Christians touchier than atheists?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]

Atheists do worship the AD. At least some do. Same with religious folks. But again, you misunderstand the critique. Your task is not to "debunk" the idea that theists worship the FSM. It's to show in what discernible way the existence of the Christian god is more plausible than any arbitrary godlike being.

The fact that this is an impossible task is what seems to truly anger literalists.

[/quote]

I don't have a "task." You do. I asked first. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Prove to us that Atheists have values besides worshipping the Almighty Dollar. And as a PP said, a lot of the secular humanist stuff isn't very convincing, in fact it seems pretty mushy, so you'll have to try a little harder.

Go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here -- I'd say that based on this conversation, there's plenty of touchiness to go around.

I hope it's just a phase, though and that some day soon neither side will feel the need to defend itself so much.

I do feel that Christians are more touchy right now, but that it doesn't really relate to their religious beliefs so much as that they sense that they are losing the privileged status that they've had for so long -- sort of like men in the sixties when women's lib started up and white folks before that when the civil rights movement cranked up.

But you're not biased at all, are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here -- I'd say that based on this conversation, there's plenty of touchiness to go around.

I hope it's just a phase, though and that some day soon neither side will feel the need to defend itself so much.

I do feel that Christians are more touchy right now, but that it doesn't really relate to their religious beliefs so much as that they sense that they are losing the privileged status that they've had for so long -- sort of like men in the sixties when women's lib started up and white folks before that when the civil rights movement cranked up.

That doesn't make any sense. 90% of the country describes itself as religious, and this is still a Christian nation. That won't change anytime soon.

The problem atheists face is it's kind of hard and inherently negative to be against something. We know what you're against. But what are you for? And please don't talk about secular humanism -- all of those concepts derive directly from Scripture.

What's interesting is that Gallup International indicates that 41% of American citizens report they regularly attend religious services. http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm

But in fact, the actual rate of church attendance from head counts is less than half of that:
http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/139575-7-startling-facts-an-up-close-look-at-church-attendance-in-america.html

So around 80% of Americans don't regularly attend church. That's about the same rate as in the "godless" European countries. In other words, we're about as atheistic as most of the atheistic countries of Western Europe, we have a much higher rate of lying about whether we attend church. It's hard to speculate on why that is, but I'd imagine it has a lot to do with intolerance of religious believers towards their non-believing neighbors. Much like the number of people who self-identified as gay has risen with the decline in overt social and institutionalized homophobia, my guess is that as "believers" continue to lose political power, people will feel more free to come "out of the closet". While many Americans feel a cultural affinity for the church they were raised in, that's increasingly a social, rather than theistic tie. It's very similar to the distinction between "cultural" Jews and "religious" Jews. Almost every Jewish atheist still celebrates Passover.

But, no, the fact that 90% of Americans are pressured to say they're "religious" isn't indicative of religious beliefs in America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. I'm no fan of Creationism, but the historical origins of the FSM don't make it a critique-proof argument. Twinkies have a history but that doesn't mean they were good for you.

Doesn't mean anything...

2. Meanings change over many decades. I know you will be surprised by this, but it's true. Being a "boy scout" or a "greaser" were good things back in the 50s and 60s, too, but now both are associated with intolerance, one as the oppressor, the other as the oppressed immigrant. Go back and look at context and you'll see that FSM is used on DCUM to insult not debate.

You keep saying this as though you'd shown it, but we still have no examples other than some vague recollection of your past offense.

3. We're having a discussion about whether FSM is insulting and you start throwing around words like "hair trigger" touchiness. I call foul. I could start calling your arguing style sleazy -- or hair-trigger touchy -- but I haven't. Until now. Sleazy.

Excellent example of hair trigger touchiness. LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. I'm no fan of Creationism, but the historical origins of the FSM don't make it a critique-proof argument. Twinkies have a history but that doesn't mean they were good for you.

Doesn't mean anything...

2. Meanings change over many decades. I know you will be surprised by this, but it's true. Being a "boy scout" or a "greaser" were good things back in the 50s and 60s, too, but now both are associated with intolerance, one as the oppressor, the other as the oppressed immigrant. Go back and look at context and you'll see that FSM is used on DCUM to insult not debate.

You keep saying this as though you'd shown it, but we still have no examples other than some vague recollection of your past offense.

3. We're having a discussion about whether FSM is insulting and you start throwing around words like "hair trigger" touchiness. I call foul. I could start calling your arguing style sleazy -- or hair-trigger touchy -- but I haven't. Until now. Sleazy.

Excellent example of hair trigger touchiness. LOL.

Wow, could you have put any less effort into "constructing a thoughtful response"? If this is an example of atheists' "logic" and "constructive responses," I'm underwhelmed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here -- I'd say that based on this conversation, there's plenty of touchiness to go around.

I hope it's just a phase, though and that some day soon neither side will feel the need to defend itself so much.

I do feel that Christians are more touchy right now, but that it doesn't really relate to their religious beliefs so much as that they sense that they are losing the privileged status that they've had for so long -- sort of like men in the sixties when women's lib started up and white folks before that when the civil rights movement cranked up.

That doesn't make any sense. 90% of the country describes itself as religious, and this is still a Christian nation. That won't change anytime soon.

The problem atheists face is it's kind of hard and inherently negative to be against something. We know what you're against. But what are you for? And please don't talk about secular humanism -- all of those concepts derive directly from Scripture.

What's interesting is that Gallup International indicates that 41% of American citizens report they regularly attend religious services. http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm

But in fact, the actual rate of church attendance from head counts is less than half of that:
http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/139575-7-startling-facts-an-up-close-look-at-church-attendance-in-america.html

So around 80% of Americans don't regularly attend church. That's about the same rate as in the "godless" European countries. In other words, we're about as atheistic as most of the atheistic countries of Western Europe, we have a much higher rate of lying about whether we attend church. It's hard to speculate on why that is, but I'd imagine it has a lot to do with intolerance of religious believers towards their non-believing neighbors. Much like the number of people who self-identified as gay has risen with the decline in overt social and institutionalized homophobia, my guess is that as "believers" continue to lose political power, people will feel more free to come "out of the closet". While many Americans feel a cultural affinity for the church they were raised in, that's increasingly a social, rather than theistic tie. It's very similar to the distinction between "cultural" Jews and "religious" Jews. Almost every Jewish atheist still celebrates Passover.

But, no, the fact that 90% of Americans are pressured to say they're "religious" isn't indicative of religious beliefs in America.

How arrogant are you? Seriously? How arrogant? "Pressured to say" they're religious?

You equate church attendance with professing faith in religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What's interesting is that Gallup International indicates that 41% of American citizens report they regularly attend religious services. http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm

But in fact, the actual rate of church attendance from head counts is less than half of that:
http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/139575-7-startling-facts-an-up-close-look-at-church-attendance-in-america.html

So around 80% of Americans don't regularly attend church. That's about the same rate as in the "godless" European countries. In other words, we're about as atheistic as most of the atheistic countries of Western Europe, we have a much higher rate of lying about whether we attend church. It's hard to speculate on why that is, but I'd imagine it has a lot to do with intolerance of religious believers towards their non-believing neighbors. Much like the number of people who self-identified as gay has risen with the decline in overt social and institutionalized homophobia, my guess is that as "believers" continue to lose political power, people will feel more free to come "out of the closet". While many Americans feel a cultural affinity for the church they were raised in, that's increasingly a social, rather than theistic tie. It's very similar to the distinction between "cultural" Jews and "religious" Jews. Almost every Jewish atheist still celebrates Passover.

But, no, the fact that 90% of Americans are pressured to say they're "religious" isn't indicative of religious beliefs in America.

Thousands of Americans feel "pressured" to tell some anonymous poll taker they're religious when they're not? And what does "regular" even mean, and how does regular attendance correlate with belief (which is different, if you hadn't noticed) in these polls?

Give me a break. This sounds like some atheist's wet dream.

[Anonymous]

14:58 again. I'm not 14:56, but we're obviously both stunned by the huge amount of bad logic in a single post!

[Anonymous]

PS, "stunned by bad logic" and "touchy" are NOT the same thing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. I'm no fan of Creationism, but the historical origins of the FSM don't make it a critique-proof argument. Twinkies have a history but that doesn't mean they were good for you.

Doesn't mean anything...

2. Meanings change over many decades. I know you will be surprised by this, but it's true. Being a "boy scout" or a "greaser" were good things back in the 50s and 60s, too, but now both are associated with intolerance, one as the oppressor, the other as the oppressed immigrant. Go back and look at context and you'll see that FSM is used on DCUM to insult not debate.

You keep saying this as though you'd shown it, but we still have no examples other than some vague recollection of your past offense.

3. We're having a discussion about whether FSM is insulting and you start throwing around words like "hair trigger" touchiness. I call foul. I could start calling your arguing style sleazy -- or hair-trigger touchy -- but I haven't. Until now. Sleazy.

Excellent example of hair trigger touchiness. LOL.

Wow, could you have put any less effort into "constructing a thoughtful response"? If this is an example of atheists' "logic" and "constructive responses," I'm underwhelmed.

Sorry, GIGO.

Look. Obviously the "historical origins of the FSM don't make it a critique-proof argument". No one ever claimed they did. PP claimed that FSM was an insult, and that it served no other purpose. My point was that it was intentionally absurd--and for good reason--which is different. To that you added "it's not a critique-proof argument". As I said, that doesn't mean anything because it doesn't address either the OP or my arguments.

Oh, and this reminds me of another important difference: atheists tend to get upset when they think someone is not arguing in good faith, or being disingenuous in their arguments. For example, PP implied that racial minorities who are subject to racial epithets is just like someone who is in the hyper-majority of religious worshippers having to hear their deity compared to an arbitrary godlike creature with an insufficiently reverent name. I wrote back with a long exigesis explaining that no, those two things are not at all similar. At the end of my my post, I implied that someone who is so quick to claim the mantle of victimhood they're willing to ignore many centuries of racial genocide might just be a tad hasty.

So of course, rather than speak to the meat of the argument in my post, you chose to clutch your pearls and sniff over my choice of the term "hair-trigger". Oh, and BTW, it wasn't '"hair trigger" touchiness'. It was "a hair-trigger tendency to don the mantle of victim." Completely apropos and pretty restrained given the context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's interesting is that Gallup International indicates that 41% of American citizens report they regularly attend religious services. http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm

But in fact, the actual rate of church attendance from head counts is less than half of that:
http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/139575-7-startling-facts-an-up-close-look-at-church-attendance-in-america.html

So around 80% of Americans don't regularly attend church. That's about the same rate as in the "godless" European countries. In other words, we're about as atheistic as most of the atheistic countries of Western Europe, we have a much higher rate of lying about whether we attend church. It's hard to speculate on why that is, but I'd imagine it has a lot to do with intolerance of religious believers towards their non-believing neighbors. Much like the number of people who self-identified as gay has risen with the decline in overt social and institutionalized homophobia, my guess is that as "believers" continue to lose political power, people will feel more free to come "out of the closet". While many Americans feel a cultural affinity for the church they were raised in, that's increasingly a social, rather than theistic tie. It's very similar to the distinction between "cultural" Jews and "religious" Jews. Almost every Jewish atheist still celebrates Passover.

But, no, the fact that 90% of Americans are pressured to say they're "religious" isn't indicative of religious beliefs in America.

Thousands of Americans feel "pressured" to tell some anonymous poll taker they're religious when they're not? And what does "regular" even mean, and how does regular attendance correlate with belief (which is different, if you hadn't noticed) in these polls?

Give me a break. This sounds like some atheist's wet dream.

Funny, but the links I've posted are to a Gallup poll and a religious non-profit that's concerned about the decline in church attendance in the US. The links you've posted point to...um... never mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here -- I'd say that based on this conversation, there's plenty of touchiness to go around.

I hope it's just a phase, though and that some day soon neither side will feel the need to defend itself so much.

I do feel that Christians are more touchy right now, but that it doesn't really relate to their religious beliefs so much as that they sense that they are losing the privileged status that they've had for so long -- sort of like men in the sixties when women's lib started up and white folks before that when the civil rights movement cranked up.

That doesn't make any sense. 90% of the country describes itself as religious, and this is still a Christian nation. That won't change anytime soon.

The problem atheists face is it's kind of hard and inherently negative to be against something. We know what you're against. But what are you for? And please don't talk about secular humanism -- all of those concepts derive directly from Scripture.

Actually it's 80% are religious. and 70% of people under 30. And this has never been a "Christian Nation" - it is a nation with a majority of Christian citizens.

Id say many of the good parts of scripture come from humanism. People were living and cooperating together in groups long before scripture came along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general, religoius people tend to be open, loving, welcoming, and kind.

Atheists generally tend to have a chip on their shoulder, appear angry, unhappy, and disagreeable.

Seriously?

Religious people are some of the scariest, most hateful people I've ever met in my life. I am afraid of religious people.

Yup. There are religious people who are like that but they are the outliers. 99.99% are not but might think they are. That makes you a hypocrite, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general, religoius people tend to be open, loving, welcoming, and kind.

Atheists generally tend to have a chip on their shoulder, appear angry, unhappy, and disagreeable.

Seriously?

Religious people are some of the scariest, most hateful people I've ever met in my life. I am afraid of religious people.

Yup. There are religious people who are like that but they are the outliers. 99.99% are not but might think they are. That makes you a hypocrite, too.

Discussing the bolded part. Not the part about 99.99% scariest, most hateful people.

[Anonymous]

Oh, and one other thing: I had a little time to kill this afternoon, so I did a little searching through DCUM for "flying spaghetti monster" and found almost no mention of the core argument. So I wouldn't be surprised if most sensitive "believers" did immediately mistake it for some kind of insult.

There seems to be quite a bit of epistemic closure at work here.