Christians are not a monolithic bloc.

[guillaumeb]

We are liberal, and conservative. progressive, and fascist.


What does this say about Christians? That as humans, we are all different.


In much the same way, atheists are not a monolithic bloc either.

They are liberal, and conservative. progressive, and fascist.


In fact, according to a Pew poll, a certain percentage of self-defined atheists believe in a divine presence.

From that Pew poll:

Although the literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, 8% of those who call themselves atheists also say they believe in God or a universal spirit. Indeed, 2% say they are “absolutely certain” about the existence of God or a universal spirit. Alternatively, there are many people who fit the dictionary definition of “atheist” but do not call themselves atheists. About three times as many Americans say they do not believe in God or a universal spirit (9%) as say they are atheists (3%).

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/01/10-facts-about-atheists/

So to any here who would argue that no true atheist would believe in a god or universal spirit, argue with the poll.

[Cartoonist]

1. They are too monolithic

They ALL believe in myths, not reality.

[guillaumeb]

2. Even 8% of atheists? eom

[Bretton Garcia]

5. The "spirit" of science,.reason,.seems universal to some

[guillaumeb]

6. Interesting attempt to explain what was meant.

However, the actual poll does not support your view.

[Bretton Garcia]

7. Your title suggested this post was about Christianity

It seems clear to me. And? It seems clear that there are in fact many more or less standard "Liberal Christian" beliefs that have even scientifically been identified.

And since liberal Christianity is a major component of Christianity,.atheists should learn to recognize these standard Christian ideas. And learn how to counter them.

One would be that 1) most liberal Christians are not literalists on the Bible, most of the time. They favor the " metaphorical" readings. Which have been addressed here

2) Many support evolution. Or try to accommodate science to some degree. But only partially. With say, NOM.

3) Most allege that they oppose religious violence.

Parts of some of these and other stances, are supported by most atheists.

But parts have been opposed here. Noting for instance that it might be logically impossible for anyone who calls himself a Christian, to really, actually support science fully.

It would be interesting and important, to find other major problems in specifically " liberal" or "modern" Christianity. In order for atheists to suggests that democrats are better off turning away from all forms of Christianity. Toward a secular view.

One useful place to start, is the reminder that the fundamental documents of the founding of America, began to completely separate our state, from the church. And that separation was good for us all.

Many Christians would like to divert our attention from this project. But atheists need to return to it over and over. And even even get systematic about it.

[ollie10]

42. separation of church and state was supported by religions....

....the reason was that, if a state favored one religion, the others may be harmed. Self-defense, so to speak. It is also, essentially a conservative idea, because it has at its root a smaller, less powerful, government. Religious minorities in the early colonies were often persecuted by religious majorities.

That being said, it is ironic that today's theocracy wannabees think freedom of religion means that their brand of christianity rules, and they shudder at the idea of separation of church and state, even though it was an idea that probably originated from religious thinkers.

[Bretton Garcia]

44. So religions supported separation...

Because they knew how bad religions could be in general.

Each religion thought it was the exception. But they were starting to see the bigger picture.

And one day each may find the humility to see that it was not an exception to the overall rule.

[ollie10]

47. you seem to have a tremendous need to attack ALL religions

no need to.

I was talking about American history. If you think all religions are bad, I don't really care what you think, it is an unsupportable idea, since we are now talking about beliefs not facts.

[Bretton Garcia]

49. So which one was the good one?

[ollie10]

51. That is not for me to say

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

[Bretton Garcia]

57. So you now, in this way, criticise NO religions?

[ollie10]

59. I don't criticize atheism and I don't attack religions

If you are looking for someone to attack people's beliefs, there are plenty of other people to find

I believe in the Constitution. I am a Democrat and Democrats don't attack people's religious beliefs, that is something fascists do,.

[Bretton Garcia]

66. But the Founders did shut "religion" - all of it - out of government.

[ollie10]

68. True enough. And I support separation of church and state

[marylandblue]

71. Democrats attack religious beliefs all the time

Particularly the religious right. Not just because they want a theocracy, but because of how they run their own churches, what they think of women, their attitudes on LGBT issues, their beliefs about the salvation of non-Christians, etc. We don't stand quietly by while they fill up heaven with only people like themselves, just because thar is their "belief."

[ollie10]

72. From the 2016 Democratic Party Platform....

Respecting Faith and Service

Democrats know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and
richer by faith in many forms and the countless acts of justice, mercy, and tolerance it inspires.
We believe in lifting up and valuing the good work of people of faith and religious organizations
and finding ways to support that work where possible

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

-------

So I have to choose between what you say the Democratic Party stands for vs what the Democratic Platform says.

I think I'll go with the Democratic Platform!

[marylandblue]

73. That has nothing to do with what I said

I was talking about what Democrats actually do, not what the platform says to score political points.

[ollie10]

74. I support the platform. Do you?

[marylandblue]

77. It's irrelevant to the point

The platform provides general non-binding policy positions. It's not about what Democrats actually DO. Or what Fascists do, for that matter.

[ollie10]

78. My point was that the Democratic Party does not attack religion(s)

I was challenged. To support my point, I referenced the Democratic Party Platform.

I could be there are some people who CALL THEMSELVES DEMOCRATS FOR SOME REASON UNBEKNOWNST TO ME even though they do not support our Platform....but I think the Platform speaks for itself and good Democrats will follow it, not just pretend that they are Democrats when it is convenient for them. You gotta stand for something, and it is time Democrats stood up for their platform.

[marylandblue]

79. I call myself Democrat because I checked the D box on my voter registration

Also I get enough spam from various Democratic groups and candidate to surely make me qualify.

Most democrats don't read the platform, and even if they did, there is no requirement to agree with everything in it, even for presidential candidates. It's just a political document approved at conventions, occasionally referred but mostly just there to say pretty things and not offend anyone.

If you wish to question my Democratic bonafides because I don't treat the platform like the Bible, that's fine with me. I still won't read it, I'll still vote for Democrats, I'll still consider myself a Democrat and I'll still criticize religion, the Democratic party and RWNJs as I see fit.

[ollie10]

81. I think you alluded to something

Although you were snarky about it when you said some stuff in the platform was for political purposes.

Think about it. we are a political party! Amazing.

And, rightly or wrongly, if we go about attacking religion(s) we will lose elections. Because most people out there who vote won't take it very well if the Democratic Party attacks religion (s). Totally understandable/predictable.

So maybe if you think about it awhile, you might figure out why the Democratic Party decided not to attack religion in its platform.....and you might want to ask yourself if you really want to win elections? I want to win elections, because if we lose, Trump wins. And so do the radical right wing theocrats who would like nothing more than to argue that the Democratic Party is anti-religion. You would be giving them ammunition!

[marylandblue]

83. Still irrelevant to my point

And you were rather snarky yourself. Unlike some others on this board, I don't attack religion in general, I only attack certain types, the same ones you yourself don't like.

[trotsky]

103. The unaffiliated are now the largest "religious" voting bloc in the country.

Perhaps it's time to start worrying about alienating THEM if we want to win elections?

Oh darn, you can't answer. *sad trombone*

[Lordquinton]

80. Settle down McCarthy

Unless you're treating the line you quoted as "not literal" like most do about the Bible, it doesn't actually support what you claim.

But continue calling people who disagrees with you facist, that's definitely something Democrats do.

[ollie10]

82. yes or no, do YOU support the Democratic Platform of 2016?

Or do you think it is just meaningless words?

[Lordquinton]

84. Since when was McCarthyism a democratic principal?

And you're not one to be demanding answers from anyone, but your new tactic of calling people who disagree with you facist is cute.

[ollie10]

85. was that a yes or a no?

All I saw was diversion to a certain Republican Senator from Wisconsin.

[Lordquinton]

86. What is this trait among theists

Refusal to answer questions then turning around and demanding answers from others?

[ollie10]

88. ok. I see you won't answer a simple question

This is a board for Democrats....it would be nice to know who they are, and who are ashamed to say.

[Lordquinton]

100. Well, I'd be more worried about the person on a McCarthyesque hunt

And accusing people who don't agree with them of facism. I mean, if not answering questions is your bar, then you would be going after half the theists in this group (including yourself, awkward...)

I'd be glad to answer a question relevant to this group if you had one.

[marylandblue]

108. Theists like to change the subject a lot

I don't think it's conscious behavior and they don't all do it.

[marylandblue]

107. This sounds like a purity test. Is it?

[Mariana]

14. Please tell us about the myths

that refer to some vague, undefined "universal spirit".

We don't even know what a "universal spirit" is. We only know that it is not a god, since the survey question asked about the respondents' belief in a god or in a universal spirit.

[guillaumeb]

16. And both options were referenced,

and both were chosen.

[Bretton Garcia]

46. "Or" can mean one, but not the other.

Do you want a new bicycle, or a slap on the head?

[Mariana]

98. Gil's making up his own definitions for words again. nt.

[Alpeduez21]

31. Thread/

[Nitram]

3. It also says that there are as many opinions about how Christians should live as there are

Çhristians. "Christianity" has become a meaningless concept when there are Christians who believe God's approval is shown by the wealth of the believer, or Christians who are against helping the poor, or against allowing immigrants to enter the country, or Christians who are against both control, or Christians who believe they can decide who is a "real" Christian."

[guillaumeb]

4. Christians are humans.

Humans subscribe to many beliefs.

Look at all of the debate at DU about nearly every issue and tell me what a Democrat thinks.

[Bretton Garcia]

8. Very few Democrats support Trump

And if you want to say what supporting a "spirit" means, you'd have to quote the exact wording, and the complete question, on the poll questionnaire.

To support " God or a universal spirit" it has been noted, should not necessarily suggest that supporting a "spirit", is supporting a god. Since the word " spirit" has many meanings. Only some of which being religious.

And "or" can mean both, and imply identity. Or just one of two unrelated things.

The Pew data by the way says that 69% of atheists identify as democrats. This means they are far more.loyally democratic than Christians.

[ollie10]

43. it is not meaningless....

....just because it is not universal.

Let's change the subject to ice cream. There are many, many varieties. Some folks have vanilla as their favorite. Some will only eat vanilla. Others will like rocky road or butter pecan or moose tracks or...whatever. Some will put nuts on it, others chocolate or bananas or fruit.

But just because there are thousands of different variations, that does not logically mean ice cream is meaningless.

[Bretton Garcia]

50. But all ice creams universally have some characteristics.

Obviously they are say, icy, for instance.

Without such in-common characteristics, the term "ice cream" would have no reliable meaning or definition.

[ollie10]

52. well, religions have similar characteristics too

and the same can be said for the variety of christian beliefs. Different as they may be.

It sure would be a boring world if everyone agreed about everything!

[Bretton Garcia]

58. But if most religions are related...

.. and we see huge, obvious flaws deep in many (and some say, all) of them, maybe there is something basically wrong with all "religion," religion per se

Even Christianity, St. Paul,. admits "all have sinned." Even Paul himself it seems. Paul then also called St. Peter or Cephas, an insincere hypocrite.

So it looks like there are huge sins even in Chistianity itself. Beginning with, say, two of its major saints and apostles; the authors of more than half the New Testament.

[ollie10]

60. you are entitled to your opinion

Last edited Wed Jun 13, 2018, 07:08 AM - Edit history (3)

"obvious flaws deep in many (and some say, all) of them"

some say....how Trumpian this linguistic use!

I get it that you want to prove that all religions are flawed. But this is not something you can prove. They are beliefs. And the only thing you have is your belief that they are flawed.

You are barking up the wrong tree. People have a right to their beliefs. And you only make yourself look like a jerk when you imply your beliefs are better than other people's. Maybe jerk is not the best word. Fascists are the ones who try to attack beliefs, including religious ones

[Bretton Garcia]

65. But you do oppose theocracy at least?

[ollie10]

67. I believe in separation of church and state

theocracy is anathema to me.

[Bretton Garcia]

69. Thank you.

Because some religions were threatening? Threatening to be totalitarian?

[ollie10]

70. I believe in freedom of belief

which is related to freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and, actually, many of our freedoms.

in terms of religion, when one religion gets favored status it does raise the scepter of another faith being persecuted. The founders thought it best to simply keep the two entities separate. I concur.

Today, some right wing evangelical churches are trying very hard to threaten this separation. They have an unsupported belief that America is a christian nation, etc. They basically want to impose their values on the rest of us. I think this is dangerous to our Constitutional heritage, and ironically it may also damage freedom of religion for religions that are not to their liking...such as Islam.

So I oppose the dominionists, probably more than you do! I am an ACLU member and supporter.

[Voltaire2]

75. There is no "freedom of belief" right.

Belief is a mental state not an action or external property that the state can regulate. States attempt to suppress beliefs by violating other actual rights such as speech, assembly, religion etc.

[ollie10]

76. ....

You can say whatever you want to, but people have a right to believe what they want to too.

What are you saying? You don't agree that people have a right to believe what they want to? What kind of an authoritarian fascist are you?

[MineralMan]

90. It's not nice to imply that a fellow DUer is a fascist.

Truly, it's not.

[MineralMan]

92. One needs no rights to have beliefs.

Beliefs are entirely internal, and affect nobody else. It is impossible to stop people from believing things, even if those beliefs are hopelessly incorrect.

Beliefs can be held completely in the mind and cannot be seen nor determined. So, beliefs cannot, under any circumstances, be prohibited.

It's a false concern. Now, I believe I'll take a bathroom break.

Before that, however, I will say that it's not nice to refer to someone as a jerk, either.

[ollie10]

93. yes or no, do you believe we have a right to have our own beliefs?

just for clarification

[MineralMan]

95. Beliefs cannot be prohibited, so no "right" is required.

How would one prohibit a belief? People have the right to practice a religion, but no right is required to hold beliefs.

Do you not understand that beliefs are held internally and cannot even be identified. So, why would anyone need a right to protect beliefs. Actions need protection. Beliefs don't.

ETA: Oops. I see that I wasted that reply. Never mind.

[Voltaire2]

96. I thought I explained it clearly.

But I guess instead I am some sort of "jerky authoritarian fascist".

[MineralMan]

97. Well, your adversary appears to have left the building

under duress and involuntarily. Never mind.

In any case, I thought your explanation was exceptionally clear and complete. It appeared to cause some discomfort, though, which led to poor behavior. More's the pity.

[trotsky]

101. I heard the news and had to come explore the damage.

Since I had ollie10 on ignore (strange thing how many people on my ignore list end up banned) I missed their crash & burn. Not surprised.

[marylandblue]

109. The thought police are coming for you

Sorry, I confessed and gave you up when they threatened me with nightmares.

[Voltaire2]

99. For example you can still continue to believe that I am an authoritarian fascist

but for now you cannot say anything about it here. Your beliefs can only be indirectly suppressed, so there is no explicit right to a belief, instead the means by which a state could seek to indirectly suppress your beliefs are limited, in our constitution, by the bill of rights.

[MineralMan]

102. Very Good Proof of Concept!

[Nitram]

87. Ollie, what you are missing is the claim every religion has to being the only true account of what

is true, and what reality really is. If adherents of the same religion believe different versions of reality, the whole thing falls apart. For example, believing that the Earth is very young (geologically speaking), and only 6,000 to 10,000 years old, is belief in a very different reality than believing that the Earth is 13.7 billion years old. Some Christians believe life started as a single cell and evolved over 4.3 billion years into the complex species we see today, while others believe God created the entire range of life at the same time. They can't both be true.

[ollie10]

89. not every religion thinks it is the only true account

[Nitram]

94. Well, Christianity certainly does, in spite of the many divergent views among Christians.

[MineralMan]

106. Unfortunately, that poster will not be able to reply for an indefinite time.

[msongs]

9. poll is irrelevant. if you believe in a divine presence you are not an atheist lol nt

[guillaumeb]

10. Thus speaks the decider?

So no true atheist would or could believe in a divine presence?

[marylandblue]

11. That would seem to fit the definition of atheism

Like no true bachelors are married.

And "universal spirit" does not equal "divine presence." That may be your definition, but the poll left it undefined and it's an inherently vague term.

[Mariana]

21. The poll does not mention anything about a "divine presence".

Gil made that up.

[Lordquinton]

12. What is a universal spirit?

Please define what that means.

[guillaumeb]

13. Ask those who believe in one.

I believe in the Creator, the one who lit the figurative spark that resulted in all of existence. I believe that the Creator is part of existence just as existence is a part of the Creator.

[Lordquinton]

15. So it's completely open to interpretation?

Is that why you like this poll so much, because you get to use the tired "literalist" argument when people question your claim that "2% of people who don't believe in god believe in god"?

[guillaumeb]

17. Obviously some people who identify as atheists

believe in a god or a universal spirit. Does that bother you, and if so, why?

[marylandblue]

19. Previously you used the term "divine presence" in reference to this poll

Why the switch?

[Lordquinton]

22. So, why did you compare one person's number of posts to another's percentage?

Since you know polls so well, you know how numbers work, and you must know how dishonest your switching of terms was when you did it. So why did you do it?

[marylandblue]

18. Well the poll did not ask how the participants define "universal spirit"

And since it has no generally accepted definition, the poll cannot be used to ascertain what percentage of atheists believe in a "divine presence." Had the poll simply asked about God, you'd see a different percentage of positive responses, perhaps none.

[guillaumeb]

40. Speculation. Understood as such. eom

[trotsky]

45. But gil, *you're* the one speculating that it means a divine presence.

And then trying to mock every atheist here with your speculation, and humiliating yourself again. You realize that, right?

[guillaumeb]

53. You are once again assigning motivation to others.

You do realize that your pattern is quite apparent, correct?

[trotsky]

63. I have no idea what your motivation is, and really don't care.

But because you've shown yourself to be dishonest anyway, it doesn't matter.

I am describing YOUR actions on this thread. YOU are accusing others of speculating when it was YOU that first speculated.

That's called hypocrisy, gil.

[guillaumeb]

112. More exposure of tactic,

not that we needed it.

[trotsky]

115. Yes, my secret tactic of calling you on your bullshit.

You caught me again, dammit!

[marylandblue]

48. Who is speculating? I'm not.

The point is, "universal spirit" is an undefined term. Equating it with "divine presence" is speculation. Equating it with any other more specific meaning is speculation. I'm not doing that.

[Mariana]

20. Gil doesn't know what was meant.

Neither does anyone else. There is no agreed-upon definition for that term. We do know, from reading the write-up at Gil's link, that a universal spirit isn't the same thing as a god, but it could be literally anything else.

[Bretton Garcia]

24. Pew data stinks

Pew is not too good in framing religion questions, and in fact it shows a fairly clear religious bias.

As you and others rightly noted, the question that poses belief in " God, or a universal spirit," is poorly worded.

I've been complaining about this kind of stuff directly to Pew itself, now and then. I'd recommend that others do the same.

It may be they won't want to change the question,.so they can get a good comparison if they ask it again.

But we should note to them, often, that their present question for instance shows problems. As suggested by anomalous responses. Namely, precisely, some "atheists" who seem to believe in God or something simular. Which is a bizarre response. .. caused by a badly-worded question.

Pew data stinks.

[Mariana]

25. And then someone dishonest can jump on that apparent discrepancy

and try to pretend that the data says that 8% of atheists believe a "divine presence".

[Bretton Garcia]

37. Christian logic, apologetics, "work" that way

It's an endless greasy, snaky slide from one doubtful or illogical or unprovable assertion, to the next one.

[MineralMan]

38. That's the natural progression when the initial premise is untrue.

And there's the rub with religious apologetics.

[guillaumeb]

41. Speaking of initial premises,

there was this one of yours:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=285871

[Bretton Garcia]

105. That premise was not a simple assertion

The discussion that followed took pains to establish that initial position was rationally and factually established.

[guillaumeb]

113. If that is how you define rational discussion,

your bar is quite a bit lower than mine.

[Bretton Garcia]

116. Most of my responses are not addressed by you

In any substantive way

[MineralMan]

117. Some here rarely present anything substantive.

Marginally insulting, brief comments suffice for them as discussion. I'm not going to participate in dialog with such folks for a while. It's a waste of time, almost always.

[guillaumeb]

118. Change is possible.

[MineralMan]

27. Apparently, it's equivalent to a "Divine presence" or something.

According to the OP, at least.

To me, it sounds like an undefined something created to offer a choice to people taking a poll.

"Universal" and "Divine" seem to have different meanings, somehow, to me. I don't see how they could be conflated.

[Lordquinton]

29. You seem to be correct

the only interpretation is that they believe in the divine, and thus completely contradict what it means to be an atheist.

Even though 2% probably falls within the margin of error, it's solid fact, adn we're all liars.

[MineralMan]

30. Well, see, our DUer switched the wording

From universal spirit to divine presence. Apparently words don't matter. Hence, we have a misunderstanding on his part. Not unusual, really.

[Lordquinton]

32. Tries a big gotcha moment

And ignores that everyone is taking objection not to the poll (although there is some poorly executed aspects of that) but rather his forced interpretation of it. Something he regularly does sadly. The bait and switch of presenting some form of evidence, then twisting it to suit his meaning, then when he is objected to, hiding behind evidence.

Someday he might answer his calls for dialogue.

[MineralMan]

33. Oh, well...

We're easily amused.

[Lordquinton]

39. That's for sure

[Mariana]

23. Of course Christians aren't a monolithic bloc.

There are thousands of denominations of Christianity, and more being formed all the time. They are all different, and each is certain that they are right and that everyone else is doing Christianity wrong. Then consider all of the nondenominational Christian groups and who knows how many independent practitioners of Christianity. A person can believe or disbelieve just about anything and still be a Christian of one flavor or another. Obviously, they are not a monolithic bloc.

If someone does not believe in any gods and believes in a (conveniently undefined) universal spirit, that person is an atheist.

[Voltaire2]

26. Odd. Your op hijacks itself.

That’s unusual.

[MineralMan]

28. Well, why wait, when you can change the topic right in the first post?

[trotsky]

34. Again I wonder who you're speaking to.

You're lecturing to someone that doesn't exist on DU, as far as I've seen.

It seems like you've created a non-believer boogeyman in your mind who:

* Hates ALL religious people
* Wants to ban religion
* Thinks that ALL wars and ALL bad things happen ONLY because of religion
* Believes ALL religious people are the same

Regularly you get up on your soapbox here in this forum to critique and lecture this imaginary non-believer. When all the actual non-believers of DU then respond, you simply dismiss them and their actual opinions in favor of your straw man.

This is why you have such a difficult time in this forum. But since you've admitted you're only playing to a large unseen audience who cheers you along, I guess it's to be expected. You aren't interested in dialog, you have already stated you're just putting on a performance. How sad.

[MineralMan]

36. Just as one can believe that supernatural deities exist,

one can believe that there is a prototypical atheist who represents all atheists. I believe the OP directs his missives to that prototypical atheist, and dismisses all atheists who do not fit that mold. Call it a straw man or a complete misunderstanding of reality, that appears to be the situation.

However, given that OP's current DU habits, we probably can't expect a response until next weekend.

[ollie10]

62. You say the OP directs his missives to "that prototypical atheist"

Yet, the OP posted a poll that showed....

"8% of those who call themselves atheists also say they believe in God or a universal spirit."

So I am confused, Mineral Man. Are you trying to say people who call themselves atheist but also say they believe in God or a universal spirit are....prototypical atheists?

it is clear that the OP was talking about more than one type of atheists and you either did not read for comprehension, or perhaps you are simply trying to misrepresent what the OP was saying. Which?

[trotsky]

104. "8% of those who call themselves atheists also say they believe in God or a universal spirit."

To repeat:

"8% of those who call themselves atheists also say they believe in God or a universal spirit."

Guess which word you ignored?

[Act_of_Reparation]

35. Whatever you say, man.

You've clearly put a lot of thought into this.

[enid602]

54. Freedom

If you're evangelical and white, you vote for whomever your pastor or husband chose.

[MineralMan]

55. Kick for effect.

[Major Nikon]

56. Some theists also claim to be deists

So neither does this mean they are what they claim, at least from a fully literate perspective.

[trotsky]

64. Ah but when you reserve for yourself the right to define any word the way you want...

then all is possible, my son.

[Docreed2003]

110. Pretty sure that's the "12th commandment"

Lol...sorry, couldn't resist!

[trotsky]

114. *snort*

Good one!

[Major Nikon]

111. There's a word for that...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subliteracy