Barack Obama inauguration

[RedCelt69]

Or, to put it another way; when answering a similar question from people of faith I will sometimes reply "because people like you used to burn people like me at the stake".

After 2000+ years of foaming-at-the-mouth theists, people get all pissy about vocal atheists like Richard Dawkins. After we've had 2000ish years of foaming-at-the-mouth atheists then - and only then - can theists justifiably complain about the likes of Prof. Dawkins. And I'll bet in 2000 years there'll still be Christians convinced that the return of Jesus is imminent. Both of them.

[Humphrey]

I will never understand why some athiests take such a hostile view toward people of faith. I'll acknowledge a certain irrationality in religious belief, but for crying out loud people... this does not automatically mean someone is going to make stupid decisions as a head of state. We all have irrational beliefs, albeit not all of us have *religious* irrational beliefs.
In what conceivable way will a pro-choice, pro-science, pro-multiculturalism, pro-internationalist president be negatively influenced by religious beliefs in his policy-making? I think it's quite safe to say, considering President Obama's record and public comments that he doesn't subscribe to either Biblical infallibility or the sort of narrow-minded and exclusionary head-in-the-sand sort of faith that President Bush often exhibited. So, I ask again, what negative impact are you folks so irrationally afraid of?

Christianity, along with all other theistic belief systems, is the fraud of the age. It serves to detach the species from the natural world, and likewise, each other. It supports blind submission to authority. It reduces human responsibility to the effect that "God" controls everything, and in turn awful crimes can be justified in the name of Divine Pursuit. And most importantly, it empowers those who know the truth but use the myth to manipulate and control societies. The religious myth is the most powerful device ever created, and serves as the psychological soil upon which other myths can flourish.

Hmmmm. Did you copy and paste that from Baron d'Holbach?

[Haunted]

The trouble with the word "Christianity" is that is can mean almost anything.
Two billion humans are apparently "christian", but this ranges from people who believe red wine can magically turn into erythrocytes, leukocytes and some thrombocytes, and somehow still manage to taste like cheap mass produced wine, to people who believe that a man in a stupid hat is Bizarro-Jesus (anti-christ).

Some sub groups of "christian" are more pleasant than others, I'll take the CoE over Baptists anyday.

Ultimately, all believe in a little bit of magic, but it would really be helpful if more liberal and moderate magic believers would stop allowing themselves to be tarred with the "christian" label by giving people like Stephen Green a free ride. Moderate/liberal "christians" (if we must still use the term) should make themselves more vocal about the morons or lose their right to complain when the inevitable non-magic backlash comes.

[Frank]

How do people feel about the phrase "Imaginary Friend Club" as a catch-all? That means that traditional christians (i.e. folks who're christian by background and in it for fun, not because they actually believe) and philosophical religious types can rightfully speak up and we can say "Sorry, didn't mean to insult you there! ", but people who actually believe in...imaginary friends can be noted as such, in an affectionate (if condescending ) way.

It certainly shies away from calling people madmen, idiots or imbeciles if we take the vierw that their god is more like ...Drop Dead Fred.

It certainly divorces the serious (as in: inflammatory) and emotive aspect of religion and has allowed me to discuss it all in a more...sensible manner. Perhaps that was just luck...

[Humphrey]

Ultimately, all believe in a little bit of magic, but it would really be helpful if more liberal and moderate magic believers would stop allowing themselves to be tarred with the "christian" label by giving people like Stephen Green a free ride. Moderate/liberal "christians" (if we must still use the term) should make themselves more vocal about the morons or lose their right to complain when the inevitable non-magic backlash comes.

Fully agree with that but there are serious difficulties for moderates or people with a sort of vague belief 'in a higher power'. Firstly they aren't at all interesting to the media which tends to thrive on conflict between groups at opposite ends of the debate. The fundamentalists see them as heretics, the atheists see them as not really religious at all. The second is that research shows that the more demanding, more nutty, high-intensity faiths, also give their adherents more benefits, both in terms of self-esteem and spirituality. So called 'wishy washy' religion, such as the cliché of the trendy Church of England vicar, does not give people what they want (one of the reasons the Catholics take a hard line). Paradoxically, therefore, most attempts to make religion more accessible and rational are likely to drive potential converts away. That's probably why the fastest growing religion in the world today has as its culmination a bizzare and rather long winded apocalypse starring Jesus, the Mahdi and Gog and Maygog; that ends with the 'unbelievers' being nicely toasted like a pack of marshmallows. You couldn't make this shit up. Oh wait, someone did.

[Guest]

So far Obama's first 100 days have been fantastic. Though it is very early days.

I am particularly pleased with:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/06/ ... 424698.php

and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ja ... grad-obama

But not pleased about:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Obama_expan ... nitiatives

[macgamer]

An interesting article which puts Obama's administration's position on embryonic stem cell research into context:
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/pardon_me_your_ideology_is_showing/

[Senethro]

welp that anonymous opinion piece shure convinced me

[Haunted]

An interesting article which puts Obama's administration's position on embryonic stem cell research into context:
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/pardon_me_your_ideology_is_showing/

What the hell was that?

According to Obama, Bush’s decision was based on ideology, not scientific facts. Obama promises to support ESC research only when it is both "scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted". But just think for a minute. Wouldn’t it have been irresponsible for Bush to throw billions of taxpayer dollars at a three-year-old technology?

What madness is this? Should we suspend all frontier research funding because they aren't very old? THE WHOLE POINT OF RESEARCH IS THAT IT'S NEW AND INTERESTING! Good god this is utter bullshit.

In 2001 no one had any idea whether or not ESC research was "scientifically worthy". Full support at that stage would have been equivalent to parents beginning to pay Harvard tuition fees when their child was only three years old.

Oh this makes me laugh.

No one responsible invests their family’s money in wildcat schemes; why should a president do so with taxpayers’ money?

I've got one. No one wants to destroy money do they? (make universally agreeable statement). Then why should a president fund "INSERT AGENDA"? (link universally agreeable statement to agenda). THINK OF YOUR FAMILY! (imply that disagreeing destroys families, "family" being the buzzword for right wing morons because of the perceived link between a loss of family values (e.g. gay marriage) and EVERY PROBLEM IN THE WORLD TODAY). Step 3 profit.

[Senethro]

haunted i'm not sure you're thinking of the children

[starsandsparkles]

Christianity, along with all other theistic belief systems, is the fraud of the age. It serves to detach the species from the natural world, and likewise, each other. It supports blind submission to authority. It reduces human responsibility to the effect that "God" controls everything, and in turn awful crimes can be justified in the name of Divine Pursuit. And most importantly, it empowers those who know the truth but use the myth to manipulate and control societies. The religious myth is the most powerful device ever created, and serves as the psychological soil upon which other myths can flourish.

From Tom Stoppard's Jumpers -
George: "I thought the whole point of denying the Absolute was to reduce the scale, instantly, to the inconsequential behaviour of inconsequential animals; that nothing could ever be that important..."

Archie: "Including, I suppose, death...It's an interesting view of atheism, as a sort of crutch for those who can't bear the reality of God..."