On Christians and Atheists (and Nature)

This Poll http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=63008&mesg_id=63008

that I posted recently and some of the comments got me to thinking about the nature of religion and self-interest. And other conversations and books led me to post my thoughts on Christians and Atheists.

I consider myself an atheist - but I do not consider myself a part of a group of atheists. I don't expect to necessarily believe the same thing as anyone else. I was raised in Christianity - so I do see things from that POV.


Awhile back I posted a thread about "In Cold Blood" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x58468 where - I think that there was quite a dichotomy between the Christians who were trying to live the kind of life where concern for others was a virtue and the murderers who had no belief in God and who had no concern for others.

Of course there are some atheists who don't like to think that that is possible. Or that there could be an advantage to being a Christian, or that Christians could ever get anything right. Or that atheists are never immoral (? I don't get that). I do not say that atheists are necessarily immoral, or murderers, or whatever - but I think that it would be to atheists advantage (self-interest?) to try to be about something positive and not to identify themselves in the negative. (And yes - that includes me).

It was the concept of worship and looking up that definition, and the link to self-worship that I think shows the nature of the problem. The link actually goes to a page on self-interest - and there are all kinds of ways to look at that.

Christians could be Christians because of self-interest for instance. And it seems that there have been all kinds of arguments here about that. Atheists assuming that Christians are just considering their self-interest. And (liberal) Christians who say that it is the right-wing pseudo-Christians who are the self-interested ones. And I think that there is some truth to that. That is - if you take seriously the ideas of Jesus (as philosopher) that he was promoting that concepts of "love your neighbor as yourself" and "love love", not judging others, caring for the poor and sick, not worshiping money/rich people - that that does not lead to a life of egoism - but a life that includes concern for others - and I think that that can be good for people (it being good - it could be one roundabout way of it being in their self-interest).

Of course - what CAN happen - people being people - Christians may intend to follow a "path of righteousness" and end up being prideful assholes. And there is the problem that the whole religion got hijacked by the patriarchy to establish a system to their liking and the problem that well-meaning people can be duped by power mad people who are egoists after their own ends. I don't blame Christians for saying, "Bush is NOT one of us", for instance. Since he is a self-interested, power-mad jerk.


This is from the page on self interest. Where self-interest is linked to egoism -


------------

So - one could say that some people may rationalize egoism (as a philosophy - like rational egoism) and end up with a "an excessive or exaggerated sense of self-importance. In extreme forms, egoism (as egotism) may include narcissism and antisocial behavior".

I think most people recognize that excessive egoism is a negative thing. And it was certainly negative for the "In Cold Blood" killers (and those who were killed). I think one benefit of religion is the participants focusing their concern on others (and/or Nature) instead of being overly focused on one's self. That is the basis for things like the 12-step program and many have mentioned that they recognize that people they knew to have been addicted to one thing or another can end up being the most adamant of Christians. It's a way of taking ones focus off of one's self.

I have also ranted against Libertarianism on various occasions. It seems to be like an illness of self-interest that has infected the country. And I don't see it as a good thing at all. That and Machiavellianism - as in the PNACers who are out for their own gain at the expense of everyone else. There are also some gang-murderers in prison that like to study Machiavellianism - it's like controlling the prison whereas PNACers want to control the world.

There is also the problem of simply amorality if one rejects "the community standards of morality" and doesn't replace them with something else that is positive.

And there is the problem of people who hate the world who focus on all the negative things in the world.

So it seems to me that it is not enough to not believe something. What's important is what you do believe - in a positive way.

------------

I think that many religions (even Christianity) and philosophies end up being a glorification of mankind (and I do mean MANkind). That can end up being egoism/egotism on a grand scale. I think that having concern for Nature is a positive thing. It gives life meaning to care for other life on the planet. It takes the focus off of people. Religion and philosophy do not need to be about separating ourselves from life (all life) just like they they do not need to be about separating ourselves from each other.

I am attracted to religions and philosophies and art and science and people who wish to be a part of things - that work with Nature and not against it - that work with people and not against them.

(Interesting that so many would choose Nature over "Abstract God" or "Celebrities and/or Humankind" if starting a religion from scratch - maybe more of us are on the same page than we know).

Of course there are some atheists who don't like to think that that is possible.

That's bullshit, and not what you were told. We of course acknowledge that atheists can do bad things. No one ever said otherwise.

What most atheists object to is your mischaracterization of atheists as being unable to have an ethical or moral system. That's completely wrong.

I'm quite sure that it is pretty reasonable to say that at least SOME atheists do that. That means that there is are a few atheists in the world who think this way.

Secondly, while I know that atheists acknowledge that atheists can do bad things, I am not sure they acknowledge that atheism can be a cause for bad actions. There are clear examples of atheist wrongdoing throughout history, and it is important to recognize them. I'm not saying you don't, I'm just making a point.

Not believing in the supernatural doesn't cause "bad actions", nor does it cause good ones.

Just like non-belief in Santa doesn't cause anything.


Only the delusional think that an absence of belief in their deities- ie atheism "can be a cause for bad actions".

Of course, only the delusional think that belief in gods and monsters makes them better than the people who don't share those beliefs.






Have a nice day.

Don't bother with the Mao, Stalin, or Pol Pot bullshit, either - none were done in the name of atheism.

How can a lack of belief in unproven assumptions CAUSE anything to happen, good or bad?

maybe partly because my experience with Christianity - was more along the lines of a group of liberal intellectuals - who went along with the rituals more for the community aspect than anything having to do with "unproven assumptions" - I could see "CAUSE" and affect of group action.

Even people who talk of being self-actualized recognized the importance of a group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

And I think being with a group of like-minded liberals who want social change and are doing things to reach that goal is better than being with a group of people who are mostly interested in deviant behavior (or who don't give a shit if they contribute to pollution/global warming/etc). Groups matter.



I noticed a writer recently that was discussing the totalitarianism of the 30's-50's and saw it as the problem of secularism. He also saw the answer as being that Christians would fix it (this was written in the 60's). I think that that is what the right-wing wackos think is happening. That the Christians are putting an end to totalitarianism. Of course we know that it is the supposedly Christian leaders who have duped our country into becoming the totalitarian monsters of the 21st Century. So so much for that.

Whether a person is religious or not does not have much to do with how much that person is willing and interested in actually doing things that will result in positive social change. But I think that people are more likely to do such things if they feel like they are part of a group of people who are also willing and interested in doing similar things. Sometimes religious groups end up being pretty effective at that. That doesn't mean that God has anything to do with it. It also doesn't mean that a group of atheists don't do that. But atheists aren't a group. And like I said, I think groups matter. Or at least they can.

Hence - democrats? (If only).

atheists are impossible to categorize. They don't appear to have any shared traits in general. Like having size 12 feet. It's just a thing.

What most atheists object to is your mis-characterization of atheists as being unable to have an ethical or moral system. That's completely wrong.

It was not until I realized all the fallacies of christianity that I became more moral. I was raised (brainwashed) catholic with nuns for 12 years. What I got out of that experience was a moral character that looked at ALL non-catholics as individuals that were wrong in their beliefs and the knowledge that they would ALL burn in hell for eternity. Thus, it instilled in me the feeling that ALL non-catholics were of low moral character.

I was also racist toward ALL non-whites due to christian teachings.

It was not until I worked and lived with others of all races while in the Navy did my view begin to change for the positive. And it was after I received my education to become a scientist that I realized their never was any god. So I believe the opposite of what you feel. I did not develop an truly ethical and moral system until I rejected catholicism and realized our true origin (star stuff) and that religion truly is the root of most, if not all, evil.

at all. So really people can't make assumptions about that either.

Most of the "Christians" at the Churches I attended did not necessarily believe in anything "supernatural". It was pretty liberal and intellectual. There was not any talk of "hell" that I remember.

No racism.

For me - church was mostly a bunch of people who wanted to show help and concern for each other. And sing. Usually the sermon was some abstract thing. A lot of people seem to get a lot of validation from it.

Later I got to going to Quaker meetings which don't even have sermons and no hierarchy. Just people who want to live the best way that they can figure out and encourage each other - and do some political activism.


---

As far as "atheists as being unable to have an ethical or moral system" - I never said that. I may have said that there is no reason to assume that they do. Being that the word "atheist" does not describe anything having to do with a moral system. It makes no sense for atheists to assume that it does. If various atheists wish to describe themselves as having an already set forth philosophy like Humanism - they could call themselves Humanists, or Rationalists, or something.

On this board - it seems that there are a lot of atheists who are more concerned with saying what they don't think. Atheists don't believe in God. That has NOTHING to do with what atheists DO believe. There is not now and never will be a moral system on the basis of one being an atheist. As I tried to point out in my OP - I think it is a good thing to have a descriptor that says what you believe in - not what you don't believe in.

Like I could say I don't believe in the Greek Gods. And if there were a particular word for that - it would say nothing of what I DO believe. I could believe about anything (except that there are no Greek Gods) on the basis of that.

"don't think" is because some of the believers are so busy trying to tell us what we DO think.

It's arrogant and insulting, and if we were to do it to christians, we'd be accused of being intolerant of their religion and attacking them.

People who don't know what goes on in this forum think we're persecuting the poor helpless christians.

We're sick of having to defend our right to define ourselves.


I'm not saying you've done that, I'm just trying to explain WHY some of us are so militant.

Most of the "Christians" at the Churches I attended did not necessarily believe in anything "supernatural".

So they didn't believe in God?



As far as "atheists as being unable to have an ethical or moral system" - I never said that. I may have said that there is no reason to assume that they do.


One could easily say the same of any religious person. Just because one claims to be of a particular faith doesn't mean they actually follow the tenets of that faith. Falwell, Roberts, Dobson, Bush. Can we say they have ethical or moral systems? People need to stop pairing religion and morality/ethics. The two have nothing to do with one another.

in my life church was basically just a cultural thing. I had some experiences at around age 40 that changed that. I think it is a cultural thing to many, many people.

I had to respond to this:
On this board - it seems that there are a lot of atheists who are more concerned with saying what they don't think. Atheists don't believe in God. That has NOTHING to do with what atheists DO believe.

well, you see.. the reason for this is that, for us atheists, there are no set screeds or tenets.. no organized entity under which we all unite.. no sacred texts spelling out what we should and shouldn't believe in.. the only thing all atheists have in common is our lack of beliefs in deities... BeamMeUpScottie, Trotsky, Evoman and myself (just for instance) agree that we have examined the claims of deities and found them lacking sufficient evidence to build our worldview around.. but I assure you that beyond that, we all differ greatly when it comes to how we perceive and react to other subjects which would fall under the "beliefs" banner. (At least, that is, until BMUS sends me the copy of the Atheist's Handbook™ she was supposed to provide me with when I was initiated into the atheist church) ;-)

ixnay on the ookbay...

We've gone digital.

if you want to put all of your faith in political institutions.


There are various interest groups that do address various issues - like Greenpeace, like Move-On which involve ideas and values under which people unite.

If a person thought that there was no idea or value worth getting together with others over - then there would be no need for any groups.


I think that there are values over which groups of atheists and non-atheists (aatheists?) can and do group together over - because it for our own good - and the common good - and how people would like to see improvements in the world - positive social change.

There does need to be some sort of bond. That is why I think that "saving the earth" could be that. It's something a lot of people are interested in. If people don't care - well - fine let them eat steak (at least until they get mad cow disease - or some other disorder caused by people not paying much attention to what we're doing as whole).

The basis for ethical behavior is wired into our existence. Were it not, we would have perished before the first god was imagined. It's been shown that altruistic behavior leads to chemical changes that affect the pleasure centers. That's why all the religions share the same basic morality. It preceded religion. Of course the religions, needing to justify their existence, claim morality as a function. They are happy to take credit for the wonders of nature.

--IMM

christians could be christians out of self-interest.

self-interest, except for the "salvation" of one's soul, is not christian, imho. when was christ concerned for himself?

that people could go to church and call themselves Christians out of self-interest. Esp. in societies where the majority of people are Christians and there gets to be a peer pressure sort of thing - or people think that it would be good for business or something.


But really - there are just so many kinds of Christians that it's nearly impossible to talk about. It's almost as bad as trying to pin atheists down on what they believe. In fact - it might be easier with atheists. Because you can probably assume that if an atheist says that they don't believe in God - that they mean it. A Christian could say that (s)he believes in the divinity of Jesus and you wouldn't really know if (s)he was telling the truth or not - because there are more compelling reasons to lie. It's expected to say that you believe that. It's more difficult to say that you don't.


I considered myself to be a Christian for probably 25 years m/l and I NEVER thought that my soul was "saved". That wasn't part of the deal. It's a foreign concept to me. I don't get it. I don't plan to get it either. So don't try.

atheism, (Though I am busy psychoanalysing YOU, but that is just my hobby ;))
and aswer what appears to be the spirit of the question of the end of the post.

I have developed a moral system. It goes like this:

- I want to live, and I want my children to live.

- Evolution: Rewording the sentence is important, but in the end it means the same thing.

A) Survival of the fittest
B) Survival of those who survive. (Well duh!)

If I were to take the approach of bieng a selfish pric, for instance, which is what many seem to think evolution implies as per a moral system, it would become yes, the classical sense of survival of the fittest, and do you know what the chances of any given human, myself or children, of bieng THE fittest is? About 1/6,000,000,000 so that is not a good idea.

Rather: I must create, through my actions and interactions, a society in which the unfit survive; I can do this by bieng kind, caring, considerate,helping others, the usual lefty stuff - but a lot more too, though I am still busy finding out just what. It also, for similar reasons, says, be honest, don't steal don't kill don't be egotistical, respect your parents, vengeance is not justice, that kind of stuff. It is by creating such a society that both I and my children amy live and be happy.

That what you meant?

psychoanalyzing...

Let me know what you figure out. Maybe it will save me some money. :P



Actually - I should become an evangelist for some Nature religion. I don't know that there is one that I am satisfied with - so maybe I'll just invent my own. And I won't be satisfied until everyone is able to face up to the consequences of their actions to the planet and each other.

Of course - if I told a therapist that I was creating my own religion - then (s)he probably would think I was crazy.

I was thinking earlier that Jesus probably had Asperger's syndrome. His perfectionism. His amazing memory even at a young age. And also his high moral expectations of others. Those are classic symptoms. :shrug: (Don't tell any Christians I said that, though - they might not like it :crazy: )

Anyway, with the still 'I am working it all out' bit, I still am but it is getting larger than my memory.

So I am going to write some new Gospels.

Don't tell the Christian's I said that!

Edit: What did you think of my moral system?

that I don't "judge" other's moral systems - but after seeing OMC post in GD - I would have to say that I do care. He is quite proud of himself for being careless about the earth.

You wrote (among other things): I must create, through my actions and interactions, a society in which the unfit survive....It is by creating such a society that both I and my children may live and be happy.


Overall it seems pretty good - but it's not clear if you are considering of your impact on the earth. I think that nowadays - that has to be considered.


I also think that it takes quite a bit of effort to overcome the crappy attitudes of consumerism and various other nonsense that kids tend to learn through the corporate media and other venues. I don't know how old your children are (or if you have any yet) - but don't assume that they will learn YOUR values from anyone else. At the same time - if you don't have children yet - if you worried too much about the state of the world - you probably never would. So it does take some kind of balance (or something) to even bother.

earth in god shape and getting rid of cinsumerism are inherit in my viewpoint.

It is because I always consider as many factors as I can when considering survival - a small change now can make an enourmous impact in a few generations - that I know we must keep the environment with which we react in good shape, and because randomness is the driving force in this, I should like to see it be very diverse; and you need a very healthy environment indeed for proper biodiversity.

I am still thinking about OMC.

of OMC's - but I was noticing this post in it - Zhade touches on the problem of self-interest as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=998375&mesg_id=1007296

"It's self-interested deception, and frankly it's not very liberal. Maybe you should consider that. After all, part of being a liberal is the willingness to reevaluate your beliefs and see if they really do good."

(On edit - I see that Zhade was on this thread prior to that - so maybe that is why)


Most people probably don't see all this as a lack of - or a failing of - religion. But I think if people are going to be secular - there needs to be a better way to encourage interest in community and concern for nature.

Because it is pretty easy for people to get into self-interest. It's where the immediate gratification is (and some long term as well - for some people).

And religions could work on the nature part as well. If all some people are worried about is being "saved" when they die - then there is no need to have concern about conditions on the planet - saving it.

So I see it as as a spiritual and a secular crisis - both.

That post was about OMC yes?

(Basically I am unsure whether you went from speaking about OMC to me after your edit)

If you were talking about me, then the point of that moral system was inherit in it's literal interpretation, there is both the deisire and ability to remove that.

Anyway, I will start writing it all down soon, there are so many things to put in!
(Incidentally, that's why I said I was psychoanalysing you; in order to understand everyone I need examples of certain groups logic, what youre beliefs are is barley relevant, merely how you arrived at them)

Just a few more people, and I can begin writing the real-world stuff. The metaphysical is easy, I'm starting soon.

Then I have my last challenge - promoting it and getting it accepted.

I was pretty much just trying to correlate my ideas with the thread that OMC started - which seems to be the perfect example of what I am talking about is part of the problem.

It's bad enough having Republicans who are immoral and don't care about community or the environment - perfectly happy to exploit any and everything for their personal gain - it even worse (to me) to see supposedly "liberal" people trying to insist that non of us should have any expectations of anyone - that if we all want to be self-interested jerks that don't care about the consequences of our actions - that that should be our business and our business alone. I don't buy it.

We have to share a planet.

-------------

As far as how I arrived at my beliefs - there are many clues in this thread. Even though I was raised in a liberal, Christian church (or maybe because of the fact) I try to see religion and philosophy objectively. I've studied world religions somewhat and I am also influenced by Feminist theory which can be critical of a lot of what many people take for granted - patriarchy-wise and all.

I know pagans - but I don't feel like I fit into that - it feels too retro or something - and I don't go in for the idea of "Goddesses" much. But I am attracted to religions and philosophies and ways of looking at the world that puts the earth first. I also think that feminism and concern for the earth are very compatible philosophies.

And I've gotten more serious about it the more that there is news and scientific analysis showing how badly people are treating the earth - which is the same as treating ourselves badly - because we are a part of the earth. I read the environment forum as regularly as anything. I don't post there that often - partly because it is often just more and more bad news. What can you say?

I also think that it is the same imperialistic, greedy, capitalistic attitudes that have us where we are today politically. People who don't think that they have to have any concern for community, others, the world at large. I don't understand how some people who post here don't see that - unless they are really just trolls, anyway.

------


Good luck with your project. I'm thinking about something like that.

So am I. To me so was T. Jefferson and many others. It's kind of like taking the God out of the ten commandments while saving what society needs to carry on.

No they don't. They are entirely separate notions. Atheism, however, removes the sanction of eternal reward or damnation, and means that our ethical systems have to work a load harder than yours. You might not do something because you fear Hell. We would not do it because it is wrong. Whose ethics are stronger in that case? I would say the atheist version. You do it because you "have" to. We do it because it is the right thing to do. I know that's a crude way of putting it, but it is the case.

Aristotle, who somehow was crucial to laying the groundwork for the study of ethics but didn't have a Bible to help him out, put it well: "I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law."

It's interesting, actually, what the Bible has to say on ethics: Very, very little. The Bible deals in instructions - "thou shalt", "thou shalt not" - backed by reward and punishment. Some of these instructions are very, very inspiring, certainly ("Love thy neighbour as thyself"), but instructions never the less. Most of the Bible is written as an instruction manual for salvation.

So the Bible provides a code, a framework, not an ethical system. 2000 years and dozens of wars have been fought over which bits are or are not ethical. Ethics is not a set of instructions - it's a set of tools, as Aristotle knew. These tools, appliedto the universe, will guide their user to the correct path of action. Thus, ethics is independent from religion, and I would argue a far more valuable system to study than religion. Even Dante realised this, and considered Aristotle so virtuous that he set up a special plushy area of Purgatory for him and the other heathens who were undoubtedly good eggs.

You might argue that religion is a boon to people whose ethical sense is too weak to find their own direction, and who need a prescribed code backed by reward and punishment. True to an extent, but that blade has a fatal second edge. People may abstain from bad from fear of "Hell" - but the promise of paradise is a perpetual trigger of its own evils. So, it is the promise of paradise that causes a young man to end his life by flying a passenger jet into an office building. I can tell you this - for every corpse you can dig up where the killer was the sort of amoral atheist Capote wrote about, I can find 10 corpses where the killer was told by God to do it.

But I do think having a shared vision about community and valuing the earth is useful.

Probably people ascribed this vision to "God" because it gave it more weight than if a group of people said, "Ok here's the deal - we have an ethical system and if we share it all of our lives will be better." Because a lot of people resent others trying to come up with a plan - "guilt-trips" or whatnot.


Part of the thing you might have missed - is that I am critical of religions of self-interest that mostly glorify people at the expense of others and the world as well as people who have a philosophy of self-interest (Just like many DUers are critical of Republicans who are self-interested). So I am actually critical of both religion (esp. "God" based religions) and non-religion to the extent that people have no sense of responsibility to each other and the earth.

To the extent that people do have such a philosophy - I say good for them.

I don't assume that all Christians are fanatics (focused on their own salvation or hell or something) , however, any more than I assume that all atheists are fanatics who insist that all atheists are more moral than others (or that they all hate the world).

If people agree that the shared vision is the best way to work out the values of your community, they can question each other, develop their arguments, and reach their conclusions. If they do this in a friendly, inquiring spirit, they might reach a consensus fairly quickly, that benefits everyone. When conditions change, they can reassess their laws and guidelines.

But if they have to pretend that there is something else that is judging their ethics, they have to do things indirectly. Without any real communication from this deity they're all pretending to believe in, at best they have to ascribe their thoughts to the deity - which then can't be questioned directly, but some form of "I will pray for an answer" has to be used, delaying the discussion; at worst, someone writes their thoughts down, and claims they are the fixed decisions of the gods, and have special weight. You then get into semantic arguments (and we all know how frustrating, and rarely satisfying, those are), in addition to the arguments about the actual merits of the proposed morals. This really ossifies the moral decisions of the group. Face it, most of the world is trying to make its moral decisions with at least one eye on the words of people from 1500 to 3000 years ago.

never been to a Quaker meeting - and anyway they vary quite a bit depending on the community - but this is what generally happens...


People either meditate or pray - depending on whether they think they are talking to "God" or whether they figure they are letting their own ideas come together. I tend to see it as the same thing, myself. People are only supposed to talk when they feel like "God" (or clarity, as the case may be) has moved them to speak. Nobody responds directly to another - but people let ideas lead into other ideas.

I think the (liberal) Quakers are more open to considering moral issues of the day - than most groups. It's not a matter of someone telling everyone what to do - but everyone is involved who wants to be involved. It's probably no coincidence that they were on the forefront of ending slavery and of advocating women's rights in this country (though some rejected the Bible outright - with it's patriarchalness). And today - they are at the forefront of living a more simple, sustainable life - which I think will become more and more important as time goes on (I think people could see the Quaker example and see that they had it figured out before most people),

I don't think that the Quakers are without flaws - but I do think that is could be a model of how people can work together and come up with a group sense of things. I really don't think it's necessary to believe in "God" - but it does help if people think that everyone else is capable of some insight. It seems far less dominating-oriented than most decision making processes. And I think that people tend to be more likely to act on things if they feel part of a group.

It is when people push the Biblical "this is true because "God" says so" (which didn't happen very often - but would vary with the group ) that I am not comfortable with that - probably because as you suggest - that is tends to shut down discussion. Some people might want to argue what "God" says - but that gets pretty silly.

And when Quakers get too full of themselves for being Quakers - I don't think much of that (I never joined).

But I don't like to see atheists do that either - suggesting that atheists are better because they are atheists. I don't see it that way.

...not from some imaginary sky spirit or holy book. I consider people who only do good things out of fear of eternal damnatrion selfish scum. one should do good things out of pure altruism, not for selfish alterior motives.

who consider themselves religious, Christian even, who do not base their morality on "some imaginary sky spirit" (someone might define "God" as merely "consciousness" - or some other abstract concept) and who see the Bible as one of many books written by people who have some insights into moral thought and behavior.

Of course those would be the more liberal Christians who would say that.


I don't think that liberal Christians and "altruistic" atheists are all that different. Not as different as some would seem to believe.

without the FSM, you can have no moral center.

Though I have a dogmatic question. I am a vegetarian. Will the FSM smote me for eating fake meatballs?

Where are you going with this? What's the point?

<< I consider myself an atheist - but I do not consider myself a part of a group of atheists. >>

:rofl:

I certainly don't consider myself among the group of atheists which like to harass people and call them bigots because they don't like what they say.


That isn't to say that I would never consider myself a part of a group of atheists. Just that it won't be that one.

-----------------

It has been established that atheists are not a group. I just like to emphasize it when posting - so people don't misconstrue what I am saying. (Of course some people will - no matter what.)

<< I certainly don't consider myself among the group of atheists which like to harass people and call them bigots because they don't like what they say. >>

Who does that? Where are these atheists you speak of?

You make the statement as though such a thing were accepted fact, and that this was a common and ordinary depiction of atheists. Yet you've presented no evidence to back up this negative portrayal of atheists.

Why would you be doing that? Hmmm?

I wonder.

Do you really think it's as simple as you're trying to make it out to be? Do you think anyone's buying it? I'm not.


<< That isn't to say that I would never consider myself a part of a group of atheists. Just that it won't be that one. >>

What was your purpose in singling out "that" group of atheists (if it even exists at all)? One might get the impression that

Frankly, I don't think that the mean-old-atheists that you describe actually exist anywhere except in very fertile imaginations of people with an anti-atheist agenda.

I suppose that there will always be a certain element that feels threatened by the very existence of atheists, and when the atheists DARE to call out the bigotry, then those certain "delicate" folks feels "victimized" and "persecuted".

Totally passive aggressive.

It's pathetic.

...that were sent me they would just get deleted. They included a list of themselves.

If you haven't noticed that there is a group of people intent on shutting down any discussion - then you haven't been paying attention.


And whether you are part of the group or influenced by the group - it's all the same.

This is so see-through. This is like the shit the republicans did when they got into the white house...oh those democrats, they did some bad stuff when they moved out but we...gulp..we can't talk about it. It was bad but we can't talk about it. Yeah,right.

All you "HARDCORE BIGOT ATHEISTS" who never sent Bloom a PMs should post here. I NEVER SENT BLOOM A PMs.

How about the rest of the atheists?

Judging by the shrill emotional reaction, it must have been a whole bunch of atheists who were responsible, so c'mon, fess up!

I personally don't give enough of a damn to bother.

The mean old atheists won't play with meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

I don't know why nobody likes me...:eyes:

What about someone starting a thread in which they call someone out and then they put that person on ignore so that they don't have to respond to the debate. Hypothetically, do you think that would be passive aggressive?