Let's start there -- it is as good a place as any in this morass of gooey, molassesly -- and typical RfM -- thinking.

On another thread Dave the Atheist posted:

"Ah yes. Yet another hit piece by the infamous religious troll Chris Steadman.
He has been refuted on many occasions.
Leave it to you to post his dishonest toxic crap."


Later Dave posted:

"Chris Steadman is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
He is actually a roman cathoholic posing as an Atheist.
Nice try."


So who is Chris Stedman? Is he an "infamous religious troll." Is he "a roman [sic] cathololic [sic] posing as an Atheist [sic]"? Or is he perhaps just someone who intimidates others because he can spell and knows when to cap?


Whoa! MJ! You keep whipping those 360s and you might get whiplash!

And boy does Stedman have Harvard fooled! He directs the Humanist Chaplaincy there. The mission statement:
We are dedicated to building, educating, and nurturing a diverse community of Humanists, atheists, agnostics, and the nonreligious at Harvard and beyond.

Hmm -- Dave the Atheist -- what do you do for the atheist community -- I am sure you must do something beyond your -- intelligent, thoughtful, informed, and well-thought through contributions to this board. Please just tell us what it is?

Stedman's story has little to do with Catholicism (er -- "Roman" or otherwise). He grew up gay in an Evangelical home. These are clipped from the reviews of his book:

“Christians like me have heard lots of ‘testimonies’—how I once was lost but now am found, was blind ... and so on. We've heard how atheists converted to Christianity, how backsliders came back to piety, and how heretics returned to orthodoxy. What we haven’t heard enough of is testimonies about how a Christian became an atheist or how an atheist became a faitheist or how a gay Evangelical came out of the closet and out of the church. I’ve never read, heard, or met anyone better suited to this task than Chris Stedman. His beautiful writing voice, his poignant story-telling skill, his clear-eyed insight, his humane and humble empathy uniquely equip him to bear witness to everyone—especially Christians like me. Rigid anti-theists and theists alike will be challenged as they read—challenged to greater humanity, empathy, and understanding. Wholeheartedly recommended.”—Brian D. McLaren, author of Why Did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road?

“If Chris Stedman had become a pastor, he’d have a big, big church. Instead, he’s a humanist hero, a compelling writer whose efforts to build bridges between non-believers and the faithful will leave a lasting mark. Faitheist should be required reading in Sunday schools and Richard Dawkins’s house alike.” —Kevin Roose, author of The Unlikely Disciple

So, Dave the Atheist, as I am sure you are a not just a bag of noxious hot air but a gentleman of honor, I'm sure you will apologize for your insupportable remarks about a man who has done more -- say -- the gay community than you ever will.

"Portland, Oregon's GLBT newspaper Just Out called his work "brilliant" and labeled him an "emerging... vibrant and youthful qu**r voice for the secular humanist movement.""



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2012 10:50PM by Susan I/S.

I'm sensing anger Batman.

but in reality, if I was doing a 360, that means that I am ultimately always headed in exactly the SAME DIRECTION. If you have a beef with me, please be SPECIFIC and non of this vague "360" BULL SHIT and it is intellectually dishonest BULL SHIT.

As far as I know, I did not contradict or even divert from anything I have said up till now.

I did not have any conflict with religion until I realized it was religion and pretty much religion alone that was attacking my rights.

I fight religion because I was ATTACKED by religion and NOT because I am an Atheist.

My atheism is now part of the tools I use to defend myself. rest assured, IT IS DEFENSIVE. I did NOT pick this fight.

To add, a Portland gay news paper is HARDLY the voice of the gay community. Even in big cities, those kind of papers do not have the financing to do much research or investigation thus, often inaccurate in many details. That said, they are likely to be talking about what he has said in regards to GAY issues and not about what he says about ATHEIST issues.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2012 10:33PM by MJ.

MJ, your post had me wondering if there have been any cultures that have been accepting of gay people. Is the problem just with the Abrahamic religions or is it with other or all religions?

A famous example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_militaries_of_ancient_Greece

The "two spirit" aspect of Native Americans often had a homosexual component that was accepted by the tribes,

That's exactly how I feel. Who drew first blood? Plus, yes, a 360 degree turn is no turn at all.

LOL

In the article, Stedman said he has come to own the word , so maybe MJ was referring to this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2012 10:50PM by Susan I/S.

My point being, if we are going to hold up individual atheists as proof of something about Atheism, we should be able to hold up individual religious people as proof of something about religion.

As usual you missed the point if you even read the article. The author was referring to a certain type of atheist. He didn't say all atheists are like that. Got it?

Re read my responses in the other thread, I addressed JUST THAT.

He created a new group to malign as a group. He called it "new atheist". Mot all "new atheists" are the same.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2012 10:38PM by MJ.

But that is just one of many side issues. There are so many! They are so tempting! Of course the real, obvious double standard is that religons are to be criticized, but atheists never can be. No matter how destructive -- or how identical to religions -- they become. That is the only double standard here.

In fact religions can only be criticized -- no one can say anything good about any religion. Not ever. Because we atheists are trunculant children who make up and enforce stupid rules like that. That is why we all left religions -- because we wanted to be the ones to make up and enforce the stupid rules, not because the rules were stupid or stultifying. No problems with stupid rules at all. We just want to be in charge in of them.

MJ. Google is your friend. Use it. And Stedman is cute! In a geeky way. But geeky is very fashionable. You can easily find out more about him. Or are you afraid you will like him -- and feel a bit of a fool? For him too, rebellion against religion is rooted in how he was treated as a gay person. Hmm. A kindred spirit. Hope I'm not making you uncomfortable.

If you have read my posts, I do not have a beef with him or what he said.

Re read what I posted until you understand that my beef was that people were trying to use the word of a SINGLE atheist to malign a class of atheists. My argument is independent of anything that person actually said.

Seriously, that last post was INSULTING.

There were other attacks in the two thread that came before this one, equally as preposterous as attacking Stedman as "a roman cathoholic posing as an Atheist [sic]." Bona dea was attacked again and again for pouting, but I saw nothing that warranted that accusation. On the other hand, jacob posted this about bona dea:
"...your stance that "new atheism" is a rancorous cancer that must be purged from society, and religion is a misunderstood hallmark of society that must be protected and revered?"

I'm sorry. I totally missed that part. Where did bona dea, Stedman -- anyone -- say that? Cite sources, please. Because without sources that is one of the greatest, "Nobody loves me. Everybody hates me. I'm going to go eat woooorrrrrmmmms!" I have ever read.

So jacob, pout much?

MJ! Dave! jacob! Someone tapped your knee! Jerk that foot! Jerk it! Jerk it hard!

That is just a nasty thing to do.

Again, if you have a SPECIFIC and VALID complaint about what *I* said, let's here it.

Till then, I'm not the one jerking ANYTHING.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2012 11:00PM by MJ.

Well, Jacob and I worked it out, but your are right on about the others.

Dagney -- I don't want to belong to any group that considers itself beyond criticism. It is one of the reasons I left Mormonism. Only I really left. You are still there. If anyone criticizes Mormonism, Mormons say critics are from the devil. If anyone criticizes atheists -- *some* nummie atheist pout (We are so oppressed!) and some say critics have to be in league with -- God -- who is the new devil!

Maybe they are just critical thinkers. Ever consider that? Ohnevermind. It is a bit of a Catch-22 -- you have to be a critical thinker to get that. I think that ship has sailed for you.

"Chris Stedman is the Assistant Chaplain and Values in Action Coordinator for the Humanist Community at Harvard University (where he was previously the inaugural Interfaith and Community Service Fellow), the Emeritus Managing Director of State of Formation at the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue, and the Founder of the first blog dedicated to exploring atheist-interfaith engagement, NonProphet Status.

"Chris writes for HuffPost Gay Voices and HuffPost Religion, and he is the youngest panelist for The Washington Post On Faith. His memoir, Faitheist, will be published by Beacon Press in 2012.

"Previously a Content Developer and Adjunct Trainer for the Interfaith Youth Core, Chris is an atheist working to foster positive and productive dialogue and collaborative action between faith communities and the nonreligious. Portland, Oregon’s GLBT newspaper Just Out called his work "brilliant" and labeled him an "emerging… vibrant and youthful qu**r voice for the secular humanist movement." For more on Chris, click here. For a video profile.."

Still awaiting your list of contributions, Dave. I'm sure it is equally impressive. This was taken from his "About Me" Net page. I'd include the link, but I have heard you can't do that here.

You guys are a piece of work. What is up with accusing bona all the time of pouting? Because she challenges you? You didn't leave Mormonism to be challenged? So why bother?

MJ -- you look like a fool who would rather stab a fellow gay organizer in the back rather than admit you are wrong. Wow. Great advertisement for -- what?

Dave -- I'm still waiting for your gentlemanly apology for calling a fellow atheist a wolf in sheep's clothing. Again -- would you really stab a fellow atheist in the back than admit you are wrong?

Pouting -- figure out what PROJECTION means, and you will understand why you are always accusing bona.

Dave -- your contribution! How hard can it be?

Gee jacob, that is so hard! I guess -- I guess -- it must just be the New Atheists! I feel so bad! I'm -- I'm UNFAIR TO THEM!

Because -- when I was twelve I was asking my dad such hard questions about Jesus that he became angry. And I used to openly tell off the racist in my town. I was pleased once to learn that decades after I left Mormonism, they still mentioned my name in hushed tones and how I would bring up the difficult questions. And I once brought complete silence to a huge auditorium of students at the U of U when I raised my hand in a woman's history class and said, "We talk a lot here about the dangerous legal doctrine of femme covert, but isn't the Mormon preisthood just religious femme covert?"

And then there was that time on a women's right march when a friend warned me if I didn't settle down I was going to get arrested. There were a lot of marches -- anti-war marches, civil rights demonstrations.

So yeah, I guess I'm just hard on the New Atheists. I expect them to live up to my exacting standards -- just as I expected my Mormon small town to get in line with equality for blacks, just as I expected men to grow up and start women like partners, not their mommies or their whores. I'm just every bit as tough on atheists. If they are going to complain endlessly about religions, they damned well better not make the same mistakes.

Geesh. Are you a professional jerk -- or does it just come naturally to you? Do you ding dongs honestly believe your own sick PR that everyone who crosses you is just defending religions? Is a closet believer? You don't know there are people out there who make you guys look like weenies hiding here from the real world and real conflicts while others do the real work of changing things?

So let me repeat the question: Is it just the "new atheists" that you have a problem with, or all people who state how they feel without deference to the feelings of others?

From your post I guess you are saying that you do in fact have a problem with more than just "new atheists". I think that you have a problem with people who have decided opinions that are different than yours. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I said he created a group that he then used to malign as a class of people, but that is a LEGITIMATE CRITICISM. Seriously, it is no wonder that you have the ideas that you do if you think legitimate disagreement is backstabbing.

Why all the INSULTING LIES?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2012 11:35PM by MJ.

How about you tell us what Stedman has done for the Atheist community instead of acting as his apologist.

And no, we don't need any stinking trappings of religion as Stedman suggests.

Whether or not Stedman is gay is a non sequitur so don't include that in your bogus "argument".



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2012 11:05PM by Dave the Atheist.

And the Big Four are infallible and nobody, not even an atheist can criticize them. I posted a link by an atheist without comment and the crazies came out ranting and attacking me. LOL. Maybe I'll go to FB and say the JS was a fraud who married little girls and married women and see if I can get a similar response.

Do quote where atheists claim that any other atheists are infallible.

Now with religion...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Opps, facts getting in your way again? Oh, that's right, facts are not important to you.

Ready, set, Bona's lip sticks out, She Pouts "good night" and stops away like my 2 year old grand niece!

You said, "Of course the real, obvious double standard is that religons are to be criticized, but atheists never can be."

You can and presently ARE criticizing atheists, right here in this thread. Big deal.

The quality of the argument against something of substance other than how snarky you think they is something to note.

Did you know atheists are heavily discriminated against in our present society? G. Bush said they should not be regarded as citizens for example. That's why places like RfM are a refuge for atheists to speak, IMO.

The teachings of religion are often found to be false. This should be not be protected but investigated. Instead, if you notice, the usual response from religionists is that atheists are not being nice. That too, is something to note.

The OP is an atheist and, yes, atheists are criticized on the board occasionally and then the crazies come out ranting and raving as if the person doing the criticizing no matter how mild had killed their mothers. On the other hand, some atheists make the most outrageous and false statements about religion with relative impunity here. That is the double standard and it is getting really old.

OK, this is just wrong. I have said lots of insulting things about religious people, but do I ever get mentioned in these threads? Well sometimes. But not as often as I deserve!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2012 11:01PM by MJ.

You DID?

Freudian slips. Love them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2012 11:19PM by Mia.

FCD your are an awful bigot and you should be ashamed. Are you happy now? Just kidding.

Is it just the "new atheists" that you have a problem with, or all people who state how they feel without deference to the feelings of others?