I’ve enjoyed reading most of it because it’s quite interesting, I’ve something in common with you, something I believe in (or don’t) and you’ve managed to entertain me, so thank you.

I read the email, and agree with some points. But people obsess over all sorts of stuff - I might have a red shiny car which I attend to every day rather than a blog. I don’t think you are guilty of spreading hate, you’ve simply compiled existing documentation in a bemused reportative fashion which you find interesting and assume others will find interesting too. You were right. Be proud.

Theists wont come here, read, and be converted, but that’s not the point. The point is to share your point of view, which you believe is right, and quite a few others think is right too. But that collective ‘group mentality’ is needed for change, you need to mass people together to achieve it. So happy comradery!

If they can have it, we can have it too eh! It’s not like you’ve just made up a bunch of lies with intention to cause hate. This stuff exists already.

Its obvious to us ‘non-believers’ that you realize the difference between ‘freaks’ and more moderately religious people. The problem with ‘believers’ like Frank is that they view ALL ‘non-believers’ (or people ranging from 6 to 10 on the scale) as 10’s because for someone to be a ‘non-believer’ they think ‘believers’ are silly to believe in a mythical superhero… and subconsciously, ‘believers’ are insulted.

I think most ‘non-believers’ that range from a 6 to 8 have little to no problem with ‘believers’ that range from 3 to 5 because they are not pushing relgion and not discriminating against others. The purpose of this site is to poke fun or voice astonishment of actions of those in the 1 to 2 range.

I’ve always been puzzled when someone lobs the accusation that the particular site/forum/venue/movement/etc in question pursues it’s intended change with a counterproductive strategy. From personal experience, the reality as I see it is that individuals will respond to different approaches depending on their personality and particular circumstances. While clean, respectable debate is often seen as noblest form of pursuasion, the reality is that it takes all sorts to create a movement. Some people will respond to the angry blind ranting against their belief system- I was one. Others will respond to the calm debate, and others will respond to (percieved) social pressure. The biggest factor in convincing a population of anything is most likely the consistency of exposure, which renders the whole argument over strategy moot in a lot of ways. Access to the loudspeaker. Repeat something enough times and people will believe it; there’s a reason this is the fundamental strategy in propaganda campaigns.

I don’t mean to say that discussion of strategy is meaningless, because that’s not the case. The rational merit of the argument still matters, and how you go about spreading the message does too. But what I see from people who tend to bring up the argument is tendency toward painting it as an all or nothing proposition; one where their favoured strategy is the right way to go about it and any other way is bust. While Frank hasn’t included enough detail about his beliefs in the email to put him in this category, it is pretty shortsighted to accuse this site of being a complete failure. That’s not something any of us can really know anyway.

What your site does Gasmono, whether or not you’re conscious of it or intended it to, is present the reductio ad extremis of a lot of arguments against religion, but with real life examples. More importantly, you’ve done this without falling into the trap of believing that all religious people are this way. You’ve always advocated a civil debate and have been very generous in providing your opponents space to present themselves. This is the line that seperates hatred from rhetorical device, and you toe it well. Sure at first glance a name like Religious Freaks is caustic, but not at all how you run the place.

Incidentally I use your site as one of many news sources. I rarely read the comments in your threads because so often they’re a mix of brilliance and utter retardation. Also incidentally, this site doesn’t need an overarching purpose. If you enjoy what you do with it, that’s reason enough.

I believe in peoples’ right to have an opinion and their right to criticize freely

But there were points that were very unclear and unless we get a response from Frank we cannot verify his meaning in regards of the unclear issues.

I think Frank was sincere and has a valid point or two. Agreed?

Nope. Couldn’t find any. I think the email was a complete waste of time. References to “websites like yours” didn’t seem to really describe this site. I think it was an email that was simply written out of misplaced anger.

Certainly we should not object to those who simply wish to follow their own religion, but that is often not the reality of it. Look at what still happens to people in religion’s name. If you support persecution and imprisonment and denial of freedoms to others on the basis of an irrational belief that has nothing to do with the common good you should not be whining about not being liked.

I do think Frank has made a good effort at putting forward his point of view rationally. I disagree with him, but that was not a bad effort at communicating the contents of his thoughts in a polite and structured way.

As an administer of change, I would have to say that sites like this are a complete failure.

I have to say the evidence is not with Frank on this one. It was sites like yours, and including yours, which have helped to make a big change for me personally, and by extension, those I interact with. There are plenty of others out there right now, today, who have their own questions and find lurking around your archives tremendously satisfying and a relief in helping them come to terms with their changing world-view.

I just think that having a site called “religiousfreaks.com” is complete bigotry. And isn’t that what you’re trying to fight against?

To me that seems like the whole point. As yourself and Frank are both aware, religions constantly conflict with both other religions and with rationalism. As in most conflicts, it can at times become necessary to meet your opponent with their own tactics, if they insist on forcing you into that position.

And that is something religious people frequently do, by abandoning rational judgement and dragging the debate down to an appeal to childish emotional argument. And when that has happened, using a name like “religiousfreaks.com” is a simple and clear way to still communicate the message of DONT BE STUPID, even when the religious person has deliberately decided to stop thinking rationally.

Actually though, I have never asked you about your approach - why do you specifically target freakery - is it only freakery that bothers you, or is it that you find it the best way to approach the bigger subject of superstitious and authoritarian delusion?