Christian standing to be counted

[nopaniers]

a) Join the show (she is neither of the guests, nor is she the interviewer);

At around 40 minutes in. She and fellow atheist Adrian Hayter then argue against the Christian guest.

b) Make the statement you claim she made?

I don't claim she made any particular claim. I claim that she argued that discrimination against Christians is fine, because belief are something that you choose. You can find this argument from around 1:05 onwards.

They discuss homosexuality, and that it is not appropriate to discriminate against homosexuals - then the atheist guests go on to argue that whereas discrimination against homosexuality is not okay, discrimination against Christians is:

Atheist: "Christianity is a choice. That's the thing. But when there's not a choice... "
Christian: "So, you're entitled to discriminate people [Christians] if they make a choice?"
Atheist: "Yes. That's their choice isn't it?"
Christian: "How did you come up with that one?"
Atheist: "Because that's a decision they've made at some point, that they are going to believe a certain set of things."
Christian: "So if someone has a sex change operation then I can discriminate against them?
Atheist: "No. I mean... We count sex as something that can't be changed. But a belief which is held, can be - should be - discriminated against.

Ariane Sherine agrees with this point. Specifically, at 1:12:26 on my player, she says

I would go back to Adrian's point that it is a choice, in a way that race, sexuality and gender are not.

[Azdgari]

Nopaniers,

If someone (we'll call him Person A) believed that you were a monster who deserved to be put in prison or even executed, would you treat that person differently from someone (Person B) who believed that you were a decent human being worthy of basic respect?

I know I'd discriminate between the two.  Would you?

[hickdive]

I don't claim she made any particular claim. I claim that she argued that discrimination against Christians is fine, because belief are something that you choose. You can find this argument from around 1:05 onwards.

They discuss homosexuality, and that it is not appropriate to discriminate against homosexuals - then the atheist guests go on to argue that whereas discrimination against homosexuality is not okay, discrimination against Christians is:

Atheist: "Christianity is a choice. That's the thing. But when there's not a choice... "
Christian: "So, you're entitled to discriminate people [Christians] if they make a choice?"
Atheist: "Yes. That's their choice isn't it?"
Christian: "How did you come up with that one?"
Atheist: "Because that's a decision they've made at some point, that they are going to believe a certain set of things."
Christian: "So if someone has a sex change operation then I can discriminate against them?
Atheist: "No. I mean... We count sex as something that can't be changed. But a belief which is held, can be - should be - discriminated against.

Ariane Sherine agrees with this point. Specifically, at 1:12:26 on my player, she says

I would go back to Adrian's point that it is a choice, in a way that race, sexuality and gender are not.

"I would go back to Adrian's point that it is a choice, in a way that race, sexuality and gender are not."

So

(1) She's not agreeing that its ok to discriminate against christians
(2) She's agreeing that religion is a matter of choice, unlike one's race, gender or sexuality. and
(3) The only person that suggests it is is the unnamed atheist and she's not agreeing with their point, she's agreeing with Adrian's.

Do you have something relevant or that isn't clutching at straws and/or misrepresentation?

[Graybeard]

Tell me, what part of reality does not make sense?

Reality does make sense.

This does not help at all.
Again, What part of reality does not make sense? Or "Why does reality not make sense?"

Do I have a right to speak out in public that dandelions cure cancer?

Sure.

In the UK, it is illegal to promote untested cures for severe diseases, including (but not restricted to) cancer, arthritis, MS, etc.

I some professor started warbling on about it, people might be impressed. It's called "using undue influence".

I'm sorry, I don't understand. The suggestion was that members of the National Academy of Sciences should be ridiculed.

Sorry, I don't understand, the reason was "undue influence". Those members supporting the existence of a sky fairy had not the slightest proof for their stance. If they proposed a quantum theory for which they had not the slightest proof, they would be laughed out of the institution, wouldn't they?

Who is my brother?

Jesus answered that.

No, it didn't. That passage contains the most racist part of the Bible. The Samaritan was chosen because everyone of Jesus' time knew that Samaritans were complete bastards.

God has a list of people He hates; surely these people cannot be your brothers?

The passage also only relates to Neighbours - are they synonymous with brothers?

The passage you were looking for and could not find, (probably as you have never read a bible) is:

Matthew 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Matthew 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Matthew 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Matthew 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

So here we see that only fellow Christians are your brothers, this specifically excludes anyone you think is not Christian.

Can anyone explain why Christians do not know the Bible or how they are supposed to "do the will of my Father" if they don't know what that will is?

[velkyn]

Why do you think this belief is based on reality?

Because it has both good explanatory power, and is also coherent.
For example, if I consider the logical and consistent nature of God, it makes good sense to me that the universe we see should exhibit logical and ordered laws that we've discovered with modern science. On the other hand, I don't see a particular reason for expecting this from the assumption that God doesn't exist. In fact, if you read writings of the theists like Kepler and Newton, that is exactly what they did expect based on their theological points of view.

At best you've created a reason for a "god" but not your god.  Can you show me how your god is the right one?  And I have read kepler and Newton.  You are also arguing from incredulity.  Your willful ignorance is the only thing that suports your "we see physical laws and it must be from God" stance.  Kepler and Newton went beyond what the bible said, and were considered heretics.  They demosntrated that the claims of this supposed holy inerrant book were wrong.   

I'm not at all sure that is true. The number of actual church-going people in my society is vastly dwarfed by those that do not. In any case, the answer is yes.

What is this reason?  Were your parents/close friends religious?  and if you don't mind my asking, what is your country/society? 

I do not know if we have free will or not. I will say this though - it seems impossible for an atheist to claim to have free will. I often see them do that, and that seems incoherent to me on any number of levels.

Why?  Vague claims aren't answers.  We may not have free will in an absolute sense in that we are products of chemistry and environment. We are also limited to the laws of physics, in that we just can't fly to the moon with no spaceship. However, we have more individual choice aka free will than say, a lizard.  In your bible, god manipulates and interferes constantly.  We have the bible directly claiming that some peole are meant for damnation with no choice in the matter. 

To some extent. For example, it says that God hardens Pharaoh, not that he made him reject Moses in the first place. I am certainly no theologian though, and Romans is often subtle, so I don't think making quick calls as I see it carries much weight.

Again, your bible disagrees with you.  The bible says that God intentionally manipulated the pharoah from the beginning to show how powerful god was. God allows the israelites to be opressed for a very long time and then it dawns on him, "hey, I made a covenant with the patriarchs".  Then we get Moses who kills a man.  Pharaoh declares he should die for that.  An assumption here is that death was the pharoah's perogative as in many ancient cultures.  Then we have God saying this

"But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless a mighty hand compels him. 20 So I will stretch out my hand and strike the Egyptians with all the wonders that I will perform among them. After that, he will let you go. 21 “And I will make the Egyptians favorably disposed toward this people, so that when you leave you will not go empty-handed. 22 Every woman is to ask her neighbor and any woman living in her house for articles of silver and gold and for clothing, which you will put on your sons and daughters. And so you will plunder the Egyptians.”

plus a little mind control to steal from people who have had no choice in the matter.  Then we get the best part

When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.’”

  So even though God knows that it will take "wonders" to get the Pharaoh to let the people go, he intentionally hardens heart and makes it that wonders *won't* work.  Then Moses complains, why isn't god doing someting, so God says "“Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh: Because of my mighty hand he will let them go; because of my mighty hand he will drive them out of his country.”   But of course, God actually doesn't do that "3 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt, 4 he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites. 5 And the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it.”  Again and again, God reneges on promises and just wants to demosntrate just how powerful he is, no matter the harm to the Israelites. 

Now for Romans.  Just how is it "subtle"?  Please do demonstrate rather than making more vague claims.   IN your opinion, what does God "really" mean?

Yes. Absolutely. I think that everyone has a right to express themselves. If someone else claims I am wrong, I consider what they say. For example, if you look at the link to my blog (down below) I just typed out some of the reasons that I don't find arguments for Islam convincing. I'd appreciate constructive criticism.

I find this curious.  Do peole have the right to lie?

Well I posted a link to a recording (above) so you don't have to take my word for it.

You said

I also heard the head of the atheist bus campaign in the UK arguing that people with religious belief should be discriminated against

Again, who are you claiming said this?  Adrian Hayter?  Is he in charge of the bus campaign?  Dawkins?  If you want a long recording to be your proof, tell me at what minute mark anything resembling your claim was said. 

Luke 19 does not appear to say that at all.

Really? 

   26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

Again, tell me what you think God "really" meant. 

[Nam]

This is a quick example of some behaviour that happened to me and my friends.

I can textually abuse you ten times worse than that, and it wouldn't even have to be about your religion -- actually, stay here long enough, and I might just do it for the fun of it.



-Nam

[nopaniers]

I can textually abuse you ten times worse than that, and it wouldn't even have to be about your religion -- actually, stay here long enough, and I might just do it for the fun of it.

What a lovely place this is.

[Doctor X]

I can textually abuse you ten times worse than that, and it wouldn't even have to be about your religion -- actually, stay here long enough, and I might just do it for the fun of it.

What a lovely place this is.

Your Mom thinks so.

--J.D.

[Nam]

What a lovely place this is.

My point was: what you think of abuse is nothing compared to what some of us can actually dish out.  What that you pointed towards is baby stuff compared to what I, and some others on here can spew.

-Nam

[Larissa238]

They discuss homosexuality, and that it is not appropriate to discriminate against homosexuals - then the atheist guests go on to argue that whereas discrimination against homosexuality is not okay, discrimination against Christians is:

Atheist: "Christianity is a choice. That's the thing. But when there's not a choice... "
Christian: "So, you're entitled to discriminate people [Christians] if they make a choice?"
Atheist: "Yes. That's their choice isn't it?"
Christian: "How did you come up with that one?"
Atheist: "Because that's a decision they've made at some point, that they are going to believe a certain set of things."
Christian: "So if someone has a sex change operation then I can discriminate against them?
Atheist: "No. I mean... We count sex as something that can't be changed. But a belief which is held, can be - should be - discriminated against.

Ariane Sherine agrees with this point. Specifically, at 1:12:26 on my player, she says

I would go back to Adrian's point that it is a choice, in a way that race, sexuality and gender are not.

People are born without belief in a god (atheist). Their parents brainwash them into believing in whatever God they believe in, and if the child does not believe in that deity, the child is bad, and damned, and the parents feel like a failure. While brainwashing a child is not the child's choice, they do have the choice later in life to accept or reject their parents teachings.

I am a woman. I am attracted to other women. I have always been attracted to other women (at as early as 7 or 8, I remember liking girls). I made no choice to be attracted to women, just as straight people have made no choice to be attracted to the opposite sex. If you really believe sexuality is a choice, then try to be aroused at just the sight of a penis. (I am assuming you are a man, you don't have your gender listed).

As for gender identity, that also is not a choice. If not brainwashed into stereotypes at a very young age (and sometimes even if they are) you see young children reject their gender sometimes. I see frantic parents posting on the web that their son likes to put on mommy's makeup and shoes, and what should they do to force their son to be a man. I have friends who are transgender. They have felt their entire life that they were in the wrong body for their gender. Once again, it is not a choice for them.

Think about it. Why would someone chose to live their life discriminated against for no good reason? If gay people could just "change" and love all women, then why wouldn't they? Why be driven to suicide in some cases? Same thing with transgender people. Imagine living your whole life feeling so out of place, and then when you finally decide to do something about it (come out as transgender) all people care about is what your genitals look like. It doesn't matter if you don't have the money for surgery, to many people you are not that gender till your genitals match.

Yes, in some parts of the world, Christians are just as persecuted. But, unlike gays and transgender people, they were not born a Christian. Actually, they had to be "born again" because they were born atheists originally. There are Christians who stand this persecution- but because they were brainwashed in 99% of the cases.

I know this because: I'm "gay" and I didn't chose to be that way. I was brainwashed to be a Christian, and when I couldn't deny my attraction to women any longer, I was told to either shove it down or get out. I left the church, but even then, the brainwashing made me go back time and time again... just to be shoved away again. I prayed to God to show me some sign He existed, to relieve me of my burden, etc. Funny thing is, even after I got with a man (totally different story... we don't have sex), it wasn't good enough for the church because he was not a believer, and tried to break us up. Finally, after years of abuse, brainwashing, and no evidence for any god, I went through the hard path and deconverted. Not believing is a *choice* I made. I did not choose to be attracted to women. There is a huge difference between the two- one is a choice, and one is not.

So, just like many people on this site abandoned their religion and chose to become atheist because of the evidence, so believing in religions is a choice. Every child goes through a phase where they choose their path- to do the things their parents say, or to not. This is how a child becomes an adult- if a child doesn't go through the experimentation phase, they are developmentally stunted.

[nopaniers]

(3) The only person that suggests it is is the unnamed atheist and she's not agreeing with their point, she's agreeing with Adrian's.

The unnamed atheist is Adrian (Hayter).

[Anfauglir]

I claim that she argued that discrimination against Christians is fine, because belief are something that you choose. ........

And you oppose this view, is that correct?  You are saying one should NOT discriminate against someone on the basis of belief?

And yet.....belief, for salvation, is the cornerstone of your religion.  Your god himself makes it quite clear that it is fine to discriminate on basis of belief - indeed, the ultimate discrimination, between salvation and eternal damnation, comes (in your religion) from one's beliefs.

So clear it up for me.....is discrimination based on belief right, or wrong?

[hickdive]

(3) The only person that suggests it is is the unnamed atheist and she's not agreeing with their point, she's agreeing with Adrian's.

The unnamed atheist is Adrian (Hayter).

Ariane Sherine agrees with this point. Specifically, at 1:12:26 on my player, she says

I would go back to Adrian's point that it is a choice, in a way that race, sexuality and gender are not.

So, mirepresentation it is then?

[Ambassador Pony]

response to Pony

Thank you, there was no way I was listening to the whole thing.

I can textually abuse you ten times worse than that, and it wouldn't even have to be about your religion -- actually, stay here long enough, and I might just do it for the fun of it.

What a lovely place this is.

I feel discriminated against and stereotyped.

Nam's an asshole. Just ask him, he knows it.

Is your response to his post an accurate representation of your judgement?

[Locke]

There is no "likening" that Christians were Nazi's- The Nazis were Christian.

National Socialism was a political organization with people from religious different beliefs including atheists, but that is irrelevant.

The question is if it is okay to imply people are Nazis who are not.

Christians were Nazis.  Atheists were Nazis.  Plenty of other people were Nazis.  And it probably had nothing to do with their religion (or lack thereof), but of the miserable economic conditions in post-WWI Germany with their hyperinflation.

How was this related again?

[Locke]

a) Join the show (she is neither of the guests, nor is she the interviewer);

At around 40 minutes in. She and fellow atheist Adrian Hayter then argue against the Christian guest.

b) Make the statement you claim she made?

I don't claim she made any particular claim. I claim that she argued that discrimination against Christians is fine, because belief are something that you choose. You can find this argument from around 1:05 onwards.

They discuss homosexuality, and that it is not appropriate to discriminate against homosexuals - then the atheist guests go on to argue that whereas discrimination against homosexuality is not okay, discrimination against Christians is:

Atheist: "Christianity is a choice. That's the thing. But when there's not a choice... "
Christian: "So, you're entitled to discriminate people [Christians] if they make a choice?"
Atheist: "Yes. That's their choice isn't it?"
Christian: "How did you come up with that one?"
Atheist: "Because that's a decision they've made at some point, that they are going to believe a certain set of things."
Christian: "So if someone has a sex change operation then I can discriminate against them?
Atheist: "No. I mean... We count sex as something that can't be changed. But a belief which is held, can be - should be - discriminated against.

Ariane Sherine agrees with this point. Specifically, at 1:12:26 on my player, she says

I would go back to Adrian's point that it is a choice, in a way that race, sexuality and gender are not.

Well, my initial interpretation is that it's aimed at all of the people (fundamentalists, primarily) who think that discriminating against homosexuals is okay because "it's a choice".  So (I hope), it was more of a twist on fundamentalist values rather than the values of the actual speakers. 

[RaymondKHessel]

...if I consider the logical and consistent nature of God...

 

I thought Dawkins established civility?

I don't think that likening Christians to Nazis (eg. in his documentary "Root of all evil" where he likens church services to the Nuremberg Rallies) - or likening people who even accept Christians who are scientists to "appeasers" is very civil.

There is no "likening" that Christians were Nazi's- The Nazis were Christian. We have a whole other topic about that.

Umm.. Don't consider that ridicule. That's just what I saw in my head.

I have issues I suppose.

[xphobe]

It's disappointing that they allowed themselves to be sucked into a debate about whether someone can be discriminated against based on whether they've made a choice, because that's actually irrelevant.

I, as a private individual, can (well, should be able to) discriminate against or ridicule any person, for whatever reason crosses my mind, or for no reason at all.

Governments - the public sector - on the other hand must be much more careful.  Our government cannot discriminate against any religion for example. 

But another point to be made is that religious or nonreligious belief isn't a choice at all.  Try as I might, it is simply impossible for me to "choose" to believe something I don't believe.

[Alzael]

But another point to be made is that religious or nonreligious belief isn't a choice at all.  Try as I might, it is simply impossible for me to "choose" to believe something I don't believe.

You can however, choose whether or not you look at the evidence and how deeply you evaluate it. As well as whether or not you process the information rationally. Those will lead to your belief.

[xphobe]

True, you can choose to be wilfully ignorant.    It's no coincidence that atheists tend to know more about the Bible than most theists.  Many atheists think "Well, I don't see any evidence for a god, but I suppose it's possible there might be one, so I ought to read this book and see if there's anything to it."  But you never see theists doing the converse.  In fact, I never meet theists who admit it's possible that no gods exist.  You simply can't get them to say it.  It's almost as if their minds are structurally incapable of conceiving the idea.  Or maybe they're afraid they'll burn in hell if God finds out they doubted.

The bottom line is I don't think anyone can "deconvert" a theist.  They have to come to that realization all on their own.  The most we can do is be good role models, support their research and answer questions.

[rev45]

In fact, I never meet theists who admit it's possible that no gods exist.  You simply can't get them to say it.  It's almost as if their minds are structurally incapable of conceiving the idea.  Or maybe they're afraid they'll burn in hell if God finds out they doubted.

I think to the theist, God is real, as real as the theist is.  He is the guy they can put all their burdens on and he'll take care of everything.  I remember back to when I was a believer that I thought 100% that god was there and cares all about me even though I couldn't point and say "thats him."  He was the invisible friend who I could talk to and he'd take care of all my woes even though my non-believer friends thought I had a few screws loose.

The bottom line is I don't think anyone can "deconvert" a theist.  They have to come to that realization all on their own.  The most we can do is be good role models, support their research and answer questions.

I agree completely.  I'm thinking of the"you can lead a horse to water" phrase.  When I was a believer, you could have shown me everything wrong with my god beliefs and I would have shrugged you off.  It wasn't until I caught some ministers lying during their sermons did I start to listen to differing opinions about god.

[Eloi McQueequog]

New here and can't post a new thread.  I am a radical agnostic.  You still coming here, No basket-case?
Do you now, or did you ever, believe the idea that there is an entity, as imagined by Plato, that is simultaneously all good, all powerful, and all knowing.
I ask because I find that idea hopelessly self contradictory as long as one uses commonly agreed upon human definitions of goodness, power, and knowledge.
If you believe that, you are believing a big lie designed to make you stop thinking and start tithing, and are no different, and potentially as evil, as any Nazi dupe.
May you have peace, love, and understanding in your life

[thunderridge]

You need to sit and wise up.

[screwtape]

Hi Eloi and welcome.

The last post in this thread was 5 months old before you posted.  Many of the participants have moved on.  Someone else's testimonial thread is not for your introduction.  Please familarize yourself with our rules and guides.  Thanks

Regards,
Screwtape

[12 Monkeys]

Agreed.  I live in the United States, where being an atheist can literally be dangerous.  It can also hurt one's career, for example.

I totally agree. I think that discrimination on purely religious grounds is unacceptable. To do that seems like a pretty basic violation of human rights, and what it means to live in a free country.

No actual Atheists involved, by the way.

Why do you think that? If you have a look back, and you'll find they used the own handles before they realized they could post anonymously.

I thought Dawkins established civility?

I don't think that likening Christians to Nazis (eg. in his documentary "Root of all evil" where he likens church services to the Nuremberg Rallies) - or likening people who even accept Christians who are scientists to "appeasers" is very civil.

If "ridiculing" means something as simple as "my gosh, you actually believe in that?", then that's nothing

In this case, it meant sending messages to a middle aged woman whose ex-husband had just died suggesting that she wanted to have sex with corpses.

These are the the reasons that I think this discussion is important. I dislike the rhetoric coming out of the "new" atheists, and I can only it as being harmful for themselves and for society.

Fucking Whiner.....by 1862 90% of the population (Haida) was wiped off the face of the earth by religous nuts like you. That is a 90 year span from the first arrival. Why did people like you kill us,we had our own way of life and we had FUR. You got the gall to come here when people who have the same frame of mind (Christianity) went around the world killing millions,all the while telling the survivours of the paradise that awaited them.....only if they changed their entire life.   

 How exactly did people like you justify their acts ? progress? land? resouces? They went under the banner of cureing the heathens,while stealing the land and resouces. When the few left protested they were either killed,put in boarding school. Get the fuck out of here,of course you can't read what really happened in history books because they were written by the victors.

[mram]

^^^^The special few snowflakes in the vast, vast 'white' wilderness.. Even the dead of winter never stopped the special snowflakes.. It was unrelenting death and destruction and takeover then complete and utter marginalization and when people protest they bring out bigger guns and police..All in the name of god. 

[screwtape]

12 Monkeys,

You have responded to a post from February by a member who has not been active since May.  It is now almost August.  In the future, please check the dates and use more discretion. Thanks.

[12 Monkeys]

12 Monkeys,

You have responded to a post from February by a member who has not been active since May.  It is now almost August.  In the future, please check the dates and use more discretion. Thanks.

sorry I failed to check the date