Dispatches from the Creation Wars

These people make me sick to my stomach. And they are no doubt congratulating themselves on how morally superior they are. They don't care one bit about how much they hurt someone--they're Christians, so they can do no wrong.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 7, 2010 12:19 PM

This is completely vile behavior on a community-wide scale. I am ashamed of humanity today.

And thanks, Ed, for posting that link. Naaah, there's no similarity between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement.....none at all....

Posted by: Amenhotepstein | April 7, 2010 12:34 PM

A couple of links to the N MS Daily Journal articles (the paper of record for the area) with comments. Many are much more enlightened than you might think, although there is a fair amount of bigotry as well.

http://nems360.com/view/full_story/6951520/article-Dual-Itawamba-proms-could-figure-in-court-case?

http://nems360.com/view/full_story/6946554/article-UPDATE--McMillen-goes-to-Itawamba-County-prom-that-is-sparsely-attended?

Posted by: Dan R. | April 7, 2010 12:57 PM

Captain Mike,
I saw that comment too, but couldn't decide if it was for real or not. I mean:

I think she and the aclu should stfu and stop imposing on everyone else's rights to not have her at the prom.

someone couldn't have written that in all seriousness, could they...?

Posted by: Brain Hertz | April 7, 2010 1:03 PM

I would like to think that the public outrage will be so great that the school will apologize and never do this again. But for every outraged person, they're probably getting a dozen pats on the back for being True Christians (TM). We can at least take solace in the fact that in forty years this town will be in history textbooks as synonymous with ass-backwards.

Also, the girl is getting a lot of public support, so she knows she's not alone. She could probably run the public speaking circuit at this point if she wanted to. Or at least make an appearance on Ellen.

Posted by: Brandon | April 7, 2010 1:03 PM

So a whole town full of so-called grownups conspired to act like the children they're supposed to be leading: forming cliques, relentlessly ostracizing "others," playing mean, petty pranks, and pretending it makes them important. Yet another hard brown nugget of right-wing infantilism.

Posted by: Raging Bee | April 7, 2010 1:26 PM

This kind of thing makes me ashamed in the South.

Posted by: Chance Gearheart, NREMT-P/EMD | April 7, 2010 1:39 PM

I know from personal experience that not all homophobes are Christian.

That's undoubtedly true. But we're talking about Mississippi here--even if not all the people involved in this morally repugnant affair aren't Christians themselves, they're part of an evangelical Christian culture that views LGBT people as inferior and deserving of second-class citizenship.

Stories like this almost make me ashamed to be human. On the heels of the tragic death of Phoebe Prince, the morons at this school decided to behave in equally inhumane ways against not only Constance and her girlfriend, but also some of the school's special-needs kids. But there's a ray of hope here: check out Constance's brilliant response. I'm just glad that she's a strong, self-assured character who, at the age of seventeen, can see through the bullshit.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 7, 2010 1:46 PM

From one of the NEMS articles linked to above:

McMillen attended the dance with a female date, but it was not McMillen’s girlfriend, a sophomore at the school. McMillen said her girlfriend was not able to attend the dance because her parents wanted to protect her from media attention.

Hat's off to this girl who posed as the girlfriend, assuredly opening herself up to being drawn into the crossfire.

I'm with Eamon Knight on this. I'm most disappointed at the almost non-existant support shown for this girl if most of her class knew of the "fake prom" and still chose to go to the other one. Maybe they stayed home, but I would hope that if faced with this situation as a teenager, I would have had the guts to rally my friends to come with me to the right one.

Posted by: Odie | April 7, 2010 1:47 PM

Brain Hertz,

are you seriously trying to suggest that the population of a rural town in Mississippi are mostly atheists?

Are you seriously trying to suggest that that is what I am suggesting?

Posted by: heddle | April 7, 2010 1:50 PM

heddle,

I don't claim that all Christians are like that, nor that all people are like that. But based on general demographic data, I'd have no qualms about wagering a large amount of money that the great majority of the people hating on these girls would call themselves Christian.

Granted, I could have specified self-identification as Christians, rather than writing in a way that suggested an objective definition as actual Christians (of actual faith, and acting like Jesus, etc.) It was not meant as a knock on Christians, but a knock on the type of person who considers themselves morally superior and all their actions justified as a consequence of their morality, instead of recognizing that you're only as moral as your actions.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 7, 2010 1:54 PM

James Hanley #22,

Fair enough.

Posted by: heddle | April 7, 2010 2:08 PM

Heddle, given that many of the kids self-identify as Christian and cite that religion as the motivator of their actions, I think James is pretty safe in making his assumption. They make these claims at their Facebook group, Constance quit yer cryin, which has fortunately now been overtaken by Constance's supporters.

Posted by: DerelictHat | April 7, 2010 2:12 PM

Derelict hat beat me to it, but here's the link:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Constance-quit-yer-cryin/367776042862?v=app_2373072738&ref=sgm

These are them folks that I designate as KKKristians (unfortuantely that designation includes most fundies and an increasing number of "liberal" minded groups like the Cath-O-Licks.

As for whether heddle thinks that they might be atheists. I seriously doubt that heddle would think that. He knows that atheists who are public about their lack of beleif in places like Fulton, MS would last as long as a bug on a hot skillet.

Posted by: democommie | April 7, 2010 2:24 PM

democommie,

He knows that atheists who are public about their lack of beleif in places like Fulton, MS would last as long as a bug on a hot skillet.

Exactly! As a side comment, not meant to say anything relevant about whether these scumbags are Christians or not, if you live in such a place (assuming my imagination is not way off target) then you will self-identify as Christian--because the alternative carries with it a terrible stigma. That's one thing I like about the New Atheism--the more they remove the stigma of declaring one's atheism, the better for us all.

Posted by: heddle | April 7, 2010 2:44 PM

@Brain Hertz: I'd like to believe that. I really, really would. But I don't.

Posted by: Captain Mike | April 7, 2010 2:50 PM

Are you seriously trying to suggest that that is what I am suggesting?

No, heddle, you are suggesting that you aren't a Christian like that, and that you know Christians who aren't like that. You are making an argument against generalization. (And a tired one at that.)

I think Marichi expands upon it better than me.

Posted by: mercurianferret | April 7, 2010 2:57 PM

Kristy Bennet, Director ACLU, Mississippi,

can't think of a harder job than that!

Dave,

it should read,

Actually heddle is just saying that since where he grew up it was thus,

Posted by: Marichi | April 7, 2010 2:59 PM

Excuse the awkwardness of this, I'm not sure this link will work, I've never done a GSS query before.

Anyway, if it works, this link shows what percentage of people, by religion, think a gay person should even be allowed to give a speech in their hometown. As we can see, Christians of all kinds are far more likely to oppose it than either "Nones" or Jews or members of any Eastern religion. (Christians and Muslims are neck and neck)

You get similar results for querying any of the other variables that relate to perception of gays. Face it, heddle, the numbers do not support your contention.

Posted by: James Sweet | April 7, 2010 3:21 PM

They don't care one bit about how much they hurt someone--they're Christians, so they can do no wrong.

Of course they care -- bear in mind that the victims deserve to suffer, so more is better. Which is pretty k3w1 since they're making the world a better place and doing God's Work and it's fun, too. Total goodness.

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | April 7, 2010 3:24 PM

If I were being mean-spirited, I'd hope all the girls attending the crypto-prom got pregnant, and all the boys got the clap. But I would never want that to happen, not being mean-spirited.

Posted by: VJBinCT | April 7, 2010 3:33 PM

I believe that, as was true with the fight against apartheid in South Africa, the way to fight bigotry is through creating an understanding of economic impacts.

Therefore, I suggest starting with the following venue:
The Itawamba County Development Council.
http://www.itawamba.com/

Which bills itself on the above website as:
“A Progressive Community in Northeastern Mississippi's Scenic Hill County”

And “A place where neighbor knows neighbor and a helping hand is always evident, Itawamba County, simply put, is hometown America. “

Why do the City of Fulton based Itawamba County business interests want to be seen as progressive and neighborly? Perhaps they've read studies such as those of Richard Florida, which show that economic development is dependent on such things as technology, talent and TOLERANCE.

From the point of view of attracting jobs to the area the ICDC notes:

“Situated in the heart of northeastern Mississippi, Port Itawamba is located in the City of Fulton on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. Being the only inland slip on the waterway, Port Itawamba is your headquarters for total logistic solutions. “

“Industrial Sites are available in several prime locations. To learn about all the possibilities contact ICDC. We wil

Posted by: ymiopa | April 7, 2010 3:48 PM

All you are left with is the likelihood that the majority of homophobes are self-identified Christians. But the majority of Americans are self-identified Christians--so it is expected that any group of Americans--doing anything good or bad--will have a strong representation of self-identified Christians.

Heddle,

This is beginning to look suspiciously like a "no true Christian" argument. The fact is that these bigots have presented themselves as Christians, they have couched their argument against this poor girl in religious terms quoting the Bible, referring to the Bible, etc. You may not agree with them, but everything suggests that they are, in fact, Christian.

This is not directed at you, but to be honest, I get rather tired of Christians who advance theocratic garbage and then cite the data for self-identified 80% population to support their position but then pull out the "no true Christian" bull whenever Christians are too liberal for them, or do something like this that is so utterly vile and hateful that they can't simply pretend it didn't happen so they instead pretend that those responsible aren't Christians.

Posted by: dogmeatib | April 7, 2010 3:49 PM

Heddle,

There's also the fact that just because you don't think they're Christians, because their actions/beliefs seem un-Christian to you, it doesn't make it so. You know full well that only God knows who is and is not a true Christian, and that you--especially standing off from a distance--do not have God's knowledge about their souls.

So, frankly, I'm more inclined to believe them when they say they are real Christians--meaning they likely believe in God, pray, believe they are saved and going to heaven--than you saying they are not.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 7, 2010 4:02 PM

But the majority of Americans are self-identified Christians--so it is expected that any group of Americans--doing anything good or bad--will have a strong representation of self-identified Christians.

The contention I am making is stronger than that, though: Self-identified Christians are more likely to express homophobic attitudes than people who do not religiously identify.

This is supported by data. I have a link to the GSS that is caught up in moderation right now which demonstrates this.

Posted by: James Sweet | April 7, 2010 4:05 PM

I believe that, as was true with the fight against apartheid in South Africa, the way to fight bigotry is through creating an understanding of economic impacts.

Therefore, I suggest starting with the following venue:

The Itawamba County Development Council.

http://www.itawamba.com/

Which bills itself as:

“A Progressive Community in Northeastern Mississippi's Scenic Hill County”

And “A place where neighbor knows neighbor and a helping hand is always evident, Itawamba County, simply put, is hometown America. “

Why does the City of Fulton based Itawamba County business interests want to be seen as progressive and neighborly? Perhaps they've read studies such as those of Richard Florida, which show that economic development is dependent on such things as technology, talent and TOLERANCE.

From the point of view of attracting jobs to the area the ICDC notes:

“Situated in the heart of northeastern Mississippi, Port Itawamba is located in the City of Fulton on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. Being the only inland slip on the waterway, Port Itawamba is your headquarters for total logistic solutions. “

“Industrial Sites are available in several prime locations. To learn about all the possibilities contact ICDC. We will be happy to work with you in securing a premium site. “

Posted by: ymiopa | April 7, 2010 4:07 PM

administraitor (failed pun attempt? Forgot a "gh"?) suggests:

survival of the species may depend on it. we may have to tolerate their exclusive behavior in some cases. i'd cut them some slack on this one.

Wait wait wait... you are saying that if gays are allowed to go to the prom, then the human species will go extinct from lack of reproduction?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA.

Posted by: James Sweet | April 7, 2010 4:12 PM

I would have even justified my homophobia by crudely (and incorrectly) appealing to Christianity

Incorrectly according to you. But many self-identified Christians would argue that you are incorrect. Many would even argue that because you think this, you are not a True Christian(TM).

Barring the solution "heddle decides!", how do you propose that sociologists deal with this conundrum?

Posted by: James Sweet | April 7, 2010 4:15 PM

Barring the solution "heddle decides!", how do you propose that sociologists deal with this conundrum?

Wait, I think I know how heddle is going to answer... All sociologists should convert to Calvinism. Problem solved! :D

Posted by: James Sweet | April 7, 2010 4:20 PM

Actually, the school and possibly some of the parents are in a heap of trouble.

It would appear that they deliberately misrepresented themselves or otherwise acted in bad faith to a judge.

This was the judge’s order not granting the ALCU a temporary injunction

Defendants testified that a parent-sponsored prom which is open to all IAHS students has been planned and is scheduled for April 2, 2010. Though the details of the "private" prom are unknown to the Court, Defendants have made representations, upon which this Court relies, that all IAHS students, including the Plaintiff, are welcome and encouraged to attend. The Court finds that requiring Defendants to step-back into a sponsorship role at this late date would only confuse and confound the community on the issue. Parents have taken the initiative to plan and pay for a "private" prom for the Juniors and Seniors of IAHS and to now require Defendants to host one as it had originally planned would defeat the purpose and efforts of those individuals.

That is going to be one P.O.’d judge.

Posted by: Chilidog | April 7, 2010 4:25 PM

Practice safe lundh, always use condiments.

Posted by: Chilidog | April 7, 2010 4:34 PM

Depends what you mean by a nominal Christian. If you mean a self-identified Christian, then I'd agree. When I was a street urchin growing up in Pittsburgh I would have espoused all the standard anti-gay talking points. And if you asked me if I was a Christian I would have said: Damn straight! But I wasn't. How do you correct for people like that? How large is that group? I don't know. All you are left with is the likelihood that the majority of homophobes are self-identified Christians. But the majority of Americans are self-identified Christians--so it is expected that any group of Americans--doing anything good or bad--will have a strong representation of self-identified Christians.

This is an attempt to deflect and pretend that religion doesn't have anything to do with homophobia as it exists today, and it doesn't work, because you're making a temporal error.

The sad fact is, you don't have to go back very many decades to find homophobia rampant everywhere, in any circles. Personally I grew up amongst mostly Christian homophobes in England.

This isn't true any more, particularly amongst the younger generation.

The pockets of people clinging to the homophobia that the rest of the world has since discarded are almost exclusively motivated by religion. Here in the US, that mostly means Christians of various denominations.

In the specific case of a group of high schoolers and their parents in rural Mississippi, what do you really think is going on? Do you honestly think that religion has nothing to do with this?

Posted by: Brain Hertz | April 7, 2010 4:53 PM

Brain Hertz:

In the specific case of a group of high schoolers and their parents in rural Mississippi, what do you really think is going on? Do you honestly think that religion has nothing to do with this?

Personally, I don't think heddle is capable of honestly thinking anything on this subject.

Honestly thinking about this subject would require admitting that essentially every example of institutionalized homophobia in this country, and the overwhelming majority of individual homophobes, are motivated by relgion in general, and christianity in particular. It is not possible for an honest person to admit that and still claim christianity is blameless. But then, heddle hasn't really shown himself to be an honest person.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | April 7, 2010 5:02 PM

James Sweet,

Barring the solution "heddle decides!", how do you propose that sociologists deal with this conundrum?

I have no clue. But pretending that nobody claims to be a Christian purely for tradition, habit, family peace, convenience, employment, desire to fit in, avoiding stigma, because they don't like atheists (self-loathing, like some gays don't like gays) etc.--well hopefully professional sociologists are not that inept.

Brain Hertz,

The pockets of people clinging to the homophobia that the rest of the world has since discarded are almost exclusively motivated by religion.

Bullshit. You cannot prove that. There are vast pockets of uneducated bumpkins who are homophobic and or racist simply because they are ignorant. You cannot even prove that a majority are--except perhaps in the self-identified sense--and as I pointed out I grew up with a group of hooligans all of whom would have checked off "Christian" if asked but none of whom ever ever talked about or did anything that is identified with Christianity--we were "Christians" because that was the answer you gave when asked.

Do you honestly think that religion has nothing to do with this?

Stop being stupid and claiming I make absolute statements when I don't. That's the second time you've done it. It's now a pattern. There is not one comment I made, anywhere on this thread, that claims religion had nothing to do with this.

phantomreader42,

Personally, I don't think heddle is capable of honestly thinking anything on this subject.

No you can't think honestly about. You don't even want to entertain the notion that some people just hate gays, and will justify their hatred by whatever means are handy. I know--I did it. A reluctance to simply admit that a there is such an effect, when it's manifestly obvious --though admittedly the magnitude is unknown and perhaps unknowable--is a very good example of intellectual dishonesty.

Posted by: heddle | April 7, 2010 5:30 PM

Two students with learning difficulties were among the seven people at the country club event, McMillen recalls. "They had the time of their lives," McMillen says. "That's the one good thing that come out of this, [these kids] didn't have to worry about people making fun of them [at their prom]."

Kinda makes you wonder who REALLY has the "learning difficulties" down there, doesn't it?

Posted by: Raging Bee | April 7, 2010 5:35 PM

Heddle,

Stop being stupid and claiming I make absolute statements when I don't.

Yet you basically claimed that others in this thread were making an absolute statement with this:

But pretending that nobody claims to be a Christian purely for tradition, habit, family peace, convenience, employment, desire to fit in, avoiding stigma, because they don't like atheists (self-loathing, like some gays don't like gays) etc.--well hopefully professional sociologists are not that inept.

Has anyone in this thread actually tried to claim this? That would be stupid, if anyone actually said it.

No you can't think honestly about. You don't even want to entertain the notion that some people just hate gays, and will justify their hatred by whatever means are handy. I know--I did it.

I can't imagine that anyone in this thread has claimed or even believes what you're accusing in your second sentence. Now you're putting words into other people's mouths, and it's beginning to look like projection. You also keep coming back to your own past as a counterexample, which applies only in your own case. Do you admit that your argument basically rests on a No True Scotsman claim? If so, that's fine. But understand that it's not the most convincing argument out there.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 7, 2010 5:37 PM

Brain Hertz,

The pockets of people clinging to the homophobia that the rest of the world has since discarded are almost exclusively motivated by religion

Actually, I have to take issue with this claim. I believe that the roots of homophobia are misogyny and anxiety over gender roles; religion is just the excuse that many people use to justify their bigotry.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 7, 2010 5:43 PM

what if there's a genetic determination of homophobia. what if there's some evolutionary advantage?

Posted by: administraitor | April 7, 2010 5:50 PM

what if there's a genetic determination of homophobia. what if there's some evolutionary advantage?

There may be. So what?

Posted by: Gretchen | April 7, 2010 5:58 PM

But your argument boils down to: you are not free to question whether they are using their Christianity sincerely or simply as a convenient rationalization--any such attempt is a "No True Scotsman fallacy."

But I gave you my own example and those of the people I grew up with. I was homophobic. I was not a Christian. I would have claimed to be a Christian. I would have even justified my homophobia by crudely (and incorrectly) appealing to Christianity, because I instinctively knew that was more palatable than simply stating the truth: I hated gay people for no particular reason other than all the cool people did.

Problem is this heddle, if they pointed to the Bible and Christianity to support their position then they were doing far more than simply self-identification, they were, as far as they were concerned, practicing Christianity. You don't have to like it, you can disagree with them, but given that such a response firmly ties them to Christianity you don't get to disown them. I would suggest a closer examination of the reasons why Christians would adopt such hateful practices in order to reform and improve the religion rather than the arm waving and disavowing.

Are you saying that my former self was the only such person in existence? Are you saying I really was a Christian because I said I was--even though I wasn't? And is my bringing up the obvious fact that such people exist warrant no response other than just being shot down with the blunt-instrument, argument-stopping "No True Scotsman:" charge?

Actually in your example you referred to yourself as an atheist.

So all the time I was homophobic, I was an atheist (but not vice versa), and all the time I've been a Christian, I have not been homophobic.

Now you would have called yourself a Christian? Which is it? The key remains, were you homophobic because you believed Christianity told you to be, or were you homophobic because you were a kid in an environment where gay = bad? Again those who have expressed a reasoning for their actions in this case have expressed these reasons as specifically religious reasons. They claimed the Bible, Christianity, etc., supported their position, you have to prove otherwise.

Posted by: dogmeatib | April 7, 2010 6:20 PM

dogmeatib ,

Problem is this heddle, if they pointed to the Bible and Christianity to support their position then they were doing far more than simply self-identification, they were, as far as they were concerned, practicing Christianity.

You can't possibly know this. If you claim this is absolutely true, then you essentially claim that you award them sincerity sight-unseen and that human beings are incapable of co-opting something, distorting it, and using it to rationalize their sick behavior. It seems absurd to believe that that cannot happen.

Now you would have called yourself a Christian? Which is it? The key remains, were you homophobic because you believed Christianity told you to be, or were you homophobic because you were a kid in an environment where gay = bad?

I din't know a damn thing about Christianity except the basic outline--and I believed none of it. I was an atheist. But if you asked me--I would have said "I'm a Christian." Because everyone answered the same way. And if you asked me why I hated gays (nobody ever did that I recall) I might have easily answered: "because it was unnatural and God intended men to have have sex with women." I knew the game. Later I may have even been able to throw in a verse or two. Bottom line:

1) I was an atheist not a Christian
2) I would have to claimed to be a Christian
3) I was homophobic
4) I very easily might have justified my homophobia on the bible--which I didn't believe, at all.

I claim neither you nor I have any idea how many people are like I was.

Posted by: heddle | April 7, 2010 6:45 PM

Here's what one of the idiot bigots wrote on the Constance stop yer cryin facebook page:

(Get ready to gag. I'm not joking. Seriously. Put down your beverage, take a deep breath and get ready to puke in your mouth.)

everyone says it is Constance who is being persecuted. it isn't. it is our school board who have received the threats..death threats. it is our school board who are hated and looked down upon by so many. THAT is discrimination in its most potent form. may i remind everyone that the Constitution also provides for freedom of religion? but, when our school board stood up for what was right, they were attacked. this country was founded upon God. now, it stands for blatant sin and unholiness. i love Constance and wish her the best in life, but that does not mean that i support her lifestyle. at one time, this country had morals.

I don't care what their *supposed* reasons are or who considers them real Christians or not. This is the argument. Since none of us can read minds, I'm thinking we should probably assume that they mean what they say.

Posted by: Leni | April 7, 2010 7:00 PM

All you are left with is the likelihood that the majority of homophobes are self-identified Christians. But the majority of Americans are self-identified Christians--so it is expected that any group of Americans--doing anything good or bad--will have a strong representation of self-identified Christians.

Dude, go ahead and get rid of the ones whose theology and general assholiness doesn't fit your orthodoxy, and enforce an injunction against trademark infringement on them if they claim that their dogma isn't the Real Thing Christianity (tm).

When you've done that to all of the No True Christians, come back and tell us and we can have that conversation about how many of the people in the USA are "Christians (tm)." In the mean time, I have no more reason to take your word that you are a "True Christian (tm)" than I do to take theirs. It ain't my job to tell y'all what the "True Christian (tm)" party platform is, so until you get your own internal divisions straightened out I'll take their word for it that "Christianity" supports their actions -- white sheets, burning crosses, and all.

If you don't like it, take it up with your Brethren In Christ.

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | April 7, 2010 7:02 PM

Bullshit. You cannot prove that. There are vast pockets of uneducated bumpkins who are homophobic and or racist simply because they are ignorant. You cannot even prove that a majority are--except perhaps in the self-identified sense--and as I pointed out I grew up with a group of hooligans all of whom would have checked off "Christian" if asked but none of whom ever ever talked about or did anything that is identified with Christianity--we were "Christians" because that was the answer you gave when asked.

You're right. I can't prove it. I don't know what I was thinking. I'm sure that amongst the "pockets of uneducated bumpkins" you're talking about, very few of them go to church, and they definitely, definitely don't get any of their homophobic views from their pastors. Stuff like that just doesn't occur.

Posted by: Brain Hertz | April 7, 2010 7:20 PM

Proof reading are good.

Posted by: Leni | April 7, 2010 7:29 PM

Clearly these people justified their actions by appeal to religion, and there is no doubt that Christianity fuels the kind of partisanship and in-group thinking that allows fultonry of this kind to happen. But it is also a function of being a redneck backwater, as evidenced by this equally horrible story (suggested by a commenter on Pharyngula), which does contain some unnerving parallels:

http://www.thelocal.se/25750/20100326/

Now, the article admittedly suggests that the people involved here were unusually religious for Sweden, but I do suspect that the ugly, hateful, suspicious, bigoted partisanship correlated with small, rural backwater towns is just as much to blame (perhaps there is a common cause here; rural areas are stupider, more religious and more hateful).

Posted by: G.D. | April 7, 2010 7:39 PM

Since I live just down the road from Fulton I can tell you with great confidence that 99% of these people are good, white (Protestant) Christian folk who are proud of their good, white Christian town and don't want any people of color or any homosexuals messing things up. This area of Mississippi is far more like the stereotype than against it. These people think they're super-righteous and super-patriotic. They will never admit they've done anything wrong.

This is just one more thing that has convinced me that I must leave this area before I either blow a gasket or go insane. It's going to be very difficult for me to do so in this economic climate but I have to hope there's a way for me to escape.

Posted by: Skepticat | April 7, 2010 8:08 PM

Brain Hertz,

Again with the absolutism--is that your only arrow? I defy you to find where I said no Christian is a homophobe and no pastor ever gives bigoted sermons. I never claimed that--nor would I, given that it is demonstrably false.

D. C. Sessions,

I have no more reason to take your word that you are a "True Christian (tm)"

I'll file that under the 12 billionth time I've heard that. (And actually, I agree.) Though most people manage to use the actual trademark symbol: ™.

phantomreader42

Isn't that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness, heddle? Or does that rule not apply to the "elect"?

Again, an unoriginal comment (to say the least.) As if nobody ever wrote: doesn't your god say something about bearing false witness? But is still stands that you accused me of intellectual dishonesty without even trying to rebut my claim--which makes you the dishonest one, whether you like it or not.

Leni,

That, however, doesn't mean that the religion you late chose to adopt wholeheartedly had no discernible impact on who you were before that.

You make an interesting point. I certainly did not intellectualize my disbelief a la Dawkins. I simply didn't believe and never thought about it. And I certainly had a context of Christianity from the culture. How that all worked itself out--who can say?

Posted by: heddle | April 7, 2010 8:46 PM

Wowbagger ,

at least until someone comes up with a valid way of discriminating 'real' Christians from 'fake' Christians.

That's irrelevant. I can't distinguish a real atheist from a fake one, a real Marxist from a fake one, a real libertarian from a fake one, etc. Anyone can talk the talk. Maybe Dawkins believes in a god, but he enjoys his fame too much so he lives a lie. Who can possibly say, except Dawkins? I am not making the argument that I can say who is a Christian and who is not, because I can't. (Although I'm free to decide whose claim of Christianity I'll accept--but that is a different issue.)

The point I am making is that there are without question some who with malice aforethought co-opt an ideology just because it is convenient--or are just ignorant and stumble upon it again for convenience. Take those who claimed the bible supported southern slavery. They could be 1) Sincere Christians who actually believed that, 2) Plantation owners who promoted the idea for financial reasons, or 3) Garden-variety racists who wanted to give a reason for their racism. The fact that it may be impossible to discern the real from the fake is irrelevant when it comes to the mere existence of various groups. Who knows, maybe all Christian are fakes. There is no way to tell. I'm saying that it is entirely plausible that not everyone appealing to religion is in group 1-like--some are undoubtedly in groups 2 and 3. Those people exist.

Posted by: heddle | April 7, 2010 9:04 PM

There is nothing I can say about this though I've been trying to form a response for two days. I cannot think of anything to say that would add materially to the common sentiment that wouldn't also sound like the actions of Fulton have somehow twisted my mind and sensibilities into something disturbed and disturbing.

signed,
Twisted Somehow

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | April 7, 2010 9:11 PM

heddle wrote:

I can't distinguish a real atheist from a fake one...

Except that I'm not talking about misrepresentation; it's not about someone who knows they aren't a Christian but who says they are. I'm quite sure the people involved in this incident would say they are Christians and genuinely believe they are being honest when they say they are Christians - and, most importantly, based on their understanding of what that means, they'd be telling the truth.

The problem is, and will always be, that there's no objective standard for what is or isn't Christianity. Everything in scripture is subject to interpretation - it has to be, otherwise you wouldn't be a Calvinist, you'd be a Catholic.

If a Catholic says a Calvinist isn't a Christian, are they correct?

The point I am making is that there are without question some who with malice aforethought co-opt an ideology just because it is convenient--or are just ignorant and stumble upon it again for convenience.

But how do you know that isn't a valid interpretation of scripture? How do you know that Jesus isn't happy to just have people pay lip-service and will, after they've died, let them through the pearly gates just as readily as he will those who were kind and egalitarian? It's certainly what Pascal was counting on with his wager.

Really, it's the inevitable result of hundreds of years of people choosing to interpret scripture in whatever way they saw fit, and to justify whatever they needed it to justify - they stretched it so much that now it's so loose as to not be binding at all.

Like others have noted, though, I admire that you have distanced yourself from this behaviour and condemned it for its vileness. I don't think they should call themselves Christians, either - but what you and I think is neither here nor there; I'm afraid that, unless you can convince them otherwise, you're stuck with these people calling themselves Christians.

Posted by: Wowbagger | April 7, 2010 9:27 PM

Again with the absolutism--is that your only arrow? I defy you to find where I said no Christian is a homophobe and no pastor ever gives bigoted sermons. I never claimed that--nor would I, given that it is demonstrably false.

Except that I didn't say that either; I was being rhetorical. I would have thought that was obvious. The point I was making is that it is absurd to suggest that the same homophobic "bumpkins" (your term, not mine) are not in fact typically highly religious also. Do you think that is not true?

This started because you made an argument that appeared to be saying that it was an unjustified assumption that the perpetrators of this debacle were Christians. Do you remember that?

Posted by: Brain Hertz | April 7, 2010 9:32 PM

phantomreader42,

No I didn't. You are just dishonest. And now you are projecting as well. Sucks to be you.

Posted by: heddle | April 7, 2010 9:46 PM

heddle:

This is your entire comment @ 11:

"James Hanley,

They don't care one bit about how much they hurt someone--they're Christians, so they can do no wrong.
Are there data that indicate that the people supporting this repulsive deception are all Christians? Mostly Christians? Cultural Christians? Atheists?

I know from personal experience that not all homophobes are Christian. (Personally I think most are not--but that's just anecdotal.) Where I grew up, in an inner-city neighborhood, we all, to first order, were homophobic, racist, Democratic, and non-Christian. I didn't fully get over the homophia and racism until college. So all the time I was homophobic, I was an atheist (but not vice versa), and all the time I've been a Christian, I have not been homophobic.

Take the comment posted above, from Bobetta Jones posted by Capetian Mike in #5. Does she give any hint that she is a Christian? I don't see one."

In which you twisted six ways from Pentecost to deflect the blame for the decidedly unchristian behavior away from folks who profess--OFTEN AND QUITE FUCKING LOUDLY--that they are CHRISTIAN. Now, me, I don't give a flying fuck if they're CHRISTIANS or not (as I said, to me, they are KKKristians), but they are the ones who choose to self identify as such. Now, me, I self-identify as an atheist. I'm not the slightest bit confused about that identification so I'm going to take the hateful fucks at their word that they aren't either.

You calling me a liar, btw, will prolly get me an atheist merit badge. Thanks.

Posted by: democommie | April 7, 2010 9:53 PM

Heddle, falsely accusing democommie of lying:

You are a liar. Where did I say "those people prolly ain't REAL "True Christians-TM"." Which quote number did I say the people responsible for the prom travesty were not real Christians?

Well, there was the time in comment 11 when you asked

Are there data that indicate that the people supporting this repulsive deception are all Christians? Mostly Christians? Cultural Christians? Atheists?

Now, of course the fact that the case in question takes place in a rural area in the fucking Bible Belt, and the comments directly declaring their homophobia the will of Almighty God were apparently not sufficient for you. No, you went on to say that when you were a homophobe, your homophobia had nothing whatsoever to do with christianity, even though you defended it by referencing the bible (43). But somehow that didn't count. Because somehow, magically, you were at that time a peculiar, magical variety of atheist that claimed to be a christian (39), believed itself to be a christian, defended its bigotry and stupidity by reference to christian dogma, and was absolutely indistinguishable from a christian in any meaningful way.

Now, if your intention in this thread was NOT to imply that the bigots in this case were "magical-atheists-who-are-exactly-like-christians-in-every-way-down-to-their-very-thoughts-but-not-really", as you claimed YOU were, then what the fuck was the point of that example?

Posted by: phantomreader42 | April 7, 2010 10:12 PM

I'll file that under the 12 billionth time I've heard that.

If one person calls you an ass ...

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | April 7, 2010 10:16 PM

Dave says,
Again, irrelevant. I'm not arguing doctrine. I'll readily concede that that there are Christian homophobes who sincerely believe that the bible supports their position. I think their exegesis is demonstrably false--but I acknowledge they exist.
No True Scotsman would...

And so do those who do not actually believe what they claim--but just say so for any number of reasons, some of which I enumerated.
A True False Scotsman would...

Every time you twist yourself into a new knot I will remind everyone what's going on here...

Posted by: Marichi | April 7, 2010 10:23 PM

Sadie wrote:

I believe that the roots of homophobia are misogyny and anxiety over gender roles; religion is just the excuse that many people use to justify their bigotry.

I agree with you about the basic roots. But that doesn't mean I think religion is blameless.

Religion is an exceptionally powerful idea. I don't have *the* working definition of religion, but it generally involves matters of life and death, eternity, divine wroth... things of grave and universal import. It has a power over people that few other ideas do. It has the power to convince people that *potential* child sacrifice is a laudable endeavor. (Yes, this frightens me.)

It's not necessarily that religion is the only idea that will inspire people to such depths of inhumanity- clearly that is not the case- but it seems to have a reliable, predictable and sometimes keenly protected ability to do this.

Posted by: Leni | April 7, 2010 10:50 PM

administraitor @ 76:

what if there's a genetic determination of homophobia. what if there's some evolutionary advantage?

What about it? What relevance does it have to the morality of what the students did?

Hey, what if rape is evolutionarily advantageous? I guess that would mean we should cut rapists some slack. See naturalistic fallacy.

is the opposite of "homophobe" "heterophobe" ?

There's no unique "opposite" for any concept I can think of, but if you're suggesting that these are the negation of one another, then you are broken.

heteros will seek their privacy and forced invasiveness against them might be wrong. survival of the species may depend on it. we may have to tolerate their exclusive behavior in some cases. i'd cut them some slack on this one.

Definitely broken.

Posted by: Escuerd | April 7, 2010 11:26 PM

Wowbagger,

Because I don't believe they have reason to lie.

Of course if any are in the position I was in they have potentially many reasons to lie. It is a lot easier, I suspect, in the locale we are describing, just to say you are a believer, even if you aren't. Even on pharyngula a common theme in the "coming out as a atheist" testimonies is how hard it was to overcome all the pressures.

But you are. You're saying 'real' Christianity requires a person to meet a certain criteria - based, I presume, on your interpretation of scripture;

C'mon--you are usually better than this. I have not said that even once. I have not said X is not a true Christian because he believes the bible says Y instead of Z. I stated that some (which I know for a fact, since I was one) will answer "christian" because it is the simplest or expected or advantageous answer.

My point is that you don't know who Jesus will and won't accept as Christian. It may be anyone who calls themself a Christian;

The first sentence is true. The second is explicitly refuted in the bible (Matt 7:21-23) but that is beside the point. We can ignore that and agree for the sake of argument that everyone who sincerely believes is a true Christian. That doesn't affect my argument. I am saying that it is darn near manifestly obvious that because of various cultural pressures and conveniences and advantages that some will insincerely claim to believe.

Leni,

They believe that they are genuine.

How do you know this? How do you know that Dawkins is genuine? How do you know that PZ is? You cannot possibly be certain that any person claiming to believe in anything really believes it.

Marichi

A True False Scotsman would...

Every time you twist yourself into a new knot I will remind everyone what's going on here...

That doesn't even make sense. But feel free to fulfill your high calling of pointing out my knot twisting.

democommie,

What you said was:

This, after telling us that those people prolly ain't REAL "True Christians-TM

My comment, #11, which you posted does not rescue you. In that comment I asked for data and I pointed out that not all homophobes, not even all who claimed to be Christians, are Christians. That is not an argument that they probably are not Christians. A call for data is never an argument and the point I made was no more than the point I made--that without question that some who use religious reasons for their hatred are doing so merely as a convenience. There is no way to parse my comment %11 (honestly) as a claim from me that the people involved were "probably not Christians." So you are indeed a liar. Enjoy your merit badge/

It is the same way that phantomreader is dishonest, as I've been pointing out, in hits first comment to me he wrote:

Heddle, you started this using your supposed past as an excuse to pretend the bastards in this case weren't really christians. You blatantly ignored the realities of the issue, so you could try to pretend your cult wasn't the cause of this incredible asshattery. You don't get to pretend that all you were trying to do is claim that non-christian homophobes exist. You were hunting for anything you could use to pretend the perpetrators weren't christian, and hiding from all the facts. Trying to lie about your past arguments when they're right there in black and white is not only dishonest, it's fucking STUPID.

But I didn't pretend they weren't Christian (i.e., phantom lied.) And I didn't pretend my cult was not responsible (he lied again) And while everyone (rightly) points out that I cannot know who is a Christian (duh), phantomtomreader "just knows" (from mind reading?) that I was hunting for anything to excuse Christians. (He lied again--and in the face of the fact that I have a solid track record on my blog of coming down hard on Christian antics, FotF.) He assumed my motives and then impugned them while never responding to my arguments--in short he is intellectually dishonest, as I claimed.

And then to dig himself in deeper, he offers in #110 proof that democommie was not lying (when he claimed that I claimed the perps were probably not Christians) the first part of my comment 11 directed at James Hanley's comment:

Are there data that indicate that the people supporting this repulsive deception are all Christians? Mostly Christians? Cultural Christians? Atheists?

Since when is a request for data proof that you don't believe the claim? When someone tells me they see a new resonance in their experiment, is my request for data proof that I don't believe them?

Posted by: heddle | April 7, 2010 11:29 PM

heddle, are you a Christian? If so, why should I believe you? You might be lying for your own amusement; what can you do to prove you're telling the truth?

Posted by: wowbagger | April 7, 2010 11:51 PM

Well, we've had the true/false Scotsman

When do we get the tristate Scotsman?

But on a more serious note, Good on her for not backing down, the courage required to stick to her principles in that sort of situation and at her age is a rare thing (and as mentioned above her stand-in girlfriend)

What really gets me is the sheer scale of collusion among students, faculty and adults required to pull this off! is that sort of thing common in America? (I'm British and while we certainly have our bigots (see www.bnp.org.uk for the biggest bunch of them) I get the impression it's rarer here, although there's been a lot more casual racism since 9/11 and 7/7)

Heddle, I also had an unwanted christian upbringing with added homophobia (in fact, the Pastor claimed homosexuality was one of the seven deadly sins (it isn't), but it was an AoG church (think Palin) so par for the course I suppose)

I put up with it as long as I had to (Until I was 18, although I recognised it as bollocks when I was 12), then departed and never looked back, best thing you can do is just put it behind you, something that'll be all the more difficult if you keep bringing it up and trying to make use of it as you have been...

Posted by: Hideki | April 8, 2010 12:17 AM

Step 1) Constance asks school district if she can court her girlfriend and wear a tux. They tell her "no".
Step 2) Constance gets the ACLU involved and threatens to sue. School buckles and cancels prom.
Step 3) Constance complains to the media and gets invited onto Ellen to tell her story.
Step 4) Ellen gives Constance a $30 grand scholarship and plenty of praise for her bravery.

Can you see how Constance's peers might feel a little slighted by all of this? Why didn't Ellen use the $30 grand to throw a big party for everyone to enjoy? That would have made Constance popular instead of a social pariah. The kids would turn against the school board in a second. Instead this girl gets constant rewards from Hollywood celebrities over the assumption that she's been discriminated against because she wouldn't just wear a dress to the prom. She insists it has to be a tux.
If she just brought her girlfriend and both of them were in dresses I doubt they'd get arrested for dancing together. Kids do that all the time.
Bet you anything this is going to turn into a Hollywood movie all about this girl's tramatic experience of not being allowed to a wear a tux to her prom.
Read "After the Ball" by Marshall Kirk. It will shed some light on how you can be manipulated emotionally by the media. This kid is using every tactic in that book, with the help of all of her powerful new friends in Hollywood.

Posted by: Toddges | April 8, 2010 12:51 AM

I am saying that it is darn near manifestly obvious that because of various cultural pressures and conveniences and advantages that some will insincerely claim to believe.

That's true. At the same time, it could also be the case that some of the students went along with deceiving and excluding Constance not because they believed that what they were doing was right, but due to peer pressure and an unwillingness to fight the tide. We really can't know one way or the other.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 8, 2010 12:56 AM

I believe that the roots of homophobia are misogyny and anxiety over gender roles...

Would you mind elaborating on this? I don't see offhand how either of these things would induce homophobia.

Posted by: J Myers | April 8, 2010 1:11 AM

Sadie Morrison wrote:

That's true. At the same time, it could also be the case that some of the students went along with deceiving and excluding Constance not because they believed that what they were doing was right, but due to peer pressure and an unwillingness to fight the tide. We really can't know one way or the other.

No, I agree we can't 'know', but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take claims at face value.

If we don't then it would be just as reasonable for me to claim that there was a man called Jesus who was really an atheist but, because he knew that no-one would take on board any of the teachings he espoused if he was just a man, he chose instead to misrepresent himself as being the son/agent/avatar of God in order to get his message across.

Posted by: Wowbagger | April 8, 2010 1:23 AM

Heddle, muddles and then duddles,

A True False Scotsman would...
Every time you twist yourself into a new knot I will remind everyone what's going on here...
That doesn't even make sense. But feel free to fulfill your high calling of pointing out my knot twisting.

You spent all afternoon, on the "New True Christian would..." track, and we were treated to some stories about rowdy streetkings from Pittsburgh and their supposed beliefs. When that track got ripped up leaving you with nothing to run on, you found another track for the night. The folks in Fulton despite being professed Christian (you were provided data on that or simply gave up denying that) aren't really (or could be really something else) - so that is the "A True False Scotsman..." track. It sure doesn't make sense, that's right. And that is the first sensible conclusion you have drawn today on this thread - you have realized that you have been talking bunk all day. Good.

Posted by: Marichi | April 8, 2010 1:48 AM

All of Chapter 3 in After th Ball by Marshall Kirk:

Good Propoganda:

"Portray Gays as Victims of Cirumstance & Oppression" page 183

"Give Potential Protectors a Just Cause" page 187

"Make Gays Look Good" page 187

"Make Victimizers Look Bad" page 189

"Getting Into the Major Media" page 205

"Ad Campaign: Liken Homohatred to Racism" page 199

Posted by: Toddges | April 8, 2010 2:41 AM

I know next to nothing about this story, but would wager a goodly sum that these students and parents are largely white, and probably Republican.

Sorry right-wingers; that's just my take on it.

It's absolutely despicable that these things still happen in 2010. I actually thought the younger generation was moving beyond all this crap, but apparently not.

Look to the parents. Just look to the parents.

Posted by: steve | April 8, 2010 3:08 AM

I know some people will claim that none of this would have happened if Constance had simply chosen to not wear a tux, but my question is: the school said that they were basing some of their actions on a desire to "protect" the other students. If a girl is wearing a tux, would it honestly harm the other students that much? She's not asking them to look at her the entire time as she celebrates the evening with her girlfriend.

Posted by: Matt | April 8, 2010 3:32 AM

Oh, look, it's heddle, arguing stupidly and dishonestly but thinking he's oh-so-superior. What else is new?

He confuses unchurched and/or astoundingly ignorant with informed conclusion, and now the religious poison he swallowed has convinced him that he was a dyed-in-the-wool atheist.

If you hear "used to be an atheist" out of a godbotherer, he's either lying to win an argument (FAIL) or he really thinks that atheist means one of these things, some of them, or some combination thereof.

* agnostic
* unchurched
* ignorant of Christianity
* belonged to another faith
* belonged to another flavor of a faith (Catholic, Episcopalian, Reform Judaism, etc) or
* belonged to another church.

If you dig under their words often enough and pin them down, this is what they really mean by the word. We see heddle here using the second and third definitions, explicitly, and the first implicitly, over and over. This is why he's so frustrating. He's not using words correctly.

On topic:

Whether or not these bigoted scumbags in MS are deep down inside really Christians or Jews or the lying atheist sadists of heddle's wet dream persecution complex waiting under his bed to get him, we can't know what's inside anyone's head, unless he tells us. Until or unless we have evidence to the contrary, we just have to take them at their word.

Posted by: Aquaria | April 8, 2010 5:37 AM

Never get into a parsing contest with heddle.

Posted by: granular | April 8, 2010 6:17 AM

heddle:

Your arguments all employ a "logic" that compels others to accept the "fact" of your particular delusional belief in a skyfairy named GOD (isn't that, like, sorta generic?) and thus grant you special treatment that we would not grant to folks like Pat who we know is as crazy as shithouse rat in a meth lab. Facts are not in evidence and, until you can provide proof--not belief--the existence of your GOD is at least as suspect as your ability to identify a collection of homophobic hicks in MS as NOT being "christian".

Would my telling you that your GOD is a fucking delusion and that you are a sick and twisted fuck who lies out of both sides of his mouth in an attempt to justify a belief in a supreme being, a particular supreme being--a supreme being for which there is NO FUCKING PROOF of HIS ever existing--; would that be enough to make you go off and sulk for at least a few months like you did before? If not, please let me know what it would take.

Posted by: democommie | April 8, 2010 7:46 AM

Heddle wrote:

I didn't pretend they weren't Christian... And I didn't pretend my cult was not responsible

Since you tried to say the really weren't Christian, and that Christianity and homophobia don't go together, yes, you did do both of those things. Either that or you're such a lousy writer that you managed to convey to everyone precisely the opposite of what you were trying to say. I don't think you're that bad a writer.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 8, 2010 8:25 AM

James Hanley,

Since you tried to say the really weren't Christian, and that Christianity and homophobia don't go together, yes, you did do both of those things.

No, I never ever said that Christianity and homophobia are mutually exclusive--in fact I freely admitted the existence of sincere Christians who are homophobic and who believe the bible supports their cause. Given that I stated that, explicitly and without equivocation, how do you conclude that I said they weren't really Christian?

At most you can say, truthfully, is that I claimed just because they say they are Christians it doesn't make it so--because many will reflexively give that answer, especially in bumpkinville. (And in fact I have heard atheists, when they want to make the point that the country isn't "so" Christian after all, trumpet that many who claim they are Christian are in fact not--I've even recall some expressing belief or hope that Obama was one of those in-name only Christians. But when a self-proclaimed Christian does something vile, his sincerity of belief is accepted unquestioningly.)

The bottom line is: I never said they were not Christian, not event once. I suggested that it is possible some of them were in-name-only types. I said I don't know if they are Christians. I went against the party line of blind acceptance that they all are Christians-in-good-standing just because they say so.

Either that or you're such a lousy writer that you managed to convey to everyone precisely the opposite of what you were trying to say.

So you don't think that it is possible that people overreacted? That they took my suggestion that some homophobes are not Christians (even if they say so) and extrapolated to a claim (that I didn't make) that the people involved here are not Christians?

I don't think you're that bad a writer.

Alas, my book-ranking (of 1.8×10⁶) suggests otherwise.

DJ,

C'mon you are usually wiser that that. Aquaria made a statement--which did not appeal to correlation by was definitive: no godbotter who claims to have been an atheist was ever really a True Atheist™. It is a stupid demonstrably false canard, no better than "there are no atheists in foxholes."

Posted by: heddle | April 8, 2010 10:07 AM

heddle,

Of course. You're never wrong. You're so fucking perfectly correct all the time that it makes my eyes bleed.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 8, 2010 10:17 AM

dogmeatib ,

It is amusing and ironic that you identify yourself as an atheist yet seemed, at the time, to be willing to call yourself a Christian.

Why? it ain't rocket science. I was an ignorant street kid. I didn't believe in any god. But I would say "Christian" because that was the path of least resistance. Similar things happen all the time. I don't really need to remind anyone of the phenomenon of gay homophobes, do I?

Quite honestly an atheist wouldn't argue that God was opposed to homosexuality.

False. People often accuse me, with some merit, of pretending all Christians are intellectual Christians. You are making the same mistake, assuming all atheists are intellectual (and honest) atheists. They aren't. An in-the-closet atheist homophobe might easily appeal to the bible to justify his hatred--it is so obvious as to be hardly worth stating.

Had you really considered the issue of a supreme being, of a God or Gods, weighed the evidence, looked at all of the possibilities, and then with a reasoned and rational logic determined that there was no God.

Is that the definition of an atheist? That it requires study? If so then I was not a True Atheist. I didn't believe in god. I am using that as the definition of an atheist.

Does your high standard of study apply to Christianity? To be a True Christian must you have "considered the issue of a supreme being, of a God or Gods, weighed the evidence, looked at all of the possibilities, and then with a reasoned and rational logic determined that there was a God.?" Or is your litmus test just to keep undesirables out of your club, but my club must accept any dolt who, for whatever reason, claims to be a Christian?

I am not using my anecdote to prove or even suggest that these people weren't Christians. If James Dobson, whom I accept to be a Christian, was part of this--then I'd come down hard on him. I don't know that all of these people are James Dobson types--some could be no more Christian than you. And you don't know either.

you want us to ignore the Mt. Everest of evidence to the contrary and pretend that these people aren't really religious (implying that they are instead agnostic or atheist). Sorry, but it just doesn't fly.

Bullshit. There is no Mt. Everest, there are only people claiming religious reasons. Did you investigate their lives to see if they give any evidence of walking the walk? No. your so-called Mt Everest rest entirely on their statements. And for the n^th time I have never, ever claimed they were not Christian, and have not asked you to pretend otherwise. I have only argued what is manifestly obvious: that some people use what is handy to justify their hatred, and *some* of these people might be in that category. I only argued the existence of such people, not that any of these people are definitely in that group. But keep on moving them goalposts.

Posted by: heddle | April 8, 2010 10:50 AM

Quite honestly an atheist wouldn't argue that God was opposed to homosexuality.

False. People often accuse me, with some merit, of pretending all Christians are intellectual Christians. You are making the same mistake, assuming all atheists are intellectual (and honest) atheists. They aren't. An in-the-closet atheist homophobe might easily appeal to the bible to justify his hatred--it is so obvious as to be hardly worth stating.

Wait, what? So, if I have this right, you're saying that somebody who claims to be a Christian, and quotes the bible to justify homophobia, might actually be an atheist just pretending to be a Christian for some purpose.

Therefore, presumably, the perpetrators of the incident which was the original story here might not actually be Christians, despite them loudly and frequently claiming to be and quoting the bible at everybody. Some of them might be atheists pretending to be Christians. So, therefore it's all even, really and Christians/Christianity/religion in general can't necessarily be blamed for anything.

Did I miss anything out?

Posted by: Brain Hertz | April 8, 2010 11:33 AM

Heddle,

You absolutely did try to imply that these people were not "real" Christians, then you tried to deny that you implied that.

You can't be wrong if you take both sides of the argument, hence my claim that "you're never wrong."

Yes, I know you claim that you didn't take both sides. Every other person here thinks you did. Either every one of us is too stupid to see the subtlety of your argument, or you actually did it. Parsimony leads me to one of those answers instead of the other.

And now, I'm done. Say whatever self-justifying crap you want to in response. I'm still trying my best to believe my claim that this is just a blind-spot with you and that you're not actually being dishonest. But it's getting harder.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 8, 2010 11:49 AM

This whole sordid business has brought up a question in my mind.

Of the people who lived during segregation and who went out of their lives to make black people miserably, especially as they were fighting for equality, how many of them feel shame today for what they did? And will these in this article people one day feel ashamed of what they have just done?

Posted by: Chiroptera | April 8, 2010 11:56 AM

James Hanley,

You absolutely did try to imply that these people were not "real" Christians,

C'mon James--I like you and respect you and don't enjoy fighting with you. If you can show me that I implied that these people were not Christians rather than arguing that some of them might not be Christians for the reasons I discussed, I'll retract the statement.

Surely my not accepting, uncritically, all their claims to be Christian does not logically imply that I believe none of them to be Christian.

Coryat,

What? You mean I'm having guilty pleasure debating when I should be grading thermodynamics assignments! Why it's the end of the free world!

Posted by: heddle | April 8, 2010 12:01 PM

Bullshit. There is no Mt. Everest, there are only people claiming religious reasons. Did you investigate their lives to see if they give any evidence of walking the walk? No. your so-called Mt Everest rest entirely on their statements. And for the nth time I have never, ever claimed they were not Christian, and have not asked you to pretend otherwise. I have only argued what is manifestly obvious: that some people use what is handy to justify their hatred, and *some* of these people might be in that category. I only argued the existence of such people, not that any of these people are definitely in that group. But keep on moving them goalposts.

I see your bullshit and raise you an utter crock of shit. You keep claiming that you aren't arguing that they aren't Christian all the while you argue that they aren't Christian. You have an incident in the state which leads the nation in claiming that religion plays a role in their DAILY lives. Not just the mundane "I'm a Christian" category, but the "Jesus watches me every day" category. 85% claim that this is the case, but to you they might be lying. We've had posts from people who live in the area stating quite clearly that this is a prototypical fundamentalist ultra religious stronghold of old school Confederate super patriot, bigots, but they might just be lying about being a Christian. They state, quite clearly, that their justification is their faith, their church, their religion, but they might just be lying. Finally, we have the comments from the bulletin boards in which they not only claim their faith as justification for their bigotry, they make dominionist claims that ours is a Christian nation, founded on the Bible, founded on God, etc., but again, they might be lying.

I'm sorry Heddle, but you're the one up to your neck in bullshit. At this point you're standing in the burned out ruins of your house insisting you don't smell smoke. Sure, there *might* be non believer bigots in this population who are using Christianity to support their homophobia, there also might be three eyed aliens from Venus in that group of people as well as three armed aliens from Mars.

Why? it ain't rocket science. I was an ignorant street kid. I didn't believe in any god

The irony is that you, as a street kid, look back and consider yourself an atheist even though atheists have pointed out quite clearly, by your own admission, you didn't really think about it. You want to argue that someone who says they're a Christian isn't necessarily a Christian while at the same time arguing that someone who says they're a Christian, but doesn't really think about it, *is* an atheist. What, as a kid, made you KNOW that there wasn't a God? Not, you didn't think about it, or you didn't know one way or another, but you *KNEW* there was no God. It's ironic because all the while you wave your arms and argue that these people aren't really Christian, you wave your arms and argue that people who don't even claim to be atheist ARE atheists. It's ironic because all the while you claim Christianity is a wonderful group of loving caring people, anyone who isn't Christian is an atheist, IE you're lumping the dirtbags you don't like who claim to be Christian but don't live up to your personal view of Christian into the group you disagree with. It's ironic, it's hypocrisy, it's tribalism. On top of that it's absolutely ironic that you wave your arms and dismiss the evidence for these bigots being Christian all the while promoting your own personal, unverifiable and unreliable personal recollection that you were an atheist bigot.

The amusing thing is your argument is that you were a dishonest, lying "atheist" who blamed your hatred and bigotry on an "innocent" religion. It is doubly amusing because you lump together all of the things that you argue against on the numerous threads here into one pile of waste you have gotten rid of. Atheism, homophobia, racism, being a Democrat. Rather convenient that all of them are attributes you used to have prior to becoming a "good Christian."

Posted by: dogmeatib | April 8, 2010 12:20 PM

Now that we have the language barrier out of the way, I'm not sure what else there is to argue about...?

I think this comment puts you in contention for winning the inter-webs today James. Thumbs up!

Posted by: dogmeatib | April 8, 2010 12:33 PM

David Heddle,

I haven't read all the arguments here but did read your first post that started the current brouhah and has it appearing that you are attempting to rebut one simple conclusion I've held since I was a teenager and first encountered violence against gays.

It's my observation that the single most important modern-day influence in continuing to either promote or justify a denial of gays' equal rights is the Christian religion as its currently practiced in many quarters*. It does so by both providing justification and its unwillingness to accept gays, even by those who are not nominally Christian.

Do you agree or believe a more influential force is in play in our culture that justifies continued group and even institutionalized bigotry?

*I don't use the adjective 'conservative' in front of Christian in the prior paragraph since I've observed this position also bleeds into other non-conservative Christian groups as well, e.g., the black churches, Episcopalian and Catholic relatives of mine who are moderate or liberal on other matters. And please don't over-parse my statements, I'm aware of the rhetoric and attempts to change gays to heteros 'out of love' and that some Christian churches do accept gays and promote societal acceptance. I'm referring to those groups that do not.

Posted by: Michael Heath | April 8, 2010 12:52 PM

heddle, if your intention in this thread was NOT to imply that the bigots in this case were "magical-atheists-who-are-exactly-like-christians-in-every-way-down-to-their-very-thoughts-but-not-really", as you claimed YOU were, then what the fuck was the point of that example?

Aside from trying to see how outrageous a lie you can tell, what's the point of pretending that polls identifying 85% of respondents as christian don't in any way indicate that there's a single actual christian in the area?

Posted by: phantomreader42 | April 8, 2010 1:57 PM

Why did I have to KNOW there was no god to be an atheist?—if that’s the case, the nobody is a true atheist. Not even Dawkins.

This suggests to me that you have no idea what an atheist is. First, many atheists will admit that there is a minuscule, incredibly unlikely chance that there is some sort of supreme being, but at the same time they will point to the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of such an entity as proof enough to satisfy a reasonable person that such does not exist. Your position is akin to arguing, I've never seen a brick dropped from shoulder level fly up, but it could do so. Certainly, there can be extreme, bizarre circumstances where such a thing could happen, but that doesn't make me a believer in brick levitation. On the other hand I have considered such possibilities, I've looked at the evidence, and dismiss the chances of such a thing, so I firmly accept the evidence for gravity.

Dawkins also admitted in The God Delusion I believe that he considered him self somewhere in the vicinity of a 6.8 on a 1-7 scale of religion - atheism. For all intents and purposes he believes that there is no God, but there is a tiny, minute chance that such an entity exists. The fact that you seem utterly unaware of this idea and haven't apparently considered it at all suggests you really never considered the question which completely proves my point.

You have no evidence that refutes the 85% who consider their faith a DAILY part of their life beyond saying "I believe more religious areas will lead to more false claims of religion." The problem is that while there is a false reporting bias, you and I both know that you are exaggerating the impact of such a bias by a massive amount and doing so because it is convenient. Even the least religious states have a 50% daily faith reporting rate with a national average at 65%. Again that is the DAILY involvement of their belief, not some random, vague idea of religion.

That is the core of our problem here, because it is convenient for you, you want to pretend that people who claim to be devoutly religious are instead atheists who feel compelled to lie to avoid social stigma. That would mean that the population of atheists in the United States is approaching 50%. While I would like to see our country become that rational, I don't see any evidence that such a movement is approaching within my lifetime let alone actually here. I could see the population of atheists being 25-30%, but for your argument to work we'd have to add 15-20% to that number. Sorry, you're going to have to provide some evidence to support that claim. At this point I'm not sure you even know what an atheist is let alone have the ability to produce such evidence.

How could you miss the boat so much? I claim I was an atheist because I didn’t believe God

The question still remains, did you actually consider the issue? Think about it? Or was it a matter of little or no importance to you that you didn't really think about? The thing is, atheists do think about it. We come from religious backgrounds for the most part. My family was Catholic, there was a time where I went to church daily with my grandmother. I gradually evaluated religion, looked at a whole series of world religions, determined that they were all equally flawed (while they did have a number of valid ideas), and determined that while the might be a God, my path to understanding that entity did not come through the organized religions. I then went from that vaguely Deistic idea to an agnostic idea. If there was a God, it was unlikely that He, She, or It was directly involved in our universe, to the point where I determined outright that there is no evidence to support the idea of a God therefore I was letting myself hedge a tiny bit of a bet in the silly hope that maybe, somewhere, deep in the abyss of space there was a being that would let me escape death. Once I saw that final bit of silliness and selfishness for what it was, I confirmed finally that there was no God. I was not an atheist until that point. Prior to that I was a Catholic, a Christian, a Deist, an Agnostic, but not an atheist. You seem to be of the opinion that "I didn't think about it" = "No God" = Atheist. I wasn't doing the reverse of your argument against the people in this case being a Christian or not initially, but the more you talk about this, the more I get the sense that you have little idea what an atheist is today let alone when you were a kid which is rather damning to your argument that an unknown (but to you sizable) number of these self described Christians are really atheists lying about being Christian to justify their bigotry.

Sorry, I don't buy it. For your argument to work you would have to shrink the numbers of self-described DEVOUT Christians to lower than simply self described Christians, at the same time you would have to increase the number of Atheists to more than double the recognized total number of non believers (including undecided, agnostic, and atheists). On top of that you would have to reduce the number of Christians who are homophobes by a factor of roughly 5 while at the same time increasing the number of homophobic atheists by a factor of at least 10.

I'm not willing to twist reality like a pretzel to simply make you feel better about your belief in an invisible sugar daddy in the sky.

Posted by: dogmeatib | April 8, 2010 2:04 PM

phantomreader42,

then what the fuck was the point of that example?

Exactly what I said it was N times: that some people who claim to be Christians aren't--not because they have the wrong doctrine or belong to the wrong denomination--but because they choose to answer the question as they they are expected and/or it is advantageous to their well-being--and a subset of them co-opt the religion to justify their hatred.

what's the point of pretending that polls identifying 85% of respondents as christian don't in any way indicate that there's a single actual christian in the area?

Unbelievable. If you actually think that what I wrote regarding the 85% number: Simple mathematics suggest that the higher the percentage, the more likely that some are lying

can be parsed as you suggest, then I don't know how to respond.

Posted by: heddle | April 8, 2010 2:09 PM

I haven't read all of the twists and turns of the debate with Heddle, but if he want to claim that a large percentage of people lie about their religion in a poll, the onus is on him to provide the evidence for that

I actually thing that even if heddle were to prove this, it's completely irrelevant.

It's quite possible that David Koresh, in his heart, did not believe the bullshit he was spewing, and only did it to get devoted followers and sex slaves. If that were the case, does that mean that David Koresh wasn't a Branch Davidian??? Please. That's just stupid.

Even if heddle somehow proved to me that 97% of self-identified Christians didn't actually believe in Jesus' divinity, that would not mean they weren't Christians anymore, at least not by the definition of "Christian" that is useful in this context. It would just mean that most Christians didn't believe the bullshit they were selling and being sold.

"Most self-identified Christians are atheists but don't know it" is a stupid, stupid statement. I think what heddle means is that "Most self-identified Christians have got Christianity badly wrong." I still think the statement is mostly meaningless (there is no Platonic ideal of Christianity, after all, so the movement is whatever the movement is) but it's significantly less stupid than the former statement.

Posted by: James Sweet | April 8, 2010 2:16 PM

I don't know which I find more annoying, the fake prom issue or the total derail of this comment thread by Heddle and others.

Posted by: Chilidog | April 8, 2010 2:36 PM

dogmeatib,

This suggests to me that you have no idea what an atheist is.

?? You are the one who asked (#164), in boldfaced caps, how did I KNOW there was no God?--making it a test of my claim to atheism--which rested on a simple "I didn't believe in god" testimony. And I was the one who pointed out that such a requirement precludes everyone. I think you are the one who cannot put forth a coherent definition of atheism.

Actually, please do that: please give me your clear definition of an atheist. Then we can evaluate on what basis I was not an atheist.

Michael Heath,

Yes, unfortunately religion has the necessary hooks people can grab onto to make an argument (which is exactly the point I've been making.) As I said way back--had I been asked to justify my homophobia I very likely would have employed primitive religious-sounding arguments. So I am in agreement with what you are saying, I think. Most homophobes either:

1) Actually believe their religion supports their attitudes, or

2) Co-opt religion to support their ignorant hatred.

In either case, religion plays a role, although in the latter case I'd say it is an innocent role. Much like some deranged nut who justifies killing on being an agent of natural selection. Anything can be co-opted and distorted.

G.D.

But Heddle, the claim that "[t]here is no reason why one part of the country should be more or less Christian" is ridiculous. I think any sociologist would be able to explain to you how cultural background, socio-economic matters etc influence these matters.

Agreed. But can they distinguish how cultural and socio-economic matters affect the pressure to claim Christianity? And can the account for that effect? Or is all they can really say, in the end, is that more people in Mississippi than Vermont self-identify? Perhaps that's because there are more Christians in Mississippi than Vermont--or perhaps it is because the culture in Vermont encourages and welcomes some to stop pretending. (Or some admixture of both.) Can the sociologists tell the difference? (Having said that, as a caveat, I nevertheless concede the point to you--there very well may be reasons why one part of the country is more Christian than another. I made way too strong of a statement there.)

but don't you think that peer pressure and expectations are factors that also lead to genuine belief?

No I don't, but that is a personal opinion. I don't think you can believe in God just because you want to believe in God or because others believe in God. You can't believe what you don't believe. All you can do is pretend (even to the point of self-delusion) to believe. Or follow the customs. Go with the flow. Or even more complex dynamics of nationalism mixed with religion enter. But at the end, my answer to your question is no.

Posted by: heddle | April 8, 2010 2:41 PM

Chilidog,

I don't know which I find more annoying, the fake prom issue or the total derail of this comment thread by Heddle and others.

Then I'd suggest your priorities are all screwed up.

Posted by: heddle | April 8, 2010 2:48 PM

Lets make a multiple choice question out of this statement:

"What people are failing to realize is that much of the fault of this whole stink lies with Constance,"

A: for not being heterosexual
B: for not being happy with her status as second class citizen
C: for being homosexual
D: for giving us the opportunity to demonstrate how stupid, bigoted and petty we are
E: all of the above

Posted by: JohnV | April 8, 2010 2:54 PM

chilidog - thanks for the letter. What a failure in simple logic, which I'd bet is reinforced by their elders.

Posted by: Michael Heath | April 8, 2010 3:02 PM

I liked Ed's point about the similar incident 45 years ago with a young black student. If history keeps on repeating itself, I'll see a lesbian President in my lifetime. Of course there will be kooks claiming she was really born on the moonbase and is therefore not really a citizen of the US. But that too will be comforting in it's own way.

Posted by: Abby Normal | April 8, 2010 3:14 PM

Cilidog - Thanks for the info.
Abby - Moonbase Alpha? Home of all Moonbats?? - Dingo

Posted by: DingoJaock | April 8, 2010 3:34 PM

Shorter heddle:

"How dare you claim that people use Christianity to justify homophobia. Why, when I was a kid, I used Christianity to justify homophobia. And I was homophobic because I thought Christians were supposed to be homophobic. So there!"

Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | April 8, 2010 3:55 PM

@heddle #159:

As decomcommie stated many comments ago, It's not such a good idea to be an atheist in the rural south.

Possibly because the majority of one's fellow citizens are intolerant bigots who identify as Christian not for self-protection but because they truly believe they are Christian? And for the same reason it's not such a good idea to admit to being gay in the rural South?

Posted by: Robin Levett | April 8, 2010 4:22 PM

heddle:

"[t]here is no reason why one part of the country should be more or less Christian"

Well, since we're on to a different topic, I'll jump back in. This is truly an astonishing statement. Heddle has either just denied that culture matters at all, or that our culture is perfectly uniform across the whole country. I suggest he stick to physics rather than dabbling in the social sciences, unless he's going to get serious enough about them to understand the most basic of concepts, such as "culture matters," which is more or less as basic to the social sciences as gravity is to physics.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 8, 2010 4:26 PM

James Hanley,

You might want to read #180, where I wrote, regarding that statement:

Having said that, as a caveat, I nevertheless concede the point to you--there very well may be reasons why one part of the country is more Christian than another. I made way too strong of a statement there.)

Posted by: heddle | April 8, 2010 4:52 PM

Heddle,

Indeed, I missed #180. Withdrawn. I do think sociologists (shudder) could probably answer most of those questions.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 8, 2010 5:38 PM

From another source, common pages in the fake prom attendees facebook profiles:

Greenville Christian School The Charleston Baptist Congregation Little Creek Baptist Church “I’m Proud To Be Christian” by Aaron Chavez Religious Center Prayer In School Religious Center I Love Jesus Religious Center Freedom Rally 2010 “A call to Revival” Dedicated to Christ Going to Church Religious Center God is Love Religious Organization Jesus Daily Religious Organization I’m a Christian & I’m Proud Religious Organization The Resolve Tour Religious Organization ChristBuild Inc Religious Organization Christ In Action Non-Profit

Posted by: Gruesome Rob | April 8, 2010 6:30 PM

?? You are the one who asked (#164), in boldfaced caps, how did I KNOW there was no God?--making it a test of my claim to atheism--which rested on a simple "I didn't believe in god" testimony. And I was the one who pointed out that such a requirement precludes everyone. I think you are the one who cannot put forth a coherent definition of atheism.

Actually, please do that: please give me your clear definition of an atheist. Then we can evaluate on what basis I was not an atheist.

So now you're going to ignore the majority of a reply and simply concentrate on one point of order? Really rather sad Heddle, quite disappointing even given some of the silliness of your argument. The reason why I asked you to explain and define your understanding of atheism is because you have made numerous comments in this thread that suggest that anyone who doesn't know for certain that there is a God, or even doesn't really think about it one way or another is an atheist. In doing so you wrap up non-thesists, agnostics, and atheists all into one amorphous blob of incoherency.

I would argue that your self described position was more of a non-theistic one. You didn't really think about it one way or the other, you didn't have a coherent position, you didn't really have an ideology.

As Dingojack (183) pointed out, the definition of an atheist is actually rather simple, an atheist denies the existence of God or Gods. I would add to that the denial of supernatural forces in general. Effectively, we're on our own so saying magic words to an invisible man in the sky really wont help you (beyond a placebo effect). You stated in your comment that you didn't believe in God, but that doesn't mean you coherently thought about it and rejected the idea that there was a God. Combined with that it honestly seems that you want "atheist" to be defined as anyone who doesn't fit your idea of a true believer™, and, as I said in the earlier post that you (also) mostly ignored, you want to expand that classification way beyond what any evidence would support.

I know you'll likely ignore most of this post as well, find a single point you want to debate, avoid the others that you know you can't, but I'll say one more time:

The people in this town are bigots. They openly claim to be Christian, claim that their bigotry is based on their faith and the Bible, and live in a state that shows consistently high identification with active Christianity. You suggest that we don't know whether these homophobes are Christian, etc., that we don't have data to support such a contention, but despite your protests, we do have ample data to suggest that a rather large majority of these people are Christians. You, wishing to dispute this data, have to provide something beyond your own personal anecdotal story of youthful confusion and bigotry and/or something beyond your unmeasured and unsubstantiated appeal to self identification bias. You have nothing to refute the self identified 85% of the population who claim a DAILY importance for religion in their life. The state ranks #1 in the nation and the people of that state claim that they pray daily, attend church at least once a week, and that the firmly believe in God. 91% percent of the people in Mississippi say that they are absolutely certain that God exists. Even if you have evidence of bias, which you have yet to provide, you will have to provide evidence of a massive amount of bias to make something approaching a legitimate argument that we can't accept the word of these people that they aren't good Christians.

So far this still boils down to you not liking the idea that fellow Christians are bigoted homophobic ass-hats.

Posted by: dogmeatib | April 8, 2010 6:58 PM

Modus, my dear, it's "Juke Box Hero," not "Juke Box Wizard." That's all, everyone carry on.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 8, 2010 7:31 PM

As Dingojack (183) pointed out, the definition of an atheist is actually rather simple, an atheist denies the existence of God or Gods.

If only it were that simple. I can't tell you how many times I've been talking with an atheist who lumps in agnostics with atheists because they lack belief in a god or gods (that being the presumptive definition). The fact of the matter is that atheism can probably be defined in a few senses (just as Christian can be used in different senses), one a more general grouping (lacking a belief in a god or gods) and one a positive belief (the denial of the existence of any god or gods). It is not, however, your right to arbitrarily tell heddle that he was not in fact an atheist because you've decided to use the positive sense of the term. That is incredibly disingenuous, and frankly, you're better than that, dogmeatib.

(For the record, I think it's reprehensible that 1) these kids did what they did to both this girl and the others who attended the "fake prom," 2) that some people defend it using Christianity as an excuse, and 3) that we are not talking about how to fight back against such virulent hatred and ignorance rather than this little pissing match that has ensued.)

Posted by: The Christian Cynic | April 8, 2010 8:47 PM

Eventually he'll come to the conclusion that he himself is the sole Christian in the entire USA.

Ah, but think of the auto de fe when he deals with the heretics!

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | April 8, 2010 8:53 PM

It is not, however, your right to arbitrarily tell heddle that he was not in fact an atheist because you've decided to use the positive sense of the term. That is incredibly disingenuous, and frankly, you're better than that, dogmeatib.

Ummm 'cynic, before you're too disappointed in me, you might want to take a look at some of the comments made by Heddle, as wowbagger points out, if you take Heddle's argument to its logical conclusion everyone is an atheist just pretending to be something else. Also his own personal comments regarding his "atheism" suggests he doesn't know what the heck he was. On top of that his implied definition of "atheist" includes just about anyone who doesn't know whether there is a God or not, doesn't think about it, doesn't care, etc. etc. etc. That's roughly equivalent to claiming that anyone who thinks that their might possibly be a supreme being is a Christian. It's patently silly.

Posted by: dogmeatib | April 8, 2010 10:12 PM

Modusoperandi,

The Foreign Who? Who's the Foreigner? Whoeigner? If you need some help escaping from the horrible trap you're in, I can send you an old cassette copy of Fear: The Album, or X's Los Angeles. I swear by it man--it worked for me.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 9, 2010 12:11 AM

Modus,

Well, in my own defense, that was a reference to what rescued America from the cesspool of Arena rock. (Which doesn't mean that I am not, in fact out of date.)

But if I must be more contemporary, how about Lucinda Williams or Hank Williams III? In a pinch, I can play a Pink song on my guitar--learned it just last night.

But I'm mid 40s, man, what do you expect? At least I don't listen to Sting!

Posted by: James Hanley | April 9, 2010 1:07 AM

dogmeatib,

Also his own personal comments regarding his "atheism" suggests he [heddle] doesn't know what the heck he was. On top of that his implied definition of "atheist" includes just about anyone who doesn't know whether there is a God or not, doesn't think about it, doesn't care, etc. etc. etc

Just as a reminder, my radical definition of atheist was:

A atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god.

I used that in #145, #154, and #180 (at a minimum.)

It was not an "implied" but an explicit definition.

And it clearly doesn't include "just about anyone who doesn't know whether there is a God or not, doesn't think about it, doesn't care, etc. etc. etc". It includes, with no wiggle-room, only those who do not believe in god.

It is just another baldfaced lie regarding my position.

dogmeatib is free to change the definition of true atheism to make sure I can never claim to have been a member of the club--but I doubt that he can't do that with without making a definition that would exclude a lot of people. I asked him for such a definition, but he Sir-Robbin'ed. So instead he is lying about my position.

Posted by: heddle | April 9, 2010 9:16 AM

I just had to comment here, because if we let heddle have the last word than the Calvinofascists have already won!

Posted by: democommie | April 9, 2010 9:42 AM

dogmeatib,

but ignore the ones that actually (and utterly) shred your claim that I am lying

You can add as many forceful adverbs as you like--that doesn't constitute a proof of anything. I could say that Christian Cynic "utterly smacked-you-down" in #208, and it would be just as senseless. We are not talking about the arguments of others, but you distortion of my position.

"didn't intellectualize" your belief/non belief and "Never thought about it...," and that you were "An ignorant street kid..." Then, in 169 you admitted that you overgeneralized what an atheist was in a manner that could include agnostics and other undecideds.

It is absolutely true I admitted that I never intellectualized my atheism and I was ignorant. But I also said, repeatedly and unambiguously, that I did not believe in God, and that was my definition of my atheism. You can't run from that, though you are tying real hard.

Now, are you extending the definition of atheist beyond that? If so stop being a coward and just state something like: A true atheist must come to his disbelief by rationally investigating the world around him and deciding there is no god. Simple disbelief in god, not matter how sincere, is not enough.

Then you will exclude me from the club. I never would have been a true atheist according to the dogmeatib definition of true atheism. And we will have no argument.

But I don't think you have the cajones to do that--so instead you lie about my position, which has been constant: an atheist is one who does not believe in god.You are lying about my position, I think, because you have painted yourself into a corner.

As for my statement that I was too cavalier about the title atheist in regards to the people in Mississippi--it is further demonstration of your dishonesty. We are talking about whether I was an atheist--and every single friggin' time I discussed my own youthful atheism I used the straightforward definition: I did not believe in god.

So give me your definition of atheism and stop lying about my definition.

Posted by: heddle | April 9, 2010 11:31 AM

It is absolutely true I admitted that I never intellectualized my atheism and I was ignorant. But I also said, repeatedly and unambiguously, that I did not believe in God, and that was my definition of my atheism.

So at the time, if someone asked you if you were Christian, you would have said "Damn straight!", but if they asked you if you believed in God, you would have said "no"?

Posted by: DaveL | April 9, 2010 11:51 AM

Quit equivocating Heddle.

Someone assigns a non-zero probability to the existence of God, atheist or not?

Posted by: Gruesome Rob | April 9, 2010 12:17 PM

@ Modus,

My tastes typically run toward the out-of-date stuff, too, but occasionally I find myself seduced by the dark side (i.e. contemporary pop). You're not missing out by not knowing about Ke$ha--and it's not a typo, it's "cool."

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 9, 2010 12:21 PM

Gruesome Rob,

Quit equivocating Heddle.

I gave my definition of a atheist: someone who does not believe in god. Either submit one of your own for discussion, or rip mine to shreds. There is no definition in the universe of atheism that assigns a numerical cutoff. So stop being a total moron.

Posted by: heddle | April 9, 2010 1:04 PM

lol the parents are real smart in tricking her sorry everyone but i dont like gays or lesibans im a 19 year old i never saw the point but im about to move to Miss i got to give them props.

Posted by: prince | April 9, 2010 1:46 PM

OK Heddle, so you completely and totally agree with the following statement?

"No scientists are atheists"?

and (the corollary, which is also true by your definition) "Richard Dawkins is not an atheist"?

Posted by: Gruesome Rob | April 9, 2010 2:29 PM

@ prince: Please, please, PLEASE let the concept of sentences enter your life. You will find your online communication much improved.

Also, you're a bigot. But your probably already knew that.

Posted by: Captain Mike | April 9, 2010 2:58 PM

democommie,

Which would then make you the 'KKKristian'-labeler Candidate by the same 'reasoning'?

Posted by: Spartan | April 9, 2010 3:42 PM

DaveL,

Then I would agree that you were an atheist, though to be perfectly honest I find your claim very hard to believe.

I understand. I often find a claim that someone used to be a Christian hard to believe.

Posted by: heddle | April 9, 2010 4:36 PM

prince is a 19 year old who doesn't understand the basic concept of a sentence and is moving to Mississippi? I'm surprised to find he didn't grow up there.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 9, 2010 5:34 PM

James Hanley,

And don't you think it's at least possible, given that so many intelligent people here think you have actually implied something else, that they may have a point?

It's possible. But do notice that ChristianCynic and Spartan seemed to understand what I was writing. And the people I've been arguing with most violently: democommie, phantomreader, dogmeatib--do you think they have track record of giving my arguments a reasoned look, or do you think they have a track record of pouncing on whatever I say?

If you, Michael Heath, DuWayne, Ed, Spartan, ChristianCynic, Rev. BigDumbChimp and quite a few others with whom I have had fair discussions with tell me that my posts are unclear I would take it more seriously than people who would attack no matter what I write.

Now I freely choose to frequent blogs where it is N on 1, and I'm the one, so I have no basis to complain about people ganging up on me. I don't mind it at all. But I think you are giving some of these particular commenters too much credit if you actually believe they evaluated my arguments carefully and fairly.

Posted by: heddle | April 9, 2010 5:56 PM

No, he is lying. He wrote:

On top of that his implied definition of "atheist" includes just about anyone who doesn't know whether there is a God or not, doesn't think about it, doesn't care, etc. etc. etc

That is a lie. That cannot be reconciled with my unambiguous, repeated definition regarding my atheism: I did not believe in god.

If I am lying heddle, then please explain this part of your comment in post 164:

This is a fair criticism. I did imply a false dichotomy. You are correct—if some of these people are masquerading as Christians (and some of the 85% in Mississippi surely are) it does not mean they are atheists. I was sloppy to use “atheist” where I should have used “non-Christian.”

While this isn't specifically part of your personal declaration of atheism, it does suggest that you aren't certain what an atheist is beyond the idea that they aren't specifically Christian. When it suits you, you are quite willing to paint a rather broad brush across the surface of society and call the result atheists.

It is absolutely true I admitted that I never intellectualized my atheism and I was ignorant. But I also said, repeatedly and unambiguously, that I did not believe in God, and that was my definition of my atheism. You can't run from that, though you are tying real hard.

Actually part of the problem is that you *asked* for a definition of atheism. I didn't supply one, Dingojack did, one that I felt was effective. I'm not trying to run from anything, I'm pointing out that your lies about me "changing definitions" are bogus since I didn't supply the damn definition in the first place. Dingo's definition stated that it was someone who denied the existence of God. That is an order of magnitude beyond simply not believing especially when, as you said, you were "ignorant," "hadn't thought about it," etc. Your definition has already been rejected. Dingo provided one, I agreed with it, nothing has changed aside from your (now apparently continueous) insults.

Now, are you extending the definition of atheist beyond that? If so stop being a coward and just state something like: A true atheist must come to his disbelief by rationally investigating the world around him and deciding there is no god. Simple disbelief in god, not matter how sincere, is not enough.

Again, I'm not changing the definition you complete and utter jackass. I didn't post the God damn definition, Dingojack did, apparently another one of us "irrational liars" who doesn't find your argument so simple and concise. My point remains, hasn't changed one iota, that an atheist is someone who denies the existence of God. Not just didn't believe, not neutral, but flat out says, THERE IS NO GOD. I really don't consider you an atheist in that context, as I said earlier. I would consider you as a non-believer or an agnostic, but really to be an atheist you have to actually think about it and come to a conclusion.

You've admited multiple times you didn't really think about it, didn't intellecually consider it. The ironic thing is you claim that you would have said you were a Christian, later might have quoted the Bible, etc., but didn't consider yourself a Christian yet you consider yourself to have been an atheist with utterly no coherent consideration of the concept. Why is the bar set so high for Christianity but so low for atheism? Perhaps because you value the one but not the other? Also, that's like me claiming to be a Christian because I thought the Bible had some interesting stories but really hadn't thought about any of the rest of it. It might be convenient for you to "have been an atheist," might make you feel superior, especially if you consider those of us who are atheists to be at the same stunted intellectual level you were at that time, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Just like any other philosphy, to actually be an adherent you have to actually consider the subject. You are willing to dismiss these Christians as not really Christian (despite their protests to the contrary) while at the same time pushing them into the atheist camp with no evidence that they've considered the concept at all. It's bad enough that you try to inflate the number of non-believers well beyond what could be supported by simple social stigma, but to push them to the point of non-professing adherents to a competely different philosophical position? C'mon, who is lying here?

Again, I'm not changing the definition, I'm pointing out the fact that you don't appear to have really known much of anything at that time but feel willing and comfortable tying yourself to a philosphy that you disagree with. Today you seem to be equally willing to tie others you disagree with to that same philosophy with even less evidence.

Then you will exclude me from the club. I never would have been a true atheist according to the dogmeatib definition of true atheism. And we will have no argument.

But I don't think you have the cajones to do that--so instead you lie about my position, which has been constant: an atheist is one who does not believe in god.You are lying about my position, I think, because you have painted yourself into a corner.

As for my statement that I was too cavalier about the title atheist in regards to the people in Mississippi--it is further demonstration of your dishonesty. We are talking about whether I was an atheist--and every single friggin' time I discussed my own youthful atheism I used the straightforward definition: I did not believe in god.

So give me your definition of atheism and stop lying about my definition

Again, denies, not doesn't believe, openly denies. Denying requires a firm consideration and refusal to accept. You admit you didn't do so, you didn't really consider the question, you didn't "intellectualize it," you "didn't really think about it." I didn't change the definition, again the one I didn't post, and I did point out that you didn't qualify after first asking you to define your understanding of atheism. Your vague lack of belief isn't the same as firmly denying. Just like you didn't truly consider yourself a Christian until you reached the point where you could coherently state your position, I didn't truly consider myself an atheist until I reached the point in my life where I was actively able and willing to deny the existence of God. Prior to that I was an agnostic or an unbeliever. Prior to that I was a deist. Prior to that I was a liberal Christian. Prior to that I was a Catholic.

Despite your projections and protestations, I'm not lying, I'm not changing positions, I'm not moving goal posts, I'm not redefining terms. I am saying, as I have from the beginning, that if you didn't really consider the issue, if you didn't intellectualize it, if you didn't think about it or consider it, then no, you weren't an atheist, just like you weren't a Christian even though you would have said at that time that you were. You didn't know what the hell you were, you really didn't think about it, you weren't a believer, but you also weren't an atheist.

Posted by: dogmeatib | April 9, 2010 6:52 PM

the entire corpus of your writing here strongly suggests to the reader something that is not precisely identical to those selected explicit statements.

I don't think I can necessarily disagree with James here, but to me one issue is that there are multiple things that can be suggested by what he has written, so what is the justification for insisting that he must mean only one of them? James example is good, but let's just take the initial post:

Are there data that indicate that the people supporting this repulsive deception are all Christians? Mostly Christians? Cultural Christians? Atheists?

This is a response to James not putting a qualifier before 'Christian' in his comment. I think the lowest common denominator implication is at least that heddle highly doubts that all of these bigoted wretches are Christian, but that's it. From there, it can imply a whole spectrum of things which he's already had to defend, from simply noting that no, duh, chances are that every single last one of them was not Christian, to the other extreme where it implies that he's saying that all these homophobes aren't really Christian at all in an effort to defend Christianity. Yes, he bears some responsibility, as everyone does, for the inferences made from his statements, but only up until he is confronted with the inference and denies it, and restates what he's saying.

To me it comes down to everyone adding the 'why' heddle posted what he did, and what larger argument his quote above fits into. But I don't think there is much more than the quote above; heddle defends against gross generalizations against Christians. That, and no matter how high the percentage of Christians in this particular case, it is definitely worthwhile to aim our bazookas also at non-theists who are bigoted against gays out of ignorance or stupidity that has nothing to do with religion. I know for me that I've heard as many non-religious 'justifications' for anti-gay bigotry, a la scenarios concerning bestiality, incest, and polygamy, as I have heard biblical ones.

Posted by: Spartan | April 9, 2010 7:15 PM

dogmeatib,

If I am lying heddle, then please explain this part of your comment in post 164:

You mean again? Will you simply ignore it again? Because I already did explain it. I stated that I was sloppy when I used atheist in regards to those in Mississippi who might not be Christian. But I'll remind you again that the debate is about my atheism. And, once again, I'll remind you that I consistently said I was an atheist because I didn't believe in God. If I had said I was an atheist without giving a reason, you would have a point. But there was never any ambiguity when I was referring to my own atheism. It was always connected to a disbelief in god

apparently another one of us "irrational liars" who doesn't find your argument so simple and concise.

No, you are trying to claim I have called DJ a liar like in your previous post you hinted that I called Hanley a liar. I called neither a liar--and this tactic to try to pull them into your circle is rather pond-scum-like-- but not unexpected.

I am saying, as I have from the beginning, that if you didn't really consider the issue, if you didn't intellectualize it, if you didn't think about it or consider it, then no, you weren't an atheist,

Not true (what a surprise.) In #164 you wrote (Emphasis in original):

What, as a kid, made you KNOW that there wasn't a God? Not, you didn't think about it, or you didn't know one way or another, but you *KNEW* there was no God.

There you were tying my atheism to KNOWING that there wasn't a god.

My point remains, hasn't changed one iota, that an atheist is someone who denies the existence of God. Not just didn't believe, not neutral, but flat out says, THERE IS NO GOD.

I don't understand that. First of all I do not understand the difference between "denies the existence of God" and "believing that there is no god." What do you mean that a person must flat out say "THERE IS NO GOD." Because believing there is no god is certainly the same as flat out thinking there is no god (if you see a difference I'd like to hear it.)--so that only possible distinction I see is that you are demanding a verbal testimony. Is that what you are demanding? A verbal statement? If not, then explain, clearly, how my believing that there was no god is on one side of the threshold and and flat-out denying god is on the other.

And will you answer these two questions with a yes or a no:

1) Simply believing that god does not exist is sufficient to be considered an true atheist by others.

2) Simply calling oneself a Christian is sufficient for being considered a true Christian by others.

Posted by: heddle | April 9, 2010 7:40 PM

First off, I enjoyed my prom, but I think it's a custom that is either in need of major overhaul or complete abolition.

Wasn't a promenade supposed to be a nice party where young people got dressed in their finest clothes and made polite company?

Between articles on the rise of the skanky, trashy prom dress, customary expectations of drunk and sloppy sex, grinding/crunking, and generally bad music, prom has virtually abandoned its entire original purpose.

Now we're getting reports of blatant bigotry. Poor Constance. And those kids in MS whose schools have segregated prom. WTF?

Class: None of these people haz it.

As for the anecdotes about the privileged prom-goers going all fake-lesbian on each other... This is the age of teh Intarwebz. Surely someone can find those pix on Facebook and compile them into a viral video on YouTube complete with anti-bigotry messages. Show those asshats for what they really are.

Posted by: Rogue Epidemiologist | April 9, 2010 8:13 PM

Kelley Clarkson's song, "Becuz of you" comes to mind.

I mean, they called it a prom, but the parents organized a private party, where they were entitled to invite or not invite whoever they pleased. Fair enough.

Now, if the *school* or *anyone connected with the school* was in on the gag - that should be grounds for lawsuits, recrimination, and job reviews.

As for the young lady, I would think "irreconcilable differences" would describe her prospects in that town. The best thing for the people living in that town would be to confront their bigotry, to develop some personal character, honor, and integrity, and accept and cherish those in their community no matter if this or that one seems "different". That would grow and enrich the town.

Realistically, though, what would be best for the young lady would be to get the hell out. Now. Don't stay to graduate, don't pester the bigots and haters, don't wait for an apology. Leave the cess pool to its own festering malaise; they will learn or wither in their good time; no sense risking any more worthwhile people to that pit.

Posted by: Brad K. | April 9, 2010 10:22 PM

Heddle - you ol' liar ;)
In answer to your question in 250: a) yes (not believing in god(s) is the very definition of atheism)*. b) Yes, if they define themselves a 'Christians', and seem to do all the normal Christian stuff, then I would agree with their self-description.
-The quick brown fox jumped over the lying Dingo ;D
-----
* A position I came to about the age of twelve by applying a little commonsense and logic.

Posted by: DingoJack | April 9, 2010 11:03 PM

Spartan wrote:

Heddle, for the record if you're still watching, are you really incapable of conceding that you might be wrong about Christianity?

heddle will almost always concede that is a possibility - however, it only seems to come after he's backed into a corner and having to face the implications of the position he's taken; he then chooses to remind people he's not a scholar but an amateur, a dabbler, a veritable naif on exegesis and that - despite the fact that up to this point he's lectured everyone on the 'true' meaning of scripture and demanded that his definition of Christianity is the most accurate one - he, of course, could be wrong.

With that in mind I would take any such concession with a grain of salt.

Posted by: Wowbagger | April 10, 2010 2:55 AM

Spartan,

Heddle, for the record if you're still watching, are you really incapable of conceding that you might be wrong about Christianity?

I try to do it on every thread where I discuss Christianity. I don't think you can find too many discussions on doctrine or exegesis of any length where I don't say things like "I might be wrong" or "another interpretation is" etc.

Wowbagger,

heddle will almost always concede that is a possibility - however, it only seems to come after he's backed into a corner and having to face the implications of the position he's taken

With that in mind I would take any such concession with a grain of salt.

Even granting for the sake of argument the unflattering picture you paint is 100% accurate, how is that substantively different from any other commenter? How often do you admit "I might be wrong?" And in the unlikely event that you concede "I might be wrong" as often as I do, why should my admission be taken with a grain of salt, and not yours?

It seems to me a fair criticism of a commenter is: "He never even tries to support his claims." Not "he supports his positions vigorously."

BGT,

I must say that he does derail threads regarding Xianity. He generally starts with a wedge-like argument around the "No True Scotsman Fallacy", generally arguing the the people in question are not Xians. Then he opens the door to arguing his version of Xianity.

This is misleading. If you go back and look at any such thread, unless it is in a moment of sloppiness, I never argue that X (who claims to be a Christian) is not a Christian. I argue that I can't tell whether X is a Christian, but based on judging his works I conclude that I will not regard him as a Christian. On this thread, for example, I challenge you to point out where I have said X is not a Christian, with the sole exception of X being my younger self.

Also you will not that this thread contains not a single argument about "my version" of Christianity. The only time anyone brought up Calvinism was to use it as a epithet.

As for derailing threads, I will continue (unless Ed tells me to stop) responding when I think someone is making an unfair generalization about Christianity. I guess you might have a legitimate complaint, but those who responded do not. Democommie complaining is completely ridiculous.

Posted by: heddle | April 10, 2010 7:09 AM

So basically, this thread boils down to:

1. I (Hanley) said these homophobes are Christians.

2. Heddle says, how do you know they're all Christians.

3. I admit I don't know they're all Christians, but imply that I think most probably are.

4. Heddle agrees most probably are Christian.

5. Lots of back and forth about what a true athesist is, and whether hedde, dogmeat, dingo, and others are liars.

6. In the end, all agree not all Christians are homophobes, and not all homophobes are Christian, but that most of these homophobes in Mississippi are Christian, meaning that we all agree on the essence of my first post that sparked all this brouhaha.

Is that a fair enough statement?

Posted by: James Hanley | April 10, 2010 9:04 AM

James Hanley @ 262,

Nice list but it left out my small contribution, I assume since that dialogue was limited to a handful of comment posts. My conclusion and inquiry to Heddle on that issue first posted @ 169 where I quote myself:

It's my observation that the single most important modern-day influence in continuing to either promote or justify a denial of gays' equal rights is the Christian religion as its currently practiced in many quarters*. It does so by both providing justification and its unwillingness to accept gays, even by those who are not nominally Christian.

heddle conceded @ 180 after a brief back-and-forth:

Yes, unfortunately religion has the necessary hooks people can grab onto to make an argument (which is exactly the point I've been making.) As I said way back--had I been asked to justify my homophobia I very likely would have employed primitive religious-sounding arguments. So I am in agreement with what you are saying, I think. Most homophobes either:

1) Actually believe their religion supports their attitudes, or 2) Co-opt religion to support their ignorant hatred.

In either case, religion plays a role, although in the latter case I'd say it is an innocent role. Much like some deranged nut who justifies killing on being an agent of natural selection. Anything can be co-opted and distorted.

From my perspective it's irrelevant that we can't parse out the proportion of bad actors that are Christians, the general practice of Chrisitanity itself is what creates, enables, and even promotes these types of events.

*I qualifed my use of the term Christian

Posted by: Michael Heath | April 10, 2010 9:29 AM

From my perspective it's irrelevant that we can't parse out the proportion of bad actors that are Christians, the general practice of Chrisitanity itself is what creates, enables, and even promotes these types of events.

Indeed Michael, and I think the last part of that sentence is something that some of have interpreted heddle as disagreeing with when he really hasn't. Again, I do think it's interesting that at least in my limited experience, even when discussing with Christians their anti-gay attitudes, non-religious reasons such as comparisons to bestiality and incest, or just a vague appeal to 'it's not natural', are offered as often as biblical justifications. But no question, anti-gay attitudes driven by Christianity unfortunately take advantage of a built-in community that enables their expression more forcefully and disgustingly.

Posted by: Spartan | April 10, 2010 10:15 AM

heddle wrote:

Even granting for the sake of argument the unflattering picture you paint is 100% accurate, how is that substantively different from any other commenter? How often do you admit "I might be wrong?" And in the unlikely event that you concede "I might be wrong" as often as I do, why should my admission be taken with a grain of salt, and not yours?

Because it's a tactic you use, one that is - at best - disingenuous. Yes, I'm aware that there aren't any 'rules' to online debating and that the tools of rhetoric may be freely applied; however, that doesn't mean I'm not going to call you on it when I see it.

You have no objective means to demonstrate how what these people consider Christianity is invalid - but you've comported yourself like you have.

By using an expression like 'cultural Christians' or alluding to them being 'atheists pretending to be Christians' you've taken a position of authority on what is or isn't Christianity - since, for all you know, simply answering 'yes' to the question 'are you a Christian' may constitute Christianity where it counts: in the eyes of Christ himself. Had he been a little more specific and unambiguous we wouldn't be having this debate; however, he didn't and so here we are.

With that in mind you have - as I've noted before - only one option: confront the people involved and convince them to cease calling themselves Christians. Because, until you do, you're stuck with us calling them what they call themselves: good Christians.

Posted by: Wowbagger | April 10, 2010 9:03 PM

Cynic - The problem is that Heddle's sure he knows what Christianity is. Any deviance from his definition leads into the "No True Scotsman" and "I've Never Seen Snow" arguments, which get slapped down hard since he always drags them out.
Disagreement, however, shouldn't be confused with dislike, nor petulant martyrdom with a strong argument. - Dingo

Posted by: DingoJack | April 10, 2010 10:00 PM

Cynic - that's simply because athiesm is easy to define: "not believing in god(s)". Not being certain there are god(s), not thinking about whether there are god(s), vaguely feeling there are 'spritual powers' out there somewhere in the aether, is not atheism by definition.
Prof. Heddle is redifining athiesm so allow him to claim "I once was an athiest...", falsly (I believe), a trick that is not uncommon amongst many Christians I have met and talked to. I have yet to meet an athiest turning their backs on logic and becoming superstitious, but plenty of religious types who have moved the other way (but that could be a sampling error/ Confirmation Bias on my part). This is why Christian Churches are losing followers (as a whole) and athiesm is growing. - Dingo

Posted by: DingoJack | April 10, 2010 10:39 PM

So, just to summarize my understanding of this thread, some people that did a shitty thing are unquestionably christian. Some people that did a shitty thing are, perhaps, non christian theist, in the sense that they do believe in God but cannot pass an undefined 'christianity test'. They are bigoted assholes; and they have not given religious nonchristian or secular arguments for behaving like bigoted assholes. Oh, and there may be some people (unquantified, and most likely impossible to quantify) that did a shitty thing and truly are atheists, but also bigoted assholes who found christianity a convenient excuse for, well, being bigoted assholes.

That is so much better for christianity and the big family of bigoted assholery.

Posted by: Norfolk | April 11, 2010 3:36 AM

Heddle - 'writ large', eh? Such as?
Cynic - being an atheist is to me, I suppose, an absolute state, like being dead. You can't be a little bit dead or unsure if your dead, that's not dead but something else. However, I concede that Heddle probably thinks he was an atheist, although he's may not be sure, since he seems to lump it together with various other states of belief. - Dingo

Posted by: DingoJack | April 11, 2010 7:05 AM

heddle @ 275,

I think many people's frustration with you regarding your frequent use of the 'no true Scotsmen' argument is that while it may very well describe a group of Christians in your sphere, your sphere is not representative of the population previously described. Especially when that population is occasionally not as precisely described as they could have, and probably should have been. Even if it wasn't properly described and worthy of raising this point; is it worthy enough to deflect primary attention away from the matter at hand? I ask this question as someone whose also guilty of thread-jacking more than my share and cognizant that many of your critics here are also guilty of the same.

It's like your taking an opportunity to pedantically criticize a description of a subset of Christians merely because you've seen outliers within such a group where your motivation appears to be a desire to deflect criticism from people deserving of such criticism or away from a significant chunk of the Christian movement that deserves criticism. In some cases I both agree with you and believe I champion the same cause when it comes to properly defining the culpable. For example we should be careful to distinguish between politically liberal/liberaltarian Christians and denominations from politically conservative Christians and denominations when it comes to criticizing those religionists who oppose adequately teaching evolution though even in this example there are also outliers who don't fit my description of the population.

As another example, when I refer to social conservatives, I'm referring to the group in 2000 - 2004 that comprised about 28% of the population that largely self-identified as Christian which became the dominant force in the Republican party during this period when Republicans and Republican-leaners equaled about 50% of likely voters (Gallup had it 45% GOP, 44% Dems but voting results in 2000 - 2004 were actually very close to 50/50). IIRC, that group of Christians was and remains about 22% of the total population, meaning they were 22%/28% = 79% of all social conservatives. That meant that this group of 28% comprised about 56% of GOP voters which also held power in D.C. in all three branches of federal government.

As someone who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible while arguing for more libertarian positions on some social matters, you are certainly an outlier if not even a member of this group in spite of your position on the accuracy of the Bible. But from a statistical perspective, I don't perceive a statistically significant group of like-minded people like you that are influential enough to be affecting policy in the public square, certainly at the national level and I don't see it in the state or my local level either (neither am I for that matter, I remain a refugee from the GOP whose not a leaner either way, a tiny group of wussies).

I do encounter the type of behavior that is the subject of this blog post by social conservatives in my rural neck of the woods in spite of its being far from Mississippi geographically. In fact my state representative is very clearly on the record that his Catholic understanding of God's law trumps gay people's demand that government defend their equal rights just like anyone else's. I.e., I have a state Representative who explicitly argues he will not defend the Constitution on certain matters, and wins election by making such arguments. My pointing out how unconstitutional his position was during his 2004 campaign in a letter to the editor of the local newspaper resulted in my receiving three death threats, two of which came with the caller ID attached to a local evangelical church.

Posted by: Michael Heath | April 11, 2010 7:52 AM

DJ,

Prof. Heddle is redifining athiesm so allow him to claim "I once was an athiest...", falsly (I believe), a trick that is not uncommon amongst many Christians I have met and talked to. I have yet to meet an athiest turning their backs on logic and becoming superstitious,

I reckon you'll never meet one, because either their definition of atheism ("I did not believe in god") will be insufficient for the honorific atheist, or you'll transport over space and time, get inside their head and say that they were actually agnostic. Or, last or even earlier resort, you'll simply say they are lying. So, again, I suspect you'll never meet one.

As for the passage, it appears on both the OT and NT. The reference in the NT:

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. (Rom 9:14-16)

Michael Heath,

I think many people's frustration with you regarding your frequent use of the 'no true Scotsmen' argument

I don't agree that pointing out the obvious fact that there are fake/cultural Christians is a No-True-Scotsman argument. I believe that most thinking people agree (among the well-know of our community I think of Jason Rosenhouse) there is some standard of behavior and doctrine that even he, as atheist, concedes is necessary. I think the No True Scotsman argument is generally used because it is just too bloody convenient, when someone is behaving badly, to say: "He says he is a Christian, that's good enough for me, not matter whether his life even looks remotely like the model given in the New Testament." Just too bloody convenient.

is it worthy enough to deflect primary attention away from the matter at hand?

To me it is--and I am not the only one. If Ed or a commenter writes something that seems to paint "postmodernists" or "the left" etc. with a broad brush, others will comment in a way that is tangential to the main thread. I do the same for Christianity. The difference of course is that my comments often start an uncontrolled chain reaction. If I make a troll-like comment (and yes I've done that) then the threadjacking is entirely my fault. If I make a legitimate point about someone else's comment, even if it is tangential to the main thread, then the fault lies equally (mostly) with those who turn my comment into a holy war.

or away from a significant chunk of the Christian movement that deserves criticism.

You can't possibly know this, at least in this case. In this prom case even if we grant that everyone who behaved badly was a true Christian, you cannot possibly know that a majority of Christians, even a majority of Southern Baptists, would have supported deceiving this girl about the replacement prom location. You can find data that says a majority will oppose gay marriage, but you cannot extrapolate and claim that a majority would approve of this deception.

Bible while arguing for more libertarian positions on some social matters, you are certainly an outlier if not even a member of this group in spite of your position on the accuracy of the Bible.

And yet I have taught adult Sunday school--with all my views quite well-known--at my last two churches. To put that in perspective, a conservative church generally imposes an orthodoxy test on adult sunday school teachers that is roughly the same as one they impose on their pastor. It would be amazing that I could find two outlying "First Churches for Biblical Conservatives and Social Libertarians."

his Catholic understanding of God's law trumps gay people's demand that government defend their equal rights just like anyone else's. I.e., I have a state Representative who explicitly argues he will not defend the Constitution on certain matters, and wins election by making such arguments.

I believe you. And my previous comment on this thread could be adapted to your point. What are the possibilties for this rep? Some include:

1) He is a true Catholic and has drawn a line in the sand.
2) He is a true social conservative and a nominal Catholic.
3) He hates gay people and uses the Catholic teachings, perhaps even distorting them, to justify his hatred.
4) He is simply pandering in whatever way will maximize his chance for re-election.

How can you tell? To first order you can't. But it is still true that 3 and 4 are possibilities. The test would be to see if the rest of his life is more or less consistent with the Catholic Church or if he is clearly a hypocrite.

Posted by: heddle | April 11, 2010 9:06 AM

Sorry but Heddle made me do it. :D
a) Firstly Atheism has a clear definition, not believing in god(s) is intrinsic to that definition. To be unsure about the existence of god(s) is agnosticism, not thinking about god(s) particularly would be unreligious (I suppose), but certainly not atheistic. With over 20,000+ sects Christianity would be hard to define.
b) Thanks for the Romans verses.

Romans 9:14-19
"14 What, then, shall we say? unrighteousness [is] with God? let it not be!
15 for to Moses He saith, `I will do kindness to whom I do kindness, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion;'
16 so, then -- not of him who is willing, nor of him who is running, but of God who is doing kindness" -Young's Literal Translation

But I'm thinking I would interpret each passage differently to you (although neither would be wrong).
c) I will, of course, concede I can't know what you thought in your callow youth, but knowing you (as slightly) as I do now I find it hard to imagine you didn't harbor a corner of doubt (and I say that not as a slur, but a complement. Skepticism (unlike my dogmatic atheism) is a good thing).
Since it's unlikely we'll ever convince each other let's just agree to disagree, so enough of the dingojack of this thread, now I'll STFU. - Dingo

Posted by: DingoJack | April 11, 2010 9:45 AM

DJ - I think this thread has gone over its freshness date, therefore a perfect opportunity to go off tangent like I've done twice as well. I wasn't criticizing anyone for going off-tangent this far-out, I was criticizing heddle when the blog post was fresh because his critique wasn't even central to the point but in fact a red herring.

Heddle - your response to my 'no true Scotsman' argument avoided my central point given you've already conceded that it's Christianity that is the primary enabler of the behavior blogged about here in our initial exchange in this thread. Whether these bad actors are a representative group of 85% Christians or perhaps 55% were Christians or some other number is both moot and as you correctly point-out impossible to know. What is relevant and the core point is that these bad actors' behavior is promoted, enabled, and justified by Christianity as its practiced in that locality.

So my 'true Scotsman' criticism of you in this blog post doesn't have anything to do with the impreciseness of the rate of bad actors that are Christians and everything to do with the fact that small-town Mississippi style religion is what causes such events to both occur and reinforce the primary group's resiliency to changing their behavior in the future.

If I were a leader of Mississippi church who was a conservative Christian but also sincere about wanting to live a Christ-like life and influence others accordingly, I wouldn't be overly concerned about the proportion of students that were Christians that acted in bad faith against their fellow students. I'd instead be focused on how my actions and my church's actions contribute to such acts. The fact you avoid this point argues you're perhaps not all that different from the leaders of the bad actors since it avoids having to scrutinize how one's religion promotes, enables, justifies such egregious behavior.

Posted by: Michael Heath | April 11, 2010 9:53 AM

Michael Heath:

This:

"If I were a leader of Mississippi church who was a conservative Christian but also sincere about wanting to live a Christ-like life and influence others accordingly, I wouldn't be overly concerned about the proportion of students that were Christians that acted in bad faith against their fellow students."

is a bit like the line of reasoning that Pope Bentdick made for not dealing with priestophiles.

Posted by: democomme | April 11, 2010 10:20 AM

Michael - just as a hypothetical. If you were suddenly put in charge of the GOP, and you could (somehow) influence who would be elected to be a candidate in the 2012 Presidential Primary, who would you nominate and why? - Curiously Dingo

Posted by: DingoJack | April 11, 2010 10:47 AM

democommie,

heddle, of course, is certain, beyond any doubt that his opinion is "fact" while others' opinions are, well, opinions.

Well, I'm certain you are an ass for repeating this. It is one of the most stupid of all possible criticisms.

You seem mighty certain in your opinion regarding how I view my opinions as facts. You seem mighty certain of your opinions of your KKKristians.

Michael Heath,

What is relevant and the core point is that these bad actors' behavior is promoted, enabled, and justified by Christianity as its practiced in that locality.

Again, where are the data? Where are the data that suggest deceiving this girl is promoted and justified by Christianity as practiced in that community? Have you seen a survey of Christians in Mississippi asking whether they thought deceiving this girl was justified by Christianity? If so then please supply a link.

And you have forgotten that I while ackowledged Christianity as enabling these bad behaviors, to the extent to which Christianity or any ideology has been co-opted I consider that ideology innocent. The same applies if someone kills and claims himself an agent of natural selection. Evolution is not to blame. (Only there most will say: but the nut doesn't actually understand evolution--whereas in this type of case we are obligated to accept the nuts as stout Christians in good standing.)

DJ,

I find it hard to imagine you didn't harbor a corner of doubt

Does a corner of doubt prevent you from being an atheist?

Posted by: heddle | April 11, 2010 1:28 PM

democommie:

When heddle and, occassionally you, offer an argument that has no factual basis (such as a beleif in your non-existent skyfairy) and insist that others ae simply stupid or unable to fathom the truth you tend to piss people off. Your religious views are, quite simply, unverifiable beliefs which you are, similar to your opinions, entitled to. The rest of the world is not obliged to agree with your beliefs nor treat them as anything other that the unverifiable beliefs that they are. When you, or usually, heddle insist that other people are stupid or lying, because they disagree with you it will tend to draw some flak.

I'll leave heddle to defend himself, but I'd like you to show me a time when I've done this. I put this mostly in hypothetical, although there have been a handful of times when it has happened to me, and none of those times (at least that I can remember) have been instances where I defended some aspect of Christianity except maybe perhaps arguing a point where moderate and liberal Christians could reasonably take a different stance on various issues than fundamentalists do - which, as far as I can tell, is verifiable in a sense. In a bygone age, perhaps, I was interested in apologetics, but I've grown so much beyond that stage that I don't even link to my old defunct blog anymore because I don't feel like it accurately represents my opinions on a number of issues. (The other time that sticks out in my mind was an abortion thread where I sort of played devil's advocate for the "pro-life" position and had someone accuse me of arguing in bad faith given a post I had made quite a while ago on the subject of abortion. Yet Michael Heath had came over and commented on that post much earlier, and his very fair and thought-provoking comments in large part helped shape how I think about that issue now. I don't think I've ever taken the opportunity to thank him for engaging me reasonably and critically as opposed to, you know, implying that I'm a "KKKristian," to borrow demo's neologism.)

I think, more or less, that you (demo) take for granted your status around here. I don't have that status because my comments here have been few and far between (although I've been lurking around for several years now) and because I'm bold enough to suggest in my 'nym that I'm a Christian. That's not to say that Christians are shunned around here (we've had some great regulars who are Christian, including RevAJB [has anyone heard from him lately? I miss his contributions] and kehrsam), but it takes a lot more to overcome that - shall we say - social barrier in this community, and if your comment history resembles heddle's, you become an infamous commenter rather than a cherished regular. You can claim that those of us who are Christian and maybe not taken as seriously (or scrutinized more intensely) have done something to deserve it, but I think that's a claim that requires evidence to back it up.

Posted by: The Christian Cynic | April 11, 2010 2:31 PM

@262:

Is that a fair enough statement?

Pretty effectively, yes it is, James.

----------

Spartan @253:

dogmeat, this is the closest I can find to support your first sentence:

Basically, from my perspective, the debate/argument built upon itself. Part of the problem was, for me, that Heddle's definition of an atheist didn't qualify as an atheist. A non-believer or agnostic, yes, but an atheist, no. That, combined with arguments that could be taken as reversals and/or contradictory of his earlier statements and I remained in the debate.

Also, in 154 and 169 heddle argued (respectively), that there was no "Mt. Everest (my metaphor)" of evidence supporting the position that the vast majority of the people of Mississippi (and correspondingly, in this story) were Christian; and, argued that the greater the number of self-reporting Christians the greater the number of those lying about being Christian. Both of these arguments suggested to me (and I believe to others) that he was refuting his own claim that he agreed that the majority of these bigots were Christians. He may not have intended that, or it may actually have been his intent, I have no way of knowing, but I did, at least at that time take it that way (as did many others).

----------
Heddle @ 250

And will you answer these two questions with a yes or a no:

1) Simply believing that god does not exist is sufficient to be considered an true atheist by others.

2) Simply calling oneself a Christian is sufficient for being considered a true Christian by others.

For both questions, if we were to base this on your own description of yourself, no. A lack of belief does not equate a disbelief.

I would liken it to this, you can say you believe in God, but not be a Christian. You can not believe in God and still not be an Atheist. For both it takes that extra step. For the one you have to study the Bible, at least be familiar with it, accept the New Testament, the teachings of Jesus, etc. For Atheism it actually takes that same time and reflection. As Dingo points out in 282 and 290, simply not thinking about it, or being unsure, yes, you'd qualify as an unbeliever, an Agnostic, not not as an Atheist.

I stand firmly behind this definition because it describes my own personal path of logical consideration, a path that I didn't take lightly and one in which I spent a lot of time mostly due to social stigma and, at least at some level, a fading hope that logic was wrong, the evidence was wrong, and that there was an afterlife, etc.

Also, through the course of this journey, I would have referred to myself as different things at different times. First as a Catholic, then as a Christian, then still as an unbeliever I referred to myself as Christian. That position stayed until I reached the point of being a full fledged Agnostic which, I believe unbeliever professing to be Christian is closer to your position heddle, than actual Agnosticism or Atheism. Once I reached the point where I thought the existence of a God was unlikely, but was unwilling to take that additional step to flat out say "no, there is no God," that took me much longer, but I didn't refer to myself as a Christian, I openly referred to myself as an Agnostic. One of the reasons it took me so long to transition to full fledged Atheist was the stigma attached to just being an Agnostic. I had people saying, literally, to my face, "Oh, that's terrible, we have to help you." Now think about how seriously fucked up that is. You tell someone else, right to their face, that you think their beliefs are stupid and that you, having superior knowledge, will help them to adopt your beliefs, beliefs that they once held but have since rejected. That's like telling them, "I know you're a fucking moron, but we'll talk really slow and help you learn how to tie your shoes." That's quite often what it is like just being an Agnostic in our country, you don't even want to get me started on Christians who discover you're an Atheist.

So again, for both of your questions, in passing, I would say yes, but, given circumstances where the individual described themselves the way you have detailed your own past, I would say no, you weren't an Atheist and you weren't a Christian even though you described yourself as a Christian at the time and today consider yourself to have been an Atheist. You weren't either. I guess the simplest description of you at the time would have been an unbelieving cultural Christian. Perhaps an Agnostic cultural Christian. But I would not, and do not consider you to have been an Atheist.

Posted by: dogmeatib | April 11, 2010 3:11 PM

DJ,

Heddle - yes, then you'd be an agnostic, by definition. - Dingo

OK, I'll accept that. I am, however, surprised that you argue that even a little double makes you an agnostic, not an atheist. It would seem, speaking for myself, humanly impossible to be an atheist under that requirement.

Posted by: heddle | April 11, 2010 5:23 PM

You seem to be suggesting that atheism is a subset of, what, nonbelief? If so, then I would fit into this group because I could be considered an unbeliever by various other religions; however, that's not exactly any reason to lump me in with atheists and agnostics under the broad heading of "non-belief."

Actually that is precisely what I would call it (perhaps Dingo as well, but I wouldn't attempt to make that claim for him). And yes, to a degree you could jokingly claim to be an atheist because you don't believe in those other God(s), except atheists don't believe in any Gods or Goddesses. Theists, or believers have decided, for one reason or another, that those other stories are false and theirs are correct. I've never quite understood this, which is one of the reasons why I started asking questions that increasingly made my priest and religious friends uncomfortable.

The problem lies in the actual attempt to think about it, work it out, and develop a rational stance. If you take heddle's example, he stated quite clearly he never thought about it, hadn't intellectualized it, etc., you could classify him as an unbeliever, but I would be rather hesitant to call him an Agnostic, and definitely wouldn't call him an Atheist.

*And this nonsense about having to study the Bible, etc., to be a Christian? Even less compelling

Of course it's nonsense and not very compelling. Fortunately that's not what I said, so this strawman is very, very dead, congratulations. You might want to look back at what I actually said:

For the one you have to study the Bible, at least be familiar with it, accept the New Testament, the teachings of Jesus, etc.

How you managed to take all of those elements and boil them down to "you have to study the Bible" is beyond me. As I said, in order to be a Christian you have to at least be familiar with it (second point), accept the New Testament (third point), accept the teachings of Jesus (fourth point), in addition to it probably being a good idea to study the Bible. I would argue that points 2-4 are pretty much critical, point one "extra credit" though many wouldn't consider you a "good Christian" without doing so.

----------

I don't think there is one, Cynic, and I think you are absolutely right. I would go a little further than Shirakawasuna above; if you can't say yes to the question, do you believe in god, then you're fairly called an atheist. Yes, agnostic might be a more precise term, but that is nearly the same I believe as what is also called negative or weak atheism.

I maintain the argument that you could be considered a non-believer, but have to have thought about it more philosophically to be an atheist. Again I argue that your point is roughly akin to anyone who says they believe in "a" God is automatically a Christian which I think we all agree would be nonsense.

In the case of a believer, they might be a Christian, but they could also be Jewish or Muslim, could be Hindu, or some other religion, could be a Theist, or Deist, or they could not have thought or cared about it one way or the other.

On the other hand the non-believer could be an Atheist, Agnostic, or really hadn't thought or cared about it one way or the other.

On either side of the "I don't know" horizon, you have a variety of believer/non-believer combinations that blur the line far too much for a simplistic response or definition. None of this is to say I would argue for a purity test or anything silly like that, simply that if someone were to tell me if it came up in conversation, "I hadn't thought about it, I guess I don't believe in God, I suppose I'm an Atheist." I would suggest they actually think about it.

----------

But since we're way past the expiration date on this thread, I'll just ask a general question as to why people think heddle threads do tend to get rather long and usually hostile.

Spartan,

For me, personally, I was actually interested in finding out what heddle thought about regarding his Atheism. Like Dingo, I have never actually met anyone who qualifies by "our" definition of an Atheist and then became a theist. In each case it instead turned out to be someone who never really thought about it much and then later had an event (or events) in their lives that actually made them think about it and they chose theism. That isn't surprising. To have someone who actually did think about it, logically processed the alternatives, came up with the logical, thought out position that there was no God and then reversed that position? That is quite surprising and, like I said, I've never come across anyone who actually fit the bill.

Also, if you note, I didn't really get hostile with heddle until he began accusing me of lying, etc. Even then I don't think I was any more hostile than he was to me (not an accusation, just an observation). In his post #251 he looked back, saw that he had mistakenly accused me of making statements I hadn't made, etc. (easy enough to do when debating/arguing with multiple people) and apologized. From that point on I have returned to simply discussing and debating points.

Regarding "Mt. Everest," my metaphor might have been a bit extreme, but when you have self reporting, numerous polls, voting records, statements made by those involved, etc., and it all points to the same thing, I do consider that a rather daunting challenge to face and overcome if you wish to prove an alternate hypothesis.

Posted by: dogmeatib | April 11, 2010 7:34 PM

dogmeatib:

Theists, or believers have decided, for one reason or another, that those other stories are false and theirs are correct.

I really don't get this. It's like if you frame theists' beliefs as "narratives," then you can claim somehow that the process for coming about those beliefs was illegitimate. Would talking about the "narratives" of common descent or abiogenesis discredit them? I think not. Humanity tends to tell stories, and it is decidedly postmodernist to insist that you don't have a narrative, you've done away with narratives, all those irrational people have narratives...

If you want to discredit someone's beliefs, do it based on, you know, objective criteria. It's not like no one's ever done that before.

The problem lies in the actual attempt to think about it, work it out, and develop a rational stance.

That's not a definitional issue, though. At best, you're claiming some degree of standards for what a good (i.e. rational, freethinking) atheist looks like. (More on that shortly.)

Regarding the "strawman": I admit that I glossed your statement a bit, but the fact that you started off with "study the Bible" (which you then backed away from as a necessary condition) is problematic. We're not talking here about what good Christians do - that is, the standards set by the Christian community at large that set a list of prescribed actions for members - but about what the base criteria are for reasonably calling oneself a Christian. I would agree that accepting the Christhood of Jesus is a necessity (although I don't frankly know if that must entail divinity - probably so), but I wouldn't say that accepting the New Testament necessarily is (one could hold that the New Testament has been corrupted by scribes and get their idea of Jesus from, say, the Gospel of Thomas, just as a possible example). Let's not conflate definitions (necessary and sufficient conditions) with the standards of a community (here, orthodoxy/orthopraxy).

I maintain the argument that you could be considered a non-believer, but have to have thought about it more philosophically to be an atheist. Again I argue that your point is roughly akin to anyone who says they believe in "a" God is automatically a Christian which I think we all agree would be nonsense.

That's not an argument; it's an assertion. Spartan's point is not analogous to your "theist=Christian" counter-example except if you assume that atheism is a subset of non-belief, which is precisely what is being contested.

Posted by: The Christian Cynic | April 11, 2010 9:05 PM

386sx: Do shove off if you don't have any constructive to add. The grownups are talking.

(See, I can be condescending, too. And in short paragraphs!)

Posted by: The Christian Cynic | April 11, 2010 10:42 PM

386sx, this is really quite simple: I'm not arguing that my beliefs aren't narrative in nature (many - but not all - are) or that they shouldn't be called stories (call a spade a spade, I say) but that it is entirely irrelevant whether or not any set of beliefs are couched in a narrative. I sort of figured that was clear when I said

Would talking about the "narratives" of common descent or abiogenesis discredit them? I think not. (emphasis mine)

P.S. Hope that meets your threshold of verbosity.

Posted by: The Christian Cynic | April 11, 2010 11:00 PM

Also, if you note, I didn't really get hostile with heddle until he began accusing me of lying, etc

Agreed, and I wasn't referring to you about hostility; my bad for mentioning that after quoting you. I understand what you're saying with your example of, "I hadn't thought about it, I guess I don't believe in God, I suppose I'm an Atheist.", and I agree that makes 'atheist' imprecise as to the level of disbelief, but it's definitely well within the acceptable definition of atheist.

Like Dingo, I have never actually met anyone who qualifies by "our" definition of an Atheist and then became a theist. In each case it instead turned out to be someone who never really thought about it much and then later had an event (or events) in their lives that actually made them think about it and they chose theism.

That's an interesting point, I hadn't really thought about it from that perspective, and maybe you're right that it makes them resistant to becoming a theist later on. But I just have to note that if we reverse the words 'atheist' and 'theist' and it was posted by heddle, I have zero doubt that he'd be accused of making a No True Christian argument. If the Christian/atheist was formerly an atheist/Christian, well, then it must be because they didn't meet my definition and they obviously must not have logically thought about the subject much so it doesn't count; a very convenient argument either way it's attempted. I'm not saying that's the type of statement you've made, just the possible perception, and I'm not sure why the logic structure of the quote doesn't work if we reverse the terms in favor of the Christian. If I remember correctly, heddle has the additional argument that True Christians cannot become atheists, in that he does not believe Christians can lose their salvation.

Posted by: Spartan | April 11, 2010 11:18 PM

you and heddle are both a bit full of yourselves about being "superior" beause of your special relationship with your nonexistent friend

You know this how? Direct quote please. And you're blaming them for the diddling of altar boys? Get a grip, man.

Posted by: Spartan | April 11, 2010 11:24 PM

Back again - Cynic and Spartan you keep using words (and phrases), but I think you don't know what they mean:
atheist: A person who disbelieves in the existence of god(s) from 'a-' & 'theos'; godless, without god.
agnostic: A person who thinks that god(s) are unknown and unknowable, yet does not deny their existence from 'a-' & 'gnostos'; not able to be known.
No True Scotsman: Disowning a person formerly you claimed in your genus because of disapproval of their actions or beliefs.
Heddle's 'No Snow' argument: Claiming that none of your genus have ever had a belief or pursued an action you disapproved of, "because I've never seen it", contrary to the observations of many other witnesses.

My observations about the rates of 'atheists to theists (or deists)' compared to the reverse flow, is based on my having talked to people about it, sometimes at length, and over many conversations. It's based on collected data. While I admit I haven't talked to every human on the planet, and that the former flow direction is possible, I have never observed it to have happened, strengthening my certainty to probability of nearly 1. I have found agnostics and 'new age' spiritualists whose believe have deepened over time, but not atheists becoming theists or deists. Sorry.
And just to be clear about this you have the perfect right to believe any damn fool idea you want, it's none of my business, but don't expect me not to point out how silly those beliefs are, and why.

Posted by: DingoJack | April 12, 2010 12:19 AM

heddle @290:

And you have forgotten that I while ackowledged Christianity as enabling these bad behaviors, to the extent to which Christianity or any ideology has been co-opted I consider that ideology innocent. The same applies if someone kills and claims himself an agent of natural selection. Evolution is not to blame. (Only there most will say: but the nut doesn't actually understand evolution--whereas in this type of case we are obligated to accept the nuts as stout Christians in good standing.)

And here, in fact, is the No True Scotsman argument. If someone acknowledges Christianity as enabling these murders, we shouldn't believe that they're really Christians. I'm sorry heddle, but if you want people to stop claiming you make NTS argument, then you need to stop making arguments that are, at the very least, so suspiciously similar to them. The fact is, there is a long historical link between Christianity and these sorts of behaviors and--while I think, like you, that it is a perversion of Christ's teachings--there is some undeniable element of justification, as Christianity is a normative system and tells us that "the homos are sinners!". Your analogy doesn't work because there is no historical linkage between evolutionary theory and abuse of people, and evolutionary theory is not a normative system that would tell us some people are bad. (Heck, that's exactly why some social scientists hate it, because it explains, but doesn't condemn, certain socially undesirable behaviors.)

Christian Cynic @292:

I don't have that status because my comments here have been few and far between

And I would encourage you to make them less few and less far between. I enjoy your comments. I have no doubt it can be difficult for devout Christians on this blog, but I enjoy your contributions and would be delighted to see more.

RevAJB [has anyone heard from him lately? I miss his contributions]

No, and that's a pity. RevAJB, if you're lurking, I miss you.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 12, 2010 7:38 AM

Doctorgoo:

These folks need to put down their Bibles and start learning some REAL morality.

Respectfully, I disagree. They need to throw out their old testaments and start reading, and re-reading, and re-re-reading, Matthew 5-7, and John 8: 3-11. I think those passages give REAL morality. Yet as often as I heard them preached in my church growing up, I never--and I emphasize never saw them practiced.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 12, 2010 7:51 AM

Cynic and Spartan you keep using words (and phrases), but I think you don't know what they mean: atheist: A person who disbelieves in the existence of god(s) from 'a-' & 'theos'; godless, without god.

No Dingo, I know full well what they mean; I just disagree with your trying to pigeon-hole them into your one favored definition. Looking up 'disbelief' on dictionary.com, our first definition is 'to have no belief in'. Well that covers our agnostics and people who don't care and haven't thought about God. Have you never seen references to the terms strong vs weak atheism and positive vs negative atheism? It's on wiki.

As I said above, I do think it's interesting that people who meet your definition of atheist have never converted. Maybe you have had enough conversations to have some faith in your data. Do you disagree though that heddle has used the exact same form of argument in the past, regarding Christians in his church or that he has had conversations with, which I would wager number significantly more than the number of atheists you have had such discussions with, and been pounced on with 'anecdotes != data' and similar charges?

I have found agnostics and 'new age' spiritualists whose believe have deepened over time, but not atheists becoming theists or deists. Sorry.

You don't have to be sorry, it's no skin off my back. But you do see of course that any Christian can play the exact same game. Any of the supposed 'Christians' who have become atheists were really agnostics also, and hadn't really fully experienced the divine or opened their heart to God or whatever thing drives one to 'really' believe in God.

Posted by: Spartan | April 12, 2010 9:28 AM

Dingo, as long as we're just whipping out a list of questions, have you looked up weak atheism or negative atheism yet? Did heddle meet that definition? Are you familiar with the word 'synonym'? Why does dictionary.com list atheist as a synonym if the meanings are so disparate, and not just 'see also'? You do understand that some words can have both general and specific meanings? Do agnostics believe in God? If no, does that count as 'disbelief in God' given dictionary.com's definitions?

Also, you don't seem very familiar with 'goalpost shifting'. It typically refers to one person setting one goal or definition and then changing it conveniently when the original goal is almost met. I've been consistent with my definition of atheist throughout the thread, and have only disputed that it only means what you insist it only means (and I do not dispute that your definition is a valid and more concise one, I just dispute that it's the only one).

Posted by: Spartan | April 12, 2010 1:00 PM

Does an agnostic believe in god, yes. If believing in a god is unbelief in god(s) then a cat is a brick. - Dingo

Posted by: DingoJack | April 12, 2010 1:09 PM

James Hanley,

I'm sorry heddle, but if you want people to stop claiming you make NTS argument, then you need to stop making arguments that are, at the very least, so suspiciously similar to them.

Maybe. But let's look at some different cases.

1) The "Whoever claims to be a Christian, is" debate. This one the most absurd case, yet I've heard it more than a few times on this blog--that unless one accepts any claim of Christianity, then one is committing a NTS fallacy. Jason Rosenhouse had my favorite argument against this: that if someone claims they are a Christian because Elvis was Jesus and they follow Elvis the Christ, then a thinking person should not say "well, who am I to say he is not a Christian?" A thinking person should acknowledge that words have meaning, and whatever Christian means, anyone who is not a pinhead would agree that it does not accommodate the belief that Elvis is Jesus.

2) Any true Christian would (if female) wear a dress to church and (if mail) a dress shirt and tie. No true Christian wears jeans to church. Here we have the classic use of the NTS fallacy. Perfectly analogous to "All true Scots eat haggis."

3) No true Christian commits murder or is a homophobe or would deceive a young girl into attending the wrong prom. This is the same as (2). Maybe a bit more subtle--maybe. But in any case it deserves the NTS charge. This is what I got charged with, even though I made no such claim.

And that gets us to what I believe is the claim I make, which I don't think deserves a NTS charge, but which you will probably disagree. It has one non-doctrinal assumption: that the New Testament is the definitive guide to what a Christian is.

Broken down to cause and effect, as applied to how we live, and with no reference to Calvinism, I believe the New Testament, unambiguously, teaches:

1) The "cause" of being a Christian is faith in Jesus Christ

2) The inevitable "effect" of being a Christian is that one's life changes and over time, perhaps very slowly yet inexorably, sanctification occurs. (I'm assuming we all have a working definition of sanctification.)

Now that is nonsense to unbelievers but so what?--you can still read the New Testament and, if you do, I believe that you would be forced to conclude--yes, that is a fair summary.

Looking back at those two points, 1 is invisible, but 2 is not. Thus--even if I am an unbeliever, I can agree, I think, that a person's life, over the long haul should show a trend to sanctification. It doesn't mean that any given true Christian cannot commit and number of horrible sins. It doesn't mean that I believe I will actually encounter such a person--it just means that tangible, visible characteristics of what it means to be a Christian have been spelled out by the Christianity rule book.

So I think it is not a NTS argument to say that some who claim to meet the standard--even conservatively applied, do not need to be considered true Christians.

Among those might include, for example, someone born into a family where they were told they were Christians. Perhaps Never went to church. But more importantly lived their complete lives with no sign of moving in the direction of Christian sanctification as defined by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. If I know such a person, and they commit a bad act and attribute it to Christianity--I'll accept that they give Christianity a black eye by unfortunate association--but I will not consider them true Christians. Now I would have to know someone really well to make that judgment. But it is possible.

In short--to me the NTS fallacy carries with it, in my opinion, an assumed willi-nilliness. It does not include any true X is Y if, ideed, Y is a necessary attribute of the definition of X.

Posted by: heddle | April 12, 2010 1:44 PM

Could you believe a little bit god? Well yes but then you'd be agnostic :)
just for you information this from dictionary.com*

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnōsis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals—"ists," as he called them—who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.

Nice arguing with you, but it's 4am here. :D - Dingo

Posted by: DingoJack | April 12, 2010 1:48 PM

"Could you believe a little bit god?"

That's the wrong question, DJ. The real question is,

"Can you be uncertain about whether god exists or not, so that you neither believe nor disbelieve?"

My answer is, "yes."

Posted by: James Hanley | April 12, 2010 1:58 PM

doctorgoo - I don't know of any liberal Episcopalians or any Catholics that believe the Bible is inerrant. Are you sure such exist? It's my understanding that belief in an inerrant Bible is a fundamental precept only for evangelicalism and fundamentalism where the other two groups formally teach their even their congregants differently.

Posted by: Michael Heath | April 12, 2010 3:53 PM

Michael Heath@328 --

Dont confuse inerrancy with sola scriptura. Catholics most certainly believe that "the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures" or more simply, "He[God] thus gives assurance that their writings[Scripture] teach without error his saving truth." While the Catholic Bishop might be loath to use the term, "inerrant" due to its appropriation by the Sola Scriptura Protestants, he would most readily agree that the Scriptures are "without error" but would immediately caution that divining the correct interpretation requires familiarity with Tradition, Church History, etc, etc. While I am less confident of my knowledge of the beliefs of Epsicopalians, I suspect that much the same would be true, that the bible is indeed "without error" but that the appropriate interpretation may not be immediately apparent. The Episcopalian would probably use less Latin.

Posted by: Dave | April 12, 2010 4:17 PM

Sorry Spartan, logged off right after posting my reply, didn't see your comment @306:

Agreed, and I wasn't referring to you about hostility; my bad for mentioning that after quoting you.

No worries, just wanted to clarify, that's all. ;o)

But I just have to note that if we reverse the words 'atheist' and 'theist' and it was posted by heddle, I have zero doubt that he'd be accused of making a No True Christian argument. If the Christian/Atheist was formerly an Atheist/Christian, well, then it must be because they didn't meet my definition and they obviously must not have logically thought about the subject much so it doesn't count; a very convenient argument either way it's attempted.

To some degree I agree with you that it is similar, at least at the surface. I think the difference lies in a willingness to accept someone into your "group" when it is convenient and then declaring them a non-member when it is equally convenient to expel them. A perfect example is the young Heddle. He recalls not believing but at the same time referring to himself as a Christian to avoid social stigma. Personally I wouldn't consider him an Atheist or a Christian at that time, but more of a vague Agnostic/non-believer/social Christian. When he actually took the time, sat down, and thought about it, then he became a Christian.

Personally I think it is up to the group in question to claim or deny members. But, within that framework, you can still have the "no true Scotsman" situation where they will claim membership to support their claims of majority, etc., but then deny them when they prove to espouse positions that are unpopular. I look at those who claim significantly larger numbers of Atheists in the same light. Personally I think that there are a lot more non-believers and Agnostics than there are listed in polls, there are likely more Atheists as well (few of my Christian friends are aware), but I don't think it is as large a number (at least according to my criteria) as people would like to believe.

If I remember correctly, heddle has the additional argument that True Christians cannot become atheists, in that he does not believe Christians can lose their salvation.

I'm not certain how to read this. On the one hand he could mean that if we ever accepted Christ, etc., then no matter what we're saved. On the other hand he could be arguing that no one who ever truly accepted Christ could turn away. There are major problems with both assertions. In the first case that suggests that if I were chosen by God I could do whatever I wanted and still be saved. If that isn't the case then free will goes right out the window. In either case the logic is contradictory and full of holes. If he is arguing that no one who ever accepted Christ could turn away and become an atheist, there are also some major holes in that argument. I guess he could be arguing that someone like me never truly accepted Christ, etc., which is both hard to argue for/against and hard to prove either way. The difference, as I see it, is that I did believe in God and was a Christian. I had thought about it and believed (as opposed to the young heddle who hadn't and didn't). Through time though, as I looked at it more and more, I saw ever larger problems with the premise, with the stories, and most significantly, with the argument for exclusive "Truth." By the time I hit college I looked more deeply into numerous faiths. I read Judaic teachings beyond the Old Testament, I read translations of the Qur'an, I read the Vedas, I studied Buddhism, Confucianism, and a number of other non-western beliefs. As I saw that there really wasn't any evidence that any of them were right or wrong, I became more of an Agnostic Deist. I could go on with the story, but I've repeated it a couple of times, so I wont.

Suffice it to say that I was a believer who thought about it and actually did study the Bible. Heddle could argue that I never truly believed, and it is hard to argue one way or the other. I can point to a key difference, as a young boy into young adulthood, I did think about it, consider it, etc., heddle said that he really didn't think about it until he became older and then became a Christian. I think that is the key difference between our divergent paths. I thought about it early and often, he didn't until later in life. As I thought about it over the years I moved away from belief, when he did actually sit down and think about it, he embraced belief. I think that suggests two very different processes.

Posted by: dogmeatib | April 12, 2010 4:56 PM

Do you think that the Christian church is not allowed to excommunicate? Because the act of excommunicating is certainly saying: this person is not to be regarded as a Christian.

Posted by: Dave | April 12, 2010 5:20 PM

Dave #334,

A fair point, but I am talking "in principle." Take the biblical accounts at face value for sake of argument. Paul instructed the Corintian church to excommunicate a man who refused to stop sleeping with his step mother.

Was Paul guilty of the NTS fallacy?

Posted by: heddle | April 12, 2010 5:26 PM

Heddle@334

Since Paul only instructed the Corinthian church to expel the member from that specific community, "expel that member from you" and "you must not associate with," but never suggests that the man might not be a Christian, I would both find it difficult to accuse Paul of the NTS fallacy as well as understand how this would support your point. Indeed, if I were to dust off my long-unused powers of scriptural interpretation, I would read Paul's instruction as more similar to shunning than excommunication.

As to talking "in principle," since the Christian community has never, in its two thousand year history, been a cohesive whole(*) I think that "in principle" we need to factor in the fractured nature of that community.

(*) - OK, I might be willing to allow it was cohesive until 34AD.

Posted by: Dave | April 12, 2010 5:48 PM

Atheism simply requires the lack of belief in god(s) (and Dingo's argumentum ad etymologia aside, that is a viable meaning of the term), whereas being a Christian has more steps (due mostly to the fact that Christianity comes with more philosophical baggage, IMO). That's not a statement about philosophical superiority or complexity at all.

Really? You just finished stating that Christianity requires philosophy while Atheism "just is." That isn't a statement of philosophical superiority or complexity, really? Than what is it?

I would argue that both positions come with a lot more philosophical baggage and both are more complex than the default position of "I haven't thought about it, I don't know." *THAT* is precisely my point. And despite your arguments to the contrary, and rather sad attempt to flip the question and argue that I am claiming some sort of superior position, I would argue that they are two equally complex and "baggage" toting philosophical positions. While I argue for necessary thought and contemplation for both, you seem to be arguing that the default, "no thought or contemplation" position is Atheism while Christianity is much more deep and philosophical. That is extremely arrogant and dismissive. You can deny it all you like, but your argument in this post suggests that you do indeed believe that Christians are philosophically superior to Atheists, that you have contemplated life while we just (apparently) sit around and scratch ourselves.

The simple fact is that if Atheism is established as a simplistic default position, with the most simplified methodology and definition, (which seems very much what you would like it to be) then it can be dismissed and disregarded. If, on the other hand, it is a complex philosophy that requires careful thought and consideration (which is what you are so strongly arguing against), then it becomes more uncomfortable for those believers who are thoughtful and contemplative.

Posted by: dogmeatib | April 12, 2010 6:07 PM

No that is not accurate. When I was young I didn't believe in god. I answered "Christian" for the same reason many gay people answer "straight." It is the path of least resistance. And I didn't become a Christian by sitting down and thinking about it. I suspect that it is impossible to become a Christian in that manner.

Perhaps "contemplate" works better. My point is that neither position, Christian nor Athiest, just is. That it takes some effort, whether cognitive, contemplative, faith, whatever you wish to call it, some effort to reach that level. The argument that Atheism can simply be a default position without any thought or consideration simply doesn't wash.

If you are saved (or even if you are not) you can do whatever you want. Actually the Calvinistic view is that you will do whatever your free will desires, every time, every choice.

So you would argue no free will? Then what's the point? Don't we just become little playthings that God has manipulated? Kind of like kids playing army-man or dolls in a doll house? What's the point of life if your entire existence is already planned out and none of the choices are your own?

I would never argue that. The bible has examples of people who believe, an no doubt believed sincerely, but were not saved.

It was more of a hypothetical than an assertion. Question for you, in your philosophy, could I, an Atheist, be saved/chosen and still go to heaven? If not, doesn't that suggest a certain level of arrogance? If yes, doesn't that suggest that your efforts as a Christian are a waste of time?

[note: I'm not giving you a hard time with any of these questions, I am honestly asking and interested]

Posted by: dogmeatib | April 12, 2010 6:18 PM

Doctorgoo,

No, I'm not going to argue that. Instead I want you to back it up. Christians believe in "salvation by works?"

Which Christians believe that? Show me one church website that proclaims "At this Christian church, we proclaim not salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, but rather we proclaim Salvation by Works."

1) Not the Roman Catholic Church, which is the largest single denomination.

2) Not any mainstream Protestant denomination that I know of. Not Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Pentecostals, ...

Suppose you find some isolated church that teaches a doctrine (Salvation by works) that 99 percent of Christendom denies.

Does that mean the 99 percent cannot say: sorry, that's not Christianity.

That just takes you back to the elvis example.

Posted by: heddle | April 12, 2010 6:29 PM

DOGMEATIB! BACK AWAY FROM THE FREE WILL ARGUMENT! THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING! YOU DO NOT WANT TO GET INTO THE FREE WILL ARGUMENT WITH HEDDLE! YOUR. BRAIN. WILL. EXPLODE.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 12, 2010 6:45 PM

Question for you, in your philosophy, could I, an Atheist, be saved/chosen and still go to heaven? If not, doesn't that suggest a certain level of arrogance? If yes, doesn't that suggest that your efforts as a Christian are a waste of time?

I wouldn't count on it. That is, the bible is clear that the normative case is to hear the gospel and proclaim faith. According to Calvinism if you are of the elect then you will, eventually, choose God (after you have been regenerated.) But I can't put God in a box--he will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy.

I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the second half of that question...

Posted by: dogmeatib | April 12, 2010 6:47 PM

dogmeatib wrote:

The argument that Atheism can simply be a default position without any thought or consideration simply doesn't wash.

Why? Atheism simply means 'without gods' - in today's secular society a person may be educated to adulthood without ever discussing or contemplating the existence/non-existence of gods; it's certainly how it appears to me here in Australia where people really don't talk about it that much.

Here if your parents are atheists you may never have a conversation about god - unless you are inclinded seek one out. And not everyone is - when I was telling people I was going to see Dawkins and PZ at the recent atheist conference in Melbourne I got as many questions from atheists as I did from Christians about what it could be about.

Yes, it's intellectually apathetic - but that's not the point.

But I don't think it's special pleading to say that it's okay to be an 'uninformed' atheist when it's not okay to be an 'uninformed' Christian. By claiming adherence to Christianity you're accepting everything - cosmology, philosophy etc. - that goes along with it, and I think (and have little doubt heddle would agree) that you need to understand it if you're going to claim it.

Atheism, on the other hand, is simply lacking a belief in god - and you need nore more justification for that than you do not believing in aliens, unicorns (either invisible & pink or the usual kind), leprechauns or minotaurs.

Posted by: Wowbagger | April 12, 2010 7:18 PM

Wowbanger @350...

First of all... thanks for correcting me. In 347, I was inadvertently attributing that quote to Dave instead of Dogmeatib.

But more importantly, you wrote:

Atheism, on the other hand, is simply lacking a belief in god - and you need nore more justification for that than you do not believing in aliens, unicorns (either invisible & pink or the usual kind*), leprechauns or minotaurs.

WTF?? My religious texts say that "invisible flying pink unicorns" are not only "the usual kind" but the ONLY KIND! If you dare to quote scripture to claim otherwise, then you are just PROOFTEXTING!

MY HEAD IS ABOUT TO EXPLODE !!!!!!!

*boldness added for precise-ness... in honor of my bff, professor heddle. ;-)

Cheers!

Posted by: doctorgoo | April 12, 2010 7:51 PM

Spartan wrote:

God makes mistakes like this?

Either that or he really enjoys the confusion, suffering and misery that has resulted from the ambiguity of his 'communications'. heddle (IIRC) takes the position that he is malevolent, because he doesn't make mistakes.

Posted by: Wowbagger | April 12, 2010 8:46 PM

dogmeatib:

While I argue for necessary thought and contemplation for both, you seem to be arguing that the default, "no thought or contemplation" position is Atheism while Christianity is much more deep and philosophical. That is extremely arrogant and dismissive.

Or perhaps you've simply misunderstood what I'm saying, whether willfully or not. I would explain further what I mean, but this statement

You can deny it all you like

suggests that I would be wasting my time. So I won't, frankly, and I will refrain from granting your input with the esteem I once did. When people consistently misrepresent me or suggest, despite all protests to the contrary, that I do in feel a certain way, then I don't have any patience for setting them straight. (This is especially reinforced by your later passive-aggressive comment about me @349.)

But for the purposes of heaping burning coals on your head (metaphorically speaking, of course):

On the other hand I have yet to hear a Christian provide a coherent, positive argument for my philosophy and, in fact, most argue that we're worse than "queers," "Muslims," etc.

I think there are a number of beneficial aspects to atheism (or at least the brand of atheism that you wish to refer as "Atheism" - a positive atheism, perhaps). I think it's an excellent idea to question the idea of tradition or established knowledge since history has shown that traditions are often wrong and that established knowledge is often falsified by new evidence. I think that, similarly, the virtual rejection of ultimately authoritative bodies of knowledge - gatekeepers of knowledge, if you will, including both organizations and sacred texts - is a way of limiting the bandwagon effect and forcing individuals to interpret reality as individuals and within social contexts rather than being handed interpretations on stone tablets (as it were). I think the emphasis on science as a way of understanding the universe is also quite admirable.

Is that enough for you, or should I enumerate some more positive things about atheism to prove you wrong a little more? :P

doctorgoo: That's an interesting question that I admit I don't know the answer to. I'm pretty sympathetic these days to universalism, and I'd like to think that there's hope for everyone (and not just in an "I hope these heathens will wise up one day and praise the name of Jesus" kind of way, either). As to your second part, I don't think man is put here merely to win souls; I think we are meant to help our neighbors (especially the disenfranchised), to create something in this universe with the abilities we have (including but certainly not limited to our intellects), and to discover what the universe has to offer.

Posted by: The Christian Cynic | April 12, 2010 9:58 PM

JuliaL,

short story long.... lol...

I'm generally thought of as an easy going, always smiling, nice guy. When I'm in Thailand, the local Christians often assume that I'm one of them, and this has lead to some interesting conversations.

The people that I first heard it from were a group of Hmong/Karen/Isaan/Thai Christians of the Catholic variety. I could tell that they weren't recent converts, but there was no indication that they were actively working with any foreign missionaries either. But I could tell that they had official monetary support from some outside organization... otherwise I know that I would have been hit up for a donation (even after admitting to them that I'm an atheist, too, I'm sure! *rolls eyes*)

Okay, cheap shot... lol... but the teenage children spoke english quite well, but with a definite accent that let me know that for sure they were taught by Thai people, not by foreign missionaries. And the fact that they could even afford these lessons means that extra monetary support would have to existed, too. So I'm pretty sure they were officially Catholic.

From talking with these church ladies, I had several conversations about being Christians in northern Thailand. Read more about things I learned from these ladies here:

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/01/burma_plans_to_wipe_out_christ.php#comment-322813
(also be sure to read my comment @12 for an obvious correction to my main comment)

...slowly drifting back to the main topic...
While the problems that plague the Catholic church also plague Buddhist monasteries, I'm certain there ARE some very moral monks out there that match the reputations owned by the whole. So with these ladies speaking broken English with me while I spoke broken Thai with them, I learned that they hold these monks with the highest regard, and that of course they believed that good, moral people like them would be allowed into heaven.

They fully believed that their (the monks) Christ-like deeds merited salvation even though they obviously and unashamedly deny the divinity of Christ.

From within the context of our conversations about Buddhist monks, I think their attitudes might have been influenced by local cultural norms showing respect to these monks. So I ask, does this mean they weren't "True" Christians?

Was this an official doctrine that they followed, or was this perhaps just something along the lines of a cultural adjustment to their regular Christian beliefs? It's easy to say it's the latter, but I disagree. They had no problem at all justifying these beliefs through scripture.

In fact, it kind of seemed like they have used this as a rhetorical device as a part of a larger missionary technique... to let their targets feel better about rejecting their family's Buddhism. (Something along the lines of 'it's okay if their family don't choose to convert also, because if they behave like Christlike manner, they are worthy of heaven too.')

But to finally answer your specific question, Julia, I guess I'm having the same results that you are in googling for an "official" version of it. The best that I can find so far is this (link removed to get this comment passed the filters):

godwardthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/05/unitarianis-universalism-and.html

The paragraph starting with "Karl Rahner" looks very interesting on this topic. He has an article up on apologetics.com, which I apparently don't have access to.

And according to the wiki page on Rahner, he's one of the most influential Catholic theologians of the 20th century, for whatever that's worth. lol

But more to my point, regardless of whether there is an actual Christian church that preaches it, I asked the Christian Cynic the question I did specifically to gauge his answer. My question @343:

Christian Cynic, do you believe that many atheists and other non-Christians are hell-bound because they knowingly and unashamedly deny the divinity of Christ?

His reply @356:

That's an interesting question that I admit I don't know the answer to. I'm pretty sympathetic these days to universalism, and I'd like to think that there's hope for everyone (and not just in an "I hope these heathens will wise up one day and praise the name of Jesus" kind of way, either).

So apparently, even the Christian Cynic is sympathetic to the proposition that faith isn't necessary, and that works alone might qualify a non-Christian for 'God-sponsored Salvation'. lol

I wonder if this means that he's too cynical in heddle's view to be called a Christian any longer? ;-)

Posted by: doctorgoo | April 12, 2010 11:55 PM

Why? Atheism simply means 'without gods' - in today's secular society a person may be educated to adulthood without ever discussing or contemplating the existence/non-existence of gods; it's certainly how it appears to me here in Australia where people really don't talk about it that much.

Wowbagger,

Hadn't intended to ignore your post, just busy. You are free to accept the definition of an Atheist as simply "without Gods," I don't happen to do so. Like Dingo I lean towards a more positive definition, one that reduces the number of Atheists to those who affirm that there are no Gods rather than those who don't happen to believe in God(s). It is a subtle but distinct definition. I would consider the default position "non-believer," which can include Agnostics and Atheists. Neither definition is inherently more correct or less correct than the other. My personal stance though is that an Atheist must take the extra step to consider the issue and make a logical, additional step to making the statement/decision.

--------------
Spartan, same apology:

I see where you're coming from with 'young heddle', but I think it overlooks his main point. His point is not that he was an atheist by whatever definition, it's that he was not a Christian yet was co-opting biblical/Christian reasons for anti-gay expressions because of the local culture where he grew up and would therefore be incorrectly counted as a Christian. His point would be equally made if he had said he was really a Hindu.

I think we're basically arguing from the same point of view. I would classify the young heddle as a non-believer who happened to be culturally Christian. Were he to say he was Hindu I would classify him as a non-believer who happened to be culturally Hindu. In most of the world the default position is the majority religion of your family and/or the dominant religion of the area. That doesn't mean that the young people in those areas have actually considered the matter philosophically and actually are (non)believers in that system, though they may have taken an early step towards doing so, it means that they were born and raised in a system that was dominant in that area and therefore knew about it more than any other system.

To clarify I can use my own example. As a young child I would have considered myself more culturally Christian/Catholic than a true believer. Then, when I actually contemplated the faith and became an active participant, I would have changed that classification to Catholic. Then, as time went on and I became more troubled with the faith I progressed through "Christian" to a culturally Christian Deist, to a culturally Christian non-believer, to an Agnostic, to an extremely skeptical Agnostic (added) to an Atheist.

Posted by: dogmeatib | April 14, 2010 10:15 AM

doctorgoo:

So apparently, even the Christian Cynic is sympathetic to the proposition that faith isn't necessary, and that works alone might qualify a non-Christian for 'God-sponsored Salvation'. lol

I think you misunderstand universalism (or perhaps what I mean by it, more charitably): It is perhaps true that an implication is that faith is not a necessary condition, but that doesn't make universalism a works-based salvation scheme. On the contrary, it simply means that in the end, God will spare everyone because He is, ultimately, merciful. Part of my reasoning for this is a common argument against Hell: some people are in a situation where they are not likely to accept Christianity because of culture, a lack of exposure, etc., and this inequality seems to me to be fundamentally at odds with the conception of God as a god of mercy. There are surely biblical arguments that would go against this, but to be honest, I'm not as convinced these days by biblical arguments as I used to be.

dogmeatib: I think we're mostly talking past each other, so when I tell you (again) that I think it's a waste of time to continue this discussion, let me be clear that I don't put the sole blame on your shoulders. But I never claimed or implied that the "default" position is a thoughtless, unexamined atheism (indeed, I think the "default" is largely based on what each person is exposed to from childhood), and so that is a misrepresentation - I even noted that it might be not be willful but just inadvertent, that whole "talking past each other" thing.

I do want to bring out one other thing which is an important linguistic point:

On top of that you seem to present yourself as some sort of authority, claiming a definitive meaning of a philosophy that quite clearly (based on the definition quoted by Dingo and others) isn't the only recognized meaning for Atheism. The one definition is your opinion, the other is mine. Neither of us is completely right or wrong, but you insist that I have to somehow disprove the definition you prefer to your satisfaction but you don't have to do the same.

No, that isn't true at all. I respect your right to use atheism in a more specific and directed sense based on certain standards that you think are philosophically important. What I don't respect is your insistence that there cannot be a larger definition which is simply "lack of belief in god(s)" despite the fact that there are a significant number of people who use it that way. It's equivocation, essentially, to say that (for instance) a younger heddle wasn't an atheist because he doesn't meet your stringent standards even though his admission is that he lacked a belief in god(s) - making him an atheist in the broader sense. Use the term narrowly all you want, but don't tell someone else that their broad use is wrong.

I'm sorry that you were offended by the way I pushed and pressured you to actually make a statement

I wasn't offended, and I don't know how you could have read that into what I was saying given that I even added an emoticon (":P") after my question.

if you look on the thread you'll notice that none of the others who were arguing the Christian side responded to the question.

They probably didn't think it was necessary. I, on the other hand, like to underscore places where my general philosophy coincides with other conflicting philosophies so some common ground can be established.

In addition I would argue that your statement regarding the value of "positive Atheism" is rather mild and weak given the pressure I had to exert to get you to make such a statement at all.

What do you expect? If I had a stronger agreement with "positive Atheism," I'd probably be an atheist.

As for your last paragraph: You do know that your whole line of thinking could easily be turned around to Christianity, right? I'd do it now, but I'm on lunch and need to get ready to go back to work.

One last thing which is not directed at anyone specifically, from DJ's footnote:

* since choosing to be atheistic would take a positive decision to disbelieve in god(s)

I agree with this, actually, and I think that the same thing applies to any philosophy based on a positive belief. But I also know that there are people who just sort of fall into philosophies mostly on acquiescence to whatever they're brought up into: you could fall into atheism by being raised in an irreligious household where the idea of gods is not even considered, you could fall into Christianity by being raised in a household where the Christian God is accepted as a given, etc. It's not a matter of any position being superior so much as it is an admission that virtually any philosophy can be accepted through a conscious decision or through an unconscious acceptance without any real thought or consideration. I would prefer the former for any philosophy, but it's simply not how things work in reality.

Posted by: The Christian Cynic | April 14, 2010 1:56 PM

I think we're speaking to each other on the same level now, and I don't have much in the way of disagreement at all. (Now there's a nice feeling!) My point about the use of labels is just that words have public meanings, and I don't see a problem in calling someone who lacks a belief in God (even if that notion is never scrutinized or a coherent worldview really thought out) an atheist, just as I don't see a problem with calling someone who thinks that Jesus Christ died for their sins (but who has never thought about the complexity of ideas such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, or the problem of evil, for just a few things) a Christian. (Actually, I know lots of Christians like that.) Are these prime examples of either philosophy? Of course not, but we don't judge philosophies by their weakest proponents, do we?

But you're right: the thoughtful ones are really the most enjoyable to engage. I hope we can each consider the other in that category.

Posted by: The Christian Cynic | April 14, 2010 8:29 PM

who cares if the people who rejected CM were Christian or not? Bottom line, they were people who made a conscious decision to hurt a teenage girl for having the courage that most adults don't have. wishing evil on the parents who organized it, or the children who went to the "secret" prom isn't necessary. In a few years, when those kids grow up and go to University, get away from their parents and start thinking for themselves, they'll realize the horror of what they did. they'll carry that for the rest of their lives. as people have previously mentioned, i too don't doubt that this event will be included in history books as an example of human rights violations. they will never forget that they were part of a modern-day hate crime. Constance is breaking down walls for other people like her - that will always be painful, no matter what you're standing up for. she'll be the winner after all of this. and everyone else, christian, atheist, black, white, pink or purple, everyone in that town who didn't help her will suffer.

Posted by: moosetracks | July 28, 2010 7:04 AM