Why Are Atheists So Angry? Sam Harris/Dennis Prager

Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager.

This Debate was conducted by email for the website Jewcy.com

Author of the thundering anti-theist polemics The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, Harris may just be the Thomas Paine of an emerging movement to wrench religion out of American life. Prager is a nationally syndicated talk radio host who trumpets the virtues of the Judeo-Christian tradition… (www.jewcy.com)

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/debate-with-dennis-prager/

game down my childrens' throats. That's the first in a long list of things that really cheeses me off about the religious right.

when you refuse to join them in their delusions...that you must be 'angry'.

more like 'you're an atheist? Why are you so angry?' Somehow we're all supposed to be calling ourselves atheists because we're angry god didn't answer some prayer or something. They just can't understand that a god concept just totally makes no sense to some of us.

'calling them names', then they can stop trying to shove their crap on the rest of society. If they don't want to get kicked, they should stop instigating the fight.

Gee, which one is worse...



Of course, we could also put "name-calling", mockery and other despicable acts of hatred up against modern day religious tolerance like this:

I know I shouldn't encourage it...but that's the best description of organized Abrahamic religions I've ever read.

I just had to brush the dust off that cartoon for this thread.

how could you?

I remember this one not that long ago

pretty sad isn't it?

That anti Christian bigotry is alive and well <sarcasm> (for anyone but BMUS who I hope knows I'm being sarcastic already)

Vermont sounds better and better!

He's awesome. I added his strip to my Google home page.

http://www.idrewthis.org/index.html

Here's another one from last year:

:boring:

let's snooze some more.:boring:

sure it was blind not only calling the other side blind but also liars and stupid and lacking in any ability at critical thinking - - but

albeit with great wit, in Richard Dawkins's opinion, as he flashed his science/evolution credentials, ignoring the fact the vast majority in the room on the other side also had no problem with evolution.

Great idea for a Debate. Wonder why Sam jumped for it - oh yea - the new book! :-)

If it was a "Why Do Atheists Hate America?" debate we'd all condemn it, but on DU I am not sure of the outcome of DUers hearing about a Debate that replaced atheists with the religious in that question.

are they out picketing funerals screaming "there is no god" ?

and abhor all this religious war shit. Axis of "evil" and all the rest. Both sides warring in the wish to bring on Armageddon, etc. Let them go live their fairy tale lives elsewhere.

"Religionists Die, Worms Rejoice!"

On second thought, that wouldn't really win any Hearts and Minds, would it?

After all, they take a health hazard - a dead body - and convert it into good fertile soil. Pretty useful and remarkable, I'd say - does anyone know if they ever made it into a pantheon?

enough, one of two things happens: either he tucks tail, takes it and asks for more, and dies, or he takes your damn leg off.

I refuse to lie down, take it and die.

It's the fundies of both the Christians and the Islams.

They are out to kill each other in the name of their individual Gods and what they end up doing is killing innocents who only wanted to continue on with their lives.

All this God crap, be damned.

And a boring read at that. He says nothing that is relevant to me or of any importance from what I gathered fromhis responses, replied in circles and never gave a straight answer about anything.

states that they don't believe in "God".

Just like an "angry" liberal is one who doesn't keep his or her mouth shut.

that most atheists know more about the christian religion, it's origin, history and hypocrisy, than a majority of christian believers. I guess that's what happens when you delve into a subject rather than accept it at face value.

in the "infallible" book and learning they have no answers, other than 'you are evil to even ask such things'.

It would make things simpler for them.

It would give them one more thing about us to mock, while at the same time raising their own standing in comparison: if we're angry, they must be joyous, at peace, etc., and that must be because of their faith.

Our anger exists in their minds, for their use — as does their god.

...And neither is Harris. We are just doing what we have not done, Speaking up and doing it loadly. It seems we are yelling but we have to talk through the jack-hammers of jesus to get a word in.

Im not angry, just not putting up with their fundamentlistic ideology of bullshit.

instead of living in some ignorance that while things are bad, at least "god loves MEEEEEEE" and that's all that matters.

of course we aren't going out killing people and starting wars over any anger we might have.

...Its immoral to bomb, occupy and kill people in other countries for domination over its resources. No, we dont start wars because its a waste of energy, time and resources just like going to church, mosque or any other place of whoreship and beg to the invisible man in the sky for salvation and presents.

Just think, if we didnt spend money, land and resources that churches are erected upon/with, we could have housed the homeless. Hell, we could have clothed and fed them as well.

I don't know about most of you, but those friends of mine who are non-believers? They're not particularly angry. I see some online debate getting quite heated, but I suspect in real life, the people (Christians and atheists alike) are more considerate of people's feelings when discussing religion and God than they are on this website.

Most people who I know, whether they be Christian, Jewish, Pagan, Islamic or atheist (most of my friends and acquaintances fall into those 5 categories) pretty much show the same joy for life and concern for society as each other. So, I think that this type of article is bunk.

and I want religion OUT of politial life, just like Jefferson wanted it out of poltiical life. Why is this so damn hard for the funides to get?

Go ahead, practice your religion, but keep it OUT OF MY FACE

.."Keep your Theocracy off my Democracy."

Can you imagine Christian members of DU going off on atheists on this forum?

Sheesh! And everyone is flipped out about Michael Richards' hate-spewing diatribe!

The hatred is overwhelming. It's always one sided in here. I am not a rightwingnut fundie,but I DO believe in God and that is MY right. I never shove it in anyone's face like it gets shoved in mine that there is no God. :grr:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

I do not care if someone wants to believe in an invisible man in the sky, so long as they do not use their invisible friend as an excuse to legislate or discriminate or to knock on my door.

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

There's a difference.

And I would answer ole Thomas that the liberties of a nation aren't secure if their basis must stem from a belief in God. I believe Bu$hCo proves that point indisputably, daily, as they trample our liberties whilst praying loudly. However, if you don't think that Bu$hco is the perfect example there are manifest examples throughout history where theology runs roughshod over civil liberties.

And this atheist only gets angry when fundies don't back the fuck off. Dennis Prager is not a religious moderate. He is a fundy and deserves any kind of tongue lashing he gets for trying to impose his religious shit on our/my society. People like Prager (and those in my town) work to provoke non-believers, I'm convinced of it. I experience it all the time where I live and if Dennis Prager takes his schtick on the road, he's surely gotten told off by an atheist or two along the way. He'll have deserved it and I make no apology for being angry when provoked. I wish I had Sam Harris' cool but decades of provocation means I'm not so polite anymore.

Frankly, moderate believers of all stripes should be angry as well when that shit happens. Sometimes it takes anger and some brutal words to get a point across. For example, HD Thoreau’s stay at Walden Pond was interrupted by his famous one-night imprisonment in a jail cell in the town of Concord. Opposed to slavery, Thoreau had protested for several years by refusing to pay his poll tax. (He paid other taxes willingly.) By refusing to pay the government, Thoreau intended to stay in jail and set an example to his community. When his good friend Emerson came to visit him, Thoreau was scathing. Emerson asked him "What are you doing in there?" which was met by Thoreau's response, "What are you doing out there?"

I have to ask those of you who don't "get" why atheists may have a reason to lash out every now and then, to come join us in the jail cell and you too may understand. Afterwards we can go get a drink and we can make merry, which is the natural state of every atheist I know including this one.

because of the Mexican-American war.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAthoreau.htm

It comes from an argument for the emancipation of newborn slaves (an argument nevertheless containing a lot of racism, as this webpage notes):



He's saying that if liberty is a gift from God, it must apply to freeman and slave alike. He's not arguing that Virginia (or the United States) has made itself insecure by denying God.

"I am an atheist, and I don't believe God exists" is the polite way to express ones beliefs. (Just as "I am a Christian, and I believe in God" is the polite way for a Christian to express his or her belief.) "I do not care if someone wants to believe in an invisible man in the sky, so long as they do not use their invisible friend....." is, I believe, the rude way to express that belief, just as "You're going to Hell, you heathen" is the rude way for a Christian to speak to another human being.

Both are obnoxious in their underlying judgement.

"I do not care if someone wants to believe in an invisible man in the sky, so long as they do not use their invisible friend....."

does not attempt to assign anyone to eternal torment at the hands of an angry sky-being.

wouldn't believe in it, either, so it would be just obnoxious words to them, as well.

apparently, an atheist who doesn't hide their feelings is angry and full of hatred.

You poor, oppressed Christians, always having it shoved in your face that there is no god. It's almost as if there isn't a church on every streetcorner, and a "God bless America" at the end of every political address by either party.

Here, let me see your :grr: and raise you a :nopity:.

Sid

Funny, it feels just like any other severe pain in the ass.

to admit that many of your cohorts do engage in this adamantly and regularly. This is no different than the ubiquitous sexism that pervades our culture, many feminists are understandably upset by it, while many others deny it even exists.

Who's ox is that anyway?

I mean...I like to think I'm one of the hardest of the hardcore of atheists in here, and I don't hate anybody! My gf and almost all my friends are christians. I visited my family...I debated my Christian uncle just today. Afterwards, I gave the guy a great big hug and we lamented that we are both to busy to visit each other.

I don't see hatread from either side, really. I do think one side takes things personally, that the other side doesn't.

both sides seem to take it a little too personally. It's not solely one sided. The arguing and the obnoxious comments and the wounded whining are found on both sides of this equation. (I'm not trying to be argumentative, either. I truly see whining about victimization on both sides. And it's tiresome. I'd rather see debate, but these thread devolve into the same ole, same ole, usually with the same posters, as well.)

Hyperbolize much? Do atheists come knocking on your door with pamphlets to convert you? How many high government officials are atheists? Hint: You can count them without using any fingers or toes. You can get a general idea from reading above that atheists are a target for contempt and discrimination, and theists don't stand up for us.

The problem in this forum is that it's a level field, which atheists rarely encounter. In a fair debate, which is based on reason, atheists have an advantage because their arguments are based on reason. So what can theists do? Decry that the evil atheists are beating them up with their logic stick. And that's what passes for hatred?

Atheists are well aware that people pick up beliefs based on emotional and aesthetic notions. Pointing that out drives theists nuts, except for the ones who admit it.

I'll allow that the arguments are overwhelming. :)

--IMM

n/t

That's quite offensive.

:eyes:

Nice.

angry, that is..

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."

George H. W. Bush

tax dollars that they loot. Phony christians if ever there were any, the bu$h family is. And if I am an angry atheist it's because I am sick of religious wackos forcing their beliefs down my throat and into our government!

and when did you stop beating your wife, anyway?

for the fact that I was brainwashed into religion since I the day was born.

It's sickening to see "debates" between right-wing atheists and right-wing theists. They are ideologically identical and they both know it - they only "debate" in order to distract people from real issues.

and a burden to those who want to hold actual neocons accountable.

What possible reason could you have for calling Sam Harris a Neocon ? He holds Islam to the same critical standard as Christianity ?

He even supports the use of torture. Sorry, but your hero is a psychopath.

and that the neurology degree he's getting might clue him into whether he would qualify.

http://exchristian.net/2/2006/10/interview-with-author-sam-harris.html">from here:



And, I consider anybody who gets all hot thinking about the possibility of torturing someone to be a psychopath, neurology degree or no neurology degree.

it isn't a "stay the course" talking point at all. The Bush administration isn't saying what he's saying. The Bush adminstration calls Islam a "religion of peace" and that "They hate us for our freedom".

would like to see a genocide against Muslims ("glass parking lot"), much like Sam Harris. Are you really defending Sam for being more of an extremist than Bush?

doesn't help your "argument". You attribute opinions to him once again, that he's never indicate and don't stand to reason as something he ever would when one researches what he has argued.

Cute.

I'm pretty happy with my life.

except when my mom takes potshots at my kids
at the holidays...

like "why should YOU even GET presents, you
don't believe in GAWD"

"We celebrate WINTER SOLSTICE, MOM, just
like they did BEFORE THE X-TIANS PAPERED
OVER the holiday AND CALLED IT CHRISTMAS!

Jeez! She gets a LITTLE worse every year.

In MY house!

She could hang out at her christian kid's house
oh wait, they are HORRIBLE right wingers!

She's pretty good most of the time, but the
older she gets......

I like giving gifts-- be it holiday related or not.

Sorry to hear about your mom-- terrible how some people can't just be happy :(

in terms of a public disposition that I can think of.

Honestly, every time I hear a fundie preach to me about the "end times"... :argh:

This morning I was listening to the Minnesota Public Radio program Speaking of Faith and the guest was a liberal Jewish rabbi who was talking about talking with kids about religion and when she was criticizing ramming religion about a kids throat and she said that the reason people reject faith is just because they had religion rammed down thier throat as a kid. :eyes: That :Atheists are angery" crap seems to pop up in even the most innocuous situations. :banghead:

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

Hmmm?

If any xtian wants to talk to me they will first have to read "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan and tell me what it's about.

I've been yelled at, screamed at, hit, made fun of when I was explaining my beliefs, called an evil woman and hit by teenagers as I was running out of their house after they screamed at me as a heathen and told me I was going to hell.

Such wonderful xtian love. Nothing but bullying.


Good ammunition: www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

Most atheists aren't "certain there's nothing to believe in." But you've probably been told that before.

Being told what we believe and don't believe is one reason atheists may come across as angry in discussions of religion.

Some people....

:thumbsup:

And I'm not "dear".

and you're not "angry" either, are you?

:evilgrin:

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

on DU about this. Your nasty personal attack was left up, so congratulations. ATHEISTS ARE ANGRY! aren't they?




Having got caught in the crossfire once before, I know this is an impossibly contentious subject on DU, bringing out the worst in people and alienating former allies.

Maybe there should be a separate forum, like Israel/Palestine, for Atheists and Whoever Their Perceived Enemies are.

I am not The Enemy.

After suffering through the (first and last) DU Atheism meatgrinder of a thread, I learned more about it, because I did the research myself. There's so much animosity around this issue here, that not a lot of actual information is shared..................... what else is new? :eyes:

I would expect to get flamed if I made ignorant statements about homosexuals or other minorities on DU.

But if you still need a clue about why we're angry, take a gander at my sig line.

So please don't dismiss ours.

GOD DAMMIT


I had something else in mind to post but geez Beam that little pot shot is just too much



You should save you "anger" for your real enemies.

Freepers who are ignorant don't really get to me, I expect intolerance from them, it's when I hear it coming from liberals that it hurts.

If you were just joking, fine, go in peace.

But at least try to understand why some of us don't think religious intolerance is any funnier than sexism or racism.

you are gonna keep tellin me to Fuck Off and I have your permission to "go in peace" if I was "just joking" WHILE I ALREADY SAID THE COMMENT WAS TONGUE IN CHEEK AFTER GETTING PISSED ON BY ANOTHER "NON-ANGRY" ATHEIST DEFENDER.

I also said I got caught in the crossfire once before and oughtta know better than to even SET FOOT In one of these GODDAMNED pointless flamefests (the oblique comment I didn't think anyone would take seriously-- you really need a forum like Israel/Palestine where people know it's automatically a war zone). Are there any substantive, informative adult threads on atheism anywhere on DU that might be of interest to open-minded DUers (if they haven't all been attacked and pissed off by the poor persecuted Atheists?)?

FYI-- not everyone knows how persecuted atheists supposedly are, or how angy you deserve to be. In treating even former allies like SHIT in these arrogant threads, how do you think that helps any support or concern for atheists? How can you be so hateful?


omega minimo (1000+ posts)  Sun Nov-26-06 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #58
65. Making assumption based on past discussions or arguments
and projecting on interested DUers is what makes some atheists come across as angry is some discussions.... sometimes kneejerk touchiness about "Being told what we believe and don't believe" (even when it isn't happening) gets in the way of athiests saying what they believe and don't believe.



Are there any subjects at all that DU discusses without shredding each other to bits?

I could go on but you get the picture.

If you still need a hint about why we're so angry, re-read this thread.

Or are you angry because I pointed something else out?

at one time or another? I'm not sure why one in particular justifies permanent anger. It's not like religious people never get bashed here.

For example, an article from DKos by an atheist was linked and received dozens of huzzahs from DUers. The article described believers thusly:

"A world gone bonkers, populated and completely run by a majority of people who are frankly clinically insane, dangerously immature, often violent, historically monstrous, completely irrational, closed to any internal questioning, convinced you're either stupid, evil, or dangerous, and hoping for all they're worth to infect you with the same mimetic virus."

Not specifically about DU believers, but not making an exception for them either.

I never expect to get flamed for my ignorant statements. (How would I even know they were ignorant?) I expect to get informed maybe, perhaps in no uncertain terms, but what does flaming prove? Oooh, I must be wrong, somebody posted :eyes:

You think that's the only one?

I'm running a series, here, that just happens to be the latest.

And none of them, nor do all of them, "justify permanent anger".

But as someone who has repeatedly called out atheists who insulted liberal believers on DU, all I can say is if reading something like that doesn't make you angry, I have to wonder what would.

Perhaps if someone posted something like this:



it might do the trick.

presumambly, if I have repeatedly called out atheists who have insulted liberal believers on DU, then there is more than one on the other side.

Also substituting "atheist" for "brown skin" is not valid, since, atheism, unlike skin color, is a choice.

I'm not sure there is much more insulting in that quote than there is in the much beloved "God Delusion" which declares all non-atheists 'deluded' doesn't it? There is no exception there. No wiggle room. Whereas in the example of your sig line there is room, if there are 500 atheists on DU for me and 50 other atheists, if I was still an atheist, to be above average.

But Dawkins does not make me mad either. Sounds kinda interesting, but I do think it is likely to offend alot of voters.

Whether we put it tactfully or not, it doesn't change the fact that our very existence is offensive to believers.

When I was younger I used to believe seven impossible things before breakfast."

Trying to paraphrase Lewis Carroll there, but I also think people can choose what they look at. We, all of us, usually find reasons to believe what we want to believe. For example, a person can see the Bible as a contradictory story of hatred and barbarism, and there is no denying, for an honest person, that there is some really dirty bathwater there, but some people can find a baby of inspiration and humanities highest ideals in there too. I think that's true too, and focussing on either the baby or the bathwater is a choice.

And your (or atheists) very existence is not offensive to all believers. Fundies were about the only friends I had in college even if I was trying to convert them to atheism.

I can no more make myself believe in gods than I can make myself believe in leprechauns.

Of course, if you've got evidence of the existence of either, I'll reconsider.

YMMV.


And yes, the idea that atheists think belief in supernatural beings and two thousand year old superstitions is irrational is offensive to those that believe.

How can it not be?







edited to change the word dumb to the less offensive irrational

is a required part of the atheist's creed.

Since the GRE, the ACT and the online IQ test all put me at 99th percentile, I am usually not offended if people think I am dumb.

That's one way it could not be offensive.

edit: I also don't mind if you think I am dumb as long as you admit "That deaf, dumb, and blind kid, sure playes a mean pinball!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=5241260#5241404

Can't see the picture anymore though. My score was 1,666,000

There's a difference.

Your "scores" have nothing to do with belief.

Again, we can sugar coat it all you like, but we still think belief in supernatural deities is irrational.

Is that better?

What word would you like us to use?

but then it becomes kinda hard to respect people with dumb beliefs doesn't it?

Love, hope and altruism seem irrational to me as well. And many of us believers also believe that atheists have beliefs which are, at bottom, just as irrational. Even if it is hard to find one who will admit it.

But now I am flashing back to the fundies telling me that I wasn't really an atheist, and I remember thinking that too was part of their arrogance and delusions.

I probably would still find them to be unaware of the phlogiston on which their own faith is built.

However, I would also refer you to Isaac Asimov's short story "Reason". In it a new robot (QT-1 or Cutie) on a space station develops a religion and the two humans try to talk him out of it. Finally one says:
"You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason - if you pick the proper postulates. We have ours and Cutie has his."
"Then let's get at those postulates in a hurry. The storm's due tomorrow."
Powell sighed wearily. "That's where everything falls down. Postulates are based on assumption and adhered to by faith. Nothing in the Universe can shake them."

Yet, they find, in spite of his religion: "He's just shown he can run the station perfectly. I've never seen an electron storm handled so well."

Hopefully you will find that, in spite of our irrationality, some of us manage to do a passable job of being a decent human being.

So maybe you should hang out somewhere where we're censored.

Because this forum isn't it.

You obviously cannot discuss this subject without getting upset.

So maybe you should just avoid atheists in the future.

At least the ones who won't give your religion the deference you think it deserves.

but fully believe that large groups of registered Democrats would be. Many people do get offended at blanket ridicule and names cast at their own groups. I find atheism to be just as irrational and many atheists demonstrated inability or unwillingness to make a rational, non ad hominem argument to be revealing. The ones I have quoted anyway.

"He thinks he's the rational one...and the man in the back said everyone attack and they turned it to a ballroom blitz."

I know it well.

I realize you think I'm wrong and ?irrational to not believe in your god but I also know that doesn't prevent you from respecting me.

We are more than our beliefs or lack of them.

but I think Isaac has it right as I previously quoted.
"You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason - if you pick the proper postulates. We have ours and Cutie has his."
"Then let's get at those postulates in a hurry. The storm's due tomorrow."
Powell sighed wearily. "That's where everything falls down. Postulates are based on assumption and adhered to by faith. Nothing in the Universe can shake them."

Religious people have their postulates and atheists have others, but ultimately all postulates are based on assumption and adhered to by faith. At the basic level there are choices which are not distinguished by irrational vs. rational.

We probably disagree about that too, but that's where I am coming from. Not sure where I am going, but certainly as a former atheist and fan of Asimov and Sagan and Russell, I am not goint to disrespect somebody based solely on their atheism. Nor for harsh criticism of religion. As Harry Emerson Fosdick preached, and wrote in "What is vital in Religion" - "The churches deserve to be censured. The churches need reformation. There are just reasons for deep and anxious concern about them, and the first prerequisite for their reorganization is that we of the churches should be discontented with them, deeply, persistently, loyally discontented with them."

I don't know any atheists who would refuse to acknowledge evidence of the existence of gods, IF it actually existed.

As of now, you got zilch.

We're all about the proof, show us some and we'll talk.

Until then, the rational position is no belief.

I don't choose to not believe in gods or other supernatural beings, I see no evidence of any.

And since morality exists without gods and religion, I don't really have any use for either.

If it comforts you, that's great.

I don't need to convince you not to believe, I really don't care if you do or not.

What I DO care about is how religion is still being used to control and oppress people.

And if it wasn't for uppity atheists and those damned godless scientists, we'd still be in the dark ages.

Because if the church had its way, we'd never have left them.

So when you hear us "bash" religion, remember, most of us are NOT criticizing you or your faith.

That a poster here claimed that DU atheists were "mentally challenged"?

It goes both ways you know and the claim that all of the barbs come from the atheists is pure unadulterated BS.

But we deserve to be insulted because we're assholes I guess.

It's not the first time we've been told to suck it up and it won't be the last.

Because we know very well what it is to be shat upon.


It's not the first time we've been told to suck it up and it won't be the last.

No, much like the GLBTers we're meant to stay under the bus and keep our mouths shut.

Everything's forgiven now that we aren't being blamed for costing the Dems this election, right?

:mad:

No, no reason to be angry, none at all...

Then there's me, the atheist lesbian--I did double duty. Boy am I tired.

Homosexual atheistic immigrants must really have to put in overtime ruining our chances.

I owe them many thanks, being too white and natural-born to have joined them in their efforts.

Actually more, since I can't out my atheist self at work if I want to keep my job.

I'm lucky they tolerate liberals.

All three of us.

I'm not entirely "out" in either respect. If the subject comes up I don't hide the fact that I'm gay and atheist, but I'm not out there with it--particularly about the atheism. I've already learned how problematic that can be.

I'M A HISPANIC ATHEIST IMMIGRANT. I kind of lucked out that I'm not gay.

:spank:

Its the hispanics and atheist part that gets under their skin. Not only am I hispanic, but I'm also very well educated, and I've stolen many a job from deserving white people.

I like that.

I'm an unapologetic uppity atheist too.

I do think the barbs of atheists come out of R/T more often in the form of threads on GD, and probably no one is ever assumed to be a (or accused of being) RW troll based on their atheism.

And there are just as many atheist bashing threads on GD, typically in the form of "Why don't you nasty atheists STFU about your opinions so the RWers who read this board will feel welcome", as if catering to the RW was the purpose of a Democratic board. Nobody has ever told a religious DUer to shut up about their beliefs.

You'd think you were on the 700 club.

Why should a political discussion board talk so much about God or Christianity? Why should anti-Christian or anti-religion bigotry and insults be allowed any more than any other? Are we trying to defeat Republicans or are we trying to defeat Jesus, or organized religion?

It's not about making the RW comfortable here. It's more about mainstream Democrats like my parents and sister being able to come here for information about the BFEE without being turned off by bashing of their religious beliefs. Feeding the meme that the Democratic party (or its Underground) is hostile to Christianity is not going to help us win.

Rabbi Michael Lerner wrote in "The Nation"
"In my research on the psychodynamics of American society I discovered that the left's hostility to religion is one of the main reasons people who otherwise might be involved with progressive politics get turned off. So it becomes important to ask why."

I am at this board to help defeat Republicans, particularly Bush sychophants and shills. I really do not want to get drawn into discussions about questions I answered for myself some 20 years ago.

I'll withhold my opinion.

In case you forgot, this is a SECULAR nation and right now very few people are protecting the Constitution from the dominionists.

The rest of them are pandering to them because they're afraid of "offending" christians.

I personally don't give a fuck if I offend homophobes, misogynists and religious bigots who support legislating discrimination.

I choose to defend the Constitution and the rights of GLBT people and women.

And many liberal christians stand with me.

What some see as "anti-Christian/anti-religion bigotry" is nothing more than valid criticism of religion and religious beliefs. As I stated before, there is this notion that, unlike any other ideas/viewpoints/beliefs, religion should stand apart and be immune to examination and criticism. Therefore if someone as much as says, "I disagree with this religious doctrine because ABC and XYZ" it is often enough to garner dozens of replies of "You're a hateful bigot".

Religious beliefs and doctrines should be no more protected from scrutiny than political views, scientific theories or any other idea. If you believe that they should you're more than welcome to discuss them in one of the protected religious groups.

"I disagree with this religious doctrine because ABC and XYZ"

I see alot more name-calling than reasoning. For example, this thread which is near the top of GD, and has been now for what, five hours or more (and yes I helped to keep it there with my irrelevancies about physics and omniscience and time.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2807977

not to call anyone out, but where am I wrong to see the following as Christian-bashing far different than the way you described it with reasons being given.

"the whole idea (of God and/or Jesus) to my 21st Century mind is just plain ridiculous.

NO ONE needs the bullshit that is organised religion
I understand the need of trying to explain the world as you see it, but if you end up at Christianity, Islam or Judaism at the end of your search then you didn't look hard enough.

Control disguised as comfort. People are trained to want religion. No one "needs" it.

I can tolerate people and their delusions but not when they try to inflict them on me, either directly or via the law or WHATEVER - JUST KEEP IT TO YOURSELVES PLEASE. (say the same thing about GLBT and one is a homophobe)

because people need religion It's a comfort thing, entirely in my own opinion.

Yeah, soft comfort usually beats hard truth.

No, they want an easy answer.... ...You dont need religion, people are just conditioned to think they do.

The religion mind set has no place in the 21st Century or any other future for that matter.

LOL! If *irrationality* isn't susceptible of rational criticism, then nothing is.

religion and the concept of an afterlife is born from an exaggerated sense of self-importance.

And it's still absurd to this day to see people believing in fairy tales; I always say, I ain't all that smart and I figured it out; so how stupid are THESE people?

Of any kind of deity to be absolutely absurd and cannot wrap my mind around the fact that so many people are part of the god delusion.

And I do mean absurd and maybe even a touch crazy. More than a touch if you take a good long look at what people have done over the milennia in the names of their gods."

and the one you linked to is indeed offensive. However I'm sure some people would find my response to it offensive though I do not in any way bash religion or religious believers. Some will take the fact that I related my personal experience and assume that I'm projecting particular opinions on them, then use that to make a claim that my post was offensive.

He's an atheist, he thinks religious belief is ridiculous.

Big fucking deal.

He's a little more abrupt about it than I would be but so what?

He's not calling for people who believe to be stoned to death like your brethren when it comes to gays, adulterers and other infidels.

On the whole, we're a lot more tolerant of christians than they are of us.

Sorry to break it to you, but this is a political internet forum, you're going to find all kinds of people here who say things you find offensive.

And you have the right to say you're offended.

But not to expect them to shut up.

Alert on a post if you think it violates the rules, but don't come in here and blame atheists for having an opinion and stating it.

I didn't read the rest of the thread but I'm sure the mods will delete whatever posts cross the line.

And the whole thing will get locked or thrown down here eventually.

So you'll get your wish.

WE didn't do that. WE don't do that. They do not represent DU atheists, they only represent themselves.

Just like I don't hold you accountable for the comment in my sig line because a believer posted it.

I understand why some posts in that thread made you angry, they made me angry too.

So why can't you understand why Buffy and I feel the same when we see crap like that aimed at us on a regular basis in this forum?

You have no idea how hard some atheists and believers work to keep things civil in here. Yeah, we mix it up and give as good as we get, but there is a sort of honour code for the regulars here.

And now AGAIN a couple of stupid threads get dumped in here from GD and we have to leave because for the next few days, this forum will be unbearable because it will be full of retaliation threads from all sides.

Or do you expect us to treat your religion like a sacred cow and not discuss it at all if we can't praise it?


So where are the mods when christians are being persecuted?

Are you suggesting that they allow anti-christian bigotry to flourish on DU?

And where is all of this bigotry, anyway?

You claim your parents and your sister can't ever come here without being turned off by all of this bashing, so where is it?







Oh, and that bullshit about "the left's hostility to religion" didn't work.

We won, remember?

So the majority will have to wait until 2008 if they want to blame the atheists, gays and immigrants and our unpopular causes for any future losses.

We're still on the bus, deal with it.

these threads start in GD until they are exiled to the religion-bashing forum. Most religious people have learned to avoid this forum, except for the really aggressive/obnoxious ones, such as, say, myself, who sometimes ventures in here to get my fair share of abuse.

Apparently the beleaguered mods cannot keep up. Either that or Christian DUers leave; are exiled for presumed homophobia (which, unlike anti-Christian bigotry is an exilable offense); turn the other cheek instead of alerting; or try to reason with their detractors.

And, of course, that cartoon seems to come out whenever somebody mentions Christian-bashing.

We did have a narrow win. However, for example, in my county in 2004 Ryun got 16,000 votes to 10,000 for Boyda. This year they both got about 9800 (Ryun got 120 or so more). But that looks to me like there are 6,000 potential Republican voters out there. So we need to start registering and working right now for 2008.

Plus, there are perhaps other issues we can mostly agree on and actions we can take
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=153x6371

Most of us bend over backwards to NOT offend christians, but we get blamed for everything every other fucking atheist on DU says anyway.

Most of us are the first to call out other atheists for crossing the line.

But that's not good enough.

Do I accuse you of gay bashing when one of your fellow christians does it?

Do I blame you and threaten to leave the party every time I get offended by something a christian says?

I'm really starting to wonder why I pledged to not use offensive terms in here.

We're going to get blamed for it whenever any yahoo in GD takes a swipe at christians anyway, so fuck it.





OTOH, that was a good thing you tried to do on Thanksgiving. And we can all agree on many things.

It's also the atheist bashing forum. I even took a break of over a month because I got so fed up with the virulent abuse that was being leveled at DU atheists. The major difference between the two factions is that most "attacks" by DU atheists are made on religion, the belief system, while most "attacks" by the religious DUers are made on atheists themselves. The latter is by far more harmful.

and projecting on interested DUers is what makes some atheists come across as angry is some discussions.... sometimes kneejerk touchiness about "Being told what we believe and don't believe" (even when it isn't happening) gets in the way of athiests saying what they believe and don't believe.


:hi:

Apparently it's perfectly acceptable for so called "liberal" DUers to piss on atheists.

The question is whether it's because of ignorance or intolerance.

Or both.

:shrug:

I would never advise anyone to spend time in R/T, it's unhealthy.

But if you did, you'd have a good idea.

know anything much about atheism?

And no, this isn't name-calling. I can't think of a single atheist who your statement could apply to, and I know a LOT. (And am an atheist myself)

:evilgrin:

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=84436&category=22101

(snip)

Bob Averill's classmates at the Art Institute of Portland had finished up their work in a character development class on November 8, and were chatting to pass the time until class was over. The discussion moved toward spirituality. Averill, a Game Art Design student and a devoted atheist—he even runs a blog called Portland Atheist—sidled over and joined the conversation.

It was the last time he'd be in an Art Institute class—within two weeks, he was expelled, less than a year before he'd hoped to graduate.

In the classroom that day, Averill says one young woman was talking about her belief in energy layers and astral beings.

"I jokingly asked her if she believed in leprechauns. It turns out, she does. They live on another energy layer," Averill wrote in notes to himself later that day. "In the interest of bringing my own view to the discussion, I began to ask her how she knew these things. Again I know all too well that people can be sensitive about their spiritual beliefs, so I was pretty much walking on glass as I did so."

Averill says he wasn't trying to disprove the other student's religious beliefs, but "to convince her not to insist that they were scientifically proven."

The student, apparently offended, complained to the teacher.

(snip)

On Monday morning, November 20, Averill met with the school's president, Dr. Steven Goldman, to appeal his dismissal. "He upheld the dean's decision to throw me out," Averill says. "He offered to re-admit me if I underwent—get this—psychiatric evaluation."

more

"energy layers"? :wtf:

Then I sighed. How depressing. Psychiatric evaluation?

This isn't a religious school, is it?

Some are, I'm sure, but atheism in general simply means a lack of belief in gods (NOT a belief in no gods; that's only 'strong' atheism).

not atheists. Of course some theists like to assume atheists are anti-theists because it helps their superiority complex to assume that atheists are just stuck in a rebellious teenager phase.

Felt like wandering around with the flamebait?

:rofl:


Has anyone ever seen one of the AFA, Concerned Women of America or other Fundie whackjobs in action whenever any organization donates a penny to a gay organization, a television show shows a Christian who is anything but pristine and impossibly perfect, or a new Harry Potter book comes out?

Those are some angry people. :hide:

Didn't you read the Elton John threads?

His wish that he could ban religion was every bit as hateful as anything Fred Phelps ever said.

You must try to keep up, Buffy.

Why do you think our Overlord Sam Harris sends out those memos?

Not to mention baby skin parchment is very hard to come by these days.

With the new job position I've been somewhat busy. I've not been able to keep up with the memos and the Harris worship masses. I might even be forced to turn in my rubber chicken in the near future.

I'm basically the least angry person I know...my gf, who I have been with for 3 years, and have lived with for about 8 months, claims she's only seen me angry once...and thats when I almost got run over by a car by a cell phone driving ass.

That being said, I don't doubt that many people here think I am angry. I'm not. At all. Hell, I'm not even that passionate. I think that dismissing someone as angry is basically a way of making other peoples position less important. Not unlike people who think that black people who complain about bad treatment are "angry or uppity". Its dismissing of a real concern, and a device meant to belittle others.

But even though I'm not an angry person, if you fuck with me, I'm NOT FUCKING AFRAID TO TEAR YOU TO FUCKING PIECES.....*giggle*

because he's blaming me, a 'secular European' (I presume he really means an agnostic or atheist European - or does he really want theocratic Europeans? I wouldn't put that past him) for the collapse of Western civilisation:



In fact, Prager seems a genuine theocratic nutter. He thinks that everything he likes about western culture has sprung solely from "Judeo-Christianity", and ignores all contributions from older civilisations ,and all the other civilisations it has been in contact with. Anyone who doesn't join in his Crusade for America is "worthless or worse".

I've come to the conclusion that the phrase "moral clarity" is only seriously used by self-righteous arseholes.

--IMM

Stupid and a jerk; not a good combination.

:)