I think it's a hard distinction to make. Religion does improve people's lives. Religion is not the only rallying call for violence.

The problem as I see it, is that while moderate theists, who selectively pick and choose the socially acceptable parts of, say the Bible, may be comforted by their beliefs, their public espousal of their religion gives legitimacy to the fundamentalists who interpret it more literally and don't pick and choose the reasonable passages.

It's a tenuous link, but I don't think you can discount it. The reasonable middle ground here would be for moderate organisations to refute certain religious scripture, say the infamous Leviticus passages, The problem is, they don't because it then allows any section of the text to be called into question, instead choose to passively ignore them. This is where I start to have a problem.

Sorry, I missed the part where you "declared tribal Pakistan as being ... a separate state from Pakistan". I didn't realise we could do that.

In that case, I declare tribal USA (aka Arizona or Texas, take your pick) in every meaningful way, a separate and independent state from the USA. They're insane right wing christian nations who pretty much share the goals of fundamentalist Islam. They just have better weapons.

When do the rest of us get to drone strike the Arizona State Legislature or the Texas Board of Education?

As for Pakistan or Yemen, what do you think would happen if they declared war on the US? It would be an open invitation to be curb stomped and have haliburton run their country. The fact is, the US are drone striking their citizens and there isn't a god damn thing they can do about it.

I have no doubt that some of the people killed were evil scumbags who the world won't miss. But the video on this very page shows how often civilians were killed.

Besides aren't there laws around declaring war in the US? I'm pretty sure this is not something that should be done away with lightly.

The difference with the IRA is that both sides were interested in a political compromise. As regards Al Qaida and Taliban type fundamentalists they have no desire to compromise. So I think it consistent that open warfare with the IRA being rejected/avoided, mean while it is war with the Taliban who are trying to turn Pakistan from a nuclear armed Islamic state to an arm of their holy war.

For balance, most of the towns where drone strikes have been made already were completely controlled by people who hated America and harbored or cooperated with those actively working on killing Americans. Take a tour of the hundreds of drone strike targets in tribal Pakistan and you are surveying a region accepting the rule of militants so extreme that the Pakistani government is a secular heresy worthy of death to them. Pakistani law including the death sentence for blasphemy. Those regions being under such strong control of the militants that the Pakistani military can't go there for the casualties they would take trying to do so. The welcome for Americans(long before drone strikes were made) would have been even more vicious.

It is important to state that for as much legitimate reason to 'hate' American foreign policy as there is, there exist huge numbers of people who hate America for their own petty, vile and psychotic reasons. The Islamic fundamentalists that see Pakistan as too secular are plainly one such example, and saying they only hate America because they are justified is making excuses for monsters.

It's not so much that dangerous fundamentalist atheism is impossible. As you said, Stalin and Mao proved otherwise, although an argument could be made that their zealotry was politically based, but I digress.

It's more that even the so called "rabid atheists" (Dawkins et al) of the present day simply aren't comparable. The lunatic fringe of religion is well documented (WBC, al Qaeda, etc) as is the harm caused by even mainstream religion (ban on condoms, hiding pedophiles).

There simply isn't anything comparable from even the most evangelical of the new atheists. Even dickheads like Pat Condell are small potatoes compared to the other side.

The reason why atheism is unique over other belief systems is because it isn't one. There is no atheist tract or creed that must be upheld. There are simply people who reject attempts by others to force them to comply with their particular belief set.

Now, if an atheist terror group appears tomorrow and starts bombing churches or even if an atheist political party* demanded the outlawing of religion, I would condemn them, but that hasn't happened.

Put simply, I've never had an atheist knock on my door and say "have you heard the word of Dawkins?"

*what would that even look like, given that atheism has no political affiliation?

Ok firstly for ChaosEngine, your paraphrased quote of statements which voiced a sentiment I have had since engaging in conversation with seekers about the existence of 'God or no God': The same mechanism of filtering the words you read through your own belief system is a time-honored technique of the most fundamentalist of back-assward Christians and theologians who read the words of the Bible and fit them conveniently into their limited world view filtered through a similar limited and linear, perception of existence.

(*edit-I now realize that you did not in fact, paraphrase my statement rather, bcglorf's , but the sentiment remains true)

My statement was (and yes Dannym3142, that was NOT supposed to be a question mark, edited with the appropriate period): "I have a legitimate beef with rabid supporters of any particular ideology or philosophy when the shit becomes tiresome and repetitious when tinctured with rage and anger and intolerance."

Your paraphrase of sentiment ChaosEngine, "evangelical atheists are as bad as fundamentalists," then followed by "bollocks" (bullshit), is indicative to me of the rage and anger I attributed to the average atheist's consternation with these 'stupid', 'backwards', 'hillbillies' etc.,(who are too dumb or dense to wrap their heads around the very idea that an omnipresent uni-being does not exist, yadda yadda yadda.) Further, the example used 'When was the last time atheists shot a young girl for wanting to go to school?' to justify your position is reminiscent of any Southern Baptist preacher using similar extreme examples of the human condition to support their own arguments for the infallibility of their 'god'. The words used connote a similar intolerance and ignorance of that which is wholly metagnostic or, 'the unknowable' and I regard the mechanism as the selfsame dynamic.

"So, sorry if I'm not going to sit down and STFU about it." Good. It means you are on the path to enlightenment and intend to continue to seek truths which satisfy the gnawing curiosity that ALL humans are frought with in our tenure here on Earth. Keep at it.

dannym3142: (sorry for the question mark, it confused me as well when reading it again) I used Crowley and Planck's observations as an exercise in tossing a non-linear curve-ball into the circle-jerk of those whose search for absolute truth and the nature of the universe, of matter/non-matter, seemingly ended when they decided that it's a no-brainer as to whether or not faith has a place in the argument for or against the existence of a supreme being. Faith can't be argued either, we all need it to perform the simplest of our daily monkey-tasks.

Yes-I was chastising VooDooV for the blanket of down-votes to my comments because I sense his rage and anger at my input on threads similar, and recognize in atheists the same robotic mechanism they accuse Christians of which litter blog after blog when God is mentioned, by the ever-incrasing rabid anti-god fan-boys who attack with guns blazing at the very mention of that which is unable to be understood when approaching it from linear patterns of thought. That, and I refuse ever-again be ganged-up on on this site by a few well-be-nots who have it out for me because they can't understand what the fuck I am trying to communicate. I let my guard down in the past and it cost me over a year in SIFTJAIL (to all you fucking wannabe cops here present and future, suck my balls!)

Your fight is not with God but with the exponentially-increasing non-linearity of the world we inhabit, and the chaotic desire to process the information coming into the grid with time-honored methods of argument. IMLTHO this doesn't work.

All the seemingly trollish statements I make on similar threads are made with a view to wrenching another way of thinking out of the stubborn adherents to any one pattern or direction of mental process.

It can't be argued that a realm of universes exist outside of our own limited perceptive apparatus and all argument ends there for myself for the sake of my own insanity.

My problem is that I think you miss the real flaw when tying fundamentalist attitudes to organized religion. Particularly when you point out that following ideology X(say, atheism) renders one uniquely immune to said fundamentalism.

Zealotry and fundamentalism appear to be in our DNA. Declaring that ANY ideology, system or plan renders a group immune to that zealotry has historically been exactly how each new form of zealotry and fundamentalism is founded and kicked off. The followers of Lenin and Mao all rallied around ideologies of socialism/marxism to justify their atrocities. In particular, the rallying belief that socialism would uniquely create a government that would protect the interests of the people. No organized religion required there, they even used a lot of anti-religious rhetoric too.

My simple point is people claiming that uniqueness for their ideology is EXACTLY the problem and it angers me to see so many flaunting it as the solution.

This whole "evangelical atheists are as bad as fundamentalists" argument is bollocks. When was the last time atheists shot a young girl for wanting to go to school?

I would love to never have to mention religion again. If people did actually pray in private, that would be great.

But they don't. The religious continually try to force their beliefs onto others.

So, sorry if I'm not going to sit down and STFU about it.

@bcglorf

i think it is rather you who missed my point and are aligning with the same argument @A10anis laid out.

i am not dismissing the horrific violence perpetrated by "terrorists".
what i AM dismissing is the "lesser of two evils" premise.

because it is hypocrisy on steroids.

now i realize you and i highly disagree on this matter.
thats ok..we can disagree.

people can use all the nationalistic jingoism they wish to make this situation a more "feel good" narrative.
they can point to the dead,tortured and beheaded to justify their own brand of violence.
they can flag-wave and pat themselves on the back that our form of violence is somehow "less" violent and "more" noble.

and it still would not change the fact that the reasons behind normal people turning to fundamentalist,reactionary violent groups can be found at our own feet.

this is the part of the equation that so many people i talk to seem to either willingly or unwittingly...ignore.

responsibility lies at the feet of those who created this violent ballet,just as it does with those who perpetrate the violence.

its like you hitting me in the face everyday at school and one day i hit you back.
but with a bat.
and you run to the principle and cry to have me arrested for hitting you in the face with a bat.
ignoring the fact you had been violent with me for many days prior.

moral question:who is wrong?
or in the context of this discussion:who is more evil?

While I agree with you on a philosophical and an intellectual level, I'm not sure I'm a nice enough person to try to reason with a fundamentalist freakjob who wants to kill me.

@Trancecoach
ok.fair enough.
the reasons why i was making the religion analogy is due to your bullet form responses.
your outright deflecting when points are made...shifting the goal posts to meet your criteria.
you point to the UE and i counter with sweden and finland,basically i used your own premise and your response? not good enough.move those goal posts!

you know who else argues exactly the same way? religious fundamentalists.
so i was just being a bit cheeky with ya and i assumed (wrongly it appears) that you would take it in the spirit it was meant..busting your balls.

my sadness resided in the slow realization that our conversation was one-sided.

that no matter what idea i put forth would be met with the same tactics and it assumes i wish to change your mind.i dont but i truly did want to understand you.
and your replies have been informative and i have a much better understanding now.
that is something i appreciate.
but you were talking at me,not with me.
and you did ignore my questions in regards to the darker side of capitalism.

so i dont know what you thought i was projecting onto you.i was expressing sadness and that i felt foolish.

with my newfound understanding of our relationship and your willingness to address those questions that were left unanswered.

let us begin:
1.we hear so much about the "producers" of wealth and industry.would you admit that this wealth is not gained alone but is in fact the result of a multitude of people,services and infrastructure?
a.if yes.are you willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?
b.if no.explain.

2.in a free market with no regulation,how would society keep the financial industry in check?

3.do you believe in democracy? if so,then what is wrong with regulations?

4.since we both know the vast corporate wealth we have been witnessing is due to corporations influencing government policy.should these corporations be dissolved completely?or is it government that needs to be expunged? and what would be your solution to fill that void?

5.in a free market intellectual property is an oxymoron,as is copyright.how do you suggest to rid us of those things?

6.isnt democracy a form of free market?

hey man.
so the whole spirituality deal on that comment thread?
yeah.....
dont bother bro.
these folks dig their science.
if there aint no conclusive evidence or irrefutable proof,they aint interested.

this site is mainly secular but most atheists here are a good bunch.others may be a tad..militant.
science is their religion and they debate in the very same tone as a fundamentalist would.they just change the vernacular.

and when one of them has drawn blood they come out like a school of lamprey in dark waters.
looking to feed.

wish i could have helped ya but you did put forth a premise that was more anecdotal than anything.i mean you could take the time and try to explain how you perceive your reality in regards to spirituality but it would just fall on deaf ears.

unless you have that peer reviewed paper in your hands,you aint ever gonna get them to change their minds.
so dont even bother.

hard to watch that thread..pretty brutal on ya fer sure.

The rationale for Assad in using chemical weapons is a group punishment of sorts for aiding the rebels. The conflict has been locked in back and forth territorial plays between Assad and the rebels. Dumping chemical weapons in a contested zone is a powerful psychological disincentive to the local civilian population in aiding the rebels.

Comparing this to Iraq '03 is misguided. Obama has shown no evidence of being a neoconservative, politically any serious involvement would be hugely damaging. There's good evidence to suggest that once Assad goes, there would be a civil war between the rebels for control. From there the rebels who come to power will likely be Islamic fundamentalists.

Besides, with fracking and CSG, the US is in a vastly different situation visa vi oil and gas, and either way Syria is hardly an oil slick. There's really little reason to get involved besides humanitarian reasons to act as disincentive to future dictators, at this point and I think it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

@Buck

The opposition to Assad is ragtag of mostly the local Sunni majority as the local Christians, Druze and Alawites have generally aligned themselves with Assad. They have little to nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The reporting I have read is saying the strongest insurgents who are doing the weight of the fighting are generally fundamentalist Islamists, they also seem to be receiving the bulk of the funding from Saudi Arabia and Qatar unofficial groups who are sponsoring them.

The US is giving arms to purportedly moderate groups through the Supreme Military Council and Syrian Opposition Coalition political organisations, however it is not clear how extensive this program is.

This is the god fundamentalist Christians have always craved.

Beautifully tied together. Fundamentalist Christians and free marketeers. Both supported by large corporations to achieve commercial gain.