Religion
Related: About this forumMust Atheists Trash Religion?
By Todd May
MARCH 4, 2018
WE LIVE IN polarized times, and that’s no secret. This polarization is often noted and often lamented. It is said to be tearing our country apart at its seams. However, is polarization as such a bad thing? Not always. The polarization that the American Civil Rights movement caused ended legal segregation in the country. The Vietnam War protests were nothing if not polarizing, yet they forced the Nixon administration to cease its barbaric operations in that country. The current struggles against racism, xenophobia, and misogyny under the Trump administration may have a polarizing effect, but they are necessary engagements if we are to help repair the broken soul of the United States.
When it comes to polarization, then, rather than moving directly to lamentation, our proper response should be: “Polarization about what?” Is the polarizing issue one that deserves it or not?
There is a group of thinkers who have come to be labeled the New Atheists and who believe that among the issues that merit polarization, religion has earned pride of place. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, A. C. Grayling, and (until his death) Christopher Hitchens see religion as an outdated practice, an archaic superstition that promotes ignorance and violence and is best abandoned as quickly as possible. And they are not loath in their diatribes to use inflammatory rhetoric that they know will have a polarizing effect.
But is religion deserving of such polarization? Should religion be subject to the either/or of a polarized discourse or attitude? The philosopher Tim Crane, a professed atheist, thinks not. In his small but valuable volume The Meaning of Belief: Religion from an Atheist’s Point of View, he argues that the New Atheists’ approach to religious belief and practice is fundamentally flawed, and that the proper atheist response to religion ought not to be one of condemnation, but rather one of tolerance. This tolerance is not, as we shall see, a tolerance of everything done under the name of religion. But it is a general tolerance of religion itself, of a viewpoint and set of associated practices that may be foreign, and indeed mistaken, to the atheist, but not to be rejected for all that.
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/must-atheists-trash-religion/#!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Cartoonist
(7,309 posts)Another person saying atheists should shut up. Yes, I notice he calls himself an atheist.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)Can you point it out?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Straw Man fallacy is alive and well.....
Cartoonist
(7,309 posts)the proper atheist response to religion ought not to be one of condemnation, but rather one of tolerance.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)We see that one so often in this group. Condemnation of an idea is not intolerance, no matter how many times theists try to pretend they are the same thing.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Be real. If someone attacked the concept of atheism, you would be jumping up and down in protest!
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,907 posts)Might want to look in the mirror.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)and their followers, and are blamed for all kinds of tragedies. The concept of atheism is frequently attacked in various ways - sometimes by theists claiming that atheism is really a religion, or that atheists are really believers who are angry at God, or that there are no atheists in foxholes, or in other ways. Yet, here we are. They tolerate us, for the most part.
Sometimes atheists receive death threats for calling attention to violations of the law requiring separation of church and state. That is intolerance. Jessica Ahlquist's life was in such danger that police had to escort her to school. That is intolerance. After Blair Scott appeared in an interview, the Fox News Facebook page received over 8000 death threats against atheists before they shut down the comments. That is intolerance.
Do you disagree?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)And I condemn this condemnation.
However, what I advocate is not acting that way. Respecting each other's opinions, even when they disagree.
The fact that the other side is disrespectful does not justify your disrespect. Two wrongs do not a right make.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)Or are you calling for a special exception to be made, only for religious opinions? Should all religious opinions be respected?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)This is not just for religious views. And, yes, we should respect people of ALL religious beliefs, not just Christians.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)I didn't ask about whether people should be respected. They should be. But we were talking about ideas, and opinions.
You said, "However, what I advocate is not acting that way. Respecting each other's opinions, even when they disagree."
I asked for clarification of your statement. Please answer the questions I asked you.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Answer: yes.
Clear enough?
You don't have to agree with an opinion to respect it.
Response to ollie10 (Reply #51)
Matt_R This message was self-deleted by its author.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)My point was that we should respect other people.
Why are you having so much resistance to that simple concept?
SunSeeker
(51,518 posts)It sure doesn't sound like your point is that "we should respecting other people" when you resort to suggesting someone is stupid, i.e., "having so much resistance to that simple concept."
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I am amazed however at how much resistance there is to the idea of respecting each other's beliefs even if we disagree with them.
Rather depressing, too.
SunSeeker
(51,518 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)I was making the point that there has been resistance to the idea that people, religious and non-religious, should have their views respected even if we disagree with their opinions.
I don't think "lies" is productive. The theists could call atheists liars and the atheists can call theists liars....but that is silly and stupid.
You don't win an argument by making yourself just as much of an asshole as the other side.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)Why are you being so dishonest about this?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You asked whether republican's opinions should be respected and all religions?
Answer: yes.
Clear enough?
You don't have to agree with an opinion to respect it.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)Please stop pretending we're talking about respecting people when we're talking about whether to respect ideas, opinions, and beliefs. They are not the same things, and it is dishonest to pretend that they are.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Do you really want to communicate or are you just trolling?
Mariana
(14,854 posts)if you go claiming you said one thing, when you said something completely different.
Ideas are not people. Opinions are not people. Beliefs are not people. Respect for people does not require respect for their ideas, opinions, or beliefs.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)1) people have a right to their opinions, whether they are religious or not
2) people have a right to their beliefs, whether they are religious or not
3) people have a right to their ideas, whethr they are religious or not
4) I have made it quite clear I support people's right to their opinions, beliefs, and ideas and have had almost constant push back when I did so
5) when you say someone's religious or non-religious opinions, beliefs, and ideas are lies, wrong, stupid, and you compare the people to clowns, fools, etc as several posters have done, it is easy to see that they are not trying to make for intelligent conversation. I mean, how can you have intelligent conversation when one side is saying that entire religions are wrong?
6) respecting people requires you to respect their opinions, beliefs and ideas....yu don't have to agree with them, but you respect their right to have them, and instead of name calling and insults, a calm discussion of differences may be in order, but when it comes to religion and politics these are topic people feel strongly about and we have to respect each other's differences. That's what makes our country great...the diversity of opinion
7) i may as well have been discussing with a group of right wing fundies, the closed minded reactions I have received for simply saying people's religious and non-religious views should be respected. All the nit picking. Have you guys reread your posts and looked in the mirror to see how you have become the flip side of the coin of the religious right wing you are fighting?
Mariana
(14,854 posts)is not the same as respecting those beliefs, opinions, and ideas.
I will never, ever respect the idea the homosexuals deserve to be executed, for example. I will never respect the opinion that women should be subservient to men. I will never respect the belief that people of certain races are inferior. There are many other examples of ideas that I simply can't respect, under any circumstances. If this is a problem for you, then you are right, we can't communicate at all.
However, I would never attempt to deny homophobes, sexists, and racists their right to think what they do. No beliefs, ideas, or opinions should be made illegal, regardless of how abhorrent, ridiculous, or just plain wrong they are.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I do not respect racism or homophobia, btw
I also don't agree that religion should be used as an excuse to deny the rights of gays. Religious rights don't mean taking other people's rights away.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But some people think DO that. And they're religious. So you have to respect their religious belief.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)...religious people.
Live. And. Let. Live.
It really puzzles me why atheists should care whether anyone prays or not, and it equally puzzles me why a religious person should care whether an atheist prays or not. Everyone has their own beliefs, and that is part of what makes life good.
We don't have to agree, but respect is the key.
As for the people who DO try to take other people's rights away.....I do not support that.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You're going back on my ignore list after this one if you don't knock this shit off.
I DON'T GIVE A FUCK IF YOU PRAY OR NOT, NO ONE DOES. I think it's stupid and pointless BUT NO ONE IS TRYING TO STOP YOU FROM PRAYING. Unless, of course, you seek to use government or public resources to promote your prayer. NO ONE IS TRYING TO TAKE YOUR RIGHT TO PRAY AWAY FROM YOU FOR FUCK'S SAKE.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
Answer yes or no.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)And telling me to knock this shit off is not trying to silence me?
Buy a mirror!
And using the F word really makes you sound so mature......pffft
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Response to trotsky (Reply #317)
ollie10 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)That's not trying to silence you. Unless, of course, you're incapable of being honest.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)When he threatened me..... if you don't knock this shit off..... yeah, on second thought, they were such welcoming and respectful words!!!!!
Give me a break. He was clearly telling me to shut up. Except he wasn't polite about it, he talked about bowel movements in the process
So you don't think that is trying to silence me? Then you come off and call me dishonest. I have come to expect that from you, but it is still disappointing.
It is really disappointing in that we probably agree about 99% of the issues out there....but because I have failed to go along with the orthodoxy of attacking religious views and/or people....I am the real heretic here....imagine someone having the temerity to say we should not attack religious OR non-religious people!
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Brilliant.
Response to ollie10 (Reply #132)
Matt_R This message was self-deleted by its author.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)in exactly one of the ways I described in my reply to this post. That didn't take long, did it? Are you going to remonstrate with that poster about the intolerance of posting such a statement?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 6, 2018, 08:35 AM - Edit history (2)
Quite frankly, anyone who has read my posts knows where I stand. I do not have to respond to each and every post you decide I should or should not respond to.....
Mariana
(14,854 posts)I simply asked you a question, which was answerable by a simple Yes or No. There was nothing in that post that even implied I was telling you to whom you should respond. Perhaps you should review the difference between an imperative sentence and an interrogatory sentence. That would prevent this kind of misunderstanding on your part in the future.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Mariana
(14,854 posts)newcriminal
(2,190 posts)BTW, nothing in there says "shut up".
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Even if you only read the excerpt, there was this, near the bottom of the brief excerpt:
ollie10
(2,091 posts)
TwistOneUp
(1,020 posts)I have always been as tolerant of "religious people" as they are of transwomen:
They no likea me, I no likea them;
They ignore me, I ignore them;
They treat me likea human being, I treat them likea human being.
They hate on me, I laugh at them. Replace hate with sarcasm and humor!
So IMO it's all up to them. As a shrink once told me,
"It's not how you act, and it's not how they react. It's how you react to their reaction."
ExciteBike66
(2,297 posts)without it being "polarizing"?
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)When the only choices offered are condemnation or respect, you're creating a self-fulfiiling prophecy of two poles which causes the conversation to be, er, polarizing.
ExciteBike66
(2,297 posts)is "condemnation". There is no other position for someone who thinks religion is hooey. If someone sincerely believes that a god exists, how can they take an atheist position as anything BUT "condemnation"?
Now, I'm not saying we don't need to be polite, we should be. We also should be "tolerant" in the sense that we should allow people to believe what they want (without forcing anyone to convert, say). That said, if a religious person feels he or she has the right to publicly state their views on religion, then an atheist certainly has the right to do the same.
You speak about "nuance", but I am unsure of what you mean. Can you elaborate please?
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)100,000 years of human experience would have been reduced to a crude punchline.
If on the other hand that same person can answer the question, "What part of it is hooey" with any statement other than "all of it", then a worthwhile conversation can ensue.
The topics reveal themselves without effort.
religion in government
evidence deity or lack of evidence
what material evidence of the immaterial would suffice - or could exist
how does religion harm human beings
how does it benefit human beings
Hooey or sky daddy or deluded or santa claus or cognitively dissonant are words not designed to engage in discussion but to shut it down. Odds are high that the one using them is more interested in a fight -usually an anonymous one.
ExciteBike66
(2,297 posts)You and I agree on some stuff, but you are missing my point.
The topics you list are all fine, except my point was that anything an atheist says on those topics is BY DEFINITION "condemnation" of religion, since the atheist disagrees fundamentally with the idea of religion in the first place. We can discuss religion in government, but the basis for the fact that I don't want religion to interfere with government is that I don't think there is a god. That of course leads to the conclusion that I think the religion is "hooey", since how could it not be if there is no god?
Discussing the positives of religion could potentially be done without overt condemnation, I suppose. That said, if one doesn't believe in a god, then one would probably just point out that the positives of religion are really the positives of any large group coming together, and are completely divorced from the existence of a god (I am thinking of stuff like charity, which is a good thing but of course not limited to religion).
As to your reference to our history, if course I think it is a crude punchline! Have you read any history? It's been 100k years and more of killing and other terrible nonsense. Much of which was predicated on there being a sky fairy. How anyone can read human history and NOT condemn it is beyond me.
Voltaire2
(12,965 posts)that extends anywhere near 100,000 years. That is just theists being theists. Not as bad as the other claim of 300,000 years, but still woefully and deliberately inaccurate.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)There is evidence going back 100,000 years that is less certain.
Now, explain your slur "deliberately inaccurate".
Voltaire2
(12,965 posts)You can get burial sites that old, some people infer cave paintings were “religious”, but as I said, creator god beliefs don’t go back anywhere near those dates.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)Nonbelief in a god is hardly a predicate for any opinion beyond that.
ExciteBike66
(2,297 posts)Maybe "condemnation" is too strong a word, but it is pretty close. I do not believe in a god, so if I discuss religion, I do so with the standing implication that religion is a made-up fairy tale. There is just no other way. If I don't believe in any god, how can I see the religion as anything other than a fairy-tale?
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)I don't believe in their gods but I get a sense, not a full understanding, of how they got there. They are not gods ut neither are thy fairy tales. Their use in the Roman Empire has an impact, still, that is much different than Hansel and Gretel.
But the more interesting point to me is what does one do once one has arrived at atheism. I expect it depends on how one got there. It could be through philosophy, like Epicurus, or it could be through science or it could be through politics or it could be through personal experience. Whatever that path is should influence how one feels about religion and what one does next. Where one goes next is as varied as how one gets there.
ExciteBike66
(2,297 posts)1.) If one believes in any monotheistic god, then one could certainly refuse to condemn the Roman system. One would just have to point out that the multiple Roman gods might have been manifestations of the single monotheistic god, and thus the Roman religion and the monotheistic one were actually concerning the same god. If one believes in an all-powerful god, then of course this is possible.
It is different if one is an atheist, since one cannot try to relate the Roman god system to ones own structure of nonbelief. An atheist MUST view their system as a fairy-tale, since that is all it is if there is no god or gods.
This is different from "understanding" how they got there. I could just as easily "understand" how a science-fiction writer got to any gods he might have created in his books. If one is an atheist, then the "understanding" you speak of is merely literary criticism and sociology (as to the impacts it had on society).
2.) As to the fairy-tale thing, that is just my short-hand. Any fictional story may indeed have a real impact on the world, as you point out. This doesn't mean that the fiction is not somehow still a fiction. My example would be all of the fictions concerning the Kim family in North Korea.
3.) To me, much of the criticism of people like Dawkins and Harris is related to their stridency. Many people are turned off by arguments about religion that denigrate said religion. This is understandable, politeness is usually a virtue. However, even a polite atheist must view religions as fictional creations, since the atheist fundamentally cannot agree that the basis for the religion (i.e. a god) even exists.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)ExciteBike66
(2,297 posts)newcriminal
(2,190 posts)Check 1:35, but the whole video is interesting.
TwistOneUp
(1,020 posts)Whoah! Wait! I thought the world was only 8,000 years old!
So I take it you're not a creationist then?
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)Which raises a question: Which parts of the Bible do you believe to be actually true as written Maybe you'll be willing to supply an answer.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)It is not unusual at all! Does this surprise you?
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)I see evidence of it all the time. Most people, however, do not publicly attest to not being literalists. Most people do not even mention whether or not they are literalists.
Total Biblical literalism is quite rare. What is not rare is adopting whatever parts of the Bible are convenient to one's preferred lifestyle. One can find justification for just about anything in there, really, and many do exactly that.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)MineralMan
(146,262 posts)I merely made an observation.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Perhaps you were reading a different article in a parallel universe where the author DID make that point.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Just peacefully minding its own business!1! It doesn't try to inject itself into how people are governed, try to control women or try to grab as much worldly power as possible. Just show me where that has happened! And of course, religious with differing views don't have a problem co-existing with others who don't believe as they do. If that were not true there'd have been wars over that by now!
Omg. What a cross-dragging stinky pantload. I knew when I saw "diatribe" what well worn, n'ary an original thought in sight, path it was heading down.
*yawn*
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)No substance and nothing but whining.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)
sprinkleeninow
(20,217 posts)😉
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)the postulations lead me.
sprinkleeninow
(20,217 posts)"We're not all here 'cause we're not all there."
**Free! To a good home with TV, food, internet and a bed. One male. Older in chronological, but not in other ways. Will deliver.** 😝
I'm getting into mischief in various places in this place. Am I in the religious room now?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Really....?
Mariana
(14,854 posts)No person was called a cross dragging stinky pantload.
It is a pretty common thing to accuse atheists of attacking religious people, when they've actually attacked ideas. That is what you have done here. Did you honestly not understand that the poster was describing the ideas presented?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Calling someone's IDEAS stinking pantloads is disrespectul. And immature. Sorta trump-like
Mariana
(14,854 posts)It's a bit awkward, true, but the sentence clearly indicates it is not describing people.
Ideas are criticized regularly on DU, and sometimes it is done very rudely. For example, you'll find that the ideas of Republicans who are in positions of power, or who are running for office, are sometimes described using similar language. When you see that, do make sure to point out that those posters are being disrespectful, immature, and sorta Trump-like.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)why don't you simply choose to discus religion in a respectful manner, including respect for those who have ideas different from your own?
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,907 posts)it's more "only talk about it the way we want you to talk about it." That SOOOOO much better 
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I was arguing for respecting others with whom we disagree.
You disagree with that? Fine. Tell us your reasoning and we can talk about it.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,907 posts)Atheist: I'm not a huge fan of religion.
Theist: You shouldn't talk about my faith like that.
Repeat ad nauseam.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,907 posts)But your tone and approach this entire OP have been getting to that. Nothing an atheist says that is negative about religion is going to be acceptable to you. So, keep warm with the thoughts you didn't say that exact wording. Know that every atheist is clear about what you were getting at.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I am not getting at anything.
I am simply advocating respect for people who disagree.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,907 posts)The difference between ideas and people gets blurred. I think most atheists are attacking the beliefs. For believers, their beliefs are so much a part of who they are that they aren't able to separate ideas from people. Any attack on religion feels like a personal attack. I see very few to basically no atheists that actually are disrespectful to people--just to the beliefs. Most of what I see from fellow atheists here is that we don't care what you believe. Have at it. But when it affects us, it becomes the basis for legitimate criticism. Just look at Indiana. They can buy liquor on Sundays for the first time since the 1800s. That is all because of religion.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Fortunately, not everyone insists that others agree. There are intolerant people of every stripe of every religion (and non-religion).,
Mariana
(14,854 posts)I think that blurring of the difference between criticism of people and criticism of ideas is often intentional.
atreides1
(16,067 posts)I'm not an atheist and I knew what he was getting at!!!
ollie10
(2,091 posts)In the meantime, we have a bunch of straw man arguments here
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)You must be a kabuki master in addition to knowing the opinion of "every atheist", the author of the book excepted.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)remotely resembling fairness. My commentary was regarding the worth of this article as any sort of fair minded piece.
My comments were equally as fair minded and I did it that way without pretense.
An added bonus to my approach was to shine a light on how utterly ridiculous his claims in relation to the "diatribes". Why in heaven's name could anyone possibly take issue with religion??? (Answer: Many good reasons given in my original comment. You're welcome.)
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Tolerance for religion as a cultural meme is one thing.
Tolerance for religion as a tool of discovering knowledge is an entirely different argument.
As a cosmological teaching, religion has failed. Religion has not provided us with any provable knowledge how the world works. Indeed it was the onset of materialism in late 18th century, moving away from religious explanations and ignoring God, that really kicked off the discovery of new knowledge.
We should reject religion because we allow it to violate basic human principles that we enforce in all other parts of life. In all other parts of life we have the duality of trial&error, idea and test-run, theory and experiment.
If a child dared to ignore this principle, we would scold it.
And yet, religion is the only component of human life that we allow to exist beyond criticism, beyond trial&error.
Why do we allow something as unnatural as religion in our lives?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)It never ceases to amaze me how arrogant people can be when they look down their snouts at ALL religious people!
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)I don't mind religion. I mind that something so weak and flawed gets hailed as strong and perfect.
I mind that something with a track-record of failures is hailed to be reliable.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)not everyone would agree.
I would also disagree with anyone who called atheism a folly. Even if they said atheism is not supposed to be a folly.
It is next to impossible to have an intelligent discussion about religion when one side calls the other the followers of folly.
Yawn.....this is so boring.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)....but, then again, there is no need to convince someone to be religious. I am religious and I have my own personal reasons for that. But I care little whether others are religious or not. And if it were my child, I would try my best that he/she would be exposed to all sorts of ideas....and if he/she chose Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, atheism or none of the above I would be happy with his/her choice and I would be happy to discuss our spiritual paths (or nonspiritual paths).
Va Lefty
(6,252 posts)
safeinOhio
(32,641 posts)Have no problem with liberal Sects of any religion. I also have a problem with Atheist like Ayn Rand.
few issues are black and white, there is always lots in-between.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Voltaire2
(12,965 posts)much whatever you want them to be.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Voltaire2
(12,965 posts)We actually have the historical records for the teachings of Isaac Newton, for example, or the philosophy of Martin Heidegger. There are many people for whom we have primary sources and for whom there is little controversy regarding what they said.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Like I said, a wide range of belief
Voltaire2
(12,965 posts)evidence for what Shitler has said. Even if he has said lots of contradictory stuff, we know he said it, or at least we know whoever has access to his twitter account said it.
There are no primary sources for “stuff Jesus said”.
The gospels relate stories about thing Jesus might have said, and many of these stories were written long after the time these events occurred. Worse, the gospels are intentionally obscure, everything is supposedly meant to be interpreted on multiple levels.
ollie10
(2,091 posts).....and to note that several scholars have varying views......
But to say....."Yeah well the teachings of Jesus are pretty much whatever you want them to be".....is quite a different tone. Rather condescending and flippant.
If you want to be taken seriously in a conversation....it would probably be more effective for you if you took the other people seriously as well...
Voltaire2
(12,965 posts)Christian doctrine that is completely different in different sects.
Abortion: an abomination according to Catholic teaching, not an abomination according to the Episcopalians, they both believe they are following the teachings of Jesus as applied to the issue of abortion.
Homosexuality: same two sects, sane 180 degree opinions.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)Trump claims to be religious. Many very popular and influential religious leaders say Trump is religious, and so do millions upon millions of religious people who voted for him and who continue to support him today. How is it that you can declare that he is non-religious?
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)Maybe it is because he has cheated on all three of his wives. Or maybe it is because he has hardly ever gone to church. Maybe because he couldn't remember what congregation he belongs to. Maybe because he went to a church for a campaign stop and was so ignorant of what goes on inside a church that he put money into the holy communion? Maybe it is because he has broken all of the commandments and usually bragged about doing so. Maybe it is because he values money as his god. Maybe it is because he doesn't show any of the fruits of the spirit. Maybe because you aren't religious if you just say you are, it has something to do with what you are inside. Trump is the antithesis of a religious person. He is a total narcissist....which is the opposite of the spirit of love that is taught in most if not all religions.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)You described behavior, not belief. Plenty of people believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and still act like asshats. E.g., the entire Mafia for the entire history of said Mafia.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Would anybody believe me?
In my opinion, actions speak louder than words.
Besides, you apparently did not read my entire post. I described values and beliefs too, not just actions.
Worshiping Donald Trump is the only "religion" Donald Trump has. Whether that qualifies as a religion in any meaningful wa, is subject to doubt and wonder
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)So no, no one would believe you.
Unfortunately, Almighty God does not hold himself to the same standards as an amateur body-building association, so claims of Christianity are less verifiable. And since belief and actions are not mutually dependent, actions do not speak louder than words. Maybe consider the universe is more complex than is indicated by a saying you may as well have found in a fortune cookie.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)....so far you have not been very convincing.
OK, let's also discuss your statement: "And since belief and actions are not mutually dependent, actions do not speak louder than words"
Well, since I am assuming we are talking about the religion Trump proports to believe in....let's see what Christian teaching says about the idea of faith or believing alone being enough....
1) faith without works is dead (James 2:14-26)
2) faith without love is dead (numerous)
3) 1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a ringing gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing 1 corinthians 13:1-2
4) social justice is required of Christians: Micah 6:8 “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”
as a side light...when is the last time Donald Trump walked humbly?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)You said he was non-religious. All we have to do is show he meets the bare minimum for consideration in that category.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)There are a LOT of people who go to church every Sunday and are not religious in the slightest. They do so as a social event. Pew warmers.
As to Donald, he doesn't even warm a pew.
OK, if you think someone can grope women and brag about it, be a racist, worship money, be a narcissist, a braggart, an unkind person, someone who makes fun of disabled people, who lies every day of his life, who steals from charity, defrauds people out of their retirement savings, doesn't pay his debts, has mob ties meets the requirements of being a Christian, I respectfully disagree! If Donald Trump met Jesus he would call him a loser. Besides he would hate Jesus because his skin was not white enough and he came from a shithole country
Jesus was also an undocumented alien. On the other hand, if Jesus was a female model with big boobs, trump would be all in favor
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)So it is your position that no one in the history of the world who has ever done anything bad was religious.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)But you doing this reflects on the weakness of your position
My point is that I don't find Trump to be particularly religious.
Am I on Democratic Underground or some right wing Trump worship site?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)You've tied religiosity to behavior, and in doing so tied irreligiosity to bad behavior.
No one is defending Trump. They are upset because you're making bigoted arguments against the non-religious.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I have said over and over on this thread that people's religious (and non-religious) beliefs should be respected. Not necessarily agreed with, but respected.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Where you said people who behave like Trump cannot be religious.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)but my point was that Donald Trump is not particularly religious
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Do they get your sympathies too? Or do you not give a shit that you're dragging their collective names through mud?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You are almost totally misrepresenting what I have said.
Pity to be you
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)But you are doing exactly that.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)...buying your new identity if you keep acting like the old you.
Just sayin.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)But don't be discouraged. Try again!
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)Whoever that is must be smart!
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)You sound like a bunch of gibberish.
If there is something specific you would want to say, and explain your reasoning in something that does not resemble a drive by....then have at it!
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)....then please explain your reasoning in something that does not resemble a drive by....then have at it! If not, please stop trolling
stonecutter357
(12,694 posts)
Mariana
(14,854 posts)Romans 3 : 23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,907 posts)Because there are A LOT of Christian sects that would disagree and argue that it is what you believe that is important. That acts will not get you into heaven.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Christianity is not a monolithic thing.
I was simply quoting from the Bible. Some verses that some find inconvenient. Hell, the Sermon on the Mount is inconvenient!
Also, I don't think it is Catholic doctrine that acts alone will get you into heaven....
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,907 posts)Problem is, many mainstream Christian sects would disagree with you in your interpretation of what it means to be a good Christian. This isn't an atheist thing. Protestant sects use different ways to determine true believers. Trump could meet those. If Trump has accepted Jesus as his lord and savior, he's good. You don't know that he hasn't.
I never said acts alone. But it is the emphasis on acts that separates Catholics from many other Christian sects.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I think a key thing in the Christian religion is asking God for forgiveness. Trump has said he has NEVER done that.
Trump has a right to his opinions, but to call him religious is a stretch. If someone ate junk food all day, never ate any fruits and vegetables, pigged out on processed food, and drank himself into oblivion with a case of beer each night to wash down his opiods, and he told you he believed in a healthy diet....would you call him a nutritionist?
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,907 posts)And he could be a nutritionist. He could have the necessary degree to be one.
One wouldn't say he ate a healthy diet. But we can develop an objective standard for what that means.
Not so much with religious. Why are you the arbiter of what it means to be religious? Who put you in charge of deciding what one believes and doesn't? The main problem is that the Bible is just a huge set of contradictions. You point out some "uncomfortable" passages, but I guarantee you there are passages that say the opposite. What it takes to be a Christian is just a huge subjective distinction. Which is why we have so many different Christian sects.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)of walking humbly with his god. I don't see any humbleness at all! I don't see how he has followed ANY of the commandments of his alleged religion. He never attends church, unless he is campaigning and wants to win votes. He is a braggart. He makes fun of handicapped god's children. He wants to ransack planet earth, god's creation, for personal gain. Virtually everyone knows he is a narcissist....and being religious requires worshipping something OUTSIDE ONESELF. He has callous disregard for women, for blacks, for immigrants, he appeals to hatred and fear and walls....whereas his alleged religion teaches love and bridges. I could go on, but Trump has a right to his opinions but please forgive me, but I have not seen a single shred of evidence that he is any more religious than not. If you could show me some evidence (other than trying to con you into believing he is Christian like he cons people at Trump U....) then have at it! But unless you can show me evidence I am not inclined to think he is particularly religious.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)including, as I said, many very popular and influential religious leaders. How can that be?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Doesn't mean it was smart
Mariana
(14,854 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)It doesn't matter. You have an obvious ax to grind and it won't make much difference.
I have made my opinion clear, and supported it with several reasons. If you don't agree, that is your right.
But I would ask you if you believe Trump is a narcissist. Many people do, and I share that view. Since religion is the worship of something outside oneself, usually referred to as a god.....how is it possible to be religious if you are totally wrapped up in yourself?
Trump worships himself, and secondarily is dysfunctional family, and the money they can spend on ugly gold drapes and golf clubs. That is the extent to which he worships, unless worshiping power counts. None of these qualifies as religion.
Trump is not charitable, heck he even steals from charity. He is mean spirited, racist, mysogynist, makes fun of handicapped, cheats on his multiple wives, lies all the time, cheats his workers, breaks all the commandments, brags about doing so.....
And he says he is a Christian? So what? He lies all the time. How can you say with any degree of confidence that he is not lying when he says he is a Christian? Remember, this is the guy who conned people out of their life's savings at Trump U.....you really believe this schmuck when he says he is a Christian? I suppose you got your degree from Trump U?
.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)So he's a sinful human being, just like you, just like me, just like all everyone who voted for him, just like everyone who voted against him, and just like every other human being that has ever existed, except for one. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I agree everyone sins. But that is a totally different thing to whether a person is religious or not.
I have presented several reasons why I don't believe the con that Trump is religious. I may of course be wrong...maybe someone who breaks all the commandments, grabs pussy, never goes to church, never asks god for forgiveness, bases his life on hatred, racism, mysogyny....and would have called Jesus a loser from a shithole nation.....maybe you have reason to believe he is a fine upstanding Christian man, very religious! Of course, you haven't been very successful at giving us many reasons. Best you have done is millions of people think he is.....which is a remarkable argument....millions of people voted for the son of a bitch.....not convincing. Hell, there are probably over a million people in America who don't even know he is president! So what you've got is a known con artist has told you he is a very religious man....and, like the students at Trump U, you actually believed him!
Mariana
(14,854 posts)There are plenty of others in the Bible that say pretty much the same thing - that as far a God is concerned, we're all disgusting, filthy things that deserve nothing from him.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Mariana
(14,854 posts)Would there be any need for such a gift if we weren't disgusting, filthy things that deserve nothing?
I'm assuming you don't believe we deserve to be tortured for eternity for the dreadful sin of being born human, like many Christians do.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)
nil desperandum
(654 posts)me of a story I heard before, when asked what he thought of Jesus Christ Ghandi is rumored to have answered. " I like your Jesus Christ, he is so unlike your Christians"
TwistOneUp
(1,020 posts)I think you mean, "the alleged teachings of the alleged sky god/man called, "Jesus".
NO proof that "Jesus" existed. Could be a delusion, could be a myth, could be bs.
"Step on a crack, break your mother's back!"
--old superstition
SamKnause
(13,088 posts)You can pray or practice your religion in the homes of your religious friends 24/7.
You can pray or practice your religion in the homes of your religious family members 24/7.
You can pray or practice your religion at your place of worship 24/7.
You can pray or practice your religion at your religious schools 24/7.
If you did this I would never mention religion.
When you encroach on my rights I will speak loudly.
You have no place in government. (Separation of Church and State)
You have no place in public education. (Religious indoctrination)
You have no right to display your religious beliefs in our government buildings. (Our government is for ALL citizens,
not just the religious citizens)
I don't care about your opinion on abortions. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. You have no right to make
that decisions for others.
I don't care about your opinion on same sex marriage. If you don't want to marry a person of the same sex, don't. You
have no right to keep to keep others from choosing marriage.
Keep your noses out of everyone else's business.
Your intrusions are not welcomed. They are divisive and harmful.
vercetti2021
(10,156 posts)As long as you don't shove it down anyone's throat or tell people that they're going to hell for their livelihood or life choices.
Just respect my beliefs and we're all right
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)should be tolerated? OK. I've been tolerating religion for a very long time. As I have written here hundreds of times, I don't care what people are able to believe. Believers are welcome to hold whatever beliefs they wish, as far as I'm concerned. My tolerance, however, ends the moment they attempt to foist those beliefs onto others and insist that their way is the only correct way.
My tolerance ends when they try to make law out of their religious doctrine. It ends when they attempt to teach their religious beliefs in public schools. I have no tolerance, either, for any insistence that I add god to my pledge of loyalty to my nation.
I am extremely tolerant of religion, as long as it is just a belief some people have. When it impacts my life and my choices in life, then I become far less tolerant.
Ferrets are Cool
(21,104 posts)Freethinker65
(10,001 posts)WestMichRad
(1,317 posts)Spot on!
My question is, why do so many religionists usually find it so compelling to trash atheism and atheists?
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)MineralMan
(146,262 posts)before "under God" was even added. I've never said it with those words. Nobody has ever bothered me about that. So, yes, I suppose I tolerate it as other people say it, but I don't include those words. If asked, I explain, just as I did here.
I also affirm any oaths I am asked to make. In court, I have always said, "I will affirm my oath," and I do so. Again, nobody has ever bothered me about that. I have never said, "I solemnly swear" nor "so help me God" while taking an oath. That is why I state that I will affirm the oath.
When I enlisted in the USAF in 1965, I affirmed that oath. I also insisted on writing in Atheist on forms where I had to declare my religion. In basic training, I was issued dog tags that said Protestant on them. I insisted that they be changed. Only with the help of the Jewish chaplain was I able to make that happen. As far as I know, I was the first enlisted Airman to have dog tags with Atheist on them. It caused quite a stir.
I tolerate religion, but will never tolerate having it forced upon me. There is no chance of that happening without my protest. So far in my life, that has never cause an enormous problem, although it has been a little uncomfortable a time or two.
Nobody is require to say the Pledge of Allegiance, nor to include words, "under God" when saying it. Affirmation is accepted for all official oaths in this country, as well.
Did you not know those things, or were you hoping to sweep them under some floor covering?
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
It's the law of a free republic
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)and "affirm" is perfectly acceptable. That was in 1965. So, I did not need to ignore my oath. I said it this way, which is perfectly acceptable:
"I, (my name), do solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
No American is require to swear anything in God's name. That's a fact. Do you not understand that? I've lived my entire adult life without doing that. I've held the highest possible level of security clearance. Nobody has ever questioned me in that regard.
Do you question me?
Voltaire2
(12,965 posts)you trying to get you to incriminate yourself for your enlistment oath taking like 50 years ago. Wtf is up with that?
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)MineralMan
(146,262 posts)I'm just telling my story. It's history.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)Actually, the several claims in that post.
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)I posted factual information.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)TwistOneUp
(1,020 posts)Was added because of McCarthy during the "red scare" era..
Unca Joe McCarthy wanted to ensure nobody was a commie. Commies are atheists, or so Unca Joe would have had us believe, so forcing people to say "under god" would make the commies more visible, or convert them into peeps that believed in a sky god.
You can look this up in wikipedia, if you like.
If I ever have to be sworn in, I'm taking a book on calculus even tho I'm kinda sorta Jewish and could get away with using a Torah. The Torah is theoretical, while mathematics is fact-based.
Voltaire2
(12,965 posts)“Without evidence”
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)newcriminal
(2,190 posts)Voltaire2
(12,965 posts)newcriminal
(2,190 posts)Voltaire2
(12,965 posts)fascinating.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)Not self referential.
Voltaire2
(12,965 posts)newcriminal
(2,190 posts)Voltaire2
(12,965 posts)Mariana
(14,854 posts)No acknowledgment of any deity was necessary at any time for any reason. To require such an acknowledgment would seem to be a violation of the No Religious Test Clause in Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution.
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)As you say, the Constitution is clear. As of this time, nobody enlisting in the US military is required either to swear the oath or acknowledge any deities. An affirmation of any oath is fine. Previously, there were some local officers who tried to insist on swearing and "so help me God" in such oaths. At the time I enlisted, I took the oath of enlistment at an induction center in Los Angeles, and the officer administering the oath explained that affirming the oath and leaving out "so help me God" was fine.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written without "under God" in it. That was added in the 1950s. Nobody has to say that. In fact, nobody is required to make that pledge at all. That is supported by a SCOTUS ruling.
As far as declaring oaths in courtrooms, there have been some variations in the past, and some states have not recognized an affirmation as valid. As far as I know, however, that practice has ended on a national basis, as has the requirement of placing one's hand on a Bible.
There are lots of misconceptions about such things. There have been a number of court cases on this oath-taking business. The principle of non-religious affirmations is pretty much universally accepted at this point. For me, it has never been an issue at any time when I've been asked to take an oath. I simply have declared my intention to affirm, rather than swear, all such oaths, and that has always been accepted without argument.
aka-chmeee
(1,132 posts)we were group sworn and could have recited "There once was a man from Nantucket...." and it wouldn't have made any difference.
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)It was a mixed group of draftees and enlistees like myself. It was actually a pretty solemn event.
aka-chmeee
(1,132 posts)Just saying no one really cared what you said as long as you didn't run screaming for the door. If you stayed, you were sworn in.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)It means different things to different people. Some people think any criticism at all is intolerance. Others think only social exclusion and violence constitute intolerance.
The problem I have with New Atheism is that it paints with too broad a brush, lumping violent jihadist in with mild-mannered casual religionists. They don't belong together even if they share the same nominal faith. But the New Atheism sometimes does lump them together. I don't call that intolerance. I call that blurring moral distinctions.
Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)In fact, it is tolerant of Christianity to the exclusion of other religions to one degree or another.
1. Around 70% of Americans are Christian of one flavor or another, that is 210,000,000
2. There are Christian radio stations in every market in the US https://tools.wmflabs.org/wp-world/googlmaps-proxy.php
3. There are numerous Christian publishing houses
4. There are Christian book stores in the US.
5. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a church.
6. This country has multimillion dollar mega churches, legacy denominational churches and small mom and pop churches.
7. This country has the huge Mormon church, which is Christian no matter how much others protest, that holds political and social sway over a whole state and parts of at least two others.
8. The Catholic church, is a powerhouse itself.
9. There is faith based initiatives office in the WH.
10. Christians hold around 90% of seats in Congress.
11. Christians have lobbyists in DC.
12. Christian websites and apologetics are rife on the internet.
13. Christian faiths of all kinds have TV shows on public access and cable networks.
14. No Christian is prevented from going to church.
15. No one is making a Christian get an abortion or use birth control.
16. No one is making a Christian marry someone of their same sex.
17. Congress has passed legislation to help protect, ostensibly all religions but they in practice protect Christianity almost entirely.
18. There are thousands of private Christian schools from kindergarten to universities in this country.
19. Christians are free to annoy others with their proselytizing.
20. Christians are free to leave this country and annoy foreigners with their proselytizing.
21. They are free to pray to themselves anytime.
22. They are free to pray in public aloud as long as it is not sanctioned by the government.
23. They are free to raise their children in their faith, they do not have let them watch worldly tv or listen worldly music or go to secular schools etc.
24. Churches don't have to pay taxes and yet receive the protection of our military, fire and police.
Am I correct in guessing that calling proselytizing annoying is shameless intolerance? Maybe calling Mormons Christian is? Is the state of tolerance attained when you STFU and say nothing about any religion?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)swings dead cats anymore. It's a standard unit of measure.
The Polack MSgt
(13,182 posts)"If I'm discomforted in any way it's oppression"
Says every damn Christian agitator in this country, every damn day of every damn year.
Meanwhile a veritable Army Of The Faithful, backed by a 24/7/365 propaganda machine pushes their agenda into every aspect of society, without any detectable "tolerance" for any other Monotheist, Polytheist, Pantheist, on nonbeliever in the nation.
I am just as tolerant and respectful of them as they are to me (Atheist) and my wife (Buddhist) and my goodness does that piss them off no end.
exboyfil
(17,862 posts)No work on Sunday except for essential services
Christmas is a holiday - often Good Friday is as well
TwistOneUp
(1,020 posts)Currently, in government meetings, some xtian always reads a prayer before they start, and the last part of the prayer is usually, "in jesus name we pray".
I saw and heard this on CSPAN and I was floored. Blatant violation of church and state.
Welcome to the theocracy!
Brainstormy
(2,380 posts)creationists? phrenologists? Religion is worth every bit of condemnation it gets. and imo, that's not nearly enough.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)See post #51 in this thread.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218273951#post51
All religions.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)Creationists?
Phrenologists?
Do you suggest lethal injection or gas?
You have unwittingly proven the book.
Instead of thunderous condemnations, why not just show where they're wrong? Not nearly as fun - and a lot less backslaps - but it's a hell of a lot more intelligent.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)has to include extermination. Ridicule seems much more appropriate.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)I don't think anything I mentioned attempted to dispute that.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)Is it your religion that inspires you to imply Braintstormy wants people who hold ridiculous beliefs to be killed?
Flat earthers, creationists, phrenologists and the like have already been shown where they're wrong, over and over again. Do you have a new argument that will actually break through their stupidity?
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)Why don't you ask him precisely what he meant.
I will leave the flat earthers where they are until I'm done with more immediate species of stupidity.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)It is interesting that you immediately thought of the most violent one, when there is no indication the poster was using the word in that way.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)Maybe he meant a sternly worded rebuke.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)instead of a law book.
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)It's something I notice a lot. Some people often argue with someone who used a word in one sense by selecting a definition that was not being used. I personally think that's deplorable, especially with words that have well-known diversity of definitions.
It is a deeply flawed strategy for arguments. I frequently call that out when it occurs.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)Sometimes, one can understand how it can happen. A lawyer, for example, might tend to gravitate toward one particular definition of "condemnation" that is different than the more common meaning.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)TwistOneUp
(1,020 posts)Is a reduction in liberty. As well as an infringement on the rights of atheists to believe that there is/are no gods.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I believe in separation of church and state
You might be surprised to learn that this idea originated with religious people....
TwistOneUp
(1,020 posts)The founding fathers were, in general, agnostic or atheists.
Now if religious people would pray silently, that's fine with me. But no mumbling! lol
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)Brainwashing children to believe ridiculous nonsense is child abuse.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)newcriminal
(2,190 posts)Maybe I have a more sober opinion on the subject.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)Another person's suffering never feels as acute as one's own suffering.
All I know is that, as a child, I suffered mental and emotional abuse in the name of religion. And that's "abuse", plain and simple.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)It isn't.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Spare us your phony sentiment, rug. It is clear you don't really give a shit.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Whoops.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)Thank you for the opportunity to reiterate.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I'm a helpful guy.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You are diminishing child abuse by comparing it to prayer
Thunderbeast
(3,400 posts)The "GOOD NEWS CLUBS" are an affront to the First Ammendment. They can meet after school in the church. Keep their recruitment out of school newsletters.
kurtcagle
(1,602 posts)They recognize that America is a de facto Christian nation, that it is very much in danger of becoming a theocratic state (and that many of the states within the US ARE theocracies), and that such theocracies are fundamentally anti-democratic. In general, when an atheist argues against religion, it is not with the intent of replacing religion with "atheism", it's to get people to stop and THINK rather than simply absorb their beliefs wholesale from Fox News or Breitbart.
I am, for all intents and purposes, an atheist. I'm fine with people having religious beliefs, but I am not fine when those religious beliefs impact the rights of myself and my family, which happens daily. 25% of the people in this country are non-religious (either atheists, agnostics or holding no formal religious belief structures). Yet 95% of Congress is made up of people who publicly espouse their Christian religious beliefs, with the balance made up of people who identify as religious Jews. This means that policies are now being put in place that actively discriminate against any but Christians at all levels in this country.
When we hear people like Trump railing against Muslims those of us who are not religious hear the asterisk "* and anyone else who does not believe as we do". In many states in this country, we cannot run for political office, because we are not Christian - or at least mouth that we are. The moment that it comes to light that a politician does not believe in the traditional concept of God, they are done in politics. It's that simple.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)"In general, when an atheist argues against religion, it is not with the intent of replacing religion with "atheism", it's to get people to stop and THINK rather than simply absorb their beliefs wholesale from Fox News or Breitbart. "
If you are wanting to get people to stop and think rather than absorb Fox and Breitbart, it might be a good idea to keep your eyes on the ball.
The far right would LIKE to paint you as attacking religion!!!! Nothing would HELP them MORE than to see their political opponents attacking RELIGION....rather than arguing for thinking. Heck, even if you are indeed arguing for thinking, they would probably try to paint you as attacking religion....why do their work for them?
Much better to argue for thinking than against religion. Argue for diversity, argue for freedom of speech, against the establishment of religion, argue against closed mindedness.....but when you attack religion per se....you are hurting your own cause.
Unless you are really wanting Breitbart and Fox and Co to win.......
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)
Faux pas
(14,645 posts)trash atheism?????? 
OregonBlue
(7,754 posts)Sneederbunk
(14,278 posts)askyagerz
(776 posts)So I think they are asking the wrong question...
Most people ridicule flat earthers and madela effect people for believing in unprovable theories yet trash atheists for not believing in unprovable theories.
You either believe in science and proof or you don't. You either follow the bible 100% or you dont. Just by the very natures of science or religion makes no wiggle room for in between. If a person is trying to have their cake and eat it too then they are completely missing the point of both...
ollie10
(2,091 posts)and then there is the point that much of the Bible is NOT intended as historical facts. There are stories, parables, symbolisms.....I know that SOME Christians believe in the Bible literally.....but to say all Christians do is about as accurate as saying all car owners drive Fords.....
askyagerz
(776 posts)Then his biography should be too. As soon as you start picking and choosing what YOU like or how YOU feel, you are spitting in the face of god. The whole point is to obey god. When you pick and choose then you are saying you know better then him. Why play games? Either believe in it or throw it in the trash with the rest of the archaic literature
ollie10
(2,091 posts)There are others
askyagerz
(776 posts)As far as I can tell that is one of the main points of the bible. God is infallible. It's black and white. Do or dont. Dont half ass something that you supposedly have faith in.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Many! And within each denomination, there are variations.
You might think that some folks who have religious beliefs you do not share are "half ass"..... but I would suggest that some believers are at an intellectual level not to believe things are black and white.....
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)belive God is fallible?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Have you read Genesis 6?
6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.
Right there in the first book of the Bible! God screwed up and regretted what he did!
People who think of god as infallible have not read the first book of the Bible!
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)Many don't even try to understand that much of the bible was never intended as historically accurate. There is symbolism, parables and stories that have meaning, just not historical.
I posted that simply because someone who believes in what others have mistakenly told him....that the bible says god is infallible.....and right in the 6th chapter god regretted something he did wrong. I find it comical, really, how many people claim to know so much about a book they don't believe in.....it is ironic, no? especially when they don't
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,907 posts)Makes me, as a human, really want to worship that god.
Oh, wait, no, actually, makes him sound like a murderous POS.
And, side note, not omnipotent either since he didn't succeed in wiping us off the face of the earth.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I was posting that because someone seemed to believe that all christians think god is infallible.....of course, ignorant of even the first book of the Bible.....
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Number 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Deuteronomy 32:4
The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He.
Isaiah 25:1
O LORD, You are my God; I will exalt You, I will give thanks to Your name; For You have worked wonders, Plans formed long ago, with perfect faithfulness
1 Samuel 15:29
He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind."
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You are entitled to hour opinion.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)And even if you could reconcile those verses (which I am sure you can), it negates your point that only someone who has not read or understood the Bible could believe that God is perfect. It's just that you can pick and choose your verses, or find clever ways to reconcile verses that appear to be contradictory.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:21 AM - Edit history (1)
Slick!
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)And as for picking and choosing, everyone has to do that when it comes to the Bible.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I searched for "God does not repent?" the words you claim to be from a translation you found.....and I couldn't find those exact words.
Here is a link that has several translations. None of them reads "god does not repent".
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Numbers%2023:19
Maybe you didn't change the words a bit? If so, maybe you could tell just what translation you were using that says "god does not repent"?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)I simply pointed out there are contradictory verses. A Christian's choices are to pick and choose or reconcile. For myself. I simple note that there are differences as you might see in any text written by multiple authors over 1500 or so years.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You even used quotes.
It was even in your headline! you said...." You mean there is no contradiction between "God repented" and "God does not repent?" "
In response I even cited a link to dozens of translations.....and asked you which translation you were quoting I believe. Oh well.
In the future, if you quote a passage from a source, biblical or otherwise, consider it poor form to change the words.
So I called you on it and you are now trying to deny. Figures.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)not to be direct quotes of any particular translation. Chicago Manual of Style , 15th edition Section 7.62 permits this usage although it says italics are preferred. I usually use quotes because they are easier to see, although I can see how they would be ambiguous in this situation.
However, I do see KJV uses repent in Gen 6.6 and Numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29 all use repent, so despite my poor use of quotation marks, the meaning is not changed.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)you still chose to use quotes and you changed the words inside the quotes.
there is no confusion. I know what you did
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)play with somebody else. I am not God that I don't make mistakes.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2018, 04:29 PM - Edit history (1)
If you think I did something else, that's your choice.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)And "repent" is a synonym for "regret". Ask rug if you can borrow his dictionary.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Call me old fashioned. When yu use quotes, you put what someone says word for word there. You don't get to change a few words here and there to help you make a point. Unless, of course, you are anti-religion, and then it is apparently OK
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)So, I guess that invalidates everything you just said.
Maybe don't be so pedantic, J.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)wow
yu are bending yourself into a pretzel to try to find fault
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I'd follow your example and disregard what you said, but seeing as you said nothing I guess my work here is done. Enjoy the rest of your day. Tell rug I said "hi".
ollie10
(2,091 posts)yu need to get out more. Being the spell check police?
Who is rug?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)A very keen observation on your part. We could all learn a thing or two from your superior deployment of literary technique. Please, sage master, learn us in the ways of your highly developed wit, for we are but intellectual paupers cowering in the vast, chilling expanse of your rhetorical shadow.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)It pays well to write intelligibly, though the income is somewhat less provincial than would be found in other professions. The real reward comes in knowing you've succeeded where so many others have failed... though this is often bittersweet, as one realizes the place of their increase was the fourth-grade, and that a significant portion of one's peers are barely qualified to compose a recipe for grilled cheese, much less critique the writings of others.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...which makes it perfectly relevant.
See below on the off chance you favor scrubbing awkward posts:
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I guess when you can't refute anything I have had to say, people have to resort to some sort of intimidation
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 26, 2018, 01:15 PM - Edit history (1)
...
I guess when you can't refute anything I have had to say
Let's back up and start over.
In post #372 you end the post with an open question at the bottom:
"Who is Rug?"
I replied in post #377 with a link to post #290 (of this OP/Thread) that includes the following screen capture:
To which you replied in post #379
not relevant. never heard of him/her
So consequently, in my confused state, I replied in post #383
It is the answer to your question...which makes it perfectly relevant.
and provided the following screen capture to show you your question:
And then I get this:
I asked a question, the answer I didn't and still don't know the answer to I guess when you can't refute anything I have had to say, people have to resort to some sort of intimidation
WTF?
What intimidation? I was just trying to answer a question you asked.
Where are these refute and intimidation comments coming from?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I don't know anything about rug.
You are harassing me please stop.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)Good lord, get a grip. You aren't a helpless victim here. You are in control of this situation. DU has an ignore function. If you feel that NeoGreen is persecuting you, use it. You need never see a post from that person again.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)false insinuations, guilt by association with someone I haven't even heard of....bizarro world
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)What act is Ollie pulling?
What guilt? What insinuation? What intimidation?
If I didn't know better, his dramatic replies have the air of "projecting".
If I pulled this sort of behavior, people would be justified in calling me a delicate flower.
WTF
Apologies for the confused rant, but I didn't want to reply to ollie directly, he is obviously overly nervous about something.
Following his lead in bringing up "guilt" and "insinuation" might lead one to wonder what that could be?
Mariana
(14,854 posts)posting all this silly confused paranoid contradictory crap in order to make Christians look foolish.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...I learned something today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
Thanks
Mariana
(14,854 posts)It's truly amazing how you can't tell tell the difference between the joke or the parody and the real thing.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...we're not the only ones to have noticed:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218274710#post96
Eko is apparently annoyed too.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)The thing is, he may not be a Poe or a joker or a troll or any of that. He may be a genuine Christian who is having his beliefs questioned for the first time in his life, and he has no idea how to cope with it. Who can tell the difference?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2018, 01:06 AM - Edit history (2)
And I frequently use quotation marks to set off phrases rather than actual quotes. I've been doing this for years and nobody has ever complained about it I do it especially when using my phone on the internet, where it can be awkward to use italics with my fat slow thumbs. This is an acceptable usage. I checked my Chicago Manual of Style which sits on my bookshelf and gave you the section reference to you so you can look for it yourself.
But I understand, it's much easier to argue an obscure point of grammar(where your opponent is being the obscure one) hoping that your audience does not actually know or care about the Chicago Manual of Style, than it is to actually address the substance of the post. A post, by the way, which itself consisted entirely of Bible quotes not paraphrases, yet you chose to ignore them entirely. Are you also one of those people who only reads the headlines and ignores the articles?
And you can criticize my grammar until the cows come home, you'll still be wrong. My grammar is very good, it's part of my job, and that's why I have style manuals on my bookshelf. What's on your bookshelf?
And even if you were right about the grammar, you don't actually want to talk about what I meant to say (even if it is wrong) you just want to find people to label anti-religious, which I am not. I am only against right wing fundamentalist religion. Liberal religion is okay by me.
Voltaire2
(12,965 posts)else’s cherry picked bible text should be rejected in favor of your cherry picked bible verse.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I see.
At least I didn't change the wording
The lesson being....if you cherry pick bible verses to attack religion, that is ok but if someone who is not anti-religious quotes the Bible, that is bad. I will try to remember that lesson. I keep forgetting
Voltaire2
(12,965 posts)argument. It isn’t the cherry picking. It is your rejection of somebody else’s cherry picking in favor of your own that I objected too. It is a dishonest argument.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)...Even if it answered a question brought out by another poster who asked "Which denominations...
belive (sic) God is fallible?"
I know it must be part of atheist orthodoxy to believe that all denominations believe in an infallible god. I don't follow that orthodoxy, sorry.
But I am learning! I now know that the anti-religious folks can quote (and mis-quote) the Bible all day long and you won't say a word
Voltaire2
(12,965 posts)quote from your holy book as evidence for infallibility as cherry picking while providing your own selection from the same holy book as evidence for your position.
That is a dishonest argument. It is massively irrelevant if you or the other person are atheists or theists.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)And you say I am dishonest for calling him out.
And I was NOT arguing for infallibility....quite the opposite. I suppose your need to attack someone who is not anti-religion blinded you to what I was saying?
Figures
Again, I am learning.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)how we see the exact same kind of bullshit over and over and over again from religious posters? You can see it coming a mile away, every time. Changing the subject, evasion of simple questions, nitpicking minutiae to derail conversation, crying persecution, contradicting their own statements, logical fallacy after logical fallacy, right on up to baldfaced lies. Anything, anything to avoid having an honest discussion.
Consider this quote, from elsewhere in this thread:
"It is not up to you or up to me to decide what parts of the Bible are important, nor which can be ignored. That is entirely up to every individual."
Seriously, how does an apparently intelligent and sane person even come up with a pair of statements that are so utterly contradictory, and then type them one right after the other like that? Are we supposed to believe it's an accident? Is "Bamboozle 'em with Bullshit" a technique that's being taught in churches nowadays?
I know there are honest religious people, I'm personally acquainted with some of them. They don't play stupid word games. They don't throw a temper tantrum if you ask them a question that makes them uncomfortable. They don't gossip behind people's backs. These folks do appear to be the exception, rather than the rule, but damn, they can't be that uncommon.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 26, 2018, 01:16 PM - Edit history (1)
...
Fix The Stupid
(947 posts)Fix The Stupid
(947 posts)lindysalsagal
(20,592 posts)If a crooked banker or car mechanic or contractor made that claim, you'd reject it out of hand.
There's no point in defending religion with logic or reason: There's nothing rational about any of it.
Just have fun finding the justifications for what you already believe.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)except you are ever so superior!
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 12, 2018, 05:05 PM - Edit history (1)
...are you referring?
One that refers to itself as being the proof of itself being correct?
Other than the one book she is implicitly referring to, that is.
For my part, I believe lindysalsagal has more than one book, all of which utilize independently-derived empirical-evidence, upon which a worldview has been built.
Empirical evidence that has been doubted, dissected and debated, recursively, to develop our current worldview over the last 400-years.
It is not one book, and it is most certainly not the same thing by any rational measure.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)... no, I don't/didn't say or imply that, if you inferred that, then that is on you.
I don't infer that you claim to be the author of the bible, the one-book of circular reasoning.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)lindysalsagal
(20,592 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)unless you feel gullible is superior.....
I hate the attitude of superiority. I hate it among religious people....and anti-religious people.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...from one person 
ollie10
(2,091 posts)NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...self superiority, I am only concerned with not allowing myself to fall into a pit of self-inferiority and self-pity.
It is very harmful to ones physical and mental health.
But it is generally not a problem for me, except for those few moments here and there, we're all human.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...I am as human as the next person.
That being said, there are those who seem to, in their own way:
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)Mariana
(14,854 posts)It's a good thing, too, or I'd have a very hard time as an atheist is a predominantly Christian society. Also as a woman in a society containing plenty of misogynistic men.
I must admit that I also don't much care when people in a position of privilege complain about feeling disrespected by a largely marginalized minority. Boo fucking hoo.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 13, 2018, 07:39 AM - Edit history (1)
that I believe that the beliefs of religious AND NON-RELIGIOUS people should be respected. You obviously chose to ignore that in your desire to show how much of a victim you are. You are preaching to the choir.
However, when someone looks down on religion, they are making themselves feel self-superior. I don't like that much, as you know.
Do you think using the F word is going to help anything?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...
The Taliban says women must wear burkas, and should be beaten if they do not.
That is a bad idea. It deserves no respect, and I will say so, Loudly.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)It would be more respectful to simply say you disagree than to put yourself on a pedestal and look down your snoot at others and say their ideas are bad. This is the attitude of self superiority that you are illustrating quite well. Thanks!
...I can't call requiring and compelling women to wear burkas a bad idea?
Your defending the ideas of the Taliban as above criticism?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)they think of their opinions about religion are superior and they look down on the heretics who don't follow their path. Much like you act like when you are calling other people's ideas "bad"
I oppose it when religious or non-religious people are disrespectful to the people with whom they do not agree with. Actually I hate it when people are disrespectful. And you object to me hating it, apparently
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...
You are the one who has more in common with the Taliban
Much like you act like when you are calling other people's ideas "bad"
I oppose it when religious or non-religious people are disrespectful to the people with whom they do not agree with.
Actually I hate it when people are disrespectful. And you object to me hating it, apparently
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You continue to misrepresent what I have been trying to say. No point in continuing.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...and haven't misrepresented anything.
And I most certainly will have a nice day. 
ollie10
(2,091 posts)NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...you know what ideas I hold in my head verses express here?
Arrogance much? Who is acting superior now?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)...just identifying apparent hypocrisy of the preceding statement relative to the general theme espoused previously.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I keep trying to say we should respect both atheism and religion. And you keep trying to jam this "religion is bad" stuff down my throat. I ain't gonna swallow your orthodoxy!
religion is "bad"? Are you saying Martin Luther King Jr was spreading bad ideas?
...I do not claim all ideas as bad.
Generally, just the ideas that are used to justify causing real harm on real people.
That big leap is a logical fallacy in honest debate:
Strawman fallacy – Misrepresenting or exaggerating another person’s argument to make it easier to attack.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You are so open minded!
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...and is not helping with the discussion.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)good luck with that one!
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...I call bad ideas as bad.
Unitarian Universalism is not bad,
Jainism, is not bad,
Taoism (as the religion non-adherents label it as), is not bad,
And even some of the ideas espoused by christianity are not bad.
But any bad ideas (i.e. those that call for or otherwise are used to justify real harm on real people) held by any of the above are bad.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)but you quite clearly said religion is bad.
I am happy to see you are starting to realize that what you said was absurd on its face
Mariana
(14,854 posts)and it certainly isn't a Christian one. Discrimination and hatred of "others" is rife throughout the Bible.
Even Jesus was hateful toward the Canaanite woman, because “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” He only relented when she debased herself enough to suit him and agreed with his characterization of her as a dog begging at the table. Matthew 15 : 21-28
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Convenient for you
Mariana
(14,854 posts)He says a Canaanite woman, pleading for help for her child, is equivalent to a dog begging for scraps from the table, because she isn't one of the lost sheep of Israel. With that example in front of them, it's easy to understand how so many white Christians considered African Americans demanding equal rights to also be like dogs begging at the table.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)And why don't you go to a black church and tell all the congregants they are worshiping the wrong god, while you are at it!
Mariana
(14,854 posts)It would be unbelievably rude, similar to a Christian knocking on the door of my house intending to preach at me. The Religion Group on DU is not a church, however, and it's perfectly appropriate here to point out that a particular religious text contains an example of racial/ethnic hatred and discrimination by the supposed Son of God himself.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)Why are you still not understanding the difference between respecting ideas, opinions, and beliefs and respecting people? It's been pointed out and explained to you many times. Are you pretending?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)And your reactions have been clear too.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I said I hate an attitude....which is not to say I hate people, just to clarify.
What does it accomplish? Not meant to accomplish anything. Just expressing my feelings. Is that acceptable here?
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...you assign an attitude to someone based on your perceptions and then claim to hate that attitude?
I don't feel superior, but you tell me that I am expressing that attitude (from your point of view) and then proceed to hate and apparently become upset that I have that attitude?
How is that functionally different from hating the person?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)It looks like you aren't willing to own up to the fact that when you look down on religion....you are....looking down, which makes you think of yourself as....er....superior to those you are....er....looking down on. think about it for awhile.
I have made it clear I don't like it when people look down on atheists. And also when people look down on religion.
I think people should be respectful towards people they disagree with
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 26, 2018, 01:33 PM - Edit history (1)
...it has nothing to do with the apparition of superiority you assign to me, it might have something with the apparent inferiority you may be feeling.
I call out bad ideas as bad ideas and criticize the reasons behind those bad ideas.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)people with self superiority....such great people!!!! Everyone loves talking with them. Life of the party!
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...no idea can be criticized?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Sure you can disagree with an idea. Sure you can make logical and convincing arguments to support your opinions and disagreeing with other opinions. but you need to keep in mind that there is a difference between your opinion and orthodoxy. Saying an idea is "bad" is disrespectful. For example, if a religious person said atheism is "bad" I would object because this is disrespectful. When an atheist does exactly the same thing and calls religion "bad" I call that out too. Why would you want to act as close minded as those you disagree with? Doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense.....
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...truly...
Why would you want to act as close minded as those you disagree with? Doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense.....
ollie10
(2,091 posts)NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)Is forcing women to wear burkas and beating them if they don't a bad idea?
Can you agree to that?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)...by saying I can't criticize the bad ideas of religion, you are disrespecting my Atheism.
Atheism is the result of critical review of the god hypothesis, with the conclusion that it is not proven, and consequently, the divine justification(s) for ideas that cause real harm to real people are bad.
Please don't disrespect my Atheistic criticism of bad ideas.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)you can disagree, you can present your reasons for your beliefs. But when you start calling an idea such as religion or atheism "bad" that is where you start being the one who is disrespectful.
I haven't talked about the "bad" ideas of atheism, have I?
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...in that Atheism is a critical review of the ideas proffered by religion. You claim that criticism is bad.
And again I ask: Is forcing women to wear burkas and beating them if they don't a bad idea?
Can you agree to that?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I have repeatedly explained that I believe that the views of religion AND non-religious ideas should be respected. As as result, a lot of non-religious people have objected to this, you being one of them.
I do not say criticism is bad. I think calling an entire religion bad is a gross over-generalization.
As in which ideas in religion are bad? You say "religion"....but specifically what ideas that are a part of religion?
The idea we should not steal, murder or hate each other?
The idea of pacifist Christians that we should not go to war?
The idea of the Rev Martin Luther King Jr that racism and discrimination is wrong?
The idea that we should help out the homeless? heal the suffering? visit those in jail?
The idea that the Catholic Church has that we should abolish capital punishment?
The idea that we should not judge each other?
The idea that he who has never sinned cast the first stone?
The idea that being arrogant is wrong and meek is to be preferred?
The idea that making a god of money is idolatry?
The idea that we should love our enemies?
Were the Berrigan Brothers wrong to oppose the Vietnam War?
Seems to me when you reject a whole religion as "bad" you are over=generalizing by a mile
Mariana
(14,854 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)I said I hate an attitude....which is not to say I hate people, just to clarify.
What does it accomplish? Not meant to accomplish anything. Just expressing my feelings. Is that acceptable here?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)Do you think it best to be neutral towards these sorts of things?
Do you hate hate? What is the purpose of that?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Do you have any thoughts about it? You can say no.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)And it appears some people are upset that I hate them
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Does telling people you hate those things change anyone's mind?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)How do you think it makes me feel when you assume what I know? Do you think I'd be more inclined to tell you my honest opinions or less?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)OK, maybe you are indeed so ignorant that you are not aware of the fact that saying one hates something is a manner of speech. Maybe you grew up in a cave, isolated from the world. And for that I apologize. So can you please explain why you object to me strongly not liking racism, ie, hating it? Take your time. Please let me know why I should stop hating racism or other forms of bigotry. And let's hear your views on racism......to you love it, like it, have no view on it, dislike it a little, think is is sorta crappy.....what?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)But I don't it hate it. It is a part of us. It is an unfortunate and harmful part, but a part of us nonetheless. Hating hate does not stop the hate. Only love stops hate. Which is a hard thing to do. And it does not mean you accept bad behavior. You stop bad behavior. But you seek to understand it's source it the dark places of our souls. By understanding it and bringing it to light, we fight it. But hating it just makes it grow. That's what hate wants. Hate wants you to hate back.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)how about homophobia? don't hate that either?
If someone killed your husband or wife would you hate that? Or would you just oppose it?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)In response to me asking how you would react if your wife was killed you are asking whether hate is necessary.
I would strongly suggest that you don't show your response to your significant other!
Ironic, isn't it? The Bible says you should love your enemy, turn the other cheek. OK, I have sinned.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)So do you think hate is necessary? We must have things to hate?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Report back to us how it goes.....
You are appearing to keep on playing word games.
I said I hated racism, bigotry, homophobia, disrespect......and I clearly clarified that to mean I was not talking about hating people, but rather ideas and I further clarified that it was a manner of speaking.
I am trying to stop laughing long enough to type!
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)So you think hate is necessary? It makes you feel better about yourself? If your bate is strong, you must be a good person or love your wife more?
Mariana
(14,854 posts)Those two actions are equally deserving of hatred. Isn't that good to know?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)what she thinks about her own murder somehow proves something too.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)you really are looking for that straw man. or maybe you are simply dishonest
Mariana
(14,854 posts)You haven't demonstrated that. Atheists have been attacked on this thread several times. I even called your attention to that fact. You didn't have anything to say about it. There are other recent threads in this group which describe atheists being treated hatefully by Christians. You didn't have anything to say about it. But you've found time to make lots and lots of lots of posts to criticize atheists for not being deferential enough. It's pretty obvious where your priorities lie.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)And you have repeatedly misrepresented what I have said.
I respond to those who have responded to me on "my posts" tab. I don't have time to re-read the thread over and over and over again. So there may have been some comments I have missed.
If there are any posters here who are indeed attacking atheism, they surely can tell how I stand from the posts I have made.
At the same time it certainly does not surprise me that there would be some people who may have attacked atheism on this thread....I mean look how many times religion has been called bad, and various iterations of this basic intolerance and bigotry? It would be understandable if their religion was attacked to want to strike back! So shucky durns, what a surprise that the arrogant religion bashers would get some pushing back! My heart is breaking for the sorrow you must be experiencing!!!!
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)It's a tradition that goes back to the Bible. So how do you think that makes atheists feel?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)In fact, the concept of respecting religious and non-religious ideas should be welcomed by all. I know....some religious folks have difficulty with that and some of the atheists on this board have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that some atheists have difficulty with that as well.
I think a lot of atheists would say that they hate to be attacked. I hope they don't on this board, because you would attack them for hating.....right?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)I also think you feel they are attacking you. What do you think could be done about this situation?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)....and we can talk about it
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)why they feel that way.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)so how do you think I would feel if someone falsely insinuated that I did attack atheism per se?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)I didn't say you were in fact attacking or intended to do However their responses appear to indicate that they feel under attack. Your responses also indicate that you feel under attack.
If it's understandable that religionists attacks when they feels attacked, is it not also understandable that atheists would do the same? And is it not clear that these attacks and counterattacks have a history that goes back many years?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)...to separate real from imagined grievances.....first step
This is your second request for a quote, blue!
What's the matter? Can't find anything?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)I am not going to talk about hypotheticals.....
Show me a quote and we can talk about it!
It should be crystal clear to anyone reading this that there is no quote to be found.
Blue, you should be embarrassed....yet you keep on marching out for more
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)It's a simple question with a simple answer yes or no answer. You seem aggrieved. Do you think people are attacking you? It would be understandable if thought they were, but maybe you don't feel that way.
I did not make an assertion that you attacked "atheism per se."
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I mean....you....?
Well.....I tried to answer you before. I tried to explain that I would be happy to discuss if you could provide me an actual quote of me saying atheism is bad per se......but obviously you were not able to find any such quote.....
my feelings? I am a bit bored by waiting for you. I know you are such a sincere dude......right? So, please do something to end my boredom. Find a quote!!!!
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Is that so hard to believe? Do you care about mine?
But like I said, I did not say you attacked or were perceived to attack "atheism per se," which is a belief. If you attacked anything, it would be atheists, as in people. Would you like a quote which attacked people rather than beliefs?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)After all that diatribe about "hate".
You seem to be playing word games.
But, that's fine. Tell your SO I said hi and express my regrets that you couldn't bring it to hate it if he/she were murdered.....
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)I wonder what happened to you.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Are you not here for dialogue?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)That is why it is boring. Because there is so little of it.
i get tired of your little word games.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)You just seem to be very angry in this thread. I am interested in the reasons why. If your goal was dialogue it doesn't seem to have worked.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Leave personal stuff out of this, please
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)So I don't agree with blanket condemnation of religion, but I don't find toleration of atheism to be particularly common among religionists. We may believe in freedom of expression as an abstract concept, but some views get more freedom than others.
There are no books, for example, written by Christians for Christians redefining atheism as "the search for the rational" and that Christians should therefore refrain from criticizing atheists because many people find meaning in the search for the rational.
I think Christians have a problem with New Atheism because they aren't used to direct criticism by any group in Western society. Traditionally, you were either a Christian or you kept your "nice." I still like to keep my criticism nice, but I find a lot of people don't.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)a term coined in 2006 by the agnostic journalist Gary Wolf to describe the positions promoted by some atheists of the twenty-first century.[1][2] This modern-day atheism is advanced by a group of thinkers and writers who advocate the view that superstition, religion and irrationalism should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever their influence arises in government, education, and politics--Wikipedia
That may be all well and good....but not everything in this world is something that "rational argument" applies to. Religion does not pretend to be logical. It is based on faith, a concept that is by definition not-rational. Now, there are logical arguments within religion, and there are certainly principles and, just as there are "truths" of the soul that are found in literature, so it can be argued that there are truths in various religions, be they Buddhist, Muslim or Christian.
It is a neat trick, actually similar to circular logic. They argue that religion is irrational, therefor it is irrational......just as an intolerant religious person might argue that atheism is wrong because they don't believe in the Bible....similar circular logic
Some things just cannot be proved. God is one of them. You can't prove God exists. And you can make all the rational arguments ever
made, and you cannot absolutely prove God does NOT exist. You can argue that no rational arguments prove God exists.....but that is simply a restatement of what religion has believed all along, it depends on FAITH.
Can you even absolutely prove that you are alive at this time and you didn't die a hundred years ago? Of course not. Everything you are now perceiving may be part of your after-life! Including all your logical rational arguments!
That being said....since nobody can absolutely prove rationally one way OR THE OTHER, what we are left with is various beliefs based on various evidences we all hold to be true.
So, aside from the fact that our society is founded on the principle of freedom of speech, freedom of religion and basically the idea that we all can form our own opinions about things and form our own values.....it seems contrary to our tradition of pluralism and freedom for one group to call the other "bad". It just doesn't go along with our society's values of inclusiveness and diversity.
I could care less if someone wears a burka, veil, I don't care if they have a dot on their forehead, I don't care what underwear they wear, whether they wear a kippah, or wear liturgical garments in church. I was brought up to respect the differences in the various groups in our society.
So when I hear of a "new atheism" who is defined by attacking the religions of others......it does not set well with me. If they want to be respected in their spiritual decisions, why can't they afford others the same respect? We can't always agree, and neither should we want to! Diversity is what makes our society great, and we are a lot more great than a society of forced religious orthodoxy or non-religious orthodoxy.
OF course, many religious people disagree. I have argued (on other sites) with right wing Christians who have been equally intolerant of ideas they find to be not true.
It is sorta useless in a way....you can't convince an intolerant Christian to be tolerant any more than you can convince the intolerant new atheists to be tolerant...it is part of the orthodoxy that each side requires of the believers, and they simply cannot allow others the right to hold opinions different from the precious ones that gave each side absolute and total truth (so they believe)
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)Which points would you want more understanding on?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)Which one would you want further discussion?
1) whether rational discussion can solve each and every issue including religious questions of faith?
2) our society's values of diversity?
3) respect for other people's views?
4) something else?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)I brought it up because the article redefined religion away from superstition and towards the search for transcendence. However, I disagree with this later definition as it could actually include some forms of atheism. I countered this with hypothetical book for Christian that would redefined atheism as the search for rationalism. This is not a very good definition of atheism either, yet most atheists would say that they are are rationalists.
Note that I am not a rationalist or an atheist, I am an empiricist and an agnostic.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 13, 2018, 05:57 PM - Edit history (1)
To be honest, I had never heard of the term "new atheism" before. So I looked it up and got a brief synopsis of what it is. And it made a lot of things make sense to me. I had wondered why so many folks nowadays seem to be anti-religion more than they are pro-rationalism. Maybe I was used to the "old atheists" who simply had formed the conclusion that God does not exist but didn't have some sort of agenda to attack religion, they just seemed to lived their lives (in what seemed to me to be a happier existence than being on the attack!). So maybe what I am seeing is not simply being intolerant, but perhaps they are more being faithful to the dictum of something they believe in which has at its heart the attack of irrational beliefs? I dunno, I found it an interesting concept. Sorta like Trumpers who believe in MAGA and, to them, that means being intolerant of others' beliefs because of the great MAGA cause they believe in. I have often pondered the idea that if you go far enough to the right or the left you wind up acting like your opponents on the flip side...
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)I think people here assumed you knew about New Atheism. New Atheists offer what they believe to be valid criticism of religion, but religion fights back from behind a shield of privilege. They don't see much difference between belief in God and belief in ghosts, but one has
the higher truth of faith and the other is just a superstition.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)Why, if you're so bored beyond belief? You could be doing literally anything else.
I hope the reason isn't something as ridiculous as an obsession with having the last word.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I am beginning to think you don't like me, mariana!
Now, go ahead and have your last word.
I would like to end our discussion if it is alright with you
Mariana
(14,854 posts)You're probably a lovely person in real life, especially among other Christians. I'm not thrilled with your lousy reading comprehension and your inconsistent arguments, but those things probably aren't intentional, so I don't hold them against you.
I'm not going to shut up just because you want me to do so. However, you are in control of the situation. You can end our discussion whenever you wish, by using the ignore function that is available to you. It doesn't matter in the least whether it is alright [sic] with me.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)who explicitly instructed his followers to be happy when their beliefs are attacked. Matthew 5 : 11-12
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)the people who are saying religion is bad.....are talking about christianity, islam, judaism, Shinto, Native American religions, hell they are talking about hundreds, maybe thousands of religions....all bad!!
must be good to be so smart
Mariana
(14,854 posts)You told us that you hate. Why do you hate, when you're supposed to rejoice and be glad?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I said that I hate racism, homophobia, disrespect, and stuff like that. Didn't say I hated people.
Don't you?
If you don't hate racism, why not?
Mariana
(14,854 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)but if you don't want to continue.....I would be happy to stop discussing things with you. What do you say?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)
I guess it's off to the iggy list with you. Tell Rug, Leo, Justin, and the guy who makes excuses for child murder I said "Hi".
ollie10
(2,091 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)That solves what you see as an issue.
askyagerz
(776 posts)Is from the biography. We are told to live our lives by it. To trust it is the word of god. So in my eyes the messenger better be just as infallible as the general.
I for one would rather follow archaeology and anthropology to find the roots of religion. It's a fascinating history but points to God being nothing but our imagination. It makes sense and the pieces fit nicely.
I just don't need a loose knit bunch of 2000 year old authors who probably had the I.Q.s and understanding of forest gump to tell me how life works.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)On the one hand, you could be a Christian who believes in the literal fundamentalist view. Or....I dunno....maybe you are a non-believer and you want to portray Christianity as a version that sounds silly so you can attack a straw man?
So I will respond the same way, no matter which you are. There simply is no one way to interpret god or christianity. There are many denominations within Christianity. And, for that matter, within each denomination there are variations.
I believe that people should be respected in their religious (or non-religious) beliefs. A Hindu may have beliefs quite different from a Jehovah's Witness or a Muslim or Methodist. It matters little what people believe, that is a personal thing.
If you choose to be a fundamentalist, that is your belief. If you choose to be an atheist, that is your belief. Both are to be respected.
As for me, I am neither, but I really don't understand why there is so much fuss over what other people believe....
askyagerz
(776 posts)It's time to point out just how silly it ALL is. Atheists don't believe in anything. That's what the religious have a hard time understanding. We don't want anything to do with religion.
You wouldn't let me operate on you if all I have read is a 1000 year old medical book. That's nuts right? Doctors aren't going to say forget all this stuff we have learned. Leaches were the way to go.
If Christians weren't pushing their religion on me and mine everyday I would be more then happy to just let people believe in what they want. I believe in freedom of religion but I don't want to be ruled by its ridiculousness...
Every last word of the Christian faith was written by man. And even worse. Dumb men who didn't understand anything. Just like astrology and superstitions that people take way seriously but you and I know are just words from someone's brain. Every religious person on earth is stuck in a bubble. If a group of people doesnt believe in astrology we don't give them a name like atheists. They are just normal people not stuck in a bubble.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)"I believe in freedom of religion, but....."
"ruled by ridiculousness...." (show me where I said we should be ruled by religion? For crying out loud, separation of church and state is an idea that BEGAN among religious people. As to "ridiculousness"....there you go again, being disrespectful.....have I called atheism ridiculous? Nope.
"just like astrology and superstitions...." sigh..... When I promote astrology or superstitions, then have at it. Please spare me the logical fallacies.
Hey.....religious people are just normal people. I guess I had to point that out to you
askyagerz
(776 posts)I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of people who only follow the parts of the bible They want to believe in. Then get angry at atheists for not believing in any of it. We are hated just for existing. Why? Because the bible tells us so...
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I have spoken of love, not hate. I have pointed out, several time on this thread, that the views of religious people AND NON-RELIGIOUS people should be respected. If you respect the views of religious people and non-religious people we are in agreement. The problem is that on both sides of this coin there are people who do not respect the other side.....there are religious people who hate atheists (in contradiction to their command to love) and there are atheists who hate religious people. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs....cue....now, no matter which side you are on, it is time to attack me again for either not being an atheist or not being a right wing evangelical christian. That's ok. I am used to it.
askyagerz
(776 posts)Every time I get to read in god we trust. Or my kids get to read that they are going to hell for not believing in the boogie man on church signs. Everyday I am saturated in god in a country I am supposed to have freedom of religion in. I don't go out and hold signs on corners saying how bad or stupid Christians are trying to change your mind. However I am more then willing to say my peace when someone posts a entire article about Christians playing the victim lol.
All my life since I was a kid I have been told by religious people how bad of person I was for not believing in god. Just for giving my opinion. You can read it however you want but me attacking your religion is not a personal attack. I can't help that I think religion is absolutely silly in today's society. To me it's like having a serious conversation about clowns. The problem here is the clowns run the country and now I have to talk about them
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I am sure people have tried to diminish you and make you feel sinful for being an atheist or silly and you have had personal attacks.
Someone who attacks you and says you are a bad person because you do not believe in god...well, that is reprehensible in my view. It is also pretty stupid. If their goal was to try to win you over, calling you a bad person is pretty poor strategy! Perhaps these "christians" would have been better served to practice what they preached, and judge not, lest they be judged.
So I get that.
But when you say religion is "absolutely silly" you are acting like those who tried to diminish you. Same with the clowns reference.
Are we to say Martin Luther King Jr, Mohatma Ghandi, the Berrigan Brothers, Mother Theresa, Pope Francis, the Dali Lama, John Kennedy, Barrack Obama are "clowns" because they are religious people? Just asking the question is to answer it. Of course not!
Religion has caused horrible harm in its name. But it has also produced great things. It has been the inspiration for many of us who call themselves liberals and democrats.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)Some atheists have received credible death threats from Christians. Some of those recipients of those death threats have been children. Recently, a Christian poster poster in this group ridiculed the recipients of such threats.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)So sorry to hear that.
No, I don't think those type of "christians" are religious either, regardless of what they may think. No God would stand for that, except the one in their imaginations
askyagerz
(776 posts)They were firing at me when I was pretty young for not believing. Made me feel stupid when I realize now it's just because I was smart enough to questions it made them question their own faith.
If someone wants to dig for diamonds through cowshit all day they are more then welcome. But once they start trying to force me to do it with them... they can't get mad when I point out how crazy I think it sounds
askyagerz
(776 posts)As far as I know I am the only person to be an open non believer. Whenever I would tell someone they looked at my like I was the spawn of satan. They would say that I was a devil worshipper. I would explain I don't believe in evil or Satan and if I dared asked questions about their faith they would get pretty mad. I have had preachers scream at me.
I remember being in Sunday school pretty young and reading the stories and just thinking this is such b.s. I truly mulled over religion. I studied it and asked questions and understand why people believe. Most believers aren't bad people. It's just that they enable a lot of bad stuff to happen.
I'm still more apt to believe in an anthropologists view. God is simply a evolutionary tick. Even I have found myself liking to a higher power from time to time but understand that its just something built into us over the years and compounded by generational propoganda.
Do I think those people are being silly for wanting something more then eternal blackness? Or believing something everyone around them have always believed? Absolutely not but I also realize that they would have been just as great of people without ever reading the bible. Just need some good parenting and you are usually morally set. I really do believe it does more harm then good in today's world and its time for organized religion to go into the history books
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 7, 2018, 08:28 AM - Edit history (5)
....I can understand why you don't believe in god. What I take issue with is that you take the next step....and say it is time for religion to go into the history books. How do you do that? And why would you want to? People are going to believe in religion if they want to and you have no way (not even Hitler succeeded) of putting religion into the history books any more than those religious folks at your church were able to prevent you from being an atheist.
Imagine your reaction to me if I said we should put atheism into the history books!!!!
Live and let live....is that so hard?
As the lead article asked, must atheists trash religion?
If I were a Republican....or a Trumper.....and I was trying to figure out a way to win the 2020 election.....what better way than for have a bunch of Democrats say they are against religion? That religion should go into the history books? Attacking religion might make you feel good, and oh so intellectually superior....you can puff all your feathers and strut around about how smart you are and how stupid religion is.....but if you make this your argument, you are going to make it easier for the Trumps and Pences of this world to be in power. Thanks, but no thanks. We know how this movie ends
Mariana
(14,854 posts)because Democrats will lose elections if atheists express their opinions about religion on an internet forum, in a group that exists for that very purpose? Please.
Many, many religious people want to use the power of the government to oppress women and LGBT people and non-Christians and immigrants etc. etc. etc. They enthusiastically vote for candidates who promise to do those things for them. It was religious people who put Trump and Pence and the rest of them into office, and they should not be deprived of the credit.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Yes...."Many, many religious people want to use the power of the government to oppress women and LGBT people and non-Christians and immigrants etc. etc. etc. They enthusiastically vote for candidates who promise to do those things for them. It was religious people who put Trump and Pence and the rest of them into office, and they should not be deprived of the credit."
My point was WHY MAKE THEIR JOBS ANY EASIER?
The right wing already uses the framing of us being against religion to try to make them look like victims. If we actually speak out against religion how is that going to help?
Quite frankly, it is important to me that the right wing religious people lose politically. But, sorry, you just ain't gonna do it by feeding into their stereotypes of what Democrats stand for.
So if it makes you feel good, flaunt your intellectual superiority to those inferior christians. Like the poster said, say that organized religion should be made to be history. Like other posters here, call the christians silly names, say they are chasing unicorns and pat yourselves on the back for how witty and clever you are.
But then, when the right replies that you are just proving their point that you are not interested in freedom of expression, you are really against religion itself,.....and they use that to clobber you at the polls so they can pass all sorts of regressive legislation you won't like....at some point you gotta realize that preaching to the choir doesn't win elections.
so my question is do you want the feel good stuff where you can make fun of religious people or do you want results at the ballot box? Do you really want to hurt our chances of winning in 2020? Against a maniac like Trump? Really? Or do you just like to whine about things?
If you are truly wanting to protect freedom of expression, then you don't do that by attacking the freedoms of others, by belittling them and saying their views should be history.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)Askyagerz hasn't even suggested that religion should be outlawed. Neither has anyone else.
Do you even realize what you're doing in this post? You are telling us all how stupid, easily manipulated, hateful, petty, and vindictive religious people are. We should shut up because they'll hurt us if we don't, by "clobbering us at the polls so they can pass all sorts of regressive legislation". And we're supposed to respect that?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You have already proven you are quite capable of that.
And if you want to help the right wing win more elections, the best way is to first identify yourself as a Democrat and then shout out as loud as you can that you are against religion, that religion should be relegated to history. Garnish with all the witty and clever things you can think of comparing religion to the belief in unicorns and just for fun whine about how your precious little personality was forever harmed by those big bad religious people who tried to brain wash you.
Donald Trump says thank you very much. And so do Russian troll farms.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)People like you silencing dissent and forcing adherence to groupthink.
I've said this before (and you undoubtedly remember, J) - if someone's commitment to progressive policies is SO PATHETICALLY WEAK that they will be swayed to vote for a Republican over a Democrat because of something someone said on a message board, we have much bigger problems.
You are trying to silence people because someone is saying something about religion that makes you uncomfortable. We are allowed to speak our opinions and yes, even influence policy. Did you know the largest single "religious" voting bloc in the USA are the atheists/agnostics/unaffiliated? Larger than Catholics, larger than Protestants. Why aren't YOU afraid of alienating THEM? Do their opinions not matter to you?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I see you prefer fiction, especially fiction you author, to non-fiction!
Silencing dissent? You really make me laugh.
Quite frankly, I have made it perfectly clear I respect the views of religious and non-religious people.
That is the reason some people don't like what I have to say. I could care less.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You're just lecturing others to STOP saying certain things, and using the threat of Trump as a weapon. Yield to YOUR position OR ELSE.
JustIn case you didn't understand the first time.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)But then again, I have the right to my opinion as to whether what you say is wise.
It appears you are trying to silence me, not the other way around
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Telling you to stop trying to silence others is silencing you.
You're gonna hurt yourself with that reach.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Mariana
(14,854 posts)pretty much making it up as they go along. That does explain why there are thousands of denominations and probably millions of independent practitioners, each with a unique interpretation of the scriptures - which parts are true and which are false, which commandments must be obeyed and which can be ignored, etc.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Jesus spoke in parables....that does not mean he meant his followers to just believe what they wanted to
Mariana
(14,854 posts)should I endeavor to study, in order to understand Christianity better? The odds that I'll pick the right one are very slim indeed.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You seem to miss the point that there are many scholarly folks who study religion and they base their views on research.....but you won't hear that because you simply think that all Christians just make things up as they go.....I would recommend a less condescending attitude if you really want someone to seriously discuss the issues.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)Please don't misrepresent my posts. People who pick and choose out of the Bible based on their own preferences are making it up as they go along. A lot of Christians do it, and you know this is true. If their church teaches against something they want to do, they either just ignore the church's teaching, or they go find a different church that won't bother them about it.
We're still back to how does one determine which parts of the Bible are important and which parts can be ignored - and how can you be sure that your way is the right way, and that all those other Christians are doing it wrong.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)...nor which can be ignored.
That is entirely up to every individual. I recognize that there are many stripes of religious belief. It is my belief that although I do not agree with every view, I respect them and their views. For example I am not a Mormon, but every Mormon I have ever known has been a decent person and I don't doubt their sincerity. It makes no difference to me that their religious views are in some ways very different from me. They are good people, and my view is good for them!
I think most Christians and most religious people and for that matter most non-religious people feel the same way. They don't necessarily agree with their neighbors or friends who are on different faith journeys or paths, but I don't know many people who really care that much. Maybe I lead a sheltered life!
But there are two notable exceptions to the rule. 1) extremist religious people who think everyone who doesn't pray the way they do are going to hell and 2) extremist non-religious people who think all religions are bad, stupid, and the followers of such are dumb.
This world would be a lot happier if these two groups decided to grow up
askyagerz
(776 posts)Anyone who agrees with religion a little or a lot just enable the extremists. After all they really are just going along with the bible. We don't need organized religion to believe in god, be a good person, or go to an afterlife if there is one. Treat others how you want to be treated. That's really all you need to know from the bible. Being a good person isn't that hard. People choose to do wrong. Bible or not. The bible just gives you an out for being an ass.
Spirituality should be a personal journey that is allowed to grow and change along with you. Having a set book of archaic rules just holds you back from really learning who you are through life. How is a kid supposed to ponder the greatest question of man when someone has already laid out their version for them 2000 years ago?
Organized religions are just people trying to push their opinions on others. They just end up causing strife in the end. They suppress knowledge and delay progress. Create more hate then love.
I for one have no clue what's going on in this crazy life and I try to keep an open mind about everything. Even god, but I know deep down they didn't have the answers 2000 years ago. Just like none of the other religions had the answer or probably ever will.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You want to rethink that?
Does that mean if you don't believe in murder.....agreeing with religion a little......that means you are enabling extremists? How does that work, exactly?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)But a lot of them did it anyway.
TwistOneUp
(1,020 posts)> is about as accurate as saying all car owners drive Fords.....
What's wrong with Fords now?
Sheesh, you theists are a prejudiced bunch. lol
Skittles
(153,113 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)It is great fun to trash religion. They shouldn't be snowflakes and spoil our fun
Skittles
(153,113 posts)
Doodley
(9,048 posts)need to belong to a club that tells them things like, it's okay to cover up child molestation or it's okay to support the Trump agenda. Religions need to move into the 21st century and take responsibility for the problems the world faces. We are piling up problems and holding on to old prejudices for the younger, less religious, more science-based, generation to face. Polls show how bigoted people of religion tend to be against atheists. Time for organized religion to put out the fires of self-righteousness and to fight against the rape of our planet and the political corruption that is responsible for human suffering on a biblical scale.
samnsara
(17,606 posts)..infringes upon MY rights. Sometimes I give an eye roll when my Jewish or Catholic sis change their behavior to meet their religious needs.
SunSeeker
(51,518 posts)As far as insults go, me saying their religion is silly is nothing compared to that.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)SunSeeker
(51,518 posts)Religion telling me and my kid a silly, vicious lie that we will burn in hell because we don't believe in their religion is indeed wrong. Me telling them that's silly is not "a wrong"; it is the truth.
ollie10
(2,091 posts).....to justify disrespecting someone else's view, what do you call it?
A better word is simply hypocrisy
SunSeeker
(51,518 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)and you speak "truth".
Of course, the other side thinks they speak "truth" and think you are the one with "vicious lies"
This is the problem when you have this prejudiced, bigoted attitude towards religious people. You think ALL of them are liars, bad people, fools, pick the insult of the day!
That is just about as good an illustration of bigotry as I can think of at the moment.
So add bigotry to hypocrisy
SunSeeker
(51,518 posts)Pointing out the facts is not "prejudice" or "bigotry."
Ironic that you've managed to call me prejudiced, a bigot and a hypocrite, all while lecturing me on how disrespectful I am.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)They say you DESERVE to burn in hell for eternity, because, well, because you exist.
relayerbob
(6,537 posts)Belief in that system has the exact same amount of evidence as any other religion ... none.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Mariana
(14,854 posts)if the poster is courageous enough to answer you.
relayerbob
(6,537 posts)I never bother to argue with extremists
malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)Nor is disbelief in Santa or the Easter Beagle.
relayerbob
(6,537 posts)Someone who simply don't believe in something don't talk about it, much as they wouldn't debate a Flat Earth. And not all people who disbelieve are "religious" any more than I consider all people who believe in a god as "religious" (they can spiritual or simply don't think about it much, but basically prefer to believe as opposed to not- or agnostic which is all any of us really are).
However, many atheists are quite vocal and evangelical about it, trying to convert people to their position. Which is a fine position to have if one so chooses, however, there is exactly as much proof that a god exists as that one doesn't exist, so to try to push that belief system on someone else is based entirely on faith, not fact. Converting people to one's own personal belief system without fact to base it on is what I consider a religion. What particular entity one chooses to vociferously disbelieve is not relevant, any more than which deity one chooses to push on people.
And anyone of any ilk, who stakes out a position of "I know for certain" is, IMO, an "extremist" (ie, at the extreme edge of the continuum of belief and disbelief) and pushing their beliefs. Doesn't matter if that position is Christian, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, or whatever.
malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)Some people want to remove assault weapons from society because they see them as inherently dangerous. These people do not believe that such weapons have any place in a civilized society, and some actively advocate for their removal out of concern for the future of the human race. A disbelief in the appropriateness of AR-15s in society is, of course, not a religion; I'm sure you'd agree.
Some people want to remove religion from society because they see it as inherently dangerous. There people do not believe that religious beliefs have any place in a civilized society, and some actively advocate that religion be left upon the dustbin of history, out of concern for the survival of the species. I'll leave it to you to connect the final dot.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)Especially from the public schools.
malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)Just trying to be sure I understand your point in that last graf.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)Maybe you haven't noticed, but religiously motivated legislation is being written all the time, at every level of government. Almost none of that legislation is progressive.
I suppose there may be some atheists who claim to "know for certain" that there aren't any gods, but they must be few and far between. Produce some compelling evidence for the existence of any one of the thousands of gods that have been proposed, and atheists will no longer be atheists.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)a particular deity to disbelieve in? There is no evidence for any deity although there are many assertions of such. I'm not saying I know anything for certain just that the evidence I currently have knowledge of doesn't support any of those claims. Can you tell me why you think I am an extremest?
malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)Not sure whom to credit for that gem; I read it somewhere years ago.
Voltaire2
(12,965 posts)lindysalsagal
(20,592 posts)But, again, no sense in trying to make logical arguements for deities: You're hooked, and you like it.
aka-chmeee
(1,132 posts)Mariana
(14,854 posts)Matthew 5 : 11-12
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)Fools show their anger at once,
but the prudent ignore an insult.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)newcriminal
(2,190 posts)NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...for now:
Glad I could clarify that for you counselor.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...a mirror.
It would have been a better meme for you.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...can you.
Just let it go...you will be better for it:
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)
Admittedly, it has rivals.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...you do care.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 24, 2018, 03:08 PM - Edit history (3)
..."rug". Or should I say "Ms Rug"?
Back to the question in the OP of this thread, one of the reasons Atheists are compelled to "trash" religion is that it is a mechanism by which normally honest and good people justify bad behavior, such as lying, cheating and breaking the rules whenever and wherever they happen to be to further their own personal agenda(s) such as:
The hijacking of a dormant account of someone familiar:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=721671
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1018721669
to circumvent the rules here on DU:
so that one may continue the odious behavior that got them flagged in the first place (multiple times):
I wonder how many hidden posts Newcriminal had for her first 2000 posts prior to the resurgence in the last 90 days?
Such behavior bears all the hallmarks and traits that republicans use to gerrymander and block citizens from legally voting while generally lying, cheating and stealing their way into power or to maintain power.
There are whole threads that call you out on this circumvention and cheating of DU rules and you do not refute it once:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218273510
And there are threads where it has become an open joke:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218274376
If this is how a religious person is allowed to act in the promotion of his or her religion, then this is also why Atheists "trash" religion.
Lying for jesus is bad behavior.
Is it not a sin to lie?
Isn't the covert use of someone else account a lie?
Fix The Stupid
(947 posts)I AWARD YOU ONE INTERNET, NeoGreen!
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...and GAHHhhh... you exposed a typo, I need an "s" after atheist...fixing now.
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)What is your point? This makes no sense at all.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)Whether you like it or not.
That makes quite a bit of sense given how some groups are used.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)we missed you. Usually you stay away during Lent, although the last few years it's been because that's when the software has put your previous account on an automatic time out. But I know PREVIOUS TO THAT You've taken a 40-day sojourn from DU during the Lenten season. What'd you give up this year? Obviously not circumventing the rules to get around an FFR.
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)Not in any way. I did not say you could not do that. I asked you why you did that. It's OK, though. It's a difficult question, I understand.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)Since the premise of your question is flat out wrong, be grateful you got that.
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)Am I grateful? No, not really. I expected nothing more.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...or your stripes or something else...maybe something deeper counselor?
Truth and honor have no meaning for you anymore?
https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=8991385&mesg_id=8993577
newcriminal Thu Aug-20-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #52
56. I really don't care if you like me or not.
I only posted this because he just a couple of days ago posted that people were breaking rules but weren't banned, so they must be untouchable. Hypocrite?
Note to Jury, read this first: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218273951#post290
trotsky
(49,533 posts)
struggle4progress
(118,236 posts)a very sincere young man who was interested in anti-apartheid activism and "anti-foundationalism" -- but I must confess never really understood what that was
I am pleased to see that activist notions still color his thinking:
... is polarization as such a bad thing? Not always. The polarization that the American Civil Rights movement caused ended legal segregation in the country. The Vietnam War protests were nothing if not polarizing, yet they forced the Nixon administration to cease its barbaric operations in that country ...
I find that paragraph more interesting than anything else in his review of Crane's book
There has been no shortage of atheists interested in religion: I kept hoping Bloch's Thomas Muntzer as Theologian of Revolution will appear in English translation soon, but if it doesn't I suppose I might try to wade through it someday with the help of a good German-English dictionary
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)and yet, Crane decides that including ideologies as such systematic, practical attempts is ridiculous:
"Soviet, Nazi, and Chinese Communist violence were all committed in the name of programs that were distinctly unreligious, and to call them, as some have done, a different kind of religion is to stretch the idea of the religious beyond all recognition".
Now, he does say "the transcendent refers to a being or force or something other — usually called “God” — that lies beyond the experienced world." So I suppose he has a reason for excluding the nationalist and political ideologies. But he's already criticised 'New Atheists' for defining religion as "a set of beliefs concerning a supernatural agency that often directs them to engage in silly rituals or commit violence against those who refuse such engagement". - and approved of "the repetition of these words — often strange, archaic, and only partially understood" in silly ritual.
It seems to me that, to arrive at Crane's desired definition for religion of aligning with the transcendent, you have to accept the definition he wants to avoid - that of beliefs about supernatural agency and strange ritual.
I also think it stretches credibility beyond all recognition to think that most people have made a "systematic, practical attempt to align oneself with the transcendent", rather than having it forced into them by their parents and community, because the vast majority end up with the religion they "inherit". One does not "align oneself"; one is aligned. His religion is an ideal, rarely followed in life.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)of places like Nazi Germany, China during Mao's time, and North Korea as essentially religions with living gods. I think that's a pretty damned accurate description. I'll try to find the post, so I can properly credit the poster.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)They can be more accurately described as a cult of personality.
Bradshaw3
(7,488 posts)Perhaps atheists are just being more open in their criticisms than what was permitted in the past, and it seems like trashing.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Tolerance means religionists must be free to proselytize anywhere and everywhere absent any dissent whatsoever. As we all know, attacking an idea is really no different than attacking the people who hold those ideas. How else does one expect privilege to be maintained if the voices of the minority can't be effectively silenced?
Bradshaw3
(7,488 posts)
rurallib
(62,387 posts)MineralMan
(146,262 posts)Atheists are the favorite whipping boys for some religionists. I think it's because atheism just makes too much sense.
lindysalsagal
(20,592 posts)MineralMan
(146,262 posts)Message: "Believe or burn in Hell."
trixie2
(905 posts)I have been here since Bush2 and have never seen the onslaught of religious taunts as I do now. I am sick of it. Don't we have enough problems right now? BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANT AND LEAVE EVERYONE ELSE ALONE.
Note: I do see the irony of blocking all religious discussions but I am sick and tired of trying to keep up with the mess our country is in and then to see these types of taunts.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)The mess our country is in, isn't because of "religious taunts" on an anonymous message board.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)MineralMan
(146,262 posts)So, don't expect a reply.
