You've stated on numerous occasions from your first post to your last post about how it should be no surprise that atheists are viewed the way they are by religious people, and then tried to justify it in numerous, equally stupid ways, such as how they don't have morals, and how Stalin was an atheist, and how they're liars, blah blah blah.
Well, atheists are the opposite of theists, are they not? As such, it seems natural (although not proper to Chrisitan morality, but human nature being what it is...) that a certain level of antipathy exist between the two camps, no? It's not justified, but it still shouldn't surprise anyone with two consecutive clues.
As far as "stupid" arguments go, you're entitled to your opinion of my arguments. It doesn't make your analysis necessarily right, but there you are. If my words gave you the impression that I thought that atheists didn't have morals, I either mis-spoke (I say that because I don't have access to my previous posts on this thread as I type this, so it would be inappropriate for me to
not concede this, even though I don't currently recall stating that sentiment), or you've interpreted them wrong. My point was that atheism doesn't have any
automatic connection to a moral code. One could be an atheist that has a very high sense of altruism. Another person could use atheism as a justification for sociopathic hedonism where they don't care who they hurt, manipulate or, even kill, in the pursuit of their personal sense of pleasure. If a Christian were to do that (and many have!), they are at least a hypocrite. Would the behaviour of the atheist who doesn't give a rodent's posterior about anyone but themselves conflict with atheism? Certainly, they would be in conflict with altruism, but their behaviour would be completely consistent with atheism alone. It's great when atheism and altruism go together, but history has shown that they don't always do that. They're not automatically linked. That's what I've been trying to explain, and that's what you've inaccurately taken for an accusation that "atheists don't have morals." What I was trying to point out was that atheists aren't specifically required by the tenet(s) of atheism alone, to have morals. I fail to see how that can even be debated.
And for the record, I don't need to "re-brand" myself as a rationalist. I'm not an atheist and never was. You might want to check into what "rationalism" is, before you go suggesting people of trying to "re-brand" themselves as if there was ever something wrong with their brand in the first place.
Congratulations! Good for you! We should throw you a party! I wasn't talking about you in the first place, but it's good to see your ego is healthy. I was referring to Bill Mahr, who, in his monologue at the end of his movie "Religulous", with
exceptional clarity, puts himself in the anti-theist camp, regardless of what label he prefers for himself. He can use any label he likes for himself, but his views on religion are anti-theistic. It's a matter of public record.
I happen to think that the Big Bang Theory and the Invisible Man in the Sky Theory are equally unlikely, and anybody that portrays them as fact or won't admit that they *could* be wrong equally stupid. Some of us aren't so arrogant that we think we have all the answers.
I happen to think the Big Bang Theory (the real science thing, not the TV show) doesn't really have any serious competition at the moment, so I'm at a loss as to how one comes up with the conclusion that it's unlikely. But, I'm not a scientist, so there may be a new theory in the process of coming into acceptance that I'm not aware of yet.
Thinking that we don't have all the answers might not be as uncommon as you may think. It's not that unusual. What
is terribly unusual, it seems, is the desire, and possibly skill required, to
share, rather than impose, what answers we have with other people. Instead, what is terribly common, is the desire to cram one's answers down other people's throats, and force them to come to the same conclusions as the one doing the forcing. Sharing requires give and take, respect, the willingness to learn and the ability to admit that one might have come to the wrong conclusion previously. And before you jump to yet another conclusion, I'm not saying you don't have that. I'm saying it's just rare in the world at large (in my opinion, based on my personal experience, of course). And this is precisely where the militant atheists curiously perfectly imitate the fundamentalism that they purport to despise so much.
But, to go back to the original issue of religious folks allegedly not trusting atheists, roughly on the same level as rapists, I think that a mountain is being made out of a mole-hill here. It sounds a lot like a slow news day, and a reporter took a few sound bytes from an interview, and did their best to "s@x-it-up" and make it all controversial. I can't remember the exact statistics at the moment, but the percentage of Canadians who bother to go to a Church, Temple or Synagogue of some sort
on a regular basis is, IIRC, less than ten percent. The "regular basis" thing is a key point. The percentage of Canadians that identify themselves as atheists, or refuse any religious affiliation, is roughly the same, somewhere less than ten percent. What that means is, roughly eighty percent of Canadians don't give a flying whirl about religion one way or the other, even if they're of the curious personal opinion that they belong to a particular faith group, in even if that claim is in stark contrast to their behaviour and attitudes.
Serious practitioners of religion (that's the "regular basis" thing I mentioned earlier) tend to see the ninety percent of the population that isn't them as people who don't believe, because even if one claims to believe, it's meaningless unless it's acted upon. Militant atheists and anti-theists tend to see the ninety percent of the population that isn't them as believers, regardless of whether the claimed faith is actually acted on.
So this, what could probably be best described as "apatheistic", portion of the populace in the middle balloons up and makes the opposite seem so imposing and "scary" to the two ends of the spectrum. So, some religious folks might think of atheists as untrustworthy, just as some atheists might thing of religious folks as gullible dupes. Both generalizations are wrong, but possibly emotionally understandable, no? Plus, what do you really care what opinion less than ten percent of the population has about you? Keep doing business with the other ninety percent and have a great day.
I assume this bit of verbal irony is the hyperbole to which you refer?
Yes. And I'll take the time now to offer an apology and retraction, should anyone else decide to be offended at it. It was not my intend to offend, or paint any group with such a wide brush, just point out that alternate perspectives exist... Such as why Galileo was jailed. Obviously, the official record shows he was jailed for heresy. But, if heliocentrism was heresy, why did Copernicus (who figured out heliocentrism first!) remain a Priest in good standing with Rome his entire life? If the Vatican was anti-science, why were they funding Galileo, and his work, in the first place? And if heresy was the issue, why wasn't he tortured and executed for it, like the Cathars? It seems to me, and a lot of others who try to put all the pieces together, that the heresy charge was a trumped up excuse to make the charge stick, somewhat along the lines of the "contrary to the good prejudice" stuff. I may be wrong (!), but a simple straightforward heresy charge doesn't fit all the facts. It seems to me that there were other factors in play here.
Mr Bobbitt, et al, you have my apologies for allowing this discussion to spiral. I originally was trying to be helpful and postulate possible answers for ballz and his inquiry into why a certain level of mistrust may exist between two opposing groups. At some points my emotions got the better of me, and it turned into a heated debate rather than a healthy discussion. Once again, my apologies.
