Anonymous wrote:
Actually, the opposite would be true. Scripture was a way to communicate basic civility and hygiene (i.e., don't eat shellfish) and also to tame the brutal masses and set some behavioral norms and universal laws.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

this is my opinion -- perhaps you don't agree. Fine. I think the rise of atheism is much like other social movements and gave some examples.

What is Christians' "privileged status" -- being in the majority, thus having, or the feeling of having more control.

Another PP asked you to name some of the "perks" that come with being Christian. Merely asserting they are a majority isn't a perk. I don't know what you mean by "having the feeling of control." Sure, I have a great job with a 6-figure salary and DC goes to an Ivy. That's because I work very hard and DC is talented - not because we are Christian. It's not like I twisted some poor atheist's arm to get my job or DC into college, using my secret Christian Control Powers to get what I want.

I think if you take the number of peevish hair flips, sniffy retorts, outright insults and silly phrases like GIGO as an indicator of touchiness, the atheists on this thread win by a mile. Not even close. The Christian response has been surprisingly moderate. In fact, I think the unwarranted persecution complex belongs to the atheists.

You should Google "white privilege" PP. It might be quite illuminating to you. Anyway, seven state constitutions explicitly ban atheists from serving in public office. Courts have denied custody to atheist parents, purely and explicitly on the basis of their atheism in Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas.

I'm sorry someone was insufficiently deferential about your religious beliefs on the internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#United_States

Between the lines, the point of the letter was this: There's no more scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe. If intelligent design supporters could demand equal time in a science class, why not anyone else? The only reasonable solution is to put nothing into sciences classes but the best available science.

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; one third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence," Henderson sarcastically concluded.

Indeed, the tale of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and its followers cuts to the heart of the one of the thorniest questions in religious studies: What defines a religion? Does it require a genuine theological belief? Or simply a set of rituals and a community joining together as a way of signaling their cultural alliances to others?

Joining them on the panel will be David Chidester, a prominent and controversial academic at the University of Cape Town in South Africa who is interested in precisely such questions. He has urged scholars looking for insights into the place of religion in culture and psychology to explore a wider range of human activities. Examples include cheering for sports teams, joining Tupperware groups and the growing phenomenon of Internet-based religions. His 2005 book "Authentic Fakes: Religion and American Popular Culture," prompted wide debate about how far into popular culture religious studies scholars should venture.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

this is my opinion -- perhaps you don't agree. Fine. I think the rise of atheism is much like other social movements and gave some examples.

What is Christians' "privileged status" -- being in the majority, thus having, or the feeling of having more control.

Another PP asked you to name some of the "perks" that come with being Christian. Merely asserting they are a majority isn't a perk. I don't know what you mean by "having the feeling of control." Sure, I have a great job with a 6-figure salary and DC goes to an Ivy. That's because I work very hard and DC is talented - not because we are Christian. It's not like I twisted some poor atheist's arm to get my job or DC into college, using my secret Christian Control Powers to get what I want.

I think if you take the number of peevish hair flips, sniffy retorts, outright insults and silly phrases like GIGO as an indicator of touchiness, the atheists on this thread win by a mile. Not even close. The Christian response has been surprisingly moderate. In fact, I think the unwarranted persecution complex belongs to the atheists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


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

You equate church attendance with professing faith in religion?

A few years ago, If I had been responding to a survey question on religion, I would have responded "catholic" only because I was raised one. I hadn't gone to church for years and have no intention of going back to it.

It's not so much pressure as an expectation that you have some religion, or should have.

Anonymous wrote:

this is my opinion -- perhaps you don't agree. Fine. I think the rise of atheism is much like other social movements and gave some examples.

What is Christians' "privileged status" -- being in the majority, thus having, or the feeling of having more control.

Anonymous wrote:GIGO? Great way to kick off the rest of your ill-tempered post.

So implying that religion is "absurd" by equating it to something that is "intentionally absurd" is different from an "insult"? I'd love to watch you try to flesh that one out.

And I find it hilarious that you're accusing US of not arguing in good faith. You obviously don't like being equated with racists. That's your prerogative, as you said earlier when you defended the FSM and said it was fine with you if we disliked it. But your dislike doesn't make the racism analogy any less valid as an analogy. In fact, it's all the better: we dislike "intentionally absurd" FSMs and you dislike being equated to racists. Call it "uncomfortable" but don't get all disingenuous on us and call it "bad faith." That would be, uh, bad faith on your part.

Also, your argument that a person who belongs to a "hyper-majority" is immune to insult makes no sense. (And, we went from 20% of the population to a "hyper-majority in a single page?)

Anonymous wrote:


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

You equate church attendance with professing faith in religion?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If you ask your average agnostic/atheist what religion they are, chances are most would say "Christian" or "Jewish" or whatever. Particularly in the heartland. Watch the video that was posted above of Wolf Blitzer haranguing the poor young woman who just survived a tornado. Of that 80% who are "religious" some percentage of those are agnostic/atheists. A larger percent are "believers" of the "sure, why not?" variety.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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

Anonymous wrote:Because religious people have no use for facts and explanations? See also, climate change, evolution.