Poll: Which of the following statements do you perceive as bashing

[Walt Starr]

The recent set of religon based threads got me to thinking, what statements are considered to be bashing out there?

I've seen a lot of people perceive some statements as bashing. I really don't see it in most cases, but some will always perceive these things that way.

This will be an equal opportunity poll. There will b e multiple statements, some I consider to be bashing and some I don't . I'm just curious where most DUers stand on these things.

So here's your chance. Pick out the single statement that is the worst possible "religion bashing" in your opinion. Please, don't flame. Maybe if we all discuss this openly and honestly, the religion wars that go on in GD will lessen in severity and we can better understand each other.

After a few posts, I will clarify which ones I consider to be bashing and which ones I do not. I will also reveal which one I consider the worst example of bashing.

[ButterflyBlood]

1. well more than one is

so one by one:

Atheists cannot be moral as religion is required to have morality.

yes

Atheists cannot be considered patriots and should not be considered citizens.

yes

There is no evidence to support the assertion that a god or gods exist.

no

Islam is a religion that preaches hatred.

depends on the angle

Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, Pagans, and all non-Christians are all going to Hell because the bible is clear that only believers in the Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, can go to Heaven.

yes

Catholics are Papists who are not really Christian.

if it's that generalizing, yes

Those who are not Christian are being deceived by Satan.

yes

Mormons are not really Christian.

no (they're polytheists who add on the Bible, a lot more argument there than the Bob Jones/Jack Chick shit for Catholics)

Religion is responsible for most of the problems in the world.

no, although saying that ALL religion is bad as a result is

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Benny Hinn are not real Christians and comparing any Christian to them is just Christian bashing.

no, if the Christian in case here hates those fools

[rasputin1952]

4. I couldn't cast a vote for any of them...

because I didn't really think there was a 'bash' statement in the choices. To me, they appeared to be statements by people, that for whatever reason, were merely stating their points of view.

To me, a bash on a religious person, would be something to the effect of, " You are an idiot because you don't know what you are talking about. Your religion is hatred inspired idiocy, and mine is not".

While I understand that I hold the bar for 'bashing' relatively high,
I have to see what context the posts are made in. If not overt, I tend to believe that opinons on matters are not necessarily flame attacks.

Religion is a base part of everyones life. Even those that claim atheism, find themselves entangled in religious arguments and situations. For one to say infer that my beliefs are incorrect, they must show me that theirs is correct.

For me, words will not do as proof that the 'believer', (of any or no religion); I judge what a person believes in, by how they live their lives, not by how they TELL me they live their lives.

There are some believers of the flat earth theory, fine...start walking. If you come to the edge, let me know, in the mean time, I will wait here for you to return from the opposite direction than where you started from. For me it is simple, if you believe in what you say you believe in, you have my respect and admiration. If you refuse to take action on your beliefs, I see only laziness and a lack of integrity.


I found my peace in Christianity. Others might find it in a tree, or a mosque, or a synagogue, whatever. But to bash or flame another for their beliefs is infantile and an ignorant act. Tolerance, love, compassion and sacrifice for the better good of all, are some of the things I believe in; and in those I am unshakeable.


edited for my usual lousy spelling

[NashVegas]

20. Me Neither

Most of the lines seem more like the bashing from one religion directed towards another (or lack of it). The Moslem one comes closest, but one can't deny there _are_ certain fundies who do.

I don't get why people are calling atheism a religion, when it's the decided lack of one, so I can't say that's a religious bash, exactly.

[Walt Starr]

22. I'm loosely defining the term "religion bashing"

to include the bashing of a lack of religion.

[rasputin1952]

26. When you say you are loosely defining...

religious bashing, you are lowering the bar for yourself and others.

One of the precursors of any faith based religion, is the knowledge that others will not necessarily agree with you. Acceptance of this fact makes the faith, easier, not more difficult. Tolerance has a thread through all of the major religions, (albeit that is not necessarily 'preached' by those that claim to know more than the average layman).

I also believe that science and religion complement each other. Both are searches for the truth about the common bond all matter has. Both science and religion help to alleviate the fears that humanity has about the unknown. Once knowledge and wisdom are gained, fear disipates. The basic tenets of all religions is to help disipate ignorance. Only when people search for answers, can knowledge be gained; and the search is personal. If you allow others to do the footwork, you gain nothing but what those people have claimed to have discovered. This is one of the reasons religion is a powerful force.
If we allow ourselves to be led by some who have perverted and distorted religion, (any religion), no good can come from it.

Many who feel like they have been wrongfully 'bashed' for their beliefs, recoil from the attack. My question is, why should people feel obliged to bash others for their beliefs? The answer it seems, is that those who feel so obliged, are not really sure of their own beliefs, and prefer to make shallow arguments so as to bolster their faltering belief structures.

[Walt Starr]

33. I'm sorry, but on DU, bashing the lack of religion is still

religion bashing.

That's just the facts.

[FlaGranny]

42. Well, I can't vote either,

because I think ALL the statements are bashing, as they all assume that an entire class of people are "bad" in some way.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Only two...

the Catholic and Islam ones. Neither of them can be seriously defended, and they are your basic "hate speech."

The others can be defended and can be claimed to have a least some truth to them, depending upon just where you're coming from. Not everyone has to agree with that "truth," of course.

That's not to say that even the milder statements can't be used as a springboard for some serious argumentifyin' and devolve into simple bashing. In some cases, head bashing. It's not a matter of belief, or even speech, but simple respect for another's beliefs.

Now, I'm one of those people who is perfectly happy to explain my beliefs, which are more questions than beliefs anyway, but I have no intention of trying to convince you that I am right, or have God on my side. I am also quite happy to hear you explain your beliefs, or even lack of them, under the same terms.

There are a lot of people out there who agree with that, but we tend to be shouted down by the evangelists in any public forum.

[rasputin1952]

28. Hey! TreasonousBastard...

Gee....I wonder why we think alike so often! :shrug:

:hi:

[Walt Starr]

3. My take on these

1) Atheists cannot be moral as religion is required to have morality.

This is a definite bash and I place it as number three on my list of worst bashes in this poll (so I didn't vote on it). The last statistics I saw, there was not a single Atheist in prison. Morality and religion are two seperate issues. This bash was based upon something said by Joseph Lieberman.

2) Atheists cannot be considered patriots and should not be considered citizens.

Another definite bash and it made number two on my list of worst bashes. This was based upon something said by George H.W. Bush.

3) There is no evidence to support the assertion that a god or gods exist.

This is an irrefutable statement of fact and not a bash. Folks, religion is based upon faith. Faith is the belief in that for which there is no proof. If there was even a shred of evidence to support the assertion that a god or gods exist, faith and religion would be obsolete.

4) Islam is a religion that preaches hatred.

This is another definite bash and was the one I voted for. To put it simply, this bash could result in somebody being killed. Look to what happened right after 9/11 with all of the anti-Islamic hate crimes in this nation.

5) Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, Pagans, and all non-Christians are all going to Hell because the bible is clear that only believers in the Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, can go to Heaven.

This is a statement on the theological postition taken by many Christian denominations and as such, cannot be a bash. I'm sorry, but this is factual. Stating somebody is going to a defined after-life of punishment based upon theological teachings is not bashing. It is adhering to those teachings. If the statement were changed that these people should not be citizens or worse yet, should be stoned to death, it would then go beyond the basic theological and would become a bash. A religion that preaches, for example, that <insert group here> should be put to death is bashing. Stating <insert group here> will b e flogged for thirteen centuries in the bowels of Hades then cast into the ice pit for the rest of eternity after they die is not.

6) Catholics are Papists who are not really Christian.

This one was a trick bash, and yes it is a bash. Catholics meet the basic requirements to be called Christian (Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus). Stating a person is not a Christian because they do not follow the dogma of a different Christian denomination is bashing, plain and simple. Catholics are by definition, Christians.

7) Those who are not Christian are being deceived by Satan.

Again, this is a statement of theological stance and is not a bash.

8) Mormons are not really Christian.

This is another bash. Mormons meet the basic requirements of the definition of Christian, ergo, Mormons are Christians. Just because they add books and believe different things regarding what Jesus being the Christ means does not make them any less Chrisitan than a Catholic, a Baptist, or an Episcopalian.

9) Religion is responsible for most of the problems in the world.

This is a bash. The fact is, the lust for power is responsible for most of the problems in the world. Those who lust for power will use religion and religious beliefs to exploit others into helping them achieve that power, but that does not make religion responsible for the problems.

10)Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Benny Hinn are not real Christians and comparing any Christian to them is just Christian bashing.

This was an other trick bash. These three individuals meet the basic requirements of the definition of Christian, ergo, they are real Christians. Many Christians may not agree with what they preach and say, but that does not make them any less Christian. This is one of the major problems Christians need to come to grips with. There are assholes in all religions. Just as Osama bin Laden does not represent all of Islam, these three do not represent all of Christianity, but they are still Christians just as bin Laden is still a Muslim.

[Avatar13]

37. One point I'd like to pick here

This is a definite bash and I place it as number three on my list of worst bashes in this poll (so I didn't vote on it). The last statistics I saw, there was not a single Atheist in prison. Morality and religion are two seperate issues. This bash was based upon something said by Joseph Lieberman.

It may be going too far to claim that there is not a single atheist in prison. However, the last numbers I saw showed that atheists were the most underrepresented group within the prison inmate population.

You can also attribute Lieberman's characterizations to other colorful individuals like Falwell, Robertson, Reed, Randall Terry and their ilk, not that I think Lieberman is on the same level as them.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

66. Statistics can be deceiving

Statistics can be deceiving. for example, I'm no christian but if I were going into prison I would say I was one because it would probably guarantee I would always have access to reading material - a Bible.

[NashVegas]

44. I Have a Small Quibble, Too

3) There is no evidence to support the assertion that a god or gods exist.

This is an irrefutable statement of fact and not a bash. Folks, religion is based upon faith. Faith is the belief in that for which there is no proof.

I gotta disagree with this. Don't tell me mankind could have come up with roasted red bell peppers on its own. I just can't see it :)

Then you have dear old Bacchus ... as far as I'm concerned those are good enough proofs that somehow, somewhere down the line, divine intervention existed.

[Walt Starr]

47. ROFLMAO!!!

The funniest part about this is, I've actually heard similar "evidence" before!

:evilgrin:

[juajen]

5. Damn, I got confused and voted for the wrong one

One of those votes are wrong. Sorry

[Ein]

6. All of the above except one.

There is no evidence to support the assertion that a god or gods exist. <--- I don't see how that is bashing

[Walt Starr]

8. Somebody perceives that one as a bash

:shrug:

[West Coast Democrat]

7. All of them are Bashing

and even though I agree that there is no evidence of god's existence, I assume that people who do believe in god would consider that statement as bashing.

[Walt Starr]

9. See, that's where I think the problem lies

Too often on DU I see the word "bash" used in place of "disagree".

And as I said in my take on them, if there was even a shred of evidence to support the existance of a god or gods, faith and religion would be obsolete.

[West Coast Democrat]

10. The Religious Accept Their Faith as Proof

it doesn't make sense, but that's what I hear.

[Walt Starr]

11. Faith, by definition, is a belief in that for which there is no proof

The more accurate statement would be, "The religious accept their faith instead of proof."

That statment is accurate and a better description of reality.

Stating that there is no evidence to support the assertion thnat a god or gods exist is irrefutable. To refute the statment, the evidence must be presented.

Stating that an Invisible Pink Unicorn will gore the non-IPU people for eternity after they die cannot be considered a bash either. Making statements about events that occurs to one after one has died has no bearing on this life and can only be theological suppositions. Because there is no bearing upon the reality of life, these statements also cannot be bashes.

[West Coast Democrat]

13. The Religious would say that Religion isn't about proof at all

it's about "feelings" or whatever, so what you say is just trying to make them feel stupid.

But I agree with you that many of the examples of "bashing" you list are simply disagreements. The "Islam teaches hatred" idea is believed to be fact by many Christians, just as many Islams perceive that Christianity teaches hatred as well. In truth, they both teach hatred to some degree.

[Walt Starr]

15. Ahhh, but that's not the statement about Islam

The statement went, "Islam is a religion of hatred."

It didn't say Islam teaches hatred. It didn't say it preaches hatred. It stated it IS hatred.

That's where it is bashing and a dangerous bash at that.

[West Coast Democrat]

18. "Islam is a Religion of Hatred" is Bashing In My Opinion

Also in my opinion, "Islam is a religion that preaches hatred" is not bashing. And you can put Christian or Judaism or whatever in place of Islam in that example. It's still not bashing in my opinion.

However, I am looking at the statements from the perspective of whether one might perceive the statements as "bashing," not whether I personally do.

[Walt Starr]

21. Okay, I can accept that

I can see where all could be perceived by some as bashing. I simply can not agree that three of those statements are, in fact, bashing. I will also argue to my dying day that stating there is no evidence to support the assertion that a god or gods exist is irrefutable fact.

The only way to refute it is to present the evidence and nobody can.

Statments of irrefutable fact cannot be bashing.

[West Coast Democrat]

23. True. I don't believe anyone can prove god's existence either

But I know several people who, if I asserted this statement as fact, would in turn immediately cite what they consider evidence or proof of god's existence. Whether I would consider it evidence or proof is another matter.

[Walt Starr]

34. Evidence must be independently verifiable

In other words, if they cite anecdotal evidence of their personal spiritual experiences, that is not evidence for the sake of demonstrating the existance of a god or gods.

Worse yet, if they cite second hand anecdotal evidence, they are a laughingstock.

[TreasonousBastard]

32. Well, that's not entirely true.

The "proof" that a religious adherent sees won't stand up to Boolean analysis, but that's not always the standard of proof that an adherent looks to. Christian fundies just accept the Bible, King James version only, and Roman Catholics have been struggling to rationally work out the Prime Mover for well over a thousand years, but although these are large movements, they don't speak for religion as a whole. They don't even speak for all Christians.

There are non-rational (not "irrational") modes of gaining knowledge, and symbols often speak more powerfully than equations. Granted that this sort of knowledge is often not very useful, except to the one who gains it, and more often cannot be properly expressed. It is, however, knowledge that is very real to the believer. Could it be false knowledge? Or just dreams and foolishness? Sure it could. It could also be great insight into deeper truths. Buddha, Mohammed, Moses, Confucious and Jesus didn't leave much in the way of documentation of just how they arrived at what they gave us, but none of them seem to have been all that big on the scientific method.

Religion to many of us is not a set of doctrines and rules, but a journey of meditation and introspection and ultimately realizing a unity with God. Many of us don't really bother all that much with defining just what God may be, but concentrate on the journey.

[Walt Starr]

36. Unfortunately, metaphysical evidence is circular reasoning

The evidence must be independently verifiable to refute the statement. Until such a time as the evidence is produced and independently verified, the statement stands as factual.

[wellstone_democrat]

57. YES, this is exactly what drives me mad here

I can see a thread started---or a reply made to one---that categorically lays out evidence against a statement or candidate. Or, a post that rejects a position or candidate that gives reasons why the poster objects or dislikes said subject. Then, immediately, what I call the "ignorance patrol" starts the "BASHING" drumbeat.


A "bash" is a broad attack that at its heart has a generalized slur. What it is not is:
a disagreement
a reasoned argument (even if you don't agree with the evidence or conclusions)
an opinion stated as such
and so forth.

Maybe I am too much of the pedagogue (although I come by that honestly from my "day job") but the assertion that any dissent or disagreement is "bashing" is something that sets my teeth on edge and keeps me out of most political candidate threads. I'm aware that it is a contemporary political (rhetorical) tactic but it is so Rovian in origin and character that I'm embarrased to see it here.

I think Walt Starr has performed a service with this thread. Not every critique of your (or my) darling or pet issue is "bashing"---
in fact, so often it is not.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

64. good points

good points, but I just think he is drawint a little too fine a line on some of these things. For instance, I don't object to the idea that someone may think I, or someone else, is 'going to Hell' for our beliefs. But it would be inappropriate for that person to inject that religious belief into a political conversation, in my view.

[Jack Rabbit]

12. How about all of the above?

That would be my honest answer.

[Walt Starr]

14. I must admit, that answer does shock me

IMO, some of these statements are clearly not bashing.

[ryharrin]

16. Which ones?

They all seem to be intolerant and dismissive of other people's beliefs or lack thereof.

[Walt Starr]

17. #3, #5, and #7

I specifically included those to show examples of statements that many consider bashing, but are not really bashing. For more information, see my post number 3 where I explain my take on them

[Ein]

24. I would consider 5 and 7 bashing b/c

Really, who are they to say Satan is deceiving me or any non-Christian is going to hell.

It may be what they believe, but it isn't even a neutral thing to say. I imagine many christians would be up in arms if I said they were going to hell if they didn't practice Ein-ism.

From my Catholic upbringing I gathered that a good denominational Christian would try to help the others into thier faith before condemning them for what they believe, and what, for all anyone knows, is correct.

edit: 2 birds w/ 1 stone... You're post about proof negating faith and religion. If i knew there was a supreme being for sure, I would be on fire, running around trying to save souls. Maybe i am the exception though.

[ryharrin]

27. I agree about 3

But not about 5 and 7. Just because something is based on a theological teaching doesn't mean that it isn't dismissive and/or intolerant.

Oh, and the last one isn't really bashing either. Well, its bashing Jerry Falwell, but who the hell cares?

[Walt Starr]

35. Theological statements about alleged divine beings or places

cannot be bashing as it has no effect upon the reality of this life.

Theological statements that call for violent reactions must be considered bashing because it has a direct effect on the reality of this life.

If I say that you are going to be gored forever by the Invisible Pink Unicorn after you die because you will not accept the love of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, that has absolutely no bearing upon you because you have chosen not to accept the assertion that an Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.

If I say the Invisible Pink Unicorn dictates that those who refuse to believe in the IPU must be impaled, that is most certainly bashing because I have called upon physical consequences due to your refusal to accept a metaphysical being.

The difference is in the consequences, one being metaphysical and the other being physical. The metaphysical has no bearing upon the reality of this life.

BTW, the final one is bashing. It is bashing Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Benny Hinn. It was placed there to illustrate the other side of the religion bashing coin.

[flyingfish]

49. "alleged" Walt

Your thinly veiled propaganda against religion is bashing.
And this coming from a priest, nonetheless.
Amazing.
What about the respect factor, Walt?
Or does the Wiccan faith not think respect is important.
You fit so well with the Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwells of the world.
I am sure you will be asking for donations soon to stop the "Religious hordes" from overwhelming us.
Funny you post their names with yours.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

51. Yes, alleged

These are allegations because no supporting independently verifiable evidence can or ever will be presented.

Without the evidence, they remain allegations.

This is not bashing. This is simple factual information.

[Jack Rabbit]

19. Actually, there is one that I will exclude from the bashing category

That being that there is no proof that God exits (to which I would add: or does not exist). That is an objective fact.

Otherwise, I believe each of those either dengreates (i.e., bashes) believers in a particular faith, believers in general, disbelievers in general or those who reject a particular faith in general.

[Durtal]

25. An hypothesis

Like you, I've been puzzled by talk of "bashing". None of those statements I would classify as "bashing" -- but that's not because I have a clear idea of what bashing is and can see that none of these count as bashing. Rather, I have no clear idea what bashing is supposed to be in the first place.

I'll venture an hypothesis, however, as to what others have in mind. Actually, I'll venture two hypotheses -- two things that might be meant by "bashing".

First definition: A statement about a religion or a group is bashing if it implies that some significant number of those who follow the religion or belong to the group are -- because they are followers of the religion or members of the group -- in some way morally deficient: full of inappropriate hatreds, vicious to undeserving victims, or the like.

Second definition: A statement about a religion or a group is bashing if it implies that some significant number of those who follow the religion or belong to the group are -- because they are followers of the religion or members of the group -- in some way rationally defective: incapable of following a line of thought; unwilling to examine evidence; deliberately blind to alternatives; or the like.

Notice that (as of this posting at 11:47 EST) the statement that got the highest percentage of votes as a bashing statement is:

Islam is a religion that preaches hatred.

If we go with the first definition, that makes sense of the "bashing" conclusion, supposing -- as is practically implied by the statement -- that the hatred in question is not appropriate. (Compare: "Islam is a religion that preaches hatred for the perpetrators of injustice." That would not evince the same "bashing" reaction, I bet.)

The second most commonly deemed "bashing" statement is:

Atheists cannot be moral as religion is required to have morality.

Again, this fits the first definition quite well. Notice, by the way, that one of the statements that almost no one has called "bashing" is:

Those who are not Christian are being deceived by Satan.

This again fits my hypothesis, since this statement does not imply moral deficiency so much as victimhood. Compare it to: "Those who are not Christian are deliberately following Satan." That would, I bet, get high marks as a "bash."




What about the second definition? Well, I suggest that as a secondary way people understand the notion because it helps explain why a statement such as this one

There is no evidence to support the assertion that a god or gods exist.

is counted as bashing by some. But the matter is rather murky, since we are less clear about what counts as a rational failure. So, for instance, someone might say that there is no real evidence to support those assertions, yet not conclude that anyone who believes them is rationally defective. I might think that they're just uninformed or haven't thought about it at enough length. If that is how the statement is understood, then it's less likely to be thought of as bashing. But if the statement had been amplified like so

There is no hint of evidence to support the assertion that a god or gods exist; anyone who believes such a thing must simply be gullible.

we'd be much more inclined to treat it as "bashing."

Having said all that, I still don't think it's a good idea to classify statements as bashing or not. I'm merely diagnosing how the notion gets used, not suggesting we continue using it. The problem is that if we use the notion this way, it looks like people will be told not to bash, which means that they ought never to form statements with those implications. But those sorts of statements can be true. Everyone on this board will agree, I bet, with statements like "The Republican Party has deliberately exploited senseless cultural issues in order to distract the people from their economic agenda." But that would count as bashing under the first definition. In any case, free debate requires being allowed to explore unpopular positions, including those that imply unsavory things about members of certain groups or religions.

[Rowdyboy]

29. I'm a serious Episcopalian and I agree with everything...

you said. Go figure...No bashing evident in your comments

[durutti]

30. I'm an Atheist, but...

I have no problem whatsoever with people not sharing my beliefs.

However, if they challenge my beliefs, I will, in turn, challenge theirs.

[leftofthedial]

31. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7

the others are simply true.

[robbedvoter]

38. All except 3. Carlin: religious beliefs can be challenged since

unlike say, race, they are an individual's choice.
My personal problem with religions is preciselly the pretense of knowing what's good/bad for anyone else.
I respect personal beliefs, ritual, codes as long as you keep them to your own life. You preach them to me and I am going to challenge you. And "The bible told me so" has as much value as an argument to me as "Rush told me so"

[Loonman]

39. All of the above

nt

[Az]

40. Jumping on the bandwagon

Not really a good format for this question. More than one is definately bashing. I wonder if our new forum software can handle a multiple choice poll.

[Walt Starr]

41. The poll thingie was more to see which people thought was worst

Apparently, my overall assessment is not too far out of what DU thinks.

The discussion about the statemetns is more important than the poll, though. At least in my opinion.

[FlaGranny]

43. The reason I felt that

they were ALL bashing is that every one of those statements is going to tick someone off. But maybe flamebait is the right word for my interpretation and not bashing. I would agree that the statement of there being no proof of the existence of god is not bashing, but a true statement.

[Walt Starr]

55. The thing that gets me about the statement of fact

that there is no evidence to support the allegation that a god or gods exist is that this is the primary requisite for faith, and without faith you cannot have religion.

I would think that theists would really think about that irrefutable statement of fact and realize that this is actually in support of their position that one must have faith. Apparently in most cases, emotional visceral reactions to truth are immediate and all that is given.

The greatest counter to that statement a theist can make is to agree with it and go to the extent that, "Yes, there is no evidence and there can never be evidence because the faith is what seperates the religious from everybody else."

[Az]

56. The problem is in the nature of the human mind

Not logic or reason. These are just tools the mind makes use of. Our mind does not decide what it believes on pure reason or logic. They are just another rope in the internal tug of war that is our mind. If they cannot override the pull of the other ideas within the mind then they will be rejected or reincorporated in a way that they do support the current internal balance. Religious minds can make use of logic and reason just as much as the next mind. They simply predicate their logic on different axioms which in their mind are as strong if not stronger than those put forward by skeptics.

Due to anamolies of the functioning of the brain there is a demonstrable tendency to create the perseption of communication with entities other than self. This is the result of the portion of the brain that learns to identify self becoming disengaged. When this happens ideas and internal communication continue but are no longer flagged with the identity of having originated from self. Thus learned social identities are identified as the likely sources for this continuing communication. Thus the religious experience of communing with god, being one with the universe, or any other host of anamolies are very experential. It is this experential nature of religion that makes a logical argument lose cohesion in its face. We trust what we experience (even if we do not understand it) far more than we trust someone's attempt to explain it away.

[Blue_Chill]

45. #'s 1, 2, &4-9

Atheists cannot be moral as religion is required to have morality.

This is calling all atheist immoral, which is nonsense. You don't have to believe in God to believe in the morality you were taught while growing up.

Atheists cannot be considered patriots and should not be considered citizens.

This is just stupid. Obvious attack.

Islam is a religion that preaches hatred.

It's not the religion its the preacher.

Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, Pagans, and all non-Christians are all going to Hell because the bible is clear that only believers in the Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, can go to Heaven./i]

Close minded crap that is very insulting.

Catholics are Papists who are not really Christian.

The KKK used to say this all the time.

Those who are not Christian are being deceived by Satan.

I would not pretend to know the actions of Satan. All I know is that he is sad to appear inviting and kind, which says to me Satan works his evil thru those with the best intentions.

Mormons are not really Christian.

I don't know much about mormons so I wouldn't know. However most of the time when a comment is phrased like the one above it is meant as an attack.

Religion is responsible for most of the problems in the world.

Anti-theist myth. Problems in the world stem from human greed, violence, lack of empathy, and lack of compassion.

[flyingfish]

46. Walt, why no negative comments about your religion, Wiccan?

And Walt, atheism is not a religion.
Maybe you did not learn that in your 2.5 decades of studying religion.
Also, why would a "priest" spread these bashful quotes.

It's the old line, saying "I am not implying anything, but...."
Where is the poll question about Wiccan?

Oh, that's right. You make every other religion look bad so your faith looks good.
You belong in the same category as the Jerry Falwells of the world.
Making others look bad so you look good.

[flyingfish]

48. Walt, are you omniscient?

You "will clarify which one I consider bashing...."
Amazing Walt.
Why not clarify your choice now Walt?
Your opinion is not the ultimate choice.
You are not God, Walt.
We are not in Walt's class waiting for his answer to his own question.
Or does Wiccan think that the ultimate answers lies with their faith's priests, even on matters concerning opinions?
This is a poll, Walt. You do not have the right answers.


Think about it, Walt.
You are saying that you want people's opinions, but ultimately, your opinion is the only true one.


You belong with the Jerry Falwells of the world.

[Walt Starr]

53. Read post three. That's the post where I did this.

And I clarified which statements I considered to be bashing and which ones I did not consider to be bashing.

Emotional reactions to rational statements can be unbecoming, and definitely have no place in logical discourse.

[DemLikr]

52. What the hell is "BASHING," anyway?

An opinion is an opinion. Seems to me that too many people choose to perceive any opinion regarding something they care about as "bashing."

The accusation of "bashing": the last rhetorical refuge of those who cannot support their position

[Walt Starr]

54. Bashing would be a direct attack on an indiviodual

Usually, bashing can be demonstrated to be an ad hominem attack. Some of the examples above are also outright lies, such as claiming Catholics or Mormons are not Christians.

Others result in violence or proposing the loss of human rights, such as the statement that Islam is a religion of hate or that Atheists should not be considered citizens.

More often than not on DU, bashing is defined as simple disagreement.

[Liberator_Rev]

68. Damn good question, DemLikr !

What business do people have arguing about statement whose terms they can't even define ? The term "bashing" is so ambiguous that is precisely the reason that some people use it.

How do you defend yourself against a charge like "Shame on you for bashing (you name it)", when nobody knows what line you have crossed, where the line is, or whether there even IS a line?

From on, I'm going to demand that people who accuse me of "bashing" either spell out precisely what they mean or use some other word that DOES have a precise meaning.

[LWolf]

58. Other:

"Unelectable." eom

[the_sam]

59. None of Them

They're all just statements of belief.

[SoCalDem]

60. potayto---potahto

I did not see any of them that would "upset" me.. All conjecture about religion is personal.. And all I would wish for is that it be taken that one teensy step further....PRIVATE..

I don't care what you worship, IF you worship....just don't tell me ...K????

[jfkennedy]

61. number one is not bashing

The following statement is not a bashing statement.

"Atheists cannot be moral as religion is required to have morality."

That statement about atheists in not bashing. It is a fact. Name any atheist that has ever been known to do good works for humanity?

Such as Christ, the Buddha, Gandhi, Martin Luther King. JFK a devout Catholic.

Perhaps atheists have morals well I'm sure they do but most of the time they keep it to themselves and do not do great things for humanity such as the named above.

And atheist would not have a standard to be moral by if it was not first defined by some of the great religions, Sufism, Buddhism, Christianity, and more.

And because most spiritual people follow their own path to salvation and seeks to be good in the eyes of God, he is being moral, and willing to help the poor, the sick, and even the blind. (Something Republicans refuse to do.) Republicans build hospitals and do charity but never help the poor or the sick themselves. They say look at all the great buildings of stone I built to help the little people while at the same time having no actual compassion for the poor, because they consider themselves higher and better then them.

The atheist like the Republicans do not look to some of the great religions as a spiritual person do so they basically have no morals they have to go by.

And, atheist most of the time when they say are doing things for humanity are in fact doing religious things that were already defined by religious laws, dogmas, and cannons of the great religions.

What that statement really means is that atheist are not really moral, because morality can only come from spiritual traditions. And if an atheist rejects all spiritualities he will have a hard time being moral.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

62. They are all bashing except number three.

They are all bashing except number three. All the others contain a negative value judgement about someone, for example "Muslims preach hatred" or "religious people cause the problems in this world" or "those people are not in the same elite group as I". Even three I could see how someone could say it implies that the believers of such thing are deceived but it doesn't really, instead it leave open the possibility that evidence will be produced in rebutal. Nine is hyperbole, the others are all pretty much bigotry as far as I'm concerned.

[SyracuseDemocrat]

63. All of them

n/t

[scipan]

65. I almost agree with you

but I voted for #2 because to me, that one has the most practical consequences. "Atheists should not be considered citizens.." is directly, clearly advocating something while "Islam is a religion that preaches hatred" does not.

[DemBones DemBones]

67. The results of your poll PROVE that religion, particularly the

Christian religion, is disdained by most DUers. The statements receiving the most votes as "worst religion bashing statement" are the two statements about atheism and the one statement about Islam. It's quite hilarious. "I am a good liberal so I must support atheists and Muslims -- and screw everyone else!"