who's angry?

[Thats my opinion]

I guess a few honest atheists must continue their diatribes against religion because they believe religious people hate them. As for me, they are entitled to their opinions, and I don't see any of the long list here trying to argue with them. Somewhere along the line many of them have been terribly hurt by some religious person or institution. All I know to do is listen to their hurt. But, why the anger because many other believe?

[Taverner]

1. Excellent reversal of my question

And I'll take a stab at it

On 9/11, I was at the precipice between atheist and theist. I thought the Bible and most religions were bunk, but that there was some value to be had in a higher power. Then the planes struck, and I realized there was a big danger in religion. We couldn't continue to be all 'Kum Ba Ya' with believers anymore, because the need to beleive could be greater, and in effect far more harmful than the need to get along and work towards a common goal.

Yes, DU Muslims, Christians, Pagans, Hindus and Astrologers - I know you had nothing to do with 9/11. You had nothing to do with the kind of thoughts that led some very educated people (Mohammed Atta was a very smart man) to kill thousands that day, smiling and filled with a terrible glee that Pat Robertson only wishes he could experience. It all had to do with a need to believe. The cognitive dissonance got to them, and they made a decision, in part to quell the cognitive dissonance, but also in part to not be 'lukewarm Muslims.'

At that point in my mind I realized the enemy - the part of our brains that forces us to abandon logic and reason, and instead to jump headfirst into a religious act that defies all reason, logic and empathy - was to blame.

Credo quia absurdum - I believe because it is absurd, is what is at the crux here. This attitude is not limited to just Christianity (as was the case when Tertullian said it) but seems to be the most common reaction to the cognitive dissonance generated when modernity (say, evolution and the mountains of evidence supporting it) meets tradition (the Earth is only 6000 years old, and we were made of mud or a blood clot.) Tertullian may not have even said it - but it stuck, because it is at the heart of our belief system.

Now I do not think Theists are all dangerous, but that idea that it is better believe than to succumb to reason is what makes men and women do horrible acts of violence in the name of their God.

I hope that makes sense.

[Thats my opinion]

5. I respect your opinion

and how you came by it. The problem of evil is perhaps religion's most serious issue. I would only hope you allow what is best about contemporary religious thought to percolate in your very astute mind, and not to write off the whole shebang.

[Taverner]

7. No I think there are a lot of very good Conemporary Religious opinions

Paul Tillich comes to mind - and he does away with the whole 'I believe because it is absurd' idea

God for him, had to be both logical and good, not either/or

I guess in the end it all comes down to this: Would you rather believe, or would you rather be good? If you can do both, fine. But if it ever comes down to one or the other, then follow your reason and your empathy

[Thats my opinion]

13. For sure

Being loving, compassionate, peaceful, justice oriented etc. is far more important than affirming a creed. But it is illogical to say they must be mutually exclusive. Paul Tillich, who preached in the church I once served, offered a theological breakthrough that permeates most liberal religion today.

[Taverner]

16. Yes, but there comes a time in any theist's life...

Where one must choose

Will it be your internalized concept of 'god'?

Or will it be reason?

And whichever you choose, is it the most ethical and empathetic?

As clear cut as this may seem, I guarantee it will not be. And there will not be just one answer.

The question may be binary, but the answer is quantum...

[Bluenorthwest]

2. What are you doing, as a person of faith, to stop the horrors

being done in the name of Christianity in Uganda and Ghana and elsewhere? Or is this, the public image of your faith, have top priority? Is it that 'diatribes' against your community are somehow worse than gangs of thugs from your community arresting and beating an entire minority group in the name of the faith? I don't get it.
Here are some diatribes for you to consider, and then hopefully take action against:
http://current.com/shows/vanguard/92467622_missionaries-of-hate-vanguard-trailer.htm

[Thats my opinion]

9. I too feel revulsion at the horrors perpetrated in the name of religion.

But I also know and celebrate the other side of the story of compassion, acceptance, gracious good will and direct action in terms of justice and peace. If I only knew and told the side of the story you focus on, I would probably feel the same you you do. But that would be only another form of bigotry.

[ZombieHorde]

3. Many atheists live in deeply religious communities.

When almost everyone around you is cruel to you and/or your loved ones, bad feelings sometimes follow.

When loving Christ means treating your children like garbage, bad feelings sometimes follow.

When being a good Christian means believing gay people are subhuman, bad feelings sometimes follow.

This is not about doctrine, I don't care how a "real Christian" should act. I care about the way people actually behave.

Somewhere along the line many of them have been terribly hurt by some religious person or institution.

It's not, "one time, 15 years ago...," it's every month, year after year. People who call themselves Christians regularly target our children with their hate. Sometimes, this causes bad feelings.

I live in a liberal town, with lots of atheists, and my kids still have to deal with this shit. I wonder what atheists in Bible Belt have to put up with. When I was a kid, I could take it, but my little girl is not as tough as I was. She cries, and I cry.

My daughter comes crying to me, and then latter that day, I vent on DU. Sometimes I have bad feelings.

[Angry Dragon]

4. Why should anyone have to live under religious beliefs

that they do not believe??

[Thats my opinion]

12. Under? N0

With--I guess the First Amendment says Yes.

[Angry Dragon]

17. I have no problem letting people believe as they wish

however, once they start trying to tell me that gays are immoral, birth control should not be taught, all abortions are bad, that women are second class citizens, that god is the only way to run a country because THEIR religion tells them so then they have a huge fight with me.

Once they start bringing their beliefs and religion into the secular arena then they are required to prove everything that they believe

[Thats my opinion]

23. And with me too! n/t

[TZ]

6. Why would I be angry?

When people constantly tell me I'm going to hell for being Jewish, trying to tell me what should be taught to my children (evolution is fake and all that crap) what to do with MY body, what I should do in the privacy of my bedroom, what medicines I can or cannot take (birth control and hormones are medicine for many) and how I do my job as a researcher who has been around stem cell research? Why the hell would I NOT be angry?! Its kinda hard to not be resentful of having stuff you don't believe in constantly shoved down your throat or imposed on your life. If believers just left the rest of us alone, we wouldn't BE angry. But thats not the case in this country.
I'm sorry, but telling me HOW I should think or feel isn't going to win you any respect.

[Thats my opinion]

14. see 9 r/t

[Iggo]

8. Angry at what?

[backscatter712]

104. As an atheist, I'll answer that:

Am I angry at God? What's the point? I don't think he actually exists. In my mind, he's a human creation and a figment of the imagination, and because of all the contradictions of religion, he's really no more than a cartoon character in my mind.

But I am angry. At religion. At the religious people who are trying to jam their nonsense down my throat. At the religious people inflicting injustice upon the world, such as in the way that they treat members of the GLBT community. At the constant refusal to recognize REALITY in things such as evolution, and trying to inflict anti-intellectual, anti-scientific fairy tales upon our children instead of one of the fundamental theories of biology. At their insistence on enforcing their ridiculous sexual norms, including eschewing birth control and condoms, even though such idiotic norms go completely against human sexual impulses, and attempting to force these norms exacts a toll in unwanted pregnancies, diseases, deaths. At their use of ostracism, shunning and other forms of coercion that has driven kids out of families and out of communities for doing little more than questioning the existence of the deity and exercising some critical thinking.

And the religious bring all this evil and destructive crap upon the world based on the supposed word of a cartoon deity.

Damned fucking right I'm angry. I haven't even started being angry yet.

[dmallind]

10. Don't give a crap what people think, about me or anything else. What they DO OTOH...

...when the majority of Xians in the US who follow the more traditional hate-filled exclusionary theocracy-loving style of the faith (that the OP seems incapable of acknowledging) stop trying to force their bronze age beliefs onto a pluralistic republic by making it impossible for everyone, regardless of their faith or lack of it, to marry whom they wish, make reproductive choices as they wish, entertain themselves as they wish and pursue science to its greatest utility, in peace and equality, THEN I'll stop the "diatribes".

It's not because my poor widdle atheist feewings were hurt by some mean nasty believers - it's because fucking idiot believers are ruining the country.

[Thats my opinion]

15. I spend a lot of time, effort and money

fighting with millions of others the very things you identify in your first paragraph. I know bigoted narrow Christians are out there in numbers, but I doubt if the problems can be solved just by my being angry about them.

[rrneck]

28. No you don't.

You spend your time and money promoting your ideology for your own aggrandizement. In the end, your brand of religion feeds off people just as much as any other.

[cleanhippie]

38. And a great big AMEN to that!

Well put, man, well put.

[Thats my opinion]

67. You have no idea what I do, or why

Or have you really examined my life and come up with the "no you don't"?

[cleanhippie]

72. We base opinions on your actions and words. So far, "no you don't" is the best descriptor.

[rrneck]

75. I know what you say here.

And it speaks volumes about what you do. Marketing spin can't hide it from anyone but you.

[dmallind]

29. It sure as hell can't be solved by enabling them.

You are a recognized theologian, no? You certainly know some IIRC? Can't you get any media time to tell people that passages against gays in Leviticus have as much currency as those against mixed fibers on the same page? That arsenkoitoi were temple prostitutes? That much in the Epistles was part of a Pauline Petrine dispute rather than misogynistic garbage as it seems? That the only time the Bible mentions the "killing of an unborn child" - and someone else's at that! - it is specifically to make it a crime punishable by penalties far lower than murder, making it definitively NOT murder? They won't listen to me saying these things will they? Snake oil salesmen get followers in 6 figures selling prosperity theology - you can't get a few hundred at least selling universal salvation and an afterlife devoid of torture?

[Thats my opinion]

68. If you had the faintest idea

of what is happening in the religious world you would know that there is a massive effort to do with the Scriptures exactly what you suggest. I have done it for decades--and have millions of others. But perhaps you just pass your opinion over the news which tends to picture fundamentalists and assume that is really what is happening in the Christian world. The prosperity gospel is a bull-moose perversion. These people are snake-oil hucksters About getting media time---I wish we could. Any suggestions?

[cleanhippie]

73. Really? A MASSIVE effort?

I'll beleive it when I see it.

[dmallind]

100. If they are so many millions of you why can you get no attention at all?

No discussion of religion in the US excludes Muslims, Jews and organized atheists, and none of them have more than 2% of the population (we have no power - but at least we make ourselves heard). If your effort is so massive why does it go nowhere and get drowned out by the Phelpses and Falwells? Even we get more attention than the kind of Christian you pretend is mainstream.

I see what IS happening in the Christian world - you seem only to see what you WANT to be happening in it, or perhaps what happens within the confines of theological academe. If your preferred kind of believer got out of the ivory towers and showed the vast majority of your brethren who are hate-fueled theocrats that there was another way in the faith, the rest of us would sure appreciate it.

Suggestions? I belonged to atheist groups numbering in the DOZENS that sponsored public access TV shows, high school visits, public debates ranging from laymen to Dawkins, regular media contacts and so on. Hell a search for "Atheist Talk" should soon show up an obvious "real world" name for my own minor-league self. I spoke for handfuls. You claim to speak for millions. Can't you do more in the same ratio?

[rrneck]

11. I take a dim view

of religion selling people something they've already got. For some reason grifters piss me off.

[LeftishBrit]

18. I am not angry with believers or beliefs

I am angry with the religious right.

I am angry with those who think that their religion requires them to smear and defeat liberal/left candidates, or to create a climate in some places whereby such candidates feel they can't stand for office in the first place.

I am angry with those who use their religion as an excuse for authoritarianism, discrimination, or at the extreme, violence.

I also am angry with those who use other ideologies as an excuse for such actions.

[Thats my opinion]

24. I'm not just angry. I'm determined to fight about it. n/t

[cleanhippie]

39. That sentiment certainly is not on display in most of your posts.

:shrug:

[Thats my opinion]

69. Then you are only reading--and hearing--what already conforms to you pre-suppositions.

[cleanhippie]

74. What, am I to look for the hidden meaning in your posts or something?

Why not just say what you mean and mean what you say?

[pokerfan]

19. atheists and anger

Note that I'm not particularly angry but thought that this was a really exhaustive essay:

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html

[Thats my opinion]

70. Greta is angry about things worth being angry about

I haven' seen many of the things she describes, and I was pleased to have my lack of information about this form of bigotry enlightened

[darkstar3]

105. That should be reposted every few months, I think. An absolutely beautiful essay.

[Igel]

20. I think you overlook a lot of atheists.

Most that I know aren't angry because Xians hate them.

They're angry because they think the gun-toting, evolution-hating God-created-the-Earth-in-7-days idjits shouldn't be allowed to wipe their own asses without extensive remedial training, and yet those self same idjits do things to mess up the atheists' lives.

Sometimes that means clogging the roads outside of church, sometimes it means electing the obviously wrong person ("obvious" because the superior atheist so judges) or holding the wrong belief about international relations or how society should be run. Sometimes the atheist despises the hypocrisy he seems to see--he has no problem with his actions, Xians or Muslims or whoever seem to do likewise but preach against it. It may not be hypocrisy--I know I think things are wrong but do them in spite of my best efforts (that's not hypocrisy--that's failing to live up to one's standards).

Sometimes the problem is in thinking that they, the deists, are actually better than the atheists. It galls some atheists who are firmly convinced of the opposite proposition. Of course, the atheists have the One True Reason to support their proposition, whatever It may be.

It gets ludicrous. Others are just resentful and have personal demons (if you'll pardon the expression) of their own.

My mother's a hateful atheist because she blames believers for a lot of her misery. When her father died in a car crash in 1933, her mother, with a 6-year old daughter and 3-year old girl twins, was unemployed, unhoused (it was company housing and with dad dead, the company eventually told them to move out), and destitute; she was allowed to move into a run down rental house for low rent if she worked in a store. She married and had a couple of sons. My mother blames religion for her mother's deference, for not staying unmarried, for being submissive to her husband, etc., etc. She resents that when she--my mother--was 25 and had a 3-year-old son and an AWOL husband her step-father took her in and let her live in a rental, giving her part-time work, until she managed to find a job. She resents a dress that she wanted when she was 16, but her mother gave money to the church. She's bitter. And she took it out on all believers, whom she assumed were holy-roller idjits out to oppress women in general and her in particular.

[skepticscott]

21. You must really feel the need

to try to tell atheists how they think and feel. But just maybe we don't think that it's all about us and maybe we don't give two hoots about what goes on in the heads of religious believers concerning us. And maybe we weren't all raped by priests as children and are now seeking an outlet because of deep psychological scarring. Maybe we continue to speak out against certain manifestations of religion because we see the deep harm and extensive corruption of free society that results from those believers carrying their "faith" into action. Did you even consider mentioning that possibility as part of your latest slam on atheists? Did you even think of that possibility to begin with?

[Thats my opinion]

22. I've been clear

for a long time that there are multitudes of examples of how religious practice has been ugly, dangerous and wrong..

[skepticscott]

25. Well, hurrah for you, but that's not remotely

what your OP was about, now was it? Let's recap:

"I guess a few honest atheists must continue their diatribes against religion because they believe religious people hate them." What does that have to do with "how religious practice has been ugly, dangerous and wrong"?


"Somewhere along the line many of them have been terribly hurt by some religious person or institution." Maybe we've seen the extensive wrong (that you yourself acknowledge that religion is responsible for) done to OTHER people and to society as a whole, and that's why they're angry. Again, did you even consider this, or did you just settle for your pop psychological BS?


"All I know to do is listen to their hurt" Condescending bullshit.

"But, why the anger because many other believe?" Again, who here has EVER said such a thing? Did you even consider that the anger may be because of how often "religious practice has been ugly, dangerous and wrong", and not simply because many others believe? Do you not even grasp that you've answered your own question?

Sheesh, man....did they teach you to think in that theology school?

[trotsky]

35. +1,000,000 n/t

[Thats my opinion]

36. Those committed not to hear each other probably won't

The fundamentalist are fond of using proof texts which they pull out of context in order to stab their adversaries. It is a useless game no matter who does it, and a diversion from trying to honestly solve problems.

[cleanhippie]

40. And that has fuck-all to do with the point being made.

It's funny how YOUR diatribe was thoroughly dismantled and shown to be a hypocritical piece of hogswallop, and you simply IGNORE that fact and pretend nothing was even stated.


I think that's called cognitive dissonance.

[skepticscott]

56. Couldn't have said it better

:toast:

[rrneck]

27. While trying to spin them away.

Most people find marketing bullshit irritating too.

[Starboard Tack]

31. How is addressing the anger of a few slamming atheists in general?

I am about as close to being an atheist as an agnostic can be. I don't feel he is telling me or anyone how they think or feel. If you didn't give two hoots what goes on in the heads of religious believers, then I doubt you would be participating in the discussion. Your anger seems to blind you to what he has clearly stated many times and dedicates his life to, which is reclaiming his church from those on the right who have poisoned the minds of their followers and fueled the hatred and bigotry of fundamentalism, be it religious or atheist.
I know many christians and atheists who are reluctant to declare themselves because of the stigma associated with both belief systems.

[skepticscott]

34. The OP says that

atheists hate religion because religious people hate them. He say that they hate religion because they've been hurt by it. He says they hate religion because other people believe. If that's not telling atheists how they think and feel, I don't know what is. Whether he's talking about all atheists or just some of us, it's still bullshit. And what's posted here is not simply going on in the heads of religious believers-it's being expressed openly, with the intent of influencing others. That I do give two hoots about. And whatever he can claim to have dedicated his life to, it's certainly not telling the truth about religion or religious believers.

BTW, does this: "I am about as close to being an atheist as an agnostic can be" make even the remotest sense? It sounds about like "I'm as close to being pregnant as any virgin can be." I guess it is a pretty good representation of agnostic thinking, though.

[Starboard Tack]

49. Wrong. He says "a few honest atheists must continue their diatribes against religion because

they believe religious people hate them"
Then he says many may have been hurt by it, which is an honest observation and very true.
You're reading of his post is grossly distorted and dishonest.
My agnostic/atheist statement means I am not an absolutist, which you apparently are. Maybe that's why you are so angry. And yes, virgins can get pregnant and I'm not talking about Mary.

[skepticscott]

50. If you can cite one thing in my post

that was wrong, please do so. What I stated was simply a repetition of what was in the OP. Ignored by you was the obvious point that it's bullshit no matter how many atheists he's talking about, as well as the point that he WAS telling atheists how they think and feel.

And how exactly am I an absolutist? Please, enlighten me as to my beliefs, since you seem to know so much more about them than I do.

[Starboard Tack]

53. I have no idea about your beliefs and don't claim to

You obviously have serious issues when it comes to reading comprehension. You edited his OP to suit your argument. If you are going to quote someone, you can't rewrite what they said. Your absolutism is evident in your disdain for anyone who differs from your perception of things. You appear to be the ultimate skeptic who believes that nothing is believable.

[skepticscott]

55. Ok...amuse me and try to reconcile these

"I have no idea about your beliefs and don't claim to"

"Your absolutism is evident in your disdain for anyone who differs from your perception of things. You appear to be the ultimate skeptic who believes that nothing is believable."


And while you're at it, show me one thing that I put in quotes that was altered from what it was in the OP. We both know you can't, but amuse me some more and try to dodge and divert from it.

[Starboard Tack]

60. It's not my job nor my intention to "reconcile" these quotes

Do you honestly think that by leaving out quotes you can make shit up and ascribe it to someone.

Read the OP
"I guess a few honest atheists must continue their diatribes against religion because they believe religious people hate them. As for me, they are entitled to their opinions, and I don't see any of the long list here trying to argue with them. Somewhere along the line many of them have been terribly hurt by some religious person or institution. All I know to do is listen to their hurt. But, why the anger because many other believe? "

Now your post
The OP says that atheists hate religion because religious people hate them. He say that they hate religion because they've been hurt by it. He says they hate religion because other people believe. If that's not telling atheists how they think and feel, I don't know what is. Whether he's talking about all atheists or just some of us, it's still bullshit. And what's posted here is not simply going on in the heads of religious believers-it's being expressed openly, with the intent of influencing others. That I do give two hoots about. And whatever he can claim to have dedicated his life to, it's certainly not telling the truth about religion or religious believers.

[skepticscott]

63. Yes, you can feel free to

say absolutely contradictory things in the same post (assuming you even realize it, which I wonder about), but you'll be taken even less seriously than you are now. Sucks be be absolutely pinned, and have it exposed for everyone to see, doesn't it?

And if you're seeing enormous differences between what he said and how I stated it, so much so that you call it making shit up, then you're the only one.

You're really not very smart about any of this, are you?

[humblebum]

26. I find every reason how one can feel the same anger toward organized atheism.

When you are discussing the negative sides of organized religion, it should never be forgotten that more have died and been persecuted in atheistic societies than all religious wars combined. And it continues today in many parts of the world. So, what is the common denominator between religious zealots and radical atheists? I see much more contempt being displayed here on DU for religion than vice versa.

[tortoise1956]

30. In my opinion,

The only difference between theistic and atheistic zealots is the outlet they choose to vent their hatred. While many Christians are good people, the zealots are the ones that stand out in the crowd because of their need to be in control. Case in point - the Westboro Baptist church that chose to demonstrate at military funerals. Their actions have nothing to do with religion, other than that is the vehicle they use to try to get attention. The true shame is that more mainstream Christians don't stand up and tell the fundies to stop teaching hatred in the name of Christ.

As for atheists being responsible for death and persecution, I would like to point out that Stalin, who I would venture to say was an atheist, actually attended a seminary for a while. I guess they weren't strict enough... In any case, his actions are not representative of most atheists, and it would be a disservice to try to claim that.

Go ahead and believe what you choose. In this country at least, that is your right. Anyone who says otherwise, or tries to tell you what to believe, should be held in contempt and ignored.

As far as "angry" atheists, I very much doubt that the ones described in the OP constitute a majority, or even a large minority. Most of the posters that have replied to me in previous threads have not been rude or discourteous. Don't take the actions of a few to represent the majority view.

[humblebum]

32. Your historical knowledge of Stalin and all of the times, issues, people, and events

concerning that era seem to be quite limited.

[tortoise1956]

33. Pardon?

My mention of Stalin was limited to the fact that he attended seminary:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSstalin.htm
http://www.pbs.org/redfiles/bios/all_bio_joseph_stalin.htm

and that he was most likely an atheist:

The Soviet dictator said, "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God... all this talk about God is sheer nonsense." - E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin
http://www.adherents.com/people/ps/Joseph_Stalin.html

Now please explain why you reached the conclusion that my historical knowledge is limited.

[okasha]

37. I do wonder why that quote leads you to believe

that Stalin was "most likely" an atheist. Perhaps a wistful little hope he wasn't one, after all?

[tortoise1956]

47. Nope

I base it on human nature, and the reality that psychotics like Stalin will latch onto whatever suits their purposes. Thus, while he was most likely an atheist, I can't state that without any doubt. I am NOT trying to imply he believed in God, as you seem to be inferring in your post. I report facts when I have them, and if I make suppositions, I represent them as such.

I have said this many times, but I guess it needs to be restated. I DON'T FREAKING CARE WHAT YOU BELIEVE! If yo want to believe in God, fine. If you choose to not believe, Ok. If you have problems with either of these, good for you. I am not here to flame people, or be a troll. If you don't like what I say, respond to my post. Point out my errors in reasoning facts. Don't read your own biases into my words.

[trotsky]

48. Well said. n/t

[tortoise1956]

101. Thanks, but

It had to be said. "Angry" isn't confined to any one belief, it crosses all lines.

[humblebum]

41. Because Stalin was only one part of many concerning the

history of organized atheism. I never mentioned Stalin to start with and you portray him as being the source and embodiment of an atheist movement. One must also consider Marx, Bakunin, Lenin, Trotsky, Krushchev, the League of Militant Atheists, Society of the Godless, The Godless, Komsomol christmases, Komsomol easters, museums dedicated to Atheism, Scientific Atheism, etc., etc. And that includes only the USSR. That story repeated itself in China, South Asia, and Eastern Europe, etc. over the course of the 20th century.

[LeftishBrit]

42. So what exactly are you saying?

That atheism was a primary cause of communist totalitarianism? (No, it wasn't.) That atheism like any ideology or belief system can be harnessed and used by dictators and political authoritarians? (Yes, it can.) Or that organized atheism is somehow intrinsically evil in itself, even if not used in the cause of, or collaboration with, totalitarianism?

[humblebum]

43. I merely stated facts. That's it. It was an overwhelmingly powerful

movement that affected and consumed the lives of many millions.

[LeftishBrit]

44. Left-authoritarianism did these things

Thus showing that left-authoritarianism is not left at all (just as right-libertarianism is only libertarian for those who can afford it).

And they imposed atheism.

Imposing ANY belief or ideology is totalitarian and dangerous. Government should not be in the business of either imposing any religion, or prohibiting it.

However: this does not mean that atheism is itself totalitarian, any more than Christianity is. It's the way it's used by the powerful.

And e.g. if some of the politicians whom I support are atheists, this does not make me a dangerous person or a supporter of totalitarianism!

[humblebum]

45. You seem to be asking and answering your own questions. It'll

be interesting to see what conclusions you draw.

[LeftishBrit]

46. My conclusions are:

(1) Governments should not impose any religion

(2) Governments should not impose atheism

(3) Governments should be totally religion-neutral and allow their citizens to believe in any religion or none; to worship freely or not worship at all; and should NEVER imply like Bush I did that atheists are not full citizens of their country

(4) Atheists should have a perfect right to run for office, as should people of any religion. I've voted for atheists for MP or Prime Minister several times. I've also voted for strong Christians and for people whose religion I never knew. I support secularism in public life, which is not the same as supporting the imposition of atheism and indeed is incompatible with it (secularism means religion-neutrality and tolerance for all belief systems in government). As far as I am concerned, political anti-secularism, and the disparagement of atheist politicians or voters, is a serious social evil, and one that has probably done more to engender anti-religious sentiment in its victims than anything that Dawkins has ever said.

If you think that I am a danger to society because I am an atheist, or that secularist or atheist politicians or voters are intrinsically dangerous, then I object to your views in the strongest of terms. If you don't think such things, then I have no problem with your religion, whatever it is (I realize that, while I assume you are a Christian, I know very little about your actual religious views!). I am not anti-religion; I am anti-political antisecularism and the religious right.

[skepticscott]

51. Typical of you to resort to the same dishonest BS

Funny that you didn't offer the honest comparison of the number of people who have died and been persecuted in "atheistic societies" (if you can even define WTF you mean by that) to the number of people who have died and been persecuted in religious societies all through history (as opposed to religious wars).

Or how about comparing the number of people who have died in religious wars to the number of people who have died in wars between different sects of atheists?

Have at it.

[humblebum]

52. Only in response "to the same dishonest BS" put out by such as you.

And it proves one thing - that it doesn't take religion to carry out some of the things you and others so readily attribute to it.

[cleanhippie]

54. I notice that you failed to address the issues being pointed out.

Considering the frequency with which it happens, I'm surprised it stands out.

[skepticscott]

59. Lame dodge, just what we've all come to expect

Your BS is pointed out, you're challenged to back it up honestly, and you flail with more BS. Crash and burn.

[humblebum]

61. Same substance, same old blather. nt

[skepticscott]

64. You were given the chance to provide substance

You failed. All I can do is point out your inadequacy.

[darkstar3]

57. I fucking dare you to talk about something OTHER than atheism for 10 straight posts.

If you even make it 3 I'll be shocked.

[humblebum]

62. Well? Dare away. Since this an R/T forum and considering it is

primarily anti-religious views, there is a good reason for that, and not too many other choices available other than religion or atheism.

[Thats my opinion]

71. We may have a deal

If you ll could offer ten posts without putting down religion, we may have room for an agreement.

[rrneck]

76. Let me try.

I'm on a phone so this might be a bit clumsy.

[rrneck]

77. I am not aware of any successful culture

that did not practice some form of religion.

[rrneck]

78. The practice of religion

helps insure emotional syncronicity which helps foster cooperation among its members. That cooperation is vital to the survival of the species.

[rrneck]

79. The practice of religion

has historically been an important source of mythology and inspiration which has given millions hope and courage to persevere in the face of adversity.

[rrneck]

80. The practice of religion

offers an important avenue for one of the most fundamental aspects of the human condition: A theory of mind.

We have been able to imagine what an even non existent being might think. It's an indispensable form of "emotional infinity" without which our understanding of ourselves would be truncated.

[rrneck]

81. The practice of religion

fosters empathy for others either among members of the same faith or of other faiths.

[rrneck]

82. The practice of religion

by making one a member of the group, can foster humility and introspection regarding one's contribution to the well being of others.

[rrneck]

83. The practice of religion

can also make defense of the group possible by fostering a willingness to sacrifice even one's own life to insure it's survival.

[rrneck]

84. I suspect that the practice of religion

gave us our first conception of infinity.

[rrneck]

85. Half of the human experience is emotion.

For most of human history religion is how we managed it.

[rrneck]

86. The practice of religion

is unavoidable. Wherever there are humans, there will be religion. It's just part of being human.

[rrneck]

87. So, having said all that,

I see no evidence in anything you have written that would indicate your intent to use religion for its intended purpose. Marketing spin and sectarian sniping leverage one of the most basic and important aspects of the human condition for profit - which is all I've seen you do.

Most believers would consider me an atheist, and I'm certainly an iconoclast, but I have enough faith in humanity to allow people to feel any way they want. I certainly don't try to sell them feelings they already have.

Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

[tortoise1956]

102. Did I feel a raindrop?

}(

Seriously, I enjoyed reading your posts. While I am not a fan of any organized religion, I recognize that they do very good things. Sometimes, that gets lost in the noise.

In any event, there is no valid reason to say that one set of beliefs is morally superior to another - at least I haven't seen that to be the case, with rare exceptions (harming others who don't deserve it, for example). I base my judgment of you, as a person, on how you treat others.

[rrneck]

103. Thanks.

And you hit the nail on the head. We can only judge things that can be proven empirically, not merely felt.

[LeftishBrit]

88. I will do so.

Religion has been a great comfort to many at times of deep sadness or stress.

[LeftishBrit]

89. Members of the Church of England offered important resistance to Margaret Thatcher's policies in the

1980s.

In particular, the Archbishop of Canterbury's Commission on Urban Priority Areas published the document 'Faith in the City', which pointed out the problems suffered by the inner cities at that time and since.

The Bishop of Durham was a big left-wing thorn in Maggie's side.

[LeftishBrit]

90. Rabbi Michael Lerner is an important left-wing activist.

[LeftishBrit]

91. The Archbishop of Canterbury has seriously criticized the cuts and the government's atittude to

welfare.

[LeftishBrit]

92. The top Catholic bishop in the UK, Vincent Nichols, has criticized the cuts, especially in housing.

[LeftishBrit]

93. Muslims made a very great contribution to the development of science and mathematics.

[LeftishBrit]

94. Religious-based charities, such as Tzedek, Christian Aid, and Islamic Relief, do great work.

[LeftishBrit]

95. Nonconformist Christian churches, especially the Methodists, played a crucial role in the rise and

development of the British Labour Party.

[LeftishBrit]

96. The Jewish religion places a great value on education and has contributed a lot to it.

[LeftishBrit]

97. Many religious groups, notably the Quakers, have worked hard in the cause of peace.

[LeftishBrit]

98. One of my greatest political heroes is an archbishop: Desmond Tutu.

[LeftishBrit]

99. And most crucially...

people of all religions or none are human beings. People have used all faiths and many non-religious ideologies in the cause of individual kindness and social progress and peace. Any ideology can also, sadly, be misused.

If anyone treats me personally, or the individuals and causes that I support politically, as immoral or a danger to society due to atheism or secularism, then I will fight back strongly. If they don't, then I have no problem with people of any faiths or none; it is how they use their beliefs, for good or ill, that is important to me.

[darkstar3]

58. Once again, you demonstrate that "thoughtful discussion" is the furthest thing from your intent.

n/t

[ZombieHorde]

65. I you don't like to reply to my posts, but at least look at this...

http://atheists.org/blog/2011/07/29/fox-news-facebook-page-on-911-cross-generates-death-threats-against-atheists

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

66. I'm not angry, I'm amused. Say hi to your daughter C. from me.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x597884#597978