> From: Reggie Bautista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I wrote: > > > > >>The only group you are likely to get consistent answers > > > from would be > > > > >>the anti-religious groups, as you can probably see from > > > some of the > > > > >>others who have already answered your email. > > William T. Goodall replied: > > > > >Doesn't this indicate where the compelling evidence leads? > > I responded: > > > > That the only group that follows in lockstep and allows no > > > dissent from > > > > their orthodoxy is the anti-religious group? > > > > > The Fool retorted: > > >Interesting. You are attempting to frame freethinkers and > > > rationalists > > > as authoritarian thought police. But the fact remains that > > > freethinkers > > > and rationalists have thrown off shackles of religious > > > thought control, > > > not the other way around. > > > > > > I nominate your post for newspeak / doublethink post of the month. > > Ritu exposited: > >I oppose the nomination. :) > > > >I don't think he was trying to frame free-thinkers and rationalists as > >authoritarian thought police. Besides, there is a point in what he says: > >I have met many atheists who are best described as devout atheists. > >Their lack of theism is based not as much in rationality as in an > >overpowering hatred of all things religious. I am sure they have their > >reasons but I do think that they have thrown off only some of their > >'religious shackles'. After all, an overwhelmingly strong negative > >reaction still indicates an emotional attachment, albeit a negative > >emotional attachment. > > What she said, more or less. The original post in this thread was about > religious beliefs that some people have and how those affect the political > decisions those people make. Instead of responding to those questions > in a meaningful way, the anti-religious folks on the list immediately jumped > in with the same old argument they've made many times, which basically > boils down to "religion bad." It was so predictable and such a knee-jerk > reaction that it looked like they were spouting a party-line that had been > brainwashed into them. In other words, ironically, it looked like an > orthodoxy. > So I called it what it looked like.
It is not orthodoxy to point out what the text of the evil book you 'christians' go on and on about really says, instead of what religious leaders say it says. The same religious leaders who say condoms cause AIDS. The same Religious leaders who say condoms don't stop the transmission of HIV. The same Religious leaders who cover up priest child molestation. > Can we now get back to answering the interesting questions that Robert > Chassell originally asked when he started this thread? Thanks in advance. I gave a fair opinion based on all the evidence: What the text says, what the religion has done in the past, what the religion does / says now. The religious leaders try to cover up the past, they try to obfucate what really happened, and what the text really says. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
