some 30% of science teacher are young earth creationists (i’m sorry I dont remember the exact stat, but it is alarmingly high). So when you say a statement that I agree with like :

“Everyone should have the freedom to discuss their religious stance (be they Christian, Moslem, atheist, etc).”

…science class is not one of those places, and neither is when you are trying to display impartiality in a court case, or display fairness in business. So yeah, everyone should have the right to discuss their beliefs, but not when they are teaching a class of other peoples kids, not when they are determining the guilt of hundreds of people, and not when they are trying to do the best for their employees and investors. When you do this, you are teaching one religion over another, or using a religion to prejudice decision making that affects hundreds of other poeple that may or may not believe the same thing as you.

I noticed above that the Rev. felt like his religion was being taken from him when laws arise that say you can’t have, what is essentially, preaching in school. He felt that censors his right to religion.

No one says you can’t pray in school, tons of schools even have student prayer meetings and so forth before and after school. Virtually no one has a problem with this (although personally I think prayer circles are a completely wackadoo activity, and as a total aside, would you stop this if you saw it happening?). Almost every atheist on the planet would completely endorse a comparative religion course in high school. But if a public school leads in prayer, for all its students, in class or in assembly then damn right, you are breaking 2A, while the reverend thinks that if you ban this practice you are breaking #1. Note once again, no one is talking about catholic schools, no one is talking about churches or families or what you do in your own time.

One more quick example: many fanatics think that the teaching of evolution in science class breaks 2A. This shows a complete disregard for what science is, how it works, and why we need to know it and teach it, in favor of a personal worldview.

so, yeah, I agree with 1-3, but its the implementation of 1-3 that I often take issue with, and so do fundies.

A-C is why I promote a secular approach (which, as I explained above is hugely different than an atheist one) to government, teaching, and business .

We will never come to a point where one groups religious beliefs are thought to be ‘correct’ by all of the people, even if it is forced. The only way to get there is by convincing argument and debate which I completely endorse. I’d believe in God today (or a god at least) if a disembodied hand came out of the sky and shook Min around a little.

or an amputee grew a leg back without medical intervention.

are either of these so tough for god? Would he have 100% belief if this happened and he simply wrote down which book to believe? Instead we have 100,000 different religions and a small group of atheists giggling at everyone else.

D would be an interesting topic though.

Points of disagreement appear to be:
A) What constitutes “privileging one position”. Is it privileging atheism to ban government employees from using government resources to promote religion? Or is that just preventing them from breaching point 2a?
B) Which religious stance is correct? (Obviously)
C) How dangerous is it to blur the lines between religion and government?
D) Which religious or atheistic groups (if any) are currently in breach of, or aiming to be in breach of, points 1, 2 and 2a above.

That a fair summary? Anyone disagree with the “shared ground” section?

First off, you are not wrong on a subject because you are a Christian, ever. You may be shown to be wrong on something because you failed to supply proper evidence or facts to back up what you are saying (or right on something becuase you didnt fail to). Or becuase strong contradictory evidence is available, but not solely becuase you are a Christian, that would simply be an ad hominem. You aren’t trying to play the persecuted victim are you? (BTW its particularly weird that you think anything I say is because you are a christian, as I think Christianity is just as ludicrous as any other religion or new age crap, islam, wicca, the secret, etc)

For example, if you say that finding your faith leads you to live a better life, there is no reason to doubt you. I’m sure you perceive that to be true. Good for you! There is no reason to suggest that this is not the mechanism by which you found piece.

But just because this community you have joined makes you feel better doesn’t mean that it is better. There are plenty of people who suffer with their religion (just read a few posts here) or the religion foisted on them. Suffer from guilt, suffer from colleagues and former friends giving the crap about their beliefs, and suffer from being disadvantaged when they get out to some form of employment that requires understanding of concepts that go 100% against their dogma (i’m talking biology, geology, and astronomy here). So they suffer and then claim victimization instead of considering their beliefs vs the available evidence. Or they have decided to change their minds, become agnostic (or some other religion or even atheist) and then suffer once again because their former community outcasts them instead of respecting their beliefs.

There are plenty of other things that other people do that make them feel better but a) dont actually make them better and/or b)aren’t good or doesnt work for other people. Religion is just one example, homepathy is another, hallucinatory drugs are another. You get the drift. There are lots of people who are successful and happy in life because they operate by pure greed. Shall we formally implement a government based on pure greed?

I think i see a fundamental issue (from where I stand) with your thinking. Secularism is not atheism and you seem to be equivocating the two.

When you go grocery shopping, you are doing a purely secular activity, unless of course you are prone to Bible Dipping for banal activities like that. Seeing the doctor for a broken leg, also secular not atheism promoting. Driving your car to work, secular not atheism promoting.

Secularism and secularist activities by no means promote atheism. It seems to me you have confused the two. As long as you do so, you will not understand the power and advantage and safety and potential for prosperity that striving for a purely secular government can bring. Min is right to some degree, we may never get there, but it will be a big improvement in trying.

The US and Kuwait are the sole exceptions to the rule of highly religious countries being poor, uneducated, with little or virtually no civil rights. That rule shows itself in highly religious countries like Syria and pakistan, but also South, middle and west Africa which are mostly christian. I would look around you to see what you are wishing for. More religiosity has the potential to dramatically lower our exceptionalism with respect to the rest of the world.

Already we are only exceptional in the amount of money we spend on our military and on no other relevant statistic I can find. This only after religion has taken a stronghold within the government. I’m sure I dont need to list the examples of this.

Be well pastor. i hope you vote on evidence and not faith.

1. I wrote “It seems to me that nothing any Christian does will not make her angry. “

As Amanda noted, I was quoting her. Tech’s response illustrates my point. Even when I quote another non-believer I (the Christian) have to be wrong.

2. In response to a question in Amanda’s initial post I stated, “Greta (and atheism as a movement) wants to eradicate religion, at least, or especially Christianity.”

Tech wrote, “This is not the intentional eradication of religion, but that may be a side effect of improvement of our societies. This side effect simply eliminates an older side effect of the way we evolved.”

Stab me with a dirty knife and say, “It wasn’t the knife that killed him it was the infection.” Dude, I’m still dead!

3. I wrote, ‘However, when a Christian offers a hypothetical world in which everyone gets equa”l time, it’s not enough.

In an earlier post, Tech wrote “We, in general… want: 1) to have a level playing field where people of other religions or no religion share the same opportunities, same benefits, same rights and respect and those in the majority religion…

But when I wrote back, “I propose letting everybody on the field to play. Instead of silencing discussion and creating religion-free zones, let’s allow, even encourage discussion about EVERY position, sect, doctrine, and approach.”

Tech wrote, “Religion, in general (and again perhaps not for you specifically) ameliorates the need for critical thinking and people get out of practice….
“…stories about an unprovable being truly is not data by any standard. This sort of ‘data’ from the religious is at best, simply opinions….
“Which is why that very discussion you crave ought to be on things we can resolve ourselves without the slim possibility that a daddy that we can’t see might exist.”

All of the above are quotes from different paragraphs in Tech’s post. The point is Tech ‘s own atheist words reject the offer of everybody talking unless they say only what Tech already wants to hear.

4. I said, “Nothing a Christian says will be O.K. with atheists”
Tech has said, “There are things christians do in the name of christianity and there are things the people do in the name of humanity. The problem is the doing it in the name of one religion or another.”

So, if two people do the same “good” thing, but one of them does it in the name of Christianity, the fact that he/she did it in the name of Christianity is a problem. Nevermind what was done.

5. I said that atheism (generalizing) holds that “the best Christian person in the world is bad, because she believes God makes her better.”
See above.

6. I wrote, ” Admit that you want to replace the unofficial dominance of religion in political and social life with the official rule of atheism.” And Tech responded, ” I can not, because what I want is secular rule, while people have the freedom to believe what they want.”

And that’s my point. The atheism put forth through these comments is a call for a form of “RULE” not dialogue, not coexistence, but dominance in which fundamentalist atheism dominates.

7. RG: Admit that you have a specific system of beliefs about God, the origin of life, the principles of morality, the qualities that make one a good person, and the purpose of life.
Tech: I guess I can admit this. My specific system throws out God with the tooth fairy and leprecahns. I certainly have principles of morality that do not require magic creatures or arbitrary interpretations of a book (you Christians are up to 30,000 different interpretations derived from 9 major denominations). so yeah i can certainly admit this.

Tech has also said, “Atheists are liberals, atheists are staunch conservatives, atheists are pro-choice, atheists are pro-life…”
And here’s where we return to the question of whether Atheism really want a level playing field.
If the evidence of Christians’ diverse range of beliefs demonstrates the fallacy of Christianity, how can the evidence of atheists’ diverse range of beliefs support the validity of Atheism.
Given the same evidence/ data about opposing views, a logical thinker should reach the same conclusion about both views.

8. I said, “Admit that you want that belief system to be legislated into politics, social policy, and the education of children while excluding or denouncing all other belief systems.”

Tech replied, “ No you still have it wrong. What is fair for everyone and for all future generations is for no religion to be legislated, or systemically benefited (as Greta pointed out oh so clearly). It is the only way all religions can have an equal playing ground, it is the only way to keep debate based on tangible, verifiable quantities rather than God Vs Allah vs Zeus pointless discussions.”
Atheism is a religious position. Call it no religion if you like because it excludes God, but that like saying communist countries have no economy because they exclude free markets.
When Tech says, “I encourage you and everyone to try it or at least try to actually think about it a little harder.”
How is that inherently better than me saying, “ I encourage you and everyone to try prayer or at least try to actually think about the grace of God a little harder.”

I know. It’s better because Tech’s right and I’m wrong. And that is a declaration of faith.

I don’t know how much longer I can keep up with you guys. I haven’t updated my church’s blog since I started talking to you. If I drop out soon (I’ll be sure to wait for you to respond.) know that I have not renounced my faith and that God and I both love you all — whether you like it or not.

@Berlzebub: Good response.

Thank you.

Perhaps I did take Tech and read him incorrectly. Given the fact that it seemed Rev. Graves also didn’t want to address me, I may have put an assumption in there where it wasn’t warranted.

Casual conversations among more than two people are easier than debating with more than one person. Especially since all of you would be debating among yourselves. What Amanda pointed out above is a prime example. Rev. Graves quoted Amanda, and Tech assumed it was something Rev. Graves said.

However, I assume that you can now see that, without clarification, both are equal assumptions.

Agreed. So, let’s just leave this out of the debate.

Logic is separate from opinion. Opinion can change based on the person. I can say a given thing is a dog. That’s my opinion, but it could be a cat, whereas that would make it wrong.

Rev. Graves was weighing in on the topic of whether he meant to say “I believe Christianity is necessary to be a moral person” based on his statement that Christianity made him a better person. I was simply trying to prove that, like the topic of whether Tech meant I wasn’t allowed to participate in discussion or whether he meant he was just going to ignore me was up for grabs. One cannot make a logical conclusion either way without the primary source clarifying their point.

I assume that we understand ourselves now?

Yes we do.

Not really. Only Rev. Graves knows what kind of situation he was in, and what influences his decisions. I have seen many people that were smokers “come to Christ” and cease smoking. Same with other vices at different levels. One cannot attribute this kind of wholesale change to chance.

And I know of current smokers who belong to a church. I also know of people who have quit by using a patch, the gum, and other means. At best, that seems to point to people needing a form of support to overcome those vices and addictions. Whether it be a group, such as a church, or some form of chemical means.

Also, in a form of the Anthropic Principle, Rev. Graves statement can only be taken at face value. Did he try other means of overcoming his vices. A study of other philosophies, having friends who intervene and point out why what he’s doing is wrong, etc. Perhaps the same outcome would have happened if he’d joined another religion instead of Christianity, or even if he chose no religion at all and instead started thinking more about how his actions affect others (philosophy). Again, Rev. Graves knows the circumstances that he was in, but he only has his current circumstances to compare them to. Which does not mean that it could only have been Christianity which changed his actions for the better.

And then there’s a level of probability and causality. What causes Rev. Graves to make the choices that he makes? It is reasonable to assume that if a given stimulus causes a given response that if that stimulus were absent the result would be the same (at best) or different (at worst).

You left out that there may be other stimuli that would have the same two effects, or even possibly give a better result. An example could be smoking. Perhaps someone with enough willpower to quit “cold turkey” would still have quit, but their resistance to starting up again wouldn’t be as good as if they had joined a support group to help them deal with the ongoing cravings.

Yes, the game of “What if” is for children, because there is no way to test and prove. However, you can also be sure that if there’s a stimulus that’s causing a separate set of responses– and that those responses are good responses– then the absence of the stimuli doesn’t mean that it’s guaranteed that he would be the same person– or better! Truth was, if his stimuli is helping him to make better decisions, without it he would probably make worse ones.

Unless you think about the possibility of other stimuli, as I pointed out above.

Perhaps if you would point out the “poor arguments” I might be more inclined to listen.

Hopefully, what I said above will clarify my position.

I provided one with my comment, which you agree with, at least in part. We both agree that you cannot take the actions of a human and blame that on the ideology (adherents vs. ideology)– which is something that Tech does a lot of.

Basically, there’s the matter of personal responsibility. Regardless of your reasoning for doing an action, you still have to take responsibility for following through with those actions. Yes, I can agree with that.

Ideology can be partially to blame, but the ideology taking the whole blame would be rare to never. The person not examining their actions, and how those actions affect others, would be where most of the problem lies.

I actually have no problem with what PZ did. He has his right to free speech as much as the next guy. What it did show was a hostility towards, not a tolerance of religion. Since the main thrust of Rev. Graves conversation is about communication, it would follow from that that offending a huge group of people is exactly what he’s talking about– even if I don’t find it offensive.

I agree with it being free speech, and, to an extent, a hostility toward religious beliefs. Although, to refine it, I would say it was a hostility toward the dogma of religious beliefs.

PZ descrated the wafer in response to the threats that Webster Cook was receiving. To point out that the eucharist was just a symbol, PZ descrated it in a way worse than what Webster was being threatened for. However, he also included a few pages of the Quran and The God Delusion. If he had only drove a nail through the wafer, it might be possible to argue that it was hostile toward religion. However, including not only a symbol from another religion, but also something from atheism he pushed the idea that nothing is sacred. A symbol is a symbol is a symbol.

And this is where you’re trying to read my mind, rather than trying to talk with me. The point is that you have to nail down what is “good”– how is it defined? What does it mean? Can “good” change?

Your correct. I apologize for my assumption. I was going by previous comments and posts you’ve made, concerning why atheists perform their actions. Granted, you attributed it to Christian beliefs, but not actually to the existance of YHWH.

Concerning “good”, that is an excellent point, one that I would like to explore further. Good being a subjective term makes it difficult for two people to have the same definition, especially when they are on two sides of any debate. Both sides think their side is “good”. When examined further both sides would have to decide what “good” actually means, and then debate from there.

Depending on your definition depends on whether your above statement is true. I doubt we’ll find one person that would stand up and claim that they are good– and never do anything bad. And what do we do about that?

These are all the real questions.

Very true. The best we could do is work at defining “good”. Only from there could you debate whether any action could be considered “good”.

That actually gives me an idea for a blog post.

Oh, here’s another few problems with tech’s comments, so you don’t think I could only find one:

Sadly you are wildly inaccurate here.

Fallacy. Rev. Graves is right. Christianity does not just exist in America, it’s worldwide. It’s practiced in countries that are atheistic, islamic, secular, etc.

Yes, it is practiced in many countries, with many governments, but in the U.S. it is part of the political movement. It’s currently being used to promote such political issues as Proposition 8 in California, avoiding stem cell research, and there’s even the possibility that religious belief was behind the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. So, while there is no “Christian Party” on the ballots, a large number of people seem to think that their beliefs should influence the law and the countries actions.

If these are what the stories of Jesus say. Then great. Sadly “Because God says so” is not really a great debating mechanism and really doesnt allow for debate.

Show me one candidate for Pres. or lower who said “I am voting X because God says so.” First, it’s against the Constitution to have a religious test, so a candidate should legally be able to have the option of doing such, but this is a strawman. He’s inventing someone to rally against.

Mike Huckabee said, “what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards”.

You’re correct. I believe it’s Article 14 that holds there be no religious test. However, the presidential oath goes:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” [empahsis mine]
Many other offices in the government take a similar oath, regarding upholding the constitution. So, while there cannot be a test for office, the ones running for office swear to “preserve” the Constitution. If their religious belief means that they disagree with some of it, then I would say they should consider themselves ineligible for office.

Right now we have a vice-presidential candidate talking about how the Iraq war is God’s will.

Lie at worst, misleading at best. The actual quote is:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God’s will.”

First, this is a statement inside of a church. Second, it was asking for prayer that 1. The military would do what’s right. 2. That our leaders would carry out a plan that was God’s will. The last sentence can be read as a clarification of the second. As if she’s having a normal conversation and is clarifying what she said.

Tech is distorting her comments.

Actually, I would consider it either backpedalling, or contradictory. First she declares it “task that is from God”, and then “we have to make sure… that plan is God’s will.” If it is not “God’s will”, then it cannot be “from God”. It’s like psychics giving themselves and out in case their “predictions” don’t come true the way they said.

My problem is that we, as a country, are losing ground on every single subject except a powerful military because of irrational decisions like not teaching evolution, thereby making our biology and medical leadership defunct.

Leftist talking points– absurdity. There is no state that does not teach evolution, and most teach evolution as fact without question. There are universities that restrict entrants that don’t believe in evolution. This is just plain dumb– I’m sorry, but it is.

Actually, evolution is taught as a theory, but the theory itself is only really taught in advanced biology courses in high school, and even more advanced in college. The general idea is taught in high school, by an underfunded faculty. Then, if the student shows an interest in studying it further, then they can go on to find out the evidence supporting evolution.

Unfortunately, out schooling, or rather lack thereof, has taken our science and math education out of the top ten in the world. Lack of education, and thus ignorance, is why so many people contest evolution. Evolution is treated as the only theory, because it is the only theory supported by current evidence. And regardless of what many believe, it has a huge amount of evidence supporting it.

We have an economy in the trash because we voted for a president that we would like to have a beer with (TWICE!) and? says he believes in the same stories you believe in.

Research before you say stupid things, Tech. If you did, you’d see that, if there’s a governmental component to this mess that it happened in the 90’s, under Clinton. Not under Bush.

From what I understand, the fault lies with the people, both in the government and the citizens. The government lowered interest rates, and people invested in homes they couldn’t afford when the rates rose again. Granted, some companies took advantage of that, but the end result is an economy in the tank. According to what I’ve read, the economy has been having problems for a while, but everything is just now coming to a head because of the government attempting quick fixes.

I’m not an economist, but this is my impression.

We have people opposing abortion but not adopting, instead having 5 children of their own while 500,000 kids remain in the foster care system largely doomed for jail or homelessness, a millions of kids remain hopeless around the world. This list is endless, but you get thei[sic] gist.

I don’t know of anyone that opposes adopting. And the idea of life beginning at conception is a medical truth, not a religious one.

Actually, when life begins is still under debate. Does it start when the egg is fertilized, when the cells begin to divide, when the fetus begins responding to outside stimuli, when the fetus can survive unaided outside the mother’s body, etc. Just as with “good”, defining when “life” begins is just as difficult.

Religion, in general (and again perhaps not for you specifically) ameliorates the need for critical thinking and people get out of practice.

That’s why the classic scientists and great thinkers throughout history were– oh, Christians. It seems that only now is it a qualification that you have to be an Atheist to have critical thinking skills. And that people of religion have decided that they don’t need to have them.

Don’t discount the Greeks, Romans, and others. Archimedes made observations that could be considered pivotal to nearly every technology that exists today. It’s very difficult to find anything that doesn’t utilize the screw in some way.

There are scientists, such as Ken Miller, who compartmentalize their beliefs in such a way that they don’t expect the end result of any experiment to be “God did it”. Instead, they rationalize it by saying they are trying to figure out how everything works “to better understand God”, or something of the like.

Regardless, it doesn’t appear that TS was talking about the scientists and thinkers who have actually improved our understanding of the universe. Instead, it seems he’s referring to the “laymen” who are skeptical of what science finds, but not of their specific ideology.

Do I need to continue? Do you understand why I say that this tactic is “victory by saying so much it’ll take you hours to reply?”

Not at all. Especially since I want to drop TS’s and Rev. Graves debate entirely from ours. I would also like to continue it on either your blog or mine, but also to pick a specific point and debate it. Personally, I like the idea of debating what “good” is, and working from there. If you’d like, I can do a post on my idea of it, and we can work it from there.

If you agree, leave me a note here, and I’ll get started on the post as soon as I can.

I wrote that in the original post. Although he did go on to agree with that idea with things he wrote later on, I just wanted to clarify that you can’t ask him what he means by that because he didn’t write it.

It seems to me that nothing any Christian does will not make her angry.

Where do you get this idea? What part of the text leads you to believe this? If a christian adopts 10 orphans, do you think she would have a problem with this? If a christian donates money to their own church, do you think she has a problem with that? If a christian prays every night for anything, do you think she has a problem with that? Exactly what leads you to believe this? Its completely contrary to what she and most atheists believe. If you lose your religion it should not be because it was forced, it should be because you learned what evidence is , why it is important, and how we use it.

Greta (and atheism as a movement) wants to eradicate religion, at least, or especially Christianity.

eh? could you list the chain of comments and events that got you there from where you were. Both I and Berle (as well as if you bother to read some Dawkins) have explained virtually the opposite of this. I do totally agree that by improving this world by teaching people how to avoid pseudoscience (homeopathy, water dowsing, astrology, etc), quackery (antivaccinationism, chiropractic, reiki, etc), and simple outright scams (see medis on my blog, kineseotape, bigfoot, WMD in Iraq, and a the Tesla Pill), that these tools will very likely result in far less reliance on made up deities and fairy tales (sorry i realize that you think God is real, but to me he stopped being when Santa Claus and the tooth fairy left). This is not the intentional eradication of religion, but that may be a side effect of improvement of our societies. This side effect simply eliminates an older side effect of the way we evolved. Belief on a Christian god or Muslim god would go away just like the belief in norse gods, greek gods, cthulu or quetzlquotl. Isnt Christianity an improvment over the greek beleif system?

However, when a Christian offers a hypothetical world in which everyone gets equal time, it’s not enough.
Could you give a common example of when this happens?

Nothing a Christian says will be O.K. with atheists
Could you give a common example of this.

the best Christian person in the world is bad, because she believes God makes her better.
Could you give an example of when anyone said this?

Admit that you want to replace the unofficial dominance of religion in political and social life with the official rule of atheism.
I can not, because what I want is secular rule, while people have the freedom to believe what they want.

Admit that you have a specific system of beliefs about God, the origin of life, the principles of morality, the qualities that make one a good person, and the purpose of life.
I guess I can admit this. My specific system throws out God with the tooth fairy and leprecahns. I certainly have principles of morality that do not require magic creatures or arbitrary interpretations of a book (you Christians are up to 30,000 different interpretations derived from 9 major denominations). so yeah i can certainly admit this.

Admit that you want that belief system to be legislated into politics, social policy, and the education of children while excluding or denouncing all other belief systems.
No you still have it wrong. What is fair for everyone and for all future generations is for no religion to be legislated, or systemically benefited (as Greta pointed out oh so clearly). It is the only way all religions can have an equal playing ground, it is the only way to keep debate based on tangible, verifiable quantities rather than God Vs Allah vs Zeus pointless discussions.

You seem to be under the same presupposition that you came here with, atheism is a religion. So tired, so overwhelmingly debunked (just to a quick google on that very phrase) and so sadly typical. Atheism is not a religion, its no religion. Atheists are liberals, atheists are staunch conservatives, atheists are pro-choice, atheists are pro-life, atheists have no book, no set of unverifiable positive claims about unseeable entities, they do not claim to knows something that is not understandable and then in the next sentence claim that something is not understandable.

I know you cant imagine a life with religion, but I live it quite happily and successfully, with a sense of freedom you clearly will never enjoy. I stand in awe of the universe around me and as Carl Sagan said, “For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring”.

I encourage you and everyone to try it or at least try to actually think about it a little harder.

“There’s a flip side to a lot of what Greta said – there are some things she’s angry that Christians do when Atheists do the same damn thing. But it’s okay for the atheists to be that way. They’re right. Christians are stupid and wrong.
I’m writing this from a middle perspective. It’s articles like these that feed my doubts, so I’m not writing this from a Christian perspective. I’m not sure there’s any Christian perspective left in me. But I do understand the Christian perspective and can still see where Atheism gets it wrong when talking about Christianity. But then – that was something else that made Greta angry. So I can’t win.
It seems to me that nothing any Christian does will not make her angry. If they’re fundamentalist, she’s angry. If they aren’t, and try to make people see the difference, she’s still angry.
What does she want?”

Here is what I think now, but didn’t think when I first started reading and replying to this blog:
Greta (and atheism as a movement) wants to eradicate religion, at least, or especially Christianity.

Some of you have said that you really just want Christianity to play fair and stop using its preferred status to stifle your point of view. However, when a Christian offers a hypothetical world in which everyone gets equal time, it’s not enough.

Nothing a Christian says will be O.K. with atheists (Yeah, I’m generalizing.) because it was a Christian who said it. People must be protected from our irrational beliefs. Any historical support is discredited because it must be mythological or doctored. Any scientists who support a Christian viewpoint are discredited, not because of faults in their data , but because the fact that they support a Christian viewpoint automatically makes them bad scientists. Even a personal testament to a life changed by God is rendered freaky and insulting in your minds.

For you, the best Christian person in the world is bad, because she believes God makes her better. We are damned in your eyes regardless (religious allusion intended).

You don’t want a level playing field. You want everybody to play with your ball and let you win; or they can shut up and go home.

But that’s cool with me.

If that’s what you want, that’s what you want.
All I’m saying is Say That’s What You Want.

Admit that you want to replace the unofficial dominance of religion in political and social life with the official rule of atheism. Admit that you have a specific system of beliefs about God, the origin of life, the principles of morality, the qualities that make one a good person, and the purpose of life. Admit that you want that belief system to be legislated into politics, social policy, and the education of children while excluding or denouncing all other belief systems.

All I’m saying is: Atheists should admit that they (generalizing again) are fundamentalist zealots who want to eradicate all other (yeah, I said “other”) religions.