Offensive Statements

[bryant69]

Poll question: Offensive Statements

Which of these statements is more offensive.

#1 A Theist says to an Atheist "If you would just pray, God would open your heart and you realize the truth."

or

#2 An Atheist says to a Theist "If you would just analyze your religious beliefs objectively, you'd realize how nonsensical they are."

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Poll result (64 votes)
Number 1 is much more offensive	(9 votes, 14%)	Vote
Number 1 is somewhat more offensive	(1 votes, 2%)	Vote
Both are equally offensive	(24 votes, 38%)	Vote
Number 2 is somewhat more offensive	(1 votes, 2%)	Vote
Number 2 is much more offensive	(6 votes, 9%)	Vote
Neither one is offensive	(15 votes, 23%)	Vote
This poll is biased/bogus/ambiguous/violet.	(4 votes, 6%)	Vote
I like to vote.	(1 votes, 2%)	Vote
Keep Digging.	(3 votes, 5%)	Vote

[Poll_Blind]

1. No "Sam Spade was doing Iva Archer", can't vote. 8^( n/t

PB

[cosmik debris]

2. Violet?

[bryant69]

3. Yes. Violet.

I guess I don't need to ask what you voted for.

Bryant

[Evoman]

8. Haha

[beam me up scottie]

55. sNort!

Time for the big boy toys!

[Lerkfish]

4. why is this forum constantly atheists against theists?

and why does the depiction of the difference between the two always have to be inflammatory?

I have nothing against atheists and atheism, I normally do not give it much thought at all. yet the reason I always walk away from this forum, misnamed as it is, is that there is thread after thread after thread just like this one.

I would have thought a "religion/theology" forum would be inclusive of ALL theological and nontheological thoughts, not just a spy vs. spy black and white battleground between atheists and theists.

what would be wrong with that?

Why wouldn't atheists support that idea?

[Evoman]

6. Um...the pollster is a theist.

And there are two sides in every flame war....you can't have a war if one side refuses to fight.

[Lerkfish]

10. So? my observation is still valid. I'm talking about both sides.

I do not understand why there can't be other topics of conversation. For example, I'm interested in all religions comparatively and the role that religion should/should not have in government. That's just one topic example.
I'm just saying, should this forum be more correctly named "theist vs. atheist WWF"?

I only mentioned atheists at the end of my other post, because I would have thought THEY especially would have wanted to discuss anything else.

[Evoman]

12. So start a thread.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who want to talk about that.

[Lerkfish]

14. I'd be happy to.

[Evoman]

16. I'll even be nice on your thread...

i will have more respect for your thread than people had for the last "non-flame" type thread I started (that got locked).

[Lerkfish]

22. ok, here's your opportunity

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Lerkfish]

23. and the fact that no one is posting there is the crux of my point.

this forum has, through bloody attrition, winnowed itself down to mainly only people who enjoy the inflammatory black vs. white atheist vs. theist arena.

to which I suggest, fine, then rename the forum as that.

[Lerkfish]

25. actually, I happily stand corrected. :)

[Evoman]

32. I'll post on it as soon as I get home.

After my last response, I RAN to catch my bus...barely got there, no thanks to you (kidding). I am at school now.

[bryant69]

17. If you really want to talk about policy or the interesection f

Religion and policy I would think General Discussion would be fine for that. This forum always struck me as very specifically focused on exclusively religious matters.

I could be wrong though.

Bryant

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Goblinmonger]

40. Nice

Really, really nice. Us atheists is just too damn stuupid to actually understand that art and shit. All I teach in my English class is just dirty limericks.

Arrogant much?

[bananas]

11. Why do atheists even post in a forum for Religion and Theology?

Unless, of course, Atheism is a Religion or a Theology.

[Evoman]

15. Bwahahahaha

See this Lerkfish....this one was NOT started by me or any other atheist.

[Lerkfish]

20. That's why I used "spy vs. spy", the old mad magazine margin cartoon

one spy was white, one spy was black, and they both just went after each other for no apparent reason. Sometimes one side would outsmart the other, and the next time the reverse.

I used that analogy because the goal of both spies seems pointless except for the constant battle over nothing apparent.

[bryant69]

19. It's a discussion of religion and theology

Not a discussion by members of religion and theology. Atheism is neither a religion nor a theology, but it certainly has an opinion and a point of view on atheism and religion.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

21. I hate to say it but...Thank You. n/t

[bloom]

27. There are religious atheists.

The goddess is not necessary for religion - merely optional.


There have been several threads that address your question, however - should you be interested in more opinions.

[cosmik debris]

28. That's a real stretch

Did you just make that up? You have to really torture the definitions of Religious and Atheists to get religious atheists. Perhaps you could share that with us?

[varkam]

29. Could you explain that a little further? eom

[bloom]

36. Re: 28, 29, 34

Under the expanded definition of religion:

"Some religions are nonrevealed, or “natural,” the result of human inquiry alone. Included among these and sometimes called philosophies of eternity are Buddhist sects (where Buddha is recognized not as a god but as an enlightened leader), Brahmanism, and Taoism and other Chinese metaphysical doctrines."

http://www.answers.com/topic/religion


If I believed in reincarnation (which I don't) - I would be inclined to think that I was a Chinese philosopher in a past life.

Even though I know nearly nothing of their culture - it speaks to me more than my own. The way they see nature, their views on art and whathaveyou.

"Zhuangzi said that genuine wisdom allows humans to know that self is an integral part of heaven and earth." (from Kang Zexiang)


(and no, I don't believe in heaven in the Christian sense - I don't expect that Zhuangzi or Zexiang does either.)


I don't think I've been contradictory at all. This is consistent with the essential message that I have been talking about for months. I consider myself to be an atheist. At the same time I am open to various philosophies and such that appeal to me. In a Universalist sort of way.

Like I said in the beliefs thread:

"As far as non-beliefs - I don't believe in God/desses as beings. I consider myself to be an unorthodox atheist - because apparently I don't follow the script.

I like to think about the interconnectedness of the universe - of people and nature...


If I did contradict myself (go ahead and try to document it if you want - have fun) - I'll go with this Emerson quote:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.


(and it's probably even smaller minds who are so concerned about other's supposed inconsistencies - but go ahead and knock yourself out - anyway).

[varkam]

44. Let me post this question to you, then.

Do you think that there are any supernatural or metaphysical entities in the universe?

[bloom]

52. I think that there are things

that people have not been able to explain scientifically - but that everything is natural.

I don't think it's reasonable to be smug about it and to think that you know that something is not possible or that that every odd thing that happens is a coincidence.

Things are not necessarily more real just because there are scientific explanations, either. I think that that is a very human-ego-centric pov.

I also think that people of the past had a lot more figured out than people of the present (our culture) gives them credit for.


I don't get into crystals and such - if that's what you're talking about.

I think that yoga and meditation (and exercise for that matter) is useful. I think that people can take comfort from rituals. And I think that visualization can be a positive thing.

[varkam]

62. A step farther...

By natural, do you mean physical or does your definition of natural include immaterial forces?

FWIW, I don't think that things that are not currently explained in scientific terms means that they're not real. However, just because there are not satisfactory scientific explanations for certain phenomena does not mean that we need to jump to exquisite (and unfalsifiable) explanations for them.

[Finder]

47. Sounds to me like you are searching...

which is great. However, declaring yourself an atheist one day, a pantheist the next and pondering the goddess yet another shows you are seeking a path.

[bloom]

50. You were only half paying attention

If you noticed (and there was a lot to read through and I don't expect everyone to have read everything) - pantheists - esp. of the type that I am more sympathetic too - are often considered to be atheists because they do not believe in a god in the traditional sense. The same thing with Goddesses - that is generally considered to be a symbolic philosophy and there are many people who study Goddess traditions who also consider themselves to be atheists. Same with Wiccans - while there are some Wiccans who believe in the supernatural - many just like the symbolism and the rituals. I also think that Zen is similar. There are provocative messages in it's stories/poems and the practice of meditation has many healing qualities when it is done consistently - that does not mean that there is a belief in God or Goddess.

I find common ground with nature/pantheism, goddess traditions, zen, and cosmic philosophies espoused by Einstein. And science. And other philosophers. I don't expect to "find" a path that has already been created. I notice paths that seem to run parallel to mine (though mine is pretty curvy - I will admit - that is the nature of it - I would not want a path made by a bulldozer or a steamroller). I also do not think that any spiritual person is ever done. To be done - you have to be done learning and thinking and being and doing - and believing.

Some people like interstates - that would be the organized religions - the fast-track with lots of traffic. It's not how fast you get there...

Some people don't seem to like paths - some people don't seem to like that idea that other people have paths. Or that people have paths that they don't have a compartment for.

I would rather be looking than to have decided that I have it all figured out. And I like to see the connections. If I decided that everything was as clear-cut as some people think - I might miss something.

But at any rate - one of my basic beliefs is that everyone has a different reality - and yet people try to find commonalities. Some people are trying to find common realities through religion - and some through non-religion. Some through politics. Some through other things.

I think R/T is a pretty interesting place as far as people trying to describe their spiritual realities - with or without deities. I wish that not as many people found it to be such a hostile place. Maybe there would be more spiritual atheists who would want to join the discussion.

[Finder]

51. There is only 1 reality and the rest is all perspective...

and like you, I respect the various paths and perspectives held by others.

That is until we start discussing/debating science, law, and civil rights. Religion has no place in any of those realms.

[bloom]

54. There may be 1 reality

but nobody knows what that is. A lot of people might think that they know what it is - and people try to convince others of their idea of reality.


A couple philosophical definitions of reality (from the "truth" thread):
____________________

Constructivist theory

Social constructivism holds that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community. Constructivism views all of our knowledge as "constructed," because it does not reflect any external "transcendent" realities (as a pure correspondence theory might hold). Rather, perceptions of truth are viewed as contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender are socially constructed. Giambattista Vico was among the first to claim that history and culture were man-made. Vico's epistemological orientation gathers the most diverse rays and unfolds in one axiom--verum ipsum factum--"truth itself is constructed." Hegel, Garns, and Marx were among the other early proponents of the premise that truth is socially constructed.

Consensus theory

Consensus theory holds that truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group. Among the current advocates of consensus theory as a useful accounting of the concept of "truth" is the philosopher Jürgen Habermas. Among its current strong critics is the philosopher Nicholas Rescher. Habermas maintains that truth is what would be agreed upon in an ideal speech situation.
_____________________

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Affecting laws, civil rights, power and authority, social dynamics and science is what religion and reality have probably always been about.

You see it in the global warming mess. The science has to be denied (by the right-wingers) because it would affect people's perceptions of reality - it might affect people's going along with our consumerist, capitalist, authoritarian society - which is causing the damage.

If people started making Nature a priority - something that could happen through an understanding of science OR through a religious/spiritual conversion OR both - that could have the power to change the whole society. Moreso than politics by itself would.

That may not be how some people would want to do things (changing the nature of how people see Nature) - but it may be that the "reality" is - it would be the most effective - and ultimately the best thing for the planet as well as humanity.

[Finder]

74. Reality is not consensus truth...

it is tangible, observable and testable.(unless we are talking about the Matrix world.lol)

Your example of Global warming is a good one. The reality that the earth is warming is seldom disputed. The reason it is warming is--as well as how it should be dealt with.

In the past, religion was an effective social force because it was the government. Today, we have governments that do not require sanctioning or participation of the church(es).

Politics is politics whether it involves religion or not.

[bloom]

75. Consensus truth

Even with testable things - like global warming - not everyone knows the same things. Nobody has the same body of knowledge as anyone else. As much as people try to avoid - people believe some things that someone said that was exaggerated, for instance - in other areas human knowledge is simply incomplete. Perceptions of reality vary - based on what people know - and various opinions about that knowledge.

There are graphs and various things that scientists have put together - and part of what gives them validity is that the scientists themselves have a consensus about their validity. Those of us who are non-scientists who have decided that the scientists are telling the truth as they know it is another example of more consensus.

It is obvious that some people are ruled by people who refuse to believe what the scientists say about it - they consider themselves to the skeptical ones - but that is more consensus - a different one - but people feel ok thinking what they think because they know that other people think the same thing.

I think it's reasonable to keep in mind that there are limits to what people know - people keep finding out more all the time and that is great - but I don't think it's reasonable for people to think that we know is close to what could be known. So we have a window on reality - and as I see it - all of our windows are different - with different views.

This comes out in how people think that the problem of global warming should be approached. Some people think that more technology will save everything - and make it possible for people to keep consuming at the current rate. Others think that people (esp. Americans) need to change our entire lifestyle and values.

Those opinions are partly dependent on how people view human knowledge and it's limitations - and also how people view politics - and how people view morality - how people view people's place in the world - how people view life (people who see it as a step to heaven do not have to be very concerned about life here), etc.

If people came to the consensus that no one person should consume more than X amount of this, that and the other - that would be one solution (one part of it). Birth control is part of that, vegetarianism would also help. Etc.

It seems to me that the default solution (the defeatist consensus) will be that the rich fight harder to consume what they want to consume - let other people die who can't make it. The rich will support their support people. The world keeps going to hell - hell on earth for everybody.

So that's what I see - a positive, proactive consensus or a defeatist consensus. The proactive consensus has worked in small groups/communities. The question will be if people on earth can see our world as a "group" we all share in and are responsible for - of if we will keep on with our violent ways.

BushCo is clearly taking the violent path. I think that anyone who does not recognize the possibility of a proactive consensus (that is at odds with the defeatist consensus) is essentially going with him. This solution may be partly driven/activated through religion - but people without religion can find themselves on the same bandwagon if they don't make an effort to get off. (I happen to think that Sam Harris is on that bandwagon - like when he is anti-Muslim/pro-torture).

In the same way - I see religious people and non religious people embracing the proactive consensus. Some are motivated by their religion (like Quaker, paganism, Buddhism, etc.), some by science - some by politics - some by humanism or some other philosophy. There are different ways to get there.

[Finder]

77. We cannot equate reality with ignorance...

or levels of ignorance. That is the primary reason we must fight for an education for all.

I think the tendency to confuse opinion/perspective with facts/reality is what has tossed us into the mess we are in.

[Finder]

34. Perhaps you mean spiritual atheists...

rather than religious. Religious Atheist makes no sense.

I do understand the path you are on re: "the goddess" although I am sure it seems to most that you are all over the place and contradictory.

[Evoman]

37. Oops...responded to wrong thread

[Evoman]

38. ?

Religious atheist? Wow. That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I think I've actually lost 10 IQ points reading that.

Okay..I reallly don't want to make fun of you, because I think your sincere. But the worlds religious and atheists canel themselves out completely, so what your saying makes no-sense. I think that you are either gravely misusing the world religious, or atheist.

What I get is that you don't actually BELIEVE in a godess, but like the term and think its a positive way to believe in god. But if you don't actually believe in some sort of deity, then are you really religious? I suppose you could be spiritual, but religious?

[bloom]

39. see #36

It's for you too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


I don't see the big difference between being spiritual and being religious that some people do. I have been exposed to people with many varieties of spiritualities and religions. Not just the white bread, Christian Fundamentalists (although I am familiar with them, too) that many here seem to base their opinions of religious people on.

[beam me up scottie]

57. Right!

Just like there are male women.

And heterosexual homosexuals.

And Republican Democrats.

And down escalators that go up.


Can't argue with that logic.

[Random_Australian]

63. Actually I have been wondering about this.

If you used definition "atheist" = one who lacks belief in God

And then used definition "theism" = belief in God

And then used definition "religion" does not equal exclusively "theism"

Then you could have a religious atheist.

Currently, I fail to see how on earth the last step could work. Perhaps if one followed a dogma but did not believe it came from God?

[beam me up scottie]

64. Of course it works if we redefine all of the words!

But I hate it when they do that.

It's intellectually lazy.

Words without definition are no better than grunts and snorts.

[cosmik debris]

65. How spiritual of you to notice that.

In case you haven't noticed, "spiritual" is at the top of my list of BOGUS words because it seem to have an infinite number of definitions.

[beam me up scottie]

66. Yes, that's the new-agey buzzword du jour.

Woo woos give me indigestion.

[Random_Australian]

67. But we may not need to is my point.

I'll restate:

set(Atheism) intersection set(theism) = 0

(No overlap between atheists and theists)

Is a given.

The question:

Does set(religion) intersection set(theism) = set(theism)

Or in other words, do "religion" and "theism" mean exactly the same thing?

Here is the second question:

The example I gave was someone who followed a doctrine but did not believe in it. Are they, then, religious or not?

As for my stance, I am as yet undecided.

[beam me up scottie]

68. I got your point, dear RA.

But, IMO, it's the same one believers use when they call us atheist "fundamentalists" and claim that atheism is a religion.

[Random_Australian]

69. Oh really? I could have

sworn that was because they thought enormous slices of bullshit were solid evidence for God - you know, creationism is the correct scientific thingummy and all that.

Because, logically, from this position, it would not appear that atheists have the evidence on their side, so it would appear that they required faith.

That is what I thought.

Oh yeah, and the fundamentalist comes from the exact same process, but applied to evolution. After all, with all those stunningly good proofs of creation you'd have to be a fundamentalist not to support it.

(Except that is just the thing, they think they have such stunningly good proofs of creation that they just can't fathom why people would not accept it)

[beam me up scottie]

70. Doctrine or dogma?

Atheists don't believe in gods.

If you redefine religion to excludes gods, supreme beings, dogma, etc, it could be used to describe anything.

It is sometimes used to describe ritual behaviour, as in "I religiously check my oil".

Does that make me religious?



There is a thread in here with a quote from a critic of Dawkins who claims he (Dawkins) lives by "faith" more than reason. Do you think that is an accurate statement?

[Random_Australian]

71. C'mon Bmus, be calm. You're among friends here.

Well.... you're among friends when it is me and you talking.

I'm just idly wondering about what religion means.

And no, I don't think the comment on Dawkins was accurate - far from it - in fact, I don't think I ever have or will.

I still wonder though, how would one describe a person who prays, eats not of the 'evil' or 'unclean' foods, and follows Je-mo-bud-hammad's teachings, but does not think it is real or divine?

I'm leaning toward "philosopher" right now, but only because it is an emtpy, meaningless word so it can't be inaccurate.

Anyway, someone needs a hug! Thought you could use one, I just saw a nasty flamewar.

[beam me up scottie]

72. Thanks.

I get what you're saying, RA. It's a valid question.

Nighty-night!

[Random_Australian]

73. Sleep well! Nighty night!

[beam me up scottie]

56. Why do some theists think this is a church?

Talk about confused...

[bananas]

9. It should be hidden like the 9/11 forum,

and posts should not be allowed to be recommended like the I/P forum.

[Lerkfish]

13. I could accept that, if that was adopted.

[Goblinmonger]

41. If you don't like it here

why do you come? And why should I leave?

[charles22]

31. I agree, maybe.

Forum seems set up to encourage antagonism.

[Evoman]

5. I find neither offensive.

The second makes sense, the first one is stupid. I've prayed a couple of times, and the only thing that happened is that I felt stupid for talking to something that doesn't exist. It certaintly didn't show me any truth...cause truth about the universe lies out in the real world, and not your head.

[Christa]

7. It all depends

On whom says what to whom.

[Wickerman]

24. #1

snce there is a typo in it and Dog knows I would NEVER, ever make a typo myself.

/kidding.

Nice poll, food for thought.



God would open your heart and you -------- realize the truth."

[Marie26]

26. Depends

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. If an athiest is trying to argue basic science w/a religious person, that's not offensive - to say that the earth is billions of years old, or that humans evolved, is a scientific theory, not some effort to annoy religious leaders. And yeah, it is nonsensical for a Christian to argue that the earth is 6000 years old. But it's not nonsensical to believe in Christian values.

[varkam]

30. Offensive, of course, is the state of a claim after

it has been interpreted by an individual. What I find offensive, many others do not and visa versa. In other words, nothing can be said to be objectively offensive.

That being said, my impression is that neither one is particularly offensive and that - if you do happen to find either offensive - you might do well to examine why such claims are offensive to you.

[Random_Australian]

35. Here is my quick examination:

1) Making assumptions about people based on their membership to a group.

2) Making assumptions about people based on their membership to a group.

How's that for you?

[varkam]

42. We make assumptions about people all the time.

Assumptions are made about all of us all the time based on several traits such as how we speak, how we dress, what we look like, etc. Such assumptions facilitate social interaction, and not all of them are necessarily offensive.

[Random_Australian]

45. I know. I thought what I was implying about the assumptions was obvious,

ie. they are derogatory.

eg. The needed assumption that atheists just don't have an open heart - while this may be accurate about some people in the human population it is inappropriate to make such an assumption about someone based on belonging to a group, unless that group is, by definition, 'those without open hearts'.

[Goblinmonger]

48. It's not that we don't have an OPEN heart

it's that we have that god-shaped hole in our heart that makes us what we are.

[varkam]

49. Even still...

I contend that the offensiveness of a statement is determined by the recipient. If someone tells me that I need to open up my heart to Jesus, I'm really not all that offended - I just think they're wrong. Perhaps it's because I live in the bible belt and have had people tell me that all my life so I have a thick skin when it comes to things like that.

[Random_Australian]

53. It is indeed, but only as a function of what the information conveyed was.

For instance, the phrase "I enjoy green salad" will offend infrequently, but the phrase "black people are criminals" will offend more often.

Or in other words, while the indivual offense may be determined by the responder, there is no escaping a person's responsibility for what they say.

[varkam]

58. Agreed.

But if someone who was raised and lived his or her entire life in a small backwater town said that, then I might perhaps be less offended than if one of my professors said it. The fact of the matter is that they simply do not know any better, and do not mean to offend. It's the same case with the statements at hand (though I happen to agree with the second one - put perhaps I do not know any better as I do not mean offense by it).

[beam me up scottie]

59. That's a really good point, varkam.

The difference is intent.

That's the problem with using labels.

And some people really don't know any better, the real test comes after they're made aware of the offense.

I've had to make my share of apologies too, but I always learned a valuable lesson.

Liberals should try NOT to offend whenever possible.


I remember several posters in this forum pledged something along those lines not too long ago.

[varkam]

60. Exactly.

I don't get offended at random Christians who are acquantancies of mine and invite me to their church to be "saved". They have good intentions - they want to make sure that I experience eternal bliss.

[beam me up scottie]

61. Someone asked me once in this forum if I get offended when someone

says they'll pray for me.

It depends, if they don't know I'm an atheist and are saying it because they really feel it will help, hell no I don't get offended.

Now, if it's said by one of the obnoxious southern baptists on my doorstep whom I've just told to go away, they'd better thank their god that I don't have my German Shepard anymore.

[charles22]

33. As someone who voted "bogus"--

I get tired of shallow thinking about religion and non-religion. But fact is, Christians will walk up to strangers and try to convert them in 5 minutes. As long as it remains a purely political matter--My church is bigger than your--it remains a futile debate.

[Dorian Gray]

43. I voted that

they were BOTH insulting, as both statements imply stupidity or ignorance on the part of the offendee.

[Vidar]

46. Good poll.

[immoderate]

76. Not eqivalent.

Atheists don't evangelise.

--IMM