I ate them.

The debate over God is an important one,

Not for everyone. But the debate over constraints in freedom of religion, say by way of manufactured controversies about science to push sectarian agenda, is important for all.

But then people were talking about the guy “fondling” the rosary and so on. That’s the sort of thing I mean.

I would prefer a reference instead of an anecdote.

The great thing about the Bible is that it constantly contradicts itself.

That only speaks to its irrelevancy.

Sure, I get apologetics, and having read a lot of especially abrahamic texts I could certainly do it. Not without moral problems though, since such selection is tantamount to lying, even beside the fact that the texts are factually meaningless so of no relevancy for understanding anything outside religion itself. [And quite frankly, it would be utterly boring anyway.]

I prefer to use a model of god, say creationism, to expose its irrelevancy or harm for facts.

What better way to argue with a Christian who believes in the death penalty or holy war than firing Bible quotes at him?

I can think of many, considering the Bible explicitly endorses both of these.

I remember reading some story here about how some guy with cancer went to see the Pope and touched his rosary, and then his cancer cleared up later. Maybe I’m getting the details wrong, but we hear about this sort of thing all the time. Sure, it’s a silly notion that the Pope’s rosary somehow saved this devout Catholic from his ailment. But then people were talking about the guy “fondling” the rosary and so on. That’s the sort of thing I mean. It’s not enough to point out where many of the religious go wrong in their logic, you’ve got to talk to them or about them as though they were children or imbeciles. Again, it’s your call, but don’t expect anything to come of it other than feeling a sense of superiority.

As for religious texts, they most certainly are relevant for everyone. What better way to argue with a Christian who believes in the death penalty or holy war than firing Bible quotes at him?

It’s fine to say believing in a deity is illogical, baseless, etc. Those are bases for actual arguments. But the arrogant tone doesn’t add a thing to your arguments, and it’s almost as irritating to me as the tone a lot of religious people take when they tell me I’m going to Hell unless I get my ass into a church and start repenting for my sins.

I think that argument would be worth having if any examples of arrogance was in evidence. But I don’t think I have ever been shown such, merely protests against mocking.

On the other side the arrogance of a church goes much deeper than trying blackmailing innocent victims. A church lives on its arrogant assumption that it is the only valid religion out of tens of thousands that have been thought up, or could be thought up.

This special pleading of religion is usually furthered by fundamentalists that claim that atheism is a belief, so another exercise in arrogance.

And then that isn’t enough they may start to refer to their religious texts in all seriousness, which is about as arrogant that a person can be. [Well, actually it is so ridiculous, that it is self-mocking. But the very idea that such a text is of any relevance whatsoever for a non-believer is supremely arrogant.]

So to this day I have found all of the arrogance to be on the other side. Except possibly Hitchens, which is so annoyingly perfectly self-confident that it is bordering on arrogance.

It looks like the severed head of a non-believer. Praise Allah.

Well yeah, but it is a shrunken head too …

Do Muslim warriors shrink their enemies heads like that? Don’t think so.

Shrunken severed heads – now where is that done?
South Pacific islands somewhere maybe?

Aha! The Vanuatuan or Papuan gods were right after all!

Discussion and debate do a fine job on their own, but with the addition of sincere mockery, the task of easing stupidity’s grip on the throat of twenty-first century life is much more merrily accomplished.

Without the mockery, some uncertainty might remain as to how at least some thinking people view superstition. I don’t mean we all view it in the same way, but should there be any doubt that it can be regarded as silly? If you think superstition deserves respect, please tell me why.

Pretty farfetched!

I’m not saying don’t fight the religious crazies, but when some atheists approach that fight they way they do, they’re really shooting themselves in the foot.

Ahem.

Jesus in supporting evil multinational corporation shocker!

I don’t think if I got 2000 more empathy genes, that I would be able to empathize with believing something so incredibly dumb and backwards, to put it kindly.

Why do we have to see them all paraded here like some side show at a cheap carnival?

Because Phil’s a fan of pareidolia and likes to share that with his readers?

I take it that by this you mean anyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

. No.

Now you are doubly wrong. The way to deal with silly beliefs is any darn way I choose to. Mockery is just fine as a response to silly ideas, and you are free to mock, also. Now, however, I shall taunt you a second time. You are wrong. Those silly beliefs are wrong. And mockery is precisely the correct treatment. Beliefs that cannot stand up to mockery are not worth holding. A supposed deity that cannot defend itself is not worthy of reverence. And if you don’t like my choice of pink-and-green socks with sandals, feel free to mock.