Are you too sensitive about your lack of religion?

[Cheswick2.0]

Do you see scary nuns behind every tree? Do you fear being hung for Witchcraft. Do you blame religion for the religious people who happen to be jerks and would be whether they were "religious" or not? You know those folks who would be talking amway or EST if they weren't talking Jesus?

Did you have a bad religious upbringing and now you project your lousy parenting onto all people of religion? Do you like to say "I just don't trust organized religion, I can find God without it" ignoring the fact that if your local Methodist church didn't "organize" they wouldn't be feeding several hundred homeless people every week and sending thousands of dollars to the Dominican Republic? Do you imagine all those hospitals in Haiti and central america would be funded without the "organized" Catholic Church? Do you suppose great groups of non religious charities are going to spring up and take up the slack if we stop "organizing" religion?
Does it piss you off to know that 75-85 percent of the people in this country profess some sort of religious identification and you are the minority and likely always will be?
Do you feel a need to preach your agnostic/atheistic philosophy to everyone no matter how much it makes you look like the reverse image of Pat Robertson?

Did you too have a World Religions 101 instructor who told you religion is the basis for most of the worlds problems, ignoring that human nature is the cause of all the worlds problems? Did you sue him for educational mal-practice because he failed to teach you to think logically about religion?

It may seem like I am slamming you but I am not. I would just like to know why some non religious people seem so touchy about the subject.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. i am not too sensitive

but i believe religion is a good excuse for starting wars with people

Do you fear being hung for Witchcraft? wicca is a religion unto itself

[wurzel]

2. Whenever I get "sensitive" about my lack of religion, I read the Bible.

I fail to see how anyone who has actually read the Bible can be "religious".

[snooper2]

130. I concur!

eom

[sniffa]

3. i'm not sensitive about it

if reLigion is your drug of choice, knock yourseLf out.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. great response sniffa

[jonnyblitz]

89. great and TRUE....nt

[sybylla]

120. agreed

have at it.

[SemperEadem]

157. or your crutch of choice

[Screaming Lord Byron]

4. Ten posts 'til flamewar. Any other bets?

[JohnKleeb]

5. I'll go with 13 because its my lucky number

yer on.

[TowelBoy]

9. Nope, starting to look like "8"

Counting the two posts concerning this ;D

[JohnKleeb]

11. damn should have gone with 8

thats my third lucky number. Looks like we both lost Byron. Bummer :). I'll state my point on this debate now though.
I am a Christian, Catholic in specific, I don't have a problem with athiests, agnostics, etc, I wish they would respect my right to believe in Christ and the teachings of, and I will willingly respect their right to not believe in god or to not be sure. I think if we just respect each other because all beliefs have good and bad in them.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

12. I have no problem with people's beliefs.

Agreed.

[JohnKleeb]

15. yeah

Just don't call me stupid for believing in Christ or that Virgin Mary was a special lady, or I'll call you a fuckhead, heh my philo on it at least.

[TowelBoy]

85. It's really a manner of respect

If you want to think I'm a brainwashed moron for beleiving what I believe (I am a Catholic) then you can think that all you want, but don't go telling me that, or I'll probably think you're just an ignorant little kid who is so insecure about his beliefs that you need to put everyone else's down.

[JohnKleeb]

119. Yeah I am Catholic too

and an easily pissed off person as well, so if you tell me I am foolish for believing in what I believe, I'll call you an asshole or something like that. Nothing against athiests, agnostics, or whatever they are but they have to respect me for what I believe, and I in turn am easily willing to respect their right to believe what they want to believe.

[JHB]

7. Poke - Poke - Poke - Poke - Poke - Poke - Poke - Poke - Poke - Poke

I'm not normally touchy about the subject, but I can get that way...

And it's usually when some allegedly religious person seems to be very "touchy" about my lack of same, and they can't let it go.

The other times are when people reflexively assume that atheists/agnostics/nontheists are all dirty rotten scoundrels who really ARE believers, they're just mad at god and holding their breath at him.

It doesn't help that there's a lot of overlap between those two situations, either.

[trotsky]

8. Mainly because we're slammed by people like you.

Yes, what you posted is a slam.

The question of atheist hospitals:
http://www.americanatheist.org/aut03/T1/ittner.html

[SheepyMcSheepster]

10. religion=none is the default setting for humans.

why should i be sensitive about that?

[ProfessorGAC]

13. Not Sensitive At All

No hallucinatory nuns. No 101 instructor who "indoctrinated" me. (By the time one is in college, can one really be indoctrinated, unless one is already a weakminded bubblehead?)

And yes, i don't need organizational structure for belief. Yes it did occur to me that they feed the hungry and homeless. What does that have to do with my rejection of formalized dogma? (The answer, since you obviously missed it, is nothing!)

It pisses me off that a small minority of your 75-85% have hijacked the debate on social mores. But, the 75-85% don't piss me off. How could they? I mostly ignore them.

So, if i ignore them, and am getting irritated over the actions of a few and not the faith of the many, how could i be overly sensitive?

You may not think it's a slam. But, it indeed, is! Assuming some of us are overly sensitive and assuming we're too stupid to grasp the obvious is hardly a compliment.
The Professor

[Tsiyu]

14. It seemed to be all spelled out in the Constitution

We can all worship (or not) as we choose. I have no moniker for what I am, except my own copyrighted "Full-Gospel Feminist" ( title of one of four books I have half written). Not that I am "Christian" but I believe Christ's words made absolute sense, and in the context of being a woman, I concur with the teachings of the four gospels.

Now, I live in a community where the Ten Commandments are posted at the courthouse. It does not bother me. I live in a community where there is almost every faith known to man being practiced, from Mennonite to Mormon to Native American to Wiccan to Pagan. We all get along.

If religion is brought up, I usually try to get out of the convo as quick as possible so as not to offend anyone. But I understand that others are "touchy" perhaps because overbearing fundies or even pagans have tried to force belief on them or have chastised them.

Cheswick: Have you had a bad experience with a touchy person? Share....

[Sorwen]

16. there are lots of non-religious charities

as well as government programs that would continue to exist if there were no organized religion. As long as people are compassionate and care about humanity, then these charities and programs will exist, and believing in an organized religion is not a requirement. It's great what some of these churches do to help the poor, but it's insulting to suggest that the non-religious aren't also charitable and don't care about humanity.

[Arugula Latte]

17. Also...

I think it's sad when religious people are motivated to "do good" only because they think if they don't the Big Scary Guy In The Sky will be P.O.ed at them or not let them into La-La Land when they die.

Those of us who don't have supernatural beliefs "do good" without expectation of reward.

[alittlelark]

101. Ding, ding, ding - A winner!!!!

Right on the head! It is interesting that religious people seem to have such a fear of death. Do any of you know of an Atheist, or even an Agnostic with a fear of death? Personally I do not. Perhaps some do.

I have no shame over my lack of belief in a cloud being, I feel for those that fear death to such a degree that they embrace him so tightly.

If there is a 'god' I believe it is the force of all of our electrical energies (we run on elect.) creating a change/reality/result.

My opinion.

[The Mafia Squirrel]

18. "Are you too sensitive about your lack of religion?"

Maybe at one time I was, when I was 18-19 I used to challenge people about religion as often and as ruthlessly as I could. Treating believers like they were just better than stupid, putting faith in a fairy tale designed to elicit obedience and pliability. I'm grown up and have realized that others really don't give a shit about my opinion and spouting it at length without provocation just make me look like an ass. Plus I had to ask myself if I was angry at the individual or the religion and why? If I don't believe I shouldn't get so worked up. Greek mythology doesn't make me seethe and I don't think that is holy writ.

I still don't have any faith but I'm much more live and let live now at 25. I don't lie if someone asks, and if they press the issue I'll talk about the perils and willful ignorance of religion of all stripes. About how it's responsible for more wars and brutality than all the good it could ever do. You mention human nature being responsible and that's true, but the huddled masses need a justification before rising up and joining a cause and a banner of faith gives them that. The Holocaust, the war in Iraq, the Crusades, the former Yugoslavia, the slave trade in America, the conquistadors, the Sudan and on and on and on may be the result of the failings of the human condition but in each case, someone else's God allowed it to be sold to the people. Whether or not the real cause was economics, race, oil, gold, a land grab, or the perennial issue of affordable labor. These reasons have an effect but it's not until God's on their side that they are willing to accept up to and including genocide.

As far as touchy, I'm not any longer but I can see persons of faith visibly recoil when we discuss it. The idea that if you are a good person you believe in God (here in the States that could be parsed further and replace 'God' in broad terms with Christ) is so deeply ingrained in our society that the idea of a moral atheist is anathema. On a deeper level we've made faith a code word to get in the clubhouse, I don't think a lot of people actually believe still, strongholds of faith can be found in prisons and politics, two places where, if they followed codes of religious conduct, most wouldn't be there. Believers can lie, commit adultery, turn a blind eye to injustice, pass judgement, harbor racism or sexism but at least they're not dirty Godless heathens and thus, they're good people. Some truly are but most are just wearing their faith like a "Members Only" jacket and those are tacky and went out of style in the early 80s.

[jonnyblitz]

86. great post!

:thumbsup:

[sybylla]

123. Nice Point!

The idea that if you are a good person you believe in God (here in the States that could be parsed further and replace 'God' in broad terms with Christ) is so deeply ingrained in our society that the idea of a moral atheist is anathema.

I have seen many shocked xtian faces when people, who have had a chance to get to know me, discover that I am an atheist. It's as if some religions run around spreading falshoods about non-believers. But we all know that would never happen. <cough witch hunt cough>

[stlchic]

19. Point by point response.....

Do you see scary nuns behind every tree? A: No

Do you fear being hung for Witchcraft? A: Like, because of a witch hunt? No.

Do you blame religion for the religious people who happen to be jerks and would be whether they were "religious" or not? A: No, but I blame them for encouraging their behavior within their ranks.

You know those folks who would be talking amway or EST if they weren't talking Jesus? A: No, I don’t “know that”, but I will note that I haven’t observed people trying to legislate principles of Amway or EST into the constitution.

Did you have a bad religious upbringing and now you project your lousy parenting onto all people of religion? A: Kind of begging the question isn’t it? I didn’t have a bad religious upbringing, and I don’t have lousy parents.

Do you like to say "I just don't trust organized religion, I can find God without it" ignoring the fact that if your local Methodist church didn't "organize" they wouldn't be feeding several hundred homeless people every week and sending thousands of dollars to the Dominican Republic? A: Also begging the question. No, I don’t say that, and I have never ignored the fact that churches of many kinds help people. I would like to note that while I’m sure the gesture is appreciated, “thousands of dollars to the Dominican Republic” does nothing to change the political climate down there that is the actual source of their problems.

Do you imagine all those hospitals in Haiti and central america would be funded without the "organized" Catholic Church? A: Sure – do you imagine that non-religious organizations never step up to the plate to help?

Do you suppose great groups of non religious charities are going to spring up and take up the slack if we stop "organizing" religion? A: Straw man- most non religious people have never suggested that “we stop organizing religion”, and fully recognize the contributions churchs make to the effort of helping those in need.

Does it piss you off to know that 75-85 percent of the people in this country profess some sort of religious identification and you are the minority and likely always will be? A: No. I don’t have a problem with being a minority, I DO have a problem with those who would seek to marginalize my rights because of it.

Do you feel a need to preach your agnostic/atheistic philosophy to everyone no matter how much it makes you look like the reverse image of Pat Robertson? A: No.

Did you too have a World Religions 101 instructor who told you religion is the basis for most of the worlds problems, ignoring that human nature is the cause of all the worlds problems? A: No – didn’t take any such class.

Did you sue him for educational mal-practice because he failed to teach you to think logically about religion? A: See answer above, and I question whether or not it’s possible to sue for “educational mal-practice.” If so, then Liberty University could be in a nice litigation swamp.

It may seem like I am slamming you but I am not. A: Funny, I’ve been slammed before, and this looks very similar.

I would just like to know why some non religious people seem so touchy about the subject. A: Because they get slammed like this and get tired of being called “touchy” simply because they refuse to be treated like a-moralistic, relevatist, un-American pinkos.

Thanks for asking.

:crazy:

[BiggJawn]

22. What he said, plus one other point...

"Did you sue him for educational mal-practice because he failed to teach you to think logically about religion? "

Is that a deriviative of what Dr. Gene Scott says about Christianity, I.E. "I can't see how any THINKING person could reject The Word..."

So, because I consider it all to have no more basis in fact than a belief system revolving around A. A. Milnes' "Winnie-the-Pooh", that means I don't "think logically" about religion?

I feel like I have been "slammed". Now feel free to whine about how I'm "persecuting" you.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[BiggJawn]

26. Caps lock key stuck?

Hmmmm?

[sniffa]

32. no, i was yeLLing at you

[BiggJawn]

39. OK...

I'm lost. How is being anti-religion "SEXIST"?
(yes, I'm yankin' on you, but I'll play it straight)

[sniffa]

42. i'm just Letting Last night's accusations of sexism

spiLL over to today. nothing personaL... sexist!

[Pithlet]

154. It must be a scary world, indeed

Where all threads are about sexism, even when they aren't.

[stlchic]

43. Ummm....

I think they were referring to your response to my "point by point" post when you said "Yeah, what he said", when both my posting name and my profile indicate I'm female. :shrug:

I don't think that necessarily makes you a sexist, though.

[BiggJawn]

45. Oh......

Mea Culpa! Mea Culpa! Mea Culpa!

Hit and run posting on my part....
DUH...Cards avatar and a name like "stlchic"....

DUH! (slaps forehead repeatedly until it bleeds) I'll not make that error agin...

Forgive me?

[stlchic]

47. No worries!

Or as my 4 yr. old would say (and way to often)- Hakuna Matata.

:hi:

[sniffa]

48. no, that's not it

post 42.

most of DUers are sexists, or so i've heard.

[BiggJawn]

49. I rise above that shit.

Equal Pay for Equal Work and who ever wants to can get on top and all that...:-)
I'm not sexist, but on the other hand, I'll not apologise for being born with testicles, either.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

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

[BiggJawn]

121. I have heard that about the testicles...

I still refuse to apoplgize for having them, even though they get in the way when i'm on my bike......:)

I HAD a "lesbian overlord" once....Never Again...

[Pithlet]

155. What was this thread about again?

Oh, yeah. Right. All the women (at least the "feminists") on DU are manhaters.

Carry on.

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. What profile?

It's not visible. I left mine not visible by accident for ages - if you want to, change it.

And I wouldn't guess 'chic' as necessarily female - the band were half male, weren't they? ;-)

[stlchic]

112. Ooops...

Yes, my profile was accidentally hidden.

Thanks!

:hi:

[skygazer]

20. Not touchy at all

As a matter of fact, I enjoy discussing religion with people but its difficult much of the time because people tend to get very defensive about their beliefs. That interests me too and I wonder why it is. I've never tried to convert anyone to my way of thinking (though I've had plenty try to convert me to theirs).

I also think "lack of religion" is a poor phrase to use since the religion you're talking about is obviously Christianity and there are plenty of other religious groups out there.

Perhaps part of the problem we have with religion is the fact that we run into an awful lot of people who speak to us as you do in your post - belligerently, challenging and accusatory.

[stlchic]

21. And here's a good link which addresses this and other questions...

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#atheisms

Q: "You mentioned Christians who campaign for increased foreign aid. What about atheists? Why aren't there any atheist charities or hospitals? Don't atheists object to the religious charities?"

A: There are many charities without religious purpose that atheists can contribute to. Some atheists contribute to religious charities as well, for the sake of the practical good they do. Some atheists even do voluntary work for charities founded on a theistic basis.

Most atheists seem to feel that atheism isn't worth shouting about in connection with charity. To them, atheism is just a simple, obvious everyday matter, and so is charity. Many feel that it's somewhat cheap, not to say self-righteous, to use simple charity as an excuse to plug a particular set of religious beliefs.

To "weak" atheists, building a hospital to say "I do not believe in God" is a rather strange idea; it's rather like holding a party to say "Today is not my birthday". Why the fuss? Atheism is rarely evangelistic.

[The Mafia Squirrel]

94. And a very happy unbirthday to you, to you!

Posted by stlchic:
To "weak" atheists, building a hospital to say "I do not believe in God" is a rather strange idea; it's rather like holding a party to say "Today is not my birthday". Why the fuss? Atheism is rarely evangelistic.




That's a goddamn great line. Excellent post.

[msmcghee]

24. It's not religion that I have a problem with, it's . .

. . living in a democracy with people who don't seem to mind a large amount of cognitive dissonance in an important part of their lives.

These people vote. If they already have formed their lives around some literal interpretation of the bible, how do I know that they won't decide to stone to death my gay friends? Should I depend on their reasonableness? The same reasonableness that convinces them that the dead come back to life or that babies can be born without conception - or that we need to encourage all the Jews to get their butts back to Isreal so we can get on with the End Times?

That said, not all religious affiliation requires the belief in absurdities. Those who instead, form their religious connection around the message of Christ (rather than the confused tales from the Old Testament or the true-believer rants of some of his deranged disciples) are good folks who simply enjoy the company of friends who share the same path toward living the righteous life.

More power to them. :thumbsup:

[Screaming Lord Byron]

25. Why is it considered a 'lack'?

I don't consider it a 'lack'.

[info being]

27. Why is this thread allowed? Pure flame bait.

I've been involved in plenty of threads with actual substance which have been shut down...and this isn't one of them.

[Cat Atomic]

28. No, but I actually do resent religion in a way.

I think it's got a negative effect on society.

Religion teaches us that believing things without supporting evidence is a virtue. It tells us that dismissing evidence that contradicts our beliefs is a virtue. To put it bluntly, that's irrational.

It's my personal opinion that humanity's greatest advancement has been the development of logic and the scientific method. We'd all be better off if we moved away from magical thinking, in my humble opinion.

I don't confront religious people with this sort of thing unless they ask me, as you have.

[DoktorGreg]

29. About the scary nuns behind the tree thing

I was walking with my son one day. We walked by a catholic church. The church has a big crucifix statue out front titled, memorial to the unborn. My sons comment, at age two, on the crucifix was, "Take him down, get him off of there"

Truth from the mouth of babes.

[The Mafia Squirrel]

96. Speaking of scary nuns behind trees....

I was walking by a Catholic church one day, chewing gum and BAM there she was, Habit a-flyin'. Beat me within an inch of my life with a ruler. So yes, now I am suspicious that there may just be scary nuns behind trees, particularly maples, insidious little tree it is.

[DoktorGreg]

116. OMG you helped me recover a repressed memory!!!

When I was in 4th grade, my teacher was Sister Mary. Anyhow, in the morning we did the whole prayer and pledge thing, it took a long time, for a 9-10 year old at least. I remember one moring having to go pee, and asking permission and it being denied. Anyhow being a youngster, I peed my pants right there during the pledge/prayer session. I also now remember being huliliated like nothing ever since (I however have quit peeing my pants) Anyhow, the humiliation continued for years, every moment after that I was a total basket case in school, and needed serious therapy, but was catholic so I was just told to tough it out. It started a cycle that caused me very serious problems all the way through Highschool, seriously delaying my entry into collage.

So you could say, that Nun ruined my life, and caused me an extraordinary amout of emotional grief, for a lot of years by her insensitivity to my needs as a 9 year old. Prayer and pledge going smoothly as planned was much more important to her.

[FlaGranny]

133. My husband has similar stories

about nuns with rulers. He often tells me "Those nuns beat the shit out of me." His very words. I imagine that HE can get paranoid about nuns hiding behind trees.

[Comicstripper]

30. Agnosticism Today: Avoiding Indoctrinization In The Twenty-First Century

by Comicstripper

Religion is fine. I doubt too many people here debate that. It can provide people with a stable moral and spiritual foundation. It can just as easily (and, indeed, just as frequently) be a breeding ground for intolerance, violence, and a stunting of one's intellectual growth.
Organized religion is anti-intellectual by it's nature. In order to maintain a set of beliefs and fables, one cannot question, learn, or strive.
Religion is not only the basis for most of the world's problems, it is one of the world's problem. The list of examples is endless, but includes : 9/11, the Holocaust, the Crusades, The Middle-East Crisis, AIDS spread/homophobia, and George W. Bush's presidency ( ;) ).
It is also inherently devisive, as most all major religions include the belief that other religions are wrong, and therefore its worshippers are not entitled to the wonderous benefits of (Religion X). They are instead doomed to (Bad Place Y), when they could be spending eternity in peace with (Jesus, Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, the Enlightened, Jerry Falwell).
Most religions follow a simlar pattern of seduction and brainwashing. We'll take Christianity, as it's the one I'm most familiar with. A)You're bad. Real bad. B) Bad people go somewhere bad. You're doomed C) Wait! No you're not! D) Join us! Then you'll be fine!
It's a clever way to build peoples' reliance on outside power to shape their life, and it creates in the person a desperate need to belong to the organization.
Organized religion is a highly organized, big-money business. It's darn powerful, too, especially since most people begin being exposed to it at such a young age. It still strikes me as funny when, in class (I'm starting my junior year in high school this monday :( ) , students say "Whoa! Did people really believe in Zeus and stuff? That's sooo dumb! Not like our religion, which is based on objective fact and absolutely no symbolism or parables!!!"
OK, that all came off rant-like. I generally can organize my thoughts, but suck on that for awhile.

[Cheswick2.0]

31. Lots of interesting points

and discussion. A few touchy non-religious folks too.

[sniffa]

34. someone's a bit touchy

[Djinn]

79. Ches seriously

I hate to point this out but you pop up in EVERY post about religion (actually generally just Christian ones) or atheism and come across as EXREMELY defensive about it.

I don't beleive religion makes people blow each other up OR makes them do good - if religion had never been invented, even if the concept of God had never crossed the human mind the same proportion of people would be killing each other and the same proportion would be feeding the poor.

Just as you resent the notion that God/religion sparks war I resent the implication that only religious folk help other people.

As for being in the majority - so what? since when is the majority correct? Where I'm from those without religious convictions (certainly those who do not attend regular religious service) are the majority it doesn't mean that the religious types among us are wrong?

People tend to have a problem with proslytising - ever had an atheist wake you up on a Sunday morning to have a chat about the absense of God and sell you a magazine?

Often people will claim that atheists are "superior" or insulting but what's not superior about the belief that you'll be rewarded but everyone else goes to hell?

[RebelOne]

33. My answer is no to all of your questions. n/t

[Raenelle]

35. No--also not too sensitive about being intelligent or discriminating

[mzmolly]

36. Good for you Cheswick. I just read the inspiration for this thread.

:toast:

[JHB]

59. Link?

Some of us HAVEN'T read whatever it is.

Nothing is more guaranteed to make people "touchy" than to show up with a chip on your shoulder from som other altercation, especially if they don't provide a little context.

ON EDIT:

Read the original here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2245431

Which leads me to ask: why the cheers, mzmolly? Is it suddenly a good thing to pop up and spout flamebait just because someone else did somewhere else? If you have a beef with participants in that thread, then fight with them there. leave the rest of us out of it.

And for the record, it's crap like this that gets me "touchy" about "religious" people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. I'm too old to give a rip. And, so should God be, if there is one.

People have "faith" for any number of reasons. I have no idea if there is a "God(s)", or "eternal force", or whatever. But, I do believe that if there is such a thing, it doesn't spend much time fretting over whether I believe in Them/It/Him/Her. And, if it did, it would so insecure that it's certainly not worthy of worship or donations.

[DoktorGreg]

40. I bet, if I am wrong, God understands why i feel the way I do. nt

nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. Maybe, but why should he care?

I should hope he would have better things to do, like rearranging the galaxies or something.

[DemVIctory]

44. Jesus was a liberal

Every word out of the mouth of Jesus was warm and caring. Jesus comforted a woman of illrepute while castigating those who would judge her. Jesus said that the greedy and hateful would have trouble making it through the gates of heaven. Unfortunately the Christian Right ignores Christ's own words and deeds in favor of Paul's interpretation (years after the fact) of Jesus. Paul ain't no Jesus! When I hear the words and deeds of Jesus, the hair stands up on the back of my head! Jesus absolutely was a liberal! I am a Methodist as is Pres Bush. We Methodists were/are against the War in Iraq! It is as easy for a rich man to get into heaven as it is a camel to go through the eye of a needle!

[GreenPartyVoter]

56. Welcome to DU :^D

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. More than a liberal, a radical.

Out of interest, I've been reading a lot of books about Jesus and his times. Fascinating. Tho' not a Christian, I have a great deal of respect for the man and his philosophy, much of which has been perverted by Paul and his later accomplices.

[TahitiNut]

38. Since when does 'faith' require enforcement?

If faith is the product of seeking an Overriding Truth, why do people who profess 'religious' faith employ coercion and dogma? I see no spiritual virtue in secularized obedience or obeisance, no matter how closely I look.

Altogether too many of "God's Children" seem to be obsessed with Sibling Rivalry - "Father Always Liked Me Best!"

It's like new branches of "Holier Than Thou, Inc." are opening up every day. :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

46. Perhaps it's because rude fuckwits are often harassing people

like me with mindless questions and shit-stupid comments....

[Cheswick2.0]

63. lol

You've broken my heart I'm sure.

Who forced you to open the thread?

[Djinn]

102. did anyone force you to open Mopaul's? (each and every one of them)

[Gwerlain]

50. No. I don't need lies to support my morality.

[Trajan]

51. Ches ? ...

Did you bring your torches and swords ?? ...

[Surf Cowboy]

52. Fuck off and mind your own business.

:evilgrin:

[RobinA]

53. No More So

than I am about my lack of blonde hair, my lack of ability to be a sprinter, my lack of homosexuality, my lack of double-jointedness, my lack of a penis, my lack of drug addiction, my lack of twin boys, my lack of having been born Swiss, my lack of liking cheese, my lack of having gone to MIT...

In other words, religion to me is something that some other people may have, but not something that has anything to do with me on a personal level.

[Carson]

55. Where's Mopaul?

Given that his thread was the original. ;-)

Anyway, great thread, Cheswick. Excellent points.

[JHB]

62. No, they're not great points.

Neither was Mopaul's.

The dispute should have remained in that thread, where all the involved parties cound find it.

At the very least, Cheswick could have had a link to the previous thread to provide a little context to his slam (which, ESPECIALLY in context, is what it was).

If someone puts a chip on your shoulder, have him knock it off (or better yet do it yourself). Don't walk somewhere else and challenge people who had nothing to do with it in the first place.

[Ladyhawk]

57. Every time I bring it up, some fundy pounces on me.

At a peace rally a few weeks ago, a crazy Aussie who planned to be a missionary in Iraq accosted us. She said any Christians present should be happy about the situation in Iraq because thousands were being led to Jesus. When I said I was an atheist and proud of it, she put a hand on my forehead and started praying out loud, maniacally.

I have herniated discs in my neck. She could have caused actual physical damage.

During my life as an unbeliever, this sort of thing has happened to me regularly. I was never the instigator, but during the past four years I have come out of the closet. I refuse to keep my mouth shut when I'm accosted by these crazy-ass motherf***ers.

Hell, my own mother accused me of being demon-possessed and called my doctor behind my back. When fundamentalist Christians misbehave to this degree, they deserve whatever tongue-lashing they get.

So, no. I'm not too sensitive about my lack of religion. It's the hyper-religious who have the problem. Anyone who disagrees should read this:

Life in Our Anti-Christian America

Ain't it a hoot?

[asthmaticeog]

58. Keep trying to have it both ways.

"Do you blame religion for the religious people who happen to be jerks and would be whether they were "religious" or not?"

"Do you imagine all those hospitals in Haiti and central america would be funded without the "organized" Catholic Church? Do you suppose great groups of non religious charities are going to spring up and take up the slack if we stop "organizing" religion?"

So assholism is an unvarying constant with or without religion, but altruistic people wouldn't be generous absent theistic faith?

I suppose your post bears out the first proposition...

[Cheswick2.0]

64. That's not the question at all

I want to know if great groups of non religious people are now or will they in the future be funding schools and hospitals in, for instance, Haiti. Right now every school, every hospital, every charity there is organized by some church. Show me the evidence otherwise and tell me how other people are going to step into the vacume should churches just stop doing what they are doing?... Where is the organization going to come from?

[asthmaticeog]

67. Way to duck the issue.

You contradicted yourself. Wildly. Addressing your own hypocrisy comes before any obligation on my part to refute your specifics, because you undercut the validity of your assertions by your own inconsistency.

But since you'll insist (I know your type, and you'll run this into the ground before you'll admit to being inconsistent and intellectually dishonest about being called on it), there are plenty of secular organizations offering third-world relief. They're called governments, and the charity is called "foreign aid."

[Djinn]

80. OK then

there's CAA (Community Aid Abroad/Oxfam) non religious, Save the Children - non religious, many many charities supported by Trade Unions, many community charities, The United Nations and countless other charities that while some members MAY hold religious beliefs they are NOT organised through religious organisation nor founded on religious ideas.

Then there are the many religious charities that attach proviso's to their aid or spend well intentioned donations on building churches.

[The Mafia Squirrel]

105. Are you seriously implying that

without some divine hierarchy telling us what to do that there is no hope of any charity, organization, or forward thinking? The Arts and Sciences alone are examples of ideas and institutions that rose up in spite of, not because of, religion. Poor little secular humanists wandering in the dark, unable to tell Evolutionary Biology from Organic Chemistry.

Is Microsoft a Christian entity? They are certainly an example of powerful, innovative orgainzation plus they do tons of charitable work and give millions to cure or treat "out of fashion" diseases all over the world. Now I know someone will write and point out MS's excesses and abuses and I won't dispute that, just a most of the people of faith here won't dispute the missteps of various religious groups.

Your vaunted organization works both ways. Fundamentalist Islam is "organizing" jihadists camps in Pakistan and elsewhere to perpetrate violence on noncombatants and the innocent and history shows they will be successful, if not here than in Spain, the Sudan or shudder to think this week, Athens. More blood and inhumanity can be laid at the feet of religion and it's organizational skills than all of it's charity and good works. You specifically mention Haiti, now I hope that you are right and they are more concerned with food, shelter, aid, and education than forging an army of good Christian soldiers or any other unforgivable ulterior motive. For every point to religious goodwill there is a counterpoint of blood or appalling behavior: The Mormon church has excellent community programs and a welfare system that function much better than our broken system, theirs harkens back to the ideals of FDR. They also treated blacks as unfit, unwashed second class citizens well past the Civil Rights movement because they "bore the mark of Cain", and they also baptised Auschwitz (If there's anyone that should have been left to their faith and dignity in death out of respect it was those Jews). Hamas, similar to the Black Panthers here in the States, have a charitable wing to their outfit. They ensure education, clothing and aid to victims of Israeli encroachment and military tactics. They also blow up teenagers in pizzarias and discos. Regardless of your feeling on the greater Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this is a heinous act on innocent bystanders, easily thought of as collateral damage in a holy war. The Catholic Church has given aid to Haiti, Brazil, Mexico, they have stood up to oppression and violence and suffered for it in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and in Spain against Franco. It also ferreted Nazi officers to Central and South America after WWII, turned a blind eye to sexual abuses and shuffled those offending priests like baseball cards to pray and prey again somewhere new. Not to mention things like pleniary indulgences, consent of the slave trade or the Crusades. Shall I go on? Every faith, every church has inexcusable blood on it's hands in the name of God (in all his/her glorious forms)

Secularism wouldn't be perfect. There will always be the pursuit of money, power and fame, but it would be harder to rally the masses to your agenda without their immortal souls on the line. But to say that the world would be unable to organize without crosses or crescents is absurd.

[The Mafia Squirrel]

106. In my fervor I forgot

to mention several organizations that are either nonreligious or pay only lip service to religion. The American Red Cross, Amnesty International, the United Nations, etc. They all do international aid work without preaching, sending missionaries or adding faith based provisos to each and every good deed

[Ron Green]

61. I would rather do without my "opiate of the masses,"

thank you, but at the same time I must say that struggling with the Big Questions and seeking to keep faith in a good beyond my time- and space-bound self is something that has occupied me more and more as I've grown older. Only 15 years ago I claimed to be an atheist, and I was already past 40 then. Now I must call myself a Christian in that the words and deeds of Christ, as delivered through the ages, seem to be the best way to treat myself and others. I don't go to church now, but simply pray ("without ceasing" is the suggestion) and try to stay hooked up to others in love rather than fear. I don't succeed when it comes to RW-ers.

Religion will always be with us, whether it's the Roman Catholic Church with its armies and Medici Popes, or the modern belief in the consumer marketplace. It's up to those few who think about things to continue to bring light to the world.

[Cheswick2.0]

65. Good answer Ron

Thanks, there are thinking people on boht sides of the theist/non theist divide.

[stlchic]

113. Did you know...

That there is a group called "Atheists for Jesus" that also sees the philosophy of Jesus as a good guideline?

From the website:

"Are you a person who respects and admires the teaching's of Jesus of Nazareth, but have trouble accepting Christianity's tales about such things as the resurrection; the virgin birth; the miracle stories; etc.?"
http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/


Worth taking a look, in my opinion.


O8)

[Red State Rebel]

66. You are Now Officially My Hero!

Thank you for this thread. As a Christian Democrat, I'm tired of being bashed on by "my own". I honestly don't think some people realize that if they emptied the party of all Christians, they would be left with about 1/10th of the party we are now.

[Gwerlain]

83. I don't mind what religion you want to have.

You are free to believe anything you like; I will not criticize it. My reasons for my a-religious choices are my own, and are private, and are not subject to your approval or disapproval- and in case you didn't notice, I am not putting my approval or disapproval on your choices, so I would appreciate the same behavior on your part.

If you try to stick something up my nose, expect to get your hand slapped.

If you are asked, particularly by me, what your religious orientation or beliefs are, and if you choose to respond, you have the right to expect that I will accept your opinion as yours for your private reasons. Do I not have the same right to your acceptance of my choices?

The questions asked by the original poster are offensive in the extreme. You are telling me by your endorsement that there is something wrong with me because I am offended. Do you believe in the face of this that I should not tell you that there is something wrong with you for doing so?

[K-W]

84. and what do you have to say to those of us

who respect religious people, but are offended by this thread that ridicules us?

Two wrongs make a right now?

Some hero you got yourself there.

[Red State Rebel]

134. Do you have any idea how many Christian bashing threads there have been?

In the past year I would guess close to 100. When The Passion of Christ came out it was horrific what DU Christians had to endure.

We are constantly being slammed and made out to be mentally ill for having faith. I used to try to argue but it was futile.

It is one thing to have beliefs, religious or not, it is another to make a sport of ridiculing and insulting those who do.

I've never seen a DU'er post an overtly religious, converting, come to Jesus thread, but you would think it happened every day if you read the flame baiting anti-Christian conversations that happen here.

To see someone stand up and try to make those who do this look at themselves and how silly they seem is refreshing to me.

Athiests and Agnostics have every right to believe what they believe but they don't have the right to post on here like they are the superior ones. It's just their opinion and if they were so secure in those opinions, they wouldn't feel the need to insult others who believe differently.

[mopaul]

68. Ches, you are just way too sensitive about your religion

and antagonistic too perhaps

[greekspeak]

69. I agree MoPaul

The beliefs of atheists are on constant trial. They are on trial from religious authorities, they are on trial in the American courts, in the statehouses, in the schoolhouses, in the media. Atheists are as demonized, or more so, than homosexuals. Even in the one place where I can come and be myself, I get people like Cheswick trying to pick fights about religion.

I realize that the point of the parent post is to flame and pick a fight with atheists. I know that it is childish to behave that way, yet I feel like I have to defend myself against these very thinly veiled attacks. I agree with mopaul that the oversensitivity about religious beleifs seens to rest squarely on Cheswick's shoulders. I do wish Cheswick and others would learn to accept the fact that atheists exist, and that we atheists do not have to agree to fall into line as desired.

[UdoKier]

99. Remember the movie "Contact"

When I saw it, I thought it a bit of a stretch that Ellie's atheism would be a barrier to her becoming the first traveler in the Machine.

But having delved into people's psyches a bit more via this, a LEFT-OF-CENTER board, it's clear to me that the phobia of atheists that Sagan described was right on the nose.

The funny thing is, if you read "Contact" or "Cosmos", you will see that the atheist Sagan had no less awe for his universe and the physics that make it work than a Chrisitan has for his God. And I believe Sagan to have been a supremely moral man with a great deal of integrity.

To the contrary, religion often actually encourages people to behave badly in that it a) tells us we are inherently bad, so it's "normal" to want to do bad things and b) absolves us of our sin, so long as we tell Jesus we're sorry, we love him and accept him as our savior. It's no wonder then that so many of the women who have murdered their own children have been Christian fundamentalists, sending their not-yet-fallen offspring to be with Jesus, and knowing that they themselves will have time to repent and be saved before they are executed.

[Pithlet]

70. Why are women so touchy

about sexist jokes? Aren't they comfortable enough in their own femaleness? I don't know why women are so touchy. Will they rise up and control the world if men lose their domination? Would we have a woman president?

A gentle nudge from your atheist/agnostic sister in the feminist wars on DU.

[Nobody]

110. You hit the nail right on the head

I remember being asked why I was so touchy when I pointed out that my male coworker who spent teo weeks longer on the job than I did and had the same educational background as I did made more money than I did.

Touchy? I think not.

I wonder why the American colonists were so touchy back in the 1700s about British rule.

I always look carefully when a majority claims a minority is so "touchy" about something.

I'm touchy about being called touchy.

[JanMichael]

71. Not a bit.

Thanks for asking, I appreciate your concern:-)

[The Straight Story]

72. Is religion different than politics?

I know there are some differences, but from what I have seen from both sides of the political spectrum people will nearly deify their candidate to win.

Both have bumper stickers, signs in their yards, paint the other side as wrong and often dumb or evil. Both see thier views as right and best. Both sides have their believers, converts, and witnesses who jump in when they can to convert others or spread their message.

Religion is a belief system which one follows, same as any other belief system. Just because they follow it does not mean they are dumb or uninformed. Many, like myself, may well have come to their belief through a lot of introspect, analysis, and study. People fall into groups and work together when they share something in common which they have discovered to be a truth.

Is science truth? There are charlatans in science as well as religion. There are differing factions and moralist in science. While all sides may differ in beliefs and ideas, they share the common thread of how they act, react, and engage others (to some respect, I am meaning that they share common methods in a core way).

Think about how some here, even on DU, describe those who do not agree. They are called sheeple, freepers, nazis, et al. We label, attack, deride, etc people who do not see things our way. We seek to convert, educate, have rallies, protests, or perhaps witness to the masses to get our message of 'the way' out because we don't believe that those who don't see things our way are seeing things the 'right' way.

Religion. Politics. Philosophy. And other areas. How different are they at the core? So when I see threads like this I wonder 'Are you too sensitive about your political views?' and so on.

[NashVegas]

73. No, I Really Don't Care

OTOH, I'm not exactly thrilled when someone recommends a specific mechanic because they're a "good christian." You wanna promote someone of your tribe, well, that's great but unless you can guarantee Jesus is gonna smile down on my engine if I go to this guy, it doesn't help me.

[cheezus]

74. the non-believers are actively persecuted in this country

to the point where there are even laws forbidding them from holding office.

so yeah, I can see where the knee-jerk reaction comes from

[Djinn]

81. really??

there are laws forbidding atheist from holding political office - is it THAT bad?

[asthmaticeog]

95. In Tennessee,

non-believers only won the right to testify in court within the last 25 or 30 years. And yes, in many places, professed theism is a pre-req for public office. It's not nationwide, but it's more widespread than you'd think. Such laws have gone unchallenged despite their blatant unconstitutionality because they're invariably in areas where no-one will challenge them.

[Djinn]

103. bloody hell that's insane

there's many things I admire about the US but the religious bent is way too weird. Nobody gives a flying what religious beliefs (or lack of) a politician holds here, there's only a few people in Parliament who's views are public knowledge both Catholic, - one constantly bangs on about abortion and women "taking responsibility" (tell THAT to his illegitimate child put up for adoption) and the other has spoken once or twice about RU 486 but generally doesn't make a huge issue out of it. An atheist would have absolutely no problem getting elected here and there are actually more "public" atheists in office than "public" religious people.

Although if someone ran on a "cut public funds for sport" platform they'd probably be chased from the country by people with pitchforks!

Edit - this seems to be a pretty obvious slam down to those stating that Christians or theists in general are "discriminated" against in the US, but I've never seen in brought up in any religion threads.

[asthmaticeog]

115. You ain't just whistlin' Dixie.

So many theists (Fundamentalist Christians especially, but they're not alone) use the separation of church and state provisions of the bill of rights as an opportunity to cry that their religious expression is being repressed, and sometimes, if you don't realize the COMPLETE hegemonic control they exercise over so many facets of public life, it can sound like they have a compelling (if disingenuous) case. It's just cover for trying to make the tenets of their faith the law of the land, and in many little enclaves, they've fully succeeded. And even in the rest of the country, profession of a faith is pretty much necessary to win public office, not because of any official requirement, but because public prejudice makes it a given that you'll lose. When school prayer was declared unconstitutional (meaning official prayer led by a teacher or administrator - private prayer on school grounds has never been forbidden, though they act as though it had) that became a rallying point for them to organize around. They've been working on the federal government for decades now. It's terrifying sometimes.

Have you ever read about Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition? If not, I urge you to do so. It's illuminating and frightening what that group has managed to pull off in this country.

Also, many public school districts here HAVE cut off funding for sports.

[Cleita]

75. I don't think religions have enough oversight

IMHO or there wouldn't be the craziness you have today with everyone trying to get you to bend over for their god. I know many of them do a lot of good with their charities, but unfortunately, they don't solve the problems of bad governments. Often they make it easier for bad governments to ignore their responsibilities to their people. I also think that organized religions are businesses and the goods they sell are often faulty.

Oh, by the way, I believe in fairies. This is my religion. I am the only member of this church, but I feel my religion is as valid as anyone else's.

[cynatnite]

76. Sometimes

Just today I got an email that had the lord's prayer in it. At the end it said that if I love god, I'd send it to everyone I knew. Geez, give me a freakin' break! I don't have to prove shit to anyone except god.

I have a problem with organized religion as it is, then when I get crap like that, it just reaffirms what I think of organized religion and people who wear it on their sleeve.

How I deal with god isn't anyone's business but mine. It's a very personal thing for me and I'd just as soon be left alone about it.

Cyn:)

[DrWeird]

77. No more sensitive then I am about my lack of brain cancer.

I consider it a good thing.

[K-W]

78. The Non-religious are an oppresssed minority. And yes, you are slamming.

I have had a president of this country tell me I am not a citizen because I dont believe in God. Your mockery is entirely inappropriate.

[AzDar]

90. I know I shouldn't be surprised....

And yet I am.
This is one I missed.
Did the Dumbf*** actually spew that???

[stlchic]

114. Actually, it was Poppy:

"The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:

RS:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989. It can also be found in "Free Inquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#bush

[AzDar]

131. I despise this entire family....

How the bloody hell did this cadre of buffoons and narrow-minded idiots get to be so powerful??? It never fails to astound me. They've
managed to co-opt everything "american" and "patriotic", and yet they just don't understand that the very principles and ideals upon which this country were founded are the exact opposite of this ideology they spout. THEY MUST GO!!!(never to return)

[Warren DeMontague]

82. I wonder about people who seem to be hypersensitive

on lots of assorted subjects.

My personal opinion? The idea that an invisble being, for whom not one shred of scientific evidence exists, created everything, watches over all of us, and has nothing better -- with a 15 Billion Light-year wide universe to presumably "run"-- to worry about than the sex habits of the hairless apes on a nondescript planet in the jerkwater of an ordinary spiral galaxy, to me, borders on ludicrous. I also think that you're asking for trouble telling people they need to think "logically" about religion and simultaneously chiding them, albeit in a backhanded way, for their unbelief. But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

I think it requires a level of willful ignorance to not acknowledge that religion has contributed to more wars, oppression, and bloody carnage than pretty much any other phenomenon in human history. Likewise, I don't know how anyone can totally discount it as a major factor in what is taking place globally today.

If 75-85% of the population believed the moon was made out of tapioca pudding, would it make that belief any more objectively valid? No.

That said, again, whatever floats your boat. I'm not one of those alleged "liberals" who feels an overpowering need to control what other people think.

[jonnyblitz]

87. "human nature" invented religion to keep the unwashed docile

and obedient and to accept authority without question. So the world problems are created by religionists who are taught not to question authority and do all sorts of evil in the name of whomever. Religion to me is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on humanity. i am more frustrated then sensitive that people don't see what is, to me, the obvious.

this is probably not a good topic for me after watching "the magdalene sisters" movie where irish women who had sinned (as in getting raped which is apparently the womans fault in the eyes of the catholic church :eyes: ) get imprisoned for life in these laundry places and get brutalized by evil, sadistic nuns.

[istruthfull]

88. Freedom

Freedom of religion, speech, press?, and genneral assembly....ain't America cool.

[footinmouth]

91. I'm proud to be a heathen

I'd love a bumper sticker for my car saying "Heathen Pride" or something like that. I used to be sensitive about it, but I got over it quick.

[EST]

92. I used to be pretty sensitive, nervous, even...

right after I finished creating the universe. Then I realized all those tiny beings were talking to themselves- not to me or about me, so I felt much better...

[dudeness]

93. I fail to see

how any rational, thinking person can be religious. makes no sense to me..but hey, what ever gets ya going.

[Philosophy]

97. Just when I get dumped in a middle of a date

when the topic turns to religion and I reveal my lack thereof. It's happened a few times to me. It's not really the rejection that hurts but rather disappointment in myself for thinking that my date was more open-minded than they turned out to be.

Then again there is an element of humor when a girl tells you that she only sleeps with good Christian boys on the first date. :evilgrin:

[UdoKier]

98. Does your post even have a point?

None of your bizarre analysis applies to me. I grew up in a secular household witth almost no religion. I was always puzzled when other kids would ask me (or some Jewish kid) "You don't believe in Jesus?" as though it was the strangest thing they had ever heard of.

And I'm not the least bit touchy until religio-nuts start their prosyletyzing. In all my years of atheism, I've yet to stand on a street corner or go door-to-door handing out flyers to impose my "lack of religion" (nothing is remotely lacking actually) on others.

I don't engage in conversation with people I barely know and just presume that if i inject some atheism into it, they will automatically believe the same way.

I don't "think I can find God without religion" because I don't think there is anything to find. If there is such a deity, it will find me in good time.

As far as being a minority, I'm quite content with being one if it means I get to live my life free of theological shackles on my brain or guilt for breaking some arbitrary rule, or simply not being sycophantic enough to some cloud being for whose existence I have yet to see even a shred of evidence.

If your religion makes you happy, great. Pray the rosary or the Kaballah or whatever mumbo-jumbo floats your boat but keep it to yourself.

From my experience with my friends and acquaintances, the more religious they are, the less happy and more conflicted they are. Except for that small minority that mistakes smugness in the knowledge of their own righteousness and salvation for real happiness.

I'm well aware of the finality of my own mortality. I'm not looking for some magic pill or genie to grant me a second lease on life. That's why I am living THIS life to its fullest, making the most of every moment, not wasting my time with guilt or kowtowing to some totem.

[BonjourUSA]

109. You'd deserve to be French !!

;)

I agree with all your points

I don't know what's the religion of almost all my friends or co-workers. It's absolutely not a conversation subject and such a post in a French chat (European surely too) would be surrealist.

[autorank]

100. These links should give you some idea about my answer (1st one's a must)

On Christmas, I believe that the following site has some super gifts; perfect stuffies.

http://www.panicresearch.com/hello_satan

Music is an important part of the religious experience. Here is some solid Dem leaning music to fill your soul.

http://www.badreligion.com/titles

;b]I'm not the least bit sensitive about my 'lack of religion.' As Neitzche said: "Churches are the sepulchers of the lord." Or as Marx and Jesse "The Body" seem to agree: "Religion is the opiate of the masses." People gathering to share a spiritual experience or belief system is fine. Formalizing and institutionalizing the process quickly leads to, "I'm OK, and you're going to Hell." Hell can be just that or some other version of 'out of grace' or just plain out if it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that there is a higher power and unifying structure and meaning; and that we have moments when we are one with this. I don't feel at all bad about not going where other's say I have to go in order to feel that.

Check out the text below my message. It's worth reading and remembering.

[Behind the Aegis]

104. Fanatics

I was unsure what I was reading in the original post, but the replies were very interesting. Although I may be off topic, here is my opinion. Fanatics exist on both sides, but the religious fanatics get more "air time." I am not really going to discuss the religious fanatics, we all know about them. The atheist fanatics, however, can be just as bad on a personal level. On the institutional level they have no power, so there is really no threat of them forbidding religious beliefs. The only real issue I have with some atheists is their feelings of intellectual superiority (as seen in a few posts here). How is that any different from a religious zealot claiming to know the "only true way?"

Am I sensitive to these issues? Only in the way of I do not want someone to dismiss my beliefs, whether that reason be because I worship the wrong god or because I am somehow mentally deficient. Generally, when I encounter people like this (from either camp), I just continue on with my life, and, truth be known, it only strengthens my beliefs.

Brightest Blessings!

[Swamp Rat]

107. Why did you post this here and not in "Civil Rights/Equality/Privacy?"

Is it because you figured that you could create a flame war a lot faster? Or, do you work for Karl Rove now?

"Did you sue him for educational mal-practice because he failed to teach you to think logically about religion?"

"It may seem like I am slamming you but I am not."

One last thing Cheswick...

[Selwynn]

127. You are the .01% of readers who apparently missed the context of this post

This post is a complimentary post to mopaul's post on the same discussion forum called "Are you too sensitive about your Religious Beliefs?"

I didn't see you there accusing him/her of trying to start a flame war or mocking him/her in anyway... ?

Turn about is fair play.

[Swamp Rat]

150. Great! I am a .01%er! Thanks for the compliment.

"This post is a complimentary post to mopaul's post on the same discussion forum..."

I visited mopaul's post. Was I supposed to be offended by his post? Did I HAVE to post there in order to post here? Are these your rules, applied in defense of Cheswick? The answer is: I found NO issue with his thread that I felt needed to be addressed by me. This thread, on the other hand, called for MY response. Don't like what I have to say? Why don't you address the content of my post?

"I didn't see you there accusing him/her of trying to start a flame war or mocking him/her in anyway... ? "

I felt no need to mock mopaul. Even if I did, he'd defend himself... maybe he would follow Cheswick's passive-aggressive example (yes, it is. Your post and comment confirmed it since I know WHY this thread exists). Mopaul could start another thread to mock me. Hoo! That would be funny!

"Turn about is fair play." Whatever... I work with wingers that say this often. I'd be a zillionaire if I had a peso for ever truism or platitude slung my way. So OK then, turnabout is "fair play"... for what, I have no idea.

[Pithlet]

152. Fair play?

You'd be more on the mark if this was a response on that thread. But this was a blanket condemnation of all people who aren't religious. Questioning whether we're capable of being charitable is fair play? Come on.

You know it is possible that many of us never even saw the other thread. I did not.

[AbbeyRoad]

108. I'm sensitive about being judged

Does it piss you off to know that 75-85 percent of the people in this country profess some sort of religious identification and you are the minority and likely always will be?

No, it doesn't piss me off. I've been a minority since birth and always will be. It just adds another aspect to that status. Our country is supposedly founded on the principle that minority voices are to be protected and respected.

Did you have a bad religious upbringing and now you project your lousy parenting onto all people of religion?

Yes, I have had negative experiences with people who have professed religious beliefs. I think I've related this story before. I'm bi-racial, and I grew up in an almost completely white town. My mother is white, and my father is latino. My mother's father was a Baptist minister, and my mother passed on to me her values based in a strong Christian foundation. When I was small we started going to my aunt's Baptist church. When I was about five or six, there was an incident where a man approached my aunt and me at the entrance to the cloak room and, pointing at me, said I was an abomination against God. I also remember hearing from time to time sermons preaching the separation of the races as God's will. I became confused, and I started to feel like something must be wrong with me. I didn't look forward to Sunday. We gradually went less and less, and eventually not at all.

We went to a different church when I was in high school, and I was best friends with the preacher's daughter. Some of the kindest people I've known have been Christians, and some of the cruelest people have professed to the same.

Do you feel a need to preach your agnostic/atheistic philosophy to everyone no matter how much it makes you look like the reverse image of Pat Robertson?

I choose to be agnostic now. I don't attempt to convert anyone, and I'd appreciate if others didn't try to convert me to their belief system. You can believe whatever you want.

[sweetheart]

111. It certainly creates good tumo, eh?

Do you read, or write? I'm writing to create waves, so that
discussion and thought processes transpire, as a radical
writer taking a stab at something, as in my view, by
elevating war and the culture of hubris to the level of
national religion, the republicans opened the floodgates,
and there is no truth whatsoever in the public common.

They claim to be preachers of jesus christ whilst mass murdering
people from the air and the ground to invade the earth for oil
are no messengers of goodwill, no matter what reationalizations
are transpiring. The militarization of the public common
creates dissonance, and by embodying it as a writer, when
life is so short, not to be as honest as possible.

And just a coupla months more, and the need to attract and
eminate heat in this forum will go away, with goodwill like
kerry taking back over. But until then, the sickness is
institutional, and then what is dissonant.

I am sorry, for being an ass, really, if that is how you
see it. Rather i feel it obligation to those whom i love to
help in even the most petty way, inject heat in to public
debate on reversing the tables agastinst the shrub, and
here is that place. They started it with the war, so they
get radical preaching using words.

There could just as easily be not words, like it ususally
is. It is a writers perogative, as by the time
post message, the words are stacked up in piles,
some times randomly, as if they might fall down.
:-)

Words are the folly misunderstood,
and folly always misleading.
in this space reserved
a folly of nothing.
It'll burn up after the election,
by time and pagan fire

And the pagans wanted a logical explanation for
something they can't explain themselves, on
their anthill of relative awakening
ha! arrogance at its best.
Enlightened meditation is not rational
It is part of the human soul, and
to kill it is to kill off the human
race.

The website has been almost overloaded in this election time.
The heat is hot. It makes me laugh and want to dance.
It's a bummer the low state of the world.
The methodist church is but a corrupt veneer on
a corrupt military empire. :-)
I much prefer a walk in nature
with our without a book.

Hare Rama
Hare Rama
Rama Rama
Hare Hare

[Screaming Lord Byron]

117. Why do you care what others think of things you believe in?

I believe what I believe. What other people think has absolutely no bearing on my beliefs. The very act of putting this thread up suggests that this is a sensitive subject for you. Why should it be? Believe what you believe, let others believe what they believe.

[Cheswick2.0]

122. Oh my gosh , Isn't this thread dead yet?

Mostly this was a joke folks. I wrote it because I don't understand the obssession some non religious people have with posting flame bait religious threads. I think it's rude and obnoxious so I thought I would give the same kind of arguments from the other perspective.
I don't actually have a need to post about religion at all. I couldn't care less what people do or do not believe about God.
I think it's an area where we should all respect each other.
But as long as we can't, I'm fine with battling it out when the topic comes up.

[stlchic]

124. Obsession?

Until you started this particular thread, I hadn't seen a flame bait religious thread here- and I've been reading these forums for about 4 months.

Maybe I just missed 'em? :shrug:

Now if you want some REAL religious flame bait, go to the religion board at the NYT or Atlantic Monthly.

BTW:

"I couldn't care less what people do or do not believe about God."

But you DO care about why some are "touchy" about it? Okay then...


:crazy:

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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

[stlchic]

126. Were these actual comments

posted here? Those seem more like a caricature than any argument that I've ever heard or read a non-religious person make - even from some of the more "militant" ones I have known.

As a side note:

"...you are oppresssing me by living in the same country as I am and continually refusing to admit your stupidity and insanity when I do you the favor of pointing them out to you."

I have actually had a comment very similiar to this directed at me, not as a joke, on another discussion board.

[Selwynn]

128. I've read most of those direct comments.

I've been reading through that block paragraph, and so far I've read every single one of them here on these boards at some point in time...

[stlchic]

132. Wow...

It's a little hard to believe that they were meant seriously, particularly since most non-theists would recognize the inherent stupidity (or I hope they would) of implying that another person has authority on the understanding of another's personal beliefs.

Personally, I think of the numerous times evangelical Christians have claimed to "understand" atheism, and then go on to inform me of my "nihilistic" world view - and I am always resolved not to do the same thing.

Maybe I'm just naive... :shrug:

[patcox2]

135. They don't overtly claim interpretive authority, otherwise all true.

They don't right out say that they have authority to interpret. However, there are many fundamentalist nonbeleivers who will deny the validity of any interpretation of doctrine that fails to comport with their understanding of the doctrine, which is usually pretty simplistic.

I have pointed out frequently the irony of the fact that most Bible-debunkers are biblical literalists.

[ProfessorGAC]

137. Could You Expound On That patcox2?

"I have pointed out frequently the irony of the fact that most Bible-debunkers are biblical literalists."

Not challenging it, or slamming it, just wondering if you have an example of how debunkers are literalists. Interesting concept.

I have one more (i hope) reasoned point and related questions:
I know you would have a different POV on this whole issue than me, but did you not find the original post a bit condescending and insulting?

Put yourself in the place of someone who doesn't adhere to any formalized dogma. The original post seemed to imply that one would have to be an idiot to not see the value of organized religion. How would i not find that insulting?

I think as much of the picque in this thread is rooted in the insulting manner the question was posed as from the differences in the belief structures under review. No?
The Professor

[patcox2]

139. Pprofessor, I am honored to engage in reasoned discourse with you.

I find it ironic that some of those who reject religious beleif on the grounds it is "irrational" (I tend rather to see it as ultra-rational, if you know what I mean, in that its subject is beyond that which rationality can explain )will tend to use a literalist interpretation of the bible in order to debunk the bible. The irony in my mind stems from the fact that these people are thus adopting the (invalid) biblical interpretative method most often used by the least rational and most doctrinaire christians. I.e., they have the same viewpoint towards the bible as those they despise most.

To double the irony, the fact is that most fundamentalist biblical literalists are themselves "rationalists," their very literalism driven by the fact that ultimately, as much as they look backward, their worldview in the end is firmly post-enlightenment. Look at their embrace of "creation science" (sort of like a "cargo cult" version of science, like those airplanes built of grass in New Guinea).

Of course, the over-reliance on "rationalism" in these discussions is itself ironic, given that "reason" and "logic" are in no way incompatible with superstition (most superstitions being extremely rational and logical, and totally wrong, explanations for observed phenomena. I direct you to Monty Python and the Holy Grail and the extremely logical discussion regarding wood floating, witches floating, witches therefore being made of wood, etc., for an example of "rational" thought leading to superstition).

I am most interested in the irrational beleif that all that is is comprehensible to the human intellect. Many atheists seem to have an anthropocentric view, a beleif in human exceptionalism (after all, since we are but bags of blood and chemicals, why is it rational that our insignificant selves are capable of understanding all that is?) that drives their rejection of the fundamentally agnostic teachings of higher christian theology. I have encountered much heated rejection of any nuanced conception of a deity based on ineffability and the therefore inherently flawed symbolic nature of any human effort to describe or understand it.

Are Aesops fables "true?" Foxes can't talk, therefore they are wrong. There is no truth in them. Likewise the bible, right? If it is not a literal depiction of historical events, it cannot be "true?"

[ProfessorGAC]

140. Now I Get Your Point

I understand your point, from your last paragraph. The idea that anything that isn't literal means everything must be untrue is an example of the same syllogistic thinking in which literalist believers are trapped.

Good point.

So, we see eye to eye on that. But, as one who won't comment on overall beliefs, but only on the rejection of formalized dogma, i still question the original poster's intent and tone. You kind of avoided that set of questions.

Whether we agree on beliefs or dogma, couldn't the original post be considered insulting and baiting? Later on, Cheswick commented that the amount of anger generated was "interesting". But i wonder how much of that anger was created by the tone of the question, rather than the topic of it. Any thoughts?
The Professor

[patcox2]

142. I agree it was intended to provoke.

But so was the MoPaul post. Neither provocation was beyond the pale, IMHO.

I would disagree with the proposition that the vitriol is related to the provocation, however. there are some, whose comments I paraphrased above, who respond thus to any mention of faith, no matter how gentle. On other occasions I have seen some gentle souls start topics saying only things like "can we stop this arguing over faith" only to be met with responses like "when you deluded superstitious fools stop killing people with your dangerous beleifs."

You know, professor, have you thought about the purpose and role of formalized dogma in a large organization designed to have universal appeal?

When I speak of having some small knowledge of higher level theology (higher than the Family Circus image of an anthropomophic God standingon a cloud and watching us), I refer to some heavy reading I have done in some seminary textbooks borrowed from a family member who is a priest.

I was struck by one thing in my reading, which was that contrary to the rather childish views I had read in Twain and Voltaire, the sophomoric sceptic's favorites, the intellectuality present in serious theology is immense. There is nothing simple, easy,or stupid (or deluded or insane) about it. And at its apex, even mainstream christian faiths ultimately break down into a sort of faithful agnosticism. There is an absolute understanding that there is no "knowledge" of god and that even the words themselves, as well as the texts, are insufficient for the task of describing him it or her. Many, if not most, dogmatic tenets are understood to be helpful symbols, tools meant to teach or to illustrate for those of lesser intellectual ability some of the basic truths. I speak, for example, of items of dogma such as the virgin birth, or the resurrection. (By the way, I have now watched the movie Dogma with two priests, both absolutely loved it.)

But anyway, back to aesops fables. They are used to teach some fairly sophisticated moral truths to unsophisticated children. Hmmmm. Is there some similar reason for the nice cuddily tales of the infant baby jesus, for example, a tale seemingly made to appeal to mothers, don't you think?

So anyway, as I was reading higher theology, I was struck by its intellectuality. And it struck me, a religious leader, a priest, must face a dilemmna; 90% of his congregation has not the intellectual equipment for this stuff. The gap must have been much more so in the past.

So perhaps there is where dogma comes in.

[ProfessorGAC]

144. I Won't Dispute The Value of Dogma

I just have no PERSONAL value for formalization of it. I don't judge those for whom it has value. I just don't see the value! If it has value for others, good!

But, i think it fair to question the true thought that goes into MOST adherants beliefs. I honestly believe that many use the the dogma as a crutch and a dodge to doing any truly introspective examination of faith and issues beyond the physical and provable domain. Metaphysics requires that type of examination. Dogma doesn't, except among the true scholars of the dogmatic process.

Hence, after years of being exposed to hundreds (probably thousands) of Roman Catholics, and their clergy, several devout Jewish folks, and many other protestant denominations, i have observed that the dogma is little more than path they follow that someone else blazed. Minimal exploratory spirit, that.

That's why, for me, again only as one person, it has no value. And again, if it has value for others good.

But, provoking me, by insulting my intelligence, as the original poster did, accomplishes nothing. It would appear to be the pot calling the kettle black.
The Professor

[patcox2]

145. If its any consolation, I do not think you were the target.

Most I think are never going to be metaphysicians. A crutch is that which helps one who lacks a basic ability all others have. But the ability to meaningfully comprehend metaphysical concepts I think may not be a talent all have. You make it sound like a lazy person's shortcut, I think its more simply the only available concepts for those whose understanding is limited to a certain level.

[stlchic]

148. Belief isn't just about the Bible and Christianity

(Although the question is, as noted by another poster)

You seem to be focusing on the fact that atheists don't accept the Bible as truth or proof of a deity, and not even acknowledging that atheists reject ALL religion. The Bhagavad Gita also has marvelous imagery that can enhance knowledge and understanding, but I don't believe for a moment that it means that there is a actually divine being that bestowed it's blessings on Krishna.

BTW, the witch argument in "The Holy Grail" is far from logical, and has so many holes in it that it, well, doesn't float.

:eyes:

[Selwynn]

141. Nah, you have to understand that they all come from a handful of people

There are a handful of people that are extreme - it's NOT representative of the site as a whole.

And before I get 50 responses, yes there are extremists on all sides, and for all issues.

[patcox2]

143. You are right, but, I would note one thing.

There are a few, only a few, anti-theists who will attack any positive statement about christianity, even if it contains no implied or overt criticism of or comparison to atheism. But, there are no christians who will attack at a mere positive mention of atheism (one free from a comparative, such as "atheists are better than theists," or "damn christians keep imposing their religion on me.") I have seen this in the occcasional thread which says something like "there is nothing incompatible with being christian and being progressive. Immediately, these posts are answered with all sorts of crap about the spanish inquisition and how horrible it is to be an atheist because the horrible christians pick on us, and horror of horror, there's god on the coins.

I think its because there are in fact "anti-theists," there position is anti those who beleive, and they can't abide any positive statement about beleif. On the other hand, I have not seen any beleievers who are "anti-atheist" and react against mere positive statments about atheism.

I don't think its wrong to say there are a lot of debates over whether its possible for a christian to be a good person, with lots of pro and con, whereas noone has ever thought it an arguable debate whether its possible for an atheist to be a good person, because noone here doubts that an atheist is as capable of being a good person as a beleiver.

[Selwynn]

146. I'm afraid you're wrong there.

"But, there are no christians who will attack at a mere positive mention of atheism "

Hehehe... man you don't remember some of the threads I remember apparently. There are problem people on ALL SIDES. :)

[stlchic]

147. You are mistaken on a couple of points...

“But, there are no christians who will attack at a mere positive mention of atheism...”

and

"I have not seen any beleievers who are "anti-atheist" and react against mere positive statments about atheism."

You obviously have not visited religion based forums, such as ones at the NYT or Atlantic Monthly. When I still frequented those message boards, it was quite common for one particular evangelical, sometimes unprovoked, but most of the time in reaction of someone simply stating that they were an atheist, to cut and paste large screeds by Ravi Zacharias, Wayne Jackson, and a number of other preachers about the (supposedly) inherent illogical, nihilistic and self-destructive nature of atheism. Heck, this Ravi guy even wrote an entire book basically saying that atheists don’t have a purpose or reason in life. (I read it – and the kindest thing I can say about it is that the chapters are at least consistent in the amount of text equating Darwinian theory to atheistic philosophy.)

[patcox2]

151. I beleive it, but I meant here on DU, and I could be wrong.

just my perception, and Selwynn could be right, and I might not have an accurate memory of some of those posts. Also I would stress that there is a difference between a positive statement about atheism, and a positive statement which contains an express or implied comparison or judgment about atheism vs. faith. For example, "atheists are free from primitive superstition" or "atheism is the only conclusion a rational person can reach" are not simple praise for atheism, they imply superiority and a negative comparison. There is a big difference between a claim of superiority and a claim of merit (which is in fact the essence of the sin of pride in christian theology; sinful pride is that which derives from comparison and a judgment of superiority over others, as opposed to having pride in one's own merits standing alone). But anyway, I am not claiming that a claim of superiority or an implied negative judgment wouldn't get a response. These would probably provoke a response, but even then the response would be defensive, not "atheists suck," but rather "don't call me irrational or superstitious," which is not an attack on atheism.

My perception of the general lay of the land among people who post here on DU is best illustrated as I described it above. Here on DU, if you start a post with the general question "is is possible for a christian to be a good person," you will get vigorous debate on both sides. If you start the topic "is it possible for an atheist to be a good person," there will be no takers for the negative proposition. This would suggest the general leaning of the board is that atheism is good, whereas beleivers are problematic, though it is possible that some are good people despite their irrationality, insanity, and pathetic need for the crutch of a fairytale to get through life.

As for me, I don't need to beleive in some big cloud-dwelling superhero. (like thats not a deliberate insult).

[stlchic]

153. Oh, okay...

It’s been my experience as well that DUers will not attack a person’s lack of faith. Now, if they’re being disrespectful to people of faith, those should get nailed.

“As for me, I don't need to beleive in some big cloud-dwelling superhero. (like thats not a deliberate insult).”

Only to someone who actually believes their deity is a big cloud-dwelling superhero, and I don’t think that describes most Christians (or most deists, for that matter).

However, to be on the safe side, let’s take into account the feelings of the BCDS followers from now on, OK?


:thumbsup:

[The Mafia Squirrel]

156. You make good points

and have pointed out a lot of things it took 130+ odd posts to come out.

Let me start by saying I firmly believe it is possible and common that a christian can be a good person. I do think it is their church, not their faith mind you, that gets in the way. For most I think faith in God is a fine thing and if they ask themselves "What would Jesus do?" they would arrive at a kind, peaceful answer to their situation. I don't feel that believers are problematic. I do feel that churches can be problematic, much of pure faith gets lost in the swim of belief systems so old it's impossible not to contradict themselves and are often on the wrong side of history. Faith in an Almighty shouldn't mean you automatically adopt your churches views on homosexuality, abortion, evangelization, etc. But the church expects exactly that. The problem is the institution not the individual. The institution can have a corrosive effect and twist sides. This leads to "Atheists may not all be bad people but unfortunately, they are going to hell and we must tell them such."

A positive statement about atheism. That's an interesting idea, especially as you framed it. I'm trying to think of one that wouldn't mention faith or apply only to the atheist as an individual. it's hard to make a statement about a philosophy of nonbelief. It might be similar to appreciating the furniture that's not there.

As far as you imagined threads you are right about the Christian question. A better thread would not center on the one but on the many: "Is Christianity as a whole capable of being primarily a force for good?" In regards to the Atheist query the "negative" posts would concern their eternal damnation (see above); "There are no real atheists, only those mad at God or their parents."; "Not believing in a higher justice allows them to skew their moral compass."; "Atheists are simply scared of something bigger than themselves."

[patcox2]

136. Most are actual, and I left out a big one

I left out the best one: "When I call you insane/irrational/weak/deluded etc., I am not in any way insulting you because I am simply stating the objective truth."

I have heard that one on numerous occasions.

[stlchic]

149. I've heard that one too...

But it was by a Christian and directed at all non-Christians (not just non-theists).

:eyes:

[Spider Jerusalem]

129. A better question would be:

Why are YOU so bloody sensitive about other people's lack of religion? You obviously have some sort of problem with it, else you'd not have posted such insulting, brain-damaged tripe. You seem to have a rather jaundiced and prejudiced view of non-theists, and the way you phrase your questions really makes you no better and not much different than people who see all who have religious belief as deranged, foaming-at-the-mouth zealots.

Personally, I'm not a theist, but I don't care about anyone else's beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, they can believe in whatever makes them happy, as long as they leave me out of it.

[bamacrat]

161. exactly

i think that people are so insecure about there religious beliefs that they attack people who know that religion is not for them. being from the south i know how it is to be preached at for being a "non-believer".

[gatlingforme]

138. I think religion is very personal. I am not religious either.

[KamaAina]

158. Yup. I know I need one, but I can't find one

that doesn't encourage me to behave like a repuke/freeper type, 'specially towards gay people and the womenfolk.

I was in Unitarian Universalism for some time, but the only one here is Unitarian, while mine back in Conn. was Universalist (it does matter, still); too, the one here is one of the few haole (Caucasian) enclaves on the island; I don't need a 45-minute bus ride on Sunday for that!

So, there you have it: a lapsed UU, pretty much the end of the religious road...

[Zhade]

159. Sensitive about not believing in fairy tales? Not a bit!

I find it very uplifting and freeing. But thanks for asking!

:D

(You do realize this is just a flamebait thread, right?)

[DemBones DemBones]

160. Looks like you touched a few dozen nerves, Cheswick.

The bottom line is that it's boring as hell that people constantly bash Christians/ Christianity at DU. What's the point? We Christian DUers don't try to interject religion into politics so why do non-Christians keep bringing up the topic of religion? LET IT BE.

[TeacherCreature]

162. Not really. I am actually proud of my religious beliefs.

But I believe just as strongly in the right of every person to their own faith, or lack of it.

Back at home, I have a friend named Martin who I always argue with over this sort of thing.

He always attributes the worst possible motives to people he disagrees with.

I think that is sad.


O8) :hi: