Hell, just the name is entertaining.

Haha, she refers to the pope as "Pope Nazipants the Dickth." Love it.

Jocelyn sounds great, but you know exactly what the fucknut coalition says in response: She's not a "Real" Christian or she wouldn't oppose them and anyone who curses can't be a genuine follower of the Lord...

I don't care how open minded she claims to be. Her religious beliefs have no more validity than theirs.

Slacktivist is a Baptist blogger who has been doing a similar thing for several years--systematically dismantling the Left Behind series, in particular. His language may be less Sloggerriffic, but Unreasonable Faith just recently called him one of the top 30 atheist/agnostic/skeptic blogs, so hey.

I think that when you're truly pissed off at someone, especially someone being hypocritical, God's OK with you calling them a "fuck-nut."

this really is the best thing evah!

BTW, is this the same Jocelyn who sometimes comments here on Slog?

I think Jeebuz would have been totally down with the term "fucknut", just for it's alliterative qualities alone.

Thanks for the linkage, Thel and Dan. The Slacktivist language is way less Sloggy tit-for-tat indeed (a style my shitheel ex likes to call "gifted tween-y," especially when I start using it.)

This is awesome. I'm sending a link to this blog to my conservative Christian family members. They will probably, as michael strangeways points out, reply to me that she's not a "real" Christian, but even if they're only confronted by their hypocrisy for the three minutes they read it before closing the window in disgust, it will be worth it.

Hey, thanks, Dan!

@2 - I had to stop and giggle for like 20 minutes when I wrote that.

@4 - Nobody religious beliefs have any validity at all. In my opinion it's all a matter of believing what makes you feel good and doing it in a way that doesn't harm anybody (including yourself).

@8 - yes

Oh, and @ 11 - I hope they comment. I hope it so hard.

Hey Jocelyn, LOVE your blog. I think the St Jocelyn sign is great. I can't stop snickering everytime I think of those words "Pope Nazipants."

@12 Your response to 4 makes you sound very pagan- 'An it harm none, do what you will'. Careful of your Christian cred. :-)
Awesome blog though. I forwarded it to some of my Christian friends I'm sure will love it.

@ 15 - I saw a Rabbi interviewed on TV when I was a kid. I don't remember why he was interviewed or anything, but I remember him saying that God would be so cruel as to put all His truth into one religion. I'm still really enchanted by that concept.

Coining "Pope Nazipants the Dickth" is worth a Nobel prize, I think.

And by "would" I of course meant "wouldn't."

@16 - I think you mean God wouldn't be so cruel... my feelings, too. Religion is personal journey, and I am Christian but I don't force that on anyone else. Happy trails.

@4: You, sir, are the very paragon of open-mindedness.

The problem is that when it comes to the bible the fundies have it right. It's a backward document written. Even Jesus is an ass if you actually read the whole damn gospels. And Paul is a bigger fuck then that. We need to move beyond religion not reform it.

I can attest to the fact that I have been offically been stripped of my title of being a "Real" Christian by some. My sins as charged:

1) Arguing against the belief that homosexuality is a sin.
2) Being a registered Democrat.
3)Being Pro Choice.
4)Swearing like a sailor.

And, according to some, I'm going to burn in hell and I'm unpatriotic. So, don't read anything I post, because I may lead you along the path to destruction.

I look forward to reading your blog Jocelyn.

@21 - Some people need religion. You're never going to convince all the world to be atheists. It just doesn't work for everyone. Furthermore, being an atheist doesn't stop you from being an asshole (look at Richard Dawkins). Being holier-than-thou about NOT having a religion is totally just as bad as being a right-wing fucknut. Srsly.

I think what's important, however, if acknowledging that the Bible may or may not be divinely inspired (whatever your opinion is), but it was definitely written by men. Certainly a lot of things have been lost in translation. At the core of the New Testament, I really think the message is Christ trying to get people to be better people. Some of it's dated, yes, but a lot of that message is still relevant today.

Plus, the book of Revelations is one of the best sci-fi stories I've ever read.

@23 you know, i've always thought the bible was rather boring. eh. i guess we all have our tastes. i read it to learn about it, but not because i found it so engaging. (why do i feel a little bad about admitting that?)

@23 I'm not sure I agree. Some countries in Europe are mostly secular as is Japan.

I'm also not sure that's the message of the New Testament. Christ was just as big, if not bigger, on hell then the old testament and endorsed many of the nonsense rules derived there in. Not to mention that even if we say all this shit is due to translations or humans would not you think a loving all powerful being would at least be able to ensure his message got through?

He was also more of an asshole the Dawkins could ever hope to be. Dawkins just states the simple truth that there is absolutely no reason to take religion seriously as there is no more evidence to support their stories then say My Little Pony. Jesus said that cities that refused his message would be destroyed and those that did not believe would be cast into the fire. He rejected basic human drives like sexuality and argued for rather blatant sexism. He threw fits, fucked up some peoples lives, and generally was as annoying as most burners.

Here's the thing if your just going to pick the nice parts out of the book then what your essentially doing is creating your own religion. You've already decided what is true and what is false, what is good and what is evil. You're just pretending that you have some divine support for your own philosophy.

Why not just accept that its up to us to determine how we should live?

But you're right there are some great stories in their. Not as good as the Greeks or Mormons, but good nonetheless.

Jesus died to fill my pocket with Gold.

@25, I mean at least most of the younger people in those countries...

@25 - I have to say that I find your opinion incredibly offensive. What's particularly offensive about it, of course, is that we tend to agree on the facts but have come to different conclusions. My conclusion, of course, doesn't attack your faith. Your conclusion, however, does attack mine. Let's review:

"Christ was just as big, if not bigger, on hell then the old testament and endorsed many of the nonsense rules derived there in."

I think you got a different message from the Bible than I did. That's the beauty of picking and choosing. Of course I pick and choose. We all do. I think the best thing anyone can do is create their own religion. Better to do that than blindly follow what someone has told you.

What irks me, sgiffy, is that my faith in no way conflicts with my belief in evolution, gay rights, reproductive choice and the like. If anything, it enhances those things because I value truth and justice. But because I believe in Jesus, you take issue with my faith. It's the particulars that bother you, not the overlying theme of what I believe. I'm pretty sure that makes you a bigot. Way to go.

@28, Ah yes the bigotry card. Sorry but ideas are not sacred. Just becasue you might beleive something it does not mean I can not say its false. Sorry but a disagreement over ideas is not the same as say not liking black people. Religion =/= race

I also like how you rejecting my reading of the bible is fine, but me doing the same is apparently further evidence of my bigotry.

And we do not agree on the facts. Not even close. I reject the notion that there are magical beings floating about having kids and helping to write books. I reject that we should beleive things becasue we want to, evidence be damned. I reject the entire notion of faith as a path toward anything resembling truth. In fact I think its is highly dangerous.

So yes I disagree with your believing in Jesus. I respect your right to beleive in such things, but I don't think that your right in your belief. Just as you appear to disagree with people who oppose gay rights, or are anti-choice. There is nothing wrong with disagreement.

@28 - Hm, Jocelyn, I find myself in the middle of this discussion between you and sgiffy. I admire your take on Christianity - how you're consciously creating your own mythology. (I prefer the term mythology and not religion, since religion -- re-ligare, "to bind together", is a social and not personal phenomenon.) I don't think it's possible to "opt out" of a worldview, and creating your worldview - your "personal mythology", if you will - consciously - owning it, knowing it doesn't really apply to anyone else a long as everyone respects certain mutually agreeable boundaries - well, that's about the best anyone can hope for. And atheists can be (can be, not always are) just as fundamentalist as anyone, since fundamentalism is a mental disorder, not an ideology. (Though it doesn't help to be egged on by an ideology - religious or otherwise - that prizes fundamentalism.)

But it also doesn't help to lightly throw around epithets like "bigot", however apt they may be, because people have emotional responses to words. Likewise with the rampant "fucks" and "shits" and so on in your blogging. I mean, I have no problem with it personally, and it's your blog to do as you like with it - I'm just saying it would be the perfect zinger to share with all my fundamentalist Christian relatives ALL THE TIME, except they wouldn't get past the language. It creates an unnecessary barrier between you and the people you're trying to communicate with. And that's what communication is about, right? Not just about expressing yourself in the most satisfying way, but also about choosing words to get the intended message across to the intended audience.

Don't get me wrong, your blog is lovely as it is. Just sharing my reaction.

Also, I assume you're reading the good stuff: Bishop John Shelby Spong, Karen Armstrong, and the like?

And sgiffy: I totally agree that evidence always has to trump faith. But here's the kicker: We never have all the evidence. Never have, never will. We evolved the brain mechanisms that gave rise to faith because of our ability to pick up on patterns in our environment and project possible outcomes and scenarios given our experiences. Sometimes we're right, sometimes we're wrong. A scientist uses these tentative ideas as hypothesis for testing the laboratory, but in our daily lives we just have to get things right the first time; we can't always afford to test things before we do them for real. We should learn from our mistakes, of course, but you have to go on hunches and whims without all of the evidence. That's just life. And religion -- at its best -- is a lie that leads us to the truth, is a collection of stories that tell us about human experience and lessons learned the hard way. It's not infallible, so as long as someone's not claiming to have infallible truth or trying to tell you what to do, why the hostility?

Jocelyn, I'm a diehard atheist and I'm saying your blog rocks.

@29-

OK, Smuggy Smugerson. I don't know where you got the comparison between you being a bigoted ass and racism from. Probably your big smug ass, you smug bigot.

Now that that's out of my system, I most certainly did not dismiss your reading of the Bible. You said people pick and choose. I agreed (see how we just agreed there?), and said that you and I clearly picked and chose different things.

Here's another thing we agree on, asswipe: I ALSO reject the notion that there are magical beings floating around having kids and helping to write books (though if someone else wanted to believe that, it'd be OK with me as long as they didn't try to prove that their magical beings are superior to anyone else's belief system).

I also reject the notion that you can disprove the existence of God. I also reject the notion that you can prove the existence of God. Thus, I embrace the notion that people can believe whatever the fuck they want. I also embrace the notion that you're a prick.

No, there is nothing wrong with disagreement. Me disagreeing with someone who, say, uses their personal faith as a way to prevent/attempt to prevent others from having what should be basic human rights, however, is a little different than you saying it's bullshit that I like Jesus. What I'm doing in disagreeing with these people is trying to prove that you pretty much can make the bible say whatever you want (which is why I have such a love/hate relationship with it), so using it as absolute proof of anything is pretty silly. It's an exceptionally flawed document.

What you're doing, however, is just being an asshole. Way to go, asshole.

@31, We already have a discipline that seeks truth in stories, its called literature. I also accept that we rarely if ever have perfect evidence. However that is profoundly different from inventing tales and beings and calling them true. That's were I have a problem. Its treating faith as if it is somehow a path toward truth.

@33, but heres the thing, some belief systems are better then others. Our beleifs about how society should be ordered is better then say the North Koreans. Our belief system regarding the role of women in society is better then that of Saudi Arabia. Some belief systems also have the weight of evidence behind them.

You might say we cannot disprove god, and to some extent that is true. Though we can ask if the evidence available is in accordance with the hypothesis that is such a being.

But thats not the point is it? I can't prove there is not an invisible goblin under my house that makes me have bad dreams sometimes, but there is certainly no evidence to support that. There is evidence to support that bad dreams are simply my brain being my brain and that's that. With god its the same way. There is essentially zero evidence to suggest such a being exists and even less to suggest that some kind of personal christian style go exists.

I really like that I am apparently the ass but you're the one doing the name calling. I might think your beleifs are wrong but I'll stick to discussing them and not descend into rather lame attempts at name calling.

@34-

But here's the thing: we're not talking about a system of government. We're talking about personal faith. If you want to believe there's a goblin under your house, that's totally kosh. I won't argue it.

As for what my personal beliefs about God are exactly, you don't know, do you? You don't know whether or not they're remotely logical. You don't know whether I see God as a physical human-like being who made the world in six days, or whether I see God as simply the sum of all existence. You don't know what my personal relationship with Jesus Christ is, either. I might see him as the son of God made man to save us from original sin, or I might see him as a pretty cool dude who possibly existed and certainly had a bigger impact on the course of human history than he probably should have. So really it's presumptuous (aka smuggy smug smug) of you to assume that your logic is superior to mine, seeing as you don't know what mine is.

In conclusion, name calling is fun. And you're an ass. Teehee.

sgiffy - the difference between Jocelyn and you is that Jocelyn is prepared to accept your belief that God doesn't exist. You prefer to believe nothing without evidence - she prefers to believe in something that, by its very nature, cannot be proved by evidence.

Thanks, Karla. That's what I was trying to explain but all my swearing got in the way. :)

p.s. Holy shit I'm on the "Friends of Slog" list.

Congrats!

@35 I never said you believed one thing or another, at lest not intentionally. I was speaking generally.

@36, what do you mean by accept? I mean, I don't know what she believes, but I accept her right to beleive what he wants. IS that what you mean?

However I don't see any reason why this stuff should somehow not be discussed or debated. Nor do I agree with what she has said thus far.

While I think live and let live is plenty good when were say talking about laws and the like, I think that expressing disagreement and debating ideas is an important part of a free and open society. I would not say go to her blog and pick fights, unless of course she made it clear she was creating such a space, but here, in an open forum, I see nothing wrong with expressing and arguing over differing views of various things.

Sgiffy, I think the debate you were starting is one that shouldn't happen. Personal beliefs are not something to be debated if they're not something that means intolerance or hatred. I used to be an atheist, and I got there by logic. I remember thinking, when I realized the truth about the world, that the logic was a burden and I wished I hadn't gotten there. I decided almost immediately that I was never going to try to explain that logic to anyone else because it would be unfair to them. Let them have their beliefs, if it makes them feel better.

And that's why I have mine. Because they make me feel better. You attacking - sorry, "debating" - them is totally not cool. Thanks.

@41, so um, if you did not want to talk about beleifs, why did you even bother responding to my comment? I know when I don't want to talk about something I tend not to start discussions about it. But hey, that's just me.

Sorry but we are grown-ups and if someone wants to be sheltered it would probably be advisable that they stay the fuck off of the internet. Or at least open forums such as this. They might encounter some burdensome logic.

Like I said I am not going to troll someones personal space on the internet, or go forums where it is expected that the participants share common view points. That's rude. But I am also not going not say things because some people don't get that while they might think their beliefs are beyond reproach, no one else is obliged to extend the same deference.

But honestly, you need to grow the fuck up.

Sgiffy, it's hard for me to refrain from calling you an asshole, but I will try.

Obviously, I'm open to the discussion. Your opinion is that my beliefs are stupid. My opinion is that you should shut the hell up. See? We're discussing. Isn't it wonderful?

But you're right, you've convinced me. Your powers of logic are too much for my meagre mind. Your maturity, unlike mine, is staggering, matched only by your powers of cognition. You've totally won this argument and don't look like an asshole at all. Good work.

@43, lol.

43. Actually, calling someone an asshole is fairly easy when you can't put anything resembling an actual name to your comments, Whole Bunch of Letters and a Question Mark.

*snap* *snap* hey! check it out! there are world problems and incredible injustices going on! And you're all gonna die before too long. So quick slapping each other. On an internet forum. Go give someone a hug.

Congrats, Evan - you just won the biggest pretentious stupid asshole award in this whole discussion!

"like, stop talking about stuff I don't care to read and, like, go save starving children and shit, 'cuz, like, if I mention "injustices," I can win any argument and no one will notice that I'm getting just as wrapped up in this shit as the people I'm criticizing for getting wrapped up in this shit! Injustices! Injustices!"

Piss off, moron.

I appreciate the discussion between Sigffy and Joceyln (WTFWJD?), I think there is much to learn from it. So, thanks.

PS Joceyln, I enjoyed reading your WTFWJD? blog, you make some good points.

So many atheists have the same issue that proselytizing Christian assholes do: you can't come across the existence of a (harmless) belief that's different from yours and just shrug and say, "That seems illogical, but whatevs. Believe what you like and I'll do the same."

No...they just have, have, HAVE to pick at it, and whine, and poke, and wheedle, and argue indignantly, and insult, and make endless claims of their intellectual and moral superiority, and order people about, and pout, and scream, and fuss, and rant, all because they just CAN'T accept that OMG IT'S SO TERRIBLE THAT THEY CAN'T CHANGE EVERYONE'S MIND TO BELIEVE EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO ABOUT THE UNIVERSE!!!!!

Tolerant atheists: love ya. To pieces. Seriously. But the rest of ya'll, fuck off. And while you're at it, learn some history before you give me the ol' "Atheism is totally better than anything because all religion creates violence and stuff but atheism doesn't."

Russian revolution. Bolshevik atheists. Burning and death and violence and executions all in the name of BE ATHEIST OR ELSE!!!!

Authoritarian douchebaggery is authoritarian douchebaggery. The belief you attach to it is incidental.

I take it back, you're totally right. this internet forum is absolutely worth getting worked up over. It's worth our combined hatred. Our combined passions. Our life energy. This. This is what I want my life to mean. What I want my contributions to the world to be. Getting angry. Really, really worked up and angry. Reading about people who seem to be on the verge of causing actual physical harm should the opportunity present itself.

It's funny. America's actually become considerably more violently partisan since the advent of blogs and internet forums to function as a kind of rage amplifier.

So lets all do it, everyone! Lets get angry! Really really angry at each other! At me, and anything else that moves in the bottom of this daily forum read a day and a half after its posting. You reading this can help the world! Just tell me to go screw off! Let loose. Get as worked up as you can. Allow yourself to be overcome with emotion. And vent. Cause we probably won't ever die. So who cares what we do with our time and energy? Well I do. And I want you to use it to get really really angry at me. Like crazy I-want-to-actually-cause-you-harm angry.

I want to call this the funniest shit ever but that would be an insult to ACTUAL FUNNY SHIT.

No thank you, evan.

You make a good point about our ability to become enraged from a vantage point of safety, because we can hide our identity. Rage, just doesn't work for me. I prefer respect, because I want to understand.

Yeah, Evan, whatever. Point is, you're still getting just as worked up over what's going on here as the people you're criticizing for it.

It's funny. America's actually become considerably more violently partisan since the advent of blogs and internet forums to function as a kind of rage amplifier.

Blogs and internet forums mean that for the first time, people are able to say what they feel and think to the person who's opinion they've violently disagreed with for decades without having to worry about ruining Thanksgiving dinner because of it. So what? I hardly care who's getting angry, I care that more conversations are happening between people who disagree than used to happen. I care that people are being exposed to more ideas that they may find objectionable and being forced to deal with them. So the results are ugly. Big whoop. I'm sorry it offends your delicate sensibilities, but if you can't handle it, I highly suggest you remove yourself because you're not going to make it change any time soon, kid.

did anyone else get the feeling that sgiffy's real faux pas in this thread was the sin of "coming down to where you work and smacking the dick out of your mouth"? dude, it's her day in the sun, let it go man. so you don't believe in God... big whoop, me neither. do you want a medal? a parade? why don't you do something interesting like Jocelyn did and then we'll pay attention to you?

@ 50 - You're getting angry over yourself getting angry. In this world of meta-everything, is that "meta-anger"?

Lee, I love you.

Bet you regret pimping her blog now, huh?

@Jocelyn

Give Richard Dawkins a chance. If you've garnered your impression of him from the pop media you probably don't realize what an earnest and intelligent guy he is. He's also unfailingly polite in any situation in which he isn't either formally engaged in an argument or being aggressively confronted. I don't know; I'm not on the receiving end of his disapproval so I suppose I have an easier time seeing his good points.

Anyway, I really would be dishonest if I said I could understand your beliefs, but you seem smart and cool and even if I think your beliefs are weird I am glad you're actually living by them. Keep up the good work.

@49

Please don't try to lay historical atrocities at the feet of atheism. The communists were atheistic but that doesn't mean they did anything in the name of atheism. False equivalence. Nobody's denying that atheists can be dicks too, but that doesn't mean you need to smear my general lack of beliefs with the crimes of communist zealots.

@evan

I'm afraid if you think that blogs and forums are the driving force behind increased polarization you must not have been paying very close attention to the news media, especially political talk shows and talk radio, during the last forty years or so. Modern politics began their trend toward today's unpleasant tone before there was an internet.

Fuckin' thanks!

@58- I actually don't mind Dawkins, usually. I do, however, think his position that atheism in inherently superior to everything else is pretty douchey. I used to think that people had to be atheists to be intelligent as well, but then I got my head out of my ass and realized the truth: most people are retarded, regardless of what they believe. But anyway, I do often enjoy Dawkins. He's just an asshole, which in the end is OK with me.

I also don't think that anyone was Laurel was trying to lay blame for the communist revolution in Russia on atheists in general. She was merely saying that not all big historical atrocities were committed by religious people, which is an argument that gets thrown around.

Anyway, it's cool if you don't understand my beliefs. I'm not sure how you can think they're weird though since you don't know what they are. Dan kind of made an assumption when I said I liked Jesus that it follows then that I must be Christian. I don't really know how to describe what I am, but I certainly do not belong to any organized religion.

@33: "What I'm doing in disagreeing with these people is trying to prove that you pretty much can make the bible say whatever you want (which is why I have such a love/hate relationship with it), so using it as absolute proof of anything is pretty silly. It's an exceptionally flawed document."

Then why are you bothering to quote it at all?

@33: "I embrace the notion that people can believe whatever the fuck they want. "

Unless, as sgiffy @29, they "...don't think that you're right in your belief."

@33: "...there is nothing wrong with disagreement. Me disagreeing with someone who, say, uses their personal faith as a way to prevent/attempt to prevent others from having what should be basic human rights, however, is a little different than you saying it's bullshit that I like Jesus."

You are against the personal beliefs of others which you believe are bad
yet you become abusive when your own personal beliefs are questioned.

No, 61, you're not. I think you're just missing the point a little bit.

There are a few points in quoting it at all, at least in the case of my blog. First of all, it's to entertain myself and to learn a bit more about the Bible, which, until recently, I hadn't looked at in years. There are stories in there that make sense and ones that don't, and which ones are which is really dependent on who you ask. I think it's funny to take someone who uses the Bible as an excuse to do things like campaign against gay marriage and reproductive rights, and show them that the verses they cite not only don't really mean what they say they mean, but are totally contradicted at other points in the Bible anyway. I think they have far less of a point than I do, but anyway...

Again, I think you miss the difference. Someone says to me "I am Christian. I believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, and that's why all of America is going to Hell." Yeah, I'm going to argue with them. Not about Jesus, but about the Hell part. The same goes for any religion (or lack thereof). Arguing the basics (dieties or no dieties, life after death or no life after death, etc.), I think, is not cool. But when people use their religious beliefs to be intolerant assholes, I think it's appropriate to take issue.

I know it's a ridiculous point to make, in the end, because I'm a total intolerant asshole when it comes to intolerant assholes, so it'd be pretty rich of me to say I'm better than anybody. It's that every atheist who argues that atheism is inherently superior to all other systems of belief reminds me of this evangelist dude who used to stand outside one of the bigger halls at the university I went to and scream about how we were all going to hell for not believing in his particular brand of Christianity.

So, in conclusion, what people believe is irrelevant, unless they are dicks about it. And evangelist atheists piss me off as much as evangelists of any other belief system. Rock.

Jocelyn,

I just want to thank you. You are a wonderful, passionate person who doesn't know what to believe. You are among the few brave ones in America today who aren't afraid of saying "I don't know everything and neither does anyone."

A long time ago one of my college professors told me to only listen to people who are willing to say "I don't know" as a complete response to a question. He has been proven right thousands of times in my experience. Anyone who thinks they know what is going on and how it all works, is full of shit.

Good luck young lady. I will continue to read what you have to say.

Yes, thanks Jocelyn. In particular, thanks for bringing back the baby from the dumped-out-bathwater of the bible, and saying "you can pick and choose" when everyone else is saying I can't. The atheists and the fundies both. And a lot of people in between.

I can pick and choose what to believe - or respect - any time I want, from any source I want. Does it have to be "proven" for me to believe it? No. And "proven" is in quotes because there are so many standards of proof as to make the word practically meaningless. Every single thing I believe is hunch-based. Sometimes I really don't know, but all else is hunch, from "sun coming up tomorrow" to "mutations responsible for evolution are not random".

And my hunch is that's true for everyone. And if someone wants to convince me his hunch is true and mine is not, well, then that is just alright with me, but keep in mind that insults and screaming are not convincing, and coercion does not work in the realm of belief. Behavior maybe, but not belief.

I also like Libr8, which I found by clicking on Lauren's name. Which I did because I agree with Lauren.

Thanks Dr. Jim and Phoebe!

I agree with Laurel too, but not so much into Libr8. I'll have to let that be someone else's hunch.

@ people arguing "Mao and Pol Pot were atheists, so atheists are responsible for atrocities too":

I ask you to refer to the chap at #30, who stated religion itself is a social, not spiritual phenomenon. it exists to bring (or bind) people together in something. faith and myth can be religion, but in totalitarian societies, the state itself becomes the religion. if then a leader does away with God to serve his own purposes, that is not atheism, that is megalomania. atrocity is not commited in the name of ridding the world of God per se, but is really an extension of religious war, the State's Reality vs Biblical.

as entertaining as people like Christopher Hitchens can be with their empowering, smarmy irreverance helping to take back the night for non-believers, a true atheist realizes that in the end they're just shit. we are not important. we aren't special. circle of life and all that jazz.

Project Libr8 is, incidentally, a website for anarchist COMMUNISTS. So no, I am not trying to blame all the "evils" of communism on atheism.

I am, in fact, referencing specific events regarding Bolshevik persecution of churches and individuals who chose to continue on with the whole Christian thing in the face of an officially atheist state. My point is, any belief system can be used to justify theocratic violence, and atheism is historically not an exception.

Mao and Pol Pot don't enter into it in any way whatsoever, as they were not Russian Bolsheviks. Please follow the conversation at hand, or you'll have to sit at the kiddies' table.

Phoebe - thanks! Glad you're interested.

Jocelyn - sorry it wasn't your cuppa, but I'm curious: what do you mean by "someone else's hunch"?

faith and myth can be religion, but in totalitarian societies, the state itself becomes the religion. if then a leader does away with God to serve his own purposes, that is not atheism, that is megalomania. atrocity is not commited in the name of ridding the world of God per se, but is really an extension of religious war, the State's Reality vs Biblical.

Snarkiness aside... if I'm following your meaning, this is absolutely right and this is my point. An authoritarian state (or group which wishes to establish an oppressive authority over the population) doesn't care what religious belief it uses because the only thing that matters is the aqcuisition of power. Whichever theological system appears to be the most fashionable at the moment becomes the means of doing this - historically, this has included atheism. (Though atheism was an incidental ideology and the majority of the Bolshevik takeover was fueled by a warping of political ideology, which can be just as powerful.)

@69 - Phoebe was talking about personal faith being based on hunches, and on people having different hunches. So like, that's someone else's hunch.

And yes, I think we all agree with Lee.

Jocelyn - see, to my method of thinking, politics and religion can't be compared in that way. Religion can be personal and kept out of other people's lives, but the political systems we favor and choose to implement cannot. Social contracts affect everyone. I can believe in my anarchist communism, but I can't live it in the way I can live my choice of spiritual beliefs. I am forced to live in representative capitalist democracy until such time as society at large changes its mind about the social contract.

So while I keep my religious beliefs to myself (unless someone is particularly interested), I take action to convince others to sympathize with my political views and to take action to move them forward. I try not to be pushy - just put it out there and argue politely (most of the time - some issues require throwing the gauntlet down, but I doubt you and I would disagree on most of those), to let people make an informed decision, but I *am* trying to convert people because a society cannot operate with different, personal social contracts in the way it can operate with different, personal spiritual beliefs.

I also don't think politics are a matter of a hunch in the way religion is - it's social science, which is anything but exact, but it's still a great deal more concrete than spiritual pursuits. And the effects of political systems are very real and we have to take responsibility for how they work and how to improve them.

See, it was a joke. Arguing politics is the spice of life.