Atheism

I hear you, about atheists sort of having to swim in theistic waters all the time causing some of them to lose it from time to time.

I always love hearing what you think about stuff big dawg.

'Specially when we ain't circlin' and sniffin'.

How so? I'm certainly not an atheist; and, believe me, I'm not being disrespectful to you. But isn't setanta just stating historical facts? Hasn't religious persecution been a constant of human history? How is he spouting disengenuous drivel? Please enlighten me. Again, I'm not being disrespectful to you. I just don't get it, is all.

I reject the "being mean" label. What I have written here is a drop in the bucket compared to what religion has visited on my life and the lives of others. If we often strike out first on a forum, such as this, it is generally the reverse of that in off line life. Another point, from my personal view: I state unequivocally that no gods exist in any form, ever. That statement does not make me a militant atheist; only a truthful one. I don't feel obliged to soften my conviction in print to mollify those who would be offended. You will notice if paying attention that I rarely go on religious threads anymore. This is an atheist thread, for sharing with other atheists and the friendly agnostics and religious. If it offends you to read our statements, there are more accommodating threads out there.

You might start with Wikipedia's entry on Charlemange, following up the links and other pointers. Then you might read a few books about the man.

When you have done that you will see how utterly ridiculous the superficial remarks Setanta made actually are and the service in which they are employed which is, of course, to prove that there is no God and that Christianity is mentally deranged which facts he discovered as an infant when a nun whacked his arse if, indeed, a nun actually did whack his arse and he wasn't making it up to further highlight the brutality of those of a religious persausion or, possibly, for other reasons of a more personal nature.

We have no scientific evidence that anything Setanta said actually occurred. We can only assume he read it someplace which could just as easily have been propaganda as the truth and, in view of the amazing inconvenience and inefficiency of having to find a snake, a funnel and a blow lamp to change somebody's mind when much simpler methods were quite well known, such as red hot pokers, which were readily available in all domestic quarters at no extra trouble and expense, one might easily lean to the notion that truth is the least likely. The image chosen is for the very purpose of horrifying the feminine sensibility which is very well known regarding snakes and other wriggling, fleshly conduits of greater or lesser malleability.

It was fairly well known that the enemies of Rome had every intention of putting out the Pope's eyes with smouldering faggots and ripping out his tongue with white hot pincers. Those were the ways of the world in those days regarding people who caused displeasure to the powerful and they still exist today in those unfortunate societies which eschew the Christian mission.

Religious persecution was based on practical matters of policy. Circumcision, diet, marital arrangements, property rights, descent, authority and all heresies were threatening to somebody or other. Setanta does a great disservice to history by his use, for his own reasons, of selection and caricature. The days, weeks, months and years passed at the same rate in those days as they do now. He chose an incident he had read about in a source he had selected, which is unlikely to have occurred for the reason I gave, and puffed it up out of all proportion in order to try to prove that abortion, adultery, divorce and other related matters are perfectly permissible and respectable.

It is entirely up to you whether Setanta just stated historical facts. My reading of his posts on these matters has lead me to the conclusion that he has no historical or scientific expertise, and risking a tautology for emphasis, I will add a whatsoever.

He relies for his credibilty on that well known weakness people have for believing anything they see in print.

And he has me on Ignore which proves he reads only what doesn't risk being a threat to his settled stance.

I don't think you're being mean. Although I'm not an atheist, I firmly believe that you're entitled to express your views; and I will condemn unjust discrimination against anyone, especially discrimination against those who differ from me in some way or another. We live in a pluralistic society, and that means that all of us are going to hear views expressed that offend us. Some people, unfortunately, seem to believe that they have the right to not be offended by others' comments; yet avoiding the inevitability of being offended is impossible in a free society. I would hate living in a theocracy because I would be persecuted along with others whose views I did not happen to share.

I accept your view that this is a thread for atheists. (Incidentally, I haven't been following this thread since its inception. I just noticed it yesterday.) I believe that atheists (or any other group of people representing a particular point of view, for that matter) are entitled to their own thread. Last year chumly wrote the OP for a thread he entitled "Welcome, Sports Haters!" referring, in particular, to another website -- a very small (and unpopular ) website where I've been serving as a moderator expressing a moderate, independent point of view. One of my online friends from that website started posting in chumly's thread. He soon was personally attacked by one of the members of this forum who is a sports fan. (If someone who didn't even know me personally walked up to me and started speaking to me in such an abusive way, I'd be tempted to punch him in the nose.) Later he remarked to me that he couldn't understand why this unnamed member of this forum was so intolerant of someone who was critical of the sports culture in our society, as if there were no scandals or dishonorable conduct in the world of sports. He said there were many threads for sports fans to choose from, yet the unnamed member of this forum (confusing, isn't it? ) did not respect the right of "sports haters" to have their own thread -- only one thread out of many. In other words, my online friend was expressing a point of view very similar to yours -- not with regard to sports, but with regard to respecting someone's right to speak out. So, even though I'm not an atheist, I'm completely sympathetic to your point of view; namely, that as an atheist you're entitled to have your own thread without someone coming along and hassling you about it.

It's the snarlin' and the bitin' ya really got to worry about . . . always good to see you Snood . . .

Thank you for your reasoned response. I'm glad you didn't get mad at me. What's ironic is that although our initial online encounter last year was negative, over time I've come to recognize that you're not a bad guy. I agree with you that moral stances on issues such as abortion, adultery, and divorce (which may or may not be founded on scripture) are not invalidated by religious persecution. I wasn't necessarily accepting Setanta's specific claim about Charlemagne, as I know absolutely nothing about that historical figure. (Incidentally, I like snakes. They're so misunderstood by people. Did you know there are many myths about snakes that are false?) I'm just saying that persecution is a constant of human history. Someone once asked the famous horror fiction writer Robert Bloch (who, incidentally, created the Norman Bates character) what was the greatest horror story; and he responded by saying, "The history of mankind." When I refer to religious persecution, I realize that it comes from all quarters. For example, no denominationalists have been involved in the vicious persecution of the Bahai Faith (whose followers are tolerant pacifists who pose no threat to anyone) in Iran under the current despotic regime. In less than a century, the atheistic Communist movement managed to slaughter roughly 100 million people. (Incidentally, if the German Nazis -- who seem to have been influenced by pagan gods -- hadn't been defeated in World War II, they would have killed tens of millions of people. Their murder machine had only started. Soviet soldiers in "liberated" Poland discovered enough Zyklon B crystals to kill 20 million more people.)

I can't agree with that wm. It's a public forum. Views that might influence young people should be challenged on a public forum. I can't imagine, after the other things you've said, that you think otherwise.

Fascinatin'. The one person who would top my list of 'people who aren't mean and nasty about their views on God or religion' is the one person who directly replies to my comment about people "being mean".

From my post here and from our many grown-up discussions in the past edgar, you've got to know I wouldn't have been referring to you.

Good afternoon, snood. Well, I got short with some people earlier in the thread, and I always be nasty to spendi (he's always got his nose out to be whopped). It is possible some members don't share your view.

Don't worry ed. I like you. Your combative style is good fun.

EB:



Uh... yeah??!

Of me.

Quote: The one person who would top my list of 'people who aren't mean and nasty

Yeppers.

I am not an animal. I'm a man. (Well, technically, that does make me an animal).

Well, you do have a point. You've got me. I don't know what to say. Please continue ...

oh! okay... I see now. I think.

Only because the religious majority in this society gets to decide what qualifies as uncourteous and what doesn't, and what general rules religious beliefs are exempt from. For example, most of us (including you I'm sure) consider it "deluded, or ignorant, or naive" when someone sets out to kill his son because he hears a voice telling him to. But when that person is Abraham, and the inner voice allegedly is the voice of god, the same behavior somehow becomes praiseworthy because it exemplifies faith. At the same time, calling Abraham's behavior what it is---deluded, ignorant and naive---somehow becomes uncourteous, shrill, and strident. No other ideologies can demand, and be granted, such a get-out-of-jail-free card. Only religions do.