I propose a simple litmus test. Let’s consider the worst, for starters. The fundamentalists, the extremists, the lunatics, the strident ones.
Now think of any 2-3 people from both sides – religious and irreligious, and denote their qualifications and the actions/words they are most noteworthy for. Now compare the notoriety and blackballing impact of the two side-by-side, especially in the context of human suffering.
First things first: How would you define “religion”?
It’s good that in your brief comment you seem to consider human suffering a bad thing. I’d agree, generally speaking (meaning: imagine living in a world where there were no consequences to out actions). 1) What’s your remedy? 2) How would you convince others to get involved to prevent it or fix it?
“Radical secularism” is gaining ground in American society and poses a “grave threat” to the Catholic Church’s freedom of expression in the public square, Pope Benedict XVI told a group of U.S. bishops on Thursday (Jan. 19, 2012, quote in a March 2012 article on HuffPo)
Pope Benedict started a trip to Britain on Thursday with some of the clearest criticism yet of his Church’s handling of its sexual abuse crisis and urged the country to beware of “aggressive secularism.” (March, 2012, MSNBC)
““It’s seen (no power to say prayers at their Council meetings) as another sign of a militant secularism. In that case, there as an atheist combining with the National Secularist Society – suggesting that this kind of thing will happen more frequently in the future.” (Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canturbury, Feb 2012))
And what is this terrible secularism? Why, it’s public legislation, policies, and institutions not connected with promoting religious favoritism in the public domain. This is what atheists advocate for.
Such effrontery! Imagine just how unreasonable one must be to support no religious interference in the public domain so that all are free to worship or not worship as one sees fit, to believe or not believe as one sees fit, to be able to live without religious privilege and religious sanction inserted into our lives, to uphold the Enlightenment values in law for equality, freedom, and dignity of personhood regardless of personal religious belief.
For this advocacy (which is the only political approach that ensures religious freedom for all) atheists are vilified far and wide with language reserved for conflict, terms like fundamentalist, radical, aggressive, militant to name but a few. Of course these terms are abused when no atheist calls it reasonable to promote the death of others, none blow up innocent civilians in the name of atheism, none fly planes into buildings to extend the goals of atheism, none advocate for the suppression of rights and freedoms of the many to privilege the few in the name of being reasonable. But this fact doesn’t stop the deluded – for what else can it be but imagined armed conflict where none exists? – from portraying atheists and our calls for secularism and religious removal from the public domain as unreasonable, threatening, and intolerant.
This cartoon portrays a reasonable approach to the equal rights and freedoms for all to be just such an unreasonable threat. It’s a perversion of what’s true in reality and serves only the fears of religious prosecution from an imaginary atheist mob.
Is he calling for military action against religious people?
No.
Is he calling for theists to ‘come out’ for some kind of mob punishment?
No.
Is he cajoling crowds to join with him to storm the doors of churches?
No.
Is he suggesting we mock and ridicule religious beliefs because they are deserving?
Yes.
Why are they deserving? Because they don’t respect reality and are dangerous to real people in real life that causes real harm.
Now look at your cartoon.
Nothing here reflects what’s true about atheists: Dawkins as a famous one wants religious privilege challenged on the basis that it is not true. Religious belief has no justifiable place in the public domain and superstitious belief is worthy of ridicule – as is anything that defies reality and promotes magical thinking. The atheist response to religious impositions is not fundamentalist, militant, aggressive, or radical. It is entirely reasonable and has been intentionally and dishonestly maligned to be something it is not by those with a religious, apologetic, and accommodationist agenda.
Brad, you speak like you actually understand the cartoon. Ever heard of symbolism?
Well, I’m not going to explain all the symbolism in the cartoon to you. But simply put: So-called “enlightenment” has worked hard to push theism to the edge of town (Frankenstein’s castle). The mob of angry atheists is attempting to get the theist to come out so that they can ridicule “it”, “it” being the theist whom atheist rhetoric like yours has made Frankenstein’s monster-esque; that is, something resembling a human, but not quite.
And the tools are symbolic, too.
You, like Dawkins and many, many people, always make the fundamental mistake of putting all religions under the same umbrella. To do so just goes to showcase a general ignorance of their differing claims. But, yes, labeling all religions “dangerous”, “bad”, “other adjectives” and then placing them in a mental bin as being “dealt with” is much easier. Then we have more time for on-line games and engaging the desires of our evil nature.
NAA, the point is to push theism out of the public domain entirely. That’s a good thing for theists because it allows all people freedom of religion without the state privileging pone over another or religion over non believers. It’s called equality. Only theists used to privilege think it’s somehow bad.
As for ridicule, Dawkins was talking about politicians who use religion as sort of a badge of honour. In particular he was talking about those who believe in transubstantiation as a result of mumbled words changing a cracker into literal flesh and wine into literal blood. For such a politician asking for support in the public domain, mock them, ridicule them in the same domain. That doesn’t make these responders some kind of angry mob; it makes them RATIONAL demanding that RATIONAL people be awarded political power. Your cartoon misrepresents this RATIONAL response and tries to present it as some kind of angry mob mentality, which simply doesn’t reflect reality. Symbolism is supposed to represent something meaningful; all your cartoon does is represent a lie.
Brad, I see more and more that you are not some rational human being striving for “religious freedom” or “liberty, equality, and brotherhood”. From what I gather, you may be Canadian or British, possibly living in America. You are zealous about atheism. You may be a practicing homosexual (due to our previous thread, where you failed to respond to my direct question about that after vehemently and virtually shouting me down in your defense of homosexuality; I apologize in advance if I’m wrong; correct me if I am). You won’t answer questions or respond to certain points. You have shown no interest in distinguishing differing religious claims. You respond to evidence and historical records with a “So what?” attitude. You turn arguments over issues into personal attacks. Your posts have many, many more periods than question marks. You’re very emotional at times (like we all can be), though you will maintain that you alone are rational.
Those are your habits. To me, those factors make you a difficult person to discuss anything with. So, I’ll refrain from doing it now. Really. I’m not banning you from the blog. No, no. You would wear it as a badge of honor. You’re always welcome to leave comments.
One last thought as you head on your way: Ignoring natural law (if you are a practicing homosexual) and trying to insulate your life with people who only believe and do what you do is going to catch up to you. Pushing people away and a practice of intellectual snobbery is just going to fill you with regret and regret leads to emptiness, a dead sense in your core. But you don’t have to wait until you die to feel dead internally. From the tone of your posts and the way you lash out at the most trivial of points, I’m sorry to say that it seems like you’re already there or at least rounding the corner toward it.
I don’t hope or pray or wish anything bad on you, Brad. As much as you’ll hate it, I bless you and hope that you’ll realize that you, like the rest of us, have a lot of problems, but atheism isn’t the solution to any individual’s problems nor the world’s problems (look at China and North Korea). It has never provided any solutions. The first step to a solution is for you to recognize that you, like the rest of us, are evil at heart. But you don’t have to stay that way. You can repent. And, in fact, God commands that we turn away from our evil ways (repent).
24 “God, who made the world and everything in it, is Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples made by human hands. 25 Nor does he need anything that we can supply by working for him, since it is he himself who gives life and breath and everything else to everyone. 26 From one human being he created all races of people and made them live throughout the whole earth. He himself fixed beforehand the exact times and the limits of the places where they would live. 27 He did this so that they would look for him, and perhaps find him as they felt around for him. Yet God is actually not far from any one of us; 28 as someone has said, “In him we live and move and exist.’ It is as some of your poets have said, ‘We too are his children.’ 29 Since we are God’s children, we should not suppose that his nature is anything like an image of gold or silver or stone, shaped by human art and skill. 30 God has overlooked the times when people did not know him, but now he commands all of them everywhere to turn away from their evil ways. 31 For he has fixed a day in which he will judge the whole world with justice by means of a man he has chosen. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that man from death!”
I propose a simple litmus test. Let’s consider the worst, for starters. The fundamentalists, the extremists, the lunatics, the strident ones.
Now think of any 2-3 people from both sides – religious and irreligious, and denote their qualifications and the actions/words they are most noteworthy for. Now compare the notoriety and blackballing impact of the two side-by-side, especially in the context of human suffering.
Could you share the results with me?
My blog: http://holeyspirit.wordpress.com/
Thanks, holeyspirit.
First things first: How would you define “religion”?
It’s good that in your brief comment you seem to consider human suffering a bad thing. I’d agree, generally speaking (meaning: imagine living in a world where there were no consequences to out actions). 1) What’s your remedy? 2) How would you convince others to get involved to prevent it or fix it?
“Radical secularism” is gaining ground in American society and poses a “grave threat” to the Catholic Church’s freedom of expression in the public square, Pope Benedict XVI told a group of U.S. bishops on Thursday (Jan. 19, 2012, quote in a March 2012 article on HuffPo)
Pope Benedict started a trip to Britain on Thursday with some of the clearest criticism yet of his Church’s handling of its sexual abuse crisis and urged the country to beware of “aggressive secularism.” (March, 2012, MSNBC)
““It’s seen (no power to say prayers at their Council meetings) as another sign of a militant secularism. In that case, there as an atheist combining with the National Secularist Society – suggesting that this kind of thing will happen more frequently in the future.” (Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canturbury, Feb 2012))
And what is this terrible secularism? Why, it’s public legislation, policies, and institutions not connected with promoting religious favoritism in the public domain. This is what atheists advocate for.
Such effrontery! Imagine just how unreasonable one must be to support no religious interference in the public domain so that all are free to worship or not worship as one sees fit, to believe or not believe as one sees fit, to be able to live without religious privilege and religious sanction inserted into our lives, to uphold the Enlightenment values in law for equality, freedom, and dignity of personhood regardless of personal religious belief.
For this advocacy (which is the only political approach that ensures religious freedom for all) atheists are vilified far and wide with language reserved for conflict, terms like fundamentalist, radical, aggressive, militant to name but a few. Of course these terms are abused when no atheist calls it reasonable to promote the death of others, none blow up innocent civilians in the name of atheism, none fly planes into buildings to extend the goals of atheism, none advocate for the suppression of rights and freedoms of the many to privilege the few in the name of being reasonable. But this fact doesn’t stop the deluded – for what else can it be but imagined armed conflict where none exists? – from portraying atheists and our calls for secularism and religious removal from the public domain as unreasonable, threatening, and intolerant.
This cartoon portrays a reasonable approach to the equal rights and freedoms for all to be just such an unreasonable threat. It’s a perversion of what’s true in reality and serves only the fears of religious prosecution from an imaginary atheist mob.
It’s all a lie.
Hmmm, sounds like an “enlightened” and “reasonable” person to me…
Is he calling for military action against religious people?
No.
Is he calling for theists to ‘come out’ for some kind of mob punishment?
No.
Is he cajoling crowds to join with him to storm the doors of churches?
No.
Is he suggesting we mock and ridicule religious beliefs because they are deserving?
Yes.
Why are they deserving? Because they don’t respect reality and are dangerous to real people in real life that causes real harm.
Now look at your cartoon.
Nothing here reflects what’s true about atheists: Dawkins as a famous one wants religious privilege challenged on the basis that it is not true. Religious belief has no justifiable place in the public domain and superstitious belief is worthy of ridicule – as is anything that defies reality and promotes magical thinking. The atheist response to religious impositions is not fundamentalist, militant, aggressive, or radical. It is entirely reasonable and has been intentionally and dishonestly maligned to be something it is not by those with a religious, apologetic, and accommodationist agenda.
Brad, you speak like you actually understand the cartoon. Ever heard of symbolism?
Well, I’m not going to explain all the symbolism in the cartoon to you. But simply put: So-called “enlightenment” has worked hard to push theism to the edge of town (Frankenstein’s castle). The mob of angry atheists is attempting to get the theist to come out so that they can ridicule “it”, “it” being the theist whom atheist rhetoric like yours has made Frankenstein’s monster-esque; that is, something resembling a human, but not quite.
And the tools are symbolic, too.
You, like Dawkins and many, many people, always make the fundamental mistake of putting all religions under the same umbrella. To do so just goes to showcase a general ignorance of their differing claims. But, yes, labeling all religions “dangerous”, “bad”, “other adjectives” and then placing them in a mental bin as being “dealt with” is much easier. Then we have more time for on-line games and engaging the desires of our evil nature.
lol
NAA, the point is to push theism out of the public domain entirely. That’s a good thing for theists because it allows all people freedom of religion without the state privileging pone over another or religion over non believers. It’s called equality. Only theists used to privilege think it’s somehow bad.
As for ridicule, Dawkins was talking about politicians who use religion as sort of a badge of honour. In particular he was talking about those who believe in transubstantiation as a result of mumbled words changing a cracker into literal flesh and wine into literal blood. For such a politician asking for support in the public domain, mock them, ridicule them in the same domain. That doesn’t make these responders some kind of angry mob; it makes them RATIONAL demanding that RATIONAL people be awarded political power. Your cartoon misrepresents this RATIONAL response and tries to present it as some kind of angry mob mentality, which simply doesn’t reflect reality. Symbolism is supposed to represent something meaningful; all your cartoon does is represent a lie.
Brad, I see more and more that you are not some rational human being striving for “religious freedom” or “liberty, equality, and brotherhood”. From what I gather, you may be Canadian or British, possibly living in America. You are zealous about atheism. You may be a practicing homosexual (due to our previous thread, where you failed to respond to my direct question about that after vehemently and virtually shouting me down in your defense of homosexuality; I apologize in advance if I’m wrong; correct me if I am). You won’t answer questions or respond to certain points. You have shown no interest in distinguishing differing religious claims. You respond to evidence and historical records with a “So what?” attitude. You turn arguments over issues into personal attacks. Your posts have many, many more periods than question marks. You’re very emotional at times (like we all can be), though you will maintain that you alone are rational.
Those are your habits. To me, those factors make you a difficult person to discuss anything with. So, I’ll refrain from doing it now. Really. I’m not banning you from the blog. No, no. You would wear it as a badge of honor. You’re always welcome to leave comments.
One last thought as you head on your way: Ignoring natural law (if you are a practicing homosexual) and trying to insulate your life with people who only believe and do what you do is going to catch up to you. Pushing people away and a practice of intellectual snobbery is just going to fill you with regret and regret leads to emptiness, a dead sense in your core. But you don’t have to wait until you die to feel dead internally. From the tone of your posts and the way you lash out at the most trivial of points, I’m sorry to say that it seems like you’re already there or at least rounding the corner toward it.
I don’t hope or pray or wish anything bad on you, Brad. As much as you’ll hate it, I bless you and hope that you’ll realize that you, like the rest of us, have a lot of problems, but atheism isn’t the solution to any individual’s problems nor the world’s problems (look at China and North Korea). It has never provided any solutions. The first step to a solution is for you to recognize that you, like the rest of us, are evil at heart. But you don’t have to stay that way. You can repent. And, in fact, God commands that we turn away from our evil ways (repent).
The end.
Joshua