[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by subego 

IIRC, God tells Adam and Eve that if they partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they shall surely die. They do partake, and then don't die.

Of course, they ultimately die, but that's not because they ate the apple, it's because God cast them out of the garden. Had they been able to stay, they would have been able to partake of the tree of immortality.

They died because they were cast out of the garden. They were cast out of the garden because the ate the fruit. So ultimately, they did die because the ate the fruit.

[subego]

Originally Posted by design219 

Originally Posted by subego

the man has become like one of us,

That's interesting. Who is the "us?"

Your attributions are a bit janked-up.

Edit: Oh, I see. That quote should have been to God.

As to the answer, isn't the OT pretty clear about there being other gods?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by design219 

That's interesting. Who is the "us?"

Father, Son, Spirit.

John 1:1-3

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by subego 

IIRC, God tells Adam and Eve that if they partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they shall surely die. They do partake, and then don't die.

Of course, they ultimately die, but that's not because they ate the apple, it's because God cast them out of the garden. Had they been able to stay, they would have been able to partake of the tree of immortality.

From the Revised Standard:

"3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not die.'"

"22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" -- 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden"

So, did Adam and Eve die? Yes, yes they did. No lie by God.

[- - e r i k - -]

YOU ARE ALL GOING TO DIE IF YOU POST IN THIS THREAD!!!!

Eventually...

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

They died because they were cast out of the garden. They were cast out of the garden because the ate the fruit. So ultimately, they did die because the ate the fruit.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

So, did Adam and Eve die? Yes, yes they did. No lie by God.

"2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."


At the least this is intentional obfuscation.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by subego 

"2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."


At the least this is intentional obfuscation.

It could be metaphorical... But yeah, I had forgotten about that bit of it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It could be metaphorical... But yeah, I had forgotten about that bit of it.

Me too.

IOW, I wasn't trying to ambush you.

Though I must admit, after drafting a totally confusing 800 word response in my head going into whether God had foreknowledge of the penalty, or perhaps more importantly whether the serpent had foreknowledge, and then finding that passage...

I let myself feel like I was well read enough about this to ambush you. Just for a few seconds.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Father, Son, Spirit.

John 1:1-3

Unlikely. Probably the heavenly host.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Unlikely. Probably the heavenly host.

Nope, Jesus and God with the Holy Spirit.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It could be metaphorical... But yeah, I had forgotten about that bit of it.

It is. just as BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible passage in over 35 languages and 50 versions.

Ephesians 2:4-6 NASB

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

[- - e r i k - -]

^ How is that passage relevant to God being a lying bastard?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

^ How is that passage relevant to God being a lying bastard?

It doesn't matter whether or not he's lying. What's really important is that if you read Genesis, not only is God not omniscient--he doesn't know Adam has eaten until he asks--but he is also afraid. He chases Adam and Eve from the Garden to prevent them from eating from the tree of life, which would make them Gods too. Remember, elsewhere in the Old Testament, he acknowledges there are other Gods--they're real as far as he seems to be concerned--and he must've learned the lessons from all those other Gods who were usurped by their creations in other Mesopotamian myths.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is one of the two big questions I've always had.

How did Adam and Eve know that defying God's word was wrong if they had no knowledge of good and evil?

The other question is why does no one ever call God out for lying to Adam and Eve, nor give the serpent credit for telling the truth?

The whole notion that Adam and Eve were being punished for sin is completely fallacious. It's a Christian reinterpretation. (This is Genesis, and yet the Jews never say anything about original sin...why not? Because that's not what the book says.)

Adam and Eve are chased from the Garden because they are now a threat to God. If they eat of the tree of life then they will live forever and be Gods themselves.

That's why they're evicted.

Sin, schmin...Yahweh was looking out for numero uno, plain and simple.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Adam and Eve are chased from the Garden because they are now a threat to God. If they eat of the tree of life then they will live forever and be Gods themselves.

Ya that is much more plausible, thanks for clearing that one up.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

The whole notion that Adam and Eve were being punished for sin is completely fallacious. It's a Christian reinterpretation. (This is Genesis, and yet the Jews never say anything about original sin...why not? Because that's not what the book says.)

The question of whether Adam and Eve sinned is completely different from the question of original sin. Adam unquestionably disobeyed God's commandment (this is established in Genesis 3:3 and 3:11) and reaped the punishment God had laid out. The doctrine of original sin is that Adam's sin was then transmitted to us through his blood and we're all born sinful — this is not generally found in Judaism.

Also the scriptures make the "be gods themselves" association with the tree they did eat from. God sees that they have become like gods and declares that they can't be allowed immortality now (he had already promised them death if they ate from the first tree).

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by subego 

IIRC, God tells Adam and Eve that if they partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they shall surely die. They do partake, and then don't die.

Of course, they ultimately die, but that's not because they ate the apple, it's because God cast them out of the garden. Had they been able to stay, they would have been able to partake of the tree of immortality.

From the Revised Standard:

"3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not die.'"

"22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" -- 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden"

Can I make quotes from my "Book of Pixies"?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

"2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."


At the least this is intentional obfuscation.

No doubt it was a test of faith and obedience. If I built a tent for my family, I might want to ensure it could withstand severe conditions. I may even test it with adversity such as wind, sticks, rain, and snow to see how trustworthy it was.

Death is the result of sin. Mentioned again in Romans 3:23 and Colossians 2:13.
Sin is separation from God. They are no longer welcome in the Garden of Eden where they had regular communion with God. This ideal also found in Isaiah 59:1-2.

The serpent told Eve that they would surely not die. He lied. God told them they would surely die in that day. They ushered death in on that day. Their immortality ceased on that day. Their nakedness was made apparent to them that day and their innocence died that day. Animals were not food nor was there death of any kind until that day. Eve to give birth in pain from that day. Adam having now to cultivate land for sustenance from that day. Death and the shedding of blood necessary for their covering from that day. Physically and spiritually. The fact they didn't die that day, but were offered a redemptive plan through sacrifice illustrates a merciful God to many.

The relationship between God and man changed on that day from one of eternal life, daily and direct communion with God, and immorality, to one of death, separation from God, and mortality.

[ebuddy]

Interesting to me that a great many have popped into this thread to mock faith. Often, they mock believers as if these believers are somehow suspended from reason and logic. If many here truly believe the faithful inferior to them intellectually, or at least in practice of moronic dogma; why would you point and laugh and mock them? Why is it necessary?

I consider myself physically superior to those with severe physical deformities for example. I would not point and laugh at nor mock those with the handicap. Certainly, it would be more respectful to challenge them in overcoming their handicap which some here do with the good questions they pose to the faithful. Unfortunately, too many of the sophomoric have decided it is fun to mock other people. In their intellectual superiority they must know they are really illustrating a severe inferiority complex. Is it working? Do you feel better about yourself?

Just an observation, carry on.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Interesting to me that a great many have popped into this thread to mock faith. Often, they mock believers as if these believers are somehow suspended from reason and logic. If many here truly believe the faithful inferior to them intellectually, or at least in practice of moronic dogma; why would you point and laugh and mock them? Why is it necessary?

Does "intellectually inferior" tag apply to: Pelosi, Kerry, (who were seen at the Papal Mass in DC taking Communion) and the world's smartest woman, Hillary Clinton?

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/117043.aspx

Hillary Clinton's Christian Faith By David Brody CBN News March 9, 2007 CBNNews.com - Senator Hillary Clinton said in an 1994 interview that she believes in the "atoning death of Jesus Christ." CBN News has discovered a number of past statements that Clinton has made about her Christian faith. In 1994, she was asked by Newsweek magazine, "Do you believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? She answered, "Yes." She was then asked whether she believed in "the atoning death of Jesus?" Once again her answer was, "Yes."

Senator Clinton is a lifelong Methodist who has always said she takes her faith very seriously.

In that same Newsweek article, she says, "I think that the Methodist Church, for a period of time, became too socially concerned, too involved in the social gospel and did not pay enough attention to questions of personal salvation and individual faith."

Recently, Clinton has injected more comments about her faith into the debate over public policy. Last month in Columbia, S. Carolina, she told an audience that the Book of James is one of her favorites in the New Testament.

Last year, she condemned a get tough House bill on illegal immigration that she felt was too harsh saying, "It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures. This bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."

In addition to the Newsweek article, Senator Clinton spoke at Tufts University in November of 2004.

CBN News uncovered this past quote from a speech where, when referring to Evangelical voters, she said, "I don't think you can win an election or even run a successful campaign if you don't acknowledge what is important to people. We don't have to agree with them. But being ignored is a sign of such disrespect. And therefore I think we should talk about these issues.''

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Big Mac
You take this too personally, I was actually trying to affirm your position by saying it's no less strange or `illogical' than to assume that the universe came into existence by itself.

I didn't mean to come off like I was taking your comment too personally. A friend once used a similar argument, so seeing it here caused me to reply that way. I do take assaults on particular godly concepts personally, but that's just who I am.

I'm not an atheist

I didn't mean to call you one.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Religion a figment of human imagination - being-human - 28 April 2008 - New Scientist

[Big Mac]

Analogue, is it fair to say you're antagonistic toward religion? It seems like you're almost praying that there isn't a God.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Unfortunately, too many of the sophomoric have decided it is fun to mock other people. In their intellectual superiority they must know they are really illustrating a severe inferiority complex. Is it working? Do you feel better about yourself?

Lot's of minorities (but by no means all) get "in your face" about issues they believe society is in their face about.

Of course, society gets in these peoples' faces by just being society, so the minority response can seem out of proportion.

Not that this justifies any particular example you are thinking of, I think that should be done on a case by case basis, but I believe categorizing it strictly as an inferiority complex is unfair.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Analogue, is it fair to say you're antagonistic toward religion? It seems like you're almost praying that there isn't a God.

I am totally antagonistic. I don't care if people want to believe in a God or Gods I just think organized religions are the problem. I mean most of the huge problems in the world today are caused by religious groups telling people what to do or fighting one another.

We'd be way better off without religion.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

I am totally antagonistic. I don't care if people want to believe in a God or Gods I just think organized religions are the problem. I mean most of the huge problems in the world today are caused by religious groups telling people what to do or fighting one another.

We'd be way better off without religion.

[- - e r i k - -]

It's a funny comic, but why post it twice? Especially since it has no relation to the post you quoted

[Chongo]

sorry, I read it read wrong. I thought it agnostic, I see it's antagonistic

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Some do.

These guys are interesting too.

These seem to be both hardcore, and to me, incomprehensibly dualist.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Lot's of minorities (but by no means all) get "in your face" about issues they believe society is in their face about.

Yes, generally the most insecure ones. Mocking is not "in your face". It is not unfair to believe it possible that this is merely a stress-behavioral reaction to a personal conviction.

Of course, society gets in these peoples' faces by just being society, so the minority response can seem out of proportion.

No one is mocking them. They may challenge them intellectually as I have suggested, but mocking is much more different. A religious discussion of any kind on this forum is impossible without it.

Not that this justifies any particular example you are thinking of, I think that should be done on a case by case basis, but I believe categorizing it strictly as an inferiority complex is unfair.

I disagree. I think it is a matter of me "getting in the face" of the sophomoric and is entirely fair. The cases will as always, indicate who they are. Of course I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

These seem to be both hardcore, and to me, incomprehensibly dualist.

They have their reasons and ideas, and I respect them (I even agree with them on some minor points). On many levels there is dual nature to the Divine, but in my opinion that's mainly on the surface.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No one is mocking them. They may challenge them intellectually as I have suggested, but mocking is much more different. A religious discussion of any kind on this forum is impossible without it.

You're not trying to think like an atheist.

Get yourself in this mindset:

You support womens' (pretty much exclusive) reproductive rights. Very likely to the point that you see a blank space when you read the 10th Amendment.

Condoms, condoms, condoms! Whatever you think the kids could possibly need, give 'em twice that.

You like homosexuality. I'm not saying you like homosexuals, love the sinner hate the sin, I'm saying you think homosexuality is cool.

If you hold these values dear (which I do, except for the blank 10th part) regardless of what kind of complex you have, much organized religion is a genuine threat to your values. This will lead to the whole spectrum of human responses, up to and including mockery for reasons other than an inferiority complex.

Anger, frustration, legitimate fear. Even the fact that the internet is de facto atheist turf, and therefore provides (as has been demonstrated) the safety of numbers.

Now, I don't want it to seem like this invalidates your observation (that there are people here for whom this is an expression of an inferiority complex), or that mockery in this context is anything like a good idea.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think it is a matter of me "getting in the face" of the sophomoric

Not only do I have no problem with this, I have on more than one occasion hoped for a second helping.

[Apemanblues]

I see Genesis as an allegorical poem about the loss of innocence and evolution as the scientific explanation for the diversity of all life on planet earth, so there's nothing for me to reconcile.

Now let's build those rocket ships and see what's out there!

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

They have their reasons and ideas, and I respect them (I even agree with them on some minor points). On many levels there is dual nature to the Divine, but in my opinion that's mainly on the surface.

I wasn't trying to slam them, more a "not my bag" kind of thing.

I mean, if I was going to base my beliefs on widely available scripture, I'd have to go with a "trust frigging no one" type Gnosticism.

That's where I would reject the dualism. I'm not sure I should be paying attention to either of them.

[Apemanblues]

For all you struggling with the theology of genesis I think Ricky Gervais might help you better understand it's subtle intricacies.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Eve's vice is that being a woman, she's inherently a little self serving. She eats the apple because it looks good to eat... it looks like it tastes-good for her big selfish mouth... and we know how woman like to eat a lot.

You can't be serious, can you?

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

I also thought first, that Genesis 1 were the chronogical account, and Genesis 2 merely offering some details concerning espescially the relationship between God and Adam, and maybe espescially concerning Garden Eden. But two sentences prevented a consistent approach:



So according to this, bushes and plants did not come up until the first rain and until there was man to work the ground.

It seems like Garden Eden were the first garden at all.



Source: BibleGateway.com - Passage�Lookup: Genesis 2

According to this, God decided that man needed a helper and "then" created every bird and beast and brought them to Adam who named them all, and when no helper for Adam was appropriate enough, God created Eve out of Adam...

The whole passage minus the direct speech is written in past tense.

No one who can clarify this?

Another question is if Adam and Eve were immortal before they ate the apple from that special tree.

If they were immortal, why did the eating of the forbidden make them mortal?

And before they became mortal, were all life in the universe immortal as well? And did this disobedience by Adam and Eve turn all other life in the universe from immortality to mortality and if yes, why did other life get punished for Adam and Eve's wrong-doing?

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

You're not trying to think like an atheist.

This is a good point though I try to avoid a premise I know is not generally acceptable to the intended audience. For example, in discussions of abortion or other complex social issues I do not say; "the Bible says". I'm not saying the Bible isn't useful in these discussions for some, but it seems many readers here would simply be turned off by that premise. Plus, there are often many good reasons to question a practice having nothing to do with a traditional, religious morality.

Get yourself in this mindset:

You support womens' (pretty much exclusive) reproductive rights. Very likely to the point that you see a blank space when you read the 10th Amendment.

Condoms, condoms, condoms! Whatever you think the kids could possibly need, give 'em twice that.

You like homosexuality. I'm not saying you like homosexuals, love the sinner hate the sin, I'm saying you think homosexuality is cool.

If you hold these values dear (which I do, except for the blank 10th part) regardless of what kind of complex you have, much organized religion is a genuine threat to your values. This will lead to the whole spectrum of human responses, up to and including mockery for reasons other than an inferiority complex.

This is an honest question subego. In the paragraph above, (other than the blank 10th part), you're saying this is your mindset? The "condoms, condoms, condoms" thing etc... or are you just saying that is the mindset to be understood?

Anger, frustration, legitimate fear. Even the fact that the internet is de facto atheist turf, and therefore provides (as has been demonstrated) the safety of numbers.

I can appreciate the anger, fear, and frustration. For example, A gay friend of mine at work was talking about wanting to seek out various philosophies and faiths. He was admittedly searching his heart for answers to deeper questions concerning his spirituality and soul. I mentioned coming to Church with me and it was as if I held a crucifix to a vampire. This is unfortunate. For whatever reason, while Christians are reminded in their Scriptures that all are guilty of sin, that even the thoughts of our minds are sin, and that the wage of ONE sin is death, too many believe ONE PARTICULAR sin is most damnable. I disagree with them on this issue. I often appreciate the more genuine challenges offered the religious here. I also believe in a healthy degree of Separation between Church and State as a principle (not clearly defined in our Constitution), but too many have interpreted this to mean Suppression of Church in State. It almost seems as if there are some who'd like to bring us to a place where people are practicing their religion quietly in their basements. To qualify, act as if they would like to relegate the religious to their basements. The historical atrocities they use to indict religion are often nothing more than those of human nature in general with a sufficient amount of evidence to back the claim. I feel almost obligated to challenge them through logic and reason, but am frustrated myself to read essentially; " you're a poop-butt stinky face" as a reply.

Now, I don't want it to seem like this invalidates your observation (that there are people here for whom this is an expression of an inferiority complex), or that mockery in this context is anything like a good idea.

I appreciate your openness subego.

Not only do I have no problem with this, I have on more than one occasion hoped for a second helping.

Why thank you... I think.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

No one who can clarify this?

Bush of the field and plants of the field. Of the field is the key element to the statement in Genesis 2 and is not found as such in the creation account of foliage in Genesis 1. Of the field implies the need for cultivation, man's labor after the fall given as an account of things just prior to and in leading up to the very next chapter detailing Satan's deception, the fall, and the consequences of it.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Bush of the field and plants of the field. Of the field is the key element to the statement in Genesis 2 and is not found as such in the creation account of foliage in Genesis 1. Of the field implies the need for cultivation, man's labor after the fall given as an account of things just prior to and in leading up to the very next chapter detailing Satan's deception, the fall, and the consequences of it.

Good observation, the term " of the field" implies that there was a field but no bush and no plant, because God had not let it rain and man wasn't existing to work it.

Does that mean that before Adam/Eve's fall there were no plants on earth?

The other question that was not answered was if the animals were created before man like described in Genesis 1 or like in Genesis 2 after man was formed, in order to find a helper.

BigMac made the argument, that the animals were created beforehand as described in Genesis 1, but only retold in past tense in Genesis 2 before God brought them to Adam to look for a helper.

But since the whole passage is written in past tense, the argument doesn't quite play out, espescially since God decided to create Eve out of Adam after no helper was found among the animals.

Taliesin

[- - e r i k - -]

For a better theory on agriculture and it's impact on the rise of civilisation, may I recommend this book over that other book?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Good observation, the term " of the field" implies that there was a field but no bush and no plant, because God had not let it rain and man wasn't existing to work it.

It is my understanding that the plant name and "of the field" are to be construed as cultivated foliage. There was foliage, but no farming/cultivation. It was not intended for man to toil over provisions.

Does that mean that before Adam/Eve's fall there were no plants on earth?

No, it means there were no "plants of the field". There was no farming, no cultivating, no toil.

The other question that was not answered was if the animals were created before man like described in Genesis 1 or like in Genesis 2 after man was formed, in order to find a helper.

BigMac made the argument, that the animals were created beforehand as described in Genesis 1, but only retold in past tense in Genesis 2 before God brought them to Adam to look for a helper.

But since the whole passage is written in past tense, the argument doesn't quite play out, espescially since God decided to create Eve out of Adam after no helper was found among the animals.

Taliesin[/QUOTE]
I'm not quite understanding the premise of your question and it is likely I'll need more time than I have right now to give it a fair reading. I owe, I owe, off to work I go.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It is my understanding that the plant name and "of the field" are to be construed as cultivated foliage. There was foliage, but no farming/cultivation. It was not intended for man to toil over provisions.

No, it means there were no "plants of the field". There was no farming, no cultivating, no toil.

That sounds right, no man no agriculturing/farming, but what about the sentence in Genesis 2, that God didn't let it rain yet?

Have to leave for today, too.

Taliesin

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by subego 

You're not trying to think like an atheist.

Um. I can't really tell if you're an atheist trying to explicate your point of view, or a theist trying to satirize an atheist's point of view, but either way I, as an atheist, take issue with a few all of your points here.

You support womens' (pretty much exclusive) reproductive rights. Very likely to the point that you see a blank space when you read the 10th Amendment.

I support all rights (being a libertarian) including women's reproductive rights. However I suspect you're talking about abortion here, and I'm rather anti-abortion (not pro-life, anti-abortion). I think it's a necessary evil at this point in time, but an evil none the less. I would think that most who support a right to abortions would, if they put even the slightest modicum of thought into the matter, say that abortions are regrettable and it would be better if they didn't happen even while we should have the right to them. Being pro-abortion is hardly an atheist position, it's just a large intersection in the great venn diagram of life.

Also, I think the 10th ammendment is one of the most important ones we've got (being, for lack of a better word, and anti-federalist).

Condoms, condoms, condoms! Whatever you think the kids could possibly need, give 'em twice that.

Condoms are certainly a useful invention, and we should certainly be encouraging their use. The idea of teaching kids that sex and condoms are an inseparable pair is a good one. But again it's not an atheist position. There are many theists who believe this as well, and probably atheists who don't.

You like homosexuality. I'm not saying you like homosexuals, love the sinner hate the sin, I'm saying you think homosexuality is cool.

This is just ridiculous. I have a lot of gay friends. I'm all in favor of gay rights, gay marriage (at least as long as the government is going to insist on being involved in marriage at all), and all that jazz. As far as homosexuality itself is concerned, I'm neutral. Other people are whatever they are, I'm neither pro- nor anti-homosexual.

If you hold these values dear (which I do, except for the blank 10th part) regardless of what kind of complex you have, much organized religion is a genuine threat to your values. This will lead to the whole spectrum of human responses, up to and including mockery for reasons other than an inferiority complex.

Even if you do hold these values dear (which I do not despite being an atheist), I'd hardly say that 'organized religion is a genuine threat'. Just because people disagree with you, does not mean that they are threatening. In my experience, the feeling of being threatened or attacked by those of faith is generally reserved for the young/new atheists who've recently rejected the faith that they were born with and so lack the security in their beliefs to shrug off conflicting ideas; it was certainly the case for me. But as I've gotten older I've become more comfortable with myself and more secure in my beliefs and have no problem whatsoever dealing peacefully with the conflicting beliefs of others, and having friendly discussions about faith with people who's beliefs directly contradict my own, I'd hope that this is the case for most other people as well.

Anger, frustration, legitimate fear. Even the fact that the internet is de facto atheist turf, and therefore provides (as has been demonstrated) the safety of numbers.

Again, I don't buy it. Safety, for an atheist or any other minority, comes not in numbers, but in liberty. We are safe as atheists because the Constitution guarantees us that we have the right to believe as we see fit and that the government is obligated to protect that right and therefore to protect us from discrimination and persecution for our beliefs. This, of course, does not 'protect' us from having to live, work, and interact with those with whom we don't agree, nor does it protect us from insults, and other forms of speech levied against us, but this is a good thing because our right to speech is just as protected as that of the majority.

[- - e r i k - -]

Did I hear right... did he claim that atheists are a majority on the internet?

[Dakar the Fourth]

I honestly thought the entire post was tongue in cheek, but I have a bad feeling I could be wrong.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

but I have a bad feeling I could be wrong.

Bingo!

It's going to be a long day.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Not really, I'm not the one who has a misguided view of atheism.

[subego]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Did I hear right... did he claim that atheists are a majority on the internet?

Turf. I said turf. That's somewhat different.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Not really, I'm not the one who has a misguided view of atheism.

Or you didn't make your point to stridently.