patrick.net

Quigley says

A big congratulations...curious2....

Umm, thanks I guess, but I wish that when critics misattribute statements to me that I never said they would at least try to quote where I supposedly said what they claim? A different User tried that once and ended up quoting Rin, then accused me and Rin and MMR of being all one person conspiring against him, but that's because of his paranoia and Rx narcotic-addled memory. Quigley is much smarter, but the subject of religion seems to activate more 'right-brain' responses (e.g. fear and loathing) crowding out the 'left-brain' analytical process of quoting what people actually said.

marcus says

(now please try your hardest to not understand what I just said)

Please try your hardest to communicate in a civil -- and perhaps even friendly -- tone, and I will do the same.

marcus says

If they are not mutually exclusive and if there is anything positive or even "good" behind the existence of religion, that is if human "good" is in part a reason why religion even exists, then I don't know how one can say we would be better off without religion.

OK, let's assume that they are not mutually exclusive...

OK, let's assume that there is positive ("good") behind the existence of religion...

Let's even say that innate human "good" is tied in some way to the drive most humans feel towards the spiritual...

How can we say we would be better off without religion?

We don't live in a binary world, "good" "bad" is a continuum with very few absolutes -- if any. As with every aspect of evolution, mental and physical, ones that last provide more "good" towards their species than "bad". As time marches on the "bad" may begin to outweigh the "good" and a trait becomes a net negative for a species, and as a result can be eliminated/reduced (humans are riddled with vestigial characteristics).

We may be better off without religion because humanity has reached the point where the "bad" had begun to outweigh the "good." While good may have given rise to religion, the religion is not necessary for humans to act good. Is the social structure provided by religion still needed? Here I will say I don't know. Right along side the drive towards spirituality evolving in Humans, for millennia the ability to exploit and abuse this innate spirituality has been refined as well. Is the good of religion enough to outweigh the abuse, manipulation and evil committed through religion? Probably not, especially because we don't need religion in order to perform the same good that religion provides.

Let us pretend that 60% of humans still grew a vestigial prehensile tail. Maybe some people who grow the tails have a special bond with each other. They can get into groups, weave their tails together, and it brings some of them to a profoundly ecstatic state that bonds them to other humans. But what if the tails occasionally have an involuntary primitive reflex of grabbing for a branch, and as a result children, babies and small animals are occasionally strangled to death. We would be better off without the tails, even though they played a large part in our evolution and even today provided some good and comfort to their owners?

The non-tail humans (NTH) would have a difficult time convincing the tailed humans (TH) to all cut off their tails, and cut the tails off all their children. The NTH would have to accept the fact that they are going to share a planet with TH, and as such they need to find a way to get along with them. Should the NTH ignore the dangers that the tails present? No, they should feel a responsibility to keep everyone informed of the dangers of tails. The TH should not only feel the same responsibility to raise awareness of tail dangers but take measures that their tails and the tails of other TH are kept under control. All humans NTH and TH should expose and prevent any tail joining ceremonies that in anyway advocate the freedom of tails to do what they want.

marcus says

In other words if by chance good causes religion to exist. Then no religion implies no good.

No religion could imply no good only if it was religion that caused good to come into existence.

Good causes many human characteristics to exist. Even if it caused religion to exist, then good can still exist in the absence of religion. If no religion were to imply no good, then the humans that were built without a biological drive towards the spiritual would have no good in them, and I don't think this is what you are implying.

thunderlips11 says

Atheists are much more humble. They tend to say "I don't know why, but I'd like to find out." and "That can't be it, because insufficient evidence." Religious people say "I know why - God did it!" and "Don't think, feel!" Scientists love mystery. Especially puzzling out a mystery. Religious people look at a puzzle and say "That's too complicated to be solved."

Yes, I'd be more open if religious people treated it like a RESEARCH area. Yes let's LEARN more about if there's anything behind all this. Or even to discover how to be better people and what that means. Or if there really is an afterlife or a soul? Or even hey your book doesn't answer this, how about we add in something from this other book..... NOPE!.

Any questions about their choice of ancient Holy Book are blasphemy and abomination.

It's a false equivalence to proclaim atheists are on the same level with religious zealots. I would be open to good ideas from religious people, but by and large they don't want to EXPLORE anything with me, it's one directional they want to program me.

marcus says

Dan8267 says

What everyone else understood but you didn't is that those pictures of MLK and Edith Windsor say that the mere fact that African Americans and homosexuals have stood up for their rights is what the bigots call "bashing their beliefs"

I believe that MLK advocated for equality, in a way that didn't even give any recognition to ignorant white supremacists and what they believe. No bashing of those ignorant idiots and what they believed was necessary.

Fighting for a groups equality, and civil rights is best done without even acknowledging the existence of a group of fools who think it is undeserved. That would imply that there is even the slightest plausability to their ignorant beliefs.

Forget the white supremacists, MLK was going up against the long held beliefs of an entire nation. Yes, he did occasionally answer critics directly and almost every word that came out of his mouth was a "bash" against the beliefs held by a large majority of Americans. Just because he was more eloquent and diplomatic about it than dan, it does not change the intent and substance of MLKs message.

You may want to read the following from MLK:
His dream speech (because everyone should be familiar with what it says)
http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf

His Birmingham Jail letter (because it is a direct response to critics)
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf

leo707 says

almost every word that came out of his mouth was a "bash"

Actually I am repeatedly amazed at how thoroughly compassionate MLK was, time after time. I can't recall him "bashing" anyone. He opposed the Viet Nam war at a time when most Americans supported it, and at that time even most African Americans disapproved of him. An interviewer asked him if he thought the war was racist, and he spoke very calmly and slowly, patiently, working his way steadily towards the fact that conscription was falling disproportionately on black Americans. He refrained from any bombast whatsoever, did not even mention that the war was killing hundreds of thousands of yellow people, etc. The calm dignity and scrupulous adherence to observable facts contrasted totally with certain PatNet posters, for example.

From a Birmingham Jail:

"I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen... If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.”
Although the cord of Dr. King's life did not lengthen enough to see the present day, his widow Coretta Scott King carried his legacy forward to embrace contemporary issues including marriage equality. Sadly, none of the largest religious denominations have found it in their hearts to support the equal protection of the laws. Pope Nazinger in particular directed his mafia "Knights of Columbus" (expressly not a charity, they crusade for the pope, i.e. they do his dirty work for him so he can preserve his tax exemption) to join forces with Romnesia's cult and pour millions of dollars into a futile effort to stop gay couples from getting married; perhaps he was trying in vain to distract from his own history of concealing child sexual abuse by priests.

leo707 says

Just because he was more eloquent and diplomatic about it than dan

I'm more of a Malcolm X.

leo707 says

His Birmingham Jail letter (because it is a direct response to critics)

The fact that MLK was jailed is a great shame on the U.S. and a powerful indication of just how bad bigotry is. I suspect that Marcus would jail atheists if he could.

By the way, the original post was completely uncreative. It was neither funny nor accurate. Worst of all, it's an insult to Matrix parodies, and as a smart ass, I find that offensive.

Now, if you want to see a clever Matrix parody...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/BlpyGhABXRA

This is what it feels like to try to teach Marcus anything.

Dan8267 says

Now, if you want to see a clever Matrix parody...

Dan8267 says

leo707 says

His Birmingham Jail letter (because it is a direct response to critics)

The fact that MLK was jailed is a great shame on the U.S. and a powerful indication of just how bad bigotry is. I suspect that Marcus would jail atheists if he could.

Only the uppity ones.

curious2 says

Actually I am repeatedly amazed at how thoroughly compassionate MLK was, time after time. I can't recall him "bashing" anyone.

Yeah, this is about as close as he comes to an outright insult:
"I have a dream that one day in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification..."

However, I was referring to "bashing" as it has been used in this thread for when an atheist states an argument against religion.

curious2 says

The careful dignity and calm adherence to observable facts contrasted totally with certain PatNet posters, for example.

Ha ha, true.

leo707 says

You may want to read the following from MLK:

His dream speech (because everyone should be familiar with what it says)

I'm very familiar with it. Although I would recommend listening to it, rather than reading it, for reasons that are obvious if you do.

I'll stand 100% strongly behind my agreement with the meme that says "you can be a black american and not bash white supremacy constantly." This is a truism. Not only do I agree with it, I would recommend to minority children that they not even acknowledge the existence of idiots that don't believe they are equal. Some of us understand that to obsess about how oppressed one is or one feels (by others) can not help ones chances of being treated as an equal.

marcus says

What's a good indication of who is actually right in a discussion or debate like this ?

I think it's, which person is most willing to accurately understand and portray the other person's position ?

Dan8267 says

I suspect that Marcus would jail atheists if he could.

leo707 says

marcus says

In other words if by chance good causes religion to exist. Then no religion implies no good.

No religion could imply no good only if it was religion that caused good to come into existence.

I don't think so. This is logic, but it's hard for me to word it correctly, and you may want to shoot down my antecedent, which I am only suggesting is possibly true.

But listening to your attempt to understand anything I say on this issue is very refreshing (especially relative to what I hear coming from Dan).

leo707 says

Good causes many human characteristics to exist. Even if it caused religion to exist, then good can still exist in the absence of religion. If no religion were to imply no good, then the humans that were built without a biological drive towards the spiritual would have no good in them, and I don't think this is what you are implying.

Let's say there are many universes with something we call "human good" but not all universes of humanoids have "human good." Some don't. And then let's say that in the universes that do have human good, religion developed.

Given all of this is true (a big given), you could say, if a universe does not have religion, it does not have good. This is what I meant by,

leo707 says

marcus says

In other words if by chance good causes religion to exist. Then no religion implies no good.

marcus says

I'll stand 100% strongly behind my agreement with the meme that says "you can be a black american and not bash white supremacy constantly." This is a truism.

Christ, a "math teacher" who doesn't even know what a truism is. Here's some examples of real truisms...

We should not perform unnecessary tests.
He is too tall to fit into pants that are too short for him.
The green car is green.
Republicans are stupid.

OK, I was joking, sort of, about the last one.

I think all exhibitionist atheists, will at some point in their life have a breakdown then an Epiphany, then become devout priest.
How else could you possible explain Gay priest from California?

I like that Dan says in the poster above that I might learn something, when his point of view now is fairly close to my point of view exactly 41 years ago.

I know this sounds like now I'm being the arrogant one. No, but I know that it sounds that way.

The entire dynamic is interesting. Yeah. I'm learning here, or could be.

leo707 says

Only the uppity ones.

Okay, that was kind of clever.

leo707 says

We may be better off without religion because humanity has reached the point where the "bad" had begun to outweigh the "good."

The bad in religion comes from it being corrupted, or I guess in some cases, some religions might have less going for them from the start.

But I get your point about, and I paraphrase, "maybe we have outgrown religion."

Okay, that could be. But Dan argues that he somehow knows we would have been better off it had never existed.

I would only point out, that if we are going to outgrow it, I think we would need the growth of more liberal progressive religions, such as the unitarians, or several protestant faiths, or many sects of buddism, or hinduism, or the bahai faith as a random examples, to enable the period we are weaning ourself towards more enlightened spiriitual beliefs (and or rituals for those who are in to that), and also accommodating those who are in to it for the community factor.

Outgrowing religion, if that's what is going to happen, isn't going to be facilitated by atheist haters bashing religion in ways that will only cause believers to more strongly cling to their views. Especially when most of the people who do this are people who have emotional challenges around their own process of freeing themselves from their past beliefs. In many cases these people are children, either literally or at least in some ways.

thunderlips11 says

Atheists are much more humble.

hahahahaha . ooooweee, you crack me up man !

marcus says

thunderlips11 says

Atheists are much more humble.

hahahahaha . ooooweee, you crack me up man !

When do atheists ever say they are the chosen people etc., etc?

Mythology is a lie. Religion is a power structure based on mythology (lies). Power structures based on lies are inherently bad even if they do a little good. I'm sure the Holocaust lowered unemployment, but that doesn't make up for the inherent evil of it. Same thing goes for religion. There are better ways of doing good, ways that don't involve the inherent evilness of religion.

If one were to strip away all the mythology and superstition of any religion, remove all the gods, the saints, the false "miracles", the lies about historical facts, and the misrepresentation of how the universe behaves, what would be left? There are two possibilities. Either there would be nothing left, in which case the religion served no good purpose, or there would be something left. In the later case, that something is called philosophy.

I have no problem with people discussing philosophy. Heck, I encourage it. Even a bad philosophy teaches us something as we dissect it and discredit it. But everything that distorts philosophy into what we call religion, is intrinsically bad: the unquestioning faith, the inability to admit mistakes, the clinging to ancient and immoral traditions, the assignment of power not from merit but from "divine grace", the institution of hierarchical power structures, the dumbing down of the masses, the burning of heretical ideas and people, all inherently bad.

Religion and science are fundamentally incompatible. Already we have seen church attendance decline as scientific knowledge and understanding has increased. Ultimately, no society can forever straddle the two mutually exclusive worldviews.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this country cannot endure, permanently half religious and half scientific. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of religion, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike ingrained in all the minds, old as well as new -- red as well as blue.

Do we really wish for the later? As Thomas Jefferson said, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.". Is it not far better that we choose liberty and free thought over irrational, superstitious doctrine that contradicts everything in science?

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of nature's children, human, chimp, dolphin, alien, AI, will be able to join minds and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank no god, we are free at last!"

marcus says

Outgrowing religion, if that's what is going to happen, isn't going to be facilitated by atheist haters bashing religion in ways that will only cause believers to more strongly cling to their views. .

I'm not sure why you think believers give a shit about what atheists think. They know anyone who doesn't believe as they do is WRONG and that's enough. It's like saying a heterosexual could be turned gay by talking to gays.

Look I was raised Baptist. At a given point I had to start asking myself "WHY am I sleeping through these sermons? Would you repeat Algebra every Sunday morning to discover the deeper meanings of algebra?" The basics of most religions can be covered in one afternoon, everything else is contradictory garbage that gives pinhead-ponderers something to obsess and look wise about. They really aren't looking for deeper truths.

No religion goes beyond algebra level. They can't because too many of the really big questions are not easily answered. They get lazy and fall back on "faith".

Scientology at least has one thing going for it, they keep big parts of their mythology SUPER-SECRET so you won't see what it is until you are programmed to guzzle down shit and call it souffle. By then you're like a hardcore Lost fan who gets to the end and thinks it is super-cool and REALLY DEEP, when it was a shoddily lashed-up mess.

Vicente says

Scientology at least has one thing going for it, they keep big parts of their mythology SUPER-SECRET....

What they had going for them is now gone, their secrets are all over the Internet including the ultimate one about originating in another galaxy. They still have some deluded followers though.

curious2 says

Vicente says

Scientology at least has one thing going for it, they keep big parts of their mythology SUPER-SECRET....

What they had going for them is now gone, their secrets are all over the Internet including the ultimate one about originating in another galaxy. They still have some deluded followers though.

Wasn't that on South park a few years ago? I seem to remember that's why Isaac Hayes left the show.

Yep.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Hayes#Departure_from_South_Park

Dan8267 says

What if I told you, you could oppose pedophilia wherever you found it, without being accused of "being an arrogant ass who is religious about not fucking kids"? All you have to do is keep your damn mouth shut whenever you see a kid being molested in a shower by a football coach or priest.

Isn't tolerance wonderful?

Dan8267 says

1. There exists a harmful thing, X.

Dan8267 says

Don't waste your time trying to reason with Marcus. Anyone who would suggest that Martin Luther King would advocate African Americans shut the hell up about civil rights in order to not rock the boat

Dan8267 says

I can't believe I actually have to dumb down things even more for you to understand, but ok... What everyone else understood but you didn't is that those pictures of MLK and Edith Windsor say that the mere fact that African Americans and homosexuals have stood up for their rights is what the bigots call "bashing their beliefs".

I mean, Christ, Marcus, how dumb are you? The entire marriage equality debate is going on fiercely right now. Have you not been paying attention?

Dan8267 says

And if we were like Marcus, we'd rewrite history to make MLK out to be an atheist instead of a Baptist minister.

Dan8267 says

Christ, a "math teacher" who doesn't even know what a truism is. Here's some examples of real truisms...

Some people say I contradict myself when I say that I don't define atheism as being a religion, but that some people make it one for themself. Everyone knows what I mean, that is, that it's very much like a religion for them. But hey, go ahead, I guess calling me an idiot for this supposed contradiction might be the best argument I've heard.

The quotes above by Dan show how this is a religion for him. An above average (intelligence) young man (and a guy who works really hard at improving himself, and I do admire that), who otherwise can discuss many subjects calmly, turns into an crazy emotional zealot on this subject. Why all the emotion ? Why all the name calling ?

What is the biggest thing that Dan has in common with the religious ?

One thing. He has to have ALL the answers, to the big questions. Not knowing, and the real truth and beauty that can be found in that space of not knowing, is something he can't handle. The religious are the same way.

(he will surely rattle of a list of as yet unresolved questions, perhaps in physics
or cosmology - but my point is simply that if he truly respected truth, like a real atheist, he would just say, I don't know, and I don't believe. )

But hey, that's just not how he rolls. He NEEDS to get all religious about it, because this fills the space where he used to put his strong religious beliefs (between the ages of 3 and 10).

As for the hate piece ? I really don't understand that. Maybe it's unrelated anger having to do with who knows what. Possibly anger over not getting loved enough during those same important formative years.

marcus says

One thing. He has to have ALL the answers, to the big questions.

Another lie told by Marcus even though it has already been addressed in this very thread shortly before…

Dan8267 says

What a Straw Man argument!

By this point in life, I've figured out quite a few things such as:

- There is no Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, Big Foot, Loch Ness Monster, or god.

- Anyone who tells you different is a child, a moron, or trying to scam you.

- Every sighting of the above has either been stage theater, a hoax, or a lie.

- People who believe in those things are either powerless or dangerous. Either way, it's better if they didn't and you certainly don't want those people running your country.

If you haven't also figured out the above things by this time in your life, we'll that says more about your intelligence level than mine.

Keep them lies coming Marcus.

marcus says

Not knowing, and the real truth and beauty that can be found in that space of not knowing, is something he can't handle.

Wow, even more bullshit. When religious leaders do not know something, like why the sun rises and sets, they make up bullshit. When scientist do not know the answer to a question, they study nature, come up with hypothesis, and test those hypothesis.

As I've said many, many times on patrick.net, it is far more honest to answer a question with an "I don't know" than it is to make up a lie to cover your ignorance. The fact that I favor the honesty of science over the dishonest certainly in fabrications of religion, illustrates how utterly deceptive Marcus is.

marcus says

He NEEDS to get all religious about it...hate.... Maybe it's unrelated anger....

This comment by Marcus was very interesting. When he says atheists "get all religious about it," he seems to imply that getting religious means getting angry and hateful. That sounds very similar to the "conventional logic vs religious logic" poster above, but Dan is rigorously logical. In reality, it is Marcus who becomes angry and makes obviously false accusations and then ignores more than a dozen people (around 20 at last count), but then uses a separate browser to stalk them. Marcus doesn't seem to process that it isn't really about hate (I doubt any of the liberal PatNet users hate Marcus, even those who get angry with him sometimes), but almost anyone would feel angry at his false accusations and profanity-laden tantrums.

curious2 says

but Dan is rigorously logical.

I'll admit that stupidity in other posters brings out the asshole in me, but that's not anger, it's disappointment in my species.

Curious2 with his same old bullshit line about my stalking people. It's like the best troll of me he can come up with. Oh, yeah, and my profanity laden comments. Right.

If he had a job, he would probably understand, that for example usually when I'm at work, if I want to look at Patnet, say at lunch or after school, it happens to be with safari, on my work computer, a mac. This week has been a rare time state "testing" (that's in my made up pretend world where I'm a teacher), when I actually logged in to patnet school. If I don't log in, that is even from the same type of browser on another computer, or from another browser, on the same computer, I will see all posts including people have on ignore. So once every 6 months when I refer to or interact with someone who is otherwise ignored, curious2 bring out his same pathetic troll attempt.

Whatever. I need to say nothing here, because it's all clear to the zero people who actually care. He's just a sad little person.

Dan8267 says

I'll admit that stupidity in other posters brings out the asshole in me, but that's not anger, it's disappointment in my species.

Right. Sure. Let's look at an example.

Dan has a lot of thoughts and feelings about religion. He loves to share those with you and even thinks that if he can impact others about this he's doing humanity a favor.

I'm a good foil for him to use as a platform for espousing his point of view. But being extraordinarily ego centric and self involved, understanding the point I'm making is not really of interest to Dan. In fact, if he can color my point of view to be what he wants, then he can more dramatically make his point, while painting me to be and idiot.

This is the true representation of where he's coming from. When his ego has the microphone he loves to talk about things like honesty and integrity. I cut him a lot of slack, because he's still basically an adolescent (sort of a late bloomer).

In this thread, I don't know how much thought he has even given to the meme at the top. When I focused on the actual words in a questionable made up meme that said "you can be black without constantly bashing white supremacists (which makes complete sense)," I agreed, pointing out the massive fail on his part. He got all upset because I didn't understand what he meant.

He sort of made a mistake with the meme, but rather than just deal with that, he doubled down.

Dan8267 says

What everyone else understood but you didn't is that those pictures of MLK and Edith Windsor say that the mere fact that African Americans and homosexuals have stood up for their rights is what the bigots call "bashing their beliefs".

OH, I see. And does he really think that's what the fight was about ? Does he really think that the problem white redneck racists had with MLK or the idea of civil rights and equal treatment of black Americans was about what MLK and the whole movement was saying about their beliefs ? The fight was focused on positive things - increasing fairness and equal treatment. Not negating the negative beliefs of the extremists.

Sure indirectly related, but really Dan ? You really think that's a decent analogy ? I guess I can appreciate your fantasies, either that you atheists are so oppressed. Or perhaps that you are spearheading some movement, and that you and the other adolescent atheists on r/atheist are going to enlighten all the ignorant fundies with your cutting observations about religion.

MY point was a very narrow and limited point, and it goes without saying that it's just my opinion. I respect atheists who respect other humans enough to let them have their beliefs, without being critical of them. Especially if they are the same kind of liberal religious folks that aren't going to be critical of them for being atheists either.

Sure be critical of specific fundamentalists that use their religion to justify evil, or ignorance, or those that try to make the government fight religious wars.

You can't get an argument from hardly anyone on this.

But as for religions like presbytarians, or members of the bahai faith, or even Catholics. I respect not only their right to believe what they want, I actually respect their faith, and I totally respect them as humans, and I don't see myself as superior to them because my beliefs are superior to theirs (that would make me just another religious wacko). I don't even see my beliefs as superior to theirs.

MAybe I see my spiritual beliefs as superior to those of a violent radical fundy, but even there, that's not how I frame it. I can just be directly critical in those cases of those specific cases without comparing it to my beliefs. This is how it works for fighting wrongs, as well as fighting or whats right.

marcus says

Curious2...curious2....

For someone who pretends to Ignore me, and to be a busy overworked teacher, Marcus seems to spend a lot of time reading my comments and mischaracterizing them so he can continue writing about me. He's really going to need to work on his Ignoring skills: he's got the deliberate ignorance part covered, but the actual ignoring still needs work.

marcus says

I need to say nothing here, because it's all clear to the zero people who actually care.

See, there that's getting closer. I don't care about his mischaracterizations of me, since he doesn't know me his false accusations and tantrums are only about himself and his insistence on believing that everything is about him, people are following him (even to threads where they posted the first comment), etc. He's not that important, and frankly nobody cares.

marcus says

I respect atheists who respect other humans enough to let them have their beliefs, without being critical of them.

No, he really doesn't. I'm unsure whether the comment there is an outright lie or merely a failure to know himself. Since he spends so much time stalking my comments, I'm surprised he didn't mention the one where I pointed out that Marcus threads are around twice as likely as Dan's even to mention religion, and Marcus threads about religion are disproportionately likely to criticize atheists, using strawman attacks etc. If Marcus took a few minutes to analyze objectively his own threads, he would see that his statement above is false, like his accusations against Dan and tantrums against me.

Unfortunately when people disprove Marcus' false accusations, instead of apologizing he pretends to Ignore them, preferring his "spiritual" feelings, which are perfect for him because they aren't tied to any particular details that he might need to remember. That way, he need never admit to being wrong; he can continue to "feel" that he is right even when the facts prove him wrong.

The one thing you can always count on from Marcus is a lame attempt to twist the truth into its opposite. Turn "the messenger is irrelevant" to "it's all about the messenger". Turn "whether or not a god exists is subject to objective proof" into "my opinion of god is more important than yours". Marcus is the eternal bullshitter.

marcus says

I respect atheists who respect other humans enough to let them have their beliefs, without being critical of them.

Perfect example of Marcus's bullshit. First he makes the false assertion that if we speak out against religion, we're personally attacking everyone who has ever gone to church. That's like saying discussing the dangers of gambling is paramount to raping everyone who's ever played poker.

And Marcus says he has "respect" for atheists who keep there damn mouths shut. This is no different than Strom Thurmond saying he can respect a negro that knows his place, respects the order of things, and doesn't oppose the traditional slave-based economy that made this country great. Yeah, that's some respect.

But let's see the things that Marcus "respects".

Hundreds of millions of Islamic men believe that they must kill their sister if she had sex with a man who was not her husband. Such honor killings must be performed even if she was raped. Either Marcus respects this deeply held religious belief or he's a lying hypocrite.

A Christian bombs an abortion clinic, killing the doctor and his staff. The Christian knows he's doing god's work saving babies. Either Marcus respects this religious belief or he's a lying hypocrite.

The American Family Association, a devote group of Christians, channel enormous sums of money into lobbying efforts to ban gay marriage because it is an affront to god. There efforts results in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Either Marcus respects this faith based initiative or he's a lying hypocrite.

The Texas State Board of Education orders books that claim Jesus wrote the U.S. Constitution and that evolution is a discredit theory. Since Texas is a large buyer of books, most other states are forced to use whatever books Texas decides to buy. Either Marcus respects the Texas State Board of Education's decision or he's a lying hypocrite.

curious2 says

Marcus seems to spend a lot of time reading my comments and mischaracterizing them so he can continue writing about me.

It's not just you. Marcus deliberately "interprets" things said by any of his opponents as the exact opposite of what they really said. It's a technique often used by Fox News and favored by people who are dumb, but believe the audience is far dumber.

curious2 says

That way, he need never admit to being wrong; he can continue to "feel" that he is right even when the facts prove him wrong.

Which is why I don't believe for a second that Marcus actually teaches math, even if it were his job to do so.

marcus says

Sure be critical of specific fundamentalists that use their religion to justify evil, or ignorance, or those that try to make the government fight religious wars.

You can't get an argument from hardly anyone on this.

But as for religions like presbytarians, or members of the bahai faith, or even Catholics. I respect not only their right to believe what they want, I actually respect their faith, and I totally respect them as humans, and I don't see myself as superior to them because my beliefs are superior to theirs (that would make me just another religious wacko). I don't even see my beliefs as superior to theirs.

MAybe I see my spiritual beliefs as superior to those of a violent radical fundy, but even there, that's not how I frame it. I can just be directly critical in those cases of those specific cases without comparing it to my beliefs. This is how it works for fighting wrongs, as well as fighting or whats right.

Immediate next comment from Dan.

Dan8267 says

But let's see the things that Marcus "respects".

Hundreds of millions of Islamic men believe that they must kill their sister if she had sex with a man who was not her husband. Such honor killings must be performed even if she was raped. Either Marcus respects this deeply held religious belief or he's a lying hypocrite.

So in conclusion...

Dan8267 says

It's not just you. Marcus deliberately "interprets" things said by any of his opponents as the exact opposite of what they really said. It's a technique often used by Fox News and favored by people who are dumb, but believe the audience is far dumber.

Dan (the projectionist) has no shame whatsoever.

Dan8267 says

Which is why I don't believe for a second that Marcus actually teaches math, even if it were his job to do so.

Two things behind this comment, one is your emotions about me, because of our anonymous written arguments on a blog, about issues you have way too much emotion and ego involvement in.

The other is your great respect for Mathematics teachers.

I'll take it.

Say what you want, if you had me for Calculus I would have been your all time favorite teacher. You would be too much in awe to argue anything with me.

Instead here we are anonymous on a blog, and you're Mr. big shot.

marcus says

if you had me for Calculus I would have been your all time favorite teacher. You would be too much in awe to argue anything with me.

Instead here we are anonymous on a blog....

Forum actually, but I am often struck by how e-mails and Internet comment sections seem to lend themselves to people fighting who might get along in real life. My favorite teachers in school were math and science teachers, but they were rigorously logical. I can't imagine them making an obviously false comment like this, and then ignoring correction. I certainly never saw any of them launch into a tantrum like Marcus does. That's why I simply can't believe he's a math teacher. If he stands in front of a classroom full of Calculus students, is it "awe" that keeps them silent, or fear of inadvertently launching a tantrum of false accusations, or mere confusion as to what on earth he is doing there?

marcus says

Sure be critical of specific fundamentalists

How "respectful" is it to label hundreds of millions of Muslims and one third of Americans as "fundamentalists" using that as code for assholes? The vast majority of religious people throughout history would get labeled as "fundamentalist" assholes by Marcus's standard when he tries to evade acknowledging the inherent evils brought about by religion. Ironically, he does this rant the very week of the Boston bombing.