We've heard from the Atheists....now why are YOU here.

[Evoman]

It seems to me that fairly often, we gets posts asking the atheists what we are doing in this forum. Everybody, of course, has a different reason; some people are interested in religion as a phenomena, some people like to have debates and discusssions, and some like to "keep an eye" on religion.

Now my question is to the theists....why are YOU here? Just before I posted this, I had a look at various religious groups...none of them (maybe with the exception of the Catholic group) seem to be posted on frequently. Although this statemtent is based on a cursory examination of the religious forums, it seems to me that most theists spend their time on this forum. That in itself is not necessarily unusual, of course, but it contrasts with the atheist forum, which seems to be way more active than the religous ones.

Another observation I have made (correct me if I'm wrong) is that most religious topics (i.e non-confrontational religious topics that only require input from theists) sink quite quickly on this forum. In fact, most of the thiests here start posts questioning/confronting atheists and some respond solely to threads that have atheists in them. Now, my interpretation of this is that religious DUers LIKE to confront/question/debate atheists. Is this true? IF so, why doe we always get people who are upset and suprised that atheists would argue with them?

I have a strong feeling that if, for whatever reason, atheists and agnostics stopped posting here, this forum would be absolutely dead. Although some people argue that they come to this forum to learn about OTHER religions, why are there never discussions about this? I asked this question of a couple of religious DUers...one said that he came to learn about Sufi mysticism, but he has never posted nor asked question in the few, quickly gone, threads about sufism.

So why are you here? Why do you like it here? And if you hate it here, why do you bother?

[Jaundice James]

1. I usually just view...

I usually just view the "Latest Discussions" section which has the latest from all sections, and don't neccessarily GO to the R/T SECTION, but if it's something interesting, I'll participate. -JJ

[texastoast]

2. I'll be honest

I just like to argue.

:evilgrin:

[Taverner]

3. I'm a Deist but....

(so I don't know if I count) but it heartens me when I see lefty Christians. Even more so when I come accross lefty evangelicals and mormons.

[JerseygirlCT]

4. I love discussions about other people's beliefs

and like to compare/contrast my own. Sorting through other opinions is good for me -- like exercise. It forces me to confront my own biases and look at things in a new way.

And religion cuts to the heart of things in many ways. One's beliefs about the world, our place in it, the meaning of life, etc. All of that can make for very interesting conversation!

I dislike intensely the silliness that we seem to devolve into where people are told what they believe or don't believe, or what that makes them. Or where other's beliefs are belittled and treated with sarcasm and scorn. I don't think that furthers any discussion and doesn't really do any good whatsoever. Unless ranting makes someone feel better, I suppose...

[Evoman]

5. A noble reason

Thank you for your response :)

[SPKrazy]

6. Because I'm Interested In Belief

and spirituality

and people don't post much on the religious forums so I post here

I've discovered that I can learn from most people, maybe from everyone (although sometimes I learn things that probably aren't what the poster intended for me to learn) about beliefs, and critically examining my own beliefs

Of course I learn about non-belief and the sensitivities of atheists as well, which is not something that I've ever done or been interested in before now.

People are people, so why should it be, that you and I should get along so awfully" (De Peche Mode I think)

[Lerkfish]

7. my observation is different.

in my experience, christians here are ganged up on by atheists until they are driven away in frustration.

its all perspective. we have just shown two different possible explanations for the same result: a religion/theology forum made up mostly of those who eschew religion.

[Evoman]

8. I disagree

What is a gang-up? It is a concerted effort by a group of people to keep someone in submission. Maybe its just my perspective, but what I usually see is a religious person either making a wrong/bigoted statement (i.e that defining atheism as a faith meme), and INDIVIDUALS who are insulted confront it.

I.E. If I were to say, "Christians are idiots who smell like cabbage", I'm sure several christians here would protest. That does not make it a gang-up.

[SPKrazy]

9. He Could Be Right

there is a posting police force here that will gang up if you mispost, or post something in ignorance or whatever.

It's interesting how "individuals" all seem to come at once.

[Evoman]

11. LOL

This paranoia is fucking ridiculous. I have absolutely no contact with any other person on this website! I have received PMs from atheists here about 4 times total! (except from BMUS, who sent me many PMS when my cousin passed away). There is no posting police!

Duh, maybe those "misposts" are offensive and continually fucking repeated, and thats why INDIVIDUALS are insulted. Oh no, couldn't be...must be the posting police.

Look at this thread...was there something offensive about my post? I was asking why people post here...and two seconds later, we've got a subthread about the atheist conspiracy. Fucking lovely.

[SPKrazy]

15. It's Only A Conspiracy

when two or more people conspire

at least legally

and you're only paranoid if they really aren't out to get you

I think there's some here that are out to get me, not necessarily every theist that posts here, but just me

:hide:

[Evoman]

17. Lol...your nuts.

You will be perfect for our Annual Atheist Christian Hunt....the right mixture of rational, self preservation and wild eyed looniness ;)

[SPKrazy]

18. You'd Never Find Me

I can hide pretty good

[Lerkfish]

21. interesting civil and thoughtful post.

I can see where you have started this thread in the interest of harmony between atheists and religious people.

[Evoman]

25. Lol

My swearing is bad. I apologize for the outburst.

On edit: I'm usually not mad at all when I swear and rant...its more of a rhetorical device then anything. My blood pressure didn't change at all...I'm just sitting here calmly, drinking a fine cola on hot day.

[Lerkfish]

31. sure, if you want to blame the swearing.

I can read the post without the swearing and it still doesn't read as the calm philosopher.

[Evoman]

38. Its not meant to.

I'm supposed to sound agitated. Right now I'm not.

[Lerkfish]

10. feel free to disagree.

:shrug:

as I said, its a matter of perspective. I can see yours, you discount mine.
That puts us back at square one.

In your view, religious people are making wrong/bigoted statements, but atheists are not. Until you see that it also happens the other way 'round, there can be no understanding.

I often see many threads that bash religion here in the religion forum, which is sad, because I'd prefer to come here and discuss things like how the book of Job meant a lot in my life during a difficult time, that sort of thing. As you say, when I start threads like that, they either sink or it becomes an opportunity for atheists to tell me I'm superstitious, believe in fairy tales, and am either uneducated or unsophisticated enought to achieve enlightenment of the truth of atheism. But you won't consider that as "concerted effort by a group of people to keep someone in submission"

:shrug:

[SPKrazy]

13. Apparently There Is No Concerted Effort Here To Do That n/t

[Evoman]

14. Why do you post here.

If I'm wrong, thats fine. I asked something specific in my post, and you haven't answered. Why do you post here?

[Lerkfish]

19. because I foolishly believe I have the right to do so without having to

face an inquisition for being here.

apparently, I'm wrong.

That's the sarcastic answer. The real answer I already told you, but you didn't catch it, which is I would prefer to actually discuss religion instead of having to defend it constantly against those who disagree with it. I"d prefer to have actual substantive discussions ABOUT religion and what it means in the lives of other DUers, and I hold out the hope that eventually that will occur. However, I usually find instead threads like these, which hope to pit religious people and atheists against each other to try to address past wrongs and past negative baggage. What I usually find instead are atheists who want a whipping boy for evangelical right wing christians and who latch onto the liberal christians who actually post here and pummel them as surrogates.

When I first came into this forum, I tried to have civil discussions. I was soon disabused of that. So now, I venture in rarely.
Every once in a while a thread is posted in the "latest" page and I follow it back here.

implied in your question is that I should NOT be here if I don't like atheists or if I perceive that I am ganged up on.
You're very good at passive aggressive rhetorical questions, but I'm not biting, sorry.

[Evoman]

22. Wherever you go, feathers are ruffled

This forum is not unique in that. There are rational discussions here, plenty of them. Hell, I've started many of them. That being said, why are there no discussions in those other groups? Why are religous groups so dead?

Lol..and I'm obviously not good enough at passive aggresive rhetorical questioning if you caught me ;). To be honest, I would never try to discourage someone from posting here...especially in a passive aggressive manner. If I dislike someone, I tell them to fuck off..I'm not really the amibigious type. Fact is, I've been on the other side of that passive aggresiveness, and I don't like it...how many times do you have to be asked "why do atheists in a post religious forum anyways" before you feel your not wanted?

The fact is, it takes two to tango. You can't have a long flame war with only one side. If the atheists here are as aggressive as you imply, then the christians are exactly the same. If you want to have a calm, constructive discussion, you gotta be calm and constructive. Like I said, religious "understanding" topics rarely go past 5 posts. Why is that? Do you contribute to those? Or do you come on to posts like this and make accusations of passive aggressiveness instead?

[Lerkfish]

24. lol

I've seen your "calm" posts in this thread.

what is that you want, exactly? I answered your question.

[Evoman]

26. SUBMIT TO MY ATHEIST AUTHORITAH

;)

[Lerkfish]

29. (smile) well, if you look up the thread, you've tussled with any religious

person who did not provide you the answer your were fishing for. you've been civil to those who identify themselves as muslims, or who are atheists or who in a general way say they like to discuss religion.
But your opening post is not JUST a question, its also a veiled accusation, or characterization. You were hoping to snag christians who aren't submissive enough to suit you.

I view threads like these as baited traps. You want someone to come along and either argue with you, or behave in a way that feeds your assumptions.

[SPKrazy]

32. Now, I Hope I'm Not Part Of The Submissive Christians

because I'm just not gonna be one I'm telling you

I think this thread is just a response to my thread asking atheists why they come here

interestingly I was accused of being passive aggressive and setting up atheists too

I honestly never thought I was baiting or setting anyone up when I wrote my post that started that thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=77896&mesg_id=77896


So I can't say that Evoman is passive aggressive or not.

I can say that I think that it seems a logical place for a believer to post in, the Religion/Theology forum.

I gave my reasons upthread already though

[beam me up scottie]

42. I always wondered if you guys got offended by that.

To hear some tell it, we wipe the floor with you every night.

I give believers a lot more credit than that.

Especially T.Grannie.

I'd like to see someone try to railroad her anywhere. :evilgrin:

[Evoman]

33. Your absolutely correct

I was expectin certain answers. I was expecting people to tell me that they either like to discuss religion, or argue.

And when I don't get the answer I assume people will make or my question is not answered, I ask questions. It is not at all that I expect christians to be humble or submissive. I am actually curious.

Your first post to me was the following:

"in my experience, christians here are ganged up on by atheists until they are driven away in frustration.

its all perspective. we have just shown two different possible explanations for the same result: a religion/theology forum made up mostly of those who eschew religion."

which did not answer my question at all. In fact, I felt somewhat attacked, because I have never felt that I gang up on anyone. I disagree with a lot of people for a lot of different reasons but I've never purposefully ganged up on someone so they would leave.

My next post to you was this:

"What is a gang-up? It is a concerted effort by a group of people to keep someone in submission. Maybe its just my perspective, but what I usually see is a religious person either making a wrong/bigoted statement (i.e that defining atheism as a faith meme), and INDIVIDUALS who are insulted confront it.
I.E. If I were to say, "Christians are idiots who smell like cabbage", I'm sure several christians here would protest. That does not make it a gang-up. "

I do not believe this was "lashing out" as you put it..or maybe it is from your perspective. After continued insistence that I, and other atheists, attack christians or gang up on them on purpose as a group, I had my little outburst. Which was really my only "lashing out"..and that is frankly because I'm sick of being accused of belonging to some atheist attacking group.

What do I want from you? Nothing...except to tell me why, if you want calm and civil discourse, you don't engage in it. You immediatly went on the offensive instead of answering my question. You immediatly started talking about atheist gang ups...YOU HAD TO HAVE KNOWN that this would cause a mini-flame war, and you did it anyways. Why?

[Lerkfish]

43. well, I notice you re-edited your original post

so I'm no longer able to quote the offending portions. convenient.

anyhow, My ONLY reason in responding to your original post (before it was edited) was that you were stating that the reason there were more atheists here was because religious people were perseverant enough or in plentiful enough numbers to sustain discussion threads.
I countered that it could also be because christians that come to this forum are chased out by atheists, that that dynamic results in the same observation as well, and that it was a matter of perspective.

I was pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.

You interpret that as going on the offensive. :shrug:

but I will do the right thing and exit this thread here. You may have the last word.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. 'Convenient' editing?

The OP was edited before a single reply appeared in the thread - and 27 minutes before you replied. What is it that you think was in it (what you say here - "the reason there were more atheists here was because religious people were perseverant enough or in plentiful enough numbers to sustain discussion threads" - doesn't really seem to make sense to me, at least not as being 'offensive' - is there a missing word)? If you're talking about other posts by Evoman, any editing has again happened 2 or 3 minutes after the original - which do you think has affected the replies made by others?

[Evoman]

50. Thanks for the last word

and thank your for your accusations of editing after your response, which is not true. I always edit my post RIGHT AFTER I make them, because after I post, I read them and find spelling mistakes and syntax errors (I type them out too fast). Then I immediatly edit them. IMMEDIATLY being the key word. I never edit AFTER somebody posts, so please stuff your accusations.

Evoman

[cain_7777]

54. It was edited 2 minutes before the first reply

:crazy:

editted just to make you wonder

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. I come to find out different points of view

There aren't that many Muslims who post here; I visit them at the Muslim/Isalm group. I run into mystics on other forums where there is no political infiltration by freepers, so I can get my support from them there.

What I am interested in at R/T is NOT the confrontations, but the explorations of spirituality and the different viewpoints concerning reality. I like to post on threads started by people with differing points of view to put in my two cents and to expand discussion. I also like to post clarifications about Islam and other faiths that I may know a bit about but are not widely known about in the US.

Many times, there have been active and lively discussions between atheists and believers; these are productive. Those where one group or another calls names is not productive. I welcome all productive discussions, and would be sad if any members of such felt that they could no longer post here.

[Evoman]

16. I like your posts

and although I disagree with most of them, I've always found you to be interesting. Thank you for your response.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

20. Thank you for the compliment

it is a spiritual practice to try and see a situation from another's point of view. I also try and do that-it is a practice that is often not very easy.

[Evoman]

23. Yep

Its why I've been so succesful (somewhat) in keeping my cool in those "atheism is a faith" discussion. I try to shift my perspective: obviously if faith is central to ones life, it makes sense that you think others must have the same faith you do.

We only have one perspective...if we ever say we understand another, we're usually full of it. You can never completely understand an others perspective.....in the large sea of people, no matter how huge the population, we are still perpetually alone.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

27. Though we can never "walk in their shoes" as it were

we can get close. And I do think it is important that folks at least try to see another's viewpoint.

I find your last sentence especially intriguing. For in my spiritual tradition, we say there is only God, nothing else-and why then, did This That Is All create the universe and everything in it? Perhaps because That is perpetually alone, in the sense that there is nothing else. Sufis often cite a hadith, where God is reported to have said, "I was a hidden treasure, and longed to be known."

[Evoman]

28. Being alone is inevitable, at any level.

You and I...we are not ONE thing. We are a collection of individual cells. Even when individuals cells bind together to become ONE, then the ONE become sentient. That sentient being is alone once more. Even if you could completely share perspective with another person, than that person would cease to be a person themselves, and the TWO would become another ONE. Alone again, just like cells.

[SPKrazy]

30. Like The Song....

Alone again, just like the cells




oh wait,

Alone again, naturally

[Evoman]

35. hehe n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

34. One and one and one and one

yes, there is only one-amazing how so many componants unite to become one.

But here's an interesting question for you-you say, if I read this correctly, that it takes individual cells binding together to become ONE, then the ONE become sentient. Are you saying, then, that only a collection of cells can be sentient? Can one cell have consciousness?

[SPKrazy]

36. I Didn't Post That, But Here's What I Think

there is some evidence (no I don't have it with me, but I learned it in an anatomy and physiology class) that cells as they divide in utero, and grow apart, retain some form of not understood communication with cells that they were next to early on in utero.

This could explain why there is referred pain sometimes in places that there is no logical nerve connection to.

I think that cells do have an ability to communicate. What is sentience? Is it the ability to think? Communicate? Because that describes a lot of organisms on the planet, probably every organism from single cell, to multicellular organisms like humans.

:woohoo:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

40. Entrainment

Here's a definition for this term I got from a science lecture I attended recently-it seems to go along with what you are saying:

When two subatomic particles that have been in contact are seperated, and the spin of one is changed, the other one instantly changes spin to the same degree, no matter how far apart they now are.

The lecturer went on to talk about how entrainment also works in animals and people-how birds become "one" on their migratory flights; how women's moon times come into synch after working together for a few months.

As I said, there is a lot to be explored when one touches upon the concept of consciousness.

[cain_7777]

47. you would like the show, "What the Bleep do We Know," on HBO

It's all about the Physics of reality as told by numerous narrarators of differing backgrounds, from leading scientist to theologians. One particular point of discussion within the film is that of a scientsist speaking an experiment in which one particle is in two different places at the same time. They also speak of the two particles that when one's spin changes the counterpart also changes its spin at the exact moment no matter how many light years away it is. However they are connected it is much faster than the speed of light or happening in another dimension. Very interesting stuff.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

51. I've seen it

the film made the rounds a while back, including viewings at the local Unity Churches. If you like that, you'd also like Mind Walk, which is talking about the social implications of the concept of interrelationships. (Also one of my all time favorite films).

[cain_7777]

52. Mind Walk is much better

One of my beliefs is that everything is interconnected and we are just part of the mesh.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

55. I got to meet one of the actors

They wrote most of their own dialog for the film, after having read and studied the subject. Let's just say that the actor learned his lesson well, and that he continues to apply them in his various philanthropic projects.

[cain_7777]

46. Cells communicate on a chemical level, not a conscious one

Sentience is a capacity for basic consciousness—the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness, the ability for sapience is not a necessity. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, higher consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different meanings in English. The two words can be distinguished by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know". - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

[Evoman]

37. There is nothing ruling out that a cell could become sentient,

Sentience is a bad word, in this case, because it suggest self-consciousness. Cells are not self-conscious, as far as we've seen.

Now, what I think your getting at is that somehow, the collectivity of human kind, or parts of the universe, could create a larger sentience. No doubt you would call that god. But you can't necessarily apply that to a larger group without evidence. There is no evidence that human beings, for example, have a collective conscious. If there were some way to connect people, I suppose (I'm thinking a machine in which we share brainwaves), we could possibly come up with a intelligent super being.

You could also argue that elementary particles have no sentience. But in combination, they make a basic life unit. And those life units create a sentient being. But my question would probably be: is sentience or self-conciousness special? Is it any more special than a dogs nose or an insects exoskeleton, or even a cloud of dust? Sentience could just be an accidental by-product of a chemical reaction in the brain.

Its an interesting conversation, nevertheless.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

39. Sentience

is indeed an interesting topic, as is consciousness-I'm not a scientist, so I don't know how exactly a scientist would go about testing for these phenomenae. Interesting, though, that you say there is no evidence that humans have a collective consciousness. I'll have to ask scientist friends about that, to see if there have been studies. I know from my personal experience that one can communicate with another across great distances (or across a room) via mental telepathy. I have talked with healers who say that they tap into a collective consciousness to help others; in doing healing sessions with people I don't know I've found I can "tune in" to facts and information about them that there was no way I could know. It would be interesting if studies could be laid out to explore this phenonmena.

Edited to make a plural read plural and not singular!

[manic expression]

41. I'm simply interested in general

Mostly.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

49. Sorry I am late to the party

Any cookies left? We had an untimely death in the family..an inlaw. My maternal uncle's wife's younger sister, who is my age. She had quint. bypass and never came out of post-op. It has been a few days of very, very southern customs ending today with interment in an old southern cemetery with huge live oak trees and barely a breeze. So I've been thinking of mortality quite a bit lately. This was a very unexpected death. She was very petite, very "healthy." Or so we thought.

Why do I like R/T? Well, first, I get really agitated in GD because I think folks try to be "more liberal than thou" over there, and while some walk the walk, I have a suspicion that most are just talking the talk. I once was confused about why atheists post at RT but then realized that A/A is donor only. And I have come to understand that WHILE ATHEISTS DON'T HAVE FAITH they ARE thinkers and questioners and they note the mysteries of life and have come to a different conclusion than I about them. But we are basically much more similar in our beliefs than I would be with a fundamentalist who has all the answers because he/she doesn't ask all the questions. Strangely enough, my discussions this past year with atheist friends have actually made me question my faith much more rigorously and THINK hard about the personal markers that lead me to believe and therefore, my faith has broadened and strengthened. At some point with regards to faith one MUST realize that it is, at the end, totally personal. It is unseemly and bad manners to internalize too deeply what another person believes. It isn't healthy, either.

The only time an athesist has ever offended me is with a "Santa Claus/fairy tale" crack or worse, "dead guy on a stick." And the "regular" A/A's (the posse!) have never done so. I have no problem with people calling my beliefs part of a tradition of myths, because myth is human and so primal and natural to us as almost to be religion in and of itself. Santa and fairy tales are for children, hence my problem with that analogy. And "dead guy on a stick" is just in-your-face stupid and says a lot more about the writer than it does about anything else. On the other hand I finally realized at some point that my purest faith is childlike and when I am down and terrified or lonely and can't sleep I come to my god (in my case I pray to Christ) as a child to a father. Yes, I know it is patriarchal, but having had a fine man as a father, I am fine with that model..for me.

In general, I like R/T because I know most of the names and I'd rather talk about this stuff than GWB any day. He is transitory. WE are discussing issues that are eternal. I like the fact that we are all having the same arguments that humans have been having for millenia. I like that continuity.

But for today...I have seen and touched a dead woman. She was hard, cold, and gone. Last month she was at my son's wedding. I wonder where she went? And that is, after all, the burning question for us all.

T-Grannie

[Meshuga]

53. To save lost souls

Just kidding! :-)

I come here because I like this forum and to see what other people think. I like learning the different ideas of God from the theists and get the input from the atheist, agnostic or whoever believes in something or don't believe anything.

I think it is valid for everyone and to come here.

I spend time in this forum because there are a lot of topics, different opinions, and it is popular. The Jewish forum is pretty dead and it feels like I am posting and nobody visiting the threads. :-)

[Zebedeo]

56. Many reasons

1. I am curious about other peoples' beliefs and world-views.

2. I enjoy debating important issues, as I see it as a way of distinguishing truth from falsehood.

3. I think that by participating in such debates, I hone and strengthen my own faith and my ability to defend by beliefs.

4. I admire many of the posters here, and am interested in what they have to say.

5. This board is a forum in which I can express my own views any time I want, way more easily than in the real world.

6. I want to have an influence on electoral politics, by helping to prevent the Democratic Party from losing future elections as a result of taking anti-religious positions.

etc.

[godhatesrepublicans]

58. http://www.streetprophets.com is better for that, join us!

[godhatesrepublicans]

57. I keep hoping to discuss politics from a liberal Christian perspective.

But every time I check in, it's always the same "atheist vs. believer" crap. When I start a thread here, I get jumped on and accused of being a troll or believing in the Tooth Fairy.

I've been reading http://www.streetprophets.com lately, it's a lot more interesting than this part of DU.

If the militant atheists and agnostics would shut their mouths and open their ears maybe the rest of us could have a civil discussion here. I'm old enough to remember when people had conversations. :-)