Yes, Virginia, Atheists Have a Worldview

[Deesse23]

....Christians, who are being massacred daily in Nigeria and Iran sponsors terror all over the placethe time.

Didnt we just a few months back have another fanatic catholic, crying about persecution of christians/catholics, while minimizing everything this religion ever has done to humanity, Xavier something.

I am seeing also other common (speech) patterns like referring to atheists as if they were some homogenuous group, as if they werent individuals.

@Aliza
Are we sure this isnt a sock? Or are all those nutjob fanatic catholics the same?

[Dave Armstrong]

....Christians, who are being massacred daily in Nigeria and Iran sponsors terror all over the placethe time.

Didnt we just a few months back have another fanatic catholic, crying about persecution of christians/catholics, while minimizing everything this religion ever has done to humanity, Xavier something.

I am seeing also other common (speech) patterns like referring to atheists as if they were some homogenuous group, as if they werent

@Aliza
Are we sure this isnt a sock? Or are all those nutjob fanatic catholics the same?

I'm not minimizing anything. My point (if you even read it) was to state the simple fact that all cultures and belief-systems persecuted to the death in the past. I'm simply noting that the extent of Catholic participation in these sad events has been grotesquely exaggerated (68 million killed, etc.). I'm interested in historical fact and objective, fair analysis of same.

And now I will stop talking about this topic, because, as I said, it's senseless, boring, and nothing is ever accomplished by it.

[Dānu]

....Christians, who are being massacred daily in Nigeria and Iran sponsors terror all over the placethe time.

Didnt we just a few months back have another fanatic catholic, crying about persecution of christians/catholics, while minimizing everything this religion ever has done to humanity, Xavier something.

I am seeing also other common (speech) patterns like referring to atheists as if they were some homogenuous group, as if they werent

@Aliza
Are we sure this isnt a sock? Or are all those nutjob fanatic catholics the same?

Different forum. Nishant Xavier. He listened far less than Dave does.

[Deesse23]

Didnt we just a few months back have another fanatic catholic, crying about persecution of christians/catholics, while minimizing everything this religion ever has done to humanity, Xavier something.

I am seeing also other common (speech) patterns like referring to atheists as if they were some homogenuous group, as if they werent

@Aliza
Are we sure this isnt a sock? Or are all those nutjob fanatic catholics the same?

Different forum.  Nishant Xavier.  He listened far less than Dave does.

So there are more fanatic Catholics like this? I thought this kind of batshit crazyness rather was a hallmark of evangelicals. I stand corrected.

[Deesse23]

Didnt we just a few months back have another fanatic catholic, crying about persecution of christians/catholics, while minimizing everything this religion ever has done to humanity, Xavier something.

I am seeing also other common (speech) patterns like referring to atheists as if they were some homogenuous group, as if they werent

@Aliza
Are we sure this isnt a sock? Or are all those nutjob fanatic catholics the same?

I'm not minimizing anything. My point (if you even read it) was to state the simple fact that all cultures and belief-systems persecuted to the death in the past.

Again, you are minimizing your own position/religion by trying to "drag down" everybody to its level. Its telling. You are minimizing by giving outright ridiculous numbers for the victims of the inquisition, which is being utterly disgusting and disrespectful of those very victims, who more often than not were brutally tortured before being murdered.

I'm simply noting that the extent of Catholic participation in these sad events has been grotesquely exaggerated (68 million killed, etc.).

1 million would have been better how? 100.000 in the name of the all knowing all merciful god (lets assume he exists and all powerfully and all lovingly has watched this...) would be justifiable how?

And now I will stop talking about this topic, because, as I said, it's senseless, boring, and nothing is ever accomplished by it.

No, please keep minimizing, keep trying to justify all the victims of Christianity, no matter how high or "low" their numbers may be.
Who knows, maybe you´ll convince someone with your arguments a la "atheism is a belief because atheists lack a belief in leprechauns which in return equals an active belief in a world without leprechauns."
I bet few people will be able to resist your flawless logic, rhetorics and vast knowledge of ancient history. What exactly was it again, that Moses lived at?  

[Szuchow]

Believers - I wager - will never acknowledge this. It's far more convenient for them to pretend that marxism-leninism wasn't religion and that SU crimes were done in the name of disbelief as this allows them to build a false equivalence - we killed in name of our faith but you did too.

Exactly, trying to frame atheism as "just another belief" is just a silent admission of every theist of how weak his own position of belief is.

P.S.: The only answer to my question as to what common "belief" all atheists have in common was (literally!): "disbelief in leprechauns." You cant make up this shit.

It's not like you can expect anything of substance from a clown.

[Dave Armstrong]

Didnt we just a few months back have another fanatic catholic, crying about persecution of christians/catholics . . . 

I cry about anyone -- got that? ANYONE -- who is murdered in cold blood by ruthless terrorists. It just so happens that at the moment, Catholics are being slaughtered in Nigeria. I'm concerned about that, because I don't want to see anyone murdered. In October it was Jewish women being tortured, mutilated, raped, and murdered by Hamas terrorists, and babies who were beheaded in front of their parents. In 1945, we annihilated 50,000 Japanese civilians (or whatever the number was; very few of them Christians), which I roundly condemn, as does my Church. Etc.

Stalin murdered ten million Ukrainians in the 1930s (they were mostly Orthodox). The British were complicit in the starving of over a million Irish in the 1840s during the potato famine (oops, sorry, they were Catholics, so I am not allowed to bring them up). It doesn't matter what the people believe who are killed. That has no bearing on it. Murder is wrong, and all civilized people can agree about that.

If that's "batshit crazyness" [sic] and "fanatic nutjob" then I'm guilty as charged to the crime of being a caring, compassionate human being, and very proud to be condemned for doing so. I'm weird that way.

[mordant]

Different forum.  Nishant Xavier.  He listened far less than Dave does.

So there are more fanatic Catholics like this? I thought this kind of batshit crazyness rather was a hallmark of evangelicals. I stand corrected.

I posted on another thread here about my experience of a "trad" Catholic, which is their version of a fundamentalist -- a guy who wants to bring back the Inquisition and thinks the ideal form of government would be a Catholic monarch who would defend the faith by burning heretics at the stake. Dave is not that. I don't agree with quite a bit of his reasoning, but don't see him as fanatical or crazy. None of us is 110% honest with ourselves or the defense of our beliefs. This does not make one a fanatic.

Nor does being a dedicated Catholic equate to approving of authoritarian regimes and torture. Or even, for that matter, approving of diddling choir boys, really. My next door neighbors are life long Catholics and have come VERY close to leaving a couple of times over that topic, but believe in and actively support the local Catholic Charities organization which is sufficiently independent from the mother church and also totally critical to adequately helping the needy at least around here, that they decided to hang in there. I can respect that and don't need to call them out as "complicit" or something.

There is a sense in which all religion could potentially lead to toxic excess or could be legitimately seen as something no one should be behind, but realistically it is going to take centuries for religion to become a fringe thing that's not so tangled up in the cultural zeitgeist. If it EVER happens. Because humans aren't going to magically stop with the magical thinking.

I simply see Dave as a source of interesting discourse that helps me understand the thinking of the relatively more thoughtful believers and the MOST I would hope to gain from the process is a little less reactionary not-listening between unbelievers and at least relatively liberal Catholic thinkers. This might lead to better coexistence.

I mean after all, religion would be entirely irrelevant to us if it would just leave us alone and not stereotype or marginalize us and treat us like the Hated Other. It would be live and let live. I could accept that. It's delusional IMO to think that religion could be somehow vanquished in any of our lifetimes and quite possibly ever. Believers tend to think that's because there's truth on their side, I just think that human nature is on their side. And some people DO need the fear of eternal divine retribution to keep them from doing bad things. Smarter people than me have made the argument that our species collectively NEEDs religion even if some individuals don't. Just because we have imperfectly extricated ourselves from it and found more rational ways to be decent humans, doesn't mean everyone can or wants to.

[mordant]

In October it was Jewish women being tortured, mutilated, raped, and murdered by Hamas terrorists, and babies who were beheaded in front of their parents.

Yes some 1200 or so dead IIRC and I will just point out that an appropriate response to that is not the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Palestinians, many of whom are not radicalized or sympathetic to Hamas despite Israels' best efforts over the past 8 or so decades. Nor is the bulldozing of cemeteries in recent days, probably to destroy evidence as much as anything. The warrantless arrest and torture of medical workers. And a lot of other things that are easy to find from credible sources online if you dare.

Just stating it for balance.

[Dave Armstrong]

So there are more fanatic Catholics like this? I thought this kind of batshit crazyness rather was a hallmark of evangelicals. I stand corrected.

I posted on another thread here about my experience of a "trad" Catholic, which is their version of a fundamentalist -- a guy who wants to bring back the Inquisition and thinks the ideal form of government would be a Catholic monarch who would defend the faith by burning heretics at the stake. Dave is not that. I don't agree with quite a bit of his reasoning, but don't see him as fanatical or crazy. None of us is 110% honest with ourselves or the defense of our beliefs. This does not make one a fanatic.

Nor does being a dedicated Catholic equate to approving of authoritarian regimes and torture. Or even, for that matter, approving of diddling choir boys, really. My next door neighbors are life long Catholics and have come VERY close to leaving a couple of times over that topic, but believe in and actively support the local Catholic Charities organization which is sufficiently independent from the mother church and also totally critical to adequately helping the needy at least around here, that they decided to hang in there. I can respect that and don't need to call them out as "complicit" or something.

There is a sense in which all religion could potentially lead to toxic excess or could be legitimately seen as something no one should be behind, but realistically it is going to take centuries for religion to become a fringe thing that's not so tangled up in the cultural zeitgeist. If it EVER happens. Because humans aren't going to magically stop with the magical thinking.

I simply see Dave as a source of interesting discourse that helps me understand the thinking of the relatively more thoughtful believers and the MOST I would hope to gain from the process is a little less reactionary not-listening between unbelievers and at least relatively liberal Catholic thinkers. This might lead to better coexistence.

I mean after all, religion would be entirely irrelevant to us if it would just leave us alone and not stereotype or marginalize us and treat us like the Hated Other. It would be live and let live. I could accept that. It's delusional IMO to think that religion could be somehow vanquished in any of our lifetimes and quite possibly ever. Believers tend to think that's because there's truth on their side, I just think that human nature is on their side. And some people DO need the fear of eternal divine retribution to keep them from doing bad things. Smarter people than me have made the argument that our species collectively NEEDs religion even if some individuals don't. Just because we have imperfectly extricated ourselves from it and found more rational ways to be decent humans, doesn't mean everyone can or wants to.

Thanks again for your kind words about me. Just for the record, I have opposed "traditional" Catholics (I call them "radical Catholic reactionaries" -- on the far right of the ecclesiastical spectrum), just as I have opposed those on the far left in my Church. I have a huge web page devoted to those on the far right, wrote two books about them (some even believe in geocentrism, if you can believe that!), and have been critiquing them for over 25 years.

[Dave Armstrong]

In October it was Jewish women being tortured, mutilated, raped, and murdered by Hamas terrorists, and babies who were beheaded in front of their parents.

Yes some 1200 or so dead IIRC and I will just point out that an appropriate response to that is not the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Palestinians, many of whom are not radicalized or sympathetic to Hamas despite Israels' best efforts over the past 8 or so decades. Nor is the bulldozing of cemeteries in recent days, probably to destroy evidence as much as anything. The warrantless arrest and torture of medical workers. And a lot of other things that are easy to find from credible sources online if you dare.

Just stating it for balance.

I won't be talking about politics here, either, but I must note the obvious fact that Israel repeatedly told the Gazans to leave the city, so that they could kill the terrorists and destroy once and for all their endless tunnel systems. It's Hamas who didn't give a damn about its own people and tried to prevent them from leaving, and who build their terrorist facilities below hospitals and schools, etc. They don't give a rat's ass about their "own" people, anymore than they do about Israelis. They're haters and murderers. 

The fanatical leaders of the Palestinians have flatly turned down, again and again, any effort at peaceful solutions (and there have been many), because they refuse to allow Israel the right to exist; therefore nothing can be done with leaders who hate, and who teach their children to hate Jews. No peace will ever come as long as that happens.

Even many other Arab states are now figuring out who is for peace and who is against it.

Polls consistently show that about 80-85% of the Palestinians in Gaza agree with the terrorists, and that's because they are brainwashed to hate Jews from birth. So there are some moderates, but a small minority. These are people who chose terrorists to be their political leaders. There was one election in 2005 and there has never been another. The fruit of that is evident now. Nice move there. The Israelis gave them Gaza and have provided them with free gas and water. But nothing is ever enough. They had to start killing innocent civilians again.

And (hopefully!) that's my last political comment here.

[1Sam15]

If you go down this road I can note that the atheist Communists have murdered exponentially more than the Church ever did. Even in the Inquisitions, that was mostly the civil governments, not the Church, executing folks. And the numbers have been grotesquely exaggerated.

But of course, you wouldn't acknowledge any of that. You're in a bubble, impervious to reason.

An atheist didn’t drown everything in the name of atheism 

The monster you worship did that, didn’t it?

Did it to try and fix its fuckup, right?

@Dave Armstrong

So Dave are atheist monsters or is your gang leader aka jesusgod the the monster?

[Aegon]

Is there a non-theistic god? Honest question. I have never heard any god qualified as "theistic".

Agnosticism is the knowledge position; atheism is the belief position. They have some overlap with, and influence on, each other, but vary independently. I would characterize myself as an agnostic or "soft" atheist. I cannot claim to "know" that there isn't at least one deity hiding under the carpet somewhere; I just think it vanishingly unlikely, such that I live pretty much the same as if I "knew" god didn't exist.

I do not lead however with some declaration that "there is no god" because theists like to make the technical (and technically correct) argument that I'd have to be everywhere and everywhen to say that. Rather than get bogged down in that I just say that I have never seen a good reason to think some specific god I'm having sold to me is likely to exist, much less to believe in it. And in my lived experience, literally everything I've observed is totally consistent with one of the following:

Absent god
Indifferent god
Non-interventionist god
Non-existent god

... and I have no clue how you'd tell any of those four apart, so I mostly go with the last one as getting more directly to the central question of whatever god we're talking about (typically the Christian god).

More importantly IMO I also am an unbeliever because I regard religious faith as a failed epistemology that does not lead to greater knowledge or understanding about god or anything else, and in fact leads to all sorts of cognitive dissonance and bad decisions and ridiculous expectations in one's lived experience. I do realize SOME of that goes away in less illiberal parts of Christianity than the one I came from, but still ... I had a choice when I left the fundagelical world -- either find a better fit somewhere within theism or leave altogether. And because all of theism essentially works off the same epistemology (accept assertions from various authoritative sources without requiring substantiation for them, even sometimes in direct conflict with well substantiated facts in science or very persuasive philosophical arguments), I felt that further adventures in TheistLand would be a waste of valuable time.

You elucidate your beliefs clearly and eloquently and I appreciate that. I hope to discuss many of these aspects with you and others in due course. It's becoming clear who wants to dialogue here and who don't want to. You asked:

Is there a non-theistic god? Honest question. I have never heard any god qualified as "theistic".

The deist "god" is one example. It starts the universe in motion and then appears to be utterly indifferent to it after that. 

There are different versions of theism (why I said I was a classical theist). Some think God doesn't have all the "omni" qualities and isn't outside of time (therefore doesn't know the future). This is seen in the theologically liberal beliefs in process theology and open theism. Allah in Islam also doesn't have all of the qualities of the Christian and Jewish God. And of course Judaism and Islam deny trinitarianism.

Then there is pantheism ("god is all or all is god") and panentheism ("god is in everything or everything is in god"). Those are basically variants of eastern religious concepts, which deny the transcendence of God.

Gods in Buddhism would also fit the bill. They're essentially superhumans living in their own realm. Nothing like the Abrahamic God in scope or purpose.

In this way, Buddhism would be an atheistic religion. You can be atheist and Buddhist simultaneously. The religion does not make any claims about an omni deity. It doesn't even bother explaining the origins of the universe.

[Deesse23]

Didnt we just a few months back have another fanatic catholic, crying about persecution of christians/catholics . . . 

I cry about anyone -- got that? ANYONE -- who is murdered in cold blood by ruthless terrorists. It just so happens that at the moment, Catholics are being slaughtered in Nigeria.

It also just so happens that people of all kind of other beliefs are currently persecuted. How comes you mentioned Christians in Nigeria exclusively in your original post. Do you have preferences?

It doesn't matter what the people believe who are killed. That has no bearing on it. Murder is wrong, and all civilized people can agree about that.

Please apply that standard to the crusades (including the ones vs Cathars and Prussians) conquest of the Americas, Africa AND the Inqusition. Stop minimizing, then we can talk.

If that's "batshit crazyness" [sic] and "fanatic nutjob" then I'm guilty as charged to the crime of being a caring, compassionate human being, and very proud to be condemned for doing so. I'm weird that way.

Climb down from your cross. Nobody is buying your bullshit victim attitude. The inquisition tortured and killed at least 50.000 people all across Europe, not like 2.000. Stop minimizing the guilt of the Catholic Church, stop playing the victim.

[Deesse23]

a guy who wants to bring back the Inquisition and thinks the ideal form of government would be a Catholic monarch who would defend the faith by burning heretics at the stake. Dave is not that.

Nope, he is not that, he just claimed the inquisition killed "only" a few thousand people, grossly minimizing the whole thing.
There is a leader of the neo facist (at least it is heavily influenced and dominated by the ideas of it) AfD here in Germany who called the nazi era "a mere shitstain in german history". Want to make a guess how much these people would oppose these "minor events" if they happened again?
Dave already brushed away the Inquisition by immediately (and falsely) pointing to "atheist communism". This is not some "minor" error in his thinking. You are fooling yourself if you dont think that this isnt the core of the problem at hand here.

Nor does being a dedicated Catholic equate to approving of authoritarian regimes and torture. Or even, for that matter, approving of diddling choir boys, really.

I never said that.
But you may want to ask him about systematic abuse of children in the Catholic Church and the systematic refusal to assist dispensing justice to the perpetrators.
Shall we?

My next door neighbors are life long Catholics and have come VERY close to leaving a couple of times over that topic, but believe in and actively support the local Catholic Charities organization which is sufficiently independent from the mother church and also totally critical to adequately helping the needy at least around here, that they decided to hang in there. I can respect that and don't need to call them out as "complicit" or something.

50% of german christians are catholic. I am living in the midst of them. I do know the difference between the "average" believer and people who are invested like Dave is.

I simply see Dave as a source of interesting discourse

Discourse? What discourse? When was the last time Dave admitted he was grossly wrong after he has been shown?
When we had a quick "discourse" about "atheists´beliefs", that part where he wasnt interested in learning that he is wrong, and why he was wrong?
When he showed during that quick discourse that he didnt know the difference between knowledge and belief?
When he claimed that the Inquisition tortured and killed 2000 people over the centuries?

Of course i can have an interesting discourse about why/how Christians are the most persecuted people nowadays, why and how there is so much injustice in the world right now. I can (and have had) discussions with people of different opinions. But why would i have one with someone like Dave from Absurdistan? There are so many and more reasonable people out here.

I simply see Dave as a source of interesting discourse that helps me understand the thinking of the relatively more thoughtful believers and the MOST I would hope to gain from the process is a little less reactionary not-listening between unbelievers and at least relatively liberal Catholic thinkers. This might lead to better coexistence.

Thoughtful and liberal?
During the "discourse" about mass murder he mentioned "abortionists". We could ask "relatively liberal Dave" about the usage of condoms and abortion.
Shall we?

that helps me understand the thinking of the relatively more thoughtful believers

More thoughtful? Sorry, i think you put your bar too low here.

I mean after all, religion would be entirely irrelevant to us if it would just leave us alone and not stereotype or marginalize us and treat us like the Hated Other. It would be live and let live. I could accept that. It's delusional IMO to think that religion could be somehow vanquished in any of our lifetimes and quite possibly ever. Believers tend to think that's because there's truth on their side, I just think that human nature is on their side. And some people DO need the fear of eternal divine retribution to keep them from doing bad things. Smarter people than me have made the argument that our species collectively NEEDs religion even if some individuals don't. Just because we have imperfectly extricated ourselves from it and found more rational ways to be decent humans, doesn't mean everyone can or wants to.

What i am reading from this is that you are trying to play nice to religion and religionists because of fear that it may become strong again in the future. Its like throwing steaks in the water, hoping the sharks will go away.

But i may be totally wrong, correct me if needed

[Dave Armstrong]

A Reformed Protestant apologist referred on his website to “the Inquisition where an estimated 50-68 million people were killed by Rome.” Those were quite fantastic alleged numbers (to put it mildly and charitably), seeing that the entire population of Europe at its height in the Middle Ages is thought by scholars to have been maybe 100-120 million.

That would mean that the Church killed as many people as the Black Death (Bubonic Plague), which wiped out about a third to half the population. I replied: “Please tell me the name of reputable historians who assert such an absolutely ridiculous figure.”

He said that he knew of an Internet article that he couldn’t locate, by one David A. Plaisted: who turned out to be a professor of computer science; not an academic historian at all. But when pressed, my friend offered no actual historian to back up his assertion.
*

Edward Peters, from the University of Pennsylvania, is the author of Inquisition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989). Henry Kamen, a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and professor at the University of Wisconsin – Madison, wrote The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (New Haven: Yale University Press, 4th revised edition, 2014).

These two books are in the forefront of an emerging, very different perspective on the Inquisitions: an understanding that they were exponentially less inclined to issue death penalties than had previously been commonly assumed, and also quite different in character and even essence than the longstanding anti-Catholic stereotypes would have us believe. On page 87 of his book, Dr. Peters states: “The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts.” Likewise, Dr. Kamen states in his book:

Taking into account all the tribunals of Spain up to about 1530, it is unlikely that more than two thousand people were executed for heresy by the Inquisition. (p. 60)

It is clear that for most of its existence that Inquisition was far from being a juggernaut of death either in intention or in capability. . . . it would seem that during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries fewer than three people a year were executed in the whole of the Spanish monarchy from Sicily to Peru, certainly a lower rate than in any provincial court of justice in Spain or anywhere else in Europe. (p. 203)

Huge myths obviously abound. But does this mean that I “defend” capital punishment for heresy, or that all Catholics should? No; personally, I advocate the tolerant practices of the early Church and how Catholics generally view such things today. Yet I think it’s also supremely important to properly and accurately understand the Inquisitions in the context of their times (the Middle Ages and early modern periods).

[Minimalist]

Excellent reply, Epy.  I can't top what you wrote and he isn't worth the effort.

[Aliza]

....Christians, who are being massacred daily in Nigeria and Iran sponsors terror all over the placethe time.

Didnt we just a few months back have another fanatic catholic, crying about persecution of christians/catholics, while minimizing everything this religion ever has done to humanity, Xavier something.

I am seeing also other common (speech) patterns like referring to atheists as if they were some homogenuous group, as if they werent individuals.

@Aliza
Are we sure this isnt a sock? Or are all those nutjob fanatic catholics the same?

I noticed that you and Danu determined that the person you're referring to is from another forum, but just so you know, I'm never sure that someone isn't a sock. The criteria for entering the forum are 1) You are not a spammer 2) You can write coherently in such a way that I believe you are +13 years old. 3)Your IP is not already registered to another user. 

In that opening post when ideally you're on your best behavior, I can't really tell if you're someone else if you're savvy enough to switch IPs. Similarity to former users unfolds over time.

[mordant]

What i am reading from this is that you are trying to play nice to religion and religionists because of fear that it may become strong again in the future. Its like throwing steaks in the water, hoping the sharks will go away.


But i may be totally wrong, correct me if needed

No, I think I have left too much of an online paper trail over the years here and elsewhere to worry about that now ... and I am way more concerned about Christian fundamentalists in that regard, than about centrist Catholics anyway. And there's no point in even trying to appease fundies. I would know.

I have been quite active on another site like this and occasionally active on a couple of others and I have always noted that the level of anti-theist vitriol is very high here compared to anyplace else I've been ... I don't think all believers deserve that. I'm not under any more illusion that I could change Dave's views than he likely is that he can change mine ... but he and I would probably get along fine IRL so I feel no particular need to be impatient or caustic with him. Others may beg to differ, and that is fine. You do you.

For the record I also take a dim view of minimizing the Inquisition, but it doesn't surprise me that a Catholic would be more likely to minimize it than to reject just that piece of their system, especially since they are provided I'm sure with a set of pre-made rationalizations. I imagine that like most Catholics, Christianity = Catholicism so that is what his "apologetic" is about. The reason I didn't respond to that specifically is it is just not a battle I'm likely to pick and I'm not sure that litigating precisely how many burnings at the stake were or were not technically church-sanctioned really makes any sense even if I wanted to do the research. One would have been too many, and a terrible indictment. That it happened at all speaks for itself. If Dave doesn't see that, then I can't help him.

Maybe you're right and every dialog with every theist is a waste of time and should devolve quickly into mutual recrimination (certainly there's no shortage of material when it comes to theism) or just be avoided altogether. But my intuition is that effectively making this a walled atheist garden isn't the answer, at least when we have someone who is making any sort of effort to understand and see our side of things. For all I know that's just subterfuge and a gambit to get our guard down. If that turns out to be the case I'll be the first to admit it. But I also have a lot of confidence in the positions I've arrived at, and I am not really out anything if that turns out to be the case. Live and learn I guess. It's not like anyone's going to get the best of me.

[mordant]

In that opening post when ideally you're on your best behavior, I can't really tell if you're someone else if you're savvy enough to switch IPs. Similarity to former users unfolds over time.

I'm currently experimenting with Proton VPN on my laptop, so it is quite possible that my IPs are changing every time I reboot or disable / enable the VPN; at a minimum, it changed a week or so ago when I first used the VPN. Even my "real" IP changed once when I had to reboot the main router, although it's not "supposed" to. I'm a software dev, not a sysadmin, but nowadays I would suppose that IP changes are no longer a definitive red flag and have to be taken along with other data points.

[Aliza]

In that opening post when ideally you're on your best behavior, I can't really tell if you're someone else if you're savvy enough to switch IPs. Similarity to former users unfolds over time.

I'm currently experimenting with Proton VPN on my laptop, so it is quite possible that my IPs are changing every time I reboot or disable / enable the VPN; at a minimum, it changed a week or so ago when I first used the VPN. Even my "real" IP changed once when I had to reboot the main router, although it's not "supposed" to. I'm a software dev, not a sysadmin, but nowadays I would suppose that IP changes are no longer a definitive red flag and have to be taken along with other data points.

IP addresses are definitely not a reliable method. I mean, if someone is stupid enough to log in with the same IP, or they're logging in from their RoadRunner account out of Anywheresville, Idaho, and the guy we just banned also uses Roadrunner out of Anywheresville, Idaho, then yeah... it's helpful. 

Is Roadrunner still a thing?

[mordant]

I'm currently experimenting with Proton VPN on my laptop, so it is quite possible that my IPs are changing every time I reboot or disable / enable the VPN; at a minimum, it changed a week or so ago when I first used the VPN. Even my "real" IP changed once when I had to reboot the main router, although it's not "supposed" to. I'm a software dev, not a sysadmin, but nowadays I would suppose that IP changes are no longer a definitive red flag and have to be taken along with other data points.

IP addresses are definitely not a reliable method. I mean, if someone is stupid enough to log in with the same IP, or they're logging in from their RoadRunner account out of Anywheresville, Idaho, and the guy we just banned also uses Roadrunner out of Anywheresville, Idaho, then yeah... it's helpful. 

Is Roadrunner still a thing?

No idea. Not something I pay attention to.

[Dave Armstrong]

mordant:

I have been quite active on another site like this and occasionally active on a couple of others and I have always noted that the level of anti-theist vitriol is very high here compared to anyplace else I've been ...

Yes it is. I've been in several atheist forums and this one takes the cake in that regard. It's always a majority of vitriolic folks in any atheist place I have ever been online (but not in person). BUT there is also a strong minority of very cordial and thoughtful folks here (including yourself) who actually want to have a conversation. So all in all, it's a net plus. A lot of folks (in any group) simply aren't interested in dialogue. They're not capable of it, IMO. Maybe that's why they have no interest . . . 

I don't think all believers deserve that.

Thanks! And atheists don't deserve the load of crap that unfortunately most Christians give them.

I'm not under any more illusion that I could change Dave's views than he likely is that he can change mine ... but he and I would probably get along fine IRL so I feel no particular need to be impatient or caustic with him. 

We would. You're capable of dialogue with a person of a different view, you're not personally threatened by other views, and seem to enjoy interacting with them. I'm the same way; therefore we'd have a great time. I'd be happy to meet anyone here over a beer if they live in southeast Michigan. You can outnumber me if you like. I once did a presentation to about 14 atheists and we got along great. It was my single most enjoyable night ever as an apologist. I've always been a nonconformist and I can get along and talk with anyone, as long as they are interested in the same thing. I'm a very friendly type!

For the record I also take a dim view of minimizing the Inquisition, but it doesn't surprise me that a Catholic would be more likely to minimize it than to reject just that piece of their system, especially since they are provided I'm sure with a set of pre-made rationalizations. 

You misunderstand. I'm not "minimizing" anything. I am pointing out that the prevailing view of the Inquisition[s] is grotesquely exaggerated. I'm seeking the truth of how it actually was. So how does one do that? What we do is look up historians who write about the Inquisitions -- specialize in it -- and see what they have to say. I produced two (above), and I think both are non-Catholics.

But let it be made clear: I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THE INQUISITION OR ANY PERSECUTION OF ANY PERSON OR GROUP FOR ANY REASON. In case anyone missed that, I'll state it again:

*********************

I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THE INQUISITION OR ANY PERSECUTION OF ANY PERSON OR GROUP FOR ANY REASON

*********************

I imagine that like most Catholics, Christianity = Catholicism so that is what his "apologetic" is about.

This is untrue. We're not exclusive like that. We believe that Christianity is (basically) anyone who subscribes to the Nicene Creed (trinitarianism, salvation by grace through Jesus). That includes Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. This is nothing new at Vatican II either. The Council of Trent in the 16th century taught that Protestant baptism was valid, which made one a member of the Body of Christ; i.e., a fellow Christian.

What we do believe is that Catholicism is the fullness of Christian truth. That's a matter of degree. That's why I moved from evangelicalism to Catholicism. I felt that I was going from "very good" to "better / best". I have immense respect for evangelicals and my many friends who are of that belief. Very often they are better Christians than the average Catholic. I know it from the inside because I fully lived that life for 13 years, too.

It's the fringe anti-Catholic Protestants who say that I as a Catholic am not a Christian at all and will go to hell. I could quote a hundred things that anti-Catholics have said about me that make all the innumerable insults here from the usual suspects look like high praise. They have an even lower view of me than they do of y'all, because they think I'm a counterfeit Christian, an idolater, and all the rest of the nonsense they think.

But my intuition is that effectively making this a walled atheist garden isn't the answer, at least when we have someone who is making any sort of effort to understand and see our side of things.

Good for you. You'll probably catch hell for saying this, which makes me have more respect for you.

For all I know that's just subterfuge and a gambit to get our guard down. If that turns out to be the case I'll be the first to admit it.

Then I'll have to earn your trust. That takes time in all human relationships. It can't be sped up. The Supremes (from my hometown, Detroit, and they went to my high school) sang, You Can't Hurry Love. You can't hurry trust and respect, either. It has to be earned over time through behavior. The people who despise me here now are very unlikely to change. But I have seen at least one person seem to have a change of heart towards me (and vice versa), so that's encouraging and bodes well for the future.

But I also have a lot of confidence in the positions I've arrived at, and I am not really out anything if that turns out to be the case. Live and learn I guess. It's not like anyone's going to get the best of me.

There you go. That's why you can dialogue, because of the confidence. I'm exactly the same way. Confidence is not the same as arrogance or a felt superiority. I'm sure you agree.

[no one]

"Sure, there have been thousands of gods that I don't believe in. Thousands books of magic that I know are ridiculous, fictitious nonsense. I know this, because my  book of magic tells me so. You guys just don't get it, do you? I am 100% correct. My god is the true god, you need to understand this. You need to understand how right I am. I am not here to scold you, but to lovingly tell you, just how FUCKING wrong you are!"

[Deesse23]

What i am reading from this is that you are trying to play nice to religion and religionists because of fear that it may become strong again in the future. Its like throwing steaks in the water, hoping the sharks will go away.


But i may be totally wrong, correct me if needed

I have been quite active on another site like this and occasionally active on a couple of others and I have always noted that the level of anti-theist vitriol is very high here compared to anyplace else I've been

The quota (more than the absolute number) of nutty theists also seems to be exceedingly high.
I really would like to have a good and deep discussion about stuff, i am waiting for ages to have a theist with a position he is able to defend with more than primary school arguments. I dont have to agree with people, be it theist, atheist, brown, trans, or whatever, but i need to be able respect the mind i am engaging with. But what do we get here?* People who arent equipped to have a conversation of the most BASIC stuff. People who dont know the difference between knowledge or belief, who dont know what atheism is. My beef with those is not that that they are wrong (or i think they are wrong), but they dont LISTEN**.  People who just dont listen, but open up countless threads, while in the first post of the first thread there are so many things that need to either be corrected or premises to be clarified.

*Well next to all the pathetic trolls and proselytizers. Lets leave them out for now, but imho they ruined a lot of the forum, at least for me. For the first few times i gave them benefit of the doubt, after the 5th or so in a row i felt cheated and like an idiot to ever have taken them seriously. Maybe i have become too harsh on those (few) who arent in the process? I leave that to you (and all the others) to judge.

** I corrected Dave about his grave mistake about all atheists having a belief, namely about a leprechaunless worldview, nonsense like that. Did he engage? Did he listen?
Its the same with Steve. Deep and detailed discussions about philosophy and the history of the bible, but lacking fundamentals. Being someone with a scientists background it feels like someone is trying to discuss differential equations with me, while counting 2+2=5. There is no point going into the details of differential equations when you have to suspect that everything and anything may be utter nonsense, verbosely wrapped and presented. You have to start with basic algebra with these people. Unfortunately, they think they are well versed at math.....

Its not that i am completely oblivious to the idea that the person-s mythological Moses is based on may have existed. However, i suspect the arguments from a fringe (was it Oxford or so?) professor brought forward will be a tenuous trail at best to support the desired conclusion. I was always surprised as to how low most christians put the bar for accepting each and every silly claim and how big the leaps they are making towards "therefore god exists, and i mean my very, very particular version of him", considering these topics are (given the possibility it is true) the most important in human history. Its as if they dont take their own religions serious enough to CRITICALLY question them.

anyway, i am digressing....

... I don't think all believers deserve that.

certainly not
Sounds maybe stereotype and silly, but my best friend is an evangelical Christian, which are rare enough in Germany. While he is anti gay-marriage (and i told him that find that to be bigoted), he is fighting his own parents about xenophobia and actively supports refugees and foreigners here. He is a decent human being and raises his kids (with a few exceptions) to be good human beings. He even is able to have a good laugh about some Jesus-joke. Idk, maybe his belief is actually more fortified than many of those we have to engage here? But thats another rabbit hole.....

I'm not under any more illusion that I could change Dave's views than he likely is that he can change mine ... but he and I would probably get along fine IRL so I feel no particular need to be impatient or caustic with him. Others may beg to differ, and that is fine. You do you.

I 100% agree, but i find it caustic and lacking respect to enter and immediately spray this forum with BS, instead of taking baby steps once you notice you are engaging people with vastly different thought processes. I rather agree with someone that we differ in the fundamentals, and a further discussion is thus fruitless, that having to address this all so common "lets throw enough shit at the forum wall, maybe something will stick" approach.

I rather have Dave to acknowledge that we have fundamentally different views on what atheism is and what atheists believe, i rather have him going back to teh drawing board and re-think his position and come back next week, than having to adress his bs about his contorted "atheists who know god exists and reject him n stuff".

For the record I also take a dim view of minimizing the Inquisition, but it doesn't surprise me that a Catholic would be more likely to minimize it than to reject just that piece of their system, especially since they are provided I'm sure with a set of pre-made rationalizations.

I am also not surprised, like i was not surprised that modern neo fascists are not so impressed by the era of 1933-45. I can understand that, i can follow the (motivated) reasoning, but i do not apologize or accept that!

Maybe you're right and every dialog with every theist is a waste of time and should devolve quickly into mutual recrimination (certainly there's no shortage of material when it comes to theism) or just be avoided altogether.

I never said nor even implied that!
But i am just as disappointed about the people and their arguments, at least those that we usually encounter here.

But my intuition is that effectively making this a walled atheist garden isn't the answer, at least when we have someone who is making any sort of effort to understand and see our side of things.

My view is a bit different here. After reading more from Dave, i have to agree that he listens more than the average Christian we encounter here. I also agree that he is less extreme than some others, yet being less reprehensible does not necessarily mean NOT reprehensible.
He is talking a lot about injustice and oppression...sensible things. My spidey senses started to tingle however when he abruptly brought "abortionists" to the table when discussing mass murder. My red flags also went off when he (like so often *sigh*) brought "evil atheists commies" to the table when discussing human suffering over the course of history. IF there is a god, that is (all) mighty and cares, and stuff, Dave shouldnt need to deflect from the fact that immeasurable human suffering was caused in the name of HIS god (inquisition being only an infinitesimally small part of that), exact numbers should be completely irrelevant here, and instead start to point fingers at OTHERS making more humans suffer for other reasons. Its a big and fat "tu quoque".