Religion
Related: About this forumGreta Christina argues against ecumenicalism: Why Should Atheists Have to Show Respect For Religion?
http://www.alternet.org/belief/why-should-atheists-have-show-respect-religionA commitment to ecumenicalism all too often leads to intolerance and hostility toward atheists.
By Greta Christina / AlterNet March 16, 2015
"Can't we all just get along?"
Among progressive and moderate religious believers, ecumenicalism is a big deal. For many of these believers, being respectful of religious beliefs that are different from theirs is a central guiding principle. In this view, different religions are seen as a beautifully varied tapestry of faith: each strand with its own truths, each with its own unique perspective on God and its own unique way of worshipping him. Her. It. Them. Whatever. Respecting other people's religious beliefs is a cornerstone of this worldview... to the point where criticizing or even questioning anyone else's religious belief is seen as rude and offensive at best, bigoted and intolerant at worst.
And this ecumenical approach to religion drives many atheists up a tree.
Including me.
Why?
Don't atheists want a world where everyone's right to their own religious views -- including no religious views -- is universally acknowledged? Don't we want a world with no religious wars or hatreds? Don't we want a world where a diversity of perspectives on religion is accepted and even embraced? Why would atheists have any objections at all to the principles of religious ecumenicalism?
Oh, let's see. Where shall I begin?
Well, for starters: It's bullshit.
...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)But it's disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst, to say that criticism of other religious beliefs is inherently bigoted and offensive... and then make an exception for beliefs that are opposed to your own. You don't get to speak out about how hard-line extremists are clearly getting Christ's message wrong (or Mohammad's, or Moses', or Buddha's, or whoever) -- and then squawk about religious intolerance when others say you're the one getting it wrong. That's just not playing fair.
That would precisely describe a set of habitual posters here.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Though I don't think she's a regular here. She probably just spends a few minutes each day reading Salon... which is the functional equivalent of reading half the threads on this forum.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)They don't see that there's a third option.
They don't see that there's an option of respecting the important freedom of religious belief... while retaining the right to criticize those beliefs, and to treat them just like we'd treat any other idea we think is mistaken. They don't see the option of being passionate about the right to religious freedom, of fully supporting the right to believe whatever you like as one of our fundamental human rights... while at the same time seeing the right to criticize ideas we don't agree with as an equally fundamental right. They don't see the option of debating and disagreeing without resorting to hatred and violence. They don't see the option of disagreeing with what people say, while defending to the death their right to say it.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)...but it could be that our friends here simply aren't that original.
Can't rule that out.
bvf
(6,604 posts)
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Not here.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)If you don't want to participate in that conversation, fine. But why are you trying to stop other people from having it?
No, don't tell me. I know the answer to that question.
Shut up. That's why.
I just found the very same thing.
Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #1)
bvf This message was self-deleted by its author.
bvf
(6,604 posts)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)towards something that they don't believe in?
But that is different than being respectful towards those that see things differently.
It is possible to question others beliefs without being rude, offensive, intolerant or bigoted. It is also possible to question those beliefs in ways that are rude, offensive, intolerant and bigoted.
Greta Christina gets responses that she doesn't like because of her hostility towards the religious. Other atheists have a completely different experience.
She makes some pretty broad statements about this drive for ecumenicalism, but fails to give any examples of exactly where she see this. Liberal and progressive believers most certainly do object to many of the things that are done in the name of religion. I've not seen anyone argue that all of religion should be respected, far from it.
She's created a straw(wo)man, imo.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Looks like Greta Christina "hit a nerve" with you, eh? 
You should actually read her piece before you launch into "EVIL BIGOTED ATHEIST!!!!ZOMGBBQ!!!11!" mode.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)She invoked Voltaire's quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
cbayer
(146,218 posts)writer and speaker.
And though I strongly disagree with many of her points here, I also would defend to the death her right to say it.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Because they are an adult?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I haven't burned down any churches or synagogs. I have never even stopped anyone from going to worship.
All you know of me is what's in this forum.
Maybe...just maybe it's something else I don't have respect for.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)you respect pretty much everything.
You are absolutely right - all of I know of you is what's in this forum and I base my remarks only on that.
So, do you respect religion or not?
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)atheists!
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If a religious individual shows you respect, do you respect them back?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)start showing respect to atheists, then maybe they'll get the respect of atheists in return. Unfortunately, religious people are all too often incredibly disrespectful to others' beliefs, and even worse towards non-believers, but expect respect in return. Excuse me? Something about Do unto others comes to mind here.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think anyone who is treating others disrespectfully can expect respect in return, no matter where they stand on religion.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)proclaim they are followers of Jesus who seem to forget about that little quote.
I think for the most part atheists, agnostics, and various other non-believers are remarkably tolerant of religious people, and put up with a lot of outright disrespect all the time.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Atheists and other non-believers are clearly a discriminated against minority. They are see in a negative light by many.
I think they should stand up against that and I am hopeful that we will see this prejudice go away over time.
When one is fighting for their rights, it's important to distinguish who is and who is not your enemy.
alfredo
(60,078 posts)were not allowed to tell anyone. Eastern Star is Freemason related organization, and might have gotten us into hot water in the St Helens parish where we lived.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)The saving grace for atheist is that they attack the Religious nuts.
Agnostics seem to be the most sensible. I know some will want to have a semantic debate but for me the two words, atheism and agnosticism, are different.
Atheist make a simple mistake in thinking.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)How do you define Atheist - them we can move forward.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Dogmatic fundamentalist Atheist and Religious seems the same to me.
The saving grace for atheist is that they attack the Religious nuts.
Agnostics seem to be the most sensible. I know some will want to have a semantic debate but for me the two words, atheism and agnosticism, are different.
Atheist make a simple mistake in thinking.
Asking me to define atheist when you were asked to clarify what you meant when you said "Dogmatic fundamentalist Atheist and Religious seems the same to me." and "Atheist make a simple mistake in thinking." is a gigantic cop out.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)I will use your definition of atheist to make my clarification.
If you like...
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Or were you just fishing?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 25, 2015, 10:51 AM - Edit history (1)
Wait...
What definition are YOU using now? What do you think an atheist is? And how is it different from a, what was it?, "fundamentalist atheist"?
You started it by throwing out terms that mean nothing to me and many other atheists.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Atheism and Agnosticism
First published Tue Mar 9, 2004; substantive revision Mon Aug 8, 2011
The main purpose of this article is to explore the differences between atheism and agnosticism, and the relations between them. The task is made more difficult because each of these words are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words. That is, we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use. Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied. Moreover even particular members of the families are often imprecise, and sometimes almost completely obscure. Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)
ZzzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzz....
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)the the words are fungible.
It is a way to be intellectually dishonest. It comes down to thinking. Any exploration with meaning means that one should explain their thinking on the subject. If not, you are left with beliefs. And we know what we think of the believers. I do not want to be one of them. Do you?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Wait...
What definition are YOU using now? What do you think an atheist is? And how is it different from a, what was it?, "dogmatic fundamentalist atheist"?
You started it by trowing out terms that mean nothing to me and many other atheists.
"atheist dogma"?
If there were such a thing I suppose it would simply be "there is no god." Or more accurately "the hypothesis of the existence of a god has never been remotely proven and the odds are so remote that it's just not worth worrying about."
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Atheism and Agnosticism
First published Tue Mar 9, 2004; substantive revision Mon Aug 8, 2011
The main purpose of this article is to explore the differences between atheism and agnosticism, and the relations between them. The task is made more difficult because each of these words are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words. That is, we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use. Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied. Moreover even particular members of the families are often imprecise, and sometimes almost completely obscure. Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
You see we must do some work before we can move forward.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)perhaps you can give an example of a "dogmatic fundamentalist atheist"?
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)puts you, in my mind, closer to that idea than I thought likely
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Interesting.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)I think you might be
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)WTF is your problem?
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Separate thinking - believing - knowing
understand what they mean - define clearly how these things relate to your understanding of your atheistic stance.
Do you think it - believe it - or know it?
You can not know the answer - If you believe it you look like a christian to me - If you think it - now that is the question -
You move into deep deep waters - I wonder about the structure of our cognition - I wonder about our limited perceptions - I wonder why some waste there time thinking about these things - IF THEY DO INDEED THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Atheism and Agnosticism
First published Tue Mar 9, 2004; substantive revision Mon Aug 8, 2011
The main purpose of this article is to explore the differences between atheism and agnosticism, and the relations between them. The task is made more difficult because each of these words are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words. That is, we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use. Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied. Moreover even particular members of the families are often imprecise, and sometimes almost completely obscure. Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)counts as politeness on your planet. Why am I not surprised?
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Atheism and Agnosticism
First published Tue Mar 9, 2004; substantive revision Mon Aug 8, 2011
The main purpose of this article is to explore the differences between atheism and agnosticism, and the relations between them. The task is made more difficult because each of these words are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words. That is, we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use. Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied. Moreover even particular members of the families are often imprecise, and sometimes almost completely obscure. Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
Light banter about these topics is irrational.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)be well
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)And you are unwilling to state, in your own words, what you meant by that phrase. Sending me a pm is yet another refusal to honestly discuss your own post.
edhopper
(33,654 posts)explains none of your comments.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)it is all a waste of time
edhopper
(33,654 posts)"Dogmatic Fundamentalist Atheists" or why you refuse to explain what you mean.
Let's start with accepting whatever definition of atheist you wish to use. The near zero probability of a God is fine. And go from there.
Jeff Murdoch
(168 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Most atheists are "soft atheists", in that they believe that deities probably do not exist, given the lack of evidence that supports their existence, and the contradictions that arise from how they're purported to be, according to religious holy books and such.
But they'd probably change their minds if God showed up on their doorstep and knocked, or otherwise, hard evidence emerged showing scientific proof of His existence.
But in the absence of such proof, they're inclined to think that Gods are mythological.
This is in opposition to "hard atheists", who would state "God definitely does not exist." IMHO, this position doesn't make much since, because it's impossible to prove a negative.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)You have already left the realm of thinking - You have talked about belief.
Thinking - knowing - believing are each different.
I like the term "tentative deductions" Einstein said that that is all we can make.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Yet here you are picking on just that.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)My intent was to avoid the "soft atheist" cop out.
stone space
(6,498 posts)I'd be a "hard atheist" by your terminology (although, I've always just called it plain old "atheism"
.
But more to the point, I prove so-called "negatives" all the time
I wouldn't classify something that I do every day as a matter of course as "impossible".
It is indeed possible, as evidenced by the daily activities of most any mathematician when engaged in research.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)interesting - Find much time to look at the foundations?
stone space
(6,498 posts)Specifically, questions of definability and undefinability.
Also in degrees of unsolvability (what you get when you hook up Oracles to Turing machines).
Algebraic logic as well.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)pleasure reading - history
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I've been accused of that, but I don't think it's ever been demonstrated.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Atheism and Agnosticism
First published Tue Mar 9, 2004; substantive revision Mon Aug 8, 2011
The main purpose of this article is to explore the differences between atheism and agnosticism, and the relations between them. The task is made more difficult because each of these words are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words. That is, we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use. Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied. Moreover even particular members of the families are often imprecise, and sometimes almost completely obscure. Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
"we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use"
“Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied.”
"particular members of the families are often imprecise, and sometimes almost completely obscure"
"would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic"
Without a definition we can not discover what you seek.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Tell me what you think, what you believe, and what you know about these ideas.
I am interested.
Are you?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)As an atheist, I don't believe in any supernatural god/s
As an agnostic, I acknowledge I cannot claim to know for certain that no gods exist.
As an anti-theist, I'm sick and tired of what religious faith is doing to our species, and move to combat it.
That's all.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)what about gods that are not supernatural?
Define supernatural god. Or you are not thinking.
What do you think about Einstein's thought "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
or these others - http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The anthropomorphizing and euphemistic language in the references you just suggested (Einstein actually explicitly made reference to Spinoza's god, so that's why I brought it up) hold no intelligible meaning for me. I have a vague idea what it means to others, but it means nothing to me.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)I only said - I like those as ideas
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I could see the appeal in a universal law-giver/implementor/etc. A great big cookout in the sky where we find the fates of the monsters and the 'just' however defined. That's appealing.
"SLOBODAN MILOSIVEC, 2.5 NO-HIRE, GET IN THE FIERY PIT"
*crowd cheers*
There's some appeal to that. Not a lot of appeal to the Abrahamic god otherwise, but some ideas can be likeable. I just don't have any faith whatsoever that such an outcome is likely or even possible.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)My statement was not about your faith. If I wanted a discussion about faith I would have said so.
I am talking about thinking.
Thinking that leads to knowing.
Try this - Think about light quanta. That that make possible sight. Even blind it can burn your skin. Die and it still works on you.
We use it, study it, even slow it down(wow). Einstein said that he has pondered light quanta for fifty years and has "nothing". Feynman is his lectures says over and over I am going to tell you all about QED and you are not going to understand it. He said "I do not understand it".
Gravity, magnetism, on and on... "All we can make are tentative deductions"
want to know something - try mathematics - oh, but wait - Godel, Russell's paradox, - where does that leave us.
Big holes in our understanding the things in our face.
Then turn to Kant - or even modern study of conscious - and we find the limits to our cognitive abilities.
So how is it that your thinking has come to it conclusion.
I am truly truly interested. If you have something deeper than a gut feeling or faith in your position please please share these thoughts.
How did your thinking come to you conclusion?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)This is not a tippy tapping on my phone sort of question.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)and I call myself atheist and you call yourself agnostic, how far apart are we really?
I'm not encouraging you to shed the label you're most comfortable with, but I would really appreciate that you assume nothing about what I believe or the soundness of my judgment simply because I embrace and identify with a different label most comfortably. When you start making judgments like "a simple mistake in thinking," I think you're allowing semantics to overrule common sense.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)"Tentative deductions" - Einstein said that those are all we can make.
I think it might be so that holding too strongly to a belief can cloud thinking.
Your term "embrace" does not sound so rigid as to be unhealthy.
I am not so bold that I would claim the non-existence of a concept so vague as to be useless.
I do like these thoughts - http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)approaches zero, as in bigfoot is more likely to exist. If an omnipresent deity should decide to reveal him/her/it self and present new evidence beyond meanderings of imaginative minds, I'll be pleased to change my assessment. As for your wrong thinking claim ... worse things have been said about me.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)I do not think about supernatural omnipresent things.
Be if you want to spend your time doing so, feel free
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)You take no stand on whether some being called Abraham righteous or not, I take it.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)It is amusing watching "atheists" get irrational as true believers
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Seems an unlikely place to find someone who spends so little time thinking about these things and how they affect us every day in every facet of our lives.
It's good that you're amused.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)did not know this was a religion forum
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)cherry picked stuff from a explicitly religious website?
Perhaps not such a good source? Perhaps it is your nonsense?
Here is an odious thought:
Historically, Jews chose torture and death rather than conversion. Today, Jews are assimilating at numbers rivaling the Holocaust.
That is pretty damn vile.
(http://www.simpletoremember.com/a/about/)
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)I have read them in context - Have you?
Also, I did not say that I believed them or agreed with them
I said that I liked them - as thoughts
Thinking - believing - knowing are very different things
You seem to want to fight about this stuff - you are a little to zealous for my taste.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Also - "Historically, Jews chose torture and death rather than conversion. Today, Jews are assimilating at numbers rivaling the Holocaust." That is simply vile.
edhopper
(33,654 posts)enlighten me about the "simple mistake in thinking".
I must know.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Atheism and Agnosticism
First published Tue Mar 9, 2004; substantive revision Mon Aug 8, 2011
The main purpose of this article is to explore the differences between atheism and agnosticism, and the relations between them. The task is made more difficult because each of these words are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words. That is, we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use. Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied. Moreover even particular members of the families are often imprecise, and sometimes almost completely obscure. Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
If you understand these words you see that we must come to some kind of understanding of terms. Would you lie to move forward?
edhopper
(33,654 posts)Atheism is that the probability of a God is near zero,
Go on....
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)But I do agree with your conclusion whereever it came from. And that is the question that I would first offer.
Do you Know - Believe - or Think that you assertion is true?
BTW - do you know about the problems with the foundations of mathematics?
edhopper
(33,654 posts)you claim speaks for you.
Just want to lay a turd here about "Dogmatic Fundamentalist Atheist"
And "atheists are mistaken in their thinking" and then evade any discussion, you can find someone else to play with.
This isn't a classroom and I'm not playing your Socratic games.
Buh-bye
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)that can be made
edhopper
(33,654 posts)missed the mistake you made.
Amazing because it is so apparent.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)sometimes I am slow on the pick up
edhopper
(33,654 posts)"Do you Know - Believe - or Think that you assertion is true?"
Either treats the three verbs as interchangeable, along one continuum, or vastly different, even opposite.
Any of those options changes the essence of the question and answer.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)It is intended as three questions.
Two of which are rhetorical.
You do not know it.
If you believe it - you look like you belong to any other religion
The real question is what do you think. That goes to my statement.
What is it that you think about this issue. By what means did you come to your conclusion?
Are you fighting a straw man? Or are you making the claim that your understanding of reality is sufficient to rule out things that are outside you cognition?
edhopper
(33,654 posts)While not necessarily ruled out, there would be no need for them to be accepted.
So I would not consider either of your constraints accurate.
The either or nature of these statements is presumptive and simplistically limited.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)I am questioning the method of rejection.
The thinking.
I am talking about thinking.
Thinking that leads to knowing.
Try this - Think about light quanta. That that make possible sight. Even blind it can burn your skin. Die and it still works on you.
We use it, study it, even slow it down(wow). Einstein said that he has pondered light quanta for fifty years and has "nothing". Feynman is his lectures says over and over I am going to tell you all about QED and you are not going to understand it. He said "I do not understand it".
Gravity, magnetism, on and on... "All we can make are tentative deductions"
want to know something - try mathematics - oh, but wait - Godel, Russell's paradox, - where does that leave us.
Big holes in our understanding of the things in our face.
Then turn to Kant - or even modern study of conscious - and we find the limits to our cognitive abilities.
So how is it that your thinking has come to it conclusion.
I am truly truly interested. If you have something deeper than a gut feeling or faith in your position please please share these thoughts.
How did your thinking come to you conclusion?
edhopper
(33,654 posts)For what most describe as the concept of God.
Furthr, I have seen no evidence of any supernatural component to the universe.
Without evidence, and considering how the god concept runs counter to what is known, not accepting the existence of such a being
is the appropriate response.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)If the laws of physics get "done" and we are in a determined universe the laws of physics are god.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." Einstein
just a thought
I believe that there is life in other solar systems and in other galaxies. No evidence.
How about you?
"For what most describe as the concept of God"
No fighting against straw-men.
What is the thought process you have used?
edhopper
(33,654 posts)My description of my atheism. I do not accept the existence of a God, based on the lack of any evidence.
Life on other planets come down to speculation.
Belief is not involved.
I think there is reason to speculate that there is life elsewhere. But it is an open question.
(Belief is a troublesome word, as it has various uses that mean different things)
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)sounds agnostic to me
edhopper
(33,654 posts)According to your article, atheist put the possibility of God at near zero.
I would agree with that assessment.
I still wonder what the mistake in thinking you see atheists as having?
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Atheism and Agnosticism
First published Tue Mar 9, 2004; substantive revision Mon Aug 8, 2011
The main purpose of this article is to explore the differences between atheism and agnosticism, and the relations between them. The task is made more difficult because each of these words are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words. That is, we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use. Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied. Moreover even particular members of the families are often imprecise, and sometimes almost completely obscure. Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
edhopper
(33,654 posts)This articles discription of atheism.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)1. Atheism
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism.
but what about...
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
Albert Einstein
edhopper
(33,654 posts)"I would suggest that if Philo estimates the various plausibilities to be such that on the evidence before him the probability of theism comes out near to one he should describe himself as a theist and if it comes out near zero he should call himself an atheist, and if it comes out somewhere in the middle he should call himself an agnostic."
I call myself an atheist.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)but not the way I get there
be well
edhopper
(33,654 posts)Still refuse to say why you insist atheist are mistaken in their thinking.
I can only assume you don't have an answer.
You Dogmatic Fundamentalist Atheist" nonsense is also something you seem to run away from.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)We both think organized religion is a corrosive force. You have displayed what I consider a zealous attitude about a semantic issue.
It is that that I do not understand.
Also, I use a strict definition of Atheism. An active refutation of any possibility of anything.
Agnostic seem to me more reasonable.
To assume that with our limited abilities we can say something meaningful about non-existence is simply a mistake.
edhopper
(33,654 posts)Constrained by a definition of atheism that no atheist, especially the ones on this board, hold to.
If you use a definition that no one else agrees to, it seems rather useless. And places you in a corner of your own making,
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)note "doctrine or belief"
doctrine - a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group:
None of that for me.
Agnosticism - an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.
edhopper
(33,654 posts)most atheist use.
"atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist"
Note, it is not a doctrine, nor a belief.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)
edhopper
(33,654 posts)noted.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Or did you not tjink this post through?
What are your thoughts on the matter?
Why are you so hostile towards atheists?
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)I do believe that they make a mistake in their thinking
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You evade every attempt to have you explain your statements.
I'll try a simpler question. What text or texts are "fundamentalist atheists" interpreting literally?
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)these people have thought more about it than me and most likely you.
Atheism and Agnosticism
First published Tue Mar 9, 2004; substantive revision Mon Aug 8, 2011
The main purpose of this article is to explore the differences between atheism and agnosticism, and the relations between them. The task is made more difficult because each of these words are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words. That is, we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use. Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied. Moreover even particular members of the families are often imprecise, and sometimes almost completely obscure. Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And you outright said "It is amusing watching "atheists" get irrational as true believers" which combined with everything else you've said, or refused to say, paints you as somewhat hostile towards atheists, or at least you like to act superior to both sides.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.”
Einstein
I feel that. When my thoughts turn to the vastness of the small and large I am filled and have tears.
In mathematics and nature I am struck dumb. No words can express the depth of wonder. I see order and find it mysterious that we have been able to begin to, in words and symbols, map these in meaningful ways.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
Albert Einstein
It is with this in mind that I proclaim my agnostic view of reality. And it is with this in mind that I show dislike for the term atheism.
It is absurd to claim the our cognition has access to reality.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)and that you don't fully understand what the terms mean. You keep repeating links and quotes, but always dance around the direct question, your actions make you seem like a fundamentalist theist.
So give one, just one example, in your own words, of what you meant by "Fundamentalist atheist" because noting you've posted has done that.
P.S. what does "It is absurd to claim the our cognition has access to reality." mean?
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Tell me thought process you used to come to your position and I will show you your mistake.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)on edit: that makes as much sense as "dogmatic fundamentalist atheists.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Dogmatic: What dogma would you be referring to?
fundamentalist -- Assuming that we both understand that a fundamentalist Christian subscribes to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, how do you define that word when attributing it to atheists?
Atheist we have come to some sort of understanding on, so you needn't comment further.
I know you've been taken to task on this particular phrasing already, but it seems a bit of a verbal bomb to drop. It would be nice to agree on some definitions here so that we can move forward.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)The dogma is the prevalence of the "soft Atheism" that fits better with the term Agnostic.
fundamentalist
usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)I don't think you're talking about me. The funny thing is, you do think so. It would seem to me that you've fixated on an idea of your atheist pigeonhole stereotype and then applied it to anyone who doesn't disbelieve in the most purest form the way you do.
Whatever, you'll fit right in around here.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)be well
muriel_volestrangler
(101,408 posts)This is just your zombie userid:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4911786
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4916194
It's worth remembering, though, that no-one gets banned from DU for one simple insult. Either it was a part of a pattern for you, or it was truly vile.
I see you're still rude, though.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)ts
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)don't you have your own playground?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,408 posts)and so all sorts of people should be posting here, since religion has a large effect on politics - especially in the USA - and on society.
Part of the problem may be that people like you regard the effect that religion has on society as 'play', and you don't think through what religions are doing to people. That makes it all the more important that people who take it seriously speak up in public areas like this to inform others, rather than leaving it to those like you.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)has come up against a wall. They fall back on pretending to be clueless about why atheists post in the Religion group at all. Even though the reasons for it should be obvious to any thinking person, and have been explained at length many times for the rest.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Your speculation has missed by a mile.
I want to help you be intellectually honest.
It is indeed important to look at these things. In fact I like this quote "religion is too important for atheist to ignore."
I still think that atheist frame themselves very poorly.
There are two words - atheist and agnostic - I think it is intellectually dishonest to claim a "soft atheistic" position when ones BELIEFS are clearly more alined with the meaning of the term agnostic.
And after thoughtful consideration one can only come to the conclusion that the "hard" atheistic position is a BELIEF and can not be grounded in fact. It is speculation at best and stinks of religious dogma.
Any understanding of how little we know about reality points to the FACT that we are in no position to have anything but fanciful speculation on most of the questions offered by our greatest thinkers.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)gnosticism or theism, and therefore misconstrue the meaning of the absence of one, the other, or both.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Atheism and Agnosticism
First published Tue Mar 9, 2004; substantive revision Mon Aug 8, 2011
The main purpose of this article is to explore the differences between atheism and agnosticism, and the relations between them. The task is made more difficult because each of these words are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words. That is, we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use. Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied. Moreover even particular members of the families are often imprecise, and sometimes almost completely obscure. Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
If you understand these words you see that we must come to some kind of understanding of terms. Would you lie to move forward?
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)I've seen your link, and I think you do not understand what you are linking to. Given that I have explicitly described my position already, rehashing this isn't going to move us forward one iota. If you'd like to argue the labels and definitions, someone else might be interested.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)nt
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Seriously, you keep parading one person's opinion around like it's the word of god.
Are you really that ignorant or are you just pretending that all of the other sources cited by posters who reject your personal definition of their atheism don't exist?
You've posted that same piece of Idon'tknowwhatthefuckI'mtalkingaboutbutitmakesmelooksmart-ology 10 times in the past week and you're clinging to it like a rat in a sewer.
Stubborn much?
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)I am looking for something else.
I believe in god - vs - I do not believe in god
What is the difference? Where role does rational thought play in your position?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Not going to do you a favor by linking to it but here's their article:
Charles Bradlaugh
Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God.(1)(2)(3)
In addition, although many atheists deny that atheism is a worldview, atheists commonly share a number of beliefs such as such as naturalism, belief in evolution and abiogenesis.[4]
Charles Bradlaugh, in 1876, proposed that atheism does not assert "there is no God," and by doing so he diluted the traditional definition of atheism.[1][2][5] Since 1979, many atheists have followed Bradlaugh's thinking further and stated that atheism is merely a lack of belief in any god.[6][7] The motive for such a shift in meaning appears to be to an attempt to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God to the theism side.[6]
In the article, Is Atheism Presumptuous?, atheist Jeffery Jay Lowder, a founder of Internet Infidels, states that "I agree (with Copan) that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."[6] In short, the attempt to redefine atheism is merely an attempt to make no assertions so no facts need be offered.[6] The attempt to redefine atheism, however, is not in accordance with the standard definitions of atheism that encyclopedias of philosophy employ which is that atheism is a denial of the existence of God or gods.[1][2][8] In addition, the atheist community has often used deception to promote their ideology.
...
This redefinition blurs the distinction between saying, "There is no God", and "I don't know whether God exists or not." It lets people say, "I don't believe in God," without clarifying whether they are denying God's existence (which is atheism) or are merely uncertain about it (which is agnosticism).
? 1.0 1.1 1.2 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
They also cite Creation Ministries International, CARM and creation.com. Perhaps you'd like to switch to one of them, you know, to keep things fresh.
OOPS, your agenda is showing...
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)why anyone who isn't being deliberately obtuse in order to deflect from something else would find it anything but perfectly natural that atheists should spend time and effort posting about religion.
And if you switch atheist and agnostic, you might start to have a clue. People who claim to be agnostic are atheists, virtually without exception. On the other hand, there is nothing "intellectually dishonest" about withholding acceptance of the truth of a claim in the absence of sufficient evidence (which is your so-called "soft" atheist position). Intelligent, critical thinkers do that about a lot of things. "God" is not a special case, as much as some here would like to pretend otherwise.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)“Mediocre spirits demand of science the kind of certainty which it cannot give, a sort of religious satisfaction. Only the real, rare, true scientific minds can endure doubt, which is attached to all our knowledge.” Sigmund Freud
Doubt is the point
But a more profound doubt
Doubt that our cognition can even form the correct questions.
We are literally surrounded by phenomena that our brains can not find a close approximation.
One example
Light quanta - Einstein - I have spent 50 years thinking about it and have come up with nothig
QED Feynmam - You will not understand it - I do not understand it
Try Penrose - he has some good things to say about what we can understand
Doubt - it is a good thing - do you doubt god or you ability to understand consciousness and reality more?
I think the first part has little meaning when faced with the little we know about the second part.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)why anyone who isn't being deliberately obtuse in order to deflect from something else would find it anything but perfectly natural that atheists should spend time and effort posting about religion.
And if you ever actually get around to that, we'll talk about the irrelevance of the rest of your response. Not holding my breath.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)So predictable.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)If your talking about my delayed response - busy for a couple of days
Happy to look at this with you
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)and can only see vast destruction caused in the name of religion with small pockets of well meaning deeds.
It is indeed important to look at these things. In fact I like this quote "religion is too important for atheist to ignore."
I still think that atheist frame themselves very poorly.
There are two words - atheist and agnostic - I think it is intellectually dishonest to claim a "soft atheistic" position when ones BELIEFS are clearly more alined with the meaning of the term agnostic.
And after thoughtful consideration one can only come to the conclusion that the "hard" atheistic position is a BELIEF and can not be grounded in fact. It is speculation at best and stinks of religious dogma.
Any understanding of how little we know about reality points to the FACT that we are in no position to have anything but fanciful speculation on most of the questions offered by our greatest thinkers.
Be well
muriel_volestrangler
(101,408 posts)You say "there are two words - atheist and agnostic - I think it is intellectually dishonest to claim a "soft atheistic" position when ones BELIEFS are clearly more alined with the meaning of the term agnostic."
But you have repeatedly posted a quote with this:
"Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic. "
It seems to me you are an example of someone using unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism, and not just about your own position, but about others' - and then being mildly insulting by saying other people's positions 'stink' or are 'intellectually dishonest'.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)I am looking for something else.
I believe in god - vs - I do not believe in god
What is the difference? Where role does rational thought play in your position?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,408 posts)"My point is that a belief is a belief"
A sentence that tells us nothing we did not already know. That is your point?
"I am looking for something else.
I believe in god - vs - I do not believe in god"
If you're looking for something other than 'a belief', why have you gone back to talking about beliefs?
"What is the difference?"
The first is a statement of a situation; the second is a statement of what a situation is not.
"Where role does rational thought play in your position?"
(I presume that should be "What..."
Rational thought plays a significant role. I analysed the difference between 'I believe' and 'I do not believe' rationally, for instance. I considered what parts of speech the words were, what the 'not' applied to, and so on.
pinto
(106,886 posts)I don't get it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)She is not even clear on what she means by the term ecumenicalism and I haven't seen it used in this context previously.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)She describes ecumenicalism in great detail:
And it's even more mind-boggling that you claim to have no clue what she means, because what she describes is exactly what you and those like you claim to want the Interfaith Group to be like (if anyone else actually posted anything there), and probably this Group too.
Everyone but you recognizes what she's describing all too well.
mercuryblues
(14,553 posts)will help you understand:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026408748
“I’ll make a bet with you,” Robertson said. “Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him. And then they can look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this? There’s no right or wrong, now is it dude
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The guy is a bigoted pig. I've never seen him make the case for people to get along better, let alone ecumenicalism.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)He's just a full-strength, hardcore fundie.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)most hateful things I have ever seen.
And he told it at a prayer breakfast.
I have thought at times that he is a Poe, or maybe that was just my wish.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)mercuryblues
(14,553 posts)Saying this under the banner of Christianity. He is the equivalent of a school yard bully. He gets cheered on to say this crap. We're not crazy bigots like them is not a defense. Christians are filtered by atheists through the actions of people like him. When there is no pushback from the more liberal Christian community, don't expect to be exempt from criticism.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)really has nothing to do with ecumenicalism, which is what this author is objecting to.
It is unfortunate that some atheists judge others based on the actions of someone who shares a label. Well, that would be just like a believer judging atheists based on the pretty horrible behavior of some (see reddit atheism group is you are not familiar with some really, really bad behavior).
There is lots of pushback from the liberal/progressive christian community. It's posted about frequently in this group. You don't have to look far.
mercuryblues
(14,553 posts)There is no reason atheists should push pack against unified Christianity, when under the banner of Christianity vile things are said to them, by bigoted pigs? Where is the unifying voice condemning those comments? a chat room on the internet doesn't count. A unified church includes all Christians, not just the ones you pick and choose. By its very definition means all Christians united as one, under one church. People don't get to say "not me" when a member is cheered on while he says that crap to the whole world. People can't have it both ways. Claim unity and then say they can't be questioned about it when a member is so openly hateful.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)those factions within christianity that promote bigotry and spew hate.
I have no idea what you mean by "unified". Why would one want a "unified" church that includes bigots? Who do you think is claiming unity or saying that bigots can't be questioned?. That's a straw man that Greta Christina built over 4 years ago and she has moved past it.
One must certainly does have the right to say "not me", they also have the imperative to say it.
There are very active progressive/liberal religious groups that work their asses off to counter what the religious right does.
If you really want to know, look at just this single project.
notalllikethat.org
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Because she describes in painful detail precisely what she means, and her description mirrors this place to a T:
In a way, I can see it. Ecumenicalism is a big, comfy love-fest. (Or, to use a less polite metaphor, a big, happy circle-jerk.) Everyone stands around telling each other how wonderful they are, how fascinating their viewpoint is, how much they contribute to humanity's rich and evolving vision of God. Everyone is self-deprecating about how their own vision of God is of course human and flawed and limited, and how they're both humbled and uplifted to see such different perspectives on him/ her/ it/ them/ whatever. Everyone tells the story of the six blind men and the elephant, and how God is too vast and complex and unfathomable for any one person to perfectly understand him, and how all these different religions are just perceiving different aspects of his immensity. And no one ever says anything critical, or even seriously questioning. About anyone. Ever. It's one gigantic mutual admiration society.
And then atheists come along, and ruin everyone's party. Atheists come along and say, "Well, actually, we don't think any of you are getting it right." Atheists come along and ask hard questions, like, "You actually have important differences between your religions -- how do you decide which one is true?" Or, "Religion has never once in all of human history turned out to be the right answer to any question -- why would you think it's the right answer to anything we don't currently understand?" Or, "If there's no way your belief can be proven wrong, how do you know that it's right?" Or, "Why do the six blind men just give up? Why don't they compare notes and trade places and carefully examine the elephant and actually try to figure out what it is? You know -- the way we do in science? Why doesn't this work with religion? Sure, if God existed, he/she/it/they would be vast and complex and hard to fathom... and what, the physical universe isn't? Doesn't the fact that this never, ever works with religion strongly suggest that it's all made up, and there is, in fact, no elephant?" Atheists come along and make unnerving points, like, "The fact that you can't come to any consensus about religion isn't a point in your favor -- it's actually one of the strongest points against you." Atheists come along, like the rain god on everyone's parade, and say things like, "What reason do any you have to think any of this is true?"
Are you actually saying the same shit doesn't happen here every fucking day?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)No one with half a brain would deny that the atheists who post here, however infrequently, tend of be of a hypervigilant, disaffected sort; and no one with half a brain would find themselves taxed to posit an explanation as to why that may be.
Any time anyone with an opinion even remotely critical of the religions professed herein dares speak up, they are immediately met with a chastening volley of absurd accusations. They are called bigots. They are compared to Hitler. They are compared to Stalin. They are called literalists or fundamentalists, and they are described as being equal in kind and degree as the frothing evangelicals who so routinely belittle, slander, and threaten them. Then, as if that were not enough, they are followed into their safe fucking haven and monitored, so that the moment they post anything that might be considered "offensive" to sensibilities described above, a jury may be expediently convened to slap with them with a hide.
There are places in this country where living openly as an atheist is social suicide. There are posters here who cannot register their opposition to religion without seriously endangering their careers, their friendships, or their familial relations. They may see this place as their only opportunity to speak openly about their lack of belief, only to find themselves belittled, their experiences completely disregarded, and their every post a potential target for vindictive lurkers. There is literally nowhere we can go the sanctimonious blowhards will not follow.
My first week here, almost three years ago, I was told atheists carry water for Republicans. Just today, I read the same thing reiterated here, by the same person.
Were I younger, angrier, or in possession of more free time, I might be right alongside some of the others, broadsiding anyone who dared question my authenticity as a liberal. But I've come to the conclusion it simply isn't worth it. So I don't address that poster directly, and will continue to do so for as long as I see fit.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)This is just not accurate. There is pushback when someone levels attacks on religion that others feel are unfounded. No one is called a bigot just for expressing a remotely critical opinion of religion. Where has someone been compared to Hitler or Stalin? Show me.
Called literalists or fundamentalists? Ouch, that's gotta hurt.
Do you know how many posts are hidden in A/A? Hardly any. No one is monitoring and alerting. That's a fantasy. Show me all those hides.
I understand that there are places all over the world where being an atheist is not only unacceptable but can be dangerous. We are stronger when we stand with others who want change that.
When people create unnecessary divisions between liberals and progressives, then they do the dirty work of the republicans. Atheists don't do that, but individuals do. Show me where someone said that atheists in general do this.
I also ignore those who question my authenticity, my honesty and my character. I know who I am. People who know me know who I am. The others really don't matter.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It was first published over four years ago.
http://www.alternet.org/story/149588/no,_atheists_don't_have_to_show_%22respect%22_for_religion
MisterP
(23,730 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)
Warpy
(111,429 posts)gets him or her through a dark and lonely night when thoughts of death intrude.
People get respect and tolerance.
However, I have no respect for religion, itself. Nothing looks crazier than someone else's belief system, something you realize quickly when you're dealing with a lot of cross cultural stuff in ports of entry. However, respect for the right of people to have those belief systems should be absolute.
It was in my case. I didn't give a rip what they believed as long as they believed it would help them heal.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)She is reviled by many for being a woman, and as an atheist. She is very brave.
Mr.Bill
(24,358 posts)teach that their religion is right and all others are wrong. That is precisely what they told us in Catholic school. If you are not Catholic, you are going to hell.
And Atheists are far from being accepted by most people in the US. How many avowed Atheists have you seen run for public office? It's the kiss of death in politics.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think there are a lot of varieties around. Some are strict and only one way, others recognize that beliefs can differ and that's fine.
You are right about atheists running for office.
What do you think could be done to change that?
Mr.Bill
(24,358 posts)just saying "it's none of your business" when asked about his/her religious beliefs. That would be a good start.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If some started doing it, I think we would see a rapidly evolving trend.
Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #44)
cbayer This message was self-deleted by its author.
bvf
(6,604 posts)and recall some invocation that called for "mutual esteem between Christians and Jews," but also recall the same "you're going to hell if you're not Catholic" crap.
WTF?
"I respect you even if my god condemns you to eternal agony in the fires of hell," IOW. Translated to mean, pity the stupid fools.
Great message for young minds, eh?
Ecumenism at its clearest.
Mr.Bill
(24,358 posts)tells me they don't hate me for being an Atheist, but they will pray for me.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Cause more laws based on their beliefs. Where are the churches denouncing this practice? Why don't they have respect for those that don't believe. Why is it in the 21st century the thought of an Atheist being President is just a joke. Somehow the masses believe that those that believe like they do are better for the country. Respect has to be earned.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There are OP's about them frequently in this group.
What do you think can be done about the difficulty with getting elected as anything, let alone POTUS?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Criticism is healthy.
Some will do so in a constructive aay while others will be mean spirited about it.
It is a free country and we all have opinions and opinions about those opinions.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)She has obviously run into some people whose debating skills are impaired by their inability to remain civil. Whether that is due to her own approach is not clear, but it's certainly can go both ways.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
whathehell
(29,103 posts) cbayer
(146,218 posts)She's mostly known for her blogging and her book about coming out as an atheist.
whathehell
(29,103 posts)Atheist "activist"?
Sounds like a euphemism for "atheist proselytize".
cbayer
(146,218 posts)She is a lesbian and also an activist for GLBT equality.
I haven't seen anything quite like this for a long time and I suspect she's moved past this stage.
Why alter net republished it with a date from a week ago and why it was then posted here is not entirely clear, but I would be interested on her take on this at this point.
Her most recent posts were on an atheist meet up, a recipe for chocolate pie, the death of her cat, a really sweet piece about a dream she had where she met god and a fundraiser for the victims of the chapel hill murderer.
And here is a recent quote of hers:
I would not judge her based on this article.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"I would not judge her based on this article." - Well that's good. I'm sure she's relieved to hear that.
It's interesting to observe how she's really hit a nerve with you.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)Then we don't have to fret over Gödel's Incompleteness Bullshit anymore, either.
I kid.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Or each other, for that matter.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)which ones are we just supposed to respect and which ones are okay to not respect? I think it's a safe bet most people are okay with not respecting religions that call for the death of certain people and religions that advocate beating your children. But, what about religious groups that try to force their version of morality into law? Is that okay do we have to respect that as well? If people want to believe their invisible friends are real I am okay with that. If they want to claim a personal relationship with the most powerful being in the universes I don't care about that either. But, if they want to tell me all about how great it is to just believe instead of thinking and reasoning then I am out of there. I don't respect that stance at all. I will tell them that and I won't be shy about it. I will even very likely yell it at them on a street corner if they persist in shouting at strangers.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Which says you should kill your disobedient son and which condemns almost everyone to hell. Jesus said so.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)still here.
Exaggerate much?
Btw I don't think you're going to hell And I am Christian.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Or so a few have claimed to me.
Maybe they were just bragging.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)If you're a Christian. I never see Christians saying "We don't believe those absurd rules in the Old Testament, or the absurd rules in the New Testament, and the cruel judgments of Jesus."
Why don't Christians excise the bad parts and say "Not what I follow"????
I'm trying to understand. But it seems that Christians don't read their own Bible.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)To be fair there sre many parts that read like stereo instructions.
But you must remember that for a Christian the New Testament is the true guide.
we can't remove parts of the bible. Whwt is there is there but we can say sssome psrts are medieval thinking and don't have relevance for life today.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)But in the New Testament, Jesus affirms the old laws. That means he allegedly thought the Old Testament laws, the ridiculous stuff in Leviticus, was just fine.
What do you mean you can't remove parts of the Bible? Emperor Constantine called a committee at the Council of Nicaea to put the books together and decide what was canonical and non-canonical. It was not a logical process. They were trying to consolidate his authority under a state religion. They were not gods, they were mortal men.
There are large sections of it that are Bronze Age thinking (not even medieval) written by people who thought the earth was flat and pi was 3. Cherry-picking is what Christians have to do because the vast majority of it is ridiculous stuff and very primitive.
Why doesn't somebody start a church where they say they will not even read or take as relevant the ridiculous stuff?
How about a church that says they will use the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, and the good stuff about kindness and charity ONLY?
Why is keeping the whole Bible intact so important? The Catholics read the Apocrypha and the Protestants don't. There are a lot of different versions anyway. Christians can't agree among themselves what constitutes the Bible. And most Christians don't even know about the Eastern-Western split, which was before the Catholic-Protestant split.
I'm waiting.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Why? The church considers the bible to be the Word of God.
Some Christians would agree with you that Jesus affirmed the ot and you must obey but even many conservative churches say the NT overcomes the OT.
Jesus's words of love overcome the OT vengeful laws.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)It's still argument from authority. Just because someone is an authority doesn't mean they are right.
And if you'd read about Constantine and the Council of Nicaea you would know what a politically motivated mess it is.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Since cutting and pasting verbatim quotes here is an unforgivable sin.
Right after it is the part about "jot and tittle" in the King James version.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)If Christians took that literally we all still be following Jewieh law. We don't.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts) Explain away the bad parts all you want as metaphor. Even when they have strong, definite nouns and verbs.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I take some of it literally and other not literally.
I base my faith on tye Anglican three legged stool Wich is scripture, tradition, and reason.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)... I take the incarnation, life, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascention of Jesus literally. I take the torzh stories with a grain of salt.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)"torzh stories" Perhaps you meant Torah stories? Like the Pentateuch? Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers?
How do you arrive at what you take literally and what you take figuratively? What criteria do you use?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 27, 2015, 04:58 PM - Edit history (1)
Science tells us the Genesis is not real.
it is a feeling.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Wobbly Christians.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)it will be a good day.
I was compared to men's right activists in some truly bizarre, illogical and tortured attempt to attack.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Unfortunately you have a lot of bizarre attacks leveled at you in this room.
Some you see others you can't. Someone looking from the outside might say some are obsessed with attacking you.
Poor things can't seem to move on.
As for the post above I really wasn't offended but wanted to make thd point it was a poor choice of words.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)based on the behavior of a few and it's not right when everyone makes false assumptions about atheists either.
I've been called wobbly before, but it was after a great meal that include much wine!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)and those beliefs are important to you, then why can't you tell me definitely what they are when I ask?
I think that's a simple question.
I've done this ring around the rosie many times before. And it baffles me. Why can't you state your beliefs clearly and definitely?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I believd by his death and resurrection all humans are saved. I believe in the Holy Trinity.
I don't believe in hell.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)The last Universalist seminary closed in 1961. I used to go to a UU church that had a Universalist minister. He had been in the last class of St. Lawrence Seminary and every year he did a sermon called "The Last Universalist Minister".
Ok, given that, you are a trinitarian. I still have never understood what "saved" means. I really don't know. However, I don't believe in original sin. I believe it is a made up problem with a made up solution. But carry on explaining.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Saved means we get to heaven.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)I went to first grade at an Episcopalian day school. I graduated from a Presbyterian college. I don't have a problem with the educated liberal Protestants, because they don't go around hassling others.
My mom said she couldn't handle being an Episcopalian because her knees couldn't handle all the kneeling and she didn't like everybody drinking from the same cup of communion wine due to germs. Of course theoretically it's got alcohol in it being real wine and should kill the germs. Whatever.
When she showed up for jury duty and the lawyers asked her her religion, she said "Backsliding Presbyterian". 
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts) 
That's hilarious!
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)There is no reason why we should show respect for any religious beliefs, or any other beliefs that we disagree with.
There is no reason why we should show respect for ecumenicalism.
There is, however, every reason to show respect for an individual's right to believe whatever they want.
There is every reason not to be bigoted and intolerant toward others purely because of their personal beliefs, or what we assume their beliefs to be, based on their religious affiliation.
When we disrespect the rights of others, then we invite disrespect of ourselves.
Bigotry begets bigotry.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)If there still was a sect believing Moloch Baal deserves human sacrifices, would that religion 'deserve' respect?
In today's Islam, the Quran is the direct word of of Allah which can't be discussed. Problem: about 300 of the 6000 ayahs are a direct call to forcibly subjugate unbelievers. Respect?
The Catholic Church decreed against condoms and vaccinations in Black Africa. Respect?
US Evangelicals battle against life saving stem cell research. Respect?
Some religions (Zen, Jainism) don't stand in the way of human well being and deserve respect.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Do you respect or disrespect an individual's right to believe whatever he chooses? I am not talking about the belief itself, but the right to believe whatever. By all means, challenge the belief, but not the right to believe.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)A certain minimum level of respect is necessary to understand what a person is saying. Otherwise, it's very easy to think that because you don't understand it, it just inherently doesn't make sense. Or to mistake one perspective on something for another. In either case, subsequent criticism will miss the mark, with a high probability for miscommunication and misunderstanding.
Respect shouldn't mean "don't criticize." It should mean "listen and ask questions to see how a thing works from the perspective of someone who holds it" before criticizing. Even if you're an ex-religious person yourself, that doesn't mean that your experience can't differ from someone else's, so listening and asking questions and even comparing and contrasting experiences is still important.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And then come out and say "this is utter horsehit, and here's why.." does that count as "respect" in your holy book?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)if your audience finds the swearing distracting. "Know your audience" is a general rule of communication, not one specific to conversations about religion.
On the other hand, if you aren't trying to start a conversation with the person you are speaking to (for example, you are just performing for an audience), or if you are ok with shutting down any potential for conversation, go for it.
Just don't be surprised if the person you are addressing declines to play a role in your performance, or returns the favor by shutting down the conversation in equal terms.
Gloria
(17,663 posts)After essentially losing my brother and his sons to his wife's crazy crap...and seeing them indoctrinated since birth and turn into people who "know the truth" and who ostracized my mother and me who were not buying into it, I decided that this stuff no longer needed my
"respect." After all, they don't respect us!
I have gotten to the point with the nonsense going on in this country that this INFANTILE garbage of the evangelicals in particular that I looked up an atheist meetup group. The mere existence of one in this area (Southern NM, next to Tex-ASS) is simply amazing to me.
I'm planning to attend after I get back from a trip back East....where I will NOT be staying with my brother et al.
For years I have to cringe and "fake" being accepting of their growing disregard...and, I've just reached the point within the last few years that I've decided that I don't want to expend energy on people who turn me into a FAKE! They are good fakers, they live that way, preaching about God, but not even being able to say a "thank you" or call to inquire about their 93 year old grandmother who had to babysit them when they were kids when my father was sick with Parkinson's. I've never met such heartless people in my life.l
No more FAKERY on my part, that's for sure! Free at last!
I believe in self-reflection, energy, and getting in touch with our own inherent intuitive nature, which is lost in this type of intense world.
I like looking at the stars and wondering, I love they symbolism of astrology...I just don't want any middle man telling me what to think and certainly don't want to be confronted by those who know it ALL... I find many of these types very insecure and not very in touch with themselves. In my "family" half of them are on tranquilizers, or are pulling at their hair all the time from stress. If they have to try to "convert" me I wonder why?
