If you are only speaking for yourself, you should change the pronouns from "we" to "I."

Apart from that, I would ask only if you have any evidence that "atheists at DU" have stated anything resembling what you are trying to counter in 7, 8, 9, or 10, that would be neat if you could provide it. Otherwise those statements are just arguing against straw men.

Your post is directly addressing DU atheists.

Or does this mean that I can post anything as a quote without explanation and not be thought to be in accord with the quote? If so, thank you for the freedom to be as obnoxious as I wish without repercussions.

I don't think that is a fair assumption to make at all. Nor is it fair to compare your post (which *specifically* called out "atheists on DU&quot with the one from mr blur (which made reference to no one at DU).

But if you got angry with mr blur's post, and you think this is the "Christian" way to react (get revenge and make up straw man arguments to mischaracterize the positions of others) then so be it. I'll leave you alone.

presentations something that is decried with every other group but theists get it hard. Thank you for the list. I agree tremendously.

Multiple atheists have now spoken on this thread to object to its massive misrepresentations.

Do you think they're all lying?

But of course one already knows that, doesn't one?

Disingenuous or dim, which is it?

Comment on whether you agreed or disagreed. So as they say, "When you assume you make an ass out of you and me." But without comment what is one to think. My guess is the best thing to do is trash the thread-my bad.

Bookmarked.

A general pronouncement . Nothing to get hostile about. I feel the same way as that statement so now there's a we.

Par for the course. No substance, just snark and personal attacks.

Nothing hostile or combative about you is there CH?

Since he routinely, when convenient, uses the first person plural, presumably to invoke some invisible forces to add weight to whatever he posts, it's good to have a reminder.

Duh.

Look closely, you'll see quotation marks.

when speaking for a large group? Seems like they did?

I was saying that such atheists as Stalin and Hoxha used force to try to convert their people to atheism, and several DU atheists disputed this. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=74023 and succeeding posts.

I proved, through actual citations from a thread in the Religion forum, but Trotsky won't look at it, for fear of being proven wrong.

I share your wish that people would see more of the things they have in common and less of the differences. Religion can be good. Religion can be bad. Religion isn't going anywhere.

It's imperative to see the good and the good people within religion and build bridges.

Do you have any ideas about things that could be done to accomplish that here?

It is evolving, and shrinking at the same time, collectively. The 'nones' category is getting larger, and the remainder theists are increasingly identifying as less religious, more spiritual.

I appreciate you sharing your feelings on the matter, but what prompted it? Has any atheist on DU made statements or claim contrary to what you posted?

Not really the same thing as what you posted.

And you didn't answer my question: Has any atheist on DU made statements or claim contrary to what you posted?

Make up a bunch of outlandish shit, claim DU atheists said it or believe it, and ask why we all can't get along.

Already got the cbayer Stamp of Approval though, so it's all good.

Seems like this was just an opportunity to bash DU atheists.

I did not charge any particular DU atheist with anything. I just said what I wish DU atheist would know about theist on DU. Maybe my wish is true, maybe all the atheists at DU already know all 10 things. That would be great.

Perhaps one or the other of us fit this from Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" Could be both, could be neither.

By "wishing DU atheists would know this" directly implies that DU atheists DON'T know it. I would strongly disagree with that assertion, which is why I asked, "Has any atheist on DU made statements or claim contrary to what you posted?"

So for the 3rd or 4th time, I'll ask again.

Has any atheist on DU made statements or claim contrary to what you posted?



If not, why did you feel the need to wish they did know that?


Methinks you wear Hamlet too well.

You are mistaken in your interpretation of the Queen's line. That is not what "protest" originally meant.

And by the way, I am quite capable of saying what I mean - your (deliberate?) misinterpretation of a post I made is your fault, not mine.

I'm sure there have a few over the years that may have expressed some of these sentiments, but not enough to warrant "wisjing DU atheists knew these things".

Texas' unwillingness to say if he has even seen these things posted before is pretty telling, IMO.

Or is this going to turn into another personal attack by you?

Ignoring your own personal attack by suggesting "another" personal attack, your question is far from clear.

It seems to me the quibble you're having is your inference that the poster is stating these are the views on all atheists, including those on DU. That is not the case.

The real issue is whether those positions represent the positions of a significant portion of self-proclaimed atheist, on DU and elsewhere.

That's what my question is attempting to clarify. You suggest it's insignificant. It's not.

and laws show us entire nations establishing religiously inspired laws to imprison, whip and even execute gay people. The Catholic Church officially teaches that gay people are inherently disordered and leaders in that church frequently describe us in demonic and Satanic terms. I don't think the numbers are really on your side. American clergy trash talks gay people daily. Daily.
So what do you base this 'most' claim upon? Faith?

and myself in particular. I am no fool to not know that there are homophobic theist everywhere. I reject the generalization that all theists are homophobic since I know several myself included who are not.

confined to mostly Western nations, as currently defined geopolitically, I would say most theists and atheists are NOT homophobic. Many of the religious organizations within these countries that many of these people belong to are still homophobic, however.

Do you also believe, outside "the West", they are mostly misogynist?

Do you believe there any other undesirable beliefs, traits or attributes that most outside "the West" have?

There are many countries around the world that restrict women's rights, GLBT rights, even making being gay a capital offense. Are these not homophobic in some way? Sexism is also rampant in many parts of the world, including two of the largest countries, India and China, one largely religious, the other largely not. Misogyny is so bad in China that there's a gender imbalance caused by a combination of misogyny and the one child policy.

In addition, I would say there are many beliefs that are endemic outside "the West" that are undesirable, apostasy being a punishable offense, as is blasphemy, along with other limitations on freedom of religion, press, and speech. I could go on.

Of the two.

Tbis is the big reason why I oppose cultural relativism, in many cases, most related to civil and human rights, some cultures are better than others.

*claims* to be an atheist.

And the jury appropriately hid it.

And thanks to the jury for hiding it.

with open hostility to atheists in the process. so... um.

Edit: And that poster has been banned (appropriately) from A&A

Is this the way you make your points now? Damn, I must've really pissed you off. Happy New year!
Hug your bike and your Glock and treat your hamster as well, if not better, than your fellow humans.

I'm sorry you don't share my thoughts about individual rights on marriage. But this atheist believes we should, if we so desire, be free to marry whomever or whatever we like, as long as nobody gets hurt. Maybe you think marriage should only be between humans. I'm sure you are not alone. But we can disagree without you twisting my words to feed the homophobic slurs from the usual suspects. The fact that I think it is OK to marry pets, or objects, or even oneself, does not make me a homophobe. The homophobe is the one who objects to any marriage that is not between a man and woman. Looks like you have extended that to mean any marriage not between humans. Does that make you phobic toward everything non human? Or do you also object to those who marry themselves? Autophobic?

However, I am not offended by your attacks. They only serve to exemplify what the OP is all about.

And the adults in the room understand exactly what is happening.

You are repeating the 'slippery slope' argument offered by the right wing as an excuse to keep marriage arbitrarily pegged as between heterosexuals only.

You know what you sound like, when you butt into a conversation about same sex marriage with nonsense about marrying things that cannot legally consent to marriage (A legal contract)?

You sound like Rick Santorum.

You sound like this asshole:

Barton and Santorum make their homophobic statements from a position of intolerance. I come from the diametrically opposite position of complete tolerance. You are obviously somewhere in the middle.
I have absolutely no issue with folk marrying their pets or themselves, if they so wish. Marriage is about love and companionship, and is a very personal thing. Neither you, nor the government, nor the church, nor Barton or Santorum have any right to tell anyone who they can marry. So get over it.

You managed to get a 4-3 hide by trying to distort my words. Bully for you. Feel free to alert again. You are obviously on a mission to discredit me, but you are only marginalizing yourself.

who despised atheists, posted ridiculous bullshit about them, but were finally booted when they let their homophobia slip.

I know Mark Charles was banned for being over the top and he returns all the time.

I wonder if the two you are posting about come back often.

burning in hell, although perhaps not for eternity. As an atheist I have trouble actually being offended by that, since "hell" is just an amusingly stupid idea, but for people who believe that nonsense it is certainly a form of bigotry.

While I don't believe in the concept of hell, and agree with you how silly it is that god banished the one creature he loved the most to never feel his presence again (except when wagering about mortal souls) I am incredibly offended that people live their lives believing that it is real, and some people, including their own children(!) is truly offensive.

It is a belief that kills. Many teens take their own lives from being bullied by their parents, their clergy, their "friends" and it should be a big shame on the christian community as a whole, but all we get when brought up is the stolen from MRA "Not all religions" horsecrap that just further enables the bad ones to actually kill people.

In fact just this week religion took the life of a young trans girl, Leelah Alcorn, she stepped in front of a diesel truck on the highway, her mom claimed it was an accident while on a morning walk, and still misgendered her, and used her wrong name.

No, it's not offensive, it's much more than that.

It is way past offensive.

practiced in the art of self-delusion.

I found the 'accident' and the 'my son' posts. Holy shit, self-delusion overdrive.

First, if you are speaking about DU, no, most of us realize that most theists here are progressive, although if they believe in, for example Mormon or Roman Catholic Christianity, where they actually stand on issues like LGBTQ rights and reproductive health care rights is never clear. How do you categorize somebody who claims to both support LGBTQ rights and believe that "those people" are going to burn in hell? I think they are still homophobic bigots.

Secondly if you are referring to the population of the United States, "believers" are one of the most rightwing demographic categories in the country. So I know what the numbers are, as per Pew and Gallup, and if you have some different numbers cough them up, otherwise there are pretty much just as many progressive theists as I think there are.

I get the idea that you think progressive theists on DU are rather simple minded at best or lying about how their faith leads them to make correct thought and action, including Dr. King.

engaged in self-delusion over belief and used the rhetoric of belief to further his progressive agenda. Using rhetorical hyperbole isn't really lying.

How you got from an OP on why smart people believe to "you are either lying or stupid" is an exercise in monumental strawman construction. It is also a case in point of the standard huffery of religious privilege on display daily here on DU.

So thank you for answering the question, Dr. King was a lying hack.

Unless your claim is that the rhetoric of belief cannot be progressive. Is that your claim?

and did not believe in God or was a bamboozler who used others faith in God to further his agenda or he was just an ignorant fool among other ignorant fools. In your wisdom, Warren, show me another way of looking at this.

deliberately used the rhetoric of belief to advance civil rights. Your choices are bullshit.

of belief is abusing belief?

That seems like a very silly claim, but you are welcome to it.

John 15:18

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.

The gymnastics you are performing to avoid this question is entertaining, but pointless.


If you're trying to make a larger point, you're failing miserably.

If not, then you can answer your own question to Warren with either of your answers.

And you are hrmjustin.

And this whole subthread is ridiculous.

It seems somebody posted an op to get into a fight, not to actually discuss what he wrote.