Christian Extremist*Video*

bjj-fighter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-qIYJN3OEU

Dosent it make you proud to be Athiest:D

MoominPapa

Yeah well I rather listen to her than these guys http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COHJSsvp9ns&NR
This is what we're really up against people...

18AD

Excellent objective report.

Scofflaw

Ken Ham and friends in action.

Makes you see what Dawkins means about 'child abuse'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

I know another thread covered 'child-abuse' as espoused by Dawkins, but I recently got hold of a copy of 'Jesus Camp' (Oscar Nominated!) and I must say it's a fine movie.

Sure it's an extreme example, but the fact that this wasn't a hidden camera doc, these people are so proud of what they're doing they welcomed the filming shows how one group can see it as the kindest and best thing to do for a child, another would consider it a form of child abuse.

Thanks Scoff, 'Friend of God' seems most interesting I must set about acquiring a copy.

5uspect

Scofflaw wrote:

Ken Ham and friends in action.

Makes you see what Dawkins means about 'child abuse'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That is perhaps the most depressing thing I've seen in a long time.

robindch

> That is perhaps the most depressing thing I've seen in a long time.

Wait 'til you see Jesus Camp -- if you've access to usenet news, it was posted in alt.binaries.movies.divx around a week ago. Orwell put his finger on it with the "Two Minutes Hate" scenes from "1984".

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> That is perhaps the most depressing thing I've seen in a long time.

Wait 'til you see Jesus Camp -- if you've access to usenet news, it was posted in alt.binaries.movies.divx around a week ago. Orwell put his finger on it with the "Two Minutes Hate" scenes from "1984".

Not sure...fanatics I sort of understand, and I expect them to be indoctrinating children. It's the sort of happy, cheery, mass indoctrination by lies and innuendo that Ham and friends are at - anti-science lectures - that really upsets me. It's normal, it's mainstream, it's not a special camp for God's warriors but your local church hall...

On the other hand, as I happily admit - I don't really mind religion per se - it's the anti-scientific element particularly that I hate with a passion.

gloomily,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote:

Ken Ham and friends in action.

Makes you see what Dawkins means about 'child abuse'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Brilliant, well terrifyinly brilliant.

...and the noble prize goes to:

GOD! for disproving evolution. Although he is still eagar to point out that he doesn't want to be classed as a creationist commenting: those guys are just too weird man.

coffee_cake

Scofflaw wrote:

Ken Ham and friends in action.

Makes you see what Dawkins means about 'child abuse'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I can't watch the video, public comp, can you give me a rundown of what's happening in it?

I've seen jesus camp on youtube, it's completely scary...
those poor children.

robindch

> On the other hand, as I happily admit - I don't really mind religion per se
> - it's the anti-scientific element particularly that I hate with a passion.

Nah, I'm the other way 'round. While the anti-scientific stuff bugs me, a lot of it is humorously bewildered. It's a bit like watching those satellite god channels which are free-to-air and leave you with a lingering feeling of relieved superiority.

What I loathe, though, is religion itself for how it removes people's ability to reason and how it legitimizes compartmentalized reasoning. And more seriously, for how it introduces artificial divisions within groups which can then be used by unscrupulous politicians for their own steamy ends.

Scofflaw

bluewolf wrote:

I can't watch the video, public comp, can you give me a rundown of what's happening in it?

I've seen jesus camp on youtube, it's completely scary...
those poor children.

There's a fair bit of lead-in, showing some rather natty road-signs ("Evolution is from the Devil!" and so forth), but the main focus is on a couple of lectures and classes given by Ken Ham and friends.

Ken Ham's lecture (the audience is mostly kids) starts with him doing a quick Q&A: "hands up if you've ever heard of a word like 'evolution'" - "hands up if you've been told dinosaurs lived millions of years ago", etc. The he's straight into "well, I don't believe that - I mean, you tell me, did your grandfather look like that?" - cue slide of ugly monkey-like face....kids laugh.

It's basically a mish-mash of preaching and lies - the 'easy options' of Creationism, and all very kid-friendly. "Evolution is the idea some people have to explain life without God".

You should see it, it's kind of scary. The guys are very avuncular - very much the kindly uncle who knows what's what - and slick as weasels.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote:

> On the other hand, as I happily admit - I don't really mind religion per se
> - it's the anti-scientific element particularly that I hate with a passion.

Nah, I'm the other way 'round. While the anti-scientific stuff bugs me, a lot of it is humorously bewildered. It's a bit like watching those satellite god channels which are free-to-air and leave you with a lingering feeling of relieved superiority.

What I loathe, though, is religion itself for how it removes people's ability to reason and how it legitimizes compartmentalized reasoning. And more seriously, for how it introduces artificial divisions within groups which can then be used by unscrupulous politicians for their own steamy ends.

Are you a militant atheist?

"Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that it is usually or always harmful." (Baggini 2003, pp. 101–104)

robindch

> The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second
> is that it is usually or always harmful

Yes, that more or less summarizes my position. If you want to label me as a militant atheist with Baggini's definition, then that's fine with me -- you can call me what you like -- but I can't imagine what you believe that this labelling will achieve. More info would be good!

Are you suggesting that there's something vaguely violent about my assertion that religion is generally harmful within the terms I've given up above?

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote:

> The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second
> is that it is usually or always harmful
Yes, that more or less summarizes my position.

Question ( http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055025330&page=5 )

robindch wrote:

"I don't think it's obvious. Who are the "militant atheists" here? Login names, please!"

A possible (partial) answer:

robindch wrote:

Yes, that more or less summarizes my position.

Yeah I suppose, it's probably not that "obvious".

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

robindch wrote:

> The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second
> is that it is usually or always harmful[/I]
Yes, that more or less summarizes my position.

Question ( http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055025330&page=5 )

robindch wrote:

"I don't think it's obvious. Who are the "militant atheists" here? Login names, please!"

A possible (partial) answer:

robindch wrote:

Yes, that more or less summarizes my position.

Yeah I suppose, it's probably not that "obvious".

With the right definition, I too would be a "militant atheist". I have been called one because I am an atheist (wrt Jehovah), and prepared to argue about it, and in favour of a secular society. I'm not sure what it proves...

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

I won't speak for robin, but the use of the word militant is disingenuous, its use in one sense (which is more akin to Activism) is then used to smear people with its use in another sense (violent political struggle).

You can 'define' a word any way you want and then label people with it. To me the word militant is best left to describe those who organise into a 'military like' structure and engage in aggression or violence to achieve their goals.

I for one have no desire to remove theism from people, I feel strongly that all people should be allowed worship any god they desire and to live their lives according to any additional morals they believe their god has proscribed for them.

What I strongly dislike and I am 'active' against is their desire to impose their (god given) morals on others.

Divorce, your god says 'No' then fine don't get divorced, Homosexuality, your god doesn't approve - don't do it - why you think these morals apply to me I'll never know.

Zillah

pH wrote:

Divorce, your god says 'No' then fine don't get divorced, Homosexuality, your god doesn't approve - don't do it - why you think these morals apply to me I'll never know.

But you see thats the problem. You condone their faith-based reasoning, but then criticise their logical behaviour given that initial premise. They think being gay is wrong, and you condone that belief, and yet expect them to only apply that to themselves. What if its something you think is wrong, like murder or child abuse? Would you tell someone to go to hell if they argued "Ok, you believe murder is wrong, thats fine, then don't go murdering anyone! I however should be allowed to murder all I like..." They don't think being gay is icky or weird or uncomfortable, they think it is objectively wrong.

You need to attack their position from the outset. No, homosexuality isn't morally wrong and the reasoning you used to reach that position is retarded.

pH

Zillah wrote:

But you see thats the problem. You condone their faith-based reasoning, but then criticise their logical behaviour given that initial premise. They think being gay is wrong, and you condone that belief, and yet expect them to only apply that to themselves.

I accept that they believe their God told them it's wrong. I also feel that if a devoutly religious person felt they were homosexual and abstained from a gay relationship (to please their God) then I'd have no problem with that.

What if its something you think is wrong, like murder or child abuse? Would you tell someone to go to hell if they argued "Ok, you believe murder is wrong, thats fine, then don't go murdering anyone! I however should be allowed to murder all I like..."

Obviously a different set of principles apply when dealing with non-consensual acts on other members of society. I am addressing issues of morality, and I have no problem with people who wish to live their lives with a stricter set of 'morals' than I choose to.

They don't think being gay is icky or weird or uncomfortable, they think it is objectively wrong.

And I have no problem whatsoever if they abstain from being gay because they feel it is wrong.

You need to attack their position from the outset. No, homosexuality isn't morally wrong and the reasoning you used to reach that position is retarded.

No - homosexuality isn't morally wrong - only if you accept that it isn't morally wrong!

I think that those who believe it's morally wrong have the following rights:
- The right for themselves not to participate in behaviour the feel is morally wrong.
- A general 'Freedom of speech right' - I feel that they have the right to say that they consider it wrong.

However I also believe that the rest of us have the right to ignore them and do whatever we like as long as it doesn't impinge on other people's lives.

stevejazzx

pH wrote:

I for one have no desire to remove theism from people, I feel strongly that all people should be allowed worship any god they desire and to live their lives according to any additional morals they believe their god has proscribed for them.

Emmm...but by allowing people to worship god is, in essence obliging them to impose it on you. If they are active in their religous faith they will be 'spreading' the word of their god to you, me and just about anyone they can get their hands on because thier religous texts have told them to and depending on the extent of their fundamentalism they may go even further and prevent others having the right to free speech etc. This tolerance of faith has lead to the extrenism we have right now. For what is the sense of believing in just part of the bible or Qur'an, there is none, logically if you believe in god then it should be all or nothing, otherwise it's just a facade of faith, not real fatih.
Ken Ham feels it is his duty to 'teach' (thank god for inverted commas) kids about the evils of modern science. If there is one thing that the fundamentalists have actually gotten right then it is the hypocrisy of their fellow believers who are not extreme because the bible is extreme, their religon teaches extremism across the board, no tolerance of other beliefs, one way, one truth etc. Woman are second class citizens, homosexuals are sinners and non believers are to be converted or killed. That is the way of the texts they worship and therefore that should be thier way.
What we have in actuality is totally different. Moderates are expert compartmentalizers who cherrypick the ingredients for thier mild belief systems which cater for each and every eventuality of others and thier beliefs. Essentially an overbearing world of anal pc troglodytes too frigid to actually know what they really believe.
This open tolerance is in fact I believe open season for madmen to claim amnesty.

Zillah

pH wrote:

Obviously a different set of principles apply when dealing with non-consensual acts on other members of society.

Obviously?! To who? You and I, perhaps. But to our queer-hating fundamentalist there is no such difference. Those fags are defying their Lord and creator. It is as morally wrong for them to defy His divine mandate as it is for you to steal from a neighbour.

Thats the problem, we're talking about a paradigm founded on irrationality.

aidan24326

Zillah wrote:

But to our queer-hating fundamentalist there is no such difference. Those fags are defying their Lord and creator. It is as morally wrong for them to defy His divine mandate as it is for you to steal from a neighbour.
Thats the problem, we're talking about a paradigm founded on irrationality.

Indeed that is a problem.

It's one thing for me or any other atheist to say 'ah sure let them have their religious views, let them hate gays if they like makes no odds to me etc. etc.' But unfortunately such respect of opposing views isn't often reciprocated. If I was gay, I can't imagine too many religious fundies saying that's fine and they've no problem with my homosexuality based on the fact that I'm atheist and don't subscribe to their god. I would be told I'm going to hell with all the other fags.

pH

aidan24326 wrote:

Indeed that is a problem.

It's one thing for me or any other atheist to say 'ah sure let them have their religious views, let them hate gays if they like makes no odds to me etc. etc.'

Oh please this is not what I'm saying and Zillah is misrepresenting it. I am not saying that it's OK to hate gays, what I am saying is that it's OK for anyone not to engage in behaviour that their moral code forbids.

To make this easier, let's take alcohol as an example:

I feel it's perfectly OK live live a life of abstinence, I also feel that you have a right (as a freedom of speech) to speak about your beliefs and to encourage people not to drink. However I also feel that anyone has the right to take home a six-pack and drink it if they so desire, and not be ashamed, bullied or discriminated against because they sometimes have a drink

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

Oh please this is not what I'm saying and Zillah is misrepresenting it. I am not saying that it's OK to hate gays, what I am saying is that it's OK for anyone not to engage in behaviour that their moral code forbids.

To make this easier, let's take alcohol as an example:

I feel it's perfectly OK live live a life of abstinence, I also feel that you have a right (as a freedom of speech) to speak about your beliefs and to encourage people not to drink. However I also feel that anyone has the right to take home a six-pack and drink it if they so desire, and not be ashamed, bullied or discriminated against because they sometimes have a drink

So they're welcome to hate homosexuals on their own time, and not to be homosexual themselves, but not to persecute them, harass them, or otherwise act on their dislike other than passively.

The quid pro quo for which is that we don't let the Catholic Church root out small fundamentalist denominations and burn them in Stephen's Green. Nor do we allow members of any religious denomination to persecute and terrorise another (NI excepted).

So, while theirs is a paradigm founded on irrationality, it is bound by the laws of a society that is more and more founded on rationality.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

pH wrote:

Oh please this is not what I'm saying and Zillah is misrepresenting it. I am not saying that it's OK to hate gays, what I am saying is that it's OK for anyone not to engage in behaviour that their moral code forbids.

Talk about misrepresentation!!

I feel it's perfectly OK live live a life of abstinence, I also feel that you have a right (as a freedom of speech) to speak about your beliefs and to encourage people not to drink. However I also feel that anyone has the right to take home a six-pack and drink it if they so desire, and not be ashamed, bullied or discriminated against because they sometimes have a drink

Yes, thats very reasonable. But its just obtuse to expect them to agree/like it. All along I've been trying to answer this question:

pH wrote:

Divorce, your god says 'No' then fine don't get divorced, Homosexuality, your god doesn't approve - don't do it - why you think these morals apply to me I'll never know.

Its because defying God is as bad as harming other people, in their stupid brains.

pH

Zillah wrote:

Yes, thats very reasonable. But its just obtuse to expect them to agree/like it. All along I've been trying to answer this question:

I do not expect them to agree with it or like it, but I do *insist* they live with it. As we can see from the UK - religion's grip on society is diminishing, even here in 'Catholic Ireland' the Church's power is a fraction of what it was.

However in our secular victory we need to be sure that we don't ghettoise the religious and force them into needless aggression and activism.

Much as I dislike the positions, I have to accept people holding racist or homophobic positions, mainly because I don't see anything that can be done about them. Criminalising 'thoughts' I feel is a massively dangerous step or some 'Big Brothery' utopia where people with the wrong thoughts or ideas can be reprogrammed and fixed is too scary.

We need laws to protect other members of society from their discrimination, however in their own minds I have no real problem with their bigotry.

Its because defying God is as bad as harming other people, in their stupid brains.

Yes they need to get over this, and accept that whatever morals they believe their god gave them are morals that they choose to live with themselves, they need to rid themselves of any idea that they have a right to inflict these morals on other people (except through dialogue and persuasion)

Zillah

What exactly do you think I'm arguing here? I answered your question. If you don't like the answer fine but theres no other point I'm making here...

The reason they want to enforce their rules on you is because their morality is warped by their belief in God.

robindch

> [Tim Robbins] a possible (partial) answer:

Well remembered, but while you're applying Baggini's definition of a "militant atheist" to my own position, I think the comparison is pointless because it's not adding anything to the argument other than answering a question I posed months ago and had mostly forgotten about! And with respect to Baggini, I don't like his definition very much -- I'll agree to "outspoken atheist", but "militant atheist" with its connotations of military activity? Nah. He's got it wrong.

Leaving contentious issues of labelling aside, do you believe that there's anything inaccurate about what I said back in this post about:

how I]religion[/I removes people's ability to reason and how it legitimizes compartmentalized reasoning. And more seriously, for how it introduces artificial divisions within groups which can then be used by unscrupulous politicians for their own steamy ends.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote:

> [Tim Robbins] a possible (partial) answer:

...... do you believe that there's anything inaccurate about what I said back in this post about:
how [religion] removes people's ability to reason and how it legitimizes compartmentalized reasoning. And more seriously, for how it introduces artificial divisions within groups which can then be used by unscrupulous politicians for their own steamy ends.

Poor chioce of adjective with the word 'steamy'?:)
Otherwise spot on.

Scofflaw

Now this isn't even a "Christian extremist video", just CNN. Here, with transcript.

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

You gotta love how they rant on about America being a Christian country and Europe becoming Islamic like is some sort of dirty cess pit to be pitied.