An evening without Richard Dawkins

[Hermit]

anyone who burns anyone anywhere is not a "christian."

Ah, the "no true christian" argument again. You're getting more repetitive.

Oh, and predictably you avoid the bits that don't suit you, just as you dismiss statistics that fail to support your ideology.

[Seth]

Lol. Who says I hate religious people?

Not me. I was responding to Exi's implicit assertion that because some few people who believe in some religion do barbaric things that this means that all people who believe in religion are barbarians.

If they leave me alone I leave them alone.

Glad to hear it. Me too.

If they come up in my face threatening me with hell I abuse them into the ground and if something outrageous and harmful is being done I won't keep quiet for fear of being scandalised like did many Irish people up until the 90s, I'll speak up about it.
It's that simple.

If you don't believe in hell, how is it a threat?

Anyway, I have no problem with you speaking out in such circumstances, because berating and "threatening" others with religious punishment, be it hellfire or flogging for being a woman wearing pants is not a peaceable act, and as a Tolerist™ I'm under no obligation to tolerate any action that is not peaceable in nature.

But most people of religion (particularly Catholics and most other Christians) are satisfied to at worst simply inform you of their beliefs about the threat to your immortal soul posed by your sinful acts, which is an act of love and charity and concern, not a "threat."

It's irrational and hateful to lump all people of religion together and condemn everyone based on the malicious, evil or wrongful acts of a few, just as it's irrational and hateful to lump all atheists together and condemn them because Richard Dawkins is a hateful and intolerant nitwit.

[Animavore]

anyone who burns anyone anywhere is not a "christian."

Ah, the "no true christian" argument again. You're getting more repetitive.

Oh, and predictably you avoid the bits that don't suit you, just as you dismiss statistics that fail to support your ideology.

So even Jesus isn't a "true Christian" by that reasoning. Seeing how Jesus is God and God burns for eternity anyone who doesn't kiss his ass.

Interesting.

[Seth]

anyone who burns anyone anywhere is not a "christian."

Ah, the "no true christian" argument again. You're getting more repetitive.

Anybody can call themselves a Christian (or an Atheist), but only those who follow the teachings of Jesus are in fact Christians, and Jesus does not advocate burning anyone, which you would know if you'd bothered to study the religion so you could do more than talk out of your ass about it.

Oh, and predictably you avoid the bits that don't suit you, just as you dismiss statistics that fail to support your ideology.

What ideology is that, pray tell?

[Rum]

I spent last night without the professor. It was OK too.

[Seth]

anyone who burns anyone anywhere is not a "christian."

Ah, the "no true christian" argument again. You're getting more repetitive.

Oh, and predictably you avoid the bits that don't suit you, just as you dismiss statistics that fail to support your ideology.

So even Jesus isn't a "true Christian" by that reasoning. Seeing how Jesus is God and God burns for eternity anyone who doesn't kiss his ass.

Does he? Last I heard, Jesus redeemed all of mankind from that fate. Now, if you don't believe in Jesus you might not get to reside with him in heaven for all eternity, but there ain't no more hellfire because Jesus paid the price for everyone's sins.

Interesting.

No, ignorance on your part. Pretty typical ignorance at that.

[Animavore]

It's irrational and hateful to lump all people of religion together and condemn everyone based on the malicious, evil or wrongful acts of a few, just as it's irrational and hateful to lump all atheists together and condemn them because Richard Dawkins is a hateful and intolerant nitwit.

Where does Dawkins do this? His book The God Delusion is about not letting religion get a free ride in the market place of ideas. Something which you just admit you agree with.

Anyway, I have no problem with you speaking out in such circumstances, because berating and "threatening" others with religious punishment, be it hellfire or flogging for being a woman wearing pants is not a peaceable act, and as a Tolerist™ I'm under no obligation to tolerate any action that is not peaceable in nature.

The biggest threat from many religious is not what they do but the silence they keep when their religious leaders go around abusing their position. Dawkins speaks against that. That is all.

"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere." - Elie Wiesel

[Exi5tentialist]

only those who follow the teachings of Jesus are in fact Christians

Define 'follow'.

[Animavore]

anyone who burns anyone anywhere is not a "christian."

Ah, the "no true christian" argument again. You're getting more repetitive.

Oh, and predictably you avoid the bits that don't suit you, just as you dismiss statistics that fail to support your ideology.

So even Jesus isn't a "true Christian" by that reasoning. Seeing how Jesus is God and God burns for eternity anyone who doesn't kiss his ass.

Does he? Last I heard, Jesus redeemed all of mankind from that fate. Now, if you don't believe in Jesus you might not get to reside with him in heaven for all eternity, but there ain't no more hellfire because Jesus paid the price for everyone's sins.

Interesting.

No, ignorance on your part. Pretty typical ignorance at that.

Matthew 13:45-50.

13:45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:
13:46 Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.
13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
13:48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
13:50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[Animavore]

And here's what Bible.org says.

Our curiosity about the abode of the dead is not completely satisfied by biblical terms or verses. What we do know is that either eternal torment in hell or eternal joy in heaven awaits all people after death, based on whether they trust in Christ’s payment for sin or reject Christ.

http://bible.org/article/what-bible-says-about-hell

Oh wait. Let me guess. They're not real Chrisitans.

[Animavore]

Here's a moderate, Catholic view.

There is a hell, i.e. all those who die in personal mortal sin, as enemies of God, and unworthy of eternal life, will be severely punished by God after death. On the nature of mortal sin, see SIN; on the immediate beginning of punishment after death, see PARTICULAR JUDGMENT. As to the fate of those who die free from personal mortal sin, but in original sin, see LIMBO (limbus parvulorum).

The existence of hell is, of course, denied by all those who deny the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. Thus among the Jew the Sadducees, among the Gnostics, the Seleucians, and in our own time Materialists, Pantheists, etc., deny the existence of hell. But apart from these, if we abstract from the eternity of the pains of hell, the doctrine has never met any opposition worthy of mention.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

[Seth]

I would hate if this country ever became religious again. Look at the list of bulllshit that happened as a result of it.
Children raped by prests.

Criminal acts you won't find me defending.

Too scared of threats of hell and shame to tell. Even if they did tell the parents were generally too afraid of shame, excommunication and social exclusion to do anything. The kid might even get beat up and told 'not to tell tales about the Good Father'.

Criminal negligence on the part of parents which you won't find me defending.

Young girls who got raped and pregnant would be accused of being harlots and have their children taken off them while they get sent to the Magdeline Sisters for 're-education' (by the way watch the film The Magdeline Sisters if you haven't already to check out the appalling treatment of young women in these institutions) while the rapist got away. Single mothers, 'promiscuous' girls sent here also.

I've seen it several times. It's a horrible situation, but not reflective of all Catholics or all Catholic priests.

Women married to drunken, abusive and even incestuous men were stuck with their choice because divorce was considered such a mortal sin.

That's a personal choice. Nobody forced them to members of the Catholic church, and they were free to walk away any time they wanted to do so.

People used to cross the street if a priest was walking up the path to clear a way for him.

So? What business is it of yours if people of faith choose to show respect to their priest? Nobody demands that YOU do so, so who cares what the faithful do, it's their free choice.

These are a short list of things that have happened to people in my community. People I know. Lives have been fucked up and ruined and all because of the silence generated when people are afraid of orthodoxy.

Cowardice is its own punishment. And faith is voluntary. Beyond those crimes done to people by force by particular priests even Catholicism in Ireland is a voluntary religion that anyone can reject at any time, particularly nowadays.

Should we tolerate this? I think toleration is the root of the problem here. Now I have strong levels of toleration. I have friends of all shades of life and a richer outlook as a consequence because I don't suffer the close-mindedness that would prevent me taking to a person because of who they are. But I don't and won't tolerate the intolerable.

Of course you should not tolerate such things if they are not peaceable acts and they are being perpetrated against persons against their will. On the other hand, if someone chooses to voluntarily participate in some act of faith, that's their right as a free individual.

But then again the malefactions of some Irish priests are not reflective of the actions of every Catholic on the planet, and not even of the majority of Catholic priests, of whom there are nearly half a million. So far, the count of Catholic priests who have been proven to have engaged in such acts is around 4000. Compare that to the approximately one billion Catholics on earth, that's a very small proportion of evil people who happened to worm their way into the church, generally precisely in order to abuse children because they were pedophiles seeking an organization that gave them access to children, as the result of lax screening and security by the church during the Vatican II reformations of the 60s.

Virtually all of the complaints about pedophile priests come from that period more than 40 years ago, and there are very, very few recent incidents because the church as taken strong measures to protect children as a result of the scandal, and the church is now among the safest organizations on earth for children. But that's not something Atheists are prepared to acknowledge because of their blind, unreasoning hatred of religion in general.

Public schools are thousands of times more risky for children, as demonstrated by the research on public school teacher sex abuse of students, which is estimated to be on the order of five MILLION schoolchildren molested EVERY YEAR.

You might want to redirect some of your outrage at that problem.

I do NOT defend the criminal actions of priests of any religion, or those who actively conspire to protect them from the law, but I also recognize that such malefactors are a very, very small part of an enormous body of people who call themselves "Catholics," (or who may be part of other peaceable religions) and that the overwhelming majority of believers and priests alike are entirely innocent of such wrongdoing and that it is irrational, unreasoning hatred and bias that causes people like you to condemn all Catholics for the crimes of a few.

Have some perspective.

[Hermit]

anyone who burns anyone anywhere is not a "christian."

Ah, the "no true christian" argument again. You're getting more repetitive.

only those who follow the teachings of Jesus are in fact Christians, and Jesus does not advocate burning anyone, which you would know if you'd bothered to study the religion so you could do more than talk out of your ass about it.

Who appointed you the arbiter of who is a christian and who is not? Will you tell the Westboro Baptists that they are not true christians, the Unitarians, or anyone in between? The witches of Salem were burnt by people holding the bible in their hands, and so are the Nigerian witches. The bible itself is a very flexible book. In it can be found justification for anything under the sun, from witch burning through condemnation of homosexuality to slavery. If you think you can arbitrate which bits of the bible and what interpretations of them are part of true christianity, you are deluded. If you try to tell us what they are, it is you who is talking out of your arse. I've done my bible studies in spades.

Oh, and predictably you avoid the bits that don't suit you, just as you dismiss statistics that fail to support your ideology.

What ideology is that, pray tell?

You need to ask? OK, your particular brand of libertarianism.

[Exi5tentialist]

only those who follow the teachings of Jesus are in fact Christians

Define 'follow'.

I mean, surely people-burning Christians are sinners. But they're still Christians.

[Seth]

It's irrational and hateful to lump all people of religion together and condemn everyone based on the malicious, evil or wrongful acts of a few, just as it's irrational and hateful to lump all atheists together and condemn them because Richard Dawkins is a hateful and intolerant nitwit.

Where does Dawkins do this? His book The God Delusion is about not letting religion get a free ride in the market place of ideas. Something which you just admit you agree with.

His book is a hateful and irrational diatribe cloaked in scientific mummery and oozing with personal antipathy.

Anyway, I have no problem with you speaking out in such circumstances, because berating and "threatening" others with religious punishment, be it hellfire or flogging for being a woman wearing pants is not a peaceable act, and as a Tolerist™ I'm under no obligation to tolerate any action that is not peaceable in nature.

The biggest threat from many religious is not what they do but the silence they keep when their religious leaders go around abusing their position.

Thanks for acknowledging that they are "abusing their positions." In doing so you are demonstrating the fact that religion itself is not inherent harmful, but rather it is the abuse of religious authority that is the wrong involved. And I agree. Any priest who molests a child using the dogma of the church as a tool to facilitate that crime is NOT ACTING AS A PRIEST, he is acting as a criminal using the disguise of a priest, just as a school-teacher who molests a child is not acting as a school teacher but rather is acting as a criminal disguised as a school teacher. You would not accuse all school teachers of being child molesters because some teachers molest children, now would you? So why do you imply that all priests are culpable for the wrongdoing of a few criminals who managed to get into the organization precisely in order to use it as a cover for their pedophillic crimes? Is that applying reason to the facts, or is it irrational hatred coloring your opinions?

Dawkins speaks against that. That is all.

Hardly.

"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere." - Elie Wiesel

No disagreement here, but don't mistake tolerance of the peaceable free exercise of religion for neutrality in the face of crime on anyone's part. I am able, unlike many Atheists, to distinguish religion from crime and assign blame and guilt to criminality without tarring religion with the same broad brush.