How can an atheist discussion religion with theists and not piss them off

[Goblinmonger]

I know, I'm opening up a can of worms, but I am tired of the moving target. I want to know, so that in further discussions, I will know (as an atheist) if I am saying something that will piss theists off or if I can make the statement and actually expect intelligent, logical responses.

Just so you know, it seems to me that the only way to not piss you off is to not talk about it. And that, in my opinion, is what the freepers teach.

So, anyway, let me have it.

On edit: Cleared up some wording.

[rd_kent]

1. It's impossible not to make them mad.

Atheists usually approach the subject (at least I do) with logic and fact. Believers will rant and rave but never provide a way to prove anything they say. I understand where they come from. They have to have "faith", which Aethists dont have, we have skepticism, and that pisses 'em off!

[Goblinmonger]

2. I, too, am afraid that is the case

But I want a non-moving target. Everytime anything is said, someone says "that's hate speech" "flame bait" "why don't you just shut up." I would like some standards for an actual discussion. I am hoping that they can be offered.

[manic expression]

55. To be fair,

it seems quite the same with atheists. I simply suggest that they believe certain things, and they go beserk.

[beam me up scottie]

56. You mean like believers do when told they have a mind virus?

Wow.

Go figure.

Atheists get mad when you insult them too?

Who knew?

[manic expression]

57. Perhaps

the same reaction occurs (hey, trotsky, what do you think about that?), but they are not parallel statements.

Before we actually get into that topic, I was simply pointing out that atheists can be as unnecessarily angered as any religious person.

[beam me up scottie]

59. Being insulted is not "unnecessarily angered".

Is English your first language?

[manic expression]

60. I do think

your deeming it an insult, and the reaction that comes from that, is unnecessary anger in itself.

[beam me up scottie]

62. Right.

And it's just me, isn't it?

:eyes:

[manic expression]

121. Unfortunately, no n/t

[InaneAnanity]

79. Wow, you are nuts

You think you can go around insulting people, and when they get pissed off they are "unnecessarily angered"??

[manic expression]

122. self delete n/t

[Goblinmonger]

85. I think the problem with that approach

is that you are trying to force us into your framework. I don't have beliefs about god. I am pretty solid about that. So are a lot of the atheists here. Then you come along and just say "yes you do have beliefs." To many of us, that seems like you think we have come to the point we are at by pulling a prize out of cracker jack. Most all atheists (I will avoid 100%) are very intelligent and think what they think after A LOT of thought. Can't you see that your statement is offensive on its face. Plus, it seems like you can't deal with someone that doesn't have beliefs. Just because you have a belief in god, you have to define everyone by that belief.

[manic expression]

101. That's fair

You may think that you have no beliefs about god, but I may disagree. That is where discussion stems from, and I am not one to refrain from discussion.

I am sure that atheists have conviction in what they think, and I have no disrespect for that, but I beg to differ on that one point. It may offend atheists, but religious discussion virtually always offends people, and many atheists have little reservations about offending people.

I'm not defining people based on my beliefs, I'm defining them based on theirs.

[InaneAnanity]

104. No

You are defining them based on your beliefs. Otherwise, you would accept that atheists don't have any beliefs.

[manic expression]

106. You are wrong

because atheists do have beliefs, regardless of what I may or may not believe. It is relative to what I see as the nature of atheists, nothing more.

Goblinmonger and I were having a perfectly civil and productive conversation. Could you not mess that up, please?

[InaneAnanity]

107. Twisted

Insane, out of this world, lost his marbles, gone with the wind, etc.

That is you.

[manic expression]

111. Wow

Just continue to post asinine comments that have no meaning. That's all you can do.

Why don't you address what I said in the last post instead of embarrassing yourself even more?

[InaneAnanity]

112. It's the same...

...baseless accusation that "all atheists have a belief system about god" that you always bring up, indirectly accusing atheists of lying.

No point in trying to be civil with you, since you can't return the favor, or don't wish to.

[manic expression]

113. I've provided many an argument

you have not been able to address them. Please make an actual argument, or just stop.

[InaneAnanity]

114. No

[manic expression]

115. ....

Great argument you got there....

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[InaneAnanity]

116. Thank you

[manic expression]

119. ......

Are you serious?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[InaneAnanity]

124. Yes

[manic expression]

137. That's too bad n/t

[CGrantt57]

3. RE: How can an atheist...

Ask to know our honest opinion on God and respect it; don't act as if we're insane, and tell us that we shouldn't believe in invisible beings.

By the same token, don't go thinkin' you have found the answer by denying the existence of a deity.

A deity may or may not exist, but your answer only works for you.

Don't ask us for "proof." Faith is an intensely personal thing and my proof won't mean jack-shit to you.

Oh, by the way, in your quote, it's spelled "pagan."

Happy Holidays!

:toast:

[Goblinmonger]

29. I seems to me that some of your comments

are actually aimed at agnostics and not atheists.

"A deity may or may not exist, but your answer only works for you." Kind of by definition, an atheist does not have a question about whether a god exists. One doesn't. An agnostic will say that we can't know for sure, and mainstream religions pretty much got it wrong.

Also, this seems a little troublesome to me, as an atheist. "denying the existence of a deity." I guess in some semantic world I am denying the existence, but most atheists will tell you that their statement of there being no god comes from the fact that there is no proof in the universe that there is one. Again, the use of the word "deny" indicates that it is a matter of faith and more like the agnostic viewpoint.

I fully understand that faith is personal. I was very religious at one point in my life. Most of the heated arguments come when the focus of religion comes into the political world (most recente heated debate of such was the Utah crosses). Then it seems to me that logic needs to be applied and the "personal" nature of faith needs to step aside for different criteria.

Thank you for catching the typo. It has been changed, as you can see.

[CGrantt57]

39. Religion and Faith

"Kind of by definition, an atheist does not have a question about whether a god exists."

You'll forgive me but I'm very leery of any philosophy which deals in absolutes.

Heisenberg was more right than he knew.

"Also, this seems a little troublesome to me, as an atheist. "denying the existence of a deity." I guess in some semantic world I am denying the existence, but most atheists will tell you that their statement of there being no god comes from the fact that there is no proof in the universe that there is one. Again, the use of the word "deny" indicates that it is a matter of faith and more like the agnostic viewpoint."

Point taken. However, by the same token, to most folks, there is ample proof that God exists.

This is precisely why most discussions between atheists and "believers" end up being kindergarten shouting matches.

"God does exist!!"

"No, god doesn't exist!!"


"I fully understand that faith is personal. I was very religious at one point in my life."

Allow me to split that hair for you. Faith and religion can oft-times be mutually exclusive. I consider myself to have a deep and abiding faith in God, but I do not adhere to any religious cant or dogma and rarely attend church. Too many people conflate the two, and therein, for me at least, lies part of the problem.

Finally, no offense about the spelling thing. It was just the knee-jerk, anal-retentive responsive of an old English teacher.

Regards,

[Goblinmonger]

40. The irony of your knee-jerk

is that I am a current English teacher. I posted during parent-teacher conferences when I was bored with no parents showing up and couldn't grade anymore. Guess my editing switch had been shut off (or more likely blew a fuse).

I understand what you are saying about the shouting match. I had a reaction to your "ample proof that god exists." That proof word is what is sending me off. But that is a discussion for another day.

I agree with your faith/religion hair-splitting. I was just trying to indicate that I was a person of faith at one point and do, to some extent, understand the thought process.

[immoderate]

46. Consider.

The word "proof" is undefined (meaningless) except in math and law.

--IMM

[CGrantt57]

82. Parent-teacher conferences...

Aww..shit..don't get me started on parents.

Anyway...

I should have written more concisely that "there is ample personal proof that God exists" for a believer.

If faith, by definition, is a belief in things unseen, then proof, therefore, is also unseen, and by extension, very personal.

But then, it's ALL personal.

You no more have empirical proof of God's non-existence than I have of God's existence.

Which is why, again, it's a losing proposition to debate such things.

Let's call it a friendly draw, shall we?

Regards,

[Goblinmonger]

87. I have absolutely no problem with your post

of your views as expressed above. Best to you. Thanks for your thoughts.

[Selatius]

4. Well, tolerance is the only real solution

People should be allowed to follow whatever idea regardless of the merits of those ideas. The key is not in passing judgment and being tolerant of the views of the other individual. This, in practice, is quite difficult and demands quite a bit of discipline, especially in a fluid environment such as a real-time conversation.

What I'm saying here is that I don't have a "magic bullet" solution to this problem. What I advocate is more old fashioned.

If you ask an Atheist, he will say, "There is no God."
An Agnostic would say, "I don't know either way."
A Deist would say, "There is a God."

They all came to these conclusions when they examine the universe. Different people interpret the same things in different ways. It's inevitable.

[Dr.Phool]

10. There is the misconception.

An atheist does not say "there is no god". According to the rules of logic, you cannot prove a negative. As an atheist, I cannot say, with certainty, that at any given moment, somewhere in the universe there is not something called god.

However, an atheist will say "there is no evidence of a god".

It's basically the same thing that an agnostic says.

[Goblinmonger]

14. You're going to get some arguments there

There have been a couple threads to that point. I say the first. There is no god. I am not proving a negative. I am stating that there is no proof of any being that matches the definition(s) of god. Could I be wrong? Bring me proof and then I will change the statement.

The second statement gets you into the "atheism is a belief system" which I, personally, think is not the case.

[Dr.Phool]

17. But, the 2nd rule of logic states that the burden of proof

Is on the person making the assertion.

The theists are asserting that there is a god. I'm just a lil' ol atheist waiting for the proof. I can't make an assertion in the negative, and prove it.

That's like George Bush demanding Saddam to prove he has no WMD's. He can say he has none forever, but he can't prove it.

[Selatius]

28. Wouldn't that make you an Agnostic?

I always defined an Agnostic as somebody who doesn't try to make a judgment about whether God exists or not. He adopts the neutral position after looking at the evidence the universe provides and concludes it's not possible to tell one way or the other, so I defined an Atheist as somebody, after looking at the evidence the universe provides, sees it as evidence against the existence of God. A Deist would look at the same evidence and conclude the opposite, so in my mind, an Agnostic bridges the two camps in a way. I guess there is a difference of terminology here, as I've also heard people use the terms "hard Atheist" and "soft Atheist" in place of an "Atheist" and an "Agnostic," respectively.

[immoderate]

47. "You cannot prove a negative"

That statement always screams "paradox" to me.

--IMM

[azmouse]

5. There probably is no way for some people.

I consider myself a Christian but don't worry, I'm not easily offended. One reason I'm a Dem is that I believe in live and let live. As long as you are a law-abiding person I'm fine with whatever you want to believe (or not). But like anything else in life I don't want my beliefs ridiculed, just as you would not want someone making fun of your chosen life. It's really no different. Just show respect for my beliefs. Don't worry. It's not the same as endorsing them.

[Goblinmonger]

30. Disclaimer: I am NOT accusing you of this; just running something by you

Do you feel, as a theist, that there is a difference between respecting your right to have beliefs and showing respect for your specific beliefs. I know that sounds a little cryptic, so a couple examples. Should I be allowed to say that the pope is full of shit? Should I have to show respect for Jesus if I don't believe he ever existed and if he did he wasn't the son of god? Should I have to capitalize "god"? Is that a little clearer.

Again, I am not accusing you of anything. You sound very much like a person I would like to have a discussion with so I am running this by you.

[longship]

6. Not exactly sure.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Kind of fractured syntax there. ;-)

I am an atheist. Are you saying that my discussing religion pisses off theists? Or, are you saying that my discussing religion pisses me off.

Sorry, but I can't seem to be able to wrap my mind around your post. Maybe more :donut:...

[Goblinmonger]

31. I fixed it a little bit

But I was too late to change discussion to discuss.

I am atheist. I am looking for the rules for discussion with theists. I clearly need more :donut:

[longship]

94. As an atheist myself

I just don't worry too much about it. I respect other peoples' beliefs but only to the extent that they do not try to impose those beliefs on me (and the rest of the citizenry).

I despise fundementalism, however. It is a philosophical ideology which is totally corrupt and devoid of any rational justification. One could argue, if one was theologically inclined (which I am not), that it is not even good theology. Fundementalism is inherently evil. The sooner it is eliminated from mankind's menu of thought the sooner mankind will achieve the exalted position amongst life which fundementalists so cravenly desire.

[Karmageddon]

7. I simply calmly tell them that I don't believe in a supreme being.....

... and see how they respond.

If they acknowledge and accept that, I know that we can probably have an intelligent discussion about spirituality - whatever that means to each individual. I've had many very enjoyable, amicable, enlightening religious discussions with strongly religious, even devout people that way.

On the other hand, if they get all in my face about it, then I don't care if I piss them off. Hell, I enjoy it. If they keep pushing, I have no qualms about getting all FSM on their asses.

Usually what happens is they pretty much say "oh", fall into an awkward silence, and change the subject. That's fine too. If I don't push them and they don't push me, and we all get along fine.


Of course, here I am an athiest, answering a question directed at theists, so I'll shut up now and learn from what they have to say.

[Goblinmonger]

32. Being an atheist, I wasn't trying to exclude us

I think your experiences help further the discussion, too. I think all too often, even on DU, the end result of "getting all FSM on their asses" (which is a hilarious phrase, btw) after they are first in OUR face is seem as "bashing" them. Which drives me crazy. Hence the post.

[Speck Tater]

8. First and foremost...

discussion of religion (and politics for that matter) usually result in tempers flaring because of one simple fact: All parties enter the discussion assuming that their viewpoint is the superior one, that their logic is infallible, and that anyone who doesn't agree is either mentally challenged or downright evil.

The way to avoid that outcome is to not enter such a discussion with an arrogant, condescending attitude and a burning zeal to "convert" everyone else to your obviously superior point of view.

When you ask a question, ask it because you'de like to know the answer, not becuase you are using it to set a trap that you will cleverly spring and use to humiliate your opponent with a devestating blow of logic. If you have any intention whatsoever of "winning" the discussion then do everyone involved a big favor and just stay out of it.

And that applies as much to theists trying to convince atheists as it does the other way around. "Knowing" that you are right is the biggest handicap to learning.

(ed:sp)

[papau]

12. well said :-)

:-)

[trotsky]

25. When entering into a political discussion,

the position based on reason is inherently superior to the position based on religious faith.

Why?

Because reasoning can be laid out, explained, and demonstrated.

Religious faith, as so many believers like to say, is inherently personal and cannot be demonstrated to anyone but the believer him-/herself.

Considering that we have to make policy that affects all of us, we are better off advocating from a position of reason, which has the added bonus of neutering the religious right. Because if religious faith is an adequate justification for policy, then the radical right agenda is equally as valid as the liberal Christian agenda.

[Zenlitened]

105. "...we are better off advocating from a position of reason."

Totally agree.

In terms of politics, policy, etc. I think religion should just be left out of it entirely, because the alternative is to risk exactly what you describe: dueling claims of validity based on personal notions of faith.

Let's rate our ideas on their merits, not on their religious "flavor."

[Bellamia]

9. Why further discussion?

Intelligent logical response from a freeper is an oxymoron, is it not? Why would you want to discuss anything with them; they aim to "convert" YOU; is that what you have in mind, changing their opinion?, "converting" them? Not likely to succeed. I just say uh huh, or practice "Active Listening", there is then no argument. I remember some of my Philosophy grad work, how to win an argument. but I'm not likely to argue, what's the point?

[Goblinmonger]

33. I am not saying this is a discussion with freepers

Though some of the same things apply. I stay away from freepers like they are asian bird flu (except my brothers who I, regrettably, can't always avoid). There are MANY threads on here that turn very ugly. I'm just trying to set some ground rules.

[SkiGuy]

11. Start by not calling me an idiot

because I do believe in God and the Bible. That would be a big help

[Goblinmonger]

18. I don't think I have ever seen that

term used on DU from an atheist to a theist on the first volley. Sure, it might happen as things heat up. I have seen it from a theist to an atheist, though.

[SkiGuy]

22. it's implied often

but you are correct, it isn't until further in the thread usually.

[Goblinmonger]

34. I will fully cop to the fact

that I have called theists much worse things than idiots. But I belive that was usually in response to a long run of back and forth.

[Hello_Kitty]

13. To hardcore believers

The existence of an atheist is an affront. To others who are less invested in it, not so big of a deal. But I avoid talking about religion, or my lack of it, with any of them. What I hate is how they assume you're a believer because they are. Guess that's the luxury of being in the majority. I never assume someone I've just met is an atheist.

[Goblinmonger]

35. Funny, isn't it.

Since, I would argue, atheism is the state we are in when we come out of the womb; yet nobody assumes people are. I don't do it either--though usually for my own safety.

[Don Claybrook]

15. You can't get a single, good answer on this

It's all subjective, based on each person's religion. But I do understand that you'd like to have a level playing field.

In my case, you really can't piss me off about religion. But that's because I think we're all a part of the same divinity, that you and I and everyone else are different facets of what we call "god". This is an impersonal "god" and this "god" is nothing but a human idea that attempts to point toward the transcendent (which, by its definition, is unknowable and undefinable).

So you could throw every sacreligious statement in the book at me, and I'd say, 'whatever you say, god'. :)

Others may not have the same reaction, however.

In general terms, it's probably not nice to tell someone that their god doesn't exist. Another big one, I think, is lumping everyone together, e.g., "you Christians are all the same, bigoted, etc, etc...". I happen to know that not all Christians are created equal, nor do they have the same beliefs, nor are all of them bigoted.

One more generality: try to separate the fundamentalists from the progressives. It's not too tough to apply this filter.

Interesting topic. Thanks.

[Goblinmonger]

36. I like your framework.

Not saying I'm adopting it, but it is refreshing. I do often get disappointed on how brutal a lot of these threads can get when we are all progressives here.

[Ezlivin]

16. Avoid the discussion altogether

I'm an atheist/humanist and a former fundamentalist.

If you hope to discuss religion with a believer, you are bound to cause defense shields to go up. When I was a believer, any discussion of why I believed was tantamount to a challenge of my core beliefs. Shields up!

What the believer is thinking: "If this guy is right, then the belief system I've built my entire life around is false. I am mistaken and there is no heaven."

The believer wants to keep on believing. It's typically called a closed mind. The believer has hopes pinned on the veracity of his/her beliefs. They don't like that to be threatened; logic and rationality be damned.

Non-believers have been watching the believers for centuries. Watching them arguing for the existence and power of one invisible superbeing, then another. Violence generally accompanies believers, as they must convince others that, no, their invisible superbeing is somehow more potent than the other invisible superbeing. Time passes, the gods fall from favor and new, improved ones arise.

Next thing you know and its the 21st century and now we argue over the existence of invisible superbeings over the internet.

[Dr.Phool]

21. I agree with you.

I am also a former fundamentalist. And the shields do go up.

I used to debate fundies on biblical inerrancy on a message board a few years ago. And you could point out in logical, factual, detail how such and such is a)wrong, b)impossible, c)illogical. You could never get through.

I haad to work my way out of belief on my own, when one day I said to myself, "This just doesn't add up!".

For a whole trove of knowledge, check out www.infidels.org.

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. As an atheist who nearly became a minister... three times....

Long story O8)

Anyway, I assume you are asking if you, as an atheist, wish to discuss religion with a theist. My suggestion is for you to be prepared and know how to speak their language. You will never find the way to the bathroom if you speak and understand only English and the person you are speaking to speaks and understands only French (insert appropriately snide Parisian joke here.)

If there is doubt about definitions or useages (like the meaning of "God"), ask the person and go with those useages. You will be hitting your head against a brick wall -- and mightily annoying the brick wall in the process -- if you start off by adamantly refusing to budge on semantics. Don't go after the small stuff, unless, of course, you have mutually agreed to go after the small stuff. Which brings me to....

If the discussion is friendly, agree before hand on the scope of your discussion. It is very easy for any debate to wander far off course, and debates on touchy and/or amorphous subjects are especially prone to getting lost. This will make it much easier for your or your conversation-mates to refocus things, easing a great deal of frustration for both of you.

Beyond that, it mostly comes down to learning competent debating skills, a field of study that has fallen in to disregard in recent years. Attack flaws in their argument, not the beliefs behind them. Learn to identify logical fallacies, keep yourself from using them and point out -- politely, of course -- when the person you are debating makes use of them. Provide several independent cites to back up your assertions, and request that the other person does, too.

Most important, though, is to accept that there are some people who just refuse to have a meaningful discussion. Such people refuse to let you speak, refuse to listen when you do manage to speak, refusing to take any measures at all to convince of their views and instead chose to beat you senseless into submission. Those people... you can't talk to and you are only wasting your breath if you try. The best thing you can do then is to politely say you will be happy to discuss religion when he learns the rudaments of debate and walk off.

[Goblinmonger]

37. I like that you bring up debating skills

But, first, an aside. I went to a Catholic HS seminary and considered be a priest for a couple years. We should swap stories sometime.

Back to the point. I debated in high school, college, and coached college debate for 8 years. I find that a lot of the theists I am arguing with are the ones that can't distinguish their beliefs from the flaws/fallacies (though, to be honest, a lot of the time it is because the fallacies does lead back to the belief).

[TechBear_Seattle]

84. Many atheists aren't any better at logical debate

The matter, really, comes down to what is taught -- and not taught -- as a part of public education. If we teach critical thinking, logic, rhetoric and how to identify and avoid fallacies, I think much of America's religious fanaticism would vanish in a generation.

Sadly, I know that such a change in the curriculum just ain't gonna happen, not with Talibangelicals taking over school boards around the country. Instead of teaching reason, they insist on teaching unquestioning acceptance of whatever bullshit they feel like spewing.

[DaveColorado]

20. It depends

It depends on how firm their grasp on logic is, and how open minded they are to different ideas.

If we're talking about a full fledged neo-Taliban fundie, then you'll basically be talking to a brick wall.

There are many religious people though who are open minded to some extent, so it depends on who you talk to.

[nemo137]

23. A lack of belittling would be nice.

The only time I've been actually pissed off in the R&T forum over an atheist/theist flame war was when one poster said something to the effect that any theist is about on the same level of a dangerous child, because we're inherently irrational.

Not making absolute statements (i.e "There is no god." "The Christian Religion has done more harm that any force or abstract concept, ever.") would also be nice.

Accept that faith is a ridiculously personal thing. My reason for believing God exists will be different from any other Episcopalians, will be different from any other Christians, will be different from any theists.

I mean, basically, accept that there are some times where we basically won't be speaking the same language. Like Reine08 said in her thread "I can't make anyone an atheist, and they can't make me a christian."

[Goblinmonger]

26. OK, the first example is pretty harsh

But "there is no god" reflects my position. Why can't I say that? Atheism is not a faith; but that is a discussion for a much different thread.

[nemo137]

127. I severely doubt that anyone would say that you can't

but there's a difference in talking about one's stance on the existence of a diety in terms of how it has impacted one's own life and taking a stance on the existence of a diety as it related to the mental capacity and characteristics of the other party in a conversation. That's where we get into trouble. If a Christian comes on this board an assumes that all atheists are following a belief system that actively denies a god, and makes judements based on that (they don't have any respect for human rights, they think I am inferior, they whatever) and goes off based on that, then some other people get rightly offended. If people'd check their assumptions at the door, we might get something done. Let each debater lay out his or her position, and go from what he or she says.

As for the atheism/faith thing, I'll admit to not fully getting the semantics between "I believe the evidence proves that there is no god" and "I do not believe in god." My apologies.

[Goblinmonger]

133. Let me give you a couple examples

Disclaimer: I am not saying that thess are representative of any religion; I am just using this as examples to illustrate a point!!

I don't think I need to say that for you, but, believe me, I do feel like I need to say it.

If I came up to you and said the following things:

1. Your dryer is actually a life form that lives on fabric and eats your socks so that it can survive and continue to dry your clothes.
2. At night, worms come out of the ground and hold human sacrifices in landfills in every major city.
3. Unicorns are real.

Would you say to me:
1. I believe that dryers are inanimate.
2. I believe that worms would be incapable of human sacrifice.
3. I believe that unicorns do not exist.

No, you wouldn't. And if you tell me you would, I think I will feel you are lying to me. Do you see the parallel. If I have a belief system about gods, then you have a belief system about animate dryers, human-sacrificing worms, and unicorns. How does that make you feel?

[nemo137]

156. that makes some sense.

I still couldn't explain it to you in words, but it makes sense.

[hunter]

24. It's simple. Don't piss them off. And don't get pissed off.

;)

My faith is Left Wing Social Justice Catholic. Have at it!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=40163&mesg_id=41002

[Goblinmonger]

38. If only it were that simple.

And how do I NOT piss them off? That is the root of the OP.

[hunter]

42. Don't go flashing unsuspecting folks with your atheism.

It's disrespectful.

You wanna fight, take it outside with someone who wants to fight.

:evilgrin:

[Goblinmonger]

43. Does that advice go both ways?

Should theists not flash unsuspecting folks with their religion/faith? Cause if that is the case, then I'm in. I may be wrong about your intentions, but what you say seems to sound a lot like the "Whatever gays do in their own home is fine but don't go shoving it in my face with PDAs" crowd who have no problem flauting their heterosexuality. Because hetero is normal and gay isn't which transcribes to theism is normal and atheism isn't. Again, I may be wrong about your intent, but what you said sounds a lot like it.

[hunter]

54. I try to meet people where they are.

If I meet two young Mormon "elders" on the path of life I'm generally quite friendly. They are only kids, off on an adventure, and I change nothing by harassing them. They get plenty enough of that. If you read any stories by ex-Mormons, it's not any harassment they got from outsiders that makes them leave their church, it is something that happens from within the church.

Jehovah's Witnesses are another interesting bunch. I respect them for their pacifism, and their fierce rejection of the profanities in our pledge of allegiance and upon our money, but I disagree with them in many areas. As much as I love debating with them, I think I am on their "do not call" list. They seem to be more troubled by me than I am by them.

I am quite fierce about keeping "Intelligent Design" out of the public school curriculum, and I fully support, for example, the University of California rejecting high school credit for schools that teach Intelligent Design in their Biology courses. "Intelligent Design" and "Creation Science" are not science.

I have friends and family who are "fundamentalist" evangelical Christians, but they don't seem to be the sort who believe the world might as well rot because they've got some golden ticket to heaven. They used to send me a lot of those crap "inspirational" emails, and tried a few times to save my rotten Catholic soul, but they've come to understood I'm not buying. At all times we kept the borders between us open and peaceful.

Homosexuality is a hot-button issue with me, and you'd know that if you've ever read me elsewhere on DU. My parents had homosexual friends, and homosexuality was entirely unremarkable in our household when I was a kid. Two people of the same sex holding hands or even kissing in our house was no big deal beyond the usual kid's "ewwwwwwww," which was the very same "ewwwwwwww" me and my siblings applied to heterosexual couples.

In college I learned the rest of the world wasn't like my family. I'd sort of figured that out myself before that, and I took more than my fair share of "Get out of my way, faggot," kinds of taunts in middle and high School because I really was a very odd duck, but I didn't fully understand the situation until I saw what my friends who were homosexuals were facing once they were out on their own. I saw people die of AIDS when it was an unnamed and presumably filthy "homosexual disease," and I know for certain that if Ronald Reagan is rotting in hell it's because he wasn't paying attention to the part in Sunday School about leprosy. Among my friends and acquaintences there were suicides, and attempted suicides by very sweet people who could find no acceptence of their homosexuality.

Most people have made no careful examination of their own spirituality, including atheists. I suspect many atheists become atheists as a reaction against something broken in their own upbringing. There is nothing wrong with that, but at some point you have to move beyond anger and seek a place of peace. I do not presume that sort of peace can be found in any religion, especially my own very flawed religion, but once you find some sort of peace you will become a positive force, rather than a negative force.

[WhollyHeretic]

61. "something broken in their own upbringing"

So you spend a 1000 word post telling us what an open minded person you are only to spew out condescending nasty insults in the last paragraph? Bravo! That's some impressive hypocrisy. You really added a lot to what had been a civil discussion for the most part.:eyes:

[hunter]

67. There, you get it now.

Like I said elsewhere in this Religion/Theology forum, why risk your good tools when you can hammer your point home with an ordinary rock?

"It's simple. Don't piss them off. And don't get pissed off."

Peace.

[WhollyHeretic]

68. You're really impressed with yourself, huh?

I think you're alone in that feeling.

[hunter]

71. But I'm not pissed off.

Examine your own feelings here.

I'm not staking out any moral high ground.

I think once we recognize we're all in this together, we won't be so hostile towards one another.

If we are to accomplish any good, we mustn't be easily splintered.

[beam me up scottie]

72. You insulted atheists and you know it.

I'm sick of passive aggressive bullshit.

If you think we're "broken" have the guts to come out and say it.

The fact that you think we're stupid enough to believe you respect us after posting something like that is another insult.

The posies don't mask the stench.

[hunter]

77. Have you read my posts in the other R/T threads?

I think you guys are asking to be insulted, so I delibrately insulted you, just to see what would happen.

Yes, I am that wicked, and it does stink.

If you are to hold any convictions, be firm in them. There is a very strong case to be made for atheism, stronger perhaps than Catholicism. The Catholic Church has never hurt me, but it has hurt many people. Yet I have seen it do good things too, and I enjoy going to Mass. It is very similar to the situation I find myself in with my nation, these United States of America. If I do not move to another nation, even though I easily could, it is because I still presume I can change things from within.

Atheism does not mean you must abandon any sort of spirituality. There are many human situations in which science and reason leaves us helpless. We are creatures of ritual and community, and religion commonly fills the places where science and reason leave us cold.

I do not claim in any way that religion, especially my religion, is the only source of human spirituality and community.

Yes, I do know for fact that there are atheists who are atheists because they have been abused by a religion that claims to represent God. But the vast majority of atheists simply don't find any compelling reason to believe in God. Some person claiming to be a Christian might consign all these "unsaved" people to hell, but then those Christians would be worshiping a god who is capricious and unjust.

"Believe in me without any compelling evidence, or I will eternally punish you!"

What kind of god is that? That's a crazy drunk ass father god who beats his kids and kicks his dog. I don't believe in that god.

I mentioned in one of these threads that I often think most deeply about human spirituality at weddings and funerals. I'm a firmly middle aged guy, so I've attended a few of these. I've always thought it's sort of sad when a person I know is an atheist or an agnostic resorts to some religion to officiate these events. It is especially troubling when the religious official seemingly rubs their hands together in selfish anticipation that they are saving another soul into their religion.

Think about this especially if you are an atheist or agnostic. What kind of wedding or funeral would you have?

Maybe I'll surprise you here. Some of the finest most spiritual weddings I've attended have been between atheists, in ceremonies officiated without religion by "mail order" ministers. The only reason these things happened was because the celebrants were firm in their convictions, and did not take insult from anyone.

I'm pretty easy, I'm just words on your computer screen. Taking offense from what I say is sort of ridiculous. Now suppose you decide to get married on a beach, but your parents insist you can only be married in a church? Or suppose you decide to marry someone of the same sex? Then things can get really ugly if you do not have faith in your own convictions.

How's that? Any Bullshit there?

[WhollyHeretic]

83. Pretty much the entire thing.

More specifically it's more passive aggressive bullshit.

[hunter]

92. I'm curious...

...what is coming to a Religion/Theology forum to attack simplistic straw-man religions called?

The intellectual depth of most religions is far greater than you know. But you would rather dismiss them all as "fairy tales." It's much easier that way -- you can pound out some clever one-liner and go on to worry about the next thing on your plate.

But if you run into someone who doesn't put up with your hit-and-run behavior, then you accuse them of having a personality disorder.

I'll tell you what, this is why some atheists piss off so many people of faith. It's a matter of respect.

First of all you've got to respect your own faith, whatever that is, and yes, some sort of "just-the-facts-ma'am" scientific reason is a perfectly credible and respectable faith. Once you've acquired this stregnth you can reach out with respect to understand another person's faith.

It is very unlikely you will enlighten anyone if you haven't found some small glimmer of enlightenment for yourself.

Here, you might enjoy this place, or maybe you won't:

http://laughingsquid.com

Keep your mind open and nimble, and yeah, I'm still some kind Catholic who attends Mass every Sunday.

Go figure.

[InaneAnanity]

97. Don't call atheism a faith please

To do that is to disrespect science. Atheism is not a faith.

[hunter]

102. I could write it a different way.

My own working definition of "faith" is quite broad, and inclusive of non-religious ethical frameworks.

:)

[WhollyHeretic]

98. "run into someone who doesn't put up with your hit-and-run behavior"

You were the one who started the insults on this page, it had been a pretty reasoned discussion before that. When did I set up a straw-man?

I know quite a bit about religion. I've read the Old and New Testament, Tao Te Ching, Qur'an, and parts of the Mahabharata. They were sometimes interesting, sometimes disturbing but I've seen no reason why I should see any of them as more than mythology.

I have a lot more respect for someone who disagrees and is at least honest about it rather than someone who feigns friendliness and then tosses nasty insults.

[hunter]

109. The "fairy tale" quote of yours was on another thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=39299&mesg_id=40867

I was probably still carrying it around when I came to this one.

Mythology is part of what makes us human. We tell stories. Many of the stories that have been preserved by the various religious traditions are very richly meaningful, and directly applicable to our daily lives, even when we are not ourselves part of the religious tradition preserving them. It is unfortunate when "literalists" of various sorts, either atheist or fundamentalist do not recognize, or in some cases, actively deny these meanings.

[WhollyHeretic]

110. How is that setting up a straw-man?

Did you even read the posts that I was responding to? I guess you'd just rather make up your mind about me with one out of context post. You sure assumed a lot of shit about me:

"The intellectual depth of most religions is far greater than you know. But you would rather dismiss them all as "fairy tales." It's much easier that way -- you can pound out some clever one-liner and go on to worry about the next thing on your plate.

But if you run into someone who doesn't put up with your hit-and-run behavior, then you accuse them of having a personality disorder."

What hit and run behavior? Because I only posted a couple of times? After reading several of that persons posts it was pretty obvious it was pointless. And let me give you a little context on my "fairy tale" post that has your knickers twisted, since you can't seem to bother yourself. I was responding to these(among other stuff):

"If someone has never heard of a minotaur, they can scarcely believe in it. They can also scarcely not believe in it. Whatever their beliefs on mythical figures, if it does not include minotaurs, their beliefs are non-minotaur (or whatever you want to call it)."

"I assume that you do not believe in faeries. However, you then believe that faeries do not exist. This isn't about evidence of divinity, it's about what a certain group believes."

[beam me up scottie]

130. What did you expect?

You have seen us fighting intolerance in this forum day in and day out and when you jump on the bandwagon you expect us to let that stupid remark pass?

Especially when the op was trying to build a bridge?


If you are as sincere about communicating with atheists as you say, you wouldn't have taken such a cheap shot.

If you wanted to prove a point, your timing and delivery suck.

If you want to claim that some of us don't believe as you do because we're "broken", don't hide it in faux sentiment.

Because I loathe people who insult my intelligence as much as I loathe bigots.

[NMMNG]

76. You, like Bo, don't know diddly

You just assume "many atheists become atheists as a reaction against something broken in their upbringing". Did you ever think it's something broken in religion? :eyes:

[Zenlitened]

108. "... it's something broken in religion."

Well put! :)

I think many people arrive at atheism after finding -- and eventually admitting to themselves -- that there's no "there" there in religion.

The idea of making a "leap of faith" in order to overcome the many inconsistencies and shortcomings they discover in religion is just intolerable to some. Intellectually dishonest.

[hunter]

117. And then you move beyond that...

There is no "there" anywhere.

It's all in your head. All of it.

The rationality you seek is a temporary refuge.

The shortcomings we discover in religion are the shortcomings of human beings, and these exist whether or not we have "faith" in some religion, or in some abstract form of reality.

Have no doubt, the "reality" you perceive is an abstraction, and sometimes a very limited one.



Can you count the black dots?

[Zenlitened]

118. Is this the "brain in a vat" line of argument?

:shrug:

[hunter]

120. Not at all.

But you have to be aware that the very same machinery that's seeing those black dots flickering in and out of existence in the optical illusion above is also interpreting your "reality."

[Zenlitened]

123. Well, I don't think the shortcomings of the human eye...

... are reason enough to cast doubt upon the "there" of our reality.

[hunter]

128. It's not a shortcoming of the optics, it's a shortcoming of the processing

One reality most of us take for granted is that there are three dimensions, and this other sort of dimension we call time. We also imagine some sort of distinction between matter and energy. These models seem to be built firmly into our mental hardware, and we have constructed our descriptions of the universe upon that foundation.

But there are many places in modern physics and information theory where this simple model is inadequate and requires what we might call "further refinements" such as Einsteins famous equation E=mc². The startling thing about this equation is not, as most people believe, that matter can be turned into energy, but that matter is energy.

On the scales of quantum physics things are especially strange. A lot of this strangeness can be easily demonstrated at macroscopic scales . The "two slit" experiment, for example, is the classic classroom demonstration of the wave-particle duality of photons and electrons. Check it out at a college physics lab near you, or put such an experiment together yourself if you are interested. You will see something astonishingly weird.

In these sorts of philisophical discussions this is usually the point where people who want to sell you some brand of mysticism or religion jump off into utter bullshit or insanity. But I'm not going to do that, I will not go looking for gods in that stew.

Instead I'll say there is much about the structure of the universe that we cannot perceive simply because it was never important to our evolution. Such perception had no value in the process of natural selection, it did not enhance any creature's reproductive success, and therefore if such perception ever chanced to exist at all, it was discarded.

What's more important is our recognition that the perceptive mechanisms of our minds are very limited. There are things we cannot see, things we cannot see clearly, and things we cannot understand. There are also situations in which our perceptions are highly misleading, from the simple "optical illusion" above to the various flaws of perception reported in psychology experiments, and so on. These same sorts of flaws extend very deeply into our understanding of physics.

Using the same logical methods one might use to demonstrate that "there isn't any there there" in religion, one can also demonstrate that "there isn't any there there" in science. The resolution of our minds is not fine enough to move beyond certain "inconsistencies and shortcomings" of our science.

I think the key point you make in this argument is the issue of intellectual dishonesty. Just as there can be intellectual dishonesty in science, there can be intellectual dishonesty in religion. As the majority of scientists are intellectually honest, I trust the majority of religious people are intellectualy honest. The mere fact that a person is religious does not mean they are intellectually dishonest.

[Zenlitened]

131. And yet in all of these cases...

... human beings are capable of teasing out new understandings, new insights -- defying what might seem to be the limits of our mental hardware as it has evolved thus far.

Even in the matter of the flaws you cite, we are able to recognize those flaws and seek out the deeper mechanisms that underlie them. All this with the senses and brains at our disposal, supplemented by the methods and tools of science and reason. We are able to process beyond our immediate or instinctive impressions or perceptions. We are able to improve "the resolution of our mind" ever more finely as science advances.

So where does "god" enter into the picture? At what point does it become necessary to inject a god or gods into the discussion? I dunno. To me, it's simply not necessary.

In any event, it is not the shortcomings of science that I addressed in my initial post. I'm confident that the gaps in our current understandings will be filled over time. This, after all, is the history of our scientific species.

Rather, it was the shortcomings of religion -- the inconsistencies and contradictions that require a "leap of faith" -- that I described. It is this required leap that strikes the atheist as intellectually dishonest, and prevents him or her from becoming (or remaining) a "believer."

[hunter]

139. Perhaps it is a matter of convergent evolution...

Let's say we are seeking a robust and coherent system of human ethics. One person who is religious will build this ethical framework upon the metaphorical tools of his own religion. A non-religious person will build this framework upon some other framework, perhaps a "humanist" or "scientific" framework. If neither side is intellectually dishonest, then the ethical sytems they develop may turn out to be functionally quite similar.

The same thing might happen in science. One scientist might claim to be exploring the wonder of God's creation, while another might claim to be expressing some inborn human curiousity. Yet both scientists may have a functionally identical approach to scientific research.

I simply don't buy that the "leap of faith" required by a "rational" or "scientific" ethic is functionally different than the various leaps of faith required by traditional religious ethics.

It is also clear to me that human beings are spiritual creatures. An atheist might ascribe such spirituality to some aspect of human biology, and this doesn't bother me. It does bother me when the spiritual rituals and beliefs of others are dismissed out of hand because they are "unscientific."

We need to concentrate much more on the places where our ethical systems are broken and unjust, and much less upon the origins of those ethical system. Attacking either atheism or religions in their entireties is not fruitful.

[beam me up scottie]

140. Atheists aren't "attacking" religions.

You got into trouble comparing science to belief in the supernatural.

Maybe you've noticed that's never really worked out well for believers.

That's why the smart ones don't confuse the two.

[Zenlitened]

141. It's probably true that the ethical systems that result...

... from these different approaches have some practical similarities.

I think the trouble arises when religionists go beyond human-centered ethics and begin to frame their views in terms of what-god-wants.

Then the differences between the reasoned approach and the religious become apparent.

In any event, we certainly disagree on the "leap of faith" issue. In order to make the case that reliance on our senses and our reason requires just as much a leap of faith as belief in gods... well, that does indeed sound a lot like the "maybe we're brains in vats" argument.

[hunter]

144. What God wants...

It's not neccessarily the same as what those who claim to reperesent God want, is it?

If people who claim to represent God were not so intent on subverting our legal and educational systems this topic would not be so hot. It would be a lovely day in the park bantering about whether some cloud looks more like a horse or a camel or just some kind of cloud.

But instead of a lovely day in the park we have people claiming that their god wants them to write his commandments into our courtrooms and classrooms, and to subject all his children to perverse and hateful ideas about justice and punishment.

My own God is a God of Truth. I do not presume to know a tiny fraction of that truth, nor do I assume that one must believe in my God to know any particular truth. My God commands I love my neighbor, and I do not see how it could ever be loving gesture towards my neighbor to claim they will burn in hell for eternity, or to deny them the same civil rights I enjoy.

My truthful and loving God would not create an elaborate false testimony of geology and biology, my God would not create homosexuality and then not celebrate the loving relationships that result of it, and my God would never bring a new life into the world as punishment for sin.

My heresy may be that a Truthful and Just God would provide all the evidence a skeptic required rather than consign that skeptic to hell.

Jesus came and stood among them saying "Peace be with you! Then he said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here; see my hands. Reach your hand here and put it into my side. Be unbelieving no longer, but believe."

If anyone thinks that's my fancy, it doesn't bother me, and I stand behind it, as I will always stand firmly with those who demand church and State remain seperate.

[Zenlitened]

157. That's good to hear. - n/t

[InaneAnanity]

27. Let them live in their world

I don't debate religion with believers unless something they say really pisses me off. Any discussion I have with a theist is bound to sound condescending from my point of view. I can't help it, to me the concept is so ridiculous and borderline insane.

I don't mind that believers believe, however. It's their choice, and I'm fine with that. But once they start insulting atheism/pushing their particular religious doctrine as law, then I'll respond, and I will be condescending.

[immoderate]

41. Why else would an atheist discuss religion with a theist....

except to piss them off?

It is an inevitability of that situation.

Oh yes, there can be an exchange of superficialities like, "what color is your church?" but substantive issues will inevitably piss them off. How could it be otherwise?

--IMM

[Goblinmonger]

44. Because I am depressed

by the reaction on DU when it should be a bunch of progressives and often it turns into a bloodbath caused by (and I know I am biased here) theists for the most part. It is somewhat ironic that the theists that I am talking about are not chiming in here--every theist who has posted so far has been, for the most part, NOT the people I am talking about.

[immoderate]

45. Warning!: I never use the "sarcasm" smilie.

It's as if you are speaking in tongues. I spend relatively little time in R/T because it leads to battles with people that I would normally find agreable (I think.) Yes, there is something that lures me to the battle, but there is little to be won. Same reason I don't play much in the guns group. Attitudes based on emotion, people are dug in. I just think this is not the place to make nice, It is the arena.

But I think you found the answer. You want to have civil discussions with theists? Pick the right people.

Happy hunting, see ya back in A&A.

--IMM

[beam me up scottie]

48. Wow.

That was brilliant.

You should post here more often.

[immoderate]

49. Nothing you didn't know!

I'm very happy to see you back. Hope all is well.

Brilliant, huh? Now I gotta go see what I wrote.

--IMM

[beam me up scottie]

50. Glad to be back!

The Arena, huh?

I'll be right back.

I think I still have a toga packed away in a box somewhere...

[immoderate]

52. I bet you look good in it!

:woohoo:

--IMM

[beam me up scottie]

58. I'm blushing.

TOGA TOGA TOGA

[Goblinmonger]

86. I think that after this thread

I will be adopting the "arena" attitude. Like BMUS, I like the metaphor. Unlike BMUS, I didn't go to toga party when I read it, I mentally went to Magic: the Gathering.

<>

[immoderate]

90. Togas are very comfortable.

I think this thread was very successful. You found nice people on both sides. You took a shot at getting people who are irrational to be resonable. That's a hard one.

And we found BMUS! Good work, I'd say.

--IMM

[beam me up scottie]

51. I thought that was where you were going with this.

It's never worked in the past.

The only people that ever respond to reasonable requests for ground rules are the people who are truly interested in communicating.

The ones that continuously complain about persecution and those that incessantly repeat fundamentalist talking points about atheists don't want to be reasonable and they sure don't want to communicate.

They come out for one reason and you can pretty much set your watch by them.

But you will never see them show up in one of these threads.

[immoderate]

53. You got part of it right.

DU is a bunch of peace loving progressives, on the whole. But then you come to R/T looking for rational theists. You've set yourself a difficult task. But you found some anyway. I think you did good.

--IMM

[tammywammy]

63. I can only speak for myself

For me, I will try and understand why you're an atheist, if you give an honest understanding as to why I'm a Christian.

I've seen posts on DU that call the Bible and such fairy tales and laughing and blah blah blah. I don't even enter into a discussion with people like that. If you really want to talk religion, don't talk down to me or make fun of my beliefs, and I'll talk with you.

My best friend is Hindu. We've talked about religion with each other and it's fine.

And the other point I want to make is....it is faith. I can't prove to you sometimes, but I do believe, and I think that's okay.

I'm not going to try and convince you to believe as I do, and hopefully you won't either, but we can still discuss things in a rational matter.

Just my 2 cents.

edited to add: I just found this forum and I plan on sticking around to learn some stuff and spread the (little) knowledge I have too. :)

[beam me up scottie]

64. Your cat looks like one of mine.

My guy's named Cecil.

[tammywammy]

65. Mine is

Monty. A sweet boy, if not that bright. :)

[beam me up scottie]

66. That describes Cecil the sea monster perfectly.

Well, whether or not we share opinions on religion, I'll say this for DU: I've never seen so many animal lovers on a political forum on the internet.

[tammywammy]

69. Well,

love for animals shows a persons true soul. If someone can treat an animal right, how the hell are they going to treat another person. :shrug:

Really, growing up I felt in church and from my family that you should just treat others well. I'm a Christian, but I'm not going to say my best friend (who's Hindu) is going to hell, because 1. that's not my place, but more importantly 2. she's a good person.

Do unto others as you would do unto yourself. I believe it's how you should live everyday. If you're an atheist, that's fine with me, as long as you're a good person. (and just because you're atheist, doesn't mean you can't me a good person either).

[beam me up scottie]

70. You said it.

I cannot hate even freepers if they love animals.

I grew up atheist and I never really noticed anything different about my family.
In high school, my catholic friends never discussed religion but they went to mass on Sunday.
That was the only difference that I noticed.

I think the only reason atheists are becoming so vocal is because of the very real threat we are facing in this country.

We tend to speak our minds here and sometimes people clash.

The only time I haven't been able to come to an understanding with a believer is if they refuse to respect me.

Like the op said, we don't hesitate to throw their insults back at them when we're tired of being maligned.

But very few DU atheists ever start a conversation with a believer by insulting their faith.
Granted some will, but there are very few of them.

Most of our rants are a reaction, not an act of aggression.

There's a lot of history in this forum if you feel inclined to dig it up.

Many of the battles you see in current threads are just continuations of old ones.

Here's a thread from last night you might be interested in:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x40673

Glad to meet you.

[tammywammy]

73. Thanks for the link

I will look at it tomorrow (when I'm not so sleepy).

I am not one to dismiss anyone's beliefs, whether religion, politics, clothes, etc. just because that's how they believe.

If someone walks up to my best friend (the Hindu) and says "you going to hell, unless you accept Jesus" I'm the first one throwing punches (figuratively).

If someone refuses to accept you for who you are, then there's something wrong with them. I don't need every Target, etc. screaming "Merry Christmas" to reaffirm my faith, and at the same time, I completely understand the separation of church and State.

I don't judge anyone because their atheist, as I hope no one will judge me because I'm Christian.

edited to fix a mistake.

[beam me up scottie]

75. The atheists I know, and I include myself of course,

love and are loved by our christian friends and relatives.

We manage to get along fine.

It may seem rude for us to be bringing up religion all the time, and truthfully I've never been comfortable discussing it. We just didn't do that where I grew up, it wasn't polite.

But we are at a crossroads.

If atheists and liberal believers don't team up and stop the religious nazis that are taking control of our country, we'll all suffer.

So hashing this out in this forum is distasteful but necessary.

Faith is a very personal thing and don't believe for a second that atheists care about who or how you worship.

We don't.

We know that you cannot stop believing because we say it's illogical and we don't want you to.

But we are only going to become more vocal and we need you to understand that when we rant about the fundamentalists, we aren't being disrespectful of your faith.

We should and do try to qualify our statements by saying "some" christians or deliberately naming just the ones who threaten us.

But if something we say offends you, please tell us.

We may not stop saying it but we will try to explain our choice of words.

We don't want to alienate you.

We never have.



We're on the same side.

[catabryna]

88. Beautifully written!

Replace the words/situations to fit those of us who are followers of Christ and you come up with... oh... genuine differences, of course. But, when the ultimate goal is unity; we need to set such things aside.

And, to answer the original question... the one word used with regularity that really irritates me is to describe my belief system as a "myth". I can easily get over that one, however, because I know it's just a word and I don't find it necessary to debate belief or lack there of. Why? Because, in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter! :grouphug:

edit: typo!

[jonnyblitz]

89. see, there is the problem..our belief alone, even unstated,

is an insult to a believer. we DO believe religion is a myth. if we didn't think religion was a myth we wouldn't be atheists. :shrug: :hi:

[catabryna]

91. Not so in my book...

as I said, my answer about "myth" was in relation to the question posed by the OP. I do know that it is the athiest position that Christianity is a myth and I have no problem with that. I just wanted to say that I find that word irritating. However, I also said that I blow it off because I refuse to let such divisiveness destroy the chance at unity. :toast:

[jonnyblitz]

95. thanks for the clarification...sorry if i missed details...

i am on about 3 hours sleep (up early flinging salt on steep driveway in icestorm)so I am not the most observent to detail or the sharpest knife in the drawer at the moment! I would just as soon never even bring religion up if possible. it's too bad the RWers cause us to, non-stop. despite me being a strong atheist most of my closest pals off-line are not.

[catabryna]

99. Tis' quite alright.

I've had days like that myself. Hang in there!

[beam me up scottie]

129. Thank you.

It was late and I wasn't sure I was making sense.

I admit I use words that I know irritate some believers in retaliation.

But when I am discussing matters with someone who understands that atheists aren't the boogieman, I try not to offend.

The vast majority of liberal believers on DU understand that we are fighting the same enemy and it's easy to forget that when arguing with someone who stubbornly clings to intolerant views.

Thank you for understanding.



By the way, I love your comment in your profile. :)

[catabryna]

145. You're welcome...

And, thanks for the compliment about my profile comment. I can't take credit for it. The words are lyrics to a song by Sara Groves. But, it perfectly explains the thought that I always keep in the back of my mind when I make important decisions which will or can have an affect on our society; in the minute scheme of things, of course. :hi:

[FM Arouet666]

74. Believe in god ya damn pagan.......

From what I have observed on DU, an atheist is expected to:

Respect the religious beliefs of others. Many on this board interpret this edict to mean that atheists should not; question the existence of god, find fault with the scriptures, question the intelligence of anyone who believes in a world view which flatly contradicts modern science, and finally, take offense when challenged by theists.

Sorry, I cannot accept these ground rules. Faced with the rise of religious activism, atheists must become more vocal. Evolution debated in the twenty first century, boycotts threatened on major companies because of support for gay rights, attack on a women's right to choose, etc etc...... a march to theocracy.

Live and let live. You believe in god, I do not. Why are theists threatened by anyone who has a different belief? Does the mythical sky daddy hold theists responsible for other's beliefs? Will the human tapestry fail to make a part deux sequel to expunge human sin if believers live among others with a different religion or lack a religion?

I don't believe in jesus, the father the son or the Holey Ghost, no apostles, no virgin Mary, no Mary Magdalen, no afterlife, no heaven and no hell, no soul other than soul food or soul train, and yes Virginia, the bible is full of nonsense written by men two thousand years ago in an age without modern science, no scientific method, no calculus, no physics or chemistry, evolution was a distant dream, our origins and that of the universe a tawdry tale about a mystical god, a bum named adam and some dimwit named eve, oh.... and don't forget the snake. Never forget the snake.....

I am feeling a bit ranty tonight......

:evilgrin:

[InaneAnanity]

78. BINGO

Most Theists are offended by anyone even saying "God doesn't exist."

Because their house is made of cards, and because most atheists can use logic to make those cards topple, almost every theist will find fault with atheists in a religious conversation, and get offended.

There's just no way around it, in my view, except to avoid the discussion altogether.

[hunter]

80. Deleted Dupe

How'd that happen?

Was that you, Agent Mike? :hi:

[hunter]

81. You rant against the dumbed-down Bible.

Many of the stories are more complex than you make them out to be.

I still read the Bible and then I'll hear some supposedly religious person's simplistic interpretation of it, and I think WTF??? Did you actually read the story, or is this just some crap you heard on television?

People are afraid to explore the symbolism of the Bible, even at the very shallow ends of the intellectual pool. You tell me, has any guy here ever read the story of Adam and Eve and thought hmmmm... snake... maybe like the one in my pants?

Ummmm, okay, sure, maybe... But nobody ever asks that in Sunday School for fear of blasphemy. Nope, it's Adam and Eve, God created'em, and if you think their mommas were monkeys, yer going to hell.

Nothing at all about finding one's self suddenly in the possession of one's own fate. Free will, you say? Well thank you, GOD, for making THAT apple!

So you graduate from Sunday School, you're watching the television preacher, and now it's become a story about a gumby man made of clay as he was betrayed by a woman who listened to the devil.

Well, you know how those television preachers are, how there's always a devil inspired woman wanting to jump their bones, so it's just like is in the Bible, yeah, yeah, that's what the story is about. And nobody's momma was a monkey.

Look at me, I'm a Christian!

BTW, FM Arouet666, can you save me a place on the boat to Gitmo? After they get you, I'm sure they'll be coming for me.

[immoderate]

93. A really good point. The bible makes good points.

It is a piece of literature that has lasted through time. For literalists, it is a history book and as such has no value because it is not factual.

But as literature it has some great lessons. Similarly, the Homeric gods in the Iliad are now considered myth, but were serious religion once, and we study them as projections of human nature.

My favorite bible stories are Genesis, and Tower of Babel. Genesis is the analog of the evolution of human consciousness and more particularly self awareness. Humans uniquely have a time sense and an ability to evaluate their own actions. The tower story exemplifies what happens when endeavors don't account for what Kirkpatrick Sale would call human scale. When projects get too large people find themselves with a difficulty communicating as if they speak a different language.

There is much value in myths, and nothing to be gained by taking the bible literally. Ironically, modern Christians don't think they are being disrespectful when they talk about Hermes and Zeus as myths. Once they were serious religion.

--IMM

[FM Arouet666]

126. I am forced to wonder.....

Will they, the theocratic authority in our pleasant fiction, be coming for you? The tenor of your post suggests tolerance, but stressed by reality, would you not support your fellow Christians before defending an innocent pagan like myself?

I will not debate biblical interpretation or the merits of a religious versus a scientific would view. You seem sincere in your post, and I too find mass media religion to be particularly offensive.

Believe what you like, and I offer my respect, and expect the same. What I fear most is that individuals, like your self, which realize that radicalism is in error will capitulate to the insanity if confronted by extreme social pressure. Were all Germans evil in WWII, no. Many simply went along with the rhetoric, fearing reprisal, laziness of the mind, indifference to the victims.

Most Christians are good people, as were most Germans, the specter of righteous hatred can make wolves from sheep. That is my greatest fear.

Peace.....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

132. Fundies hate liberal Christians almost as much as they hate atheists

My parish is gay-friendly and sponsors refugees from all over without trying to convert them. This makes us not "enemies" (as they see atheists) but "traitors," people who they think SHOULD join them in their Talibanism but actually side with the secularists on social and political issues.

[beam me up scottie]

138. What a ridiculous thing to say.

I don't see them trying to kick you out of their christian nation.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

142. I don't see them trying to ACTUALLY kick atheists out either

even if it may feel that way to you.

No, there are Scaife/Olin/Bradley-funded think tanks (the so-called Institute for Religion and Democracy and the Institute on Religion and Public Life) whose main purpose is bashing liberal Christians and encouraging members and clergy of mainstream churches to go conservative and to split off from their denominations.

It's not as easy to get the rank-and-file fundies to hate us (after all, we go to church and sing hymns and stuff), which is one reason, I believe, that the fundie preachers are stirring up so much homophobia. "Them Episcopals is promotin' the gay agenda."

I was flipping channels one night and actually heard a fundie preacher on local access preaching against my parish, saying that it was the abode of the devil and that the mission statement printed in its bulletin was the "gay agenda" word for word. By the way, our actual mission statement is "(Name of parish") is a welcoming faith community called by God to peace and reconciliation through inspiring worship, spiritual growth, passionate hospitality, and service to others in the love of Jesus Christ."

We prove that it's possible to be religious without all the rigidity, anger, hatred, and guilt. We're the competition.

[beam me up scottie]

143. What do you think this friendly reminder is all about then?

Oh, I know they resent the hell out of you guys.

They believe you have the potential to spoil their plans to make this a theocracy.

And I believe you do too.

That's why liberal believers carry a lot more weight going into this battle than the atheists that have been raging against them for decades.

This is also why we are asking you to stand up for us when you hear the reichwing vilifying us.

They've had years to spread the lie that godless liberals are destroying this country.

[hunter]

164. As a left wing Catholic and environmental activist, I'm on the short list.

I'm pretty sure of that.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs20051220.html

[freestyle]

96. Disagree without being disagreeable. This works both ways.

It also helps greatly to find people who are secure enough in themselves and their beliefs that they don't need constant external validation. I am a believer. I can discuss why and hear others discuss why not, and know that we will both have good points. I'm not hung up on what people believe, but what they do to make the world a better place. I attempt to follow Christ's teachings and I also know that they are not at all exclusive or unique, but very useful for doing right by people. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, attending to the sick, visiting prisoners and captives are simply among our duties to humanity. The decision to do good in the world is quite independent of any variety of theism or atheism.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

100. It depends what your objectives are.

If what you want is to learn about a given religion, then either do so from books or go along and talk to some followers of it - clerics are probably a good choice - about what *they* believe without ever getting into what you think of it - if you leave without them being able to know what your religious beliefs are you'll have succeeded.

If you want to try and change people's minds about religious issues, you have a much harder task ahead of you - telling people that they are wrong without causing offence is very difficult indeed. I don't believe I've ever seen anyone change anyone else's mind about anything connected with religion except matters of fact on the internet, but I've seen innumerable flame wars.

The best piece of advice I can think to give is to remember that just because something is true doesn't mean it's not offensive. If you put forwards every argument you have you *will* cause offence; to avoid it you have to put yourself in the position of whoever you're talking to and wonder if what you're writing would cause offence, and then not write it if it would, even if you think it.

Softly softly catchee monkey, although as I've said I'm not sure I've ever seen a monkey caught...

[Zenlitened]

103. Discuss religion, or discuss separation of church and state?

I think it's important to note the distinction, whenever possible.

O' course... for the truly hard-core religionists, even suggesting that their religion is not necessary to government is an outrage-inducing affront. I don't think those sorts of people can be reached in a discussion at all.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

125. Basically, if you talk about religious people the way freepers talk about

Democrats (i.e. in misinformed stereotypes), you're going to annoy them.

My faith has enriched my life immeasurably, and if you start talking about "fairy tales" and "sky gods" and "pink leprechauns," that's not a discussion, that's a nya-nya-nya-nya-nya taunt. You're not going to shake my faith, but you're going to lose my respect for ridiculing something that you don't understand. (You may understand the Bible or the institutional church, but you probably don't understand the transforming power of a religious experience.)

Honest questions without the snarkiness are welcome.

[Goblinmonger]

134. This thread, including your posts, talk a lot about perspective

You say to stop "ridiculing something you don't understand." Then you go on to say "you probably don't understand the transforming power of a religious experience." I was a very devout Catholic until the end of high school. I did have very moving religious experiences. Yet you make the assumption, because I am now an atheist, that I have not experienced this. Probably because it doesn't fit into your world view that somebody who has had these could be atheist. I am waiting for the statment that my experience weren't real enough. That my be jumping the gun on my part, but it is how I feel.

Why can't we use fairy tales, sky gods, and leprechauns as examples. I place the christian god right up there with those. And zeus, thor, and all the rest. So I can't have my views on god if they somehow lead to "snarkiness" in your eyes?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

135. Let's bring this down to a more mundane level for a second

Suppose that one day I--out of the blue and without any motivation--started referring to your significant other as "that idiot," "that toad-faced piece of trash," and "that good-for-nothing slob."

That would be insulting to you even if it were objectively true, even if your s.o. were stupid, ugly, of dubious morals, and slovenly enough to call down the wrath of the health department.

It would be insulting because that person somehow meets your needs, even if I don't understand how. In fact, I may be projecting my own experiences with a similar person onto your situation, which makes me unable to see the good qualities that make you so devoted to your s.o.

When talking to someone about their significant other (assuming that the s.o. is merely annoying or disagreable, not outright dangerous), the usual social rule is "If you can't say something nice, shut up or say something neutral."

Now I might ask you how you met, and I might even ask you what you love about that person. I might ask you to explain what your s.o. does for a living. But once I start referring to your s.o. as "that loser," you're going to get angry as long as you have any feeling for him or her at all.

I may go to third parties and say, "I don't know what Goblinmonger sees in that person," but that's different from walking up to you and saying, "Hey, Goblinmonger, why don't you dump that pathetic excuse for a human being?"

[Goblinmonger]

136. Valid point

If that were the extent of it (it is something that meets needs for you and doesn't infringe on your friends) But let's get your example a little closer to what is really happening in society.

I, with the same slovenly s.o., am actually your employer. I decide that I am going to take a significant portion of your sales commissions money and put up a shrine to my s.o. with those. In the office building. Where everybody has to see it. And it is going to frickin' huge (because you have all been working hard and, subsequently, have a lot of commission money for me to use on the shrine) Somebody questions my decision and I fire them, telling them that "If they don't agree that my s.o. is worthy of a shrine, then they can't be useful to the company." You still have the same views about my s.o. but keep your mouth shut because you fear losing your job. But after a while, some other employees start thinking that the s.o. is actually worthy of that shrine.

Get it/

[Lydia Leftcoast]

146. Your sibling is married to the sibling of your slovenly s.o.

and does NOT require anyone to "worship" his/her choice of lover.

Yet resentful employees of your company continue to make insulting remarks to your sibling about his/her s.o. because s/he resembles your s.o.

This is confusing, but see what I mean?

[Zebedeo]

147. One way would be not to mock, ridicule and belittle the beliefs of theists

"I find the notion of a god to be childish, I mock jesus and all other 'deities.'"

- FM Aroette666 post on 12/18/05 in thread "How do you define evil?"

[beam me up scottie]

148. Is that the thread where you questioned the morals of atheists?

Context can make all the difference in the world, don't you think?:hi:

[Zebedeo]

149. Yes, I do think context makes a difference

However, I do not believe it is a fair summary to say that I "questioned the morals of atheists" in that thread. I did pose a question, and the question did have to do with morals, and the question was posed to "believers of all stripes, as well as atheists." But to imply that I was impugning the morals of atheists just simply is not true.

I was asking how people define "evil," particularly those people with no belief in God. Some posters responded that they did not believe that there is any such thing as evil. Others responded that evil is harming others, with malicious intent.

I never did get a response explaining how atheists determine whether a proposed action is "good" or "bad." Possibly atheists have some objective moral standard (other than a religious standard) by which they judge proposed actions. Possibly they employ a totally subjective standard - basically deciding on an ad hoc basis whether a certain action is good or bad, based on what they feel in their heart at the time. I don't know. No one really answered that question.

For some reason, FM Aroette666 reacted with great hostility and derision to my original post. Perhaps he read something into it. However, I think if you read my original post, you will not find any insult to atheists or atheism.

I am sure that there is much that we could agree on, in the course of a civilized discussion.

In any event, have a wonderful day!

[beam me up scottie]

150. Maybe that's why I used it to illustrate the importance of context.

You need to understand that we have been fighting these stereotypes in this forum and elsewhere for a hell of a long time.

Nobody minds if you ask an honest question, but the wording in your op was suspect.

You also tacked the morals question onto another one that has nothing to do with it.

Perhaps you could try again, last week was pretty rough around here.

[Zebedeo]

151. Now I get it.

Perhaps you could try again, last week was pretty rough around here.

Apparently I stumbled into a hornet's nest. While I have lurked on this site for quite some time, I had not visited this forum recently, and so there is much that I apparently missed.

OK, well, I understand now. Atheists are particularly on edge at the moment due to prior arguments with believers and that's probably why FM Arouette666 reacted the way s/he did.

Just so you know, I don't have any axe to grind against atheists. I am a believer, but a number of my close family members are atheists. Like I said above, I am sure that there is much that we could agree on.

Anyway, have a great day!

[beam me up scottie]

152. I was hoping you'd say that.

Most of us are surrounded by believers and are quite happy to be.

This administration's attempts to destroy the Constitutional separation of church and state and the christofascists that put them in power caused many formerly docile atheists to go supernova.

And it's not going to get any better any time soon, so it's good to remember we're on the same side.

Peace.

[Brentos]

158. debate?

I second Beam's comments.

Also, I've been following this thread and have in the past fallen down the rabbit hole of misunderstanding through semantics (but we've since made up!). I think as for ground rules I believe, as best we can, we leave the baggage at the door. I'm speaking from the Christian perspective and will let you know the ground rules that I would prefer in a debate on religion. I really don't have a desire to debate whether or not God exists. No point to it for me. To me, He does exist, just as the atheist/agnostics will state the he does not, or don't have proof, or believe he doesn't. If it's a debate about scientific-type proof, well, we Theists cannot win. Therefore, game over, we lose. If the debate wants to be about why we believe, I can do that, but I would prefer not to be called names, to be called stupid, or to have my beliefs compared to the flying spaghetti-monster (which does crack me up, though). To me, that moves the debate back to "does God exist". If the debate wants to go through parts of the Bible and my interpretations and beliefs of the Bible, I am willing. My request is to be treated as a sane person with a legitimate belief (or choice). Conversely, I have no desire to tell an atheist they are wrong, and would never say that. I believe that they probably are, just as they state that I am, but that should stay implied, not yelled at each other, as we are trying to learn from each other. Which is my next point. If the atheist/theist are only arguing to prove the other side wrong, then I have no desire to participate in that discussion. We will never prove each other wrong. We will also never (okay, .000001%) convert each other. So, to my fellow theists, please stop calling our atheist/agnostic friends "believers", holders of a "faith", etc., as this is just as insulting to them, as calling our belief in God a "fairy tale" is to us. And, to my friends the atheists/agnostics, please no "fairy tales" "Spaghetti monsters", etc. When I see these arguments going back and forth, I don't want to participate in the argument. My final point, is that I am not here to "debate". Debate, to me, indicates a winner and a loser based on technical rules and pure logic rules/traps. I would rather learn and understand others or explain to others my points of view.

[beam me up scottie]

161. Great post, Brentos.

People who really want to communicate care about what offends others.

I've called out atheists who were being unnecessarily obnoxious more than once.

I do try not to broad brush believers, although I am guilty of pushing the buttons of those that insult me or my fellow atheists.

Just try to remember I am targeting only the person I'm having a snark fest with, not you or anyone else who respects us.


And I completely agree with you on the futility of debating the existence of deities.

[Brentos]

163. Thanks Beam!

I look forward to more discussions with you in the future! You've helped me see things from a different person's perspective, and for that, I thank you.

[salvorhardin]

171. Flying Spaghetti Monster is insulting?

I understand about 'sky fairy' being insulting, but FSM is a satire on the Discovery Institute crowd. Are there posters using it to denigrate all believers?

[InaneAnanity]

153. Well, your assumption that...

...atheists all determine right and wrong on an ad-hoc basis is pretty insulting. I thought I explained pretty well that morals are determined by each individual society, but I guess you didn't understand.

[Zebedeo]

154. My friend, I didn't say that.

Sorry to have inadvertently insulted you. However, I did not say what you accuse me of saying.

I said:

Possibly atheists have some objective moral standard (other than a religious standard) by which they judge proposed actions. Possibly they employ a totally subjective standard - basically deciding on an ad hoc basis whether a certain action is good or bad, based on what they feel in their heart at the time. I don't know.

You have twisted this into a claim that I have an "assumption that atheists all determine right and wrong on an ad-hoc basis" and then you say that is insulting.

I guess it would be insulting if I had said it. But I didn't. I said I don't know. It could be that atheists have an objective standard apart from religion, and it could be that they employ a subjective standard.

I understand your response to my question. You employ an objective standard, but it is highly malleable. You believe that morals are determined by each individual society. Therefore, there is no objective moral standard apart from what the society believes. What is moral in one society may be immoral in another. If a particular society determines that torturing innocent babies is good, well, then, it's good, according to your standard. That's a perfectly logically consistent standard, and I applaud you for your honesty.

However, I think that your standard is highly problematic, and I doubt that very many would agree with you.

Your standard of morality is not ad hoc, I admit. But it does seem to be troubling. To use an extreme example, if someone with your standard of morality were transported in time to Hitler's Germany, to a society in which mass murder of Jews is approved as moral, that person would regard such mass murder as moral. There is no objective standard, independent of the mores of the society, by which that person would judge the act of mass murder of Jews.

Unless I am once again failing to understand your position. If so, I apologize. Maybe you could refine your position. I would certainly hope that it is not the case that you would become a Nazi if transported to Nazi Germany. I would like to think that there is no one on DU who would.

The truth is that I think that your position must not be as I have described above. Surely you have some sort of moral standard that governs your actions, independent of the values of the society you inhabit. I certainly hope so.

In any event, as I said to beam me up scottie, I am sure that if we got to talking, there are many areas in which we would agree. Sorry to have ticked you off.

Have a great evening!

:toast:

[InaneAnanity]

155. All I said was

That actions deemed good in our particular culture aren't ultimately good by any stretch, because there is no ultimate good. Each society views its individual morals to be correct, and it is very stupid to believe otherwise.

You have the benefit of looking at Nazi Germany as an outsider, but I bet had you grown up there, you wouldn't be nearly as offended by their moral code.

As I pointed out in your thread, we are one of the only civilized nations to circumcise over 50% of infant boys (South Korea and the Phillipines are the only others). Is this immoral?? You would probably say no, but I'd wager in Europe it would be immoral.

[Brentos]

159. Now this is an interesting theist/atheist discussion!

I would like to see this debate expanded.

Topics:

Murder/capital punishment

Sexuality

Ownership/stealing

personal responsibility/public responsibility

I'm not sure I care as much about what peoples beliefs/conclusions/answers are on each of these, but more-so how they came up with their answers, and are any of these universal? Or is it okay to be individualistic/nationalistic/world-istic, and the inherent good/bad with this. If there is interest, these would make good separate posts for debate. Any thoughts?

[Zebedeo]

160. I'm game

Why don't you start a thread?

[Brentos]

162. I will

But not until tonight or tomorrow night. I think it will be a great learning experience for me!

[Goblinmonger]

168. I was a little worried about this thread

but have found that is has been a very good learning experience. The only caveat would be that many of the people that knee-jerk to the atheist postings have been ironically absent from this relatively respectful (from both sides) discussion.

[funflower]

165. R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Say it the way you'd say it to your boss.

[InaneAnanity]

166. I'm my own boss

and I don't talk to myself.

[funflower]

170. But you, of course, are Inane.

[Goblinmonger]

167. What if my boss is also an atheist?

Doesn't your post kind of assume that bosses are theists? Do you see how those kind of assumptions would drive atheists nuts?

Cause if my boss were an atheist, then I would say that theists are fucking crazy to believe in grandpa in the sky and it is a sign of a weak intellect. My boss would understand my hostility and realize that a lot of my statement is satire and hyperbole; many theists would not.

So, in the end, that seems like a bad test.

[funflower]

169. If your boss were an atheist, the OP's question would be irrelevant.

The OP is presuming the person with whom you are having this hypothetical conversation is a theist.

I am not presuming your boss or anyone's boss is a theist. I don't believe my boss is a theist, but, if he were, I would discuss the topic with the same respect due to every human, regardless of how fucking crazy their beliefs are.

[Goblinmonger]

172. I am the OP

But anyway. Your post was "say it the way you would say it to your boss." My immediate thought was what I posted; I'm sorry if I presumed incorrectly about your point.

I have no problem with the "respect every human" concept. But far too often on here, when atheists just say things like "Was there even really a Jesus" in response to "when was Jesus born threads" they get responses like "That is hate speech." My OP was to try and establish some ground rules for BOTH sides.

[kwassa]

173. It isn't what you say, it is how you say it.

You can say anything to any person if you say it well.

Most of the offense taken around here usually pertains to how people speak to each other. There is no specific set of rules that we would all agree to avoid these arguments, as different people have different levels of sensitivity.

Generally, if one speaks respectfully of others, they will be treated respectfully. Sometimes people are spoiling for a fight though, or just enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. I think arguing is fun and sometimes educational, so I can be an offender as well.

[Goblinmonger]

174. I'm up for a good argument, too

Debated in high school, college, and coached college debate for a decade.

The irony of it all is that the theists who react most like you describe ("spoiling for a fight") have not posted here and tried to come to some groundrules.

[beam me up scottie]

176. One of them did.

;)

[funflower]

175. Precisely. WRT the OP's question, I guess we are not responsible for

whether someone gets "pissed off." We are responsible for our behavior, not theirs.

[lvx35]

177. realize that most religious belief is based on experience.

Most people of faith, like me, have a faith that's based on various experiences they've had...maybe something as simple as feelings of deep inexplicable peace after some religious practice. So be mindful that religion is something tangible, something that's been *experienced* to people of faith, and accept that these experiences are probably different than what you have experienced. If you start in talking about God as a fantasy, its going to be a no sell, because it reveals an ignorance of the tangible elements of experiencing religious belief absent in what religious people think of as fantasy.

[CarbonDate]

178. I don't think we can.

Not as atheists, anyway. I think the reason is that saying that God isn't real is tantamount to calling them stupid, in their view. So our entire viewpoint -- nay, our very existance -- is offensive to them. Just as saying that we're going to hell for not believing is tantamount to saying that the fact that we're atheists makes us bad people. I think that's why most people don't discuss religion in polite company.

[Exiled in America]

179. Why do you want to? Proselytizing for atheism?

Could ask the reverse question: how can a theist discuss religion with an atheist and not piss them off? That happens just as often. Of course, you'd probably respond by saying they shouldn't be discussing it in the first place, keep it to themselves, stop trying to evangelize you, etc.

Oh, but its "different" when its atheists doing that to religious folk?

Basically, you can have a discussion about anything if you accept the other person as an equal and approach the subject with an open mind. If two players in a discussion can't do that, then they really have no business having a discussion in the first place.

But if you're motive for entering the discussion is to covert - then you're no different than the evangelical christian dogmatists we so disdain - just peddling your own special conversion recipe.

[beam me up scottie]

180. Puh-leeze. Atheists don't "convert" others.

You're confusing non belief with religion.
We don't do dogma, that's your gig.

And you're pretty damn lucky that most atheists are far more tolerant than most believers.
We've had to put up with your god being shoved in our faces since he was invented, not to mention being persecuted for thousands of years by his followers.
And you don't see us blowing up clinics, buses, airplanes or anything else in the name of no god.

Do you?

So please spare us the evil atheist meme.
It's lamer now than it was in the fifties.
We don't want to take over the world.
We just want to live without your god's minions interfering in our lives.

If for some reason that seems threatening to you, I suggest opening your own mind.

We're not shutting up and we're not going away.
We give respect where we find it.
And we are under no obligation to respect that which doesn't respect us.

[Exiled in America]

183. Who are you talking to?

Because its certainly not me. I'd have to be a theist first.

Here's everything offensive in your post:

"We don't do dogma, that's your gig." Offensive, both because of the insulting tone, and the fact that not all religion is dogmatic.

"We've had to put up with your god being shoved in our faces since he was invented, not to mention being persecuted for thousands of years by his followers."

Offensive becuase you assume its "my god" when it isn't, your tone is hostile and not even remotely invitational to civil discussion, and because there's been more than enough suffering and violence in human history from secular and religious alike that your comment becomes little more than a jab.

"And you don't see us blowing up clinics, buses, airplanes or anything else in the name of no god. Do you?"

Sure I do. Corporations are doing it all the time all over the world, via goverments or private operatives. And they are certainly resposible for an equal ammount of the horror and otrocity we currently experience on earth - no need for religion to have that. And our goverment is blowing up plently of things all over the world, and if you seriously think it is doing so because of religion and not becuase of its economic and power interests, you apparently aren't well versed on the things our goverment does not matter who is in the White House.

So this is offensive becuase not only is it confrontational and designed not to foster dialog but simply to attack, but also because it ignores the fact that violence and horror are in no way limited to "religion."

"so please spare us the evil atheist meme."

Offensive because in addition to being confrontational, it is also a straw man being something I never said.


"We just want to live without your god's minions interfering in our lives."

Offensive and also confrontational by use of the word "minions" which is disparaging and insulting.

"If for some reason that seems threatening to you, I suggest opening your own mind."

Offensive by calling the implying the person you're talking to must be closed-minded since we don't march in lock-step agreement in our discussion.

"We give respect where we find it."

You don't "find" respect until you give it.

"And we are under no obligation to respect that which doesn't respect us."

And then you wonder why things suck so bad...

[beam me up scottie]

200. No, things "suck so bad" because of religious fundamentalism.

Have you learned nothing from history?

And could you use the word "offensive" a few more times in your next reply?

Seven just wasn't ironic enough considering your whole premise was offensive, not to mention full of Religious Dogma.



Okay, I'll play:



"Why do you want to? Proselytizing for atheism?"

Again, atheists do not proselytize.



"That happens just as often. Of course, you'd probably respond by saying they shouldn't be discussing it in the first place, keep it to themselves, stop trying to evangelize you, etc."

Talk about offensive, how dare you presume to know how the op would respond?



"Oh, but its "different" when its atheists doing that to religious folk?"

A nice attempt at snarkery, but you are just begging the question (that atheists proselytize).



"Basically, you can have a discussion about anything if you accept the other person as an equal and approach the subject with an open mind. If two players in a discussion can't do that, then they really have no business having a discussion in the first place."

"Approach the subject with an open mind"?

You mean the opposite of what you did when you joined this discussion?

The intolerance of, and bigotry towards, atheists in your posts is blatant and insulting.

And you wonder why atheists took offense to them.



"But if you're motive for entering the discussion is to covert - then you're no different than the evangelical christian dogmatists we so disdain - just peddling your own special conversion recipe."

And you're just peddling bullshit in this thread.

That post was the first shovelful.

Your second one just piled it higher:



"Who are you talking to?

Because its certainly not me. I'd have to be a theist first."

A person who believes that atheists proselytize. Whether or not you're a theist has nothing to do with it.



"Offensive becuase(sic) you assume its "my god" when it isn't, your tone is hostile and not even remotely invitational to civil discussion, and because there's been more than enough suffering and violence in human history from secular and religious alike that your comment becomes little more than a jab."

I wasn't inviting civil discussion because your first post convinced me that it would be an illogical pursuit.

And I really don't give a shit if you think my tone is hostile.

Oops.

There goes that hostility again.



And what the fuck is "Secular" suffering and violence???

Besides an excellent example of Religious Dogma, that is.



"Sure I do. Corporations are doing it all the time all over the world, via goverments(sic) or private operatives. And they are certainly resposible(sic) for an equal ammount(sic) of the horror and otrocity(sic) we currently experience on earth - no need for religion to have that. And our goverment(sic) is blowing up plently(sic) of things all over the world, and if you seriously think it is doing so because of religion and not becuase(sic) of its economic and power interests, you apparently aren't well versed on the things our goverment(sic) does not matter who is in the White House."

Corporations are blowing up things in the name of No God?

Really?

Is that a new mission statement? :rofl:


And this is just a suggestion, but with that many spelling and grammatical errors in your post, you really should watch what you say about others being "well versed".



"So this is offensive becuase(sic) not only is it confrontational and designed not to foster dialog but simply to attack, but also because it ignores the fact that violence and horror are in no way limited to "religion.""

How disingenuous of you.

My post clearly states that atheists don't commit violence in the name of no god.

It ignores nothing.

Your projected ignorance, however, is as offensive as your intellectually dishonesty.



"Offensive because in addition to being confrontational, it is also a straw man being something I never said."

You are propagating prejudicial stereotypes and you're upset by confrontation?

Welcome to the wonderful world of internet political forums and say hello to reactionary atheism.

You'll need to get over it if you want to keep playing.



"Offensive and also confrontational by use of the word "minions" which is disparaging and insulting."

See my last two sentences.



"Offensive by calling the implying the person you're talking to must be closed-minded since we don't march in lock-step agreement in our discussion."

You are being disingenuous again.

My qualifier "If for some reason that seems threatening to you" does not imply the person I'm talking to "must be closed-minded since (they) don't march in lock-step agreement in our discussion."

I'll rephrase for clarity: if you are afflicted with same ignorance and religious bigotry as those who believe that atheists are a threat because they support the Constitutional separation of church and state, you need to open your mind.

Does the foo shit?



"You don't "find" respect until you give it."

:spray: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

That statement is as ridiculous as your assertion that corporations are blowing up things in the name of No God.

Especially considering the fact that atheists, unlike the rampant garden variety religious zealots, by NOT trying to establish a theocracy, are respecting everyone else.


Here's a clue (you might want to hang onto it): my fellow atheists and I are the ones who are being told we have to accept the imposition of religion into our private lives, our public schools and institutions, and in our government.



So I repeat: we are under NO OBLIGATION TO RESPECT THAT WHICH DOES NOT RESPECT US.


If you're still confused by that statement, and think that atheists' lack of respect for those that have, for centuries, sought to assimilate, oppress, or destroy us, is why "things suck so bad", I can't help you.

Try a course in world history.

[Goblinmonger]

181. I can 100% guarantee you that if you are a theist

and we had a discussion about religion, you would have a much harder time pissing me off than vice versa (unless you were a complete moran and then I would be pissed about that but not religion). If you don't believe me, give it a shot.

Here is the situation that happens all too often on this forum (I am not talking about anywhere else). Someone says we should do X because that is what god would want us to do. An atheist says that is a silly way to make decisions since there is not god. You guess who gets pissed off in that exchange. I'll give you a hint; it ain't the atheist.

My motive for entering this discussion (the OP) is not to convert. It was to establish some guidelines so that any discussion of religion between me (an atheist) and a theist about religion does not automatically degenerate into my committing "hate crimes" against their majority religion. I have no desire to convert. If you come over to atheism because someone "converted" you and not because it is a true realization of the world on your part, then you are no better than someone who is catholic because that is what your parents were and you are just following the dogma (ME for 18 years of my life).

So, Hector Projector, I am not someone out to peddle my own "belief system" but I think that perhaps you doth protest too much (hope neither the Freudian nor the Shakespearean allusions went over your head and you got the point).

On edit: stupid typo

[Exiled in America]

182. No, I am in fact not a theist.

Here is the situation that happens all too often on this forum (I am not talking about anywhere else). Someone says we should do X because that is what god would want us to do. An atheist says that is a silly way to make decisions since there is not god. You guess who gets pissed off in that exchange. I'll give you a hint; it ain't the atheist.


Funny, I haven't seen nearly as much of those threads as I have threads started by non-believers trying to argue why everything a religious person privately believes is wrong, stupid, ignorant, misguided, etc. I have to wade my way through that garbage to glean out the minority of folks interested in more thoughtful and open-minded discussion.


My motive for entering this discussion (the OP) is not to convert. It was to establish some guidelines so that any discussion of religion between me (an atheist) and a theist about religion does not automatically degenerate into my committing "hate crimes" against their majority religion. I have no desire to convert.


I didn't say that your motive was to convert. I didn't even say "all" non-theists on these boards (or anywhere else) have that motive. In fact I laid out exactly what it takes to have a reasonable dialog that includes the subject of religion. I don't believe any reasonable dialog begins by challenging the legitimacy of someone else's beliefs in a manner that implies they are ignorant or inferior. It boils down to a very simple concept: respect. If you have no respect for the people you are wishing to engage in dialog, there is no hope that there will ever be a "dialog." There are a lot of non-theist out there capable of doing that. But there are a lot who aren't either.

When I say "convert" what I am referring to are those individuals who have no respect for someone else's belief system. They view them as objectively "wrong" (rather than just perhaps needing something different from life or following a different, but perfectly acceptable path) or ignorant, blind, foolish, or what have you. Their intention in "discussion" is never actually do have a dialog, but rather to "beat" their "opponent" - prove them wrong, tear down their "wrong" ideas -- to "win."

Trying to deny that this happens, and happens regularly, here is pretty ridiculous. The same thing happens on the religious side of the aisle as well. And it destroys civil and meaningful discussion.

The simple principle that must be in play for civil discourse is respect. If you don't respect the views of others, you can't possibly hope to engage in any kind of meaningful conversation.

[Goblinmonger]

184. So you are an atheist

Forgive me if I sound condescending, but I don't believe that. But anyway, I'm glad we're playing the quotation game.

"Funny, I haven't seen nearly as much of those threads as I have threads started by non-believers trying to argue why everything a religious person privately believes is wrong, stupid, ignorant, misguided, etc. I have to wade my way through that garbage to glean out the minority of folks interested in more thoughtful and open-minded discussion."

I will admit that a lot of the discussion in A/A are often hostile, but that is a forum for atheists and a lot of us treat that as an area where we can blow off steam. I don't think I can remember, as you state, a thread that was started by "non-believers" (one of the word choices you use which lead me to the conclusion that you are not an atheist) in which they "argue" that private thoughts are "wrong, stupid, ignorant, misguided, etc." Those comments may have come about due to a discussion within a thread, but not as a thread starter. Additionally, atheists have been tombstoned/had posts removed for saying some of the things you mentioned, but not so with the "believers."

"They view them as objectively "wrong" (rather than just perhaps needing something different from life or following a different, but perfectly acceptable path) or ignorant, blind, foolish, or what have you. Their intention in "discussion" is never actually do have a dialog, but rather to "beat" their "opponent" - prove them wrong, tear down their "wrong" ideas -- to "win."

But they are wrong. Just like we are wrong in their eyes. Doesn't mean I can't respect them. But why do I need to respect their god (which does happen a lot). Any thread which questions something about Jesus or God inevitably had a couple posts which claim it to be "hate speech."

[Exiled in America]

185. Depends on your definition - I'm not really too concerned with labels.

I reject the tenants of theism. If that makes me an atheist (a-theist) that's fine with me, you can call me whatever you want. Though my preference is that you would just call me a fellow human being and not try to worry about what "side" I'm on. I am on no one's side.

But they are wrong. Just like we are wrong in their eyes. Doesn't mean I can't respect them. But why do I need to respect their god (which does happen a lot). Any thread which questions something about Jesus or God inevitably had a couple posts which claim it to be "hate speech."

I don't think they are wrong. I don't think you are wrong. I don't have an opinion about that. I know what works for me life - for me to exchange what I understand and what promotes healthy, happy living in my own life for theism would be wrong for me. But beyond that I neither care to speculate nor think any speculation is fruitful or warranted. So I have no problem accepting that someone else's spiritual beliefs may be entirely appropriate for their context, personhood and experiencs. That doesn't mean they would be right for me to adopt.

And the fact of the matter which sites like an elephant in the room is, unless that's your attitude, you can't have reasoned dialog. You can't "dialog" at all. Coming to a discussion with any attitude of "I'm right about YOUR life and you're wrong about YOUR life" immediately ends all possibility of something worth wasting conversation time over.

[InaneAnanity]

190. I can respect a person...

...and engage in respectful dialogue with them, without respecting their religious belief system.

I think almost any religious belief system is stupid (I make exceptions for some eastern religions, which are more lifestyle oriented than belief oriented). I understand, however, that most people act irrationally in this area of their life, and I accept that. I can still respect them if they are decent and thoughtful people otherwise.

But no, I don't respect their religious beliefs. I think they are stupid. And in any religious discussion, they are bound to pick up on that, and get peeved.

Too bad, deal with it. I can deal with religious people looking down at me, I've experienced it my entire atheistic existence.

[Exiled in America]

193. No you can't.

There is no distinction between who a person "is" and what they "believe."

[InaneAnanity]

195. Yes there is

People make mistakes. I understand that, and I also understand that religion is an easy mistake to make. If they are decent people otherwise, I respect them. I'll just have to avoid discussing religion with them, however.

[beam me up scottie]

201. Right. I had to get my hip waders before I read another one of your posts.

You've already said that you believe in god.

More than once.

Why are you now claiming you're not a theist?

Funny, I haven't seen nearly as much of those threads as I have threads started by non-believers trying to argue why everything a religious person privately believes is wrong, stupid, ignorant, misguided, etc. I have to wade my way through that garbage to glean out the minority of folks interested in more thoughtful and open-minded discussion.

What orifice did you pull that out of?

Your first post in R&T was December 13th.

Spare us the impression that you speak from experience.

Trying to deny that this happens, and happens regularly, here is pretty ridiculous.

Now you're lecturing the op about how atheists behave in this forum?

:rofl:

[NAO]

186. Ask them questions that enable you to present problems with their beliefs

without sounding like you are challenging their beliefs.

Your post is phrased in very abstract terms - you will find very few people (other than scholars) who consider themselves 'theists' but do not identify with a particular religious tradition.

If you ask ordinary evangelical Christians philosophical questions about the nature and existence of god they will not get pissed off but will give you very generic stock answers. They are very thoroughly indoctrinated to ignore philosophical atheism and even philosophical theism. They call that 'the god of the philosophers', as opposed to the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who is the Father of Jesus Christ" which is what they believe in and worship.

If you want to challenge their beliefs, you have to become familiar with their beliefs. Even a cursory glance at their holy book, "The Bible" will reveal thousands of outright contradictions, absurdities, and atrocities which are attributed to their god.

For example, you could say something like,

"I heard this story that these people were hacking up animals, arranging their entrails in neat little piles, and burning them up. Also, they were ripping the heads off of birds and tearing them open with their bare hands. Now these nut-jobs said that 'God told them to do this'. What do you think about that?"

The Christians will probably think you are talking about some rock star or weird California cult, and reply that Satan is at work in this story.

At this point you can tell them that where you heard the story is Leviticus chapter 1, and that the person who said that 'God told him to slaughter these animals' was none other than Moses! Ok, at this point they will probably get pissed off, but it's worth it to see the looks on their faces.

Other favorites are:

Numbers 31:17-18, where 'god' instructs them to kill all the men, all the mothers, and all the little boys, but tells them to keep the virgins alive for themselves. Nice.

Judges 3:17-22, where 'god' sends a left-handed person to stab the shit out a king, literally. Pat Robertson would be so proud!

Deuteronomy 23:13-14 where god commands them to carry shovels because if they take a dump, he wants them to bury it. This is important because god sometimes wanders the camp, and he does not want to step in poop.

There are an endless number of these type of stories http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/some_mistakes_of_moses.html or http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm . And an endless number of contradictions http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html . Just ask a Christian to construct a narrative of the events of Easter Morning, using the infallable data in the Gospels, Acts, and I Corinthians. (This is known as "Don Barker's Easter Challange" and it can't be done while being honest and taking all the data into account http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php ). Or ask what Jesus first miracle was...or his last words before he died on the cross....you get the idea.

[Exiled in America]

187. Why challenge their beliefs?

This is what I don't understand.

I don't have any interest in challenging your beliefs. Even if you try to force your beliefs on me, I'll challenge your attempt to force your belief on me, not your personal beliefs. Why would I possibly want to do that?

[InaneAnanity]

188. Because religion is ruining the world

http://www.samharris.org/

Moderate believers enable the radicals to exist unchallenged, and the radicals, of many different religions, are ruining the world.

I need to challenge your beliefs, for my own sake, and for the world's sake.

[Exiled in America]

191. Explain this to me.

I am not a christian, but I do have personal, private spiritual beliefs. I don't believe in the tenants of classical theism. I don't give money to any religious institution. I don't attend any religious institution. I am hard left politically. I'm active politically locally and nationally, and I speak out loud and often against religious dominionism and the fundamentalists threat...

What gives you any right to decree that my personal privately held beliefs are wrong for my life? How is it your business? And how am I enableing radicals?

Second question, are you this passionate about challenging the corporate-fascist complex that controls the world? Or is it just "religion" that concerns you?

[InaneAnanity]

194. I'll answer your last wuestion first

No, I'm concerned about all the problems plaguing the world. However, I think its pretty obvious that religion tops the list.

Privately held beliefs, or even private groups that organize together, are fine in and of themselves. Even though I think their beliefs are stupid and incorrect, I don't have a problem with them. The majority of religious people in this country, and even christians, are moderates, and if their religious practice was self-contained I wouldn't have a problem with it.

However, the radicals are clearly controlling policy in Washington. 44% of America, according to recent polling, believes that the rapture will probably occur within the next 50 years!! This type of thinking is maladaptive for our society, and very dangerous.

Religious moderates who won't speak out against fundamentalists because they're "the same religion" are allowing the fundamentalists to stay in power and control policy. Similar situations exist in the middle east as well with Muslims.

I have no problem with self-contained religious belief in and of itself, but when that belief helps support fundamentalists who wish to impose their belief on me and others, and drive our country down a theocratically christian path, then I have a problem with moderates. And I should, it is completely justified.

[Exiled in America]

197. You're last paragraph:

"I have no problem with self-contained religious belief in and of itself, but when that belief helps support fundamentalists who wish to impose their belief on me and others, and drive our country down a theocratically christian path, then I have a problem with moderates. And I should, it is completely justified."

Ok - but that's not all religious people. So you're talking about challenging people who meet a specific sub-set of criteria. When you are challenging them, are you challeging "beliefs" like a belief that they should force their view on others "beliefs" like there should be no separation of church and state, or that religion should govern? Cause I can understand challenging those beliefs -- those are things that directly affect us all.

I was thinking more about going up to some guy who's minding his own business reading a book about 'heaven' and laying into him for believing in an afterlife - even when he never asked you to share that belief and never said anything about it.

In other words, I was thinking more along the lines of: why would anyone challenge someone's personal philosophy or theology, up until the point where those beliefs affect the rest of us?

[InaneAnanity]

199. Well, as I've stated

Their beliefs DO affect the rest of us, ableit indirectly.

I don't try to convert people to atheism; that's impossible. Atheism is a journey of self discovery and critical thinking, and that choice can't be made for anyone, or even influenced by anyone in the end.

I just want people to think logically, and avoid becoming lemmings used by the fundamentalist right. I will challenge their beliefs in situations where the topic arises.

I won't go harass a dude reading a religious book, of course. But if religion comes up in discussion, I won't hesitate, either.

It's not about converting people, its about getting them to think. That's all.

[Exiled in America]

202. I guess I don't agree on this point:

I don't believe that spiritual beliefs are necessarily incompatiable with a fully awakened journey of self discovery and critical thinking.

Spiritual beliefs can be about dogma and irrationality, or they can also be about language - not how the world works, but how we express our experience of the world. Metaphor, symbolism and language is not the enemy of a fully awakened and realized human life. Religion for some is like describing an experience via poetry rather than via science. And there's not necessarily something wrong with that, as long as you accept the science as well. The science tells us "this is what it is" -- the poetry tells us "this is what it feels like to experience it."

The poet and the scienist are equally important to this world. Without one or the other, our humanity is diminished. Though I freely and happily concede that such poetic mode of expression may not be for everyone, I also readily accept that it may be very right for some. Not all spiritual belief is about absolute truths that stand in confrontation with the truths of reason and science. Not at all. Mine certainly are not. Some spiritual beliefs are about expression of experience in a particular poetic language. For some people, religion is more like art. You don't have a problem with art, do you?

And I think that's where my tension comes into play. You assume that people who don't think like you think aren't "thinking" at all. I don't agree with that. I believe there is room in this world for a lot of different modes of expression when it comes to how we describe and interpret our life experiences.

[NAO]

189. Their beliefs are destructive to society and they strive to force

them onto everyone. That is the very essence of what is meant by "Evangelical".

Now when it comes to "forcing beliefs on others", if you are talking about your belief that Celine Dion is a better singer than Ozzy Osbourne, fine, I'm all for freedom of belief. But if you believe that you are in dialog with the creator of the universe, and he has told you to change the world in accordance with his plans as outlined in his bestselling book, that is florid psychotic notion and is very dangerous.

If people who think like this are to be prevented from destroying the world, they must be shown that the bestselling book that they revere is not actually authored by god himself and cannot be trusted to be 'accurate on all matters'. To indulge such silly beliefs in the name of 'tolerance' is utter folly. They must be challenged and discredited so as to defuse their destructive potential.

Sam Harris makes an extremely lucid and very compelling case for intolerance of religious superstition in his book, "The End of Faith". This highly readable book makes an impassioned call for People of Reason to challenge the notions of faith which are currently taboo. If you are inclined to doubt the desirability or the appropriateness of aggressively challenging people's religious beliefs, I would highly recommend this book.

****

For a little historical background on 'forcing beliefs on others', take a look at this:

Heretics and Heresies by Robert Ingersoll
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/heretics_and_hericies.html

Give any orthodox church the power, and to-day they would punish heresy with whip, and chain, and fire. As long as a church deems a certain belief essential to salvation, just so long it will kill and burn if it has the power. Why should the church pity a man whom her God hates? Why should she show mercy to a kind and noble heretic whom her God will burn in eternal fire? Why should a Christian be better than his God? It is impossible for the imagination to conceive of a greater atrocity than has been perpetrated by the church. Every nerve in the human body capable of pain has been sought out and touched.

Let it be remembered that all churches have persecuted heretics to the fullest extent of their power. Toleration has increased only when and where the power of the church has diminished. From Augustine until now the spirit of the Christians has remained the same. There has been the same intolerance, the same undying hatred of all who think for themselves, and the same determination to crush out of the human brain all knowledge inconsistent with an ignorant creed...

In those days the cross and rack were inseparable companions. Across the open Bible lay the sword and fagot. Not content with burning such heretics as were alive, they even tried the dead, in order that the church might rob their wives and children. The property of all heretics was confiscated, and on this account they charged the dead with being heretical -- indicted, as it were, their dust -- to the end that the church might clutch the bread of orphans. Learned divines discussed the propriety of tearing out the tongues of heretics before they were burned, and the general opinion was, that this ought to be done so that the heretics should not be able, by uttering blasphemies, to shock the Christians who were burning them. With a mixture of ferocity and Christianity, the priests insisted that heretics ought to be burned at a slow fire, giving as a reason that more time was given them for repentance...

According to the theologians, God, the Father of us all, wrote a letter to his children. The children have always differed somewhat as to the meaning of this letter. In consequence of these honest differences, these brothers began to cut out each other's hearts. In every land, where this letter from God has been read, the children to whom and for whom it was written have been filled with hatred and malice. They have imprisoned and murdered each other, and the wives and children of each other. In the name of God every possible crime has been committed, every conceivable outrage has been perpetrated. Brave men, tender and loving women, beautiful girls, and prattling babes have been exterminated in the name of Jesus Christ. For more than fifty generations the church has carried the black flag. Her vengeance has been measured only by her power. During all these years of infamy no heretic has ever been forgiven. With the heart of a fiend she has hated; with the clutch of avarice she has grasped; with the jaws of a dragon she has devoured; pitiless as famine, merciless as fire, with the conscience of a serpent: such is the history of the Church of God.

[Exiled in America]

192. I stopped reading here:

"and they strive to force them onto everyone"

Who is they? All religious people do this? No. That's why I said in my post that when someone - RELIGIOUS OR NOT - attempts to force their beliefs about ANYTHING onto me against my will, I will resist that. But when it comes to personal spiritual beliefs, how arrogant is to assume I know what's best for someone else's private life? That *IS* the fundamentalist mindset. I know what's best for YOU.

I don't think I know what's best for other people to believe. Which is why I strongly, strongly support the freedom of religious expression every bit as strongly as I support its separation from the state, and every bit as much as I support my right to exist in America unharassed by the prosylytizing of others. I support ALL of those things - I don't pick and choose.

[NAO]

196. they is "Evangelicals". That is the definition of "evangelical".

You missed the essence of the argument - that there are very valid reasons for maintaining that intolerance of some religious ideas is not only appropriate, it is a moral obligation.

I will recommend Sam Harris' book again, as another poster has done. Harris makes a very compelling case for both the moral and practical necessity of intolerance of faith-based religious notions. He does this by discussing what it means to say "I believe such and such" and by showing how private beliefs inform and entail public actions. He argues, very cogently, that beliefs are by their very nature NOT private but public.

The attacks of September 11, were FAITH-BASED ATTACKS. They were the direct consequences of religious beliefs. There are plenty of people in the world who HATE the United States; people who we have grossly wronged, oppressed, exploited, etc. But most of them are NOT willing to fly planes into buildings. No amount of evil foreign policy can explain that behavior. The only thing that adequately explains suicide bombers are (allegedly "private", evidentially unjustified and therefore faith-based) religious beliefs.

Sam Harris, author of "The End of Faith"
http://samharris.org/

[InaneAnanity]

198. Here's an analogy I just thought up

Maybe it will make some sense to you religious folk.

Say you live in an urban environment where drug use is commonplace.

Something like 20-25% of the population is into heavy drugs: cocaine, crack, heroin, and other highly addictive substances. Their lives are quickly headed downhill; they are losing weight, their mental capacity is fading, and they are losing touch with the world and becoming shadows of their former selves.

Another 40-50% of the population uses marijuana recreationaly. They are able to function in society fine, and their drug use doesn't affect their life in any meaningful way. It is a choice they make, and not an addiction.

The remainder of society, 30-35%, is drug free.

The "moderate" drug users, the ones who use pot, don't try to help end the hard drug epidemic, for the most part. Because they too are drug users, they don't feel like they should criticize another drug user. They are "enablers"; they live with the hard drug users, and they realize that the hard drug users are throwing their lives away, but they don't do anything about it because of "tolerance".

The drug free segment of this hypothetical society is against drug use, particularly the hard drugs which are destroying 20% of the people in this society, but because they are a minority and the recreational users won't support them, they can't influence policy.

Is it good that the recreational drug users practice "tolerance"?? Does it help society??

Figure it out.

[Exiled in America]

203. No one argues with that.

You missed the essence of the argument - that there are very valid reasons for maintaining that intolerance of some religious ideas is not only appropriate, it is a moral obligation.


That is a "well, duh" statement. But it's not something one can use as a justification to demonize any or all spiritual believe. I've read Harris' book. I don't find his argument to be particularly compelling except for concrete specific situations. He makes far too many generalizations and assumptions about what "belief" entials that I can refute with direct counter-example. He makes the assumption that implicit in a definition of faith is dogma. This is categorically untrue. As such, his argument only works for particular varieties of religion - not all religion or spiritual belief itself. So he ends up offering us nothing new - except yet another easily dispensible book that is attractive to people who really really want to find a justification to hate faith and people who have faith.

Harris' book is so outrageously generalized that it becomes meaningless. You can take every generalized statement he makes about "all religion" and demonstrate easily how in many cases his generalizations are false. That pretty much undermines his assertions wholesale. What you end up having is another book that makes a compelling attack against a certain kind of belief, then falls apart as it tries desparately to generalize and fails to do so.

[TreasonousBastard]

204. Very simply...

don't call us idiots for believing in an imaginary being.

And, don't insist you are right.

Faith and spirituality are complex things, and while there are morons and dogmatists on all sides a discussion is just that-- a discussion airing one's views.

Most theists I know aren't interested in saving your soul or dragging you kicking and screaming into their church, temple, mosque or whatever. Sure, some are but they can, and should be, ignored. Most of us are perfectly happy to explain what we believe, and listen to what you believe, or don't.

Speaking for myself, I have spent 50 years questioning, and occasionally losing, my faith. I have come to some conclusions which I will happily explain and if you agree that's fine, but it's also fine if you disagree. These are just my beliefs that I have no interest in imposing on others.

I appreciate the same attitude from others.