en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/326365 Comments by Julian_Finn http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/03/power-responsibility-and-religion.html#IDComment16112328 I've always felt that those who seek power are usually the ones we should desperately be trying to keep power from. But I'd ask the question, do those who enter the clergy do it for power or do they genuinely do it in order to "help" people? You can make a strong case that the abuses of religious power outstrip those of religion's political cousins (although the cases of Robert Mugabe or Slobodan Milosevic would be, I feel, comparable) but can you really argue that those who enter the clergy do it because of an attraction to the authority of the position? I think that it's more likely BECAUSE those who become clergymen have a misguided idea of what helping their flocks truly means, that the abuses are so bad. They genuinely feel that they're doing the right thing for others, which is a key distinction between them and those who wield political power. Also, since religious power is only granted by the faith of followers, it could be argued that the abuses of that power aren't really abuses but rather a deranged surrender of authority on the part of parishioners and that any negatives they incur as a result are deserved. Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:49:45 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/03/power-responsibility-and-religion.html#IDComment16112328 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/03/revealing-atheist-stereotype.html#IDComment16087066 You know, the immorality one always bothers me. I've heard, countless times, the old standby, "You don't believe in anything so what's to stop you from raping or murdering etc?" I've always thought it ludicrous that a belief system whose core focus is the absolution of guilt through profession of faith has the gall to hold itself up as morally superior to anything. Tue, 3 Mar 2009 01:09:19 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/03/revealing-atheist-stereotype.html#IDComment16087066 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/dobson-resigns-from-focus-on-family.html#IDComment15892135 The part about the organization pushing forward into new territory was especially ominous to me. Don't they have their crucifixes tarnishing enough pies? :( Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:55:33 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/dobson-resigns-from-focus-on-family.html#IDComment15892135 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/need-christian-extremist-trucking.html#IDComment15883630 It would clearly be a walking on water kind of deal; or maybe there's boats. :D Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:49:57 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/need-christian-extremist-trucking.html#IDComment15883630 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/we-dont-need-no-stinkin-health-care.html#IDComment15742527 Wow. Ummm, is it just me, or does this just seem like nothing more than a different way to sneak Pasquale's Wager into a debate that a high profile, generally centrist magazine shouldn't be having in the first place? Believe, because it can't hurt and it might just help. Yuck. A few things that stood out for me: 1) "That's undeniably true — up to a point. But it's also true that our brains and bodies contain an awful lot of spiritual wiring. Even if there's a scientific explanation for every strand of it, that doesn't mean we can't put it to powerful use. And if one of those uses can make us well, shouldn't we take advantage of it?" Well, that's just arguing that, if it makes you feel better, you should choose to believe anything, no matter the level of foolishness involved. The problem with this is, I'm guessing the "benefits" only exist for those who are deeply devout and those people also believe some truly abhorrent things about their fellow humans; not to cross a line here, but I want LESS of those people in the world, not more. 2) " If a woman given a diagnosis of breast cancer is already offered the services of an oncologist, a psychologist and a reconstructive surgeon, why shouldn't her doctor discuss her religious needs with her and include a pastor in the mix if that would help?" For the same reason that a priest doesn't have any place at a debate between different theories of biological evolution. They don't have anything measurable or useful to contribute so why should they be allowed to get in the way of those who can provide genuine help? 3)"While churches are growing increasingly willing to accept the assistance of health-care experts, doctors and hospitals have been slower to seek out the help of spiritual counselors." Well, maybe that has something to do with the fact that churches and their members are coming to realize that medical science may actually have more to say on the subject of getting better than prayer; it seems ludicrous then to assume the same treatment on the reverse. What, are they expecting equal treatment just out of politeness? To be fair, the author of this piece does finish with a grudging acknowledgment that prayer shouldn't completely replace medicine, but still, what was the point of this dreck? Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:02:44 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/we-dont-need-no-stinkin-health-care.html#IDComment15742527 http://www.withoutgods.net/2009-2-21-1-alexander2.htm#IDComment15733384 See, but for all that pseudo history they poured down your throat in school, trying desperately to justify that Great at the end of his name, at least they didn't give him a holiday. Someone who really got elevated to Godhood in America was Columbus and his historical record in the public school system might as well have been written by Tolkien for all the actual fact contained in it. Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:09:06 +0000 http://www.withoutgods.net/2009-2-21-1-alexander2.htm#IDComment15733384 http://www.withoutgods.net/2009-2-21-3.htm#IDComment15729685 Literally wiping tears from my eyes at the idea of George Alexander using football to show off his military prowess. Fantastic, sir! I'll be back tomorrow to read more. :D Tue, 24 Feb 2009 05:35:05 +0000 http://www.withoutgods.net/2009-2-21-3.htm#IDComment15729685 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/if-prayer-worked.html#IDComment15539852 See, it's not just prayer itself but faith in general. If heaven is real, why does the pope drive around in a bulletproof glass box; at best isn't that just him forgetting that he, of all people, is probably going to a better place, at worst isn't he deliberately trying to thwart god's will? When the leader of the biggest church in the world has visible faith issues, isn't it time for all of them to hang up their hats and admit the whole thing is kind of ill advised? Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:00:12 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/if-prayer-worked.html#IDComment15539852 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/what-sharia-law-teaches-us-about-islam.html#IDComment15409940 Any theocratic system is inherently terrifying because there's no opportunity for the law to grow as the people do. Because you're basing your laws on religious texts, unless god puts in an appearance to mediate editing every fifty years or so, there's no way for the law to be appealed or reasoned with; it takes humans completely out of the loop of policing themselves and relegates law and order issues to the tooth fairy. My biggest fear during the Bush years was that the U.S. would turn into a theocracy and then negatively influence Canada. Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:53:38 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/what-sharia-law-teaches-us-about-islam.html#IDComment15409940 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/are-atheists-too-comfortable-for.html#IDComment15408075 That reaction seems a little....overstated. :D Christians especially have as many if not more biases against atheists than they do against homosexuals. After all, non belief is the only sin that (scripturally) can't be forgiven. You may not hear the public bashing on the same level, but the hate is still definitely there. "anyways you're no better than a bible thumping christian when you try to push your beliefs on someone else." You know, I've only ever heard that statement from religious people. Atheism is an absence of belief and, even if atheism came with it's own set of beliefs and rules that we could "push" on someone, we would be better than your "bible thumping christian" because we actually have an opinion that's based on something real. The truth is always better than the lie, even if it's unpleasant. Cheers, Julian Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:39:20 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/are-atheists-too-comfortable-for.html#IDComment15408075 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/embarrassed-for-humanity.html#IDComment15339395 I was pulled into the office of my former employer (about a week before I quit in disgust) to discuss the fact that a brand new employee (she'd worked two shifts thus far) had filed a formal complaint against me because she'd been offended by a debate she overheard between myself and another colleague. The debate was about logical and factual fallacies found in the bible and spread by organized religion. I was told by my employer that if I was overheard expressing similar sentiments again I would be fired to ensure harmony in the work place. I don't even know what planet I'm living on anymore. Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:38:21 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/embarrassed-for-humanity.html#IDComment15339395 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/are-atheists-too-comfortable-for.html#IDComment15328714 I don't have any problems labeling them as insane; if a person acts without reason or logic and, by their actions, negatively affects someone else, that person, to me, is insane. I think every gay person living in California would agree that they were negatively affected by the actions of those believing without evidence. Again, I'm not saying this approach is the most practical or the easiest, but simply a place to start. If the law as it exists is balanced in favor of your enemies, seek to change the law; the religious right lobbies to do that every day, in both our countries. As to the denial of rights, I'm speaking more of preventing those who don't have anything to contribute to the progress of society from participating in the discussion . We already don't allow the mentally ill to run for office or teach our children; why not add the religious to that category? Can a person's actions ever be truly separate from their beliefs? If not, how can we allow people to act on beliefs that are damaging and have nothing to support them? Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:04:04 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/are-atheists-too-comfortable-for.html#IDComment15328714 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/are-atheists-too-comfortable-for.html#IDComment15328195 Or more than that, where do we start? In any other debate concerning civil rights, those arguing from the position of weakness attack the suppositions of those suppressing them. It is merely a matter of changing minds and attitudes, over time, that results in things like gay marriage rights, black and women's voting rights, and the creation of the "Log Cabin Republicans" ;p But we're not really seeking to change minds, are we? In a debate where one side would change their views if evidence was provided that required it, but the other side would simply dig deeper trenches, you can't argue the merits with the goal of affecting change. I personally think that the only way to tackle this issue is from the psychiatric front. Starting with extreme demonstrations of charismatic faith, whittle the social acceptability of religious faith down by using the same stigmas attached to extreme cases of schizophrenia. Lobby and pursue litigious avenues that allow you to fire the employee who professes devout faith, on the grounds that he/she is a mental incompetent. Only through legally attacking the sanity of those we oppose can we even begin to start this fight in earnest. For centuries upon centuries those who possess a surfeit of wealth have ruled over those without any; I see no reason why the same standard can't be applied to a majority of the reasonable. Tue, 17 Feb 2009 06:30:25 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/are-atheists-too-comfortable-for.html#IDComment15328195 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/are-atheists-too-comfortable-for.html#IDComment15327027 Ali- The best definition of a good person that I've been able to come up with is someone who; absent the lure of salvation or the threat of damnation, actively behaves in a manner designed to cause ACTUAL harm to no one. I define actual harm as being a measurably negative affect upon someone; spiritual, theological, imaginary, possibly, and prospective forms of harm don't count as they cannot be proven to exist. Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:32:24 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/are-atheists-too-comfortable-for.html#IDComment15327027 http://www.withoutgods.net/#IDComment15326779 LMFAO! This is fantastic, I feel like I stumbled into atheist Disneyland. I'm so adding this to my blog roll. Cheers. Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:22:44 +0000 http://www.withoutgods.net/#IDComment15326779 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/are-atheists-too-comfortable-for.html#IDComment15324922 I don't feel comfortable as an atheist, not even in Canada. I feel claustrophobic. I think that the reason atheists come off as apathetic is that, even amongst our own ranks, there is a discomfort with addressing the true problem we face; if we're right, everyone else is literally insane and society needs a top down restructuring to reflect religious belief as a mental disorder. I know that doesn't seem like a huge problem, but more so than any other civil rights battle ours is one that would be about supremacy, not equality, and that's a daunting fight to start. Tue, 17 Feb 2009 04:13:28 +0000 http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/are-atheists-too-comfortable-for.html#IDComment15324922