On Becoming a Bigot.

[varkam]

My girlfriend and I got into a fight a few weeks back at work. I was bashing religion, and she thought I was being too heavy-handed. Me, being the good little atheist that I am, thought different. "I have the data, the arguments, the examples - I'm not being heavy-handed! Religion is a blight upon humanity!" My girlfriend is Catholic, so she doesn't exactly agree with everything I say (not the least of which being the whole 'There is no God' thing). She said I was being a bigot. I'd never been called a bigot before, and so it knocked me a bit off kilter. I asked myself, was I being a bigot? I decided I wasn't and went on my merry way.

A little bit later that week, I started thinking about bigotry. I started thinking about the 'good' Christians I've met in my life. The Christians whom I aspire to be more like. The Christians who amazed me with their generosity, social feeling, and their compassion. I also thought about the Christians who also amazed me, but rather with their rancor, their hatred, and their rhetoric (e.g. Fred Phelps of www.godhatesfags.com fame). How was it that these two groups of people can both be Christians, and yet go about it so differently? How could Christianity be the outlet for such good and the cause for such evil at the same time? I decided that, while it was the common denominator, it wasn't the cause. I thought for a long time on the cause, and think I found an answer: certainty. Certainty was the difference. The real answer is probably more complex than that, but the Christians who've moved me have been ones who were never "certain" about moral or theological claims, but laid the faith of their entire being onto them. The Christians who repulsed me, were always certain. They were certain gays would burn in hell. Certain they were righteous. Certain about everything. This is not to say the 'good' Christians had any less faith at all, only that they were less certain. There is a distinction there, and I hope it's clear.

So how does this relate to me and my girlfriend? Well, I must have a pretty thick head, because it wasn't until this past weekend, somewhere between Birmingham and Memphis on I-65 N that I realized something. I've been guilty of the exact same fallacy. I've been just as certain as the parents who brought their kids to protest abortion clinics. Just as certain as Phelps et al. The only difference is that I've just been pressing it from the other side of the spectrum.

I've been ready and willing to cut people off at the knees to make my point. I've been ready and willing to insult and to dismiss. I've been ready and willing to fill in the blanks as soon as I heard the phrase "I am a Christian". I've been just the same as Phelps et. al. Just the same as those starry eyed missionaries that came into my home and told me I was going to burn. Just the same. I don't want to be the flip side of the same coin. I want to be a different coin entirely. If not already a bigot, I've certainly been becoming one. And I don't use that term loosely. People don't deserve to be treated that way. You deserve better, I deserve better, and we deserve it from one another.

I think a lot of this relates to my signature quote from my man Bertrand Russell. Only thing is, I figured I was a member of the 'wiser people' category.

[InaneAnanity]

1. I don't think rational people...

...can ever be as certain of something as fundamentalist christians can be.

There are degrees of certitude, but I think how you get to your certainty is important. If you evaluate all the available evidence continuously to become more and more certain you are correct, that is one thing. If you think god told you something, and that is where you draw your certitude, that is something entirely different.

[LearnedHand]

2. Wow! Just wow.

Very well-stated. Excellent insight. I think the thing that finally drove me away from religion is that I realized I didn't NEED to be certain of every unknown. I decided I was comfortable enough with uncertainty and ambiguity that I never needed those canned answers again.

[hwmnbn]

3. That is quite an acknowledgment .....

My criteria is what do those individual christians do and say? If there is love and a positive outlook on their fellow man, I call them cool. If there is hatred and a negative outlook on their fellow man, I call them assholes.

It's not the labels that tell me what's so, it's their actions.

I don't consider that bigotry, I call that discernment.

[madeline_con]

4. I think you've got it all (o.k., some of it) wrong...

Those "Christians" who amazed you, like Phelps are NOT Christians.

You say you're an atheist. I don't know if you've read the Bible or not. My point is, Jesus Christ did not teach the version of "Christianity" that scum such as Phelps spew.

Calling oneself a Christian and being one are two different things. I have decided to call myself a tiger. We'll see what good that does me. ;)

[InaneAnanity]

5. If a person calls themselves a christian...

...they are a christian.

Maybe not a good one in your opinion, but theyre certainly still a christian.

[BIgJohn83]

20. I dunno...

Going to Church makes you as much of a christian as going to a garage makes you a car...

[madeline_con]

95. My point exactly.

Millions of people go to church, whom Jesus would kick out like money changers if he was here in the flesh. ;)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

76. Not quite.

In the same way that calling myself an aubergine doesn't make me an aubergine.

It's certainly not the case, however, that people who don't live lives according to Christian morality aren't Christians, which I think it probably the point you wanted to make?

I would roughly define a Christian as someone who believes that Jesus was the son of God and that the Bible is the revealed word of God.

In most cases it's fairly obvious whether someone is Christian or not. The only common times it becomes dubious is when you get weird little syncretic (is that the word I mean?) groups who believe a) that Jesus was the son of God etc, and b) lots of other stuff that contradicts that about Mohammed, Buddha, space aliens, yoghurt etc.

[madeline_con]

96. Yes, to an extent, I agree....

Lots of people believe with all their hearts that Jesus is the son of God.

They may also believe that they'll be "raptured up", that they are somehow holier than many of the rest of us because we don't believe the hateful, racist part of their pastors' interpretation of the Bible.

Maybe what I'm saying is, no matter how loud hey shout, "I'm Christian," their perception of the meaning of that is just wrong.

[madeline_con]

94. Christian is as Christian does.

I can CALL myself anything, including the Queeen of England. That does not make me what I call myself.

It is only by following the teachings of Jesus that one is a true Christian.

[InaneAnanity]

106. If that helps you...

...ignore the mind-blowing atrocities that have been committed in the name of christ, by all means, keep it up!!! I don't want to bring your self-serving worldview crashing down.

[madeline_con]

107. You obviously misunderstood the post.

I never once mentioned any "mind blowing atrocities. Where'd that come from?

You can tell everyone you encounter that you're a squirrel. It will not make you one.

[InaneAnanity]

113. Not the same

I couldn't be a squirrel if I wanted to.

Being christian is very possible. If they say they are a christian, they are a christian.

[madeline_con]

122. "I couldn't be a squirrel if I wanted to."

Nor can one be a Christian by merely uttering the words.

I once "converted" to Islam to get into an Arab country to live with my then husband. It did not make me a Muslim, "good" or "bad".

There are very clear guidelines that many self-proclaimed Christians ignore. It's like living on bread and pasta while telling everyone you're on a low-carb diet. Saying does NOT make it happen.

[beam me up scottie]

129. No one can know what another person believes.

If someone says they believe in the christian god, how can you say they don't?

[madeline_con]

150. I can tell by their actions.

They may think they believe in Jesus' teachings. They may think their racist, elitist, holier than thou attitude is perfectly in line with what the Christ told his followers.

But that's my point. Whatever the likes of Phelps, Falwell et al may SAY they are, it's their entire mindset that gives them away. No how no way would Jesus ever have said and done the hateful hurtful things these types do.

It's like my analogy of the low-carb diet. I can tell everybody I'm on it, but if I eat bread and pasta exclusively, my actions negate my words. There is a set of beliefs, not a laundry list of hate, mind you, that expalins what a Christian is. A true Christian would be ashamed to be like these slimeballs.

As for my own beliefs, I'm still exploring differing beliefs in order to get a perspective on what may have been the original MSG Jesus, the Buddha, and others may have been trying to convey before the powers that were and the politicos of the times got hold of it and tuned into something obscene; something to spark Crusades, Inqusitions and Jihad, for example.

[trotsky]

153. All you can tell...

is that they're not a Christian just like you. They have interpreted the bible one way, and you have done it another. How can we truly know who's right and who's wrong? If it were possible, would we have the hundreds of Christian sects we see today? Would Luther have split from the Catholic Church? The Catholics from the Orthodox?

Jesus' message wasn't all tulips and sunbeams, you know. Couple that with Paul's writings (which ARE part of the bible, you know) and the screwy stuff in Revelations, and their faith is just as biblically-based as yours. You BOTH are picking & choosing as to which parts you think come from god and which don't.

[madeline_con]

155. But the basic tenants...

are about love and "tulips and sunbeams", as you put it.

(As for Paul, I think he was a homophobic person with issues.)

I can't be responsible for what some twisted individuals may do in the name of a particular religion. Others using atrocities, etc as proof of Christianity being a viloent horrible belief system are lumping millions in the same boat as Muslims who are labeled terrorists because of some deranged people who CALL THEMSELVES Muslim. It's all the same.

I can't get freaks to stop hating "in the name of the lord". Not in any real practical sense.I do take every opportunity to point out that they're WRONG loudly and with a lot of passion when the subject arises, though.


I try to study the meaning of what Jesus taught, that's all. His reported quotes and actions. I never liked Paul. :)

[trotsky]

156. I understand you're not responsible for them.

But you're missing the point. As vehemently as YOU think that THEY aren't Christians, I assure you they think the same about you.

And you can both argue until you're blue in the face or until your Jesus comes back, and there will be no resolution.

That's the danger in revealed religions like Christianity or Islam - there's just no objective "touchstone" to determine who has interpreted things correctly. You might think you've got it down perfectly, but there's no way to prove it, no way to demonstrate it to anyone else.

[hunter]

159. Where's this "objective touchstone" you speak of?

The divisions you cite between religions are the sames sorts of divisions that exist between all humanity.

In the broader scheme of such things as racism, patriotism, and nationalism, are every bit as dangerous as religion.

That same magic wand you would use to wave away religion, I would use against these "isms."

Let everyone recognize we are all brothers and sisters sharing one tiny planet.

[trotsky]

160. Um, that's the point.

There is no such touchstone.

[hunter]

164. But Christianity is a "touchstone" of my own humanism.

The difference between myself and the "fundamentalist" Christian is that I recognize how my neighbor can have a perfectly fine moral and ethical compass without invoking my God. An atheist or a follower of any number of religions can be a better person than I am, even in the eyes of my own God.

I am no Gandhi, or Martin Luther King Jr., or any of the great people who have made the world a better place by the strength of their convictions, religious or not.

Christianity does not have a monopoly on the truth.

[trotsky]

165. OK, but how does that apply to what I said?

The problem is in the total impossibility for most religious viewpoints to be reconciled. A personal touchstone is more of the same - no one else will see your touchstone exactly as you do.

[hunter]

167. There's a "total impossibility for" most "viewpoints to be reconciled."

Even scientific viewpoints. I remember debates about the taxonomy of poison oak and its relatives that were as brutal as any religious debate.

[trotsky]

168. Completely different.

Eventually, a consensus will be reached. A rogue group of scientists won't split off and create their own taxonomic system because everybody else didn't like where they put poison oak.

[hunter]

169. No it's not.

There are many issues in science that have everything to do about the process of describing things, and little to do with the actual scientific facts.

Science is also rife with unsubstantiated speculations. Quantum Gravity, String Theory, The Origin of Life... these all involve speculations that are unlikely to be substantiated anytime soon.

It is quite common for "rogue" groups of scientists to split off from the mainstream over issues non-scientists would see as very trivial distinctions. These breakups can be every bit as messy and acrimonious as the breakups we see in Protestant churches. If you want to look into something interesting check out the history of calculus. The conflicts between followers of Newton and followers of Leibniz were very similar to religious conflicts.

A more current issue is the debates in taxonomy between those who would rapidly bring naming systems into closer agreement with the genetic evidence, and those who advocate a more conservative approach.

Going back to the point of the original post, of respecting other people's theisms and atheisms, I personally don't believe the insubstantiality of religion is an important part of the argument. All our substantial knowledge of the universe is very close to nothing in comparison to the sum total of all possible knowledge. Even if all of religion is insubstantial, it's not all that different than science. The universe is very big, the human mind is very small.

The problem with religion has always been those who would impose their religious views upon others by force or by deception. These aspects of religion are worthy of our opposition. The Constitutional separations between church and state must be defended. But we must also respect that religion is a very important part of many communities. To dismiss religion as something unsubstantial is to dismiss these communities.

[trotsky]

170. We will have to disagree.

There are many issues in science that have everything to do about the process of describing things, and little to do with the actual scientific facts.

That's true. But what's unique about science is that those areas are noted as such. Disagreement is going to happen, until we get more facts. (See below for more on this.)

If you want to look into something interesting check out the history of calculus. The conflicts between followers of Newton and followers of Leibniz were very similar to religious conflicts.

Yeah, they launched lots of crusades and burned heretics at the stake. Totally similar, I see your point. :sarcasm: Seriously, though, this dispute was primarily about who had "discovered" calculus first, and whose notation to use. Today we all use calculus (well not all of us) in the same way, with Leibniz' notation. Your example ends up supporting my assertion - the scientific discipline all got on the same page.

All our substantial knowledge of the universe is very close to nothing in comparison to the sum total of all possible knowledge. Even if all of religion is insubstantial, it's not all that different than science. The universe is very big, the human mind is very small.

What you're stating here is basically the old "god of the gaps" concept. As long as there's something in the universe that science doesn't know, god could still be hiding there, right?

To dismiss religion as something unsubstantial is to dismiss these communities.

Darn good thing I didn't do that, eh? What I did say is that religion has absolutely no mechanism by which disputes can reliably be solved. Disputes in science generally stem from having an incomplete picture. People postulate what isn't known, and can become emotionally attached to their theories. But when the facts come in, science (at least "mainstream" science) lines right up behind them, and moves on.

Can't say that happens with religion.

Let me try to state it this way: there is no objective touchstone for religion to resolve differences. If there's a god, he/she/it can't be bothered to set the record straight. And while some areas of science may not have a definitive touchstone right now, there's nothing to say that one won't eventually come about, once we gain enough knowledge. That's been the pattern throughout history, and I see no reason why it won't continue.

[hunter]

171. It's all about evolution, not any concession to "facts."

What works is expressed, what doesn't work is not.

Science is simply more aware of its own evolutionary processes than other human institutions.

Take for example the Catholic Church. There are many mechanisms by which disputes are resolved within the Church. These are not "scientific" mechanisms, and often the evolutionary process is excrutiatingly slow, but the Catholic Church has certainly evolved, often in positive ways, during the last 2000 years. If we are speaking of changes that will eventually come about within the church, who knows? The church will adapt to its environment, or it will pass away.

The "god of the gaps" does not apply to my argument with you. I am arguing here that science does not (yet?) have the breadth required to be the sole engine of human ethical progress. Nor would I argue that any belief in God is required for this ethical progress. But in my own experience much of the force behind the expansion of civil rights (or at least against the erosion of civil rights) in the United States is going to come from people whose religion is most certainly the "touchstone" they base their progressive activism on. For that political reason alone religion must be respected.

[trotsky]

172. Without a proven mechanism by which religion can correct itself,

or especially be corrected by others, I'm sorry but I don't think it deserves to be respected. Too dangerous.

[DeaconNoGood]

130. the mark of a Christian

Paul teaches in Galatians Chap #5 to "serve one another in love" and "live by the Spirit".

In verse 22 & 23 Paul says that the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Saying the words not make you a Christian. As it says in verse 24-26 - Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

IMHO it can sometimes take a lifetime before one truly exhibits all the traits of Jesus.

[beam me up scottie]

131. You're high

if you think anybody can EVER "truly exhibit all the traits of Jesus".

So there are no true christians.

The fundies believe liberals cannot be true christians, why are you a qualified judge and they are not?

[madeline_con]

151. I think the point is to try.

No one really expects to become "Christ-like", but most people know when someone's way off the mark. Those who follow the fundamentalist freaks aren't smart enough to know the difference. Their leaders count on that. They're the type who reads the "Left Behind" books, and other than "TV Guide", it's the only book besides the Bible they own. Not very sharp, to say the least.

Most fundies I've met are really quite stupid in a lot of ways. Mind-bogglingly exasperating comes to mind, as well. I sometimes wonder how they breathe with their heads so far up.... :puke:

[beam me up scottie]

158. I agree with you there.

Even if some of the fundies have the capability to think for themselves, they are too lazy or afraid to do it.

Unfortunately, the dogmatic bad deacon is no longer with us.

A pity, I would have liked to hear how many people he thinks ever "truly exhibit all the traits of Jesus."

[madeline_con]

152. "serve one another in love"

Some people only serve each other. Those not members of their little cult are excluded and shunned as unclean and not to be associated with.

They run around inviting people to watch the "Left Behind" movies at their church, so they can cheer the abuse and murder, AT THE HANDS OF JESUS (had to emphasize that!!!), that those insane productions
showcase.

First of all, the rapture is invented B.S. used to scare the ignorant into voting a particular way, in a blatant attempt to seize the American government, so our freedoms can be systematically stripped away. If these people had their way, there would be no public schools, no legal abortion, no social programs for the poor. The U.S. would be absolutely mideival, with people who didn't toe the line being stoned to death in the streets.

"IMHO it can sometimes take a lifetime before one truly exhibits all the traits of Jesus."

While the likes of Phelps, Robertson, Falwell etc are kidding themselves if they think they exhibit an iota. Their souls are so black, they'll need to reincarnate as pond scum and start over.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

154. I don't agree.

I think that the definition of a Christian (I'm not sure that adding the adjective "true" helps) is someone who believes they are trying to follow said teachings, not someone who actually is doing so.

[Zhade]

10. Sorry to differ, but yes, they are Christians. Bad Christians.

A chosen belief system, unlike your physical form, is malleable. You can practice whatever faith you wish. You can't become whatever animal you wish.

Liberal Christians and ones like Phelps differ significantly in their interpretation of the religion they claim. Since one cannot look into another's mind and determine that they really don't believe what they claim to believe (it's a lie to say anyone can determine those innermost thoughts), all we have to go on is what they say they believe in.

If a liberal Christian claims the title, we only have their word that they are Christian. To Phelps, that liberal is not a Christian. To the liberal, Phelps is not - but neither can actually discern what the other truly believes.

Saying that Christians who do horrible things (based on their version of Christianity) aren't "real" Christians is saying that 'Christian' always equals 'good'. That's simply untrue.

I wish it WERE true, but it's not.

[madeline_con]

108. Phelps uses the Bible to justify hatred.

No matter what he SAYS, he is not a Christian. Anyone can twist something to mean something other than what's intended. That doesn't mean they're following the real meaning of the teacher.

Say a Biology teacher has a class where they all disect a frog. Someone who said biology is just another word for vivisection would be wrong, wouldn't they?

[beam me up scottie]

132. So you have intimate knowledge that Phelps doesn't believe in god?

At least, in the christian god?

Can you prove it?

[TygrBright]

6. Profound insight.

Hang onto it. It's easy to lose sight of. And people will try to talk you out of it, too.

FWIW, everything I've experienced completely validates this.

bemusedly,
Bright

(BTW, Christians... the kind that *aren't* certain... have a word for this whole thing. It's called "humility," and it doesn't mean what most people think it means.)

[lvx35]

7. Right on!!!

That post just made my night. That, my friend, is it right there. You have just converted to my "religion" as far as I am concerned. The real evil people in this world all have absolutism in their ideas, whether religious in basis or otherwise. If you like at great religious leaders, people like Martin Luther King and Gandhi, you will see in every one that sense of not knowing, but stumbling ahead anyway with their concept of God, often yeilding unexpectedly rich ideas about God. Such as Gandhi saying: "God is conscience. He is even the atheism of the atheist."

But yeah, I think that's awesome. I wish not knowing the nature of God was a religion, I would convert today! :)

[Desertrose]

8. I think you had what is sometimes referred to as

an "AHA" moment....or an "epiphany".

I tend to agree with you...absolutism and/or fundamentalism leaves very little room to be able to see any other point of view...and there is usually more than one. :)

Good for you. :thumbsup:
DR

[Zhade]

9. The difference lies in humility versus arrogance.

I'm an atheist, but I'm not arrogant enough to say "there are no gods" versus "I've seen no evidence of gods, so I don't believe in any".

The best, most awesome believers (of all kinds) I've ever met are the ones who aren't certain their beliefs are completely true, aren't certain that miracles actually happened, aren't certain their holy books are 100% literally true Words From God. They're just as uncertain in some ways as I am - we just differ on one basic assumption: they assume god(s) exist, I don't.

Doesn't make me a better person, doesn't make them a better person. We're just different. And the best thing about these believers is that they are NEVER so certain in their faith that they feel they can judge - and thus persecute - me or others.

Great post. I love seeing personal growth like this! :toast:

[Maat]

100. Great post, Zhade.

And the Original Poster's post was excellent also!

I agree.

Zhade, you and I have discussed this before, and I agree with you. I attend Church of Religious Science, and visit my Unitarian-Universalist church several times a year.

And I believe in honoring all paths.

I agree - only I would phrase it, "I'm virtually certain my beliefs work for me for the most part for the moment, but that EXACT belief system probably isn't going to work for anyone else. That's why we each have an individual path. And I'm always discarding things from my belief system, and adding new things - and that's what you are talking about; there is no rigid continuity. And, of course, I have no Holy Book to the exclusion of all others."

I believe that an Atheist friend is every bit as divine, and his/her beliefs equally legitimate. It is fun to discuss different beliefs.

I believe that we are all equally divine, although it is hard for me to conceive of the reason Fred Phelps is here (maybe just to show us what a true jacka** is).

I SO agree that I do not have the right to judge or persecute (but I'm having a problem right now with the Phelps thing - if I saw him, I might want to slap him silly ... ummmm ... but I wouldn't ... 'cause I'd go to jail AND earn bad kharma).

Thanks again for the posts!

[supernova]

11. I think I love you, varkam

:applause: :applause:

I don't want to be the flip side of the same coin. I want to be a different coin entirely.

Amen, preach it, brother! (So, to speak. ;-) )

[shrike]

12. The older I get

the more I begin to believe that goodness is innate in some people -- and bigotry, even evil, are innate in others.

Some of the worst bigots I've ever met are atheists. (Watching a group of atheists sit around and bash each other on the "finer" points was a rather surreal experience.) And some of the worst bigots I've ever met are Christians. God-fearing ones, so to speak. The kind that go to church every Sunday yet tell me (a Catholic) and my nephew (a Mormon) that we each belong to a cult. Thank you very much . . .

What this all means in the greater scheme of things I do not know. My husband, a deist on his good days, exemplifies Christian principles better than anyone I know. (He has read scripture and thinks Christian ideals -- 'when I was hungry, you gave me food/when I was thirsty, you gave me drink' -- are a good way to live your life. He just isn't into the "divinely inspired" aspect.) So what am I to make of that?

Varkam, if you can sit down and examine yourself in this fashion, you must not be a TRUE bigot. You're just undergoing a growth experience. And, you're growing in the right direction, I must say.

[trotsky]

13. Good for you.

I know there's quite a few Christians that can learn from your experience, too.

[Strong Atheist]

14. I have nothing against "certainty", either in religious people or in

the non-religious...:evilgrin:

Other attributes make up bigotry, not certainty... Certainty by itself is not a bad thing ...

[manic expression]

44. True n/t

[Strong Atheist]

87. Well, then we agree on this point.

:toast:

[JerseygirlCT]

15. Terrific, enlightened post. Thank you! nt

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[arwalden]

17. Oh Brother... More "Love The Sinner, Hate The Sin" Bullshit!

Good grief! I fucking despise that crap!

It's just a more gentle and stealthy way to be bigoted against homosexuals and easily get away with it. It's a very convenient way to label people as being "inferior" or "less worthy" or "rebellious", or (as you say) "disappointing" sinners.

Yet... when folks like that are taken to task on the matter, they often look at you all doe-eyed with that "who-me" expression, and claim it all comes-from-love.

Absolute. Horse. Shit.

[hunter]

18. I'll be praying for you, arwalden....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA...!

:evilgrin:

[arwalden]

19. Precisely!

:rofl:

What's the best response for that line anyway? Something like: "I'll be thinking for you" perhaps?

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[arwalden]

42. Uh... No. I Didn't Miss The Point. You've Made It Abundantly Clear

<<You can disgaree with their actions and still love them.>>

Our "actions"??? What a BIGOTED thing to say! Are you SURE you're not a HOMOPHOBE?

Why else would you try to use the same language and talking points that BIGOTS use? You know... like trying to paint homosexuals as having "chosen" to be "sinners" and live this "deviant lifestyle" of "decadence" and "impurity".

<<I don't have to approve of murder, but that doesn't mean I must hate the murderer. >>

Oh you really ARE following the BIGOTS' playbook, aren't you? Comparing homosexuals with murderers? What's next, comparisons with kleptomaniacs, and pedophiles?

<<In fact, Christians are supposed to love him and minister unto him, teaching Christ love, etc. >>

Ah-ha... just as I predicted. Of course you have to wrap all this BLATANT HOMOPHOBIC BIGOTRY in a nice neat package with the "love-bow" on top. It's all done out of "love", right?

Give me a fucking break!

[Zhade]

49. You're still bigoted.

1) You don't 'know' that 'god' (if any exists) dislikes homosexuality.

2) Your post obviously condemns homosexuality as something bad.

3) It also surmises that, 'despite this badness', 'god' loves us anyway. As if we're somehow flawed.

We're not. Your view toward us, however, most decidedly is.

[Maat]

101. I guess you guys got to read the disgusting posts.

I didn't; I missed 'em.

Good replies.

My GLBTQ friends radiate beauty and courage.

Thanks for addressing the apparent arrogance and bigotry in the deleted posts (like I said, I missed it - at least there is some indication of what they were about).

Good job, Zhade!

[Jo March]

30. No, it doesn't mean that we can be bigoted and get with it

We are still held to love our neighbor as ourselves. That is what Jesus said is the most important commandment. We cannot love our neighbor as ourselves if we are bigoted against homosexuals or adulterers or theives or murderers or someone who covets our ass.

It.doesn't.work.that.way.

You cannot be a bigot and love your neighbor as you love yourself. It doesn't work that way at all. I have a friend who cheated on her husband. I hate that sin but I love her - she is my friend. See how that works? Anything that leads you to hating your neighbor (bigotry) is not following Christ's teachings on the matter.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arwalden]

46. So How Do You Feel About Comparing Homosexuals To Murderers...

... adulterers, kleptomaniacs, and pedophiles?

Do you see how offensive that is? Should bigots be given a free-pass because they claim that their bigotry is actually a manifestation of "god's love"?

Do you think that the targets of the bigotry are fooled by the "love-the-sinner" bullshit?

Being a homosexual is as natural to me as breathing is to you. Yet the stealth bigots on this forum (and in real life) think that it's okay to condemn me as long as it's done in the name of religion.

And if I speak up and fight back, then I'm being "intolerant". See how that works? Not very Christ-like, is it?

[Jo March]

81. No, you are not intolerant! Not at all!

Standing up to bigots, whether they are outright bigots or those who use the clock of religion to hide their bigotry, is the RIGHT thing to do.

Homosexuality = murder? No - they are not the same. Saying that God views all sin the same doesn't mean that homosexuality is the same as murder. It should mean that God views all sin the same. There is no big or little sin, just sin.

People who say that being gay is the same thing as murdering someone are perverting the Scriptures. They are totally missing the point and are trying to whip up a frenzy in order to try and justify their hatred of gays. I don't hear the same folks getting all upset about someone who covets, do you? See? Those type of people are cherry-picking what they think supports their hatred and intolerance. They are sad people and they will have to answer for their hatred.

I believe that a person is either born a homosexual or a hetrosexual just like some folks are born left-handed or right-handed.

If anyone condemns you in the name of religion, that's pathetic and wrong and very non Christ-like.

Christ embraced everyone regardless. That's why He was hated so much by the Romans and some old-school Jewish leaders. Christ believed that everyone was equal under God and loved equally by God. As a follower of Christ, I have to love others equally. We all should.

I don't tolerate bigotry of any kind. I don't like bigots. I will not stand for racist jokes or jokes against homosexuals or anyone who is different from me.

We all have to fight bigotry - every one of us. We'll never wipe it completely out but we can surely try and wipe it off the face of the earth.

I am on your side, arwalden. I don't think any differently of you than I do anyone else. You and I are equals in the sight of God. To think anything less is simply unacceptable to me.

:loveya:

[arwalden]

82. Glad To Hear It!

:-)

[DeaconNoGood]

134. a little story from John 8....

One day some guys dragged a woman up to Jesus and said they just caught her in the act of f*cking someone who was not her husband. The religiouszots were standing their and knew that the punishment for adultry was stoning. She was dead meat. Jesus knew she was guilty as accused.

He asked the guys with stones in their hands, "If anyone of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her". Of course, everybody who was holding a stone began to drop them in the dirt. The woman didn't get hit with one rock.

After the crowd was gone Jesus asked the woman "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

She said, "No one, sir."

Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared.

"Go now and leave your life of sin."

THE MORAL OF THE STORY - We are all sinners. We all need God's grace, mercy and forgiveness for the sin in our own life. We are to flee from sin.

arnheim - good post in regards to loving all people.

[hunter]

136. Here we go again...

Are you impling that homosexuality is a sin, but we shouldn't stone homosexuals to death?

How very sweet.

:sarcasm:

[madeline_con]

109. Please answer a question.

Do you believe those who spew hatred at you in the "name of the lord" or whatever are true Christians, just becase they claim to be?

I keep getting feedback saying sure they are, just BAD Christians and comments like that.
My take is, calling oneself Chrisitan isn't all it takes to be one.

[varkam]

112. Methinks yes

Christians all believe in the same general set of rules and principles. Namely, there is a God. Jesus rose from the dead. There is eternity in the afterlife, etc. The core principles of Christianity, or those principles that *all* Christians adhere to, is what is necessary to be a Christian. I know that's a bit of question begging, but I suppose my point is that, at the core, all Christians have a few principles and beliefs in common with one another.

The problem comes from interpretation (and, as I've tried to point out, the certainty in one's own interpretations). This is largely because most of the bible is open to interpretation (at least, the parts that I have read). Take Leviticus for example. One of the things that he says is that man should not lie with another man, for it is an abomination - that's the bit usually taken as biblical support for viewing homosexuals as sinners. But oft is forgotten what else Leviticus says - women are unclean for an hour following bowel movements (and for their menstrual cycle), men should not shave their beards, etc. Who is to say that these are not moral issues as well? They're certainly in the bible.

In short, the bible doesn't come with a reader's guide that tells you which parts are good and which parts are safe to skim.

[madeline_con]

115. "The problem comes from interpretation ..."

I hear a lot of "it's God's word" and things like "It's inspired by God". I see both as two ways of saying the same thing, which is, "Here's what I think about God".

But, using my own logic, how do I know Jesus was as nice a guy as he's portrayed in the NT? :shrug:

[arwalden]

135. Yes, I Believe People Who Call Theselves Christians Really ARE Christians.

Why shouldn't I take them at their word?

What right do I have to tell someone that they aren't "real" Christians just because I disagree with them?

Who gets to define what a "true" Christian is anyway?

Are there "degrees" of being a Christian?

[trotsky]

21. How do you know God doesn't like homosexuality?

He loved David, and we all know about his special relationship with Jonathan.

[ThJ]

29. Oh boy...

The idea that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship requires quite a leap.

Otherwise, the Bible often states in the Old, as in the New Testament, that homosexuality is not permitted. And again, God loves everyone regardless; although he might not approve of your actions. Sin is all the same in God's eyes - it doesn't matter if is murder, lust, or a lie.

[trotsky]

38. David and Jonathan

Actually, quite a few serious biblical scholars feel there was more to their relationship than just friendship.

The bible also says that you shouldn't eat shellfish or pigs. DO YOU?

The bible says you shouldn't wear mixed fabrics. You don't have a 50/50 cotton-poly T-shirt on, DO YOU?

The New Testament even says that women can't teach in church and should remain silent. Does YOUR church follow that?

[JerseygirlCT]

98. In fact, in one place, the NT says the last

and in another, completely contradicts that.

Which goes to show that none of it was ever intended as a rule book.

[JerseygirlCT]

97. Nope, that's one interpretation -- at least for the NT

part.

It's the one most easily assumed by people eager to find a rationale for a bias against homosexuals. But it's most certainly NOT the only way to interpret Paul's words. And the gospels? Nothing to say whatever on the topic.

Now the OT, in Leviticus, certainly has a pretty damning bit. But unless you're also spending time worrying about whether you're wearing clothing made from different fibers, stoning people for adultry and eschewing all matter of shellfish and pork, I'd say we're hitting a hypocracy wall with that.

[madeline_con]

110. So, I lie and I get to burn in hell like a murderer?

Heaven won't have much of a population. :eyes:

[Turn CO Blue]

24. Why does your God live in such a tiny little box? Quick! Quick!

Let him out!

This incompetent teaching that you have received "love the sinner, hate the sin" is one of the reasons that I left organized church. It is one of the most illogical statements ever and is nothing more than just putting a pretty face on homophobia. This teaching still insists that "God hates fags" -- it just says it in a nicer way. Well, you don't have any empirical evidence that God cares one whit one way or the other, except your Bible verses. I should note that your Bible also insists that women never cut their hair and that women live in separate tents during menstruation -- yet look around next time at all the short-haired women at your church or cell group. How many are menstruating? Who could tell? How many of them sit around in tents four days a month? Who would care and why should God, of all Creatures?

Dear ThJ -- Christian friend -- please, please consider the reason that most teaching is cherry-picking the Bible verses! And I challenge you to seriously question your heart and mind as to why you take the homosexuality verses so literally and seriously above other "don't do this - don't eat that - this is unclean" verses.

Your God created many species of animals including humans who practice homosexuality. Period. Observational science has proved this repeatedly. Homosexuals come wired that way, and it's long past time you faced that truth. The TRUTH! Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice because they are "sinners". It is the way they were made to function (their brains and genes are structured that way.) Therefore how could your God hate that since you believe Him to be the Creator and the Designer?

I certainly don't want you to take this personally, because I am really trying to be respectful, but I really wish your version of God -- this angry, judgmental, hypocrytical God of "god hates the sin but loves the sinner" evangelical, fundamentalism fame -- would just fade into history like all the gods of Mount Olympus and ancient Egypt -- where He belongs. But that is just my own opinion and does not represent the opinions of anyone else on this board or in the world.

I am sorry for such a long reply, but your post hit a nerve and I am not even gay. I AM a recovering Christian, however.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[WhollyHeretic]

36. "whether they are homosexuals, liars, murderers, adulterers"-Feel the love

There is nothing immoral about homosexuality. What is freakin' disgusting is comparing it to lying, murdering, or adultery. Why don't you take your hatred elsewhere.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[arwalden]

43. I Think We All Know Exactly Where You Stand.

I live with this shit every single day... it's pretty easy to spot folks like you.

[arwalden]

47. And Now We All Know Exactly Where He's BURIED

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=103081

[Zhade]

72. Sweet, the nazi fuck's gone.

Good work in ridding DU of scum, mods!

[DeaconNoGood]

133. recovering Christian - whats that?

How does one recover from Christianity?

[erinlough]

166. For me it involved opening my eyes,

and asking why I would spend time in a pursuit that taught me fear, hate, bigotry, judgmentalism, crossing off entire segments of society and dooming them to hell for not believing like me. Once I questioned I never went back.

[JerseygirlCT]

137. I'm still a Christian, but I agree with you.

I truly think that a great many people are LOOKING for reasons to support an ingrained fear and therefore hatred of homosexuality. Just as they've done with women, too.

It's time to heed the call to love, and leave the need to control behind.

As you said, if God created us, God created a vast, beautiful variety of creatures. God created men and women and men who love women and men who love men and women who love women and... you get the drift. In all our variation, we are all still fully human, and fully loved.

I do believe a retributive God is a construct of frightened men with a need to control. Let it go!

[WhollyHeretic]

25. Gee, a kinder gentler hatred. So people are sinners for simply living

their lives, but you love them in spite of their sin. What condescending crap.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" What is it about people being themselves that warrants hate? All of this is just a more roundabout way of preaching bigotry.

[arwalden]

27. When I First Saw This Thread...

... and how much of a freebie handjob it was for a certain element around here, I suspected that it might lure some of the stealth bigots and homophobes into letting down their guard and revealing their true colors. It certainly didn't take very long for my suspicions to be proved correct.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[trotsky]

39. And note that ONCE AGAIN...

it's only the obnoxious mean old atheists that are confronting this.

Sheesh.

[hunter]

40. Well that sounds a bit self righteous to me.

;)

[arwalden]

41. Color Me NOT Surprised.

[Zhade]

73. DULY fucking noted.

Too uncomfortable for people to confront?

Well, thanks to the smattering of liberal Christians who did, anyway.

[Goblinmonger]

78. We are such pricks

Sorry I missed out on the heat of this. I have to use my imagination for the deleted messages. I am sure it was Christian love.

[supernova]

26. I challenge you to

reevaluate your thinking that "God does not like homosexuality." Otherwise, you're going to have a very rough ride here at DU.

Re: Leviticus. Are you an orthodox Jew? If you wear mixed fabric types on the same day in the same outfit and eat shellfish (barring allergies, of course), then you really are standing on shaky ground, there. Personally, I'll wear what I want (read: can afford to wear), eat my scallops and my shrimp, and keep the company of my gay friends. :-)

Re: Paul. He's kinda schizoid. He could be extremely loving and extremely bitter, that much comes through in his writings. I tend to dismiss his more bitter parts because his more loving ones override them. (Love is patient, love is kind, etc.) My point is, Paul was a human being, as we are. While I honor him as the founder of the church universal, I do not worship him as a demigod. That means I'm free to disagree with him as I see fit using my own judgement.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[supernova]

85. Wow! I got a whole subthread deleted!

:woohoo:

I would have liked to have seen this but I was too tired to do anthing but veg in front of the TV last night. Doesn't matter since he's gone anyway.

[arwalden]

92. Ya Big Troublemaker!

[Turn CO Blue]

22. Thank you for this thoughtful post!

My husband is an atheist and skeptic, and I have become more agnostic over the years, and I have increasingly argued with him that he has been intolerant at times and a little heavy-handed.

But then I observed my own smugness growing stronger as I equate the hard right with terms like Christian Taliban and Christo-fascists. I have begun chanting "I hate the Christians" in my mind if not outloud. I have to face facts - those actions display intolerance on my part which is not a facet of my personality that I want to grow. In fact I want that aspect to wither away.

We will not get anywhere as a society (and a global community) until we all come together to find our commonalities, understand and respect our differences, and work toward the common good.

tcb

[Jo March]

83. What a great post on your part

There is so much intolerance on both sides. It's sometimes seems insurmountable.

Both sides have to admit that we aren't perfect and that no one has all of the answers.

[varkam]

23. There's a distinction I think I should probably make

between the different types of certainty. I was talking with a friend of mine today about what I've been thinking, and he rightly pointed out that there is a distinction I should keep in mind: namely, the distinction between dogmatic and epistemic (having to do with knowledge) certainty. They differ in two big ways, I think. First, epistemic certainty is not immune to criticism, whereas dogmatic certainty is. In other words, epistemic certainty is like scientific progress in a lot of ways: you observe data and reasons, formulate a hypothesis, test it, and based on those results you either accept it or reject it. But the key thing is that it's always open to be thrown out. Not so with dogmatic certainty as it's difficult to argue with "Because I said so". Dogmatic certainty is more akin to making the claim "I am certain that Chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream", but not having any reasons to support the claim. Which leads to the second difference: epistemic certainty deals in reasons for thinking a certain way, whereas dogmatic certainty does not.

By the way, I don't mean to use the word 'dogmatic' in reference to religion in particular - just to be clear.

[hunter]

45. It's no matter to me if you are certain chocolate ice cream is the best.

... so long as you leave me to my vanilla. And I'll not be damned for liking vanilla.

Enjoy your chocolate.

[JerseygirlCT]

99. Vanilla, bah. Chocolate all the way! lol nt

[lvx35]

48. Interesting.

I find thoughts on the nature of knowledge interesting. I think Socrates said that knowledge is belief plus justification, or that knowledge requires reasons for what it asserts, while belief does not. Its a blurry line because everybody has their reasons, though.

To me its all about Axioms. Science has its axioms, religion has its axioms. When you deal with metaphysical questions like the existence of God, you really have to pick some kind of axiomatic truth you believe in and go from there or you will get nowhere. The bible is no proof of God, but on the other hand if an all powerful God doesn't want you know he exists until you do such and such, you won't know he exists until you do such and such. So if you want to do theology, assume God exists and go from there. If you want to physical sciences, choose that God doesn't exist (in a way that effects natural laws as an outside force) and go from there. We need to just be aware of what we are choosing to believe in the face of unanswerable questions, and be aware that it's not be the absolute truth.

[beam me up scottie]

50. sigh...

for the last time, atheism is NOT a choice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=49645&mesg_id=50623



Why am I not surprised that the usual suspects are using this thread to proselytize their own bigoted stereotypes?

[lvx35]

51. No, what you believe IS A CHOICE.

Why am I not surprised you are here on a thread about accepting the bigoted nature of absolutism claiming the ABSOLUTE truth of atheism?

[beam me up scottie]

52. What the hell are you talking about?

Do you even know the definition of absolutism and what it's applied to?


If you think so, please explain how stating the fact that atheism is not a choice fits the definition.


Stop using us to justify your faith.



It isn't a choice, no matter how much you need it to be.



Furthermore, a believer who was secure in their faith wouldn't need to redefine anyone else.

[lvx35]

53. what I'm talking about is..

absolutism or totalism in a philosophical sense, or the idea of the total truth of an idea. You can call it what you want, dogmatic, fundamentalist, whatever. Words aren't important, concept it. The concept is thinking that some idea you have represents the totality of TRUTH, instead of recognizing that it can be fallible. That is what the post above me says, it talks about epistemic knowledge, or knowledge that can be negated by experience. Because some root ideas cannot be proven or disproven, everone must choose what they believe at some level. Maybe somebody believes we are all living in the Matrix, like the movie. This idea can't be disproven or proven, therefore one must choose whether one believes it or not. The existence of God is similar. I am happy to demonstrate the logic of this statement if you want to talk and not argue.

[beam me up scottie]

54. You don't want to talk, you want to redefine atheism.

People who want to discuss an issue don't usually start off by inferring the other person is a liar.

I'll tell you what, I'll wake up tomorrow and try REALLY REALLY hard to believe in the Easter Bunny.

If I'm successful, then we'll discuss what I'll need to know in order to believe in your particular god.

I'll let you know how that goes.

[lvx35]

55. That's a great idea!

But I recommend making it an omnipotent easter bunny. In addition to being more fun, it makes more sense as to why nobody knows about it. It lays hidden behind the worlds religions, only revealing itself to the elite, i.e. you.

If you have the strength of mind to pull this off for a day, I will happily be an atheist for a day, I will even post here about the absurdities of religion. Do let me know if you succeed! :)

[beam me up scottie]

56. So, you got where I was going with that?

I know you guys hate Easter Bunny and Santa analogies, but to an atheist, there is no difference between one fictional (to us) character and another.

I can no more make myself believe in deities than I can make myself believe there were weapons of destruction or that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Could you make yourself believe those things?


We don't CHOOSE to not believe, we CAN'T believe.

It's difference between voluntary and involuntary beliefs.



Believe me, I wish I was still five and believed in Santa and Old Floppy Ears.

Life was good then.

[lvx35]

58. Okay, I hear you (long post)

And I think I understand what you are saying. You're saying that God, Santa Claus and Saddam's WMD's are examples of things which people say are there but for which there is no proof, so you can't see them as existing, right? You'd feel like you were lying to yourself if you tried to believe in them, and you refuse to lie to yourself, as a matter of conscience, right?

If so, damn. now your a three dimensional human. It was simpler to relate to you as my cartoonish enemy. ;)

Seriously though, I can answer this in two ways. One is logic, one is personal experience. The logic is that its a lot easier to disprove Santa than an all powerful being. But lets move on.
But the truth of the matter is that people all over the world don't believe in this stuff because you can't disprove it, they believe it because they have experiences they can't explain in any other terms, they are transcendental, and hard to explain. The experience factor is there, and its real.

But the biggest thing is that you asked me if I could make myself believe those things, and the answer is yes. I could make myself believe that Saddam was behind 9/11...(hell, that's not even hard, half America has convinced themselves of that one!) or any of it. I can load it into my brain like software, and believe it, and see where it gets me. And I think that's what makes a person of faith, as opposed to a person of dogma who believes it because Pat Robertson said it and they don't know better. Choice. There is something I've heard Christian's say: "If Jesus is wrong, I don't want to be right!" What they are saying is that they planted the seed of faith in their minds and the fruits of it in their lives are worth the contradictions of the idea.
Yes, this puts me in a precarious position because I am against believing Bush's lies. The difference as I see it is that faith in Bush yields poisonous fruit; continuing war, destruction at home and abroad, but I do not think faith in God(ess) in itself creates such havoc. Of course there are poisonous strains of Christianity, etc. teaching greed and hatred. And if this is your concept of God, then by conscience you must be an atheist. As Gandhi said:

"God is conscience. He is even the atheism of the atheist."

You gotta do what you gotta do. But on the other hand, I think you are free to believe just like me. You could wake up tomorrow and choose to believe in the omnipotent easter bunny, if you wanted to. Its your mind, you own it.

But that still won't convince you I am sure, because you don't see it as true. But how can you be so sure of what is true, looking at all the people stumbling around in the dark on this earth, it seems that anybody could be one of them, you or me included.

So what the hell, bring back santa and floppy ears. It probably wouldn't make the world a worse place, kids usually don't, until they start commanding actual armies:

[beam me up scottie]

60. I cannot make myself believe in gods.

It's not about evidence or proof, you may look at what you consider to be evidence and use it to strengthen or justify your belief.

And some atheists may point to what they consider to be evidence that there is no god.

But for someone who was born and has remained an atheist, it is simply not possible to force myself to accept something so foreign and unnatural.


Do you tell homosexuals that they can make themselves hetero?

Or heteros that they can turn gay?

That's where the religious thought police run into problems.

Some things are simply not matters of choice, neither to believers or non.

[lvx35]

62. I don't think its like that at all.

I think people are fundamentally free.

Do you tell homosexuals that they can make themselves hetero?
maybe if it was a lesbian I wanted to date.

Or heteros that they can turn gay?
maybe if it was a guy I wanted to date.

I don't let sexual preference define me. I consider myself open minded. If I said "I can never do such and such" I consider that close mindedness. Same with belief, same with anything. The foreign is only foreign until you know it.

[beam me up scottie]

64. It doesn't have to define you.

I didn't make a decision to be a heterosexual, but I am.

I am not physically attracted to women.

I could try to make myself a lesbian, but I won't.

It wouldn't work because I'm hopelessly heterosexual, and also because I know who I am and what I am.

Being open minded does not mean forcing yourself to do things that are unnatural.


I could try to make myself believe I'm a man.

But it wouldn't work, I don't need to try it to know that.

There's not enough faith in the world to make me think I've got male reproductive organs.

And there's not enough to make me believe in gods.

I am an atheist, I always have been, not by choice, but because I just am.

[lvx35]

67. "I won't"

I could try to make myself a lesbian, but I won't.

You could try to be a muslim too, but you won't. Won't is the key word, doesn't mean you couldn't. honestly. Which fine, like I said, you're free. But what you are is a product of choices.

[beam me up scottie]

120. You aren't naive, you're purposely obtuse.

If you need to pretend that atheists can believe in your ridiculous god but choose not to, that heterosexuals can become homosexual if they try hard enough and that I am not homosexual because I don't want to be, wallow in your ignorance.

But stop fucking telling me that I am a liar.

[NMMNG]

140. Hey lvx35, I have an idea

Why don't you become a Muslim? Worship Allah and Mohammed instead of God and Jesus. Let me know how it goes.

[beam me up scottie]

143. If he can make himself believe what bush says,

he can become anything he wants to be.

Except informed, apparently.

[NMMNG]

144. Well, he claims everything is a choice

So therefore he can simply choose to give up his beloved God/Jesus and love Allah/Mohammed instead. For that matter, he could choose to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster (All Hail His Noodly Appendages). The very existence, and wide variety of, pasta in the world proves FSMs existence. :evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

146. rAmen!

He HAS to worship the Noodled One.

How can he possibly resist?

The truth is there, for all to see!

May the meatballs be with you.

[varkam]

148. rAmen! Nice.

I had a good chuckle over that one.

[hunter]

86. The next time you want to date a lesbian, lvx35, tell me how it goes.

A long time ago I used to date a lesbian who was trying to convince herself she wasn't a lesbian, mostly for religious reasons. Our relationship ended badly. It could have ended worse -- God Forbid, we might have been married. There are quite a few posters here on DU who have suffered that particular hell, and I always think, "There, but for the Grace of God go I..."

And this is in spite of my religion.

I don't believe it's a matter of letting your sexual preferance define you. Sexual preference is an intrinsic part of who we are as humans. I don't even think questions of nature vs. nurture are important here. Claims that homosexuality is based in biology shouldn't be the foundation of our civil rights and social justice system. Our civil rights are based on our common humanity, and not upon our skin color, social heritage, or our sexuality.

[beam me up scottie]

128. Good point.

We shouldn't have to keep explaining biology to ignoramuses, homophobes and bigots.

But until everyone realizes that we all deserve the same rights and freedoms, I'm afraid the battle will continue.

[Zhade]

75. BMUS, I'm EXACTLY the same.

I tried so damn hard to accept the myths when I turned to religions not once, not twice, but thrice in my young 25+ years.

NEVER took. Couldn't. Wouldn't. Call it a genetic thing, or whatever, I can't recieve whatever radio waves believers say they're getting.

I was born this way, I'll die this way, and it doesn't faze me in the slightest, because I literally cannot know what I'm told I'm missing. As far as my mind works, there are no gods confirmed anywhere, so I simply fail to believe in them, as surely as failing to believe that I can leap into the air and fly.

[beam me up scottie]

123. Thanks, Zhade.

I have learned a great deal from you, and I admire and respect you because you don't apologize for being who you are, and you refuse to let anyone dismiss or diminish you.

Too bad not everyone can be so accepting and tolerant.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

77. Speak for yourself

I'm an atheist, but - like most atheists, I think - I'm far more certain about the non-existance of some things than others. I don't believe that surviving thylacines, WMD in Iraq, Robin Hood, an omnibenevolent supreme being, Thor, Odin and Loki or the Easter bunny exist, but I'm less confident about each than the next.

The reason why most theists - quite reasonably, in my view - regard comparisons between belief in an omnibenevolent God and belief in the Easter Bunny as a) deliberate attempts to insult and b) proof that the comparer doesn't know what they're talking about is that while neither exists, working out that the former doesn't requires quite some thought, and all sorts of intelligent people have been wrong about it, while working out the latter doesn't is easy, and failure to do so is ipse facto proof of stupidity or gullibility.

I do agree that atheism or religion isn't, or at any rate shouldn't be, a choice. It may well be possible to convince oneself that a God does or doesn't exist by force of will, but doing so is pointless - one should try and work it out, and then believe what seems most likely, not pick an outcome beforehand and then try and make oneself believe it.

[beam me up scottie]

119. Well maybe if they would pay attention to what we're saying instead

of calling us liars, such comparisons wouldn't be necessary.

I'm SICK of having to repeatedly explain why I am the way I am to ignorant and bigoted believers who need to redefine people who don't believe in their gods in order to justify their faith.

Maybe if they had to constantly defend themselves against bigots, they would understand why being polite isn't an option when it comes to willful ignorance.

[NMMNG]

141. Oh come now BMUS,

Don't you know that when you are a minority taking it up the backside that you are still supposed to be polite and smile when you protest said abuse? (Not to mention apologize for protesting)

[beam me up scottie]

142. I forgot.

Me so sorry!

I'll get back under the wheels with the GLBT people...

[NMMNG]

145. Good BMUS

Now smile pretty.

[beam me up scottie]

147. BWAHAHA!

I love that smilie!

Damn it to spaghettios, I'm on a laptop and can't get to mine!

[SidDithers]

161. You go, BMUS!...

:toast:

Sid

[Donald Ian Rankin]

173. But Christians who post to DU regularly

*do* have to constantly defend themselves against bigots to justify their faith (admittedly, for a relatively low value of "constantly", but many people post here often enough for it not to be inapplicable).

And you don't *have* to repeatedly explain why you are the way you are on DU, you do so purely voluntarily, at the slightest opportunity.

And while there may be the occasional example of Christians calling atheists liars on DU, it's less frequent my not much less than an order of magnitude than the reverse.

Being polite - or silent - *is* an option when it comes to "wilful ignorance" on an internet discussion board, and I suspect that much of what you regard as wilfull ignorance is perfectly legitimate disagreement. And I would describe comparing Christianity to the Easter bunny as a pretty clear-cut case of wilfull ignorance.

I don't know how often you have to or choose to argue with bad-mannered Christians in your non-DU life, but no matter what the answer is it doesn't excuse being incivil to the ones here.

[Goblinmonger]

80. I wish I could nominate just this post

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

Inland, I'm sorry for the atheist high five, but that post kicked ass.

[beam me up scottie]

125. Thanks, Gobby.

If anyone needs to be reminded why liberals need to demand that our political representatives must completely separate religion from politics, the idea that sexual orientation is a choice, no matter WHO claims it, is a great example.

I don't want a religious republican lite making laws and policy based on what they consider to be a kinder, gentler supreme being.


NO compromises.

[beam me up scottie]

57. Maybe this guy can explain it better

ack scratch that, the guy had some mean stuff on his site, bad idea


I'm not saying that believers are gullible or more likely to believe in fictional characters because I don't think believers choose to believe either, they just do, it's part of them.

[lvx35]

59. Its wierd, I think actually choose it though.

That's why I was kind of hoping you'd take me up on the easter bunny challenge...I am curious if I could actually be an atheist, if I have enough faith to be an atheist.

[beam me up scottie]

61. It's not faith.

Atheists don't believe in gods, Easter Bunnies, moons made out of cheese, compassionate conservatism, boats that can hold two of every creature on earth, reptoids, that Liberace wasn't gay, 300mph carburetors, etc...

Not believing in those things does not require faith.

If you were to tell me that the computer that I'm using now was really a Philly cheese steak, I wouldn't believe you.

But not because it requires faith.

[lvx35]

65. okay.

Lets take Liberace because all of our conversations have to come back to homosexuality. I don't know anything about liberace....But what you are saying is that believing he's not gay requires faith, but not believing wasn't gay doesn't. what the hell? What is up with your logic? So all negative assertions require no faith, but positive assertions do? All I hear you saying over and over again is that what you believe is reality is reality, and everybody else should damn well to.

[beam me up scottie]

127. You don't hear because you don't listen.

I was born heterosexual and an atheist.

You're trying to tell me that I choose to be those things because the fact that I don't believe in your god threatens your faith.

Lots of christians are threatened by atheists for no other reason than they don't believe in their god.

Fortunately, most of them appear to be from the right.

But I'll tell you the same thing I tell them; get over it.

Too fucking bad if you can't handle the fact that I don't acknowledge or deny your god.

You can try to pretend that the opposite is true, but don't expect us to let it go.

[NMMNG]

63. Being an atheist does not require faith

Many people become atheists because they stop accepting things on faith (like the existence of deities, angels, demons and the like, for which there is no scientific proof). Others are atheists because they never did accept such things on faith. There is no faith involved in atheism, but rather a lack of faith.

[lvx35]

66. question.

So if God came into my living room, and said "hey", would it still require faith?

[NMMNG]

68. If God came into your living room only

It would be questionable. Millions (if not billions) of people have claimed to see/hear God on countless occasions. That doesn't mean he exists, that just means they believed they saw/heard him for any number of reasons (they really wanted to, psychosis, drug use, concussion, high fever, etc.).

If God presented himself in a way that was observable to many and scientifically verifiable, it would be a different story. However that has never happened and I doubt it ever will.

[lvx35]

69. But how do you scientifically prove God.

Scientifically prove the existence of Truth. Really. There are some very real things that exist outside the realm of quantitative observation.

[NMMNG]

70. The burden of proof is not on me

I am not the one claiming his existence. It's up to you to figure out how to scientifically prove the existence of God, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy. And no, the fact that gifts show up under my tree, quarters appeared under my pillow when I was a child, and I didn't wreck my car when it spun out on the ice a few months ago are not proof of their existence.

[lvx35]

71. irrelevant.

How do you prove the existence of truth? How do you prove the existence of Love? Yet their existence is SELF EVIDENT to those that experience them. If you don't experience truth or love, there is no way I can demonstrate these experiences to you. This does not negate their reality.

[NMMNG]

74. The little green men from Mars have told me to stop listening to you

I realize you probably don't believe in them, but their existence is self-evident to me. Therefore they are real. In fact, I think the edicts that they have relayed to me should be made into US law. I think I will e-mail the president right now.

[lvx35]

91. hehehe.

well the NSA has been watching and they told me to stop listening to you. ;) However sinse you'll have a very hard time getting together scientific proof to verify that they are spying in the US, as the whisteblowers claim, you can go ahead and presume that domestic spying is a faith based fantasy! :)

[NMMNG]

105. The Domestic Spying has been documented

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/03/1435201
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11389667/

In several instances on national televison (including the SOTU) President Bush himself admitted to illegally wiretapping US citizens. Domestic spying is a verified and verifiable fact.

[madeline_con]

111. Is tryinggreally really hard to believe the same as

choosing to believe? :shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

121. Get a dictionary and let me know what you find out.

:eyes:

[madeline_con]

124. Do you intend to sound snarky, or are you just

borderline snide all the time?

I'd seriously like to know. Maybe it's me, and you just SEEM defensive and touchy about everything.

[beam me up scottie]

126. When it comes to being called a liar, I'm more than fucking snarky,

I'm an uppity bitch.

But I'm not partial, I treat all bigots the same way.

The people who accept my definition of myself have nothing to worry about.

[madeline_con]

149. Anyone would be upset at being called a liar.

I hope you're not implying that I did so, even if you felt another poster may have.

I wasn't questioning your definition of yourself. The words were "trying" and "choosing". While they're synonymous, there's enough of a nuance for a difference in meaning.

I was asking a legitimate question, and wasn't teasing you or trying to give you a hard time. It seems to me that during philosophical discussions, some people misunderstand each other beacause of symantics and nuance. I was merely asking for a clarification of something you wrote.

Anyway, never mind. I hope we can discuss issues in the future without so much verbal fencing being necessary to get to the meat of the subject. No hard feelings on this end.

[beam me up scottie]

157. No, of course not.

You are always polite.
I thought you were asking me about my discussion with the other poster.
I tend to be harsh with people who refuse to allow me to define myself, especially after I've repeated myself a number of times.
You've never done that, and after reading your posts in this forum, I doubt you ever will.

It's extremely disrespectful, if I were to tell the other poster he is really an atheist, no matter what he says, I would expect him to get angry.
It's no less disrespectful for him to insist I know and recognize his god and I choose not to believe in it.
And the poster knows this because we've had this discussion before.
That's another reason why I'm out of patience with him.
If someone tells me to stop calling them something, why would I continue to do so when I know it makes them angry?

It's all about respect and why some people think they deserve it and others don't.

I am sorry I jumped your post, I assumed you agreed with the other guy.

I look forward to hearing your opinion of the issues discussed in this forum, diversity is what makes this place as interesting as it is, even when it sometimes leads to misunderstandings.

:)

[Evoman]

89. The truth

So, if I asked you right now to believe in Zeus, you could do that? If I asked you to believe the moon is made of chees, could you do that? If I asked you to believe in a God who is evil and hates all of us, and that the bible is a big joke he is playing on us, could you believe that?

Of course not. In order to believe something, you have to have a sum of experiences (be in indoctrination as a child, seeing Jesus in a nacho, or even going to seminal school..whatever) that lead to that believe. You can PRETEND to believe something, but that doesn't mean you actually do.

I did not choose to be atheist or agnostic. I don't choose to believe that the sun is made of hydrogen or that the earth has a metallic core. I believe it because their is evidence. I don't believe in the tooth fairy because there is no evidence. I don't believe in Jesus because there is no evidence. I can't help it.

Evoman

[Strong Atheist]

88. Some things don't need axioms. I can observe for myself all

sorts of things in the world around me. We ALL can. The sun is yellow; grass is green. The sun rises in the east, not the south, north, or west.Water is wet, fire is hot. All OBSERVABLE things. No axioms needed.

Where is god(s)?

Nowhere to be found ...

[hunter]

90. I've always enjoyed Quaker services...

...where everyone sits around quietly until someone is moved to speak. I've seen this kind of worship at Unitarian Universalists meetings too.

That's a good question for such a service: "Where is God?"

But it's probably no fair approaching the question with any preconceived notions. It has to feel right. The Spirit has to move you.

http://emes.quaker.eu.org/documents/files/meeting-the-spirit.html

I've always felt that attending a church I don't know is like visiting a foreign country, but much easier, because I usually don't have to leave town. It's always best to learn a few of the local customs before you visit, however, even better to have a guide. Want to come to Mass with my family on Sunday? No problem.

Weddings are by far my favorite religious services, especially when the celebrants actually practice their faith in some way, and haven't simply picked some random preacher an acquaintence recomended. I've been priviliged to attend everything from Jewish and Catholic weddings to Burning Man style naked pagan dancing weddings. But that's probably because I've lived most of my life in California la-la-land.

It's sad to me that in so many places certain religions must be regarded as a real threat to those who do not practice them. I'd feel like a trapped animal if I lived in some small Kansas town where Catholics, Atheists, Jews, and homosexuals were not welcomed, and the only high school biology teachers were Creationists.

[Strong Atheist]

93. Preconceived notions? Empirical evidence; thousands of years of.

I look around and see things, lots of things. The sun. Grass. Trees. People. Animals.

Lots of other things that I can't see/touch/hear/smell/taste can be measured in other (reproducible) ways.

Where is/are god(s)? Never seen/smelled/touched/heard/tasted one. Never seen one measured in ANY way, and thousands of years of empirical data show me none in existence; none at all. Quite the contrary; all evidence points to a godless universe, to which I say that is a positive thing.

[hunter]

102. Okay, but there's *something* happening in all those churches.

I can see/touch/hear/smell/taste them. These churches are an important part of many communities.

I can readily attribute religion to some artifact of human biology, and I can respect the "strong atheist" point of view. To the extent that religions are actually harming people (and yes they do) your godless universe may indeed be a positive thing.

It's just not me. I feel I can do more positive things within my religion than without it.

[salvorhardin]

103. They're important to the community

Because they fulfill an institutional role. That they happen to be churches is beside the point. They could very well be schools or theaters or museums or stadiums.

[Strong Atheist]

118. Here, Here! Just about what I was going to say!

:toast:

[hunter]

138. I often go to hockey games to explore the mysteries of life...

A lot of hockey referees do weddings and funerals on the side, you know.

Okay, I'm being snarky.

But I had to think overnight what was bothering me here.

I have several friends who are atheists who have been married by right wing "fundamentalist" preachers. In most of these cases the couples did this to please their families, but in one case they did it simply because the preacher they hired enjoyed doing outdoor weddings and was well recommended. And he did a very fine wedding too.

But I remember speaking with the preacher and how he made me uncomfortable. He knew my friends were atheists, but I could tell he was doing this as a semi-covert way of "saving" souls. In this preacher's mind he was giving all the non-Christian couples he married a little step up so they wouldn't be found to have been "living in sin" when they stood before God on Judgment Day. It seemed to me that these celebrations of commitment were not as true as they might have been. It's my own religious belief that God values Truth above anything else. If the faith you live is a lie, then what you must seek is the truth.

So here's my problem... Various religions that you and I may have grave problems with are always eager to step in and fill whatever (for lack of a better word) "spiritual" voids exist. I'm not saying that all atheists don't know how to fill these spiritual voids, since I've attended entirely secular weddings and funerals that were entirely honest and spiritually fulfilling, but I've also been to some where the truthfulness of the ceremony was strained, if not broken.

[beam me up scottie]

139. This is something that is also discussed by atheists.

It's a dilemma for some, we don't want a "church" but when believers ask what we have to offer them as a replacement, we've got nothing.

I don't think we have to offer anything, atheism is freethought, not church-lite, and personally, I've no idea what a "spiritual void" is.

No dogma, no scripture, no churchy get-togethers or inspirational songs, no bingo...

Seriously, atheists who try to replace the sense of community church-goers share are doomed to fail.

Attending UU meetings gives some a sense of belonging, but most of us don't need a replacement.



I do get what you're saying though, and it's nothing some of us haven't considered.

[Inland]

162. Can't observe right and wrong.

Can't observe how people should live together. Yes, you can watch them do it. Yes, you can see the results of actions. Yes, you can even predict them. But the entire concept of normative thoughts, the shouldas, requires philosophy and, I believe, an appeal to what is not observable or even provable.

The fact is, that as a board limited to liberal democrats, these differences aren't readily apparent, but out in the world, they are. Nobody is arguing about whether fire is hot, BECAUSE everyone can observe it. Everyone is arguing about who should pay more taxes.

[Goblinmonger]

79. You may not use "dogmatic" to refer to religion

but allow me this description of my first interpretation.

According to you, atheists that are atheists because we try to base our lives on rational thought are bound by your standards of epistemic certainty (and don't even get me started on how communication and perception actually become epistemic so that there really is no reality. Just read How Real is Real by the guy who wrote the quote at the bottom of my posts--actually that quote is from How Real is Real). On the other hand, those that are theists and base their world view on religion are not bound to epistemic certainty but instead get to skate by on dogmatic principles that don't require proof from them. Add to that the fact that I need to be respectful of their unprovable dogmatic principles while they can demand what they want from my epistemic certainty.

Just my first impression. Perhaps I will change my mind in a little bit. Don't think so, though.

[varkam]

84. The distinction that I tried to point out in my original post

was one between faith and certainty. I wrote that the 'good' Christians I've met in my life weren't necessarily certain of theological or dogmatic claims, but they had faith in them. That's different, in my opinion. And according to me, I don't know why other atheists are atheists, as I can only speak for myself and my own experiences.

And what's more, I believe you can be respectful whilst challenging dogmatic claims of certainty. Some people do take umbrage to it though, and so ask yourself 'Was I being disrespectful'? If you laid out your argument in plain terms and provided reasons supporting the key points, then probably not. What's more likely is your audience is confusing being challenged with being insulted. If you equated God to the Easter Bunny, then maybe so (it is tempting to give into cheap shots. God knows I've done it - no pun intended).

[Maat]

104. Great thread.

I enjoyed it, but I missed the disruptor.

I've grown quite a bit the last few years also; I appreciate the uniqueness of every human being.

And each is a divine and perfect in creation (as long as they aren't a Republican - just kidding - my human frailty; I've just decided not to hang around them anymore.).

[Inland]

163. I think related to cetainty is something someone said about Gingrich

He said, "Newt believes in big new ideas. He doesn't HAVE any. He just believes in them." The slam is that being for ideas and having them are two different things.

The annoying believer thinks that because he believes in a good, powerful, knowing god that he is good and powerful and knowing. The annoying atheist thinks that because he believes in the superiority of rationality and science that he is rational and scientific. The annoyance comes, of course, when the quality isn't in evidence.

In other words, I can be certain about many things, it's when I am certain of myself that error occurs. I can be certain of a heaven, but nobody should be certain of whether they are going. I can be certain of the scientific method, but nobody should be certain of their knowledge. If you want to be it, then BE it, rather than being FOR it, would be my motto.

[Withywindle]

114. Stalin was an atheist, wasn't he?

Does that cast some kind of doubt on all those other atheists who believe totalitarianism and mass murder is wrong? Not to me.

I think it really has nothing to do with religion. I think people who are bigots will latch onto religion as a justification (150 years ago, people used quotes from the Bible selectively to justify slavery) if it suits their pre-existing worldview, but you don't need religion to be one. The problem is in believing beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are right no matter what, and people who are wrong are "damned" (enemies of the state, misguided by propaganda, whatever the terminology du jour is for the "others")

It's our great weakness as liberals--we question, we doubt, we analyze everything, including (especially!) ourselves and our own beliefs. We don't have that utter confidence that we are CORRECT. We lose elections because our messages aren't "forceful" or "simple" enough - it's those who can express their belief in their own superiority and their own "right" to rule in words of one syllable who win popularity contests, and whether a "god" is involved is secondary to that fanatical alpha-assertion. Yet I'm not willing to give that willingness to question up, because as soon as I do, I'll become what I hate.

[NMMNG]

116. Stalin has been discussed before here on DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=263&topic_id=15163

[varkam]

117. Good point

I think, politically speaking, that tends to be the crack in our armor. We tend not to see the world in black and white, but rather in subtle shades of grey. Issues are not so simplistic to us that there are only two sides, in fact, we see several different perspectives on can take on a multitude of issues - but that doesn't translate well into sound bite format.

However, I do think that we can and do have confidence in our correctness on certain things. For example (and this is kind of silly, but it's late), I am confident that there is a mind-independent reality.