saberjim

Militant Atheists are just as undesirable as militant Christians.

This is may be the most insane and unproductive thing I have ever read from Doctorow. But the biggest thing? How is this compassionate? Cory is this love? Does this generate hope? I know those to be your values.

The result of intolerant articles like this is an exclusivity that marginalizes BoingBoing.

Someday Doctorow will learn the power of compassion and combined with his brilliance he will truly make a mark on the world.

Yes, religion can cause people to do stupid things; yes, the Bible advocates outdated views. However, people like Kant and J.S. Mill advocated outdated, racist, sexist views too, but that’s no reason to throw their theories completely out with the bathwater. And money, materialism, greed, false ideas of science, true ideas of science, secular morality and general ridiculousness cause people to do stupid things too. Opposing religion entirely is not only futile, but replaces one potentially harmful influence with others. Why not let other people be with their own beliefs and faiths? Why not trust them to make decent decisions about their own psychology?

Ah well, semantics games are interesting.

Semantics is not a game, unless you are intellectually dishonest. It is a means for people of good faith to resolve real issues of communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

If I revere my table as a God, does that make it one? I’d say no, for much the same reason that treating a painting as my girlfriend wouldn’t make it one.

This “game” is not being played in good faith.

If I paint a unique work of art on your girlfriend’s flesh, your girlfriend is a painting, regardless of how you treat her.

You see? I just used semantics in a bad way, to prove you are stupid and I am smart. Stop doing that!

When you insist that only your arbitrarily limited definition of a word, which only serves your purposes, can possibly be valid, you are either unimaginative or dishonest.

In the interests of communication, you need to understand that there are plenty of definitions of God besides your rigidly Judeo-Christian one. Don’t be one of the retarded (meaning, “slow to comprehend”) atheists who insists that God may only be defined as “that which has no reality or corporal existence”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

At what point did The Bible become “Religion Entirely”.

Learn to read.

Anyway, Lev 27 says that if you dedicate someone to tabernacle service, you have to pay 20 shekels for an adult man, or 10 shekels for an adult woman. Scholars disagree what the payment is for. Some see it as a payment that accompanies the person. Others (I think this is right) argue that since, except for the tribe of Levi, general Israelites couldn’t actually serve at the tabernacle, it was a compensatory “buy back” that you had to offer. So, instead of dedicating your son or servant to the tabernacle as a pious way of making an offering, since your offered person couldn’t actually serve, you had to pay a fee. And the women’s fee was less.

Big whoop. Kids and oldsters were cheaper too. And kids and oldsters had less disparity in price too. What does that prove? Israel was less sexist about old people? Its kinda like people who complain about the 3/5ths of a person thing in the constitution without realizing it was the slaveholders who wanted slaves counted 100%, since it would increase their rep in congress.

Anyway, that aside, the “smut” accusation is silly. The worst I can think of is in Ezekiel where the prophet complains about the lust of Israel for other nations protection (and thus their idolatrous gods) and says its like them going after those nations because they’re hung and ejaculate like horses. Graphic, yes. Smut, not. It’s purpose isn’t to titillate, but to pejoratively characterize someone.

Somebody want to demonstrate that the Bible seeks to titillate with smutty descriptions, Canticles is your best shot, but most all of that is in symbolic language (and describes a divinely sanctioned marital relationship anyway.)

Responding to the idea in the article that faith can be used inappropriately, you’re correct. Jesus said that many will come in His name and only come looking for money, not knowing Jesus Himself at all. Expect wolves in sheeps clothing (Jesus said that too).

However, Christ can’t be blamed for His imposters. In fact, he should be flattered that so many cop his style.

I generally find atheist publicity stunts to be rather bitter and angry, but this seems clever and humorous. Of course, it would be funnier if they were handing out copies of Potiphar’s Wife 3: Assyrian Gangbang or 2amalekites1cup.

Many seem to adopt the position that one bad athiest makes them all look bad, but this position isn’t rational unless you hold it toward muslims, christians, mormons, jews, etc.

Weather you like it or not, we live in a system where views are dictated by loudmouth assholes, while placid kumbaya moderates do nothing but strap in for the ride.

Look, athiests.

I’m not sure what I am as far as religion is concerned. What I do know, though, is that every person should be allowed to appreciate and get what they want to out of the religious group they choose.

I think the best way to describe me is Reform Jewish. I had a Bar Mitzvah. My wedding is going to be in a Sanctuary. I like cheeseburgers. Jesus was a cool dude but certainly not a god. Thats what I believe.

As far as the whole “existence of god” thing, I know you don’t like it, but please, for fuck’s sake, realize that you handing out porn in exchange for the holy bible is not only proselytizing your beliefs, but is demeaning the choices others make. At the same time, it is just making you all look as stupid as the devout religious nuts-for-god people want you to look. It isn’t helping your case at all.

Please, if any of you can reach this post, tell me how doing stuff like this makes you any better than the preachers that go off to some third world and talk everyone into converting to their religion. Tell me how doing this sort of thing is any better than some ‘religious’ person telling everyone that isn’t them that they are going to hell because their way is the one, true way to live, period, end of story.

Tell me why you do this sort of thing if you really want to be taken seriously, at all?

These “Religious” “Priests”, “Ministers”, “Rabbis”, “Imams” and other “Confessors” force upon their ‘flock’ of victims a series of lies used to enslave them to a belief in a “Ghostly-Apparition” and other “Supernatural” entities which has the effect of rendering them toady robots and cohortic proselytizers for the rest of their lives!

Religion is organized crime!

Maybe we need to clarify terms though, for atheists and non-atheists alike.

It’s not set in stone, but here’s the terminology I like:

Theist – person who believes
Atheist – person who does not
Anti-Theist – person who advocates that people don’t believe

I tend to swing between the bottom two. Normally I only drop to the bottom when someone from the top is preaching to me.

Ever heard of the USSR, People Republic of China, etc.?

I don’t get religions that expect, in the modern era, for their stories to be taken literally and to supercede science. But I also don’t get atheists who are equally GRRRRRR!!! about laid-back, non-proselytizing, non-fundamentalist religions.

As an occasional Discordian though, I can’t help but grin at this. :)

But, at an atheist, I must admit that I do enjoy pointing out that in the very same story that many Christians use to demonize homosexuality two daughters take turns getting their father drunk so that they can each have sex with him. Later, they each give birth to his babies.

I mean seriously, we’re supposed to think gays are bad because of a story that talks favorably of drunken incest babies?! How is having sex with someone of your own gender wrong when it is apparently perfectly acceptable to have drunken father/daughter sex?

Actually, what they are discussing here is people who have made a vow to the Lord and they are basically redeeming themselves from the vow – completing it, so to speak. People are being valued according to their ability to pay or for their parent’s/family’s ability to pay. I don’t believe this talks about their value as people.