Truth by consensus is one of the most pernicious forces employed by the Neo-Myrmidons of Christendom. Comprising Appeals to Authority, Ignorance, and Force with a ample helping of the aforementioned misinformed tu quoque, and you arrive at the level of a Hive-Minded hoi polloi highly adept at perpetual fact-dodging and near insuperable delusion-protection.

Even more dispiriting, is that contemporary Christian Soldiers actually believe(among sundry other distortions) that they are being logical via the exploitation of fallacy, i.e, employment rather than avoidance. Presuppositional Apologetics is mostly culpable. E.g., "I find this to be a very ignorant post. Don't you know there is a difference between Logic and Religious Logic?" Yet another asinine arrogation brought to you by the parasitic demiurge, "Religious Logic"(an oxymoron...) being predicated upon the Subjectivist Fallacy:(I believe/desire/want X to be true, ergo, X is true.) Contrive a concept, then reason down(cognitive inversion, resulting in intellectual quagmire and stagnation), as opposed to the proper discovery and identification of a concept, then reasoning up and beyond.

The sad truth is: truth isn't all that popular.

Ah, the old Cosmic Skinner Box. One of the most salient indicators of institutionalized religion's true purpose: social control. It can be dispiriting to realize that humanity is still mired in such millennial dogma, and begs the question of what kind of disposition requires the threat of perpetual torture in order to espouse even the most rudimentary of moral behaviors.

The problem is, such a perfunctory, binary approach to morality only works up to a point, and a very low one at that. It reduces morality to a singular concept: obedience, and negates the fact that morality is an evolving concept which involves accreted discovery, never found by mere deference to authority. Moral dilemmas are contextual and require a constant commitment to epistemic objectivity, which, in turn, requires open-ended thinking and improvisational acumen. In layman's terms: "Doing what you're told(i.e. by god, society, the magic book, et al.)" simply isn't good enough. Humanity will never achieve its potential under such a casuist tutelage.

Even as an avid nontheist, I occasionally catch myself thinking: "I wish there was a hell..." when exposed to certain hopeless dregs. But, if one simply ruminates over the very idea of eternal torture, I should hope one would query "Does ANYONE really deserve ETERNAL torture? Say it again. E-TER-NAL. As in forever, in perpetuity, ad infinitum. Does even the most maleficent, genocidin'ist, torturin'ist, stealin'ist, rapin'ist, molestin'ist dictator deserve E-TER-NAL torture?

And in the meanwhile, I am so privileged as to share my work space with people who believe I'm going to burn for asking questions, masturbating, swearing, and using a credit card. How far we've advanced...

Red flag indeed. I consider myself a pluralist, but such an introduction...instantaneous myopic self-disclosure, is always cause for taking pause.

Of course, in the parlance of contemporary Turbo-Evangelical code language, it could just be her way of letting you know she does anal.

This is a perennial stance to adopt in these trying times. One will be construed as a troublemaker, or reduced to a mere contrarian. Christian privilege is receding, and the more expeditiously the better. Embrace the muted derision and the views askance. Wear it as a badge of honor. Honor the paragons such as Socrates, Bruno, and Paine. Truth and integrity are bulwarks which will forever maintain. Evince to the programmed that they have a choice.

Dominionism is a virus which requires an inoculation. The more individuals resist, including believers, the freer we all will be. It isn't so quixotic as it sounds. Just be who you are.

Hardly. This is a conflation of "belief" with "idea", i.e., a false equivalency. The individuals who worked together for Civil Rights espoused the same idea, and acted upon it. Civil Rights is not a religion. Also note that the post indicates the necessity of working together with believers, not excluding them.

Succinct. This is precisely why both formal/informal logic and use of language should always be paramount to the maintenance of objectivity. I notice this erroneous thinking is concomitant with all fundamentalist incarnations of all the Abrahamic faiths, and, to overlap fields a skosh, is more socio-psychological than rational. This chain of statements constructs an acutely narcissistic projection rather than cut-and-dry logical fallacy. Consider an inverse slippery slope of sorts.

The exponents of institutional faith, particularly the monotheistic faiths, which utilize religion for social control, deplore lucid communication and clarity of thought. This is evinced by their muddled dialectic. Smokescreens, confusion tactics, reflections, deflections, evasions. The onus is upon the clear-headed and the rational(religious or otherwise) to keep the human intellect connected to reality.

I would be elated to become more involved with the secular movement. It can be onerous to find the time, but I'm willing to make it. There is a pervasive hostility toward non-Christians in this locality, which I believe is more political than religious, and has its origins in the false left-right dichotomy, and a general ignorance of philosophy and politics in general. I plan to have a more consistent presence on the issue, so look for me.

By the by, love the site.

--Drew