If atheists are firm in their non-belief, why do they feel the need to....

[Sal316]

....constantly belittle people of faith as "believing in fairy tales and myths"?

"Shouldn't they just be smiling, knowing to themselves that the other person is deluded and will be shown that they are wrong eventually?"

I have yet to meet an atheist who refers to a believers faith in any other way but derogatory. Believe, don't believe, personally, I could care less.

However, I am a believer.

Telling me that the basis of my faith is akin to something out of the work of Grimm or Aesop or Dr. Seuss or Walt Disney is just as insulting as if I were to tell you that you were destined for hell for your lack of faith.

Bunch of sensitive, insecure yay-hoos you atheists are.... always trying to win people over to your side.







*note: This post is 49.5% snark, 50.5% serious*

[Teaser]

1. mostly, I just want to hurt theists.

they spent enough time doing it to me in my youth.

It's payback time.

[Sal316]

7. Bitter, party of one, you're table's ready.

If the reason for your existence is to hurt those who hurt you...... then I weep for you.

Believer or not, that's sad.

It's akin to the Freepers who hate everything Arab or Muslim because of 9/11.

[tavalon]

16. I was quite bitter about the Southern Baptist sling fest I was exposed to as a youth

I chose Wicca as a backlash, but then in the course of my training to become a Priestess, I was required to watch quite a bit of Joseph Campbell's series on comparative religions. It was very healing to me. I saw how we all share aspects of a grand mythos and let go of my animosity towards Christianity. It's still not my religion of choice but I hold no animosity towards it. It is a much easier way to be with religion.

[Sal316]

49. Very well said.

We can't allow what has happened to us to define who we are.

It's giving those who have may have discriminated against us, abused us, hurt us the power over our lives.

I saw how we all share aspects of a grand mythos

The truth is that there are common foundational truths that all beliefs share.

Perhaps if the world focused on them instead, it'd be a better place.

[Why Syzygy]

47. Wow. You nailed that one.

It's akin to the Freepers who hate everything Arab or Muslim because of 9/11.

:applause:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Reverse the question.

[Sal316]

9. Another poster already did....

I'm just putting the shoe on the other foot to show how asinine this thread is.

[Warpy]

188. How many laws are there against Christians running for office?

How many times have you been rousted out of bed at 8 AM on a Saturday by an atheist leaning on your doorbell?

How many atheists in real life buttonhole you, telling you that atheism is the only way to look at the world and that the consequences for being a Christian are dire?

Stop violating our civil rights and leave us the hell alone and we'll return the favor.

Honest.

[Nihil]

206. Not enough?

Oops ...
:hide:

[HeresyLives]

3. If you're at my door, or handing me

pamphlets on a street corner, or in my government trying to force your beliefs on me as law - belittling is the least you'll get.

[LakeSamish706]

10. Now thats a whole different issue and at that point I totally agree with you....

Don't push your religion cause I don't like that either.

[Maat]

11. But none of us here are doing that.

I've been married to an atheist for 25 years; he has never felt the need to belittle anyone that way. He knows that I'm a transcendentalist (viewing the One as energy both within and without), and that Beloved Daughter is a Pagan. He's good with that. We are all UUs (we come together over the Seven Principles, particularly the one on treating others with respect)(www.uua.org).

Peace.

[Goblinmonger]

98. Are you my wife?

I am atheist, wife is deist, daughter isn't pagan but agnosticish. We are UUs as well.

:toast:

[Maat]

111. Thanks for the mega-laugh, Goblinmonger!

:rofl:

:toast:

Then, you probably have an idea of some of the spirited discussions that go on occasionally in this family - HeeHee; but, in the end, we encourage each other on our paths.

[Sal316]

13. Believers could say the same thing....

....that the removal of anything faith based, the atheist billboards, the elevation of Richard Dawkins to hero status is the same thing, just from a different perspective.

[HeresyLives]

28. That's only happened in the last few years.

It's a response to the Bush years in the US, and the Harper years in Canada where religion is pushed on you about everything.

Blowback, if you will.

[Sal316]

34. Oh, so now you're rationalizing?

"Who cares if we torture? At least we're not as bad as them terrorists!"

Same line of thought, different situation.

[HeresyLives]

37. No, I'm saying it's a normal human reaction.

One which should have been expected by religious people.

[Sal316]

46. Maybe fundamentalist religious people....

As a theologian, I can tell you without a doubt they have no clue what scripture means.

There are thousands and millions of people of faith who opposed Bush, who fight for human rights, who fight poverty, who fight for the dignity of every person no matter who they are. Those of us who fight for the powerless outnumber those who discriminate. I guarantee you that.

[HeresyLives]

57. But the point here is

that during the Bush administration, evangelical 'faith' replaced science, education, tolerance, civil rights, the constitution, history, the law, and even simple civility. In other words, the totality of civilization.

Nobody worried about religious people vs atheists during Bush I or Clinton. Most people just sort of rubbed along.

During the Bush years, and now in Canada during the Harper years, the 'religious right' has gone berserk, and is pushing a version of the 'Handmaid's Tale.'

Naturally there is a counter-reaction.

What religious people argue about amongst themselves, and the perennially popular question 'who is a REAL christian' doesn't matter to people outside that field.

We just don't want it foisted on us.

[Sal316]

61. Right, and now that time is over.

...and a true person of faith understands that faith and science are not incompatible.

What has happened in the last 8 years is a travesty, no doubt about that. The damage done to this country makes me weep. As a theologian, I cringe to think what damage the last 8 years have done to Christianity.

The question is...

...do you really want to sink to that level by demanding payback and focusing on the past.....

...or do you want to rise above, "turn the other cheek" so to speak, and focus on the future and what can be done?

The choice is up to all of us.

[HeresyLives]

65. Well, you might think so,

but others do not. One man leaving doesn't change anything. There are millions where he came from.

Faith and science are totally incompatible, however the religious may rationalize it.

I have no interest in religion whatever. I regard it the same way I do 'Ancient Greek Mythology'. I've just stopped being polite about it.

[Why Syzygy]

68. If you mean

that science and religion are not one and the same, then no, they are not compatible.
If you mean elevating science to the position of a god which can solve (save) all the problems of humanity, then no, they are not compatible.

However, there is a big place for science in the life of believer, only IF they have an open mind to accommodate both in their applicable places.

[Maat]

112. Then, you, HeresyLives, are insulting Dr. Ken Miller, who largely won the ...

Dover case. Dr. Miller does not believe that science and faith are incompatible. Dr. Miller provided the testimony that was the basis for the court ruling that intelligent design is repackaged creationism, and should be kept out of publicly-funded school science classes. He did this by providing expert and clear testimony of what scientific theory and scientific fact is. He provided testimony about evolution, and the basis for it. Dr. Miller is a Catholic. He believes that the reconciliation between "reason" and "faith" will come to him later, perhaps when he's attained another level of being. He has a whole lot of credibility with me.

You failing to be polite is your loss. At least others have the option of Ignore, if they want to avoid your self-stated rudeness. That is what is being argued against here.

[rrneck]

113. It's not over by a long shot

Charlatans who would claim to speak for God have billions invested in keeping people deluded and stupid. If you think they are just going to go away you are whistling in a graveyard.

Those jerks have given religion a huge black eye, and they didn't do it all in just the last eight years. It's been a generational effort, and it will take the followers of all faiths generations to reestablish the credibility they deserve. Until then, I'm sorry to say you will have to listen to a lot of undeserved crap.

I know whereof I speak as a white male from the south.

[muriel_volestrangler]

190. Not sure how great a guarantee that is

Consider the 2004 presidential exit poll:

Vote by Religion  Bush  Kerry
Protestant (54%)  59%   40%
Catholic (27%)    52%   47%
Jewish (3%)       25%   74%
Other (7%)        23%   74%
None (10%)        31%   67%

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

So, as far as opposing Bush goes, American Jews, and followers of 'other' religions, were mainly against him, but not the majority American religion. I suppose if you expand it to the whole world, those opposing Bush would be the majority, whether religious or not.

If you look at the 2008 exit poll, Catholics did manage to vote more for Obama than McCain (if we reduce this just to 'Republican v. Democrat', rather than the support of Bush). Still, taking the 2 major Christian groups listed (ie Protestant and Catholic) with the appropriate weighting, Christians still voted for the Republican over the Democrat.

[timtom]

196. Not entirely accurate.

From my perspective, NOTHING Bush did seemed based in any kind of religious faith. In fact, I still believe that he and his cabal made a pact with Satan.

But, historically, this has been going on for a long time. I my atheist days, in the Marine Corps, in Hawaii, in 1965, I lived 3 houses down the street from Madalyn Murray (later O'Hair). I went to visit her and we talked for hours. Her son was beat up constantly for being an atheist. In the 1960's.

By the way, Bush simply tried to associate himself with fundamental religion. But ya can't be a Christian and pull the wings off butterflies...

[Goblinmonger]

99. The removal of things faith based from the government

would be because of the constitution. Can you show me an atheist on here that is arguing that faith based things should be removed from private property?

[LakeSamish706]

4. But there are also a third group, Agnostics.. I am one of those and would not...

think of mocking someone that believes. My problem is I just don't know.

[ironbark]

143. What !!!??? You just "don't know" !!!???

You dare lack the arrogance of absolute certainty either way?

You cannot say with unwavering closed minded conviction that there definitely is or definitely is not a God?

You dare bring the middle ground and inquiring uncertainty of Agnosticism to the DU Religion and Theology board?

No, no, no……you must choose a side…..or have one chosen for you.

;-)

Letting go of your chain now ;-)

[PassingFair]

5. What is the difference between religion and myth?

:shrug:

[Sal316]

15. Religion is used in respectful conversation...

...calling it a myth makes you an ass.

[PassingFair]

20. Are you an ass for calling the religion of the ancient Romans and Greeks myth?

It is a legitimate question.

[Sal316]

23. No, because I haven't.

Sounds like someone is a little bit sensitive.

[Goblinmonger]

100. You've never use the word "mythology"?

Somehow I doubt that.

[Hugabear]

127. Okay let's reprhase the question

Would it insulting to refer to Zeus, Athena, Hades, etc as part of "Greek mythology"?

[laconicsax]

42. The former is a belief structure formed around the latter.

Saying that religious stories are myths is, by definition, accurate.

[rrneck]

114. None. But that doesn't mean that myths are not

important in culture or the proper functioning of the human psyche.

[tavalon]

6. It's all belief systems

Atheists who are comfortable with their belief system have no need to be knee jerk anymore than a Christian or a Muslim or a Wiccan who is comfortable with their faith. It is those from all the belief systems who are insecure who take haven in fundamentalism and so it is as well with atheists.

Atheism doesn't threaten my belief system at all and the atheists with whom I've been able to have interesting conversations are not threatened by my belief system.

edited to drop a with

[RagAss]

8. Calling a theist a fool is not the same as wishing an atheist to hell....

I detest religion and I have a right to speak my mind !

[Sal316]

18. It is the same thing.

Both are belittling and demeaning to a person's belief system.

Just because you agree with one, doesn't make the other wrong.

...and you do have the right to speak your mind.....but you don't have the right to be insulting and demeaning about it.

[Muttocracy]

29. no - there is a big difference between calling someone silly and wanting them violently punished. nt

[Sal316]

36. No, they're just the same.

Sorry if looking in the mirror makes you uncomfortable.

BTW...if you don't believe in hell, why are you so insulted?

[varkam]

43. How, exactly, is insulting someone's intelligence and wishing an eternity of torture on someone...

the same thing?

[Muttocracy]

53. uh, I said in my other post that I don't care what theist say about my fate. nt

[cyborg_jim]

155. Uhh, because if someone says, "you're going to Hell!" that's generally meant to be insulting.

You don't have to believe in the existance of the place to get the meaning.

[Hugabear]

95. Excuse me?

What do you mean, we don't have the right to be insulting or demeaning?

Should demeaning someone's belief system be considered a hate crime?

[demwing]

103. Yes, demeaning faith is just the same as demaining love

between two people of the same gender.

I can no more "choose" to be an Atheist than a Gay man can "choose" to be straight. I'm born this way, I'm wired differently. It isn't a choice.

[Hugabear]

105. So believing in a faith is not a choice?

I just want to make sure I understand you 100%. Demeaning someone's beliefs should be considered a HATE CRIME?

And who decides which faiths should be protected? What about these extremist cults, like the extremist Mormon cult that was just broken up recently? Some of these people are very sincere in their beliefs. Should questioning their belief be a hate crime? Or what about cults like the Raelians? Is it wrong to question their beliefs?

Who decides?

[demwing]

132. Targeting religious believers has always been considered a hate crime

But no, I don't think demeaning or questioning someone's belief is in the same ballpark. Then again, I'm not a supporter of hate speach laws either.

[Goblinmonger]

101. Nice try

but Fail.

One says that something someone believes in is foolish.
The other says that someone should be subjected to an ETERNITY of horrible punishment.

Yeah, those are equal.

[Why Syzygy]

123. Excuse me but

there is someone downthread who is calling for segregation at the minimum and extermination at the maximum for Christians.
That isn't calling something "foolish". It is support of holocaust.

[Goblinmonger]

126. You are talking about cosmik

and you are wrong. He is not calling for that. He is asking that he not have it shoved in his face. So, again, nice try but fail.

And how do you POSSIBLY get that he is calling for the extermination of Christians.

Get off that cross, Jesus needs to get back up there.

[Why Syzygy]

191. And yet he lives in the Baptist capital of the world.

How rational is that?

It would be like living in Las Vegas and just not wanting gambling shoved in your face!

I don't agree with you. I think he wants extermination.

Cross analogy: FAIL

[timtom]

197. Where do you get that saying you're going to hell

is the same as WISHING you were going to hell?

[stopbush]

151. Go ahead and belittle the so-called belief system of an atheist.

You have every right to believe whatever you will. That's America. Believe in Jesus. Believe in Republicanism. Believe in homeopathy. But your right to believe what you will doesn't at all encumber me to lie and say that I find that your beliefs contain an ounce of truth to them. That's not part of "respecting" a person's right to believe.

No one is required to respect the tenets of a person's beliefs. We're expected to respect their right "to believe," not to respect the belief itself. That's simple, isn't it?

BTW - if people are expected to speak out against beliefs that they themselves find repugnant - conservatism, supply-side economics, OK to torture etc - then why must one hold their tongue when it comes to religion? After all, religion is nothing more than an opinion, isn't it? There's no evidentiary or factual reason to believe that what religion purports to be "true" - supernatural beings, man's sinful nature, a guy dying and coming back from the dead to save people's eternal souls, an eternal Elysian Field where god dwells with his elect, etc - so why consider religious beliefs to be anything more than unfounded opinions?

[mzteris]

12. if you met an adult who

still believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, (one not cognitively impaired) - could you honestly keep a straight face and say, "Oh yeah, that's just fine."??

Besides, it seems to be "religion" that is the root of many of the evils of the world. You know - discrimination, superiority complex, paternalism (including subjugation of women), ego-centrism, hate, and war.

Sorry, but this "19 years without missing one single Sunday" former Southern Baptist (and then United Methodist), isn't buying it anymore. It's ridiculous. Maybe people should be putting their energy and money into acutally "doing good works" instead of padding some televangelists' pockets, or subsidizing some denomination or sect or religion that is doing any and everything it can to persecute those who don't "buhlieve" like they do.

[whathehell]

25. ...

"if you met an adult who
still believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, (one not cognitively impaired) - could you honestly keep a straight face and say, "Oh yeah, that's just fine."??

If about ninety percent of the population believed in someting -- as IS the case with religion unlike Easter bunnies, yes I just respond that way.

In any case, I wouldn't act like an arrogant ass, insulting the majority, because I believed myself a superior being in touch with the "True" state of affairs.

[mzteris]

31. congratulations . . .

:rofl:

is it being an arrogant ass to recognize when something is completely ridiculous?

I don't "mock them", (usually I just feel sorry for them) - but I surely don't contribute to their delusions by supporting their distorted view of reality.

[whathehell]

89. No, you've missed it. Recognition implies "fact" and atheism

is a simple "belief"...an opinion, like theism.

What you need to recognize is the difference between "fact" and "opinion" and until you do you'll be about as relevant (and welcome) as a preacher blasting his belief on a street corner.

[Goblinmonger]

102. So people should

just use the fallacy of argumentum ad populum? If you don't engage in fallacious reasoning you are an ass? Then call me an ass.

[whathehell]

108. Fallacious, Schmalacious -- Believe or Don't Believe...Just stop harassing people

about it.

I've yet to see DUers of any religion either proselytize OR insult NON-believers on this Board....Maybe the Atheists here could return the favor.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[whathehell]

116. Is that all you've got?...Pathetic..If I had the time to do it, I'd be likely to

find five times as many threads that -- like this one -- contain gratuitous insults aimed at non-atheists (and yes, that would include agnostics like myself).

And no, I'm not "seriously arguing that people engage in a fallacy"..You're just milking that to continue a pointless "argument" which can't be won or lost.

Sorry....I have actual things to um.."do" rather than "believe", so..Buh-bye:hi:

[Goblinmonger]

118. Pretty dismissive and superior-toned

for someone bitching about those same things. :hi:

on edit: So when exactly has someone on DU made the charge that theists should be purged from the Dem party?

[mzteris]

134. you haven't been here long -

stick around, you'll see it.

[Sal316]

30. Thank you for playing "grasping for straws".

Nice try at making a salient point, but the reach to the "Easter Bunny" undermines your credibility.

Have people done horrible things in the name of religion? Yes, absolutely.

Have people done horrible things in the name of eradicating religion? Yes, absolutely.

All those come from bad theology. They come from literalism, legalism, and, quite frankly, bad exegesis and hermeneutics.

Are all believers this way? No.

Just like all atheists aren't the mirror image of bible thumping rw fundamentalist assmunches.

[mzteris]

33. sorry - I gotta go with -

myths and legends and ridiculous beliefs based on complete BS for $1000, Alex.

[Sal316]

48. Answer: You.

Category: pompous asses who need to belittle others to make themselves feel better.

[Muttocracy]

54. so why did you start a post smearing all atheists as pompous? pot...kettle. nt

[Sal316]

56. Maybe you missed the part.....

....that there was a good dose of snark in that post and it was to be the mirror image to If believers are firm in their belief, why do they get pissed if people voice their doubts?

Sounds to me like someone's got their undies in a bunch.

[mzteris]

133. so someone has to point out "snark"

to you.

Oh, sorry, didn't realize.

:rofl:

[ChazII]

208. Thank you, Sal316.

This has been a good thread.

[timtom]

198. So, why did you choose to

"participate" on this discussion?

[Hugabear]

96. How about extremist cults then?

What about these cults that believe that UFOs are going to come and save humanity? Or these extremist Mormon cults that reject secular authority and believe that some book written 150 years ago gives them the right to have as many wives as they want? There are PLENTY of cults out there that have views that are considered pretty far out there by mainstream society. Yet the people who belong to these cults are just as fervent and sincere in their beliefs as you are in yours.

Or is there a certain threshold that must be met, ie a particular number of people believing the same way, before you can say that they're off limits?

[varkam]

44. It's that kind of rhetoric that isn't helpful, IMO.

I'm not meaning to disparage, but I don't think that comparing religion to fairy tales and childhood superstition is at all helpful. I'm not saying that there's gobs of evidence for God and that makes the analogy inept, but the concept of God is very important to people - much more so important than the concept of the Tooth Fairy. I don't know a single person whose conception or belief in the Tooth Fairy is something that cuts to the core of their being, but I know several people for whom that is true in re God.

[mzteris]

135. children do.

I think it's a lot like "growing up", ya know. Taking responsibility for your ownself and your own life and your own choices and not blaming "the devil" or laying claim to "being so good, that g*d rewards you".

Early man had to invent something to believe in - and the concommitant trappings (of religion) came soon thereafter created by those in power so they could manipulate the "followers".

There comes a time when has to grow up and recognize that there IS no "Santa Claus" - no matter how noble the sentiment and nice & warm & fuzzy the thought.

[varkam]

136. I think you might be missing the point about why the analogy is inept...

and likely to hinder meaningful discussion.

[mzteris]

149. The analogy fits perfectly IMO . . .

maybe it's you who are "missing the point".

With maturity comes the ability to reason for one's self. To not rely upon the "supernatural" to "grant wishes" or to keep people in line. To accept responsibility for one's own actions and not blame some "evil force".

To "Do GOOD" because it is the RIGHT thing to do, not because you want some reward or fear some punishment.

[varkam]

153. Again, as I pointed out pretty explicitly...

belief in Santa doesn't cut to personal identity the way religion does - and so when you call someone stupid for believing in Santa it's not likely to offend. When you call someone stupid for believing in God, they are likely to be offended (in fact, that's generally what religious wars have been fought over).

[cyborg_jim]

157. I do not believe there is any right to have one's arbitrary choice of what constitutes their "core"

of being to go unquestioned, ridiculed or insulted just because they might get upset about it.

The point that most people seem not to grasp when this analogy is made is that it is precisely that people DO have the "Tooth Fairy" as the "core of their being" if they find that the "Tooth Fairy" is obviously a childish entity. It's not like monotheists haven't looked down upon tribal beliefs and dismissed them as such "Tooth Faries" (or amoung each other).

Anything can be elevated to such importance in one's mind in the right circumstance. Please see your local cult for successful techniques.

Part of choosing to live under the ideals of freedom of expression is choosing to never be unoffended or hurt and accepting it like an adult.

[varkam]

160. I'm not saying that there is any such right.

What I'm saying is that, if you're looking to have a dialogue, then that isn't the way to go about it. Beyond that, it is still a logically inept comparison to suggest that one's religion is akin to Santa Claus. I'm also not saying that monotheists have not dismissed other beliefs as silly - indeed they have.

I'm also not challenging the unstated premise that the evidence for the beliefs are about the same in either case...but that's not my point.

Part of choosing to live under the ideals of freedom of expression is choosing to never be unoffended or hurt and accepting it like an adult.

Again, I never said anything about censoring anyone or saying that people shouldn't have the right - so I really have no clue why you're bringing "freedom of expression" into this. I do disagree, however, that people can choose not to be hurt. People can choose how they react to being hurt, but they can't choose whether or not to actually be hurt.

[muriel_volestrangler]

193. I think it is a logically apt comparison for a fairly common type of religious belief

It's a belief in a miraculous being who watches the good and bad things done by everyone, weighs them up, and rewards, or withholds reward from (or punishes) people.

Every time someone says that without a god to specify right and wrong, and to judge them on it, atheists have no morals, they are using a 'Santa Claus' view of god.

Every time someone invokes Pascal's Wager, part of it is the 'Santa Claus' view of god.

I think those who say "I could never vote for an atheist for president" are taking the 'Santa Claus' view - that a president needs to think there's someone more powerful than them, who can judge them.

These aren't common beliefs among the religious on DU, but there are many in the world who think like that. We shouldn't broadbrush religious belief with the comparison, but it's not a mistake in logic - just whether a particular person's attitude is like a belief in Santa, or not.

[JerseygirlCT]

161. Thank you, Varkam. As usual, a voice of

reason and civility.

[varkam]

166. Well I don't know about "as usual"

Let's just say that I have my moments. :)

[Why Syzygy]

52. You know?

If the EB, SC and TF inspired people all year 'round, and sponsored charities and encouraged uncounted numbers of people to champion the downtrodden, then we SHOULD believe in them.

Unfortunately, they are only active for a yearly special occasion or growth period during childhood.
And man does not live by candy canes and colored eggs alone.

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. If theists are firm in their belief, why do they feel the need to...

intimidate non-believers with tales of eternal torment and threaten to -- and far too often, actually manage to -- eliminate the civil rights of non-believers to their non-belief?

Sure, not all believers are like that, but you cannot deny that a very vocal minority are.

[Sal316]

24. Exactly, a vocal minority are.

That's my point.

Painting believers with such a broad brush ignores things like Matthew 25 ministries, Shane Claiborne and the Third Way, Food for the Hungry, and many other "faith-based" charities and programs that seek to "be Jesus", not just "talk Jesus".

[TechBear_Seattle]

50. You are painting atheists with an equally broad brush n/t

[Sal316]

58. That's MY POINT!

What pisses me off to no end are:

a) RW Fundamentalist Christian who don't know how to spell exegesis, much less what it means.
b) Non-believers who feel the need to belittle people of faith to make themselves feel better.
c) RW Fundamentalists who feel the need to belittle non-believers and people of OTHER faiths to make themselves feel better.
d) Non-believers who misinterpret scripture and take it completely out of context.
e) RW Fundamentalists who misinterpret scripture and take it completely out of context.

...among a long laundry list of 'holy hurts'.

What ended up happening is:

- some very thoughtful responses
- some reasoned responses to the contrary
- responses from non-believers with their undies in a bunch all torqued off because the shoe was put on the other foot.

Sometimes I think rhetorical devices like this can be used effectively on the internet.

....then I remember, it IS the internet after all.

[JerseygirlCT]

122. But here?

I think that's the part that often gets ignored.

I'm not every believer. I'm me. I will absolutely stand responsible for my own words and actions. But every time someone here acts insultingly toward a believer *here*, the response/excuse is the awful actions of some believers out in the world.

Is it right for people who have been subjected to bad behavior to basically mirror that behavior toward someone else?

[TechBear_Seattle]

130. That street runs both ways

I have seen here on DU, depressingly often, where a believer will make sweeping negative generalizations about non- and/or different-believers. I am not pointing this out to justify any behavior, only to remind you and others reading this thread that the overt hostility runs both ways far more often than not.

[Meshuga]

144. The disconnect here

is caused by the threads and posts about "atheists in general are like this" and "believers in general are like that." I agree that people here should be judged for their individual behavior but often some feel the need to bring up religious inquisition or Stalin to brand and generalize the "opposing" group.

There is the need to say Hitler is a member of the other side (the side having the heated debate with you) and the need to claim Einstein as part of your own group. :-)

[sammythecat]

17. I doubt that's true.

Some atheists are jerks, just like some theists, and of course they're usually more vocal.

I might have a problem with religion, but that doesn't mean I ridicule and belittle the believers I know.

The internet is a different thing however. On the internet you can be savaged just for stating your favorite color.

[jody]

19. It's always hard to turn the other cheek when sometimes you want to say:

[Maat]

21. I empathize.

This is why I have virtually avoided the R/T forum for years.

As I said above, I've been happily married to an atheist for 25 years, and he's never felt the need to use the belittling language I've seen here.

What is really irritating is when the insulting ones follow us over to our DU Group and continue their behavior (our Seekers on Unique Paths DU group), which they are not suppose to do.

UU Principle that I extend to all: I affirm acceptance of one another and provide encouragement of spiritual and personal growth (to slightly paraphrase the UUA's words).

[Evoman]

22. I don't really fnd it insulting that people think I might go to hell.

Although I find it really disturbing that so many people seem to relish it. I get the feeling that some of these people jizz their pants at the thought of watching me get tortured.

Oh, and your faith isn't even close to the work of Grimm or Aesop. All those stories have messages worth reading, whereas the bible, koran and other religious works should have been thrown away millenia ago. The best part is, nobody has ever told me with a serious face that a talking fox actually existed, and that he really wanted grapes. But the talking snake....oh man.

[Muttocracy]

26. it sounds like atheists are hitting a nerve with you?

If you're firm in your beliefs in whatever, why do you care what atheists say or think about it? A theist saying I'm going to hell doesn't make it true nor does it bother me.

As for atheists saying theists make decisions based on faith rather than reason/fact/science/whatever, and to atheists that makes no more sense than believing in any fiction, isn't that just the inherent difference between theism and atheism - theists believe in something that cannot be tested by scientific means, and atheists don't.

[Sal316]

40. Actually, most don't.

The ones who feel the need to make themselves feel superior by constantly telling me that my belief system is a myth, superstition, fairy tale, and that I'm somehow less intelligent than them for believing do.

They're no better than RW Christian Fundamentalists or Muslim extremists. Their motivation is the same, it's just their tactics that may differ.

[Goblinmonger]

104. But it is a myth

Definition: a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

Why does that bother you so much? Because you discount so many other myths? It is definitionally a myth. Yet you want to feel superior to those that tell you it is. Perhaps that mirror thing you were talking about might be good for you, too.

[Sal316]

141. Here's why it bothers me.

For the same reason people using the Obama's middle name. By itself, it's harmless. But oftentimes (not all) it's used in a derogatory way.

Now you'll say "that's not how it's meant"... but guess what, that's not what matters. Neither does trotting out the Webster's definition... that's like saying "What, it's just his middle name!"

It's how it's interpreted that matters.

Fair? No.

Reality? Yes.

Because you discount so many other myths?

What my opinion of another person's faith is or isn't doesn't grant me the right to badger and ridicule their faith.

That's the point I'm trying to make.... and, yes, it goes for both sides of the coin.

[Critters2]

117. It's all mimetic rivalry, and it will all end the same.

People feel the need to play the "I'm better than you" game, for the same motivations, whether they think they're bragging about their God or their own intellect. It's mimesis--imitative rivalry, done to impress their own community. Left unchecked, it becomes the most common source of human violence, but people inevitably blame this violence on someone other than themselves--the victim, God, someone.
Atheists engaging in this behavior are an interesting study, because they won't be able to blame their behavior on any kind of metaphysical motivation or being, as cultures have done through the ages. So, they'll either blame the victim or take responsibility for their attitudes and actions. I'm betting as to which way that goes.

[Skittles]

27. because they are sick of religion being shoved in their faces

it's a form of payback

[Sal316]

51. Wow.. payback?

You mean like this?

US Troops shooting Iraqi civilans as payback for 9/11

There's a picture of the World Trade Centre hanging up by my bed and I keep one in my flak jacket. Every time I feel sorry for these people I look at that. I think, 'They hit us at home and, now, it's our turn.' I don't want to say payback but, you know, it's pretty much payback."

link

Same motivation.

[Skittles]

59. reaching much?

[Sal316]

64. Nope, not reaching.

Payback is payback.

The intention is to hurt others, whether with a gun or with words or through economics or through law.

Semper et infirmi est animi exiguique voluptas Ultio
Revenge is always the weak pleasure of a little and narrow mind.

[Skittles]

72. it's also fun

atheists don't show up at my door peddling their beliefs but OMG those religious assholes sure do

[Sal316]

92. Fun?

I'll bet Bush thought blowing up frogs as a kid was "fun", too.

"Fun" stops being "fun" when it comes at the expense of someone else.

Taking enjoyment in payback makes you no better than those "religious assholes" you despise.

[Goblinmonger]

107. You are just the master of false analogies.

Verbally telling someone they are wrong/stupid/whatever.
Physically killing someone with a bullet/explosives/other horrid means.

Yep, those are equal.

[ironbark]

194. Hey Skittles! I’m with you on this one!

We don’t have religious assholes occasionally at the door…we have a far more pernicious and intrusive bunch of peddlers who are constantly out to capture and control our kids minds and our nations culture.
On the TV, on the radio, movies, DVD.s, CD’s, Computer games, fashion, music…at every turn I’m up against them trying to peddle my kids (or the ones I work with) a callous culture of crime, death and destruction-
Freakin Grand Theft Auto, Gangster Rap, Doom, Rambo… the endless list goes on.
From ten thousand miles away and with no knock on the door they managed to convert rural Australian lads into wannabie Boys in The Hood, geans at their knees arse hanging out cap on backwards and speaking with an accent. Girls vomiting Pepsi to look like Paris Hilton.

And your up against what? >Mormons<???.....>Whitnesses<???....cry tough.

No….it aint funny and it’s worse than attempted doorknock conversion.

It’s bigtime payback time. We fired a warning shot when we sent you the Bee Gee’s. We followed up with Crocodile Dundee and Kylie Minogue (You shoulda payed heed).
We got serious when we slipped you a Murdoch.

Pass the word- Stop messing with our kids heads or payback comes in spades.

[notadmblnd]

32. Because people of faith don't keep their relationship with their god to themselves

As a non believer, I never bring up religion. However, it's continually shoved in my face. If people of faith kept their relationship with their god where it belongs and not on their sleeves, you'ld never hear a word from me.

[BlueJazz]

39. "Ah..Dad?..What's this shit about me dying for mankinds Sins?? and...

.. this Cross thing...You want me to do What ???

[JerseygirlCT]

124. I think there's a big distinction between "on their sleeves"

(I take it you mean, speaking about it, not hiding it) and "in your face (by which I would mean actively approaching you about it).

I don't see any reason any of us ought to have to hide what we believe. I do think we all ought to summon a bit of respect for other people and their right to believe as they will. So long as that belief doesn't reach my nose, as it were, why should it be a problem?

[notadmblnd]

138. because it reaches my nose entirely too often. thast's why it's a problem.

I don't want JW's knocking on my door on Saturday morning. I don't want people asking me if I've been saved. I don't want to be told to have a blessed day. No one has to hide it. Let it all hang out in church on Sunday, let it all hang our with your own group of friends, I don't care, just don't bring it to me.

[JerseygirlCT]

154. I assume you're similarly close-mouthed about your atheism, yes? nt

[notadmblnd]

156. I said that in my first response to the OP

I don't proselytize, I don't even bring it up unless one of the believers do. And just so we're clear, I don't make it a point to hang out with them either. To give you an example, today I was at the grocery store talking to the cashier about how bad everyone has it here in Michigan. Her response to me; "we just have to keep praying." My reply; "I don't think your god's listening."

[tinrobot]

201. I keep my beliefs to myself.

Thanks for lumping me in with everyone else.

[tulsakatz]

35. there is a simple answer to this.........

fundamentalists typically make a point of discussing their religion and trying to convert everyone they see!! I'm not an atheists but I would guess that they're sick of people trying to force people into believing the same things they do!!

I would not have a problem with religion if they would keep it to themselves. To me, religion or spirituality is a personal thing..........it's not important for me to know what you are and it's not important for you know what I am. So long as I'm happy in my beliefs, that's all that should matter.

And living in the Bible belt, I know fundamentalists well!!

And speaking of fundamentalists, it seems to me that you only posted this message so that you could tell people how wrong they are.....

[customerserviceguy]

38. Let's face it

It's a lot easier to be insulting on a forum board, than it is in person. You really don't see this level of ridicule in the real world, do you?

Similarly, I don't see as much religious proselytizing in real life as I do on message boards. I think some people really think they're making afterlife points with semi-anonymous posts that they consider 'witnessing'.

[Demobrat]

41. Honey, you know lots of atheists who do just that.

"Shouldn't they just be smiling, knowing to themselves that the other person is deluded and will be shown that they are wrong eventually?"

You just don't know it because, well, they do it.

[cosmik debris]

45. Not a day goes by when I don't have to tolerate somebody's

Fucking religion intruding into my life.

I'd be a lot kinder to theists if they could at least keep a respectable distance.

[Sal316]

55. .....

Maybe you'd be happy if we put all people of faith in one area? Or just people of a certain faith?

Like, camps maybe?

Maybe we could extend that to color? To sexual orientation?

You know, them "God cooties" can be just as bad as them "black cooties" or "Mexican cooties" or "gay cooties".

We could keep everyone separate according to race, creed, color, orientation in different parts of the country... that way you would never have to be inconvenienced by a believer again.

You have no idea how bigoted that statement sounded.

[cosmik debris]

60. Is that a professionally constructed straw man

Or did you build it yourself?

I don't like religion, I don't want religion. But I can't escape from religion.

If you can't respect my desire to avoid religion, fuck you.

[Sal316]

62. I built it myself....on the foundation you laid.

The foundation being your desire to keep believers "at a comfortable distance".

Does the fact that your "desire to avoid religion" is on par with those who desire to "avoid blacks" or "avoid gays" or "avoid anyone else that is different" make you uncomfortable?

Same motivation... the only difference it's a group that YOU find distasteful.

[cosmik debris]

66. That's a crock-o-shit

I have no desire to discriminate against any group. I certainly believe in equal rights for all. It is a pity that you don't.

Your right to swing your religion ends at my face.

When I stop getting hit in the face with religion, I will have achieved the equality that I have been denied all my life.

It sounds to me like you are the bigot who wants atheists to quit complaining and put up with the obvious discrimination.

But I won't quit fighting for equality until I win or die. And that means getting other people's superstition out of my life.

[Sal316]

91. Smell what you're shoveling.

I have no desire to discriminate against any group.
Except for wanting to keep believers 'at a respectable distance'.

I certainly believe in equal rights for all. It is a pity that you don't.
You have no idea WHAT I believe. Thanks for showing your ass by pretending you do, then telling me what I believe.

Your right to swing your religion ends at my face.
I don't like the pushy 'turn or burn' jackholes either. I think they do a disservice to Christianity.

When I stop getting hit in the face with religion, I will have achieved the equality that I have been denied all my life.
Religion is never going to go away. If your "equality" is based on a group of people ceasing to be, that so contradicts what you say you believe.

It sounds to me like you are the bigot who wants atheists to quit complaining and put up with the obvious discrimination.
No, that's not it at all.

But I won't quit fighting for equality until I win or die. And that means getting other people's superstition out of my life.
Me either. And that means fighting for the dignity of all people.

[Why Syzygy]

63. IMO, that's your right.

When I was faithless, I used to go to a food pantry at a church. They always had you sit down with a volunteer to pray. I always told them I did not want such prayer. I happened to get the same woman both times I went, about a year apart. We talked a little, but I didn't get all upset, and she didn't make me pray. I knew that her Jesus was on my side because he never made such restrictions. I DID feel sorry for the street people who gave into the prayers, because I knew they didn't really want to.

Coercion is unfounded. It's become a custom, and yes, some believers feel that they are obligated to such activity. It's a distortion. It would make me very angry, but I know history. I know it isn't going to come to a screeching halt just because we have a few enlightened theologians like the OP, or members who realize that salesmanship is not part of the Christian walk. OTOH, if someone is all fired up and has the personality, they WILL be talking. Maybe cut them some slack.

My grandparents were embarrassingly notorious for proselytizing. One night we were eating at the Magic Time Machine and my granddad asked the waiter, "are you a Christian?" The waiter very dryly said, "Yes. Are YOU?"

You have every right to your space. Just let the ones who approach you know. Or, wear a button, considering where you live.

[cosmik debris]

69. So the onus is on me to resist oppression

Rather than on the theists to resist oppressing.

:crazy:

[Why Syzygy]

70. The onus is on you

to be a defensive driver. There are crackpot drivers on the roads too. You may resent them for making you drive to avoid their crash. But you will still take the action to do so. Unless you're just looking for an excuse to bitch, or a way to wreck your car.

Just yesterday you put the onus on me to not even READ insulting posts. What foot are you standing on today?

[cosmik debris]

71. Well, it is nice that you have excuses for the people who

push their religion on those who don't want it. All I want is the right to push my anti-religion on the people who don't want it. That's equality. Do you oppose equality for me?

[Why Syzygy]

74. I have come to expect

nothing but negativity and complaining from you. You are quick to point out that others desire their suffering.
Perhaps you do too. But I don't expect you to take a speck of responsibility for yourself.
It would be a first.

[cosmik debris]

75. Right, I'll just shut up and move to the back of the bus.

That's the theist solution for all atheist problems.

And by the way, I retired at age 53 because I DO take responsibility for myself. Do you?

[Why Syzygy]

77. Whatever advances your persecution complex. Go for it.

I can't imagine why anyone would approach you to shove religion or for any other reason.
I have done so with the expectation of finding evidence of a human heart beneath all that bitterness.
Empty handed once again.

[cosmik debris]

79. I should be so lucky! n/t

[Dogmudgeon]

85. Are you counting ...

... the number of references to "the back of the bus", as in, "all you THEISTS want us poor Atheists to go to the back of the bus!" -- ?

Good grief! They're like stinkbugs -- all over the place, but usually clustered in large groups.

"The self-pity, it burns." (Paraphrasing another cliché beloved by the Superior Intellects in any group.)

:rofl: (also obligatory)

--d!

[Why Syzygy]

87. I just re-read

the subthread. My acknowledgment with his plight was rejected from step one, and replaced with self pity:

I don't like religion, I don't want religion. But I can't escape from religion.

If you can't respect my desire to avoid religion, fuck you. (...)

All I want is the right to push my anti-religion on the people who don't want it. That's equality. Do you oppose equality for me?

The only thing that will satisfy is duplication on his part of the odious behavior he despises in others!

I reject an eye for an eye. I reject proselytizing, no matter the source. I take the responsibility upon myself to avoid such.
No wonder he lives in the Bible mecca of the state. All the better to maintain the assertion that he is being thumped with it, and his rationalization for jihad!

Other than the maturity to confront abuse at the source, what are the the options?
The concentration camps already suggested? Muzzles? Extermination?
:shrug:

[demwing]

76. Is that why you hang out in the religion/theology forum?

Because of this intense desire to keep a repsectable distance from theists?

[cosmik debris]

78. You seem to be confused between DU and real life

It is not unusual for people who believe in myths to get confused about reality.

[demwing]

80. And it's not unusual for conflicted/confused people

to claim they want to avoid people the same people whom they are obviously attracted to.

you are so silly. If you really want to avoid theists, why do you hang out in the Religion/Theology forum, and haunt threads started by theists?

[cosmik debris]

82. Because this is one place where I can discuss religion

without being assaulted.

Sometimes I like to discuss how religion has fucked up our schools, or interfered with women's rights, or persecuted gay people.

Those are common topics here. But I can't discuss them IRL because the christians are so vicious and vindictive when I point out their hypocrisy.

Here I can just turn off the computer and I don't get my house and car spray painted with crosses.

This forum provides some insulation from the retaliation I have suffered in the past when I openly rejected christianity.

I like discussing the issues of religion in everyday life. I just hate it when theists start acting superior and pushy. Like you.

[Dogmudgeon]

84. "I just hate it when theists start acting superior and pushy."

That's irony, right?

"http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x203453#203553">And by the way, I retired at age 53 because I DO take responsibility for myself. Do you?"

--d!
An atheist who can not BELIEVE the level of adolescent petulance among his "fellow" disbelievers.

[varkam]

137. You did read the post that was in response to, right?

I mean, you're not just taking things out of context to try to score rhetorical points, are you?

[Dogmudgeon]

163. Yes, I read it. No, the "point" is valid.

I don't recall that we give any slack at all to theists who cite "context" -- and I replied to a remarkably nasty retort, in a too-common angry-and-self-pitying context of attack. It was a Freeper-style crack, though it is usually the Conservatives bragging about being responsible income producers and the Poor (and Liberals) being irresponsible spendthrifts. It was more Ayn Rand-ian that most Objectivists.

This is one of our biggest failings -- hypocrisy. Pleading for special treatment because we are oppressed by others doesn't fly in here; none of the DU religionists or mystics are anything more than annoying. It may irritate me to hear of Original Sin or a Westernized, candy-coated version of "karma" or feel-good angel lore, but it's harmless. As an atheist, when I hear the same old overwrought nonsense -- "religion is mental illness", "help, help, I'm bein' oppressed!", "back of the bus", "the bearded man in the sky", and the constant complaints about Mormon and Jehovah Witness proselytes -- I cringe.

--d!

[varkam]

165. Are you sure?

I don't recall that we give any slack at all to theists who cite "context" -- and I replied to a remarkably nasty retort, in a too-common angry-and-self-pitying context of attack. It was a Freeper-style crack, though it is usually the Conservatives bragging about being responsible income producers and the Poor (and Liberals) being irresponsible spendthrifts. It was more Ayn Rand-ian that most Objectivists.

I was referring to the post that you selected to try and clobber CD with. The post that was in reply to was accusing CD of not taking any responsibility for himself - yet I don't see you jumping all over that poster for their "Freeper-style" attacks. Is it just a one-way street, where it's only an attack if directed at theists but not an attack if it's directed at atheists? Oh, there's a word for that, I'm just not sure what it is...

That's why I was wondering if you had read the post that was in reply to because it was just a rephrasing of the attack directed at CD.

This is one of our biggest failings -- hypocrisy. Pleading for special treatment because we are oppressed by others doesn't fly in here; none of the DU religionists or mystics are anything more than annoying. It may irritate me to hear of Original Sin or a Westernized, candy-coated version of "karma" or feel-good angel lore, but it's harmless. As an atheist, when I hear the same old overwrought nonsense -- "religion is mental illness", "help, help, I'm bein' oppressed!", "back of the bus", "the bearded man in the sky", and the constant complaints about Mormon and Jehovah Witness proselytes -- I cringe.

Of course the difference is that if atheists go about expressing their beliefs in a public fashion, they are subject to reprisal. I remember several instances in my own life where my car and property were damaged for doing just that - which is one of the things that CD was talking about in reference to why he hangs out in the R/T forum. I don't think wishing that you weren't the subject of vigilante-style activity is "pleading for special treatment".

I agree with you in that I don't much care for the comparison of religion to mental illness or the comparison of God to Santa Claus, either - but I think there's a big difference between that and complaining about oppression. True enough that there are plenty examples of douchebaggery, but I think when it comes to the oppression game, it doesn't pass the straight-face test to say that atheists are oppressing Christians. Atheists are constantly derided in this society, be it explicit or implicit. The constant reminder that moral values and faith are somehow tied together, statements from recent presidents that atheists should not even be considered citizens, and so on and so forth. A recent survey found that atheists are the least-trusted sub-group in the United States, beating gay people and muslims by a comfortable margin.

To say that douchebaggery on an internet forum is somehow the equivalent...well...it doesn't pass muster. I'm not saying that, then, gives atheists carte blanche to say whatever they want (well, they do have that right - freedom of speech and all) but it doesn't make the two equivalent.

I agree with you that the douchebaggery should stop, and I've called atheists out on it before - but it also comes from the other side (and when it comes to the other side, it's generally not limited to snarky posts on a message board). For instance, you brought up Mormon and Jehovah Witness missionaries - last week when a group of them came to my door, I politely told them that I am not a Christian and do not attend church. It was less-than-politely described for me the fate that supposedly awaits for me in the afterlife. It was intrusive, unwelcome, and rude. For the record, I have never gone to another person's home, knocked on their door, and told them that belief in God is akin to belief in Santa Claus.

[JerseygirlCT]

125. Don't you find that expection a bit outsized here at

a debate forum on the topic of religion and theology though? I'd think coming here ought to indicate a willingness to have to confront the beliefs of other people - from atheists to believers.

[cosmik debris]

148. I was not speaking of virtual reality

In real life I have had to leave two jobs because my boss could not tolerate atheists.

In real life my taxes go up because churches have a preferential position not to pay their fair share, not an equal position.

In real life that preferential treatment is every where from my money to public forums, to the official business of my government. The superior position of theism over atheism is not one that can be disputed. And for the theists, equality is not an option.

The things we discuss on this board have no impact on my real life. I am allowed to speak my mind here. I have learned the hard way that I am not allowed to speak my mind in REAL LIFE. And the reason for that is that the theists have power over our (my) society and the wield that power without regard for the rights of others.

[ironbark]

167. The problem remains of the direct parallel

between the impact of religion on peoples lives and the impact of a Nation State.

Everything you object to in regard religion has parallel to the objections of millions in regard the dominance and intrusion of America into peoples “REAL LIFE”.
I and my children are raised under a constant bombardment of American culture/news/views, tens of thousands of jobs are lost globally because of Americas unregulated financial system, America consumes far more than it’s fair share of global resources and pollutes with equal vigour. Then there are the wars and troops based on foreign soil.

It is valid for any citizen of this globe to question, criticise and challenge these inequities and ills because of the impact on their “REAL LIFE”.
Just as it is valid to criticise religions for their intrusion, hypocrisy and abuse.

What is not valid is to take those objections and demonise or hate all religion/s or all of America (any nation). Such views of total contempt for religion have been and continue to be expressed on this board-
“Fuck religion” and “No good ever came of religion” have been explicitly stated and prevail as atheist pov. They are as narrow, shallow and dangerous as “Fuck America…No good ever came of America”.

If atheists are not inclined to maintain a balanced pov that recognises both the good and ill within religion then what standard ought foreigners apply?....Just the negative impact on their “REAL LIFE”?

[cosmik debris]

169. You made up a bunch of stuff and pretended that I said it.

I can't respond to posts like that.

[ironbark]

179. That’s a blatant lie Cosmic.

There is nothing in my post that is attributed to you.
Nothing that is made up or manufactured or pretending to be from you.
The >only< thing in my post (167) that belongs to you are the words “REAL LIFE”.

Nothing else was presented or suggested or inferred to be something you said.

Not my problem if you can't read.

Your challenged to identify/cite the “bunch of stuff” I “made up” and “pretended” you said.
Your failure to do so already and your predictable inability to do so in the future are sure indicators that your bullshitting…..yet again...just to get out of a tight spot in a discussion.

[cosmik debris]

180. LOL!

In response to my post you whined:

"Such views of total contempt for religion have been and continue to be expressed on this board-“Fuck religion” and “No good ever came of religion” have been explicitly stated and prevail as atheist pov."

If I did not say that, why should I respond to your whining about it being said.

If you have a problem with those statements, address the person who said it, not me.

[ironbark]

187. Enjoyed your hysterical cackle

as it slowly dawned on you that nothing had been invented and attributed to you.

Admire your back flip as you distance yourself from your prior allegation without even mentioning or retracting it.

Fascinated by your lurching segue into new and even more obscure realms of objection-

“If I did not say that, why should I respond to your whining about it being said” Cosmic

No need to respond at all, but you could (for once) just think about the broad issue being raised rather than leaping to the false assumption that some personal attribution or attack had transpired.

“If you have a problem with those statements, address the person who said it, not me” Cosmic

Oh, I don’t have a problem with such statements, Atheists do. I was describing the general prevailing atheist pov on this board… but, your so busy misreading it, personalising it and falsely accusing me of “making stuff up” that you missed the point entirely. Yet again.

[cosmik debris]

189. Your scatter brained rant seems to have no point. I give up.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about because you seem to change your position with every post.

You have failed to make the original case, so you wander around trying to insult atheists. That's OK, I take no offense from people with your predisposition to blame atheism for everything that is wrong in the world.

Go ahead, take the last word.

[ironbark]

192. Bye

[laconicsax]

67. An atheist responds:

If atheists are firm in their non-belief, why do they feel the need to constantly belittle people of faith as "believing in fairy tales and myths?"

Myths are defined as, "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature." In short, a myth is an unproven story with a supernatural element. If part of your faith is to hold true a story "without a determinable basis of fact...that is concerned with deities" then it is, by definition, a myth. This should not offend you.

A fable is, by definition, a short story intended to teach a moral lesson. A fable can also be defined as "a story about supernatural or extraordinary persons or incidents." You may recognize the first definition as being similar to that of a parable; a parable is, in essence, a fable. If you religion contains moral stories, "stories about supernatural or extraordinary persons or incidents," or parables, then your religion contains fables. Again, this should not be offensive to you.

A fairy tale is a fable or myth often intended to entertain a child. You may be offended by the inference that you are in some way a child, but you should readily admit that many stories told as part of a religion are nearly identical in structure to fairy tales, so much so in fact, that a fairy tale could, with minor modification be inserted into a religious text with no difficulty.

"Shouldn't they just be smiling, knowing to themselves that the other person is deluded and will be shown that they are wrong eventually?"

We should, but the deluded have this irritating tendency to hold to their beliefs long after being shown to be wrong. In fact, faith is believing in something without need for independent verification. A religion teaches that the universe is about 6000 years old and many of its adherents continue to believe this, on faith alone, despite an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.

Telling me that the basis of my faith is akin to something out of the work of Grimm or Aesop or Dr. Seuss or Walt Disney is just as insulting as if I were to tell you that you were destined for hell for your lack of faith.

It shouldn't be. As I've already pointed out, it is a near certainty that whatever religion you subscribe to contains things that are by definition "akin to something out of the work of Grimm or Aesop." That is a fact that you're just going to have to deal with. What's more, stating that I am "destined for hell for <my> lack of faith" is making an assertion based on what are (again by definition) fables, myths, etc.

If it offends you to be told that it is possible that things you believe on faith are factually wrong, then that is your problem and your problem alone.

[Skittles]

73. worthy of its own thread

:thumbsup:

[54anickel]

86. As a "theist" I agree with most everything you said. I take exception to the deluded part, but I do

understand the basis for that statement. When your understanding of "theists" is dependent on your common experience of the "religion teaches that the universe is about 6000 years old and many of its adherents continue to believe this, on faith alone, despite an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary."

Those are fundamentalist beliefs and I will agree that fundamentalists, of any persuasion, are deluded - but not all "theists" are fundamentalist.

[laconicsax]

129. My understanding of theists is from my experience as one.

I was raised in Reform Judaism, which is hardly fundamentalist. The majority of my experience with theists has been with people whose belief ranged from the notion of an occasionally intervening, personal god to a vague deist concept. I have had a healthy (unhealthy?) amount of experience with fundamentalists, but they aren't the basis of my understanding of theists.

My example of young-earth creationists was just an example, but it speaks to the nature of faith. Faith is believing in something--anything without any supporting evidence and sometimes in spite of contrary evidence. You, as a theist, must base your belief in God on faith and I would suspect that since there is no evidence to support the claim that God exists, that no evidence will sway you in your belief. I wouldn't consider your beliefs to be the same as those of a creationist, but they are similar in nature.

[54anickel]

131. It's a very difficult thing to explain, my "belief" isn't a head thing, it's a hope thing. I don't

know, I can't know for certain. Guess my understanding of belief goes back to the old English lēof dear — more at love, be-loved. An inner strength, peace, hope, drive, ambition...what allows me to feel love for someone that has "ticked" me off....that allows me to love myself....a power that is beyond myself....like I said, hard to explain and it probably sounds like I'm one of those "weaklings" that needs something beyond themselves to cling to.

[Sal316]

139. People have always had faith....

Faith is believing in something--anything without any supporting evidence and sometimes in spite of contrary evidence.

Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

People had faith we could put a man on the moon - and they were laughed at.

People had faith we could elect a black man to the Presidency - and they were laughed at.

People had faith we could cure polio and other childhood diseases - and they were laughed at.

People had faith we could harness electricity - and they were laughed at.

People had faith that a rag-tag bunch of English separatists could form a new type of government - and they were laughed at.

So, I'd say that as a person of faith, we're in pretty good company.

[laconicsax]

142. That's pretty weak.

Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen

Faith is believing in something--anything without any supporting evidence and sometimes in spite of contrary evidence.

People had faith we couldn't put a man on the moon - and now they're laughed at.

People had faith we wouldn't elect a black man to the Presidency - and now they're laughed at.

People had faith we couldn't cure polio and other childhood diseases - and now they're laughed at.

People had faith we couldn't harness electricity - and now they're laughed at.

People had faith that a rag-tag bunch of English separatists couldn't form a new type of government - and now they're laughed at.

I'd say that as a person of faith, you're in pretty mixed company.

[Sal316]

147. Nice try, but....

People don't have faith something will fail....

...they don't believe in its possibility for success.

[laconicsax]

158. Your talons of logic amaze me.

Too bad you'll probably never understand why you're wrong. I'll pray for you.

[Silent3]

186. Do you really think that bit of wordplay saves your point?

Okay...

Many Russian people had faith that Russians would get to the Moon before the US. Didn't turn out so well for them.
Many Christian Scientists have had faith that prayer is the best medicine. Many of them are now dead or mourning their dead.
Many people had faith that housing prices would keep going up and up, and that risky mortgages could be effectively "securitized". How's that 401(k) doing?
Many people have faith that their team will win the Big Game. Roughly half of those people are always disappointed.

[trotsky]

145. On the contrary, all of your examples had great REASONS to believe.

Man on the moon: the space race had already started. We could already harness the power of rockets, escape the earth's gravity, and fly humans at ridiculous heights without harm. What was so outrageous about going to the moon? (As an obvious aside: SCIENCE provided it. Not faith or praying.)

Obama: the evolution of society. Didn't hurt that Obama got to run against one of the worst Republican candidates ever, or that the Republicans had created such a colossal mess. But once again, faith and prayer had nothing to do with it. Hard work, practical organizing, and VOTING made the difference.

Cure polio: Again, science to the rescue. We had already figured out how to vaccinate against a disease (smallpox) - polio was just the next step. I don't know that anyone was laughing at the suggestion we could get polio and other diseases under control when science had already demonstrated it could do so.

Harness electricity: To the people who studied it, it came as no surprise at all. And once laymen understood the basics too, there's no magic about it. Do you pray every time you flip on a light switch? Knowledge and reason triumphed over ignorance and fear.

"Rag-tag separatists": surprise, surprise. Once again religious faith had nothing to do with it. Secular enlightenment is what gave this country the foundation it needed to be successful.

I'd say that as a "person of faith" you're barking up the wrong tree with all of your examples.

[stopbush]

152. Exactly.

Faith is a word one uses when the standard of reason can't be met. In all of those instances cited, it was reasonable to believe those things would be accomplished. One could say that past experience gave one hope that they could be accomplished.

Faith would be believing things could happen when all of the evidence is pointing the opposite way...like believing that Jesus was a real person.

[heidler1]

81. Digging into the 2008 Exit Polls

This post is 100% serious.

The truth is that Christian types still supported McCain more than they did Obama. Jewish, other religion and unaffiliated voters supported Obama by astronomical margins: 78-21, 73-22 and 75-23, respectively. Even as bad as Bush was he did not convince the Christian majority that they were wrong. Can anyone?

http://takingnote.tcf.org/2008/11/digging-into-th.html

8. Turning to religion, data from the exit polls suggest that attempts to inflame culture wars issues in the 2008 election campaign were not successful. Democrats gained support throughout the religious spectrum, with some of their largest gains among the most observant.

Consider first the vote broken down by how often people attend religious services. Famously in US politics over the last couple of decades there has been a strong relationship between how often you attend services and how you vote, with those who attend most frequently being much more conservative than those who attend least often. This relationship did not go away this year but it did become less strong.

For example, Obama ran the same relatively modest 12 point deficit among those who attend services more than once a week as he did among those who attend weekly. In fact, Obama’s 17 point improvement from a 35-64 Democratic deficit among the most frequent attenders in 2004 to a 43-55 deficit this election day was his largest improvement among the different attendance groups in 2008. He also improved the Democratic margin by 8 points among those who attend a few times a month, by 10 points among those who attend a few times a year and by 11 points among those who never attend.

In terms of religious affiliation, Obama improved the Democratic margin among Catholics by 14 points, from a 5 deficit in 2004 to a 9 point advantage in 2008. He also reduced the Democratic deficit among Protestant/other Christian voters by 10 points, compressing it from 19 to 9 points. And he carried Jewish, other religion and unaffiliated voters by astronomical margins: 78-21, 73-22 and 75-23, respectively.

Obama even managed to reduce conservative support among white evangelicals. In 2004, these voters supported Bush by 57 points; this year they supported McCain by 50 points.

None of this suggests that divisions by religion and religious observance are disappearing from our politics. But they do appear to be softening, as voters across the religious spectrum, including some of the most observant, saw much more to like in the Democratic approach this year.

[Random_Australian]

83. Not only do I never say such a thing, but I never even think it unless some broad brush attack comes

my way.

I mean, if someone were to tell me that I'm "an insecure insensitive yay-hoo" because I'm an atheist, I'd sit there thinking that they are an idiot who must be drooling stupid onto his keyboard, because the amount of stupid I am seeing surpasses what mere humans can type, but I won't say anything.

I'll just sit here, thinking it. You carry right on. Now what were you saying?

[trotsky]

88. "Bunch of sensitive, insecure yay-hoos"

You mean like getting all whiny because some people on an anonymous Internet message board tell them they're believing something that's false?

Yeah, those folks are pretty sensitive and insecure in their religious beliefs, I'd say.

[demwing]

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

"If atheists are firm in their non-belief" then why...etc.

Those that are firm in their non-belief do not get offended. They may still jest and debate, but it isn't mean-spirited, and they don't "constantly belittle people of faith" :) It's the same with Theists. Those who are firm in their system don't get offended just by meeting an atheist. Those who are filled with doubt, or those that are theists because they fear retribution from an angry, vengeful God, will respond negatively.

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

[Nihil]

182. Nice post.

I think that reading the thread from top to bottom as I did just now
(rather than actively partaking in the different subthreads/conversations)
has shown the range of both "theists" and "atheists" - they are most
definitely not homogenous groups and so should not be treated as such.

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

Maybe "comfort vs doubt" rather than "confidence vs fear" but yes, I think
that you have summed it up quite nicely (at least in terms of the posters
in this thread).

Those that are satisfied in their belief/non-belief do not get offended
or mean-spirited when posting here. This leads me to suspect that the
reverse also applies (to both "sides").
:shrug:

[54anickel]

183. So where do those that are "comfortable with their doubts" fit in? n/t

[Nihil]

184. Ask them?

I'd guess at

a) Under "Comfort" as, empirically, people seem to prefer comfort to doubt?

or

b) In the middle (neutral) as the two sides cancel out?

or

c) Wherever they want to be (as I am not trying to force my guesses on people)?

:shrug:

[54anickel]

185. Sorry, wasn't trying to be snarky. Just pointing out it's not so easy to compartmentalize.

Theism vs. atheism, confidence vs. fear, comfort vs. doubt. I think we tend to over analyze this stuff. I feel it has less to do with how firm one is in their system of belief or non-belief (the spectrum and variances are just too wide to compartmentalize). As you said, "they are most definitely not homogenous groups and so should not be treated as such". It really does go back to where they fall on the continuum of mean-spiritedness.

Let's face it, some of us tend to come off as bigger ass-holes than others, especially on a discussion board.

[Nihil]

209. (No worry - it wasn't taken as such)

:hi:

(Sorry I missed your post earlier BTW)

[MineralMan]

93. I don't lump all religionists into one category,

and reject attempts to put all atheists in one category.

I know one thing, though: I have never in my life had a stranger approach me and ask if I have rejected Jesus. I have, however, many times in my life had a stranger approach me and ask me if I know Jesus or if I have been "born again."

To the first question, I answer, "Yes, I do, but you are mispronouncing his name. He pronouces it as
"hay-SOOS."

To the second I answer, "No, the first time was painful enough."

When atheists begin approaching you on the street and asking if you have forsaken your religion, then I'll listen to this question.

[Dogmudgeon]

94. Sal, a lot of folks are here for catharsis and little else

The presence of so much "boilerplate" rhetoric -- "back of the bus", "imaginary man in the sky", "religion is mental illness", "fairy-tales and myths", "woo-woos", and tales of personal atrocities that never happened -- is a blatant tell, as it is with Freepers and the more intemperate of our own fellow leftists. The level of snark and sarcasm far exceeds anything the worst pack of catty, bratty 14-year-olds could come up with.

Since it's taken out in a forum on the people of polite and accommodating faith, it's especially noticeable. We won't picket a church that's sheltering a serial molester, but we'll gather to ridicule the users of a liberal online discussion system. We won't even help with reproductive health clinic defense on the weekends.

But here? Lock and load!

It's passive-aggressive atheism, catharsis in a safe place. Unfortunately, this isn't a therapy clinic.

I'm an atheist myself. I define my lack of faith not by a hatred for God but by a lack of confidence in the process of faith -- at least MY faith. The need to strike a blow against Straw-Godzillas made of liberal Christians and theological mystics is puzzling to me. Why make friends into enemies? Why attack what doesn't exist?

The real combat is where, for example, Richard Dawkins is -- in the public square. There are wingnut Creationists; preachers promoting child abuse as "spanking"; Gospel-twisters like the Cult of Fred Phelps who breed misery like pet lice; polygamist free-lance slave-masters who build their own little religious feudal duchies; a poisoned version of Shari'a flourishing in the Mid-East; and so on. They all need to be fought, and vanquished, and kept from resurrecting like zombies. We need to get elected to school boards and town councils, and keep pious frauds from dominating the political conversation. To bravely take up arms against the non-lethal believers at DU stinks of cowardice and sounds like so many synchronized temper tantrums.

Places like this forum are best used for intelligent dialog about issues of theology and reason; for understanding the good and the bad alike; and for finding issues on which collaboration is possible. The grip of sociopathic faith is not going to be broken by making sarcastic wisecracks. I understand that there is plenty of outrage to be vented, but what is happening now isn't outrage but "let's poke God in the eye and laugh!"

And claiming that any criticism of atheists is oppression is laughable. "Waaaaambulance" laughable.

I notice that nearly all the fire and brimstone in this forum comes from MY tribe. It doesn't make sense.

It's downright irrational.

--d!

[Why Syzygy]

121. Spanking

is a special focus for me. I walked out of a church service several years ago. Never went back.

Recently, I joined a mail list to receive a message each day. When they sent one advocating spanking, I wrote them. We had a couple of email exchanges. They did listen, but defended it by the "results" they got. It is way too dangerous to have preachers advocating physical abuse. They may think they know when to draw the line (my opinion is they cross it when they hit a child), but their church members may not draw a line at all! I eventually unsubscribed from the list. I'm not supporting that crap with my inbox.

You're right. There are plenty of things we agree are wrong and should be taking progressive actions. There are much better reasons to defend the defenseless than the fact that Atheists hate God. IMO, God doesn't like those abuses either!

[Hugabear]

97. Do you think that atheists should just keep their mouths shut?

Should atheists STFU and not voice their opinions that most modern religions are based on nothing more than folklore and mythology? We should just STFU while religious people continue to bombard us with shit like "Jesus loves you", "God bless you", etc? That we should just STFU when we are constantly surrounded by religious symbols, that we should just be quiet and tolerate it? That it's okay for theists to ask us why we don't believe in god, but it's not okay to ask them why they do?

[Sal316]

140. Uhhh, no.

But thanks for playing "grasping for straws".

[timtom]

199. It's all about tone.

[Silent3]

106. Why does anyone ever say anything about anything?

If you're trying to imply that the only reason for an atheist to ever say anything bad about religion (I'm not sure at what level your snark percentage would have to be for me to validly infer this) is insecurity about his/her atheism, that would be an incredibly low threshold for diagnosing insecurity, so I doubt you're really trying to imply that.

So, in your opinion, when, where, and how is it "acceptable" (in this case "acceptable" meaning "can be done without negatively reflecting on the emotional security of the speaker") for an atheist to say anything bad about religion?

Is merely thinking bad things about religion a symptom of insecurity? Would the emotionally secure atheist have to adopt the kind of extreme relativism it requires to think that the rightness of all beliefs or lack of belief is a completely personalized thing?

Can the emotionally secure atheist hold negative opinions about religions, as long as he/she keeps those opinions quietly to himself?

Is it acceptable for an atheist to voice negative opinions about religions, as long as he/she does so in incredibly careful, delicate, gingerly diplomatic way, even if sacrificing the clarity of the point he/she is trying to make is necessary to avoid causing offense? Does conversational context matter?

Is it acceptable for an atheist to voice negative opinions about religions, as long as he/she does so by trying to be diplomatic, but putting the clarity of the point he/she is trying to make ahead of concerns about causing offense? Does conversational context matter?

Is it acceptable for an atheist to voice negative opinions about religions, using all the tools of rhetoric used in political discussion, which often include satire and scorn? Does conversational context matter?

Telling me that the basis of my faith is akin to something out of the work of Grimm or Aesop or Dr. Seuss or Walt Disney is just as insulting as if I were to tell you that you were destined for hell for your lack of faith.

When has someone done this to you? What was the context of those remarks?

I don't know what your personal faith is, but I certainly do think that some people's version of faith is as absurd as taking stories by Grimm or Aesop or Seuss as being literally true. Was it wrong for me to have told you that even in this context? Should I have never voiced that sentiment to anyone in any context?

[Goblinmonger]

110. Why don't you go to one of the groups instead of a forum.

Those are more protected and monitored. This is a forum. There is going to be open discussion and it will get heated at times. If you can't handle that or don't want to read it, don't come in here. I promise you that I will never go into a group and say what I say in here. I am 99.9% sure that anything you speak of that you don't like in R/T that isn't already deleted will be deleted in a group. You seem to want an echo chamber. I get that. I post in the Atheist/Agnostic forum a lot just for that purpose. Nothing wrong with it.

It just seems like we are up for our biannual "let's keep the atheists out of R/T" fest.

[Maat]

115. I would go to one of those groups if the atheists wouldn't follow me there.

I enjoy posting in the Seekers on Unique Paths group; people have actually come over to discuss how silly religion is. That is not the place to do so. We will gladly go over and discuss our spirituality in one of those places, as long as the atheists leave us alone. I finally quit participating because no one stopped them from coming over. Well, I'm going to go back there; and, I'm going to vocally and loudly object (and send emails to the mods) if nonbelievers come over there to be rude and rationalize it.

This isn't directed at you, Goblinmonger; I'm just expressing frustration at the relentless pursuit of believers by some.

[Goblinmonger]

119. That shouldn't happen.

I think you should alert and email the mods if that happens there. It's not supposed to.

[Maat]

128. Thanks, Goblinmonger, and take care (n/t)!

[rrneck]

120. According to my calculations,

that post was actually 49.6443% snark and 50.3557% serious. Really, doesn't any religionist understand that to derive the proper snark content it must be diluted with potassium chloride and filtered through a Heisenberg shaker?

It's possible to say anything to anybody, but all too often, one's window of opportunity is extremely narrow. If you went to Harlem in 1965 and stood on a street corner shouting a particular word starting with "N" how long do you think it would take to get your ass kicked? Even now I wouldn't advise it. It's sort of the same thing here. Atheists have had to listen to a lot of crap for a long time, especially for the last eight years. Not only that, they have to watch JC get more media exposure than Angelina Jolie could ever dream of. "In God We Trust" is written on our money. A large chunk of our population doesn't believe in evolution. There are buildings with religious symbols on them everywhere you look. The ownership of all that real estate represents a lot of wealth, and we all know how wealth relates to politics in this country. And here we are at DEMOCRATICUNDERGROUND.COM, a blatantly political website. You stick your head up in a place like this, somebody's gonna throw a brick at it.

It's not fair, I know. But people are only human, and a person of faith in this place will be in a very skeptical if not hostile environment. I'm not going to pump sunshine up your ass and tell you how there are just a few jerks who just want to score points off of you so just ignore them. In this place, you will frequently be forced into the role of an apologist whether you want to or not.

But is that a bad thing? I expect you're human, so I doubt that your understanding of your faith is perfect. Pointed questions, even if they come in the form of sarcasm from those who have no vested interest in your faith, can help you burn away what you don't need. An open forum is a cultures crucible. And crucibles are always uncomfortable.

[dmallind]

146. Well it's like this...

When our money says "we trust there is no god at all" and our pledge says "under no gods whatsoever because they don't exist" and Xians cannot legally hold office in seven states you'll have a point and this reverse snark will be analogous to the original question.

Until then it's apples and go karts.

[stopbush]

150. Simple: atheists treat all fantasy based beliefs equally,

whether the subject under consideration is gods, fairies or homeopathy.

The problem isn't with the atheists calling a spade a spade. It's with believers in ANY nonsensical thing (religion, fairies, chupacabras, ETs, etc) thinking that their particular fantasy gets a special carve-out from the all the other fantasies out there.

How about this: you provide real EVIDENCE (ie: not tradition, belief, hearsay or opinion) that your beliefs are based in fact, and we'll lay off. Fair enough?

[demwing]

159. Why do you care?

If I believe in God, as long as I don't force feed you a theological diet, why do you care? How do my beliefs affect you at all?

[Deep13]

172. But you do.

By insisting we not question your beliefs, you are insisting that we act like good Christians and respect religion. I find faith to be a bad habit, not a virtue so I have no duty to either respect it or to shut up about it. I am talking about ideas here, not respect for people.

[demwing]

181. Welcome to the stage, Argument #2!

First, let me state the differences (as I see them) between your position and that of Stopbrush.

Stopbrush writes that atheists treat all "nonsensical" beliefs equally, and the qualifying criteria for his response to said beliefs is whether or not the belief is based in fact. Based on his post, Stopbrush seems so offended by what another person thinks, that he feels it within his right to "constantly belittle people of faith" as the OP suggested. Without speaking to the individual points Stopbrush brings up (I'll do that in a direct response to the author), I "get" his post, and appreciate his desire to act fairly and equitably toward a host of different beliefs.

However, Deep13, you take a more strident tone, accusing me (and, I assume, all or most other people of faith) of arrogance, saying that we "insist" that our beliefs not be questioned, and further that we "insist you act like good Christians and respect religion." Let me address your points, one at a time.

The topic, as delivered in the OP, asks why Atheists belittle people of faith? And it is a valid question, as the majority of responses from Atheists on this board are full of disrespect and contempt. I have NEVER insisted that my beliefs are safe from questioning. However, I never present my beliefs as facts -- only as my beliefs. Still, I'll get treated with the same arrogant responses as if I had.

Show me one time where I acted in a way as to make me guilty of your first charge. You cannot. I'll show you numerous posts where I've been insulted, just because of my ideas, not my actions. Therefore, I dismiss your first charge as inaccurate, defensive, and in avoidance of the original point.

You then go on to accuse me and others of further insisting that Atheists "act like good Christians and respect religion". This is extremely laughable. I am neither a Christian, nor a great proponent of religion, nor do I believe that being a "good" Christians requires one to push religion over faith.

You fall into the same errors that so many others do - you mix up Christianity with spirituality, and faith with religion. You have let your anger and disdain blind your reason, and in doing so, you have put yourself into the same category of person that Stopbrush targets - the adherent of a belief that is not grounded in fact. You are a person of faith, Deep13 - the unusual faith that holds that all theists are arrogant, all theists are Christian, and all theists are dead set on controlling your behavior and assimilating your soul.

Therefore, I fully expect Stopbrush - and all like-minded Atheists - to begin belittling you, just as they belittle all people of faith, fairly and equally.

[stopbush]

175. You're right. It all comes down to the meaning of "as long as I don't force feed you..."

"a theological diet."

Trying to get ID taught in public school science classes is the definition of force feeding others your theological diet, as is working to ban gay marriage in CA, as are the myriad of "faith-based initiatives" currently under way by the Christians in our society that seek to put the rest of us under the thumb of their fantasy-inspired dogma.

THAT I care about very much. Your staying home and sacrificing the fatted calf to Yahweh? Not so much.

Unfortunately, the Christians will never leave the rest of us alone for the simple fact that they believe their god (Jesus) has mandated that they get out and try to turn the entire population of the world into Christians. Sure, some Xian sects are less evangelical than others, but the overarching fact is that the Great Commission as verbalized by Jesus is a directive to force feed the world the theological diet we now call Christianity. To whit:

"Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." - JC speaking in Matthew 28: 19-20

Do you care to deny that Jesus ordered Xians to force feed his teachings to everyone else? I'd like to hear the "interpretation" that allows one to believe that Jesus was against force feeding himself onto the rest of the world.

[kwassa]

162. what make you think atheists agree with each other?

Since atheists have no unifying organization or beliefs, the idea that they treat any nonsensical thing equally is essentially unprovable, a simple assertion that has nothing to back it up.

I would point out that Bill Maher, who is trying to make quite a career out of his disbelief in religion, doesn't believe in western medicine, thinks vaccinations are poison,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html

"But it turns out that the late-night comic is no icon of rationality himself. In fact, he is a fervent advocate of pseudoscience. The night before his performance on Conan O’Brien, Mr. Maher told David Letterman—a quintuple bypass survivor—to stop taking the pills that his doctor had prescribed for him. He proudly stated that he didn’t accept Western medicine. On his HBO show in 2005, Mr. Maher said: “I don’t believe in vaccination. . . . Another theory that I think is flawed, that we go by the Louis Pasteur theory.“ He has told CNN’s Larry King that he won’t take aspirin because he believes it is lethal and that he doesn’t even believe the Salk vaccine eradicated polio."

Is this something all atheists believe in?

[stopbush]

174. I think atheists who go with the scientific evidence

would not agree with Bill Maher. I certainly don't agree with him on the above statements. Here's an example of an atheist who can compartmentalize with the best the religious throw at him: he bases his atheism on lack of evidence while he doesn't believe in vaccination in spite of the evidence.

Bill Maher is a spokesman for rationality the way Ted Haggert speaks for all Xians.

BTW - who is saying that atheists agree with each other in lockstep on every issue? All I said was that atheists agree that god doesn't exist. If you have a weaker position on that, then you're not an atheist. You're a skeptic. The one nonsensical thing atheists do agree on is that there's no god. That doesn't mean they can't be off the wall in every other regard.

[ironbark]

168. Yeah

I was just walking down by the Saint E Bunny Memorial Children’s Hospital, you know the one, just across the road from Goblin Consciousness Pre School that is adjacent to the Santa Clause Orphanage….and I was thinking exactly the same thing!
“All these equally useless, pointless, stupid myths….You’d have to be freakin brain dead to believe that any one of them was more meaningful, useful or significant than another”!
I was on my way to the Centaurology Soup Kitchen to see Zeena, my warrior princess, when I was accosted by some freakin Tooth Fairy devotees trying to hit me up for a donation to some bloody refugee programme! Zeus wept! They’re all the same!
Got an Email from my brother who’s in a Rehab run by the Spaghetti Monster Salvation Sauce Army and he feels exactly the same.

Why can’t people “treat all fantasy based beliefs equally” and recognise that they are all equally useless, pointless and stupid?

If they “provided some real EVIDENCE that their beliefs are based in fact, I’d lay off”.

“Fair enough”?

[stopbush]

173. Are you alledging that without the underpinning of Xian religious dogma

the people running these institutions would not have it within themselves to do something positive for society? Pretty sad commentary.

Perhaps you believe that without the Christian religion there would be no soup kitchens or aid for the poor. Tell that to our secular government and the non-religious institutions who support and service such things.

All things being equal, there's nothing that says one need have a religious reason for doing something good for the poor. The ancient Greeks believed that a doctor should never refuse treatment to a person just because they were poor. On the other hand, rampantly Christian England held the poor in low esteem during the industrial age and cared not if they died off "to decrease the surplus population."

Man's ability to be good to his fellow man is the result of our evolutionary history. Religion takes this innate and hard-won quality away from the provenance of man and reassigns its origin to whatever god he will. Religion steals our birthright, tells us our birthright came from an non-existent entity and encourages us to feel guilty about it once we embrace the lie.

In the case of hospitals and soup kitchens, religion steals that which we are by evolution pre-disposed to do, claims philosophical ownership of the same and then belittles man as if he hadn't already come up with the idea of charity all by himself.

BTW - it's spelled "Xena," not Zeena.

[and-justice-for-all]

164. "believing in fairy tales and myths" Because that is what it is..nt

[Deep13]

171. Todays religion is tomorrow's mythology. nt

[Deep13]

170. This question has been answered before. Simply put...

...belief controls a person's action. A person goes to work because she believes that she need the money or believes that it is her duty or because she believes in being professional. Those are rational, reality-based beliefs. We know the extreme examples of irrational belief, but the effect is more pervasive that that. For example, because of most people's belief around here, people pay extra in property taxes because church land is exempt despite actual charity being only a small part of its expenses.

That's an easy one to point to, but there are many bad effects of irrational belief too. One significant one is that it teaches children and eventually the adults they become to live in fear. When I was young I used to worry actively that I may have accidentally thought something that was offensive to the Holy Spirit, thereby dooming myself to everlasting torment without any possibility of forgiveness. The NT states clearly that this is the case. I know most will disagree, but I really think indoctinating children into these scarey ideas is a form of child abuse. And yet people do it because they are genuinely afraid that their sons and daughters will go to hell if they don't. Our of love and ignorance, horrible things are done.

My employer is an Evangelical and was really worried when his father died because the boss thought his dad might have gone to hell. I guess the father had put some distance between himself and his church. The boss called it "backsliding" while I call it "changing his mind."

To this day churches stand in the way of medical research, proper science education, gay rights, equality for women, reproductive self-determination and various other encroachments into life. So our criticism comes from the fact that we are afraid of what religious people will do when they are in a position to do it. The churches in the West are a shell of their former selves. We must not forget that when they were strong they were not much better than the Taliban. The history of science since the beginning of the modern age is a history of discovery under the axe of religion. And of course people who support these churches, support what they do whether they admit it or not.

That was the first reason. The second is, frankly, we value the truth and free and open inquiry to find it. Religion is a serious impediment. As noted, science and philosophy developed despite violent efforts to suppress it by religious authority. Claiming religious authority for whatever essentially forecloses debate. The merits of something are irrelevant if god ordered it so. Those who insist that their religious beliefs deserve some sort of deference are doing the same thing. Most of these exasperated posts by offended believers are based on the assumption that religious ideas, alone among all the ideas of the world are somehow off-limits for criticism. This assumption is wholely unjustified. If it seems we are ridiculing your beliefs it is because, frankly, we find those ideas ridiculous. If they were not cloaked in the mantel of religion, you would agree with us. It is not my intent to piss anyone off, but it really is not my duty to shut up if I doubt the basis of your beliefs.

So that is it in a nutshell. Religious belief causes bad behavior (not necessarily in everyone, but in society generally) and we value objective truth.

[and-justice-for-all]

176. I second that...

"To this day churches stand in the way of medical research, proper science education, gay rights, equality for women, reproductive self-determination and various other encroachments into life. So our criticism comes from the fact that we are afraid of what religious people will do when they are in a position to do it. The churches in the West are a shell of their former selves. We must not forget that when they were strong they were not much better than the Taliban. The history of science since the beginning of the modern age is a history of discovery under the axe of religion. And of course people who support these churches, support what they do whether they admit it or not."

[stopbush]

177. Amen to THAT!

[Sal316]

178. Nice broad brush.

...and an absolute pile of horseshit.

Basically what you're saying is "Religion bad, religious people backwards and ignorant, and atheists good".

Am I getting this right?

You talk alot about how you value "objective truth", but based on your posts here, you wouldn't know what that is even if it kicked you in kiester. So, please, spare us the the pseudo-intellectual psychobabble, would you?

It's funny that for someone that so values "objective truth", you'd speak in such sweepingly ignorant generalities.

[ironbark]

195. Oh come on Sal…

Let’s see if, as an agnostic, I can help you come to terms with the certainties of atheist “objective truth” ;-)

“Religious belief causes bad behavior (not necessarily in everyone, but in society generally)”

This is known because, well, it is known…..it is “objective truth” .
Like…studies have been done and statistics have been compiled….real scientific like research stuff .(you probably wouldn’t understand cos it’s like…complex )
These scientist compiled enough data on “bad behaviour” to do some pretty incredible computer modelling (not necessarily on everyone, but on society generally).
They looked at criminal activity, immoral activities, rude behaviours and basic bad manners …They looked at what individuals and organizations did in terms of naughty and nice…yes, they drew up a list and their checking it twice (;-)
And, well, sorry to say, the irrefutable results are in and “Religious belief causes bad behaviour”…that’s the ‘objective truth’.

As an agnostic I kinda thought that the work of believers “in society generally”- Red Cross, Red Crescent, Salvation Army, schools, hospitals, orphanages, refuges, emergency relief etc, etc…might have swung the results in religions favour.
But, no, it turns out it’s all just further confirmation of religions “bad behaviour”…..you (collectively)stole the birthright to be good (see post 173, this thread) -
“Man's ability to be good to his fellow man is the result of our evolutionary history. Religion takes this innate and hard-won quality away from the provenance of man and reassigns its origin to whatever god he will. Religion steals our birthright……..”

Which is pretty dam sneaky of you religious folk to go stealing our hard won ability to be good to our fellow man…your so slick I didn’t even know it had gone missing! ;-)

Well….that’s the “objective truth” Sal…it may be uncomfortable but it’s a thing to be valued.

Hope that helped.

;-)

[tinrobot]

200. What bothers me is the air of superiority people get when discussing this.

I find a lot of theists (particularly evangelicals) act superior and put down those who don't believe.

I find many atheists can act just as superior towards believers and put them down just as vociferously.

Both sides are falling into the trap of acting superior to another human being. It's ugly and it only serves to bolster a person's ego by proving themselves "right" at the other side's expense. When this happens, things like tolerance and acceptance goes out the window, and leaves nothing but insults, derision, and combative behavior.

Personally, I think people need to drop their big egos about this subject and be a little more humble and accepting towards others. We're all equal - believers and non-believers. It's the ones who act superior who seem to cause all the ruckus.

[smoogatz]

202. Yes, those annoying proselytizing atheists--

the tiny religious minority in this country is SO oppressed.

[Liberal_Christian]

203. There definitely is a hypocrisy

Atheists accuse believers in believing in something that is scientifically unproven yet that's precisely what an atheist does. I'm a Christian who loves Christ but also believes in science. With the scientific means at our present-day disposal there is no way to scientifically prove wether God does or does not exist. That being said, I've always had by far more respect for agnostics who were passionate about their convictions; they at least weren't hypocritical. I used to be an atheist but I'm a human with thought, perception, I have a conscience, a consciousness, I can think, observe, and react(like all humans); now, is it really that crazy to think I was created in some way by some type of being or force with similar attributes. Lastly, if you look up "religion" in a dictionary, one of the definitions are " a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance" or "a system of belief" -EVERYONE has a religion whether God is involved or not.

[ZombieHorde]

204. "no way to scientifically prove wether God does or does not exist"

The same is true for every other supernatural creature anyone can think of, unless they add some strange contradictory nature to the creature.

God is just as likely to exist as the Easter Bunny or Smurfs.

[smoogatz]

205. In logic, the burden of proof lies on those making extraordinary claims.

The notion that the universe was created by an invisible, all-knowing, all-powerful being who insists on being worshiped and punishes people who fail to do so for eternity in a pit of fire would fit the definition of an "extraordinary claim," I'm pretty sure. It's not up to rational people to disprove every crackpot notion that works its way into the cultural matrix--if those who make such claims want skeptics to take them seriously, it's up to them (believers) to produce evidence that supports their claims.

Oh and no, "is it really that crazy to think I was created in some way by some type of being or force with similar attributes?" It's not. They're called your parents.

On edit: Another thing--I'm pretty sure that the whole point of being an agnostic is that you have no convictions (religious ones, anyway) to be passionate about.

Also, very slowly: lack of belief is not a religion. It's the opposite. Why is that such a hard concept for theists to grasp?

[rd_kent]

207. Your post is full of hypocrisy!

"I used to be an atheist but I'm a human with thought, perception, I have a conscience, a consciousness, I can think, observe, and react(like all humans); now, is it really that crazy to think I was created in some way by some type of being or force with similar attributes." If you USED the tools you listed that you have at your disposal, you would see that YES- you are crazy for beleiving anything you know you cannot prove to be true, otherwise its called being delusional.

[humblebum]

211. Understand that you are not alone. NT

[humblebum]

210. Not all atheists are like that. But for those that do belittle.

They can't help it. It's in their nature. That's what bigots do. Atheistic bigots are really no different than any other type of bigot. So be kind to them, they can't help it.