arguing on the implied meaning behind the quote???

the connection is quite clear.

Here it is in an IF-THEN statement:

If all religion is a drug, and if all believers believe in religion, then all believers believe in a drug.

"All religion is a drug"

What you say he said: "All believers believe in a drug"

is a direct assertion from that statement.

Again, if someone says

"I'm going to put you 6 feet under"

That is a threat.

Show us the multiple threads.

You said you had more than one.

Let's see them.

you've ignored it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=39299&mesg_id=41512

Show us where theists were accused of believing in something that they did not claim they believed in

Theists do not claim to believe in "fairy tale worship". That was explicitly said in that post.

I told you to "go back to your fairy tale worship".

That isn't equivalent to what you said. Where did I say that your believe in fairy tales??

Lets see them.

I showed you what you asked for.

Until I went back and looked at your statement.

Now back it up.

honor what you said. Let us discuss.

But show us this, since you said you would.

until I showed him what he was asking for.

He asked for it when you tried to twist words, saying people said things they didn't say.

answer beam.

I showed it to him, and now he's doing the twist and shout. It won't work.

...what you said you would??

why won't he discuss my examples when he said he would?

Your examples are no good.

Answer beam.

Theists do not claim to believe in "fairy tale worship".

Thanks.

:)

Temporarily.

You said:



Lets see them.

my examples on what you were asking for. I've provided them.

Are you afraid of a little discussion?

answer beam

too bad it is.

you've ignored it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=43202&mesg_id=43239

And where's the argument that formed?

"And if you are not a Christian, your gods are false and you're going to hell. Without believing in the bible, you're not going to make it to heaven."

you just see things that aren't there, don't you??

I guess thats to be expected.

do you not understand?

It is clearly there. Denial of the obvious equals blindness.

You really think that's all there is to fundamentalism? :eyes:

it is the basis of the argument. Look at it again.

Good night.

Now I know how Senator Byrd felt when Frist stormed off the Senate floor.

:rofl:

I think you are wrong for all the other reasons.

But that single post about fairy tales came at the end of a very long discussion in which you just previously posted a picture of a little baby girl crying. You are saying that all atheists are little baby girls?

Sorry, look for another.

Show us where theists were accused of believing in something that they did not claim they believed in.

calling religion a drug is telling someone they believe in a drug.

That poster did not tell theists that they believe in a drug.

Man you are dense.

anything?

All religions are a drug. Theists believe in a drug.

Theists believe in religion = Theists believe in a drug

The poster said religion was a drug, not that another poster believes in drugs.

For fuck's sake, the post is right there for everyone to see and you're still claiming it says something other than what it does.

You never see Clark Kent and Superman together. What's up with that?

Do they smell the same?

Happy New Year.

That's worse than Sifl!

:rofl:

"All religeon is a drug!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x43164#43166

Since, in his/her mind, all religion is a drug, all people who believe in religion then believe in a drug.

he didn't say that.

I thought you said you had coincrete examples where atheists said believers didn't believe what they thought they believed??

Now you are arguing on the basis of implied statements, not concrete ones.

Shame on you!

not the second. You thought that one up.

and that states that all religion is a drug. Therefore, people who believe in religion believe in a drug, according to him/her.

"Therefore" is an interpretation of his words. IT IS NOT WHAT HE SAID!!!

Don't you have concrete examples??

it's quite simple. S/he said something that directly asserts something else. That is a concrete example.

How about this:

"I'm going to blow your head off"

Did that person just threaten someone?

Prove it.

"Now go back to your fairy tale worship"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=39299&mesg_id=41512

Take a look at manic expression and his insistence that How I think I think is wrong, and he's rright, even if I think he's wrong.

Can you find one outside of an argument where you did exactly this from the outset??

this isn't about you or me. This is about the example.

once you've said that you know how I think better than I do from the outset, turnabout is fair play. And anyone who reads that thread will notice that I wasn't nearly as obnoxious as you were, though I would encourage them to spend their time in a more productive manner than reading through that pointless blather you posted over and over and oer again.

If this is the best example you have of atheists being rude to theists, when I responded to your attacks, your argument is quite weak.

And we can go on and on again. Do you like talking to yourself??

I'm not going to say he said anything other than "I'm going to blow your head off"

but that is a threat.

Furthermore, that is the equivalent of saying "I'm going to kill you".

Show us the other links.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=39299&mesg_id=41512

And you've been changing the subject the entire time.

And he's right. I never did what you did.

Nice try though.



Lets see them.

you change the rules. You asked me for something else before, and now that I did, you suddenly change your tune and ask for a new thing?

No. You said we would discuss it when I came up with the example.



We are going to discuss it or nothing. Those were your rules, not mine.

...for what you said you had. Lets see it!

he said we would discuss it when I came up with an example of what he asked for. I did.

You never produced a single example.



Lets see them.

why won't you discuss it, like you said you would?

what you said you would

answer beam

The rest of your diversion was built on this statement.

Back it up.

until now.

I gave you what you wanted, now let's discuss it.

You changed the argument from what you initially stated.

all he's asking is for you to back up your initial statement.

Do it, or go to bed ashamed.

I gave him evidence, and now he changes his tune.

He asks you to back up your original quote, and how HE is diverting???

Priceless.

he asked for one thing, now he asks for another. Why?

Here's one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x38596

The thought that Christians are fundamentalists form the basis for many of the arguments seen here. That's just one of many.

He's grasping.

Watch out for falling diversions, attacks, asinine conclusions and aerobic spin doctoring.

the thought that Christians are fundamentalists. That forms the basis of that argument.

Show me where all Christians were generalized as fundamentalists and how it formed the basis for an argument.

"And if you are not a Christian, your gods are false and you're going to hell. Without believing in the bible, you're not going to make it to heaven."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=43202&mesg_id=43239

Along with the one I gave you before.

Nor did any arguments form from their posts.



Try again.

or wet the bed

Isn't it?

:rofl:

Can't back up your bullshit, can you?

You said there were thread(S), as in more than one.

You haven't even produced one yet.

What else do you have?

"Let it be said that I have throughoughly proven you wrong many times on many subjects. You are wrong and incorrect, regardless of what you believe."

You're misrepresenting that statement and you know it. That was about the fact that anything can be misused, not on atheism at all.

Completely different context.

You can't even keep track of your own insults to atheists?

and the context.

Furthermore, if it was in that context, then yes. Atheists have beliefs on the subject of god.

This again.

Proof that believers tell atheists what they believe.

Thanks, now I don't have to look for that.

And we're still waiting for you to come up with examples of us doing the same to believers.

"Proof that believers tell atheists what they believe."

So you do believe something then, right?

It is a different argument. This is an argument on catagorization, on regarding a certain school of thought, if you will. I never told you what you believe/think, I only stated my opinion on that subject.

Many, many times you have said that.

Still waiting for those examples.

Give me the context. Then we can actually discuss this.

"what we believe." so you believe in something, no?

We believe some things, just not regarding god.

but yes, you have beliefs on the subject of god. That only means you hold opinions on the topic itself.

Here we go again, you telling me how I think. Keep it up!!

and what you say is according to you. What is this called? A disagreement! What do grown-ups do with this? Discuss!

It'll just piss me off.

We'll discuss other subjects later.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=42950&mesg_id=43603

You keep ignoring it.

Show us where theists were accused of believing in something that they did not claim they believed in.

theists of believing in "fairy tale worship".

Care to deny some more?

Lets see them.

let's discuss them.

but now he's asking for what you said there was. Provide proof, or shut up.

I provided what he asked for. This is evidenced by the fact that he has changed tunes when I did so.

You've been providing nothing but insipid points, childish rhetoric and worse.

...this again

it seems you have a bit of BS on your hands.

"And if you are not a Christian, your gods are false and you're going to hell. Without believing in the bible, you're not going to make it to heaven."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=43202&mesg_id=43239

Good night. Have fun with that one.

And you repeated it in this thread.

Back up your bullshit.

Show us where theists were accused of believing in something that they did not claim they believed in.

that is quite a different argument. That is in regards to the belief, not on the belief.

I have shown you where theists were accused of believing in something they did not claim to believe in.

Back up your bullshit.