By it's very nature atheism is the domain of the strong-willed. We don't rely on the crutch of a loving God for emotional support and we're all the stronger because of it. I don't think an atheist would be driven away so much as disgustedly amused.

I'm still here RA.

A little battle hardened but none the worse for wear. I think that atheists may be harsh by their very nature. Perhaps they are so accustomed to being attacked by others that they end up constantly being in an adversarial mode.

A good post and I agree.

The only sentiment I didn't like was "that affirm my choices". You have to be open to dissenting views (although obviously we don't waste time with the same old re-hashed woo-woo).

Stew

I showed up at an atheist site and started blowing my religious nonsense into everyone's face and they didn't see it my way so I'm taking my ball and going home.

"From here on out I am only going to keep the company of positive individuals that affirm my choices, represent what I aspire to be, or are trying to become a better person like I am."

Grammar is not this pathetic soul's forte, but that's besides the bigger point: Which four-legged ruminant does she sound like here, pining for her own kind. Clearly she needs a Shepherd ...

I think this site is fun and often funny, at least in the Forum.

You know, this could have been written by anyone about anything, and especially about interent communication and blogs and such.

The internet is full of people who just can't hack dealing with people face to face. They want an environment they can control, "friends" who have been hand-picked for their willingness to yes them to death and kiss their butts 24/7 and ooze cutsey, precious internet luuvvvv all over them.

It has nothing to do with atheist v. religious people. This kind of bratty, whiny nonsense goes on in every little corner of the 'net.

The really hypocritical thing about this post is that I'm willing to bet my beach house in South Carolina that this ejit has posted his/her share of sneering, mocking, nasty, closed-minded posts about atheists and agnostics and Wiccans and anyone else who doesn't parrot his/her beliefs down to the last letter.

Um, so they're taking their ball and going home? Is the RA supposed to cry into his pillow all night long now, or something? And why the big public announcement? Are people supposed to beg her not to go, or something?

We had a poll on this in the forums. It turns out that most of us are, in fact, pretty happy.

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewpoll.php?id=2991

Sorry, I've just remembered that most people will probably only see the "vote" buttons".
As I post this, we are 80% happy :)

I think it important to remember that the internet is a medium which propogates a special kind of wave quite well--ideas. It is also a medium which does not propogate another kind of wave at all (like a sound wave in a vacuum)--emotional appeals.

Even arguments which attempt to present an emotional appeal do not find the sort of resonance that *personal* emotional appeals find (eg face-to-face). That is one interesting thing I've noted about theist versus atheist websites, and the apparently disproportionate representation of atheism on the web in general. I am not claiming that the speaker's emotions do not come through in their writing. What I am claiming is that the power of eliciting an emotional response in your reader is rendered virtually null via writing compared to personal proselytizing, sermons, and evangelism in general.

That is, the amount of intellectual material on *individual* websites (versus orgs and groups) representing atheism seems overrepresented in proportion to the % of people who espouse atheism. Conversely, the amount of intellectual (versus evangelizing, emotional appeals, etc) material on Christianity (again, among individual sites) is underrepresented by stats.

You'll find all kinds of Xian "apologists" (yes those are sneer quotes), but you'll also find that they are nearly all united in "defending the faith" from skeptics and the arguments of atheism *to minister to other Xians!* Nearly all the articles on sites that address creationism, atheist logic, etc., are explicitly addressing an audience of Xians.

Admittedly, a few amateur Xian apologists have taken their best arguments to the WWW for the purpose of evangelism, but I would put forth my observation that they are beset on all sides by the ideas of the godless, a chorus composed of ever more voices. I think the web has helped more atheists to "come out" and to realize they *are* atheists than *anything* positive it has done for religion, because religions are stripped of their most powerful tool--the emotional, personal appeal to repent and join the fold. The web helped me to address the things that kept me quagmired in liberal Xianity for years, and then deism, and then agnosticism. I could've gone to libraries, sure, and still could, to find books and arguments (i have a bookshelf that is now stocked with and growing with atheist literature). But the WWW has provided a "crystallization" effect for atheists--with a seeded center like the RA site, more and more doubters and freethinkers find what they need: not companionship and comfort, but food for thought.

People who are critical of *any* ideas may come across as unhappy...but I would rather be *perceived* as unhappy than *be* gullible.

"I am no longer going to allow myself to become infected by the unhappiness of others. The next time that you are feeling sad,lonely, depressed, or like things are not progressing in your life the way that they should take the time to look at the situation and ask yourself is it you or is it the company that you've been keeping."

That last paragraph just about exactly sums up why I (long ago) stopped going to church. Also, the bits about cliques, the section on insularity, and the entire theme of "negative people infecting others with their negativity."

Church is all about negativity. They just call it penitence.

Or persecution - if you disagree with a Christian or call them on some particularly asshole-y behavior (which may have nothing to do with religion - like kicking a dog, or something), then you're "persecuting" them, therefore they must be right because the Bible says they'll be persecuted for being Christians (and around and around and around we go).

"Another thing is that there are many people that think they are highly intelligent and are really just full of bullsh*t. They get away with thinking of themselves as intellectuals because they surround themselves with other people who are just as limited in their thinking as they are and the people all support each other in their stupidity."

"From here on out I am only going to keep the company of positive individuals that affirm my choices, represent what I aspire to be, or are trying to become a better person like I am."

Is it too much to ask that it was Lucy Muff that wrote this?

///Dada Saves said: I think this site is fun and often funny, at least in the Forum.///

I think that the people here are the most hilarious part of the site.

///PHLAF said: The really hypocritical thing about this post is that I'm willing to bet my beach house in South Carolina that this ejit has posted his/her share of sneering, mocking, nasty, closed-minded posts about atheists and agnostics and Wiccans and anyone else who doesn't parrot his/her beliefs down to the last letter. ///

This is another thing that I have noticed about many atheists. They like to dish out all sorts of vile absurdities about people of faith but when you return the favor they act as if you have no right to do so.

///happyAtheist said: Is it too much to ask that it was Lucy Muff that wrote this?///

I wrote it.

What vile absurdities have the atheists dished out. Could you be more specific/scientific.

Goodness, HappyA:

Just look at any response on this blog that a Theist gets from an Atheist. To save time, look at what Choobus writes. You will never find anything that obscene and perverted in something a theist writes. Nor will you find anything to match such idiotic neologisms as "Godidiot".

Will you find theists claiming that all believers are stupid and psychotic, even those with Ph.Ds, MDs, etc? Nope. But you will here.

Look in your own backyard, sweetie. You will find plenty to keep you busy.

Look, I've been to TONS of religious blogs and websites with forums, and the Christians there are horrible towards and about atheists and agnostics and people of various alternate belief systems. They're condescending and rude and they call them stupid and ignorant, and then, when they're done with that, it's the Catholics beating up on the Protestants and the Protestants beating up on the Catholics and the fundamentalists on the liberals and the traditionalists on the progressives, and on and on...

The religious types on the web are just as bad as anyone else when it comes to abusive, rude, horrible behavior.

This has NOTHING to do with religious v. non-religious. I've seen anime geeks start this crap and Tolkien fans and I've even seen this kind of garbage going on at buffettnews over who's the best Buffett fan and which of his music is "legitimate" and all kinds of unfreakin'believabely stupid crap.

This is a personality issue, not a theist v. atheist issue.

Someone came to a website, everyone didn't fall all over her immediately, she had a hissyfit and posted some incredibly childish and self-involved diatribe about it on her blog, and that's it. Oh, and after she stomped off, she comes back a few times. Par for the course.

Oh so you're not including those that burn down embassies, that call for death the homosexuals, that want to take away citizenship of athesits. Those tolerant sane fuckheads.

I can sum my own feelings about The Raving Atheists far more succinctly...

The simple fact is that this site reads like one of the more militant religions rather than being for free thought and openness.

There is as much "religion" here as there is in any of the right whinger bible bashing political blogs that I also visit.

Oh, and if there is no God, how come people use the word "soul" instead of "person"?

It is hard to take mature adults seriously when they believe in bizarre fairytales like Santa, the Tooth Fairy and god(s).

probligo,

Religion involves the belief in supernatural beings. As atheists, we reject any such notions on the grounds that they are absurd, amongst other things. While it is fun to redefine words, it is also far more practical to agree upon a definition to facilitate understanding.

//Oh, and if there is no God, how come people use the word "soul" instead of "person"?//

How come we have the word "draconian" if there were no dragons? Because we made them up.

What a silly response. Is this the reasoning they teach in Sunday School?

Two things amuse me about the quoted post.

First, this site is called the Raving Atheist. I don't know what theists expect to find when they come here. It's not the Friendly Atheist Who Is Respectful And Nice About Everyone's Religious Views. I'm sure there are plenty of sites around that promote nice-nice, all-views-are-equally-valid, can't-we-all-just-get-along "discussion" about atheism.

PHLAF is exactly right. Go to any website for fans/adherents of any sports team, television show, belief system, or political party/ideology, and you're going to find some degree of factions and flamewars. I'll bet you could find a discussion board for pacifists, post some troll-like comments about pacifists being pussies, and then "wonder" that pacifists are such angry people when they respond in kind.

Second, why would anyone assume that people are angry and/or depressed based on a few posts here. I like to come here and spend a few minutes reading TRA and commenters saying the things that I never get to hear during the other 23 h 55 m of my day. Maybe there are frequent commenters and forum posters who consider this a big part of their life, but for most of us I suspect it's a small diversion.

Happy A:

Which Christians burn down embassies? Which Christians call for death to homosexuals (except for Phelps and he is his own religion), which want to take away atheists' citizenship? You'd be hardpressed to find any. Now is you are talking about Islam, that is a different kettle of fish.

I probably should have been a little more specific in that I have heard that there are some forums (supposedly Christian) that are pretty harsh in the way they treat anyone who disagrees. I dunno, there is something about the Internet that does not bring out the best in young males. The blogs that I frequent are never rude toward or dismissive of any reasonably polite atheist. I wouldn't frequent them otherwise. I get enough crap here to satisfy any need I have for it.

Lily:

Re #16: Theists need no insulting neologism for athesits since 'atheist' is still very much an insult in modern usage. You could look up "atheism" in the dictionary and come up with "immorality." So, unless you can cite a mainstream dictionary that defines "religion" as "backward, hateful superstition," I wouldn't complain too much about "godidiot," especially since it's mostly used in a very targeted manner to label specific kinds of religious people.

"Which Christians . . . want to take away atheists' citizenship?" -- Lily

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God. "
George H. W. Bush

And that was the "less" conservative President Bush.

Boo Fucking Hoo! You searched out a site where you knew most people would disagree with you and you couldn't take it and now you want to surround yourself with people who make you feel better about yourself, you stupid fucking hypocrite! Go cry yourself a river and drown yourself in it.

Most of the Christian sites I've been to can be just as insulting as atheist sites, but they tend to be insulting in a more subtle way.

Here, one may be called a bad name or asked an inappropriate quetion about his/her opinion on anal. But on Christian sites, assumptions are immediately made as to the nature of ones atheism.

I, for one, did not come to atheism easily. It was a long road of study and, ahem, "soul searching." I still remember the day I finaly accepted that I didn't believe and the pain I felt at having finaly lost my faith (don't read too much into that; it was a long time ago and now I can definitly say that I'm much happier as an atheist than I ever was as a Christian.)

So I find it particularly insulting to have someone say to me that the only reason I don't belive is because I'm in rebelion against God. Especially when that person doesn't know me or what I've been through.

Now granted, some atheists use the same kind of reasoning against Christians. I'm just think Christians do it much, much more.

Personally, I rather be called a bad name.

Noah

Lily lily, why wold you go and single out poor old Choobus? I am honoured that you appreciate my great wisdom, but I am also sad that you fail to show the proper respect when mentioning my name, you fisting slut.

You know I love you and enjoy masturbating to your movies. Don't ruin our special relationship you vile fiend.
As for this cryinggodidiot, your tears are vindication . Cry on assclown, it is a pleasure to hear your pathetic cheebus loving whinging you fucking moron.

MH- not to nitpick, as I do agree with your sentiment, but the dictionary shows "draconian" to come from the name Draco, an Athenian legislator known for extremely harsh punishments. I'm surprised no one's jumped on this already.

//benjamin said: Boo Fucking Hoo! You searched out a site where you knew most people would disagree with you and you couldn't take it and now you want to surround yourself with people who make you feel better about yourself, you stupid fucking hypocrite! Go cry yourself a river and drown yourself in it.///

Awwwwwww bengie I'm not gone yet so don't get too excited. Would you mind crying me that river to sail away on?

Bitter, Bitter, Bitter. But, like many have mentioned, that's each individuals right. Regardless of how bitter this site is or the posts on it, I still find it entertaining to read, discuss, and debate on it. But if one who believed in God or more so Jesus, were to write in the same grammatical tone that some on this blog write, it would give one even more reason to not want to be a Christian. One couldn't help but say, why would I want to believe in what they do? They are miserable!! Regardless of what a person believes, no one wants to be miserable or "mad at the world" unless, they most likely have a mental disorder. Think about what this person is saying and take a minute to be introspective regarding yourself. Are you as happy as you could be, or are you fooling yourself into thinking you are. If not, the grass may be greener on the other side.

///Pascal's Wager said: But if one who believed in God or more so Jesus, were to write in the same grammatical tone that some on this blog write, it would give one even more reason to not want to be a Christian. One couldn't help but say, why would I want to believe in what they do?///

Bingo. Bill Maher ( another avowed atheist) is one of my favorite HBO personalities. I watched his show one time when he had another guest on that was an atheist and another guest that was a Christian minister. Bill Maher said, and I am seriously paraphrasing, that all people of faith need to take the blinders off and that they are idiots. I wish that I could have asked the man did he really think that he was going to convince anyone of the superiority of atheism with that kind of attitude toward theists? People are deeply invested in their beliefs and they feel that when you attack that belief you are really attacking them personally. It's like they put a wall up and everything that you say after that point, no matter how intelligent or persuasive it may be, will fall on deaf ears. However, if your whole point is just to be disparaging of people of faith because you have other issues with them and are not trying to persuade them that atheism is more logical than theism then I guess your words don't really matter.

sbw is rite again, atheist like to big up themself by trying to call believers idiot and say they are fools but they are ones what is fools. they is all the same: crybaby what can't stand the fact that we is close with god and has eternal life in His glory to look forward to while they be getting ready tp burnings in hell. Atheist be sucker.

Oz-- your remark has me wondering again, as I did when I first got here to what extent all the huffing and puffing that goes on here is defensiveness. I didn't find any definitions of "atheist" online that were negative (I looked at Merrian-Webster, American Heritage and Cambridge). I can imagine that that has not always been the case.

Andrew: If the first GWB really said that, I would be shocked and dismayed. I am not certain how much credence I can give to that quote. I found a gazillion references to it online but they were all quoting the original source, an atheist who says it happened but has no documentation. I read that he thinks he may have located some in the Bush presidential library and has asked for it under FOIA, so we will see.

Nevertheless, this supposedly happened in 1988. No bills have been introduced to take away the citizenship of atheists. It is so unlikely to happen, as to amount to a statistical certainty.

SBW - you were RA's Pia Zadora.

Failing to cope with the argy bargy of an atheist site was inevitable.

You were thrust - eager and quivering with your guest posts - into the spotlight, pretending you were only just groping towards full throttle Christiantity and you were - as far as I recall - treated with enormous initial indulgence.

It was only when your artlessly girlish performance wore thin - and you were debated on the merits of your own godidiot assertions, without RA's special pleadings - that your whining began.

Furthermore - and funny this - once you abandoned any pretence about trying to educate yourself about your faith (didn't take long, did it?), you became the WORST sort of pipsqueak, po-faced, prescriptive moralist - not to mention a "picker up of learning's crumbs" when it came to history, ethics and reasoning.

You've got your own blog, where you can burble on about "sssseeeeexxxxy" men on the phone (to cite a recent entry) and the personal stuff that most interests you, so air your opinions over there.

http://www.onelook.com/?w=atheism&ls=a

#3, 6, 13, and 16 include negative definitions.

"The religious types on the web are just as bad as anyone else when it comes to abusive, rude, horrible behavior."

They're even worse in hotels. Try staying in a hotel hosting some kind of Christian youth group. Don't expect to get much sleep.

After being plagued at hotels by two different Christian youth groups, we thought we were really in for it when one night we ended up in a hotel hosting the teams from a girl's high school swim meet. However, it turned out that they were the best disciplined group of young people we've ever run into.

"Bingo. Bill Maher ( another avowed atheist) is one of my favorite HBO personalities."

Wrong again. Bill is not an atheist, and has said so on more than one occassion. Bill just doesn't like organized religion and theists.

From the 09-Oct-2002 Onion AV Club [1]

Until this summer, Bill Maher was host of the ABC late-night talk show Politically Incorrect.

The Onion: Is there a God?

Bill Maher: I think there is. We did a show last night about God and religion with Dave Foley, who I love, and we were arguing against this one woman who had a book called I Like Being Catholic. Someone said, "Oh, boy, a lot of atheists on this panel." I said, "I'm not an atheist. There's a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn't believe in religion. Religion to me is a bureaucracy between man and God that I don't need. But I'm not an atheist, no."

Christian youth groups, at least of the fundamentalist Bible-belt type, are freaky scary, IMO. There's something really frightening on a very real level about people that young who are so completely certain they're right and everyone else is wrong, and who are so completely and thoughtlessly willing to condemn people with three and four times the life experience they have based on a set of beliefs that has been beaten into them from birth. This is not the usual teenage/twentysomething know-it-all-ness. This is a kind of certaintude that, well, grows up to be George W. Bush and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. There's something so dead and cold and unfeeling in those kids - you can see it in their eyes. Scary.

Dear Ravers:

My suggestion to the commenters who seem so willing to brush-off SBW's brush-off: find the section of the post that makes the most sense, that strikes closest to home, and take that section as seriously as possible.

My suggestion: think a bit more about SBW's accusation that this site has become predictable in its style of argument, in its self-congratulatory tendencies, and in its repetitive groupthink. (If her part about negativity and self-affirmation seems weak, then ignore that part.)

Now look at those ideas in reference to the reactions that we have seen thus far -- reactions that were nothing if not personally (as opposed to intellectually) aggressive, rhetorically predictable, and ethically self-congratulatory.

Is there a reason why a site devoted to atheism would lean in this direction? Some have suggested that this is a natural reaction to the role atheists are asked to play in society at large (i.e., a variation of "sit down and shut up"). But is even a plausible genetic explanation a good enough reason to continue in that vein.

Personally, I would only add this. I am not an atheist because I am more strong-willed than other people. I am not an atheist because of the quality of my character. I am not an atheist because churchgoers were generally bad or because I was braver than the people who still attend and believe. (The saintly or satanic actions of theists do not add or detract one whit from my atheism.)

I am an atheist only because I believe it. I believe supernatural entities -- including God -- do not exist. I am an atheist because atheism is true, and because theism is false. It’s as simple as that.

And this mean, I think, that I have not "chosen" to be an atheist any more than I have chosen to believe that the earth revolves around the sun, or that democracy is better than fascism, or that 2 + 2 = 4. I could not choose to believe otherwise; this is just the way that belief works.

Do I deserve moral credit for my beliefs? I think not. I am no better/stronger/braver of a person for holding these beliefs, even if the beliefs themselves are better and more accurate. It is the beliefs that are better, not me. And the only thing that makes my beliefs better is that they happen to be true -- to hold up to rational and scientific and open-minded scrutiny.

Now whether I am a better person for choosing to investigate my own beliefs and to engage and test them rationally is another matter. But that is separable from the content of my beliefs themselves.

It’s nice to be right – and we are – but let’s be clear exactly where the credit lies, and adjust our rhetoric accordingly.

Best, Peter

"This is a kind of certaintude that, well, grows up to be George W. Bush and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson."

Well, sort of. Certainly the kind of self-absorption necessary to hold these kinds of beliefs contributes far more to arrogance than humility. However, I think Bush, Falwell, and Robertson are more opportunists than true believers. The Chimp was a draft-doging, drug-dealing, skirt chasing drunk, and didn't find "religion" until it was useful politically. Roberston was a Wall Street swindler who discovered that there was more money to be made in the God business. I don't know Falwell's background, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't something similiar.

Lily said, "Just look at any response on this blog that a Theist gets from an Atheist. To save time, look at what Choobus writes. You will never find anything that obscene and perverted in something a theist writes. Nor will you find anything to match such idiotic neologisms as "Godidiot". "

Excellent idea. Take the most extreme position possible and apply it to everyone. The tell others that this is what all atheists are like. :(

Godidiot is an offensive term to some, yes; but it's also a defensive term for many atheists, who find their moniker equated with satanist by the average theist.

There's nothing quite like having your entire personality defined by how you act online. Sure, you can get a good idea as to whether they're intelligent and independent, or just another mindless sheep looking for an echo chamber, but beyond that.

I don't claim to know you, Jamila, and you don't know me. That said, your best chance at really making me angry and depressed is to ignore me.

In all fairness, I don't think it's accurate to say that Choobus takes the most "extreme position possible." In fact, his positions aren't extreme at all, just his rhetoric.

Furthermore, the claim that what Choobus says is "obscene" and "perverted" is downright ludicrous. Choobus is merely insulting. He doesn't advocate anything obscene or perverted, and to suggest that he does is absurd. His remarks are obviously intended to get to people like Lily, who are offended by certain words as if words had some kind of magical power.

The idea that a mere word, or thought, is "obscene," is ridiculous and dangerous nonsense. Once you cede this notion to someone like Lily, you've allowed them to frame the terms of a discussion by how they choose what is, and is not, "appropriate" language.

Futhermore, people like Lily seem to think not using certain words gives them some kind of superior "moral" authority, a notion absurd on its face. This is especially true when one considers how often people who pretend to have such delicate sensibilities about language are indifferent or hostile to the lives of those they define as the "other."

Lily, for instance, whines about Choobus being "obscene," but she is a fervent supporter of a man who claims the legal right to torture children in order to extract information from their parents. Nowhere in anything Choobus has ever posted can you find him lending support to the kinds of monsters, or monsterous behavior, that are cherished by the likes of the world's Lily's.

Now, now, Tenspace. I didn't say that Choobus was typical-- I was making the point that he can't be beaten in utter obscenity by anyone, much less dreaded theists. And he can't. He is the master. Just look at how the big H fawns over him.

PHLAF Ridiculous. Plain ridiculous. Virtually all groups of youngsters are alike. To claim that a Christian youth group is qualitatively different in its zeal and certainties from a youth chess club or a high school choral group is prejudice, mean and simple. Honestly, you should be ashamed of making so asinine a statement as :There's something so dead and cold and unfeeling in those kids - you can see it in their eyes. Scary. The only thing scary is you making such a claim. That and claiming that their religion has been beaten into them. That is shameful, as well.

Oz:
#3 is not negative, per se. It tags the negative definition as "archaic". Some, of course, would dispute that. #13 is factual, not negative, though it includes the same quotation (to illustrate the word) as #16 (the 1828 version!) does. Yet the definition given is not negative, which surprised me, given how old the work is.

Now I don't dispute that "atheist" has negative connotations but how could it be otherwise?

Lily wrote: "Virtually all groups of youngsters are alike. To claim that a Christian youth group is qualitatively different in its zeal and certainties from a youth chess club or a high school choral group is prejudice, mean and simple. "

There is a crucial difference between (vocal, pack-travelling) Christian youth groups and other youth groups. The chess players or choral members (or more likely school band members) have a talent - or at least the impression they have a talent! - in common. The point of being in a youth group is to do with a special, adult-approved skill over and above idealogical convictions. Not so a fundie adolescent group.

En masse and fired up with their own worthiness, they are creepy indeed. Their only "skill" is precocious piety untested by experience.

Boy, did a large lot of them wreck a cross country flight for me.

Eeek - typos. Sorry.

How did they wreck it for you, Jody? I really am interested to know. I suspect it is their beliefs that wrecked it for you and not their actions. I have never seen a youth group of any sort that wasn't too exuberant, loud and energetic for my taste. I simply do not see how the Christian youth groups you have run into can be different.

Given that I'm in the bible belt, and such youth groups are around me constantly, I can tell you that they are indeed more rude and often times more vulgar than the band, which I am also in. The band tries to mantain an image. The youth group are the kinda people who get drunk on weekends and are only christian if you bring up the fact that you are not. They they're the kinds that will threaten to put a burning cross in my yard. Oh yeah, they're the nicest people ever.

What I think is happening, lily, is that you have a bias that the youth group isn't that bad simply because it is religious, and that we are only claiming it because we don't like christians, and we are trying to demonize it.

Snap - who has to try to demonize them? they seem perfectly capable of demonizing themselves.

Again, I would like some nouns, so to speak, not adjectives. You are speaking in the crudest generalities. I am in the Bible belt too. As someone who has been in the Church for 30 years now (and thoroughly familiar with youth groups of various ages) and, as someone who has travelled extensively, often putting up in hotels hosting youth groups of one sort or another, I simply do not recognize this caricature you claim is the "truth".

If I had to wager, I would bet that you have never actually encountered a Christian youth group, simply because in my extensive experience the only rude groups I have ever encountered were athletes, usually football players.

Lily is right. Christian youths are thoughtful, kind, polite and decent. People who like sport (espceially football) are evil baby raping scum who are going to burn in hell where they belong.

This is just obviously true.

"The chess players or choral members (or more likely school band members) have a talent - or at least the impression they have a talent! - in common."

There's another crucial difference as well. Chess and football players don't make claims to moral superiority based on their game skills . Quite the opposite. Athletes, in particular, often feel entitled to special treatment and feel exempt from rules of social conduct that apply to everyone else.

Church youth groups, on the other hand, are presumably filled with youngsters from good "Christian" families who have been brought up with good Christian values. You'd think, from all the rhetoric on the right, that they'd be examples of personal responsibility by comparison with other teens (although I grant, there has never been a group in power less likely to take personal responsibilty for their actions than the current group of right-wing thugs). They are, furthermore, supervised by good Christian adults who are responsible for teaching them how to behave.

The problem some of us atheists have is that the Christian religion seems to have little or no positive impact on these people. It isn't so much that they're worse than other youth groups, but that given all their pretensions to superiority, they're not any better. Personally, I don't blame this behavior on the kids. The true failures in these circumstances are the supposedly responsible good Christian adults who have so miserably failed to instruct them.

I don't doubt that Snap's observations are correct. Certainly, as my son who attended a "conservative" college can tell you, the good Christian girls were typically the most promiscuous girls in college --not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just not what the people like Lily would have you believe.

I thought Lily was leaving to go play in her neighborhood so she could be reinforced by her peer group that she is right and and "O.K." person. Me? I think it is Reaction Formation at it's best..

Maybe it's different in your part of the belt Lilly, or maybe because you are entrenched in it you can not see it. But down here in kentucky they are rather rude and vulgar. You want nouns? Fine: The FFA, the FCA, and (to pick from the horde of church groups out there) The group down at Higher Praise. All them don't take too kindly too me. and all of them have the kinda A'holes that would make a night at a hotel annoying.

snap crafter:

Well, I doubt if I am entrenched in it. I have only been in Dixie now for 2.25 years after spending 13 years in New England and another portion of my life in the mid-west, etc. Nevertheless, while my experience is extensive, yours appears to be limited to a specific small region. I dunno, I always thought generalizing from a small specific group to all everywhere was the text book definition of prejudice.

Choobus, learn to read buddy. Not people who like sports; young men who play sports. There is a difference.

Lily, beloved cunt,

I would have thought that those who play sport are evil, and also those who glory in this satanic endeavor are also going to hell and should therefore be villified. It's interesting that you single out young men. What about young women who play sports? I know that they are probably filthy lesbians and hateful to the Lord, but curiously you seem to be ok with them. Are you a carpet muncher lily? Isn't that against the jesus rules? For the record Lily, what is your position on homo gaylords in the church? Not just bummers but dykes as well?

I'm so sorry, lilly, that I'm not omnipresent and know only what I have experienced. I know you were expecting me to have an extensive knowledge on every christian group out there, otherwise why would I say anything?

It remind me of Ray Comforts theory that since no man knows everything, therefore there are no atheists.

///Jody Tresidder said: Failing to cope with the argy bargy of an atheist site was inevitable.///

It's the proud ignorance and blatant stupidity I've been having trouble coping with.

///Judy said: It was only when your artlessly girlish performance wore thin - and you were debated on the merits of your own godidiot assertions, without RA's special pleadings - that your whining began.///

Judy I'm trying to have patience with your idiocy, but I swear it's wearing really thin. Everytime you speak to me here it is to spout contrived, illogical, nonsense that you can't prove. You have been so used to talking crap and no one here has called you on it that now you are gullible enough to believe it's the truth. When I ask you to prove your complete bullshit you want to talk about CONTEXT and ask stupid rhetorical questions. When someone buys you a clue, can you start talking to me then? Right now you bore me, and I hate being bored.

///Judy said: You've got your own blog, where you can burble on about "sssseeeeexxxxy" men on the phone (to cite a recent entry) and the personal stuff that most interests you, so air your opinions over there.////

I'm such an idiot that you are now reading my blog on the regular and quoting it like it's the atheist bible. From the level of sophistication that you show in your arguments on this site I'm starting to believe that random blogs are the only thing you read, particularly regarding feminism.

///hermesten said: Wrong again. Bill is not an atheist, and has said so on more than one occassion. Bill just doesn't like organized religion and theists.///

He must have changed his mind since then because he clearly called himself an atheist on his show.

////Viole said: I don't claim to know you, Jamila, and you don't know me. That said, your best chance at really making me angry and depressed is to ignore me.////

Awwwww....you still mad about that last intellectual ass kicking? Oh well, another one bites the dust.

Ethan said: "I thought Lily was leaving to go play in her neighborhood so she could be reinforced by her peer group that she is right and and "O.K." person."

SBW was the author of the original text quoted by RA, not Lily. It is embarassing when those (presumably) in agreement with the atheist viewpoint fail to express themselves intelligently in these fora.

Lily said: " I dunno, I always thought generalizing from a small specific group to all everywhere was the text book definition of prejudice."

Not precisely. It comes much closer to the "textbook" definition of stereotyping. Prejudice has more to do with preconceived ideas about a group or subject. Notions which, granted, are commonly the result of stereotypes

Lily also said: "Choobus, learn to read buddy. Not people who like sports; young men who play sports. There is a difference."

Some might say there is a difference between "people who like sport" (quote from choobus) and your "people who like sports". It's simple to accuse choobus of misreading you, but did you consider that you might have misread him? Or that that he was framing his argument in the context you provided, which was clearly to do with youths who play sports?

SBW said: a bunch of stuff that adds nothing to the argument and even less to her credibility.

///hermesten said: Wrong again. Bill is not an atheist, and has said so on more than one occassion. Bill just doesn't like organized religion and theists.///

///I said:He must have changed his mind since then because he clearly called himself an atheist on his show.//

Upon doing more research, I was wrong. You're right. He apparently just hates everything about religion and especially followers of organized religion. He believes in some sort of force in the universe.

Lily, I have lived on both coasts, in the midwest for a brief period (shudder), in Paris and in Ireland. I'm also the parent of two college students. I've encountered more than my fair share of Christian youth groups over the decades.

Funadmentalist Christian youth groups are the high school version of their parents, and this has been universally true in my experience. They are the ones who are prejudiced against everyone who isn't them. They are judgemental and bigoted and full of hate for anyone the Bible gives them a license to hate - in other words, all non-white, non-straight, non-Christians. For a lot of them, you c