Religion/Theology debates? Or just mocking others?

Isn't this forum a place where we are supposed to be debating and discussing about religion and theology?

Instead of people debating and respecting other people's beliefs or disbeliefs, people start threads trying to mock the other person's point of view and then rationalizing it by saying that "it's just my opinion" but we all know that the people who do that really have the "I'm going to really piss some people off...hee hee hee" in their minds when submitting their threads. This is obvious no matter how much they try to rationalize it. And that is the part that offends people of faith. Not your opinion that God is a fairy tale but your intention to mock.

But why would we want to mock Christians? Because of the fundies? Well, fundamentalist Christians are not here! Wanna piss them off? Go to their forums! Because here in DU we have people of faith who believe the Bible speaks of social justice, promotes kindness, teaches us to have empathy for those who are suffering, makes people perform good deeds, etc.

The people I know who only want to see the surface of the Bible and read it literally are the religious fundamentalists and some of the atheist here who want to mock it. The others are passed that.

I have seen threads that disses all religions here and even of the Native Americans. Too bad our ancestors destroyed their religions and their cultures. There are so many amazing things we are never going to learn about such rich cultures and religions because of the proselytizing of our own culture. Some of you will probably say "who cares about their religion! It's just another load of crap!" but that is just the ethnocentric American ignorance coming out of you.

People who believe in God have an intellectual reason for their faith. If you are interested in knowing what their reasons are then treat the subject with respect. People who don't believe in God also have intellectual reason for not believing in God and people of faith will take it well because they know faith is a personal thing. I haven't seen any DU Christian trying to proselytize here in DU. At least none of them tried to convert me yet. Then why do you feel the need to proselytize your atheism? Isn't proselytizing the big beef we have with religion in the first place?

Belief and disbelief are just opinions because nobody can prove whether God actually does or does not exist. Therefore, knowing the absolute truth on both sides of the coin is already a bad start to any debate because it is also the end of the debate. There is no debate when two people close their minds and dismiss each other's point of view.

That is my opinion! :-)

Like you, I thought R/T was a forum where people could find out about each other's faith, share ideas for getting the progressive faith-based message out, and also to figure out ways to counteract the fundamentalist's actions. I know that many people of faith who come here have it a bit rough in their town and even in their place of worship because of the fundamentalists. They come here to seek refuge, and not mockery. Some atheists seem to understand the line between stating their beliefs and mocking an individual for theirs; others don't, or don't care.

I have come to the conclusion that the only way to stop these flame wars is to do two things:

1. Stop posting answers to flaming posts (either OP or posts within a thread)

2. Put those who insist on creating flaming posts on IGNORE. I have started to do this, and it has made my visits here to DU much less stressful.

I really think some who start these flamefests are really playing a game to see how many people they can upset and how high a post count they can get on certain threads. If we deny them their goals, perhaps they would go away.

And for those atheists out there who disagree, I have one thing to say-would you be comfortable saying what has been said here to someone's face? Would you really consider mocking a person who was, say, helping out at your local Democratic headquarters? Do you really think that such mockery will make people want to come and help? Let's remember that our goal as DUers is to help get Democrats elected and in power. These sorts of flamefests only steal energy away from that goal, and discourage many.

you guys trying to scape the irrationality of the fundies and then you come here to deal with the irrationality of some of the atheist. It sucks for you guys because you take it from both sides.

You are right. Ignore is a great feature of DU.

Your quote........"And for those atheists out there who disagree, I have one thing to say-would you be comfortable saying what has been said here to someone's face? Would you really consider mocking a person who was, say, helping out at your local Democratic headquarters? Do you really think that such mockery will make people want to come and help? Let's remember that our goal as DUers is to help get Democrats elected and in power. These sorts of flamefests only steal energy away from that goal, and discourage many."

My thoughts:
I am not afraid, nor hesitant to speak in someone's face in the exact same manner as commenting on this forum. I would expect no less from anyone of faith.

Also....there are SOME "people of faith" on R/T that will quote scriptures AT an Atheist, knowing that he/she is one of Atheism.

As for our "Political Common Ground".....NOT everyone can work at, or wish to volunteer at, a Democratic Headquarters. Some of us contribute in other ways. The Democratic Party is very diverse in faiths or religions.

and I am not saying that you, personally, have called believers fools, etc-just as you know I don't quote the Qur'an except to explain something about the faith to another, never NEVER to try and convert them, as that is forbidden in my Order, nor to make someone feel uncomfortable.

I also know that some people here do type things that they would never say to a person's face-mostly rude, unkind things. I am simply asking these people to stop and think before they post these things.

:-)

and assigning a belief to those of us who have none is mildly insulting. Other than that, I have absolutely no interest in whatever gets another person through a long, lonely and sleepless night. Really.

I've seen religions I consider horribly damaging to the human spirit become quite comforting for families with a relative dying in an ICU. I've seen religious people have a miserable time at the end of life because of their terror of what an afterlife with a vengeful god will bring. It's a completely mixed bag and believers are welcome to it. I just don't share it.

My not sharing any other belief system can't be construed as a persecution of it. I simply want to be left alone with the dictates of my own conscience. I lack the hope of heaven and the fear of hell and yet I am solvent, temperant, and honest in my dealings with the world.

If all this makes you feel defensive, then it becomes your problem, not mine.

I know I have no problem with it.

But there have been posters on R/T threads who have gone beyond this and said that people who believe are stupid, etc-in other words, they have gone beyond stating their opinion about religion in general and have made a personal attack on someone. It is that type of behavior that I find destructive, both for discussion and for the morale of everyone at DU. Personally, I could see having an interesting sit-down discussion with you-I would definately agree with you that some forms of faith are destructive, for example. But I couldn't see sitting down and having a face to face chat with some of the posters who have merely said that believers are stupid, or idiots, or even dangerous for having their beliefs, because there would be no point-they are simply out to denegrate a person.

It is not the fact that you don't believe that is insulting but the intention to mock that is a lot of times very clear and insulting.

Like you, the religious people here in DU also don't share the idea of a vengeful God who will punish you for eternity. If you are able to go beyond generalization you will find that out.

Like I said on my original post, the people of faith are not offended by you not believing it. They are offended by the fact that some of the posters here insult their intelligence when the poster says he is not mocking when his/her obvious intention is to mock.

*** edited because of spelling

seems that is what most of the atheist posts in R/T are all about.

That and assertions of historical scribe copying errors that are of no consequence in the "big picture".

Indeed mocking is about the only tone one sees in R/T from the non-theist (and occasionally from the theist responses).

Not that I am saying you do this Warpy, but that is my impression of the gestalt of the R/T forum.

Are there any slang names or insultive phrases for Atheists???

I hold as true that which can not be proven appears to be an insult - so the athiest falls back on "non-belief" as if that is different.

You must honor their "non-belief" - and you must agree that "non-belief" does not need any proof - even though the term is usually used for items you have not formed an opinion on - and our friends are there selling rather loudly their lack of an opinion! :-)

<< You must honor their "non-belief" >>

Is that your understanding? If so, I do not think you are correct.

To my knowledge, no atheists are demanding such a thing. (And if they are, it's a pretty silly thing to demand.) Is your mind commingling arguments from other discussion forums? Are you mis-remembering?

If theists reserve the right to define themselves, then are not the atheists entitled to the same thing?

I'm unaware of any atheist who is demanding that anyone 'honor their 'non-belief''. It sounds to me as though someone is projecting some mirrored, reversed, photo-negative image of what the theists demand. Namely: that in addition to being personally respected, many theists also demand that their BELIEF also be respected, validated and paid homage to.

I think it's a mistake to try and juxtapose those desires (demands?) of the theist onto the atheist. It's incorrect to assume that there is an atheist equivalent for both.

<< and our friends are there selling rather loudly their lack of an opinion! >>

And there it is... as I expected. The obligatory variation on the theme of "proselytizing" and "selling it".

What's up with that anyway? I'm not certain that I understand why so many theists are so fascinated with this, but it does seem to be something that a few are intent on obsessing over. I can't tell if this is a real issue or a genuine concern for them, or if it's just a random jab that's mentioned only as an afterthought. :shrug:

I do believe "selling loudly" is the only real issue. I know of no one that cares if an atheist is an atheist or why an atheist is atheist.

Of course some are curious as to why most atheist's concern about religious topics begins and ends with "it is all a lie", while others wonder why an atheist would want to discuss such topics as Evoman has posted about death, or gods purpose, when the only contribution he can make to the discussion is that he does not believe.

But in the end it is the selling loudly, the in your face sale, the door to door approach being mimicked by an every thread/every post approach, the mocking and claim of better historical accuracy when both poster and reader know that the only "accuracy" that either can attest to is the quality of the cut and paste from a supporting site, and each also knows that belief or non-belief does not depend of whether or not either posters facts are "true", indeed both know that it is hard to even define "truth" in discussions of history.

I agree with you that no theist should expect that their BELIEF also be respected, validated and paid homage to- and of course that also goes for atheist conclusions.

Well the above is my best take on the situation - FWIW :-)

:shrug:

or one who lives in their head

or spiritually handicapped

but then who wants to insult??

proving a negative is perfectly acceptable, in the right place. It's just damned difficult when it comes to physical reality and argumentation based on observation. But it's doable, in some cases, often involving proof by contradiction. You can't directly show that a result is unique, but you can show any other result is impossible.

The fallacy is in shifting the burden of proof: claiming that unless a negative is proven, i.e., that something doesn't exist, it therefore must exist. We assume that something's non-existence is the default hypothesis.

Justifications for the supernatural, conspiracy theories ... a fair amount of (logical) common ground there.

I can prove there are no pink elephants in my living room, for instance. But can one prove there are no pink elephants in the universe?

Or in the case of definitions that are self-contradictory - the obligatory examples of married bachelor, square circle, etc.

May you have a wonderful day! :)

I am going to take advantage of the beautiful weather and try to do just that with my family!

Take care William! Have a wonderful day!

MrWiggles, your original post was spot on, and in my opinion, BADLY needed to be expressed in the R/T forum.

I don't know how much good it will do, however. What I've witnessed from most of the atheists who post in this forum, is a complete unwillingness to just accept what others believe as being just as rational as what they believe.

I think respecting and accepting another's beliefs is, in itself, a demonstration of a certain kind of faith, (faith in our shared humanity, if nothing else) that I don't see exhibited by most of those flame-bait posters you mentioned.

Nevertheless, thank you again for eloquently saying what needed to be said in this forum.

-chef-

Um, that's probably because WE DON'T BELIEVE WHAT YOU IMPLY WE BELIEVE.

Like myself - I don't believe that it has been shown there are no gods, just don't believe in the unevidenced purported ones.

But when you go with a flawed definition of atheism (which seems to be the majority position of atheists here - we don't affirmatively disbelieve), of COURSE your remark makes sense.

Here's the thing: I respect your right to your beliefs. But no one, you or I, is required to respect the beliefs (or lack of beliefs, in my case) themselves.

THAT'S what freedom of/from religion means.

A person can choose to participate in a flamefest, or choose not to.
"It takes two to Tango" is a very wise phrase.

Not all Christians are "Fundamentalists" and not all Atheists are eager to criticize believers.
I guess that would leave a Liberal Christian somewhere in the middle.

So my question is...Is it possible to accommodate ALL faiths and/or beliefs on this forum???

Or do we, just "suck it up"????

If people knew how to respect one another and if people thought their opinions were just opinions and not the truth.

Like I said in another post, I think proselytism is the problem. Not religion, faith, or lack of faith.

The problem with religion over the years is the proselytism. Now we have atheists proselytizing instead of debating.

Sadly, sometimes we have no choice but to "suck it up" to mocking and impoliteness.

I'm so sick of religion, and I'm so sick of people--PROGRESSIVES!--arguing over it. I'm sick to death of atheists, agnostics, etc. pissing all over threads of religion. I despise organized religion intensely, but I generally try not to piss all over innocent threads of discussion of religion--this IS Religion/Theology, and I like to talk comparative religion as much as anyone else.

That said, I'm sick of theists who also post provocative topics attempting to draw the ire out of atheists and the like. I'm sick of threads that are obviously made to get a rise out of a certain group of people, whether it be atheists trying to piss off the religious or the religious trying to piss off atheists.

I'm sick of people misinterpreting things. I'm sick of theists automatically jumping to attack, viciously, when atheists post things from Sam Harris or other such thinkers or even their own ideas. I'm sick of atheists automatically jumping to attack, viciously, when theists post quotes from the Bible or the Qu'ran or the Torah or whatever. These behaviors are counterproductive, and while I once engaged in them for sport, I'm ashamed of myself for doing so.

I'm sick of theists who feel marginalized here, or threatened by the atheists, and then post vicious pity-party circle-jerk threads about how marginalized they feel. That is just counterproductive--all it is going to do is get atheists to immediately start listing all the ways that theists are NOT marginalized in this world, many of which bear remembering by the theists.

I'm sick of atheists who feel marginalized here, or threatened by the theists, and then post vicious pity-party circle-jerk threads about how marginalized they feel. That is just counterproductive--all it is going to do is get theists to immediately start listing all the ways that atheists dominate R/T, many of which bear remembering by the theists.

Theists, we KNOW you aren't fundamentalists. Please stop telling us this, and START telling us about who you ARE, and what you are doing to coutner the religious right. You have more influence over the conservative religious than atheists/agnostics do. Atheists, listen to the theists when they talk--you can't debate them until they've had their say, and not all theists are out to force their religion upon you.

Atheists, we KNOW that you are "America's most mistrusted minority," and that in certain states you can't technically run for office, etc. Please stop telling us this, and START telling us about who atheists ARE, and what atheists think and feel, and what progressive theists can do to help remove the stigma atheists have in the general public. Theists, listen to the atheists when they talk--you, too, cannot debate until you've heard what they have to say, and not all atheists are out to kill theists and take away your rights to worship as you wish.

Please, people. There are wackjobs on both sides of the fence, and it's time we realize this, get over our egos and our pride and our fear, and work together, theist and atheist, believers and nonbelievers, to actually discuss religion and theology in the world today and how progressives of all stripes can make religion work for the religious and be unintrusive for the unreligious.

I couldn't have said it better myself! :toast:

*bows*

;)

:hi:

I thought it was interesting that the "Atheist Agenda" people who were exchanging Bibles for porn said as part of their statement of belief, "Our fight is with those leaders who use religion for their own benefit and aggrandizement. Our weapons are science and knowledge, ridicule and obnoxiousness."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=66500&mesg_id=66519

Now if the atheists on DU who have an "agenda" - would focus it on the "leaders who use religion for their own benefit and aggrandizement" - I expect that DU would be a more peaceful place.


As I explained elsewhere - one way to look at the divisions:


A. Fundamentalists (Are against those in groups B., C. & D. - are generally not represented anyway - not a part of the conversation).

B. Religious People (who are not Fundamentalists - could be any other sort of theists, Pagans, Buddhists and atheist religious people).

C. People who are tolerant of those is group B (but are non-religious themselves).

D. Anti-religious people who are against those in group A. B. & C.


---

I think the DU board is a reasonable place for discussions among people who are in groups B & C (those who have a liberal take on religion).

I don't think the Anti-Religious (like Evangelicals) expect to engage in anything other than conflict. Conflict is the nature of their debate.

---

I also see it as a contrived conflict that the Anti-religious people make against the liberally religious and those who support them.

They are mostly at odds against the Fundamentalists but they (usually quoting Sam Harris) throw their generalized scorn at people of liberal faith (and those who tolerate them) by association.

"Sam Harris argues that progressive tolerance of faith-based unreason is as great a menace as religion itself."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=51467

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

I think the proselytizing atheists are in group D. And I think there are many atheists in groups B & C. I do not see the debate as atheists vs. theists - as some seem to.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to bring up problems that people have with religion - like how it can reinforce obnoxious patriarchal practices. But I see the liberally religious people as trying to overcome those obstacles - for the most part - and that is what I would like to see encouraged. Not the idea that ALL religion is BAD. Or that the best alternative to religion is ridicule and obnoxiousness.

Good post Bloom and nice breakdown!

I also do not see the debate as atheists vs. theists. What I see is extreme against extreme and the people in the middle, who are minding their own business, get the backwash.

I also think it's perfectly reasonable to bring up problems that people have with religion because religious people who find logic in the specific practices (that most of us have problems with and don't know much about)can educate all of us and end some of our ignorance. We tend to dismiss them by associating their faith to the fundies when in fact they have a logical approach to their faith.

This forum could be a place where we can all learn from each other and we should take advantage of the opportunity since we have people with all different types of opinions.

Take care!

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

<< Well, fundamentalist Christians are not here! >>

It seems to me that you haven't been paying close enough attention.

<< Wanna piss them off? >>

You've mentioned this concept more than once. I think it's a mistake to assume that it's all about "pissing someone off".

It's clear to me that people who say such things don't take atheists seriously. They conveniently assume that "atheist anger" and "outrage" is exaggerated and manufactured solely for the purpose of "pissing off" the theists. :eyes: Could such people possibly be any MORE dismissive of the genuine concerns that atheists have?


<< Go to their forums! >>

Not all the forums at DU are "equal opportunity" forums. Some of them are known as "groups" and as such the mission-statement of the groups can prohibit dissent and those with differing points of view can be summarily banned from the group.

Fact is, the R/T forum is the primary PUBLIC forum (the specialty "groups" are only available to donating members) for such discussions. I think it's a mistake for someone to suggest that the ATHEISTS should be the ones to go away.

=======================================

There was another thread recently (that was pre-emptively locked because of its flame-fest potential) and you made some interesting comments here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=69787&mesg_id=70181

I think that some of the things you said in that post indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of what an atheist is (and is not), and what atheism is (and is not).

In particular, you say:

<< They try to impose their belief (of not believing in God)... >>

First: atheism is not a "belief"... so please stop saying that.

Second: How exactly do atheists go about accomplishing this feat of "imposing" a non-belief in deities? This makes no sense to me.

("Hey you over there... STOP BELIEVING! I saw your eyes closed... were you... PRAYING!?! Well, you better cease and desist, buddy! NO PRAYING ALLOWED!)

How horrible of those atheists to get LAWS written that "impose" their atheist "beliefs" on others, eh? Oh wait... no... we're trying to maintain the separation of church and state. We're trying to REVERSE and PREVENT the very thing you're accusing the atheists of doing. :eyes:

You'd think those nasty atheists wanted everyone to be treated EQUALLY or something! What bastards, eh?


You also said (in the locked thread):

<< ... or you are trying to proselytize your atheism. >>

and REPEATED again in this thread you say:

<< Then why do you feel the need to proselytize your atheism? >>

Are you joking? Surely you can't be serious? How EXACTLY does one "proselytize" atheism? I'll be very interested to learn more about this thing you feel so threatened by.

From my perspective, it seems clear to me that you have many unresolved issues with atheists. I wouldn't go so far as to call it an obsession, but you do seem to be preoccupied with many fear-driven misconceptions.

One can only assume you're referring to those famous door-to-door atheists that pester people into giving up their religion. (**KNOCK-KNOCK-KNOCK** "Oh hello, we're here to tell you about nothingness." "We want to invite you to visit our chur-, uh, our uh... the MALL! We think you should go SHOPPING on Sunday!")

want everyone to understand - day after day, thread after thread - regardless of topic as long as that topic has a non-atheist on it that might need educating.

But trying to proselytize their atheism - why never - it is never the reason behind a post - it is only to educate and make sure you do not use words in a post that, while they may be on point as to how your experience leads you to describe atheism, they are not words the atheist poster likes - like observing that their addiction to automatic posting to any non-atheist post seems very much like door to door evangelism/proselytizing. You are to remember that they are only on your post for your own good, albeit a post in "Religion", just so you can know that you should have no religion - no offense intended. It is all about education because the atheist voice is normally not allowed to speak/educate and they need to vent.

And venting is not trying to "piss off" anyone. Education is best achieved through repetition, so daily repetition is just better education for those uniformed religious folks that post in "Religion".

We must take atheists seriously, because they take believers seriously and understand that believers really think that what they believe is correct, logical, and historic. Atheist just think that a political site dedicated to electing progressives is a fine place to put aside the showing of excessive respect toward theists if it gets in the way of educating. It would be dismissive of the genuine concerns that atheists have to suggest that the number and tone - in a Religious forum on a site not dedicated to the question of is there a God - of posts dedicated to educating the religious on how wrong they are, how evil religion is, how evil on this earth traces back to religion and by implication to those who allow religion to continue by being religious, and how poorly transcribed documents are after 2 or 3 thousand years, might be decreased. Therefore folks you're not be dismissive but instead you should be thankful for all the cut and pasting from the web's many atheist sites that the DU atheist poster takes time to put into DU "Religion"?

In fact because because the atheist posting area on DU is a "group" and not a Topic Forum it would be discriminatory and insulting to ask atheists to stay out or to delete their posts (actually on this one I agree that it would be discriminatory and insulting to ask atheists to stay out or to delete their posts).

Now do not use "belief" to describe the topic that the atheist is aggressively educating others about even if that topic can not be proven - not being able to prove that there is no God is no longer agnostic because the modern atheist is also an agnostic if needed in a debate. It is not like the atheist is imposing their belief on you - it is educating. Indeed In metaphysics, where nothing can be proved in a scientific way by definition, the concept that you can not prove a negative still exists - albeit our universities have not come around to the idea of "not proving" as a metaphysical truth - as yet (we will leave non-contradiction to a later date).

And if the above does not convince you - why remember that it is all about trying to maintain the separation of church and state - which of course the progressive theist does sign onto - but you know you can not remind folks too often about this basic objective.

And of course there is "free speech" and anyone has a right to start a thread or post in any forum on any topic - unless that right is taken away by the mods.

I'm sorry... were you trying to make a point? It's clear to me that a great deal of effort was made in stringing together so MANY words, but frankly I just can't make any sense of that. The message is disjointed, aimless, rambling, wandering... lacking structure and direction. I just don't get it.

:shrug:

:-)

Can't you feel the love, Allen?

And that together we "own" this forum?

Nothing like that good old fashioned christian intolerance to go along with good old fashioned religious hysteria and paranoia.

:rofl:

And all 3 times I deserved it because I broke forum rules. The mods have been extremely fair when deleting posts or sub-threads. I remember in one thread, I insulted Inland, not his beliefs or opinions. That post was wisely deleted and I tried to apologize personally to Inland...although he has me blocked, so I don't know if he got my apology or not.

More of that famous atheist privilege, I guess.

Just like in the real world.

throwing feces..:dunce:

Some I could look back on and agree with, some I was angry about. So I really have to laugh at the insinuation that somehow the mods favor atheists. Since they manage to piss us all off at one time or another, they're probably being about as impartial as can be!

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Why would saying something like "that's an argument from ignorance" or "you're making an argument from ignorance" be legitimate justification for deleting someone's post?

:shrug:

It is a valid argument but not everyone is familiar with it and in the middle of a flame fest they are probably just trying to restore order from chaos.

from your sig line

I'm sure you understand

:hi:

I think you'd have to be a paranoid whackjob theist to believe that.

If you are coveting the much sought after spot in BMUS's sig line reserved for religious bigots, perhaps you could post your own christian sermon about atheists.

I can't promise anything of course, the one about how atheists support pedophilia was pretty special.;)

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

atheists interested in discussion without mocking, I joined in. Sorry if that seems to violate my promise of not posting to insulting threads.

After you get through saying there are no atheist posts that insult, they only educate, would you care to join the discussion? I do admire you for many reasons and would like to hear your opinion.

And at no time did I ever claim that atheists do not insult others in this forum.

Matter of fact, I quite regularly call them out when they do.

When was the last time you defended an atheist on DU, papau, instead of using the opportunity to join in?

a great deal in this world - and R/T's purpose and the purpose of educating other progressives in how wrong their personal beliefs are is part of what I do not understand.

Your thread saying sorry about going too far was one for which you got a lot of points for - at least in my world.

I am truly sorry if I have offended you by disagreeing with you in an offensive manner.

peace

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

<< Can't you feel the love, Allen? >>

I never knew love like this before! It completes me.


























:puke:

Hard to believe, I know. :D

All I need to do is open up my eyes, then I'll realize, there they stand with their everlasting love. From the very start, I'll open up my heart and be a lasting part of everlasting love.

I'm just giddy with anticipation.









edit: :puke:

It's a lot like the whole "love the sinner-hate the sin" deal but not as cleverly disguised.

Fueled by the rightwing and taking off like a rocket burning a vast swath through our cultural landscape.

Of course atheists would come here to try to dialogue with other Democrats in order to try to foster understanding. FYI, the topic forums are only open to donors so not everyone can get on the A&A forum - clearly a place you'd like to relegate anyone who dares venture into the R/T forum with a different perspective on religion than you. Last I looked the rules are that one must be a supporter of progressive ideas to post on DU - nowhere does it say that one must be a believer also.

Instead atheists are told that we are offending potential Dem voters with our beliefs. Or that our comments are somehow mocking if they don't agree with believers (as you create this long rant "mocking" atheists...).

agree with the atheist position.

My rant "mocking" atheists is really - like media matters and there videos - just using the exact wordings that have been used by the atheist side to justify the volume.

Indeed my only cause-celeb, if you will, is to want the volume turned down - and for folks to realize no one is educating anyone - it is just mocking.

I'd be really interested in where you found atheists' posts with those "exact wordings".....

And for the infinite time, I have never mocked anyone on DU, on the R/T forum or elsewhere. If you choose to take my atheists' perspective on religion as "mocking" than there can never be discussion - volume up or down. The very fact of our un-belief is perceived as "mocking" by believers which means debate is futile when one party enters the discussion in that way.

manner - indeed I am amazed that no atheist realizes that it is mocking.

And indeed Debate where one side says the other is wrong is indeed futile.

I do not understand why a true Christian would start off a discussion thinking someone was only interested in starting a flame war. Why would you assume that about me?

Why assign me such evil motives? It seems so, so, so, un-Christian!

For whatever it's worth I will repeat, I don't think YOU are wrong, but I think your beliefs are worth challenging.

In any case I need to get the grandkids home - and I think we agree that each sees the other as mocking them, and has a hard time understanding why the other side sees mocking.

peace.

:-)

I don't see believers mocking atheists much on DU (and I wasn't offended by your post anyway). I really don't.

I see worse usually - that atheists are offending potential Christian Dem voters for example.

Thanks for the discussion.

:hi: Peace back atcha!

If there is anybody obsessed here it is you. And that obsession is finding a way to starting flame wars and attack others.

Look at your thread "Atheists are so intolerant!!!!! ". That was posted to piss people off and you know that. Saying otherwise is an insult to anyone's intelligence. Seriously!

I have no issues with atheism or atheists in general. Who the hell am I to tell them what to believe and what not to believe? At one point in my life I was an atheist and who knows if one day I will not become an atheist again? I have my reasons to believe in a personal God so at this point in my life I am not an atheist. If someone else is an atheist BIG DEAL! Who am I to say people are stupid for not having the same opinion as mine? Who am I to mock the atheist? They have good arguments to base their atheism. But there are good arguments on the other side as well. All you have to do is be more tolerant and listen to people who have opposing opinions. Like George Clinton says, "Free your mind and your ass will follow".

I do have a problem with Christians who try to impose their ideas on me and atheist who try to force their crap down my throat with the "if you believe in this you are stupid". However, I don't feel threatened by either group, I only find them childish and annoying.

Anyway, Don't you have a better argument to your "belief in God is like believing in fairy tales" bit? That is so simplistic and not well thought out. It is good for mocking but terrible as an argument. I could come up with better ones and I believe in God! :-)

Belief or lack of belief is a personal thing and everybody should be able to have the religion they want or not have a religion at all.

When I say proselytism I don't mean it literally! Like the fundies, you should stay away from metaphors and figure of speech. No wander you are so quick to say believing in God is like believing in a fairy tale. Now I understand! :-)

Fundies proselytize by telling me I should adhere to their crap and Sam Harris, for example, proselytizes by saying I should adhere to his humanism because my religion is bad. F--k HIM!!! It's comical that some people use his ideas as their own. :-)

BTW: I haven't seen any fundies here as members of DU. Except for the trolls who appear once a while. But I truly cannot name any fundies here in this board. When I said for you to go pick on the fundamentalists and go to their boards, I didn't mean a board on DU. DU does not have fundamentalist Christian boards as far as I know. I meant for you to go find some other religious sites. But I am beginning to think you don't know the difference and for you all Christians are the same. Which explain your posts.

... I try my best not to engage in personal attacks. I'm sure I slip up from time to time during heated and fast-paced arguments, but it's completely unintentional.


<< Look at your thread "Atheists are so intolerant!!!!! ". >>

Actually, I think YOU need to look again. That was not my thread.


<< That was posted to piss people off and you know that. Saying otherwise is an insult to anyone's intelligence. Seriously! >>

I think it was posted to illustrate the absurdity of the anti-atheist positions and posturing that many around here adopt. I thought it was a fine post. But... perhaps such techniques are too subtle for some of the DU readers.


<< I have no issues with atheism or atheists in general. >>

So you say. I'm not entirely convinced of that, but I'll defer to your denials for now. (I'll reserve the right to make additional comments on that at a later date.)


<< I do have a problem with Christians who try to impose their ideas on me >>

Well, that's positive. Good for you! :thumbsup:


<< and atheist who try to force their crap down my throat with the "if you believe in this you are stupid". >>

Oh those pesky atheists with their laws... always trying to legislate what people shouldn't believe. Always reaching for that damned equality! Who do they think they are anyway? Everyone knows that theists are better than atheists and the laws should reflect that and should protect theists from atheists, eh?


<< However, I don't feel threatened by either group, I only find them childish and annoying. >>

So you say. :shrug:


<< Anyway, Don't you have a better argument to your "belief in God is like believing in fairy tales" bit? >>

That's not my argument. Find someone who's actually making that argument and take it up with them.


<< That is so simplistic and not well thought out. >>

Are you suggesting that theism is any different?


<< It is good for mocking but terrible as an argument. >>

So the atheists should pay homage and validate the beliefs by respecting the beliefs, right?


<< I could come up with better ones and I believe in God! >>

I'm exceedingly happy for you. I'd be interested in seeing a demonstration of those abilities.


<< Belief or lack of belief is a personal thing and everybody should be able to have the religion they want or not have a religion at all. >>

You'll get no argument from me on that point. :thumbsup:


<< When I say proselytism I don't mean it literally! >>

How do you mean it, then? Why use that word, if that's not what you mean? :shrug:


<< Like the fundies, you should stay away from metaphors and figure of speech. >>

I should? Huh? (What are you talking about? :shrug:)


<< No wander you are so quick to say believing in God is like believing in a fairy tale. Now I understand! >>

I say that? I do? Really? :shrug: (Did you mean to reply to someone ELSE? You keep attributing words and phrases to me, yet I don't recall ever having made such statements.)

No "wander" I have such a hard time following some of the things you're talking about.


<< Fundies proselytize by telling me I should adhere to their crap and Sam Harris, for example, proselytizes by saying I should adhere to his humanism because my religion is bad. F--k HIM!!! It's comical that some people use his ideas as their own. >>

I really haven't given that much thought.


<< BTW: I haven't seen any fundies here as members of DU. Except for the trolls who appear once a while. >>

Some are obvious. Some get banned right away. Some are much more stealthy and get banned only after slipping up or making the same mistake too many times. Others are very clever and know just how to stay within the rules while still banging their fundie drums.

Do you think that the "true" fundies would only hang out in the R/T forum? There are many issues (many forums and many groups) that attract their attention. You just need to know where to look, and what to look for. They're easy to spot.


<< But I truly cannot name any fundies here in this board. >>

Well... if you stick around long enough, it might become more apparent to you. Just because you can't name them doesn't mean they don't exist.


<< When I said for you to go pick on the fundamentalists and go to their boards, I didn't mean a board on DU. DU does not have fundamentalist Christian boards as far as I know. >>

Look again.


<< I meant for you to go find some other religious sites. >>

Why would I want to do that?

Oh wait... that's right... now I remember. You think it's all a big GAME and that the goal is to "piss off" the Christians, right? :eyes:


<< But I am beginning to think you don't know the difference and for you all Christians are the same. Which explain your posts. >>

Please... try not to make it personal.

Link together now! It's hard enough for "them" to tell us apart.....

:eyes:

Sigh.

Sorry for the confusion with the other person...

Why would I have any reason to be threatened by atheists?

That's something you'll have to answer for yourself.

So I will have to stay in the dark...

You asked: "Why would I have any reason to be threatened by atheists?"

I answered: "Sorry, I can't speak for you. That's something you'll have to answer for yourself."

You replied: "I don't know what you mean So I will have to stay in the dark..."

Well... I'm uncertain exactly WHY you're having trouble understanding what I said. I suppose I was too brief with my answer. In any case, whatever the reason... I'll try again. This time I'll aim for verbosity and unambiguous language to make my answer clearer.

Here goes:

I do not know of any rational reason that you would have to feel threatened by atheists. Although you seem to be denying such a fear, the overall tone and demeanor of your message seem to contradict and conflict with your denials of how you don't feel threatened. Since I'm not telepathic, I cannot presume to know what's actually in your mind, therefore I cannot speak on your behalf and provide the answer to your question. If that *is* a fear that you actually have... if you actually feel threatened by atheists... then you'll have to look inside yourself and come up with the answers on your own.

I hope that helps.

by atheists. My faith or lack of faith is personal and what other people think does not threaten me. I speak out because some mock people of faith and I think that is not right. I'm not a Christian. I'm a jew. And as a Jew questioning our faith is important. We use the Torah (the 5 first books of the Bible) as a guide to our lives and not as a book of facts. We don't mix science and religion. We use Torah for conduct and we use science books for science. Hell, we are compatible with Darwinism.

We debunk our own Biblical stories, even atheist Jews use the Torah and its mitzvot as a guide to living a good ethical life. If I want to read about the origin of species, I look at darwinism. Want to see how to treat a fellow human being? I look at Torah. Not social Darwinism for obvious reasons. So it goes. Judaism stuggles with the idea of God and questioning is part of being Jewish because deeds are more important than faith to us. So I don't see where being threatened by atheists fits. Faith is so secondary to me that I think you are barking at the wrong tree.

We, as Jews, are taught to respect other religions and other faiths. Christianity is not my faith and I don't believe in Jesus. But I know I should not go around trying to debunk the story of Jesus to Christians because it might upset them. If I said what I know I would be upsetting a lot of people here. But what is the point of messing with their faith? What do I have to gain?

My whole point with this thread is to see if people can put themselves in the other person's shoes and show some respect. Christians have their resons to believe in whatever they believe and who are we to mock them?

where you see an argument from another person's point of view. It can be highly instructive and help with understanding of another. I wish to thank atheists at DU who have explained their positions in a clear manner, and who have shown respect to all others, believers or atheists, who have read their posts. And I wish to thank all believers, such as you, Mr. Wiggles, for explaining your faith. Like you, I am not a Christian, but respect for the individuals who are would never allow me to say anything denigrating either Jesus or His teachings.

I think it is important to realize that what we are really arguing over are concepts of Reality. In some concepts, God is a part of this Reality; in others, it is not; but in either case I don't think the people holding the conceptions would say they understand Reality in its totality.

and thought in your posts in R/T.

Unfortunately my only experience with Sufis was a short discussion while in Turkey about Sufism and the Whirling Dervishes after being able to watch a dance.

I learned then only the concept of energy passing in the dance, and the fact that Sufis engage in the pursuit of a direct perception of spiritual truth or God, through mystic practices based on divine love.

Granted that by definition one can can only hope for true understanding of an esoteric branch of Islam such as Sufism if one becomes a Sufis and enlightened. But I enjoy the mystic and am interested in the saying "Say, surely we belong to God and to Him do we return."

And if Al-Ghazzali can study Christianity by way of the Christian Greeks, as St. Thomas Aquinas studies Al-Ghazzali, with both theologians agreeing on the kind of gnosis for complete and perfect knowledge of God which Aquinas called "Grace," I know I will benefit from more knowledge of sufism. Indeed Aquinas' "ecstasy" of the mind locked on a religious subject, blocking external sensations that might influence the soul, sounds a great deal like the sufi emphasis on direct personal experience of God. Certainly the goal of awakening the spiritual centers of perception that lie dormant in every person is common to both traditions. Muraqaba, or meditation, has its equivalent perhaps in prayer - especially that which is called centering prayer.

Perhaps I am not smart enough to understand the Sufi concept of how every phenomenon is an aspect of Truth and at the same time attribution of existence to it is false, and that one should let go of duality/the individual self, realizing divine unity/truth by seeking truth and knowledge of oneself, and of course DU is not the place to go over the various liturgy, but a discussion that does not go over my head would be nice!

The fear the West has of the Sharia and the Sunnah do not seem justified when looking at a faith based on love that also mandates both the Sharia and the Sunnah.

Of course non-traditional Sufi groups like the Universal Sufism movement, the Mevlevi Order of America, the Golden Sufi Center, the Sufi Foundation of America, and Sufism Reoriented may not include rigid adherence to Sharia and the Sunnah - and your background may be non-traditional.

In any case, I have a lot to learn and any help would be appreciated!

:-)

Sufis can be initiated into more than one order-I am an initiate of two, one a traditional Islamic order, the other a universal order. It is interesting to note that shaykhs of these different kinds of order often meet and have talks with mureeds (students) of the others-at least here in the US. I haven't traveled abroad, so I cannot speak about that, though I know in the past that universal Sufis were welcomed.

My lineage includes the writings of Haz. Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan, and a good place to start (and the only one I remember the url for without looking it up) is http://www.churchofall.us This is the website of one of the senior teachers in our Order, Murshida Tasnim, and has links to other orders.

Murshid Samuel L. Lewis was once asked about his concepts of spirituality. "Concepts of spirituality are concepts," he replied. He was then asked what spirituality was. "Experience." There is a certain transmission that comes via initiation, ceremonies such as the Sema you witnessed, as well as zkr, and the practices given to you by your guide. I will say that in my personal spiritual journey, I find myself doing more and more with the heart and less and less with the head-and I once was an intellectual! I would encourage you to attune yourself to your heart, and go the way it tells you to go-if you follow the path of Love, wherever it leads, you will be on your path.

indeed I suspect being a Sufis fits my journey very well - but perhaps I can follow that path while being a Christian.

Again thank you for the comment and the URL.

:-)

an Episcopalean priest who is a Sufi initiate, I think you can. :)

appealing. "Mysticism" by Evelyn Underhill is a great book.

Contemplative meditation is practiced in many modern churches.

I also am very attracted to Sufism, though I don't know any local groups in my area.

<< Christians have their resons to believe in whatever they believe and who are we to mock them? >>

As was mentioned elsewhere in this thread: for some Christians, anything the atheist does (short of paying homage and respect to their BELIEF) will always be considered "mocking". I imagine that for many of them, the very EXISTENCE of atheists is a mockery of their deity.

Their own inability to separate themselves from their BELIEFS is their OWN PROBLEM to deal with and to come to terms with. It's NOT my problem. It's not my duty to validate their beliefs.

I think it's also worth pointing out that when Christian scripture is used to oppress or to create laws that attempt to deny everyone of equality (and you KNOW they do just that)... it's our OBLIGATION to "debunk" the very myths that they use to JUSTIFY their HATE AND BIGOTRY.

Again, I'm under no obligation to keep-away from their scriptures simply because they view it as "sacred", divine, and above reproach.

You claim not to be threatened by the actions and words of atheists, yet you continually find fault in the justifiable things that we do. That sounds a lot like fear to me. (Or perhaps it's just hypocrisy... maybe both.)

No... I'm NOT "barking up the wrong tree". Surely you can agree that there are many many groups, atheists included, who have GOOD REASON to be suspicious of Christians. Think about it!

Yet you act so surprised when the atheist (who is usually on the lookout for any signs of aggression) you act surprised when the atheist REACTS to aggressive Christians.

<< My whole point with this thread is to see if people can put themselves in the other person's shoes and show some respect. >>

Respect is something that should be earned. I usually have to trust someone before I can respect them. Considering what has come before, I think atheists have very good reason to be suspicious and DIStrustful. --- As I said, it's difficult for me to respect someone (or a group) that I don't really trust.

Whose fault is that? Am I to blame for being repeatedly slapped in the face? How many more times should atheists (or any OTHER group that most Christians despise) just remain seated at the back of the bus?

The groups that the Christians most hate can only take so much... and when they dare to speak up and say STOP IT, we can count on people like you to accuse us (in this case, atheists) of being disrespectful or "mocking". People who resort to such things aren't helping matters any, and they just stir the pot and create even MORE resentment and MORE distrust.

<< My whole point with this thread is to see if people can put themselves in the other person's shoes and show some respect. >>

Really? :shrug: Those poor "disrespected" Christians. :eyes:

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

<< If you see the breakdown in another post below you will see that it is only a few who are mocking. >>

It's clear to me that there is very little any atheist can say (short of absolute prostration) that deists would not consider to be "mocking". That group cannot separate themselves from the *belief*, so any criticism or derision of the belief is taken personally.

That's their problem, not mine.

That group feels divinely entitled to be hateful bigots so any efforts to fight it or stand up to it is labeled "intolerant" or "paranoid". :eyes:

<< You are the one paranoid about Christians with you suspicion of them and saying that I am feeling threatened. But, please, don't judge others for yourself and don't try to attribute your paranoia on me. >>

You are the one who continually nitpicks and fault-finds against atheists. You're the one who continually acts as defender and apologist for the bulk of those Christians.

You deny feeling threatened, yet your words indicate otherwise. I have TOLD YOU ALREADY (twice!) that I cannot presume to say whether or not you are actually fearful of atheists, but your words certainly do indicate that to be the case.

If this is not how you want to be viewed, then I think it would be wise for you to re-examine your positions... or at the very least, you should take the time to choose words that better reflect your true feelings. If there's any misunderstanding about your feelings, then the fault is your own. Not that of the reader.

<< If Christians are aggressive it does not justify you being aggressive. >>

Those pesky atheists... if they would just SHUT UP and BE SUBMISSIVE about it, then this whole thing would just go away.

<< A wrong doesn't justify another. >>

Yet you still defend the behavior of those Christians. Go figure.

<< Too bad that you have paranoia and can't give people the benefit of the doubt and not respect them. >>

What's "too bad" is that atheists (and other targets of those Christians) have GOOD REASON to distrust and to be suspicious.

Your use of the word "paranoid" suggests that atheists are being distrustful and cautious for no good reason... but that is INCORRECT. Atheist *DO* have good reason to be distrustful.

There's yet ANOTHER example of your dismissiveness. Nice going! :eyes:


<< Too bad you generalize because your attitude creates a big wall between you and other people. >>

There you go again... blame the atheist. It's the fault of the atheist for putting up that "wall", eh?

Do you even PROOF READ what you write to see how it might sound to others? Clearly not!

<< Racists rationalize ways to hate blacks, some say things like, "I was attacked by a black man and another one mugged my mother therefore I distrust all blacks". Your generalization and rationalization torwards the religious is very similar?>>

No, your example sounds idiotic. It indicates to me that you haven't given this matter very much thought. It indicates to me a coarseness and underlying hostility towards atheists.

<< Too bad for you everything is all or nothing. >>

Yes, it's "too bad" it has to be this way. But your statement suggests that situation is somehow MY fault, or that atheists are to blame. Why?

Your words have the tone of blaming me (or other atheists) for being distrustful... or for blaming atheists for reacting to the aggression of some Christians.

I can't begin to tell you how offensive that is.

<< If it weren't the case perhaps you would be a more tolerant person. >>

Oh brother! You just don't get it do you? -- Or maybe you do actually understand, yet you pretend NOT to understand.

The more people talk, the more they reveal their true inner self. To those folks, I encourage them to talking... keep talking. I'm learning more and more about many folks here. What I learn about them is in direct contrast with their denials, and how they try to portray themselves. It's obviously NOT what they want me to see, but I can see right through the pretending, and the bullshit.

They don't fool me... if you know what I mean.

Your views are quite clear... it's "all my fault" being an "intolerant" person. I'm not suppose to ignore the open and continual hostility and attacks from the bulk of Christians. I'm supposed to sit down, and shut up. I'm supposed to turn the other cheek and keep offering olive branches to the aggressor. When I've had enough and I say "stop" I'm being intolerant. When I debunk the tools they use to justify bigotry, then I'm "mocking".

Good fucking grief! Spare me the bullshit! :eyes:

I'm not blaming the atheists. You say I blame the atheist. I'm blaming you for generalizing a group of people. You happen to be an atheist, but you don't represent them, at least not to me.

I'd say fight and not give the other cheek but just fight against the individuals who attack you. Just don't generalize Christians because of the bad apples. Are all Christians attacking you or individual Christians?

I have more reasons to be threatened by Christians than to be threatened by atheists. Look at the Holocaust and the Inquisition. Yet, I come here and defend Christians. Why? Because I am able to distinguish the good Christian to the nut. It seems to me that to you they are all the same.

To me, an atheist who leads a good and ethical life is considered is better than what we call the "pious fool" who finds his faith and rites more important than deeds.

Anyhow, good luck dude! I'm done with this chat!

<< I'm not blaming the atheists. You say I blame the atheist. >>

Despite your denials, the tone of your messages conveys an entirely different message. The fault-finding nit-picking crusade is in direct opposition to the way your try to characterize it.


<< I'm blaming you for generalizing a group of people. >>

And again... I emphasize, that the generalized distrust is JUSTIFIED. I see no reason to start randomly trusting people (who have generally only given me reason to distrust them) unless they first prove themselves. Trust is something that must be earned... so is respect.


<< I'd say fight and not give the other cheek but just fight against the individuals who attack you. Just don't generalize Christians because of the bad apples. Are all Christians attacking you or individual Christians? >>

Am I attacking "all Christians"? I was unaware of doing such a thing. In fact I think I've always made the distinction which group of Christians deserved my scorn.

And even in those instances where my hurriedly typed message left some ambiguity as to precisely WHICH Christians were the target of my ridicule or scorn... it really doesn't take a GENIUS to figure out that when the homo is attacking "Christians" for their latest attack on gay marriage... which subset of Christians do you really THINK I'm talking about?


<< I have more reasons to be threatened by Christians than to be threatened by atheists. >>

It seems that we're not alone... but then again, you don't live in Nazi Germany (to my knowledge). I live in the theocracy of America where laws are written (through the support and encouragement of CHRISTIANS) that deny non-Christians and non-heterosexuals the same rights and privileges enjoyed by Christians and heterosexuals. Permanent 2nd-class citizenship for homosexuals is gradually moving forward, and bigotry is about to be enshrined in the US Constitution... again... at the support and encouragement of... of.... (anyone?)... yes... CHRISTIANS!!

I don't think you have much room to lecture me about how I shouldn't feel threatened by that group... or how my feelings aren't justified... or how I should learn to trust more, or make an effort.

Complete. Horse. Shit.


<< Look at the Holocaust and the Inquisition.>>

What a show!


<< Yet, I come here and defend Christians. Why? >>

I do not know why. Because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Who knows what would motivate you. I can't figure it out.


<< Because I am able to distinguish the good Christian to the nut. >>

So when you say that you "come here and defend Christians" what you really mean is that you "come here and defend non-nut Christians". --- For someone who (seemingly) requires OTHERS to engage in hyper-technical specificity from those who criticize certain subsets of Christians, this seems to be a writing skill you lack yourself.

<< It seems to me that to you they are all the same. >>

It seems to me that you have a vivid imagination, or that you lack some very basic reading skills, or that you are mistakenly attributing the words of OTHERS to me.

I'm at a loss to explain this disconnect with reality that you describe.

<< In my religion, an atheist who leads a good and ethical life is considered righteous which is better than what we call the "pious fool" who finds his faith and rites more important than deeds. >>

I remember someone pointing out that the good atheist does so for its own sake... while many theists do good only for the sake of the eternal "reward" or out of fear of the eternal "punishment".

<< Anyhow, good luck dude! I'm done with this chat! >>

Yeah... I can't stomach much more of this myself.

You know, flamebait OP aside, I have to admire your unwillingness to deny your religion's role in those atrocities - unlike many of your brethren.

It's actually quite refreshing honesty.

Why would I deny my religious roles in the Holocaust and Inquisition? I'm a Jew. :-)

I have my reasons to fear the Christian right because, historically, when Jews prosper in a Christian society, atrocities happen.

I think our focus should be the Christian right and not Christianity in general. We have to be able to distinguish who is who. There are good Christians who are on the same side as the secular both against the irrational Christian right. Dissing friendly groups is stupid, in my opinion.

I posted before I knew that. :P

"Dissing friendly groups is stupid, in my opinion."

True enough. Goes both ways, too.

It goes both ways. Take care Zhade!

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

Same old tripe. Nothing new. About as intellectually stimulating for me as this blast from the past:

<< "Do they think we are threatening them in some way, that we want to take their rights from them?" >>

Remember?

<< Actually, I think you can't. >>

You call that a thoughtful argument. I call it a contradiction. These duck-season/rabbit-season endless series of unsupported contradictions may be entertaining to some types, but it certainly doesn't hold my attention for more than a second or two. :eyes:

I'm not sure what value you see it in it or what you hope to accomplish. But... please continue until you get bored with it... I'll wait. :shrug:

<< Many of your accusations, against me and others, are products of your imagination, in my personal opinion. >>

I'd think that by NOW you'd already know the full extent of exactly how much regard I have about your personal opinion of me. Surely, I don't need to repeat it again.

<< These accusations often has a very paranoid quality to it, >>

Ah... and so the name calling begins.

<< with you attacking a "tone" that isn't there, and reading reasons into things that are also not there. I can see exactly what Mr. Wiggles is talking about. >>

It only makes sense that you would be unable to discern such things. It's an acquired skill that one develops.

<< You also tend to call those who merely disagree with you bigots, >>

That's a pretty myopic perspective and such statements (accusations) demonstrate to me a complete lack of understanding and insight--or a complete disregard for the facts--or both.

No, actually I'm not permitted to call ANYONE a bigot. I am allowed to point out bigotry, I can point out when someone is defending bigotry. (Please keep the baseless accusations to a minimum.)

<< when in fact they only disagree with you personally, or a small number of atheists, rather than all atheists, a necessary condition to being a bigot. >>

You don't know what you're talking about.

<< I have yet to hear a theist call an atheist a bigot. >>

I guess you haven't been paying very close attention. But the same rules apply and they aren't allowed to do that either.

<< It isn't learning at all, it is projection of your onw beliefs onto others, I think. >>

I'm a lot smarter than you think I am. You're wasting my time.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Glad I missed that intelligent, rational and obviously tolerant post.

Reminds me of that lovely woman Melinda Barton.

Unless you're trying to debunk "strong" (aka "affirmative") atheism, which asserts with certainty that no gods exist (a logic-based but still unsupportable idea, since no one knows all knowledge in the universe).

Of course, you'd have to use objective evidence to do so, and since the only alleged evidence for the existence of gods ever offered has been of the subjective, personal emotion/feeling kind, you really couldn't debunk strong atheism, either. You'd essentially be at a stalemate, as you noted in your OP.

I find it reprehensible that you have the gall to compare Allen to a RACIST. Personal attacks cross the line (and for the record, not accepting and not respecting your personal beliefs is NOT an attack, so let's get that out of the way, in case you feel tempted to justify your personal attacks).

While I find it reprehensible to judge a group of people for the attitude of some, thus the comparison, I admit I went over the line.

It was meant for him to re-think his judgement and not to attack him. But I admit fault because I could had used a better comparison not to make him defensive. Since it is obvious he would get offended therefore it was a brainfart in my part. A HUGE and wet brainfart! I wasn't able to get my point through and ended up hurting him which is wrong. Nobody wants to be compared to a racist so here goes my sincere apologies to him.

(as always, no, that is not limited to you either) but well, who knows what tomorrow brings.

Like RA says, this is a good thing. Thank you for owning up to it, and peace to you.

:)

Thoughtful rational argument can chip away at your belief. It can be emotionally painful to consider that ones faith, or aspects of it, are misplaced. Similar to the deep pain of getting cheated on by a spouse, but maybe even deeper and more unsettling.

The terms "well said" and "good post". These terms seem to used to acknowledge agreement rather than journalistic skills.

"well said" or a "good post" without "journalistic skills".

I don't expect everyone who posts on DU to have been to journalism school or to have a degree in philosophy.

Some people seem very proud of their argumentative skills - but are weak on their attempts to understand people or the truth of the matter.

with a supposedly progressive Christian, who got many of her posts deleted because she was attacking Catholics, atheists, Muslims, and others. This person claimed to be a pastor of her church!

So while you call out the atheists and non-believers, do realize that plenty of believers bring their own kindling and matches to the campsite, too.

On edit: I would also point out that many atheists here are tired of having their stance labeled as a "belief" or that apparently just by speaking out about atheism, that we're "proselytizing." I know this is usually a knee-jerk reaction by believers to try and put us into the box of religion, where they have concepts and ideas they're comfortable with. But it just seems like so few are willing to actually listen to us and STOP using those terms when we tell them they insult us.

Well, I have many interests. But one of the big ones is in religion, theology, and philosophy. I like to talk about, debate about, and argue about religion and God because it's such a complex issue and there are many different perspectives to be had - which is why I come here. I look at this place as a platform for growth for all of us. I constantly challenge my own beliefs (or lack thereof) with things that are posted here - primarily because I'm not certain regarding my beliefs. I do sometimes get the distinct impression, however, that people who I am debating aren't doing the same thing.

For example, sometimes I feel like when I write something that tries to get someone to think about something differently than they do, they assume that I'm calling them stupid or irrational, that I am a fool, or that I must not of heard about Jesus yet, and respond as such. Once that assumption is made, it's very hard to have a productive discussion on a topic.

So believe it or not, as a member of the evil atheist posse, I have felt unwelcome here at times and have refrained from offering my perspective on an issue for fear that it might upset or offend a person of faith - note that it has never been my intention to do so. It's likewise hard to have a productive discussion once you offend or upset the other party. So if I post anything regarding faith, or asking for reasons, or pointing out what I take to be a problem, my intent is less to offend and more to challenge (and to discover new ideas myself). If a mere challenge to your faith upsets you, then you might consider getting a thicker skin so that such a sophomoric challenge (such as mine typically are) doesn't upset you.

Just my .02.

One thing is - there actually IS (or has been) a group of atheists who act as some kind of "posse" - and who send PMs to people (at least to me) telling them (me) what they believe or not and threatening to harass. While your name was not mentioned as being part of this group - it has influenced the tone of the debate - to have people like that who act in such a way.

Also - a lot of these same people do not like to be challenged in the way that you suggest. There is not a comparable religious "posse" - though some might believe there to be - or see the world that way.

And like I said above - I don't see the division as Atheist vs. Theist - but as Anti-religionists vs. Everybody else.

not whether or not I condone such actions (I don't), but that even though I've not done anything of the type I've sometimes felt I'm being treated as such.

A good number of posts in the atheist/agnostic groups are calls to arms, linking threads in other sections.

As to whether it's theist vs atheist, I agree. Theist vs atheist is a discussion that works itself out in two posts, as one declares belief and the other doesn't. All the rest is caricature, arguing with straw men or being insulting. That's my take on it.

<< A good number of posts in the atheist/agnostic groups are calls to arms, linking threads in other sections. >>

Those types of posts are not permitted. I'm surprised that the moderators and admins would allow such things to happen. Did you alert on those posts? You really ought to.




:hi: (Can you hear me now?)

No peeking! :rofl:

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

... have also crossed my mind more than once. I'm not sure what to make of it. For a few (both here and elsewhere) these things seem to go beyond an ordinary interest in the subject matter. Such a fixation and fascination with a certain group (or certain individuals) cannot be natural or healthy.

I'm keeping an open mind about it... but I'm keeping my eyes open too.

but we all need that sometime. I would not begrudge others their echo chambers, either. But the fact that they are a specific group's echo chamber makes it so that I have NO INTEREST in going in there. Why someone would routinely come into my echo chamber (as the post indicates it is more than just a casual entrance) to take notes on our "conspiracy" is a little strange. I'm no psychologist, but I think there are names for that problem.

I was under the impression that I was one of the evil posse. Last time you claimed this, I asked all the atheist who have never pmed you to say so. Most of the "evil atheists" said they had never sent you any pms! I have only ever sent ONE PM to a theist...and the PM was to seabeyond, thanking her/him for sticking up for our right to express our opinion.

To tell you the truth, I think your full of it. I think that maybe ONE person has ever sent you a PM, if even that, and you keep claiming that your getting all these hostiles messages.

I don't believe you.

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

Virtually any perspective or comment on their belief is viewed through a defensive lens on DU. That shuts down the debate from the start and suddenly it's all about the "evil atheist posse" (LOL - that is a good one actually), and how we are "mocking". All denials to the contrary are dismissed by the believers and atheists are labelled as attacking when we are challenging. Why do theists take that stance? The underlying assumption that atheists are the only ones committing wrongs seems to be commonly accepted - here on this board and elsewhere.

I have seen very few posts on DU that aren't immediately locked when a poster is denigrated or mocked. I am sure some have gotten through but most are spotted pretty quickly and removed. I believe the mods are pretty adept at spotting analogies/comments that are pejorative and those that are not.

wrong.

The amusing/sad point of course is that the atheist keeps claiming he is proving the unprovable,

Why would any atheist claim they can prove a negative?

I really want to know where you are seeing atheists doing that.

applies to the logic used in science, but not necessarily to the logic in meta-physics.

where you can find an atheist who has said they can "prove" God doesn't exist or that they are "proving" God doesn't exist. I'm pretty militant in my (non)belief, and even I'm not claiming that.

You'll ruin a perfectly good myth.

Can't have christians and atheists getting along, now can we? ;)

prove it is a cop out in the world of meta-physics.

We all agree there is no need to prove a negative in science - but we all should also agree that meta-physics is not science.

Are you saying that you claim God's existence can not be proved? I agree - short of him coming down here, it can't be.

Athiests claim that they don't need to prove God doesn't exist? Well, we don't need to - unless our position is to convince theists that we're right. For now though, the evidence against the existence of a God - much short of a proof - will suffice for my own personal belief.

No need to prove a negative? I'm not sure I understand.

And yes, metaphysics is not a science - it's a branch of philosophy. Though, all sciences were at one point in time a philosophy.

need not prove a negative.

The only rule in meta-physics is if one asserts that which can not be proven, one has expressed a belief and belief not based on proven - at least scientifically proven - fact -is based on faith - and it is a short jump from there to "religion" - albeit a religion with near zero (but not zero) agreed dogma and no liturgy.

but I think what you're referring to is not meta-physics, but epistemology - another branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge and the nature of it. If I assert anything - say the cure for cancer rests in a certain plant - then it will be a belief until I am able to support that with reason and evidence. If I gather enough reason and enough evidence, then one could say we "know" how to cure cancer.

But anyway - so I guess one could say "There is not no God" and it would escape the trap? Or is it just that if one asserts something that is not readily apparent, then the burden of proof is on them? I completely agree.

I have seen threads that disses all religions here and even of the Native Americans. Too bad our ancestors destroyed their religions and their cultures. There are so many amazing things we are never going to learn about such rich cultures and religions because of the proselytizing of our own culture. Some of you will probably say "who cares about their religion! It's just another load of crap!" but that is just the ethnocentric American ignorance coming out of you.


http://www.cephas-library.com/church_n_state_rockefeller_and_evangelism.html


I'm not aware of anyone dissing Native American religion. I think you'll find that most dissing is against the intolerant organized religions of the world, in particular, Christianity and Islam, but even Hinduism and Buddhism are guilty of abuses.

By contrast, the Pantheist beliefs of Native Amercians are compatible with preserving the planet, of achieving spirituality without destroying the Earth. Monotheist religions emphasize Heaven and rewards in the afterlife, not the Earth. So, we have to take lessons from Native Americans and Earth worshipping Pagans if we are to survive on the planet. That includes the nonhuman residents on the planet too, for we need them to survive. We are a part of nature, not apart from nature.



If one wants a safe place to discuss their beliefs, there are groups here for that, but in this forum, religious beliefs, or lack of religious beliefs are viable discussion topics, not treated any differently than any other political discussion. I think we can all attest to how heated these can become during election season. :)

minded statement? I'd love to see that.

Instead we get folks telling others what they believe - and that is true for both sides I know - and then tearing down the strawman they have built.

Civil, polite discussion as behoves allies in the progressive movement is not possible in R/T.

It is all about telling the other fellow he is wrong and indeed relies on bad facts - and again that works for both sides.

That includes liberal theology. OTOH, orthodox religions have conservative views, so they tend to get dumped on here. For example the Pauline form of Christianity is what is mainly practiced in this country, so it is patriarchal and intolerant with strange concepts of sin. These issues need to be steadily talked about since many of us live in the U.S. where we have a president who listens to God when making decisions, and where the morality imposed by the church is a constant threat to private life.

Religion in general needs to be moderated or liberalized and it only can happen if criticism is allowed. The reason that it has taken so long to get this far is that it has been unassailable as a topic for criticism (Sam Harris expains this in great detail). The Age of Reason and Enlightenment was a period of heavy criticism of religion with great success, but still much liberalization still needs to occur, especially with fundamentalist religions like Islam which is still a medieval religion.

The liberal religionist should have nothing to fear from heated discussions, while those who follows religious creeds written thousands of years ago without examining the rationiality of such creeds is more apt to find such discussion threatening.

interpretation that is the problem?

I suspect it is the last - and that only when imposed on others.

Separation of Church and State ends all problems as far as I can see.

To examine the rationality of creeds - "educating" the believer in the belief that he or she is wrong - does nothing, in my opinion, to advance social harmony or separation of church and state. Indeed it develops a backlash. As BMUS says, she is nice until she suspects someone is not being nice to herself or her friends - at which point she is not as nice. I think this is a standard response.

The R/T discussions are not threatening to the theist or an atheist - how do you threaten a belief or non-belief? - but they sure are, as this theist reads them, insulting, mocking, and not needed if we are as tolerant as we say progressives are - again at least in my opinion.

and intolerant of intolerant views. There is a right time to be tolerant or intolerant.



I think the heavy criticism is aimed at the intolerant views of orthodox religion, and so is quite appropriate. The way to moderate religion is by exposing it to the light of reason. What stands up to reason and criticism is likely to be worth keeping.

Do you respect all beliefs? Do we have to respect all beliefs? If I believed that all jews deserved to die in the holocaust, does that belief deserve respect?

If I fundamentally disagree with your beliefs...and my belief is that your belief is stupid, is is wrong for me to state my belief? My very BEING is insulting to some people here and in the world.

The problem here is that I have certain beliefs...one of them is that religion is nothing but indoctrination. Therein lies the problem...as soon as I state my belief, you get insulted. I can separate myself from what I believe...if someone tells me my beliefs are retarded, I never take it personally. In fact, if any of the people here who have argued with me and flamed me came to town, I would take them out for a beer and show them a good time. Because, although I have no respect whatsoever for your beliefs, I still respect YOU as a person.

The thing is....not many people of faith REALLY respects my beliefs or opinions. Oh, most people will say they do...but as soon as you express yourself, they will whine and tell you to shut up.

"But Evoman..why can't you just say 'I don't believe' and be nice about it?" Well, because that not the extent of my belief...I also believe that religion is violent, irrational, and ridiculous. Ahh, but no one wants to hear what I actually believe, right?

And despite my assurances otherwise, many of the theists here have this insane notion that I am trying to convert them or proseltyzing. I could really CARE LESS what other people believe. If this board was just about telling other people what you believe, and you couldn't challenge those beliefs, then I wouldnt even bother being here. I'm here because I like debate and argue. I have even started many topics about religion that I find interesting...serious, non-flamey topics. But no one ever posts on those (the topic about death, or gods purpose for example)....instead people respond to these flamey topics and then complain that no one wants to engage in serious conversation! And if you look at most of the latest flame topics, over half of them have been started by theists who complain about others and start the whole thing all over again. Although, I'm not gonna cut the atheists slack here either...topics that just start fights are stupid. Alas, they are the only posts responded too here.

respect for a given belief?

Is your faith/belief - there goes those words again - ok - is your conclusion so weak that you must repeat your non-belief every time there is a post in Religion by someone that does not share that conclusion? And if a 1 to 1 posting ratio is required by your emotions on this topic, what ratio do you use - and do you feel that is a reasonable compromise between telling those on every post/thread by those who do not share your conclusion that you disagree with this part of their life, and your desire to not be seen by your progressive allies as someone trying to flame for attention. Or is the latter not part of your objectives on this board?

from your respect for your Republican mother/father/grands/children/co-workers/neighbors/doctor etc. etc. etc.

Every single one of us has to make that separation, daily, some of us numerous times/day (I guess I am assuming you can and do make that separation).

Why can't Christians understand that atheists' non-belief works in much the same way? And if we DO challenge your religious beliefs, that isn't "mocking" YOU.

It can be hard sometimes, I acknowledge that. An atheist will look at a believer with a different perspective about a believers' reasoning capabilities. But people like Tallahassee Granny are universally respected by non-believers and believers for example. She shows that it's possible to be a believer and still command respect.

There are some "true conservative" republicans I can and do respect.

Atheists can and do make those kinds of differentiations. But I would state that that kind of credibility requires a "true Christian" perspective. I don't mean that as a diss to you personally, but as a generality.

points of disagreement, in a manner that is very non-confrontational. I really admire her for that and have said so to her in the past.

Do you feel the religious forum is where one should go to get ones atheist non-belief or religious belief challenged?

I'd prefer the subject be the thought process in each belief system and their comparisons.

But "challenge their belief" can easily be considered the only valid use of R/T - the only downside being that all that it accomplishes if it has that objective is that both sides after posting feel the other is attempting to put down their non-belief or belief.

If someone asks the question, "Did jesus exist" I say no. If someone asks, "What do you think of death" I say that we become worm food. I tailor my responses to the individual topic at hand. Would you ever go to a thread thats not about jesus and say, "I believe in Jesus and I think you atheists are wrong!"...no of course, you don't. You respond to the topic your interested in..if someone asks "Did jesus exist and what is his purpose?" you would say..."I think Jesus is my saviour and died for my sins. Of course he exists". I would, on the other hand, say "He did not exist, and he is simply a myth". I don't often express the fact that I don't have respect for religion, unless its one of those "flamey-type" topics, like this one..you know the type, lol. The ones that have a hundred posts by the end of the day!

But, just as you do not respond to topics you aren't interested in, neither do I. Do I mock people intentionally? Not usually...what I express is what I think. Occasionally, when things are getting ridiculous or someone is saying something I deem as particularly ridiculous, I do something mock. But I never get personal.

Look, I have nothing against you Papau. In fact, I love you guys because, whether you know it or not, you challenge me intellectually, and I love to debate. My problem is, that many people here think I'm trying to attract attention when I express my views...but I'm really not. I'm responding with what I believe.

The thing that you don't recognize, is that we are often provoked. Even your response to me...let me quote:

"Is your faith/belief - there goes those words again - ok"

is a provokation. Why would you say that if it weren't for the expressed purpose of provoking me? If you want serious topics, start serious topics. I've started serious topics, good debates...but people don't respond to those posts. Instead, we spend our time arguing in these sort of posts.

If you don't want a flame war, stop fanning the flames!

meant to point out, perhaps I did so poorly, that you are wrong fights get us nowhere, and indeed change no ones opinion.

Sign me on to "If you don't want a flame war, stop fanning the flames" as you also sign me onto "telling a person their belief/non-belief is wrong does not advance the progressive cause".

"telling a person their belief/non-belief is wrong does not advance the progressive cause".

See, its really easy for you to say that as a majority. Imagine, for a second, that atheists were a majority in the democrat party. Imagine the, that, upon proffessing that you think atheists are wrong and that jesus does exist, you were told, "Stop saying Jesus exists...your going to scare away the Atheist voters". What would you say to that? "Oh yes, yes. Jesus is not a saviour. I don't want to scare away atheist party members"

Of course not.

By simply saying, "Jesus is saviour" you are telling a person of non-belief that they are wrong.

Part of the progressive cause, if I understand correctly, is giving people the right to say whatever they want. Part of the progressive cause is being able to deal with people that are not like you. In fact, I would argue that telling a person their belief or non-belief is wrong DOES IN FACT advance the progressive cause.

cause - or better said - why flame wars advance the cause.

I agree that no point of view should be suppressed on a progressive site, but having stated where you are coming from, what is the point of explaining why you came to that conclusion (I dare not say faith :-) ) if it is not to convert, or to get validation (which on DU I do not believe is needed for any point of view), or to get praise and agreement, or to get into a flame war by telling someone with whom you wish to work with that their belief system is "wrong".

It is not a question of "not offending" versus free speech, it is simply "What is accomplished that gets us closer to a progressive goal".

Of course that is IMHO :-)

Why does this forum attract so many DU christians, whereas the Christian Group is basically empty? Why do so many christians continue fanning the flames.


Why do christians need to explain why they are christians or that they are christians, if it is not to convert or to get validation? The same exact questions you ask me, I could ask you! I've already told you why I post here!!! I said I posted here because it provides me intellectual stimulation and I enjoy debating.

Again, why do you post here? Why do you keep making snide comment

"why you came to that conclusion (I dare not say faith)"

like this? Why do YOU POST HERE? If you don't want to argue with atheist or provoke us, why do you even bother? What do you get from this if you don't come here to get challenged? Does this place solve any problems...probably not. Does this forum in any way advance the progressive goal? Probably not...are you advocating shutting it down?

Does having a disagreement about what car you drive, or about whether you believe in gun control, solve anything? Should we shut down the car forums or the gun forum?

Again, you answer me now...what do you get from this forum? Why are you here?

advancing the progressive cause.

gun control is a topic on which a large part of the party wants some action -

Is removing belief and believers something a large part of the party wants to do?

Identifying your belief or non-belief makes sense in R/T, and even explaining why you have come to that conclusion makes sense in E/T, but does challenging another as having the wrong belief really advance anything?

Um, she has posted threads before, and I don't see you as having overly participated in those threads. Instead, you come in to these threads and fan the flames. Isn't there an actual group specifically for sufis and mystics? Why not go there instead?

"gun control is a topic on which a large part of the party wants some action -"

So what about the car forums? Are they advancing the progressive cause.IF someone makes a statement, "The KIA Rio is a great car", and someone else says, "I disagree with you..it doesnt have enough power?" is that advancing the progressive cause?


"Is removing belief and believers something a large part of the party wants to do?"

No, removing belief and believers is not something the party wants to do....although, apparently, moving atheists is....or am I mistaken?

"Identifying your belief or non-belief makes sense in R/T, and even explaining why you have come to that conclusion makes sense in E/T, but does challenging another as having the wrong belief really advance anything?"

Your assuming that everyone on this board is trying to Advance The Progressive Cause (tm). Some of us just want to have discussions out of interest. Can I be completely honest with you? My understanding of you, and I may be wrong, is that you actually have little or no interest in sufism or other religions. This progressive cause stuff your spouting is done so that you can show that you take some sort of ethical high-ground. I'm not buying it...whenever theres a flame war, Papau and the rest of the "holier-than-thous" are smack dab in the middle of it. Just admit that you love to come here and have these arguments...I don't know, maybe they are fun for you. Maybe you like feeling persecuted. I dont know..but I'm not buying your "Im here for a better cause than you" bullshit.

Evoman

Do they? It was only after I lost my faith that I realized I had never had any kind of intellectual reason for mine, although I certainly thought I did when I still had it. Rather, it was just fear and pressure to conform that kept me in the fold for so long. I'm sure that some people might think they have said "intellectual reasons", but I can't see what they would be. Please enlighten as to what they are.

"Feelings" and "intuition" while being a valid reason many believe, is not intellectual. Faith is not intellectual. Now, if you actually looked at every religion, compared and contrasted the benefits, and decided on one religion for those benefits, then you could almost say it was an intellectual reason. I may be wrong, but most people don't develop real "faith" in that way.

logical, rational, or any of those. If theists truly believe, then they shouldn't be bothered that their beliefs cannot be verified by logic, reason, the scientific method, or whatever.

The theists in this board don't want to make you believe God exists. They don't want to prove to you that God exists. Their faith is a personal choice and they have their own intelectual reasons to believe that God exists like you have yours of not believing.

Here is what I wrote in another thread. Please, do not take this as an argument to prove that God exists. it is only a reason some people believe there is a God or have reasons to believe at least in a concept of a God:

Everything, according to an atheist, developed by chance. People who believe in God, do admit that beauty, love, art, intelligence, consciousness, conscience, natural law, complex cellular activity, the pervasive sense of purpose, the notions of universal justice and morality, and all creation could emanate from inanimate coincidences. But while this is a possibility (not to mention our religious natures) compels us to reject it as a probability. Design suggests to us a Designer, law a Lawgiver, creation a Creator, intelligence a Source of intelligence, conscience a God.

There are two possible explanations for creation: that everything comes from chance and coincidence, or from design and purpose. The choice is between nonsense and sense. To a believer, if there is no God, one cannot speak of sense in life, or of good and evil, or of ultimate purpose. This things would be mere delusions created by our minds to deny that all is anarchic and meaningless.

But the moment you affirm that these non-physical aspects of life posses an objective reality, you are implicitly affirming the existence of God. From where else these non-physical realities derive? Gases and amino acids don't possess truth, purpose, good, or evil.

I am not posting all this to try to prove the existence of a God. I am posting this to show that people who believe in God have an intellectual reason for believing in God. Comparing the belief in God to a belief in fairy tales is ridiculous at the very least.

I can see people say that the Bible uses fairy tales to express what God is but the Bible being a book of fairy tales does not make God into a fairy tale.

It is okay to not believe there is a God because who the hell can prove that God exists or not? But you cannot dismiss other people for believing in God unless you did not put to much thought into the subject.

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

...people in DU do proselytize or not I haven't seen. At least, personally, I haven't seen any Christians trying to convert me so far.

Right.

And we're waging a war on Christmas too.

WTF are you talking about? You deserve to be ignored. :eyes:

if you're going to vilify us.

The war on Christmas is all part of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy.

Godless commies and all that.


So why did you avoid my question?

I want you to show me where atheists are trying to convert theists on this board.

That shouldn't be difficult, after all, it must be legion if you felt compelled to start a thread about it.

on Christmas is the left's goal nonsense.

What is the latest anti-atheist propaganda coming from the left?

That clear? I'm afraid I didn't keep a link, but that is what got a lot of atheists ver touchy lately.

My view is that atheists see things one way. Believers see things a different way. It's just like two different people who look at the same ink blot and see different things.

I'm well aware that the most of the theists on this board aren't interested in proselytizing, however, some of them make statements about their beliefs like they are proven facts. When that happens, it is reasonable for a skeptic to demand proof.

Faith cannot be proven by reason, logic, science, or what have you. I don't think true believers should try to validate their faith by using any of those methods. If they don't want to convert me, it's no sweat off my back. My point is that faith cannot be proven by any of the three methods listed above, which are intellectual methods.

What you seem to be saying is that assigning order where none necessarily exists is an intellectual excersize. I'm not sure that believing in a god or divine order so to make sense out of the universe is an intellectual reason for belief, but if you think so, then go right ahead.

Just curious- where have you seen atheists "proselytizing"?

debates about the validity of a certain religion are not necessarily a debate on the validity of a god or designer. To theists they are the same. The argument ends on the same note always...

When you make statements that atheists believe everything came from chance...you misrepresemt the argument.

The theists in this board don't want to make you believe God exists. They don't want to prove to you that God exists.
From a non-theist point of view to do either would be an impossibility.

Their faith is a personal choice and they have their own intelectual reasons to believe that God exists like you have yours of not believing.
I fail to understand what "intellectual reasons" could be forthcoming for belief without reason - which is the real description of faith - particularly religious faith.

Here is what I wrote in another thread. Please, do not take this as an argument to prove that God exists. it is only a reason some people believe there is a God or have reasons to believe at least in a concept of a God:
Actually it is a series of rationalizations to contend with the inevitable cognitive dissonance involved in theism - but anyhow:

Everything, according to an atheist, developed by chance.
Which atheist/non-theist are you talking about? I'm rather fond of Chaos theory which - while random - also has design.

People who believe in God, do admit that beauty, love, art, intelligence, consciousness, conscience,- complex cellular activity - and all creation could emanate from inanimate coincidences.
There's no need for theism in order to accept such conjectures - they are quite rational and frequently the objective of the sciences however -:
natural law, the pervasive sense of purpose, the notions of universal justice and morality, - are pie in the sky fairy tales used for control purposes where reason is lacking. There is no such thing as "natural law" because law is the codified consensus of the members of a given society; So called "universal justice" and "universal morality" are also non existent but will vary by geography and temporal epoch. Law, justice, and morality, are products of the society that creates them and idiosyncratic to that society.


But while this is a possibility (not to mention our religious natures) compels us to reject it as a probability.
WHAT "religious natures"? You reject it as a possibility based on nothing reasonable but simply an unfounded superstitious hunch - probability doesn't even enter into the equation.

Design suggests to us a Designer, law a Lawgiver, creation a Creator, intelligence a Source of intelligence, conscience a God.
In other words you fill in the gaps where you cannot think of a reason.

Of course where there is no real design (and that blind watchmaker is a non existent figment of the imagination of people who make up answers for themselves from whole cloth); and where the whole of society is the lawgiver; and the point before the singularity is undefined and undefinable; and the source of intelligence is experience and neurological interactions (and perhaps heredity); and conscience is the voice of the social consensus which is integrated into our being by osmosis; why do we need to believe in fairy tales?

There are two possible explanations for creation: that everything comes from chance and coincidence, or from design and purpose.

This is a false dichotomy (and so common in theistic thought - try Pascal's Wager). A third possibility of course is that there is insufficient information available to us to make such claims; or that we are currently insuficiently advanced intellectually to put all of the available conjectures on the table; or that the point before the singularity is, and will remain, undefined. To accept that last one you must be willing to live with non-answers, and the theist would rather make up answers than do that.

The choice is between nonsense and sense.
On this dichotomy we mostly agree - although there are also other alternatives, making this also a false dichotomy.

To a believer, if there is no God, one cannot speak of sense in life, or of good and evil, or of ultimate purpose.
Of course they can be discussed - but they will require something other than superstitious beliefs to make them rational thoughts.

This things would be mere delusions created by our minds to deny that all is anarchic and meaningless.
Actually it is the addition of a sky-fairy into such philosophic searching that makes it meaningless - and as for anarchic, that's reality - what's wrong with that?

But the moment you affirm that these non-physical aspects of life posses an objective reality, you are implicitly affirming the existence of God. From where else these non-physical realities derive?
I think I've already answered this point. It really depends on what you see as "objective reality" and whether what you think is an objective reality even exists or is a figment of an overactive imagination nurtured by group insanity.

It is okay to not believe there is a God because who the hell can prove that God exists or not? But you cannot dismiss other people for believing in God unless you did not put to much thought into the subject.
It's not lack of thought that causes me to dismiss theism, but sufficient exploration and thought to conclude that while the null hypothesis is not provable the probability of theistic existence is so incredulous that it is not worth further examination.


Eileen

:toast:

Cognitive dissonance involved in theism? Maybe in some religions and ideas but not in all of them. Faith is not a priority in every religion and some often motivate questioning.

I don't see an impossibility for some theists not wanting to prove that God exists. I believe in a God but I don't give a crap if a person believes in God or not. Like I said in a different thread, to me, the idea of God is not an all or nothing and the debate to prove or disprove God's existence is useless. Unless you want to change or convert the other person's belief, doctrine, cause, or faith (which is defined as proselytizing). I can see it being debated when a person comes to try to convert you and in this case you have to express your opinion. But in any other instance it is either balls busting or trying to impose your ideas down the other person's throat.

I find it ridiculous when people debate using science to debunk religion or use religion to try to debunk science. I reject mixing science and religion. I refuse to take a multi-layered picture and flatten it into a one dimensional image. In my opinion you cannot mix it all up or you get into trouble. To me science and religion have different purposes.

We can defend our faith and tell you the reasons why we believe which is not as simple as defining it as a superstition. To someone who believes in God, the most important values of life are dependent upon positing the existence of God: morality, or good and evil as objective realities that transcend personal and national opinions, and ultimate purpose and meaning to human existence. To put it in another way, in a believer's point of view, if there is no God then there can be no good and evil, and no ultimate purpose to our existence. If the natural world is the one objective reality, and there is no moral source beyond nature, good and evil becomes becomes purely subjective. They are popular or personal opinions which are objectively meaningless and represent no reality.

It is self-evident and acknowledged by the foremost atheists philosophers that if a moral God does not exist, neither does universal morality. Without God we can have our own opinions about morality, but our opinions about "good" and "evil" behavior are no more valid or binding then our opinion about "good" or "bad" ice cream.

Some may say they use reason but the source of morality must itself be moral, and since reason is amoral, it cannot be a source of morality. That source must be something higher than reason. To some, this higher source has been called God.

I don't mix science with religion and don't use them on the same conversation unless someone mistakenly tries to use the Bible as a literal account for creation or history. Science is concerned with facts. My religion is concerned with values. My religion is concerned with "what ought to be." Science is concerned with "what is."

Me religion is morally driven. Science is morally neutral. It can instruct people how to build a bomb or how to build hospitals. It tells you "how" and not "what for."
I know, the Bible can be used to justify evil if used in its literal meaning. But the Bible and other religions also taught most of the values that humanists and atheists share today.

since questioning someone about why they believe puts them on the defensive.

What I find fascinating--mostly from the christian camp--is they do not believe in half of what the church demands they need to believe in and would be branded heretics if ever another inquisition were to happen.

I think what is considered mockery are simply challenges that cause a kneejerk reaction because deep down the person who feels mocked is unable to debate with logic.

If someone posted that believing there are 72 virgins awaiting martyrs in heaven was irrational, most of the christians would agree. Yet, they do not understand how those of us who are non-religious see their beliefs the same way.

I think we all respect/agree in the freedom to worship or not to worship in society, but there are no rights in debates, just rules.

as theirs - although both are the same in the scientific area, in meta-physics they certainly are not.

and certainly not valid in science. Meta-physics is not science but the supernatural. One cannot study nature using theist logic.

science the theist scientist and the atheist scientist all use the same logic rules.

:-)

But logic isn't always right. What faith is lacking is not logic, but reason.

Reason rarely argues for moral behavior. In fact, reason can nearly always be used to justify immoral behavior. From supporting Nazism to petty cheating in everyday life. The use of reason to justify what is wrong is so common that we have a special word for it: rationalization.

Theism and logic are diametrically opposed disciplines!


Eileen

are a theist.

I don't care who believes what. It tells us all where the other guy is coming from. I asked once why a certain person was a bit hostile and he stated very honestly that religion scared him. That told me everything I needed to know.

Everyone is on a slightly different wave length, vibratory rate/pattern and some of the things that others take for granted and feel safe about feel horrible to others. It doesn't mean what any of us believes is the end of the truth. The truth is somewhere in there, some have more faith in science some in religion and some a bit of both.

I think it's a good thing to hear where others are coming from, I'd be very interested in hearing why (without hostility, lol) people choose their beliefs.

Atheists don't "proselytize" and most of us do not claim there is no god.

But please, continue.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant about imaginary slights.

...claim there is no God? The complaint is about the people who mock and not atheists in general. Prosetalysm was used not literally. It is just annoying that fundamentalist christians try to convert you and it is just as annoying to hear atheists telling you are stupid for your beliefs.

My intention to mock?
You can read my mind now?





Who says we do?





So because you can't see it, it doesn't happen?
And again, atheists do NOT proselytize, here or anywhere else.
We lack faith in gods, how does one proselytize what doesn't exist?



The op is nothing but a textbook example of begging the question, broad brushing and religious intolerance.

No patience for you. :eyes:

Maybe you should stick to posting in the echo chambers if you want to accuse atheists of mocking christians and proselytizing without being called on it.

I'm still waiting for your proof that atheists are trying to convert theists, btw.

to convert?

How does the resulting flame war advance some other objective - and what is that objective - it certainly is not educate as the past few months would have shown anyone reading the forum that their are two sides to every "educational" item presented - and simple understanding of faith would make one know that such "educating" would have zero impact on the faith of the believer.

So what is the objective of the flaming you are wrong and do not use logic as well as I do posts if you are trying to advance the progressive cause?

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

n/t

Gee, I don't know, papau.

Let me check my Evil Atheist Conspiracy Rule Book...

Oh, here it is!

You were right, it says it here on page 14789,

"You may never post anything on the Democratic Underground that doesn't conform to the General Orders all atheists are sworn to uphold when they accept their rubber chicken, badge and decoder ring."



How paranoid do you have to be to think that every post by an atheist automatically tells christians their beliefs are wrong and/or is an attempt to "convert" them?



I guess it's true that the fact that we even exist is a threat to some believers.

very well put and I appreciate it.

(a few threads I've assigned as 50/50, since they seem to fall into 2 camps)

anti religious right/authoritarian 8.5
discussion on religion 7
meta-debates on the R/T forum 5
what atheists do in religious situations 4
da Vinci code 4
government & religion 3
complaints about atheists on R/T 2.5
religion is bad 2.5
DUers' beliefs 2
tolerance 2
is religion necessary 1.5
catholics & nazis 1
defence of science 1
pro religious left 1
anti science 1
anti belief in relics/apparitions 1
religious proselytising 1
philosophy 1
there was no jesus or shakespeare 1

The only mocking OP was about intolerance.

So that's 5% "religion is bad", and no mocking of religion. There is the occasional bit of religious proselytising.

Welcome to the Daily Flame Fest.

what mocking means and how it is accomplished in matters of faith and what is accomplished by constant I do not believe "X" posts for the progressive cause.

But as you say, only the "intolerance" post 24 was mocking. It contained no truth - just mocking.

BMUS - you were saying what again about the view of the mods?

I'd love to hear your theory about why they allow atheists to "own" this forum.

Do we pay them off?

Blackmail them?

Kidnap family members, maybe?



Please, enlighten me.

posting here more or less for that reason and usually confines himself to Truthout these days - indeed many have left.

Or do you dispute the obvious - perhaps a quick check of the religious affiliation of some of our more visible members might be of interest - but I will leave that to you.

:rofl:

I think it had more to do with the fact that he had his ass handed to him by the people he insulted when they questioned the legitimacy of Leopold's "scoop".

But far be it from me to tell you your belief in him is wrong.




And, no, I will not look up the religious affiliations of the mods.

You made the accusation, now back it up.

Catholics -

His post to that effect should be in the archives.

Unfortunately, he always comes back.

:rofl:

Very well, I await your explanation of what you mean by 'mocking'.

What do you think my list shows about the mods? I'd say it shows them pretty even-handed - the only locked thread was the one that mocked intolerance.

n/t

To answer your non sequitur, no. Any chance you'll answer my earlier questions? There's no need to answer the one in this title, by the way.

You posted up-thread

"The only mocking OP was about intolerance.

So that's 5% "religion is bad", and no mocking of religion. There is the occasional bit of religious proselytizing. "

AND

And there was me thinking my own experience and a dictionary was enough
Very well, I await your explanation of what you mean by 'mocking'.

What do you think my list shows about the mods? I'd say it shows them pretty even-handed - the only locked thread was the one that mocked intolerance.

================================================
I do not agree with the categories you assigned to the various posts - but that does not matter. The fact is that the only believer / non-believer based lock out from a DU forum is a believer locked out of the science forum for objecting to a science post that spent the first few paragraphs blasting religion (his DU mail was ruled a provocation/threat of disruption).

By my count, Atheist affirmation posts are in every forum almost every day. I am not up to speed on each forum's content rules so I only note that the atheist threads are in every forum - and indeed I do not check back to see if they have been moved the next day.

I do not know if ridicule rules and mockery rules exist, but I do know that one gets "grow a thick skin =free speech" comments if you ask for discussion of concepts without flame phrases - the old free speech gives one rights - as if their was a board ownership discussion taking place.

I also know that "don't criticize the mod" rules do exist, so I will limit this post to stating the facts without flaming - at least as good as I can and of course from my point of view. Indeed not knowing the rules that the mods operate under meant I should not have complained about the enforcement - but then I was responding to prior threads - if not here then elsewhere in R/T - that there is suggest unfair treatment of those who are atheist. I

I'd like clear rules clearly enforce, the enforcement being as aggressive as the I/P rules enforcement.

about the "rabid anti-Christianity" here on DU. It appears the anti-Christianity is in the same place as Chimpy's WMDs. :shrug:

I am not Christian, but I get annoyed when people assume that all Christians are fundementalist nuts. Some of my best friends are liberal Christians.

Of course, that doesn't mean I don't get pissed off at fundementalists. I know a few of them, too.

I do not find this post useful as a tool of conciliation, however.

You have made a good start.

Edit: I am waaay to tired to provide all the reasons.

Look, if you think this IS concilatory, then have a look at whether a flamewar ensued.

how nice some of the religious people try to be or not.

There are several anti-religious people who will make a flamewar out of a daisy.


For some - it seems to be a part of their "religion". In fact - I think that the anti-religious people have shown how religions can get started - based upon common perceived "enemies". I don't think a belief in "God" has anything to do with it.

It's the PNR in atheist's clothing, jumping in as always to make broad-brush insinuations about other atheists.

How is the view from your high horse?

Hey Bloom! "I don't think a belief in "God" has anything to do with it." might I ask you to think in ways that are not going to be offensive to the theists? I must say, saying that a theists' belief has nothing to do with God could be awfully offensive, y'know?

In fact, if I were a theist, I should find your mocking & false line of thought very offensive indeed.