It's not about being "offensive" or "rude"

[Goblinmonger]

Contrary to the thoughts of many theists here, I don't think the consternation is about atheists being rude to theists. I know, many of you are thinking that I am one of the assholes that people are complaining about. So be it. My perception is that there are very few atheists that really get offensive.

The problem is at the root of what it means to be an atheist. Something that many theists on here perceive as offensive and want to censor. That being that we see any god as being fiction. A myth if you will. Many don't want us to say that, even though that is how we see it. Those same people think that R/T should be a place where they can talk about their god (i.e. how THEY see it) but not a place for us to talk about how we see god.

Here is where I think the ultimate disconnect is. It is easy for a theist to see a theist of a different stripe and think, "I don't believe in their god." But at the heart of it, the other person is still a believer. They still have faith in something. They still believe in a "being" that cannot be proven in any form. Now that same theist is put face-to-face with an atheist. No longer can you think that that person is the same. The atheist doesn't have faith. They don't believe in something that can't be proven. So rather than the easy dismissal of the other theist as someone who is just misguided in what they believe in, you have to come to grips with a lack of faith/belief. That is harder to do. You are put more face to face with your belief/faith. Many people (not all) on here and in the real world react to that disconnect (or cognitive dissonance) by hating the atheist (read: the U of Minnesota study).

This isn't as well described as I may like, but I'm tired of typing. Give me your thoughts.

[trotsky]

1. Good point.

No longer can you think that that person is the same. The atheist doesn't have faith. They don't believe in something that can't be proven. So rather than the easy dismissal of the other theist as someone who is just misguided in what they believe in, you have to come to grips with a lack of faith/belief.

Or, force the theistic worldview onto the atheist, claiming that they have "faith" or "belief" in "not-God." That way you can reassure yourself that all is well, the atheist has faith just like everybody else.

[xchrom]

2. i think atheists are pissed on in the real world

and they come here and piss back.

there is some obvious anger directed at theists here who have NO BONES to pick with atheists -- of any sort.

so why do atheists show up in the religion and theology forum when they have forum of their own?

du did that to slow down stupid flamefests --

[Goblinmonger]

3. So we should just go to the back of the bus

and be happy that there are seats there for us?

So where are the examples? Sure, there are theists that I am angry with but that is because of LONG history on DU. But I would like to see the examples of atheists in R/T directing "anger" at theists for "no reason."

But to some extent you are right, and that has been addressed in R/T before. Many American atheists cannot come out in the real world. For many of us, this is the only place where we can freely talk about what we think with theists.

[xchrom]

4. what about ''no bones'' don't you get?

i don't care where you sit on the bus -- DRIVE the bus for all i care -- believing or not believing isn't really what i judge a person on.

i'm a believer -- the wackiest you'll ever meet -- but a believer.

i worry not at all that i think jesus was gay -- or that there was never a red sea parting -- and what other believers think -- as long as they are intelligent and evolved creatures.

for craps sake -- have you seen some of the unwarranted anger people have displayed in the r/t forum?

if you don't believe and you want affirmation of your thoughts -- don't come to r/t and say ''why don't you accept me?'' -- cause on du -- most believers probably do.

[Goblinmonger]

5. So again,

give me some examples of "unwarranted anger" in the r/t forum. I don't believe it. My point in the OP was that people mistake a statement of the way we see religion as offensiveness and that isn't true.

[Exiled in America]

7. The truth is, you'd have to go back a ways for examples in R/T

Right now, R/T is dominated by this meta-conversation about whether or not there is unwarranted anger, and the meta-conversation has usurped most of the other conversatin that used to be so contentious. So maybe it isn't a problem anymore. <shrug>

[Goblinmonger]

9. Those with a star

can search the archives to find their examples. I just don't think they are there.

[beam me up scottie]

36. Unwarranted anger? Goodness yes, the way they bait atheists is obscene.

have you seen some of the unwarranted anger people have displayed in the r/t forum?

You mean like telling us repeatedly that our lack of belief is a belief, that it's a religion, that it's the same thing as anti-theism, that we claim there are no gods, that we hate christians, that we are angry at their god and that's why we reject him, that we are atheists because of some childhood trauma, etc. etc. etc.

The believers who regularly taunt atheists in here using the above right wing talking points have told us repeatedly that we're too stupid to know how to define our own atheism.

I dare you to find repetitive posts from atheists who tell believers that they are too stupid to know what they believe.

Or who actually have the fucking gall to tell them that THEIR DEFINITION OF THEIR BELIEF IS WRONG.



Since we're the ones on trial here, your job is to prove that we're guilty of what we're accused of.

Go ahead, show us what you've got.

We're waiting.

[Jo March]

92. I have seen that here, BMUS and I agree

There are many here who are angry at how others define them. Heck, I'm angry at how some folks here try to define me! ;)

There is a lack of respect, on both sides, from a very small percentage of the folks on DU, and it comes out as this:

"You do believe - atheism is a religion and you're just an atheist because someone treated you like crap a long time ago."

And, my personal favorite:

"You are gullible/deluded/stupid/moronic/sheeplike/crazy/psycho to believe in the Invisable Cloud Being/bloodthirsty/violent diety in the sky."

Yes, those posts are flamebait and I alert on them whenever I see them.

There is absolutely no reason why intelligent folks from both sides cannot discuss religion in this forum without the threads ending up locked. Yet, sadly, that's what seems to happen.

Personally, I'm glad that I found the group for Progressive Christians. It has been a great little group to go to and discuss things without having to feel challenged or having to defend why I believe in God (or feel as though I have to, anyway). I don't feel as though I'm in the back of the bus.

I had a friend who moved out of the country last year. He is an atheist and I thoroughly enjoyed conversations with him because I didn't feel as though he thought I was stupid/gullible, etc. for believing. I didn't try to force my beliefs on him, either. We got along pretty well and had some good conversations.

Then I come here and wow! It's like the OK Corral - shots being fired, grenades being launched. Okay, there might not have been grenades at the OK Corral but you get the idea.

It's frustrating and it's sad.

[beam me up scottie]

96. This forum isn't for the squeamish.

Just like the Gungeon, the I/P forum and the Dungeon.

I will be the first one to call out the occasional errant atheist who thinks this is a free bash zone and starts taking shots at believers, but suggesting that it happens all the time is disingenuous.

Criticizing religion and/or religious beliefs is not being disrespectful.

Attacking the believer because of what they believe is, and the mods delete those posts as soon as they see them.

By the way, those posts frequently come from other believers, do a search on scientology threads in this forum if you don't want to take my word for it.


I admire your commitment to keeping discourse respectful, but when it comes to religion, the feel good threads are few and far between (although, when they are good, they're http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=79553&mesg_id=79553">very good).

This is probably why most of us don't bring it up when we're with our friends and family.

What are the two things we're told never to discuss?

And here we are, on a liberal political board posting in the religion/theology forum. :D

[Jo March]

99. Oh, no, it doesn't happen all of the time

It's just a few posters here and there who flit from thread to thread. DUers of all beliefs/nonbeliefs should not stand for it.

But then again, we Dems to love those circular firing squads, don't we???

[Random_Australian]

46. Yeah, here here, they have their own forum.And the catholics can fuck off,

they have their own forum. And the muslims can get the hell out of R/T, they have their own forum.

Now, where is my sarcasm tag?

[Jo March]

93. See, I don't take it that way

I like having the various groups. I had some comments about the Apostle Paul a short while ago and I posted them in the Progressive Christians group for discussion. I found the answers I was looking for there.

Had I made that post here, there likely would have been someone who posted some flamebait about religion in general and then the thread would have dissolved into infighting and would have more than likely been locked.

Heck, I even alerted on one of my threads that I started here because it became a flamefest!

I love reading posts from all of the groups. It's very enlightening.

[Random_Australian]

97. Huh? I don't take it that way either - I find the groups a useful place to

ask the like minded, and R/T to ask those unlike me.

That was the sarcasm bit!

I just did NOT like the way the poster implied that atheists should get out of R/T, as they have their own forum (like a number of other groups).

[Jo March]

101. Ah, I see!

Well, no one should feel as though they are being kicked out of this forum. It was difficult for me at one point because of all the threads that were so angry. In the end, however, everyone should be welcome into any forum as long as they abide by the rules.

Personally, feel that I am not welcome in this forum. I will post accordingly - in other words, I'll stay the hell out of R/T.

I cannot handle being thought of and accused of bashing atheists especially as that goes against everything I am and what I stand for. x(

[Random_Australian]

104. Good for you!

:patriot:

I have managed, thus far, to avoid all accusations of bashing people's religion, so I am quite happy here.

Most of it is just thinking about how the other person will read what you write - I doubt that there are very many on DU who don't actually respect the 'other' group.

But enough to cause trouble.

[neebob]

48. Theists have no bones?

I did not know that.

[SPKrazy]

72. No Bones To Pick No Less n/t

[Exiled in America]

6. Nope. It's not about what you say. It's about how you say it.

You keep trying to deny this, but it remains true.

It's one thing to say, "I believe the idea of a god or gods is a myth and I find no evidence to support such a claim." That's fine.

It's another thing to say, "I'm not a weak willed ignorant blind sheep who believes in fairy-tale imaginaery super men in the sky."

Note how the former is focused on you, and an objective, fact-based, neutral declaration of what you believe and why. Note how the latter is all focused on the "other guy" and disrespectfully takes a condescending, mocking tone of smug superiority wherein another perosns beliefs are treated as ignorant and stupid while your own are celebrated.

There's a lot of the former here on these forums. But there is too much of the latter here as well. And I think its time we all start owning up to the fact and calling people out when they can't talk about their own opinions without being rude or disrespectful of other people's opinions.

I couldn't care less that you don't believe in God. I couldn't care more that you treat those who see it differently as your equals, not your inferiors. Trouble is, few atheists I know here believe that. Which is sad, because I have no trouble believing it about atheists. I have my own beliefs, but I don't think I'm any better or worse, smarter or more ignorant, logical or illogical than anyone else.

[xchrom]

8. you said it WAY better than me.

[Goblinmonger]

10. So where are examples of the latter?

I think those are very few and far between. Often another atheist will call them out for that.

I don't care what you believe either. But does that mean if someone posts something about their beliefs that they shouldn't be questioned? What about trotsky's subthread in the hot R/T discussion right now. What about cults? Do you not look down on them? How about Dobson? Does he get equal respect? Ever said Scientologists were crazy?

I think far too often the "Christian persecution" is that those people don't want ANYTHING said about their religion but we can all bash the fundies et al.

[squarepants]

14. not directed at me, but

I'd like to answer as a theist :)

Most definitely, there is nothing wrong with questioning someone's beliefs. How else can anyone at least attempt (assuming that is the motive) to understand something if they don't ask questions?

Cults? I posted elsewhere in this thread that there are people who worship gods I've never heard of. I also said there is nothing wrong with disageeing. However, I would not walk up to one of them and tell them they're stupid. I can disagree without doing all of that. No, I do not look down on them. They are off somewhere doing their thing. They aren't bothering anybody (not that I know of. lol) THe same goes for if they believe in the same god I do. Also applies to scientology.

Dobson is a different story. I'm an advocate for freedom of religion. ALL religion, and ALL gods. People have a right to choose their path without persecution, AS LONG AS THEY AREN'T TRYING TO TAKE OVER AND OUTLAW EVERYBODY ELSE'S RELIGION. That is the problem I have with Dobson and others in the christian right. Personally I think their theology is screwed up, but they're entitled to that. THe problem is, they are trying to FORCE their screwed up theology on everybody else. I definitely have a problem with that. I believe in the same God they speak of, but I do not believe in the same way as they do. They don't have a right to force their theology on others, and the same applies to all religions as far as I'm concerned. There is no freedom of religion when that happens.

[Maat]

19. Very well-put, Squarepants!

I have researched the Religious Hardright for years. I work to unite progressives, both believers and nonbelievers, to address the Religious Hardright, such as Dobson and John Hagee. Despite my respect for all spiritual paths (or lack thereof), I have NO problem with discussing specific behaviors as being destructive.

From my extensive research, I can definitely state one thing. Dobson, and his ilk, want to force their viewpoint on the rest of us via enacting constitutional amendments and statutes. He openly states that he is going to engage in an unprecedented push for religious extremists, of which he is one) to "vote their values," which is a code for unconscionable harassment of anyone progressively-minded.

Again, I have NO problem DISCUSSING specific behaviors, that may or may not be a part of a faith.

[Goblinmonger]

22. But do you think the atheists on here

go up to people on the street and call them stupid? I don't think so.

This is a different place. People come in here to discuss religion. This is a pretty smart group all around and the discussions get heated. Can you imagine what would happen if you went into GD and said that people should calm down? They'd tell you, rightly, to piss off. This is a hot and heavy forum. This is, for many of the American atheists here, the only place where they can be free and open about their atheism. Hell, I don't even tell my kids I am atheist so they don't tell a friend that will freak about it. But I don't have the discussions/arguments that I have on here in the "real world."

[Orrex]

16. I would guess that I am one of the latter

Recently I've had posts deleted and threads locked for exploring the similarities (and for asking about the distinctions) between religious belief and delusion. I accept the decision of the mods in those cases, because they were just doing their job and likely responding to Alerts from people who found my posts offensive.

But I don't see that question as inherently more offensive than when a theist insists that my non-belief is "just another religion" or something similar, which happens more often than I can count.

[squarepants]

11. Exiled in America

beat me to it. I was going to post something to that affect. I know exactly what you mean. LOl, actually, I posted something to that affect about a week or so ago, and immediately after that, 1 person (who was atheist) acted superior and disrespectful. So yes, there are SOME, NOT ALL, atheists who do act superior because they don't believe in "fairy tales" (as they like to call it). You've also got some theists who act superior over atheists. Problem is, I've seen quite a bit of superiority from SOME atheists, even when some theists were trying to be respectful toward atheism or the atheist they were having a discussion with. Some atheists, NOT ALL, can't seem to get it through their heads that you do not need to go around saying shit you KNOW is going to offend somebody else when it comes to people's deeply held religious beliefs. You can say you don't agree or believe without crossing the line with the fairy tale, santa claus crap. Some people worship gods I've never even heard of before, and I may not agree, but I don't need to cross the line and tell them they're stupid for worshipping those gods. They're gods may not mean squat to me, but that doesn't give me the right to put them down. Besides, what's telling them they're stupid or they believe in fairy tales, supposed to do? Are they expected to just drop their beliefs? Are they expected to feel bad or inferior? Just because an atheist or theist BELIEVES something doesn't make it true. Every human believes in something (and no, I'm not just talking religious stuff) and we all have to pick and choose what we believe or don't, but those beliefs are just that. Beliefs. We ALL get our beliefs as a result from somebody else, be it a preacher, religious person, science, books, government, friends, parents, tv, etc. The things we learn already existed, otherwise how could we learn them? Neither theist or atheist is over the other.

[Goblinmonger]

12. Do you remember the thread?

I know you are new and can't search without a star. I would like to know what you are talking about. Too often, and this may not be the case with you, people like to say that atheists have been pricks but rarely do I see examples.

If the person was doing what you say, then you should alert and that message should be deleted. It is against the rules.

[squarepants]

15. Goblinmonger

Yes, that was the thread.

[Goblinmonger]

13. OK, I did the legwork

since I can search.

Was it this one, because that is a little in your face, but not overly bad.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=84197#84203
But the real point with this one is why can't that be said to you. If that is what the person thinks, why is what you think so sacred that it can't be addressed other than positively, but the person who thinks differently should just shut up? Is your faith that fragile? Is your skin that thin?

[squarepants]

17. Goblinmonger, regarding legwork post

Thanks by the way for the search:)

Like I said elsewhere here, I can disagree with someone without "stepping on" others. In other words for example, I am a theist, and you're not. Just because I'm not atheist does not give me a right to talk to you as if you're stupid for being atheist. Just because I'm theist doesn't mean I'm smarter than you or "live in reality" better than you, and vice-versa. No, I'm not one of those people who has a belief and thinks all others are wrong. You and everyone else can disagree with mine. I don't care. It's when people (theists and atheists) start to act superior as a result of their viewpoints is what offends me. Why can't some people simply disagree without thinking they are superior? As in the person's response to me in the thread you found.

[Goblinmonger]

24. Not a problem

Since it doesn't look like Exiled is taking me up on my offer, if you would like for me to donate in your name so that you can have a star to allow you to search and go to the relgion specific groups (as well as many other groups) PM me and let me know.

As to the reponse that put you off. It may seem harsh to you, but MindPilot has a point, albeit maybe presented a little gruffly for a newbie (that is nothing compared to what happens when the usual theist "disruptors"--not ALL theists but there are the usual suspects we fight with--get into it with the usual nasty atheists (of which I am most likely a member). The point was that the atheist standpoint doesn't rely on a leap of faith, doesn't rely on believing in something for which there is no proof. As a result, it seems to most atheists (though I hesitate to speak for others) that ours is a stand more based in physical reality because we don't believe in the supernatural. Your stance is the one that believes in some, frankly, pretty weird stuff.

[beam me up scottie]

38. Give me a break. Am I supposed to believe that DUers coddle you in GD?

"person (who was atheist) acted superior and disrespectful"

"quite a bit of superiority from SOME atheists, even when some theists were trying to be respectful toward atheism or the atheist they were having a discussion with."

"tell them they're stupid for worshipping those gods."


That's quite a straw man you've got going there, why, he's done got married and had straw babies.

The post in question was a response to your apparent attempt to equate atheism with faith; atheism is based on a lack of evidence and faith is believing despite the lack of it.

It looks like you were so busy being offended by the poster's comments, you forgot to listen to what he was saying.
I'm not a mind reader and can't speak for the poster, but here is my interpretation:

It's not an insult, it is a fact.

Atheists do think religious stories are myths and most of us don't think our opinion is an insult.

Believing in god and not believing in god are not equal. It's not a choice between Coke or Pepsi; it's more like robbing banks or not robbing banks. One choice makes a lot of sense, the other not so much.

Faith is an active belief in things unknown, atheism is not an active belief, it is the lack of it.

God is just that--a belief, an imaginary friend, a myth, dare I say it...a fairy tale. If belief in a deity or higher power works for you fine, well and good. But do not put belief on the same intellectual plane as reality.

You were the one who brought up fairy tales and compared atheists to religious fanatics, squarepants, he was simply responding to your post. Nobody blindsided you.
The majority of atheists have no problem with personal religious beliefs, but if you claim that faith is the equivalent of reality, we'll probably call you on it.

In fact, most atheists, skeptics and scientists cringe when they hear such comparisons.

Are we not supposed to be honest about our opinions?

Where is the insult?



Newsflash: DU is full of smug superiority and disrespectful people, or haven't you noticed?

Some are atheists but most aren't, and expecting people from either group to be "nice" to you in a forum where intense debate is the norm is naive.

When you falsely accuse atheists of insulting behaviour, expect a response.

[squarepants]

49. ok, you know what, beam me up scottie?

Please refer to my earlier posts in this thread, and re-read my stuff in "understand atheism" thread. The responses to your questions/comments were already posted by me quite a few hours before you posted your post to me. Okie doke.

[beam me up scottie]

60. Your earlier posts are exactly what I was referring to, see your quotes.

If you have something else to add, by all means please do so.

[Jo March]

94. Some atheists do have insulting behavior

Read this thread - post #1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1973962#1975152

and many other posts in that thread. Come on - saying that there should be a litmus test to prevent religious people from holding office? That thread so upset me that I ended up PMing one person to get a clarification because I was so blown away and so totally insulted. As it turns out, tempers were just running high and the posts weren't meant to be blanket statements condemning and insulting all religious people.

But let me be clear, there is some highly insulting behavior from the religious folk here on DU. It should not be accepted from anyone.

Again, if the posts break the rules, click Alert and let the mods handle it. Don't keep adding to the pile. Be considerate and try to articulate your thoughts.

It's difficult when things get heated. It's difficult for me. I had to take a break from R/T for a while because my ass was getting reamed here!

[beam me up scottie]

95. My last comment stands.

When you falsely accuse atheists of insulting behaviour, expect a response.

If I were to post a long winded diatribe in here blaming DU christians every time a christian pissed me off, I'd never sleep.

The poster I was replying to falsely accused DU atheists of insulting christians, I simply refuted the weak points in her poorly considered argument.

Neither one of us violated any rules, there was no need to hit alert.

In this forum people are expected to back up their claims. If the poster wanted to complain about atheists without being challenged, perhaps one of the religious groups would have been a better choice.

[beam me up scottie]

98. That thread was in GD, not this forum. And those posters don't post here.

But thanks for adding to the level of strife here by claiming that's typical behaviour for this forum.

I keep trying to tell people who wander in here to look at the history of this forum instead of being traumatized by 200+ post threadzillas.

IMModerate calls it an arena for good reasons.

There are disruptors, pity parties, epic battles over intent, intolerance and the meaning of words, yes, but there are also good friends and honest allies and among them there is an honour code of sorts.

The people who disrupt and inflame don't abide by it, the rest of us try to.

So when someone comes in here and starts freaking out about how we abuse believers, I get pissed.

We walk a fine line and sometimes we cross it, when that happens, we try to make it right.

Hyperbole and dramatics from newbies hurts those of us that do respect each other and helps the disruptors.

Look at the threads were locked in here recently, how many do you see?

And how many aren't locked?

Had I made that post here, there likely would have been someone who posted some flamebait about religion in general and then the thread would have dissolved into infighting and would have more than likely been locked.

Right.

You never post in here but we're supposed to believe your claim that the big mean boogie-atheists will attack you for asking a simple question.

Like we keep telling people, this forum is what you make it.

Perhaps you'd be interested in joining those of us who do care about it and do respect each other instead of maligning our efforts.

[Jo March]

100. Excuse me? I never post in here?

What are you talking about? I do post in R/T. I have the scars to prove it!

I have never claimed that the "big mean boogie-atheists" will attack me for asking a simple question. I have tried to make it clear that there are a few aggressive, rude and nasty posters - both theists and atheists - who turn R/T into a flamefest.

Yeah, this forum is what we make it. That is why, in every post where I am decrying the "tone", I make sure to lay the blame where it belongs: at all of our feet, including mine. Or did you miss that as well?

Don't even try to paint me as an atheist basher. Religious intolerance is unacceptable but so is anti-atheist bigotry and intolerance.

Forget it. I made the mistake of coming and posting in this thread and that's my own stupid fault. I'll try not to let it happen again.

[beam me up scottie]

112. You complained about us and the thread you used to justify your anger

was from GD, not R/T.

The atheists who regularly post in this forum had nothing to do with that thread.

Had it been posted in here, we would have been the first ones to alert on it.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

103. You know what I love about this forum, Scottie?

If we are slugging it out with each other about who believes what, who is mean to whom, who is respectful and who are total assholes and why in the world it matters at all...then I know all is right with the world. Because if towers are falling down or folks are trapped in domes and babies are dying, we don't have these endless discussions. To me, they are like eating dinner or something. You do it when things are going well. Just kind of keeps the brain nicely greased.

[beam me up scottie]

110. I wish that was true for me as well, T.Grannie.

I can never forget that all is not right with the world, hell, I can't even relax in my own home without being reminded that I'm a second class citizen.

If you mean that this forum is a nice distraction, I couldn't agree more, and while I like and respect most of the christians who belong to DU, it's many of the rest of them, like the christians I work for and with, the christians who live in bible belt red states, the christians who run this country, and the christians who believe in christian privilege and supremacy who won't let me forget that I'm a bitter, Jesus hating, immoral godless liberal.

Christianity certainly isn't to blame for all that's wrong in the world, but from where I sit, christians are a big part of what's wrong with this country.

I realize that it's difficult for christians to hear their religion criticized, but I would be less than honest if I pretended that I didn't think the world would be a better place without it, and without the rest of revealed religion.


I really hate logging on to DU and seeing yet another whine-a-thon vilifying atheists, because, if you look at the big picture, being rude pales in comparison to wanting homosexuals killed for their "sins".

[Maat]

18. Well-said!

I'm not saying what atheists have or have not said on this board, but Exiled presents a great example of how we can politely, respectfully and considerately discuss things. I've had great conversations with atheists here, such as those with BMUS or Zhade. I've even come to agreement on some things with Goblinmonger (gasp)!

I, for one, plan to do my best to stick to the respectful example.

Also, for the record, in my faith (Religious Science), we honor all paths. So, from my perspective, I respect the path of the atheist as much as the Catholic, and respect those as much as the Lutheran's (or whatever).

[trotsky]

20. "We honor all paths."

First off, I think it's possible someone might take offense to that. It could be taken as being a statement of superiority - "I know the truth, but I accept that other people take a different route to it, even though their very understanding of the truth is different than mine. MY truth is the REAL truth."

Secondly, it's a false statement. I doubt you would honor the path of someone who felt that the meaning of life was to molest children.

[Maat]

26. I disagree as to both points.

The point of the statement is not to exhibit a superior attitude. Key to my faith is being nonjudgmental as to what is good for another.

I spent over 10 years in the mental-health/social-services fields, and someone might take offense to anything. Most people take the statement for what it is: an affirmation of each individual's unique life journey, in terms of that individual's belief system (composed of much more than atheistic or religious beliefs). I, for one, don't believe in A TRUTH FOR ALL. I believe in a unique truth for each individual.

I honor the individual spiritual BELIEF; I don't honor certain BEHAVIORS. Furthermore, I spent seven years enforcing certain laws when I was a social worker. So, I have no problem either advocating or supporting the prohibition or preclusion of BEHAVIORS physically and indisputably dangerous to another.

I hope that helps clarify my position.

Enjoy your path, Trotsky! Have a great day! ;)

[trotsky]

27. I fully understand it's not your intent to insult.

I'm just pointing out someone COULD take it that way - that you are belittling their very important faith as "just another path." Even surrounding it in phrases like "unique truth for each individual", you're taking their faith that they might see as universal and making it just a truth for themselves and no one else. Understand?

Belief vs. behavior: aren't you making a judgment call here based on belief, to label certain behaviors as wrong?

[Maat]

28. Hmmm .. EVERYONE assesses certain behaviors by ..

putting certain behaviors through their personal filter - based upon their experiences and education. I've really encountered very, very few problems in terms of the majority of those concerned agreeing upon what behaviors are seriously, physically dangerous to another such that they need to be prohibited. For those behaviors not clearly so, for the most part, I haven't had a problem politely and considerately debating them. I believe that we can't stick to the principles espoused in Assertiveness Training, such as the polite language I referred to above.

This is the way I get along with everyone, at least at a certain level (maybe we won't get to another level). Most I've come into contact with at least grudgingly accept all paths as valid (and they keep their belief in the universal part to themselves). It's the way we get along in Interfaith Group (I belong to a local one that meets monthly).

[trotsky]

30. That's my point.

We all have those personal filters. To point to a specific and relevant example, what about abortion? Certainly those who feel abortion is murder believe that it is "seriously, physically dangerous to another". Their "path" is in direct conflict with someone who doesn't believe that. So how do you resolve the conflict? Whose path or view is more valid? You can't say "both" because that doesn't resolve anything.

Most I've come into contact with at least grudgingly accept all paths as valid

You said most, not all, which was exactly my point. There will be SOME who view the "we're all on different paths" new-agey touchy-feely stuff as a direct affront to their deeply-held faith. So we are in agreement on that point? Even your message of universal tolerance can be received negatively by some.

[Maat]

31. Yes, I agree with you there.

We are in agreement on that point - some will never be satisfied. And, the people Religious Scientists (my religious/philosophical system) tend to irritate the most are ... Hardright Religious Zealots (mostly, HARDRIGHT Christians in our country - as opposed to, for example, secular humanists or "LIBERAL Christians"), because these hardrighties DO tend to think we're too "New Agey."

As an aside,that tends to tick my pastor off, for we're not "new agey (an externally-directed thing);" we're "new-thoughtie," because we believe the One (Universal Consciousness, One-Energy, God, Goddess) is both WITHIN and without, and that each individual is equally 'divine.' Adherents of the New Thought Philosophy believe, "As you have a new thought, so shall you have a new experience." It's a question of semantics, however, and the point is that those with very rigid beliefs tend to feel threatened by persons of my ilk. The hugely successful motivational speakers, Dr. Wayne Dyer and Tony Robbins studied New Thought principles quite a bit, and incorporated them into their material. Ernest Holmes, the founder of Religious Science, in turn, studied the great philosophers, such as Thoreau, Emerson and Troward, in addition to studying Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc.


I just do the best I can to "bridge the gap." Naturally, it is easier to do with the progressively-minded, as opposed to those who tend to be very rigid in their daily lives and in terms of their belief system.

[trotsky]

32. Care to address the abortion question?

It's an issue where even the basic idea of whether a full person is coming to harm is up for debate. Whose "path" shall prevail and become law?

[Maat]

33. Well, the law graduate in me says that ...

since it is recognized as being part of the right to privacy, the "pro-reproductive-rights" path will win out, given the structure of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, case precedent, and other law.

So, that is the perspective (belief system) that will prevail.

By the way, I'm extremely pro-reproductive-rights; but, then, that's my path.

[trotsky]

34. Kind of a cop-out, don't you think?

I asked about paths, not current U.S. law. If it is truly an issue of "right to privacy" versus "killing a living human being," then clearly the life outweighs the privacy, doesn't it?

No, the root of the issue is what you do when someone's "path," their worldview, requires them to intervene in the affairs of others. You yourself have admitted to several instances in which you would, so isn't the anti-abortion nut equally justified, if he truly believes that abortion is the murder of an innocent human being? On what basis do you tell him he is wrong, and/or he cannot intervene, without looking like a hypocrite?

[Maat]

35. I don't think that it is a copout.

It is what is. Remember, from my point-of-view, Spirit (the Universal Consciousness, God) steps back and lets each of us create a unique experience for the One. The One is objective, and does not favor one action over the other.

What do I do when someone's worldview requires a certain action on their part (and they feel they are 'justified' in their related actions), and I disagree with it - well, I strive to balance that action. In the case of the Hardright Christian, for example, who wants to curtain abortion/reproductive rights, I decide that my goal is to preclude that, and I come up with a plan of action. I use both my mental and physical powers to achieve my goal. I not only contribute to NARAL, for example; I engage in spiritual mind treatment (our form of prayer)(a form of prayer with affirmative statements, with a meditative flavor).

Ummm ... I don't waste time telling someone they are 'wrong.' Our faith/philosophy teaches us that when we focus upon 'wrongness,' we engender negative emotions within ourselves (stressful emotions and, subsequently, chemical reactions that are unfavorable).

I focus on my anticipated actions and upon my goals.

I'm speaking from the heart, and very truthfully. I have to admit, though, it's fun to discuss this.

Take care! :)

[trotsky]

40. So what you propose, then, is to interfere with someone else's path.

But if yours is just another path, how do you justify it? Their path is just as valid as yours. I really don't see how you are addressing the issue. On the one hand you assert the superiority of your view (you're going to take action to make it happen), but on the other you want to be able to call all paths valid. The proverbial having one's cake and eating it too - sort of a "I'm not telling them they're wrong, I'm just doing whatever I can to stop them and show that I'm right."

That's what I see as the primary problem with the "all paths are valid" line of thinking. Ultimately it's more talk than anything - and contradictory talk at that.

[Maat]

45. Well, I disagree.

I did NOT assert the superiority of my view.

I see no problem with working towards my goals, and my view of society.

And, I don't see a problem with the 'all paths are valid' line of thinking, and it is not contradictory (in my opinion).

I see this discussion as having become very pointless, so I'm not going to be responding further.

Take care!

[trotsky]

47. You want to work toward one set of goals, i.e. your "view"...

but you don't think your view is superior. Then why do you want to promote it?

If you don't think that's contradictory, you're right, further discussion is pointless.

[SPKrazy]

50. It's Kind Of Like

a circular argument here it seems

if you acknowledge and accept all paths as valid

then Trotsky is saying that acknowledgement is an example of "superiority" whereas I would ask Trotsky, how would it be better phrased. I only have words to express ideas, and my idea is that while I try to respect everyone's right to believe or not believe, I don't have to agree with them.

I tried to follow this exchange between you and Maat, and I got lost because it seemed that no matter how Maat explained it, it was just another round of gotcha.

As someone who accepts others paths as well, that doesn't imply that I have to agree with them, but I respect the right of a person to have those paths, and don't want to infringe on them.

The fact that I hold my own beliefs to be right for me, does not mean that someone else's beliefs are not right for them. And I can do that without saying or implying or really meaning, that I think my beliefs are superior. They are right for me. They may not be right for anyone else. That's fine.


I feel like I just watched a round of ping pong here

[trotsky]

51. "It's right for me."

Please check out Kerry4Kerry's most excellent thread on that very subject.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x83399

[SPKrazy]

53. I've Read It- Posted On It- And Disagree With The Premise Of It n/t

[okasha]

56. You can't argue or have a meaningful exchange

with an absolutist, SPK. The folks who don't understand how it's possible to respect other persons and their individual paths/spiritual journeys are absolutists. Their views are absolutely right, and everyone else's views are absolutely wrong. They come in both theist and atheist flavors; Sam Harris and Jerry Falwell have more in common than either would be happy to admit.

[SPKrazy]

69. Oh Yes, 2 Sides Of The Same Coin

yin and yang if you will even

[trotsky]

85. So true, okasha.

I've argued with many absolutists. Some who interpret the bible universally conservative, some universally liberal. They won't for a moment consider there are other ways to look at the same text and come up with a different meaning. Crazy, ain't it?

[Maat]

66. Thank you, Southpawkicker!

Exactly!

[greyl]

76. Oh please.

Maat, I expect more depth from you.

[Silent3]

21. How can you truly believe this?

I have my own beliefs, but I don't think I'm any better or worse, smarter or more ignorant, logical or illogical than anyone else.

If you don't think you are better, smarter, wiser, more logical, more virtuous, or more something, at least when it comes to the matter of you own beliefs and personal philosophy, than those who believe differently, why believe what you believe in the first place?

It's the same thing as saying "My personal beliefs have no special value".

If the above comment leads to the immediate thought, "My beliefs have special value to me", you're simply taking cover with an emotional response which doesn't hold up very well under scrutiny, using a logic which ultimately leads to the same thing as saying "My personal beliefs have no special value", even if you don't mean it that way.

Your stance is either a diplomatic cover, a well-meaning but not truly meaningful effort to play "let's be nice and get along", or a self-negation of something I'd think was important enough to you to represent with a little more fervor.

[Finder]

23. I was just going to ask this very question.lol n/t

[Silent3]

25. Something I left out...

I meant to put in a link to this previous thread I'd started: "It's true for me"

Looking here might save a lot of rehashing of things that have already been said before. Might. :)

[varkam]

29. That's hilarious.

:rofl:

Want to know why I find that so funny? Because since I started posting here I have never referred to theists as sheep, god as a fairy tale, or religion as a mental illness. I have tried to be respectful and I have tried to have productive discussions - yet I still catch flak from some of the theists around here, presumably simply because I am an atheist.

[neebob]

52. Well, call me a writer

but I see a big difference between "I'm not a weak-willed ignorant blind sheep who believes in fairy-tale imaginary super men in the sky" and "You are a weak-willed ignorant blind sheep who believes in fairy-tale imaginary super men in the sky."

I'll give you that a weak-willed ignorant blind sheep adds a judgment on believers in general, and yeah, it has a very negative and disrespectful tone. Take it out, and you still have a statement that a lot of believers take personally, even though it has nothing to do with them. It's purely a statement of what the speaker does not believe: "I don't believe in fairy-tale imaginary super men in the sky." The biggest stretch you can reasonably make, in my opinion, is "I consider God to be a fairy-tale imaginary super man in the sky." What, besides nothing, is offensive about that?

Your statement about what atheists believe illustrates what I think the problem is. You don't know what the atheists here believe. Perhaps if you stopped reading yourself into statements about sheep and fairy tales, you would find them less offensive. Try reading the words that are actually there, and stop trying to get into others' heads.

Just because you would mean something in a particular way if you said it does not mean someone else means it that same way. Stop assuming that others think like you do.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Wow, eight hours later and still no evidence to prove their claims?

With all the wailing going on, you'd think the accusers would be able to come up with plenty of examples of how we persecute believers in this forum.

But they've got nothing.

Maybe I'm just being impatient, I'm sure they're out there right now gathering evidence of the:

"unwarranted anger"

"weak willed ignorant blind sheep who believes in fairy-tale imaginaery(sic) super men in the sky" comments

"tell(ing) them they're stupid for worshipping(sic) those gods" and "another perosns(sic) beliefs are treated as ignorant and stupid while your own are celebrated


Oh, I do hope they cite the scientology threads, 'cuz guess which side is guilty of behaving exactly the way they claim atheists do?

Can you say hypocrite, children?

I knew you could.

;)

[SPKrazy]

39. I'm Interested In Other's Beliefs

I could care less about their lack of beliefs though

[neebob]

68. Why wouldn't you care what others don't believe?

If you don't listen or try to find out why they don't believe a particular thing, you're that much more inclined to fail to question it and end up being misled or scammed. I'm talking about a lot more than just religion. I sometimes believe things that aren't true, and I appreciate when others point out the flaws and fallacies so I can correct myself.

And by the way, you seem to care that others don't believe in Santa Claus. Or are you just talking about religious beliefs?

[SPKrazy]

71. I'm Talking About Religious Beliefs

cut the snark

and no, what is there to discuss? someone says, I don't believe in God, just like I don't believe in Santa Claus.

Is there really a discussion to have there?

I mean, like what is there to say about "I don't believe"?

I don't believe that atheism is the correct world view.

I believe that theism is.

Where does one go with giving a compelling argument FOR atheism other than to work to discredit theism?

Because of atheism I've found peace? Because of atheism I've found what I've been searching for?
Because of atheism I've found a higher power to help me?

I don't believe that atheism is right for me, it doesn't answer any questions, it just gives the absence of an answer, the absence of a belief.

[neebob]

73. Snark, schmark.

I was just pointing out that you do seem to care what other people don't believe. And yeah, I've teased you about Santa. Snarky old me.

I never even heard the word snarky until I read a review of the recent animated film, Hoodwinked, just before a friend persuaded me to see it. The review said it was full of snarky gags. And by the way it really sucked, except for the singing goat. Anyway I figured snarky meant cute and sarcastic.

Since then I've noticed the word snarky being used a lot here, and it seems to be a bad thing. I looked it up. From m-w.com:

Main Entry: snarky
Pronunciation: 'snär-kE
Function: adjective
Etymology: dialect snark to annoy, perhaps alteration of nark to irritate
1 : CROTCHETY, SNAPPISH
2 : sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner <snarky lyrics>
- snark·i·ly /-k&-lE/ adverb

I prefer the second definition. I like sarcastic. Impertinent, too, sometimes. Most of all, I like irreverent. I like snarky.

And yeah, there really is a discussion to be had about "I don't believe." It starts with your asking or my telling you why. I don't especially want to have it, either, because to me it's just obvious that there's no god and I don't like arguing or have a need to persuade you to change your position. You've made a series of statements revealing attitudes that lead me to believe it would be a pointless and unpleasant experience.

And by the way, the ones beginning with because of atheism are pretty snarky. No, I haven't forgotten I said I like snarky. I want to like you being snarky. But you started off telling me to cut the snark. What's that about?

Edit: Come to think of it, your original statement that you could care less about lack of belief was kinda snarky. You cut the snark, Mister, or I'm gonna send the Mormons!

[JerseygirlCT]

41. I think there might be one flaw in that for at least many of us

And that's the idea that those with faith would view those who think differently as some sort of affront to our own beliefs. Unless someone's beliefs -- or thoughts -- it's hard to use one word for a big and varied group isn't it? Unless someone else's view infringes on mine or wishes harm to someone else, then I'm fairly content to live and let live. More than that, I find comparing/contrasting other takes on life pretty interesting. I don't really feel driven to explain why I'm *right*, but maybe just what I think. What you think is completely valid, as well.

My own beliefs are in a constant state of flux and growth and change. I would guess that might be the case for many thoughtful people. I don't see my choices as having a negative impact on someone elses, and I don't see yours as affecting mine, either.

But I do find it interesting to look at them both. Maybe finding the right language to do that is where we all run into problems?

[beam me up scottie]

42. Yes, that's exactly it.

I can't get angry with believers who don't know that claiming atheism is a religion is offensive, and I hope they don't get angry with me when I'm ignorant about their beliefs.
I come here to vent, but also to learn and debate. The last thing I want to do is drive away liberal believers.

How much fun would this place be without you guys?

[JerseygirlCT]

43. I *do* talk to myself. But sometimes it gets less than stimulating

you know?

So yes, having differences is what makes it interesting. Learning a thing or two is also a good thing.

And sometimes discussions that cut to things that can be very important to people and how they see themselves can be tricky and difficult to maneuver through without causing upset. I think effort counts there, and perhaps a history of effort as well.

[beam me up scottie]

44. I've always said it was like a minefield in here.

Especially for poor innocent newbies.

Maybe we should create a R/T wiki, like an instruction manual, only simpler.

A list of "Whatever you do, DON'T ---"'s with explanations.

[SPKrazy]

54. It Is A Minefield n/t

[Goblinmonger]

55. Yeah, it's a minefield

but not for the reasons you think. I and another atheist have posted two threads that are clearly comparative religous analysis. Asking questions about religion with no judgement either way. Go take a look at them. Look at who posted in there. With the exception of one or two posts, the "regular" theists, yourself included, did not post on either. Seems to support Evoman's theory that without the atheists here to post and bash, this forum would be dead. Seems to support the theory that, even though people bitch about it not happening, theists on R/T really don't want to have a discussion about relgion.

[okasha]

57. Yours is flamebait.

Evoman's is answerable by a straight up yes or no. How much debate/exploration is possible on that?

[Goblinmonger]

59. How dare you.

Flamebait? It is a straight up comparative study of religion question. Is it the use of mythology that makes it flamebait? I addressed that. Is it because you don't think there are comparisons? You are wrong.

Whatever. I'm done trying. I guess I need to just get back in the ring and have an another round of ultimate fighter with some theist. :sarcasm:

on edit: OK, YOU start a good comparative religion question. I promise to participate without snark.

[beam me up scottie]

61. It's only flamebait to believers who bash other religions.

Like scientology.

Although they seem to think their religious beliefs shouldn't be criticized or even examined.

[okasha]

67. How dare I? Ooooo, I'm trembling.

That thread, with the exception of a couple posters, is pure anti-Christian circle jerk. Spare us the disingenuous wide-eyed stare.

[Evoman]

74. Its only anti-christian

if your anti-scientology. Again, just to be sure about something...is it christian bashing if we compare it to another religion? Is comparitive analysis not allowed? If Goblinmonger had started a thread about how much better Christianity is than Scientology, would it be more acceptable to you?

Remind me again what the purpose of this forum is? Should we start a prayer thread?

[okasha]

79. Don't be deliberately dense

It's not the topic that's offensive--it's the perfectly predictable responses to it.

[Goblinmonger]

81. Anti-christian circle jerk???

Pray, tell, why would that be. Because someone dares to say there might be similarities between Christianity and a religion that people who whine about christian bashing bash all the time? Do you think something is invalid about my demons and alien possession comparison. Then please offer a different analysis.

Get off your sanctimonious high horse and realize that your attitude toward atheists on here in clearly damned if we do, damed if we don't.

[okasha]

83. If you can't bear to have your ideas or your expression of them

challenged, there is a protected group where you can post to your heart's content.

[Goblinmonger]

84. Where do you get that, Hector Projector?

It certainly isn't I that has exhibited behavior consistent with not wanting my views challenged. Do you even read the entirety of my posts? I begged you to explain what you are talking about. You have just been tossing out off-hand comments without ANY support.

All you said on the Christianity vs Scientology thread was "nothing alike." That's it. Two words. I didn't whine that you didn't agree with me. I asked you to explain. I was a little sarcastic in that request, but I was asking for an explanation.

On this thread, your whole comment was that it was a "circle jerk." No explanation as to why. When I asked you to explain, you give me this cryptic response that I should post in the atheist forum if I don't want to be challenged. Did you not read the part of my post that said, "if you disagree with my analysis, please explain"? I have not been running from being challenged. In case you haven't noticed (and I said it specifically in many posts, so it is pretty damn hard to miss), I am one of those that likes to come in here because it is a minefield. I LIKE mixing it up. You just aren't mixing it up.

If the whole of your analysis in response to me is going to be pithy one-liners with no support or explanation, then just put me on ignore or something because you usually have things to say. In this last exchange, you are kind of embarrassing yourself and your analytic ability in my opinion.

[okasha]

86. From the last line of your previous post--

the one about "damned if you do and damned if you don't." Iteresting choice of words there, by the way. It's amazing the number of atheists in this forum who seem preoccupied with the idea of eternal punishment they don't believe in at the hands of a god they don't believe in.

All you said on the Christianity vs Scientology thread was "nothing alike." That's it. Two words. I didn't whine that you didn't agree with me. I asked you to explain. I was a little sarcastic in that request, but I was asking for an explanation.

I said less than that, actually, since I haven't posted in that thread at all.

[Goblinmonger]

87. So because I'm atheist

I can't use cliches and euphamisms common to the culture? Seems a little unfair. And that wasn't me saying you shouldn't say I am wrong but saying that your attitude is that nothing is good enough.

My apologies about the Scientology thread. Too often I rely on avatars to identify people without double checking the name (I am a very visual learner). Such was the case here. Again, my apology.

[SPKrazy]

70. Ultimate Fighter?

LOL

[neebob]

75. Christianity is an awfully broad category

to compare to something like Scientology. There are dozens of varieties of Christianity that are all very different. Mormonism is Christianity, too, in my opinion, albeit with a twist. And Scientology is way out there, even compared to Mormonism. But Mormonism to Scientology would be a much easier comparison.

Was it your intention to take the different varieties and compare them, one by one, to Scientology? Because if you're going to do the big comparison, you have to take what they have in common, which is basically Jesus. Then you have to compare him and the immaculate conception and resurrection to the lord of Scientology - Xenu, is it? - and the body snatchers and the big volcano and the levels and whatever else.

I'm not saying it isn't interesting or valuable to attempt the comparisons, but we've all seen enough to expect it would be a problem. Did you honestly think that many Christians would want to try it?

[Goblinmonger]

82. Someone raised that issue.

I responded. It went no further for lack of interest. I think we could certainly make higher-level comparisons or people could specify which sect that are comparing.

[beam me up scottie]

58. Yeah, except you know where they are, so stop stepping on them.

You must love flame wars SPK, because you do everything in your power to pour gasoline on them.

Crying about getting burned after the fact is absurd.

[SPKrazy]

62. WTF?

what are you talking about?

[beam me up scottie]

63. On the "atheists persecute christians" threads, do you or don't you

agree with the premise?

I've seen you defend DU atheists and I appreciate it more than you know, but supporting the straw man that we constantly compare religious faith to belief in Santa Claus does pour gas on this particular fire.



edited to acknowledge that you didn't agree in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x85027">this thread and delete the word "usually".

most DU atheists who post in here admit they enjoy participating in some of the free-for-alls, why can't believers?

[SPKrazy]

64. That's A Minefield Of Questions There

on atheists persecute christian threads do you or don't you usually agree with the premise?

I don't think so. I might have at one time, but generally I don't feel persecuted, after all Christians control everything in this country to claim persecution would be erroneous, even on DU, right?

I defend DU atheists right to not believe, and the fact that they don't generally persecute christians. (that kind of goes against your original premise in this post)

I have seen the comparison to Santa Claus etc. over and over and over. That doesn't mean ALL atheists do it, but it is a constant thing, kind of like SOME believers persist in claiming that atheism is a belief system whereas I respect your right to say it isn't and won't criticize you for not calling it a belief system (despite the fact that I TRULY do not understand the premise or the upset, nevertheless, I respect it despite not understanding it, just as you do not understand belief and you DO respect the rights of people who do believe)

So, I'm still baffled at your retort that I like to pour gasoline on flame wars (despite the fact that I'm guilty of that sometimes) when all I did here was to agree with you that R/T is a minefield as I personally discovered in my first weeks posting here with one thread about not liking comparisons with Santa that had over 450 posts on it!

Peace BMUS

I'm really not trying to flame or pour gasoline here, especially on you!

:hug:

[beam me up scottie]

65. Sorry, see my edit.

You just get tired of the disruptors, we all do, that's why I asked if we shouldn't just boycott the ones who post flame bait?

Especially the self appointed experts who have no clue because they never post in here.

[Random_Australian]

78. Hope for civility enters the forum, a hug for you and one for spk. :)

As promised: :hug:

:D

I can barely describe how much I liked to see this end this way. I get tired of unnecessary fighting.

However I am still bang alongside necessary 'fighting' in the form of vigorous debate! :)

[Random_Australian]

77. What's that lassie? Is it hope for this forum after all, riding a

chestnut horse? No? Just riding a chestnut.... oh ok.

:hug:

for you and another one coming for bmus!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

80. This is maya (illusion)

And arguing over concepts is merely arguing.

What some might find interesting is to take a moment away from the computer screen and be in the moment. Let your conscious awareness dwell in your body and not your head, and be detached from thought-not fighting it, just watching it. Be aware of now.

Then come back here and discuss.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

88. Hmmmm

I think the atheists hereabouts are a genteel sort of folks and only bite when poked too hard.

There are some (not the regulars) who come across as thinking all theists are by definition idiots. Usually these are folks without any gray hair who do not yet need glasses and don't groan when they get up off the floor. I attribute their crassness to youthful stupidity.

For some reason I believe. I think I was born believing. I didn't get a lot of parental input into this. We didn't pray at home, etc. I just prefer to think I was chosen and some were not. (boy, is THAT going to piss some folks off!) But I see it as a gift. But as a people, if we all had the same gifts, we'd be very unbalanced, so it's all good.

[Random_Australian]

89. Why would that piss folks off?

Am I missing something?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

90. Well, it could imply (but I didn't mean it to)

that atheists are God's rejects. And I don't see it that way at all. I see them as a counterbalance. But I still see faith as a gift. I'm glad I have it, but I can see the advantages of not having it. Kind of when somebody gives you a puppy for Christmas. It's cute and all but you have to walk, get shots for it and it will chew up your shoes.

[Random_Australian]

91. "God's rejects" - Ah, I see!

Don't worry - saying you feel like God wants you to believe could not cause anger (well, it might if they misunderstand or someone wants to be mean but I could shoot them down), just so long as you don't start with I/we/the (insert some religion, nation, or group here) are Gods CHOSEN believers.

And if I know one thing about you, it is that you are NOT an arrogant SOB who thinks that God thinks they are better than other people.

You see, the main reason people give offence is because of how much one's God is a reflection of self - but often more subconsious. That way, I just automatically work out things about people from their Gods - merely by instinct, and as such "My God thinks I am better than you" = "I think I am better than you" - in fact, one of the main reasons you gained my respect was because your God was nice.

Don't take it personally, but when you don't believe in God, peoples beliefs are automatically attributed to themselves rather than the God.

I must say, it works. And people will admit things they would not otherwise - when someone says "My God does not like gays - it is not like I have anything against them personally" then you check if they are distressed... if yes, there is hope for them. If no, then watch out. :)

Note: The approximation only works for omniscient, infinite dieties! There are some Gods who won't tell you much at all about the believer!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

102. I've been thinking about this post

(uh oh) and I know I'm late to the party. But I was thinking that in my experience atheists don't often share the emotional component to their atheism. Those of us who are believers often wear it on our sleeve. I find that atheists, being above all, logical, are loathe to dig much deeper and therefore can come across as rather distant.

I have heard atheists express frustration at life in a theist world, and I have heard anger and impatience with folks attempting to define them too restrictively. What I have rarely heard is what it is like to live without God. Is it joyful? A huge relief? A loss to mourn? A sense of completeness, incompleteness, or none of the above?

[Random_Australian]

105. The thing is, lack of belief itself carries no information (other than

you don't believe in God), so each answer will be personally different....

HOWEVER, given that many started chose not to believe means that they weighed costs vs benefits - so I would therefore expect those who really liked their faith to choose to keep believing (bnefits win more often), and therefore there should be not many atheists who would answer "A loss to mourn"

For me? It just IS - what I feel is not affected by what I think of God. If it is a good day, it is happy. If it is not, it is sad or resolved to make things better.

So none of the above. The reason that many appear to be unemotive is you just don't feel using something that does not exist (the faith complex in the brain).

[TallahasseeGrannie]

106. Thanks for the insight, RA

and I'm assuming, then, you have never believed? Then it would make sense that you are giving nothing up. It just wasn't and isn't.

[Random_Australian]

107. I almost believed once.

Agnostic - verge of believer.

Then I ran into a little Psalm, and decided then and there that I was reading no Holy Book.

And that was that - if this was not holy, it was created by humans .If humans created this book, he could create the others. God left my world forever.

Explicit atheist for a short time after that.
Implicit atheist since.

(FWIW, I can't remember if it was OT or NT but the Psalm in question was 14:1)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

108. That IS a nasty little psalm,

isn't it?

Psalms are all OT, I believe. Not a Bible scholar by any means.

[Random_Australian]

113. Meh - in matters of religion, you do better than many a bible 'scholar'

(as in, people who just read whatever they want into the bible and find verses to match what they are thinking.)

[WritingIsMyReligion]

109. Living without God is living.

Nothing special or demented to it. An atheist's life is absolutely, entirely normal, only an atheist doesn't worship on Saturday/Sunday/whatever.

:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

111. That's another good question, TG, but one I personally can't answer.

Never having believed in God, I can't make a comparison.

Several ex-believers in this forum have commented on what it's like, though, and I think there may even have been a thread about it once.

I'd suggest starting another, but you know how that would end up.


sigh...