Remember, a lead casket is more durable, but a wooden casket is healthier!

yeah, ‘coz I wouldn’t want lead poisoning once I’m dead, that would just add insult to injury.  Maybe I should rely on industrial action.

I’ve told my family to just toss me on a big bon fire and roast up some marshmallows.

For some reason that idea didn’t go over too well…

I’m at work on the tail end of my lunch break so this has to be short and quick…

I tried asking religious people (predominately Catholic in my area) whats worse a person who worships Satan or an Athiest.  So far from my own impersonal poll I’m hitting about 60%-70% of people thinking Athiests are worse than Satanists. 

My only thought is maybe they’re right because no one takes Satanists seriously (well except maybe the local PTA organizations since in my small town it always seems protecting the children from Satan as the basis for banning music, books, movies).  So maybe they’re right, perhaps the biggest threat to the Church isn’t God’s own archnemesis’ followers, but perhaps the biggest threat is critical thinking and science. 

----------------------------------
sorry for the short post gotta get back to work, I probably should have saved posting ‘till after work since I wasn’t able to really touch on all the aspects of this arguement I wanted to.  So far though I’ve enjoyed this thread it’s done a lot to bring up a lot points about athiesm.

From a theological standpoint, that’s just goofy (that may be an oxymoron to some).  From an emotional standpoint, though ...

... well, they say the opposite of love is not hate, but apathy.  The Satanist is at least “in the game,” and acknowledges (even while turning against) God.  The atheist calls into question the whole thing—not just whether it’s better to follow God or the Devil, but whether either actually exists—from that perspective, it’s not surprising might be seen as worse by some folks.

After all, who’s a bigger enemy to a Yankees fan—a Mets fan, or someone who thinks baseball is a silly waste of time?

***Dave: ... well, they say the opposite of love is not hate, but apathy

I’m pretty sure this idea is started by people who hate to try to justify themselves. I don’t agree with it, because apathy isn’t a negative, just lack of a positive - an apathetic person wouldn’t deliberately hurt someone else without some net gain, but someone who hates would sometimes go out of their way, at personal expense, to hurt another.

I think people unite against the wrong ‘enemy’ for the wrong reasons (ie unite against non-belief, rather that unite against asshats). Perhaps apathy is better, lest you create a (potentially unrestrained) monster.

Hate is not a form of love, but can occur in the same person as one who loves. You don’t need emotion to enjoy life

After all, who’s a bigger enemy to a Yankees fan—a Mets fan, or someone who thinks baseball is a silly waste of time?

Baseball?  Is that the opposite of acidball or something?
Depends on what you mean by “danger”.  I would suspect a Yankee fan is more likely to get punched in the nose by a rabid Mets fan than by an abaseballist.  And after rereading “The Origin of Satan” by Elaine Pagels (a great book, by the way) I would say that this would apply to religion too: the intimate enemy, the one who believes almost exactly as you do, is the one most to be feared and hated.

I’m pretty sure this idea is started by people who hate to try to justify themselves. I don’t agree with it, because apathy isn’t a negative, just lack of a positive - an apathetic person wouldn’t deliberately hurt someone else without some net gain, but someone who hates would sometimes go out of their way, at personal expense, to hurt another.

The idea is that both love and hatred are an emotional engagement—you are focused on the other person, interested in them and what they do and say.  We talk about a “love-hate relationship” in just that way.  Apathy means not just rejection of the other, but disregard.

Would it be worse to hear a loved one say, “I hate you!” than to hear them say, “I really don’t care what you do or how you feel”?

Looked at another way, if Satanists were to be more successful in their battle against Christians (work with me here), Christianity would still exist, and would in its own way be both validated and get internally stronger in opposition.  If Atheists are more successful in dismissing the whole basis for folks’ belief, though, it’s even more threatening.  The biggest danger in 1940 America weren’t the people saying we should support Germany, it was the people who were saying we shouldn’t be involved in the war at all.

I’m not saying I agree with the position that therefore atheists are a bigger “enemy” to Christians than Satanists, just speculating why some Christians react against them more strongly.

A corollary to the above, it seems to me, is that the bigger threat to Christians from Atheists comes not in confrontation over (dis)beliefs—in which case they become just “another” enemy—but in simple disregard, the assertion that religious faith is simply not important, not worthwhile, not necessary, not “cool,” not needed to be a good citizen and productive member of society and virtuous individual—that all the ostensible benefits of religion and the religious can be had without believing in a Big Sky Father or something like that.  Which isn’t to say that opposition to the political or social activities driven by religious motivations isn’t valid or worthwhile or necessary—but that’s different from getting into a debate over foundational worldviews.

***Dave: Would it be worse to hear a loved one say, “I hate you!” than to hear them say, “I really don’t care what you do or how you feel”?

I don’t want to hurt anyone, or be hurt, and I don’t care whether they don’t care about me, so long as neither is in pain.

I partly desire to cut emotional connections with people so that we’re all free, and not bound by each other’s expectaions or needs. I can imagine other people if ever I’m lonely and I can feel love inside whenever I need it. I don’t want someone to know me if it’d just be pain, I don’t need no one else

Looked at another way, if Satanists were to be more successful in their battle against Christians (work with me here), Christianity would still exist, and would in its own way be both validated and get internally stronger in opposition.

You would have a negative spin on the old infrastructure. I suppose the material is still there for the same interpretation if someone looks at it through “heaven’s glasses” (meaning that perspective), but the concept’d be corrupted and used to keep most people in a psychological hell. You would put down an animal if it was in irrecovable pain, or replace a broken hip with new plastic ‘infrastructure’

You can start again from scratch, and so can scrap what has been corrupted without permanent loss of christian/religous concepts, just found another way. Heros/reformists will emerge from painful situations to prevent others from having to experience it, that is a self-righting part of human nature, always keeping us in a certain range.

Using afterlife terms to describe conditions on earth, heaven states are indirectly born from the pain of hellish ones through reformists, whereas hell from the complacency and expectations from being spoilt.
Good things come from bad deeds, but where’s the sense in it all? With temporary lives and a cold-reset at birth humanity’ll always be trapped in some compromise, some level of fun, and some level of pain. Should it end, I wonder?

Bahamat, you took both the red AND the blue pill didn’t you?

BB - It’s rainbow day today

If everyone is still getting notification of this post, I would be interested in what you think about this post from Greta: Atheists and Anger.

Despite your views on religion, please read the whole thing and let me know what you think. Warning, the post is long it may take awhile to read, but I guarantee it is worth the time.

My thoughts are basically that Greta has said everything I have been thinking about on religion for awhile now. She adequately explains what pisses me off about the Believers and the Atheists.

It’s a good essay.  For what it’s worth, there’s very little that Greta’s angry about that I’m not angry about, too.

And she’s right—anger can be useful, anger can be the passion that can drive to change.  But her list of the dangers of anger is also correct.

I’ll acknowledge that anger is a difficult tool in a social movement. A dangerous one even. It can make people act rashly; it can make it harder to think clearly; it can make people treat potential allies as enemies. In the worst-case scenario, it can even lead to violence. Anger is valid, it’s valuable, it’s necessary… but it can also misfire, and badly.

If atheists are angry—and, for the reasons Greta gives, they should be, though nearly of those reasons should anger everyone -- that’s okay.  But while I shouldn’t tell atheists they shouldn’t be angry, yelling at me and telling me I’m an idiot for what I believe is probably going to make me angry, too.

Grrrr!!!  Anger make Hulk ANGRY!!!

Sorry, someone had to say it.

yelling at me and telling me I’m an idiot for what I believe is probably going to make me angry, too.

Agreed. But if this is the case, there should be no reason we can’t discuss religion.

Certainly we can discuss religion; indeed, we should discuss religion.

Don’t we do that a lot here?

Yes we do, and that is one thing I think most readers appreciate about you Dave, is you willingness to discuss this issue without calling us assholes for doing it. Most religious people I talk to about religion start the discussion assuming I am an asshole before the discussion even takes place. It gets old and annoying.

So thank you for your openness it is appreciated by me.

I think emotions are best disengaged during discussion of an idea, because people are unable to see all sides to an issue when they have an emotional bias.

You can’t think as rationally when emotional. On the other hand, it’s good to be emotional when someone needs feedback on their actions - when they need to know what effect they’re having

”Surak, please pick up the white courtesy phone...”

Oh Jebus DOF.  Are you calling Bahamat Surak?

In any event, I cannot find anything in Greta’s post I disagree with.

I need to watch star trek at some point…
Or maybe just become content with having unsatisfied curiousity that is outweighed by laziness

But, emotion is the only thing seemingly able to give any substance to existence. Things can have a meaning in terms of emotions, even if the emotions themselves have no meaning, they are still there and I suppose we have a (not completely suppressable) bias towards preferring one extreeme over the other (ie comfort over pain, or happiness over sadness) - still, I don’t see why people have that bias, nethertheless it is taken advantage of by evolution

Do not try. either Do or Do Not. There is no try.

Now there’s a celebrity death match! Yoda vs Surak.

More seriously I have a quandry.

I like the ***Dave on the web. He seems a nice enough chap, he gets the occasional comment on his blog from me etc, and I don’t want to offend him.  However, what I am not sure is, am I comfortable with offending his religeon (I am making an assumption as he uses ‘my church’ in his disclaimer)? 

I think so, because I distinguish between the two.  BUT I sometimes wonder how he thinks of us when we rip into a Troll, because by taking the piss from someone who may well deserve it, we are attacking (at least in part) the foundation of those with faith.

I find I can respect a person, with out respecting their beliefs.  Where it becomes difficult is where someones racial identity is wrapped up with their religeous identity- care must be taken to differentiate between the two.

In Britain we don’t really have Christian Fundementalists.  However, many Muslims seem to define themselves by their religeon.  I do have a problem with the way Muslims deal with the rest of the country.  Now, usually to say this is to invite accusations of racism.  However, I do not have any such reservations with Hindus and Sihks.

In a recent programme about immigration it was said that Pakistanis (mostly Muslim, though not linked in this way in the programme) are less successful in Britain than White people (I have to trust the progs stats on this).  To many this would be prima facie of Racism, and indeed I have heard that used.  HOWEVER- Indian immigrants, and their decendants are MORE successful.  Now India is not Muslim for the most part- hence partition.

It is Islam around which there are religeous tensions at the moment.  How much of that is due to 1948, and how much is inherent WITHOUT the Israel question.

The ‘disambiguation’ for me is believe what you want, I will (try to) treat you as the person how you present yourself to me.  However if you say something which I regard as nonsensical, do not expect me to politely agree with you.

Anger is a perfectly legitimate response to a percieved injustice. I don’t disagree with the article, and really, I’m pretty sure that’s what it meant to say.

Anyhow. Yeah, some people get emotional over religion (LuckyJohn gets on his hinds and howls over lesser things) - and I very much agree with Bahamat that emotion has no place in private discussion on the merits of an idea. However, emotions are influential, basic, and more responsive than intellect. You spit the facts out to whoever will listen - you induce vomiting in everyone else .

Webs:  Most religious people I talk to about religion start the discussion assuming I am an asshole before the discussion even takes place. It gets old and annoying.

I can imagine.  It seems very short-sighted to me to make that sort of pre-judgment. 

On the other hand, I usually don’t call people in a conversation assholes because, honestly, by the time it comes to that, there’s no point to it.  I usually drop the conversational thread at that point.

Last Hussar:  I like the ***Dave on the web. He seems a nice enough chap, he gets the occasional comment on his blog from me etc, and I don’t want to offend him.  However, what I am not sure is, am I comfortable with offending his religeon (I am making an assumption as he uses ‘my church’ in his disclaimer)?

If it’s in the cause of a constructive, or at least interesting, discussion, don’t worry about it.  If it’s just asshattery, also don’t worry about it (I’ll just ignore it).  Fact is, there are plenty of offense-worthy aspects to the faith tradition I hang out with (though my own beliefs are heterodox enough that I’d probably be burned at the stake in some eras were I non-circumspect enough to discuss them). 

I think so, because I distinguish between the two.

While I self-label myself as “Christian” (gasp), that category, like “American” or “Democrat” or “Male” encompasses so much that a critique of the actions of some folks who fall into that category is rarely something I take personally (often enough I actually agree, as with much of what Greta says).  It’s only when someone says, “All X are Y” and I find myself identifying with X but not with Y that feel obliged either to offer an exception (if worthwhile), or tune the conversation out (if there seems no point to it).

BUT I sometimes wonder how he thinks of us when we rip into a Troll, because by taking the piss from someone who may well deserve it, we are attacking (at least in part) the foundation of those with faith.

Most of the trolls ‘round here deserve to have their piss taken (if I follow the slang). 

I find I can respect a person, with out respecting their beliefs.

I think it’s possible to respect someone without believing their beliefs.  I think it’s more important to consider the actions that stem from those beliefs.

I’m with H.L. Mencken:  “We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart.”

Where it becomes difficult is where someones racial identity is wrapped up with their religeous identity- care must be taken to differentiate between the two.

I wouldn’t say their “racial identity” so much as their “personal identity.” I am not solely defined by my religious beliefs, though they are an important part of me.  I’m not solely defined by my politics, by my sexual orientation, by my nationality, by my gender, by my hobbies, or by any number of other aspects of myself.  Some are more important to me, obviously, but if I get to the point where I let any of those aspects become me, then I think I’ve shortchanged myself.

The ‘disambiguation’ for me is believe what you want, I will (try to) treat you as the person how you present yourself to me.  However if you say something which I regard as nonsensical, do not expect me to politely agree with you.

I think there’s a difference between “polite agreement” and simply not saying anything.  In conversations here, where discussions of beliefs and ideologies and so forth are the norm, there’s an implicit license to challenge stuff.  Standing in a queue at the grocery store, it’s probably not as necessary (or useful) to do so.

So if I say something which seems nonsensical, you have my permission to challenge me on it—though hopefully in a more constructive fashion than calling me a asshat (unless I’ve actually done something offensively asshatty).  If it’s just point out that I believe in an unprovable supernatural thingummie, it’s probably not necessary, because I’m aware of that, and am unlikely to suddenly slap my forehead and realize the buffoonery of my ways.  (If I say something or suggest public laws or policy premised on that belief that makes no objective sense, though, please feel free to point that out.)

I need to watch star trek at some point…

Actually, I’m pretty sure it’s possible to lead a fulfilling life without it.  Though I have enjoyed the series.  I know a guy whose life is practically immersed in it.

Last Hussar:  I like the ***Dave on the web. He seems a nice enough chap, he gets the occasional comment on his blog from me etc, and I don’t want to offend him.  However, what I am not sure is, am I comfortable with offending his religeon (I am making an assumption as he uses ‘my church’ in his disclaimer)?

Niceness is overrated, and is where the social convention of never discussing religion or politics takes root.  Nice people are sort of crippled in their ability to deal with tough topics.  (My mother, a very nice person, is a good example)

On the other, other hand, hostility often makes anger ineffective and discussion impossible.  Not to flatter ***Dave, but he manages to be angry when it is fitting, and to handle tough topics, without hostility.  I admire.