Links With Your Coffee - Tuesday
Avoid waiting for your comments to be approved register using TypeKey
Charlie Chaplin True then true now. Great satire (tip to Erik)
Presidential Scholars Scramble to Create New Categories for Bush
Avery Ant on Easter Flash Video
Intelligent Design is the logic of ignorance - complex life, such as the machinery of blood clotting, can be explained by Darwinism, says Steve Jones As I sat down to write this piece, I put on my glasses. They were designed by an intelligent optician to correct my eyesight, which, acute as it once was, is now - like that of most elderly academics - blurred at best. The lens has become less elastic with time and no longer focuses properly. My specs help, but soon I will need a stronger pair.
New evidence suggests humans are evolving more rapidly -- and more recently -- than most people thought possible. But for some radical evolutionists, Homo sapiens isn't morphing quickly enough. "People like to think of modern human biology, and especially mental biology, as being the result of selections that took place 100,000 years ago," said University of Chicago geneticist Bruce Lahn. "But our research shows that humans are still under selection, not just for things like disease resistance but for cognitive abilities."Easter Eggs
A total of 666 DVDs will be hidden like "Easter eggs" in sanctuaries, church yards and other holy areas by Beyond Belief Media's national team of volunteers. The DVDs will be slipped into hymnals and other locations where they are likely to be discovered by unsuspecting worshippers.
Comments
I've got one more: a contest for the best name for the nuclear bombing of Iran--send in your suggestions. I kind of like "Fission Accomplished" myself.
Re The Evolution of Clots:
Darwin, as usual, got it right: part of an eye is better than no eye at all and any slight modification will improve matters until we get a reasonably effective organ.
This video clip illustrates the above point.
Norm, great work on evolution -- you do Darwin proud. And thanks for the link on "Presidential Scholars."
just to mix things up a bit..
isn't planting anti-jesus dvds in private institutions on the holiest christian day of the year just a little bit...oh i don't know...offensive?
at the least it is a cheap stunt designed to bring publicity to this organization and is not designed to spark true conversation about christianity.
A total of 666 DVDs will be hidden like "Easter eggs" in sanctuaries, church yards and other holy areas by Beyond Belief Media's national team of volunteers. The DVDs will be slipped into hymnals and other locations where they are likely to be discovered by unsuspecting worshippers.
Apparently by all those atheists who would never try to tell other people how to live or what to believe, per previous discussions. Sigh.
I am agnostic, and I think this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. Some of these fundimentalists think there is some sort of faux war against christianity, and then supposedly some people play into their hands by doing this? Then they use the number of the beast as the main number of DVDs?
Are we sure the national family council is not behind this to justify their fundraising? If not it sounds to me like some sub-80 IQ cult-like athiests want some media attention. Stupid stupid stupid... I hope these people do not breed.
I think the easter egg think is absolutely brilliant. shrug
Kinda like counter-tracks, except much more entertaining.
The easter egg thing is not even a group of people that think they are doing the right thing. It is a group of twits that made a movie that suggests god does not exist. Obviously they are just looking for publicity to help them make money, and they are fully ok with hurting the nation as a whole. We have enough zoned out fundimentalists in the center of the country without people making propaganda for them. I wouldnt go to see this crap movie if you paid me.
Thought I'd add the following link. Makes you wonder exactly what it will take for America to actually hold these cretins accountable. Key figures in 2002 New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal called White House and other Republican leaders on and around election day
It looks like the fundy hackers have taken down the GodMovie website.
A total of 666 DVDs will be hidden like "Easter eggs" in sanctuaries
This type of stunt plays right into the hands of the Christian fundamentalist crowd. By distributing videos in churches these volunteers deliver proof to Christians that there is in fact a "War on Easter". It's not the most effective method of challenging Christians' beliefs if you ask me.
Derrico: I've seen this film. It does not suggest that god does not exist. Rather, it lays out the case that Jesus was not a real, historical person but a mythic figure. The film is decent but it could use more supporting information to prove its point.
You're right Thomas. The fundies have hacked the Godmovie site.
This 666 thing is a very bad idea. To invade someone's church is wrong. I do not agree with this as it goes against everything I believe about being against someone shoving their beliefs down someone ele's throat.
For what it's worth, I'm certainly one of those atheists who consistently says atheists should not do things like that. People will drop the God meme when they're ready and not before. If they never do, then that's fine. My view is, of course, that we all wind up in the same place anyway.
Incidentally, Norm, the link to the story in question is now broken.
Yes, I know. The free-speech Christians are reacting as they often do, hypocritically. Bryan is also running an ad on this site, top blogad on the right. There are links to other sites that are following the story if you're interested. The Christians that don't like finding a DVD or a flyer can do what I do when I find their flyers on my car, in my mailbox, and stuck in the door, they can throw it in the trash. I view it as nothing more that a light-hearted attempt to show them how annoying it is when they push their views on others. The brighter ones may get the irony, most will not.
I think you've hit the nail on the head.
These guys are almost certainly a straw man organizations created (or heavily encouraged/funded) by the fundamental evangelicals.
And it isn't the first time. The hard right has been dressing up as liberal stereotypes and "protesting" in all the wrong places for years. Like holding an "anti-war rally" outside of an Armed Forces recruiting center.
No sensible war protester would do that. Time and time again, the message of "Against the War, not the Warrior" has been stressed, but it is easily buried under that inane catch-all "Support the Troops."
What better way to smear the left as a bunch of queer soldier haters than for Republicans to make Halloween costumes and then act the fool?
Hit the nail on the head, straw man organizations. You may certainly think them misguided but you don't really believe it is a front organization, do you?
Oh, I very much understand the "now you see how I feel" urge. Well, except for Jack Chick tracts. I adore those. I just can't imagine a fundie getting as much joy out of any equivalent atheist propaganda.
But, really, that just highlights the important difference here. The people who leave those tracts think they're fighting a war. I think they're silly. If I do something equivalent, I'm just being silly, but they think I've launched a major salvo in my presumed offensive to destroy their immortal souls.
Part of the difference is, I think most atheists know what Christians are all about, having mostly started out as Christians (at least in the U.S.), but Christians completely misunderstand atheists. If you're going to interact with Christians, it behooves you to run your idea through the crazy-fundie-filter simulator first to get an idea what they will think you're trying to communicate. Most inputs to this filter are hooked directly to a big blinking red light labeled "BWA HA HA I PLAN TO DESTROY YOU."
I'm not going to walk on eggshells around people, but I'm also not interested in doing things that will reinforce the ridiculous things they believe about me.
The Last I heard was that 666 was an error and latest analysis of the documents show that the number was 616. Guess we can chalk up another against fairy tales about 666
The Last I heard was that 666 was an error and latest analysis of the documents show that the number was 616. Guess we can chalk up another against fairy tales about 666
Update on the godmovie site being down. I sent an email to Beyond Belief Media and received the following response.
EMAIL FROM BEYOND BELIEF MEDIA
We apologize for the disruption in the War on Easter website. Thank you for your concern.
Our server is currently suffering a "denial of service" attack. A DoS attack is an organized, criminal attempt to overload a server with fake requests. (More information below.)
Our web host is working right now to fix the problem. After we get the site back up, we will use any information available to investigate the source and pursue law-enforcement remedies.
Unfortunately, we have no estimate on the return of site operations.
Thank you for your patience.
Sincerely, Beyond Belief Media
Wikipedia: "A denial-of-service attack (also, DoS attack) is an attack on a computer system or network that causes a loss of service to users, typically the loss of network connectivity and services by consuming the bandwidth of the victim network or overloading the computational resources of the victim system."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack
The War On Easter press release:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060411/latu089.html?.v=49
Idiotic.
I've only spent the last twenty years arguing that atheists are NOT satan worshippers and do NOT do the work of the devil. Now not just any atheist but the most visible atheist of the moment decides to use the number of the beast for his childish prank. If a dozen people wind up watching the film all the way through it will be a lot but the christian apologists will latch onto this for a decade as unequivocal proof that atheists are in league with Satan.
I could kick Flemming in the nuts for this one. The smarmy turd just set the cause of reason back by a decade.
Well, Beyond Belief Media is having some fun, as Norm pointed out. It still bothers me. But when it comes out how the xtians reacted with their DoS attack, it will become even more clear how fanatic that the xtian right really is.
Yeah, this stunt kind of bothers me as well... and I'm as atheist as you can get.
It seems like more of a publicity stunt, for sure.
I doubt any of the people who find a DVD are going to be the kind of person who'd want to see it, so they're obviously not going to watch it.
Plus, little kids are going to be the ones finding most of them... this'll just piss off a lot of people.
I'd still like to see the movie though.
So, somewhat unrelated, did anyone read the Gospel of Judas? Apparently the anti-christ's name is Seth, and he rules the underworld with a couple other fallen angels named Harmathoth, Galila, Yobel, and Adonaios...
What a colorful mythology! :)
To hear an interview with Brian Flemming, of The war on Easter thing, go here for the first half of the interview: http://www.rationalresponders.com/media/KOMOWaronEaster.mp3 And go here for the second half of the interview. http://www.rationalresponders.com/media/WaronEasterThePatriot.mp3
It's interesting to hear him respond to the same questions that we get from Christians here on onegoodmove all of the time.
Having said all that - I have to say that harassing church members is stupid, counterproductive, and offensive. Bill O'Reilly says there's a war on Christmas, and we rightly scoff and ridicule him. So now some dimbulb decides to declare War on Easter just to make O'Reilly look reasonable?
Well, Tim, your wife forced you to go to church on Easter Sunday. Has she watched the Godmovie, or is that out of the question?
Sigh, can't people accept each other for what they are without trying to change them? What happened to tolerance?
Or is it love thy neighbour... as long as he thinks like I do, pray like I do, have sex like I do and have the same God as I do.
Only then we are one big happy family???
Great article as it points out that the case about people marrying after divorse is a lot more dmaning that against homosexuality in Jesus' words.
Christians Sue to Discriminate Against Gays, When They're Not Too Busy Suing for Divorce
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-rotello/christians-sue-to-discrimb18935.html The ever-inventive Christian right has unveiled a new tactic in their hate campaign against lesbians and gays. In a brilliant piece of twisted logic, they're now filing lawsuits against universities and workplaces that protect gays from discrimination, claiming that anti-discrimination policies discriminate against their own Christian right to...er...discriminate. Got it? You may be appalled by their grim determination. But you gotta love how they use Christianity to attack gay people, and then expect us to ignore their own gross violations of scripture. Especially in the matter of divorce and remarriage. After all, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, which was widespread in the Hellenistic world. But he was crystal clear on divorce and remarriage. Matthew 5: 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. Luke 16: 18 Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. That's Jesus talking. Seems pretty clear to me. And yet most modern denominations - including lots of Christian conservatives and people who claim to be born again - allow both divorce and remarriage. In fact, the highest divorce rates in America are in the Bible Belt. A few years back I interviewed a high-ranking Christian conservative who was leading some typically misguided campaign against gays. I couldn't resist asking him about the divorce discrepancy. He admitted that he himself was divorced and remarried. But no problem - he repented and God forgave him. I asked him whether he ought to go back to his first wife if he really repented, since Jesus clearly says that he's still committing adultery with his second wife. He said no, to repent meant to promise God that he won't ever get divorced again. Hmmm. I asked where I could find this in the Bible. He patiently explained that in Jesus' day people only lived to around forty. Today we live much longer, so obviously Jesus would have taught differently today. Go ahead and snicker, but I actually have no problem with this, in itself. It seems like an enlightened example of how people can reinterpret religious injunctions to fit the times. My problem is with Christians - like him - who are perfectly willing to rewrite the Bible to cut themselves slack in their own lives, but then turn around, attack gays, and cry: The Bible made me do it! I think it's called hypocrisy, and Jesus took a rather dim view of that. Case in point is the Christian Legal Society, the organization of pious lawyers and judges that's spearheading the new campaign to overturn anti-discrimination laws. I did a Google search that combined the words "Christian Legal Society" and "divorce." Guess what? Google immediately burped up several members of the Christian Legal Society who are...you guessed it...divorce lawyers! This may seem surprising, given the very real damage divorce does to families, but I'm not surprised. Compassion is hard. Hypocrisy is easy. Jesus, however, may not be so forgiving.
Those who say something like you guys are real jerks for posting these flyers and DVDs in Churches, it should be noted that Martin Luther is said to have posted the 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, on October 31, 1517. Some scholars have questioned the accuracy of this account, noting that no contemporary evidence exists for it. Others have countered that no such evidence is necessary, because this action was the customary way of advertising an event on a university campus of Luther’s day. Church doors functioned very much as bulletin boards function on a twenty-first century college campus.
What an incredibly irrational justification (from a group calling itself 'Rational' Responders). If, in 1517, Church doors functioned very much as bulletin boards function on a twenty-first century college campus, why in 2006 are they putting flyers and DVDs in churches and not on college campus bulletin boards (since church doors are not used that way today)?
Given their own justification, they're doing something very different than Martin Luther (namely trying to piss off a lot of Christians). The 666 thing is a dead giveaway as to their true intent. There is no 'rational' reason for arriving at that number, other than to infuriate their opponents (I mean, the people they're supposedly trying to 'help').
Right Kevin, I'm sure Martin Luther didn't piss off the established religion, that he had no idea that it is exactly that his actions would accomplish. Certainly you don't mean to say that the Catholic Church wasn't infuriated. You don't think, like Martin Luther, they are trying to change minds?
I didn't say Martin Luther didn't piss off the established religion. But his primary motivation was to inform, not to offend. He didn't put up 666 copies of his theses, nor did he quietly sneak them into hymnals or bibles or children's Easter Eggs.
Thus, I found the comparison between Martin Luther and the 'War on Easter' crowd to be less than apt.
How is it you know their motivation have you viewed the video? Have you talked to them? I have and believe they are attempting to educate, you can take issue with their methods. You can say you believe they are counterproductive, but to claim to know their motivation is just a little bit arrogant. Sometimes upsetting someone provides a foot in the door, other times it gets you a punch in the nose, in either case it generates publicity and with it more interest in the DVD.
I haven't viewed the video. I assume that they are (in their view) trying to 'educate'. But they are also trying to offend (unless there is a different explanation for choosing 666 as the number of DVDs to put out there).
They compared themselves and their effort to Martin Luther. I pointed out what I felt was a rather large difference in approach between them and Martin Luther, and why I thought that it was probably not the best parallel to draw.
Did you feel that I wasn't making a valid observation? Or are you just trying to find something in what I wrote to nitpick?
That's correct I don't think your observation is valid, I think you're the one nitpicking. Although no analogy is perfect , I think their analogy is sound. They are alike in all important points. Both were bucking the establishment, both were advertising their point of view. The establishment was offended in both cases.
See, this is where I have a hard time respecting the 'opposition'.
Are you honestly telling me that you see no significant distinction between the approach of Martin Luther, a man who respectfully posted views on a public 'bulletin board' (knowing it would cause controversy) and a group sneaking 666 copies of their material inside churches and church Easter Egg hunts (in this case, material actually targeting children)?
The only difference I see is that they are perhaps more offensive than was Martin Luther, though not being there and not knowing the history that well I can't say for sure. I suspect he made some offensive statements about the Pope, maybe even an offensive cartoon. The methods are similar. Yep I'll stand by it, no significant distinction, yes that also means I don't think the sneaking around is significant. I do like your inflammatory language "targeting the children" as if finding a flyer or DVD, was well, as terrible as say finding a Bible in your hotel room. I think its true, your take on the subject is nothing more than whiny nitpicking, tedious tripe, and not unexpected. As to you having a hard time respecting the 'opposition' That's been obvious for some time. By the way love the scare quotes, or perhaps sneer quotes is a better description.
Kevin said: "I haven't viewed the video. I assume..."
Uh huh...
I'm glad you acknowledge at least that they're being more offensive.
Personally, I would also say that tacking your points to a bulletin board versus sneaking around is a huge difference. The goal in the first is to put something there for people who want to read it. The second is to get people who you think wouldn't want to read it at all to read it accidently.
And as for 'targeting the children', here is the text that they are apparently putting in the Easter eggs (this from the KOMO interview Brian Flemming did:
"Did you know that your parents and pastor are wrong when they tell you about the devil? That's right, everything in the bible is just a fairy tale. Sometimes grownups try to trick children into being good by making up scary stories...that's kind of mean, isn't it?
So, yeah, I'd say 'targeting children' is accurate. And again, I'd say that the difference between their approach and Martin Luther's is more than nitpicking. I also like the positive assertions in the text above, despite any lack of proof. Not 'your parents are probably wrong', but rather they are wrong).
And the only time I have a hard time respecting the 'opposition' (ooh, scary) is when they try to justify something like the tripe you've written above, trying to make a case that you see little to no difference between their methods and Martin Luther's, just because you don't want to admit anything that might weaken their case, even a little.
Somehow, I think if a Christian organization used the same methods, and made the Martin Luther comparison, you'd have an easier time seeing the inconsistencies in approach.
Kevin, I think that the real difference that you find between Martin Luther and Brian Flemming is that you agree with the beliefs of Mr Luther but you disagree with the beliefs of Mr Flemming. They are both revolutionaries, the only difference being that you disagree with the tenets of atheists. Mr Fleming is sincere in what he believes and is passionate about his beliefs, just as you are. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
If you want to bad mouth someone who goes against what you believe, it's very easy to do.
Re: Martin Luther
“There is very little to be said for this coarse and foul-mouthed leader of a revolution. It is a real misfortune for humanity that he appeared just at the crisis in the Christian world. Even our burly Defender of the Faith was not a worse man, and did far less mischief. We must hope that the next swing of the pendulum will put an end to Luther's influence in Germany.”
Very Rev. W. R. Inge,(in the Church of England Newspaper”, August 4, 1944).
“It is easy to see how Luther prepared the way for Hitler.”
The late DR. WILLIAM TEMPLE Archbishop of Canterbury (“The Archbishop's Conference, Malvern, London, 1941, page 13).
"I think if a Christian organization used the same methods" IF So what exactly is wrong in suggesting to children that they question authority. I think questioning authority is a good thing. A small counter to the child abuse that christian indoctrination is at that age. Do the parents tell their children that they may be wrong?
Jo Ann said: Kevin, I think that the real difference that you find between Martin Luther and Brian Flemming is that you agree with the beliefs of Mr Luther but you disagree with the beliefs of Mr Flemming. They are both revolutionaries, the only difference being that you disagree with the tenets of atheists. Mr Fleming is sincere in what he believes and is passionate about his beliefs, just as you are. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Not at all. Not even close. I have little opinion about Martin Luther (other than that the reformation was probably a good thing overall) and what opinions I do hold had nothing to do with my response, nor was I commenting on what Luther said. You're trying to dismiss a simple point, which had nothing to do with the tenants of Luther or atheists.
My point was that the comparison to Martin Luther was a poor one for strictly logical reasons. If the only similarity that these guys wanted to draw is that they were both revolutionaries, then why did they go to pains to point out the context of how church doors were used in 1517? The only logical reason I can think of is that they were trying (and again, I can't believe I have to explain this, because it seems obvious) to draw a comparison between what Luther did (and how he did it) and what they are doing (and how).
Martin Luther walked up and put his theses on a door, allowing anyone to read or not read it as they chose.
Rational Responders is sneaking their materials into the hands of people who they (apparently) expect would not choose to read them otherwise.
One approach is respectful of its audience, the other is not. That neither of you (Norm, Jo Ann) can just say, "You're right - comparing themselves to Martin Luther, given the strong differences in their respective approaches to communicating their messages, is probably not an especially strong comparison" continues to reinforce my view that you guys are so sympathetic to these guys and their cause as to have lost all perspective and ability to criticize them.
Norm said: So what exactly is wrong in suggesting to children that they question authority. ... Do the parents tell their children that they may be wrong?
First, I don't think there's anything wrong with suggesting children question authority. But that's not what the flyer says. It says 'your parents and pastor are wrong' and suggests that the parents are trying to 'trick' their children. Again, it's completely inconsistent with Luther (their comparison, not mine) and disrespectful of the parents.
I have a certain sympathy for anyone who is concerned for the education of children with closed-minded parents. But as I wouldn't be especially pleased with a hate group sneaking a flyer into my daughters Easter Egg, I tend to think of other peoples children (and we're talking small children here) as off-limits in the course of respectful discourse.
As a parent, I encourage my daughter to question adults, including me and my wife (and definitely to question her faith). But the day some group with a controversial political or social agenda starts targeting materials at my daughter (material that flat out states that what I'm teaching her is wrong and that I'm 'tricking' her), then I'm going to be pissed. Not because I don't think I can address what they say, but because I should get to decide when to have that conversation with her - not someone else.
Again, the fact that I even have to make this argument - that you can look at the content and wording of that flyer, and think it's totally appropriate to clandestinely distribute to small children, astounds me (and definitely makes me sad as it means there is apparently no opportunity for common ground between us).
Kevin, there will be no such common ground as long as Christians evangelists was the first to use such sneaky practises, such as sneaking Bibles and Christian flyes in "supposedly aid packages". And continue to do so.
Some also distribute blaspehemous flyers against local traditionas and beliefs based on false interpretation and beliefs.
That's why India and Sri Lanka are contemplating new laws against unsolicited preaching by Christian aid groups which makes use of the Tsunami tragedy to make religious inroads to the nation.
So I guess this is definitely a case of what goes around comes around.
If the Christians claim they have a right to express their opinions and beliefs, even though they are false, by such means, anyone can do the same.
Kevin, there will be no such common ground as long as Christians evangelists was the first to use such sneaky practises Ah. So if your opponent (specifically, the worst of your opponents) does something you don't like, then it's okay for you to do it too? This would make you better than them how?
You're not exactly helping your side here.
There might me some common ground Kevin if you ever acknowledged that it is more than a few bad apples. Take the ID debate I believe a majority of Christians think that it's a dandy idea, or the common belief held by Christians that atheists aren't fit to hold public office. Acknowledge that a majority of those practicing Islam don't think death to the man that converted to Christianity is inappropriate. It's more than a few it's a majority. While your at it acknowledging that religion and religious ideas don't get a privileged status that they are and should be just as open to criticism as any other ideas. Acknowledge that it is not disrespectful to criticize religion. Acknowledge that you respect all free speech not just that you agree with, and that sometimes speech may be rude and disrespectful and that's okay. Do that Kevin and then we can find some common ground.
You see the search for common ground is a red herring. People have no problem finding common ground, we all agree on a great many issues. There are some like you Kevin who believe finding common ground is for others to show respect not for the individual but for their religious beliefs as well. It's not going to happen.
There might me some common ground Kevin if you ever acknowledged that it is more than a few bad apples. I never said it was only a few bad apples. There's lots of ignorant people out there. But that doesn't mean that religion is the reason.
Take the ID debate I believe a majority of Christians think that it's a dandy idea I haven't seen any data on percentages there, but as someone who knows far more Christians who think ID is stupid than not, I think that's a great example of something that not all (I might even guess not a majority) of Christians believe in.
or the common belief held by Christians that atheists aren't fit to hold public office I haven't asked, but I'm certainly ditto on the above.
Acknowledge that a majority of those practicing Islam don't think death to the man that converted to Christianity is inappropriate. This one's been covered elsewhere. In the middle east, you're probably right (although even that's a guess). Worldwide, I'm not sure I agree.
It's more than a few it's a majority. Prove it. Isn't that supposed to be important to the extreme atheist crowd? And even if we assumed for a moment it was a majority, how would that change things? Would your beliefs regarding atheism be any less valid if, say, a majority of atheists were total assholes? (And no, I'm not implying that they are.)
While your at it acknowledging that religion and religious ideas don't get a privileged status that they are and should be just as open to criticism as any other ideas. I'm with you on that one, but I don't think that starts and stops at religion. I think that free speech is under siege in this country, and people of faith are some of the biggest offenders. But it also extends to just about every group that can claim any kind of oppression status (which is just about every group there is). But Christians are some of the worst offenders here. I love every time Jon Stewart reports on some Christian talking about how tough the Christians have it, given their majority status in the US.
Acknowledge that it is not disrespectful to criticize religion. Not intrinsically. I've seen plenty of cases where it's not and others where it is. Several of the methods used by the 'War on Easter' crowd are (IMHO) extremely disrespectful.
Acknowledge that you respect all free speech not just that you agree with, and that sometimes speech may be rude and disrespectful and that's okay. OK. I respect all free speech, not just what I agree with. Sometimes that speech may be rude and disrespectful but that's only as OK as we as a civil society permit it to be. Personally, I think that a group whose core tenants are rationality and logic should be the most capable of holding a civil and respectful debate.
Do that Kevin and then we can find some common ground. Well, I tried, but I don't agree with several of your starting points, as you can see.
You see the search for common ground is a red herring. People have no problem finding common ground, we all agree on a great many issues. There are some like you Kevin who believe finding common ground is for others to show respect not for the individual but for their religious beliefs as well. It's not going to happen. Yes, well as I stated before, that point is clear. I don't believe the search for common ground is a red herring, though. I know a number of atheists and theists who are perfectly capable of having rational and respectful exchanges on their respective viewpoints. I know a few Christians from the more fundamentalist side of things, and they frequently can not participate in such an exchange.
Apparently, neither can you.
Throughout 5 days of exchanges on this thread, you haven't been willing to give an inch on any of the above (negative) observations regarding the WarOnEaster crowd (be they from me, or others who also took issue), because apparently you can not see straight when it comes to this topic. I had honestly hoped that (while I certainly wasn't going to change your core view regarding atheism) I might get some acknowledgment of the points made regarding their methods.
Hi Kevin, I think I have made my point that I I'm speaking on behalf of what I see in my country and my region in Easy Asia that the majority of Christians do behave as I said they do i.e. religious blaspermy and misinformation.
It does not matter how many Christians you know in your own country as I am refering to my observations in my region. I see no proof from you in terms of hard data to prove that my views are wrong for my region?
Where's your data? Where's your proof for your views. You seem to have none beyond knowing many Christians? Do they even live in my region?
If you have no proof to back up what you say, kindly say so, instead of just asking me for proof, when I have shown proof that not just many Christians, but a majority of Christians in my country and my region, have an intolerant views towards other religions to the point of using religious misrepresentation to get their way.
I have been to all of the fastest growing Churches in my country and my region and my views are simple based on first hand accounts, not hearsay.
Since the late 1990s, the Buddhist Council has recorded that Christian attacks against Buddhists were on the rise, especially in Korea i.e. temple burnings in 1996-98 were even broadcastes on BBC.
Read up on India and Sri Lanka where the governments are contemplating legslation to stop underhanded attempts by Christi9ans to convert people under the guise of providing Tsunami relief.
You want more information? Then please do some googling of your own if you are truly interested in defending Christianity in Easy Asia and in Singapore.
Do some research of your own since you have not bothered to substaintiate your points with any data or research that you are asking me.
Let me repeat my point again. No religion worth respecting will ever try to absolve itself of blame from the actions of its followers if he or she have done wrong in the name of religion.
A truly conscientious faith will ask itself why such acts of intolerance have charcterised Christianity since its appearance in the world rather than do a legatistic argument that although 10 assos did this, I know 20 who didn't.
Let me give you one example of how a religion can acknowledge its misdeeds, instead of rationalising it away, so that it truly move on and become better.
I could only find 1 case of out and out Buddhist aggression in its spread throughout East Asia and that was in Tibet when the Buddhist religion oppressed the local Bon religion.
But with the Maost appearance in Tibetan politics, both religions were able to reconcile to move on and even work together. This was only possible as the Buddhist leaders could acknowledge the mistakes that their religion made in the past.
I think I have raised more than enough points, tried to support them for my case while I have yet to see any figures, facts or research to back up yours.
Actually, you've posted a big rant in the wrong topic. I'd like to keep this thread (as much as possible) on the original topic, which is the methods used by the WarOnEaster crowd.
I'll happily respond to you (and already did, in fact) in the other thread.
Point taken. My reply will be here:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/04/benighted_relig.html