That's a wide definition...

Why, you could even apply it to perfectly true statements in relevant discussion forums. Seems like a stupid attempt to imply the OP is assholish with a non-sensible post.

For a real definition of an asshole, I recommend Assholes: A Theory. Turns out the Abrahamic God fits the definition pretty well.

It's easy to spot...

The attacks are generally ad hom instead of substantive, because most of the substantive criticism applies to the ad him user's own religion as well.

Spot on quote nt

From believing a delusion?

From intellectual dishonesty, cognitive dissonance? From having to lie to others day in and day out? All possibilities, and I can think of much more (like having to defend certain parts of the Bible with terrible logic to friends and family who are condemned by it).

Best part is, after that initial moment of fear overcoming years of indoctrination and delusion, realizing that you need none of it to be happy.

Your OP is bullshit trolling

Some atheists have formed political interest groups, like this one, that goes beyond mere atheism and promotes the separation of church and state. It is a simple distinction, unless you like to use well-worn conservative talking points to attack atheists.

Pope Francis is a misogyinst bigot

These are undisputed facts. He is the leader of an institution that actively works to take away the rights of many of our fellow DUers and does nothing to stand in the way of these actions, but instead supports these actions with his condemnation of others.

When posts are made on GD praising him, try to think how it comes across to those who the Pope condemns. The Pope being considered marginally better than the previous Pope by presenting himself more humbly doesn't make much of a difference to those who are condemned in the same ignorant manner as before. It's hard to consider someone humble who condemns others based on the supposed special knowledge they have of God, no matter their other beliefs or actions.

Try to remember this when praising what you see as a better Pope. You may want to qualify any compliments with the facts that the Pope supports and promotes misogyny and bigotry towards homosexuals as a matter of course, and that this support has had and continues to have very real world consequences in the lives of many DUers.

Also consider posting it in the Catholic group. Posting praise of the Pope in GD will lead to hurting a lot of DUers who have been and continue to be on the receiving end of Pope Francis' beliefs and cause a lot of strife. Understand that it will cause some venom towards the Pope, and understand that the source of this venom is completely justified. If you think such venom towards the Pope will hurt Catholic DUers and want to avoid this, again, I recommend posting it to the Catholic forum to avoid this.

Consider what other religious or political leaders with the same views of women and homosexuals would receive praise on DU. Try to understand that for much of DU, such leaders deserve nothing but criticism and contempt, no matter if they are liberal on every other issue. Many people have died and suffered under oppression and continue to do so because of the beliefs Pope Francis continues to espouse. Those beliefs cannot be ignored for many, but are a glaring character flaw of anyone who holds them not capable of redemption merely through beliefs in other issues. Please be sensitive to that when praising him on DU. If you at least acknowledge these very important and prescient issues when complimenting the Pope on some other point, it can go a long way.

Why the Snowden Story Frustrates Me

There are several parts to the story that are tough for me:

My own cynicism

I don't like the NSA being able to search through any American's information, all under a very secret (and apparently not very stringent) form of due process. But I already figured they were doing just that. Nothing Snowden revealed was surprsing to me. I get the feeling it's that way with many Americans. And, in all honesty, I don't think one thing will change as a result of Snowden's leak in regards to the NSA or other surveillance programs. The American people don't care enough, and even if they did, our political system is set up in such a way that they have limited to no recourse, given that both parties are behind it. I suppose people could elect more liberal Democrats, but I've seen some pretty liberal Democratic Reps defending the NSA, so I'm not sure that is really a solution either.

My understanding is that once the technology is there, the government will utilize it. There is no stopping that. The best that can be done is heavy open regulation of such tools, but even if regulations called for open due process on the NSA, I would think they would have a secret due process for "really dangerous" situations etc., and it would be hard or even impossible to ever know for sure the government is playing above board at all times. Am I too cynical about it? Maybe. But that cynicism made me sort of go "meh" to the whole situation. I see others very passionate about this story that share the same values I do, and it bothers me that I just don't feel it.

I think Edward Snowden should be prosecuted and dislike the guy's tactics

I know that Snowden isn't really the story, but I'd think I would at least admire the guy who had exposed a spying program because of his love of privacy and think he shouldn't be prosecuted, but I don't.

Here is a supposed whistleblower, one that revealed important details to the US spying on its own citizens, and yet I actually think he should be prosecuted. The only thing I'd change is his possible jail sentance from decades to something like 5 years. It's because of the political cover and usefulness he has now played for repressive regimes. He says it was an act of conscious, but if that was the case he would've stayed in the US and accepted the consequences. If he did that, it would've focused the story on the NSA and any punishment would look very heavy handed.

Can I really blame a guy for not wanting to risk spending the rest of his life in jail for the right to privacy, something I hold dear? Well, it just seems that by running away, to Hong Kong of all places, he's undermined it being just about his conscious or even about his love of the right of privacy, but that's it's also about him and he doesn't mind giving other repressive regimes political cover and pwer. Hong Kong is no liberty paradise, and Moscow, where he is now... well it's a downgrade in a couple ways. I just don't see the point of relying on other repressive regimes, who will use you for their own purposes, to defend a right to privacy. It seems utterly stupid and hypocritical, not to mention harmful to the population of those regimes. It undermines the message, even though I know it's not about Snowden. So here I am, a supposed progressive, thinking Snowden should be prosectued and finding him utterly unhelpful to any fight for the right to privacy. A weird place to be I suppose.

Libertarian hypocrisy and naivete

Snowden seemed to have libertarian leanings, and a lot of the support for Snowden is from libertarians. I can't stand libertarianism. It is a terrible and naive ideology that indirectly supports the status quo and the powers that be. In some ways, Snowden is doing just this by giving political power and cover to repressive regimes as part of his flight.

A reminder of how conservative the Democratic Party is

I already know the Democrats are a moderately conservative party, relative to the world, but these sorts of episodes make it painfully clear, especially the support of the more conservative Republicans of the President and of this program. Which adds to my cynicism. Maybe it's just a feedback loop.

Sigh...

No, I didn't say I could read Galieo's mind, I said my opinion, which is the most one can do for historical figures. Saying he was a devout Catholic as fact is the assumption. Obviously, if he had been devout, he wouldn't have questioned the church despite reality being against it : )

The very definition of religion makes it a choice. No doubt some identify strongly with beliefs, political or otherwise, but its a choice.

I see modern theists do what the Mormons did day in and day out. That is, when part of your religion becomes inconvenient, explain it away with terrible apologetics and logic. That's all the "allegorical" arguments are. It's the height of intellectual fraud. There isn't a completely made up story a person couldn't constantly redefine and reinterpret to mean whatever they want it to mean. I don't believe that Mormons suddenly found out polygamy was bad and black people ok just as these positions were becoming untenable. It's so obviously disingenuous, and the same thing is happening now with gay marriage.

I understand completely that anyone can make themselves believe what they want to, I'm not arguing against that. I'm criticizing the grounds on which these beliefs rest, and the methods used to get to them.

I never said Galileo wasn't a devout Catholic...

though honestly, I tend to doubt it, considering it was wasn't a good idea not to be. Who knows though, it was irrelevant to my point that religion impedes progress when reality doesn't match religious dogma.

Thank goodness we don't have as many theocracies, but that doesn't stop churches from putting their weight behind policies in democracies and slowing down progress. Stem cell research, Proposition 8, abortion rights, etc. etc.

I can't name a theocracy that isn't pretty darn repressive. Which is to say, humans can be good or bad without it, but religion, as a way of thinking, brings nothing good to the table and only the rather large negative of a system of believing in things without questioning them.

Jefferson must have thought religions were not very believable to be a deist and write out all the miracles of the Bible, basically all the superstition. I don't doubt he understood that the concept of religion was a serious thing to address because it had so much power still at his time, but the system of belief itself was irrational.

Generalizations about belief systems and those who subscribe to those belief systems are nothing like generalizing GLBT people. Being GLBT isn't a choice. Religion, like politics, is a choice. I generalize about political ideologies all the time, as well as those who identify with them. A belief system is just another idea, one open to criticsm, as well as the people who voluntarily choose to hold them. I don't think any of my generalizations are beyond the pale. That is, they're used in a useful way to be able to talk about broad ideas and concepts, not to attack or disparage people. Some may take offense, but it's not the intent, it's just criticsm. I'm sure Republicans take offense at my criticism of them and their ideas.

They're using religious beliefs to justify tyranny....

And their religious texts advocate it in many ways.

Religion impedes progress, as it has throughout history, when reality contradicts religious dogma. The sun revolving around the Earth and the imprisonment of Galileo being one obvious example. Or denying GLBT rights primarily because of what the Bible says.

The countries where the least subscribe to theism, and even those that do don't know or care about the religions they say they subscribe to, and people rarely go to church, much less vote based on what the Bible says. Those don't take religion seriously.

Jefferson took religion so seriously he made a Bible without all the miracles in it. In other words, quite a few thought it was silly superstition. Can't imagine a present day politician doing that.