Doesn't an atheist's very existence insult Christians?

[Hamlette]

Will's post earlier today suggested that Christians find it insulting to be told they believe in a fairy tale.

By saying I'm an atheist, I'm "saying" I believe God is a fairy tale. I'm also "saying" that people who believe in God believe in fairy tales.

How can we ever communicate when my belief system is seen by Christians as a personal insult to them?

[Cuban_Liberal]

1. It doesn't insult me.

:shrug:

[ElectroPrincess]

88. I agree, some of the worst knock down drag out verbal

confrontations are between people who claim to be of the same faith. ;)

Many times I prefer the company of a Humanist or Atheist because they are not so dogmatic about the "Thou Shalts" and theology.

Yes, everyone with a humane spirit is aces in my life. :-)

[Misunderestimator]

217. Really? Judging from what you've said in the past...

I beg to differ. It most certainly does appear to insult you when people bring up things about the catholic church that are condemnable.

:shrug:

[leftofthedial]

2. your very existence is an insult

to right-thinking, Gawd-fearing, Jeezis-loving proselytizing Murkans ever'whar.

[LittleClarkie]

12. tongue in cheek

please tell me tongue in cheek.

Yes?

It's either that, or you're going to blow the top off of my irony meter.

[leftofthedial]

13. My real-world nickname is Dr. Sarcasm

[LittleClarkie]

15. Whew.

Thanks. Those things are expensive, you know.

[RetroLounge]

218. New Smilie

:sarcasm:

RL

[Az]

3. There is a difference in how it is presented

Saying you disagree with a person on some subject is one thing. But telling them you think they are a delusional nut job that believes in an imaginary sky fairy may be pushing things to an extreme.

[BlueEyedSon]

6. LMAO, Az!

[CatWoman]

7. you need a serious spanking!!

[Hamlette]

16. but you see....they do believe in an

imaginary sky fairy. but I can't say that.

(I wouldn't say delusional nut job because I "forgive" them because we mostly believe what our parents taught us. Although, I admit, the whole "believe in god" thing baffles me.)

[Az]

23. Presentation is everything

You can be right and still be dismissed. Its not always the facts that define a discussion.

[ultraist]

36. If someone distorts my opinion on religion as an ad hominem attack

that's not my problem.

The fact is, Christianity is the major, dominating religion in our society and happens to be the source for much oppression and regressive measures.

[Inland]

33. But that's not true, and you needn't frame your disbelief so dismissively.

I mean, the Xtian God isn't a silly little sky fairy. To assert that there isn't any God wouldn't shock any Christian, but to belittle a grand two thousand year old religion as bubbles and lollipops is.

[Susang]

39. And you needn't take everything so personally

The martyrs of your grand two thousand year old religion faced torture, dismemberment and death for their beliefs. All you're facing here is a little criticism. It's really not that horrible comparatively speaking.

[A Simple Game]

70. I like how you worded your post.

Being Christian had little to do with it. The martyrs didn't face torture, dismemberment and death for their Christianity, they faced it because they were different. They could have been Buddhists, or worshiped tree frogs, and faced the same persecution.

Edit to add: But what do I know, I'm just an agnostic.

[Susang]

81. Thank you

I'm glad somebody got what I was trying to say. ;-)

[A Simple Game]

86. your welcome.

I'm glad someone gave me an opportunity to jump into a religious thread and post something non-hostile.

Most of the religious threads turn hostile, and it is apparent that both sides have their minds made up, and that is it!

I have strong feeling about religion, but don't want to hurt any feelings, nor do I feel a need to change peoples minds.

Now if God wants to convert me, he better come for me himself. An intermediary will not like the reception I give them.

[VegasWolf]

94. Snort. Snicker. Me either. n/t

[sendero]

99. Exactly..

...."Now if God wants to convert me, he better come for me himself. An intermediary will not like the reception I give them."

That is why I don't believe ANY religion. Why would god make it such a chore to believe? Is he only interested in believers lacking in critical thought? If He has something to say, why write it by multiple proxy with multiple edits and multiple translations?

If god has something to say to me, all he has to do it say it. I'll listen, and I'll do what he asks. :)

[Inland]

77. Dismissive again.

I don't take it personally, and its merely another form of dismissiveness to write my post off as such. I was, as I always am, not to claim to be a Christian. But in your hurry to dimiss my post as peevishness...

And its also fairly insulting to imply that Christians should take criticism as part of their religion. It's part of the "if your faith was stronger, you could take it" that I see in a lot of the christian bashing posts.

Me, I would like to see a higher standard than letting the christians escape a martyr's death.

[Susang]

83. I may be mistaken

But from the amount and tone of your posts, it seems to me that you almost enjoy being outraged and offended by these threads.

I was in no way dismissive, nor in a hurry. I just pointed out that you don't have to take every comment directed at Christianity as a personal affront. Unless, of course, that give you joy.

[Inland]

91. And yet, dismissive again. Let's just get past that for a second.

I'll pretend you were asking why I post.

The amount of my posting comes from the fact that I know that making liberal democratic Christians feel unwelcome in the liberal or democratic fold because of their religion is a sure recipe for electoral defeat.

I don't take the gratuitous alienation of christians personally, aside from the usual way I take the democratic appetite for self destruction personally. I am not offended by what passes for thought on christianity, aside from the usual way that I am offended by the banal and simplistic.

Oh, and don't forget that I am bored by the topic that you folk just can't keep away from. Religion is a boring discussion. Brushing someone off is easy, and boring. Different beliefs acting for a common goal of political change--that's interesting, and hard, and that's what I support.

[Susang]

134. I suspect you're the one who can't keep away from this topic

Considering that you've posted on every thread on the subject. Though personally, I find calling your fellow DU posters names like "Crabbycakes" when you disagree with them to be banal and simplistic, and just plain boring.

But don't worry, I'm not offended.

[Inland]

148. I suspect you read all the posts. Why not address the topic?

AFter all, it isn't religion. It's what to do about addressing differences.

You sure go through a lot a material to add something merely dismissive. Again and again and again. And taking the time to cruise the clearly not serious threads, and reprise them for our benefit.

It's safer, I suppose, to keep it light and frothy with a few dismissive remarks that nobody is going to take seriously; and if I take the moment to presume that you are here because you aren't bored with the subject, you can always imply that it's because I am wasting my time, not you. Have you tried the lounge, Ms. Parker?

I suppose that this way you don't have to worry about being offended. In fact, you don't have to worry about being anything at all. That's not for everyone, though.

Have fun with your reading.

[Susang]

171. I have addressed the topic

I still have not received a coherent response from you. Just a mass of contradictions and backpedaling mixed with lame attempts at personal jabs. Nice try, but no cigar.

Again, if you're so damned bored with this topic, why do you stalk these threads and respond to each and every one of them? Someone who puts that much time and effort into a subject such as religion has to have more of a stake in it than "oh, we're going to lose votes". Sorry, I'm still not buying what you're selling here.

[Inland]

181. Another song in the key of dismissive.

Just call it incoherent, or stalking now.

I already told you why I post on so many of these threads, and it didn't have anything to do with religious beliefs, at least mine. But that was inconsistent with your desire to say something smug and dismissive, so you ignored it.

I suppose I could end it by saying that I respect your beliefs, but the sad fact is that you haven't put any out there and may not have any, even after I pretend that you might want to. Even the concept of losing votes hasn't seemed to implicate anything of value to you--in a political forum-- except an opportunity to show some attitude. Again and again and again.

Something is sure boring me. There isn't even the novelty of the irritation anymore. But neither of us is caught in an endless loop. Feel free to take your last smug.

[Susang]

229. Thanks Inland, I'd be happy to to take my last shot

You are right, I haven't really expressed my opinion about this issue, you've managed to do it for me all by yourself. You've assumed what I and others on this thread think and feel without bothering to actually read and comprehend what they post. You take offense, no matter what you may think and then lash back with petty personal attacks and name calling that weakens whatever argument you may have had in the first place.

No matter what you may think, the debate about religion is an important one and you cannot stop it by telling people that they can't talk about it or that their arguments aren't valid. Atheists' concerns about religion are just as valid as your concerns about atheists and perceived Christian bashing. The whole point of being progressive is to foster a dialogue between the two camps, not to shut one side up by implying that they are the ones being intolerant and unwelcoming.

To say, as you have, that the subject is boring, banal and simplistic makes you the poster who's truly being dismissive. To call someone who disagrees with you names and to write an entire thread telling people what they *can't* argue about is ludicrous in a progressive forum. For someone who's overly concerned with how other's civility in discourse, you might want to review the text of your own posts. I find them severely lacking.

[Tansy_Gold]

280. Are you saying that if we don't agree with you, we're dismissive?

Does that mean that we must agree with you, acknowledge your martyrdom, and beg your forgiveness, or be labeled once again dismissive?

Frankly, my dear, I'd rather be dismissive.

What you appear to want is for everyone to admit that you have been persecuted. sorry, but I don't think you have.


You're dismissed.

[datasuspect]

234. disinfo anyone?

[Susang]

237. Care to clarify that?

[datasuspect]

238. i've been following too much

of this crap lately.

and btw, i agree with you. it's just that it seems like there is a lot of disinformation campaigning going on here lately.

i'd be more specific, but i don't want to be in violation of the TOS for this site.

please don't misunderstand that i agree with you.

[Susang]

241. Gotcha

Sorry, wasn't trying to jump on you there. I didn't think you were disagreeing with me, I just wasn't sure. When I re-read my post, I realized I sounded a little terse. By product of the tone this debate seems to have taken, I guess.

You're right, disinformation abounds. It's galloping through DU on a shiny white steed, cloaked in righteousness. Or so it would have us believe. ;-)

[datasuspect]

243. i thank god for people like you

oh i forgot, i'm an atheist. but it is still groovy as hell to have people who speak and argue as well as you do around.

[Susang]

252. Right back atcha!

Now go kick some ass! :D

[Joe Chi Minh]

274. They need to get a life.

They're not interested in the real core of Democratic politics, economic justice... just religion and/or sexual licence.

Why can't they let it alone? Because their conscience torments them.
I understand the mentality. As a callow youngster, I was a rabid agnostic, so I know the mindset. The further they move away from the faith they had as children, the less peace they have in their hearts, and the more bitter and anguished they become. No peace for the wicked!

Real dinky dy atheists would despise these muppets for getting into a state over a matter they ought, according to their lights, find incomprehensibly vacuous.

And if it's because they think genuine Christians have tyrannised mankind since the time of at least Constantine, they're inviting the question how? "Take up your cross daily" as a political slogan, leaves something to be desired, don't you think?

Now watch the sparks fly!!! Tee hee!

[beam me up scottie]

282. Because our conscience torments us?

:spray:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!
:rofl:
Whew, thanks, I needed that!

[Bouncy Ball]

173. Good point, Susang.

[Susang]

227. Thanks Bouncy!

Though it appears that not everyone agrees! ;-)

[YankeyMCC]

68. Don't xians call the stories of older faiths

myths? Pagan and Native American religions come to mind?

What about Scientologists? (Do we have any here on DU?) Is it ok to call their beliefs silly myths just because they don't have a 2000 year history yet?

Using the words "little sky fairy" isn't a very respectful way to approach a serious discussion. And just being a theist or even a follower of a religious sect or cult doesn't make a person a nut job and that certainly shouldn't be how a person is approached. There people who clearly were not nut jobs and many worthy of respect who are/were believers.

What makes someone a "nut job" is when they try pushing their beliefs on others, obsessing over trivial literal details, and over sensitivity at frank discussions and questions.

But a nonbeliever ought to be free to refer to stories as myths because that is how he or she sees them. And "myth" isn't an offensive word unless you are offended simply by the fact that not everyone accepts the stories as truth. Myths are very important to our culture and can still serve in much the same way any "true" story would serve - not exactly maybe but still similar and certainly important roles.

[Inland]

80. Not to their faces of the adherents, if they have an ounce of civility.

If the adherents believed, then chrisitians should use a more neutral term, like "beliefs" or "religion" unless specfically asked. I don't know why atheists wouldn't do the same. In fact, it seems that in DU they do, unless its christianity.

[YankeyMCC]

84. Why is the word "myth" offensive?

The moment I say I'm an atheist I'm saying I don't believe your stories are true. The moment you say you're a xian you're saying you don't believe a Native American's beliefs are true.

Frankly I find it more annoying and sometimes offensive when people use euphemisms when we both know what they mean. Speak frankly and honestly that's how to show respect. Myths are key cultural stories, there's nothing disparaging about that.

But it's very disparaging to insist I hide my beliefs or nonbelifes and talk in code instead of frankly and honeslty with respect.

[Inland]

85. It's the assumption that the issue is decided. Or must be, right there.

Your myths, his truths. So say "beliefs".

It isn't fake, it isn't code. It's accurate and nonjudgmental.

And does the native american relgious adherent know that the christian preacher doesn't believe his religion? As assuredly as the other way around.

But not every occasion is the place to have it out over which is the myth. Not every situation is for proselytizing, and not every person wants an earful from either the christian or the atheist. That's not disparaging so much as a frank recognition that everything important to you is not relevant or timely to everyone else.

Which, by the way, is a non-denominational, non-believing across the board feeling I have about all of the theological discussions in DU. All I want is to keep a forum of like minded polticals from being insulting or divisive or boring.

[YankeyMCC]

141. Beliefs

is code.

"Your belifes of creation are..."

It forces passive voice and silly statements that all come down to the same thing, one person (In the case we're talking about) doesn't accept the religious myths of the other person as true.

"Your myth of creation states..."

"I believe it to be true."

"Ok."

Makes for much better discussion. A myth can be accepted as true. The important definition of myth is

#

1. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
2. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.

# A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.

It doesn't necessarily have to be true or false just an important cultural story.

Of course not every situation is about what is true and what is not in the case of god and religion. But when the subject is being discussed let's allow people to talk openly and frankly.

There's nothing wrong with the word myth and it's much better than the euphemism "belief".

The minute we start putting arbitrary rules around how people can talk and what words are "politically correct" we stifle honest discussion. If we never get upset or emotional over a subject it probably isn't important or we probably aren't saying anything important about the subject. Getting upset because someone doesn't accept what you believe to be true is not a very productive attitude to have if you wish to discuss subjects like religion and politics.

When someone uses a racial slur or a religious slur there's no assumption necessary. When someone uses a perfectly legitimate word like "myth" you have to make an assumption about that person. That's where the disparagement comes in not in the use of the word "myth".

[Inland]

160. It's the humpty dumpty concept.

When you use the word, "myth", you don't mean it disparagingly. Of course, nobody knows that when you are, what, casually discussing what they don't take casually. Most everyone will assume that it is a statement that it is merely a myth, as I believe you are aware.

And I also wonder why "belief" or "religion" are euphemenisms. Is "euphemism" a euphemism for avoid a misunderstanding or avoiding a confrontation? "Belief" is code for what? "Your beliefs are.." is not a passive voice. "My beliefs are..." isn't a passive voice. But it might be passive. Is that the real problem? That it let's the moment pass without a declaration?

I think it comes down to whether you want to let people know you think their religious beliefs are bunkum, and whether you want to let them know you are letting them know. Me, I really like avoiding that, because it's needlessly confrontational, and it's fruitless, and it's beyond satisfactory resolution.

But beyond the personal, I don't see how democrats can possibly win elections if liberal democratic Christians get the feeling they aren't welcome in a liberal or democratic gathering. If that means moving right past the discussion of whether Jesus existed, or why there are eggs on easter, I say do just that.

[YankeyMCC]

164. Yes

I do want people to know that I don't believe in their religious myths.

Asking me to hide that is discrimination.

Using the word "bunkum" is clearly confrontational which you say you want to avoid.

It isn't a question of welcoming xians and others of faith. It's a question of acknowledging the role of values and being inclusive of everyone with progressive values and goals and it doesn't matter if they are xian, pagan or atheists.

It isn't right to oppress or hide one group in an attempt to appease another. It's better to be inclusive and find common ground. When someone says "your beliefs" the way you are talking about it is code for "i don't believe the myths you take as truth are true but I'm going to walk on eggshells to not offend you."

If we aren't allowed to use clear and valid words then we'll get nowhere. We'll just oscillate between discriminating between one group and another.

[Inland]

167. I don't get that at all.

I don't see that anyone is asking for eggshells, or hiding, or appeasement.

We have a slew of posts all the time about "Don't ask me to give up my position on X just to win elections". Often I disagree about the choice made--simply because I think winning an election more important than a particular stand--but every person has to decide what to compromise and what not. None of that applies to the way Christians are treated all too often on DU, because being a christian or not being a christian SHOULDN'T be a diqualification for being a liberal democrat, and having someone take jabs at your personal life SHOULDN'T be a gauntlet that someone has to run.

I would prefer DU be a theology free zone, if only because it is boring and largely besides the political points, but that's true of a lot of the shit that is on the board. If not for the fact that democrats can't win an election without democratic Christians, and that the threads become a tool of exclusion, it would just be another day.

Tolerance and civility doesn't mean being apologetic for your own beliefs. That's the mistake the fundies make: if you tolerate so and so, that means you think it's okay or you don't really feel all that strongly about your beliefs. If you tolerate an atheist, you approve of atheism. If you tolerate a gay, you approve of homosexuality. So make the atheists say a prayer and keep the gay from getting a job, or at the very least, raise a sign to tell them that God hates them. Make sure that they know you are against them. Don't let a second pass.

I don't want it to start and end there with the Christians.

[YankeyMCC]

182. And using the word Myth

Isn't an attack. You said yourself you have to make an assumption about a person's motives when they use the word. My point is that is wrong and divisive. If a xian or any one else can feel free to talk about their belief I ought to be at least free to use the word Myth and not have assumptions about my intentions be made.

Tolerance and civility means allowing people to use valid words and terms, and allowing people to talk controversially when controversial subjects come up. It is pretty meaningless if we all agree when we don't say anything controversial.

But of course I can't see how the word "myth" is controversial at all. My use of the word is no more an attack on a theist than a theist using the word nonbeliever or atheist or telling me they believe a particular myth is literal truth. That isn't an attack on me it's just a statement of who they are and what they believe.

[Inland]

190. It's the popular meaning of the word.

It isn't just the fault of the hearer, when hearing the word "myth", for assuming that you are telling him his beliefs are false. Same with "legend" or "fable".

I am more troubled by the concept that if you are misunderstood and an offense ensues, that's HIS problem, because you are using "valid" terms and words, and people should be allowed to talk controversially. There's a difference between addressing a controversy and being inflammatory, and the attitude that the effect of your words is the problem of the hearer pretty much guarantees the latter.

Moreover, I don't know how the truth of religious beliefs ever became a controversial issue to be addressed, as in decided. I didn't ask for the existence of God to be a controversy here, so I don't see the need to let you talk controversially about the subject.

If someone were to leap into the middle of your thead on Social Security and talk "controversially" about your atheism, you would see it as a presumptuous distraction. In fact, the biggest complaint about the christians isn't that they won't let you discuss religion, it's that they won't shut up about it and stop trying to save you.

Me, I don't see a huge need to allow Christians to convert atheists or atheists to convert Christians. It's a non-controversy, not because it isn't a fight, but because it isn't a fight that needs to be brought up in every goddamn place. That's tolerance, and civility. Nobody surrenders, nobody concedes, nobody is second class citizen, and nobody gets hurt because religion gets inserted in a half assed way as a side issue on every thread.

[YankeyMCC]

202. I'm not talking about conversion

I'm talking about freedom of speech and freedom to express yourself.

I am telling the listener that I DON'T believe his or her myths are true. How is that any more offensive than them telling me they DO belive the myths are true?

Saying that expressing my disbelieve is offensive is certainly not the answer for more civility.

[Inland]

209. Sure it is.

Time and context is everything.

You didn't address my hypothetical about the SS thread.

Or my proposition that most of the complaints about Christians is that they won't stop witnessing.

Perfect examples of time, place making a discussion sure to turn into a flame war simply because it is a controversy being forced on someone who doesn't want to do it today, or here. For a forum dedicated to a political premise, that's a damn shame.

Freedom to express oneself includes, it doesn't negate, the ability to be offensive by expressing yourself in an incivil or inappropriate manner. To say, I have the freeom to express myself, doesn't say anything about what is or is not civil, helpful or productive.

[YankeyMCC]

215. I didn't address the SS thing

Because I didn't follow what you are talking about.

We are talking about the use of the word myth and offending people.

Using the word myth is not uncivil or offensive it's a valid term. And I'm as free to express myself as anyone else. Again I say you have to assume an offense when someone uses the word myth and if anything is uncivil making assumptions about people is.

If people are talking about religion then I should be as free to discuss my position as anyone else.

If someone starts talking about god in the middle of a SS discussion I'll ask them what the relevance of it is and if we get off on that tangent I should be able to start using the word myth all I want, it's a valid word and should not be high-jacked to be made offensive.

If someone starts talking about god in the middle of a SS discussion and can't show how it is relevant to the discussion then I will complain and tell them it's irrelevant.

I wasn't the one complaining about xian "witnessing" again I sense a desire to generalize and assume things about people. I was having a discussion about the use of the term myth and the freedom to express myself as much as a theist.

If you want to talk about proselytizing then that's a totally different tangent.

[IntravenousDemilo]

291. Lookit...

When the ancient Greeks built temples to Zeus and Athena and then held solemn rites therein, it was just as much a religious experience as what you might find in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. Yet we are taught in our Christ-centric schools to refer to "ancient Greek mythology" rather than "ancient Greek religion".

Well, turnabout is fair play. If Christians want their belief system to be referred to as a religion rather than mythology, they'll have to start referring to Zeus worship as a religion on an equal basis with their own.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

197. atheists are not an insult to faith

it is simply another belief structure founded on a lack of belief in a deity in any size shape or form. It is no different than believing in God...since there is no proof either way and likely never will be then is it simply another belief. Why people get so worked up about one or the other...well it is frankly beyond me...but that may not be saying much.

theProdigal

[info being]

226. Proove your fairy tale isn't a fairy tale.

The thing about good fairy tales is they last for a long time. Christianity is nothing more than a fairy tale sanctioned by power.

[G_j]

75. you don't seem to be allowing that the other opinion is a valid as yours

Wouldn't it be just as easy to state "I believe the "sky fairy" only exists in ppl's imagination" as opposed to stating it as an absolute fact making them automatically wrong and you right?

[Zhade]

143. That basically says the same thing in a nicer way.

I mean, it's obvious that something you believe, is something you believe is true.

So each side still understands that they are asserting "truth" as they see it and that the other side is "wrong".

It's just more veiled. Same divide, less discord.

[G_j]

166. which just also happens to be the difficulty in

communicating with many fundamentalists: someone thinks they have the exclusive corner on the truth and you are just, well....wrong.

[Zhade]

273. True. I certainly don't think *I* have all the answers!

I just don't buy the answers some think are The Truth and The Way. I don't pretend that I know better - I just lack the ability to believe in such things as religion.

Frankly, I think everyone on earth gets it somewhat right and a lot wrong. JMHO.

[kliljedahl]

54. How about?

I gave up believing in mythology years ago.


http://www.kliljedahl.net

[Arugula Latte]

189. I say: "I have no supernatural beliefs."

That's true, and it shouldn't offend religous people. Not that I really care anymore, because most of them have never shown me one iota of concern about hurting my feelings with their religious spoutings. (Not talking about DU, talking about "real life.")

[kliljedahl]

251. That's a good one

Mind if I borrow it occasionally for a change of pace?

[VegasWolf]

93. The correct term is "imaginary sky people", not faires. Faries have magic

powers you know.

[MaraJade]

110. This is precisely the issue. . .

If a person insists on clinging to a belief that brings them some comfort in life, that provides them with a reason for living, for loving and for everything, it is the height of hubris for another person to, in effect say, that "you really have no reason to go on because every belief you have used to keep yourself together is nothing but an illusion."

What has a person got left when their reason for living is relegated to the level of mere illusion? This is what makes people combative.

It is the very extremity of some atheists in their position (exactly like the extremity of some christians, moslems and others) that is the cause of the problem. Funny this. I recently read a series of
articles written by an atheist that unequivocably stated that religious people were incapable of using any form of logic or intellgent argument at all. Clearly this extreme view is false, but it is typical of the thinking of some atheists.

So what if someone believes in God or doesn't believe in God? We should all show respect. Respect is what opens the doorway of dialogue.

[info being]

228. To cling to such beliefs is to reject nature itself

Its wrong because it stunts our growth as living things. It works against the human species. It prevents us from utilizing the full capabilities that nature has given us through the process of evolution. That's just a start of what's wrong with believing in imaginary sky people.

[Alpharetta]

4. communication

"How can we ever communicate "

If your intent is constructive communication, you should seek to understand.

Are you guessing all Christians are insulted? Some?

Are the insulted ones the ones you want to talk to?

Are you capable of wording your beliefs in a way that are not insulting to those you'd prefer not to insult?

[cally]

5. I think you didn't get the point of recent posts

Let's respect each other for our understanding of God. Leave it aside. I don't think your atheism is an insult to my belief. My belief in God is not an insult to you. That's the whole point. We can find a common ground in politics. We can debate religion as long as we respect each others point of view.


Edit: I removed a phrase because it sounded like I was....whatever.

[info being]

230. To the extent that what you're saying is true...

you're right. But there are times when, because of a person's belief in imaginary sky people, we CANNOT find common ground or even a common frame of reference. If I define truth as "a fact that can be observed" and you define it as "Jesus is our lord and savoir"...well where is the common ground?

[Left Is Write]

8. No.

Disagreeing with my belief system is not the same as belittling it.

Your existence as an atheist doesn't bother me any more than my existence as a Lutheran should bother you. A great many people I like and respect are atheists. I don't demand that all those around me believe exactly as I do. I do respect their views and ask that they respect mine also.

[Malva Zebrina]

27. I think that people need to respect other persons

but I don't think they are required to respect their god or their views concerning a god if one cannot believe in a god.

We see what adopting a "respect" can lead to in the actions of the fanatics in Florida. If I were to accept that, it would surely be an act, would be permissive and enabling as well as a damn lie.

Need I be required to respect their views concerning their god?

Do you?

Many believers say that they or those on the right, do not worship the god correctly and I wonder if that can be considered dis respectful.

If so, then why expect or require one who does not believe in any god to do the same simply because one believes his god is the right one?

I sometimes fail to understand why respect for anyone's religion is required or demanded at all by believers.

Respect for a person I can understand, but respect, in the sense of acceptance of a particular god, I cannot.

[Left Is Write]

107. When I say "respect each others' views"

what I mean is, don't belittle or demean them. That does not mean you have to respect people's actions, such as those of the fanatics in Florida.

I don't ask you to believe in or accept God, just that you not belittle me because I do.

[Tux]

9. Er

I'm a Deist when it comes to god. Thus reason and evidence is needed to know god. An atheist also uses reason and evidence but came to a different conclusion. Big deal. You think I believe in a fairy tale and I believe that fairy tale.

[Bake]

10. It doesn't insult me.

Because I respect your right to follow your conscience and believe whatever you believe to be true. I simply ask the same in return, although that may be asking too much. Fairy tales? Is that necessary? I won't try to evangelize you if you, in return, won't insult me.

Otherwise, one of us is going to have to leave the Democratic Party.

Bake

[LittleClarkie]

11. I'm not insulted

Only when I'm posting to a thread where we are discussing faith and someone uses abusive language to tell us that we are worshiping a "sky daddy" "fairy tale" "bronze age superstition" and such. It seems that sometimes this is "moth to a flame" stuff that some athiests can't resist putting in their two cents into. If someone mentions their faith, some folks can't help but tell them how stupid they think that belief is. Alittle restraint would be cool.

I am not offended by your atheism. You can believe what you want. It's just that some atheists are quite angry. I understand that some of them are recovering fundamentalists, and that the subject provokes strong emotion. But it still makes my teeth itch to be ridiculed. As I told someone yesterday, it's like being fragged by friendly fire.

We wouldn't put up with prejudice toward any other group. How much does it help if someone uses the "N" word where black folks likely post, only to be told, "Oh, I'm not talking about you. Just the bad ones."

I just think there should be some sensitivity on both sides, esp. in our language. I understand that when people around an athiest find out their leanings things can get ugly. I don't get that, either. If one professes to be a Christian, I would think the first rule to follow would be "Love thy neighbor" even if yer neighbor is an atheist. I don't think those who get ugly about their beliefs are following Christ's teachings. Christ never seemed to treat people that way.

And I will never understand Republican Christians. Somehow I don't think they're paying attention.

[Just Me]

21. I am always (ALWAYS) impacted by that portrait of Kerry.

I want one. Where can I get it?

[LittleClarkie]

30. Here are the particulars

I don't know if it's available, but here's the information about where the image came from.

'JOHN KERRY, APRIL 1971,' by Elizabeth Peyton, Gavin Brown's Enterprise, 620 Greenwich Street, at Leroy Street, West Village, [phone]. Part of a portfolio of 14 works commissioned by Artforum magazine for its September issue."

If you can find Artforum somewhere, it would be in the September 2004 issue.

Otherwise there is a phone number. I've never gotten around to calling so I don't know if it is available commercially at all. I hope so. I have the version of it that was in the NYT just before the RNC clipped out in put in my wallet. I wouldn't mind a copy of the real thing to hang somewhere.

It's the eyes, I think.

[Just Me]

35. Thanks.

It's truly an amazing portrait. I may just print it out and give my best shot at reproducing for my "personal inspiration". Although I usually avoid painting people, this may be worthy of some creative courage on my part.

[kliljedahl]

57. Right click, save as

It's that easy


http://www.kliljedahl.net

[beam me up scottie]

44. I agree with most of what you said except

when you compare christians to black people. IMHO some christians are laying it on a bit thick with the whole "oppressed" thing. Nobody should insult anyone else because of their belief, that's just good manners, but I don't buy the idea that christians are being persecuted anymore than I buy the idea that white males are being discriminated against.
JMHO.

[LittleClarkie]

60. Indeed, the black anology might have been reaching a bit

I'm not into that victimhood thing either.

I guess I was just trying to make the point that hate speech is hate speech, regardless.

[beam me up scottie]

61. You made the point very well actually.

nt:7

[Zhade]

144. Let's also remember that religion is chosen, while ethnicity is not.

That's another reason it's a false analogy.

[Dutch]

163. Well, I can't choose not to believe in God...

True belief, whether or not you think it misguided, is not a choice, or at least not a conscious one, and one cannot simply drop a deeply held belief by choice- most people who take their religion seriosuly (as opposed to fundies who often simply use it as an excuse to be assholes) would say the same. Having said that, I'm not particularly comfortable with the race comparison either, they're two very different and equally complex and contentious issues.

[Zhade]

275. Oh, I don't think it's misguided.

I also don't go around telling religious folks that they're wrong to have beliefs. When they proclaim that something that I find ludicrous is true (like the Shroud of Turin, which has been *proven* repeatedly to be a false relic), then I get a little annoyed, but as long as they're not trying to use their beliefs to change my life in any way, they're free to believe what they want.

And I do agree that people who have the capacity for religious belief can't shut it off like a switch, any more than I can turn on the "belief valve". My point, which I could have made clearer, is that one chooses to follow the dictates of a certain religion. The ability to believe is a core part of someone, and I agree that is not chosen.

Sorry if that wasn't clear. I intended absolutely no insult.

[beam me up scottie]

175. Dang!

You're up an at 'em early.
Good point though.
Keeping a civil tone when posting (or talking) is just good manners regardless of one's sub-species. I treat everyone with respect (okay, I TRY to anyway) and if I have a problem with someone it's not because of what they are, it's because of what they said.

[Zhade]

Yes. I try to be civil, even when I'm compared to Klansmen and Nazis.

I mean, in the end, they're just anonymous posters on a message board who have a right to their beliefs. Sure, it's arrogant of them to think they have all the answers, but those kinds are not so prevalent here, thankfully.

Peace to you, my friend!

[beam me up scottie]

292. What took you so long?

:evilgrin:
When I looked at the threads this morning I swear I heard the sound of a trumpet announcing the calvary had arrived.

[BuyingThyme]

14. Yes.

But most say no.

[Just Me]

17. Well, by telling Christians their beliefs are fairy tales, YOU are GUILTY

of treating them like their very existence insults you!!!

It's one thing to state YOU think God is a fairy tale.

It's quite another to personally insult others' beliefs.

If you truly have any desire to have a conversation with those unlike/different from you, why don't you treat them with the same respect and tolerance you would appreciate receiving from them.

It seems to me that you seek to be as imposing as those of whom you complain.

[WillowTree]

32. Exactly!

It would be just as easy for Hamlette to say that she or he doesn't share a Christian's belief in God rather than to demean that person's belief system by referring to it as a "fairy tale".

You don't have to believe in God, Hamlette, to practice "Do unto others". Think about it.

[IntravenousDemilo]

294. Well...

Not really. In my experience, merely saying that I don't share a Christian's belief in God has produced exactly the same reaction as saying it's a fairy tale -- that I'm obviously evil and corrupt and have a big purple horn growing out of my forehead just above my six compound eyes.

[Zynx]

235. Indeed. Many atheists are just as bigoted as the fundies.

They are just as nasty, vile, and disgusting as the very people they mock.

[Joe Chi Minh]

278. You gat it!

cut from the same cloth.

They remind me of a hilarious passage in the Gospels I came across the other day, and one individual in particular. The village knowall.

It seems various opinions were being expressed by people about whether it had been Jesus they had seen or not. I think it must have been when he returned after his resurrection. Then one bright spark proclaimed with supreme confidence - we've all met the type - "It looked like him, but it wasn't him". Ah, that settles it them...!

[K-W]

18. The magic word here is TOLERANCE

Some Christians are tolerant, some are not.

[Rowdyboy]

19. Who sees your beliefs as an insult?

I think you're wrong, but it really doesn't keep me up nights. All I really give a damn about is who you VOTE for.

[Gimley13]

Do non Christians go to hell when they die?

What do you guys think of that? Does somebody of a different religion or an atheist go to hell when they die, no matter what they did? Like a lady who spends her entire life in a mission in Africa, saving hundreds from the brink of starvation, but she is an atheist, does she go to hell?

[daydreamer]

41. Hell and heaven are on Earth

[Just Me]

51. Do human beings know who "goes to hell" *LOL*. NOT!!! eom

[megatherium]

73. not all Christians believe that.

The hordes of fundamentalists that infest our country have done a damn good job of convincing Americans that that's what Christians believe/should believe. But if you read even their writings, there are always 'outs': small children who die before they are capable of making a decision for Jesus, people who live in faraway countries who have never even heard of Jesus but who follow God's law as written in their hearts, etc.

But Jesus was asked what we should do to be saved. Jesus indicated that we should love God and we should love our neighbor. Jesus then told the story of the Good Samaritan to explain who our neighbors are: Samaritans were the despised minority in Jesus' culture but Jesus portrayed the Samaritan as the one who showed compassion (unlike the Jewish passerby or the priest who passed by).

If you get pass the unfortunate stereotypes (perhaps you are a victim of a fundamentalist upbringing), Christianity starts to make a lot more sense. At least to me (a liberal Episcopalian).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

79. Romans 2:12-16 says that non-believers who

"have the law written on their hearts" are fine.

The fundies hate that verse.

[VegasWolf]

95. Everyone knows that if there is a truly just god, there can't possibly

be a hell, other than an Bush administration.

[ExCiber]

96. IMHO NO

My mother is a devout catholic who was married to a protestant. She never missed going to church on Sundays or any holy days. She also never gave up the opportunity to worship with any other faith. If she had the invitation to go, she went. She always jokingly said "you can't tell who's right, I'm going to hedge my bets".

I'm sure more than a few religious people would slam me for this but...

It ain't who you believe in or profess your faith to, it's what you do in life that matters. As far as I'm concerned you can worship that crusty bottle of liquid paper in the desk drawer. If you do good in life, you'll get your reward.

[saracat]

315. My Dad was a devout Catholic with a Catholic mother ,

a Protestant father ,and a Jewish godfather! He used to say he hit all the major bases just in case. You never know! He also thought Christ, Buddha, and Mohammad were the same person with the same message! I am sure many on DU would have thought him heretical!

[MaraJade]

113. Sheesh!

Only the Almighty God decides. God alone knows hearts, and it is the
heart that determines each one's outcome.

[JerseygirlCT]

158. I don't believe anyone goes to hell

[Merope215]

204. Of course not.

At least, I don't think so. I think the truth is bigger than any one belief system, whether it's a religious one or not. Peace.

[IntravenousDemilo]

296. Hell is reserved only for people who believe in the concept.

If you don't believe in it, you're safe, just as you're safe from witches, goblins, god, gremlins, the devil, and even the great pumpkin if you don't believe in them.

On the other hand, non-believers don't go to heaven either, though the point is moot if such a place doesn't exist.

[Gimley13]

24. Do non Christians go to hell when they die?

What do you guys think of that? Does somebody of a different religion or an atheist go to hell when they die, no matter what they did? Like a lady who spends her entire life in a mission in Africa, saving hundreds from the brink of starvation, but she is an atheist, does she go to hell?

[Rowdyboy]

29. Certainly not in my belief structure...I don't believe in a literal "hell"

I see no reason why my God would punish those who choose to experience His/Her being through different eyes. Would a just deity punish moral Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, or Atheists? Certainly that is not my belief.

I am an Episcopalian, for the record, and I simply believe that my deity is not quite so narrow as to treat people like that.

[Warren DeMontague]

306. I think it all depends on what she did with her crotch parts

while she was alive. Apparently this "God" entity is particularly obsessed with THAT.

[beam me up scottie]

308. MAN, I had no idea where you were going with that!

But it reminded me of George Carlin's quote:
"Religion has actually convinced people that there is an invisible man, living in the sky, who sees everything you do and wants you to follow a special list of things. Ten things, or he'll send you to a place of fire, and smoke, and death, and crying forever and ever. But .. he loves you."

[Joe Chi Minh]

283. Thank you. Some sense at last.

[bonito]

20. I'm not insulted

when you try to define that what is,you put it in a box so to speak, and in doing so you put yourself in a box also, words and reason can't get us the understanding we Think we need.

[seabeyond]

22. because i dont take it personally and i dont have to prove

to you otherwise. because i value the journey you are on and i dont have to insist you walk mine.

yes, it is a hit up side a christians head, but no it doesnt bother me a bit and i can further respect and appreciate your right to be just that

[BeFree]

25. What if...

...I told you you were ugly... would you take that as a personal insult?

Do you believe in :
Generation
Organization
Destruction ?

That's all GOD is. Some folks just see it differently. Respect that, and they will respect you, if they are true believers.

[Princess Turandot]

26. I think there's far too much hubris in assuming that ..

religion is a fairy tale. There is also far too much hubris is assuming that atheists are misguided fools on their way to hell. When you are discussing a question that none of us really have the true answer to, I think civility is always the high road.

One thing that surprised me about DU's religious discussions, is that as a Catholic who knows a number of atheists in real life, I've never known one who mocks non-atheists in any way. I never quite get why that is so popular here. But perhaps more importantly, I don't understand why religion is discussed here as much as it is. While there are certainly intersections of religion with politics and/or law, there are many posts abt religion to LBN for example which have nothing at all to do with politics or even things which affect most peoples' day to day lives, unless they happen to belong to the religion in question. Yet those posts appear over and over again.

[DearAbby]

106. Actually if some "Christians" could refrain from trying to convert people

every chance they got, I would not one way or the other think about it. This is and should be a personal matter. Witness with your actions...as the last resort use words.

[Princess Turandot]

210. Were you responding to me?

I hope not. I've never tried to convert anyone to anything in my life, as far as I know. Short of an occasional Hari Krishna or Mormon, I've never had anyone try to convert me to anything as well, except maybe eating foods that I don't like.

[bush_is_wacko]

28. Actually, I have the highest regard for someone that doesn't believe in

God, but lives by the rules Christianity attributes to him anyway. I have met an awful lot of atheist and agnostics that follow the ten commandments (which let's face it, are just plain common sense and decency) without ever feeling the need to believe in a higher power. My religion tells me to either try and convince these people they are wrong or discount them as demons who are going to hell anyway, but my heart tells me even God won't deny one who has truly been a good person into His Kingdom!

If you read the Bible closely enough you will discover that there are words attributed to God VERY much along those exact lines in Revelations. There is a point that He both condones and condemns EVERY religion and every people. He warns that MAN is NOT and has NEVER been perfect and EVERY man regardless of his/her beliefs has a choice to make. He also CLEARLY says any man that USES religion for political gain or wealth is DOOMED! it doesn't matter to me whether these are the "actual" words of God. They seem, once again, like common sense to me. Human kindness and decency will always promote MORE human kindness and decency and the opposite will ALWAYS have the opposite effect.

Not all Christians believe every word ever written in the bible is literally the word of God. The bible is a tool of man. Nature is a tool of God.

[Rowdyboy]

31. Some of the most moral people I've ever known have been atheists....

Soem of the most liberal people I've ever known have been Christians (not literalists). Go figure.

[bush_is_wacko]

34. Even if the Bible is a fairy tale it is comforting to believe in fairy

tales! And I agree. Religion doesn't have anything to do with being a good person. I'll add to your train of thinking that some of the most immoral and reprehensible acts of evil on this earth have been committed in the name of God by people claiming to be Christians.

[Rowdyboy]

59. Much of the Bible is allegorical..... If you choose to denigrate allegory

by calling it "fairy tales" that is certainly your right. Thats not the phrase I would use, but it doesn't offend me that you don't agree with me. I'll bet there are MANY things we don't agree on and more than you'd expect that we agree on. All I really care about is how you VOTE!

And you're correct, religion doesn't have anything to do with being a good person. As I said "Some of the most moral people I have known have been atheists".

Certainly, some of the most horrendous acts of evil have been committed by Christians (including murders of my French protestant ancestors by French catholics in the 1600's). The sins of the church are myriad, but are you totally unwilling to acknowledge its value? Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu, Pope John XXIII, and Jimmy Carter are men of faith who have spend decades trying to improve the world; the church was the guiding force behind both the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement of the 1960's. You must acknowledge that children are being fed and clothed who would suffer without the church. There are sick and dying people that are cared for because of the Christian church. Before you condemn the institution completely out of hand, consider that-inspite of its evil-it also does good.

The Christian church is imperfect in all its many forms. But I, as a seeker, don't look for perfection. I simply look for what betters the world and completes me personally.

[Tansy_Gold]

288. Many fairy tales are also allegories n/t

[bush_is_wacko]

311. RowdyBoy

I AM a Christan and even I know the Bible isn't "the word of God" it is the word of God according to man.

And, yes, as a Christian I believe that "religion" has done some good in this world from time to time, but I think people like Mother Theresa would exist in this world without religion. I have seen people like this with my own eyes.

I no longer find the "church" is needed in my spiritual growth process. I have my own version of the religion I grew up with (Catholic, BTW) now. I still pray and read the bible, but I also look for the truth in other forms of religion. I still consider myself a Christian because I still believe in the existence of Jesus Christ and I believe he is the son of God. I don't feel i need proof of his existence. I feel the bible documents his existence in some way for me.

However, I believe even Jesus would be very willing to accept the teachings of many other religions. There is some good to them all IMO and there always has been those who would take advantage of the power religion can evoke over others. For me, that tells me that I must be willing to interpret spirituality for myself and not take the word of man over what religious writing makes me feel in my soul.

[eallen]

37. I don't see how any atheist could adhere to the first commandment, or...

Or a couple of the others. The last few are simply reciprocal ethics.

Except the last one. Coveting is what makes this who capitalist system go, right?

:bounce:

[journalist3072]

38. My response...from a Christian's perspective

I wouldn't use the word "insulting" to characterize how I feel about an atheist's existence.

"Sad" is the word I feel. I feel sad for the atheist, and I usually pray that they will have a change of heart, and come to acknowledge and accept the Lord as their Savior.

[alarimer]

43. See, that is exactly the type of condescending response

We do not need or ask for. I do NOT need you to pray for me or feel sad for me. I am an atheist because that is the what reason and logic have taught me, that makes the most sense to me. People can believe whatever the hell they want.

What if I said I feel "sad" for you because you are obviously delusional? You would be insulted by that, right??

[journalist3072]

53. Sorry; my point was not to be condescending

But I do feel sorry for anyone who has not come to know the Lord as their own personal Savior.

Why do I feel sorry for them? I feel sorry for them because they have not come to know the boundless love that God has for us. The fact that he loves us so much more than we could ever love ourselves. He loves us more than we ever really deserve for him to love us.

I have gone through things where I know it was only the Lord who helped me through.

That's what I meant by feeling sorry. Not in a condescending way. So I'm sorry if it came off that way.

[VegasWolf]

98. Right, and we atheists feel sad for delusional people. But we don't

pray for them!

[Inland]

72. Who's this "we" that didn't ask for the response?

The OP asked a serious question. He responded truthfully. You didn't ask, so why get all bent out of shape as if it was directed to you?

It's not as if someone walked up to you on the street and told you that they were setting aside special prayer time for you. That would be insulting, sort of like somebody telling somebody else they are obviously delusional on the basis of a three sentence post responding to someone else.

Why don't leave it with the smart statement--people can believe whatever the hell they want?

[Pied Piper]

114. Absolutely!

I agree with the above poster (#43) because as a gay man, I will never be accepted in all of Christendom. Don't bother telling me about this or that denomination which is more or less accepting. The truth is that that unless the ENTIRE scope of Christianity accepts me as one of their own, then none of them really do.

I was raised Presbyterian (a fairly white-bread form of Protestism, if you ask me), but there are too many Christians who won't have anything to do with me for me to believe that the subversive denominations really matter. And the truth is, I gave it all up. And I am much more the happier for it.

You feel sad for me because I haven't seen the power and the glory of your Lord and His Mighty Acceptance and Love for me. Piss off. I believe that Sunday church services bring together like-minded folk to share in each other's fellowship. Nothing wrong with that. However, I also have found ways in my personal life which give me the same sense of "belonging" and "community", and I won't have you disparage any of it.

So you can take your condecension and shove it. I was brought into this world to walk my own path and no one other's. It's not my place to tell someone they are on the wrong path, and it's not their place to tell me that I'm on the wrong path. Those of us who are truly tolerant will accept the fact that each of us is on our own journey. I've been fortunate enough to know many on their own paths which are diffrerent from mine, and we've learned great lessons from each other. I have dear friends who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Agnostic, and Atheist, and none of them judge me the way that Evangelical and Fundamentalist Xtians do. Fuck them.

End of rant.

[Tansy_Gold]

290. Hear! Hear!

Bravo, Pied Piper!

:thumbsup:

[Just Me]

46. That is your way of showing compassion.

Of course, you are not the judge of anyone's existence,...only GOD holds that authority.

So, praying to GOD (rather than AT those who are non-Christian), and placing authority where it belongs, in GOD'S hands, would preclude you from being a middle-man,...feeling sorry or sad for those who aren't "Christian".

Right? :shrug:

[ultraist]

65. "feeling sorry or sad for all non Christians"

Is Christianity the only way to live an honorable, ethical, giving and loving life? Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, athiests and others would strongly disagree with this sentiment.

[EST]

118. It is rare that I will allow myself to be lured into the mess that

usually gets made when this sort of thing comes up for discussion.
Please try to avoid feeling sad for the choices of others-that ain't it!
That is simply a way to indicate condescension and avoid taking responsibility for it. Rest assured that atheists, agnostics and brights are perfectly capable of experiencing agape love, total, non-judgmental, unconditional love, as is anyone.
Nobody likes to be defined by what they are not and even being referred to by the term "non-theist," or atheist is disparaging and callous, thus the search for a name that people of faith can use that is more than simply, "not one of us."
I, personally, like the term "Humanist," but it has been turned into an epithet by those same sorry Christians who feel sad that their "atheist" acquaintances are a bit sub-human and, somehow, incapable of feeling the full depth and range of human emotion without a god brace. (Rant over)
Yes, some brights (a fairly new term for "atheists," having nothing at all to do with illumination, intelligence, or coloration) do, indeed, see the religious faithful as slightly addled, the crazy aunt who doesn't quite require locking in the closet. Too bad, but the struggle that some have had to endure to escape the grasp of extremists has left them somewhat embittered.

[saracat]

317. I am offended by your post. In fact, it pisses me off!

I don't want to acknowledge or, accept anyone as my Lord and Savior. It is irritating that you should be praying for me to do so, against my will! What if I was "praying" for you to give up your beliefs? How would you feel about that? What if I told you I felt "sad" that you were doomed to a delusional existence? That is what you are saying to those who don't share your convictions, and it is insulting!

[banana republican]

40. The fact that God tolerates atheists means that I should also

[alarimer]

47. I don't need you to "tolerate" me

[beam me up scottie]

48. gee, isn't it nice to be...

tolerated?

[Just Me]

49. I call that post "bait",...BIG TIME!!! eom

[beam me up scottie]

58. And you want us to respect your belief?

I personally think that most of the (few) christians that get attacked on this board are the ones who ask for it, if you retort, they alert or go running right to the mods.
Pathetic.
JMHO.

[VegasWolf]

102. God doesn't tolerate atheists because there is no god. No go run

along and pay some more tithes to your preacher man.

[Warren DeMontague]

157. Are you saying that you are God?

Hell, at least we all know where to find *you*.

[Inland]

42. There are other beliefs that prevent the mere fact as a personal insult.

Along with the belief system that includes God, or not, or Jesus, or not, there are other beliefs and other values. Included are the belief in tolerance, in agreeing to disagree (and the unspoken belief that sooner or later, the other side will be grow up and come over.)

Liberal democracy and its values allow people to live and let live, the trash to be picked up, the children go to school, and earn a liveing, without a winner take all, eliminate the heretic/counterrevolutionary religious or icononclastic war.

Not to mention the greater enemy.

[Kinkistyle]

45. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists etc.. do too, don't they?

Jews and Muslims who share similar theosophical origins with Christians don't believe the "Jesus as Son of God and Saviour" aspect, which is he entire basis for Christianity.

Hindus and Buddhists, who have a completely foreign theology, obviously don't buy into it either.

[mzmolly]

258. All of those people have beliefs that differ from one another.

I am a Christian and I don't believe that Jesus is/was "God" I think he was conceived like you and me. I consider myself a Christian because I believe that Christ was the founder of the Christian Church - and he made sense.

Many Christians don't buy into the dogma of the fundi faith that is perpetuated by some, as our belief system.

However, I'd like to know why it would be more "acceptable" to be any of the religions you noted above than it is to be a Christian? If indeed that's what your saying?

[FreedomAngel82]

50. I don't

I think it's fine if it's what you believe in. We all believe in various things. I know there's faith and I know there's reality. I'm not offended and I know it's not something I can prove. So why be offended?

[Susang]

52. I think some Christians think so, others not

To me, it comes down to how confident you are in your faith. If you know who you are and what you believe, nobody else's personal faith (or lack thereof) is going to bother you or insult you.

There's a reason it's called "inner peace" after all. ;-)

[alarimer]

55. Atheists are threatening

We threaten their cherished belief systems. Why else would evolution be under attack in so many places in this country? Why are the fundies so afraid? Because it is evident that humans are not special, we are just another animal (albeit one that is very successful from an evolutionary standpoint) and that life on this planet is essentially random. We would not be here at all if not for events millions of years in the past that, had they gone a different way, would have killed off the line of mammals that eventually resulted in human beings.
I really, really hope we find life on other planets, especially intelligent life. That will put an end to this idea that humans are special.

[dogonarug]

82. Thanks, your post reminds me

Why I prefer the company of Animals.
No cross judgement.
I am just the big biped with the treats.

[Marnieworld]

162. "I am just the big biped with the treats."

LOL!

I have two dogs and I know just what you mean. We are just magical dogs that can have all of these yummy foods just arrive at the door. Animals are as close to God as this atheist can get.

[saracat]

316. You can be a magical dog if you want. I myself am a gorgeous magical cat!

[MaraJade]

112. I am a Christian, and I don't believe we are in any way special. . .

In fact, my general belief is that God created the universe and did
populate it with other sentient life. I cannot believe that this vast glory was made specifically for the humans on this planet.

I also dearly hope that we find life elsewhere. It will prove my
beliefs; namely my belief in a Creator who loved life so well that he or she acted on the desire to share it with as many "persons" as possible throughout the universe.

[BuyingThyme]

56. I love how so many people say "no" and then attack

an atheist for his or her belief that religion is based on fairy tales.

[tuvor]

64. Maybe it's because "fairy tale" is being used in a pejorative sense.

I don't know how it could be perceived as anything but that.

[BuyingThyme]

67. It's absolutely not being used in a pejorative sense.

But your take on it proves the point.

[tuvor]

69. What a load of crap.

The fact that you can't presume to speak for others notwithstanding, likening one's belief to a "fairy tale" shows the low-esteem you regard it with.

Go find someone more gullible and more goadable.

[BuyingThyme]

78. The crap is all yours. And you've made the case again.

You are not talking about your beliefs; you are talking about an atheist's beliefs. And you continue to attack those beliefs. You prove the point beyond any expectations. The very existence of atheism enrages you. Do you really not see that?

If you tell me that the earliest typewriters were made of cottage cheese and sold by flying lizards, I'll tell you that I think you're telling fairy tales. If you tell me that Noah built an ark and filled it with all of the earth's land animals, I'll tell you the same.

This is simple stuff. It's not pejorative at all.

[WillowTree]

97. It's being used in a *complimentary* sense?

[BuyingThyme]

104. It is what it is.

It's what people believe.

Are you enraged by what atheists believe? Is that why you posted such a smug comment?

[WillowTree]

129. Why would I be "enraged" by what atheists believe?

I don't see their beliefs or non-beliefs as being in any way harmful to me or anyone else. My experience is that most atheists are generally thoughtful people who, for any one or any combination of a number of reasons, have examined religious belief systems and have reached a different conclusion than I did and if that's what works best for them, great.

I've known atheists who are really great, kind, funny people and some who are assholes of the First Order, and both in about the same proportions as the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus etc. that I've known. As far as I can see, atheists are just people, making their way through life the best way they know how, just like the rest of us.

I don't belittle what they believe and yes, I take offense when they belittle what I do.

[BuyingThyme]

206. You avoided the question at hand.

Why do you see atheism as a judgment of others as apposed to what it really is -- one's own beliefs.

Why did you make the smug comment? Why were you threatened?

[WillowTree]

240. Get off it!!

There is nothing in what I said that indicates that I see atheism as a judgement. Nothing. To the contrary, I expressed my respect for what others, including, but not limited to, atheists believe. Too bad that some atheists aren't sufficiently secure in their own belief structure to show equal respect.

I do see a great deal in the fact that some people, atheists and various believers alike, can't express their own beliefs without finding it necessary to denigrate someone else's. It's not enough to say that "I don't believe as you do". I can and do respect that. Hamlette has to frame the statement in such a way as to show scorn for what someone else believes. That doesn't "threaten" me in any way, but it does bring into specific relief the fact that Hamlette is apparently threatened enough to have to take petty pot shots so as to bolster his or her own take on things. That's pretty sad.

[BuyingThyme]

265. You're nothing but pot shots.

You confirm the point.

Look at what you just wrote.

[WillowTree]

300. Puff and sputter. Puff and sputter.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between being "threatened" by something and being insulted.

I'm sufficiently secure in my own beliefs that I don't find it necessary to demean those of others. Hamlette (and apparently you) don't yet have that luxury. It's not the fact that Hamlette does not believe in God that offends me, it's the fact that he/she is unable to express that opinion without putting down others.

And now, because you seem to only want to try to tell me what I think and how I feel and what I believe, I bid you adieu while I go give that old 'ignore' button a workout.

[BuyingThyme]

303. You can't.

You can't get this out of your head.

[Joe Chi Minh]

281. The funny things is,

as Chesterton pointed out, people who don't believe in God, don't belive in nothing. They believe in everything! Every half-baked, cockameeny nonsense that scientismificists in the pocket of big business and its tame politicos peddle to them is just one example.

Most of them are dumb enough to think empirical science has all the answers. It's just a question of time you know....

[beam me up scottie]

298. Is KCabotDullesMarxIII your married name?

nt

[immoderate]

320. Can't wait for you to tell me what I believe.

Give me a such as...

--IMM

[tuvor]

62. Oh, don't flatter yourself.

Some of us can live and let live. It's easier when you believe everyone's going to heaven whether they believe or not.

www.tentmaker.org

[etherealtruth]

63. How about , "I don't care" ...

I don't mean that in a negative way. I have no intention of imposing any spiritual beliefs I have on anyone and I certainly don't want anyone imposing theirs on me. I both love and am intrigued by religion, from the Greek Pantheon to Islam, Buddhism to Janism... Somehow the brouhaha surrounding religion (or lack their of) is something that escapes me ... I just don't care.

[SammyWinstonJack]

66. Actually who the heck cares?

It's us vs the " God sky fairy tale" believers. No one wins. Personally, I think the World and its inhabitants would be better off without a 'sky daddy', seeing as how religion has been the cause of extreme death and destruction throughout history and so I consider Christians' beliefs in 'God' as a threat to my very existence, never mind an 'insult'. Belief in 'God' gets people killed and civilizations destroyed.

[Joe Chi Minh]

285. Don't spoil it now.

You started off very well.

[deadparrot]

71. Nope.

You're entitled to your beliefs; I'm entitled to mine.

Someone's faith doesn't itself make me think negatively or positively of them; it's the actions they take and what they say that tells me the most.

You can be a fundamentalist Christian; you can be an atheist. I don't care at all, as long as you treat people decently.

[Joe Chi Minh]

286. Steady there! Youre' shining a very bright beam of light

into a dark corner. And our separated atheist brethren need to belly-ache, belly-ache, then belly-ache some more!

[chunkylover55]

74. To the vast majority of Christians, it is not insulting to say you are

an Athiest. It is insulting to tell them you think Christianity is a fairy tale. Why take the antagonistic approach when there is a better way? Simply say that Jesus and Christianity do not fit into your personal philosophy of god.

[beam me up scottie]

90. Um, I realize you're trying to be diplomatic,

but we don't have a personal philosophy of god, we have a personal lack of any kind of deity whatsoever. I'm not offended but I'm taking it in context. On another thread I was told that my atheism was a religion and that I just didn't know it. That kind of pissed me off.
No big deal but referring to an atheist's god might be misinterpreted.
It's cool though, you know, as long as we're doing this touchy-feely, group-hug kind of communication thing.

[GiovanniC]

170. What If Someone Thinks Christianity IS a Fairy Tale?

That doesn't sound all that unreasonable to me.

A big invisible dude up in the sky makes everything, gives people a bunch of rules, punishes them mercilessly, drowns every living thing on the planet except for this one alcoholic and his family who load up all the animals in the whole world onto a boat, then this virgin gets pregnant by this invisible cloud dude, she has this baby, he controls the weather and raises people from the dead, then he is killed, then he comes back to life. And if you're a good boy or girl, you get to go to a special magic happy fun place, but if you are naughty you will burn and be tortured for all eternity.

Now, I will grant you, there is a lot more incest and genocide in the Bible than in most fairy tales, but still...

If someone has the belief that Christianity is a fairy tale, should they be prohibited from expressing that opinion?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

76. In answer to your question, no

It also doesn't insult me if you think the outfit I'm wearing is ugly. Or if you dress in a completely different style.

But if you come up to me and say, "Your outfit is ugly and you have no taste, and if you did, you'd dress like me," that's insulting.

[bvar22]

87. Athiesm is a necessary step in spiritual development.

The childish all powerful, judgemental, Black & White , external conscience,God the Father is essential for externally validated children. Rejection of this early image of god is necessary for individuation ( the development of an internal sense of right and wrong).
Some get stuck in this adolescent stage of spiritual development (athiesm), but a Buddistlike transcendence (integration) is possible if one can answer the question:
"If there is no god, then who are you so mad at?"

on Edit:
I don't fully trust anyone who has never been an athiest.

[dxstone]

100. Leave it to bvar!

Well-put! A purely rational argument against the true believers and their truly true beliefs in some truly ANCIENT manuscripts, writings from 1000s of years ago, which certain holy old transvestites tell us are collectively the greatest book every written, proving of course that they've never read Catch-22, or Dandelion Wine, or anything by Dr. Seuss.
I tell you truly.

[BuyingThyme]

111. Very beautiful words

of hate.

Intolerance disguised as intelligence.

A likening of atheists to children.

Supremacy in prose.

Sickening.

[bvar22]

115. Who ARE you so mad at?

*

[BuyingThyme]

122. Okay. I get it. You reference your own hatred and intolerance

to prove your own hatred and intolerance.

Very nice.

[bvar22]

123. What need is filled...

...by this perception of yours?

[BuyingThyme]

125. Are we adolescents supposed to be impressed by

your demeaning supremacist nonsense?

Why the games? The cat's out of the bag.

Just show us the hate. I know you're dying to let it go.

Tell us how you came to look down on everybody outside of your little circle.

[bvar22]

127. Maybe ...

Maybe there is something beyond the self imposed limitations of each idiology being discussed here.
Maybe the choice is not either/or.... maybe the choice is neither.
Maybe the choice is beyond. Perhaps there is a frightening outside to each rather limiting but comfortable box.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
or maybe not.
It is only important to know that the choice IS yours.

[BuyingThyme]

128. Oh holy Father, please teach us more.

You're opening up so many doors for those of us who don't look down on others.

[BlueEyedSon]

119. God is Santa Claus for adults. BTW, what comes after atheism?

[Warren DeMontague]

149. I have a perfectly satisfactory answer to your question

meaning, I have an answer that satisfies my self...

and it doesn't come close to involving anything resembling "God", much less meeting the Buddha on the road somewhere out there.

[dxstone]

89. I think you have a point, Hamlette...

And one thing I've noticed, throughout this thread and Will's previous, has been that all these good xtians never even DISCUSS the possibility of maybe starting to speak out against the more repressive and violent aspects of THEIR organizations, I guess cuz christians never take any personal responsibility for the actions of their collective, as if they had NOTHING to do with it, NO recourse, NO voice, no choice...
In particular, a number of gay people have spoken passionately about how most sects in modern christianity are actively working to create a dangerous and emotionally toxic environment for them to live in... and all we've gotten so far from the good christians, who are always happy to point out all the supposed good works they and their christian brethren are constantly performing, is shocked and angry denials, and arguments mostly involved in pointing at some good works past reference or other...
But I don't hear any of them engaging these people, who are obviously suffering, in any truly compassionate or human way...
Aren't you christians the ones who are supposed to be so skilled at being understanding and forgiving?
And others point out how christianity in extremis is threatening to tear our democracy asunder... but the christians here aren't addressing this much either, except to insist that their involvement has no connection to whatever negative effects may flow from the overall collective they actively support with their time and money...
This is one of the problems with organized religion generally: It makes you so warm and comfy and self-satisfied, you're always sure that everything's just fine, we're all in the lord's hands and it's such a beautiful creation, this lovely world God gave us to enjoy, isn't it?
The suffering cry out, here in these posts... they speak in plain words, beseeching you to hear them and respond as if their lives matter... and all you pious people have is your knee-jerk defensive arguments and your smug indignation.
Religion... feh.
BTW, I was raised catholic (big surprise, huh?)... but I found the perfect loophole out--I gave it up for lent.
D

[saracat]

318. Great post!

[mmonk]

92. Speaking as an agnostic Catholic

with a little Unitarianism thrown in, no. Of course it's the agnostic part in me that allows that an atheist may possibly be correct.

[shelley806]

101. IMHO, people who truly believe, believe that God is Reality; that is,

the opposite of "fairy tales." The 'proof' of God is either by personal experience or by examined faith. Personal experience is just that...consequently it can never be 'proved' by science. Properly examined faith is obtained only after very rigorous examination of written testiment; not just the Bible, but other religious documents and arguments (God is after all infinite and eternal, so has ALWAYS existed, and we all worship the same God.)

Not many have either personal experience or faith as I have described above. So MOST really honest people (those without personal experience, or those whose 'faith' is only traditional belief without rigorous examination) should be agnostics; i.e. they should honestly claim that they simply don't know. Atheists, IMHO, are the perfect contrast to the fundamentalist ignorant believers, of all faiths. And IMHO, they are both equally wrong.

[mmonk]

105. If you really want an examination of faith

if you are Christian is to study all historical documentation of Jesus, culling both Jewish and Christian writings as well as Roman pagan. You can throw in the Gnostic writings as well. Also, examine the writings that were not put into the New Testament, but were widely used in the early Christian church. Also, read Homilies or Liturgies from different Priests, Bishops, etc. of early Christianity. I took that long journey and appreciated the ethos of Jesus (whether real or not) alot more that way. It's also how I became an Agnostic, Unitarian Catholic of sorts. So Agnosticism is not necessarily devoid of personal experience and examination of faith.

[shelley806]

116. IMO personal experience IS proof, but only to the individual...

so not scientifically. If you have this experience, there is no doubt. So one can no longer remain agnostic, as long as one understands that the symbol word God refers to this personal experience.

You are honest and have examined your faith. You still don't know. I never meant to imply that agnostics are devoid of examination of faith. I've read much of what you listed, and Plato and other political philosophers are very good as well. In addition, I've studied Sufism, Hinduism, Gnosticism....too many to mention! (I always come back to Christ. If his words were truly lived, we would be in paradise. Why can't we?) All of the greats say the same thing, but also imply that there has to be a mythical interpretation of the truth. Christ's parables, Plato's Republic etc. I just think, that as long as you remain open this great question, and continue to study it, you will have to come to the conclusion that God exists. Either that, or personal experience.

BTW, there is a great gnostic internet web site where you can read all of the gnostic gospels on line. If you want it, I'll look it up...I have it bookmarked.

[brooklynite]

103. No more insulting than saying you follow a non-Christian religion

with the exception of Judaism and Islam, which a Christian might argue are mis-interpretations of the same theology, any other religious tenet would, by necessity, see the Christian view of God as false.

[imenja]

108. tolerance

If you believe in Jesus, Buddha, little green men, or nothing isn't a concern to me. Just realize people are different and have a right to think differently from you. Just let people be who they are. It's real simple to me.

[salib]

109. Pie in the Sky When You Die!

By Joe Hill:

1. Long-haired preachers come out ev'ry night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right,
But when asked about something to eat,
They will answer with voices ..so sweet:

CHORUS: You will eat (you will eat), bye and bye (bye and bye),
In that glorious land in the sky (way up high).
Work and pray (work and pray), live on hay (live on hay),
You'll get pie in the sky when you die (that's a lie!).

2. And the starvation army they play,
And they sing and they clap and they pray,
Till they get all your coin on the drum,
they tell vou when you're on the bum:
you're on the bum:

3. If you fight hard for children and wife
to get something good in this life're a sinner and bad man,
they tell; When you die you will sure go to Hell.

4. Working men of all countries, unite!
Side by side we for freedom will fight.
When the world and its wealth we have gained,
To the grafters we'll sing this refrain:

LAST CHORUS:
You will eat (you will eat), bye and bye, (bye and bye),
When you've learned how to cook and to fry (way up high).
Chop some wood (chop some wood),
It'll do you good (do you good),
And you'll eat in the sweet bye and bye (that's no lie!).

[checks-n-balances]

117. What exactly is the purpose of such a thread as this?

Fortunately, I missed all the sniping yesterday that has been alluded to since then.

This seems to be a ploy to purposely drag out more and more sludge to hurl at one another, and if I'm wrong, please show me otherwise.

[Telly Savalas]

133. It's to give entertainment to lurking freepers.

I'm sure their laughing their fucking asses off watching DUers going after each other like this.

[mvd]

120. For me, not at all

I am a Catholic, but not practicing - I'm actually more spiritual than religious. I cherry pick things from my religion, but I believe in God and an afterlife just as much as practicing Catholics do. I respect athiests - and am confident enough in my beliefs to not be offended if it's not too disrespectful.

[starroute]

121. What if "fairy tale" and "sky fairy" are not insults but tests?

Not everyone who says they believe in God means the same thing by it. And you can find suggestions even in religious literature that a false concept of God is itself an idol that needs to be cast down and smashed in order to approach closer to Truth.

When I was about eight and tried to tell my friends about the Greek gods, I got seriously freaked when they responded by saying, "Oh, no God isn't like that. God is an old man with a long white beard who lives in Heaven and wishes he could come down and play with the little children."

Do any of you who consider yourselves believers think that God is an old man with a long white beard? And if you met someone over the age of eight who did, might you try to suggest to them that their concept was unnecessarily limited? And if they held to it stubbornly might you get just a wee bit annoyed and tell them you thought that at some point they had confused God with Santa Claus and never gotten over it?

In the same way, people who call the Christian God a sky fairy might just be indicating that they think all too many Christians are attached to a Sunday-school image of a magic-maker up in the clouds who zaps the bad for their sins and rewards the good with lollipops and shiny baubles.

And the appropriate response to that is surely not to be insulted, but to respond something like, "You seem to have me confused with a second grader. The object of my worship is the Ultimate Mystery of the universe, Who once chose to reveal Himself to us in the form of an ordinary man, since that was the only way in which we mortals could perceive even a fragment of His Glory." (Or words to that effect. I'm not a Christian and don't claim to know the proper phrasing of these things.)

And at that point, the discussion might actually get interesting, instead of descending into name-calling.

[BlueEyedSon]

150. No, I think most fundies are stuck in second grade vis-a-vis religion.

[Discord]

124. One thing a Christian need to remember when talking

to non-religious persons...

Consider our "religion", if it is respected like many 'claim' they do, our "faith" is such that we believe that religious icons are nothing more than mass delusion. Figments of imagination. Manifestations by the will of human psyche. That IS the fundamental basis of OUR "religion". We are dismissive, well, because its what we believe, thats our "faith".

Just something to keep in mind if you dare venture to talk religion with someone who is non-religious. Everything you say is dynamically opposed to everything we believe an vice versa. The tone of conversation, as with anything and any issue, depends solely on the personalities of the people involves.

[Blue_In_AK]

126. I doesn't insult me.

You can believe whatever you want to. That's what (used to be) great about this country. Message to right-wing Christians -- DIVERSITY IS GOOD.

[dxstone]

130. I posed a simple question; what's the problem, good christians?

I posted this earlier, but it was ignored... and I'd REALLY like an answer on this SIMPLE QUESTION from one of those good christians out there... so I will repeat myself, edited a tad and with EXTRA EMPHASIS...
One thing I've noticed, throughout this thread and Will's previous, has been that all these good christians never even DISCUSS the possibility of maybe starting to SPEAK OUT against the more repressive and violent aspects of THEIR organizations... christians NEVER take ANY personal responsibility for the actions of their collective, as if they had NOTHING to do with it, NO recourse, NO voice, no choice...
In particular, a number of gay people have spoken passionately about how most sects in modern christianity are ACTIVELY WORKING to create a DANGEROUS and emotionally TOXIC environment for them to live in... and all we've gotten SO FAR from the good christians, who are always happy to point out all the supposed good works they and their christian brethren are constantly performing, is shocked and angry denials...
I don't hear ANY of them engaging these people, who are obviously suffering, in ANY truly compassionate or human way...
Aren't you christians the ones who are supposed to be so UNDERSTANDING and FORGIVING?
Others point out how christianity in extremis is threatening to tear our democracy asunder... but the christians here aren't addressing THIS either, except to insist that their involvement has NO connection to whatever negative effects may flow from the overall collective they ACTIVELY SUPPORT with their time and money...
The suffering cry out, here in these posts... they speak in PLAIN WORDS that ANYONE can understand, beseeching you to HEAR them and respond as if their lives MATTER... and all you pious people have is your knee-jerk defensive arguments and your smug indignation.
Religion... feh.
BTW, I was raised catholic (big surprise, huh?)... but I found the perfect loophole out--I gave it up for Lent.
D

[Telly Savalas]

135. Alright.

Yeah, I'm a Christian and it totally fucking pisses me off when some dildo who claims to be a person of God attacks someone because of their sexual orientation. And that's why I go to a church that accepts the GLBT community with open arms and is led by a reverend who is a vocal advocate for marriage equality. If I were ever to hear any hate being spewed from the pulpit I'd walk out of the place. But I haven't so I haven't.

Edited for spelling.

[Discord]

176. SO... why not speak to your pastor/priest

and have him speak to the other pastor/priest across town thats spewing hatred and intolerance. They have the diases and or ecumenical councils. They all speak to each others. Put some pressure on your congregation to put pressure on other congregations that are violating the true morals of good christians?

[Telly Savalas]

309. The United Church in Canada's official position is to support...

marriage equality. As far as I know it doesn't spread hatred and intolerance. With regards to my minister, I don't think she needs any encouragement to push for social justice either within or outside the church. She does already.

[Hamlette]

137. your question deserves an answer, odd that you haven't gotten one

As someone mentioned earlier, we are demanding the moderate Islamists take over from the fanatics yet we seem unable to even TALK about the same happening with Christians.

Can anyone tell us why? To some of us it appears that people doing bizarre things in the name of your religion should cause you to be in the forefront of the battle. It's getting lonely here.

[beam me up scottie]

192. Ouch.

Good point about what we expect from moderate Muslims.
Really good point.

[Inland]

199. I had addresed it.

1. As an ex-catholic, you are well aware there isn't any "christian collective" to phone and express your outrage. There are thousand of Christian sects in America, and they don't answer to each other. The people at the UCC don't have anything to do with the Mormons who have nothing to do with the orthodox who have nothing to do with the Lutherans. I think that the entire "they are your people, you clean your house" is a canard. The fundies are ameircans, too, and you aren't able to control them any more than anyone else.

2. There are christians in this forum who do make christian arguments against the fundies. But I also think that many don't feel that personal religious statements belong in DU, and they may be right. And they attract flames.

3. There are also christian churches that welcome the victims, like gays. Who do you think consecrates all those illegal marriages? But they don't get much credit from you.

Bottom line: the people that do the bad things do them.

[Merope215]

214. I think your analysis is a little simplistic

There are plenty of things I don't like at all that I "support" - if you pay taxes, you're paying for the war in Iraq. I strongly oppose that war, like everyone else here does (I think), but I still pay my taxes, even though I also go to anti-war protests.

As far as gay people go, I really wish there was something I could do to make the fundies cut it out, because I don't think it's acceptable to treat anyone that way for any reason, let alone whom someone loves. But sincere belief is not a choice, just as sexual orientation isn't a choice, and as long as I'm not hurting people I shouldn't feel like I need to apologize for who I am just as GLBT people shouldn't feel like they need to apologize for themselves.

And of course "their lives MATTER," as though I or anyone else has the authority to judge that. Everyone's lives matter. It's my personal belief that the Christian God is just another manifestation of the truth all people seek, regardless of the framework they use, and no more or less valid than the Goddess, Enlightenment, Allah, or the wisdom, kindness, and compassion to which most atheists aspire. My particular worship system is part of who I am, but I don't think that means anyone else is less than me or going to hell or whatever. And though my theological views are perhaps not the same as many DU Christians, the ones on this board aren't the "Christians" with the "God Hates Fags" signs. That kind of behavior is disgusting, and I don't need to be an atheist to think so. You're blaming the wrong people here.

It seems like your attitude stems from a sincere sense of outrage and concern for people who have been abused by people calling themselves Christians while adhering only to the narrowest and most mean-spirited parts of a book that was written in large part by a bunch of nomads millennia ago and translated by dead white men with an axe to grind. People who try to follow the spirit of Jesus's teachings are also outraged and concerned for those people who can be demeaned and belittled by fundies. But the money I give to my parish church goes directly into social-justice work, including the soup kitchen, and I often see people from there at the gay-rights rallies I go to. And that's a Catholic church. We work really hard on those issues because we think they matter a great deal. I think the best way to try to be "understanding and forgiving" of GLBT people, as you put it, is to "understand" that there isn't anything they need to be forgiven for.

So please...we're not the enemy. And all of us on DU have much bigger fish to fry than one another. Peace.

[dxstone]

242. Excellent arguments, but I find your conclusion simplistic!

Your arguments are well-framed, but sidestep the issue...
First, I didn't SAY you guys are the enemy. MOST of us realize that DUers are by and large of the more positive variety of christianity, more thoughtful and caring generally...
Or wait a minute... ARE you? My posts challenged christians to ease up on the defensiveness and perhaps discuss what can be done about some of these very real concens of growing fundamentalism and politicization and intolerance for human diversity...
And AS USUAL, you tell me that YOUR church works "really hard on those issues"... so I guess you're saying you're already doing what can be done...
I'm not saying you're not; you and your church could be examples of those true rarities; you're obviously very thoughtful about it all at least, and I liked many of the things you said about the old books and the true spirit of Christian philosophy...
I guess some of us are thinking, why don't more of you guys stand up in their churches and say something? When they used the sermons to stump for votes for President Pinhead, were any of you paying attention? Did anyone get up and say THIS IS WRONG!, did anyone threaten to quit if the church didn't get back to acting like a church, not a pac? Do any of you ever call up the good reverend later in the day after he'd been callin' hellfire and brimstone down on the homosexual sinners who caused 9/11 and say, Hey, knock that shit off! My BROTHER is transsexual; my SISTER is gay! These are real people, not animals! Even if we don't approve, shouldn't we be preaching tolerance like Jesus did? What the hell is wrong with my church???
Do you guys EVER do stuff like that?
Hard to believe you do.
The christian religion in particular goes to a lot of effort to tell their 'flocks' over and over that they are dumb blind sheep who can't possibly make any decisions about complex issues themselves; they need the constant guidance of special guys in holy hats to correct their errant instincts and soft-hearted sympathies.
To speak up against, or even question any aspect of your christian church, would simply be unchristian...
Which makes it SOOOO easy for men of evil will and intent to manipulate such a large segment of the populace toward senseless wars, now as ever before...
It's SUPPOSED to be all about love... but somehow it always ends up being all about fighting and fighting and more fighting.
Which is why christians don't want to talk about this.
Cuz the FIRST rule of Fight Club is: You don't talk about Fight Club.
D
ps: I also NEVER said that gay people are somehow in need of forgiveness... though MOST sects of organized christianity do, at least the more compassionate ones, anyway...

[Merope215]

246. Maybe you're right

I'm not even very devout, and honestly I don't really like to talk about religion. But most the people I've met at my church have been very critical and thoughtful about it and its role. The church has the resources to do a lot of good and a lot of evil, and I don't think that fact is lost on most. I don't think religion - any religion - has any place at all in public life, and I'm vehemently opposed to most of the political teachings of the RCC, for one. I like the theology a lot, but maybe because I've always been taught that love is the first thing, and no one has any right to be judgmental. It's a teaching that more Christians in this country should think about.

I think if the people on DU had preachers who said shit like that, we would indeed call them out on it. But we don't go to those kinds of churches - why the hell would you want to listen to something like that? My own church wasn't used to stump for President Pinhead; in fact, our own garden-variety Catholic fundies (at Yale, no less - who would have thought?) were so pissed off about everyone being loving and accepting (and Democratic) that they splintered off into a chapter of hard-core fundamentalist Catholics. So I've seen the issue with my own eyes. I don't really know what to do about it because I can't relate to the black-and-white, with-us-or-you're-going-to-hell mentality that characterizes those people. I think the world has rather a lot of shades of gray.

It's something I've been thinking a lot about lately. The problem is that you can't argue with a fundamentalist because they don't believe in reason. Personally, I think there's a reason I have a brain, and I'm probably intended to use it. But really, I don't know how to get through to the fundies, and I think that's the real problem. If someone did stand up in a church and say what you suggest, of course it would be the right thing to do, and we would all applaud them, and we would be right to do that. But it wouldn't change the minds of anyone else in that church, and that's where the real problem is. Before we can take our religion back, and before all of us can take our country back, from the Talibornagain, we have to figure out a way that we can talk so they'll listen. I'm trying to figure out how, but it's very tricky. They think the Bible is literally true in its entirety, and although there's lots of stuff about treating people kindly and not judging lest ye be judged and all, fundies also think the devil can quote Scripture for his own purposes, so to speak. And they don't listen to anything that contradicts the Bible. So I don't know how to open a dialogue with them - you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Maybe it's a topic for another thread: how to get through to someone who doesn't believe in reason.

I'm sorry if I misconstrued some of your comments. I don't like the fundies either, and I don't like the way they treat people at all. I guess I get a little defensive when people here start seeming like it's tough for them to tell the difference between those kinds of people and the ones who aren't interested in theocracy, don't normally talk about their religion, and wouldn't dream of proselytizing or treating someone differently because of that person's beliefs. Maybe if we all put our heads together, we can come up with ways to talk to the fundies, and I think we'd all be a lot better off.

Sorry about the second really long post! :hi:

[Festivito]

131. Your belief is that you must tell others their beliefs are a fairy tale?!

... and this you would call your existence?

Am I missing something here?

Look, this seems condescending nnd misleading. Someone, you, who gets into another person's face to denigrate their beliefs is not just existing. That's misleading.

Fairy tales are very nice, but, your intent is to take someone else's serious beliefs, and meanly to make fun of their beliefs. That is mean.. of you.

You are being misleading, and you are being misleading in a mean way.

[Hamlette]

138. I don't get in people's faces...I'm in the closet

because whenever people find out I don't believe in god, they freak out on me. Someone suggest an experiment: wear a T-shirt with "atheist" printed on it. I'm sure you'll see what I mean.

I honestly believe god is a fairy tale as any honest atheist does. How can I possibly believe anything else? It's definitional. And the mere act of saying I'm an atheist says it all: "I believe people who believe in god believe in fairy tales."

Why do people who believe in god get so offended by that?

I don't care what people believe. The only think I hate is intolerance. Something every atheist knows something about.

I'd just think that someone as open minded as Will, and others on DU, would understand and not take offense at the fairy tale description. They/you must know that's what I'm thinking. I guess what you are telling me is that I can't say it.

[WillowTree]

139. So..........

What you're saying is that you want believers to be respectful toward what you believe, but you don't think that it's also incumbent on you to be respectful toward them. Is that it? If you worked hard at it and really stretched, you couldn't find a way to state your position without using a demeaning caricature?

[Festivito]

140. You say Will says it, then you say it, then you say you don't say it, but.

..but... your opponents, Christians, get offended because, that, which is saying you're an atheist -- not in their face -- somehow infers "fairy tale" from a definition... of atheist(I'm guessing).

Well, I've not seen that definition. So, I think you are saying "fairy tale," and doing so in people's faces. You are also being misleading as I noted earlier. But, mean... I don't think you want to be mean.

I think you are angry. Angry, so you denigrate other's beliefs, hoping they will give you clear cause to hate them. I do not find you comfortably atheistic, I find you uncomfortably running away from being religionistic, picking atheism for its unusual surprising antagonistic antithetical opposition to religion, then adding condescension in order to feel superior, but, self-aggrandized superiority not being enough, finally resorting to the meanness of calling names, i.e., calling another's belief a fairy tale.

BTW: Your funniest sentence was delightfully ironic. "The only thing I hate is intolerance." Like Tom Lehrer's "There are some people who do not love their fellow man, and I hate people like that." At least, I hope you meant to be funny.

[Discord]

178. one thing...

You have NO IDEA what condescention is really like.
We get it in spades from religious folk.

That fact that you fail to even try to understand WHY we say what we say, or where our view is coming from, and so easily dismis it as being an attack against you and yours. Even your very claim that us stating our religious beliefs IS, in itself, condescending to your religion, is a bunch of hogwash. Its christians who most often trample over us every single day of our lives. And they do so oblivious to the fact that they are doing it.

[Festivito]

196. You cannot make a post "one thing" by labelling it as one thing.

Let's see. I don't know condescention becase you get it from others. (Is this some new form of logic?) It certainly is not true.

So far I have concentrated on how the posts have been expressed badly and wrongly. Getting to the why will require clarity.

I don't think I failed to try. I did not write, per expression concerns above. So, here's some. We all feel hurt. We all feel attacked. Some move on. Feel trampled? Don't trample back, engage. For me that means: get them to express themselves properly, then we can get to the discussion.

Stating that someone elses belief is a fairy tale IS condescending, and to say it is, is NOT hogwash.

[Hamlette]

185. there you go again.

I must not really be an atheist, or if I am, then I am a self loathing atheist, or at least uncomfortable about my own atheism. There, that put me in my place!

I guess this answers my question. My very existence is a threat and an insult to believers.

(For the record, I'm neither self loathing nor uncomfortable.)

Where reason ends, faith begins. Using reason in a discussion about faith is impossible by definition.

[WillowTree]

186. You may not be self-loathing or uncomfortable...

....but you are, at the risk of a biblical reference, apparently reaping as you sow.

[Festivito]

205. Well;, I guess that works for you... Again???

Did I question your atheism somewhere before? Perhaps on another thread? Not here!

If I think so; doesn't make it true; doesn't make it a belief of mine. It does explain the lack of sense I see in your writing. Not the only explaination possible, just the one I tried.

You still lack clarity, so I still think you are not comfortable with your own atheism as I stated it earier. Self-loathing: certainly not.

I will not dismiss you for being an atheist. I would dismiss you for being glib in a serious discussion.

If not glib, you have a strange dictionary, and stranger logic.

[Discord]

177. No. Its what WE believe.

That your religion is a "fairy-tale/myth/ghost story/mass delusion/etc etc...

So we're wrong for expressing our beliefs about our "religion"?

Some may put it nicely for the sake of not being offensive, but to put it frankly, the claim that your actions reflect some "higher purpose" is offensive to us and to us is nothing but a convienient cop-out and failure to take responsability for your actions and deeds.

[Festivito]

211. When expressed without respect, yes, you are wrong.

My opinion. When they were disrepectful to you, they were wrong.

Do two wrongs make a right?

Quit acting as though they do.

I made no claim that my actions 'reflect some "higher purpose."' Respond to those who made the statement to you.

That is prejudiced. That's not nice.

[Placebo]

132. So does a Christian's very existence insult you?

Why or why not?

In my opinion, we should all tone down the insults and come to the table for a respectful conversation about spirituality where all are welcome and no one feels superior, right, or in the possession of an absolute truth.

[Warren DeMontague]

152. No, but Christians who need government to promote their beliefs do.

People who want to bend the rules of what constitutes Science so that the story of Genesis can be taught in Science class offend me.

I'm all for respectful conversations about spirituality, metaphysics, whatnot. However, in the context of politics in the United States of America, 2005, where the worst kind of Talibornagains happen to be running our government, women are being lectured about their sex lives from Jesus-drunk Pharmacists, and millions of people literally think Tim LaHaye's books should be filed under "Non-Fiction", what do people, "Christians" in particular, expect?

Unfortunately kindergarden-level metaphysics is about as good as it's gonna get, these days.

[Discord]

179. The second it leaves the home or church.

YES

[jbnow]

136. Just Christians? God as a fairy tale covers more then that.

Proving God doesn't exist isn't possible either and is just as much a matter of faith. So are you saying your faith is better then their faith?

[starroute]

184. No, it isn't just a matter of one kind of faith against another

Don't you understand that the basic skeptical position is to take *nothing* on faith?

In a historical sense, skepticism goes back to the 16th and 17th centuries, when Christianity began to fragment and Western Europeans realized there was no apparent basis for much of what they had always believed to be true. Some people became extreme skeptics, determined to believe in nothing except the evidence of their own senses. Others tried in various ways to hold onto one aspect or another of traditional religion.

That crisis of belief continues to grind along, but these days most educated Westerners (which unfortunately seems to include increasingly few Americans) have arrived at a fairly coherent set of positions, which fall somewhere between extreme skepticism and diehard traditionalism:

1) That which is demonstrated by science can be accepted as true, subject to modification by new evidence and more comprehensive theories.

2) The possibility of higher meaning in the universe, which appeals to many people on an intuitive basis, is not incompatible with science. It cannot be proven objectively, but it can certainly be held on "faith."

3) Anything for which there is no evidence except that it is described in an old story -- especially in the kind of old story which is full of miracles and magic and the other stuff of fairy tales -- deserves no credence whatsoever. Beliefs of that sort, which are founded neither in science nor in personal inner experience and are never subject to self-examination, represent nothing more than self-delusion and a dangerous failure to come to terms with the modern world. For the sake of our survival, they must not be allowed to stand.

Part of the problem we're having here at DU may be that the word "God," which many people use to refer to their inner assurance of higher meaning, still carries all the baggage of unexamined traditionalism. That is where terms like "sky fairy" come in. It's a kind of a litmus text. People who consider themselves Christians but don't believe in a "sky fairy" version of God don't seem to be offended by it at all. It's only those who do still cherish sky fairy notions who go all uffish and demand that their beliefs be respected.

[TWiley]

142. Xtians need deviance.

Otherwise, they would remain undefined.

The purpose of deviance is to reassure the truly miserable that they are doing the right thing. Furthermore, without deviance, they would have nobody to be better than, and this is crucial to their beliefs.

Looking at it another way, if there was no Devil, then there would be no xtian church as we know it today. They always need so meting, or some other culture to to declare war on. This hatred appears to be the only glue that holds them together.

I often wonder what would happen if there was nobody left to save. My guess is that they would continue fighting amongst themselves while creating a hierarchy of holiness. That way, the least of the holy would still need to be saved by the holiest of the holies, and their organization would not collapse.

[Higans]

145. The Christian Fundamentalist offend me. I am Wiccan.

Jesus preached tolerance.

Christian Crusades burned my people. I wounder if the Crusades ever really ended. I don't think so. So much killing in the name of god. Jesus said turn the other cheek. he did not say kill people who don't agree with you. I don't think these bible thumping tyrants herd a word that Jesus said. why don't they grasp the concept.

[Discord]

180. Before long...

They'll be coming for us "godless heathens"

and stringing us up on stakes in town square.

[Warren DeMontague]

146. Yes. I've seen it time and again.

Atheists are supposed to keep our mouths shut. Even here.

Beyond that, hey, I don't give a flying Philadelphia Fuck WHAT people choose to believe.

If humans in general were remotely inclined leave other people alone about what they choose to do with their own bodies and heads, however, "the Church" (most of them, at least) would be out of business.

Like I said, I really don't care what people believe. I don't proseltyze and I expect the same respect in return.. But some people- and yes, in this country, the majority of them are "Christians"- just can't leave it at that. And if they are going to agitate to have their pet beliefs taught in my kid's public school science class- and that is the reality we are dealing with in this nation today- fuck yes I will challenge the evidentiary basis of whatever crap they happen to be trying to pawn off on my children.

And I don't give a shit if one person believes it, or one billion- if there is not a single shred of physical evidence to back it up... (and yeah, we're talking about "creationism" or "intelligent design" or whatever neat new semantic package the God Squad is using to try to wedge religious indoctrination back into public schools...) then whatever it is, it's not science.

In the context of the scientific method (something certain DU members apparently have absolutely no grasp of, whatsoever) it doesn't matter how cherished a belief is or how many people believe it-- if you can't provide reality-based evidence to back it up, it has no more validity, in a scientific context, than a fairy tale. If it bothers some people to hear that, too bad.. life's rough, they should buy a fucking helmet.

[Warren DeMontague]

161. Addendum:

Look, it's really not my intent or interest to insult anyone's personal beliefs. But it is impossible for me to have a discussion on this topic in a vacuum, divorced from the reality of what is taking place in this country as we speak.

And what is that reality? It's impossible to open the newspaper on any given day- and I live in a pretty liberal part of the country- without reading at least one LTTE from some ginkus who blames "secular humanism" and the "teaching of evolution" for something like the recent school shooting tragedy. Tom DeLay thinks Terry Schiavo is dying because of Charles Darwin, and so does Cal Thomas.

In case no one has noticed, the Jesus people- and by that I mean the religious right and the people who want to make the US a theocracy- are on a fucking rampage right now, and along with them has come a distressing disrespect for fundamental concepts that our democracy depends on.. concepts like the separation of church and state, not to mention the separation of powers.

The people who want to make our country a theocracy are pretty fuckin' close to the top of my list of the threats to freedom in our nation, and you know what? They are aided by the fact that religion gets a free pass in ways that nothing else does in our society.

For example: I've said this before, but let's face it- if any other organization had gone to the lengths that the Catholic Church did to protect child molesters, they would have been run out of town- all towns- on a rail. But the church doesn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else. Likewise, no one is supposed to mention the fact that, well, okay, you honestly believe the Earth is only 5,000 years old, that's nice, but really that's about as rational as thinking you are Napoleon.

We are not helped by the fact that it is considered impolite to even question religious belief that is being used as a basis for public policy decisions on the same grounds that any other assertions would be subject to. They are like the Emperor's clothes.

And again, if it was just about what people believe, personally, that would be one thing. But the religious right has MADE this a public issue.

[Fifth of Five]

200. Thank you....impeachdubya wrote

We are not helped by the fact that it is considered impolite to even question religious belief that is being used as a basis for public policy decisions on the same grounds that any other assertions would be subject to. They are like the Emperor's clothes.

And again, if it was just about what people believe, personally, that would be one thing. But the religious right has MADE this a public issue.

This is where this country is today.

I get so tired of people using their religious beliefs as a basis for public policy. Anti-gay, anti-evolution, etc.

There are certain things most reasonable people can agree on, and religion has nothing to do with it. I don't have to be religious to believe that killing, stealing, taking advantage of the weak are wrong. Apparently I have to be "religious" to believe that gays do not deserve the same civil right as non-gays. At least the only argument I ever hear against gays is a religious one.

Just because we do not know everything, does not mean we abandon science and resort to religion for all the answers. Man is destined to search for answers, not just accept the unprovable as the work of some god.

[Bridget Burke]

147. No.

When folklorists defined the terms, Märchen is the one closest to "fairy tale." These were stories such as those gathered by the Brothers Grimm. The other types of folklore are myth & legend; most of the Christian stories fit these classes, no matter what "reality" might intrude.

The world is not divided into fairy tales & reality TV. There are other categories.

[Hekate]

151. No. But your attitude might be.

The USA is not yet a theocracy. The principles under which this country were founded call for mutual respect and mutual leaving-each-other-alone.

If those of religious persuasion and those of no religious persuasion adhere to these very American principles, no one's mere existance will be seen as an insult to another's beliefs.

However, referring to someone else's heartfelt beliefs and traditions as "a fairy tale" is not respectful, it is belittling, and few people respond well to being belittled.

And lumping all members of a particular religion (or ethnicity or clan or nationality) together because one is pissed off at the behavior of a subset of that group is intellectually lazy at best and criminally inflammatory at worst.

I am currently trying to formulate a reasoned response to a distant relative who opined to the list we're both on that "the Jews" pretty much run everything, and as they are only 2% of the population this just isn't right, especially since he doesn't like how things are going. I think the other listees try to ignore this guy, but I chose to shoot off a short sarcastic reply which he didn't understand, and now I'm stuck with challenging him to a duel (of wits, and I hate to do it with an unarmed man -- sarcasm again) or attempting to educate him out of such sweeping statements.

The point of this is we need to do better at DU. All Christians are not ultra-fundamentalist dominionist freaks ready to kill for Jesus and bring on Armageddon, and not all Jews are Neo-con ideologues pulling Dubya's puppet strings to invade one Middle Eastern country after another. I despise GW Bush and I despise Paul Wolfowitz -- or at least their policies and behaviors as I understand them -- and the two of them are pieces of a cultural phenomenon I strive to understand; but I don't confuse the entire Christian and Jewish populace and traditions with them.

We're DUers. We're supposed to be open-minded here.

Hekate

[info being]

245. But when people willingly proclaim loyalty to a movement...

They cannot take offense when that movement deserves criticism. Progressives need to understand the difference between:

Tolerance toward people for reasons that they cannot change

vs.

Tolerating beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that are wrong and/or destructive.

[Hekate]

314. Distinguish among individual persons

without pre-judging them for being green-eyed, or flat-nosed, or whatever their salient characteristic may be. Having had your pocket picked by a green-eyed person, would you then go about angrily proclaiming that ALL green-eyed people are pickpockets? Of course not, your mother taught you better than that.

Beyond that, recognize that among Christians in the US today (since some DUers' attitudes toward and sweeping statements about Christians are what prompted this and other threads) there are numerous widely differing sects.

The Episcopalians -- on the whole -- are socially liberal and liturgically the most like the Roman Catholics. It's no longer news when a woman Episcopalian priest is ordained (I remember when it was), and now they've gone on to debate the issue of openly gay priests. The gay issue may bring about a schism in the worldwide Anglican/Episcopalian church, largely due to the vehement objections of the native African clergy. And before you condemn the Africans, consider Bishop Desmond Tutu.

Roman Catholics -- on the whole -- are socially conservative, but as adherents have tended to be blue-collar populations they have also been pro-labor union and Democratic. The Republicans are seriously courting the Catholics on "values" issues, speaking to the moral conservatism fostered by Catholic teachings.

And within the Church are lay groups (meaning not-clergy, not nuns or monks or priests) like the Catholic Workers who are earnestly addressing core values of social justice, living communally, and as best they can are trying to emulate Christ.

Nuns from teaching orders founded schools and colleges all over the US. Nuns have been active in anti-nukes work for decades, and Sister Antonia and her sister-nuns in Colorado have repeatedly risked jail time for this and other causes. Nuns and priests have been murdered in South America working to bring social justice to the people. The Church itself may be a lumbering bureaucracy, rigidly hierarchical and utterly male-dominated (and in my opinion, has brought a lot of its troubles on itself vis-a-vis sexuality) but untold numbers of individual Catholics are a different story.

Oh, I almost forgot: in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion the Roman Catholic bishops of the US got together and publicly rebuked Bush for plotting an unjust war. So did the leadership of every other church group in the US, with the sole exception of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Evangelicals are also not all one thing. Just when I was beginning to despair that there were no Evangelical voices being raised against the likes of Falwell and Robertson, along came Jim Wallis and Sojourner. I think I'm in love. He's in his 50s (?), and when young he and some of his seminary friends founded Sojourners, a communal group dedicated to social justice. Later they started a journal (Sojourners: faith, politics, culture www.sojo.net), and now it's on-line, which is how I get their articles. Just published "God's Politics: Why the Right gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It," which you can review at Amazon.com or sojo.net.

Rev. Wallis is forthright in his condemnation of Bush's policies, actions, and religiosity -- and was very much against the invasion of Iraq. In the past year I have seen him repeatedly on television rebutting the ultra-right-wing fundies that Bush panders to, sometimes in panels and sometimes in solo interviews. Most recently I caught an interview on CSPAN -- some guy from a hard-right think tank was talking with him about his new book, and just couldn't let go of the notion that abortion and homosexuality are the be-all and end-all of morality. Wallis stayed on-message the whole time: The Bible talks about poverty and social justice dozens upon dozens of times, homosexuality hardly at all (I think 2 or 3 times in the OT, and Jesus never addressed it); how can this administration claim to be pro-life when its policies promote death?

But you get my point. There are currents and there are counter-currents wherever you look, or at least wherever I look. I don't have to be a member of a particular religious group (and I'm not a member of any of the ones I mentioned here) to see there are good people with good intentions in all of them and to want to have them for my allies in opposing the Bush administration. I can cheer on elderly nuns who pour blood on nuclear weapons at the same time I'm glad to see predatory priests hauled into court. I can write vehemently against Falwell and Robertson, and name the extreme movement supported by Bush, and in the next breath thank God that we have Jim Wallis as a voice of sanity and compassion.

A lot of these folks share my values, and some act on them with more courage than I'll ever have. The fact that they ascribe it all to God doesn't bother me, any more than it bothers me when I find an atheist with humanist values doing the hard work of social justice simply because it is the right thing to do. "Beliefs, attitudes, behaviors" -- all there.

Hekate

[hippywife]

153. Not this one.

I believe in Christ and what he taught. I do not believe the Bible as a literal tool because it was cobbled together many centuries after Christ lived to suit the purposes of men. I believe that some of the writings of some of the Old Testament prophets are as delusional as the * administration and their followers thinking that God is on their side in the way they treat the rest of the world and even their own citizenry.

These are the people that insult my sensibilities because they profess to believe one thing yet do another. To me, anyone who says they are a Christian, in other words a follower of Christ, yet supports the death and destruction that takes place in his name are the delusional ones. There is more at work there in their lives along the lines of fear, manipulation, power, and superiority than there is of the teachings of Christ.

I know what I believe in my heart and that it was my own choice after much personal experience, questioning, study, and research. It's not for me to say that what someone else believes or doesn't is wrong. We don't all have the same experiences or come to the same conclusions.

The people I work with in the peace movement are from many different backgrounds. Some are Christians, some Buddhists, some athiests. We don't meddle in what each other believes. We come together as humans with a common cause, who stand together for humanity and humane treatment of others, no matter what belief system draws any one of us to do so. This is as it should be everywhere. If it were, there would be no reason to have these discussions and there would indeed be peace.

That someone believes or doesn't believe in God is not insulting to me at all. What we believe either way is what makes up a good deal of what we are as a person. I don't try to force someone else to believe as I do, all I ask from those of us united in common cause that we work together and not insult each other personally.

[booley]

154. let's say there is a God. lets say God does have a plan

Who are we to say that Atheists are not an important part of it?

of course, you are getting this from a polytheist...

[jmcon007]

155. I'm a Christian and it doesn't bother me...

The very founder of the faith didn't push his message on anyone.

[JerseygirlCT]

156. No insult to me

My beliefs are my own; yours are yours.

Most Christians are not in the least threatened by your beliefs. It doesn't affect theirs in the least.

There's no personal insult in that... I'm honestly puzzled by your post.

[Warren DeMontague]

159. A couple questions, then...

Since your opinion mirrors mine, essentially.

Why is the religous right waging a constant war on "Secularism" in society? Why the drive to teach thinly-veiled religion in science classes? Why the need to put religious displays on public property in towns that have acres and acres of church yard? Why 5 ton monuments with the ten commandments being plopped down in State Courthouses, with lawyers for the ACLU receiving death threats (guess those people must have forgotten about "thou shalt not kill", huh?) when they argue for their removal?

I understand that most Christians on DU don't have a problem with atheists, unbelievers, or even, say, Jews.. But if you are talking about most or even a good cross section of Christians in the United States of America, particularly the ones most vocally active in political life, I might beg to differ. I think the evidence currently shows something else.

[JerseygirlCT]

168. Truly, they are a very loud and very obnoxious minority

among Christians. I know it doesn't seem that way, but I promise, it's true.

I think (my opinion here) they need an "Them" in order to feel they are "Us". They require an other to fight against so they can feel united and good. Without that external, they might be forced to look carefully at themselves and might not like what they see. It shores up their troops, so to speak. And so long as they're fighting the evil (fill in the blanks), they can congratulate themselves for doing God's work.

Problem is, they're blatantly ignoring what they're called to do as Christians. Love one another. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, (this doesn't go for statues, either, John Ashcroft) visit prisoners. Strive to understand and love your fellow human, regardless of how they treat you. This is very, very hard, and if taken seriously, very frustrating at times. Much easier to do as the minority of fundamentalists do: make rules and doggedly stick to them, calling anyone who doesn't "evil". Jesus wasn't so interested in rules. He consistently placed himself with the "Thems" not the "Us".

[beam me up scottie]

187. That was the sanest thing

I've heard in a long time.

[Warren DeMontague]

272. I agree. Personally I completely concur with most of what I consider

the essence of what I believe Jesus, the guy, had to say- whether or not I believe such a person actually walked the Earth.

Be kind to people (even though I swear like a sailor I'm usually a nice guy) treat others as you would like to be treated, be compassionate, be nice to kids and animals, that sort of thing. Buddhism says much of the same thing.

My "reasons" for trying to do this are manyfold- in part because I sense that karma or energy is real in the human world, that positive and negative things do come back to us in the end, and also because I think there is a common, concurrent "self" in all of us- that everyone in the world is "me", or "us", as opposed to "them".. at least I try to remember this. And lastly, I've known plenty of greedy, mean bastards in my time, and most of them also were fucking miserable. Deep life lesson there.

But when dealing with the how and why and what, I try to work along the lines of, say, Catmas as opposed to Dogmas (I have the discordians to thank for that one) ...Catmas being flexible, experience-based observations on what seems to work or be appropriate for a given situation, as opposed to a dogma, which is a rigid, inflexible rule.. My opinion is that the ideas and the message of Jesus and much of what constitutes (in my opinion) genuine love-your-neighbor Christianity are certainly excellent pieces of friendly advice; the problem is when you join "Organized" to "religion" so often you end up with all the issues that plague human organizations- stratification, rigidification, calcification and a general muddying of the original message. Then add power, greed and corruption to the mix and you end up with the Reverend Fred Phelps, who couldn't pervert a message of compassion any more if he was trying... and come to think of it, I'm certain he is.

Again, just because I rail against the religious right, I in no way believe they represent all of Christianity or even come close to having a handle on what it's supposed to be about. Don't get me wrong- I have many good friends who are Christian, in what I consider the good sense of the world... my best friend from Childhood is a devout Catholic, but he's a "fight for social justice in Central America" Catholic, not a "don't use birth control or you're going to hell" Catholic. But it's pretty well-nigh impossible to have a discussion about religion in the United States without mentioning the religious right, since they are the obnoxious 400 lb self-righteous elephant in the room.

[JerseygirlCT]

301. The really interesting thing to me

is that so many of the world's religious traditions say the same thing.

"Buddhism says much of the same thing."

All of which only underlines the message for me. I think there's something essential and true there, regardless of the faith practices that might surround it. As to those, I'm pretty convinced that whatever gets you there is just dandy.

[noonwitch]

165. I'm not trying to convince them anything, so it's no problem for me

What is the old saying, religion is for those who are afraid of hell and spirituality is for those who have been there? Sometimes critics make good points about religious dogma and those who are religious without being spiritual get defensive, which just gives the critics more ammunition. If you've experienced the presence of God, you realize that what other people say doesn't really make it true, and it doesn't change your experience at all. It's not worth arguing with people over it.

[Guitarman]

169. Not an insult to me

Your beliefs and your opinions are your own and have no bearing on what I believe or how I feel about those beliefs.

[Bouncy Ball]

172. I'm a Christian and the existence of atheists doesn't insult me at all.

Why should it?

I don't care if you think I believe in fairy tales. That's ok by me. Whatever! LOL!

It's just not an issue for me. I have dear friends who are atheists and we have had some of the most wonderful conversations about religion, deities, etc.

Sometimes it just takes listening to each other. Not HEARING, but LISTENING. And I guess it helps that they know I'm not out to convert anyone. I don't CARE if you don't believe what I believe. I don't CARE what anyone's opinion is of my beliefs. I know my beliefs don't hurt anyone, that's all that counts, in my mind.

If I knew someone who believed there was a purple three-eyed God in their teakettle and worshipped it, I'd say well good for them, as long as that worship doesn't hurt anyone.

:shrug:

I just really don't get what the big deal is between Christians and atheists. Do Hindus have such a problem with atheists? Do Buddhists have such a problem with atheists? Do Jews have such a problem with atheists?

And personally, I can see why atheists would be pissed off. I've heard them told that they can't possibly be moral, good people because they don't have religion, and *I* take offense at that. Religion doesn't have the market cornered on morality. I've seen my friend told she's going to hell. WHO has the right to tell her something so ugly???? Of course, I'VE been told I'm going to hell because I'm not a "correct" Christian, meaning I don't bash gays and believe every word of the Bible is literal.

I'm rambling now, sorry.

[Arugula Latte]

191. The thing is, Bouncy Ball

not all religious beliefs are not benign. (Yours appear to be -- great.) However, Bush's religious beliefs are turning this country into a fucking mess (global warming -- we have dominion over the earth and animals, abortion -- cater to the fundie nutcases, evolution -- can't have our kids learning real facts now, can we?) I could go on and on.

Religion is killing this country. Not your brand of religion. But religion nonetheless.

[Arugula Latte]

194. P.S.

Religious dogma has had many direct impacts on my life (both personally and in the larger sense of the laws and regulations of this country). I'm supposed to just shut up and take it? That's how we got into this mess. I've had enough.

[Bouncy Ball]

219. Who said you had to shut up and take it?

You think I'm shutting up and taking it? Look what I wrote in the lounge today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x2939462

[beam me up scottie]

261. Hey BB,

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[barb162]

310. I think Bush believes in a higher power, is a Christian of

some sort but doesn't bother going to church. I think he looked to God to help him overcome his drinking. His beliefs which are mentioned in your post are simply part of his sociopathic personality disorder in that he does anything to get/keep power and money.

[Warren DeMontague]

313. Well, he's not a 12 stepper, if that's what you're implying.

And I think it's debateable how much he's "overcome", help from alleged spiritual friends or no... I still am pretty firmly convinced that the "pretzel choke" was a relapse... And aren't folks turning their problems over to higher powers supposed to display humility?

[barb162]

319. "pretzel choke" LOL, LOL

Or it was a case of trying to eat and perhaps get off the couch at the same time resulted in overload to his brain. Whatever.

I think people are turning problems over to higher powers these days because of profound lack of real education (critical thinking skills not being taught in as many schools these days as say 20 years ago), an inability to control their fate (due to job cuts,bankruptcy, etc), cuts in social services across the country, etc. People literally have no place else to turn other than to religion.

[Warren DeMontague]

321. That's not by accident, either.

People are much easier to control when they're terrified of losing their job, their health care, their home, etc. etc.

As far as the 12 step thing- with regards to alcoholism and other forms of addiction, it works for some people, for many others -particularly atheists- it doesn't.. (which is why I think government mandated treatment has to make secular alternatives available to people as well)... But the people I know who are engaged successfully in it mostly do share traits of constant self-examination and a rigorous desire, at least to call themselves on their own bullshit. Can you imagine anyone in the Bush administration, much less the shrub himself, displaying those traits?

[Susang]

233. Now that's someone who's confident in her beliefs

Exactly what I was talking about earlier. There's nothing to be offended by if you know who you are and what you believe. :applause:

[salin]

174. No

it just represents that we hold different beliefs/philosophies... big deal.

Now if you ridicule me for holding a different view - than that is an insult. But that is no more of an insult than the offensive way the extremist radical literalist Christians hurl towards atheists daily - except that due to sheer numbers and frothy worked up condition (via tv/radio and direct pulpits) the latter is much more common. But they insult the rest of the Christians in the world on a daily basis as well. :shrug:

[patcox2]

183. So why go around saying "I'm an atheist?" Who gives a fuck?

You are as obnoxious as christians who go around "testifying."

[beam me up scottie]

188. Okay, all you atheists

and gay people too, back in the closet with you!
We're offending someone by being ourselves, hit the alert button, cancel the gay pride parade, go back to pretending we're normal, can't have perverts and commies running around with the little children.

[WillowTree]

195. It works two ways, scottie.

See post #179.

[beam me up scottie]

201. If you want to announce that you're a christian,

I won't hold that against you.
I, however, am reminded daily that I'm in the minority. Atheists don't work on a point system, we have no desire to convert or recruit. Can you say the same of christians?
And I believe the point Discord was trying to make with this post:
"The second it leaves the home or church. Yes."
was when it (religion) is imposed on us against our will, then we have a problem with it.
My tax dollars are being used to PROMOTE religion, I resent the hell out of that and I have every right to. It's in our schools, it's on our money, it's in our libraries, courthouses, everywhere it is thrust in our face and that's not good enough, THEY want it written into our laws as well. They've already crippled the Constitution, why not just burn it?
I say THEY because I'm assuming that doesn't include most du'ers, but you tell me that it works both ways?
When have you ever been discriminated against or "tolerated" because of your beliefs?
No, it most certainly does NOT work both ways and as tempting as it is sometimes, I would not want that to happen to you or any other christian.

[WillowTree]

208. I spent part of my growing up years...

....in a small Southern town where being a Catholic was about one step above being a leper. You think I don't know what it means to be ill-treated because of my religious beliefs?

It's almost always a mistake to make assumptions about people whose background you know nothing about.

[beam me up scottie]

213. If you're a christian,

you're not a minority. Period.
And where did I make an assumption about anyone's background? I was replying to a poster calling the op obnoxious:
"You are as obnoxious as christians who go around "testifying.""
When you posted "It works two ways, scottie."
I "assumed" you were speaking as a christian, were you not?
If you feel the need to defend anyone in this forum, fine. But when you stick up for someone who just called the op "obnoxious", do expect a reply directed at that poster as well as yourself.

[Warren DeMontague]

268. Edit: Sorry, Wrong Post.

Mine was 153.

I don't know what that poster was getting at. Maybe you both should try to go beyond the one-line responses.

[ultraist]

207. exactly! SILENCE all non Christians

As was pointed out, by sheer numbers, athiests are much more insulted than "Christians" yet, people have posted here:

'using the word myth is offensive'
'fundies and athiests are equally wrong'
'athiests should not say anything that invalidates Christianity as it's a personal insult to all Christians'
'athiests should not say they are athiests' and a slew of other oppressive comments.

The message is, any minorities better shut the fuck and not question the status quo or the majority. Got it?

[patcox2]

244. And your message is the same, shut up about your religion.

And I have no problem with that. I don't announce my religion or lack or whatever to anyone. I am offended by those who do. Of either stripe, moderate christian, moderate atheist, fundie christian, or fundie atheist.

As far as the fundamental state of angst caused by being different in a society in which the majority beleives differently from you, well, thats a bitch, but you know, there you are. You have to deal, and I say this as one who is dealing every day. Wearing your difference on your sleeve is not the best way of dealing, but it is okay if what you secretly crave negative attention and fancy yourself a martyr. Its a little more reasonable to pick and choose when you "let your hair down." Thats the universal human experience anyway, we have a public face and a private face (See The Presentation Of Self In Everyday Life by Goffman). As it is, I know enough not to voice my true political beliefs around just anyone, not even here. I don't announce my sexual preference, and I don't go around railing that chocolate is the only true Ice Cream either.

Wallowing in your perceptions of persecution is a dangerous level of self-pity. In fact, its kinda funny, so many middle class hetero white college boys so desperate for martyrdom (not necessarily your description, but I am sure it fits some around here). What they go through is nothing to what a black person or a homosexual goes through every day of life in this society.

[mzmolly]

193. Last time I checked Christians weren't the only ones who believe in "God."

A few notable people who believe in "fairy tales"

Ghandi - Non Christian

Martin Luther King - Christian

Paul Wellstone - Non Christian

John F Kennedy - Christian/Catholic

Malcom X - Non Christian

[ultraist]

212. Ghandi was a Hindu. Hinduism doesn't posit a Christian idea of "God"

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hinduism2.htm

Hinduism has commonly been viewed in the west as a polytheistic religion - one which worships multiple deities: gods and goddesses. Although a widespread belief, this is not particularly accurate. Some have viewed it as a monotheistic religion, because it recognizes only one supreme God: the panentheistic principle of Brahman, that all reality is a unity. The entire universe is seen as one divine entity who is simultaneously at one with the universe and who transcends it as well. Some view Hinduism as Trinitarian because Brahman is simultaneously visualized as a triad -- one God with three persons: Brahma the Creator who is continuing to create new realities
Vishnu, (Krishna) the Preserver, who preserves these new creations. Whenever dharma (eternal order, righteousness, religion, law and duty) is threatened, Vishnu travels from heaven to earth in one of ten incarnations. Shiva, the Destroyer, is at times compassionate, erotic and destructive.

Strictly speaking, Hinduism is a henotheistic religion -- a religion which recognizes a single deity, but which recognizes other gods and goddesses as facets, forms, manifestations, or aspects of that supreme God.

Most urban Hindus follow one of two major divisions within Hinduism:

Vaishnavaism: which generally regards Vishnu as the ultimate deity
Shivaism: which generally regards Shiva as the ultimate deity.

However, many rural Hindus worship their own village goddess or an earth goddess. She is believed to rule over fertility and disease -- and thus over life and death. The priesthood is less important in rural Hinduism: non-Brahmins and non-priests often carry out ritual and prayer there.

[mzmolly]

216. I'm aware of that Ghandi was a Hindu. However, it doesn't change the

point. I realize I opened with the rationale that "God" transcends many beliefs however, I attempted to clarify with this statment:

A few notable people who believe in "fairy tales"


Unless for some reason, Atheists don't feel that worshiping "Gods" vs. a God = believing in fairy tales? :eyes:

:hi:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

198. atheism is not an insult to faith...

it is simply another belief structure founded on a lack of belief in a deity in any size shape or form. It is no different than believing in God...since there is no proof either way and likely never will be then is it simply another belief. Why people get so worked up about one or the other...well it is frankly beyond me...but that may not be saying much.

theProdigal

[beam me up scottie]

220. Here we go again.

We have no belief system. We do not need christianity or any other religion to define who we are.
Calling someone an atheist is using theists to define what we are not.
I think this is where a lot of misinformation begins.
It is about as different from believing in god as you can get.
I appreciate the sentiment that everyone shouldn't get upset about this issue, and I of course realize you didn't invent the word atheist, but this thread is really informative and I thought I would make a point.
Don't mean to sound snarky, really, just using your thread as a launchpad.:hi:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

248. i would beg to differ...

you DO have a belief system. If you simply had no opinion either way then I would agree...however, MOST atheist BELIEVE there is no God. They don't simply not have an opinion on the matter. Therefore it is, to my way of thinking and I would venture most theists, a belief system. I have no problem with such a belief...but I don't see how you can call it NO belief...

theProdigal

[beam me up scottie]

253. I do not believe in santa claus.

Is that a belief system?
I do not believe in the easter bunny.
Is that a belief system?
(note to respectful christians, I am not mocking your beliefs, just making a point about my lack of them to someone who needs educating)
Your whatever-you-want-to-call-it has absolutely NO significance in my life. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
I do not need to use your religion to define me, YOU might need to, but that's your problem, not mine.
Telling me I have a belief system because it makes you feel better is an insult and I am going to ask you politely that you refrain from lecturing me on what you think I am and I will do the same.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

255. maybe belief SYSTEM is too strong

I am not trying to insult you...and I do not feel like you are being mocking by any size or stretch of the imagination. I am not saying this to make myself feel better...simply to clarify a point of terminology that seems to ruffle feathers (see this whole conversation).

You do not believe in a God...true? My concept of God is something that you have chosen to completely disregard. And you know, while I do not believe as you do (that God does not exist) I am cool with that (and not that you care a whit about what I may or may not think).

But, here is the question: As an atheist, do you not believe God exists (which leaves room for discussion and interesting conversation) or do you believe that God does not exist? They are two distinctly different questions...and if you answer "I believe that no God exists" (as many atheist will) then that is a belief...no? I mean, you cannot empirically prove it either way?

Please don't be offended. I am not trying to be a nuisance...but this is a point that many Christians/Atheists get caught up on. And a thought out conversation on it might do some good!

Thanks for your considered opinion!
theProdigal

[beam me up scottie]

260. I apologize, I tend to get snarky

on this topic because of previous arguments. It is not fair to you or anyone else who is trying to contribute to an extremely volatile discussion (it's actually going way better than yesterday).
I never even heard of god when I was a kid. So when I think about someone's religion perhaps it's not the same as someone who used to believe.
I think of myself as a woman, not a non-man. I assume (bad choice of words I know) that black people do not think of themselves as non-white (even though bigots do). I expect gays would not want to define themselves as non-straight (hetero).
Does that make any sense ?
I do not actively disbelieve, I've never even considered it, to be honest. I would never tell someone that their god does not exist-that is no different than when christians proselytize. I don't know what exists for anyone other than myself.
I do not like the term atheist because it uses theism to define a lack of it, but to me it is simply the lack of belief.
I cannot even comprehend what your god is to you, so I could never define myself as without him (her?).
Psycho-babble, isn't it?

[msmcghee]

203. Becoming intolerant of intolerance.

The problem with most analyses of religion is that they treat religion as a "thing" that sits inside of (some) people's minds. Such analyses are futile.

The way to see this problem IMHO is to think of the contents of the human mind as a pyramid. At the bottom are millions of scattered bits of knowledge, like the times-tables or how to make a good fried rice. These are useful but have little emotional attachment. At the very top sit the one or two principles that are strongly attached to us emotionally and are so important that we organize our lives around them. All the other information in our minds sits below the pinnacle at various levels. And all that information must be emotionally compatible with the principles above them in the pyramid. The closer to the top it sits - the more it must fit and be compatible with the values at the pinnacle. That's why there are no fundies at DU - and why there are no Unitarians at FR.

That is what we call our worldview. We all have one. Any information we come across that doesn't fit with the principles at the top of our worldview will be opposed and rejected. If they fit however, we will eagerly add them as supporting glue to our worldview.

People in this forum tend to have principles like tolerance, fairness and openness for differing views at the top of our worldview. Those of us who are religious find religious beliefs that fit comfortably below those principles in their worldview - which means they are consistent with those principles. These are our liberal Christian friends here at DU. Their Christianity embraces tolerance, fairness and openness for differing views.

These are not the fundies. At the top of the fundies' worldview are values such as intolerance, support for male authority, hatred of ambiguity in personal expression or differentness from norms in people, etc. Their Christianity is (must be) compatible with those values. So, theirs is a jealous, vindictive, intolerant Christianity.

The reason that many here are mistrustful of all Christians is that even relatively tolerant religious memes can morph into more virulent forms and take over a person's worldview. Christianity and Islam are both, at heart, exclusionary world-dominating belief systems unless constantly kept in check by more powerful social forces. Christianity (and Islam and Zionism) can not be trusted to quietly remain part of a free and open society on its own. It will always seek to displace other social values with its own dogma. All it takes sometimes is an outside threat (like 9/11) for people who previously embraced tolerant religious memes to allow those memes to morph into their more dangerous and virulent cousins and take over their worldview.

Just from reading about western civilization people can see that even the less virulent forms of Christianity can morph and become part of the Crusade. That's what has happened repeatedly to cause the periodic Reformations we have endured - all of them visiting horrible levels of death, torture and cruelty on innocent humans. So, at times like this, anyone who reads history and is not a fundie can't help but see danger in even the more benevolent forms of Christianity - especially when they refuse to engage their toxic cousins in debate over legitimacy.

IMO, it comes down to the values you put at the top of your worldview pyramid. Liberal values are not warrior values - they are by nature tolerant and forgiving and wanting-to-just-get-along-so-everybody-can-be-happy values. We'd even prefer to get along with the fundies instead of fight with them. Ours are weak values (because we generally see conflict as bad). These gentle values are laughed at by the crusading warriors on the right who are out to destroy them (and us). Although our instinct is to include theirs - our worldview can not fit into theirs at any place in their pyramid.

The fundies are on the march carrying their banners in the wind. They now control all branches of our government - a government that was becoming ever more tolerant and open and inclusive - and have already turned back many of those hard fought gains. We are right to feel very threatened. It is time to stop tolerating intolerance.

It is up to liberal Christians to take up their own banner and fight for their liberal Christian values against the religious right - just as we secular liberals fight against the neo-cons. It is not a battle they, or we, can sit out. It is up to liberal Christians to make damned sure no-one in this society can mistake them for fundies or fails to understand the differences between them in terms of the values at the top of their worldview pyramids.

If they don't do that they will see their own values trampled into the mud - and ours with them.

[dxstone]

221. Well said, msmcghee!

Great use of analogy too!
So many incredibly talented writers on this site!...

[beam me up scottie]

223. Outstanding post!

Posts like that are why I come here. I realize there are assholes here just like anywhere else, but the majority of du'ers, I will assume (there goes that word again) are curious about their neighbors.
Thank you.

[FULL_METAL_HAT]

222. Deeper insights: On the origin of "Secular"

One way to approach the general question here is to look at the how and where language and the concept "opposite of religion" arose.

First, a refresher from the dictionary with an eye on the word's origin or etymology:

Secular
SYLLABICATION: sec·u·lar
PRONUNCIATION: sky-lr
ADJECTIVE: 1. Worldly rather than spiritual. 2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music. 3. Relating to or advocating secularism. 4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy. 5. Occurring or observed once in an age or century. 6. Lasting from century to century.
NOUN: 1. A member of the secular clergy. 2. A layperson.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Old French seculer, from Late Latin saeculris, from Latin, of an age, from saeculum, generation, age.
OTHER FORMS: secu·lar·ly —ADVERB

We see that "secular" has a deep root in something to with generational age or aging. This seems pretty obtuse at first glance, as "something of the ages" would seem to be based or derived from the history and longevity of religion.

It turns out that the history of "secular" is very rich and speaks to a real pattern or cycle human civiliation goes through in terms from the creation and acceptence of new "belief", through its ascension, and finally the debasement and rejection of that same "belief".

Here we have an excellent explanation of our own Seculare

From http://www.fourthturning.com/html/history___turnings.html

History and Turnings

A turning is an era with a characteristic social mood, a new twist on how people feel about themselves and their nation. It results from the aging of the generational constellation. A society enters a turning once every twenty years or so, when all living generations begin to enter their next phases of life. Like archetypes and constellations, turnings come four to a saeculum, and always in the same order:

The First Turning is a High

—an upbeat era of strengthening institutions and weakening individualism, when a new civic order implants and the old values regime decays. Old Prophets disappear, Nomads enter elderhood, Heroes enter midlife, Artists enter young adulthood—and a new generation of Prophets is born.

The Second Turning is an Awakening

—a passionate era of spiritual upheaval, when the civic order comes under attack from a new values regime. Old Nomads disappear, Heroes enter elderhood, Artists enter midlife, Prophets enter young adulthood—and a new generation of child Nomads is born.

The Third Turning is an Unraveling

—a downcast era of strengthening individualism and weakening institutions, when the old civic order decays and the new values regime implants. Old Heroes disappear, Artists enter elderhood, Prophets enter midlife, Nomads enter young adulthood—and a new generation of child Heroes is born.

The Fourth Turning is a Crisis

—a decisive era of secular upheaval, when the values regime propels the replacement of the old civic order with a new one. Old Artists disappear, Prophets enter elderhood, Nomads enter midlife, Heroes enter young adulthood—and a new generation of child Artists is born.

Like the four seasons of nature, the four turnings of history are equally necessary and important. Awakenings and Crises are the saecular solstices, summer and winter, each a solution to a challenge posed by the other. Highs and Unravelings are the saecular equinoxes, spring and autumn, each coursing a path directionally opposed to the other. When a society moves into an Awakening or Crisis, the new mood announces itself as a sudden turn in social direction. An Awakening begins when events trigger a revolution in the culture, a Crisis when events trigger an upheaval in public life. A High or Unraveling announces itself as a sudden consolidation of the new direction. A High begins when society perceives that the basic issues of the prior Crisis have been resolved, leaving a new civic regime firmly in place. An Unraveling begins with the perception that the Awakening has been resolved, leaving a new cultural mindset in place.

The gateway to a new turning can be obvious and dramatic (like the 1929 Stock Crash) or subtle and gradual (like 1984’s Morning in America). It usually occurs two to five years after a new generation of children starts being born. The tight link between turning gateways and generational boundaries enables each archetype to fill an entire phase-of-life just as the mood of an old turning grows stale and feels ripe for replacement with something new.

The four turnings comprise a quaternal social cycle of growth, maturation, entropy, and death (and rebirth). In a springlike High, a society fortifies and builds and converges in an era of promise. In a summerlike Awakening, it dreams and plays and exults in an era of euphoria. In an autumnal Unraveling, it harvests and consumes and diverges in an era of anxiety. In a hibernal Crisis, it focuses and struggles and sacrifices in an era of survival. When the saeculum is in motion, therefore, no long human lifetime can go by without a society confronting its deepest spiritual and worldly needs.

Modernity has thus far produced six repetitions of each turning, each repetition lasting roughly the duration of a phase of life and corresponding to an identical constellation of generational archetypes. Each sequential set of four turnings constitutes a saeculum.

The Anglo-American saeculum dates back to the waning of the Middle Ages in the middle of the fifteenth century. In this lineage, there have been seven saecula:

• Late Medieval (1435-1487)
  
• Reformation (1487-1594)
  
• New World (1594-1704)
  
• Revolutionary (1704-1794)
  
• Civil War (1794-1865)
  
• Great Power (1866-1946)
  
• Millennial (1946-2026?)

America is presently in the Third Turning of the Millennial Saeculum and giving birth to the 24th generation of the post-medieval era.

In summation, one generation's sacred is another generation's profane. Each new era, more "modern" than the previous has new discoveries that cause a questioning of previous assertions that had no other answer than "god". New answers force the believers in the "old answers" to react, since these "new answers" are in fact a direct challenge to their view of how the heavens and earth operate.

And finally, to give everyone a litle breathing room, the reason that reason itself doesn't ultimately trump religious belief is even the rationalism of "natural philosophy" finds itself facing "new answers" to formerly strongly believed "old answers" and so itself goes through the cycles of saecula...

What goes up must come down ... who's "team" you're on at this point in the cycle defines whether you're being "sacred" or "profane" -- today's "fairies" become tomorrow's "gods" and vice-versa...

I hope this adds something constructive to the discussion :), and to ask a question of the reader, how do you feel the "question of secularism/religiosity" fits into the cycles we see around us? Are we really in the "third turning" as the author above suggests, or are we now experiencing "the final turn" in our race to the next phase of society?

All the best,
{B^)
FULL_METAL_HAT

[maxsolomon]

224. quote locator!

There's no escape from him. He's so high you can't get over him.
He's so low you can't get under him. He's so wide you can't get around him.
If you make your bed in Heaven he's there. If you make your bed in Hell he's there. He's everywhere.

my life in the bush of ghosts - david byrne/brian eno

that album preceded moby by 20 years!

[info being]

225. That's exactly it. Atheists are only allowed to exist...

as long as they stay in the closet. To come out of the closet and say something obvious is to be intolerant and insulting.

IMHO, Christians do not have the right to hide behind their fairy tale beliefs.

[mzmolly]

276. What about Hindu's or Muslims or Jews?

Do they have the "right to hide behind their fairy tale beliefs?"

[Zynx]

231. Your existence doesn't bother me.

Your insults do. The militant atheists that constantly clump me with the Jerry Falwell types bother me. You know, atheists don't have some kind of corner on the truth. No group does and none should pretend to. Religious beliefs, including disbelief(which itself is a belief system), should be individuals. No one should go around trying to convince anybody of anything.

[beam me up scottie]

247. Disbelief is NOT a belief system!!!

How many times do we have to explain this? I do not try to -or even care to- define your beliefs, quit trying to tell me what I am in comparison to what you are.
I don't even know where you get that from unless it's the fact that we do make you uncomfortable and this is the only way you can rationalize the fear that you might just be wrong.
Maybe the "militant" atheists are responding to YOUR insults.

"Religious beliefs, including disbelief(which itself is a belief system)"

How much more insulting can you get?

[Zynx]

257. I don't like people who go around saying they hate God, etc, etc.

And there are atheists like that, like it or not.

BTW, I've never insulted an atheist to their face in my life, but I have been called by atheists a "stupid Christian" with no provocation. That is a fact. Next time, do no make assumptions about my life.

[beam me up scottie]

262. You have every right to hate whoever you want.

You even have the right to insult us as often as you want, whenever you want, bash away.
However, maligning atheists and/or theists is not an effective way to communicate.
If you just want to be a smart-ass, go right ahead, I do it all the time
:evilgrin:
but most of us are trying to discuss how to communicate without doing exactly that.

[beam me up scottie]

287. ?

What assumptions did I make exactly?

[Warren DeMontague]

304. Someone who "hates God" isn't an Atheist.

Maybe a Satanist, but not an Atheist. It's pretty hard to "hate" something you don't believe exists.

[Zynx]

264. The passive lack of beliefs(agnosticism) is not a belief.

The active disbelief in God, atheism, is indeed in the same general realm. Simply saying "I don't know." would qualify as not being a belief. However, since you cannot know whether God exists or not, to affirm or deny is a belief since you lack the knowledge to make a factual assertion. Belief does not inherently have a religious connotation you know. Here's a good definition of belief that would lump atheism in with it:

"Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons."

You think, but do not know, that God does not exist, therefore you accept that as a truth without knowledge of it.

As a matter of fact, atheism could be described under a definition of faith:

"Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."

Since atheists are confident in the idea that there is no God, but do not know it, they are the same as Christians, such as my self, who believe in God without knowing it to be true.

[beam me up scottie]

266. I take it you're not done insulting us yet?

"You think, but do not know, that God does not exist, therefore you accept that as a truth without knowledge of it."

"Since atheists are confident in the idea that there is no God, but do not know it, they are the same as Christians, such as my self, who believe in God without knowing it to be true."

How is telling me that different from an atheist telling you that you believe in fairy-tales?

Again, you are trying to define me in relation to what YOU are. It doesn't work that way, sorry.

I already covered this in posts 253 and 260.

[Zynx]

267. Last time I checked, it wasn't established fact whether God existed or not

Any position on God's existence is thus a belief by definition. I do not see the insult. I'm neither raising nor lowering your position. I'm just saying that no one is superior and that we all are trying to find our concept of the truth in an environment in which very little is established fact. I don't see the insult.

[beam me up scottie]

269. I realize that now but

I would feel you were being insulted if I tried to compartmentalize your beliefs.
It is different for everybody but my analogy of being a woman instead of a "non-man" is as accurate as I can get when it comes to the definition of your faith in relation to me.
I've never had it, therefore I cannot conceive of what it is that you have and I don't. It's not an action on my part, it just ...isn't anything at all. It's impossible to articulate I guess.

:rant:

This is why I nominated this thread, so many of us are trying so hard to understand what it's like to be somebody else and even if we can't, the fact that we see a little clearer makes it just as valuable.

[Warren DeMontague]

305. I agree- however, this idea that *all* belief systems are inherently equal

may be fine and dandy when it comes to respecting how your neighbor sees the world..

However, (and I may be mistaken, but I think this was the original source of at least one of the allegedly offensive "Fairy Tale" remarks) in the context of, say, Creationism vs. Evolution as explanation of the origin of the human race and whether or not one or both should be taught in Science class, all belief systems are NOT scientifically equal.

Therefore, what should be taught is what has been deduced through the scientific method and what has physical evidence to back it up. The Bible's story of creation (either version) has no evidence to back it up, and any inclusion of it ---in public schools--- as an "equally plausible alternative" to accepted scientific cosmological and biological explanations of how the Earth and human race got here are nothing more than sheer religious pandering and neo-luddite bullying by the religious majority in this country.

[beam me up scottie]

307. Thanks, Perfesser!

nt
:evilgrin:

[enki23]

232. i've noted the same thing here a number of times

i suppose its best, for decorum's sake, to talk in code. but the base of the problem doesn't change: we aren't ever going to get along, really.

i'll admit it right off, it's much harder for me to respect someone who says they are a christian. it's not that i can't. there are christians who i respect as much as or more than anyone. but it's not common. serious professions of christianity, or (to a greater or lesser extent) other religions, seriously hinder my ability to take someone seriously.

and they don't like me either. i think they're delusional. that means, to them, that i think i am "better than" them. they're right. i think it's generally "better" to be non-delusional than to be delusional. that doesn't mean i think i'm generally more deserving, morally superior. it just means i think i'm healthier than they are, in at least one important respect. that pisses many of them off. they think most of the same things about me, though more often than not they also feel i am "evil" and deserve to suffer for all eternity.

so let's see how it adds up:

i think they're a bit daft. they think i'm a bit daft.
CULTURAL INSENSITIVITY METER
Atheists: 1 - Christians: 1

i think most of their beliefs hinder humanity more than they help. they think my beliefs, or lack thereof, hinder humanity more than help it.
CULTURAL INSENSITIVITY METER
Atheists: 2 - Christians: 2

i believe i am intellectually superior to most christians. Most christians believe they are intellectually and/or spiritually superior to me.
CULTURAL INSENSITIVITY METER
Atheists: 3 - Christians: 3

i believe they should not be allowed to endorse their religion when serving as an agent of local, state, or federal government. they are somewhat split on the matter, but mostly advocate for a greater endorsement of christianity by government agencies and agents.
CULTURAL INSENSITIVITY METER
Atheists: 4 - Christians: 4

i believe they will never see the afterlife they hope for. instead, i believe they will share my ultimate fate, the fate shared by every human which ever has and ever will draw breath. most of them believe i am "evil". an even greater number believe i deserve to suffer, and will suffer for all eternity for the crime of not believing.
CULTURAL INSENSITIVITY METER
you make the call

most of them feel that, as the dominant religious culture in our nation, they should enjoy a greater freedom to impose their religious values upon those who do not share them. this includes using religious precepts to drive local, state, and national policy decisions. they not only believe this, they do this. often.
CULTURAL INSENSITIVITY METER
are we still keeping score?

christians dislike atheists. atheists dislike christians. christians have the power to act their dislike of atheists, and others who do not share their beliefs. atheists have much less of the sort of influence necessary to accomplish the same. they are left, mostly, to the courts, in attempts to continue or increase enforcement of constitutional protections of political and cultural minorities.
CULTURAL INSENSITIVITY METER
what's the point? christians *are* the culture. atheists can be bastards, just like christians. they just don't have the political capital to enforce it.

[beam me up scottie]

250. Words fail me.

nt
:applause:
:applause:
:applause:
:applause:
:yourock:

[Warren DeMontague]

270. Yeah, you nailed it, pal.

Thanks.

[Pithlet]

236. I think it does, for some.

And I do believe that that "some" would deny it. I can't help but wonder if some of the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Christian bashing isn't a manifestation of that. While I won't deny that Christian bashing happens here, I don't think it does to the degree that it warrants blasting all of DU for it. I think too many here forget about the atheists that don't bash, who FAR outnumber those who do. We all get blasted for the acts of a few. While many of the complaints are valid, I feel there is an undercurrent of distrust and dislike of atheism running through much of the "Christian bashing" threads. I'll get flamed for saying this, I'm sure. But DU is one of the few safe havens for atheists, and I do believe that many Christians aren't used to hearing their faith discussed and criticized so openly. Some of that valid criticism often gets lumped in with the true bashing. It has to be a shock. But, it's sad to see the place I come to for solace get reamed and labeled anti_Christian. It's hurtful to me and everyone else who doesn't deserve to be blasted with that label. And it is hypocritical of those that accuse us when they turn around and do the very same thing.

I do wonder if it is an effort to shut the atheists up completely, because we're too uncomfortable to be around. Make us feel ashamed by labeling us as smug and superior and close minded. Make it seem as though all of DU is hostile towards you because that's just the way atheists are, otherwise there wouldn't be a problem. Alert is there for a reason. Use it, move on, and quite labeling the rest of us. DU is not hostile towards Christians, and labeling it so is a slap in the face to the majority of us who DON'T bash you.

Sorry. Still have a lot of hurt feelings over this.

[NashVegas]

239. Insult, No. Challenge - Yes

Depends, too.

Say you have someone who's atheist for no other reason than they've never been raised in a church or otherwise indoctrinated. Perhaps, indoctrinated to believe in the negative.

A Christian, or any religious person, may challenge this atheist to rethink their beliefs, or lack of them. "I challenge you to see what I think is there."

Likewise, an atheist who came to their philosophy through their own rationalism, would challenge any religious person whose views came to them not from their own logic, but that they were trained to. "I challenge you to look again and be sure it's there."

[spunky]

249. Apparently, Christians don't believe we (atheists) exist.

Or so I learned from a series of letters to the editor in the local paper.

Atheists, according to several writers, all know in our hearts that God exists, we just deny this knowledge. Needless to say I wrote a very nasty letter to the editor respoding that I didn't appreciate being told I don't exist.

So, if we don't exist, and we are simply denying the truth of God's existence that we feel in our hearts, then I don't think we can be an insult to them. Afterall, that makes US the fairy tale. :eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

263. Well maybe they can explain why I

think I exist, because I don't get it either. :banghead:
I'd almost rather have someone scream that I was going to burn in hell than to just "dismiss" me because they can't conceive of anyone believing anything differently than they do (shit my grammar sucks today) :banghead:
and
:banghead:
and
:banghead:
again.

[PaDem]

254. I'm not at all insulted.........

Christians believe, or should believe, that God gave us all free will to essentially believe or not believe. I respect atheists while disagreeing with their ultimate conclusion. I don't think they are lunatics or any less loved by the God that I believe in. I think many atheists are most put off not by Christianity itself, but by some of the polarizing characters who claim Christianity while at the same time twisting it up (see Falwell etc.). I've not known many atheists, but those that I have known were respectful of my beliefs just as I respected their "free will" to not believe. It's a shame that the two sides cannot have better dialogue.

[beam me up scottie]

256. Thank you, we're trying.

But if you read most of the posts on this thread you'll see most du'er's are doing a good job explaining and understanding the facts and misconceptions on all sides.

[mzmolly]

259. Here here! *ditto*

:applause:

[Joe Chi Minh]

271. It doesn't insult me, either.

I remember a lad in the army saying a bit sheepishly that praying is just talking to yourself.

And it really tickled me because it suddenly occurred to me that that must be just how it would seem to a non-believer. He was simply honestly stating how he saw it, not trying to insult me.

[Donailin]

277. Doesn't bother me

all the atheists I know are more Christian than the Christians in terms of their ethics , their morals and their values.

And further, I can say that about Muslims.

[Deja Q]

279. The existence of homosexuals should be just as much an insult.

[Susang]

284. To many, it seems to be

Fred Phelps, for one. The Pope, another. I could go on, but I think you get my drift. ;-)

Disclaimer: I am not Pope bashing, this is merely a comment on his stated position on homosexuality, not about his worth as a person or spiritual leader. So please, nobody flay me alive, 'kay?

[beam me up scottie]

293. Boy are you ever in the wrong place.

:spank:
nt

[Susang]

295. I am prepared to take my lumps

But since this is buried way, way down at the bottom of the thread, I have a feeling that few will actually make it this far. They'll have to work hard to if they want to get offended by us posters way down here. ;-)

[beam me up scottie]

299. Jeez, here I am trying to pick a fight

and you go and get all nice on me, ick
They said you wuz mean!
:evilgrin:

[Susang]

302. Sorry, I'll try harder next time

I promise! O8)

[Democrat Dragon]

289. I'm not insulted

Personally I see athesim as yet another belif system.

Go ahead and throw rocks at me cause I'm a heretic to y'all, belivers. :eyes:

[DemocracyInaction]

297. No, why should it? I'm straight - does my eixtence offend gays???

Get over it. There are all brands of Christians. Just like there are gays who march in parades and ones who stay in closets. It's a personal choice and I don't care how you or my next door neighbor get your kicks, who you screw or not, what you eat, if you believe in God or how many bowel movements you have a day. Those who think "they offend" others, are in love with themselves and think the world revolves around them. It doesn't.

[beam me up scottie]

312. If anybody's still reading this, pay ATTENTION:

You need to read Arendt's post "Kill a Constitution for Christ"
It is a slap in the face and a good reminder why we need to fight this battle together, READ IT and pass it around:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3379472

As an aside to Hamlette, sorry to post off topic but it's not really so off topic, just helps define what's at stake for all of us.