Nominate Your Favorite Atheist Resources

[mensbattleplan]

http://atheism.about.com/library/bl-rea ... s-2011.htm
I just nominated achristianandanatheist.com for the best forum and best podcast.

About.com's 2011 Readers' Choice Awards will showcase the best products, features and services in multiple categories, from technology to hobbies to parenting. On this Agnosticism / Atheism site, the Readers' Choice Awards are designed to showcase the best resources available out there for agnostics, atheists, freethinkers, secularists, and skeptics.

The nomination process will be from Jan. 13 through Feb. 4, 11:59 p.m. EST.

[NH Baritone]

While I look forward to each podcast and enjoy this forum, it is not so good as Reasonable Doubts or American Freethought or Point of Inquiry. And the panoply of podcasts devoted to primarily skepticism probably deserve mention, too.

[Pseudonym]

And the panoply of podcasts devoted to primarily skepticism probably deserve mention, too.

Except that this would perpetuate the myth that atheism and skepticism are somehow part of the same thing.

[NH Baritone]

And the panoply of podcasts devoted to primarily skepticism probably deserve mention, too.

Except that this would perpetuate the myth that atheism and skepticism are somehow part of the same thing.

If you listen regularly to the array of skeptical podcasts, you are aware of the concerns raised by theistic skeptics ... and simultaneously how unconvincing the woo believers are in their claims of adherence to skepticism. They seem to continuously fall back to the emotional need to believe, whether or not it makes sense.

I have yet to hear a single theistic skeptic who is willing to subject their god-beliefs to the same objective scrutiny that skeptics apply to homeopathy, UFOs, fortune tellers, Nessie, ghosts, faith healers, or any of the other scams and logic failures that skeptics typically question. That failure in itself is an example of a transparent logical fallacy: special pleading.

[Pseudonym]

If you listen regularly to the array of skeptical podcasts, you are aware of the concerns raised by theistic skeptics ... and simultaneously how unconvincing the woo believers are in their claims of adherence to skepticism. They seem to continuously fall back to the emotional need to believe, whether or not it makes sense.

I only really listen to one. Skeptoid is a nice length for me, but I think that Brian Dunning has dropped the ball a couple of times recently: I thought the DDT episode was full of holes and the latest one on Scientology missed the point.

I have yet to hear a single theistic skeptic who is willing to subject their god-beliefs to the same objective scrutiny that skeptics apply to homeopathy, UFOs, fortune tellers, Nessie, ghosts, faith healers, or any of the other scams and logic failures that skeptics typically question.

I would be willing to subject my beliefs to the same scrutiny if they could be, but I don't really see how they could be. I don't make any claim that's stronger than "works for me".

OK, that's not quite true. I'm pretty sure that all of my other positive claims, such as the claim that religion can be done in a way that requires no superstition or blindness to the facts, or claims that not all Christians have historically believed X... these claims only require trivial existence proofs. Usually a handful of examples suffice to make the case.

To me, Christianity is something that you do, not something that you believe. Jesus' injunction to his follows was not "read this set of propositions and let me know if you agree", it was "follow me". Christianity is no more "true" or "false" than the wearing of hats is "true" or "false".

And just to head off the charge of special pleading, I don't think that Christianity is unique. I feel exactly the same way about Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and Secular Humanism.

[NH Baritone]

If you listen regularly to the array of skeptical podcasts, you are aware of the concerns raised by theistic skeptics ... and simultaneously how unconvincing the woo believers are in their claims of adherence to skepticism. They seem to continuously fall back to the emotional need to believe, whether or not it makes sense.

I only really listen to one. Skeptoid is a nice length for me, but I think that Brian Dunning has dropped the ball a couple of times recently: I thought the DDT episode was full of holes and the latest one on Scientology missed the point.

I have yet to hear a single theistic skeptic who is willing to subject their god-beliefs to the same objective scrutiny that skeptics apply to homeopathy, UFOs, fortune tellers, Nessie, ghosts, faith healers, or any of the other scams and logic failures that skeptics typically question.

I would be willing to subject my beliefs to the same scrutiny if they could be, but I don't really see how they could be. I don't make any claim that's stronger than "works for me".

OK, that's not quite true. I'm pretty sure that all of my other positive claims, such as the claim that religion can be done in a way that requires no superstition or blindness to the facts, or claims that not all Christians have historically believed X... these claims only require trivial existence proofs. Usually a handful of examples suffice to make the case.

To me, Christianity is something that you do, not something that you believe. Jesus' injunction to his follows was not "read this set of propositions and let me know if you agree", it was "follow me". Christianity is no more "true" or "false" than the wearing of hats is "true" or "false".

And just to head off the charge of special pleading, I don't think that Christianity is unique. I feel exactly the same way about Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and Secular Humanism.

So how much of the Nicene Creed can you discard before you stop being a Christian? Do you need to believe in anything supernatural at all? How about belief that a supernatural God intervenes in the natural world? Supercedes natural selection via intelligent design? Answers prayers?

If two people are working side-by-side in a soup kitchen, doing the same work, but one is motivated by their Christian beliefs and the other harbors no such beliefs (perhaps is an atheist) but instead is there simply because he wants to give a bit of aid to the poor, are they both equally "Christian"?

[StillSearching]

If two people are working side-by-side in a soup kitchen, doing the same work, but one is motivated by their Christian beliefs and the other harbors no such beliefs (perhaps is an atheist) but instead is there simply because he wants to give a bit of aid to the poor, are they both equally "Christian"?

YES!

[NH Baritone]

If two people are working side-by-side in a soup kitchen, doing the same work, but one is motivated by their Christian beliefs and the other harbors no such beliefs (perhaps is an atheist) but instead is there simply because he wants to give a bit of aid to the poor, are they both equally "Christian"?

YES!

That makes no sense, and besides weakening the English language, is frankly insulting! Service & charity are also hallmarks of Islam. If you, as a Christian, are charitable, are you also being a good Muslim? When you eat a vegetarian meal, are you being a good Jain or being a good Seventh-Day Adventist? Can you be neither and yet enjoy tofu burgers?

It is the height of arrogance to claim all altruism as Christian. You are discounting the fact that someone can vehemently oppose Christianity and simultaneously be intensely charitable. I honestly think of instances when opposing Christianity is itself among the great services an individual can offer humanity. Christianity contains a history of belief, a mythic system involving sin and redemption, that I frankly do not want to sully my charity.

[Brad]

Great posts, NHB.

I admire SS's intent, which I believe attempts to create common ground, but you're absolutely correct that his emphatic post typifies the distortion of both language and reality that make discussion with believers so exasperating. (Did you catch one of the Reasonable Doubts guys discussing his recent discussion with a Christian in the last RD podcast about debating theists - the believer that ultimately responded (proudly?), "I'm not a rational person?" )

Then there's Pseudo's remark above, Christianity is no more "true" or "false" than the wearing of hats is "true" or "false", as well as current exchanges in the OT vs. NT thread.

Good grief. Are we non-believers here some sort of hopeless masochists?

[NH Baritone]

Great posts, NHB.

I admire SS's intent, which I believe attempts to create common ground, but you're absolutely correct that his emphatic post typifies the distortion of both language and reality that make discussion with believers so exasperating. (Did you catch one of the Reasonable Doubts guys discussing his recent discussion with a Christian in the last RD podcast about debating theists - the believer that ultimately responded (proudly?), "I'm not a rational person?" )

I heard that. Unfortunately, this exchange was complicated by the fact that Mr. "I'm Not A Rational Person" was a relative.

Then there's Pseudo's remark above, Christianity is no more "true" or "false" than the wearing of hats is "true" or "false", as well as current exchanges in the OT vs. NT thread.

Good grief. Are we non-believers here some sort of hopeless masochists?

Not to distract from your point, but I can name a number of highly hope-filled masochists.

But returning to the topic at hand, I remember from my Methodist days the urge to be both Christian and inclusive. It seems common among the liberal Christian sects. But statements like these indicate that they cope with the resulting cognitive dissonance by metaphorically living in an opaque social bubble, one that doesn't admit sufficient light from the outside world.

[StillSearching]

That makes no sense, and besides weakening the English language, is frankly insulting!

...you're absolutely correct that his emphatic post typifies the distortion of both language and reality that make discussion with believers so exasperating.

Ironic that you both dress me down for language abuse and then each commit the same crime in your most recent posts. Clearly, theists hold no monopoly on hypocrisy. After you're done looking for and/or fixing your own gaffs, please do tell me why you consider my reply to Bari's question to be grammatically or linguistically offensive.

That makes no sense, and besides weakening the English language, is frankly insulting! Service & charity are also hallmarks of Islam. If you, as a Christian, are charitable, are you also being a good Muslim? When you eat a vegetarian meal, are you being a good Jain or being a good Seventh-Day Adventist? Can you be neither and yet enjoy tofu burgers?

It is the height of arrogance to claim all altruism as Christian. You are discounting the fact that someone can vehemently oppose Christianity and simultaneously be intensely charitable. I honestly think of instances when opposing Christianity is itself among the great services an individual can offer humanity. Christianity contains a history of belief, a mythic system involving sin and redemption, that I frankly do not want to sully my charity.

I'm really sorry that Christianity damaged you to the extent that any hint of continued association with it causes you to retch. However, I did not claim altruism as a Christian invention. Rather, I believe that Jesus would have replied to your question in the same way I did, that is, anyone who does kindness to another is practicing the way of living that He encouraged, regardless of the man-made category to which they belong (see the parable of the Good Samaritan). Labeling that "Christian" or "Muslim" or "humanist" is counterproductive.

So yes, I was trying to find common ground and be inclusive. It seems, though, that the militant factions on both sides of the fence have effectively beaten that capacity out of you. Too bad.

Good grief. Are we non-believers here some sort of hopeless masochists?

YES!

[Brad]

Good grief. Are we non-believers here some sort of hopeless masochists?

YES!

I did see that coming. But the query, or plea or whatever, was not directed to your "side of the aisle," SS.

We could descend from here into name calling or other more or less obvious ad hominem baiting, but let's not.

Clearly you're ticked at NHB's strong and visceral response to your equation of "Christian" with goodness, which as I said, I think you made with the best of intentions. But I'm hopeful that if you go back and re-read our posts and give them a little thought, you'll understand what it is we find so irritating.

[NH Baritone]

That makes no sense, and besides weakening the English language, is frankly insulting!

...you're absolutely correct that his emphatic post typifies the distortion of both language and reality that make discussion with believers so exasperating.

Ironic that you both dress me down for language abuse and then each commit the same crime in your most recent posts. Clearly, theists hold no monopoly on hypocrisy. After you're done looking for and/or fixing your own gaffs, please do tell me why you consider my reply to Bari's question to be grammatically or linguistically offensive.

Your offense to the English language was diluting the word Christian to utter meaninglessness. What have Brad and I done recently that have been gaffs?

That makes no sense, and besides weakening the English language, is frankly insulting! Service & charity are also hallmarks of Islam. If you, as a Christian, are charitable, are you also being a good Muslim? When you eat a vegetarian meal, are you being a good Jain or being a good Seventh-Day Adventist? Can you be neither and yet enjoy tofu burgers?

It is the height of arrogance to claim all altruism as Christian. You are discounting the fact that someone can vehemently oppose Christianity and simultaneously be intensely charitable. I honestly think of instances when opposing Christianity is itself among the great services an individual can offer humanity. Christianity contains a history of belief, a mythic system involving sin and redemption, that I frankly do not want to sully my charity.

I'm really sorry that Christianity damaged you to the extent that any hint of continued association with it causes you to [w]retch. However, I did not claim altruism as a Christian invention. Rather, I believe that Jesus would have replied to your question in the same way I did, that is, anyone who does kindness to another is practicing the way of living that He encouraged, regardless of the man-made category to which they belong (see the parable of the Good Samaritan). Labeling that "Christian" or "Muslim" or "humanist" is counterproductive.

But YOU are the one who said that an atheist is being Christian, thereby sparking the counterproductive argument you're accusing me of.

So yes, I was trying to find common ground and be inclusive. It seems, though, that the militant factions on both sides of the fence have effectively beaten that capacity out of you. Too bad.

Sweety, your back yard is not common ground. The common ground is found in the wish to ease suffering, not in the attribution of tainted theological ideas and motivations.

What does it take for you to develop the moral outrage to be ashamed of many of the things that have been done in the name of Christianity?

[StillSearching]

Your offense to the English language was diluting the word Christian to utter meaninglessness.

What you call diluting, I call distilling. Christianity, in my opinion, boils down to doing good for one another (the whole greatest commandment thing you may recall). Thus, a person serving homeless folks in a soup kitchen is practicing "Christianity" (please note that the quotation marks were yours, not mine) in the same way that a kid hitting a ball with a stick in a sandlot is playing "baseball."

But YOU are the one who said that an atheist is being Christian, thereby sparking the counterproductive argument you're accusing me of.

Come on! I KNOW that you are more than capable of recognizing the subtle difference between what I said and what you've written here. I would not have replied the way that I did if you hadn't put the term in quotes.

Sweety, your back yard is not common ground. The common ground is found in the wish to ease suffering, not in the attribution of tainted theological ideas and motivations.

I think your hatred for Christianity has prevented you from seeing that this is precisely what I meant by "YES!" Does it really matter why the Christian and the atheist showed up at the soup kitchen? They've both found common ground in the desire to help someone who needs it. You would despise the former for being there because, according to you, he's doing it for the wrong reasons? And, you despise my post because I dared to affiliate the name of my "tainted theological ideas" with the concept of human kindness?

What does it take for you to develop the moral outrage to be ashamed of many of the things that have been done in the name of Christianity?

As a mental health professional, don't you discourage your patients from engaging in this type of black-or-white thinking? I'm ashamed of a long list of things that have been done in the name of America, but I still have undying love and admiration for my country. I have German heritage. Do you think I can't feel some shame for the atrocities committed in the name of the Fatherland, and yet still feel some pride in that heritage?

[NH Baritone]

Your offense to the English language was diluting the word Christian to utter meaninglessness.

What you call diluting, I call distilling. Christianity, in my opinion, boils down to doing good for one another (the whole greatest commandment thing you may recall). Thus, a person serving homeless folks in a soup kitchen is practicing "Christianity" (please note that the quotation marks were yours, not mine) in the same way that a kid hitting a ball with a stick in a sandlot is playing "baseball."

So, help me understand: Are you saying that theology has nothing to do with being Christian?

If not, how much does theology have to do with Christianity? 12%? 85%?

I will assume that you have paid attention to the dialogue on this forum? Do we at all debate the benefits of charity? Doesn't it seem that Christians and non-Christians (atheists, etc.) alike consider aiding the less fortunate an extremely worthwhile endeavor? What do you think of such harmony of perspective on charity? Here's what I conclude from that: Being Christian and Acts of Good Will are entirely disconnected.

Instead Christianity is defined by its mythology, some of which, as you noted, encourages charity, and other bits of which, as I noted, encourage distress.

Now I do not at all believe that, in referring to a charitable act as Christian that you are putting someone down for their generosity. You and I together applaud it. But I think your apologetic elevates Christianity to a position it doesn't deserve, and in some ways doesn't even aspire to.

But YOU are the one who said that an atheist is being Christian, thereby sparking the counterproductive argument you're accusing me of.

Come on! I KNOW that you are more than capable of recognizing the subtle difference between what I said and what you've written here. I would not have replied the way that I did if you hadn't put the term in quotes.

Allow me to quote myself in entirety:

So how much of the Nicene Creed can you discard before you stop being a Christian? Do you need to believe in anything supernatural at all? How about belief that a supernatural God intervenes in the natural world? Supercedes natural selection via intelligent design? Answers prayers?

If two people are working side-by-side in a soup kitchen, doing the same work, but one is motivated by their Christian beliefs and the other harbors no such beliefs (perhaps is an atheist) but instead is there simply because he wants to give a bit of aid to the poor, are they both equally "Christian"?

I asked a boatload of questions, not just one.

Your one word answer ("YES!"), and not my responses, represent the Black-or-White perspective: Good = Christian; Bad = Non-Christian.

If you maintain any sense of history and clear retrospection, you cannot avoid the clear conclusion that Christianity has been responsible for, and continues to perpetrate, an enormous amount of misery.*

Does this mean that no benefits have sprung from the Christian religion? No, and I never made such a claim. But your one-word ejaculation made charity and Christianity synonymous. You failed to acknowledge the far-reaching injury that has sprung from that same source. That's why I said you were diluting the English language to meaninglessness. You cannot expect me to take you seriously when you linguistically leave the term "Christian" married to its good works and simultaneously divorce it from its trail of negligence and malice.

Charity is charity, pure and simple. Some folks are motivated out of humanistic concern, some out of an obligation created by their mythic God's commands, some because they seek good feelings, some because they want to give back, etc. Charity can only be characterized as Christian when the motivation rises from Christian beliefs and community. Let me reiterate: Then, and only then, can you legitimately refer to an act as Christian.

___________________
*As I write this, Christians (and no one but Christians) are attempting to strip same-sex couples in the state of New Hampshire of their marriage rights. Christians like Tony have encouraged the terrorist-style murder of family planning doctors. The Catholic Church recently excommunicated a hospital-administrator nun who saved the life of a mother of 3 by authorizing an abortion. Each of these malicious acts are entirely motivated and justified by their Christian beliefs. Do you want me to go on?