I’m glad you found the time to reply. Don’t worry too much about not being able to check back regularly. That’s one of the many advantages of blogs; our responses will be waiting until you find the time :) Anyway, as before, I’ll only respond to the portion of your post directed towards me.

“I wasn’t speciffically calling you all immorral. I was just saying you broke the Golden Rule.”

If I broke the Golden Rule, than I’ve made a moral infraction, albeit a minor one. I still don’t think that I’ve do so. There is no greater critic of my own beliefs than myself. Similarly, I criticize the beliefs of others, when appropriate. Thus I am treating others as I treat myself. You do make a very good, related point:

“for the sake of simply avoiding unneccesary conflict, some respect should be given.”

I actually agree with you here, for the most part. As highly social animals, we need to be able to interact with other people effectively. When many people in our society hold similar beliefs, we do need to respect those beliefs, no matter how ridiculous we find them, in order to succeed.

That being said, this website is, in part, designed to be a place where we can air our criticisms without disrupting out normal social interactions. Just as church is (and should be) a safe place for Christians to criticize other religions and atheism without social consequence.

“If you want, attack the beliefs, but attacking the person makes it personal.”

Again I agree, even if I sometimes fail and insult the person instead. As a Christian, I am sure you recognize that none of us are perfect ;)

“He [Dr. Richard Dawkins] seems to focus on Christianity for some reason or another though.”

He actually addresses that in The God Delusion. He says that his arguments can be used to criticize any version of the God hypothesis, but admits that his focuses on Abrahamic religions in general and Christianity in particular. He gives two reasons for this. One, he is most knowledgeable about Christianity and two, the vast majority of criticism he receives about his life’s work is from the Christian community; thus he addresses those criticisms.

I’m enjoying the discussion. Good luck with your education.

So where upon religions give you Carte Blanca for some of your actions, atheists will face personally the blame when doing the same things.

People of relgious blame still face their punishment. Just look at this site. It basically looks for screw ups by people of relgious beliefs.
Anyways, the point you made on evil…while I agree with you on some parts, you just basically went off on a tangent there. I do not think evil was being discussed. But I suppose we can get into to subject.
A seperate thread would be helpful though.
See? Forum=helpful.

sidfaiwu Says:
March 15th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Hello Again Silent Poet,

PS Thanks for the debate snippet. I am both a fan and a critic of Dawkins. He’s a great scientist and writer, but only an average philosopher.

It was my fault really. I should have been more clear. I wasn’t speciffically calling you all immorral. I was just saying you broke the Golden Rule. I am not sure whether or not you were aware of it. Anyways, yeah, you were breaking the Golden Rule. No good arguement was presented for why the idea of Christianity is treated the way it is here, yet atheism is seemingly seldom questioned. Plus, some of you were argueing that Christianity and Christians are stupid, which is just uncalled for. True, not all beliefs are worthy of respect, but for the sake of simply avoiding unneccesary conflict, some respect should be given. What I am basically saying is don’t go insulting people because of their beliefs. If you want, attack the beliefs, but attacking the person makes it personal.
Well, if you do not think Christianity is undeserving of respect, please relay that to the others. They seem to disagree.
Ditto, average philosopher. I just think he is incredibly biased in his work though. He seems to focus on Christianity for some reason or another though.

Your Father Says:
March 15th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
I never did get into reasons, so your first statement is pure speculation. Whether the results of monotheistic religions be good or bad (and personally I DO think they’re bad) is not relevant. The ideas behind the monotheistic religions are ridiculous and deserves ridicule. That’s it.

Then theres the disturbingly large number of people who believe in a literal 7 day creation, noah’s ark, adam and eve, which are absolutely %100 proven wrong.

Look again.
“Christians now-a-days don’t go raping and pillaging, but its a fun reminder of what your beliefs are capable of.”
You were using the Crusades to attack Christianity. You basically said that since some Christians did that a long time ago, it is ok to hold it over our head and say Christians do that today. You even called it “fun”.
Well do go on then. And by the way, please elaborate on how those things are proven wrong.

Korgan Says:
March 15th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
@SilentPoet,
OK, I’ll introduce you to something in the hope that you will understand and also in the hope that improved reasoning skills will help you in the long run to leave behind your particular superstition (christianity, apparently):

K.

I am familar with denying the antecedent. I understand the concept, trust me.
I think you are mistaken.
Seriously look again.
“It is religion itself, or in this case, a particular religion, that is yet again the source of the violence. And yet again, someone suffers and has to deal with it.”
I didn’t twist your words, dude.
If you are not saying that relgion is the cause for violence, than just what are you saying?
What I said in response to this is “Wow, do you really think that abolishing religion will cause peace? Or abolishing whichever particular religion?”
I said this because you called religion a “promblem”. I assume you do wish it remedied, correct?
So please tell me how I “denied the antecedent”.

Your Father Says:
March 17th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Still waiting for your reply SilentPoet… Any other xians wanna field why your religion doesn’t deserve ridicule?

I already expressed concern to gasmonso about my inablility to regularly check these articles. I have been busy with college. I do plan to eventually get to them though.
P.S. Do you use that term since it is shorter than Christian or just to confuse people?
And FYI I wanted to field that you really shouldn’t be calling Christians stupid. Christendom deserves some ridicule. We screw up sometimes. We are human.

Re “What did I do?”, OK, I’ll introduce you to something in the hope that you will understand and also in the hope that improved reasoning skills will help you in the long run to leave behind your particular superstition (christianity, apparently):

First, go look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
(or myriad other references that you can easily find on logical fallacies.) Do some diligence, put what I wrote beside your re-wording, and try to understand why your twisted re-wording of what I said does not actually follow logically from what I said.

Do you get it now?

K.

I never did get into reasons, so your first statement is pure speculation. Whether the results of monotheistic religions be good or bad (and personally I DO think they’re bad) is not relevant. The ideas behind the monotheistic religions are ridiculous and deserves ridicule. That’s it.

Which brings me to your second question. I could go on for hours about why the idea of a personal god is stupid. Even if you’re a liberal (educated) Christian who believes that a verse is metaphorical every time science proves its not literally true, you’re still left with the idea that a perfect god who can do anything (but greatly resembles highly imperfect human beings) created a gigantic universe for the sole benefit of a race of animals on a tiny spec in a tiny corner of it. not only that but he watches everything you do and wants you to act a certain way, but never shows himself or gives reasons why.

He loves you, but he’ll let you get tortured for all eternity if you don’t believe in him even though he gives you little reason to. He wants his ass kissed, or else, and the only proof he gives us that he might even exist was by talking to a few people in a time when people were much less intelligent and prone to making similar myths up.

Then theres the disturbingly large number of people who believe in a literal 7 day creation, noah’s ark, adam and eve, which are absolutely %100 proven wrong.

I’m sorry I mis-attributed your pronoun to the groups. I had no idea you were accusing us of immorality. Had I recognized that, I definitely would have addressed it. I would argue that I am not violating the Golden Rule because I do not expect my beliefs to be respected simply because I believe them. I expect, even desire that my beliefs are rationally challenged. Since I should treat others as I would like to be treated, I challenge other’s beliefs. In other words, you don’t have any moral obligation to respect my beliefs, only my right to believe them.

Also, I think you are still missing the point of bringing up NAMBLA and the KKK. We (or at least I) are not comparing Christianity to these groups. I recognize the Christianity has some redeeming qualities whereas the other two groups do not. Once again, the point is that these groups demonstrate that not all beliefs are worthy of respect.

I am curious; do you still stand by your statement “Please respect the beleifs of others” in light of what members of NAMBLA believe? In other words, do you respect the beliefs of NAMBLA? The whole purpose of my initial response to you was to argue that we are under no moral requirement to respect the beliefs of others. If you read my posts, I never argued that Christianity, in particular, doesn’t deserve respect. That is a separate discussion, one which I am willing to have.

PS Thanks for the debate snippet. I am both a fan and a critic of Dawkins. He’s a great scientist and writer, but only an average philosopher.

Well the point of evil, all people are capable of evil. That is the basis of humanity, we can be everything between good and evil. That is to be human. Also evil is subjective as some acts are evil to us but would not be in different location.

Then to atheists and religious people. Both can be evil but many religions give you excuse to be evil under set circumstances and/or when ordered by authority.

Atheists do not have any such protection and they have to face their own actions and cannot ever say “I did it because something something ordered me or it read it some and some book.”

So where upon religions give you Carte Blanca for some of your actions, atheists will face personally the blame when doing the same things.

But you are correct. The two organization cited are abhorrent precisely because they are immoral and violate the Golden Rule. But, once again, you missed the point. Your claim is that we should respect anyone’s beliefs. Your Father provided two counter examples that demonstrate that not all beliefs are worthy of respect. He demonstrated that respect for beliefs is conditional on some criteria. It is up to you to provide adequate reason for us to respect your beliefs.

I believe I will have to make it a point to avoid pronouns in situations like this one. Sorry for the confusion, but I was not refferring to the KKK and NAMBLA as ignoring the Golden Rule; I was refferring to Korgan, yourfather, and you (sidfaiwu).
I meant that even though I have respected your beliefs thus far, you disrespect mine. You liken them those of KKK and NAMBLA. You clamim the deserve no respect, yet have given little reason as to why. I could give ample reason why Christianity deserves some respect if you would allow me. Second, where is your criteria that your belief should be respected? If it is the lack of atrocities committed in the name of Atheism as compared to those of Christianity (God Hates Fags, Crusades, Etc.), you will find that there isn’t much criteria.
Perhaps you may find this intersting.
It is an excerpt from debate between Richard Dawkins, author of “The God Delusion,” and David Quinn, columnist at the Irish Independent, on the existence of God, free will and the effect of religion on the world.

The debate took place Oct. 9 on the “The Tubridy Show,” hosted by Ryan Tubridy, and was broadcast on Irish public radio station RTE Radio 1.
*
*
*
*
“Can I suggest that the next question, it is quite appropriate, is on the role of religion in wars. When you think of the difficulty that it brings up on the local level, Mr. Dawkins, do you believe the world would be a safer place without religion?

Quinn: But you see, that is not what faith is. You see, that is a caricature and a straw man, and it’s so typical. That is not what faith is. You have faith that God does not exist.”
*
*
*
*
Second, your right the notion of the Golden Rule came from Judaism orginially, but I still stand by my statement that it has not been followed here.

Your Father Says:
March 14th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
“Really? Scroll back up to the article. “Imagine on your next crusade you have hundeds if not thousands of miles to trek and nothing to entertain you between the periodic bouts of raping and pillaging.”
Clearly, this is an attack on people, not a belief. It calls Christians rapist and pillagers, not Christianity.
Second, are you seriously comparing Christianity to KKK and Nambla?
Even then, are you preaching intolerance?
Surely not…”

As far as comparing christianity to the KKK and NAMBLA… I think sid covered it pretty well. The only intolerance I’m preaching is toward bad ideas.

1. Your arguement for attacking Christians on the basis of acts committed by Crusaders, God Hates Fags, etc., can be used to attack atheism, since it has its fair share of the same thing going on today (communist China).
2. Christianity is stupid? Elaborate, please.

gasmonso Says:
March 14th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Wow, I can’t believe this story was dug up…LOL. This was one of my first posts.

gasmonso

Ah, yes. See I deliberately choose the first because I figured that they would be smaller, and less looked at, allowing me ample time to respond to comments before I was flooded with them. Once this issues of your first articles are resolved, or I simply start repeating myself to often, I will move on to the other articles in order.

P.S. Thank you for the email, and good luck on restoring the website.

Korgan Says:
March 14th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
@SilentPoet,

No, what you have presented in your vain attempt to turn my words around is essentially an instance of the basic logical fallacy known as “denying the antecedent”. (Google on that phrase for many references.) I reject your flawed logic. I also happen to utterly reject Christianity on similar grounds and other grounds.

What did I do?
Look at your quote again. ” It is religion itself, or in this case, a particular religion, that is yet again the source of the violence. And yet again, someone suffers and has to deal with it.”
How is that basic logical fallacy? If you say that I state the Christianity or religion is not the source violence yet do not give good reason for stating so, well, I don’t really know what to say other than you may have trouble reading my comments accurately.
I say Atheism is fully capable of violence. Surely you must see this. There is ample evidence that violence isn’t just coming from religous people. I really fail to see how I “denied the antecedent”. Did you meant some other term?
If you reject my “flawed logic” on the grounds stated above, you may want to reconsider your rejection of Christ.
__________________________________________________
Man, this place needs some forums bad.

Re “Wow, do you really think that abolishing religion will cause peace? Or abolishing whichever particular religion?”,

No, what you have presented in your vain attempt to turn my words around is essentially an instance of the basic logical fallacy known as “denying the antecedent”. (Google on that phrase for many references.) I reject your flawed logic. I also happen to utterly reject Christianity on similar grounds and other grounds.

gasmonso