If believers are firm in their belief, why do they get pissed if people voice their doubts?

[Smith_3]

Shouldn't they just be smiling, knowing to themselves that the other person is deluded and will be shown that they are wrong eventually? That's what I don't get. Those people believe that god is on their side, don't they? Why would they give a hoot if people run around ridiculing their beliefs.

[soothsayer]

1. It would seriously tick you off if you said "pretty blue sky today" and someone insisted

it wasn't blue, it was green (or red or black or who cares). YOu would get frustrated with them if they insisted on arguing about it with you (at least I would)

[alphafemale]

2. Actually, it generally seems people who don't see the sky as blue...

for the most part just want be let alone.

But people will even come to their HOUSE and knock on their door wanting to talk about the blue sky.

And until Obama, they weren't even mentioned as being seen part of America. Bush1 even went to the point of publicly expressing doubt as to whether they were "real" Americans.

[WVRICK13]

4. I Have a Rule

Don't bring up any religious bullshit with me and I will keep my atheist beliefs to myself.

[Fumesucker]

17. The thing is, both of you are blind..

No one really knows whether or not there is a higher power, it's very much like two blind people arguing over the color of the sky.

[ZombieHorde]

42. Are some supernatural creatures more likely to exist than others?

For example, God versus invisible leprechaun.

[orleans]

3. it's because they think they're in on this great big fucking secret

and they just can't wait to tell someone and spread the rumors/gossip/

no, that's probably it.

probably more like avid rocky horror picture show goers in the late seventies or early eighties. the obsessive fans were completely obsessive and couldn't shut up about it--

so--i guess it is similar to a cultish way of thinking/living. the more they can convince others to believe, the more it justifies their belief system.

[Fumesucker]

8. I don't recall ever having a RHPS fan knock on my door to tell me about it.

Nor have the Atheist Witnesses been beating on my door either.

The religious folk on the other hand..

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Two things:

One, they believe they have The Answer that is perfect and solves everything, in other words: Jesus as the remedy for otherwise intractable everpresent Original Sin that will destroy mankind. And these believers get ticked off that they have this Perfect Answer and others don't see it the same way. To them, what is there to debate? Perfect. Answer.

Two, the Believers have been charged to "correct and clean up" their Earthly Realm. That means convert nonbelievers and unbelievers to their dogma to make the Earth as perfect as Heaven. Their version of Heaven. They evangelize or look down upon those who haven't picked up The Perfect Answer (see Number One). Some Believers get so worked up, they become "God's Policeman" who have to get it clear to society at large that their rules are everyone's rules and everyone (not just the Believers) WILL be held accountable NOW (before they die and burn in hell). That explains the Believers' need to pass ordinances and statutes about the personal/private lives of individuals such as abortion, pornography, marriage, etc. Bottom line: Most of them would like to take it easy, but they have been told they MUST interfere with the lives of others in order to prepare The Earth for The Return.

[DemBones DemBones]

6. Because nonbelievers are usually just

trying to stir shit, not simply voicing their doubts. If people want to really discuss religion politely, it can be done, but rarely does politeness prevail at DU. "Stupid people who believe in fairy tales" is usually what we get from atheists.

[Fumesucker]

12. Nice broad brush you've got there..

Careful lest you spatter some of that paint on yourself..

[JerseygirlCT]

44. To be fair

The OP was a pretty broad one, too.

[Smith_3]

18. From my experience, it is mostly the believers who are unwilling to have a rational discussion.

Or who reject reason as a means of obtaining knowledge altogether. What common ground to have discussion is there, if one side states that anytime observation disagrees with dogma they will reject observation in favor of dogma?

To me the complaints about intolerance towards christians are sort of similar to the complaints of white folks about "reverse racism". To such cases of reverse racism exist? Certainly. But on a larger scale they are marginal in comparison to what black people were put through. Not to mention that black people have a historically much more well founded reason to be pissed.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

7. priorities

I guess it's to be expected that someone who is obsessed with the image of a public figure, religious or political, will be irrational in their defense of that image, even when the criticism is justified.

[timtom]

9. Excellent reply.

Actually showing that the door swings both ways.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

10. On DU I find it the other way around. If someone quietly expresses their beliefs, there

are some DUers who try to breakdown or belittle the beliefs of the believer. I find it disrespectful.

BTW..it doesn't even have to involve religion. There have been every now and then UFO threads. I saw a UFO years ago with 6 of my neighbors. I haven't a clue what it was, but I saw it. I've had DUers telling me I didn't see what I saw. Arguing with me about it too.

[DemBones DemBones]

13. There is a difference between saying "I don't believe in God" and

"You're an idiot to believe in God." More of the latter is said at DU.

The UFO thing is funny, too. It means "I saw an unidentified flying object" but immediately people say you saw a spaceship or ET. I never saw one, I've just observed that this is how that game is played.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

21. That is exactly how some posters play that game. I often wonder if they would

have the nerve to talk to people like that in their offline lives.

[timtom]

11. Voicing doubts is not the same as bashing

beliefs with ugly, strident language.

"I don't agree with Dennis Kucinich's position. I believe he has hurt the Democratic Party."

as opposed to

"Kucinich??? Looney tunes. Batshit crazy. And he saw a UFO."

or

"You believe that. I, on the other hand, believe this. And here's why I chose to believe the way I do..."

as opposed to

"Your beliefs suck! And you're batshit crazy for drinking that koolaid. And stupid, too."

See the difference?

Tone, my fellow DUers. It's all about tone! And civility.

[rucky]

14. Someday, you'll understand.

;)

[54anickel]

40. You better learn it fast; you better learn it young, cause, someday never comes.

[pnwmom]

15. I have no problem with people expressing their non-belief.

But the ridicule is insulting and rude.

[WillowTree]

16. I don't get the question.

Questioning or respectfully debating a point is one thing, but ridicule is, by definition, intended to demean and evoke a reaction. It would make as much sense to ask why persons of color don't just smile when confronted by a racial epithet, knowing to themselves that the other person is nothing more than an ignorant pig who isn't likely to go far in this or any other lifetime.

[Smith_3]

20. From my experience, it is mostly the believers who are unwilling to have a rational discussion.

Or who reject reason as a means of obtaining knowledge altogether. What common ground to have discussion is there, if one side states that anytime observation disagrees with dogma they will reject observation in favor of dogma?

To me the complaints about intolerance towards christians are sort of similar to the complaints of white folks about "reverse racism". To such cases of reverse racism exist? Certainly. But on a larger scale they are marginal in comparison to what black people were put through. Not to mention that black people have a historically much more well founded reason to be pissed.

(sorry about the dupe)

[Big Orange Jeff]

23. I believe it was George Carlin that asked...

"Why is it that the people who are most anxious to tell you about their religiuous beliefs are the ones who are least interested in hearing about yours?"

[JerseygirlCT]

45. I don't see much of that here.

At all.

I think there are some people - on both ends of the spectrum if you will - who simply cannot tolerate the gray area that is belief. I can't use empirical evidence to "prove" my belief to a nonbeliever, nor can a nonbeliever disprove what I believe. So an unknowable it will stay. Which is fine by me, as my beliefs are not defined solely in those terms.

[rrneck]

48. Bingo

I'm not sure it's possible to speak of belief at all without changing it into something else. It seems that speaking of it is to apply language, (a noun), to the experience and create a simulacrum of it.

[Why Syzygy]

49. To me

my belief is a logical conclusion. I don't care to share the details.
I wouldn't trust an emotional experience. That tactic has been abused at times in my history.
There are also many unanswered questions. When I was a non-believer (never Atheist, which is a conclusion), I thought that my willingness to suspend all belief and just not know was a strength. I still have to use that ability because a lot of things are unsolved.

[rrneck]

51. It's a pretty tricky minefield any way we go at it

"I don't care to share the details"

Nor should you have to.

I have a lot of friends that are in the mental health business. (I don't know what that says about me) They all say, "You can't tell someone how they feel." Belief falls into the same category. It seems to me that belief is an experience. It impels us to do any number of things which might include thinking and/or feeling. But even the previous sentence is, in a way, unfair to you. To speak about your experience is to frame it in my terms.

What if I actually knew the answer to the whole faith/God/belief/logic/rationality/human condition problem? (A big if) And what if I could somehow peer into your skull and determine where you were going wrong and I actually had the power to fix it?(An even bigger if) That would be wrong, wouldn't it? It would be a violation of your free will, one of the most human traits of all. I would be robbing you of your humanity.

Is it any wonder people get defensive? Is it any wonder that to even broach the subject an extra measure of caution and respect is in order?

Of course nobody is perfect, so those on both sides of the debate should make every effort to "hold their fire" and consider the feelings of others before oneself. Generosity is the basis for common courtesy.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, I will happily go out of my way to insult, belittle, irritate, and confound anyone who would profit from another's experience of belief. They are a carbuncle on the ass of humanity.

[Why Syzygy]

54. The evils we resist

and rail against are the same. This also applies to the poster #52 (below) who replied to my previous post.
(only on a forum could that contortion be understood)

I would wager that EVERY believer here abhors violence against Gays! It makes me sick to my stomach! THAT's the emotional part of my beliefs. (although that didn't disappear even when I discarded the Belief because I have always known Gays as people, my friends, REAL humans) Any violence has to dehumanize. The faith I hold enlarges the value of humanity.

I bet that we all hold firm to the Constitutional ethic of separation of church and state! I haven't seen anyone on DU suggest the Constitution is out of line (exception: gun dungeon). Likewise, if any believer here supports the wild evangelicals manipulating and LYING, taking advantage of people, it would surprise me. I didn't post on the R/T thread about the sign at the Baptist church. On the original in GD, I did post, "That's pitiful". As a matter of fact, it cannot even be supported with scripture. YAHWEH said, "Come, let us reason together". I also get upset when some Atheists assume that my God thinks sex is dirty. Nope. That's a human's perversion to believe such tripe.

We fight the same wrong doing. That is what's so frustrating. Many Atheists act like we, DU Liberals and Progressives, are the one and same with the disgusting ones who use their religion as an excuse to cause harm. And that just because we claim to honor the same God. I do NOT share gods with a slew of the 'Pharisees', who enrich themselves (either financially or at ego level) at the expense of another.

Always enjoy your posts.

[skepticscott]

64. So let's get this straight...

ALL of the religious believers on DU are real Christians, and have the correct interpretation of scripture nailed, and all of the hundreds of millions of Christians who disagree with you are dead wrong? But what arrogance do you claim any more wisdom about what God really meant (the same God about which so many liberal believers often say, when it's convenient "sometimes we just can't expect to understand God's plan for us") than they have? You claim that something can't be supported by scripture...well, someone else clearly thinks it can. And yet you take on an attitude smug and superior enough to call their views "pitiful", "perversion" and "tripe", while never even considering the possibility that YOU might be wrong.

On what rational basis do you decide what parts of the Bible should be taken literally or seriously, and what parts should be ignored? And if you only make that decision based on your own sense of morality, then why do you need God, the Bible or religion to tell you anything?

[JerseygirlCT]

50. That may be the root of the conflict here when it occurs

For believers, "fact" is not the only measure. For atheists, there simply isn't any other way to judge.

Which could/can make for interesting discussions, when those discussions can stay respectful.

[rrneck]

53. Any time a discussion

like this is attempted there is a Samsonite factory full of baggage that goes along with it.

When a believer, for lack of a better term, tries to express that belief in terms that anybody else could even hope to understand, to my mind that effort will always be in vain. It's got to be frustrating. It's probably like trying to describe your dreams to some stranger in a bus station. How do you defend yourself when the only language you are allowed to use can only support your accuser?

An atheist also has made a set of very personal decisions regarding how s/he will understand their place in the world. For thousands of years they were cruelly persecuted for it. A lot of people have died trying to use rational thinking in an arational world.

I suspect you're right and the solution is a combination of both states of mind.

Welcome to the human condition.

damn typos

[C......N......C]

19. Logic ?

Catholics have confession to make amends and wipe the record clean. Commit a sin, got to confession, forgiven and forgotten. Then why are there protests against abortion. Do the human members have a right to say God's laws are not enough. Catholics on the protest line that use birth control are guilty of the same seriousness of sin as the person getting an abortion.

[zagging]

22. Then why voice it?

Shouldn't the opposing voice also keep its yap shut, knowing to themselves that the other person is deluded and will be shown that they are wrong eventually?

[Smith_3]

24. No, if the other person is backed by powerful political force.

Who will make policy decisions based on that delusion.

[zagging]

27. There ya go.

It all comes down to the protagonist assuming the antagonist has evil or corrupt intent.

It's the human condition and your question is answered.

[DemBones DemBones]

25. To stir shit. It's an old, old game here.

And extremely boring as they never come up with anything new.

[Goblinmonger]

34. Right.

There is SOOOOO much new coming from the theists. I am amazed at the number of times people bitch about the evil atheists when it is nothing more than saying there is no proof. Ooooh, don't make fun of my beliefs. It's just old. Religion is not some sacred thing that can't be talked about but that is the way many theists on here want it to be.

I know you would like the world more if the atheists just shut up and went to the back of the bus, but fuck that.

[Goblinmonger]

33. Yes, good point

the minority should just shut up and get to the back of the bus. That works so well.

[ejpoeta]

26. because they want to 'save' us all. i agree... if you are so sure of your beliefs

then you shouldn't get all mad when people question it. but that's how it is sometimes. I have met people who don't get all flustered or upset if I tell them that I don't believe what they believe. But then, there is how you say things too. If you are mocking or laughing at them or something, then I could see getting mad. But a respectful discussion should not garner any anger or upsetedness. I've talked to people who needed to convince me. And I've talked to people that accepted my opinion as that, and didn't try to convince me.

I remember vividly a kid I walked home from school with who seemed very upset that I never accepted his invitation to go to his church. he asked me what turned me away from god, and I just went off with that. I was 19, and he was like 14. I told him that he had a lot to learn. I told him that I didn't turn away from god. I also told him that he couldn't really believe in something until he questioned it. I don't remember what else I said, but it just seemed ignorant to me that somehow my not wanting to go to church had anything to do with god. ah well. i was always respectful of this kid. when he weould invite me to go to church, i would always respectfully decline without commenting on any belief or non belief of anything.

[WillowTree]

28. The OP wasn't asking about just "questioning it".

It talks about ridicule. Very different thing with very different goals.

[ejpoeta]

29. ridicule is not helpful from anyone. of you want to persuade someone,

ridiculing them won't really help you any. just like saying 'you people' or 'your problem is...' no one is going to listen to anything you say after that. and if you are mocking or ridiculing someone, you aren't doing yourself any favors, either.

[Goblinmonger]

35. Are you familiar with satire? n/t

[Marrah_G]

30. They shouldn't

I get irritated when people get insulting, rude and offensive.

But that is solely aimed at their behavior.

I am comfortable with my beliefs.

They may change someday, but not due to another persons comments.

Other people beliefs do not bother me. Only when they use those beliefs as an excuse to harm my family does it become and issue.

[Why Syzygy]

31. I've had the priviledge

of a few rational, polite exchanges with Atheists here. They were very enjoyable, and I welcome more of the same.
Others clearly are grinding their own axes.

Interesting that most of the responses are from Atheists rationalizing their priority to attack and demean. See post #5 specifically.

A lot of the hatred does go a long way in making my faith stronger. That much hatred cannot come against a "fairy tale".

Not all Christians, especially at DU, are into soul winning (evangelical). But, even when I posted, in detail, that I don't follow that custom, I was RIDICULED! That just shows me that some people are simply mean (to use a polite term). Nor are we coming to your doors. Responses like that are not "rational". They are driven by pure emotion. If one doesn't want to be confronted with "belief", one should NOT be hanging in a RELIGION forum! Is the motive to strike all references to beliefs from the realm of discussion?

I agree with the above analogy of expecting a member of a minority race to just grin when faced with epitaphs. Seems a lot of Atheists resent living in this country/world. There's nothing an individual Christian can do to alter history. Brow beating us about the past, or even ridiculing an individual due to what some extremists do is NOT rational.

I would have much less irritation if the Atheist did stick to reason instead of the emotional tirades so prevalent in this forum.

edit: My "hide thread" list is full of Atheists rant threads. Rather than upsetting myself or barging into their hate fest, I HIDE them. They have the same option.

[skepticscott]

52. Do you really imagine it's that simple?

Gee, if you want to avoid being confronted with belief, just avoid the R&T Forum, and everything will be peachy. Wow, why didn't I think of that?

Now if I could just avoid our schools, where "belief" makes school boards, administrators and teachers poison science education and impose compulsory prayer and religious profession on everyone. And maybe I'll have to hope that I never need a prescription that someone's "belief" tells me that that I shouldn't be allowed to have. And if I'm gay, I'll have to hope that I won't run into a gang of "believers" who think I should be burning in hell, and who decide to send me there a little early, and I'll have to hope that our nation of "believers" will someday decide that I'm as human as anyone. The fact is, we have "belief" rammed down our throats constantly, no matter where we go and no matter what we do. And maybe because of that, we want to CONFRONT belief and expose it for the dangerous and irrational delusion that it is. Here, and everywhere else we can.

And why, pray tell, is pointing out the endless and grievous abuses and crimes perpetrated in the name of "belief" irrational? Why is it not irrational to simply dismiss them as the actions of a few "extremists", when these are the perpetrations of vast numbers of "believers" throughout history and every day of our lives?

[moobu2]

32. It’s just the nature of delusion.

People who enjoy living in a fantasy world, get agitated, to some degree, when people confront them with reality,

[Goblinmonger]

36. I am amazed at the number of people on here that deride ridicule

but yet probably laugh a whole hell of a lot when they watch Stewart and Colbert.

[Jim__]

37. You need to be specific.

I talk to believers all the time, believers who know I don't believe. They don't get pissed if I don't agree with them. They don't get pissed if I question how they validate their beliefs. Of course, I also never tell them they're idiots because the see the world differently than I do.

I've seen a lot of attacks on religion in this forum that anger me, even though I'm not religious. It's the irrational nature of the attack that irritates me. People proclaiming their own rationality, yet contradicting that claim in what immediately follows.

If you could provide some examples of what you're talking about, people may be able to respond to it with some specificity. My guess is that if you provide a few examples, there may be different reasons from each of the examples that pissed people off.

[JerseygirlCT]

47. Thank you for that, Jim

I think that's exactly right.

[Meshuga]

38. You have to assume the believer views his/her beliefs as knowledge rather than belief.

A believer might feel he/she could be wrong about the subscribed beliefs so the believer might not assume the non-believer is "deluded and will be shown that they are wrong eventually." Perhaps some might but that has to be judged in each exchange.

People tend to get upset when something they see as important in their lives is ridiculed by another person. I have seen people get defensive when I confessed that I found a movie they see as their favorite movie to be stupid. Just imagine if that is a personal belief that defines them as who they are. So I see why they get upset.

I understand how certain beliefs cannot be respected and in a message board about religion, your opinion is valid and should not be excluded. However, that's no excuse to treat a religious person or religious people in general with disrespect. I guess many times a lot has to do with intentions of the questioner rather than what is in question so many times the defensiveness is a product of paranoia. A message board setting provides a lot more paranoia than a face-to-face relationship where most here would probably agree more and understand each other better.

However, what I find interesting is the fact that while some religious people get upset about beliefs being questioned by non-believers they seem to be okay with deeming neo-pagans, astrologers, followers of scientology, numerologists, palm readers, etc. as crazy and have no problems "ridiculing" their beliefs.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. There's a difference between rational discussion and ridicule,

especially misplaced ridicule, and playing out personal issues.

As I wrote in a PM to Az (one of the atheists who actually does have rational discussions with believers, unlike some people I could mention, who seem to exist only in this forum and only to make snide remarks about religion) a couple of years ago, in response to a thread asking why more religious people didn't participate in R&T, it's the relentlessly hostile atmosphere.

I lived in Oregon for 19 years, a place where being non-religious is the default position, and I never met with the kind of ill-mannered ridicule that I see in this forum. I don't get pissed if people voice their doubts, but I do get pissed if people can't separate their intellectual doubts from their emotional issues.

If you all want to use this forum as a venue for telling one another how rational and superior you are, fine with me.

[Dorian Gray]

41. I don't think

that the majority of believers get mad when people express their doubts. I think it's more when those doubts are expressed as: "Anybody who believes in God/Sky Fairy/Invisible Sky Daddy/whatever name you want to use is a delusional idiot."

:shrug:

[JerseygirlCT]

46. That's about the size of it, Dorian

Although I must say that the people who resort to that language usually haven't anything interesting to say. The name calling is about all they're capable of, and all they're interested in, really.

[Evoman]

43. I keep hearing "We only get upset when you ridicule". But that's bullshit.

Because pretty much anything more than, "I don't believe in god" is taken as ridicule. If a moderately aggressive statement is made about politics or sports or public policy, people can argue civilly and critically. But as soon as religion is brought up, things go up in flames. The skin is thin.

Case in point:

I think Libertarianism is wrong, and is responsible for many problems in our society. It is not based on reasons and it's proponents are denying facts that don't fit into their world. It's a ridiculous position for the following reasons:

(nobody gets mad at this. Libertarians might try to convince you that you are wrong, but this isn't ridicule).


I think religion is wrong, and is responsible for many problems in our society. It is not based on reasons and it's proponents are denying facts that don't fit into their world. It's a ridiculous position for the following reasons:

Oh noes! Ridicule!


Even if it's something more like this:

Libertarianism is dumb. It makes no sense, and leads people astray.

(might get some people upset, but it's no big deal. Libertarians aren't going to whine because we are calling one of their political POSITIONS wrong).

Religion is dumb. It makes no sense, and lead people astray.

(OH MY GOD, you are calling all christians DUMB! You want to kill us all. Wahhh, all DU hates us).

Come on people, toughin the fuck up.

[Dorian Gray]

55. That's fair

enough. And if I were to turn around and say that "atheism is dumb! Your sole purpose is to lead people astray...."

Nope... I couldn't say it. I've got too much respect for people and their experience that would lead them to whatever belief system or non-belief system that they are at....

I'm sorry that you don't have the same respect in turn.

[Evoman]

61. Lol...you think that shit bothers me?

Bwahaha.

No way man. That's nothing.

[ironbark]

65. Some have already embraced

the “toughin the fuck up” philosophy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmXri8ZCKjc

[demwing]

56. It's Simple - You've Answered Your Own Question.

"If believers are firm in their belief" then why...etc.

Those that are firm in their belief do not get offended. They may still proselytize, but they don't "get pissed." :) It's the same with Atheists. Those who are firm in their system don't get offended just by meeting a theist. Those who are filled with doubt, or those that are atheists because they got fucked over by some asshat theist from their past, will respond negatively.

It's not a question of theism vs atheism, it's a question of confidence vs. fear.

[skepticscott]

57. And it's amusing that

the position of a lot of "liberal" believers here is:

#1. I'm going to believe what I believe, and nothing that you can say or do will ever change that, no matter how good your evidence or how strong your arguments against it.


#2. Ok, let's have an interesting discussion about faith and belief. But first, see #1.

[demwing]

58. Well, at least you'll be amused.

And really, what's so wrong with either position?

[skepticscott]

60. Do you really have to ask

what's wrong with deciding that you'll never change your position on something, no matter what? Or why the disconnect between those two positions is so profound?

[Evoman]

62. add #3 - Your not believing what I believe. You should be more open minded.

[morgan2]

59. its only natural

religious people are offended by atheists lack of belief, atheists look down on the religious.
Its hard to actually believe in the supernatural, and not be offended by someone who acknowledges its all myths.
Its hard for someone who doesn't believe in these myths to not look down on those who influence our lives because of these myths.

[demwing]

63. Is that natural?

I see it as natural to disagree with people who disagree with you, I mean duh! But why is it natural to believe that "different" means better or worse?

If we're looking for something to evolve away from, let's not push away believers or atheists. Let's grow into an understanding that a common respect for differences of belief give a society strength, not weakness.