Help me out here, believers...

Since just about every thread where we interact ends in acrimony and pissing contests, I think I speak for other atheists as well when I ask:

Where is the line between religious criticism and "bashing"?

And where would you draw the other line - between criticism of atheism and the bashing thereof?

Personally, about all I can think of is attacking the person instead of their beliefs. As in calling them "stupid" for believing in a god, or "brainwashed" for going to a certain church.

Any limitations on religious criticism smack of blasphemy laws to me. On an open message board, one should expect to have their beliefs challenged - no matter how "sacred" they are.

Which, as I undersand, is not a command exclusive to Christianity.

As an atheist, I don't hold anything sacred. I can't get "offended" when someone slams a god.

You hold them in high regard, if not sacred, correct?

I'm just trying to think of a way they could be questioned that I would react as strongly as some believers do when things are posted on this forum. I can't.

As long as it's a mere question.

it is about human behavior-found in some form in all cultures-

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the most common way it is said.

If not millenia.

I don't hold anything sacred - there is nothing that someone could say to offend my beliefs. So as to what I would have others do unto me, I'd say "Let 'er rip!" But obviously based on reactions in this forum, that is NOT how atheists are allowed to talk about religion.

That's what I mean about it not really applying in this case.

sorry for the misunderstanding...I thought maybe you thought it was a religious rather than social rule....

anything?

Once translated to English from Pali, "Do not do to others what would be harmful to you."

Maybe I'm used to it, being an atheist and all, but I don't believe reading another's opinion about your religious belief, or lack thereof, can be harmful as such.

Think of children subject to emotional abuse. Words can cause people great pain and are sometimes voiced for that very purpose. Children and adults alike are assailed with racial and sexist epithets. These things matter.

Words also matter a great deal in the political real. Do you really deny the fact that Bush's use of the word "crusade" was perceived as an assault on the Islamic world? He has laced his speeches with words designed to appeal to the religious right--Dredd Scott, and dozens of other code words the rest of us miss. These words are meant to signal his allegiance with their attempt to assert control over the state. Does that not hurt the rest of us?

I don't think you've thought through the implications of your statement.

I said " Maybe I'm used to it, being an atheist and all, but I don't believe reading another's opinion about your religious belief, or lack thereof, can be harmful as such."

of people who pat you on the head. Its excellent advice though I doubt you'll take it as you are one of the people my prof warned me about. You regard people voicing strong opinions as bad people attacking good little children.

Your reference to Bush boggles me as Bush never puts himself into the line of fire. Bush has every right to say whatever he wants but as the leader of a nation that supposedly committed to free speech he should be willingly to defend those beliefs in the crossfire of debate. But no one holds Bush to that because so many Americans believe that it would be of so mean to make bushyboy go face to face in an intellectual slug fest. It is people like you who can shoulder blame that Bush isn't called on the carpet because bad bad people might make him feel bad and hurt his emotions.

There is a big difference between wanting to be right and wanting to find the truth. Honest debate is vigorous, one of its purposes is to punch holes in other people beliefs. Those who can't handle the heat should get out of the kitchen.

Your response is bizarre. And it doesn't relate in any cogent way to the point I made. I addressed the general assertion that words do not cause harm. Do you actually deny that Bush has caused harm through some of his speeches? Do you listen or read any of them? Do you care about how they are perceived outside this country? Do you care about national security or the standing of our nation abroad? Or are you simply impervious to the outside world?

Obviously every person has a right to say what they want, but that doesn't mean they can't cause harm through their language. "Get over it" is a favorite refuge of those who care nothing about the harm they do to others. One can hurl all the racial epithets he likes. It is constitutionally protected, but it shows the person who uses them to be an ignorant bigot. Parents, however, no longer have a legal right to submit their children to systematic verbal abuse and destroy their lives, no matter how much you and your professor might tell them to "get over it." (I can't imagine a more callous response).

My comments were not about open debate. They were about bigotry, verbal abuse, and irresponsible public statements by political leaders--all examples I provided to support the general point that words can cause harm. That you are unable to see the difference is disturbing indeed. People are free to debate any issue they choose. They are also free to display ignorance and prejudice. The problem comes from those who are unable or unwilling to discern the difference between the two.

Even if you don't agree with them, people deserve a certain amount of respect just for the fact that they are people. I'm a Catholic and I see a lot of posts on this board regarding the hypocrisy of the Catholic church and even the illegitimacy of it. One of the more acrimonious was a post wherein the writer stated that the Bible was just a fairy tale. That seems to me to be a limit. The Bible is a work of human history that has had a tremendous influence on people both to do good and bad things and it has a definite place in history.

To denigrate someones belief system because the writings are not 100% scientifically verifiable to you seems wrong to me and somewhat hypocritical in light of the current conservative uproar over Evolution where religious fundamentalists are doing the same thing.

I would also say that lack of knowledge about a religion would also be a limit that would temper criticism. That's not to say don't offer criticism, just do it with an open mind. Challenging someones beliefs with the goal of wanting to understand them better seems acceptable to me, being openly dismissive of someone Else's beliefs because they are different from your own doesn't really sit to well with anyone, I don't think.

I think that applies to both belief systems - faith and no-faith based.

Please note: Regarding acrimony, I have none toward you, and we probably haven't interacted before though I have seen your posts on a variety of subjects. I have to get back to work and am then leaving early. If anyone responding to my post seeks to challenge me on what I wrote here, be advised that I will likely not respond today until very much later if at all. Don't want you to think I'm avoiding the discussion, if there is one, just reality of my life setting in. I will try to check my post later though to see.

the same as showing disrespect to individuals who are members?

It seems to me those are two separate things, like when we criticize the current US Administration we are not saying all American's are guilty of what we are attributing to the administration.

Particularly in the case of the catholic church there is a strong centralized organization. There seems a clear line between that organization and believers, it's possible to criticize and say something that organization has said or done is wrong without saying all catholics are guilty.

For example are you saying that voicing our criticism of the catholic church's policies regarding condom use in Africa because that is seen as an attack of the members of the church?

Theists are certainly capable of being overly sensitive from time to time. They may also not realize that when an individual doesn't share their set of beliefs, that individual may give offense without intention. I once got flamed out hard for posting an article critical of fundamentalist Xianity during Easter week. When I explained I had no idea when Easter was that year, I was flamed out even harder for "playing dumb". Now, I don't go to church, I don't hang around with many folks who do go to church, and I don't really pay much attention to religious news, so how on earth was I supposed to know that Easter was that Sunday? I knew it was coming up, of course, but I figured it was sometime in April. Isn't it always in April? Nope, turns out it's not.

... it's important to them, therefore it should be important to YOU! (Dammit!) And if you don't know... then... well... by golly you're ANTI-Christian! (That's a pretty egotistical outlook, don't you think?)



-- Allen

PS: Q: You know how I know it's coming up on easter? A: All the candy and basket displays at Safeway.

Criticism of any religious organization and it's policies is justified. The Catholic church has a long tradition of making bad policy decisions and Catholics and non-Catholics alike have a right to criticize those decisions.

Here is the text of a letter I sent to the NY Times criticizing the a leader of the Catholic church (It was never published).

"As a Catholic, I agree with Charles Chaput, Catholics have an obligation to work for the common good and the dignity of every person. However, that obligation can take many forms. Giving to charities that feed the poor saves lives, helping those in need may restore dignity. But no Catholic is obligated to have to save every single life in the world.

Catholics are also taught to judge not, lest we be judged. To assume that women who get abortions are criminals worthy of harsh judgment and punishment, I think, over steps our bounds. For Catholics to judge any women for her choice is wrong. To force women to do what we as Catholics want is wrong. We can persuade, we can hope, we can help, but we cannot force our will on another. That goes against our faith.

It’s discouraging that an archbishop of my faith doesn’t understand this."

I just don't see how it does any good to openly show disdain for another's faith or belief system. Human history is full of tragedy and persecution that stems from the viewpoint that another's beliefs are worthless, so therefore that person is worthless. It may seem like a fine distinction but it really is critical.

Unless you are a biblical literalist (which, if you're Catholic, I doubt!), surely you view a lot of stories in the bible at least as allegorical, and some of them perhaps as fiction, correct?

When someone calls the bible a collection of fairy tales, it means they feel the same way about all its stories that you do about only some of them. In the bible we read stories about talking snakes, worldwide floods, burning talking bushes, parted seas, the sun standing still, and so on.

For the moment, assume those stories have nothing to do with the bible or Xianity. Let's assume they were just found in some ordinary book.

If you were to pick that book up and read it, would you assume that book is a literal account of historical events? Or would you view these as "tall tales," or perhaps even "fairy tales"?

I'm just trying to help explain where that comes from. Is it insensitive to refer to someone else's holy text as fairy tales? Certainly to some. But just because someone has assigned meaning to a collection of stories is no reason that it should be immune from comments like that, I don't think.

We as Democrats certainly criticize Bush's "fuzzy math" and the "fairy tales" the Republicans tell about the imminent collapse of social security and whatnot - and we can feel free to use those terms, can't we? I'm just trying to understand why the same terms are forbidden when it comes to religion.

I also wanted to address your "100% scientifically verifiable" comment - I don't think that's necessarily the case. A lot of the bible I rejected because of my personal moral beliefs. I think a lot of atheists feel the same way.

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

If you find something someone says to be offensive, you may find that saying "Gee, I find that to be offensive" will get you farther than waiting several days and saying to an entirely different person, "That person said something I find insensitive,"

Just a word of advice.

:7

:)

The clear implication is that religious believers are not merely irrational, but obviously irrational.

Well, try telling that to the man who held the Wykeham Chair of Logic at Oxford University for 13 years until his retirement.

What amazes me is that there are atheists on this forum who get up on a high horse about the right to criticize religion without being accused of religion-bashing who are the very same atheists who accuse critics of atheism of 'hating atheists', or 'atheist-bashing', and resent having the crimes perpetrated by atheistic governments even mentioned, lest it sully the good reputation of atheists.

Frankly, I find the double standard in this regard quite stunning.

Use of the term "invisible pink unicorn" and others are an effort to speak in a neutral term about belief itself without giving offense. Using a non-religious, fictional character that everyone agrees is not a deity as a tool to discuss the nature of deity is certainly less offensive than using acutal dieties.

Santa Claus is another story. I have a friend who has an invisible friend that he believes is Santa Claus, sincerely and deeply. I don't know if I would say that he reveres Santa in the way others revere Buddha or Jesus, but he does have a deep and abiding belief that he has a personal relationship with Santa.

Who are we to tell him otherwise?

..speaks volumes.

..."Supernatural dieties are logically impossible, and I'm going to use your deeply cherished diety as a perfect example,"

anybody asserts that intelligent people can't hold false, or even irrational, beliefs. There are many, many factors that go into what we believe, and intelligence is but just one.

What I find silly about the near-constant cries of "religion-bashing" here is the failure to realize that the believers control nearly everything and have most of the power in our society. Why criticism by a few atheists in an obscure corner of the internet threatens you so much, I'll never understand. It's not like WE, for instance, have the power to stop YOU from marrying, or that WE have atheist presidents who state that YOU cannot be a good citizen or patriot, or that WE have weekly meetings with a hundred million members in which our leaders tell people how to vote, or that WE own billions and billions of dollars worth of tax-exempt property yet still declare bankruptcy when faced with paying out court-ordered judgments to the victims of our system.

You guys have it pretty damn good here. Do you really require 100% acceptance and approval? Isn't 95% enough?

to correct misconceptions here...I'm not one of the ones stopping anyone from marrying. I'm a liberal christian, and completely support gay marriage. I do not state you cannot be a good citizen if not a christian, I support the complete separation of church and state, oppose faith-based initiatives, am pro choice, am anti-war....have always voted democratic, never republican. I don't agree with politics in the pulpit, nor do I tell anyone how to vote, beyond normal political discussions, and when I do, I am being persuasive against republicans.

I am apalled as you at the stranglehold the RW have on politics at the moment, and I feel sorrow that, as you demonstrate, they have done a great disservice by making people like you assume all christians think as they do.

The problem, here, as you so deftly demonstrate, is an unwillingness to let go of toxic stereotypes that allow you to paint all christians with the RW brush and punish liberal christians for the sins of conservative christians.

That is the problem, not that you don't have valid problems with RW christians, but that you automatically lay those problems at our feet. And if we attempt to enlighten you as to the difference, you consider that being too sensitive.

What then? should we allow you to blame us for the behavior of others that we also disagree with, or should we attempt to explain our position? If we say nothing, and stand still while you beat us about the head with the sins of others, then we are complicit in perpetuating your ignorance of the invalidity of the stereotype.

I understand: you want to act out your anger at the RW christian community, and since we are here, and handy, you think you have the right to assault US with your pent up frustration. However, your anger, although justified, is misdirected. Forgive us for not allowing you to assault us when we are not guilty of the crimes you speak of.

as has often been said, silence = consent.

I do NOT see huge numbers of liberal Catholics, for example, taking to the streets to protest the ridiculous pronouncements of the church. In fact, I don't even recall seeing any here on DU say they have left the church over it.

If you go to church, drop money in the collection plate, or in any way "play along", you are supporting and endorsing the church's positions.

But that's just for Catholics. As for christianity in general, I just feel that once you give ANY credence to the Bible as an authoritative tome, the rest is just niggling details. I don't see how one can form a consistent ethos from a book so full of contradictions. How can you accept Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, but NOT his more militant stances (e.g. "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." (Luke 12:51-2) or "...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36))

If I have to respect YOUR right to cherry-pick what the Bible says, I have to respect the religious-right when they do the same thing. Since I have no objective criteria to judge which side is right when they make these claims, I either have to respect the fundies' position, OR I can reject both theirs and yours. I choose the latter.

Dookus:
"I do NOT see huge numbers of liberal Catholics, for example, taking to the streets to protest the ridiculous pronouncements of the church. In fact, I don't even recall seeing any here on DU say they have left the church over it."

Leaving the church is abandoning the faith, which is quite hard for many.

Many Catholics were out there protesting the sexual abuse of children by priests protected by the Catholic establishment, a very strong protest that has shook the church to the foundation around the world.

As to the stands that the Catholic church takes, many are very good ones, such as opposition to the death penalty. No private charity in the world does more good works than Catholic Charities, speaking as a former and non-Catholic employee. The Catholic church is a force for reform in some countries, as liberation theology.

"Since I have no objective criteria to judge which side is right when they make these claims, I either have to respect the fundies' position, OR I can reject both theirs and yours. I choose the latter."

and create enemies where you can use more friends. Do you think that is wise?

therefore you're my enemy? That's silly.

As for the church, yes it does some good things. So do the Boy Scouts, but they're still bigots. Right-wing Fundie churches perform a lot of good deeds, too. They're still wrong. And if the Catholic Church had an enlightened view of birth control and condom use, there would be a lot less NEED for charity.


As for Liberation Theology, I see liberal Catholics here invoke it a lot as a sign of the progressiveness of the church, but they never bother to mention that the current Pope is a strong opponent of Liberation Theology.

That is the point.

You are coming off as intolerant and bigoted as the people you attack.

Come on, name them. Who have I attacked?

Nobody.

Thank you for making very clear the whole intent of this post - that ANY criticism of religion is perceived as a personal attack by its adherents. It's a silly position.

Now, how about addressing my points? Why is it that Liberation Theology is trotted out as an example of how progressive the church is, when the current Pope is OPPOSED to Liberation Theology?

Dookus:
"Why is it that Liberation Theology is trotted out as an example of how progressive the church is, when the current Pope is OPPOSED to Liberation Theology?"

Simple, because a lot of Catholics don't do what the Pope tells them to!

Don't you understand that basic point?

Liberal Catholics don't follow the rules about birth control and abortion, conservative Catholics support the death penalty against the official position of the Catholic church. They just do what they feel their understanding of their faith tells them to do, not blindly follow what the Pope says. Catholics are aware that Popes change, policies change, and in many ways the central authority of the church is way behind what is happening in the local churches.

And I see you as attacking us when you display your obvious contempt for the Christain faith in general. It does not require you to specifically attack any particular person here. Your hostility towards Christianity will make you few friends among liberal Christians.

to ME is supposed to go unnoticed? I think not.

what you say is largely true in the US, but not absolutely. Also, the church does NOT blanketly oppose the Death Penalty.

However, in other parts of the world, the Church DOES have a lot more power - specifically in those parts of the world that would benefit most from an enlightened position on condoms, birth control and abortion.

Here's my dilemma: The Pope calls me intrinsically disordered, calls my desire to marry part of an ideology of evil, tells people with HIV that they can't use condoms, and if I object to ANY of that, people like you cry that I'm bashing their religion.

The Church is the most powerful conservative organization on the planet - am I NOT allowed to criticize it without being accused of Catholic-bashing? It's insane!

If you agree with me and NOT the church on the issues I listed above, your argument is with the Church, NOT with me.

Dookus:
"The Pope calls me intrinsically disordered, calls my desire to marry part of an ideology of evil, tells people with HIV that they can't use condoms, and if I object to ANY of that, people like you cry that I'm bashing their religion."

I don't think that most Catholics would see you as bashing the religion if you attack the STAND of the Pope on those issues. Catholics do it themselves, both publicly and privately.

If you separate your attacks on the position of the Church on those issues from attacks on the faith itself, you really won't get nearly as much flack from people. There are a lot of gay Catholics, too, as contradictory as it might seem to you.

because if you'll read my posts here, they ARE focused on policies I disagree with, and I'm STILL accused of bigotry.

In fact, I don't recall ANY thread ever started here that criticizes the Pope or his policies where it didn't immediately devolve into accusations of catholic-bashing and bigotry.

It's a no-win situation. You want to be respected for being Catholic, but when we point out the bad attributes of the Church, we're told we're either being bigots, or that you should be exempted because you disagree with the Pope on that particular issue.

Sorry, but I will continue to speak out against the most powerful conservative organization on Earth. If you want to be a part of it, you shouldn't be surprised when you visit a liberal discussion board and find discussion of it.

I am NOT going to tiptoe around these huge issues just so I can avoid offending people who are determined to be offended no matter what.

As I said before, if you agree with me on these issues, take your fight to the church, not to me.

You are, though, Catholic-bashing, in your attacks on the Church, and you say as much in your post! So it is not a misnomer, and expect liberal Catholics to be unhappy with it.

I also don't think that you understand the Catholic church very well, and that your attacks are simplistic.

in this point you say:
"when we point out the bad attributes of the Church, we're told we're either being bigots, or that you should be exempted because you disagree with the Pope on that particular issue."

And .... what is wrong with the stand of wanting to be exempted? I think that liberal Catholics deserve this.

There are few churches that internally agree on all issues. I am an Epicopalian. The rector of my church is a black lesbian. Most of the seminarians coming though our church are either gay or female or both. My diocese is extremely liberal. At the same time, the Episcopal church is going through an internal fight over the ordination of a gay bishop, though there are already gay clergy throughout the church. We have both political extremes in our church, and everything in the middle, too, but the liberal side dominates the church, and will ultimately win. We may get kicked out of the worldwide Anglican communion.

I was a member of it for 20 years, I have a copy of the Cathechism right here next to me on my bookshelf, and unlike most Catholics, I've read it.

In fact, I seem to understand the Church's position on the Death Penalty better than you do.

But back to my point - how can we make legitimate complaints against the Catholic Church without being called bigoted or anti-Catholic at every turn? Is it WRONG for us to say the church is wrong under any circumstances? Why?

If it were a lay organization, but just as powerful, and just as conservative, everybody on DU would be attacking it, and rightly so. Just because it pretends to have God on its side shouldn't exempt it from legitimate criticism.

and I will also say that hell hath no fury like an ex-Catholic! I've seen this fight before.

"But back to my point - how can we make legitimate complaints against the Catholic Church without being called bigoted or anti-Catholic at every turn? Is it WRONG for us to say the church is wrong under any circumstances? Why?"

I don't see anything wrong with attacking official church positions, just don't lay the blame at the feet of all Catholics. There is a huge range of belief among them, so I would stay away from the broad brush.

At least, I don't have a problem with you attacking specific policies in this way. I can't speak for others. There are many things I dislike about the Church's positions, and the hierarchal nature of the church, or I might be a Catholic, too, but these differences are important to me.

has little to do with my past experience in it, but rather with it's outrageously fucking stupid positions on matters of great importance.

And I will continue to lay the blame for the church's policies at the feet of ALL people who continue to support the church, liberals and conservatives alike. If somebody still belongs to a bigoted, hateful, ignorant organization, and they do so of their free will, they are supporting it.

One's church is a choice, not a pre-determination. I will continue to fault people who support a regressive hateful institutiton.

They are ought there. There are web-sites set up by liberal Christians to try to refocus the dialog on less fundamental dictates. I have written letters to the editor of newspapers particularly in defense of John Kerry that reflected more liberal views. There are also forces that are going the other way. But the dialog is going on.

Should I leave my Church because I don't 100% agree with it's interpretation of Christianity. That would be analogous to saying I should leave the United States because I don't agree with the policies of the current administration. I have considered both.

However, the time I spend in church, the readings and the homilies of the priests affect me on a personnel level. Most of the focus reflects on how as individuals we can cultivate a stronger relationship with God by being more open to him and by living lives that are examples of compassion, by not judging other people, by trying to help when we can. This strengthens my resolve to try to be a force of, for a lack of a better word, good.

Could I do more within my faith to change things? Probably, and I hope to. That is my cross to bear.

Now, you ask of liberal Christians, How we can accept the Sermon on the Mount but not Jesus "more militant stances"? To me that's easy. The Sermon on the Mount speaks to me of essential truths of humanity other things in the bible may not. Call that "cherry-picking", but I'd think you'd respect that as an atheist. Do atheists subscribe to every word written by every atheist. Christians have been agreeing and disagreeing about their faith for 2000 years. If I "cherry-pick" the things that speak to me and they speak of kindness, forgiveness, compassion, not judging others, showing love, is that really something people should have a problem with me for?

So yeah, I think you should respect the religious-rights beliefs and you should respect my beliefs. The objective criteria that I'd think you'd use to decide would be your own. Whose value system do you find to be closer to yours? Regardless of what either of us believe, that is really what is important.

a few points....

Comparing leaving the Church to leaving the United States doesn't work. The US changes its leadership through popular elections - there is at least always the hope that with effort and action, you can change things. I think this is much less true of the Church. You have had a conservative Pope for over a quarter century - one who made some egregious pronouncements on AIDS, condoms and gay marriage, among other things.

There is almost no hope that the next Pope will be any less conservative, and you have no say in who he will be.

As to atheist writings, we don't consider any of them sacred, and we (obviously) don't consider any of them of divine origin or having any special status above any other written work.

I do not respect "cherry picking", even when I find the cherries picked are to my liking - if I respect that YOU can cherry-pick portions of the bible to make your point, I have to respect that right-wing fundies can do the same thing. I have no way to know that you're picking the "right" cherries and they're not. If I find the whole barrel of cherries to be suspect, I wouldn't eat any of them.

Will the next Pope be more closer aligned with my understanding of my faith? I some respects, probably not, in others it is very likely. I can always hope and pray that he will. I do that with the current one. Either way I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

But more importantly, the Pope is the leader of the Catholic church on Earth but his role is really supposed to be more as a servant of the people. Ultimately, Jesus Christ is the only leader of the Catholic faith. The teachings of Jesus lead each of us to make our own personnel choices. The Pope has no authority over any Catholic in a spiritual respect. As such I am free to disagree with his positions and yet still maintain the fundamental beliefs of a Catholic of which there are really only 2 major ones - Love God above all and and love thy neighbor as you would love yourself.

I'll give you an example of that. Had the Catholic church excommunicated John Kerry as some bishops had suggested, I strongly was considering writing to Rome and asking to be excommunicated as well. However, had that happened I still would consider myself a Catholic based on my beliefs in the teachings of Christ. I'll let God be the judge of whether that was right or not. And if there is no God and I am just a bunch of dust, I won't know either way, so I won't really care.

And as far as "Cherry-picking" from the Bible goes, I am not conceding that that is what I am doing except for the sake of argument. I think what I am doing is honestly evaluating the entire sum of knowledge in the Bible and deciding what of it I believe, what of it I think is worth-while and what of it I disagree with in regards to interpretation. I never said I thought it was a sacred text in regards to the fact that every part of it was absolute word of God. Rather what I am saying is that after studying the writings of the Bible, I find that in general more speaks to me in regards to my faith and my moral person, then does not. And that's not to say that the Bible is the only source of guidance that I look to in my life. It is just one of many.

So my pint I guess is really, that everybody, everywhere "cherry-picks" where they get their beliefs, knowledge and moral guidance from. Rhetorically, I'd have to ask, if we don't respect everyones, then how could we respect anyones. Respecting does not mean conceding that they are correct, just that they are not based on mindless acceptance.

At any rate, I have to get off the Internet. Thanks for the discussion. I'll check to see if you respond back to this later today but I probably won't respond again on this thread. I think the discussion for now has played itself out, at least for me.

religious believers had way less real freedom than atheists do in America. 15 million of them died in Soviet slave labor camps.

It's not like WE, for instance, have the power to stop YOU from marrying, or that WE have atheist presidents who state that YOU cannot be a good citizen or patriot, or that WE have weekly meetings with a hundred million members in which our leaders tell people how to vote, or that WE own billions and billions of dollars worth of tax-exempt property yet still declare bankruptcy when faced with paying out court-ordered judgments to the victims of our system.

And you're accusing us theists of whining?

Sheesh :eyes:, and LOL. :D

that atheism was the motivating force behind those deaths has been debunked here repeatedly, so it's hardly worth going down that road again.

Yes, I do accuse the theists here of whining. To me, whining implies a childish complaint based on nothing important.

I believe it's important that the churches are actively working to deny my rights. I believe it's unimportant that your delicate sensibilities are offended because you're not getting 100% acquiescence to your superstitions.

Not even remotely. It's the denial of them that's risible beyond belief.

I quoted and linked extensively to Lenin's writings and Trotsky's which proved that atheistic materialism was, for them, absolutely central to their conception of Communism.

What is also ridiculous, however, is the idea that if the USSR had been a theocracy, atheists wouldn't be lining up to condemn religion on account of what went on there. And in China, Mongolia, Ethiopia (under Mengistu), North Korea, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Albania, Cuba, Bulgaria, Romania, East Germany, Cambodia (under Pol Pot), Laos, and Vietnam. All ruled for varying periods by atheists who railed against religion. All exhibiting widespread, massively documented repression of religious believers.

that is the crux of the problem.

you further think that if they wish not to be bashed, that means they expect you to acqueise to their "superstitions".

I suggest you reread your posts from a more impartial POV and realize that what you say, and how you say it, is highly condescending and contemptous. Is it any wonder you encounter resistance?

encounter resistance. Nor does it bother me in the slightest - I wouldn't post here if it did.

I also believe equating criticism with "bashing" is an insult to people who have actually been bashed - you know, the baseball at to the head kind of thing. Gays get bashed - christians get criticized. There's a difference.

if semantically you object to "bashing', I have no problem with that.

but if you are not bothered when you encounter resistance to your condescending language, why then are you "insulted" when that person feels overly criticized?

Cant have it both ways...either you are or arent bothered by the feelings of people you criticize.

I said equating criticism of religion to actual bashing is an insult to people whose heads have unwillingly encountered baseball bats.

You'll have to do a lot worse to make ME feel insulted. But none of this means a bean.

Can we discuss something other than how insulted you feel or how insulted you think I feel? I figure if people are easily insulted when their beliefs are challenged, posting them on a public internet forum is probably unwise.

Christians pretty much have to go out of their way to find opposition in our culture. That is not true for atheists.

was it a christian or an atheist?

please, try to discuss something of import.

Some people really find a lot of import in that.

Can we discuss something other than how insulted you feel or how insulted you think I feel? I figure if people are easily insulted when their beliefs are challenged, posting them on a public internet forum is probably unwise.

---------

I was pointing out that an atheist started this thread, because you seemed to be implying the whining was coming from the theists.

which is where is the line between criticism and what you perceive as bashing. It's a valid topic for discussion.

I didn't read it as atheist whining.

If you had met one of those cultists who killed themselves in anticipation of the UFO coming on the comet to pick them up - would their beliefs deserve to be treated seriously?

What if you had a child who was brainwashed into that cult - would you be OK with standing back and saying it's just another belief system, I don't want to offend them by telling them they believe something false?

But anyway, you didn't answered my question - WHERE is the line drawn? What's mocking, and what's criticism? What beliefs are OK to criticize? The UFO cultists? Hare-Krishnas? Mormons? Catholics?

delusional or irrational...then you have no point in the discussion except to bash, do you?

ask yourself WHY you wish to stay in the discussion, and that will tell you whether you're crossing a line.

If we aren't allowed to consider someone else delusional or irrational, how can we stop cults like the UFO loonies, Jonestown, etc.?

If your child got sucked into a cult, would you fight to get them back? Why or why not?

you asked where the line was drawn, and I told you to examine your own intentions, and that will tell you if what you say is crossing a line.

I can't prevent you from finding someone's beliefs delusional or irrational...that occurs in your own head, and you are free to come to those conclusions. HOWEVER, the whole point of this thread is knowing when, in a discussion with someone whose beliefs you don't share, you have crossed the line, and I gave you that answer.

Whether I'd attempt to dissuade my child from a cult is a very different question from whether you're being offensive in a discussion forum, n'est ce-pas?

Drawing the line. Maybe my intentions are to rescue theists from false belief? To "shock" them into reality? Much the same as you might to do rescue a child, I would imagine. As Dookus so succinctly pointed out, the fundies pick & choose one set of parts of the bible to believe. You pick and choose a different set. The mindset you both share - being able to pick and choose parts of an old book to form your theology - is what I feel is dangerous to myself, fellow unbelievers, and the country as a whole.

Your answer is really a non-answer, as someone could have the best of intentions and still say something that would be considered offensive to a religious person.

I think you're mutating the question to avoid accepting a valid answer.

What you're describing: "rescue theists from false belief"...is proseltyzing. You're intent is to destroy someone else's beliefs and replace them with your own.

yes, that's crossing a line. That is not respectful, nor conducive to discussion.
If you hold the beliefs of believers with such a level of contempt, that you feel the only way to discuss religion with them is to destroy their beliefs...then you are the one who is dangerous.

You're offended by atheist evangelism?

Do you expend half as much energy being offended by Christian evangelism?

What would you say are the relative proportions of Christian evangelism to atheist evangelism? I'd say about a 10,000 to 1, and that's being generous.

There are literally thousands of people knocking on strangers' doors today trying to convert them to their beliefs. None of them are atheists.

I think its counterproductive, and accomplishes the same problem that atheist evangelism does: it offends and alienates instead of enlightens.

I don't do it, and I disagree with the practice.

Seriously, you're not giving me an answer at all. As they say, you can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs.

On the one hand, you tell me that I shouldn't go in with the intention of "destroying" (your word - I prefer "questioning") someone's beliefs.

But on the other, I am assuming you would do everything in your power to rescue your child from a cult. How can you do that without the intention to destroy their beliefs?

all you seem to do is make assumptions about what i think or believe. Good luck with that.

I AM giving you answers to your original questions, i'm just not honoring your attempts to prop up straw men.

and, you have a great deal of hostility. You don't know me. spend it somewhere else.

If you don't want to answer them, just say so. Don't lash out at me for asking and not accepting your avoidance of the issue.

I believe the bible contains a lot that is allegorical as well as much that is based on real history. In particular I believe in the teachings and existence of Jesus Christ.

However, I can't prove that Jesus existed, nor can I prove that he was the son of God. I don't try to do that. I accept it as an article of faith, an article of my faith.

The context of the comment about the bible being a fairy tale, at least the way I took it, was more along the lines of saying - the bible is not real, it never really happened so people who quote the bible as a moral work are marginalized because it never really happened.

I disagree with that viewpoint for exactly the example you use. When I was in my early teens I read a work of fiction, "The Lord of the Rings", that heavily influenced my moral worldview and what I thought it meant to be a "good" person. Just because this was a work of fiction, does the value I received from it lessen? What if I actually believed the "Lord of the Rings" was a littoral history of the world (that is actually a subtext of the books) and it's Gods were the ones I worshiped. Does that give someone else the right to say what I believe is a "fairy tale" and honestly what is the value in even going there?

Both the Bible and the Lord of the Rings are works that sprang from the human mind. Both may or may not have been influenced by the divine. However, both, in my view contain much wisdom and as such are valuable to humanity, as are all works of intellect that deal with the human condition. So to dismiss either to people who are passionate about them is disrespectful and, to me crosses the line from criticism to bashing.

Here's another example, in Peter Pan, Peter turns to the audience and says that they must believe in fairies to save Tinker-bell and asks the audience to say, "I believe in Fairies". In that moment, people who are into the story may actually believe in fairies, even though rationally, they know they don't exist. Would you stand up in the theater and shout out, " This is a joke, it's all just a fairy tale, fairy's don't exist!" Would you say it to your child?

So I don't see the point, if you are an Atheist in walking around saying to people, "Your a fool, clearly God doesn't exist". Just as I don't feel as a religious person that I should say to an Atheist, "Your going to hell, godless heathen".

Now if you and I want to talk about why I believe what I believe and why you believe what you do, I think that is realistic, and I would expect you to offer viewpoints and criticisms (for example, if there is a God why is there so much pain in the world). I would try to answer you based on my beliefs and faith tradition and question you in the same way. We are unlikely to sway each other one way or the other unless the other person is open to our points but we are likely to understand each other better.

Either way we are both going to find out (or not find) soon enough I think for both of us.

Regarding the last comment - A lot of the bible I rejected because of my personal moral beliefs. I think a lot of atheists feel the same way. That is interesting to me and I'd be curious to hear you or others elaborate on that, but perhaps that is a discussion for another time.

At any rate, I wanted to say Thank you. My belief in God is strong, however, understanding my faith is a constant challenge. This really got me to think hard about it. It is my belief that any true Christian has to continually challenge themselves regarding what they believe and how it fits into the larger world and universe. You helped me to think hard about my faith in a way that I hadn't in a while.

I wrote this a long time ago...it seems appropriate here.

LERK'S RULE OF YARDSTICKS

Preface: Everyone has some yardstick by which they personally measure the big questions, like faith or non-faith, God or no god, the right way and the wrong way...etc. For the sake of clarity, lets assign everyone a different color yardstick, with varying forms of measurement for each.

1. Your green yardstick cannot be used to judge your neighbor. He already has an orange yardstick. He will not accept your measurement of him.
2. Your green yardstick cannot be used to judge your neighbor's orange yardstick, because he has already accepted the orange yardstick's standard of measurement as true, or else he would not be using it.
3. Your green yardstick cannot be used to pummel your neighbor or break his orange yardstick. He would just make another orange yardstick.
4. You cannot proclaim your green yardstick is the only true measurement, even if it is, because your orange neighbor will simply ignore you or hate you for trying to dislodge his orange yardstick.
All these things lead to disharmony with your orange neighbor. And if it was your goal to change his orange yardstick to green, that will not happen.

However...
1. If you accept your orange neighbor's orange yardstick, even if you disagree with him, you may have gained a friend, though not a convert.
2. If you frame all your discussions on measurement with relativity....by saying things like "It was 3 green inches long, or on the orange yardstick, 4 inches" you may have achieved synthesis of two colors, arriving at a third, or at least are speaking in a language that can be understood by your orange neighbor. Even if he does not accept your green yardstick, he at least can understand your point.
3. If you borrow your orange neighbor's yardstick to measure something, you might better understand him. And, he will be more likely in return to borrow your green yardstick to better understand you.

Conclusion:
The Purpose of personal yardsticks is to measure only ourselves. To see if we measure up to our own standards, and if not, to make adjustments to do so. We cannot forcibly make another use our yardsticks, however they may be impressed with how well we measure up to our own standards and ask to borrow ours.
To each of us, our own yardstick is our own truth. There is nothing that says We or our neighbor cannot readjust either ourselves or our yardsticks with new information or enlightenment, but those adjustments can only be made to ourselves and from within ourselves. When we accept THIS truth, we can be more happy with our own yardsticks, and others can be more happy with theirs.
Because ultimately, whichever yardstick is THE yardstick, doesn't matter. We will all make our own standards. When the time comes to calibrate our yardsticks with the great yardstick in the sky, the Lord is not likely going to come to us and say, "hey, your orange neighbor, what do you think of his yardstick?" He is more likely to say "hey, well done with your green yardstick, lets see how you measured up, shall we?"
The bottom line is, if indeed, as I believe, there is a God, spending time worrying about our neighbor's orange yardstick is time wasted when we could have been trying harder to measure up to our own. Better to get your own house in order than to have run around like a chicken with your head cut off trying to force other people to get their houses in order. They won't thank you and you won't help them and you won't even get to put in your own two cents when judgement day comes. God does not need advisors or informants, so why fritter away doing the equivalent of that with the amazingly short time we have?


my two cents.

But in this world, while we live together, there ARE some things that we need to come to an agreement on a measurement for. And it's not quite as simple as saying it's 3 on the green stick but 3.6 on the orange. For those issues we have to resolve, where we NEED to settle on a standard yardstick or forever fight each other, what do you propose then?

...comparing yardsticks?

:P

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

It's crazy to me that this forum was set up as a place to discuss the differences among theists and non-theists, and yet when those differences are discussed, some folks just lose their minds.

I read those books (probably 30 of them). After that I was deeply spiritual and no longer fear death. Arguing religion is like arguing politics. People get "convicted", once "convicted"......they are kinda stuck.....till a stick of dynamite evidence to the contrary shakes their "belief system".

It's not what you say, or what beliefs you hold or don't hold. It's about how you say it as to whether or not it's acceptable.

Example:

Athiest A: The Bible is a pointless collection of fairy stories.

I will admit this makes me want to take your teeth out one by one, Marathon Man-style.

Here's a more thoughtful version of the same content:

Athiest B:The whole time I was growing up, I came to the conclusion that the Bible isn't true for me. I couldn't bring myself to honestly believe any of it. I just don't find it relevant.

The basic point is to keep the focus on affirming your experience. The other simply invalidates the experience of another. Talk about completely missing the point.

It's very easy to do, be thoughtful and considerate.

Some postings carry the connotation that religious believers are, by definition, nutjobs. I remember one in particular that said something like "No sane, logical, or rational person can believe in God. Religious belief is irrational by definition."

Now, I'm imagining the response that posting the following would draw from atheists:

"No sane logical, or rational person can fail to believe in God. Atheism is irrational by definition."

Let's just say, it wouldn't just be quietly ignored.

is the ability to call another person's opinion codswallop and not have to come to blows over it. Personally, I think that should extend to religious beliefs - they shouldn't be exempt from criticism. In fact, because it IS taboo to openly criticize religion in this country, I think that's one of the reasons that radical religious right has gained so much power. They have succeeded in fusing their political and religious beliefs to the point where they are one and the same. And because we have to exempt religious beliefs from criticism, there is no ground on which to challenge their political beliefs either.

And that's bad.

Regarding fairy tales - do you believe every story in the bible is literally true?

fairy tale
n.
1. A fanciful tale of legendary deeds and creatures, usually intended for children.
2. A fictitious, highly fanciful story or explanation.

If you don't believe that a snake REALLY talked to people named Adam and Eve in a garden of paradise, then isn't the creation story a "fictitious, fanciful story or explanation"?

The Koran supposedly tells of Mohammed moving mountains. Literally. Would you consider that fictitious or real? Wouldn't it be a fairy tale of sorts?

because we have to exempt religious beliefs from criticism, there is no ground on which to challenge their political beliefs either.

The fact that you accept this implies that you have accepted their thinking on the matter.

I have not.

I belong to a denom that engages in theological debates all time. It's about 50% conservative (not fundamentalist) and 50% liberal theologically and politically speaking. Debate is a matter of the course of business with us. So I don't have a problem with articulating my thoughts to those with whom I disagree.

As for you, you have as yet to demonstrate that you have even a basic understanding of where someone like me is coming from, theologically speaking.

Re: Fairy Tale. The proper literary term for bible stories like The Garden of Eden is Allegory or Parable, meaning a surface story represents a deeper meaning or truth. For me, the Allegory of Adam and Eve is really a coming of age story of humankind, not a story about punishment or original sin.

As for Mohommend I haven't really studied that story enough to derive any meaning from it. I have only a very basic appreciation of Islam.

And remember, not everything in the bible is allegory or parable. The letters of Paul, regardless of who wrote them, were actual correspondece exchanged among the churches.

>because we have to exempt religious beliefs from criticism, there is no ground on which to challenge their political beliefs either.

The fact that you accept this implies that you have accepted their thinking on the matter.

You are so close to understanding one of my main points, and one of the points that has been brought up repeatedly on this thread! There IS no way to rationally dialog with someone who has intertwined their religious and political beliefs! Not when there has already been established this "rule" that we can't offend anyone by challenging their religious beliefs. Only by breaking that rule, by directly confronting such people on their beliefs will we have any success in breaking their strangehold both on the laws of this country (affecting me) and the religion of this country (affecting you).

As for you, you have as yet to demonstrate that you have even a basic understanding of where someone like me is coming from, theologically speaking.

Well, considering you haven't exactly stated where it is you're coming from, I guess you have me at a disadvantage. You do know that you have as yet to demonstrate that you have even a basic understanding of where I'm coming from as well, don't you?

And considering how many translations, scribes, and people with political and religious agendas the bible has passed through over the centuries, I really don't think it can be trusted as a source of anything other than a glimpse into the mind of primitive humans and their exploitation of each other.

I myself choose not to criticize anyone's religious or atheist beliefs. I believe these are fundamentally internal questions that operate on a far deeper, and more personal level than politics. I have noticed that atheists tend to be some of the most frequent contributers to religious discussion boards here. Some of them are extraordinarily evangelical in their positions. My fundamental belief is that we need to be tolerant. I do not oppose your choice to be an atheist, and I have a great deal of trouble understanding why some atheists seem so obsessed with religion. Why must you challenge another's personal religious beliefs? What does that have to do with you? I have privately wondered if isn't a manifestation of an insecurity in their own beliefs. Do some feel a need to convert others to atheism in order to convince themselves they are right?

The question of religion in politics is another issue. But progressives Christians share nothing in common with Jerry Falwell and the Wahabbi brand of Christianity that fills our airways. We don't support the state's promotion of fundamentalist Christianity or any other religion. Most of us believe the state should not involve itself in matters or religious faith or doctrine.

So tell me what your problem is? Why do you feel compelled to criticize the religious views of others? What makes you think this is any of your business? Can't you be content in your own beliefs? I don't proselytize you. Why should you feel a need to proselytize me?

Where he points out how if we have to respect how you've come to your religious beliefs, then we have to show the same respect to how the fundies got to theirs, and the horrors they are unleashing on this country can't be stopped.

If it makes you feel better to think that we atheists are in here making trouble just because we're insecure in our beliefs, that's fine. But consider for a moment if that very comment had been turned around on you, or another believer. Would you be offended by it? Because people HAVE been offended, by far less.

You may not share political positions with the Falwells of the world, but you arrived at yours the same way he arrived at his: by picking & choosing parts of a particular book. What makes me so nervous is that you & Falwell used the same book.

As far as your last paragraph goes, I really don't see how I'm proselytizing by posting in a public message board and asking people to question their faith. I'm not telling you to believe what I believe, I'm asking you to question what YOU believe. And I certainly don't invade the safe areas already created for believers; I hang around in the forum specifically created for atheists & theists to interact. Go figure.

In fact, I should turn the question around on you - why do you feel compelled to come into a forum where beliefs will clash, and then attack atheists for speaking their minds?

and I never have. If I did, you might be quite justified in questioning why I feel the need to impose my beliefs on others. You may not tell others their ideas are wrong, but there are atheists who do. I have never asked anyone why they are a Jew, a Muslim, or an atheist. I respect people's choices in such matters. Their spiritual beliefs have no bearing on my life, and I feel in no way threatened by them. When I said I wondered if such challenges were a manifestation of insecurity, it was a question, a point of wonder or doubt. I cannot know why you feel a need to challenge people's private beliefs, but I would very much appreciate learning why.

You do, I believe, need to respect fundamentalist beliefs. Respect is a question of one's internal character. If you do not respect who others are, you are a person who lacks respect. The issue of imposing religion into education and politics is another matter. Fundamentalist beliefs in themselves don't harm you. It is the policy matters of using the state to promote their brand of Christianity that is a threat to all of us.

The religious board is categorized as for religious and spiritual issues. It is not an atheist support group. If I went into such groups and tried to impose my beliefs on you, your question would be relevant. You instead choose to participate in a religious oriented thread. I do not dispute your right to do so, but I am puzzled as to the reasons why. I think most Christian progressives are far less obsessed with religion than atheists on these boards seem to be. I do not understand why, and your post has said nothing to enlighten me on the subject. I myself only occasionally read such boards, but I have been attacked by shocking levels of hatred when I have attempted to do so. When I have come to seek answers to spiritual questions, I regret it, since I am inevitably assailed as an idiot. That is the main reason why I come so seldom to this area. I responded to this thread because I saw it on the greatest page.

I would appreciate a response to my question. Why do you feel the need to challenge others on their private beliefs? How does this concern you? To me it is akin to asking someone why they are gay or straight. Why would it occur to any tolerant person to challenge such things? I simply do not understand.

You seem to think that questioning someone's beliefs is the same as imposing my beliefs on them. I think those things are different.

Except in the case of my belief being "question everything", then yes, I would be imposing my beliefs, I guess!

You're wrong in what this board (forum) is categorized for. Theology is the discussion of religious issues - including the atheistic viewpoint. As I've pointed out to others, one of the primary reasons it was created was to have somewhere to move the theist-atheist debates to. This is not a question of me or anyone else invading a safe are and trying to "impose our beliefs". (Which again, I question how we are "imposing" anything.)

I challenge religious beliefs because I see their effects in my life. Because of religious beliefs, my son cannot join the Cub Scouts. Because of religious beliefs, I might soon enter a public courtroom and be confronted by a stone monument essentially telling me I am a second-class citizen. Because of religious beliefs, a former president said that I shouldn't even be considered a citizen.

Do you believe any of those things? Probably not. I don't think many DUers do, or at least I hope. But they are a product of religious beliefs. And again, as Dookus pointed out, how YOU arrive at your religious beliefs (picking & choosing from a book) is fundamentally no different than how Falwell, Robertson, or even Fred Phelps do. Without being able to tell which of you are picking the right parts, I feel it's important to demonstrate the futility of the method entirely. That's why I challenge beliefs on here. It's an open forum, that's what it's for.

and I plainly said so. What I said is that I have encountered some hate-filled atheists on these boards who do seek to impose their beliefs on others. I have also seen comments by atheists who are not hate-filled, but someone feel the need to tell Christians they are wrong. I do not understand why.

Your concerns are policy issues. You object to Christians imposing their views in public life, in the schools and on the courts. The Boy Scout case is tricky, because it is a private organization. It doesn't make their views right, but it does distinguish them legally from public schools. At any rate, I, and I would venture to say no one on DU, do not support such policies. We are not Jerry Falwell, and our view of religion is nothing like his. If you think you are opposing such policies when you question personal beliefs, you are quite mistaken. You would do well to learn the distinction between spiritual beliefs and public policy. If you don't, you will never be able to effectively combat a serious political issue, and you alienate millions of possible allies.

Nor am I saying that there isn't a distinction between spiritual beliefs and public policy. You have (deliberately?) put those words in my mouth to try and make it easier to dismiss my concerns.

What I am saying is that you and Jerry Falwell arrived at your religious beliefs the same way: by interpreting a very old book. There is no way you can convince him he is wrong, nor is there likely any way he could convince you that you are wrong.

And there you sit - at an impasse.

THAT'S the problem I have with religion. When people like Falwell then have significant control of the government, they impose their religious beliefs on me. They aren't going to listen to me, because I'm a non-believer. And they aren't going to listen to you, because you've interpreted the bible incorrectly. (In their opinion.)

So what are we to do? I feel that unless religious beliefs are fair game for criticism, and yes, sometimes ridicule, we will have more of the same. 8 years of Chimpy followed by 8 years of Jeb followed by whatever other slime-dweller they dredge up to run.

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

from experiences and knowledge outside the bible.

But, if you consider yourself a Christian, then ultimately the foundation of your beliefs came from the same book that Falwell et al got theirs from.

I'm sorry, but that's the truth. And I don't think I'm ridiculing you by pointing this out. I also don't think you calling me names is going to make your case.

Once again, for the record, I am NOT equating your version of Christianity to Falwell's - no matter how desperately you try to state my position as such. I am only pointing out that ultimately, you both use the same source on which to base your beliefs.

and it is not nearly as simple as reading a book and believing it verbatim. It comes from a variety of experiences, not least of those are ties to one's ancestral past.

Really it doesn't matter to me what you think about my personal beliefs or how little you understand spirituality. But if you think that entitles you to ridicule those who happen to be different from you, there is something profoundly wrong with you.

You asked about where the line is: Ridicule crosses the line of decency. Intolerance is unacceptable. However you pretend to justify it, it is nothing but prejudice. I think we have enough of that in our society. Do you really feel a need to add your voice?

If telling the truth gets my post deleted again, so be it.

I don't think you needed to be so abusive to relate it, but I really don't think you understand what I'm trying to say.

I refuse to give Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or Fred Phelps anywhere near the kind of respect I will afford liberal Christians. Yes, I am willing to ridicule their beliefs. Apparently in doing so, that makes me (in your eyes) terribly evil. You've made that point abundantly clear with your holier-than-thou lectures.

But right now, I don't see anybody really opposing the right-wing view of Christianity, and part of the reason why is because we aren't allowed to openly criticize. Are we required to tolerate the intolerant?

Telling the truth doesn't get posts deleted. Personal attacks will.

You object to fundamentalist Christians. You sited their role in politics as a reason for questioning and ridiculing liberal Christians on theirs.

That was your response to my question about why you feel a need to criticize someone's (DU members in particular) personal religious beliefs. The point I tried to impress on you is that the two issues (the Christian right in politics, and the personal religious beliefs of progressives) are entirely unrelated.

You say that you feel a right to ridicule me because of the family I was born into and our religious background? And you wonder why I feel offended?

You sited their role in politics as a reason for questioning and ridiculing liberal Christians on theirs.

I did not do that. Or at least I did not intend to. If you can point to the exact words that you believe can be interpreted to mean that I will ridicule liberal Christians, please do so.

I thought I was clear that Falwell and the right-wing fundies are the ones I want to ridicule. But part of that battle is opening up the public dialog to religious *criticism* as well.

And that's what I want to do in this form - to criticize religious belief. I should also clarify that when I use that word, I don't mean bash. I mean the definition that says, "To judge the merits and faults of; analyze and evaluate."

For the last time, I do NOT feel like I have a "right" to ridicule you because of your family or background. YOU have attacked me for believing that, when I never said it.

I cite your precise words.

you have clearly done so in a number of your posts. I suggest you read them yourself. Most disturbingly, you hide behind them as justification for your own decision to "ridicule" those different from yourself. One doesn't have to be a Christian to recognize that as immoral.


My grandmother, and many like her, had a cross burned on her farm as a child because of her religion. Jews were exterminated because of theirs. The Klan and the the Nazis also thought it acceptable to ridicule and target those whose religious beliefs differed from their own.

I don't see how I "clearly" equate you with Falwell. I really don't. What I do see is several places where I expressly said that I did not do that. You have chosen to make up your mind about what I believe, and you have prejudged me according to that. Exactly the kind of behavior you have lectured me about, might I point out.

When did I say that I will ridicule those who are merely different from myself? Answer: NEVER. YOU put those words in my mouth. You have convicted me based on what you want to believe about me, not what I'm really like.

I see Falwell and his ilk as my political and cultural enemies. If their "values" triumph in this country, my family and I will face persecution, "re-education," and possibly death, if they were to achieve total power.

In light of that, I will do anything to stop them.

Your comments:

"What I am saying is that you and Jerry Falwell arrived at your religious beliefs the same way: by interpreting a very old book.

THAT'S the problem I have with religion. When people like Falwell then have significant control of the government, they impose their religious beliefs on me.

So what are we to do? I feel that unless religious beliefs are fair game for criticism, and yes, sometimes ridicule, we will have more of the same. 8 years of Chimpy followed by 8 years of Jeb followed by whatever other slime-dweller they dredge up to run.

I challenge religious beliefs because I see their effects in my life. Because of religious beliefs, my son cannot join the Cub Scouts. Because of religious beliefs, I might soon enter a public courtroom and be confronted by a stone monument essentially telling me I am a second-class citizen. Because of religious beliefs, a former president said that I shouldn't even be considered a citizen."


You miss the point entirely. It is not religious beliefs that brings any of this about. It is intolerance and bigotry. Nothing else. Religion is a pretext, just as opposition to Falwell and Bush provide a excuse for some to express their own prejudice against all believers.

I feel a need to point about some historical information: religion was essential to the Civil Rights movement in the US. Their resistance was built in black Churches. Religion provided a crucial form of ideological empowerment for resistance to slavery. Religion was the ideology behind Nat Turner's rebellion, the Muslim Revolt of 1835 in Bahia, and slave revolts throughout Northeastern Brazil in the early nineteenth century. Indians and Mestizos who rebelled against Spanish colonial rule under the leadership of Father Miguel Hidalgo (1810) were empowered by religion; both Christianity and the Inkari were fundamental to the Tupac Amaru rebellion (1780-2). Would you prefer those people have abandoned their religious beliefs and suffer oppression to placate your own opposition to their ideas?

The Church has served as a form of oppression throughout history, but the poor have appropriated the revolutionary elements of Christianity to resist oppression. The first communists were Catholics, long before Karl Marx, Lenin or Trotsky ever considered notions of economic equality. Intolerance and bigotry is what makes oppression possible, not religion itself.

Religious beliefs combined with intolerance, sure. But Falwell can easily point to bible verses that appear to support what he believes. *Just* like you can point to verses that support what you believe. That's precisely what I've been saying all along - nothing more, nothing less.

What I would like to note here is that you did not cite where I said I would automatically ridicule those who are merely different than me. Nor did you provide words that showed I equated YOU with Falwell.

Therefore I would like to request an apology from you, for putting those words in my mouth and berating me for saying things I did not.

Yes, I am aware religion has been used for good. I never said that it hasn't. But it only serves to further illustrate my point - that you can find support for just about anything in the bible.

I do apologize for any insult I have caused. I do think, however, you are not accurately acknowledging what you have said. When I asked why you felt a need to criticize the religious beliefs of DU members, you pointed to Falwell and Bush, the dominance of religion in public life and the Christian right's grasp on state power. You gave no other explanation. How does this relate to DU members who are Christian? If you want to challenge Falwell and his crowd, you have chosen the wrong venue. You will not find them here.

Religion is far more than the Bible. Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ. The Bible is one record of those teachings, but there are dozens of other gospels and accounts that never made it into the bible. There are also two thousands of years of theology, writings by philosophers who have interpreted in profound ways the meaning of one's relationship with God. Only fundamentalists focus on the literal meaning of the text of their particular translation of the Bible as the foundation for their views. Falwell, in particular, ignores most of it. Christ never spoke of homosexuality. He instead spoke of forgiveness, tolerance, and ministry to the poor. I personally do not see what makes Falwell a Christian, but that is a matter for his own conscience. (I'll never forget him say, in regard to "terrorists", "Blow them all away--in the name of the Lord") Islam, Buddhism, and traditionalist religions do not use the Bible at all. Jews base their religion on the Torah, which is an interpretation of the Old Testament. Many religions use no foundational text whatsoever. Religion is not simply what one finds a passage for in the Bible. Those rebellions I spoke of were carried out by non-literate peoples who never read the Bible (with the exception of Hidalgo and Morelos themselves, but their followers were illiterate). Muslim slaves and freedmen used instruction in the Koran to encourage their converts to rebel against slavery. To imagine that spirituality is limited to what one finds a passage for in the Bible is absurd. Some of the greatest thinkers of the Western world have been theologians: Kierkegaard and Martin Buber were particularly instructive in my own understanding of Christianity, but there are countless others to draw upon.

Religion is no more the cause of intolerance that the fact people have differing skin tones is the cause of racism. Religion is no more the cause of bigotry then the fact that women and men exist on this earth is the cause of sexism. People are who they are. Some are black, some are white. Some are men, others are women. Some are Jews, some are Muslims, while others are Christians, atheists, or Buddhists. Those realities do not cause intolerance. They instead provide a pretext through which some seek to dominate others. Forty years ago these very same people who draw on religion as their source of bigotry sought refuge in racism. The verbal articulation of their prejudice has changed, but the sentiment has not. If you were by some stroke of the wand able to banish religion from the minds of all people on earth, you would do nothing to solve problems of intolerance and prejudice.

When you target religion as the enemy rather than bigotry and a power grab by the Right, you misdiagnose the problem. You will never succeed in combating the Religious Right's hold on power if you feel a need to ridicule religion itself. Well over 90% of people on earth believe in one religion or another. If you set up the entirety of humanity as your enemy, you can only lose. And what's more you don't deserve to win. You cannot effectively combat a problem if you don't accurately identify it. Moreover, you alienate millions of possible allies. Why? What purpose does that serve you?

Hit many good points, there.

Here's an analogy from politics:

Case 1: You've gotten into a debate with a Republican acquaintance. The Republican cites sources and/or gives examples, and you cite sources and/or give examples. You don't mischaracterize each other. Maybe one convinces the other, and maybe not, but maybe you realize that you'll never agree because your personal experiences have led you to different places. (It USED TO be possible to have debates like this with Republicans.)

Case 2: You've gotten into a debate with a Republican acquaintance. He starts out by calling you a dirty, perverted, unemployed hippie. You try to explain that you took a shower this morning and put on clean clothes, that your sex life is boringly conventional, that you have a full-time job, and that you are not a hippie, as he should be able to tell by looking at your short hair and business casual attire. But he's got it in his head that all Democrats are dirty, perverted, unemployed hippies, so he just keeps on spouting Fox News talking points. He tells an anecdote about a liberal professor who persecuted his conservative students, and when you say that if the story is true, then the professor was wrong, and that you would not do that, he goes on and cites more such stories, and adds that besides, FDR interned the Japanese-Americans, Andrew Jackson exiled the Cherokee from their ancestral lands, JFK was a serial adulterer, and LBJ had some scandalous associates. He then says that you want to bring Stalinism to America. Besides, his parents were Democrats, and they were hypocrites. Therefore he (the Republican) could never be a Democrat.

In which case are the parties engaged in respectful debate?

But they don't help answer my question.

Exactly WHAT terms would be equivalent to calling a liberal a "dirty, perverted, unemployed hippie"?

I thought I made it clear in the first post that I obviously thought ad hominem was the wrong way to do things. That would indeed cover your example, as far as I understand it.

My question is, how much criticism of a person's *beliefs* is allowed?

You've never made ad hominem attacks in this forum.

However, what I've seen from various posters are:

1) Misrepresentation of beliefs ("You believe in a Santa Claus in the sky" or "You want to impose Stalinism on this country.")

2) Bringing in historical phenomena that have no relevance to the topic at hand ("The Inquisition" or "FDR interned the Japanese-Americans")

3) Acting as if facts about the dark side of a given religion will be news to an adherent of that religion and if known, will convert the religious person to atheism

4) Bringing in one's own personal issues ("My parents were Christians, and they were hypocrites" or "My parents were Democrats, and they were hypocrites.")

5) Criticizing religious DUers for what other people (not DUers) have done ("There was this preacher who tried to get an atheist teacher fired" or "There are liberal professors who persecute their conservative students.")

The equivalent of calling a liberal "a dirty, perverted, unemployed hippie" would be calling a religious person "deluded, crazy, stupid, unable to deal with reality, weak-minded, superstitious, anti-scientific," and a host of others.

You always manage to stay so calm and collected. WHAT'S YOUR DAMN SECRET?!? lol

But if I haven't made ad hominem attacks (and while I'd like to believe you, I am nowhere near confident in my skills of self-censorship nor my hit-or-miss memory to say I've *never* made one ;-), why have some people still gotten so upset with me? What line did I cross?

My grandmother did not get along with her younger sister. They were always carping at each other and digging up trivial stuff from fifty years ago. My mother picked up my grandmother's attitude and was always making snide remarks about my great-aunt.

One day, my grandmother was brooding about something that her sister had said to her the previous week, so she picked up the phone, called her sister, and started scolding her without even saying "hello."

Now I knew that my great-aunt was a real pain at times, and sometimes her sense of drama overcame her devotion to the truth, but who doesn't have their moments? We got along just fine. We'd go to lunch together.

My grandmother and mother were mystified about why my great-aunt seemed to like me.

And I responded, "Maybe it's because I don't call her up for the sole purpose of criticizing her."

... a few bits of advice for dealing with discussions on sensitive subjects. These I think apply pretty much universally, not just to the current discussion. In addition, something that many people seem to fail to recognize is that there are certain discussions that are long and complicated enough that they can go in circles forever without anyone noticing. Progress is only made when that orbit is broken.

1) Always clearly state all opinions as opinions, never as fact.

2) Couch controversial "facts" as opinion. Even if you believe something to be logically and definitively proven, some statements are volatile. Much of the time you know what these hot-buttons are going in. Unless it is vitally important to your point, state these "facts" as opinion. If you think that softens your argument too much, consider attributing the opinion to an authority rather than just stating it as your own to bolster it. If it simply must be portrayed as fact, then those are the breaks, but a little effort here will keep the discussion on a more even keel.

3) Take the issue seriously. To do otherwise is to ignore that there are deep differences with real-world consequence -- and worse yet, to waste time treading old ground without ever touching on those keystones. (In this case, even between an atheist and a theist with identical political leanings, there are still unresolved differences in areas such as loyalty to country/society versus religion, and assessments of one's competency on the one side and one's "moral fiber" on the other being jaded by personal belief systems.)

4) If simple, even sometimes trite, quips were in any position to move the discussion forward, they would have done so already. Realise that quite more often than you may believe, the other participants have already heard your one-liners. Supply substance and don't engage in "driveby" posting. (Do hang onto the one-liners for "horsing around" threads, though, as you know what they say about all work and no play...)

4a) Tying the discussion to current events often seems like a good idea, but hastily improvised allegories and metaphores often do not stand the test of time and thought.

5) Don't let points of unity go unacknowleged. Taking the time to explicitly agree in areas where there is agreement is an act that does more than just sooth the other person's ego, it also helps to remind you to personalize the argument instead of engaging in a mock battle with your own mental monolith.

6) Self effacement sometimes works wonders. Sometimes not. Depends on the other person. It's always worth a try, however.

7) Recap. Go back over the discussion later and ponder what did and did not resonate, and, if you have a clue, why. Adapt. Evolve. Progress.

Boiled down, #1 and #2 appear to say that you should tread carefully on eggshells. That's kind of what I'm asking - HOW carefully? At what point does religious criticism become what has been referred to as "bashing"? Is it fair to wall off one area of thought and say, "None shall question this"?

In answer to your question, I don't know, and it likely depends on the person. I don't think it is something that can be standardized, to be honest.

But it's funny you should mention walling off areas of thought, since that's what both sides of the wider argument boil down to. An atheist can no more truly access the realm of thought of a theist as a theist can visa versa. Both have walled off their perspective, one through a process of logic the other through faith. Logic claims to require only a few axioms at its core, but in most real world applications requires a large magnitude of further assumptions (e.g. Occam's razor is not a true law, though often treated as such.) Faith, as the word is used in common practice, only differs in that the big pile of axioms are all clustered in the middle rather than hidden between the lines.

Even soft agnosticism makes assumptions that no knowlege of such things is stored at another level of consciousness, and that the agnostic themselves are not just willfully repressing it and engaging in a self-fulfilling assessment.

Or, in the words of Funkadelic -- "free yo mind, and yo ass will follow."

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a "religion and theology" forum?

This was on the 'greatest page' so I didn't notice what forum it was in. As an agnostic, I wouldn't voluntarily lurk on this forum. But don't get me wrong - I believe in protected rights for all!

Your response made me giggle! You should lurk...it can be a real laugh riot sometimes! :) Thanks for your answer, it cleared up my confusion!

I look at posts like this: If a religious person goes on about the "immorality" of an atheist, then that post serves little purpose and the poster is not going to 'criticize' but rather, 'ridicule.' I ignore those posts. If an atheist person goes on about how a religious person is delusional or somehow intellectually deficient, then the poster is not going to 'criticize' but rather, 'ridicule.' I ignore those posts, too.

Personally, I don't care what one thinks of my spiritual beliefs, as they are mine. If they do not interfere with your civil liberties, then they really aren't any of your business, unless you ask. But, if you continue to insinuate I am stupid because I have spiritual beliefs, well, I won't continue a conversation with that person because it would futile.

When it comes to religion or spiritual beliefs, people can be over sensitive. I am not one of them. I feel some people are just spoiling for a fight and look for offense, no matter what. Both sides are guilty of this!

I'll bring up the UFO cult again. Were those people deluded? Should we have respected their beliefs by not trying to tell them they were wrong?

And what exactly does it take to insinuate someone is stupid? If I say, "I don't believe in any of that supernatural horseshit" - does that do it? What about "I think you haven't analyzed that aspect of your belief enough"? Where is the line drawn? Where does criticizing a belief become insulting the belief holder?

Who are you to be Mr. Enlightenment?

Maybe people have a need to believe in UFO's.

Say you have a child who gets indoctrinated into the UFO cult, and you become aware of their plans to commit mass suicide.

Do you sit back and say, "So what if they are deluded? Maybe they have a need to believe in that."

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

and it's off-key.

Why not just answer the question instead of dredging up your oft-discredited slime?

why not answer the question? Why bring up your silly claims about atheism and genocide again when they have no relevance here?

If I responded to every post here with a claim that pedophilia was a trait inherent to Catholicism, you would rightly be offended, and the posts would probably be deleted. What you're doing is no different.

Hard to define, but I know it when I see it.

And btw, I've contributed around 700 posts to this forum, and I think you'll find that well over 90% of them don't mention Communism or mass killing perpetrated by atheists.

Mentions by atheists of crimes committed by Christians, however, are legion.

why not answer the question?

Why bring up your oft-discredited and debunked silliness about atheists and genocide? Can you please try to stay on-topic?

oft-discredited and debunked silliness about atheists and genocide?

Huh? In your dreams perhaps.

You see, this is precisely illustrative of the issues raised by the question.

You want me to answer a question about what constitutes unfair bashing as against fairly argued criticism. Well, to my mind, the record of militantly atheistic Communist regimes is very much fair game if we're talking about policies implemented by one side or the other, which apparently is what atheists want to talk about in relation to contemporary America.

You disagree with that, just don't want to hear about mass killing of religious believers by atheists, and feel that atheists have been unfairly tarred with the Communist brush, and regard my mentioning the actual record of atheistic political regimes as somehow 'atheist-bashing'.

I guess what I'm saying is, the irony is delicious.

See, what some people regard as fair criticism of religion is regarded by others as ludicrously unfair religion-bashing. When any believer protests, the atheists jump in with, "No, this is fair criticism, not unfair bashing." The Communist case just illustrates some atheists' inability to take the medicine they're so intent on dishing out to others.

the question was about under what circumstances you would decide that somebody's beliefs were delusional, with a suicide UFO cult offered as an example.

Your oft-debunked atheist/genocide connection has nothing to do with this discussion.

And so was sticking to the main point of thread. But if you insist...

under what circumstances you would decide that somebody's beliefs were delusional, with a suicide UFO cult

I would decide a belief was delusional if I thought it was wholly without rational foundation, completely untrue, and the result of some deep-seated disorder in the person's cognitive equipment.

As an example, I think that the belief that religious belief in general is not merely false but delusional, is itself delusional.

Satisfied?

:-)

but I didn't expect to be.

You see, this sort of question can cut both ways.....

Ever since Marx and Freud, even people who are not Marxists or Freudians frequently offer those thinkers' theories as to the illusory nature of religious belief.

It is important to see how atrocious these sorts of psychologizing arguments are, as arguments. They are, despite their popularity, amazingly weak to the point of being rationally unusable.

Let me quote from philosopher Nicholas Rescher:


Of course, there still remains the well-trodden prospect of antitheological psychologizing. The general line is all too familiar:
"You see the traditional monotheistic God as desirable merely because he answers a psychological need of yours. You have a psychological yearing for acceptance, validation, support. Your God is a mere parent-substitute to meet the needs of a weak and dependent creature." So argues the psychologizing opponent of axological theism. But this sort of facile sort of psychologizing ultimately cuts both ways. For the axological theist can readily respond along the following lines: You see the traditional monotheistic God as undesirable because you find the very idea threatening. You atheists too are "God fearing," but in a rather different sense. You are afraid of God. You have an adolescent's fixated fear of and a condemnation by authority. Your atheism roots in self-contempt. Recognizing what an imperfect creature you yourself are, you have a fear of being judged and found wanting. The very idea of God is threatening to you because you fear the condemnation of an intellige nt observer who knows what you think and do. You are enmeshed in an adolescent aversion to parental disapproval.

So runs the psychologizing counterargument. And this line is not without surface plausibility. Many people are in fact frightened by the prospect of a belief in God because they ultimately have a contempt of themselves. They feel threatened by a beli ef that God might exist, because they feel that, were it so, God would not approve of them. For them, atheism is a security shield of sorts that protects them against an ego-damaging disapproval by somebody who "knows all, sees all." Atheists are not inf requently people on whose inmost nature the vice of self-contempt has its strongest hold. Pretentions to the contrary notwithstanding, the atheist's actual posture is generally not a self-confident independence of spirit, but a fear of being judged.

In this regard, then, there is simply a standoff in regard to a Freud-style psychologizing about religion. Those psychologizing arguments that impute rationally questionable motives that can be deployed against the believer are not difficult to revise and redirect as arguments against the atheists. Psychologizing is a sword that cuts both ways in regard to axiological theism. Both sides can easily play the game of projecting, on a speculative basis, a daunting variety of intellectually non-respectable motives for holding the point of view that they oppose.

And Alvin Plantinga says this:

Freud's jejune speculations as to the psychological origin of religion and Marx's careless claims about its social role can't sensibly be taken as providing argument or reason for... the nonexistence of God; so taken they present textbook cases (which in fact are pretty rare) of the genetic fallacy. If such speculations and claims have a respectable role to play, it is instead perhaps that of providing a naturalistic explanation for the wide currency of religious belief, or perhaps that of attempting to discredit religious belief by tracing it to a disreputable source. But of course that doesn't constitute anything like evidence for {the non-existence of God} or a reason to think theism false. One might as well cite as evidence for the existence of God St. Paul's claim (Romans 1) that failure to believe in God is a result of sin and rebellion against God....

In other words, if it is open to the atheist to speculate about the psychology that underlies theism, it is just as open to the theist to speculate about the psychology that underlies atheism. And of course some theists (e.g. St Paul, Pascal) have done just that. But at least they, unlike some atheists, don't make the blatant logical error of thinking that their psychological speculations are evidence or arguments for the falsity of atheism. Theists don't typically argue that atheism must be false because of the psychological motivations of atheists. They only point to those motivations to explain the occurrence of atheism, not its falsity.

Would that the reverse were true!

Would atheists not bristle if someone wrote the following?

I think it's fine for atheists to say what they think about religious belief. I think it's also fine for theists to say what they think about the atheistic materialist worldview.

Most of philosophy, at its core, is really about whether this worldview can possibly be true.

1) I think it has been shown repeatedly to be replete with logical fallacies, and to be a rationally unwarranted, multiply incoherent, and systematically self-refuting philosophical worldview. I think that it is clung to as a blind faith, rather than on the basis of reason. One certainly can't prove it true by scientific means, and even the idea that one might be able to one day reveals a fundamental error in reasoning. It's not proven or provable by science, yet it proposes empirical science as the only valid test of rational belief---a test the materialist worldview itself logically cannot pass. Even rational argument of a more general philosophical kind shows that it's without a rationally justified foundation, has huge problems of logical coherence and adequacy to the data, and that it generates the most bizarre consequences.

2) I think most atheists in fact hold their views dogmatically, are dreadfully ill-informed about science, philosophy and theology, and that their atheism typically has non-rational, and not infrequently profoundly irrational, motives.

3) The record of militantly atheist political regimes is truly horrific---the worst, in fact, in the whole of human history--worse even than that of the Nazis.

4) My personal experience of debating atheists is that they are usually angry cranks, dunces when it comes to logical thinking, ludicrously ignorant of relevant subject-matter, and incredibly childish and emotional rant-merchants.

Yeah, you know, I think they would.

I don't know that I think some religions qualify as delusions. They may be "delusional" in nature, but are not delusions, per se. As for your example of the UFO cult (and I am assuming your talking about Heaven's Gate and not just UFO enthusiasts), I think this is an extreme example, like Jonestown. The beliefs those people had were dangerous to themselves and others in a very real sense. Real in that it could inflict damage or death. Now, you may feel religion, in of itself, inflicts emotional and intellectual damage, and maybe you are right, but that is a whole other discussion. In the case of cults, I do not think it is a bad thing to explain how the belief system may be a physical danger, when proof exists that a clear and present danger does exist.

As for your next litany of questions, I am going to approach them one at a time.

And what exactly does it take to insinuate someone is stupid? If you understand the word "insinuate," then you know that this would be accomplished by how the statement is worded. Your example: "I don't believe in any of that supernatural horseshit." is an example of an "effective "I"" statement. This is attributed to you and no one else. If someone is offended, it is a reaction from the listener (reader), not from the speaker (writer). You cannot be responsible for how someone else feels, especially when you are stating a reality of your own. A person might be offended at that statement because they misread, there is a history of animosity, or the person associates your statement "supernatural bullshit" as a reflection on their beliefs. If that is how the reader relates that information, it is "on" him or her as to his/her reaction. Now, had you said; "I think your religious beliefs are supernatural horseshit." That would be a direct attack, even if it is stating your opinion.

What about "I think you haven't analyzed that aspect of your belief enough"? Tone is not translated well over the internet, so a statement like that could be seen as harsh, but some may not take it that way and continue a discussion.

Where is the line drawn? That can only be determined by you and the person you are talking to or with. However, in a blind post, perhaps bland is the best way to go.

Where does criticizing a belief become insulting the belief holder? This is more tricky as some people's beliefs are so intertwined into their persona, that an attack on their beliefs is, in fact, an attack on them. There will be no pleasing someone like that and open discussion will be very difficult, if even possible. However, something along the lines of what Bill Maher said (and I am paraphrasing): "All religious people are mentally ill" is insulting to religious people and is in no way just commenting on the beliefs, but on the believers. To me it would be no different than someone saying: "Atheists should no hold public office because their is no way they could have any moral beliefs." I think that statement is an attack on atheists and not their beliefs. Do you agree?

What are your goals with asking the original comments? What do you hope to accomplish? What do you think would be the best way to proceed with adult conversations about 'dicey' topics?

The rest of your post seems to tell me that everyone has a point at which they will feel insulted, which is obviously true, but doesn't help me one bit.

I want to dialog on here. I don't want to go "bland" so I don't risk offending anyone, because then you end up not saying anything.

It's a public discussion board. Beliefs and stances and policy positions will be challenged.

As far as your equivalent statement against atheists go, I guess I might view it as an "attack" but I also wouldn't be offended by it - I would simply want to defend sources of morality other than religion. I wouldn't feel the need to bash you for being insensitive towards atheists, or any of the other things people have said about me and my questions.

My goals are twofold: to refine my approach towards posting in this forum, but also help people realize that beliefs WILL be challenged in here. That's one of the features of this particular forum. Things MAY get said that religious folks will find "offensive." But as long as non-believers avoid ad hominem attacks, I don't think we should be censored or personally insulted.

I think you hit on an important point..."as long as non-believers avoid ad hominem attacks. I feel both sides should try this!! But, it is also like I said, you can only be responsible for your own feelings and not others who may read your post, up to a point.

As for your goals, I think it is very nice you are trying to refine your approach. I also don't think you or others should be censored. If a person makes charge of a personal attack, they have the right to "alert." But, I think people should be more open and if they are offended, explain why. But, that is just me.

Sorry, I couldn't be of more help. Good luck on your quest...I will see you from time to time to see how you are progressing on your goals! ;)

when someone doesn't make fun of the religion but of the person practicing it (or makes fun of an atheist for not practicing).
I also think that when one disses a person who may be trying to merely explain a position (such as the position of moderates or progressives of a religion) and says "everyone who practices that religion is all alike and they are all bad/losers/extremists" aren't really participating in the discussion of ideas. Disagreeing with an idea or philosophy presented is fine.


I know this: when we die (one thing I think we all can agree will happen to believer and non believer alike), either atheists or believers will be surprised-or, maybe we both will.

none of us will be surprised, since we won't exist after we're dead! :)

especially when it's uninvited

and challenging someone's belief is never criticism

you criticize us, we'll criticize your criticism, and sooner or later the whole cycle of criticism will come back to you

what is that we used to say about rubber and glue?

challenging someone's belief is never criticism

Yes, yes, fine and good. But what's the difference? That's my question - how far does can challenging belief go before it becomes unacceptable criticism?

On edit: Added "unacceptable"

"I know it when I see it"

If I say "Jesus Christ was a fraud", would you consider that obscenity, and do you think I should be arrested?

...a victimless crime. ;)

but don't expect everyone to bow down to you because you're saying it

However it's not at all difficult to imagine many delicate and hyper-sensitive people claiming that they were personally bashed in response to someone saying "JC was a fraud".

did he tell you these things? what were the words he used? please paraphrase if you need to

that he expects people to bow down before him?

Why?

...it is possible that he expects people to bow down before them.

The answer is up in the air, right now.

Why does everybody in this conversation think that I am saying things are true or false when I am only asking questions?

I often why so many delicate and easily insulted people spend their time in forums like this.

I'm being as delicate and easily insulted as you are, Brother.

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

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

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

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

I thought you'd be proud of me.

A thousand pardons.

I know I'll find it.

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

I had a whole thing written out ready to pounce on everything, but then I saw the edit you made, and well, I guess I realized this won't end well if it keeps going.

My point is, people have a right to be offended. You're right, maybe this isn't the right place for them. But, I don't think that is for you or anybody to decide. And usually when someone tells me "I wonder why you're still here", I have been known to interpret that as intimidation. That's my interpretation. My interpretation. Interpretation.

Good night.

Erik

... especially considering everything else you MIS-interpreted and found reason to be offended with. The word "RE-read" for example.

>> But, I don't think that is for you or anybody to decide. <<

I don't begrudge anyone their right to be offended. Asking WHY someone stays or pointing out that they have the option to move to other venues that are friendlier is not deciding for them... it's simply questioning them and pointing out other options. I don't see how anyone can reasonably interpret that as my taking liberties and deciding *for* them.

But if we take into consideration that the delicate folks have a myriad of other online options available to them, and if we consider the fact that nobody is forcing them to stay where they feel persecuted... it certainly is curious as to why anyone would decide to put themselves through so much misery.

It's almost as if some of them LIKE to be victims. It certainly makes me wonder.

See ya round.

-- Allen

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

Sharing one’s beliefs or nonbeliefs with interested parties promotes discussion & understanding.

Forcing one’s beliefs or nonbeliefs on uninterested parties promotes hostility & supremacy.

Part of the problem is the nature of online discussions.

First we make a lot of assumptions about the temperament of those we are addressing. Are they guard dogs, attack dogs, lap dogs or some thing between?

Lets nor forget our own mood. Did I forget to do my quarterly taxes on time? Yes! Am I pissed about the fine? Yes! Will I be able to refrain from using all caps when posting? MAYBE NOT!

Then of course there is the problem tone. Sometimes being brief is misconstrued as brusque or rude. Conversely, being detail oriented may more accurately state ones view but can also be seen as preachy. The use of goofy emoticons may work for light hearted banter, but generally not useful for any complex discussion.

But, ultimately, we're talking about conflicting views here and to assume we can always have a calm rational discussion is naive. Some of us are quite passionate about our views and some of us are quite sensitive to criticism no matter how it is presented.

As someone of the non-theist bent, I know that sometimes I'm guilty of wanting to just let loose. I blame the knee-jerk reaction on being bombarded by the ubber-pious that supposedly re-elected monkey boy. If I have taken it out on my fellow DUers. Sorry. (FYI, I'll probably do it again).

Regardless, there are some good posts on this thread people.

Every one of us has some belief structure, although many of the atheists refuse to believe that their denial that there may be a god is every bit a matter of faith as those who believe in one.

It's that old proving a negative thing.

Anyway, even though that statement tends to set some people off, the actual matters of faith and belief have to be respected on all sides. None of us have a lock on the truth, although some may have slightly more of it than others.

Debating fine theological points is fun sometimes, but every religion on earth has seen these debates lead to schisms, and often violent schisms. It is far too easy, when debating the unprovable, to just get pissed off, start blaming the "others" for all the problems, and either stoprm off or strt a war.

Since the consequences of starting a war as an anonymous set of electrons on an internet board are not terribly dangerous to one's person, things start to get heated faster and hotter on these boards.

I personally consider it an act of extreme immaturity and ignorance to get involved in things like the militant bashing of any beliefs so complex and personal as religion, or lack of it, that pop here far too often. (Even though I might be guily of this myself at times)

What can be "bashed" are the outward effects and expressions of those beliefs that affect others, but never the beliefs themselves.

Do not grandly proclaim who is or is not going to hell. Do not loudly proclaim the silliness of mythical beings, and do not proclaim that your god demands you take actions against others.

in the realm of the personal, I might agree.

But when religion and religious beliefs are so prominent in the political world, and MY rights are being shit on in the name of religion, then I think it's appropriate to criticize them.

"Civility costs nothing and buys everything."

-Lady Mary Worley Montagu