How dare you question my beliefs!

[Silent3]

Poll question: How dare you question my beliefs!

From the way some people talk about religious beliefs here, one might get the impression that not only is it a right for people to believe as they wish (that I have no trouble with), but that there's a right to unchallenged belief, that the state of belief, no matter what that belief is in, is a precious thing that must be cherished by all, and that attempting to change what someone believes is terrible kind of assault, even if that attempt is merely persuasive speech.

For some reason political beliefs, rather than religious beliefs, don't typically get this same kind of kid gloves treatment, and lack of belief is often a subject of open scorn (paradoxically, often by people who say lack of belief is also a belief, but who would be far more gingerly dealing with actual belief than they are with atheism).

[DontTreadOnMe]

1. lmao!

best poll ever!

[msongs]

2. believe what you want, just don't use it against me or impose it on me or mine nt

[HeresyLives]

3. People show up at my door all the time

questioning my beliefs. Even ones I don't have! :rofl:

[Warpy]

4. Hire a night nurse to crash on your couch

on weekends. Clear off so you don't wake said nurse up by accident.

Night nurses are RABID when awakened.

I got rid of the door knockers permanently. I was not a nice person when they'd wake me up after a 12 hour night shift. The assholes would see the car and lean on the bell and they would NOT go away since the car said "potential sucker at home."

When I greeted them wild haired and with murder in my eye and shrieked, "THIS PLACE BETTER BE ON FIRE!" they left.

Most of them have not been back for at least eleven years.

[grantcart]

5. I was reading something about Mormons and 8 and getting really really angry.

I was thinking to myself, "God why don't you send them my way when I actually have time to take them apart" (having some Seminary experience I am also a direct descendant of a Mormon President and the first Mayor of SLC and can use this to ruin their day) when the doorbell rang.

No it wasn't a Mormon. It was a Jehovah's Witness. She was young and by herself.

I fucked up bad.

I very nicely invited her in and started asking her questions and then got out my Annotated Oxford Bible and showed her that in fact the word, "Jehovah" does not in fact exist in the Bible. She then accepted that and said that "Yahweh" was the actual word I then proved to her that the word "Yahweh" in fact never existed in the Hebrew Bible. (Yahweh is the English rendering of יַהְוֶה, a vocalization of the Tetragrammaton in English rendered YHWH - for a discussion go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh ).

I then took control of the conversation and asked her 3 questions that I knew that she would get wrong.

She was starting to go through metaphysical meltdown and I could and should have let her off and told her to find a good Protestant Minister or Catholic Priest to give her the basics of her faith on a real Biblical foundation but I couldn't resist.

I then asked her who wrote the first five books of the Bible, referred to as the books of Moses, did she think that Moses really wrote all five books. And when she said yes I noted that it was a great trick to write about your own death.

I then listed all the things that she was wrong about and said that if she were a doctor I could sue her for malpractice and she was completely destroyed. I could tell by the way that she walked away that she would never knock on another door again. I wondered why she was there by herself, they always come in twos.

Well I realize that I had been a complete shit about the whole thing.

I blame the Mormons for getting me so pissed in the first place and then not showing up. Or God if He/She was punking me (or her). In any case I felt pretty bad about it and wished I had taken a more gentle approach.

So using the most extreme methods are not only counterproductive they actually make you feel like a piece of shit afterwards when you realize that you were just taking advantage of a person that didn't have your opportunities of getting a good education and who, in many ways, probably is a much better human being than you are.

[Silent3]

7. Most of my arguments about this sort of thing have be online...

...although I've had many in person too. I've certainly seen people get offended online, but I don't imagine I've very often sent someone hurtling toward an emotional breakdown -- not that I can see what's going on with someone's mood on the other side of the screen.

I never set out to torment someone, although I suppose on occasion that could be the effect when I'm doggedly in pursuit of a good answer and I think someone is being vague or evasive with me, or someone has said something that strikes me as stupid or misinformed, something that I have a hard time leaving standing unchallenged.

[skepticscott]

9. Think of it this way

You probably opened her eyes to things in a way that the people she knows never would have. Now maybe she has at least a chance for a normal life (whether religious or not), instead of living out her whole existence as a mindless JW zombie. She might even look back some day and be grateful.

[ZombieHorde]

14. asked her 3 questions that I knew that she would get wrong

What were those questions?

[grantcart]

18. Here they are

1) How many creation stories are there in Genesis - there are two that have been edited together. This is known by the radically different vocabulary that is used. One is cosimic - first day second day third day and uses the name "Eloheim" for God and is translated "Lord of Hosts" in most English language Bibles. The second one is intimate with "YHWH" taking a hands on approach in the garden with Adam and Eve.

2) What is the real miracle of Jonah? The real mircale is not surviving in a whales' stomache but that while Jonah was sulking he made a bush grow instantaneously to give him immediate shade in the same day only to have a worm come and eat the shrub and kill it the next day. Atleast the whale part has a theoretical possibility while the bush story reverses all known biological and physical rules of the universe. Jonah 4:6. In any case Jonah was meant to be read as fiction, not as an actual story.

3) What happens at the end of the book of Mark?

Mark the first Gospel written, and written by someone that was a contemporary of Peter and Jesus and written before 66 AD. Most lay people assume that the ending in their Bible with the apearences of the resurrected Jesus is the original ending. However many early manuscripts end at verse 8 simply with the empty tomb and terrified disciples and no contact with a risen Christ. When there is a significant change in manuscripts like this the logical and inescapable conclusion is that latter scribes, uncomfortable with an 'imperfect' ending have added 'improved endings', but the older manuscripts show what is almost certainly the original ending.

While somebody could argue that they think that the ending with the additions is the original ending (and that is highly doubtful) there is no way to argue that a person knows that to be the ending because there are in fact several endings because different scribes made additions at different times (which also reinforces the argument that Mark originally ended at verse 8).

[nodster]

6. You nailed it with this:

"For some reason political beliefs, rather than religious beliefs, don't typically get this same kind of kid gloves treatment".

Religion vs. politics. The biggest double standard of all time. And sooooo many here at the DU are guilty of it.

Take the atheist sign in Washington and apply it to politics.

Total Libertarianism/Socialism is myth. It could never work in this country. Legit opinion. Fair game to criticize.

Religion is a myth. INTOLERANT FUNDAMENTALIST BIGOT!

Conservatism hardens hearts and enslaves minds. Fair game.

Religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds. INTOLERANT FUNDAMENTALIST BIGOT!

Personally, I hold the opinion that religion is irrational. I also hold the opinion that conservatism is irrational. Yet, I'm only an intolerant bigot when I express the former.

Why?

[TheWraith]

8. I prefer not to discuss religion at all--it makes otherwise reasonable people unreliable.

If someone's being aggressive and doesn't know how to take a hint, though, I'll happily respond with a full salvo.

[cosmik debris]

10. In all the recent battles over signs and law suits

and the GWOC (Global War On Christmas), we have been told repeatedly that we should respect religious beliefs. But apparently religious beliefs are unique in their requirement of respect.

But I say an -ism is an -ism is an -ism. Theism and racism get exactly the same respect from me. And that's exactly the same respect I expect from others for my own -isms.

I'm a grown up, I can take it.

[MedleyMisty]

11. I generally go with the criticizing beliefs, not people idea

Although so many people identify personally with their beliefs that they interpret it as the same thing. And plus if I am tired and irritable and not watching what I say it can come out sounding rather personal even to people who can see the difference between a person and their beliefs.

[laconicsax]

12. It goes like this.

http://fleasnobbery.blogspot.com/

[elshiva]

13. Great cartoon. I agree.

:)

[Dogmudgeon]

15. "Valid rhetorical tools"

"My beliefs are correct; yours suck."

--p!
Also: "Help, help, I'm being oppressed!"

[Silent3]

20. Pretty much anyone who argues for any point of view...

...thinks that their point of view is better than another. (If someone don't thinks so, why argue? Unless maybe you're a lawyer and getting paid to argue for a viewpoint you might not really believe in.)

So, whether it's put forward so crudely or not, "My beliefs are correct; yours suck." is inherent in many discussions, even civilized discussions.

In fact you're actually doing very much the same thing in your post. You're calling out people who you consider to be obnoxious, who perhaps make uncalled-for claims of oppression, and, I think it can be reasonably inferred that there's an implied claim that your own approach to such matters is better than the approach you mock.

[Meshuga]

16. It depends on what people come here to do

I don't think there is a way out of flame wars when sarcasm and scorn is used against a believer or anyone when I want to focus on a particular subject and get my point across. The interaction would probably turn into ad hominem attacks and nothing would get accomplished. It would be a waste of virtual saliva. In other words, it would be a waste of precious time that I could be spending with people in the real world who deserve my attention.

It is fair game to challenge belief and concepts behind beliefs and ideas. After all, we are in the R/T forum. But if the intention is to discuss ideas then there is no reason to focus on the person. The focus should be on the idea. If people can't handle being questioned than this place might not be a good place for them.

I think a lot of believer here get upset because the humor, sarcasm, and scorn is sometimes based on assumption that believers are all the same and that they all subscribe to the beliefs being mocked. As long as people focus on the subject and is fair judging what the individual person's beliefs or lack of beliefs are, I think this place would be a lot milder. But what is a message board without misunderstanding, flame, and drama? :-)

[Marrah_G]

17. Questioning is one thing

Being rude and obnoxious is another.

If a person wants to have a real conversation about religion with me, then I welcome it.

If a person is rude, condescending or looking for a fight then I just walk away.

It really comes down to being respectful to one another.

[Silent3]

21. Sometimes there's no way to make a question or challenge...

...tough enough without risking offense, especially since many people find any challenge to what they believe, in and of itself, offensive.

Suppose you were talking to a right winger who, despite all that's becoming clear in the current economic mess, still adamantly maintains that the best thing for the economy is even more deregulation and more tax cuts for the rich (to whom this individual still refers to as "the most productive members of society").

Presuming that you don't just give up and walk away, that you don't politely try to change the subject, but actually continue to pursue an argument, how well would you meet the challenge of forming your argument in a respectful way? Even if you're respectful to the person, could you possibly muster much respect for the position this person is holding?

Since many people take disagreement with or disrespect for their ideas personally, are you sure you could clearly, unambiguously make the points you'd want to make against Bush-style economic policy while never crossing the line where someone might be offended?

[laconicsax]

25. The problem is that there's no polite way to ask most questions that challenge belief.

Generally speaking, asking someone to consider that they may be wrong about their religious views automatically implies, "Have you ever considered that you've wasted your life?" or "Is it possible that you've dedicated your life to a lie?"

There's no polite way to ask that, so why waste time trying to tiptoe around the core issue?

[Marrah_G]

26. I've had many conversations with my Athiest friends, none have become abusive.

They accept that I have beliefs that they don't. I accept that they do not believe in any sort of religion. We all agree that we have real issues with most modern religions and the problems that come with them.

[knitter4democracy]

30. Sure, there is.

Don't you have polite conversations with Republicans all the time? You're basically doing the same thing, but you can be polite about it.

[kwassa]

19. It is not the questioning that is the issue ....

it is the attitude of the questioner. Disrespect breeds disrespect. Why talk to anyone who is disrespectful to you? What would be the point of that?

[dmallind]

22. But where in this cycle do you propose we begin?

With the sarcastic atheist on an internet forum who belittles the intellect of a believer for disagreeing with them?

Or with the pious theist throughout the centuries and still a vast majority today who believe that a perfect and all loving god would, and should, burn the unbeliever throughout an eternity of agony for not agreeing with them?

It's a bit disingenuous to blame the former for starting the whole disrespect breeding surely?

And no I don't believe in hell, but then again believers rarely consider themselves intellectually inferior either so no difference there - it still boils down to which shows the most disrespect and which came first doesn't it? And since it does, can there really be any doubt?

[kwassa]

23. We need to keep this discussion local.

That is, if you are really are interested in having discussions with believers, belittling them will not encourage participation.

This forum is here, on DU, among progressive Democrats. Some are believers, some are not. What happens out in the larger world happens out there, not here. The idea that atheists are justified in actly badly here because of their treatment in the outside world isn't valid, in my opinion, because this is a specific community quite different than the outside world.

There have been productive discussions between theists and atheists before in this forum, though the tendency to throw verbal bombs is always present.

Speaking from my personal point of view, I really don't have a great interest in atheism, and rarely participate here for that reason. Other theists are more interested, and do participate in respectful discussions on the atheism vs. theism subjects of this conference.

Your characterization of believers covers only one part of the religious community, the conservative side. The vast majority of religious believers are not biblical literalists, which is a historically recent group, and ignores the large liberal religious community.

[dmallind]

24. I disagree

We talk about the real world don't we?

But even if we didn't I still disagree.

How many times have you seen Xians even on DU maintain the doctrine of selective salvation? (which no matter how much they try to mealy mouth it means damnation for the non-selected). How many of them poreach the only possible reconciliation of an omnibenevolent omnipotent god which is universal salvation? How many of them use the No True Scotsman instead of facing up to the wrong committed in their name? How many fail to stand up to the wrong committed in their name even? Who mentioned biblical literalists? You don't have to be a snake handler to make apologies for the dcotrine of hell, that is held by the large majority of Christians despite protestations of DU believers that they represent the kinder gentler majority belief. My contention is that this is itself self serving blindness if not lies, and that regardless of how kind and gentle individual DUers may be in theology or behavior, the faith they belong to certainly is not that way inclined.


If I said (of course this is entorely hypothetical) I was a PNAC member who campaigned for Bush but that most people in that group were really just perfectly benevolent folks who honestly saw what they were trying to do as a responsibel way to balance the budget and protect world peace, would you tell me I was bullshitting or say that "locally" that was correct and no DUer should be criticized for supporting that kinder gentler version of PNAC and the Bush cabal?

Why is a DUer falsely claiming that Christianity is really kind and gentle and tolerant for the most part and thus deserves only the most respectful of quiet disagreement any different, when we can see that regardless of what organized Chritsianity SHOULD be or even CAN be in some cases, most of it is in fact anything but?

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. Where is the answer, "What is so f-ing special about religion?"

It is a topic just like any other topic. I won't bring it up, but I'm not going to treat it with any greater or lesser regard than, say, a person's views on politics or their understanding of science.

[dmallind]

28. yet again somebody manages to say

in one sentence and with more clarity what I try to do in several paragraphs but end up obfuscating when I am trying to elucidate.

I really have to work on that pithy thing one of these days.

Well done.

[cosmik debris]

29. Remember Varkam's sig line?

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart -H.L. Mencken

[knitter4democracy]

31. I always believe in using diplomacy.

It's easy to forget that there are real people on the other side of the screen, and why should we deliberately humiliate and hurt people? Because they believe or have different beliefs? It doesn't change the fact that they're human and deserve respect, if just for that.