Has anyone ever listened to a JEsus radio station? They I wasd in the middle of nowhere and it was the only station I could get, but it was so hilarious thjat now I look for them. The best shows are the call in problem shows. No matter what the problem is, the answer is always the same: cheebus will help you out. Naturally it gets tiresome after a while, but it can be fucking funny. Kind of like this bullshit

Gotta say, this is one of your better G-Squad reviews in a while. It's almost a shame/surprize they didn't break Godwin's law there.

The triumvirate of inappropriate topics? Fuck that. How convenient, to never have to discuss anything that may actually reveal someone thinks differently than you do, at least about anything of consequence. I really hate people sometimes.

But I love you, RA! ; ) This post was just beautiful. I always like these God Squad responses, since they deal with the questions of the everyday rationalizing twits all around us. I just wish (as has been said many times before) that you could get your critiques published alongside them somewhere, or get an actual response to your wealth of criticism from them.

get new friends my ass! do yor duty as a friend and christian - flail the shit out of 'em til they accept jesus. that's what friends do! it may hurt now but they'll thank you when they are up in heaven listening to all that harp music.

anyhow, how did they know what your beliefs are if you never talk about them? why, why, it must be a miracle!

"Its rude to jest about people's religion, it is something very important to them." Oh yeah? Well getting rid of superfluous nonsensical religious baggage is very important to me. I'll make sure I tell every religious nutball that their beliefs are meaningless, and degrade them accordingly. They should feel like morons for believing in something that is not there. Since most of them don't, we all have to do our fair share and make sure they do. Let them know that its not cool to have imaginary sky gods that control the universe.

A man in 'faith' once asked spitting at me with despise how long it takes for one to travel from Hell to Paradise.

It's amazing to confront such hatered from a man representing The source of love.

It was my regretful duty to inform him that the trip from Hell to Paradise takes exactly as long as it takes one to forgive oneself. Granted, it may be hard, as having failed the test of not beginning to gather a congregation and taking onself waaaay too seriously are really _humiliating_ chances to swallow one's pride.

Of course, if there is not enough love to spread around, one might get a bit teased, and consider, dunno perhaps, crusifying the bastard who tricked you. Plenty of suckers to back you around.

Middle-east and mediterranean never were too big on humor.

Jesus really was the man but he stills was, just a man. Balls big as bear's for sure. Jesus Christ! :D LOL

"It’s ironic, to say the least, to attack atheists as “prejudiced” for criticizing beliefs that they have examined b(ut) you have not."

Awesome! I mean that literally. This is one of your best recent posts IMO.

why, why, it must be a miracle!

Amen Pr. Bob! LOL!

It was my regretful duty to inform him that the trip from Hell to Paradise takes exactly as long as it takes one to forgive oneself.

And that was as profound a truth as I've seen on anyone's blog recently. Kudos.

Nice work on this one RA (and commenters.) Many thanks!

"It's ironic, to say the least, to attack atheists as 'prejudiced' for criticizing beliefs that they have examined b(ut) you have not."

First: From the question posed to the God Squad it was the Christian who was attacked by her atheist/agnostic friends, not the other way around.

Second: Honest dialogue and debate are acceptable means for discussing these topics, attacks are not. The vast majority of Christians I know respect this notion and adhere to it. But Mookie, in his response above, advocates "degrading" someone "accordingly" for disagreeing with him. Nice.

Third: To assume that atheists have examined the Christian faith more than Christians themselves and are, therefore, more qualified to make a determination about the faith is just plain wrong. Oh sure, there are Christians who have not bothered to learn about their faith and there are atheists who have studied the Bible in depth but, as a whole, Christians have invested more time and energy into the study of the Word than non-Christians.

Despite all the errors in your post, RA, it is a funny rant nonetheless and should entertain your atheist readership who won't bother to consider the blatantly false nature of most of your assumptions.

....unfortunately, the overwhelming mayority of christians i have met believe that anything i say in oposition to their religious beliefs is, automatically, an attack.....
example:
theist: "God loves you!"
me: " Oh but i don't believe in god..."
theist: "Whaaat!!? Then you are a satanist!"
me: "well, no.....i don't believe in any made-up make believe deities..."
theist: "Made up??!! You can't say that! He is real and you cannot insult me by saying that!"
me: "i did not insult you...."
theist: "You have to respect me! You cannot tell me that!!"

frank, you fail in your proposition that if someone is a "real christian" (tm), it is imposible to that person to become an atheist. most atheists i know about were deeply religious before atheism, and all atheists i know personally used to be, indeed, very religious. (except for me- i was never very religious).

yes, it's a funny rant.....so we agree on that......but the rant is chock full of, if not reality, TRUTH.

Frank, from your perspective, anything which doesn't begin with the bible is wrong. Try being the True Christian(TM) you claim to be, and read the post from an atheist perspective, as I'm sure Jesus would do. Or perhaps it isn't just a radical feminist myth that men are incapable of such emotional feats?

To assume that atheists have examined the Christian faith more than Christians themselves and are, therefore, more qualified to make a determination about the faith is just plain wrong. Oh sure, there are Christians who have not bothered to learn about their faith and there are atheists who have studied the Bible in depth but, as a whole, Christians have invested more time and energy into the study of the Word than non-Christians.

You've just made a false assumption of your own, here. No where does the quoted statement, nor the surrounding text, suggest anything of bible study. It suggests the critical examination of faith, which most bible thumpers have never done.

And just look at that [post edited for un-jesus-like taunting].

Viole -- point well taken. Allow me, then, to qualify. Certainly an examination of faith vs. non-faith with regard to any religion would necessitate a look at the internal and external evidences. I would imagine that atheists might invest more time in external evidences (non-biblical) in their study of the Christian faith. Christians, since they assume the truth of scripture, probably spend more time with internal evidence. Both sides have people who study both bodies of evidence. But it is still incorrect to assume one group can lay claim to having examined the beliefs in question while the other has not.

Eva -- I have no way of knowing who these "Christians" are that you run into and speak to you in the manner you describe. I certainly have no reason to doubt your account of such encounters. I only know that I've been associated with a huge number of Christians for a long, long time and virtually none of them would behave in like manner.

To be sure, many of them would attempt to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with you upon finding you you don't believe God exists. But such an attempt would almost certainly be made out of love and would remain non-confrontational. Personally I would never take someone's disbelief in God as a personal attack or insult to myself.

And with regard to a "true Christian" not becoming an atheist ... well, that's true. Oh, someone who has been "deeply religious" can turn from their religion, sure. But the Bible is clear that anyone who abandons their faith in Christ never actually had saving faith in Christ to begin with because it is not the strength of our faith that sustains us in the faith but the strength of God. He is the author and finisher of our faith and the Bible tells us that He who started the good work in us is faithful to complete it. It is certainly possible for someone to have been so "deeply religious" as to fool everyone (even themselves) into thinking they were really Christians. But true Christians do not fall from the faith. They can't, God sustains them. I know you don't believe the authority of Scripture but I thought I'd share with you where we get the notion.

Oh, one last thing ... What is the "True Christian(TM)" thingie that you keep using? I'm unfamiliar with that.

Whoa now the Fraud Squad has to resort to teaching the sheep how to make friends? Don't they teach that in elementary school or something? What's next, how to get laid? Oh wait I should stop before I get accused of being prejudiced.

"Certainly an examination of faith vs. non-faith with regard to any religion would necessitate a look at the internal and external evidences."
If "internal evidence" refers to information acquired thru faith, and "external evidence" refers to info acquired thru non-faith resources, can't we just refer to external/non-faith evidence as "actual evidence", and internal/faith evidence as "pretend evidence"?
Frank, I rarely, if ever, agree with you, but I sure admire you for your good attitude here! :)

"What's next, how to get laid? " Xianghong, I assume you mean "get laid, within the sacred bounds of a god-sactioned, heterosexual marriage for the sole purpose of procreation", right?

Frank,

Do you not agree that some ideas are good and some are bad? What if a person in your social circle said that he supported NAMBLA, or supported nuclear proliferation, or supported the environmental raping of the earth? Would you think that his beliefs should just be respected and uncritically tolerated?

A friend that cares is one that tries to correct the beliefs of his friends that are harmful and antisocial and anti-intellectual. To an atheist/agnostic, religion is such a belief.

Of course the theist will not agree that religion is harmful (just like tobacco companies disagree that tobacco is harmful), but that is besides the point. What matters here is that when an idea is seen as harmful by ones peers, it is a disservice to ignore or avoid this seemingly harmful belief.

Ideas are very powerful, and potentially dangerous, things. They should be expected to stand on their own, and they should be expected to be able to weather criticisms. Frank, you, and I, and the rest of the world, criticizes and challenges ideas all the time in all sorts of subjects and categories. This is healthy and necessary for a society to learn and grow and progress.

Why should religion (an idea with grand implications) be exempt?

AK -- I do agree that some ideas are good and others bad. I also agree that a friend who cares is one who tries to correct the beliefs of his friends that are harmful. That is why I don't have any problem with an atheist who believes my religious ideas are harmful trying to convince me of their point of view. I do think it is a bit inconsistent for the atheist who does that to not give the same consideration to a Christian, who sees the atheist's view as harmful, trying to correct him.

GeneralZod -- when I speak of internal and external evidence with regard to Christianity the internal does not mean evidence acquired through faith but rather evidence from a source internal to the faith (in this case the Bible). There are other internal evidences (such as my personal experience of salvation, etc.) that you could say were acquired through faith, but you've never seen me present them here as empirical. Nor are you likely to. Anyone can claim an experience that validates their position and it simply holds no water in an open debate.

Oh, AK -- I don't know how I gave you the impression that I think religion should be exempt from critical analysis. I think nothing of the sort. If I thought it should be exempt I wouldn't be here at RA discussing the subject like I do.

Nice post, I enjoyed it. Tolerance of crazy ideas is not the right way to go. Sam Harris' book was pretty good in putting forth that idea into the public arena.

True Christians(TM) is a reference to Landover Baptist Church. Obviously, it was they who forced RA to edit my last post, probably with an executive order. Apparently, they disagree that [post edited for un-jesus-like taunting]. Not that ten minutes there wouldn't make that apparent.

RA, that is definitely one of your better columns. Thanks for sharing.

Frank, I hope you participate in the forums; you're one of the few literate theists we see around here; your opinions are intelligent, well-thought, and apparently sincere.
My only bone to pick would be your statement "...assume that atheists have examined the Christian faith more than Christians themselves and are, therefore, more qualified to make a determination about the faith is just plain wrong." Most atheists have spent their lifetimes as Christians or Jews. Please consider this. I was deeply religious for over 35 years before I saw that the light was nothing more than photons.

Viole,
"[post edited for un-jesus-like taunting]" is too funny! Do you mind I blatantly rip you off and use it on other forums (fora?)?

Hmm... I seem to have made an HTML based error in my last post, 'cause it sure looks funny to me. Landover Baptist Church, is how it should appear.

Thanks, Zod. Of course you're free to use it wherever you like.

Frank said:

Second: Honest dialogue and debate are acceptable means for discussing these topics, attacks are not. The vast majority of Christians I know respect this notion and adhere to it. But Mookie, in his response above, advocates "degrading" someone "accordingly" for disagreeing with him. Nice.

I think Mookie was justifying such actions because he felt *so strongly* about atheism that he wanted to convert others. If attempting to convert people is ok for religious people, it is ok for non-religious people. Christians insult others for being atheists, why is it somehow unacceptable the other way around?

However, you might be saying that it is rude in all cases, when Christians insult atheists or vice versa. I would tend to agree with you there.

skinnydwarf -- Attempting to convert someone to your point of view is acceptable. But, feeling "so strongly" in your convictions is not a justification to be insulting. It is wrong for anyone to be insulting regardless of the strength of one's convictions. Mookie's statement, "I'll make sure that I tell every religious nutball that their beliefs are meaningless and degrade them accordingly" seems to indicate he disagrees.

Mookie, in his response above, advocates "degrading" someone "accordingly" for disagreeing with him.

That isn't what Mookie said. He said it was OK to degrade them accordingly for "acting a fool" if we are to continue paraphrasing. Disagreement may be an element of that but it is far from the salient point.

GeneralZod: I hereby declare that I have been embarrased by your comments and accuse you of prejudice against God, theists, Conservatives, monogamists and um straight people.

Xianghong: you are just prejudiced against those of us who pre-judge others! Luckily my faith in baby jesus sustains me when I am persecuted by "your kind"!

I'm tired of christians pissing and moaning about their beliefs being examined. If anything, the 'culture' in Amerikkka is one of overtolerance (is that a word?). The media is too afraid to call anything as they see it, whether something is too liberal or too conservative, or just plain bullshit. Most atheists and the like ignore and tolerate religious stupidity because they believe in freedom of speech (and, that religion is dead). I don't see this on the flip side of the coin. Almost every stinking time an atheist says or does something seen as offensive by a religious nut, their 'beliefs' are called attacks or suppression of rights, etc., etc.. Religion is dying. It's just taking too damn long to croak. It's gonna be this way for AT LEAST 4 or more generations. Religion will persist for at least a few more centuries.

Frank,

Look at it like this. You meet someone in their mid-40s that believes in Santa Claus. They are otherwise fine in their assessment of the way the world works. They are pretty level-headed. But they think that a fat man in a rad suit jumps down people's chimneys one night out of every year to give them gifts. Absurdity. You would laugh and jest and let them in on the big secret: that there is no Santa Claus, all made up. I do that for people who believe in god(s). Why? The same reason I do it for those who believe in Santa Claus. And don't start with that "but there's more proof!" or "but Santa Claus is a silly story to tell kids!" There is no proof of god(s), and religion is also just a silly story. Unfortunately, these silly stories don't all agree with each other, so now we fight each over differing versions of our respective fairy tales. Oh, and to one-up you again, fuck logic that "religion gives people peace and morals." You can get peace and morals from another source, independently of religion. Religion does not have a monopoly on such ideas. For these reasons, like I said, religion is useless baggage. And I will continue to degrade people that believe in maladaptive ideas, of any kind. Its my way of making the world a better place.

rad = red
although i bet it is pretty radical, in a way

GeneralZod: That's it I've had enough of your hostility. Desist immediately or I shall be forced to FIGHT BACK!

Xianghong: PLEASE! You cannot harm me, for god is on my side. I am like jesus: I will simply turn the other cheek...and i hate homos (and shellfish!)! And also like jesus, my mom has been seen hanging out in a grimy, stained underpass.
i will pray for you.

THANK GOODNESS YOU IDIOTS ARE A VAST MINORITY. I'VE NEVER SEEN SUCH CONCENTRATED STUPIDITY.

Viole asked Frank: "You've just made a false assumption of your own, here. No where does the quoted statement, nor the surrounding text, suggest anything of bible study. It suggests the critical examination of faith, which most bible thumpers have never done."

Frank, don't you see the contradiction between faith and examination? Examination implies logic and evidence, and faith is exactly not those things. That was what TRA said.

firstly fuck religion in all aspects, fuck u all who worship god, or the devil, or allah or any other false degenerate faggots. i guess i'd be classifyed as athiest/ nhilist, but hey, i dont go around trying to change people, occasionly give me opinion, however, i dont need this shit from christians or johova witnesses, trying to change me... i cant undestand the sheer stupidity of society in this day and age, only thign that keeps me going is the thought you'r all going to die all one day, and your little fucking reject kids. how can people beleive in a god, or worship jesus, what the fuck is this, religion causes more problems then anything else in the world, more wars, arguments, between races, cultures, people, even fucking animls sadly enuff, "yeah man i'm cool, i'm gonna fucking sacrifice a lamb to trinity, the coolest god eva :0...(father son spirit)... study buddhism in depth and realise how fucked christianity is.
Jesus is our saviour aye? let me see, Islam, Judaism and christainty for the sake of the argument were all based off jesus, it seams all 3 religions basically hate each other, in general, they all state there religion is better then the others, so infact jesus, is causing more shit then anyone, more then hitler it seams. although me raving on about this dosnt mean shit to anyone because as soon as most of u read this you'll diss agree and not consider anything anyone has to say. blah blah blah etc etc etc

GenaralZod: *Gasp* Not the "I will pray for you" argument! I am forced to concede defeat to your immaculate logic and superior reasoning ability. I shall now lay my brain down for Jeeesus and begin spreading the True Christian (TM) to the queers, heathens and erm mollusks immediately!

Good reading. Especially liked Frank's definition of a "true christian". Now I know that I never was one because I'm now agnostic. I mean, I thought since I went through all my religion's steps - asked to be forgiven for sins, got baptised, and received the holy ghost (yep, one of those) - I had made it in the door. Believe me backing out against your family is tough with all that eternal fire talk, but I had a functioning brain and nobody had any answers, so here I am.

Frank made me laugh, though. Now I know that the only way to know if someone is a true christian is to wait and see if they don't change before they die! So the next time someone wants to convert you, ask them to just give you some printed material. You can then file it until you read their obit and if it mentions they were a lifelong member of their church, then take a minute to read the material. But while they're alive, no sense wasting your time talking to someone who's not sure!

ALEX, LEARN TO SPELL. YOU SOUND LIKE AN IDIOT.

Yeah, WOMBATTLER, and you look like a real genius typing in all caps..

Islam, Judaism and christainty for the sake of the argument were all based off jesus

Now that is just plain wrong. Judaism was around wayyy before Jesus is said to have been born. They all have the same God, but 3 very different views of Jesus.

It's funny how persecutors tend to portray themselves as the persecuted, as if it somehow justifies what they do.

Take Hitler, our favourite devouted christian, for example.

He kept insisting that the Aryan race was manipulated by the Jews for centuries and that the German nation was in grave danger from a judeo-bolshevik conspiracy even as the SS were killing Jews, russians, gypsies and other untermenschen by the trainloads!

Just scanned the commentary and my two cents is that she should check her friends because what they are doing is insensitive and mean. Whoever writes these articles on this site- Hey if you are so proud of your prejudiced rhetoric against all things spiritual then put your fricken name on these articles and let the world know who you are!!

There is no value in this, you are fanning the coals of hatred. I bet you secretly are angry with God because your pet rabbit died when you were five years old and you never got over it. Well I got news for you, cotton tail is waiting up in heaven for you but I doubt you will ever make it.

OK now that I got that off my chest, see ya next time...

No matter what people argue, jesus was a lot more prejudiced than any atheist could be. After all, no atheist would suggest that a theist deserves to be tortured for all eternity because his beliefs don't align with their own (imaginary friend's). Secondly, the bible (which christianity is based on) is repeatedly prejudiced against homosexuals, women and even disabled / handicapped people from time to time. I don't think any atheist would suggests that homosexuals should be killed but this law is clearly outlined in the bible.

Al these prejudices have no support outside of the fairy tale book any justifications for them are flimsy at best. I can say that assuming a person is generally stupid for believing in god can be considered prejudiced but I think most atheist wouldn't come to such a conclusion if they consider the matter.

Finally, christians who are offended by jokes and sarcasm featuring any of the above "morals" should know it is their fault for labelling themselves with a label that stands for such injustice even if they themselves don't support such "morals". Jokes about belief in god per se, are of course inescapable signs that people care.

Tomek

Frank said: Despite all the errors in your post, RA, it is a funny rant nonetheless and should entertain your atheist readership who won't bother to consider the blatantly false nature of most of your assumptions.

These assumptions are the scripture, the Holy Grail and the way and the light. I am offended, insulted and feel as though you are attacking my core beliefs. I think it prejudiced of you to assume these assumptions were not examined as enthusiastically and accepted as were your core beliefs examined and rejected based on the merits.
Frank, please explain yourself and correct the blatantly false nature of most of TRA’s assumptions: Preferably without your internal evidence. Be careful, your credibility can’t take many more hits and good attitude will only carry you so far.

Now, it's possible that i will re-read this post tomorrow morning and think "wtf?" I've had 2x 750ml bottles of Chimay Grand Reserve (the blue label) and now i'm pissed :-)

First of all I'd like to start out by saying that I am convinced that the only reason that people still follow christianity, catholicisim, etc. is because these bastards don't read the bible... they go to a church to have the "pretty" parts read to them but as soon as you quote the book of leviticus to these cookie cutter brain-dead blowhards they look at you like you made it all up.... but holy shit! the moment you open the bible and flip to the page you'd better run unless you are armed :-)

Now then, what exactly does this post have to do with the topic? nothing! I'm drunk and surfing the web :-)
Anyway, back to what I was talking about, honestly, from what I can tell, atheists know the bible better than the "faithful" and it's probably the reason why we are atheists and they are still christians :-)

Xianghong said: "I shall now lay my brain down for Jeeesus. . ."
Yes, don't you feel better now that you let jesus do the thinking for you? Thinking on your own is for sinners and pedophiles and heathens and losers!
Do not think, just have blind faith! Amen.

anisoptera said: "I bet you secretly are angry with God because your pet rabbit died when you were five years old and you never got over it. Well I got news for you, cotton tail is waiting up in heaven for you but I doubt you will ever make it."
oh. my. god. she is right. Well, almost. I *AM* mad at god. i secretly knew he existed all along, but was afraid to admit it and change my sinful ways! But it was my dog. Not a bunny. Are you sure Muffin will be in heaven waiting for me? She was never baptized, and she certainly never accepted jesus christ as her personal savior. In fact, I suspect she even made, and later worshipped, graven images! I just pray that god has mercy on her soul!

Frank: "Eva -- I have no way of knowing who these "Christians" are that you run into and speak to you in the manner you describe. "

My experience with Christians is just like Eva relates, as is the experience of every single non-believer (or believing non-Christian) I know who has shared his experiences with me. My son was not only treated this way in college, but witnessed believers deemed insufficiently "Christian" harrassed and treated this way as well. I suggest that you believe what you do about other Christians because you see them in a non-contentious environment surrounded by others who believe as they do. People don't necessarily react the same way when they are one-on-one, or dealing with people they don't agree with and thus hold in some degree of contempt. You remind me of a guy who told me that the Iraqis love us because he knows a soldier in Iraq who has never had an Iraqi complain to him about the occupation.

Dang, I take the weekend off and Shazaam! ... way too much to respond to at once. If you will permit me, I will respond to a couple of you for now:

Paul -- There is no contradiction between examination and faith. I think we are having a slight miscommunication with regard to some of the terms we are both using. When you say "faith" you understand the word to mean believing in something for which there is no evidence. That is a valid definition of the word but it is not the meaning Christians assign to it when they say they have "faith" in Jesus Christ. In that sense the word means "trust." And that faith is not without evidence. It is, by no means, a blind faith.

A good analogy is someone deciding to take a flight from one city to another. A pilot can explain to them the principles of flight. He can tell them of Bernoulli's principle and how an airfoil works. He can tell them of thrust, drag, lift, and gravity and of pitch, roll, and yaw. And, even though they understand in their head the principles that tell them this really, really, heavy chunk of metal can fly, they don't exercise faith in that knowledge until they step on board and take off. Even then, they may not completely understand how it all works (thrust to weight ratios, drift and course correction, flight plans, traffic patterns) but in the end they find themselves in Phoenix when before they were standing in St. Louis.

With Christianity, there is enough evidence to convince a person it's okay to trust Christ, even though many questions about why and so forth remain, for the moment, unanswered.

PhalseProphet -- my credibility here is always going to be in question, regardless of the strength of my arguments, because of the simple fact that I don't have an objective audience. Thinking that I have a chance of an objective hearing here, or a chance at being considered credible, is like George W. Bush getting an objective hearing from Senate Democrats or Bill Clinton from House Republicans ... it just ain't gonna happen. But I knew that when I came. Any additional "hits" on my credibility here aren't going to make a bit of difference. I'm not considered credible by most of you anyway.

hermesten -- I will allow that the vast majority of my time spent with other Christians has been in non-contentious environments. However, not all of them. In fact, I've been in some very contentious environments and have never witnesses a Christian verbally attack or degrade someone because that person did not believe in Jesus. I don't deny that it happens because I've heard of it too many times. But my personal experience has been just the opposite and I relay that to you here so you will not paint all Christians with the same brush as those who treated your son poorly in college.

'To assume that atheists have examined the Christian faith more than Christians themselves and are, therefore, more qualified to make a determination about the faith is just plain wrong'

I think on this the atheist's are correct they know MUCH more about good thinking and the Christian faith than 99% of all Christians I know or have known.

It's almost pathetic.

Frank: "I've been in some very contentious environments and have never witnesses a Christian verbally attack or degrade someone because that person did not believe in Jesus."

We can argue about the term "verbally attack," but neither Eva, nor I, used the term "degrade," nor did we say anything about a being "attacked" for not believing in Jesus. In fact, Eva wasn't speaking about atheists being attacked. She said that Christians consider any opposition to their beliefs as an attack on them. And I have in fact often found Christians to be very hostile to anyone who professes to be an atheist. All Christians? No. Catholics are usually pretty tolerant, and my son has Catholic friends who have invited him to church discussions to talk about atheism. Most of the people who show this hostility or defensiveness are Protestant fundies, and where I live, those hard-core enough to be confrontational are probably about 20% of the population, and share beliefs with perhaps another 20% who aren't aggressive enough to be confrontational.

Frank, I didn't expect you to be so careful as to avoid the question.
BTW; I ride a motorcycle with vanity plates that read NO GODS. It is not the atheist and freethinkers glareing at me, flipping me off, and spitting; it is the belivers with the Jesus fish and the my kid was an honor student at the Jesuit High bumper stickers. Off the road or parked, it is usually the younger beliver who is aggressive while the elders simply turn their heads. All without me even uttering a word.

Historically there has been much cruelty in the world from people that claim to be christian and people that do not. Everyone that claims to be a christian is not necessarily one or they use the term but dont really understand what that means. For me it means that you believe in and have faith in The Lord God, value qualities like meekness naivety and kindness AS OPPOSED TO selfishness bold disrespect and physical pleasure seeking. Also having pure motives in your actions without deception. It is also important to acknowledge and admit your sins and have forgiveness in your heart when there is sincere remorse.

The stuff that I have read expressed here about the attitudes of christians and the wrongful acts caused by Jesus are not based on anything Jesus said or did. If you need to blame someone look at things from all angles and be fair in your assesment of things.

To amplify PhalsePhrophet, most of us atheists who have been around long enough have probably encountered Christians who think we should be killed. When you consider the fact that with most people one meets, religion never even comes up; that for every person bold enough to express such an extreme attitude there are bound to be several others who agree with it but keep their mouths shut; and that these people were not brought-up in a moral vacuum yet do not feel stigmatized by such expression, one must give pause to the thought of greater Christian political power. After all Frank, it is these extremists are are most likely to be seeking political power, not people like you.

oh please, come on....i'm getting tired of whis "true christian" (tm) thing....all you have to believe in to be a xtian is that jesus is your savior and that he died for your sins.
you believe that, you are a christian. end of story.
ani, everything else you say about what a real xtian is, is only your expectations for yourself. you are hoping that your faith in your god MAKES you have the qualities you talk about in your post. that is not being a xtian. that is just being ani.
the problem i see with this is that xtians all insist that they are sinners, imperfect and stuff like that, yet also insist in that jesus will forgive them all if only they accept him as their savior. however, ani, you are pushing this other behaviors as indicative of a "real" or "true" xtian- what makes a xtian be one.
xtians are allowed to be imperfect (obviouslly, because only jesus is perfect) and even more so: they are imperfect because they are human and that is the whole point of being a xtian, then why do you also add meekness, naiveté, rejection of physical pleasure seeking (ha! what is that?), non-bold disrespect (as opposed to plain simple disrespect??), etc....?

puh-leeze, ani.......be consistent with your own dogma......

PhalseProphet -- I didn't mean to give you the impression I was avoiding your questions (that's why I prefaced my latest comments with the statement about there being too much to address at once). However, I'll get a little more specific about the false nature of some of RA's assumptions ...

First, my original post on this thread mentions a couple of them upfront.

Now ...

RA says, "faith is the antithesis of intellectual seriousness." False assumption. I've addressed the relationship between intellectual seriousness and faith (as practiced by biblical Christianity) many times. The two are quite complimentary. Such a blanket statement assumes anyone who exercises religious faith cannot be intellectually serious and that just ain't so.

RA says religion can't be important to a person unless it's, "inculcated into him before he's an adult." False assumption. I know waaay too many people who have come to faith in Christ as an adult. In fact, many times it is the people who become Christians in adulthood who take their faith most seriously.

RA says, "Medicine, nutrition and mathematics don't lose their importance to people once they have grown out of babyhood." The assumption inherent in this statement is that religion does lose it's importance. Not so. There are way too many strong Christians who were saved in their childhood. Their faith is every bit as important now as it was then. And, for the record, things of importance we do not necessarily reserve for adulthood and keep from our children. We begin to make sure our children have proper medical care, nutrition and educations at the earliest possible opportunity. Teaching our kids about God is (in the Christian's view) even more important than that and should be introduced as early as possible.

RA says, "...maybe there's a reason there's hostility to religion at institutions of 'higher' learning. Maybe it's a form of lower ignorance." Oh, there's a reason institutions of "higher" learning are hostile toward religion but it's not because theology is intellectually inferior to other disciplines. It is because many of the conclusions drawn from theology are in stark contrast to the accepted, politically correct worldviews at such institutions. That colleges and universities are dominated by liberals and those who adopt PC worldviews is no secret. That they are openly hostile to any idea which contradicts their own is no secret either. Once again, RA is guilty of basing an argument on a false assumption.

RA says, "in other words cut off all meaningful discussion and discard real people in favor of your crazy ghosts." The God Squad's previous statement implied no such thing. The subject was about people who ridicule and joke at your expense. That is not "meaningful discussion." Most of the Christians I've ever known do not shy away from meaningful discussions with non-believers. But it is a waste of time to sit around and be berated by a person who has no interest in hearing your side, too.

What RA has done here is to frame this subject in a light most favorable to it's own side (which is something everyone tries to do). But in the process has defi