String the terrorists up! Nice job...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

If they call themselves christian, that is enough for me. Or do you have some special god-powers to distinguish 'real' christians from the other kind?

Stalin and Mao called themselves atheists. That is enough for me. Or do you have some special non-god-powers to distinguish "real" atheists from the other kind? This is such an infantile argument that you should be asking Madelyn Murray O'Hair to forgive you.

An atheist is just someone that doesn't believe in any god or gods. if Stalin and Mao met that criteria, then they were atheists. Where's your problem?

Who are you to say what an atheist is? Are you the atheist Pope? I've observed many arguments over the issue of whether "atheist" means "no belief in gods" vs. "belief in no gods." Now you step in with Sinaitic authority and claim to settle the issue. Who died and made you the True Scotsman Atheist?

I am qualified to say what an atheist is because I own a dictionary and can read. "A person that denies or disbelieves in the existence of God or gods." (Shorter OED.)

If both of your definitions can apply (and since 'disbelieve' is defined as both 'not to believe' and 'to believe the opposite', they do by my dictionary) then that is all the more reason to allow Stalin's and Mao's claims to stand. I have no issue with them being atheists. There is no atheist church for them to be thrown out of and no atheist dogma for them to follow - the sole criteria is that they meet the dictionary definition.

btw. the same dictionary defines a christian as someone "believing in, professing, or belonging to the religion of Christ." By that definition, anyone professing christianity, is a christian, no?

[JimC]

They aren't two groups though, the "American christian right" is just a broad generalisation, the "Taliban" is an actual political group. It's like comparing an American communist to a Bolshevik, it's lunacy.

Lunacy is quite a strong word to describe a difference of opinion, don't you think?

And I repeat my earlier statement. Don't let the lack of opportunity blind you to the similarity in mentality. I was not claiming any comparison in power, size, funding, influence - merely that they are the same kind of nutbags underneath.

I'm sure that there is a small, armed, extremist element amongst the much broader American christian right that deserve the comparison, but to generalise the whole of the christian right to that position would be a mistake.

I was referring to the guys in the OP (and others like them.) The ones that were planning to kill a cop and then bomb the funeral. Not to the entire religious right.

Valden mentioned that the US news never refers to homegrown terrorists as the "American taliban" in the post that RB took exception to. To the best of my understanding, she was not referring to the entire religious right either. Her point, and mine, was that there are groups that are every bit as fanatical and violent as the taliban in the USA.

I guess you and Valden were not making that generalisation, but I have certainly come across the term "American Taliban" applied with a very broad brush indeed by a variety of atheists and liberals, not just referring to armed crazies.

[Bruce Burleson]

I am qualified to say what an atheist is because I own a dictionary and can read. "A person that denies or disbelieves in the existence of God or gods." (Shorter OED.)

If both of your definitions can apply (and since 'disbelieve' is defined as both 'not to believe' and 'to believe the opposite', they do by my dictionary) then that is all the more reason to allow Stalin's and Mao's claims to stand. I have no issue with them being atheists. There is no atheist church for them to be thrown out of and no atheist dogma for them to follow - the sole criteria is that they meet the dictionary definition.

btw. the same dictionary defines a christian as someone "believing in, professing, or belonging to the religion of Christ." By that definition, anyone professing christianity, is a christian, no?

I reject the authority of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (ultimately, all arguments boil down to authority). Anything that refers to itself as "shorter" lacks credibility. The Longer Oxford Newen Glish Dictionary (LONG Dic) says that "atheist" is "undefined, as its adherents can't agree on its meaning." "Christian" means "a follower of Jesus, who did not preach violence against anyone, and specifically does not include Michigan militia members." That's what it says.

If merely professing something makes it so, then I profess that I am William Henry Gates III.

[Valden]

They aren't two groups though, the "American christian right" is just a broad generalisation, the "Taliban" is an actual political group.

And that's why I never say the "Christian right", and I try not too lump them altogether.
And there are insane Christian political groups. The Family being one. I'd consider them to be part of the American Taliban aka home grown terrorists.

[Valden]

I guess you and Valden were not making that generalisation, but I have certainly come across the term "American Taliban" applied with a very broad brush indeed by a variety of atheists and liberals, not just referring to armed crazies.

No worries, I see it too.
I also try to stay away from using the word "liberal" as it's pretty much lost it's original meaning and now some people like to use it as an insult and throw it around when talking about something they don't like.
Same goes for "conservative"

[Valden]

If they call themselves christian, that is enough for me. Or do you have some special god-powers to distinguish 'real' christians from the other kind?

Stalin and Mao called themselves atheists. That is enough for me. Or do you have some special non-god-powers to distinguish "real" atheists from the other kind? This is such an infantile argument that you should be asking Madelyn Murray O'Hair to forgive you.

If they lack the belief in all deities, they're an atheist.
If someone claims to be a Christian, I'll believe them.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I am qualified to say what an atheist is because I own a dictionary and can read. "A person that denies or disbelieves in the existence of God or gods." (Shorter OED.)

If both of your definitions can apply (and since 'disbelieve' is defined as both 'not to believe' and 'to believe the opposite', they do by my dictionary) then that is all the more reason to allow Stalin's and Mao's claims to stand. I have no issue with them being atheists. There is no atheist church for them to be thrown out of and no atheist dogma for them to follow - the sole criteria is that they meet the dictionary definition.

btw. the same dictionary defines a christian as someone "believing in, professing, or belonging to the religion of Christ." By that definition, anyone professing christianity, is a christian, no?

I reject the authority of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (ultimately, all arguments boil down to authority). Anything that refers to itself as "shorter" lacks credibility. The Longer Oxford Newen Glish Dictionary (LONG Dic) says that "atheist" is "undefined, as its adherents can't agree on its meaning." "Christian" means "a follower of Jesus, who did not preach violence against anyone, and specifically does not include Michigan militia members." That's what it says.

If merely professing something makes it so, then I profess that I am William Henry Gates III.

Mind if I call you Bill?

BTW, I really admire the way you make up your own definitions of words in order to defeat my arguments, Bill. It is admirable and makes you look really, really clever. I wish I'd thought of it.

[Bruce Burleson]

If someone claims to be a Christian, I'll believe them.

You shouldn't. You should demand evidence. Belief without sufficient evidence is faith, remember?

[charlou]

Atheism is a word that shouldn't exist. There is no "ism" to speak of, no underlying philosophy.

That's where the prefix "a" comes into effect.

[Wumbologist]

I am qualified to say what an atheist is because I own a dictionary and can read. "A person that denies or disbelieves in the existence of God or gods." (Shorter OED.)

If both of your definitions can apply (and since 'disbelieve' is defined as both 'not to believe' and 'to believe the opposite', they do by my dictionary) then that is all the more reason to allow Stalin's and Mao's claims to stand. I have no issue with them being atheists. There is no atheist church for them to be thrown out of and no atheist dogma for them to follow - the sole criteria is that they meet the dictionary definition.

btw. the same dictionary defines a christian as someone "believing in, professing, or belonging to the religion of Christ." By that definition, anyone professing christianity, is a christian, no?

I reject the authority of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (ultimately, all arguments boil down to authority). Anything that refers to itself as "shorter" lacks credibility. The Longer Oxford Newen Glish Dictionary (LONG Dic) says that "atheist" is "undefined, as its adherents can't agree on its meaning." "Christian" means "a follower of Jesus, who did not preach violence against anyone, and specifically does not include Michigan militia members." That's what it says.

If merely professing something makes it so, then I profess that I am William Henry Gates III.

My Lewis Oliver Lyons Wicked Ultra Translation (LOL WUT) dictionary defines this post as "an attempt to use absurdity to deflect attention from the collapse of an obviously flawed argument rather than admitting defeat".

[Bruce Burleson]

My Lewis Oliver Lyons Wicked Ultra Translation (LOL WUT) dictionary defines this post as "an attempt to use absurdity to deflect attention from the collapse of an obviously flawed argument rather than admitting defeat".

"I shall never surrender or retreat." William Barret Travis, Commander of the Alamo, Feb. 24, 1836.

[hotshoe]

My Lewis Oliver Lyons Wicked Ultra Translation (LOL WUT) dictionary defines this post as "an attempt to use absurdity to deflect attention from the collapse of an obviously flawed argument rather than admitting defeat".

"I shall never surrender or retreat." William Barret Travis, Commander of the Alamo, Feb. 24, 1836.

Fucking lot of good that did him

[charlou]

If someone claims to be a Christian, I'll believe them.

You shouldn't. You should demand evidence. Belief without sufficient evidence is faith, remember?

I actually agree with you that there are many, many, many people who call themselves Christian who don't subscribe or adhere to the popularised cooperative, humanitarian form of Christianity (ask yourself why this form is most popular .. *hint: social humans have benefited and thrived on empathic cooperation throughout their evolution, as do many other species), but those people who don't are still claiming the content of the bible as their guide, taking a different interpretation of it to justify their worldview and practices.

Humanitarian Christians are certainly more tolerable socially than those who advocate violence and hate, as of course humanitarians of any persuasion are. The argument with humanitarian Christians is not so much with their behaviour as social human beings, but more to do with the foundation of their behaviour and beliefs, ie a faith-based, absolutist, supernatural world view ... dogma. Many of us have an issue with all forms of dogmatism, including that practiced by people who happen to be atheists. Your examples Stalin and Mao among them.

[Bruce Burleson]

Humanitarian Christians are certainly more tolerable socially than those who advocate violence and hate, as of course humanitarians of any persuasion are. The argument with humanitarian Christians is not so much with their behaviour as social human beings, but more to do with the foundation of their behaviour and beliefs, ie a faith-based, absolutist, supernatural world view ... dogma. Many of us have an issue with all forms of dogmatism, including that practiced by people who happen to be atheists. Your examples Stalin and Mao among them.

Agreed that dogmatism in all forms is deleterious.

[JimC]

I guess you and Valden were not making that generalisation, but I have certainly come across the term "American Taliban" applied with a very broad brush indeed by a variety of atheists and liberals, not just referring to armed crazies.

No worries, I see it too.
I also try to stay away from using the word "liberal" as it's pretty much lost it's original meaning and now some people like to use it as an insult and throw it around when talking about something they don't like.
Same goes for "conservative"

I certainly wasn't using it that way...

I really meant "people who criticise the religious right for whatever reason"...