The unspoken part of the discussion

Is that meant to serious? The person who wrote it is really thinking that? I'm horrified if it is, I thought all those religious people were the kind and caring type. Although, I am starting to wonder about the obsession that these conservative people seem to have with sodomy.

That post is clearly satire. Nobody who believes that (and they do exist) is honest enough to actually be, well, honest about it.

And I have another quote that seems to dovetail well with "A Civil Conversation":

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.

---attributed to Susan B. Anthony

Oh, come on now. The "ha ha, god's going to kick your ass" school of theology is very much in the minority. What christianity really says is that you can gain unlimited happiness forever if you can make yourself believe something in the absence of evidence, and that if you don't, you cease to exist.

Of course, most of them don't understand their own book; that "eternal damnation" thing isn't supported by the text itself.

-jcr

Look at the current case in Afghanistan, where they are trying to kill someone for ceasing to be a muslim - and becoming a christian - but that is secondary - it's the "apostasy from islam" bit that gets you the death penalty!

I don't think the fact that some Christians think I should just be vaporised immediately, rather then tortured for eternity, really diminishes the point of the satire; Either way, I'm talking with people who think that for the world to be good, I must be utterly demolished.

Frankly, I think that that piece doesn't go far enough; Original sin means I deserved all those punishments even before I could formulate thoughts.

I suppose the Catholics were kind enough to consign unbabtised babies to limbo, where they'll never know happiness, but won't actually be tortured. Such great mercy really just brings a tear to my eye.

The distinction between respecting religious beliefs, and respecting the right to individual conscience WRT religious beliefs, is something I just finished posting about on a thread on atheism over at Digby's. It's appropriate here as well:

Religious freedom in America has come to mean the freedom to cram it down the throats of the unbelievers under force of law, retconning the founding fathers as fundies.

Amy Goodman tolerates the atheists, but only to the extent that we STFU, so we don't scare away the undecideds who don't mind teh gay but hate the godless. This helps me understand the revulsion Matilda Joslyn Gage must have felt at the prospect of swelling the ranks of the suffragists with the WCTU. Amy urges atheists to demonstrate respect for her and her fellow Christians' religious beliefs.

I am not compelled to respect anybody's religious belief (nor can I judge whether Tom Cruise or Garrison Keillor has the crazier religion). The American experiment is to respect not the belief, but the right to hold any belief WRT religion. Religious conscience belongs not to the state, but to the individual. If the religious can't tolerate disbelievers in one more god than the ones they dismiss, then they abandon one of the core principles of the Bill of Rights. Their right to believe whatever nonsense gets them through the night must be protected in order to preserve my right to reject religion, and vice versa.

The godless aren't the ones lining up to squander their brief lives and liberty for empty promises of security from both gods and monsters.

Nothing implicit about it at all, Paul.

You just really don't understand theists at all, do you PZ? You could not possibly be more off-base. When I am secretly basking in the pleasure of contemplating the eternal, unremitting torments that await you in the afterlife, I have never once thought buzzards would peck out your eyes.

I thought that heaven, as a place where all good Christians go, would be my idea of hell. Then I read about the Amazonian uretha fish...

I thought that heaven, as a place where all good Christians go, would be my idea of hell. Then I read about the Amazonian uretha fish...

Well it may seem like God upstairs
Ain't been listening to my prayers
And the things I see ahappenin' make me cry,
But all those tears turn into glee...

A Traditional Spiritual

I don't think the fact that some Christians think I should just be vaporised immediately, rather then tortured for eternity, really diminishes the point of the satire; Either way, I'm talking with people who think that for the world to be good, I must be utterly demolished.

No, they think that you should be "vaporized" when you die, which is what atheists believe happens anyway. Unfortunately, a large number of Christians do believe in a literal Hell, and have varying rules about how you get there. If God exists and is really like that, where do I sign up for the insurgency?

PZ, that's a straw man. It's a huge straw man, and you should be embarassed.

Yes, you're right, there are _some_ Christians who think you're going to hell or some place like that because you're not a Christian.

But not ALL of the are like that! Sheesh.

-Rob

Are you really that unfamiliar with the evangelical message? It's all about salvation. Saving people from what, you may ask?

It is most definitely not a straw man. The pseudo-elitism of Christianity, the idea that merely by believing one becomes 'special', is one of the major driving forces of its popularity. Of course some individual Christians reject that message—but they're the ones on their way to becoming agnostics/atheists/deists.

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Luke 16:23
In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.

So it appears that anyone who's not a Christian is damned, and people who are damned go to a place with lots of torment. Individual Christians may not believe that non-Christians go to hell, but your religious texts sure seem to.

So it appears that anyone who's not a Christian is damned, and people who are damned go to a place with lots of torment. Individual Christians may not believe that non-Christians go to hell, but your religious texts sure seem to.

Wake up and look around. Not all Christians are creationists. The creationists are the ones who insist on a literal interpretation of every verse of the Bible (ignoring that that is impossible, since they contradict.)

Not all Christians.

C'mon. This level of condemnation from utter ignorance is what I'd expect of cluesless people talking about evolution.

-Rob

It most definitely is about avoiding eternal damnation. Now, get some seminary-trained fundies in a room together, and they'll probably agree that the torment and torture is simply because of separation from God rather than actual events of the Dantenian type. (Yeah, I made that word up.) It's more of a cavernous, soul-sucking knowledge that you can never have God or therefore anything good again that provides all the torment. They also think that anyone who is soft-pedaling the horrors of Hell is corrupting the true message and selling out to get a bigger congregation. UCC, Lutherans, Presbyterians, all of those "nicer" denominations are all suspect and are NOT preaching the true word of God, according to fundamentalists.

It is most definitely not a straw man. The pseudo-elitism of Christianity, the idea that merely by believing one becomes 'special', is one of the major driving forces of its popularity.

Sure, but what you said still is a straw man, and that's where you should be embarassed.

Next time the religious demand respect for their beliefs...

You are, once again, tarring all religious with the beliefs of a few.

It's clear, however, that you've got serious blinders on regarding this issue. The only people who are intellectually respectable at all are atheists, in your view-- you've made that abundantly clear. Why you think this puts you on an extreme moral high ground is beyond me. It reminds me an awful lot of the religious who incorrectly think that they're on an impregible high ground because of their religion (or, perhaps, because of the fact of their faith).

-Rob

"You are, once again, tarring all religious with the beliefs of a few."

But going back to the other discussions about PR and perception, the few are the loudest. Southern Baptists are the single largest Protestant denomination in the country - 19 million a few years ago, and probably larger than that now, and are also one of the most fundamentalist. The vocal, loud, good-for-a-sound-bite televangelists are fundamentalists. The problem is that the more moderate groups are also the least likely to go around spouting off to people right and left, and therefore get ignored. Is it the public's fault that the predominant view of Christianity they see is of radical fundamentalists?

Atheists *are* the only ones with an intellectually respectable position.

Christians in particular seem to oscillate between the "God has chosen what is foolish to confound the wise" and "our position is wisdom and not foolishness" positions. You can't have it both ways, folks.

PZ, do you even own a broader brush than you usually use for religion?

Were you to say "A large subset of Christians" rather than "The religious", you would be right. As it is, you simply come off as someone with a chip on his shoulder who has no qualms about beating up straw men.

Thanks for the quote, Dan:

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.

---attributed to Susan B. Anthony

Depressingly (although not quite universally) true.

And Corkscrew, not all of Christianity comes directly from the Bible. The Orthodox acknowledge only Tradition (of which the bible is a part), the Anglicans/Episcopalians have a tripod of Tradition, Reason, and Scripture, the Catholics have the Magisterium, and the (British) Quakers pay more attention to Quaker Faith and Practice than they do to the bible. I could go on. (And even churches which claim to be Sola Scriptura tend to in practice have a lot of Tradition relating to biblical interpretation - and do you have any idea just how thin the scriptural justification for the Trinity is?)

Rob - I do not think you get it. PZ is not talkng moral high-ground, he is focusing on a segment of belief of most Western religions. Without actually completing a scientific study of "Hell Beliefs" or "Hell, Beliefs", or "My Way of the Hell Way", most people would certainly agree with the basic tenor of the article, which is that the vast majority of Christians do believe in heaven and hell, and if you are NOT a believer you ARE going to hell. Have a nice trip. It's just the way it is, so knock off the disengenous straw-man argument, or go to hell.

Atheists *are* the only ones with an intellectually respectable position.

You sound just like the young-earth creationists.

Rob, I don't know where you live, but here in Arkansas, where I'm currently employed as an assistant professor of English, and over there in NC, where I used to teach Latin, and up there in Idaho, where I taught Comp -- in every single one of those places, the Christians I taught all believed in very literal hells: lakes of fire, eternal torment, demons who would torture not just me and *my* child for all eternity (who, as Jews and apostates, are, of course, condemned to hell) but their own children, if they did such evil things as, Lord forbid, disobey Mama, or tell a lie (there's some verse in the NT that says so -- anyone who tells a lie is condemned to that lake of fire: my students can quote that verse if you ask them to).

They would tell my child so, too -- that she was headed straight to hell, because she was Jewish. They'd tell her all about the lake of fire she was heading for. This was when she was five, in kindergarten. It's why we pulled her from public school. So don't tell me Christians don't believe in literal hell.

But going back to the other discussions about PR and perception, the few are the loudest. Southern Baptists are the single largest Protestant denomination in the country - 19 million a few years ago, and probably larger than that now, and are also one of the most fundamentalist. The vocal, loud, good-for-a-sound-bite televangelists are fundamentalists. The problem is that the more moderate groups are also the least likely to go around spouting off to people right and left, and therefore get ignored. Is it the public's fault that the predominant view of Christianity they see is of radical fundamentalists?

OK, so public perception is the marker of truth. Right. So if public perceptions say that there is a real controversy between ID and "Darwinism" then there is one and it's not simply that certain prominant IDers have loud voices and some people listen to them?

You should always hold yourselves to standards that are at least as high as you ask from others. And from what I can tell, a number of people in this forum (definitely including PZ) are about as likely to give religion a fair hearing as the average creationist is to give evolution a fair hearing. If you are the intellectual side and the side with the truth, why don't you try sticking to those standards rather than simply trying ill-aimed potshots usually based on caricatures, misrepresentations, and ignorance?

There is plenty to attack Christianity with (and definitely to attack fundamentalism with) if you actually give it a fair hearing. If you don't give it a fair hearing then you are simply going to appear bigotted, and show yourself to be attacking a strawman.

Christians do believe in heaven and hell, and if you are NOT a believer you ARE going to hell. Have a nice trip. It's just the way it is, so knock off the disengenous straw-man argument, or go to hell.

Disingenuous?

You, quite frankly, do not know what you're talking about. You have accepted the definition of "Christian" that is promulgated by the extreme fundamentalist types, which is not what even the majority of Christians in this country would accept.

Your first sentence is just as ignorant and bigoted as a statement like "All white people hate all black people," or "All muslims support terrorist suicide bombers," or "All southerners want to see a return of slavery."

-Rob

So don't tell me Christians don't believe in literal hell.

Some do.

Not all.

And even of those that do, not all of them think that you have to be a Christian to avoid getting there.

the Christians I taught all believed in very literal hells:

Did you poll them? All of them? So that you can say the word "all" reasonably?

Or, might it be, might it just possibly be, that the ones you heard from were the extremists who were most willing to prostlytize and say confidently out loud their extreme beliefs?

I don't doubt that in many places the fundamentalist Christians are a substantial minority, or even a majority... but despite all the media attention they've been getting lately, the extreme picture of Christianity painted by PZ and the sycophantic athiest bigots posting on this thread is not what mainline Christianity in this country is.

Yes, the extremists have too much power and say in the public forum nowadays. Yes, I don't like them and am afraid of them. Yes, it's a problem.

But, damn, insisting that all Christians, or even mainline Christianity, is like that is akin to insisting that all of those who oppose the Iraq war effort or want to pull out of the War are unpatriotic anti-Americans.

STRAW.

MAN.

-Rob

Rob - I do not think you get it. PZ is not talkng moral high-ground, he is focusing on a segment of belief of most Western religions.

And I don't think you get the objection. PZ talks about "the religious" - not all of whom belong to that segment. At that point, it becomes a straw man and worse than useless because most of the target audience won't care and most of the remainder with any religious leanings are going to be caught as colateral damage, realise that they don't hold those beliefs and dismiss PZ as an idiot.

(I've asked evangelical Christians whether simmilar statements to the links are a fair reflection of their beliefs - but only after making sure they were).

So don't tell me Christians don't believe in literal hell.

When did he say that all Christians don't believe in literal hell. Some don't and some do (and he acknowledged that some do). The comments he was objecting to indicate that all do - which isn't true,

The problem is that the more moderate groups are also the least likely to go around spouting off to people right and left, and therefore get ignored. Is it the public's fault that the predominant view of Christianity they see is of radical fundamentalists?

Are you making the argument that it's OK to condemn all Christians due to the belifs of some because even though you know it's not true, you don't want to bother trying to see past what is the "public perception" of Christianity?

-Rob

Ok Rob let's go this way then. Since apparently you think you view is the correct one.

What happens to Muslims when they die in your religion? Atheists? jews? Hindus? Scientologists?

If your a universalist great. But answer the question.

Your entire argument seems to be, not all Christians believe in hell. Good, but it doesn't refute PZ's point that many do. So just answer the question.

You seem to be more concerned with blanket statements, so lets here what your belief says.

More strawmen from a famous hack?

"it is believed by everyone that when he was in heaven he was stern, hard, resentful, jealous and cruel, but that when he came down to earth, he became the opposite... sweet, gentle, merciful, forgiving. He was a thousand billion times crueler than ever he was in the Old Testament... Meek and gentle? By and by we will examine that popular sarcasm by the light of the hell which he invented." ..........On Jesus Christ, in "Letters from the Earth"

Even if the "eternal damnation" bit has waned in popularity recently, how can something that was an integral part of the religion for almost two millenia suddenly be a straw-man?

Uber wrote:
Good, but it doesn't refute PZ's point that many do.

Were PZ to have said that "many Christians believe the following", there would have been a lot less of an objection.

What PZ actually wrote was

Next time the religious demand respect for their beliefs, remind yourself what they're really thinking. It's implicit in their dogma.

Do you see the words "Many Christians" in there? Neither do I. And unless PZ rewrites what he wrote, they will not be found in there.

And Rob has already stated that

Yes, you're right, there are _some_ Christians who think you're going to hell or some place like that because you're not a Christian.

But not ALL of the are like that! Sheesh.

PZ is explicitely claiming that all do. Rob is acknowledging that some believe as PZ claims that all do. Therefore your supposed point is based on a lack of reading comprehension.

Next!

windy wrote:
More strawmen from a famous hack?

I didn't realise that Mark Twain was a noted theologian. I'd trust him about as far when he says "believed by everyone" as I do PZ when he talks about "the religious". Hell, when ever anyone says that everyone believes something, I can see that they are making a caricature.

I didn't realise that Mark Twain was a noted theologian.

I didn't realise PZ was supposed to be, either??

The problem is not whether each and every Christian believes that unbelievers are going to hell. The problem is the concept of Hell in itself.

I'd say that the point of "caricatures" and "strawmen" such as these is not to claim that all Christians are explicitly fantasizing about unbelievers in eternal torment. It's to point out the implications of some aspects of religion.

Man, some people just can't take a joke.

windy wrote:
I didn't realise PZ was supposed to be, either??

Indeed. He simply isn't reliable on the subject of religion and I wish he'd stop pontificating about it. My point was that Twain wasn't the best source to use.

The problem is not whether each and every Christian believes that unbelievers are going to hell. The problem is the concept of Hell in itself.

Indeed. Which (a) not all Christians (never mind all the religious) believe in and (b) doesn't mean the same thing to everyone anyway.

I'd say that the point of "caricatures" and "strawmen" such as these is not to claim that all Christians are explicitly fantasizing about unbelievers in eternal torment. It's to point out the implications of some aspects of religion.

So why does he talk about "The religious" rather than "some Christians"? The decision to tar every single religious person with the same brush makes him appear bigotted - and is either biggoted or extremely sloppy and stupid.

Man, some people just can't take a joke.

The joke linked to is amusing and may be thought provoking for a few. PZ's stupidity and/or bigotry is not.

My goodness Francis your arguments are vacant.

didn't realise that Mark Twain was a noted theologian. I'd trust him about as far when he says "believed by everyone" as I do PZ when he talks about "the religious

So who would you trust when talking about the religious? The religious? How do they know more about the supernatural than the other men?

I didn't realise that Mark Twain was a noted theologian.

What the heck does that even mean? That he explains fairy tale better than you do or just more to your liking? How would you differentiate between a great thinker like Twain and a 'noted theologian'?

Whats amazing about this is that there are actually people on this board arguing that a 'hell' is not a part of Christian theology and stating those who say the obvious are building strawmen.

If your religion is as such that any statement is condemned as blanket or a strawman does it have ANY coherent statements at all?

And Francis is your religion what happens to muslims when they die? Jews? atheists?

PZ, you are letting your anger at having to go to church as a wee lad get the best of you (yes, I am engaging in a bit of amateur analysis here in hopes of getting your attention). Rob and Francis have it down in these posts. It really appears as though you simply hate Christianity and all it stands for.

It is not about elitism. It is about love and truth.

It is not about fear. It is about love and truth.

In all humility, may I suggest that you do one of the following:

1) Stop and ask yourself if you are interested in winning people over to your argument, or if you are interested in winning the argument and making others look bad. If the former, all you are doing is making yourself look like an opinionated blowhard, no matter how convincing your argument may be.

2) Pursuant to 1): Go read Scott Adams' critique of your argument style on his blog. He has you nailed in that you clearly are knowledgable, but your credibility is shot in that you are, in essense, irrational in argument.

3) Perhaps you need to stick with straight research biology. (Squids, zebra fish and so on). While your style is less engaging there, it is also more factual and truthful . . . and therefore more beneficial to your credibility.

While I predict that you will either outright ignore my suggestions here, or perhaps will engage in ad hominem argument to make me look bad, please know that I offer them to you in all interest for your benefit, nothing more.

He talks about religious people that demand respect - can you help it that the most loud-mouthed greatly affect the image non-Christians get of Christians?

I see a lot of complaints about "tarring with a broad brush", but not many answers to questions about what happens to unbelievers, and what your position is to Jesus' teachings about eternal damnation. Like PZ said, he saved us from what? Isn't it arrogant to assume everyone needs to be 'saved'?

If Christianity can mean just about anything, what exactly are they demanding respect to? If you believe there is no eternal damnation, isn't it time for moderate Christians to get their act together and clearly state it, instead of letting fundamentalists go on threatening people?

For what it's workh, if you ask an American if they believe in hell, you'll get a positive response more than 70% of the time (at least, that was true in 1999 - Given events since then, we might expect the numbers to have gone up).

Source:
http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/services/index.html

Unfortunately, the survey linked above didn't go into the detail of what hell might be ...

Heh.

windy wrote:
My goodness Francis your arguments are vacant.

Only if you are incapable of reading and understanding them.

So who would you trust when talking about the religious? The religious? How do they know more about the supernatural than the other men?

A good theologian will know more about his own religion and denomination than most. Just as a good professional biologist will know more about biology than most. (Although I wouldn't trust e.g. many Catholic theologians on the subject of Pentecostalism (and trust precious few bible colleges to produce good theologians)).

I certainly wouldn't trust anyone stupid enough to make statements that "everyone believes [something]" - there are still a few flat earthers around.

And there are very few people I would trust talking about "The religious" because it is such a diverse grouping.

Whats amazing about this is that there are actually people on this board arguing that a 'hell' is not a part of Christian theology and stating those who say the obvious are building strawmen.

Learn to read. Not all Christians believe in hell (and PZ was talking about "The Religious", which includes Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Muslims, and many many others). Not all who believe in hell believe that unbelievers are going to go there based on beliefs.

If your religion is as such that any statement is condemned as blanket or a strawman does it have ANY coherent statements at all?

Given that I do not have a religion or faith at all, no there aren't coherent statements. I am broadly on the side of PZ when it comes to wanting religion to lose its force, but the way he approaches the issue of religion with either bigotry, stupidity, or both makes him a Useful Idiot for the religious.

And I see you can't tell the difference between "Your Religion" and "The Religious".

PZ wrote:
Heh.

PZ. If you can find a single statement where either Rob or I deny that there are some fundamentalist Christians out there, please find it. Otherwise pointing this sort of idiocy out is not an argument.

Are you more interested in blowing your own trumpet or trying to communicate and win others over to your side? You appear to be very good at the former...

Where do you get the idea I was angry about going to church? I have nothing but fond memories of church and sunday school and the people I hung out with at the time -- I didn't stomp out of church, I just recognized that it was a load of bunk, shrugged, and went my own way.

I think the only disingenuousness here is found in those Christians who are denying a basic theme of their religion.

windy wrote:
"My goodness Francis your arguments are vacant."
Only if you are incapable of reading and understanding them.

I didn't write that: check your reading comprehension yourself :)

Given that I do not have a religion or faith at all, no there aren't coherent statements.

Then how do you know what "the religious" think so much better than PZ or Mark Twain? If 70% believe in Hell, it's not exactly a minority view.

Not all who believe in hell believe that unbelievers are going to go there based on beliefs.

How nice: so eternal damnation might be based on your beliefs, or it might be based on some unknown factors?

Where do you get the idea that this "cruthis" fellow is a fundamentalist Christian? All he says is that he's going to feel remorse when I don't go to heaven, and that he's praying for me. Those are very mainstream Christian views -- are you suggesting that people who pray or believe in heaven for the saved and hell for the damned are Christian extremists?

We may have more in common than you imagine.

Rob:

You're fixating on PZ's writing "the religious" when he should have written "at least hundreds of millions of Christians worldwide now and billions of Christians throughout the last 2,000 years". You're right: what an unthinking generalization.

I sense though that you think the lake o' torment concept doesn't really capture most Christian's sentiments. If so, I'd like you to give some evidence for that, some numbers. In the meantime, chew on this, taken straight off website for the Holy See, the home office for 1 billion Catholics:

The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

I'm going to have to jump in here. I agree that many Christians do believe in a literal hell. And there are certainly Bibilical justifications for such a belief. But there are also Biblical justifications for universalist belief about salvation. And saying "the religious believe X" is not the same as saying "evangelicals believe X" at all.

It's true that respect for religious beliefs means respect for all religious beliefs, including repellent ones. That's a fact of pluralism. That respect does not mean that the right exists to force others to believe as one does, nor the right to enact legislation based on those beliefs, which seems to be what the current crop of theocrats desires. (It's really what all theocrats desire, I suppose.) That level of control is alien to "respect for religions" as well as to the beliefs of many Christians.

It is worthwile to realize that to a Christian universalist, a belief in no afterlife amounts to a unnecessary death sentence against humanity. And just to head off the questions about my personal beliefs about the afterlife, I'm a Taoist. I don't have any strong belief about it.

Ok Rob let's go this way then. Since apparently you think you view is the correct one.

What happens to Muslims when they die in your religion? Atheists? jews? Hindus? Scientologists?

If your a universalist great. But answer the question.

OK. Are you ready for this?

Here's my honest answer: I don't know.

Their bodies die, and go through all sorts of yukky decay processes. ("A certain convocation of politic worms.") Unless somebody burns 'em first. Or pumps 'em full of embalming fluid.

As for their "spirit" or their "soul" or "essence", or what have you? Well, I believe without proof (and do not believe at the moment that it can be proven or disproven, although perhaps some year I will be wrong) that there is "more" to a thinking, intelligent, caring person than the pure physical processes going on in their body and in their brains. It's all entangled with the physical stuff, certainly; lots of people will tell you that the moment at which "life" or "personhood" begins is very simple, but I don't see how it can be. Likewise, when "personhood" ends is difficult. I've seen people with alzheimer's decay. They are clearly still alive; that definition is pretty easy. But at what point are they no longer themselves? They still have some part of themselves. We're all changing all the time; when are we "lost"? (Other than on an island with lots of other plane crash survivors.) I don't know, and that's a hard question about what people are.

But, if there is some "essence" or "soul" beyond the pure physical processes, what happens to it after death?

I don't know. The truth is that most people of faith are on what the theologobabble folks call a "faith journey." Very few people are completely rigid and convincined in their faith. A lot of people carry on like they are, because they think they're supposed to. Some people do think that their faith is completely set and that they have all the answers, and those people are scary. But most of us... we have all sorts of doubts and uncertainties about our faith.

Science doesn't tell us anything about a person's "soul." My own religious views are very unclear on the notion of life after death, or even if there is such a thing.

I hope there is. Not because I'm afraid of dying so much (I am, but that's not the reason), but becuase I want to find out what happens. Are we going to figure out what Dark Energy really is in my lifetime? Maybe. If not, I'd love to think of the idea that I could be out "there" somewhere, watching, finding out what people find out. But that's just wishful thinking.

As for what I really believe? I dunno.

Here's another piece of religion, though: I think that Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, Jews, and many other religions are all talking about the same thing. Different aspects, different perspectives, and, yes, they look mutually inconsistent if you're an ignorant fundamentalist or an ignorant athiest, both of whom seem to think that a literal reading of a religion's holy book defines what that religion is. I'm not alone in this belief; indeed, for a while I was attending a new members' class at my church (which I didn't complete for family reasons), and the minister of membership leading the class about theology said exactly the same thing. (A few of the other people in the class were very shocked to hear this, for they did have the idea that Christianity must be the only "Right" religion.)

Some religions, or some aspects of some religions, are unambiguously wrong-- when they make claims about the natural world that are at odds with what we know to be true. But science hasn't disproved God, just as there is absolutely no scientific reason to believe in God. The notion of God isn't a scientific notion at all. And, yes, if there is a heaven, which I doubt, I think that any "good" person, or perhaps anybody with any "good" in them, would be allowed to go there; Christ may be *my* way for struggling to understand my thoughts about some of this, but I don't expect it to be everybody's way.

And if there is a heaven, yes, athiests can get in there too. But, again, I'm not convinced that there really is an afterlife.

And, yes, I know that the utterly convinced athiests out there will just use everything I've written as more reason to believe their own prejudice that all religious people are stupid. Have fun. There are lots of bigots among Christians, so I guess it's no surprise that there are lots of bigots among atheists.

-Rob

If so, I'd like you to give some evidence for that, some numbers. In the meantime, chew on this, taken straight off website for the Holy See, the home office for 1 billion Catholics:,

OK. If you believe the premise that every individual who considers himself a part of a group with a stated philosophy, then consider this.

Did you vote for Kerry in the last election? If so, then by your own reasoning, you must endorse this statement from the Democratic platform:

...all of our people should have the opportunity to fulfill all of their potential, and each of us should be as equal in the eyes of the law as we are in the eyes of God.

So, by your own reasoning, you believe in God.

Yes?

-Rob

It should be noted that the majority of catholics, including priests, do not share this view. They may be out of step with the Pope or vice versa but a recent poll had 98% of US Catholics taking a univeralist position.

And 1 billion catholics is a HUGE exaggeration. They count every man, woman, and child catholic even if they all attend other churches or none.

Rob,
Thank you, we actually share alot of common ground.

Educate me here. What are the various posters meaning by "respect"?

Does "respect" = "share my beliefs"?
Dpes "respect" = "think my beliefs are reasonable and logical"?
Does "respect" = "think my beliefs make me a better person"?
Does "respect" = "think that I have a right to hold my beliefs"?

"I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer, one that would be nice to see more people use. Of course, it means you're an agnostic, at best a nominal Christian, and aren't religious at all. So you can stop taking it so personally, and stop trying to speak for all religious people.

Aren't you going to pick up the faith healing story from the WaPo?

Apologies to Windy and Uber for confusing you two.

Then how do you know what "the religious" think so much better than PZ or Mark Twain?

I know that I know better than Mark Twain because he says that "it is believed by everyone that..." - either he is extremely sloppy in thought on this subject or is plain ignorant. (Were he to have said that it was the orthodox or mainstream belief, things would be different.) PZ for simmilar reasons. As long as he keeps making stupid statements about the beliefs of "the religious" as if they were a single homogenous group, he continues to prove himself to not have a clue.

I know better than most others through a number of sources. By having been the token agnostic in an inter-faith group for a number of years . By being the son of a theology graduate. By actually listening to what they have to say. By studying the bible in Chevrut with Jews (when it comes to bible study, almost all Christians are rank amateurs). I could go on.

If 70% believe in Hell, it's not exactly a minority view.

Indeed. Nor is it the uniform view, contrary to PZ's broad brush.

Rick,
I read "respect" as "think that others have a right to hold their beliefs". I see how reading it differently may lead to some confusion.

PZ,
How are you defining the term religious? I think many are defining the term more broadly than you are.

I think it needs to be pointed out that the MP3 version of this piece is most excellent (even if you have to jump through the hoops of rapidshare.de to download it).

"I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer, one that would be nice to see more people use. Of course, it means you're an agnostic, at best a nominal Christian,

I agree with the first half, but the second is a complete non-sequiteur. To quote a priest of my aquaintance, the opposite of faith is not doubt - the opposite of faith is certainty.

Do I need to explain the True Scotsman Fallacy to you?

"I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer, one that would be nice to see more people use. Of course, it means you're an agnostic, at best a nominal Christian, and aren't religious at all. So you can stop taking it so personally, and stop trying to speak for all religious people.

PZ, I am taking offence against you not on behalf of Christianity, but on behalf of every single sensible opponent of Dr. Dobson and Rush Limbaugh who has ever had to deal with the Christians who believe that the Atheists are out to get them. I am taking offence against you on behalf of every single creationist who believes that they can not believe in both God and evolution and therefore chooses the bible.

As Skookumplanet observes on the Arkansas thread, there is a political war going on - and you guys are getting kicked because you are politically inept. I don't know whether you believe that all the religious people think the way you have outlined (remember that that includes e.g. the Wiccans) and are therefore a half-blind bigot, whether you believe that all Christians believe what you have outlined, in which case you are a slightly more understandable variety of bigot but still a bigot, or whether you know that not all Christians believe the above - but say it anyway, in which case you are either politically inept due to extreme stupidity or an offensive troll. I choose to believe ineptitude due to political stupidity because I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

The more reasonable Christianity gets, the less it needs any of those things which make it unique -- that make it different than other religions, or that make it different than secular ethics or philosophy. By the time you get to the point where you can explain the "true meaning" of your theology and ethics so they start making sense to an atheist, you're into humanism. The supernatural stuff is just so much baggage, metaphors and symbols used for illustrative purposes.

The "every human being deserves to be tortured in eternal agony unless they make use of the blood payment of a perfect sacrifice" has this advantage -- it makes no sense to people outside of the religion. This is why so many Christians hang on to it. It isn't because they're mean, or have no depth or understanding. It's because they can't let Christianity make sense to an atheist, lest there be no value to faith and no special insight to Christianity. If God is reasonable, we don't need it.

PZ Myers wrote:
"I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer, one that would be nice to see more people use. Of course, it means you're an agnostic, at best a nominal Christian, and aren't religious at all. So you can stop taking it so personally, and stop trying to speak for all religious people.

My objection to religion is precisely that - many people who label themselves as 'religious' make claims about the nature of reality that they cannot prove and get upset when their lack of proof is pointed out. I like a lot of the 'values' that many religious people have, I enjoy and value participating in some religious events, and I have no problem with people believing some 'crazy' things. But I have a big problem with insistence that I accept as proven ridiculous statements that have emphatically not been proven.

Dr. Dobson and Rush Limbaugh

That should read Dr. Dobson and Pat Robertson. I must keep my right wing lunatics straight...

Of course, it means you're an agnostic, at best a nominal Christian, and aren't religious at all. So you can stop taking it so personally, and stop trying to speak for all religious people.

No, I'm not really an agnostic.

I don't know about the afterlife. But I do believe in something like God, most of the time, and in something like the human soul, most of the time.

And I do believe that your attacking all of the religious is ignorant and poorly founded and generally poor behavior. I am not going to start liking your doing that just because you've decided to give me in particular special dispensation of "well, you're an agnostic." It's much like the racist white person complaining about all those poor black people, and then saying to his black friend, "well, you know I'm not talking about you, right?"

-Rob

Rob:

OK. If you believe the premise that every individual who considers himself a part of a group with a stated philosophy, then consider this.

I didn't state any such premise nor use any such reasoning, though I can see it seems implied; mea culpa. My emphasis of 1 billion Catholics was more to suggest that they are a sizable group here on Earth, that their presence has impact (remember the coverage of John Paul II's death?), etc., and that, at least officially, they posit the lake of torment. Let's assume that only 10% of Catholics of 1 billion believe in hell: that's still 100 million people. And that doesn't even address Protestants.

Uber: sure, 1 billion is probably an exagerration on the part of the Church. Can we all at least agree that there are an APPRECIABLE and DISTURBING number of humans extant who believe in a literal hell of torment, that its not just a few isolated kooks?

many people who label themselves as 'religious' make claims about the nature of reality that they cannot prove and get upset when their lack of proof is pointed out.

Yes, true, but that's also not what most of this thread is about.

There is a difference between "lack of proof" and "proof of lack."

I'm not getting upset because you aren't religious, or aren't "saved", or because you don't find anything convincing in religion. I'm upset because of the assertion that (effectively) the religious are all stupid, and the assertion that those nasty religious people shouldn't be trusted because they all think that the "godless" are going to hell.

That latter assertion-- which was the point of the original blog post that PZ made-- is about as correct as the assertion made by creationists that all "Darwinists" are trying to destroy religion (which they then could back up by linking to PZ's blog, just as PZ or others link to individual extreme statements about all non-Christians burning in hell).

-Rob

I know better than most others through a number of sources. By having been the token agnostic in an inter-faith group for a number of years . By being the son of a theology graduate.

This doesn't make your views on the supernatural any more or less valid than PZ's or Twains. It just means you are aware of more supernatural opinions. It doesn't enhance the validity of any view or discount any either.

And I do believe that your attacking all of the religious is ignorant and poorly founded and generally poor behavior.

He didn't attack all the ignorant. He actually wrote a very small paragraph about a very common thought in a particualr religion. It seems you folks are all caught up on the 'all' part when you should be asking 'why' type questions.

PZ's statement of 'Next time the religious demand respect for their beliefs' is ok, respect should come not just because someone believes something. And if they are a part of the block that believes in a horrible thing they should be called on it.

Why defend it?

I know that I know better than Mark Twain because he says that "it is believed by everyone that..." - either he is extremely sloppy in thought on this subject or is plain ignorant.

Oh, come on, do you think he means it literally? I guess Jesus should be ridiculed for his extremely bad advice to shepherds. You know, that good shepherds should lay down their life for their sheep, or leave the flock unguarded to go rescue a single lamb.

…attacking all of the religious…

You guys are doing it again. Where's the attack?

Pointing out that Christian dogma contains some rather reprehensible and repulsive concepts, concepts that are pretty clearly laid out and accepted by the overwhelming majority of Christians, is not an attack. Saying that I do not grant automatic respect for Christian beliefs is not an attack. Saying that I personally and explicitly reject Christian religious beliefs is not an attack.

That you and Francis have very vague ideas about a deity and an afterlife is also not a defense. If you want to reject the Nicene creed, that's fine, I won't stop you and will even encourage you -- but if you want to claim your beliefs are then representative of modern Christianity...well. OK.

Oh, and I'm not giving you any kind of dispensation at all. I'm pointing out that your beliefs are inconsistent.

There is also a difference between being religious and being spiritual. Religious refers to adhering to tenets of a particular set religion. As for the various religions described by the term Christianity, those are pretty much all in agreement as to the existence of a hell, although they differ about who's going there and why. The way Rob described himself, "I don't know about the afterlife. But I do believe in something like God, most of the time, and in something like the human soul, most of the time", makes him a spiritualist. Not accepting of the specifics of any one religion, but believing that there's "something more out there". Rob, PZ wasn't railing on you.

Wow, someone touched a nerve. Who knew?

But even the Bible can't agree with itself on this. One of my favorite websites is skepticsannotatedbible, which has the good taste to link to Pharyngula (in fact, it's how I found Pharyngula). They have a web page, "Does Hell Exist?", that has citations supporting and refuting Hell's existence.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/hell.html

But since it's all mythology anyway, what's the point??

I tell you one place where Christianity all fell apart for me. YEC's posit that the world is 6,000 years old, but God is eternal. So what'd God do for eternity minus 6,000 years (which, I'd remind you, is still eternity)? Did He get out of bed one day and say, "I know! I'm going to create something today of infinite proportions, and in the middle of it all, exactly one planet gets to have life!!".

It just doesn't make any sense.

Rob: I'm upset because of the assertion that (effectively) the religious are all stupid, and the assertion that those nasty religious people shouldn't be trusted because they all think that the "godless" are going to hell.

IMO you miss the point of "A Civil Discussion". It's not "ha ha, what wacky beliefs the religious have". It's the irony of people who profess their kindness and love holding beliefs that implicitly or explicitly state that some people deserve to be eternally tormented mostly for being, well, people.

You, quite frankly, do not know what you're talking about. You have accepted the definition of "Christian" that is promulgated by the extreme fundamentalist types, which is not what even the majority of Christians in this country would accept.

Hmmm. I think it is perfectly fair to be critical of this fairly widespread element of Christian belief (just as it's perfectly fair to be critical of some fairly widespread, intolerant elements of Muslim belief). It is true that some Christians resist these aspects of the tradition (I seem to recall Hans Kung remarking that it is still permissible-- within his vision of Catholic theology, at any rate-- to hope that all of us will wind up in heaven.) But it is not at all unusual for even morally concerned Christians to believe fully in the doctrine of hell for unbelievers. I know a few Catholics who are very distressed by it, but who continue to believe it. I and my family conceal our atheism (though not, I confess, very carefully) from some people whom we're very fond of, just to avoid distressing them.

Nevertheless, I consider it a morally monstrous doctrine, even when held sincerely and sorrowfully instead of (and I've encountered these too) gleefully, in the spirit of the real end-times apocalypse fans.

So what's fair game here? There is a strong historical and present-day tradition of hell & eternal damnation for unbelievers in Christianity. Surely it's fair for both Christians and non-Christians to critcize this tradition. It would be unfair to ascribe the view to all Christians. It might be unfair to ascribe it to Christians without explicitly restricting it to those (a majority or a large minority?) who really do accept it. But I'm not convinced-- context matters, and it isn't blatant cherry-picking to go after a belief that is not just the view of a fringe (as support for terrorism is amongst Muslim believers is) but a traditional position that is still widely held amongst Christian believers.

As for intellectual and moral respectability, there are some niceties worth thinking through here. Morally, the doctrine of eternal damnation is a monstrosity & cannot be held without cognitive dissonance by a morally serious person. But I've seen the cognitive dissonance in many who do hold it (largely, I think, on the authority of a religious tradition they cannot bring themselves to abandon).

Intellectually, there are serious and respectable efforts to reconcile religious belief with sound epistemology & science. In my view none are successful or even currently tenable, but work on them can still be respectable so long as the difficulties are seriously acknowledged & addressed rather than just avoided. I would say it's a degenerating research program (witness the collapse of seriously, biologically meaningful work on design, which was important to figures like Paley and the young Darwin). But these can sometimes be revived-- knock yourself out, I say, if that's what you want to do. But don't avoid diffculties-- revel in them, as good scientists should and usually do.

PZ wrote:
You guys are doing it again. Where's the attack?

Next time the religious demand respect for their beliefs, remind yourself what they're really thinking.

(emphasis mine)

Incidently, there is a second barb to the attack. Not only are you accusing all the religious of being as in the link, you are effectively accusing them of all being evangelicals. Which is really insulting for those who aren't and who detest evangelical doctrines every bit as much as you do.

Pointing out that Christian dogma contains some rather reprehensible and repulsive concepts, concepts that are pretty clearly laid out and accepted by the overwhelming majority of Christians, is not an attack. Saying that I do not grant automatic respect for Christian beliefs is not an attack. Saying that I personally and explicitly reject Christian religious beliefs is not an attack.

Indeed. But when you start waving your broad brush around on "The Religious", then it becomes an attack with colateral damage on a lot of people (you've even picked up the Wiccans and the Jains in there for goodness sake). It is always better to narrow down the focus of your comments than to hit people with colateral damage.

but if you want to claim your beliefs are then representative of modern Christianity...

My personal beliefs are not an issue. I am not a Christian and have never claimed to be. On the other hand, I have a much better idea of the range of Christian beliefs than most Christians.

You still haven't shown me where the attack is. Let's emphasize the part you're glossing over, shall we?

Next time the religious demand respect for their beliefs

Are you assuming that all the religious demand respect for their beliefs? I certainly don't. I do object to those religious who seem to think I must kowtow to their superstitions, as you are doing, but there are many (not enough, but a lot) who are able to recognize that being a Christian is not enough to warrant automatic respect. You and Rob seem to be offended at the thought that there are people out there, like me, who are rather thoroughly unimpressed with religiosity.

MikeM:

I tell you one place where Christianity all fell apart for me. YEC's posit that the world is 6,000 years old, but God is eternal. So what'd God do for eternity minus 6,000 years (which, I'd remind you, is still eternity)? Did He get out of bed one day and say, "I know! I'm going to create something today of infinite proportions, and in the middle of it all, exactly one planet gets to have life!!".

It just doesn't make any sense.

I suspect that questions on this line led to a lot of what are considered to be some of the wackier bits of mormonism. Going the atheist/agnostic route (over the mormon route) saves one 10% of their income and lets one avoid having to eat a lot of green jello salad.

We are seriously not talking about the beliefs of the few. Truly theologically liberal Christians should get used to the fact that they are "the few," and not make it sound like most Christians are theologically liberal. They're not. Most Christians are theologically orthodox, or some bizarre mixed-up thing in between.

The last few Gallup polls on the subject say that Americans overwhelmingly believe in Hell--70 percent and more. The percentage among the Christian majority is naturally higher; most non-Christians don't believe in Hell.

About as many believe in The Devil, and even more believe in angels.

Admittedly, that's only Americans; YMMV.

But anybody who says this is tarring all Christians with the beliefs of a few is either disingenuous or simply wrong.

I am also quite skeptical of the claim that 98% of Catholics believe in universal salvation. Where did that figure come from?

Even in a liberal sissy-ass country like Finland the church stands by the damnation doctrine:

The existence of hell is an issue that doubters within the church often question.
On Monday Archbishop Paarma reiterated that the concept of damnation is a part of the doctrine of the Lutheran Church, and that clergy who say that everyone goes to heaven have overstepped the boundaries of propriety.
"Damnation is a part of faith, but what that damnation is, is a different question", Paarma said.
In recent years the question of adherence by clergy to church doctrine has focused on one pastor, Antti Kylliäinen, who stated that hell does not exist in a book he wrote in 1997 called Kaikki pääsevät taivaaseen ("Everyone gets into heaven").
Numerous complaints of heresy were made to the Helsinki Cathedral Chapter over Kylliäinen's views, but he was allowed to continue in his post.

Of course, many more probably doubt the existence of hell, but it would be pretty bad marketing for the church to admit there may be no such thing.

But why belong to churches with doctrines that most members don't take that seriously? Is it a chance to pat yourself on the back, being more liberal than the church?

Thanks for your clarification, PZ. I don't know why Rob and Francis are being so deliberately obtuse--it was sort of obvious to me that the issue isn't "the religious", it's the "demanding respect" part.

And their definition of the amount and kind of "respect" you should show can be awfully stretchy, too.

You sound just like the young-earth creationists.

Ooh, brilliant logic there, Rob! People who make defective arguments often claim that they're absolutely right and everyone else is wrong. Therefore, anyone who claims that they're absolutely right must be a person who makes defective arguments!

Keep it up! Show everyone just how rigorous your arguments are! That'll teach me.

Saying you are a christian who does not believe in hell is like saying you're a vegetarian but you eat meat.

I am also quite skeptical of the claim that 98% of Catholics believe in universal salvation. Where did that figure come from?

It was from survey I read a few months back. I wish I ahd kept the link but I didn't. But this does wash with my experience with alot of Catholics. They think it exists but no one is going there. The same poll said nearly 50% of all Catholics think good atheists will go to heaven also.

The entire thrust of the article was a lament on America's generalized spirituality rather than a fundie form. So I think if not 98% pretty darn high.

This conversation reminds me of an often overlooked part of being an atheist:

If Jesus came back to earth tommorow, and it was settled that there WAS a god and the Christian Bible WAS true, we still wouldn't sign on.

It's not just that we think it's make believe - it's that even if it is real it's too monstrous and repellant to take part in.

Wow, this is a tempest in a teapot.

Saying "the religious" when you really mean "Christians" is kinda dumb, in that it promulgates a kind of newspeak that fundamentalists have been working on for years. My theory is that since, philosophically, other religions are more of a threat to Christianity then atheism, fundamentalists have been trying to make "religion" synonymous with "Christianity" so that people can avoid even acknowledging that other religions exist, and thus minimize the threat.

That said, none of the responses here criticise the actual body of the post Dr. Meyers linked to; it's all just, "Hey, not literally every religious person believes that way!". To which I respond, yes, so what? Enough do that I can't care about that argument.

Lastly, I've never found liberal Christianity to be much more convincing then the fundamentalist stripe.

People have raised a good question here that I think needs to be answered: If not damnation, what exactly are we being saved from when we embrace Christianity?

Do Christians get a better seat in heaven? If not, then why even bother with the religion at all?

The first commandment tells us we should have no other gods but YHWH. Why? If all religions are getting at the truth, then why would one include as an integral part of itself the idea that all the others are as wrong as you can be?

Monotheism is both an integral part of Christianity and the philosophical justification for nearly all the great wrongs committed by the religion. Now, if it is essentially wrong, a human error that crept into the religion while people were finding the truth, then that means that Christian philosophers had a serious problem with their methodology; a problem so severe that it lead to the deaths of millions.

What is this flaw? How can we ensure that it is absent from future spiritual endevours?

On the other hand, if it is in fact an accurate and useful assessment of the spiritual world, then I have to ask what purpose it serves; What is so great about it that it justifies even one inquisition, let alone the countless other atrocities commited in its name?

I've seen this argument before from all stripe of religious people - you quote something from their Big Book of Stuff, or make note of a common belief, or quote a luminary in their religion and you get this. "Oh, but *I* don't believe that part of the Bible, so your argument is void." or "Only crazy extremists think that! So you're wrong." or "That guy isn't a true Christian! I am, so believe me."

The problem with having an unfalsifiable, vague, logically inconsistent philosophy that's been corrupted by thousands of years of infighting and cultural bastardization is that everyone gets to claim an exemption whenever they feel like it. Saying you're a Christian who doesn't believe in the god described in the bible, the heaven from the bible, the hell from the bible, and most everything that Jesus dude said is pretty much my cue to think you're full of it. Congrats that you think you're a Christian, but you may want to look up the root word and get a clue.

As for what PZ originally said...

Buddhists don't demand anything of me, nor do Universalists, or Jains. They get the exemption from PZ's statement because there ISN'T A THREAT IMPLICIT IN THEIR BELIEFS. Get that through your head. It's the people that demand you sign on to their system of superstitious beliefs... or else. You know who they are. If they aren't you or the people you know, move along. If you do think that your beliefs give you the right to demand respect for all of their sacred glory, then please, continue to argue.

It seems that many people here are more upset about PZ's overgeneralized use of the phrase "the religious" than they are about the actual point he (or Alleee) was making: a great many people we see every day, the people we work with and ride the bus with, think we are destined for everlasting torment, and this is all right with them. It is also apparently all right with the moderates here that there are people who think this way - they are just "struggling" with their own "faith journey" after all, and it's all good. The actual beliefs of moderates may not even be distinguishable from agnosticism, as PZ pointed out about Rob, who cannot pin down what his beliefs really are ("..I do believe in something like God, most of the time, and in something like the human soul, most of the time")? To me it seems that the only point of this exercise is this: at the end of the day you get to label yourself a Christian. Since the hellfireans are in the same Christian tribe, it's important to deflect criticism from them, less so to tell them that they are the problem. This is what I disdain in moderate religion - its ultimate affirmation of the basis by which fundamentalists arrive at their beliefs.

(PS:
the RSS link to the comments doesn't seem to be working for me, i.e.:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/the_unspoken_part_of_the_dis…

it's not found on the server...)

PZ,

Thank you for posting about Hellbound Alleee's "A Civil Discussion" and mentioning my blog as well. :)

I'm glad that you, like myself, found it to be a powerful statement exposing the inherent threats and accusations within Christian (even all Abrahamic) theology.

And to the Christians who come in here and whine that atheists are attacking them, I say to them "look at your own Christian ideology to see where the REAL attack is coming from."

Christians have an ideology that says all nonbeleivers are doomed to Hell. the Christian God assigns guilt before any guilty action can be taken by a man, and then demands dog-like, belly-up obedience and admission of self-worthlessness (just as "A Civil Discussion" so clearly demonstrates).

It is CHRISTIANITY that is making the attacks. The mere doctrine of Chrsitianity, by necessity, is an ATTACK on all nonbelievers. It is a threat of punishment of the worst kind conceivable, not for any actions you may commit, but for whether or not you sufficiently grovel and submit to a given entity. Christian doctrine is a demand of compliance, coercively forced down everyones throats via a threat of eternal and ultimate suffering.

Pointing out the loaded immorality of Christianity is NOT an attack.

Judging the doctrines of Christianity on their own merits is NOT an attack.

Rejecting Christianity on moral, logical, or other grounds is NOT an attack.

Christianity itself threatens atheists with eternal suffering. THAT is an attack.

For atheists to attack Christians, as some have claimed, the atheist would have to DEMAND obedience from the Christian, backed up by a threat of ultimate punishment.

Now can any Christian point out specifically where in Hellbound Alleee's post, my Kill The Afterlife post, or PZ Meyer's post there was any ultimatum presented to Christians that was backed up with a threat of ultimate (or even moderate) suffering????

Good luck finding THAT, Christoids.

It is time for all you Christian-superstitionists to pony up and admit that, whether you agree with all of your doctrines or not, the doctrines themselves have inherent threats within them directed specifically at all non-Christians. In fact, it is a threat so grand in scope, that no BIGGER threat could possibly be levelled at anyone, ever! Eternal Hellfire is a threat worse than death, worse than a lifetime of torture, worse than any other suffering anyone can imagine. It is the trump card of threats.

So to all Christians: stop threatening us and rid yourself of this evil, inhumane, immoral, coercive, superstitious ideology.

This conversation reminds me of an often overlooked part of being an atheist:

If Jesus came back to earth tommorow, and it was settled that there WAS a god and the Christian Bible WAS true, we still wouldn't sign on.

It's not just that we think it's make believe - it's that even if it is real it's too monstrous and repellant to take part in.

Speak for yourself, buddy. If the Bible were actually true (well, accounting for the inconsistent bits) and Jesus were actually real, yadda yadda yadda, then I'd sign on.

In that unimaginably unlikely scenario, I would be forced to conclude that my ethical objections are in error. Truth first, ideology second.

Caledonian:

You'd actually want to go spend an eternity with the 'faithful'?

Have a blast. Satan's just a victim of bad PR, I'm guessing Hell's a blast.

Oh, and what's your "truth over ideology" comment supposed to mean?

The entire point was that finding out that religion is "true" would still not compel me to want to follow it.
The existence of Brittany Spears is a proven fact.

I still don't want her records.

Did you ever think as the hearse goes by
That you might be the next to die
They will put you in a long white box
And there you'll wither and decay and rot

And the worms go in
And the worms go out
And the ants play pinochle on your snout.

I don't wish to be completely forgotten so I have asked my children to make something that goes off every time someone walks by my resting place- a movement sensor and music- with a recording of me singing this song.

The music starts with Turkey in the Straw for the verse, and then just kind of changes and slows....

I will be immortal then!! As long as someone remembers to change the batteries as needed.

Oh, and what's your "truth over ideology" comment supposed to mean?

It's English. Parse it.

The entire point was that finding out that religion is "true" would still not compel me to want to follow it.
The existence of Brittany Spears is a proven fact. I still don't want her records.

Ah, but Brittany Spears' existence does not imply that her music is definitive. The existence of the entity crudely described in Christian theology requires that the things believed about that entity be true.

Did you ever think as the hearse goes by
That you might be the next to die
...
I don't wish to be completely forgotten so I have asked my children to make something that goes off every time someone walks by my resting place...

Have the next-of-kin set up a solar-panel charging system, and you won't need to worry about replacing the batteries.

Here is a song (by Bruce Cockburn) that I would use for such a memorial, if I were to have the sort of official "resting place" that takes up real estate.

Tie me at the crossroads when I die
Hang me in the wind 'til I get good and dry
And the kids that pass can scratch their heads
And say "who was that guy?"
Tie me at the crossroads when I die

Looking outward see what you can see
By the time you look at something it's already history
As the echoes of our passing fade, all there is to say
Is, "You know I loved you all in my particular way"

It's more blessed to give than it is to receive
Except when it comes to free advice I believe
Here I go anyway, back seat driving tonight
Move fast, stay cool, keep your eye on the front sight