simply stopping laws is too high a bar. As we have seen many times, religious bigotry and discrimination can become a fabric of society.
Often laws have to be passed to force people to not act in a discriminatory way.

I would say this:

I have known far more atheists who would say that they hope to see an improvement in reality-based education and public policy, critical thinking, and skepticism so that religion will gradually fade away

I think religion is generally a bad thing for the world which made have served a purpose in olden times, but whose usefulness has faded.

But mostly I do not dwell on what people believe, as long as they keep it to themselves. Unfortunately in the USA they do not. Other countries have learned to do that. I think it is our greatest danger here.

the most important thing about a person, rather than the least.

and I think you two have a lot in common.

to excuse practically everything. It doesn't matter if we execute an innocent man: God will make it right. It doesn't matter if people suffer and die: God will make it right. It doesn't matter if we wage an illegal war that kills millions of innocent people: God will make it right.

Bad guy getting away with murder? God will make it right.
Church elders abusing the children: God will make it right.
Torturing innocent people? God will make it right.
Ignoring the homeless? God will make it right.
Injustice? God will make it right.

For me, a person who knows "God" does not exist, this "pass the buck" mentality is an excuse to let the most vile elements of humanity prevail, because the promise of an "ultimate accounting" means it will all be made right in the end.

But there is no ultimate accounting and if we want to live in a humane world that fulfills "Christian" ideals of charity, compassion, mercy and forgiveness, then we have to MAKE that world ourselves, not expect a "God" to do it for us.

There are many religious people on this site and in the world.

Many of them are anti-death penalty. In fact some of the most vocal advocates for eliminating the death penalty have been religious people.

Much of the services provided to the most needy and marginalized are religious groups and people.

Anti war protests have historically seen active participation and leadership from the religious community.

Your view is so narrow and it misses so much.

Whatever exposure you have had, it has been very one-sided.

Thus you have developed a very prejudicial POV about religious people.

(and many other religions) is an afterlife, a "Heaven" and Hell". The virtuous will be rewarded, the wicked punished. When you believe is such a thing, you are not too stirred up about what happens in "this life" since it will be made right on the "next life".

Advocacy against the death penalty is not a majority view in Christian circles in the U.S. Anti-war advocacy is also in the minority. The Christian "left" such as it is, has been conspicuously absent for most (but not all) of the anti-war, anti-poverty, anti-death penalty protests. When I was on the front lines protesting I saw the same few groups holding for the Christian banner: Quakers, Unitarians, and a smattering of Catholic nuns.

Speaking of the RCC, while it is "officially" anti-death penalty and anti-war, it has only punished or threatened witholding of sacraments to people with pro-choice views, or voting for pro-choice candidates. Actions speak louder than words.

I was raised Irish Catholic, "converted" at one point to evangelical Christianity and spent much time with Jews, Quakers (my wife of 30 years left the Catholic Church for the Friends over a decade ago), Episcopalians, and Unitarians, so I have had PLEANTY of experience with "religious people".

I think it is a part of many religions, but many of those also have very high expectations for how one should behave during their life on earth.

Actually, for most religions, you don't even get into that afterlife place unless you lead a good life. Haven't you read all the things Jesus supposedly said about who gets is and who is going to have a really hard time getting in?

Support for the death penalty varies widely among christian groups and opposition is the majority view for Hispanic Catholics and Black Protestants.


You are totally wrong about the involvement of the christian left in anti-war, anti-poverty, anti-death penalty protests. When I was on the front lines it was in the middle of loud and militant religious people who were getting beaten, gassed and taken to jail.

You have blinders on . Take a look at the activity of religious groups in OWS, the moral monday movement in N. Carolina and NALT.

You may have PLENTY of experience with "religious people", but you have really missed the boat on so, so many of them.

Stop attacking those who are on your side. It's divisive and only hurts all of us.

I am stating my opinion based on 40+ years experience. Yes, nice to see some folks showing up at the Moral Monday rallies, but I didn't see many folk when I was working the Occupy Movement in NC in 2011. Also pretty absent when I and others were protesting the Iraq invasion in 2003.

Heaven and Hell are a major stanchion of Christian belief, I have heard them mentioned in just about every church I have been in over the decades.

The Christian Left is a minority of Christianity. The ACTIVE Christian Left a minority of a minority.

Telling me I haven't seen what I bloody well LIVED is not selling me on the whole "you just haven't met the "right" Christians" concept. I am meeting one now and you are telling me my experiences are wrong.

I have been in the pews, served on the altar, read the holy texts, and seen and heard the priests, bishops, cardinals, elders, deacons, vicars et al. Are there practitioners who live up to the ideal? Certainly. But they are the exceptions in MY experience. You mileage obviously varies.

were atheists?

"Showing up" at Moral Mondays? They are driving that bus and occupying most of the seats.

Again, your experience is anecdotal. I was raised in the church and hell never came into the picture. Heaven was pretty irrelevant as well. What mattered was how you behaved during this life.

Even if it's a minority, why would you risk offending them or driving them off with your overwhelming negativity towards all things religious?

You are correct. You haven't met the right christians. Maybe you should get out more. You are in the business of driving a wedge at exactly the time that joining hands is called for.

My best advice is for you to learn to use you rational thinking and reasoning abilities to distinguish between religious people who are on your side and those that aren't.

You may have had negative experiences and you may have made a personal decision about your own religious beliefs, but it's the sneering at and smearing of those who have found a different path that I find objectionable.

Your entire opening post was an attack.

is to insult my rationality and ability to reason. I don't recall making any such personal attacks about you.

Good evening.

which is why I pushed back against your initial post. It did nothing but insult the rationality and ability to reason of people that experience the world differently than you do.

You didn't personally attack me. You personally attacked all the religious people in this group, on this site, in this party and on this earth.

And you thought you could do it with impunity, I guess.

I hope you will reconsider your position and recognize that this kind of prejudice is destructive.

Good evening to you, too.

With religion in my journey from believer to non-believer. You decided it was an attack and proceded to demean me, my experiences (by dismissing them) and impune my rationality and reasoning. My discussion was general and based on my own experience, your response was personal.

Some how you believe you have accomplished some triumph in this exchange when all you have done is confirm my pervious experiences.

stand up for believers?

That net is getting pretty big.

You did not talk about your personal experience at all. You made a full frontal attack on people that believe. You made a long list of charges against them that demeaned and dismissed them by impugning their rationality and reasoning.

But when the tables are turned, it feels all personal.

Look, I am sure you are a nice person and you probably would never say what you said here out loud in from of "mixed" company.

I did make it personal, and I apologize for that. But I am sick to death of people thinking it's ok to make these broad brushed ugly attacks on "christians" just for being christians. If anyone said what you said about atheists, all hell would break loose…. and rightfully so.

The only triumph I would wish for is for you to reconsider whether it is really ok to make these kinds of statements about people who's only crime is seeing the world differently than you do.

Go back and read post #57 and try to imagine yourself as a believer in god, if you can even do that. And if your can't, imagine similar things being said about atheists based on someone's ugly and false beliefs that atheists are without morals or an ethical core.

What you said was ugly and unfounded. Sorry if you think I was too hard on you, but, like I said, I'm sick to death of it.

The only karma is ones behavior.

And regrettably, some people will have neither conscience nor karma, regardless of their belief or disbelief.

It is a sad affair in humankind, a situation that neither theism nor atheism seems to be able to rectify.

Maybe the only answer is to listen, learn, and ultimately, forgive.

My best regards.

You don't understand the intentions of DU atheists, perhaps due to filtering from your personal perspective.

By all means, state the intentions of "DU atheists", whoever that may be.

But when you do, keep you own filtered perspective to yourself.

my intentions while you are at it?

And I'm not in the least interesting in trying.

You represent no one but yourself and can speak for no one but yourself.

And there is absolutely no doubt that you filter everything through your personal perspective as well.

So, let's just start here. What do you, as an atheist, want?

And see them driven before me, to hear the lamentations of the women.

The loss of their men that you have slaughtered?

My, that's kind of scary. I hope you don't consider me an enemy.

I use it just for laughs.

So, let's end there.

You'd better ask rug what I want. There's your divine pipeline into my psyche.

I quote - "You don't understand the intentions of DU atheists, perhaps due to filtering from your personal perspective."

Are you in the habit of speaking in the third person plural or were you attempting to speak for all non-believers on DU?

If you don't want to get push back then be more aware of your words next time because you certainly don't speak for me.

Your post is more of a "nudge back" if anything.

My post certainly does not reflect any opinion but my own, and my quite accurate perception that the OP has no real understanding of how atheists think or what they want is not a statement of any collective outlook. It's directed sole at the speaker.

If you want to read anything else into it, it's your misinterpretation and naught else.

Parse the sentence. "You (rug) don't understand..." Nowhere in that sentence do I state what the intent of any atheist is, not even my own, nor do I indicate that I have knowledge he doesn't. Actually, I rarely speak to other atheists here but I certainly don't believe there's been a club-meeting nor a collective manifesto by that imaginary club. I am an individual, as are you. No one speaks for me and I'll assume you've enough self-possession to feel the same.

It's entirely negative; ie, "rug doesn't understand and is making a statement deciphering a collective intent that certainly doesn't exist".

If you're an atheist, you should be insulted by his presumption, not at your assumption of presumption on my part.

Perhaps you should work on your comprehension before attacking blindly.

No.

Was your first post in this thread quoted exactly?

Yes.

Your words as quoted have nothing to do with Rug. My comprehension is just fine. Is it so difficult to just admit your choice of words was not accurate?

You do not speak for 'atheists at DU'. Next time, why don't you just reply that Rug or the OP or anyone does not speak for you as an atheist.

Clearly, what this atheist wrote got under your patently thin skin.

"I'll be fucked if I can see what you find so offensive, however easily offended and emotional you might be"

referring to your comment in your OP. You did inform any interested party on the internet of DU atheists' "wheel-spinning", didn't you?

I, personally, just me that is, only this singular individual known locally as Feral Child, found your judgmental reduction of atheists actions to be offensive. It's a projection of your disrespect, an unjustifiable divisive insult to fellow DUers.

So, you've officially joined the list of myopic folk that want to assume what I meant instead of actually reading what I posted. Had you actually read my post rather than jump to a conclusion, if you'd read my responses to others noting your responsibility for what you said, you'd not waste my time talking about the quotations in your OP.

Also, not to be too critical of your posting skills, I suggest you slow down and calm yourself. Run spell check, proof-read your post at least twice, I suggest once in your composing window and once again exercising the "Preview" option. That gives your body time to metabolize the adrenalin surge you get when you feel outraged, and gives you a chance to organize your thoughts and verify you've posted what you actually meant.

If you do, you won't make typos like "drom" and "puilled" or neglect the punctuation when you quote. Also when posting a portion of a quote, it's proper to add ellipses to indicate there's a missing portion you deem unimportant to your purpose.

Really, rug, I shouldn't have to point this out to someone with your post count. I know you can spell, you're just too hasty and emotional. It makes you appear sloppy and driven, too upset to think or post clearly. Or just plain ignorant, to those of us that can't compare through memory this sort of crudeness with the coherency of your posts when you're not agitated.

It happens every time we have these little chats. Your initial post, though often devoid of meaningful content, is still quite readable. As the exchange progresses you become more erratic, clumsy and chaotic.

Pull yourself together. We're not affecting the future of the cosmos here, we're just a couple of guys dicking around in between accomplishing real things. Who knows, IRL you might be a decent kind of dude. You can be funny, your posts in the lounge are a trip. It's only here that you take yourself too seriously and allow your Ib to become disturbed.

Your exact words have been quoted back. Your first response to the OP which Rug did not write. Your first response even to his closing sentence. Once more "You don't understand the intentions of DU atheists...."

You don't say "You don't understand my intentions as an atheist on DU." So yes, you are attempting to say to Rug that he doesn't and you do. Several atheists, including myself, have asked you, "Oh, really, what is our intention?"

I mean seriously, is English a second language? Stop wiggling and own up to your communication error, and then bring it back on you and your intentions in reply to the OP and Rug. As the OP says, this is a diverse bunch of individuals. What is your intention?

And speaking of attacking blindly, check out the author.

It finally speaks for itself.

The mentally thick and emotionally thin weren't expected to comprehend.

it's his OP. I merely stated that I don't believe he understands.

Jesus, The sentence wasn't convoluted at all. No independent clauses, no compound subjects.

"I was looking into the future in English" said no-one you've ever read.

(You know, the guy who actually wrote the article in the OP.)

Except that I don't even know the guy.

In any case, I was really asking about your comment, not about the OP.

Point to the exact wording where I claim to be a spokesman for anyone. Point out the exact words where I claim any knowledge whatsoever.

To simplify, I suggested that rug doesn't knows what atheists want. JEEZ ON A CRACKER WITH A SIP OF CHEAP WINE, PEOPLE, the sentence was remarkably clear. I suggest some of you take a remedial course in reading comprehension.

I MADE, I MAKE, NO STATEMENT THAT REMOTELY INFERS THAT I HAVE A SPECIAL FUCKING KNOWLEDGE OF ANYTHING, and you are simply reading into my statement what you want to believe I said.

As to your parenthetical I'll repeat: rug posted it here. Jack Vance did not.

It seems that your intentions are usually to bash the atheists here while claiming to be one of them. I think that it would be nice to know what your intentions really are.

s.

......They want everybody to share their beliefs and treat believers with a sneering, self-superiority, an attitude of "you're too dumb to see we're right", that never fails to annoy. The group which is purportedly about religion is always home to far more threads about how awful religion is than it has threads for believers but the Atheists/Agnostics forum isn't home to loads of threads about how awful disbelief is.

That said, the aggressive internet atheists don't represent all atheists. I'm certain that the majority of atheists don't really care if others believe, as long as those beliefs aren't forced on them.

It's a strawman.

Religion
Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome.

It does not say the group is meant to glorify religion, but rather to discuss it. Perhaps there should be a group that is designated as "pro-religion."

It does not say pontificate, condescend, personally attack, or post utter bullshit.

And there is a place for that.

Discussion of most topics often does involve pontification, condescension, personal attack, and utter BS. And, of course, what's utter BS to one is "faith" or something else to another. Not to say those attributes constitute an ideal form of discussion.

So, getting back to the post to which I replied. Particularly the (somewhat questionable) claim that " the Atheists/Agnostics forum isn't home to loads of threads about how awful disbelief is." If the Atheists/Agnostics forum is at least meant to be a safe haven for non-believers, then why not have a forum that's a similarly safe haven for believers?

In the meantime, I suggest you read A&A. There is more discussion of religion (how awful it is) than atheism. Agnosticism is hardly touched. But I suppose it's trotted out here for more attention.

If you think that that picture rises to the "bullshit" picture you posted, have at it.

Sorry you are still sore about getting locked out of that thread. Jury of your peers and all, you know.

It was easy to determine who sent it.

And that post was indeed complete bullshit.

You're not doing much better tonight.

That when asked to support your claim that religous affiliation is tending upward in the world, you instead divert to complaining about a jury hide you got. Nice red herring you caught there.

Hinduism is marginally up and the rest, other than agnostic, or down.

Think that shows what I was trying to say.

When compared to populations growth, the first shows increases in Islam, Hinduism, New Religions, Sikhism, Spiritualism, Daoism, Bahai Faith, and Confucisinism over a 100 year period.

It shows increases in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Daoism, Bahai and Jainism over the most recent 10 year period.

The second shows increase in every group except Judaism and Shintoism over multiple periods.

I don't think it shows what you were trying to say at all.

In terms of atheism and agnosticism, the first graph shows very significant increases over the 100 year period, but a significant loss of growth over the most recent 10 year period. Again, this table is compared to overall population growth.

The second only looks at "unaffiliated" for the last 40 years, and while it shows some small growth, it is useless without being broken down further.

Christianity went from 34.8% of the world's population in 1910 to 32.8% of the population in 2010. How is that not a decrease?

and now you want to change it only to christianity.

In fact, here is your quote:

Read the thread. The are more religious believers now than in all human history.

You lose.

means more people are leaving religion. There's a bigger population so looking at raw numbers is ridiculous.

I gave you links to data. Where are yours?

I worked for Beliefnet for ten years and one thing we found was that, when we had only the one board for Christianity or Atheism, everyone opposed to those viewpoints congregated there and tended to dominate discussion there. So, in the end, we had to designate one board for challenging and critiquing Christianity (for example) and another board that was protected space. Obviously, since atheists dominate on DU, they might find they need a protected space less. But those of us who are believers would occasionally like some form of designated safe space. Sometimes, you don't mind arguing and debating faith but other times, you just don't have the energy for it, y'know?

Sadly that day will not come anytime soon.

Julie

NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER.

There are considerable overlaps or linkages between class and religion. Meaning Religion certainly can be linked to economic achievement.

In fact, you yourself tangentially brought this up when objecting to things like the high percentage of National Science Academy members being atheists or agnostics or 'nones', as an indicator of class rather than intelligence.

Tell me you're not trying to have it both ways?

I'll leave the CAPS to you.

tiate post 48, if it is still necessary.

Dare I say, a bullshit claim?

Substantiate it. Commensurate with the level of emphasis you placed on it.

Grasping an adverb will not save you.

I was hoping maybe we could come to some sort of middle ground and make the later question moot, but fine.

http://www.sociology.org.uk/relspos.doc
http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/Stratification.htm

Linkages between religion and social class are two-way, and the latter is a significant factor in economic privilege. (And the linkage is not always negative.)

Why the runaround, just like to argue or something?

What is clear, though, is that the economics drives the train.

Glad you finally got around to it.

'Plenty' does not mean anything like 'all' or 'complete', just to be clear. Not even necessarily 'half'. In this case, it was intended to convey 'enough to be a factor' (plenty relevant).

Then read it again, and again until you comprehend.

"You say that like they are entirely separate things"

The opposite of that statement allows for a continuum of overlap between 'complete' and 'not at all'. I did not specify 100% overlap.


Usually when people construct strawmen, they prefix it with 'so'. Poor form.

I have the life experience that shows various types of privilege are often connected.

Julie

After all, religious folks get the next world, for eternity. So why not let atheists have this one for one measly lifetime each?