Ok, we get it, y'all think religion is evil...

[Sal316]

...and has no place in a civilized society.

We get that you think Catholic priests are child rapists.

We get that you think Christians hate gays, love to oppress women, and are young earth Creationists.

We get that you think that if you're a person of faith, you're delusional, irrational, and illogical.

We get that you think flying planes into buildings is religious belief "taken to its logical conclusion".

We get it, really, we do.

We get that you like to crow about how much more ethical, intelligent, logical and rational you are than us believers.

Let me ask this, though.

How many threads in R/T have had the purpose of "converting" people?

How many thread in R/Ts have had the purpose of belittling people of faith or their beliefs?

I think if one honestly looks at it, it ain't the believers here "shoving their beliefs in the face" of other DUers.

[liberalmuse]

1. Shit! You got us all pegged.

:eyes:

[givemebackmycountry]

2. "Shoving their beliefs in the face" of other DUers

Well, you do have your own forum much like the gun people.
I'm still trying to figure out which one is the most dangerous.

[rug]

7. That's true.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=263

[darkstar3]

15. Forum vs. group, rug.

I'm sure most here are familiar with your dislike of discussion, but really, there is a difference between a forum and a group.

[rug]

20. Well, which forum is he referring to, Wyoming?

[darkstar3]

22. Even you aren't that obtuse.

The religious have a forum here dedicated to religion. They ALSO have groups if they want an echo chamber.

[rug]

24. So, when he said "your own forum", he meant "our"?

Speaking of echo chambers, that link there leads to one.

[darkstar3]

25. Oh, so now it's "our" forum?

You mean you now agree that atheists are allowed to post here without being told to shut up and get out?

[rug]

27. No, your friend said "your". What do you suppose he meant?

[darkstar3]

28. The same thing you and your friends mean every time you tell atheists they should stick to A&A.

[rug]

31. Who said that?

Did someone else say something like this, "You don't have to come to the forum if you don't like or can't handle the discussion."?

[darkstar3]

32. Oh please.

You mean to tell me you can't remember the number of times you and other believers have told atheists in R/T that they shouldn't chime in on discussions about religion?

Even your memory isn't that selective.

I stand behind the quote you pulled there. My quote simply states that if a person doesn't like the discussion they don't have to participate. I'm not the one specifically telling people that their points of view are invalid in the R/T forum since they are not religious.

ETA: Oh, and #38.

[rug]

33. No, I don't.

However, I do recall the many times you and your friends have posted here about unicorns, pedophilia, mutant pastas, Santa Claus, feeble minds, inter alia.

If you consider that a discussion of religion and theology, carry on. On the other hand, my opinion is that that is better fodder for a circle jerk in an echo chamber.

[darkstar3]

34. Because in your opinion, negative remarks have no place in the discussion.

I don't give a fuck.

[rug]

35. I'm not opposed to all negative remarks, just dumb negative remarks.

[darkstar3]

36. Now THAT'S comedy.

;)

[cleanhippie]

101. Like that one?

[polmaven]

93. So let me get this straight....

The Religion/Theology forum is not dedicated to religion or theology? Have I got that right?

[PassingFair]

112. It is dedicated to the DISCUSSION of religion or theology.

Pro or con.

Understand?

[salvorhardin]

3. You assume too much

Personally, I don't think any of those things and I am an outspoken atheist. Furthermore, I actively speak out against those who adopt the stereotype you've described. What I really care about is promoting acceptance and tolerance of atheists, and defending secular society; i.e. fighting against theocracy. If you'd like I can introduce you to many other atheists who feel the same way.

Don't judge all atheists by the words of a vocal minority... but you know what? I don't think there are even very many atheists at DU who believe what you think they do.

[ironrooster]

4. yes, that's one thing that bothers me about DU - the hostility

toward those of us that practice religion (any religion). (1) I'm certainly no evangelical,
(2) believe in evolution and (3) think that the churches should be more interested in social
justice than demonizing others. There are alot of us out there - but we get thrown in the
same category as the nutcases.

[Trajan]

9. DU is one of the few places where nonbelievers have ...

Where they get to speak freely ...

Believers have .... everywhere else ...

Let's not conflate rejection of theology with 'demonization' .... Yeah .. some Atheists in DU are assholes (I am one of them), but to simply cast them all as assholes is just as bad as ...

Oh wait ... Got all circular and shit ....

[defendandprotect]

45. We all have the right to question and challenge religious beliefs --

especially when those beliefs are brought out into the public arena --

which is what websites are.

[Meshuga]

92. The reaction of the OP...

...is an example of the confusion between rejection of religion and demonization as you put.

It is obviously easy to misunderstand people in internet forums. I bet that the reactions wouldn't be as dramatic if people here were discussing the topic over a beer.

[Boojatta]

109. Are drunken brawls less dramatic than the posting of written words?

[Meshuga]

110. It depends

They could be and sometimes not.

But my point is that in a face-to-face exchange you can better determine the tone of the question/comment and people can see that there is no malice attached to the discussion.

There are companies that warn people about the usage of certain words in company email exchange because it is easy for the sender to be misunderstood. The recepient can't hear your tone or see your body language and facial expression in an electronic exchange so there is more room for misunderstanding and drama.

[PassingFair]

113. Because speaking in public is SO much safer!

http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/11/01/michigan-eagle-scout-murders-62-year-old-for-being-atheist.htm


"I want to make sure he's gone," the alleged shooter told the dispatcher. The dispatcher asked the suspect how many times he shot the victim. "Hopefully enough," was the suspect's chilling reply, according to the dispatcher.

On the way to the police station, the suspect told police "he did not want to deal with anyone that did not believe in God," according to the report. ... "How long would it take you to believe in God?" the suspect said he asked the victim. "Not until I hear Gabriel blow his horn," the victim allegedly replied, while tipping his hat.

That's when the suspect shot him. "I did it because he is evil; he was not a believer," the suspect told police.


One of these guys was "good enough" to be an Eagle Scout...

:eyes:

[Meshuga]

114. I am not sure what this has to do with what I am saying in this conversation

I am merely saying that some of the paranoia would go away if posters (who come to this forum) were able to see each other's facial expressions, body language, and hear the tone of questions and statements. Perhaps some of the drama would disappear.

I am not arguing for how much safer (or not) face-to-face interactions are comparing with electronic communication. In this case, I would agree to keep an anonymous profile so some crazy guy won't kill me over something stupid.

[PassingFair]

115. I'm not arguing with you...

just posting an example of what can happen if an atheist opens their
mouth in the real world.

From exclusion from upstanding groups like Boy Scouts to
outright homicidal behavior from nutters.

I think the bus signs and billboards geared towards
letting atheists know that there are many other atheists
around can do nothing but help remedy the damage that
magical thinking has done to the human race.

I am much more comfortable talking about my atheism here
than I would be at...say...my workplace.

Because I know that it would come back to bite me in the ass
at a later date.

[Meshuga]

116. You see?

You were merely adding to the conversation and I misunderstood you. This would not happen if we were having a face to face conversation. At least I hope I am not that stupid. :-)

But there is a lot of insanity out there regarding religion. Fear of consequences (given the law enforcement we have in this country) keeps our version of the Taliban in check. But there are those who don't give a shit and act on their insanity in the same way as in the article you provided.

It is scary indeed.

[dmallind]

5. This would be very powerful - if DU were all of our lives

Since religion, and specifically Christianity, is "shoved in the faces" of others quite nicely in our laws, in our workplaces, in our family lives in many cases, on the streets, at public events, in schools, in government, in the military, on TV, in the general media, on our money, and in society in general, is it such a massive imposition to have at least a two-way stream of face-shoving on DU (if you don't think it's two ways, look again)?

I mean would you prefer to trade? I can't speak for all nonbelievers of course but I am pretty sure most of us would be more than happy to "endure" some (more) on-line negativity if it meant we got the preferential treatment Christianity gets in the real world. Heck I'm pretty sure we'd settle for equality in real life and hold back a little on internet fora in return... Deal?

[darkstar3]

19. +1

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Clean your own house. Bigots speak in the name of 'faith' and

they go largely unanswered. It is the job of the faith community to care for its own image. And now the big question. Considering the fact that your 'Lord Jesus' teaches you that you will face mockery and even persecution for 'his name's sake' and he commands you to receive it with rejoicing, why is that teaching rejected in favor of demands for personal respect for believers for believing? I mean, I just don't get the constant postings along this vein, considering what is actually set forth for you to practice. Any thoughts on that?

[xfundy]

8. I get that you're carrying a broad brush

and looking for somewhere to use it.

I spent YEARS saying, "Oh, I'm not one of THOSE christians," then, as the fundamentalist takeover of religion in America progressed, I realized I don't fit that definition of christian anymore, period. And, after seeing all the evil done in the name of christianity, and reading the entire KJV, and looking at the world as it is vs the world bible bangers pretend it can, no, must be, I finally gave up on it all together. You could say I had my faith tested.

When I was a child, I spake as a child; I thought as a child. But when I became a man, I put away childish things, like an invisible man who watches our every move just so he can send us to burn in the Hell he created.


So rather than stand up and shout back at the self-proclaimed leaders of your movement, you tied a skunk to your belt and whine "No it doesn't!" when people tell you it stinks.

[Warpy]

10. Until you manage to repudiate the very evil people within your own community

you have no business complaining about ours.

Now what was that about the mote in someone else's eye versus the plank in your own?

[aquart]

11. Know why your Christ was born in a stable?

Because "tur" means "child" and "tur" means "stable". And it isn't an Aramaic pun, it's a Sumerian piece of polyphony. Because the same sign for "tur" also works for "dumu" which also means "child." Dumuzi was the Sumerian dying and reviving god, the equivalent of the Hebrew Tammuz. D and T are commonly switchable.

And it was necessary to conflate Jesus with Tammuz in order to give him the status of a god.

Now go play with your bible. Adam's rib is also a Sumerian pun. And the story of Lot is a long shaggy dog pun on woman, salt, and beer mash.

Have fun with your perfect faith. Maybe one day you'll learn something about it.

[Buzz Clik]

13. Can I have your autograph? Please write it in Aramaic, okay?

[laconicsax]

16. Oh, SNAP!

:evilgrin:

[rug]

18. By all means, link us to this scholarship.

[aquart]

41. UPenn

http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html

The most stunningly glorious online or anywhere else dictionary ever seen. Mind boggling.

For a completely brain boggling language. They use words a lot like Shakespeare who had a habit of taking a word with multiple meanings and using pretty much all of them at once. That kind of association is the basic brain fabric of religion.

UPenn isn't downloadable. But there are a bunch of downloadable Sumerian glossaries online. What they lack is the cuneiform but I wouldn't recommend playing with that before you get a little vocabulary. Those scribes were a hoot and they were punning across languages, also like Shakespeare.

[rug]

42. Interesting site.

Still, your conclusions strike me as a bit of a stretch.

tur
tur wr. tur "(young) child" Akk. šerru
tur wr. tur; tu "(to be) small; to reduce, diminish; to subtract; (to be) young" Akk. şehērum

tur-mah-ba
turmahba wr. tur-mah-ba "a kind of ration"

tur-ti
turti wr. tur-tiku6 "a fish"

TUR.UZ.ZA
TURUZZA wr. TUR.UZ.ZA "type of duck?"

tur3
tur wr. tur3; e2tur3 "animal stall" Akk. tarbaşu

tur5
tur wr. tur5 "illness, disease; (to be) ill" Akk. marāşu; murşu

=====

dumu
dumu wr. dumu; du5-mu "child, son, daughter" Akk. māru

dumudaba
dumudaba wr. dumu-da-ba "an agricultural worker"
dumudaba wr. dumu-dab5-ba "a type of worker"

dumugugur
dumugugur wr. dumu-gu4-gur "a type of worker"

dumuĝir
dumuĝir wr. dumu-ĝir15 "citizen" Akk. ?

dumuKA
dumuKA wr. dumu-KA "a kinship term" Akk. ?

dumumunus
dumumunus wr. dumu-munus "daughter" Akk. mārtu

dumuni
dumuni wr. u2dumu-ni "a plant"

dumunita
dumunita wr. dumu-nita "son" Akk. māru

dumusaĝ
dumusaĝ wr. dumu-saĝ "first-born"

dumusaĝĝa
dumusaĝĝa wr. dumu-saĝĝa "an official"

dumutab
dumutab wr. dumu-tab "twin"

=====

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Nativity

[aquart]

Oh, if you're going off on that kind of tangent, do pes.

Pronounced pesh. It'll give you a good idea why Italians make the sign of the fig, and how Jonah got in that whale.

I mean you do know the New Testament was cobbled together centuries after Christ lived, and the earliest preserved writings were at least forty years post crucifixion?

The whole "played lots for his clothes" is stolen whole from one of the psalms. Deification requires a lot of conformity with tradition.

[Buzz Clik]

12. +1

DU evangelical atheists are, without question, the most irritating lot on the board.

Hypocritical, hateful, spiteful, paranoid.

[darkstar3]

17. Funny man.

Tell me, what's an "evangelical atheist"? It sounds comparable to a mute car salesman...

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[darkstar3]

39. Nice.

I'll shut up when you and your friends do.

[Hardrada]

14. They thumb their noses at me for being positive about Zen Buddhism!

[darkstar3]

21. The R/T forum is here for discussing the concepts of religion and theology.

You don't have to come to the forum if you don't like or can't handle the discussion.

BTW: When your God isn't shoved in my face every time I handle cash or say the Pledge of Allegiance, I may be able to move myself to worry about what's shoved in your face.

[rug]

26. When is the last time you said the Pledge of Allegiance?

Did you say "under God"?

[darkstar3]

29. 2 weeks ago,

and I remained silent at that part by choice, but those around me did not.

KMA.

Oh, and BTW, that Pledge was followed with a prayer, at a civic meeting that had fuck-all to do with church.

[defendandprotect]

44. .. and too few know that the "under god" part is OPTIONAL --- as it should be -- !!

[rug]

46. The entire Pledge is optional.

[darkstar3]

47. Tell that to the President,

who took no end of shit for having his hand in the wrong place during the national anthem.

There's optional, and then there's "optional." I can't be required by law to say the Pledge, but I don't consider it optional when there are serious consequences for not saying it.

[rug]

48. Such as?

[darkstar3]

51. In this specific case? Losing business.

Lots of business.

[rug]

55. I dont know your situation but it's you who has to make your choice.

[darkstar3]

57. Real nice.

You call it "choice." I call it "using supermajority status to coerce others into religious observances of only your faith."

You DON'T know my situation, so don't you fucking dare presume to know what choices I do and do not have. Step off.

[rug]

60. Lol.

"Losing business. Lots of business." = "using supermajority status to coerce others into religious observances of only your faith."

Ok, tiger. Keeping making your principled posts here.

[darkstar3]

63. You're laughing, yet I see nothing funny.

Yes, a supermajority who will only patronize the businesses of those who publicly and repeatedly join them in religious observances that are applicable to only the faith of that supermajority DOES qualify as coercion. It's not in any way funny, and you only think it is because you're a part of it.

I'm not your "tiger". I'm not your buddy, I'm not your "son", I'm not your friend. Take your overly familiar address and stuff it.

[rug]

65. And the funny part is you don't even realize how ridiculous you sound.

And you can take your chip and kma.

[darkstar3]

67. The privileged are often deaf and blind to those upon whom they step.

It keeps them from hearing "fuck you."

[rug]

69. Lol,

unprivileged, stepped on, subjugated, and still valiantly crying "fuck you".

Once again you have contributed to the discussion of religion and theology. I can't imagine where the OP came from.

[darkstar3]

71. The same sewer as your hate.

Correction, your privileged hate that comes from knowing your privilege is wrong, and waning.

[rug]

73. Oh, please. Define my privilege.

Back it up with evidence, of course.

I wouldn't want to think your statement is based on a false belief generated from a feeble mind.

[darkstar3]

75. You've already done it quite well enough, member of the largest Christian religion in the world.

I bet it took real balls to go with the flow like that.

[rug]

77. I see. My baptism as an infant is a priviliege.

Oddly enough, you've brushed upon an actual theological thought.

Not that it was intended.

[darkstar3]

79. Nighty-night, troll.

You won't acknowledge even the most obvious and simple things presented to you, and thus you show that you are only interested in getting another rise out of me.

[rug]

82. Don't be so familiar, tiger.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

97. This is one of the most thoughtless threads I've seen in a long time

Rug, you are a real piece of work, and you make regular Christians look like assholes with your comments.

[rug]

100. I agree the bulk of this thread lacks thought, which is usually the case in here.

BTW, this thread has nothing to do with Christians or anyone else. If you think it's emblematic of a group I could say it makes atheists look like assholes, whiney assholes at that. But, inlike you, I don't generalize.

[cleanhippie]

105. Ding ding ding! Winner!

assholes, indeed.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

107. And I now have the sweet bliss of ignorance

If you know what I mean. :)

[defendandprotect]

49. There are NO "serious consequences" for not saying "under god" ---!!

-- but if you felt in any way intimidated -- why not fight back?

[darkstar3]

52. I was talking about the Pledge, not that phrase,

but where I live and work, if someone hears the omission, you'll still lose business.

[defendandprotect]

53. I know -- but my post was specifically about "UNDER GOD" ....

and, basically, that's what's also wrong with Christianity's Capitalism -- !!

A fascist sytem which exploits nature, natural resources, animal-life -- and

even other human beings according to various myths of "inferiority."


Global Warming should be enough for us to bury that system!

[rug]

54. And there are no lawful consequences, serious or otherwise, for not saying the Pledge at all.

What there is is social pressure, sometimes overt or muted murmurs of disapproval and social castigation in some circles. So what. Anything beyond that is actionable.

I haven't said the Pledge for decades, partially for the under God nonsense, but mainly for the jinogoistic bullshit of reciting it even for a town board about to discuss sewer rates.

Two years ago, on the first day of school in fourth grade, my daughter came home and said her teacher, whose son was in Iraq, yelled at her for not reciting the Pledge.
This is in Pennsylvania which passed a law about ten years ago requiring the recitation in classrooms. The Third Circuit ruled it unconstitutional.

We called the teacher, met with her and discussed it. Issue resolved. That was the consequence in that case. Even consequences have consequences of their own.

I agree with You. Why not fight back?

[darkstar3]

58. Own a business in the Bible belt, and then talk to me about abstaining from the Pledge.

Have your livelihood depend on the patronage of your community members, and then tell me about fighting back or rocking the boat.

Your post reeks of privilege.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[darkstar3]

64. Choosing to mutter rather than have my family go poor and hungry is hardly cowardice.

Cowardice is refusing to see that you are contributing to the subjugation of those unlike you, even when it is brought to your clear attention, and then mocking those unlike you anonymously.

GFY.

[rug]

66. Let me see, . . . yes, internet threats of KMA and GFY, I think, deserve nothing less than mockery.

[darkstar3]

68. Oh yes, those are "threats".

Now who's ridiculous?

Speaking of ridicule, has your priest raped anyone lately?

[rug]

70. Why no, he's afraid of what people would say.

[darkstar3]

72. At least he's not afraid he'd go poor and hungry. He'd still have all those tithes you give.

[rug]

74. Catholics don't use tithes.

Maybe you're background is with a different church.

BTW, this is a scintillating discussion of religion and theology.

[darkstar3]

76. News to me, and this guy, apparently.

http://www.saint-mike.org/library/rule/excerpts/principles_tithing.asp

Maybe "your" background isn't as clear as you think.

[rug]

80. LOL, I know about this guy.

He lives by himself, with his cat, somewhere in Iowa.

He's a nut.

[sudopod]

78. So what's your endgame here?

I mean, what do you want him to say?

[darkstar3]

81. That I'll shut up and resume my place as a second-class citizen,

but mostly, that I'll never again mock his precious faith.

[rug]

83. Nothing.

Based on past history, there's nothing there.

[sudopod]

84. So why be so nasty at him?

He shares his experience and you take his head off and call him a coward. You wouldn't say the same thing to, say, a gay teen worried about coming out in the bible belt, or even a devoted Hindu in a similar situation with respect to the Pledge, would you?

[rug]

85. You haven't followed this very closely, have you?

And it is hardly analogous to your examples.

Nevertheless, to answer your question. No, I wouldn't. But then, neither would I expect a gay teen or a Hindu to be spitting KMA and GFY at me while I was talking to him.

Whatever else it is, it's an illustration of the OP.

[sudopod]

86. You called him a coward :/ nt

[rug]

87. He called me privileged.

And to be precise, I said his post reeks of cowardice.

[sudopod]

88. I still don't see why you're mad.

I'm a white guy. I've enjoyed the benefits of white privilege. It would be silly for me to deny that. Likewise, when I was a Southern Baptist, I enjoyed privilege from that as well, being in the deep South. It was nice to be able to pray at meetings and say the Pledge without feeling weird, but now I can't do that, and to do otherwise would be conspicuous. I don't see why pointing that out would make you so mad.

[rug]

89. I'm pretty sure he's white.

And frankly, the use of privilege is far more pronounced at the level of class, sex, and etnicity than it is at the level of intellectual conclusion.

[sudopod]

90. I'd agree with that! But it is not trivial either, especially in certain parts of the country. nt

[rug]

91. No, it's not trivial at all.

Have a good night.

[defendandprotect]

50. True -- but "adults" who teach kids can be very disingenuous about all of that --

I love libraries and often visit them --

and a few years ago, I noticed a Girl Scout Troop being instructed in the

pledge in one of the rooms a library at the shore offers to groups.


What the instructor was telling them was not that any of it was "optional" --

rather she was STRESSING to the youngsters the "UNDER GOD" part -- !!

Had it been my home town library, I would have intervened --

and still wonder if I should have done so anyway.

[laconicsax]

23. Ok, we get it, you think that your religion is perfection.

..and is a cornerstone of civilized society.

We get that you think that child rapist priests are just a handful of "bad apples."

We get that you think Christianity is a beacon of hope to gays, women, and has nothing to do with young earth Creationists.

We get that you think that if you aren't person of faith, you're delusional, irrational, and illogical.

We get that you think flying planes into buildings is in no way connected to religious belief.

We get it, really, we do.

We get that you like to crow about how much more ethical, intelligent, logical and rational you are than us nonbelievers.

Let me ask this, though.

How many threads on DU have had the purpose of "deconverting" people?

How many thread on DU have had the purpose of belittling people of faith or their beliefs?

I think if one honestly looks at it, the non-believers here aren't "shoving their beliefs in the face" of other DUers.

[trotsky]

98. +biblical pi divided by 3

Perfect response.

[Sal316]

117. oy.

.and is a cornerstone of civilized society.

Nope, never said that. Yet, some of the atheists on here believe eradicating belief is the cornerstone of a civilized society.

We get that you think that child rapist priests are just a handful of "bad apples."

Yes, they are. But is there a systemic issue within the Catholic Church with how they're transferred from place to place.... absolutely. Those who abuse children, and those who hide them, disgrace the faith they represent... and, yes, even the Pope, when he looks for a scapegoat (i.e. the GLBT community) is a disgrace.

We get that you think Christianity is a beacon of hope to gays, women, and has nothing to do with young earth Creationists.

Nope, never said that either. You see, us believers understand that there are those who use the Christian faith as justification for oppressing others. Doesn't mean they don't believe or aren't Christians. Being who we are includes accepting that those people represent Christianity's darker impulses. Dismissing them with the "true scotsman" argument is the same as ignoring those who use any belief system, or the eradication of belief systems, as well.

We get that you think that if you aren't person of faith, you're delusional, irrational, and illogical.

No, not at all. Do some fall under those descriptors? Sure, just as there are those believers who do.

We get that you think flying planes into buildings is in no way connected to religious belief.

No, it is, but it's a perversion of those beliefs. To say that they aren't is the same as saying the arrests and execution of Christians in China has nothing to do with atheism.

We get it, really, we do.

No, I really don't think you do.

We get that you like to crow about how much more ethical, intelligent, logical and rational you are than us nonbelievers.

No, I, and plenty of DU believers here, know personally, and through the internets, plenty of atheists here who are ethical, intelligent, compassionate, and caring.

Let me ask this, though.

How many threads on DU have had the purpose of "deconverting" people?

Just about every single one that starts out telling believers how stupid they are for believing as they do.

How many thread on DU have had the purpose of belittling people of faith or their beliefs?

Let's see, how many have we seen on "zombie Jesus" or "don't believers know that X is utter bs?" or my personal favorite "never take your menstruating mistress to a Red Lobster on a Saturday".

I think if one honestly looks at it, the non-believers here aren't "shoving their beliefs in the face" of other DUers.

It's your story, tell it like you own it.

[laconicsax]

119. So it's only a strawman when someone else says it?

Good to know, thanks. I don't think I could have made the point better myself.

[William769]

30. Amen Brother!

Go in peace.

[WolverineDG]

37. Bingo

Too bad they'll never admit it, though.

dg

[emilyg]

40. Thank you.

[defendandprotect]

43. First, you have to recognize this is a DEBATING website ... a public forum --

If you don't wish to read challenges and questioning of religion,

then you're in the wrong place --

We all have the right to question and challenge religious concepts, especially when

they are brought into a public arena.

That's what websites are about -- exploring, questioning, challenging --

I don't think you "get it" -- not in that regard, certainly.

And, certainly, not either in the power and importance of "thinking" for oneself.


Faith isn't fact --

We don't know if there were even any planes on 9/11 -- bar one having been flown back

and forth near the WTC towers and then on down to DC and flown OVER the Pentagon.

But we do know that the official myth is that Muslims headed for martyrdom were pegged

for having done it because that is something that the American public evidently would

find believable given what they've been told about Islam -- much of it lies -- based on

propaganda circulated by US/CIA.


And, while you're considering some of that, give some consideration to the difference between

spirituality which involves all humans and the universe vs organized patriarchal religion

which involves middlemen to a "god" in the sky, based on a one all male-god and male superiority.


Let's be clear that if we truly want a humane society it will require intelligence --

it will require an end to violence, to book burning and burning down libraries.

It will require priests being accountable when they sexually abuse children.

And it will require an end to organized patriarchal religions preaching intolerance and

hatred for homosexuals from their pulpits which they've been doing for thousands of years.


There is no one more responsible for the war on nature and women than patriarchy and its

underpinning, organized patriarchal religion. Check the religous books and what they

actually preach in regard to "Man's Dominion Over Nature" and "Manifest Destiny" -- and

"inferiority" of females.


If you are against all of those things, then stand up against them --

and show that you are ethical, intelligent, logical and rational.

[Sal316]

118. There's a difference between debate....

...and being an ass.

Coming into R/T simply to belittle believers and their beliefs makes that person one of the latter.

[darkstar3]

122. Yes, there is a difference between debate and being an ass.

People who debate honestly answer their detractors with points supportive to their argument.

Asses post straw men and refuse to respond to people unless those people are sufficiently contrite to the ass.

"Pride goeth before a fall."

[dimbear]

56. Mocking priests is a pretty awful thing to do, right? I know a book

that has some of the very thing, and we ought to track down every copy of it and burn it.

Civilized people aren't going to put up with that kind of talk.

To your bonfires, my friends.

[sudopod]

59. The thing about arguing with strawmen

is that they are stuffed before the conversation can even begin! :3

[darkstar3]

61. Give him a break, sudopod,

the lightweight only just stopped shadowboxing. He's moving up. Maybe he'll be ready for the heavy bag before he reaches his deathbed.

[Jim__]

94. I don't think your link is working.

It takes me here - to an Ask page about HTML. Is that where you wanted it to go?

[edhopper]

95. So what do you want to talk about here?

Or are you just a hit and run poster?

[Silent3]

96. Mostly just absurd, easily abused as a rationale for evil...

...and unnecessary in that all of the good done in the name of religion can be done with the religious trappings.

If you revel in oversimplification, however, go for it.

[trotsky]

99. I find it amusing...

that in nearly all of your tirades and whines about non-believers voicing their opinions, you decry their perceived attempts to claim intellectual superiority while shamelessly trying to promote yours.

I know it's tough for believers, enjoying the privilege in real life of never having to bear the slightest criticism of their faith, to come into an open forum where that privilege is removed. I'm sure it's a giant shock, and quite threatening. But I'm reminded of the old saying about heat in the kitchen and your personal placement. Perhaps you are better off retreating to your church or place of worship where you will be surrounded by those who are like-minded and won't attempt to criticize your religion.

[cleanhippie]

102. Well done, SAL, You drop a giant turd in the punchbowl then run off.

Yeah, we get it all right.

[laconicsax]

120. I'm still waiting for a response on multiple earlier threads.

I guess Sal only has enough time to play hit and run every few months.

[edhopper]

103. Well

k, we get it, y'all think religion is evil...

"...and has no place in a civilized society."
Well it has no place in Governmental policies and should not be the basis for what is acceptable in society, as many believers believe.


"We get that you think Catholic priests are child rapists."
Far too many are and they were protected by the Church,making them accomplices.


"We get that you think Christians hate gays, love to oppress women, and are young earth Creationists.:
Far too many are, and far too few believers who aren't try to fight against this lunacy.

"We get that you think that if you're a person of faith, you're delusional, irrational, and illogical."
I think that is self evident in that we think you believe in something that doesn't exist, the definition of delusional

"We get that you think flying planes into buildings is religious belief "taken to its logical conclusion".
Not the logical conclusion, but but you can't simply dismiss it as a result of extreme religious belief, which is more prevalent than you want to admit.

We get it, really, we do.

"We get that you like to crow about how much more ethical, intelligent, logical and rational you are than us believers."
No we are just countering the "ethics is based on religion" bullshit we to often hear

Let me ask this, though.

"How many threads in R/T have had the purpose of "converting" people?"
If coming to an R/T forum and discussing Religion isn't about debating our ideas, where then?

"How many thread in R/Ts have had the purpose of belittling people of faith or their beliefs?"
Many, when we find those beliefs silly, juvenile or destructive. Or do uninformed or wrongheaded beliefs get a pass because they are "Religious".


"I think if one honestly looks at it, it ain't the believers here "shoving their beliefs in the face" of other DUers."
It's the R/T forum, we are not a support group for believes. If you can't handle attacks on your beliefs, stay away.

Which from the lack of response, you are. Coward.

[Iggo]

104. Evil ain't the word.

So you're wrong from the start.

Thanks for playing.

[Meshuga]

106. This is a tough forum and I see people from all sides frustrated with R/T

Some people wrote this here in so many words so I will try not to be repetitive but your OP seems to be an overreaction to how the non-religious in R/T view religion and religious people. What I want to add is that you seem not to accept the atheists here for who and what they are and then you accuse them of viewing religious people in the same way you view atheists.

There are also misunderstandings that cause this kind of OP. Post #9 suggests that many of the religious folk here conflate "rejection of theology" with "demonization" causing overreaction and the need for victimization. And I agree with that poster.

There is also a strong reaction when some posters refer to belief in God(s) as "delusion." Well, if you put yourself in the shoes of atheist you will see exactly what they mean and perhaps you won't be offended anymore. Actually, you may not realize this but you might come to the conclusion that the belief of a man who claims that he is suffering from a spell that a practitioner of Candomblé put on him is a delusion. But then you also realize the guy is not suffering from "delusional disorder" and only reacting based on the way he was brought up (or whatever was the influence that made him reach his conclusions). In short, people here conflate "delusion" with "delusional disorder" so they get offended with the term. And I see you take offense to it as well.

R/T is a religion and theology forum in DU that is not set specifically for one side of the theological question "do you believe in God(s)?" (or for followers of a particular religion) so posters are not likely to understand or accept the other point of view. That is normal so we see the frequent flame wars. However, there are obviously different points of view in the subject and they are all valid to post here even if some appear offensive.

So the best way to enjoy this forum is to grow a skin. I know that no matter what choices I make in my life, and no matter what my world view is, there is always going to be someone who thinks it is stupid. And that is perfectly fine. In the same way that many people may find your beliefs to be stupid and express that feeling in the appropriate forum. There is nothing wrong with expressing these opposing opinions in a "Religion and Theology" forum. In fact, this is the perfect place to express opinions regarding R/T no matter what side you are on regarding religion and theology.

[Silent3]

108. The "delusion" issue made an audio equipment forum one of the most heated...

...and contentious places on the internet that I used to frequent.

No matter how often it has been proved in all sorts of double blind tests that the quality of perceived sound is greatly influenced by preconceptions and suggestions, and no matter how often it's explained that these quirks of perception apply to completely normal, sane human beings, many people simply couldn't get beyond the notion that it was a deeply offensive personal affront to suggest that the differences they claimed to hear between product X and product Y were most likely illusory.

[Meshuga]

111. And it is often the case here

with "delusion" often brought up as proof of victimhood.

[Iggo]

121. My tube amp still sounds better than a solid state.

;-)

[Silent3]

124. Which reminds me of another contentious idea...

...that some differences in audio equipment or recording techniques are real, but something which sounds better isn't necessarily more accurate. Some people don't care that their preferences might reflect a taste for "euphonic distortion", but others are insulted by the notion that their preferences might be for a less accurate rendition of music, since these people know that they prefer what they prefer because it supplies the truest rendition of music.

Whereas suggesting that what a person thinks they hear isn't real at all carries the risk of being taken as an insult to that person's sanity ("You think I'm delusional!? You think I'm crazy!?"), a parallel to how some theists react to atheist suggestions that spirits and deities are imaginary, the notion of euphonic distortion is more of a threat to some people's sense of their own knowledge, expertise, and perceptiveness. Perhaps a closer parallel in religious debate, rather than atheist vs. theist disagreements, is differences in doctrinal interpretation, or interpretation of "spiritual experiences", within religions.

[Iggo]

125. That's the CD vs LP thing, isn't it?

I'll sit that one out.

Them folks is nuts.

[LeftishBrit]

123. Well, I am an atheist and I don't think any of these things.

However, I do not like the religious *right*.

I do not like or wish to see politics and laws based on religious rules. I do not like to see certain religious groups gang up to get more right-wing candidates into office and defeat liberals/ left-wingers. In particular, I hate the political 'pro-life' movement and the baleful influence that it has on politics in many countries.

I certainly do not think that in general 'Christians hate gays, love to oppress women, and are young earth Creationists'; however, there are *some* Christians, Muslims and members of other religious faiths who do think that their faith entitles or even requires them to do these things.

I do not like the view that secularism is responsible for many social evils, or that atheists cannot be moral individuals because we don't believe in a 'day of judgement'. I especially don't like the view that citizenship of a country requires a shared religious faith, and that atheists/ secularists are lesser citizens.

Most religious people in my experience do not hold any of these views, but there are some who do, and it is these whom I oppose.

[Andromeway]

126. First post, long time lurker

As an atheist, I find it ironic that the OP accuses non-believers of belittling other people's beliefs. I understand that the post was specifically about this forum, but taken from the perspective of everyday life in the United States, I don't think it's fair to say that atheists belittle anyone. Most of us are unknown; hidden on purpose. We have to be for fear of reprisal. Do you not comprehend that notion? Individuals in this country that, for whatever reason, do not believe in a supernatural entity generally known as god, are hated. That's not my opinion. Polls show that to be fact. I am despised (or would be if I publicly acknowledged my non-belief) for no rational reason.

I am a law-abiding citizen. I consider myself a moral person. I, however, do NOT consider myself better than other people or more moral than others. Our values are subjective. I respect other people's values (within reason) and hope they reciprocate, but unfortunately, that often doesn't happen.

You mentioned creationism... Funny, because a huge number of Americans are YECs. That's about as irrational as it gets. And most of them want their bullshit fairy tale taught in public schools alongside what tiny bit of science schools actually attempt to teach. That, needless to say, pisses rational people off. Religion has no place in public school. And I'd go further and say it has no place in public government institutions. Not on MY money or in MY pledge of allegiance. "In God We Trust?" Which god? The blood thirsty murderer turning people into pillars of salt, or the "mythological" one throwing lightning bolts down from Mount Olympus? Yes, this country is just as much mine as it is yours, despite what George Bush Sr. or any other Christian fundamentalist thinks. My right to not be bombarded by religious propaganda (almost exclusively Abrahamic) is constantly infringed. I ignore it because I have no other choice. I have no voice. I have no representation. And with the right-wing hate machine working at full capacity, I never will in my lifetime; I am younger than 30 in case you're wondering.

Now, you may be wondering, is the rant above the workings of a "militant atheist." No. I don't push my non-belief on others, and frankly, don't give a shit what anyone believes or holds as dogma. I'm not Richard Dawkins and I don't want to be. Don't get me wrong, the guy is a brilliant biologist, but his style doesn't sit well with me. Furthermore, his style doesn't work. The only thing that will fix the ills of this nation and this world is education. People need to understand how the world works. The beauty of nature is stunning and profound. It's a shame that millions and millions of people will never know that; they're too busy praying to a non-existent being for a better life instead of working towards one. Too busy praying for the pain and suffering to vanish. Too busy praying for their enemies to die at the hands of this supposed loving god.

Tell me, who has pushed the agenda of hate, despair and ignorance on Christians in the U.S.? Atheists and agnostics? Or your own churches?

Flying planes into buildings isn't the logical conclusion of anyone. It's the conclusion reached by individuals who think they are righteous in murdering other human beings. There is nothing logical about murder. I don't think humans (or any other animals) have souls. This life is the only one we have. It is precious. Unfortunately, the majority of the world strongly disagrees and feels that life is some sort of test for entry into the afterlife. That's not logical; that's absurd. There is zero evidence souls exist and just as little that an afterlife does. But the rationale behind suicide bombings stands in many people's eyes. That frightens me. Does is frighten you?

One last point: Faith IS irrational. If it was supported by evidence and reproducible experimentation it wouldn't be faith, it would be science. Having faith is fine when the stakes aren't high, but at times like these, when the world seems ready to crumble in on itself out of fear, I would much rather have rational thought leading the way forward.

[edhopper]

127. Well said Andro

Though I do love me my Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker made me an atheist.

[Ninjaneer]

128. Welcome!

Great post, but I disagree regarding Richard Dawkins' approach. His in your face attitude is one of the reasons I became an atheist, along with Hitchens' (more so him). I don't quite understand why people call them "militant". Just because they're vocal with their opinions? in that case, I know a lot of militant scientists, politicians, etc.

[Andromeway]

129. Militant was the wrong word

Well, I'm coming from a different perspective. Nobody had to convince me that gods don't exist. I grew up in a mostly non-religious household, so that allowed me to start questioning the merits of numerous theological arguments from a fairly young age. I think my "aha!" moment came when I was twelve or thirteen. I began thinking in depth about the plausibility of souls and the afterlife and all these other things, and I essentially ruled each one out. So, from there, I concluded that if every other religious argument (and supernatural arguments, in general) falls apart when faced against facts and reason, why should gods be any different. Bear in mind, I didn't actively believe in a god at this point, but I was far closer to true agnosticism than I am today. I still don't actively DIS-believe in god, I simply put the notion out of my head.

Therein lies the biggest problem with the term atheist as used by most people. I classify myself as one for simplicity's sake. I'm still agnostic to a degree. I haven't completely ruled out the possibility that some being, be it alien or supernatural, created the universe. But whether or not such a being exists remains irrelevant to my life. I would change nothing of how I live or how I think if I knew an "all-powerful" being existed somewhere. At most, this being or force started the universe and let it run its course. It's certainly not involved in the everyday workings of our universe. Does such a thing deserve anyone's worship?

As far as the term militant, I didn't come up with it. I concede that it's probably a poor choice and I shouldn't have used it. I just wish Dawkins would spend the bulk of his time going in-depth about evolution rather than trying to convert the religious. The topic is fascinating, and like I said, Dawkins is a brilliant biologist with decades of experience in his field. He comes off as trite when he's rambling on about the non-existence of a god. But as I said, I don't need convincing, so perhaps my view is skewed.

[Ninjaneer]

130. "I still don't actively DIS-believe in god, I simply put the notion out of my head."

I wish more theists could grasp this.

[trotsky]

132. "I haven't completely ruled out the possibility that some being...

...be it alien or supernatural, created the universe."

You don't have to rule it out to be an atheist. You just have to be unconvinced by the evidence presented, which is what you are.

[provis99]

133. well you should post more. Your post is good.

[Deep13]

131. Okay, let's take these one at a time, shall we?

"Ok, we get it, y'all think religion is evil...and has no place in a civilized society."

I don't know who "y'all" is, so I will speak only for my self. As for your first point, check. It has a place in civilized society, but I don't think it has much of a place in a just or rational society.

"We get that you think Catholic priests are child rapists."

Many of them are. Can't say if it is most or just a large minority. But this avoids the central issue. The real problem is that they are employed by an organization that systematically protects offenders from justice and facilitates their offenses. This makes the whole leadership (at least) of the RC Church complicity in horrific offenses against children. But then, this is the same church that gave us the Inquisition, the Crusades and who warns poor, disease-ridden people not to use contraceptives, so we really ought not be surprised. Needless to say, the RC Church has no credibility whatsoever an anything it considers to be moral issues. I hardly know what to say about people who continue to support this church while knowing its guilt.

"We get that you think Christians hate gays, love to oppress women, and are young earth Creationists."

Many Christians hate gays. This is a fact. Their hatred is based on religious dogma. Many churches including two of the largest, the RC and LDS Churches, actively work to oppress gay legal rights. Apparently, they have no considered that they can preach what they want to their own flock (ba-a-ah!) while recognizing that not everyone agrees with them.

Many Christians do oppress women. Our cultural norms that arise from Christianity reflect this. The second-class nature of women is supported by Christian cannon and is actively promoted by many churches including the two previously noted. Churches have opposed reproductive and marital rights of women since the beginning and continue to do so actively.

It's telling that you specify "young earth Creationists" while implicitly excluding the so-called intelligent designers. First of all, many Christians are YE Creationists and a majority of the population has some doubts about the veracity of evolution. This is because of the continuous campaign of lies about evolution from the various churches. There is NO EVIDENCE that any part of the universe has anything divine behind it. In the case of biological development, the conclusively-demonstrated process of natural selection positively rules out any divine influence.

"We get that you think that if you're a person of faith, you're delusional, irrational, and illogical."

No. I never said that and I doubt most nonbelievers think it. The faith itself is by definition irrational and illogical and honest theologians admit as much, hence "faith." It depends what you mean by delusion. In his book The God Delusion, Dawkins was careful to define "delusion" in a way that excludes mental disease. It is simply a strongly held belief or conviction that is contrary to overwhelming evidence. In that case, religion is delusional. Nevertheless, most people are able to partition their thinking to separate the irrational religious beliefs from other more practical aspects of thought in order to survive in the world. To the extend religious belief is kept out of practical thinking, a religious person is not irrational.

"We get that you think flying planes into buildings is religious belief "taken to its logical conclusion"."

The link gave me an error message, but I have written something similar in the past.

Well, of Islam. Many religions inspire violence, but presently only Islam inspires suicide bombings. Both Christianity and Islam are missionary religions. While Christianity commands its followers to "Go ye therefore and teach all nations," it is a little vague in how to accomplish that. It has certainly inspired its sadists and warmongers. Islam was initially spread by the sword and explicitly directs its adherents to continue the practice. It further promises an afterlife paradise to those who die while doing it. While most Muslims in the world reject the idea of suicide bombing as immoral, enough are sufficiently convinced by the apparent call to martyrdom to turn themselves into bombs. Of course, Christians with an Old Testament preference and some Jews are happy to follow suit. Those who kill doctors, judges, shoot members of Congress or blow up Federal buildings and the man who shot Yitzhak Rabin thought they were doing their god's will. Those who killed each other over slightly different versions of Christianity in N. Ireland fit into that mindset too. Likewise, while most Buddhists espouse inner and outer peace, one version of it led millions to commit atrocities and to get themselves killed for the Japanese emperor in WW2. The serene Buddhist Lamas of Tibet traditionally did not extend that serenity to the poor population over whom they brutally ruled.

So yes, religion in a moderate population will produce extremists. If one examines the actual canonical dogma of a religion, it is clear that the extremists are extreme in their adherence to those doctrines and not in the doctrines themselves. In other words, they are the least compromising in what those religions actually teach unlike moderates and liberals who temper the frankly inhumane teachings of religion with practical considerations.

"We get it, really, we do."

Groovy. Why do you think we are talking to you? This is a public forum and I write what I write for the whole possible audience, not necessarily for those who are committed to their religious beliefs. I may be direct or even blunt, but I am not quixotic.

"We get that you like to crow about how much more ethical, intelligent, logical and rational you are than us believers."

Don't blame the messenger. If that is true based on the evidence, then it is true. Granted, such findings are broad brush strokes and do not account for atypical cases which liberal believers necessarily are.

"Let me ask this, though.

"How many threads in R/T have had the purpose of "converting" people?"

Unknown. Most of what I have written has been in rebuttal to religious assertions or to influence those who are on the fence.

"How many thread in R/Ts have had the purpose of belittling people of faith or their beliefs?"

Unknown, but I suspect not many. Stating what one thinks is true is its own purpose. I doubt many were intended as general insults to believers generally.

You lump "people of faith" and "their beliefs" together. Those are different things. I have never set out to belittle any category of person except maybe for genuine fundamentalists who neither of us have any respect for. We can disagree and talk about those disagreements while not belittling each other. The ability to do so is a mark of educated people. Beliefs themselves are a different matter. All ideas including religious beliefs are open for criticism. The fact that a certain belief is about god does not nor should it exempt that belief from critical examination. And, yeah, I have no respect for arguments based solely on personal gut feelings. If you feel that such discussions are belittling, then you might want to ask yourself if the reason it feels that way is because your views really are indefensible. Is a rhetorical attack maliciously belittling or does it just discredit your point of view?

"I think if one honestly looks at it, it ain't the believers here "shoving their beliefs in the face" of other DUers."

There's not much face-shoving going on here at all. We are simply talking. If you cannot play with the big kids, stay out of the sandbox. I know religious people feel for whatever reason that they are owed a certain deference when it comes to their beliefs. They're not. That deference is itself a religious point of view that those outside of your religion are not obliged to share. Those who are religious and are not fundamentalists see members of other religions as kindred spirits, all of whom are trying to live in faith in which their own understandings of god. Atheists reject the whole idea of religious faith as a virtue. Our existence, let alone our arguments, make believers uncomfortable. Nevertheless, we have no duty to shut up as your post tacitly implies. You speak and act on your belief that religion is on the whole a good thing. I speak an act on the contrary belief. We each have a right to speak and to be critical.

While it is regrettable that you feel that you are being subjected to personal attacks, speaking for myself, I have not engaged in any personal attacks of DUers and offer no apologies.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

134. I point out to christians the cruelty in THEIR bibles.

They must not be reading the same parts I did, when they say things like "Jesus never got mad at anyone but the moneychangers in the temple" or "Jesus was always meek and mild".

And the many many contradictions and irrational beliefs in it.

A Bronze Age non-literate nomadic civilization, that had no interest in science, is a bad model for morality.

There are plenty of other ancient civilizations that had much better moral codes.

[krabigirl]

135. I guess we should just be happy that you guys don't burn people like us at the stake anymore lol.