Please be respectful of the atheist holy period.

[Goblinmonger]

As several theists have pointed out in the R/T forum, they feel it is rude to talk anyway but positively about Jesus and Christianity during holidays.

As cosmik debris has declared, the period from April to December is now a holy period for atheists. As such, atheists should only be talked about in a positive manner during this time period. I am sure you will all comply with this request since it is just the same common curtesy you expect.

Thank you.

[kiahzero]

1. How about every day as a day of respect for everybody? (n/t)

[Goblinmonger]

2. Any type of disagreement

is apparently not allowed during holy periods. Sorry. Only positive things can be said about atheists until the new year.

[cyborg_jim]

9. Doesn't anyone get the difference between respecting a person and respecting belief?

Is there a difference between:

"Christians are fucking stupid."

...and...

"Christianity is fucking stupid."

Or not?

[Tigress DEM]

93. I like that.

I think differences of opinion should be clearly about ideas and not about putting anyone down for having a difference of opinion.

I say we give Atheists a break period.

[skepticscott]

96. There are opinions and there are facts

If someone says they think Pepsi tastes better than Coke, or that Bach was a better composer than Beethoven, I'm not going to put them down for having opinions that are different than mine. But when someone says that the earth is 6000 years old, that's not a matter of opinion or belief, but one of fact. And if someone holds a "belief" that is so clearly wrong, in spite of clear and incontrovertible evidence, then I'm going to tell them they're wrong in no uncertain terms and why. And if they continue to espouse that belief and say that it should be taught in all of our schools, then I'm going to call them a dangerous, deluded and ignorant religious whacko in no uncertain terms. Some things are right and some are things are wrong and some things are neither. You need to clearly understand the difference before you make statements like that and before you try to grasp rational thought.

[rurallib]

3. Thank God for Atheists!

[BOSSHOG]

4. You are

a shit stirrer upper aren't you? But that's okay. I think you make a valid point. I find some non-atheists (not on DU) to believe they are perfumed and chaste and above any notion of criticism at any time because of why they are and what they believe.

I believe in Ice Cold Budweiser and Margaritaville.

[Goblinmonger]

6. Yeah, I'm

full of piss and vinegar today, I'll agree. I think it is because I am back on a regular exercise schedule this past week and I have more energy. I'm also caught up on grading so I can take time out of my prep period to stir the shit a little bit.

I'm not a huge fan of American beer unless it is a microbrew, but I'm all about Margaritas on the rocks.

[BOSSHOG]

10. Oh so you are a beer snob

You "believe" American Beer is inferior to imported? I guess you are an atheist. Why do hate America (and its beer?)

[cyborg_jim]

11. I've heard there are good American beers

You just don't see 'em where I live. We get crap like Budweiser. (The Chech name-sake is far superior).

[skepticscott]

27. Poor guy

You must really live in bumblef*ck America if you can't get anything but Budweiser and its wastewater ilk. There is a boatload of great beer brewed all over the country, in fact more great beers in more variety are brewed in America than any other country (except maybe Belgium). It's just that the crappiest half dozen or so beers make up about 90% of the market, with hundreds of good to great ones making up the rest.

[cyborg_jim]

28. Fortunately I live in the UK. We invented beer!

[skepticscott]

33. In that case I apologize

On behalf of the United States of America and all of its territories, for exporting Budweiser to your fair isle and keeping all of the good stuff for ourselves.

[Goblinmonger]

12. It must come with my

Big 10 snobbery. I don't have to drink imported, but I want something with a little more body to it than piss water. I have to hate America and its beer because I'm an atheist. It's part of our fundamentalism.

[trotsky]

17. GM, you and I can be the founding members of the ABSA.

Atheist Beer Snobs of America

Maybe I've asked you this before - have you tried Summit beers? (Brewed in St. Paul) I may have imports from time to time but my fridge is usually stocked with Summit EPA, Finnnegan's (made by Summit), or some variety of Schell's (from New Ulm).

[Goblinmonger]

18. I'm in.

I will try to see if someone here carries Summit and give it a shot.

[trotsky]

19. Drop 'em a note.

http://www.summitbrewing.com/

I know they've greatly expanded their distribution area. And with Miller being a South African company now, and buying out Leinie's, maybe the cheeseheads are looking for other beers.

[toddaa]

43. Capital City's pretty good beer from cheesehead land

Mostly German style lagers. http://www.capital-brewery.com/ Their Wisconsin Amber (a Dortmunder Export style) is my personal favorite.

[trotsky]

46. I've had some of theirs!

Definitely good. Haven't tried the Wisconsin Amber yet though, so will give it a go!

[BOSSHOG]

23. Come on down to the Big Easy

and have a brew at the Crescent Brewhouse on Decatur Street. Nice Restaurant with a balcony and several beers are brewed on site. Being a bud drinker that stuff effects rather quickly.

[trotsky]

37. I would love to, BOSSHOG.

It is one of my goals to make it to New Orleans. Maybe I could just float down the Mississippi. That's free, right?

[Parche]

8. Atheists

NAW

A nice Heineken and T-Bone steak(rare) and Lobster will do!!!!!!!

[Virginia Dare]

15. They call that Catholicism, Boss...

:rofl:

[Rick Myers]

5. Having just finished Dawkin's "The GOD Delusion"...

I really appreciate this thread!

Amen...

[MindPilot]

7. Atheism is intellectually & ethically superior to all other beliefs.

Remember, no disagreement is permitted.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. How did it evolve?

Was atheism always a major belief system, or did it evolve to its place today? (Gee, I hope I haven't offended any atheists who don't believe in evolution!)

[cyborg_jim]

16. God intelligently designed atheism.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

30. by George, I think you've got it!

actually very close to my own thought-though you put it very cleverly into words!

[cyborg_jim]

31. God wants you to join the chosen people.

Come, on you know you want to, join the atheists!

God didn't make religion to choose his people: he made it to choose the people he didn't want.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

38. God didn't make religion

people made religion, which is part of the problem.

[skepticscott]

39. So what DID God do?

Did God reveal himself to people and expect them to just ignore him? Didn't he know what would happen?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

45. God didn't do anything

God was. Sort of what happens since God is the Only Being.

[MindPilot]

47. Huh?

Maybe it's just because it's 5:30 am, but I'm not understanding that at all.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

61. God is

God is, God doesn't do in the concept of a separate being. God cannot act upon something because God IS the something and everything else.

[skepticscott]

64. You seem to be saying

that the God of the Bible either doesn't exist and that the stories in the Old Testament are just myths and fakery, made up by certain Hebrews to bring the rest into line. Because if you think the accounts in the Pentateuch are true, then your statement that God didn't make religion makes no sense at all. The books of Moses are pretty much all about God making religion...telling the Hebrews how to live, eat, sacrifice, worship, arrange the temple, etc. The dictates of God in those books are the basis for the Jewish faith to this day.

[Random_Australian]

40. For a serious answer, atheism is something that starts for the individual

with the question "I wish to have the most accuracy I can, how can I acheive this?" or similar, and then personal experience, logic, and argumentation take it from there. Or the scientific method does, which is all of those rolled into one. :) And a well kept secret. ;)

[beam me up scottie]

41. Atheism didn't "evolve". It is the null hypothesis. YOUR religions came after.

It is not a belief system in any way, shape or form, as you've been told repeatedly in this forum. It is the lack of belief.

Apparently the only insult religionists have to hurl at atheists is to liken us to them.


Sounds like something you'd hear on a playground: "Yeah? Well, nah nah nah nah nah nahhhhhh, you're a believer too! So there!"

:rofl:

[kwassa]

63. What if religion is the null hypothesis, and atheism came later?

[beam me up scottie]

66. What if babies were born believing in Santa and disbelief came later?

But they aren't, are they?

Religion is taught.

Or perhaps you can explain why most jews are born to jewish parents, most muslims to muslims, christians to christians, etc.

Remember kwassa, we're talking about religion, not humans' vivid imaginations, pattern seeking behaviour and the fact that I always get goosebumps whenever I hear Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings (something some people would call a "spiritual" experience.)

And like Captain Picard, more than a few of us never see five lights.

[MistressOverdone]

52. Ummm I'm confused

I thought Atheism was NOT a belief.

Oh, gosh, here we go again!

[RebelOne]

84. Well, I'll disagree. Atheism is not a belief. It is a disbelief. n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. ha ha ha

What do you call this holy period? I want to know so that I greet you properly.

[Sherman A1]

20. I shall think pleasant thoughts

:hi:

[MistressOverdone]

53. Always a safe answer!

[earthlover]

21. Falwell meets athiest

I think it is a matter of common courtesy and common sense not to pick on Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Shintos, Jews, et al during their holy periods.

I think it is a matter of common courtesy and common sense not to pick on someone while their spouse or parent or child has recently died.

I don't think it is a good time for a "dead baby joke" to be delivered to a woman who has recently had a miscarriage.

I don't think it is a good time to make a speech about the rarity of monogamy in the animal kingdom at a wedding reception.

I don't think it is a good time to offer a drink to someone who I know just joined AA.

I don't think it is respectful for a Christian to tell an athiest he is wrong, and I think it is equally disrespectful for an athiest to tell a religious person he is wrong.

We all have opinions about such a deep subject as our soul, salvation, and/or the lack thereof. That is why some try to avoid even talking about religion.

I wouldn't go that far. I think it is a grand idea to discuss our ideas about the after-life or lack thereof, about god or the lack thereof. But it would sure help if we talked about what we believed and why we believe instead of trying to say those who don't believe like we do are a) damned or b) an idiot for being religious.

Jerry Falwell meet evangelical athiests: you are all the same, just trying to condemn those who you don't agree with. In the name of god, or in the name of being so smart you don't believe in god.

Since when is it smart or holy to condemn fellow humans?

[Evoman]

24. We don't need your input here, bigot.

This is our holy period, so take your atheist bashing somewhere else, hitler.

[earthlover]

69. basing?

My message was quite clear: we should NOT bash each other. Christians should not bash athiests. And athiests should not bash Christians. We should present the reasons why we believe what we do instead of knocking somone else. I think it is quite clear from your response that you did not understand my message. As to calling me hitler, isn't that bashing? Or is it only bashing if a Christian holds a view different from you? Calling someone hitler? If that is how you address your fellow liberal, how do you treat moderates?

[cosmik debris]

72. You compare atheists to fundie xtians

And then you condemn bashing. I guess only you are allowed to cast insults. That what I call hypocrisy.

[earthlover]

75. One similarity between some fundie extremists and some athiests...

...is that they like to bash each other. Some athiests like to bash Christians as being mindless, brainwashed, and absolutely wrong. Some Christians, notably the Falwell types, like to bash athiests as being mindless, brainwashed and absolutely wrong. Of course, the same folks think the other side is bashing them and are clueless to the fact that they bash the other side. So the similarity is that they bash each other because each side is self-righteous and thinks they have a monopoly on the truth and they think the other side is the same way and don't like it when the other side acts this way because they, after all, are superior. Fortunately, many athiests and many Christians are not like that. They don't try to bash each other, but instead try to live their lives as morally as possible and at peace with their neighbors. But as for the bashers of either stripe, their similarities are far more numerous than their differences.

[cosmik debris]

76. So you bash both sides and pretend that you are better??

What hypocrisy. You are as bad as any and worse than some.

[earthlover]

77. no i don't

I am not bashing anyone. I am merely pointing out that both sides bash and I don't like it. If you like bashing, that is your right. We live in a free country. So if you like to, celebrate bashing and relish every minute of it. You will only be further demonstrate your similarities to the Falwell tribe and illustrate my point. But please don't put words in my mouth. And, if you think there should be days not to bash athiests, then I would suggest that it would be equally courteous and common sense not to bash Christians on thier holy days. While you are at it, why not try to get along with each other 365 days of the year?

[cosmik debris]

78. It's not bashing when you say bad things about people???

But it is bashing when other people say bad things about people.

How can that be anything other than hypocrisy?

[earthlover]

79. Well the fact is i have not said bad things about people...

...I have merely pointed out that people from both sides tend to bash each other and I don't like that. You, on the other hand, have been putting words in my mouth and falsely accusing me of saying things I have not said, such as saying bad things about people. I have been called a bigot, hitler, and other personal attacks, i might add, because I have had the audacity to suggest that some folks on both sides bash each other. The irony of that amuses me.

[cosmik debris]

80. Here is the quote

"Jerry Falwell meet evangelical atheists: you are all the same, just trying to condemn those who you don't agree with. In the name of god, or in the name of being so smart you don't believe in god."

You accuse people of trying to condemn others. That's not saying bad things about people? You standards of behavior are so low you don't even recognize when you are being insulting. Your accusations don't leave you with clean hands no matter how much you protest.

[earthlover]

81. i give up

Re-read the quote, and the rest of the post you left out. Yes, I think bashing/condemning others is wrong. And I do think that is a bad thing--that was my point. However, I did not bash you or anyone else, I was trying to point out that many people--on both sides--bash each other instead of trying to express the reasons why they believe as they do. I was called Hitler, a bigot, and accused of saying bad things about people. Whew! I might have received a similar reaction at Liberty University on the other side of the aisle! Perhaps what I said struck a chord in some folks and made them defensive to see how "left meets right" sometimes. Maybe that is why the need to bash me. What I was trying to get across was that, as much as some of us don't like it when the right wingers are self righteous and bash those who disagree with them, some of the folks on the left side do a similar thing. And that is hypocrisy. I have tried to articulate the importance of advocating our own thoughts and use reasoning to support them instead of taking the tack of bashing the other side. I can think of several positive reasons why a person could support his athiesm or his Christianity....and it is NOT necessary to make the point that the other side is wrong, stupid, misguided, deluded, sinful, or brainwashed. Just make your case and let it be, and try not to be arrogant and superior--that is what the Falwell types do that makes me sick, and even sicker when the other side does the same thing.

[Evoman]

83. Whoa, I didn't even catch this until now.

I wasn't really bashing you...I was kidding. I mean...lol...calling you hitler, your hardly Hitler. You see the whole joke that it was an atheist holy day..and then you accused others of Falwell behaviour, and.......

Lol..nevermind, forget it. I was just trying to be funny.

[beam me up scottie]

42. And another one insults us by calling us what they are.

Can't you come up with anything original?

[earthlover]

70. And what did I call you?

I suppose referring to me as "another one" is not stereotyping me, or putting me in the same mold as a group you don't like? My point was that religion is a touchy subject and there is a lot of bashing going on from both sides. I made it crystal clear that I think athiests should not Christians and Christians should not bash athiests in my post. I did not call anyone any name. Although i was called Hitler above for making an arguement against bashing.

I sense that there are some folks who are so mad at right wing Christians that even if a left wing Christian advocates an end to bashing, I guess that gets put into the category of "another one" and dismissed. Way to illustrate my point! Us liberal Christians get pretty frustrated at times when we are compared to Falwell types....but, speaking for myself, people who confuse my far left religious thinking with Falwell are just as blind as the Falwell types who would call me an athiest. Us Christian liberals are bashed from both sides, it seems. The athiests thinks we are far-right and the right thinks we are athiests.

Is there a need to call names and get mad at people who we disagree with? Why can't we express our beliefs freely without putting others down?

[beam me up scottie]

82. Sorry, but your "senses" are fucked up.

And that includes your sense of logic.

The only insult religionists can come up with to use against us in this forum is to call us what they are: believers.

If your "senses" were working, you'd understand why that's so hilarious, even if it's overused to the point of rendering certain words meaningless.

[earthlover]

85. hurling insults again....

A Falwell type would call me a pagan or an atheist because I don't hold their views of religion. Similarly, you seem to feel the need to call me fucked up. Sorry, I don't see much difference in the intolerance and name calling. I find it sad that people can't disagree without trying to insult the other side and call into question their soul or even their senses. I also find it sad and ironic that my only real point on this thread was to point out that both sides have people who flame out at others and just saying this has provoked personal attacks, name calling and insults. I will try not to respond with the same type of venom that you exuded. Peace out.

[beam me up scottie]

86. Can you read?

your "senses" are fucked up.

Point out where I called you fucked up.

If you're looking for someone to abuse you, move on, I'm not going to indulge you.

I'm fresh out of compassion for believers who stereotype atheists, bait us and then play martyr when they get the reaction they were trolling for.

[earthlover]

87. And more insulting insinuations....

Yes, I can read. So it was just my senses that are fucked up. I guess that makes everything all right and means you were not trying to insult me?

My original point was that some atheists hurl insults against those who disagree with them in a similar manner to some of the religious right. What has happened was that several posters have actually helped illustrate my point. Instead of using constructive or logical explanations of their positions, they hurled insults at me. I have been called hitler (although that was supposed to be funny....gee, even Imus didn't try that lame excuse....) and many other insults.

Again my point is that some atheists try to insult those they disagree with.

A splendid array of illustrations has been made for this point that I alone could not have done. Thanks. Care to hurl more insults anyone? Maybe you could prove my thesis beyond a shadow of a doubt!

[beam me up scottie]

88. Where do you want me to send your flowers and sympathy card?

"you are all the same"

You are unable and/or unwilling to admit you fucked up when you broad brushed and insulted atheists even after several of us called you on it.

You made it worse by being denying it.

Your attempts to convince everyone that we're the villains here just highlights your hypocrisy.

Next time you decide to perpetuate christian fundamentalist memes about atheists, do us all a favour and skip it.

This country is full of people who are intolerant of atheists, if I want to vilified I'll let a professional do it.

Amateurs are so boring.

[earthlover]

89. Yup, I am boring, but I have been called worse

First of all, you have taken a small quote from my original post and taken it out of its context by leaving out things. This, of course, is one of the things that some right wing Christians do that irritates me.

I was not trying to compare ALL atheists with ALL Christians. The full context of my post was that, in terms of hurling insults, what I called "evangelical atheists" are similar to some right wing Christians. Now, I know you are really up on reading skills, so I might point out that there was indeed a reason I used a qualifier for the word "atheists" instead of simply comparing "atheists" to right wing Christians. I know you can read and I am not going to say your senses are fucked up or anything like that. I just emplore you to read more carefully. Sometimes ideology gets in the way, which is another point of contention I have with some right wing Christians and others.

I know you think I am trying to make your side the villains. But in my original post, and since, I have made it clear that I oppose hurling insults by BOTH sides. This was very clearly pointed out in the parts of the first post that you left out of your "out of context" quote.

I find it laughable that you would think I am trying to perpetuate Christian fundie memes. Hmmm...since I included the Christian right in my criticism for being too insulting towards others, what fundie meme does criticising the Christian right in the same vein as atheists play to?

If you knew me, I am just about the opposite of a Christian fundie. My views on religion are extremely liberal. I don't believe in the Trinity. I don't believe homosexuality is a sin. I believe in evolution. I believe in choice. I don't think a man is the head of the household, I believe this should be shared, and I support women's rights and civil rights. I oppose war. I believe in separation of church and state. And I don't think atheists or others are going to hell. For that matter, I don't believe in hell, nor that god sits on a throne up there with a beard, and created the universe in 6 days. I also believe that there are truths in all religions. As a matter of fact, I am on the other side of just about anything a fundie believes! And, as a point of fact, they would not even consider me a Christian.

So if you want to think I am a spreader of fundie memes because I criticise both sides equally in terms of insulting the other sides, I would respond that if my post were published in a fundie website there would be people objecting to it there too, and probably calling me an atheist! Seems as if when people criticise insulting others, then both sides get all fired up and insult all the more.

So, no, I am not vilifying atheists. I know that some Christians vilify atheists and I don't like that. I also know that some atheists vilify Christians.

I also know that some Christians are intolerant of atheists and I don't like that. I also know that some atheists are intolerant of Christians.
Call them brainwashed, yadayada, even on holy days and a few of them don't even have a clue that this might upset folks, and a few are so clueless they don't see that this blindness is yet another similarity they share with those they disagree with.

So you wrap up your post by calling me an amateur and calling me boring. Ho hum. I guess calling me more names will really show folks that atheists do not hurl insults at those with whom they disagree. So my response is to give you a boring sermon!

Fact of the matter is that I have nothing against atheism. I am not attacking atheists in general. The one and only point I have been trying to make is that some folks on both sides get all bent out of shape and instead of espousing the beliefs they have, they go out and try to show how wrong the other side is. This is what irritates me most about some Christian fundies who think they have a monopoly on "the truth" and say everyone else is going to hell. What has stirred up some defensiveness here is pointing out that this sort of behavior happens on both sides. What I think BOTH sides should do is examine the log in their own eyes before they go after the speck in the eyes of others.

[beam me up scottie]

92. I'm sorry, did you say something? *BMUS wakes up and blinks*

I don't give a rodent's posterior what you think about me or how shocking you find the behaviour of the regular posters in this forum.

You don't know me and obviously have never spent any time in here, so your vanity post obsessing about DU's atheist/christian boogie men is as ridiculous as your use of the christian meme "evangelical atheists".


FYI, in the future, if you want to discuss religion with atheists, you might want to refrain from lecturing us about how religiously intolerant WE are and misrepresenting atheism and atheists in general.


Last time I checked, we aren't the ones who spent the last two thousand years persecuting, torturing and murdering people who believed differently than we did or not at all.

And the last time I checked, we're not the ones espousing christian supremacy by constantly disowning bad people because they're not True Christians™.

And the last time I checked, we're not the ones who spent the last few decades turning this country into a theocracy.



See, when you compare our record to yours, it tends to piss us off.



So those horrible uppity atheists won't sit down and shut up anymore like they used to.

They say things that might OFFEND people.

Big, fat, hairy deal.

[earthlover]

97. signing off

You say atheists are not the ones who spent the last two thousand years persecuting, torturing and murdering people. Well, what is the magic number 2000 years? People--religious and non-religious--have persecuted, tortured and murdered people for a lot longer time than that. I would recommend taking a course in World History. You can come over and listen to the one I teach any time.

You seem to be saying that atheists do not persecute, torture or murder. I guess Stalin and Pol Pot never persecuted anyone, never had anyone tortured, and didn't kill anyone. I guess Milosovec never persecuted anyone,never had anyone tortured and didn't kill anyone. Same for Mao Tse Tung. Let's face it: no religion has a monopoly on persecution, torture, or murder. Reality check: it isn't just the Christians who do this! Believe it or not, atheists sometimes do bad things too. I guess you hadn't thought of that, huh?

I guess you could point out the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and a bunch of other historical examples of Christian people persecuting others. Hey, don't forget the witch trials! Of course. Now this arguement might get you some headway if I had tried to make the case that Christians are faultless. But I didn't. I have, all along said that some Christians and some atheists have bashed others. Nothing you have said has done anything except reinforce this point. I am equally upset by Christians bashing atheists as I am atheists bashing Christians.

In terms of reality, it doesn't make any difference that Pol Pot, Mao, Milosovec, Stalin or for that matter Hitler were atheists or whether they were religious. And it doesn't make any difference whether the Crusades were started by the Muslims or by the European Christians. Fact is, most atheists don't have the mindset of a Stalin, et al, and most Christians do not have the mindset of the Crusades. It might be worth asking whether you would vote for a modern day Stalin or a pacifist who would rule with a democratic and social justice framework and who happened to be religious? I think this puts things in perspective: it isn't whether a person is religious or atheistic or not that is important. What is important is how a person treats his/her fellow man/woman.

Ah...talking about rodent's posteriors. You want a gold star for being cute?

Mine is not a "vanity post". I suppose that is something you resort to when you are trying to insult someone and run out of words? Nice try!

As to misrepresenting atheism in general...I don'think I ever even addressed the topic of atheism in general. I have only made the point that SOME atheists....like some Christians....bash others. For example, you do!

Most atheists I have come to know are great people. And I have rarely encountered atheists who bash me in real life, like you apparently want to. Maybe this internet thing gets people to say things they normally wouldn't in real life? Most atheists I know are level headed intelligent people who don't go out of their way to bash people. None that I know would dream of bashing Christian beliefs on an Easter Sunday. Most are pretty decent people. And I haven't heard any of them whine that they can't bash Christians on religious holidays. I guess that isn't in their nature.

And as to "espousing christian supremacy by constantly disowning bad people because they're not True Christians"...again, that is something that SOME Christians do....and these are the Christians I have already made perfectly clear I disagree with. I would, however, disagree with you on one point. I would not call them bad people.

My point that there is no such thing as supremacy. Athiests may think they are supreme. Christians, Buddhists, Taoists, Shintos, and any of the hundreds and thousands of religious beliefs may think they are supreme. But, fact of the matter is we are all trying to grappel with the spiritual questions facing us. Some answer these questions with religion, others with atheism, and etc. Nobody can prove their position to be "the truth" but ALL of us tend to find the topic to be of such importance that there is a HUGE tendency for people of all beliefs to get into arguements and bash those who don't agree with our position.

I am not trying to say you should not speak your minds. If you profess your beliefs, I would respect that. I even could, and this is more difficult for me, respect the beliefs of a right wing Christian. Problem is, some right wing Christians have this horrible tendency to look down their noses at those who don't agree with them spiritually, and you and others have made perfectly clear that you think it is a big, fat, hairy deal whether you offend others too.

So this is how I am going to leave this. You have failed to demonstrate that atheists are any less capable of bashing others than the right wingers. You have continued to hurl personal insults at me.
So why don't we just call this a day? I am not going to change your mind. And I don't want to. I was just argueing for some civility, and you obviously are not in the mood. So...well....whatever. Have a nice day.

[skepticscott]

94. You don't get it, do you?

The one and only point I have been trying to make is that some folks on both sides get all bent out of shape and instead of espousing the beliefs they have, they go out and try to show how wrong the other side is.
by earthlover

You think that if everyone just stuck to their own beliefs, we'd all live happily ever after. The fact is that many of the most important beliefs held by different religions (or even by different sects of the same religion) are simply not compatible or reconcilable, no matter how warm and fuzzy that would make you. In fact many beliefs are in direct conflict with one another. Christians say that Jesus was divine and the son of god, while Muslims say that he wasn't. They can't both be right! You simply can't espouse one of those beliefs without saying, implicitly or explicity, that the other is completely wrong. This is only one of many, many examples. It's all very sweet to say that truths can be found in all religions, but one of the things that MAKES them religions is that they have certain truths which are unquestionable and unalterable, regardless of evidence, argument or what any other group believes. Religion, or at least most people's version of it, simply cannot be purged of absolutism and still be religion. Most people who need religion need more than your kind of jello-nailed-to-the-wall faith.

I guess the best that sensible, rational people can hope is for members of different religions and sects to agree to disagree and to at least live together without slaughtering each other, but judging by the past few millenia of history, we're not likely to see that day any time soon.

[earthlover]

98. people can and do disagree with civility

"You simply can't espouse one of those beliefs without saying, implicitly or explicity, that the other is completely wrong."

I disagree. You can believe what you believe and recognize that yours is an opinion, and that you are not necessarily right any more than someone else is necessarily wrong. It is QUITE possible to hold a religious view and recognize that others have different religious views and that, by definition, religious views are based on faith, not proven fact, so therefore there is no basis to call the other religion "completely wrong".

Whatever came of the idea that we can have our own views and tolerate others who hold other views? It is called tolerance!

And tolerance is not jellow-nailed-on-the-wall faith. Quite the opposite. You can have definate, strong views and still accept others with other views. What is so hard for this to understand?

[skepticscott]

90. Since you asked

I wouldn't go that far. I think it is a grand idea to discuss our ideas about the after-life or lack thereof, about god or the lack thereof. But it would sure help if we talked about what we believed and why we believe instead of trying to say those who don't believe like we do are a) damned or b) an idiot for being religious.

Jerry Falwell meet evangelical athiests: you are all the same, just trying to condemn those who you don't agree with. In the name of god, or in the name of being so smart you don't believe in god.

Since when is it smart or holy to condemn fellow humans?
by earthlover


I condemn fellow human beings who fly airplanes into buildings because of their religious beliefs. I condemn fellow human beings who blow up abortion clinics and murder doctors because of their religious beliefs. I condemn fellow human beings who hate homosexuals and Jews because of their religious beliefs. I condemn fellow human beings who try to forcibly convert others to their religion while at the same time claiming to "respect all faiths". I condemn fellow human beings who enact draconian public policy that restricts the rights and freedoms of others because of their religious beliefs. I condemn fellow human beings who try to force their religious beliefs into public school classrooms in denial of well-established scientific truth. I condemn fellow human beings who claim that condoms don't stop the spread of AIDS and condemn millions of people to a horrible death because of their religious beliefs. I suppose you regard all of that as stupid and unholy?

These are not matters of "disagreement". They are matters of the imposition of one person's religious beliefs on others by force or violence. People who do such things or people who claim to be "religious" and who not condemn them, but instead smile and say that "all paths are equal" deserve to be called out. I'm sorry if that's not enough of a lovefest for you, but it's true.

[beam me up scottie]

91. !!! POTD !!! "not enough of a lovefest for you"

:rofl:

Seriously, I'm done playing with R/T's version of Barney, (it's like going into the I/P forum or the Gungeon and whining about how everyone is so uptight :eyes: ) but your post is spot on!

I condemn my brother's first grade teacher who tied his left hand behind his back because he refused to write with his right one.
Being left-handed is the sign of the devil, you know. :mad:

[cosmik debris]

95. Yep, that gets a bookmark

Thanks skepticscott.

[earthlover]

99. nope, 9/11 was not a good thing

Well, I condemn all the things you condemn! However my point is not that Christians don't sometimes act in ways worthy of condemnation. My point is just that some Christians and some atheists condemn each other because of their beliefs and I don't like that.

"I suppose you regard all of that as stupid and unholy?" Nope, not at all! I believe condoms should be used, I have already said that I think separation of church and state is a good idea, I believe in evolution, don't believe in creationism, I don't support draconian public policy of Bush, et al, I don't try to forcibly convert anyone, don't hate homosexuals , don't hate Jews including Jesus, and I abhor abortion clinic terrorists. Gee...I even didn't think 9/11 was such a swell idea, whodathunk!!!!!

My one and only point on this thread is that some folks from both sides tend to bash the other side.

And I have been bashed ever since for that. Well, I am done.

[skepticscott]

100. Yes, that would be a good idea

Since you're obviously not capable of rational thought or even of being honest about what you posted before, despite the fact that all you would have to do is scroll up and read it.


Well, I condemn all the things you condemn! However my point is not that Christians don't sometimes act in ways worthy of condemnation. My point is just that some Christians and some atheists condemn each other because of their beliefs and I don't like that.

Very pretty, but that's NOT what you said in post #21-you commented rather snidely: Since when is it smart or holy to condemn fellow humans? Apparently you DO condemn fellow human beings, as I suspected you did. I just wanted you to stop being hypocritical and admit it. And if you're saying now that you condemn people for their actions and not their beliefs, you're even more irrational than I thought. After all the examples I gave of horrific actions being directly driven by religious beliefs, are you still maintaining that belief and action can be sepated so neatly? All the evidence of history proves otherwise.

And since you also seem incapable of distinguishing between fact and opinion, belief or faith (there really IS a difference), I won't waste my fingers or my time trying to get the point across any further. Simply know that you're wrong when you imply that two mutually incompatible things can both be true.

[earthlover]

101. ok...this really is my final post....so if anyone else wants the last word go for it!

I think it is an oversimplification of 9/11 to blame it on the religion of the terrorists. Most Muslims are peace loving people, just as most Christians are, and just as most atheists are. Some people on the far right have tried to use 9/11 as an excuse to whip up anti-Muslim hatred and they blame it on their religion. I get upset when people use 9/11 to try to gain support for their political views, such as using it to whip up support for the Iraq War which killed thousands of innocent people (many more than died in 9/11) and I think using it to try to blame it all on religion is also a cheap shot. If we are to understand why the terrorists struck on 9/11 we need to examine their views towards America, our imperial agenda, our relationship to the Middle East economically and militarily. To just blame it on the religion of the participants is like the "blind men and the elephant" story. Maybe focusing only on their religion might be appealing if you have an axe to grind, but it does not come close to explaining 9/11.

Now as to your views on people using terrorism, blowing up abortion clinics, or in other ways using violence to try to impose religious beliefs, I think the overwhelming majority of religious people would also agree with you.

However, things are not as morally black and white as you seem to imply that they are. Bonhoeffer was influenced by his religious views to participate in an assassination plot to try to kill Hitler. Yes, this was violence and murder, yet it could have saved countless lives if it were successful. John Brown was influenced by his religious views to attempt to start a slave uprising at Harpers Ferry. While considered a madman by many, he also had the support of many religious people who abhored slavery, and although his violent "terrorism" was unsuccessful, it let to a turn of events that ultimately led to the Civil War which, although it was not originally fought to free the slaves, wound up doing so. I am not trying to justify 9/11 at all, merely pointing out that the entire topic of violence with regard to immoral actions on the part of a government is a complicated one. Especially in a nation that was born of revolution.

In any case, trying to blame 9/11 on the religion of the terrorists doesn't make any more sense than blaming all the carnage of Stalin in Russia on athiesm because Stalin was an athiest. It just doesn't cut it, because most athiests do not support Stalinist tactics and most religious people don't support flying airplanes into buildings.

I don't know why you try to talk about a lovefest, I suspect you are attacking a straw man. I am quite aware there is conflict in the world between people of varying views, ideologies and religions. I know that some views are diametric opposites to others and both cannot be right. However, what is the point? We can take people who have different views and accept the differences, agree to disagree, learn to communicate better or at least stop the bashing. On a global scale, such attitudes can lead to less warfare, less imperialism, less hatred, and more diplomacy. On a local scale, this can lead to breaking down racial barriers, male-female barriers, sexual orientation matters, and ultimately lead to a greater diversity in our society and a higher level of community. Call this a love fest if you will, but I am not naive. We have to be part of the solution to problems or we are part of the problem. Ironically it is the ideologues, the abortion clinic bombers, the terrorists, who emphasize that two opposing views are irreconcilable. And another irony is that it is the ideologues who claim the abortion issue cannot be reconciled, while people like me advocate choice and prevention of pregnancy and support for single parents as alternatives to those who are absolutist.

I did not originally intend to even address the issue to this length. My only point was that some people on both sides bash each other. This has ironically led to a lot of bashing! Gee...I see someone even is calling me Barney! I do find it sad that as narrow minded as the radical right often is, there are some on the left who are equally narrow minded.

I am not as young as I used to be. I know over the years I have made mistakes. I have at least tried to accept people from other viewpoints on politics, religion, etc instead of trying to insist my view is right and I hold "the truth" and the other side is "wrong" or does not have "the truth". So, while I am a liberal Christian, I don't buy into the idea that atheists or conservative Christians or people of other religions are inherently wrong or stupid. I know that this view, which is called tolerance, will upset those who are chomping at the bit to put down others and try to make themselves look smart in the process, and claim the other side has all the intolerance they also exhibit. Much easier to kill the messenger than to look in the mirror.

[skepticscott]

102. Nice try

I think it is an oversimplification of 9/11 to blame it on the religion of the terrorists.

Is it just a coincidence then that they all happened to be the SAME religion? And that the religion they belonged to REQUIRES its adherents to carry our attacks on "infidels"?


In any case, trying to blame 9/11 on the religion of the terrorists doesn't make any more sense than blaming all the carnage of Stalin in Russia on athiesm because Stalin was an athiest. It just doesn't cut it, because most athiests do not support Stalinist tactics and most religious people don't support flying airplanes into buildings.

Actually, it makes a great deal more sense. As I noted above, Islam REQUIRES its believers to carry out holy wars against their enemies. It REQUIRES them to kill blasphemers and apostates. Nothing in the philosophy of atheism requires atheists to slaughter millions of people for no reasons other than paranoia and hunger for power. And if you want to judge atheists and religionists by their actions, don't look at a few whacked out sociopaths like Stalin or Mao, who are representative of nobody but themselves. Ask yourself the questions: Have there ever in history been organized groups of religionists who have tortured and slaughtered each other over minor differences in belief? Have there ever in history been organized groups of atheists who have tortured and slaughtered each other over minor differences in philosophy? The answers are: Lots, and none at all.

I don't know why you try to talk about a lovefest, I suspect you are attacking a straw man

Here's your lovefest:

I have at least tried to accept people from other viewpoints on politics, religion, etc instead of trying to insist my view is right and I hold "the truth" and the other side is "wrong" or does not have "the truth". So, while I am a liberal Christian, I don't buy into the idea that atheists or conservative Christians or people of other religions are inherently wrong or stupid. I know that this view, which is called tolerance, will upset those who are chomping at the bit to put down others and try to make themselves look smart in the process, and claim the other side has all the intolerance they also exhibit.

You and others on this board seem to regard all beliefs to be of equal factual validity and of equal moral standing, but it just ain't so, no matter how much you wish it were or how warm and fuzzy and flower-childish that notion makes you feel. Tolerance means allowing things you think are foolish or that you may disagree with or that may offend you to go on without interference as long as they don't harm others or restrict their freedoms. Tolerance does not mean allowing untruths to go unchallenged or evil and oppression to go unopposed.

[beam me up scottie]

103. "Tolerance does not mean allowing untruths to go unchallenged or evil and oppression to go unopposed

Indeed. :thumbsup:

"Tolerance" like that inspires and allows christians to introduce and pass legislation making discrimination against homosexuals legal.

"Tolerance" of that sort also lead to the Holocaust, lest we forget.

Has he performed the regulation apologetic stand up routine excusing religionists for that yet?

I don't want to miss it.

Last year the Pope blamed it on atheists, it will be hard to top that.

[juno jones]

22. Can I claim January

As *Be Repectful To Practioners Of Western Paganism, Esotericism and Ceremonialism Month*? How 'bout a season for gnostics? Or Luciferians...I mean they never get ANY respect (but they do BBQ a mean goat!)...

[damntexdem]

25. Sorry, but I'm an agnostic.

So I don't have to be nice to anybody! ;-)

At least, I don't think so. But I'm not sure.

[varkam]

26. Well...and nobody has to be nice to you either, fence-straddler.

After all, you don't have a holy period.

:evilgrin:

[cosmik debris]

29. Let me remind you heathens of the original Declaration

"I claim the time period from April thru December as my holy period when I am immune from criticism. And I will pout and whine if anyone says anything unpleasant about me, or my beliefs, or books that I like, or if they make chocolate sculptures of anything I don't want to eat. Especially asparagus or Batman."

Now get with the program.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

32. Glad I reread that

for a moment I thought you were saying you WANTED to eat aparagus. I've never understood why anyone wanted to eat that vegetable--but then I'm probably casting asparagus at someone here. Oopsy.

[Evoman]

34. Are you kidding...asparagus is the best ever.

I like to saute it in a garlic/basil/butter sauce....

[cosmik debris]

35. That's it!

I have made my proclamation and you have dishonored my Holy Period. At the next Atheist Meeting you have to sit on the back row and you will be last in line for the Buffet.

[Evoman]

36. I'm not an athest no mores.

I waz jus pertending to b one so that yu stopid athests wood thnk I am one of yu. Yur so ideotic that yu feel for it, hood wine and sink her. Wy wood I want to b won of yu when hell is yur desinashion?

Stopid athest.

[moggie]

44. You're really cranky during your period n/t

[beam me up scottie]

49. They have medication for that now.

He really should see a doctor.

His chakras may need to be adjusted.

[cosmik debris]

54. You might have missed my post where I complained about

Having Quantum Spiritual Energy Fields in my Aura. We all know how painful that can be.

[beam me up scottie]

65. Oh yes indeed!

I have to leave work whenever my Aura is invaded by rogue QSEF's.

It's entirely different when you invite them in, but having them force themselves on your poor unsuspecting Aura should be considered spiritual rape and I believe it's a felony in at least 25 states.

I carry a copy of my Baloney Detection Kit whenever I leave the house, just in case.

[Silent3]

60. Do pirates eat asparagus?

If it's okay with pirates, and can be used to make a good spaghetti sauce, it's okay by me.

[MistressOverdone]

48. Well, okay

but let's get down to business here. How do you celebrate this holy period? Chocolate? Creme Brule? Barbeque? Do we get any days off work? Can I put this on my school calendar so I only have review that day and not introduce new materials?

There are a lot of possibilities here.

[moggie]

50. Chocolate is part of it

A statue of Dawkins made from chocolate. And his wiener is bigger than Jesus's.

[MistressOverdone]

51. um...Jesus didn't have one

haven't you ever seen a Ken doll? Kind of like that, I think.

LOL. I'm a Christian and I have a difficult time thinking about Jesus's privates, I guess. I prefer him rather androgynous.

[moggie]

58. Doesn't that present theological problems?

Seems to me that Jesus should have been fully human, in order to fill the role assigned to him. Since I'm sure you're not a prude, it it that you want him to be neither one gender nor the other, to maximise his/her relevance to both genders? If that's the case, wouldn't it be better to imagine Jesus as a fully-equipped hermaphrodite?

[cyborg_jim]

59. I think looking for logic about sexual matters in Christianity is doomed to fail.

[MistressOverdone]

62. Well, I guess THAT would work, too

I just remember that at my church they had this painting of Jesus as a major hunk, kind of like Fabio. Made me very uncomfortable! LOL. I know it makes no sense, but hey, my father had no privates, either.

Seriously, I was able to care for my dad with Alzheimers and somehow never see them.

Very repressive British background! What can I say....

[cosmik debris]

55. I would prefer a statue of a woman

As long as it is NOT Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

[moggie]

56. Ok

Oh, BMUS? Please get undressed while I warm up the chocolate.

[cosmik debris]

57. And with regard to size,

Remember what your Mother taught you about sharing. Don't take it out of your pocket if you don't have enough for everybody.

[beam me up scottie]

104. Oh, moggie!!!!

I didn't know you still cared!

Can we use whipped cream this time? That damn chocolate always stains fabrics.:P

[JerseygirlCT]

67. Ok, works for me

I like that respect idea all around.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

68. My first thought was a different interpretation of "holy period"

Maybe our saviour is a woman? Oh my...

[Goblinmonger]

71. An 8-month period

That'd have to suck.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

73. Maybe it's an 8 month atheist fertility ceremony

I may not worship a god, but I worship all things female.

[Goblinmonger]

74. That's an altar

I worship at frequently, too.

[beam me up scottie]

105. This was a great idea for a thread, Gobby!

I printed this out and brought it to my supervisor but they won't let me take April to December off from work.

Bloody bigots.