Atheists and secularists are two different groups that have a large overlap but are not the same. There are Christian secularists - did you know that? Fraser is either too stupid or too intent on misrepresenting others' positions to make note of this, so whatever other point he was trying to make is ruined.

Most disturbing is how Fraser takes his most "damning" quote (the one from Howard Thompson) completely out of context to dishonestly make his point. What follows that quote is...

"I am not talking about force or coercion. Total victory is every human mind freely choosing to accept reality as their reasoned belief. A mind that accepts reality because of programming did not choose freely." (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8666... )

Does that sound like a fundie? Insisting that people CHOOSE what to believe?

Absolutely pathetic. You have a hit piece written by a dishonest and deceitful believer as your resource to show the dangers of atheism. Ha ha ha!

How, by further displaying your inability to read and understand the original piece?

1) "...you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky."

Hey, just wait a gosh darned minute. What are those three little periods in front of that quote? Hmm, oh I know! They have a fancy-pantsy name.... Oh yeah! They're an ellipsis! They indicate that part of the quote is intentionally omitted! Now why would you want to intentionally omit something? Let's see what you omitted:

You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but...

Oh my! That DOES change the focus of the statement, doesn't it? The first part of this list item actually sets it up to specifically refer ONLY to people who mock elements in other religions that are present in their own! No wonder you left that part out - it utterly destroys the point you were trying to make! I wonder if that's the same with your next beef:

2) "...some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity."

Now what was left out here? Oh I see, it's:

While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise

A-ha! Again, specifically referring to the science-hating fundamentalist. None of the tolerant, liberal believers that I have known dismiss the findings of science when it comes to the age of the earth, or the origin of humans, or any of that. Once again we see your inability to read in context to discover the true meaning of a statement. Or perhaps it was your intention all along? Trying to put on an air of intellectual and spiritual superiority, taking statements out of context to try and blame the non-religious for failures by the political Christian left?

Referring to the resurrection and the ascension as "myths" is condescending to those of the Christian faith and would turn off many Christian Dems, especially when uttered in a political arena.

Really? Why should they? Dictionary.com lists the primary definition of "myth" as:



How is that demeaning? Or more to the point, how is it an inappropriate word to use? As a matter of fact, most theologians I have read are quite comfortable referring to many biblical stories as myths. So who has the problem here?

The inability to distinguish between your allies who are Christian (and who want religion out of politics), and your enemies who are Christian (and who want a theocracy) is not only an intellectual blunder, but a strategic one that diverts energy from the important issues of freedom and economic security that we all face.

Might I suggest you take a good long look at your own efforts here, blaming the clearly inferior (to you, at least) non-theists for the lack of political traction of the religious left? The non-religious vote Democratic in huge proportions. We are not YOUR enemy. Yet you expect us to remain silent if we cannot be reverent toward your sacred beliefs. Every Democratic candidate for major office invokes the name of god in public speeches. Every last Democratic Senator got up on the Capitol steps with Republicans to loudly recite the Pledge of Allegiance with "UNDER GOD" specifically emphasized, with "Onward Christian Soldiers" playing in the background! Where is the respect for the non-religious? Why aren't you concerned about scaring US away? Because we're a minority, and don't matter? Just how "Christian" is that kind of thinking? How do you feel you can so vehemently DEMAND special treatment for YOUR beliefs, but believe that thoughts and ideas of the non-religious should be censored? Is the basis for your double-standard truly just a case of numbers? You're Christians, you're the majority, so the rest of us should sit down and shut up?

Anyway, here you are, left only with your self-righteous indignation at out-of-context quotes that you were absolutely determined to use to try and bash the non-religious for supposedly scaring Christians away from the Democratic Party.

I'm glad we could "wrap this up." Unless you'd like to continue, and further embarrass yourself?

This is a riot.

http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contradictio...

That sentiment has popped up from time to time, and I couldn't disagree more.

To me, atheism is the gateway to complete freedom of philosophy. Instead of being confined or limited by god-stuff, humans become free to explore and think and reason for themselves. You don't have to start out in this tiny box that says "Goddidit."

For a mind that wants to explore, what's more exciting and enticing than heading off into the wilderness, where everything's waiting to be discovered rather than laid down into nice neat paths for you?