I don't think I could top the quote from the Buffalo Beast which named Warren one of its 50 most loathsome people.

"Dubbed “America's Pastor” by The Nation, he's duped people from both sides of the political spectrum into thinking he's the kinder, fatter version of James Dobson. Though he is fatter, how could anyone think a man who—professionally—quotes a book written by a make-believe space-giant, instructing the murder of homosexuals, could be anything other than a delusional bigot? Still riding the undeserved wave of fame onset by a meth-head kidnap victim’s ownership of his pop-psych hybrid of churchy prudishness and self-help pabulum The Purpose Driven Life, Warren had a big year hosting a presidential forum at his gay-sounding Saddleback Church, helping to pass Prop 8 and being tapped to invoke said make-believe space-giant at Obama's inauguration."

Warren is just another charlatan in long line of charlatans.

Oh come on, I could think of a lot more loathsome. Your quoted rap on the Bible instructing the murder of homosexuals is of course completely wrong (in fact the Bible's very few verses which appear to condemn homosexuality are the subject of interpretive controversy). So, he is loathsome because he opposes gay marriage--is that pretty much it?

I have no patience for windy Godbags or gay-bashers but as Godbags go, Warren seems a far, far more innocuous sort than most.

Can we have a new trend, please? I'm getting a bit tired of the whole whining atheist thing. It almost makes me miss the days of Father O'Tooley and the Woman's Auxiliary crusading against alcohol...

While there are still willfully ignorant, self righteous and deluded theists on this planet trying to tell others what to do based on their primitive superstitions, then there will be atheists whining about them. Thank God.

Just try to imagine what an Atheist thinks about the "End of Days" dogmas still propagated by current myths. That self defeating idea that humans don't deserve something better, ignorant of the affects of plate tectonics, weather patterns and cycles, colliding extraterrestrial objects and any other normal phenomenon of nature; and devils will fight the gods for control of the earth...and believers will do anything to ensure that it happens. And I really wonder why these believers would stand aghast at the actions of Jim Jones, David Koresh and Marshall Applewhite of Heaven's Gate when, in fact, they all wish for the same idiotic thing?

I, for one, refuse to jump off the cliff with them.

<link>

There does seem to be a trend of "evangelical atheism" going on these days. The internet is largely responsible for this. While useful for a host of communication and education tasks, using the internet, especially as a younger person, strips that person of innocence, imagination, faith (in God AND humanity) and eventually the value of life itself. Hyperbole? Maybe. But I would be willing to theorize that the growing use of anti-depressants in America is connected in some way to increased internet use.

Interesting way to put it. Maybe we're just tired of being quiet while we watch whole countries being led to murder and mass suicide over something that we think doesn't exist.

Yabels:

There does seem to be a trend of "evangelical atheism" going on these days. The internet is largely responsible for this. While useful for a host of communication and education tasks, using the internet, especially as a younger person, strips that person of innocence, imagination, faith (in God AND humanity) and eventually the value of life itself. Hyperbole? Maybe. But I would be willing to theorize that the growing use of anti-depressants in America is connected in some way to increased internet use.

Erm, based on what evidence? Your gut feeling? A true theist then.

I don't know why everyone thinks that Christianity is so evil. We have to distinguish the actions of men in the name of God who do terrible things from the actual preachings and words of God and Jesus. The former are men who perverted the teachings of the Bible - and that is wrong. I don't know what Bible other people read. But as a life long Christian AND liberal, I've always believed that the #1 tenet of the Bible is to do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. To treat others with as much kindness, compassion and love as you would treat your own family, however hard that may be. And to try to help care for the sick, suffering, poor and elderly. And to realize that all humans have free will. So while I do not personally like gay marriage, the only thing I can do is make sure I don't get married to another woman. But I will support the free will of other people to enter into same sex marriages. The same with abortion - I myself would not have one, but I won't prohibit another woman from doing it if she wants to. This is what being a Christian is all about - its about doing what I believe is the right thing to do, and trying to help others to "see the light," but ultimately realizing that God imbues us all with free will. I wish people would understand that God is a big boy. Meaning, he is not so easily offended by the things that many bible-thumping Christians believe he would be offended by.

Christianity is defined by the people who publicly identify themselves as Christians. Unfortunately there's a lot more of the self-righteous, bigoted types around who use Christianity as a justification for their desire to interfere in other's lives, believing they have the moral right to do so.

If people are comforted by a belief in some invisible sky father, well that's up to them and if it makes them nicer people then great. But when they cite that belief as a reason to spread ignorance and persecute others who do not share their views then there's a problem.

Sounds like you are criticizing the harmless free will choices of others.

/yawn

The use of pejoratives when describing belief systems is getting a bit passe to me. It reminds me of Republicans and their disdain for the "Democrat" party. At first I thought it was cute, but anymore it just seems hopelessly petulent. Like a teenager calling their parents by their forenames just to bug them.

"Unfortunately there's a lot more of the self-righteous, bigoted types around who use Christianity as a justification for their desire to interfere in other's lives, believing they have the moral right to do so."

According to whom? Oh, wait... it is just your gut feeling? Pffft... typical of a moralistic crusader... more hasty generalizations and hypocracy, but with no evidence.

"But when they cite that belief as a reason to spread ignorance and persecute others who do not share their views then there's a problem."

Gosh, so is it better for someone to use a political idealogy to base their opinions on? Is Marx a better dead Jew to listen to than Moses? Maybe so, maybe not. Looks like followers of both have managed to kill plenty of folks in the name of utopian thought...

"The use of pejoratives when describing belief systems is getting a bit passe to me. It reminds me of Republicans and their disdain for the "Democrat" party. At first I thought it was cute, but anymore it just seems hopelessly petulent. Like a teenager calling their parents by their forenames just to bug them."

I'm sure you're above such vulgar practices as calling a bigot a bigot.

"According to whom? Oh, wait... it is just your gut feeling? Pffft... typical of a moralistic crusader... more hasty generalizations and hypocracy, but with no evidence."

Pffft indeed. Go and have a look at any fundamentalist Christian literature/website and look up their views on same-sex marriage or abortion as two towering examples. I'm not a moralistic crusader, on the contrary my point was that I'm sick of moralistic crusaders attempting to impose their 'holy' morals on me. Don't let that get in the way of your condescending posturing though.

"Gosh, so is it better for someone to use a political idealogy to base their opinions on? Is Marx a better dead Jew to listen to than Moses? Maybe so, maybe not. Looks like followers of both have managed to kill plenty of folks in the name of utopian thought..."

Yes I believe it is, and the world generally agrees. That's why we have politicians running governments and not priests. You're right to point out that many people have been killed for both political and religious reasons, but that does not make politics and religion the same thing. People get killed for all kinds of reasons.

C-tip, how are these fundamentalists imposing their holy morals on you exactly? And I have to ask, with all you are saying, do you really believe in free speech? Lastly, can you think of any American president that hasn't believed in a God? One that hasn't infused their political sensibilities with a sense of morality that typically reflects a Christian background? Don't even try to cite Lincoln or Jefferson, because they did. Point being, that political ideology doesn't provide a moral compass. Political ideology doesn't say that we should provide free healthcare for little kids. Morality does. Political ideology merely provides the mechanisms by which we think we should provide kids healthcare. Politics and religion are obviously not the same thing. But they are not as separated as perhaps you may think.

"I'm sure you're above such vulgar practices as calling a bigot a bigot."

Of course not. You're a bigot. So am I. I just don't pretend that I'm doing a public service by insulting others and their beliefs. I'll mock how they deliver those beliefs, mind you. I just see little difference between the Internet Crusade for Atheism that has to infect any discussion relating to any faith and the jackass with a sign telling me I'm going to hell unless I repent I pass everyday on my drive to work.

"Pffft indeed. Go and have a look at any fundamentalist Christian literature/website and look up their views on same-sex marriage or abortion as two towering examples. I'm not a moralistic crusader, on the contrary my point was that I'm sick of moralistic crusaders attempting to impose their 'holy' morals on me. Don't let that get in the way of your condescending posturing though."

Wait, now it is just fundamentalist Christians and not all Christians? Sheesh. Way to qualify after the fact. Am I looking for “hate speech” or just churches that are against abortion on demand and LGBT “rights?” You'll find just as much heated rhetoric coming from "free thought" websites about theists as you will from the whacko Bible bangers. If you disagree, feel free to go to Slate and read the forums. You'd be amazed at how eagerly people will just start name-calling, raving about differing views, and moralizing against theism. You can even have a news article that mentions a religion without a few folks crusading against anything related to religion.

How are differing viewpoints on social issues representative of anything other than disagreement coming from competing moral systems, anyway? There is a moral system applied to this issue by both groups, be they "holy" morals based on thousand plus year old dead Jews and Greeks or “humanistic” ones based on 19th century European political and economic thought. Neither is more “natural” or “value-free.”

Your imposition of one set of morality is just as intrusive as any other imposition of a differing moral system, no matter the source.

"Yes I believe it is, and the world generally agrees. That's why we have politicians running governments and not priests. You're right to point out that many people have been killed for both political and religious reasons, but that does not make politics and religion the same thing. People get killed for all kinds of reasons. "

Most of the world agrees? You are aware most of the world isn't the very secular, rich Europe and the mostly secular, rich Anglosphere...? I understand ethnocentrism can be hard to overcome, but I suggest broadening your reading material if you really think the world "generally" agrees on that. You're either deluding yourself or presenting the lack of theocracies as a strawman. Go to Africa. Go to the Middle East. Go to South Asia. Go to Southeast Asia. In most of the world religion is a major force in shaping nations, politics, and policies.

In any case, you haven't actually explained why one series of assumptions is better than another to inform an individual’s political opinions…