Iagree with most of that. however one should not pick out the most disgusting hatefilled and nastiness spewing claimant to be a Christian on here, and then say that is typical of Christians in general. There is lots of variety among Christians - some are much worse than others. picking out the worst and calling him typical is unfair to the nicer ones.<quoted text>
Yes, "Bringmedinner" is morally bankrupt, and all too typical for his kind. He tells us that without his faith, he would have no reason not to murder. He obviously believes that murder is not wrong unless a punitive sky daddy sees it. And that's just the beginning of his depravity. He is happy to scapegoat skeptics, and he is happy to use the extremely derogatory and provocative language to do so.
What do we think about such people? What should we do about them? Politely tolerate them? The Jews don't think so. They and their Anti-Defamation League won't tolerate this kind of talk about them, and I'll bet that they know a thing or two about the consequences of condoning such speech.
Some say don't be confrontational. I ask, why not? Because somebody might be turned off? Who cares? Being a spineless doormat turns me off.
Who else tolerates this kind of talk? Seriously - who else let's others call them vile, corrupt, and abominable? I say we need to kick it up a notch, and take the aggressive role in such conversations. If one of these religites wants to libel you or me, give his moral indignation back to him in spades - in language that makes it clear what is and is not acceptable, and offers an example for others. Nobody should sit for that kind of hate speech that doesn't need to.
Some day we skeptics will have need of the most decent of the believers - in many religions - for coalitions on some cause or another, and having insulting an entire group of one faith is not a good recruiting method, or contact point for building a coalition. There are probably Christians for Obama, and atheists against him. I would rather alienate a damned rightwing extremist atheist than a believer in a silly theology who nonetheless has a rather good ethic, personally, politically, economically, socially, etc. Suppose a Christian believes in a stewardship attitude toward planet earth - its land, water, air. Isn't that person an opponent of the rip it up exploit it make money off of it type person - whether that person is a fundie or an atheist? Do you think all atheists care about the fate of the planet, or humans, or children, animals, ecosystems, water, air? I don't. Atheism is nothing more or less than nonbelief in a god, and no fine moral feelings are required of an atheist. Just because most of us on topix who are atheists have a high ethical philosophy of caring, does not mean it is typical of all atheists, either!
I am happy to have friendly conversations with rightwingers on politics who are atheists, regarding the nonsense of some theological point - but the human being who believes in that silly point, and is kind and caring, and wants policies that are peaceloving and for social justice - is the better human being.
It is the consequences of the belief system that are so horrible, in the case of those who have these horrid beliefs and horrid policy views - the folks we mostly see on topix. It is the kind of world that will result if such folks vote their belief systems that we dread. Not all Christians have views that lead to horrid ethics. and not all atheists have good ethics, either.