Duluth nun, raised as an atheist, blogs about life and faith

[struggle4progress]

Posted on Mon, Feb. 26, 2007

LINDA HANSON
Duluth News Tribune

... Sister Bogue's parents were atheists. "It was the religion in our household," she said. "Dad's creed was that no intelligent person believes in God." ...

Sister Bogue has worked at the College of St. Scholastica since 2002. She's an assistant professor and teaches family sociology, statistics, social issues and honors courses on such topics as the death penalty, conspicuous consumption and environmental sociology ...

Sometimes she wonders if she is just amusing herself with the blog but then she reminds herself it's better than mindlessly sitting in front of a television ...

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/16788740.htm


Saturday, February 24
Fr Greg Boyle - Catholic Studies Lecture

We heard a great speaker at the College of Saint Scholastica on Thursday night ... Fr Greg Boyle, a Jesuit, works with gang members in one of the poorest areas of Los Angeles ...

Several months ago, a homie named Carlos shows up in my office and he had just been released from Corcoran State Prison. He'd been locked up for ten years, since he was fourteen ...

... I sent him to work on Tuesday at our Homeboy silkscreen factory, which is our biggest business. We have all these enemy gang members who work side by side with each other, nearly a thousand gang members have passed through there since '98 ... On Wednesday I'm just curious how he's doing ...

... He goes, "Yeah, yesterday after work I'm tired and I'm dirty and I'm sitting in the back of the bus. I could not help myself. I kept turning to people on the bus, total strangers, "I'm just coming back from my first day at work!" "Just got back. First day on the job."
And of course I'm imagining the people on the bus. You know, maybe their thinking, "Who the hell would hire this guy?" and maybe mothers are clutching their kids closer to themselves, and maybe somebody looks at him and thinks, "What a waste of a good job."

The prophet Isaiah writes, "In this place of which you say it is a waste there will be heard again the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voices of those who sing" ...

http://edithosb.blogspot.com/

[varkam]

1. She should come around DU sometime.

I'm sure she'd enjoy it here :evilgrin:

[trotsky]

2. Much like anything with kids,

if you forbid it, they'll be drawn to it. Sometimes obsessively.

[NMMNG]

3. "(Atheism) was the religion in our house"

For someone whose parents were atheists she obviously doesn't know much about atheism.

[varkam]

4. Don't you know that atheism is a belief system just like any religion?

For an atheist, you don't seem to know much about atheism. :sarcasm:

[Erika]

10. Just smile

Atheism is considered Godless which is considered immoral which is considered evil. You know, at least the Godly have some morals even if they don't follow them sometimes.

We atheists have no morals according to the popular equation now used.

[NMMNG]

11. I guess I don't

That's why I always need theists to redefine me and tell me what I believe. :crazy:

[varkam]

12. Without theists

how would we know what we think? In a way, that's also kind of a legitimate question given that we often define ourselves as atheists. It's a nasty habit.

[kiahzero]

5. Heaven forbid someone speak metaphorically.

:eyes:

[Goblinmonger]

6. Well, it had a creed, too

so it must be a religion.

And I don't for a minute believe that she was speaking metaphorically; I have never met anyone who has said that atheism is a religion/belief system that was saying it metaphorically.

[Dorian Gray]

27. I understand why people may object to her phrasing

but if someone is vehement all the time about being non-religious, it's difficult to find the words to describe that. Most theists have difficulty phrasing things about a dogmatic belief that no religions are true without using religious language. Hell, I used dogmatic.

[struggle4progress]

7. Perhaps, however, she knows more about her own parents than you

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. I'm assuming that she means that her parents were the type of

atheists who actively told her that there is no God, as opposed to just being indifferent about the matter.

I doubt that she means they attended the First Atheist Church and sang hymns to no one.

[struggle4progress]

9. I won't claim to know what she meant: she could have meant any number of things,

depending on what "religion" signifies to her. Whatever it meant to her, she made no sweeping statement about atheists but only a statement about her family, which might have meant (say) she considered their atheism dogmatic or that she believed their atheism was central to their self-definitions.

The word "religion" clearly signifies different things to different people. The way I use the word, it is meaningful to say "Everyone has a religion, explicit or not" -- and I am inclined to the view that some people have junkfood snacks as their religion, others television and movies, still others worship their own intellects and so on. On the other hand, there are apparently people who think that "religion" is necessarily a bad thing and who accuse me of insulting them personally whenever I make such a statement. In any case, I will agree with what I think you are saying -- namely, that "religion" does not necessarily involve institutional membership.

[varkam]

13. Re-li-gion

noun

1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1.b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

(taken from The Free Dictionary)

Where would atheism fit in here? Not 1a, because there is no sort of supernatural power associated with it. Not 2b because there is no worship either. Definition 2 is circular. Not 3, because there is no leader. The only possible definition atheism could fall under would be 4 except that atheism really is not a cause, a principle, or an activity. It's simple disbelief. Moreover, that definition implies that there is some sort of end-goal associated with religion (as denoted by the word "pursued"). If there is an end-goal associated with atheism (other than world-domination, of course) I am blissfully ignorant of it. I'd be happy to debate you on that point, however.

What tends to stop me from saying that I am inclined to view elephants as toads and bicycles as rocks is because I have a firm grasp on what those words mean. Religion is a bit more of an ambiguous concept, so I suppose that it's only natural that there be some confusion. When religion is re-defined to include atheism (or science, or anything else) it is usually done by someone who has a motivation to do so in order for it to have a pejorative effect.

Is it too much to ask that we all use the language that we have agreed upon?

[Erika]

14. Religions love the existence of atheists

So they can have someone to blame life's problems on while giving them at the same time a group to pray for as those who are evil and unenlightened. Very elitist atitude and about off-base as you can get.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. I don't love the existence of atheists

And I don't hate it. I'd just like to have them leave me alone and not try and shove their opinions down my throat--they can be as bad as fundamentalist Christians in this regard, only with smug arrogance thrown in.

[varkam]

24. My experience with fundamentalist Christians has always been

that they were extremely humble. "Excuse me, I'm very sorry to bother you but have you ever heard of Jesus Christ"? :eyes: When's the last time you've ever had to deal with an atheist at your door, shoving their opinions down your throat?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

38. I've encounted plenty of both

shove down your throat types on different message boards on the internet. The anonymity of the computer seems to bring out the worst in many people.

[varkam]

39. Oh, so you've never actually had atheists show up at your door

to do it? Because I have Christians do it to me a couple times a week. But you're right, it really is much more distressing on the computer where you can choose what you read and what you don't read.

on edit: It's kind of hard to shove opinions on other people when said other people have to click on and then read your opinions. To use the metaphor, in order for me to shove my opinions down your throat, you have to open your mouth first.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

41. You're right.

That's probably why 95% of people on my ignore list are atheists.

[varkam]

47. Funny. I don't have anyone on mine.

Oh, right, I forgot. It's cause I'm too busy shoving my opinion down other people's throats.

[jgraz]

62. Gotta say, varkam

you're much more fun now that you're not a mod. ;)

[varkam]

63. I think this is sort of my release

of the pent up frustration I got during my two terms as a moderator because I wanted so badly to say things that would be unbecoming to a moderator. But I'm glad I'm much more fun now :D

[SidDithers]

95. And I'm glad you're on our side!...

:toast:

Sid

[okasha]

58. You can also choose whether or not to open your door.

I find that just ignoring the people on the porch until they go away works quite nicely.

[varkam]

64. Yes, and that's so very analogous to choosing to come to a message board

click on a link, read someone else's opinion, and then complain that they're shoving it down your throat. It's not as through they wear sandwich boards declaring their love for Jesus Christ, now is it?

[NMMNG]

68. But is it possible (for the average person)

to never leave the house, or to never go to work?

I've been approached numerous times in the community by people who want to give me religious publications and proselytize to me. These people have a difficult time understanding the meaning of the phrase "No thank you" as I have to repeat it several times to them as I am walking away rapidly. They'll often follow me to my car and the only way I can get rid of them is to slam my door shut.

I've also had a few people try to proselytize to me at work. Worse yet I had one horribly rude person who would sing hymns at top volume for hours, or if she wasn't doing that she'd read her Bible aloud in a voice that could be heard everywhere. After about two months of this I finally asked her to tone it down as I found it disturbing to me. Her response was, "If you don't like it you can QUIT!". It took numerous complaints to the management from me and other staff who were tired of her behavior, several reprimands from the management to her and ultimately a transfer to another unit because she refused to stop acting like this workplace was her personal church.

In the 21 years I was a Christian I was never harassed or proselytized to by an atheist. I've been harassed and proselytized to plenty by Christians, however.

[Dorian Gray]

85. Is this truly a problem?

I've also been approached by religious organizations in which I want no part. On the streets during Mardi Gras. At my house by Jehova's Witnesses. I either keep walking while ignoring them, don't answer the door, or simply say, "No thank you." Sure, it may be a pain in the ass, but they aren't exactly ramming down my door every day or screaming that I'm going to Hell at me every time I leave my house.

Or, perhaps there are towns out there in the USA where, the moment one steps outside, they are beseiged by rabid prosthelytizing Christians.

[NMMNG]

93. When people consider atheists refusing to hide in a closet

out to be the equivalent of a capital crime, you bet I consider this truly a problem.

[Dorian Gray]

97. Okay... I accept that.

I in no way want atheists to keep their opinions or views hidden from the mainstream. And if you are in a work environment where that is necessary, that is totally and completely wrong. I definitely agree with that.

[NMMNG]

102. Thank you

I in no way want atheists to keep their opinions or views hidden from the mainstream.

It is so refreshing to see that. Especially of late so many have been clamoring for atheists to essentially STFU. CNN, others in the MSM, many on DU and elsewhere. It is incredibly frustrating to be both innundated with religion and told "we don't want you to be seen or heard".

[cyborg_jim]

42. One cannot, and I mean CANNOT force you to go to a message board

Unless you're being held at gun point by a crazed atheist that is demandind you read Internet message boards you are building a big giant of a strawman.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

56. No, but I've been on many threads

about religion where it has been hijacked by atheists who interfered with the discussion of the OP. I would think that atheists would be mad if their thread was hijacked by a bunch of believers.

[NMMNG]

69. .....

I would think that atheists would be mad if their thread was hijacked by a bunch of believers.


That has happened more times than I can count.

[Evoman]

76. I'm reminded of the thread in which I posted a link to stories from atheists

and what made them decide to call themselves atheist. A story meant to foster "understanding". Within 4 posts, certain theists here decided to take it off track and started calling atheism a religion, and asking "why do you post here anyways". After a huge over-100 post flamewar, my thread was locked. About 3 people actually responded to my OP.

Again, only "atheists hijack other peoples threads". Yeah fucking right.

[NMMNG]

92. One of the exact things I was thinking of

Funny how nobody ever remembers things like that when they're chastising us. :eyes:

[Dorian Gray]

86. And that, too, is true...

Nobody is forcing anybody to read anything or write anything or believe anything on these message boards.

[cyborg_jim]

26. I have yet to be witnessed by an atheist

I have since I've been at Uni been witnessed twice by the Christian Union and once by the local LDS church.

And also by a nutter - he was less ameanable to my logical arguments against his claims.

I didn't realise that atheists were so organised your side of the pond.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

57. Do you think that all believers are Christians?

Or that they LIKE being witnessed to? I'm NOT Christian and I find witnessing to basically be a waste of time by the people doing it. I know that many faiths frown upon trying to change someone to their faith--in my case, it is forbidden.

[kwassa]

21. I disagree

Religion

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

"The only possible definition atheism could fall under would be 4 except that atheism really is not a cause, a principle, or an activity. It's simple disbelief."

Atheism CAN be all three, particularly as pursued by some, as evidenced by behavior. It can certainly have the outward appearance of a cause, principle or activity. It has been pursued with zeal and devotion in this very forum by some noters.

Of course, we have been down this road many time before, haven't we???? It would only meet the most general and open definition of religion, but it could be a fit.

[varkam]

23. And I still disagree.

A philosophical position is none of those things. That's like saying being skeptical on a certain issue is a religion or that arguing for a certain end is religious - which is ridiculous on it's face.

[kwassa]

29. It is more than a philosophical position to some.

That is the point of my previous post.

[varkam]

36. So you're saying that for some it's a religion and for some it's not?

I still disagree.

edited to add: I find to thoroughly interesting that some of the theists here on DU seem to speak out of both sides of their face when it comes to this issue. When it can be used as a stick to beat atheism with, then it's a religion. When people want to muse why atheists are even here, all of a sudden it's not a religion.

[kwassa]

51. Exactly.

Personally, I don't regard atheism as a religion. I do regard it as a belief, which drives some atheists just as crazy as calling it a religion.

[varkam]

65. Because weak atheism is not a belief.

It's disbelief. It's a statement of what one does not believe.

[cosmik debris]

25. You use equivocal words like "can" or "some"

because the definition does NOT apply to ALL atheists. Therefore the definition is NOT valid.

Perhaps we should also include the definition of stereotype.

[kwassa]

28. Not equivocal but accurate words.

"because the definition does NOT apply to ALL atheists. Therefore the definition is NOT valid."

This is illogical. Those that treat atheism like a religion are only those that behave in the manner that I described. There is no requirement that it apply to all. Why would there be?

[cosmik debris]

31. And the definition of cats doesn't have to apply to all cats?

If it doesn't define all of the group, then it is not a definition of the group. It is merely a stereotype.

[Dorian Gray]

32. But the definition is not one for atheism

it's one for religion.

Christianity may have one definition, but there are varying forms of Christianity. I'd suspect that there are even more forms of atheism, since there is no central "tenet." As it is not a religion. But, some may treat it religiously. It's possible that this nun's parents focused upon non-belief in their everyday life as another person would focus on their deity. And since religious language is the easiest to use to describe such a disposition, that's what she fell back upon. It's not that out of the question, is it?

Is it possible to be a zealous atheist? Fundamentalist atheist? Is it possible that people focus upon the non-existance of God as their primary focus in everyday life, and the belief in that principle is the most important ideology that they can embrace?

And what does it matter if individuals or groups follow such a system? If it is a guiding principle in one's life, does it not fit the definition? And in that regard, the nun used the language correctly, in terms of what her experience was?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here. It fits for me, and I'm trying to understand why this is a problematic way of looking at the situation.

[cosmik debris]

34. It is problematic because

Only theists describe atheism as a religion. Atheists don't. That is why it is a stereotype to say that atheism is a religion.

Defining atheism as a religion or saying that atheism fits the definition of religion is splitting hairs. It is something theists do to stereotype atheists, nothing more.

[Dorian Gray]

43. But there is much acknowledgement

that atheism itself is not religion. Just that some individuals may become dogmatic about it, raising it to a religious-like fervor, and in that way, it may fit one of the four definitions listed above for certain individuals.

[cosmik debris]

45. I have to disagree

The point kwassa was making is that atheism DOES fit the definition of religion because some atheists behave according to the definition of religion.

The characterization of a group based on the attributes of some members of that group is a stereotype. It is patently offensive and the fallacy is self evident.

[varkam]

48. What he said.

eom

[kwassa]

52. How do you know only theists describe atheism as a religion?

Some agnostics might, too.

I suspect that most theists don't describe atheism as a religion.

[varkam]

66. Well around here they tend to.

And I've had many a discussion IRL in which theists tried to pull that one on me as well. It's also fairly common to see it batted around here, as well. Unless they're trying to make a case to get atheists booted from R/T, in which case it's not a religion anymore.

[Dorian Gray]

30. I suppose you can

use the fourth definition with someone who is a zealous non-believer. The principle that there is no God, repeatedly focused upon in their daily life, could fit that fourth definition. But, the person would have to actively focus upon that principle.

[struggle4progress]

53. The usefulness of a dictionary depends on the particular dictionary: with the better

ones, you obtain some samples of how a word has been used historically; the worse one is, the less one learns from it. But even the best dictionaries can only indicate something about the circle of ideas attached to a word, which circle may somewhat constrain use of the word.

For some purposes, definitions are utterly pointless. The best example is in a theory like geometry, where the definitional problem (once "solved" by Euclid's laughable definitions) eventually became utterly unimportant, to the point that the great mathematician and talented geometer David Hilbert dismissed the entire definitional enterprise as pointless, aiming at the logical structure of the axioms and resulting theory, rather than at defining the words: ""One must be able to say at all times — instead of points, lines, and planes — tables, chairs, and beer mugs."

That is something like your "elephants" and "toads" example -- but of course Hilbert aims in exactly the opposite direction.

Still, I do not say "elephant" when I mean "toad" -- but only because I desire to be understood and because the words are used with reference to distinct objects in the world. A dictionary is unlikely to help very much, when one sets out to discuss real topics, because the words are already abstractions, and the definitions only crudely mirror the contexts in which one wants to apply the words.

Have you met the twins, Abby and Brittany? Despite not meeting usual expectations, they seem to be well-adjusted and happy girls. Here they are, riding their bicycle, a feat which astonishes me:

http://www.abc.net.au.nyud.net:8090/tv/documentaries/images/joined_p_m566703.jpg
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/documentaries/stories/s814409.htm

[Evoman]

80. I saw a report on the twins (they are teenagers now).

The coordination between them is just amazing.

[NMMNG]

15. I never claimed she didn't know her parents

Merely that she didn't know atheism.

[struggle4progress]

19. In my experience, people's self-described views sometimes tell us very little

If, for example, someone tells me that he/she is an atheist, I learn essentially nothing from that claim by itself.

There is, in any material sense, nothing actually corresponding to "atheism": a material meaning for the word can only be obtained in reference to the linguistic behaviors of concrete humans. So I do not see how anyone could "know atheism" although particular people can know other particular people who call themselves atheists.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

16. I think she meant by this

that it was what was talked about and believed to be so--haven't you heard someone say, "Football is my religion" or "sports is a religion at our house". I sure have. Or do you think that an atheistic household and atheists never talk about how God doesn't exist and mock believers in all forms? If you think that, you haven't been on DU's R/T board very much.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. Yes, see my post #8

One can be a non-religious parent (religious faith and observance simply aren't part of the parents' lives) or an anti-religious parent (actively teach the child that there is no God and that all religions are stupid).

Throughout my association with churches, I' ve met people who were raised both ways. In some cases, they're parents were secularized and simply shrugged their shoulders when their son or daughter joined a Lutheran or Episcopal church. In other cases, the parents were angry and upset that their son or daughter joined a church.

What's so hard to understand about that? Nobody on this thread is trying to define the atheists in this forum. We're talking about the personal account of one woman, who certainly knows what her own family was like better than we do.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

20. Yep, I agree with you

I don't see the nun or us trying to define all atheists. Sadly, there have been some threads here where some atheists have tried their best to lump all believers together and have done their best to insult them. Which, frankly, I don't understand, because DUers are united in wanting everyone to have freedom of thought in regards to the existence of God. I appreciate those atheist/agnostics who call other atheists on this habit.

[Evoman]

22. Insults come from both sides, I suspect. Even from people like you who don't see it.

It doesn't matter whether or not you SEE yourself as trying to define atheism. It doesn't even really matter if you don't think that calling an atheist "religious" or "fundamentalist" is an insult. All that matters is that atheists DO find it insulting, yet most of the theists here do it anyways. AND you KNOW it, because you've been told many times. This nun story isn't really that interesting to me, but I have no problem with it (although, I do suspect some motives that the OP quoted the whole the whole atheism was family religion stuff).

But I really don't blame you to much. When I criticize religion, I don't think that what I do is insulting either, although you obviously do. And criticism has nothing to do with "DUers are united in wanting everyone to have freedom of thought in regards to the existence of God". I like freedom of thought, and I am happy that you get to choose what you think. But it doesn't stop me from thinking that religion is ridiculous and criticizing it.

You see only one side to the insults because your mind is closed to our side of it.

[Dorian Gray]

35. Actually

I see why you feel the way you do, and I don't blame you for it. I do, however, take umbrage at the idea that language is used to define Christians, or lump liberal Christians with the fundamentalist Conservative Christians, when a topic like this pops up. I see where the use of the word religion in accordance with atheism may ruffle some feathers, but (there's always a but! ;) ) there is such sensitivity to such a word associated with atheism when there is often little sensitivity toward how we feel being associated with fundamentalism. Even in the "true Christian" topics, little heed is given to how we define Christians (though I am not one to deny the Christianity of an evil mother-f***er, either), while some may run roughshod over our definitions of what we think would make a "true" (I think we should axe that word and use "good" instead) Christian.

These arguments go on and on and on and on. It's frustrating for some of us. Well, all of us. (Us meaning people who post in R/T, both atheist and religious.) Not all religionists are ignorant hillbilly kooks. Some of us have brains. Some of us have post-Graduate degrees. Some of us know what we're talking about. And the same goes for you. I agree that we need to listen to each other and respect each other, but that becomes difficult when there seems to be people (on both sides of the argument) who seem to enjoy provoking rather than engaging.

Just a little rant. :) It's meant in a good way, though.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

40. Good rant

and that is the point. There are people who don't seem to be interested in the least in finding common ground. They seem to only be interested in making little digs or broad brush statements. Frankly, I had a more favorable opinion of atheists in general before I started posting here--the lack of respect has made it difficult to respond to some posts. I'm sure that some atheists would say the same thing about obnoxious believers.

[Dorian Gray]

44. Thanks, ayeshahaqqiqa

And, boy is your name difficult to type out! :)

Seriously, I've read your posts with interest for months now. You are very intelligent and compassionate, and though our belief systems are very different, I find that your attitudes toward belief and harmony similarly reflect mine. (Or at least what I hope to convey!)

I know it's so frustrating for us and for the non-believers here. But, I honestly think that I bend over backwards to try not to insult people. I engage in discussion, and I truly try to understand where others are coming from. But, I don't always feel like the same respect is given me. I do think that there is a tone of superiority at times on these boards. Both camps are guilty, I suppose, and I try to read objectively. I don't take offense to anything really, but that doesn't mean that things can't annoy me.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

55. Sorry for the spelling problems!

It's really two words stuck together--it may be easier to just write Ayesha next time! :)

Thank you for your kind words. I too feel that we are on the same wavelength.

[Meshuga]

59. I use copy and paste...

when using your name in posts. But I could lie and say that I type it myself.

[Dorian Gray]

87. Hah! Good idea Mr. Wiggles,

but from now on, Ayesha, it is!

[Evoman]

46. But thats the bigger point.

We CAN'T find common ground in this forum. How is it possible? There is no common ground between faith and atheism.

Thats not to say we don't have common ground outside of religion. I think a lot of people here, both religious and not, are good liberals. And really, I do like all of you (hey, I think I even had you as my Fav. Theist in Random Australians Belief thread). But there is no common ground to be had. Being civil is important, but its hard being civil when your very position can be misconstrued as an insult.

[Dorian Gray]

50. Your statement:

"Being civil is important, but its hard being civil when your very position can be misconstrued as an insult."

That is VERY true. And it's sort of sadly funny. To be honest, evoman, as much as it may please or displease you, I have always found you to be quite fair and civil. Even when talking about how foolish we (believers) are. Sometimes I just rant.

:)

(OT: It's weird, as I never use the word "believer" to describe myself. Except here. It almost makes me sound like a fundamentalist!)

[Evoman]

78. Thank you.

You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

[Dorian Gray]

88. And a lady.

;)

But thanks.

[Evoman]

90. GAH! I'm sorry! My mistake.

I should have looked in your profile...I've known a couple of Dorians, and they were always guys.

[Dorian Gray]

91. Absolutely no problem!

:) I just chose the name because I was reading the novel(la) at the time I signed up for DU years ago. :) I had nothing original.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

54. I respectfully disagree

I think both atheists and believers on this forum would agree on these points:

1. Fundamentalism is a threat to freedom and needs to be met head on.

2. Theocracy is not American and is not in alignment with our Constitution.

Sometimes here I've learned information that bolsters these two opinions that I can use when I talk to people who ask questions like, "Is fundamentalism all that wrong?" I've gotten good pointers from atheists on this, but also information I can use from believers as well.

I find it interesting that the head of my order in a recent podcast said that the two biggest threats to the world today are fundamentalism and materialism. This is information that I could see both groups could use when talking with someone--especially if an atheist is met with "oh, only atheists are against fundamentalism"--they can use this fact to prove the person is incorrect.

[varkam]

67. Materialism as in the reverence for worldly things...

...or materialism as in the philosophical position that holds the only things that are real are physical? I'm just not sure on what the usage is.

[Evoman]

72. How is materialism a threat to the world?

If the head of your order is talking about philosphical materialism (physicalism) then he is off his rocker...its not a threat at all. If he is talking about economic materialism (consumerism) then he does indeed make a good point. Fundamentalism and physicalism are incompatible, but not fundamentilism and consumerism.

This is why I prefer clear language...you can't just rail against materialism without specifying what you are talking about. I can't download the podcast (I'm at school, and I'm not allowed) so I don't know what he is arguing against.

As to your other point:

"I think both atheists and believers on this forum would agree on these points:

1. Fundamentalism is a threat to freedom and needs to be met head on.

2. Theocracy is not American and is not in alignment with our Constitution."

I agree with you. In practical terms, there are some agreements...but philosophically, not really.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

37. Oh, so the graph thread here on RT

wasn't insulting to believers? Come on, even agnostics chimed in to say it was painting religion with a broad brush. It's lumping everyone together that bothered me about that post. FYI, I HAVE listened to complaints of atheists and try my best not to say they "believe" in anything, because there was a big bruhaha about it a while back. And the whole point of the OP was that this was how ONE person talked about THEIR family!!!!!! No way were they talking about atheists in general. I tried to make THAT very clear in my posts. I would say that there is a possibility that you have a closed mind about believers, especially the ones here who are trying to find common ground between us. If you've read other posts by me, you know that finding common ground is my goal.

[Evoman]

49. GODDAMIT!!!!!

*sob* I just spent like 15 minutes writing a response, then went up to look up the word innocuous (to see if it meant what I thought), then I pushed back and the post was gone. It was my best post ever.

Basically what I was arguing is that although we atheists often get accused of broad brushing, the same thing goes on your side. For example, you started up on me on a post that I never made, and that I did not even respond to. I can stop saying things like "God is santa claus" in an effort to be civil, but then some atheist does say it, and all of a sudden I'm being attacked for being "insulting" and so on. I never said atheists couldn't be insulting, ayeshahaqqiqa, I am just saying that theists broad brush as much as you think we broad brush them.

Moreover, its even more difficult when your very opinion is misconstrued as an insult. Look at your own beliefs...you think that everybody is on some path to find the truth. A very..INNOCUOUS belief. But what if people took it as patronizing? Atheism is not "a path". To say it is, is the same as calling it a religion. You assume that you know some sort of truth (and thats fine, because truth is objective..and if you think you have it..okay) but then you go ahead and pat people on the head and tell them "yes, you go find your own truth".

I personally don't find any of your posts threatening, nor patronizing. But others could....is that your fault?

[Meshuga]

60. A consequence of atheism

"*sob* I just spent like 15 minutes writing a response, then went up to look up the word innocuous (to see if it meant what I thought), then I pushed back and the post was gone. It was my best post ever."

This only happens to atheists. God provides extra protection for the texts authored by theists. I never have your same issue unless I have doubts. Speaking of being punished by my doubts, just before I began typing this post the goddamn Penguins scored 3 goals in the third period to tied the hockey game against the Rangers (a team I hate but would be nice to see them win so the Devils can keep a nice point buffer against the Penguins in the standings). And as I type this the Pens win in the shootout! Son of a bitch!

On edit: at least the Rangers lost. There is a God afterall!

[toddaa]

61. We are seriously stuck at a dead end

Personally, I'd like to see an end to the taunting posts. The OP was a taunting post directed at atheists. The graph thread was a taunting post directed at theists.

You may view the OP as just a personal story of one nun, but you have to understand that the words "raised an atheist" is something that we confront every time some jackass comes along and tells us that they used to be an atheist, but now they are so much more enlightened. I respect you and your opinion, but I don't think you fully appreciate how disrespectful these kinds of conversion stories are to atheists. It's basically telling us that there is something wrong with us, because we still don't believe in God.

And I understand how the graph post is disrespectful to you. I like the left side of the graph. It's very good. The right hand side, on the other hand, is a caricature. To me, religious belief can be reduced to the right hand side, but it leaves so much out, that even I can see the problem. Yes, there are hard assed materialist atheists who really believe that the right graph represents the sum total of religious belief. But look at the world we live in. We are surrounded by people who honestly believe the world is only 6,000 years old and Darwin was the devil. Couple that with the fact that most Americans think we are amoral degenerates who rank below homosexuals and you Muslims in the trustworthy column and perhaps then you can understand why some of us come up with graphs like that. I'm not saying it's right, but I am telling you where it comes from.

I respect you and your opinion. I just hope that you don't lose respect for all of us godless heathens. Yes, we can be hard assed materialists, but just think of us as the fire that tempers your faith. We give you the gift of doubt. Surely, a Sufist can appreciate that.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

73. You and Mr. Wiggles

are two folks who are realizing why that chart was disrespectful of the believers here---and now that I understand that you don't like posts like the OP and other threads about atheists becoming believers. I do try and be sensitive to the feelings of others---it is a way of understanding them.

Sadly, so many people on this board seem to be more interested in dividing us rather than finding common ground. And yes, there is common ground. Progressives as a whole believe in science and scientific research. They also understand the danger of fundamentalism of all stripes. We can work together to fight the tide of ignorance.

[Evoman]

74. But thats not true.....I've seen enough anti-science ramblings on the side of

progressives than I could ever have imagined. There is a pervading anti-intellectualism on the left...it may not be as mindnumbing as on the right wing, but we would me remiss if we pretended there wasn't. All you have to do is go to GD, the Science forum, and the Health forum to see it.

Its not a matter of having "interest in dividing us"...its the fact that we are divided. And although we are all progressives, its OKAY that we can disagree on some topics. We are all individuals with different experiences, and different thought patterns. Hashing it out like we do in this forum is not bad...we are all here for discussion. We are not like (some) repulicans, who hate others that disagree with them.

My point is we have common ground. We are all liberals, and most of us care about things like social justice, health care for everyone, and poverty. And its okay that we are divided on this issue of religion.

[toddaa]

77. The graph is counterproductive

The anti science faction of progressives is not limited to religious people. Post modernism still has a vice grip on the left. Just look at the ridiculous anti-vaccination posts that GD is frequently riddled with. None of them have anything remotely to do with religious belief. It's just bad thought all around. Ignorance isn't the exclusive domain of religious people. There are plenty pig stupid nonbelievers out there. Outside of the strict fundamentalist circles, I've never talked to a theist who's thinking remotely paralleled the right hand graph. In order to combat anti science in progressive circles, we are going to have to realize that not every theist is an enemy of science. That doesn't mean we give religious belief a free pass, but it does mean that we recognize that there is massive difference between discussing science advocacy with an Episcopalian and a Fundamentalist Baptist.

[Evoman]

79. I never said it WAS, toddaa.

I never said it was only religious people that were anti-science, so if your going to argue with me, use my actual words and arguments.

And why do people keep bringing up that stupid graph. I had nothing to do with that..the only response I gave even related to that, was a post by another person who teased science...which I found funny, because it was true.

[toddaa]

81. Wait, what are you arguing about?

I was arguing about the graph. Something tells me we've got two different conversations going. The graph is what set ayeshahaqqiqa off, and I agreed with her on that point. And I agree with you on the anti science bent of some progressives. Looks like we are all in angry agreement with each other.

We've entered Dr. Strangelove territory. I'm just as sorry as you are, Dmitri.

[Evoman]

83. This is the conversation I was having:

A-lady (That name is way too hard, hehe) claimed (in response to lydia?) that this article was not meant as insulting, but that some atheist (I REALLY hate that "well some people say" stuff) insult the other side.

I then chimed in that both sides were insulting, and then its hard when people are insulted with your very position. A-lady then brought up that stupid graph, which I though was unfair, because I had nothing to do with it, and my argument was that BOTH sides are bad, not just one. I also argued that "finding common ground" in terms of religion is not really possible because of the disparity between the position...again, people start mentioning that stupid graph.

Whatever. I'm done with this shit.

on edit: I also want to say that a passive aggressive attack is still an attack. If people want to play that game, then go the fuck ahead. I'm not responding to attacks anymore...lifes too short for that toxic shit.

[Dorian Gray]

89. Toddaa

You have written a very fair AND insightful post. Definitely words to think about. I particularly love your last paragraph, and even some of us non-Sufists here can appreciate the concept of "the gift of doubt." Faith becomes stronger for many of us when we battle doubt. :)

[struggle4progress]

96. I really can't imagine why you call the OP "taunting." The story is about a woman ...

... who blogs. Most of what I posted was an excerpt from a summary she wrote about a talk about reaching out to gang-members.

The portion of the post that has generated most of the response was a comment the woman made about her own family. Posts here, objecting to the woman's remark, typically first misrepresent what she said -- insisting that she made a certain general claim, although simply reading the quote shows she did not make such a general claim -- and then express outrage, over and over again, about the claim she did not make.

Surely it cannot be that difficult for you to read what is actually written?

[toddaa]

98. I read it

It's a lovely story about nun who was raised an atheist but got better and now helps people. It's yet another conversion story telling us about another blessed soul who got right with the Lord and is a better person for it. Thank god she's not a mean and nasty person like her dad.

[struggle4progress]

99. Yawn. That might be one of the most intellectually dishonest claims I've seen.

The article doesn't say that, I didn't say that, and as far as I can tell nobody posting in this thread, except you, has said that.

But since you know that perfectly well, the only guess I can make is that you are still trying indirectly to discuss my motives in posting this material.

By reading the news story and her blog, I get some idea about the woman and her views. I find myself disagreeing with many of her explicit theological views but agreeing with many of her social values.

[toddaa]

100. Honestly, I don't know what your motives are in posting the article

But you can't honestly tell me that the headline is completely innocuous and you certainly cannot tell me that I'm the only atheist who has a problem with it. Of course not. That would be intellectually dishonest.

[struggle4progress]

101. Well, let us carefully unpack the headline:

The underlying sentence seems to be nun blogs. About what does she blog? about life and faith. She apparently lives in Duluth and was raised as an atheist.

I now make a preliminary list of everyone who I can imagine might be outraged:

(1) People outraged by nuns
(2) People outraged by those who blog about life and faith
(3) People outraged by Duluth residents
(4) People outraged by folks raised by atheists
(5) People outraged by nuns who blog about life and faith
(6) People outraged by Duluth nuns
(7) People outraged by nuns raised by atheists
(8) People outraged by Duluth residents who blog about life and faith
(9) People outraged by Duluth residents raised by atheists
(10) People outraged by Duluth nuns who blog about life and faith
(11) People outraged by nuns who were raised by atheists and blog about life and faith
(12) People outraged by Duluth nuns raised by atheists
(13) People outraged by Duluth residents who were raised by atheists and blog about life and faith
(14) People outraged by Duluth nuns who were raised by atheists and blog about life and faith

This does not include headline rage, so let us add fourteen further categories (14 + x) where category (14 + x) is obtained by the following modification of category (x): substitute outraged by headlines about for outraged by . Thus category (20) is People outraged by headlines about Duluth nuns.

I now cordially invite you: to use the above classification to describe exactly how the headline outraged you, by providing the smallest number describing a category to which you belong. My own guess might be that you belong to category 28.

[Dorian Gray]

33. Exactly, Lydia

That's how I took it, as well. I also don't want to be argumentative, as I've stated elsewhere, but I truly didn't understand why her language was problematic.

I've learned a lot from these forums and discussions in general, and I try to remain open-minded. I don't think that the dismissal of her (the nun's) words are warranted, though. Religious is an adjective that's evolved from meaning strictly institutionalized religion.

[struggle4progress]

70. It is interesting to note exactly what discussion the OP generated:

it is curious that we trudge wearily back and forth, again and again, over the same well-worn ground ...

[Evoman]

71. Dude, don't act all innocent.

This is a conversion story and the first line you quote was "Sister Bogue's parents were atheists. "It was the religion in our household," she said. "Dad's creed was that no intelligent person believes in God." ..."

You may have had an interest in the story, and the post was fine (and in keeping with this forums purpose, I suppose), but don't act like you didn't expect our response. Your not that stupid.

[struggle4progress]

82. You must like that territory, since you so often return there

[Evoman]

84. What are you talking about?

You started a post that you had to have known would get this reponse, not I. If I started a story about an atheist deconvert, and then emphasized a part of his story like this:

"My parents were liberal christians who might as well believe in Santa and the tooth fairy"

I would have gotten a similar response. I'm not saying that you were wrong to post the story..thats what this place is here for, but don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining (to use a Judge Judy-ism). You clearly knew where this was going to go.

You push buttons, and when you get a response, people have the gall to chew out atheists for being uncivil.

ON edit: I didn't even respond to your thread until people started making silly insinuations.

[Book Lover]

75. Hey, an e-nun!

There's got to be some witty pun in there that I'm too tired to figure out... She has some interesting posts; I'm always curious to read what professors have to say informally about their schools and classes.

[SidDithers]

94. "Dad's creed was that no intelligent person believes in God."...

:thumbsup:


Sid