Trying to prevent RationalWiki judging Christianity too harshly

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Trying to prevent RationalWiki judging Christianity too harshly

Edited by author.
Last edit: 06:15, 16 July 2012
  1. This morning I had a look at the Kirk Cameron article.
  2. I noticed it said Kirk Cameron was a proven liar when he claimed he used to be an atheist. I did some research at the webpage The "I Used to be an Atheist" Game. The page above tries to analyse Cameron’s supposed atheism and concludes Kirk may be telling the truth.
  3. I thought thinks over and remembered your very strongly worded criticism when I wrote material which you considered too critical of Christianity.
  4. I modified the page, showed we can’t be sure whether or not Kirk used to be an atheist and added a link as a reference. See this revision
  5. Due to a computer glitch my reference didn’t show up, see Talk:Kirk Cameron and Templates on this wiki aren’t working properly.
  6. Ace McWicked and Trent both reverted my edits. This may have been because they couldn’t easily get to my reference due to the computer glitch. Still I wrote, “Can Ace prove Kirk is intentionally lying?” This shows clearly in the Revision history of "Kirk Cameron" and should have shown that I had a reasonable point.
  7. I looked into my reference and discovered the computer glitch, I sorted the glitch to the best of my ability.
  8. Sophie reverted my edits, she even put the template that caused the computer glitch back into the wrong place though I warned about this problem in the Revision history of "Kirk Cameron". Presumably Sophie didn’t get round to reading the history and didn’t find out what I had been doing. Sophie Wrote, “revert No True Scotsman argument”. I simply insisted that we can’t know one way or the other whether Kirk Cameron used to be an atheist. How in the name of the Most Holy IPU is the No True Scotsman fallacy relevant? Well RationalWiki is Run on MediaWiki by poorly paid illegal aliens run by unpaid volunteers who don’t always have time to investigate everything they should.
  9. Armondikov put the template back where it should be to minimise the computer glitch.
  10. The reasonable point which the page I used as a reference and I both made, that we can’t know if Kirk Cameron lied or not has still not been sorted.

(Edited to say as of 16th July the Kirk Cameron article is OK.}
Can you see why I feel I’m being got at? Can you see why I feel I’ve got reason to complain?

You are so keen to prevent Christianity being judged too harshly. Will you do anything about this?

Proxima Centauri (talk)19:16, 13 July 2012

I'm not against xianity being judged too harshly, I'm against it being judged unfairly. against attacks for attacks sake.

do you see the difference. however, i'll look into your edits next week. (it's my b-day sunday, so i'll probably not get to it right away.

Green mowse.pngGodotQu'un sang impur Abreuve nos sillons01:01, 14 July 2012
Edited by author.
Last edit: 14:39, 15 July 2012

I don't see the difference. Christianity hasn't been judged too harshly Kirk Cameron who claims to be a Christian has been judged too harshly. The article states that he was certainly Lying for Jesus. The truth is he might be Lying for Jesus, we can't prove things one way or the other. Was it done for attack's sake? I don't know, I can't get into the head of the attacker.

  1. I suspect Christian readers will care more about the nature of the criticism than about the uncertain motive of the attacker.
  2. I suspect readers who care about the Scientific method will care primarily that the article doesn’t reflect all the evidence and comes to an incorrect conclusion.

Anyway I see you have made a start at doing something and I've edited the Kirk Cameron article as well.

Proxima Centauri (talk)05:39, 14 July 2012

"I don't see the difference". That is largely the problem Proxi.


When you start to edit an article, any article, what motivates you?

When you think about what you want to say, what tells you to make an edit? and why a particular edit? Why do you hang out on religion pages instead of, say, feminist pages?

Green mowse.pngGodotQu'un sang impur Abreuve nos sillons15:35, 14 July 2012

The title of this thread caught my eye. "Judging Christianity" is really more about "judging Christians," since the ideology doesn't exist anywhere but in the ideas, words, and deeds of the actual, living, breathing, thinking and feeling people who embrace it. And if you're going to take it upon yourself to judge people, it's probably a wise thing to try to keep the full dimensions of their humanity in mind. People who edit from the starting point of a deeply engrained grudge are rarely able to do that.

Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody!15:47, 14 July 2012

Mainstream media in all Christian countries and formerly Christian countries continually push the good side of Christianity. We don't need to do that. We need to point out to people that there is a bad side to Christianity as well. Especially we need to reach kids who know relatively little except what Christian parents, school teachers, Sunday school teachers, priests, pastors etc have told them.

Proxima Centauri (talk)14:44, 15 July 2012

Those of us who actually watch the news would like to point out that whenever the Church gets itself in the papers it's always about either a) it's stamping on gay marriage rights b) it's stamping on women's rights to be ordained or c) it's about another scandal. So I don't think this "mainstream media" accusation really holds up to scrutiny. Indeed, religion is getting a pounding on all sides these days, you can't really use the depiction of Christianity in the popular media fuel a atheistic persecution complex.

Scarlet A.pngpostate14:48, 15 July 2012

The media certainly highlight scandal and controversy that attract readers television audiences etc. There's still the problem of fundamentalist children taught to fear hell and to keep unrealistic moral standards from an early age etc etc. That doesn't attract subscribers to media and tends to be ignored. There's the general problem of children in Christian households who don't get a balanced view and that happens in liberal Christian households as well as with fundamentalists.

There's a great deal wrong with Christianity that the media don't highlight and I feel we should deal with those issues.

Proxima Centauri (talk)18:05, 15 July 2012

"Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!!!!!!!"

Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody!18:20, 15 July 2012
 

So, what are the general stats of children being taught to fear hell? All of the self-described Christians I know actually don't buy into the concept of hell. At all. Indeed, it's not even mentioned in the Bible and hell as we know it today is mostly, if not entirely, ripped from Dante's Inferno.

Or are these people not True Christians?

Scarlet A.pngpostate18:23, 15 July 2012

That hits the nail right on the head. If your idea of Christianity is formed by reading CP, cherry-picking the worst polls, late-night AM radio and watching "Jesus Camp" instead of by actively seeking out contact and exchange with real people who might complicate the straw man that you've built as a result, then your entire approach is pretty useless.

Theory of Practice Years of being an atheism: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0.18:27, 15 July 2012

And if you're talking about those people, I think saying they're a dangerous breed to have around would be preaching to the choir on RW.

Scarlet A.pngpathetic18:38, 15 July 2012
 
Edited by author.
Last edit: 18:06, 16 July 2012

I suspect many liberal Christians are uncomfortable if anyone mentions Hell. They don't talk about it and may prefer not to think about it.

Edited to add:- This is based on my experience in the UK, i don't know how far it applies to liberal Christians in other nations.

Proxima Centauri (talk)06:29, 16 July 2012

most people in general are uncomfortable when you mention hell/other hell like place in their religion/mythology/blah

il'Dictator Mikal06:39, 16 July 2012
 

Proxie, do you mind not just making things up? "They don't talk about it and may prefer not to think about it."

No have no evidence for this, or any reason to state it.

Green mowse.pngGodotQu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons17:53, 16 July 2012

My experience of liberal Christians in the UK is that they don't talk about Hell but look uncomfortable if someone else brings up the subject. I'm tired of being accused of making things up when I'm telling the truth to the best of my ability. If things are different where you are please explain the difference.

Proxima Centauri (talk)18:01, 16 July 2012

Prox, everybody besides very specific groups (Such as the people most like the Left Behind Authors) get uncomfortable with Hell being brought up. Conservative and liberal christian alike.

il'Dictator Mikal18:06, 16 July 2012
 

I suspect many liberal Christians are uncomfortable if anyone mentions Hell. They don't talk about it and may prefer not to think about it.

=[edit]

Read your words. You did not say "those people I have met"... you did not say "the articles I've read seem to suggest".

you said "they (liberal Christians) don't talk about it and **May prefer not to think about it**. You have no idea what they are thinking or are not thinking and shouldn't guess.

Learning to be precise will get you out of lots of problems. But you fail on that over and over again.

For what it's worth, theologically most liberal Christians have no problem with hell, because a large number of theological potions, including in the UK, have shifted the discussion of "hell" as some afterlife place, to this actual earthly life. (I find that hard to fit into a biblical reading, but keep in mind, most liberal christians aren't overly concerned about the bible out side of what they like - as you yourself have pointed out).

Most formal liberal Theologies believe that deeds alone can save people (hence escaping that looming "but what if he's a good guy who just didn't get around to believing in Jesus".

Again, be precise, include your opinions AS opinions, and your relevant experience in your points and maybe I wouldn't jump down your throat for exaggerating, lying, or simply misunderstanding.

Green mowse.pngGodotQu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons18:12, 16 July 2012

Learning to be precise will get you out of lots of problems. But you fail on that over and over again.

The above is from Godot. Yes telling me what she thinks that way is humiliating, I'm sorry for her students if they must put up with that type of undermining instruction all the time. At least she's not accusing me of making things up anymore, she's just accusing me of stating things in a bad, non academic way. Facepalm.

It's easier to live with being called non academic than to live with being called a liar.

Proxima Centauri (talk)18:47, 16 July 2012
 

In the UK I have met many people who say you make your Hell here on Earth. I didn't think of them as liberal Christians, I thought of them as ignorant Christians because I know that's non-biblical. Also it takes no account of the many happy wrong doers here or of people whose life is Hell on earth through no fault of their own. On reflection I think Godot may be right, they are liberal Christians. Facepalm.

I don't know much in detail about what those who say Hell is something you make here believe. I don't discuss Hell in detail with them because I don't want to start getting them frightened.

Proxima Centauri (talk)18:56, 16 July 2012

You won't "get them frightened". If they are bothered at all, they will use cognitive dissonance to block out what you say all together. and if they aren't bothered, you might find an interesting conversation - or even a place to make them say "hey, maybe I don't need the facade of a God". But you should talk to them about it.

I'm sure you have things to share with them, that might make them think! (To me, personally, my goal is not to make atheists out of them - but at least make them THINKING christians).

Green mowse.pngGodotQu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons19:03, 16 July 2012
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I agree with most of what's in this article:-

Proxima Centauri (talk)14:37, 15 July 2012

That's a pretty lame article. It really has no arguments that haven't been recycled a thousand times. I wish somebody would bring something new to the party.

Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody!14:41, 15 July 2012

Religion is placed beyond the realm of experience and, therefore, evidence. It'd be pretty trick to bring anything truly new to the argument at all. Logic is logic. Discourse is discourse. And that hasn't changed, and is unlikely to ever change. I don't think you even can get something "new".

Scarlet A.pngd hominem14:45, 15 July 2012
 

I feel those arguments have been recycled because they're reasonable.

Proxima Centauri (talk)15:02, 15 July 2012

Atheists are not being persecuted. Under any definition. Yes, 8 states "require" you to believe in god. It would be illegal for them to enforce it. Yes, our money says "one nation under god". and?

you can vote; you have access to equal education; you are free to go anywhere or do anything or say anything you want.

yes, some people try to shut you up. Some people are idiots. but nothing can be made of the argument in that article that "some people don't want to hear why I'm an atheist." some people don't want to hear why you are a vegitarian or a meat eater, either. doesn't make you persucted.

and by the way, the majority of her arguments are straw man, anyhow. That's not what non-athiests say. They say crap like "how can you be moral without god", but not "why are you talking about this when the economy is tanking".

Green mowse.pngGodotQu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons17:53, 15 July 2012

I really hope that most of the above is an overcompensating reaction to Proxima. Otherwise... :(

ZooGuard (talk)18:00, 15 July 2012

i do not think there is any place or any condition atheists can legitimately claim discrimination or persecution. would I be happier not to have people try to kids their religion in public schools, but seriously, when you look at gay rights, black rights, women's rights, native american rights - these are people who are persecuted. not atheists.

Green mowse.pngGodotQu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons18:18, 15 July 2012

Er...

Unless we're allowing not as bad as arguments now.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)18:25, 15 July 2012

Well, the first sentence of that starts off with a big dose of passive-voice weasel wording.

Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0.18:29, 15 July 2012

It's difficult to say that there no persecution, or even that there's no legitimate persecution. Not least you have to content with rationalising this behaviour with the concept that atheists aren't at all treated with intolerance and respect.

Scarlet A.pngpostate18:41, 15 July 2012

Frankly the wiki comment is pretty much BS nebby.

persecution requires some level of systamtized discrimination. saying "they don't like me" is no more persecution when xians do it to us, then when xians claim we do it to them.

show me something, anything that actually limits rights, freedoms or expression - rather than just "you are evil, and you are not like all the rest of the good people in the world".

Green mowse.pngGodotQu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons18:49, 15 July 2012

I think I'll just ditto Knight's comment below.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)18:53, 15 July 2012
 

I don't know, I would think a culture that rejects atheists as morally bereft and unfit to hold public office is pretty systematic at discriminating against people. Not to mention that a culture that constantly suggests 'normal' as believing in some kind of religion, making atheists 'abnormal' sounds pretty cut and even on discrimination. Not all discrimination has to do with the law or removing lawful rights.

I mean, no one limits the rights of fat people. But they sure are discriminated against, rejected, and omitted from representation by culture. Persecuted? Who knows. But saying that discrimination doesn't exist because the context and particulars are different from other, older social rights causes... once again, doesn't sit well with me.

 

From above: > "i do not think there is any place or any condition atheists can legitimately claim discrimination or persecution." [bold mine]

Nebuchadnezzar was answering to that. I think we may have a problem in terminology here...

ZooGuard (talk)19:02, 15 July 2012
 

But if you insist on swapping it for something that practically limits freedoms on legal grounds, then I suppose racism, sexism and homophobia don't exist either. Those are just "bullying" so women, ethnic groups and gays should just man up and take it.

Scarlet A.pngpathetic19:04, 15 July 2012
 
 
 
 

I sort of agree, but not quite. 1) There is that problem where if I was going to run for public office, I would have to fake having a religion to have any chance of election. 2) The statement that atheists aren't discriminated against or persecuted is based on one gigantic, fundamental assumption: that you live in the United States of America. When my family goes overseas to India in a few months, they will have to avoid all talk of religion. Saying anything bad or simply not agreeing with the beliefs of others there, and many other places in the world, can literally get you killed. There are many advancement programs, options efforts, and reaches for change in these countries for the enfranchisement of otherwise disenfranchised minorities, but not nearly so often for religious freedom or even just asylum. Atheists, women, racial minorities, all of them are discriminated against. But all in different ways, and in different magnitudes and contexts, such that they are in many ways not able to be directly compared. Saying atheists are totally on par with the 100 percent privileged because they aren't profiled (we are, it just takes us to be revealed as an atheist to happen) or beaten for our identity (we are, in many places of the world or even in some places of this country) to me is a huge 'not as bad as' argument.

No. I am not persecuted in the same way, or to the same magnitude as if I was a racial minority. My identity as an atheist results in minimal hardship compared to my identity as a woman. But saying there's no problem at all, or that others don't face problems, just doesn't sit right with me.

The anti-atheist billboard was put up by some christians somewhere. not all. and not the government.

Anti meat eating PETA puts up far worse billboards against meat eaters, animal testing, etc. are the persecuting meat eaters?

I find it rather silly to toss around such a serious word, that reflects the systematic removal of people's rights and freedoms to "they don't like me and call me names".

yes, **some** christians are jackasses and call us names, and think we are less human. But the majority does not; the government does not. Being picked on, even bullied is not persecution.

Green mowse.pngGodotQu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons18:53, 15 July 2012

You are conflating the opposition against some of the things you said with support for Proxima's over-generalizations about "Christians". As a result, you appear to be trivializing stuff like this.

ZooGuard (talk)19:09, 15 July 2012

Yes. I am trivilizing that, cause I don't now, and didn't then think it's all that big of a deal.

I so strongly disagree with the premise that "not nearly as bad as" is not a valid argument - especially here.

I truly think that atheists by and large, are latching onto a stronger "victim mentality" in the us, but they are not victims.

And while every one of us can find someone, somewhere, via the grape vine, who was not given a job because they were an atheist, it's not exactly something that is common or frequent or systamatic.


The trouble with using such a strong term as persecution for what atheists go through, is that it diminishes the real struggles of people who are truly denied access to parts of our system because of their choices, their genetics, or whatever else. I have never head of an "atheist bashing", i've never heard of an atheist being denied entry into the country, and it's illegal to deny them equality in holding office (though that doesn't mean people will vote for us, it means if they do, you cannot prevent me from accessing the position).

If we are going to disgree, so be it, but i just can't stomach someone who is an atheist comparing their "struggle" (which amounts to not having people like them, frankly) to the stuggle of gay people, or blacks, or women, or muslims.

Green mowse.pngGodotQu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons19:31, 15 July 2012

The issue isn't with the "not as bad as" argument, but with the double standard where some are accepted as legitimate and some aren't. You're trivialising organised campaigns of harassment, yet we know that you wouldn't dare trivialise a similar campaign if it was directed at other groups.

Scarlet A.pngnarchist19:43, 15 July 2012

"You're trivialising organised campaigns of harassment." For the most part, those campaigns are pretty fucking trivial in their own right--they don't really need Godot's help on that count.

Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0.20:08, 15 July 2012

As I pointed out, WfG (and now you) is conflating persecution (I don't know who made any claims about that - Proxima?) with (non-institutionalized) discrimination, which everyone else is talking about. And which most certainly exists. In the same way that, in theory, there are laws protecting the rights of women in minorities, but there is still a lot of discrimination and prejudice that exist outside the scope of those laws.

*politeness: off*

And if you think that a state representative publicly saying that a schoolgirl is an "evil little thing" is trivial, you are a bloody knobhead.

ZooGuard (talk)20:22, 15 July 2012

It's a horrible thing for an elected official, or anyone for that matter, to say such a thing--but can it be fit into a broader instance of generalized hatred towards a group, like when, for example, a Michigan representative in the wake of the Vagina Affair called a protestor a "cunt," thus reflecting a generalized hatred of women in our society? I think not. Call me out for playing the "not as bad" card, but I think that can be a bullshit move, in that some things REALLY aren't as bad as others.

Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0.21:44, 15 July 2012
 

Triviality is relative. I think if you were, say, Jessica Ahlquist receiving death threats from people who pay attention to these organisations and also do genuinely believe what these billboards say, you wouldn't call it trivial at all. In fact, it'd be far, far from trivial.

Scarlet A.pngpathetic22:04, 15 July 2012

I empathize with the woman in question as a fellow human being; as an atheist, though, I feel no special bond with her, nor do I see an attack on her as an attack on me because of our shared disbelief in God. If I were gay, I would in all likelihood see an incident of gay-bashing as something directed at me because of who I am; if I were a woman, I would see a sexist diatribe as being directed at me because of my gender. I see this as an attack on an individual--a viscous one, no doubt, but not as an attack on "my" group, if only because "not believing in deities" is not, for me, something so important to my self-understanding that I see it as a major part of who I am or a grounds from which to form community or alliance.

Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0.22:11, 15 July 2012

I don't particularly have any identity politics associated with atheism (I don't really have an identity at all, in fact) but I don't see how a presence or lack of that changes anything.

Scarlet A.pngd hominem22:21, 15 July 2012

Well, because persecution and discrimination are typically based on a person'r membership in a targeted group. If the "group" as such doesn't really exist, then they can't be discriminated against as such, right?

Of course, the way around this is to argue that the group does exist in the mind of the persecutors, and, when the rubber meets the road, that's what matters. Case in point--there were no witches. But witches existed in the minds of certain people, and so "witches" were persecuted on the basis of their membership in a group that only existed in the minds of the bad guys.

But at the end of the day, I need a lot more than what people have demonstrated here to take seriously the existence of a real problem of persecution or discrimination against atheists. There needs to be something more in terms of structure, frequency, and history for me to go and get my panties in a knot.

Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0.22:34, 15 July 2012

I don't think we're all on the same page here. Let me lay out my argument point-by-point.

  • Discrimination against atheists exists. (As well as against other non-believers and all religious minorities, if you want to cover religious discrimination in general.)
  • Discrimination against atheists is not as bad as discrimination against other minorities. However, it does not follow from this that it does not exist and/or is inconsequential.
  • Discrimination against atheists is driven by different motives than most other forms of discrimination. Disgust is more often the motivating factor behind discrimination, but when it comes to atheists, it's distrust. (See Edgell et al 2006, Gervais et al 2011, and Gervais and Norenzayan 2011)
  • Discrimination against atheists seems to manifest in a categorically different manner than other forms of discrimination. Why this is is hard to say because there's little research published on it. However, the basis in distrust, relatively small number of atheists in the population, inability to tell atheists apart by appearance alone (unless the person's wearing a Richard Dawkins t-shirt or something), and regional variation in religious belief are probably big contributing factors.
  • Yes, there are some people using this to hop on board a "me too!" bandwagon, but that doesn't magically make actual cases of discrimination go away. Now I don't go around yelling "Help, help! I'm bein' repressed!" as I live in the Mecca of Lib'rulism and work in that hive of secularism, academia. (In some places, I'd say overt religiosity is less welcome than atheism.) But the story is totally different, say, in the Bible Belt. (Mostly, the question interests me because there seems to be a very different set of psychological phenomena in play when it comes to discrimination against atheists.)
  • All I'm seeing from TOP and WfG are "not as bad as" or "I don't see it, so it doesn't exist" arguments. See all the documentation I've provided, and I'll ditto Knight's and Blue's comments again. I think you guys would be singing a different tune if you lived somewhere else. That's about as clear as I can make myself here.
Nebuchadnezzar (talk)00:19, 16 July 2012
 
 
 
 
 
 

So who are atheists in the U.S.? 72% are white and 60% are men (at least according to a 2008 study). I think Godot is reacting to the fact that in the world of identity politics, lots of times people with multiple "oppressor" identities (white, male, straight, cis, etc.) like to exploit their one or two "oppressed" identities (atheist, in this case) to claim BUT I'M PERSECUTED TOO! DON'T DISMISS MY PLIGHT! To quote some blogger, "I side-eye the fuck out of any of the newer oppressions [referring to atheism, otherkin, etc.] that seem to be magically largely filled with white people... with no real body count to speak of."

Now, I think that this discourse falls victim to the not as bad as and no true Scotsman fallacies quite frequently, and is also overly Americentric. Even more than that, though... yes, oppression is an emergent phenomenon, but those who perpetuate it are individual people, not a White Borg or a Cis Borg. In certain areas and to certain people, I would be more frightened of judgment for coming out as atheist than for coming out as something with a much bigger macroscopic oppression problem.

Blue (is useful)20:32, 15 July 2012
 

Well, I was surprised when I read this, we in the UK are warned that we shouldn’t generalise about the United States. I know the USA is a vast country and there are big differences between different states and different areas. When people in the UK ask me about atheism in the USA I always tell them atheists are mostly treated OK in the more liberal areas but in other areas like the Bible belt especially rural parts of the Bible belt atheists can face big problems. Here I read a United States citizen who says she’s an academic generalising that, atheists don’t face severe discrimination. Frankly the situation is patchy, what happens to most American atheists is I’m sure Not as bad as what happened to Damon Fowler, see Damon Fowler and the Abuse of Church/State Plaintiffs. I’ll quote from the text above:-

  1. Fowler has been hounded, pilloried, and ostracized by his community.
  2. One of Fowler’s teachers has publicly demeaned him.
  3. Fowler has been physically threatened. Students have threatened to “jump him” at graduation practice, and he has received multiple threats of bodily harm, and even death threats.
  4. Fowler’s parents have cut off his financial support, kicked him out of the house, and thrown his belongings onto the front porch.

That last part is the most disgusting part of the whole thing. His own parents, for crying out loud. Unfortunately, this is not at all an unusual situation. In fact it is absolutely the norm for those who dare to speak out against Christian supremacy in similar cases and it has been for more than half a century.

Should I believe an anecdotal report from some alleged academic with an agenda or should I believe the printed text above? At risk that the academic will try and brand me an ignorant upstart I agree with the text. Atheists who stand up for their rights in the USA can face serious harassment, even persecution.

Proxima Centauri (talk)17:50, 16 July 2012

Seriously, proxie, what rights do Atheists not have, that we have to "stand up for?"

Forwler's case is extremely rares - and it hit the news and it's a big deal. There are 3 or 4 other cases, on going right now about people who have pissed off local governments by being atheist. is an exaggeration to say that "this is the norm for those who dare speak out against Christian supremacy". if it were the norm, the few cases like Fowlers would not make national news.

You can choose to believe who you want, but the vast majority of atheists out there in the US are not going to have experiences like Fowlers. Do they happen? Of course. But is it common? no. Is a kid who "comes out" as an atheists to his parents likely to face being tossed out, or disowned - no. Will they often be asked to go to church on xmas, yah. Will a religious mom or dad keep sending them bibles and telling them they are goign to hell? probably.

No one is saying it's going to be easy to be atheist in America. I'm saying the kinds of institutionalized and systematic discrimination you are pushing is an application of isolated events to paint a picture that serves a goal.

Green mowse.pngGodotQu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons18:36, 16 July 2012
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I'll get back to this thread tomorrow when I have time to read it all. Meanwhile I'll give you an entertaining link that shows what three people think of the Not as bad as argument.

P Z Myers, Greta Christina (I've cited her above but I'll repeat the link because I don't think she uses straw man arguments

Proxima Centauri (talk)20:56, 15 July 2012