Reply #131: Okay, let's take these one at a time, shall we?

[Deep13]

"Ok, we get it, y'all think religion is evil...and has no place in a civilized society."

I don't know who "y'all" is, so I will speak only for my self. As for your first point, check. It has a place in civilized society, but I don't think it has much of a place in a just or rational society.

"We get that you think Catholic priests are child rapists."

Many of them are. Can't say if it is most or just a large minority. But this avoids the central issue. The real problem is that they are employed by an organization that systematically protects offenders from justice and facilitates their offenses. This makes the whole leadership (at least) of the RC Church complicity in horrific offenses against children. But then, this is the same church that gave us the Inquisition, the Crusades and who warns poor, disease-ridden people not to use contraceptives, so we really ought not be surprised. Needless to say, the RC Church has no credibility whatsoever an anything it considers to be moral issues. I hardly know what to say about people who continue to support this church while knowing its guilt.

"We get that you think Christians hate gays, love to oppress women, and are young earth Creationists."

Many Christians hate gays. This is a fact. Their hatred is based on religious dogma. Many churches including two of the largest, the RC and LDS Churches, actively work to oppress gay legal rights. Apparently, they have no considered that they can preach what they want to their own flock (ba-a-ah!) while recognizing that not everyone agrees with them.

Many Christians do oppress women. Our cultural norms that arise from Christianity reflect this. The second-class nature of women is supported by Christian cannon and is actively promoted by many churches including the two previously noted. Churches have opposed reproductive and marital rights of women since the beginning and continue to do so actively.

It's telling that you specify "young earth Creationists" while implicitly excluding the so-called intelligent designers. First of all, many Christians are YE Creationists and a majority of the population has some doubts about the veracity of evolution. This is because of the continuous campaign of lies about evolution from the various churches. There is NO EVIDENCE that any part of the universe has anything divine behind it. In the case of biological development, the conclusively-demonstrated process of natural selection positively rules out any divine influence.

"We get that you think that if you're a person of faith, you're delusional, irrational, and illogical."

No. I never said that and I doubt most nonbelievers think it. The faith itself is by definition irrational and illogical and honest theologians admit as much, hence "faith." It depends what you mean by delusion. In his book The God Delusion, Dawkins was careful to define "delusion" in a way that excludes mental disease. It is simply a strongly held belief or conviction that is contrary to overwhelming evidence. In that case, religion is delusional. Nevertheless, most people are able to partition their thinking to separate the irrational religious beliefs from other more practical aspects of thought in order to survive in the world. To the extend religious belief is kept out of practical thinking, a religious person is not irrational.

"We get that you think flying planes into buildings is religious belief "taken to its logical conclusion"."

The link gave me an error message, but I have written something similar in the past.

Well, of Islam. Many religions inspire violence, but presently only Islam inspires suicide bombings. Both Christianity and Islam are missionary religions. While Christianity commands its followers to "Go ye therefore and teach all nations," it is a little vague in how to accomplish that. It has certainly inspired its sadists and warmongers. Islam was initially spread by the sword and explicitly directs its adherents to continue the practice. It further promises an afterlife paradise to those who die while doing it. While most Muslims in the world reject the idea of suicide bombing as immoral, enough are sufficiently convinced by the apparent call to martyrdom to turn themselves into bombs. Of course, Christians with an Old Testament preference and some Jews are happy to follow suit. Those who kill doctors, judges, shoot members of Congress or blow up Federal buildings and the man who shot Yitzhak Rabin thought they were doing their god's will. Those who killed each other over slightly different versions of Christianity in N. Ireland fit into that mindset too. Likewise, while most Buddhists espouse inner and outer peace, one version of it led millions to commit atrocities and to get themselves killed for the Japanese emperor in WW2. The serene Buddhist Lamas of Tibet traditionally did not extend that serenity to the poor population over whom they brutally ruled.

So yes, religion in a moderate population will produce extremists. If one examines the actual canonical dogma of a religion, it is clear that the extremists are extreme in their adherence to those doctrines and not in the doctrines themselves. In other words, they are the least compromising in what those religions actually teach unlike moderates and liberals who temper the frankly inhumane teachings of religion with practical considerations.

"We get it, really, we do."

Groovy. Why do you think we are talking to you? This is a public forum and I write what I write for the whole possible audience, not necessarily for those who are committed to their religious beliefs. I may be direct or even blunt, but I am not quixotic.

"We get that you like to crow about how much more ethical, intelligent, logical and rational you are than us believers."

Don't blame the messenger. If that is true based on the evidence, then it is true. Granted, such findings are broad brush strokes and do not account for atypical cases which liberal believers necessarily are.

"Let me ask this, though.

"How many threads in R/T have had the purpose of "converting" people?"

Unknown. Most of what I have written has been in rebuttal to religious assertions or to influence those who are on the fence.

"How many thread in R/Ts have had the purpose of belittling people of faith or their beliefs?"

Unknown, but I suspect not many. Stating what one thinks is true is its own purpose. I doubt many were intended as general insults to believers generally.

You lump "people of faith" and "their beliefs" together. Those are different things. I have never set out to belittle any category of person except maybe for genuine fundamentalists who neither of us have any respect for. We can disagree and talk about those disagreements while not belittling each other. The ability to do so is a mark of educated people. Beliefs themselves are a different matter. All ideas including religious beliefs are open for criticism. The fact that a certain belief is about god does not nor should it exempt that belief from critical examination. And, yeah, I have no respect for arguments based solely on personal gut feelings. If you feel that such discussions are belittling, then you might want to ask yourself if the reason it feels that way is because your views really are indefensible. Is a rhetorical attack maliciously belittling or does it just discredit your point of view?

"I think if one honestly looks at it, it ain't the believers here "shoving their beliefs in the face" of other DUers."

There's not much face-shoving going on here at all. We are simply talking. If you cannot play with the big kids, stay out of the sandbox. I know religious people feel for whatever reason that they are owed a certain deference when it comes to their beliefs. They're not. That deference is itself a religious point of view that those outside of your religion are not obliged to share. Those who are religious and are not fundamentalists see members of other religions as kindred spirits, all of whom are trying to live in faith in which their own understandings of god. Atheists reject the whole idea of religious faith as a virtue. Our existence, let alone our arguments, make believers uncomfortable. Nevertheless, we have no duty to shut up as your post tacitly implies. You speak and act on your belief that religion is on the whole a good thing. I speak an act on the contrary belief. We each have a right to speak and to be critical.

While it is regrettable that you feel that you are being subjected to personal attacks, speaking for myself, I have not engaged in any personal attacks of DUers and offer no apologies.