So, What is Wrong with Liberal Religion?

[cleanhippie]

It is obvious that I do think there is something wrong with liberal religion. And the problem with it cannot really be that it is destined to fade away, which is what Mark Lilla wrote in his book, The Stillborn God. Certainly I am in no position to criticize that. Hallowed Secularism, my position, does not even exist yet.

I think what bothers me about liberal religion—that is, people who don’t really believe in the supernatural claims of a religious tradition but who go on attending and practicing more or less as if nothing had changed—is that are blocking the future. Meacham apparently attends church and continuously translates what is being said there into some sort of acceptable alternative. Or, worse, he just lets it all wash over him as what he calls a mystery even though he does not accept what is being claimed. That is not a sustaining way of life. Religion must be a full, passionate commitment, including the viscera, as William Connolly puts it in Why I am Not a Secularist. Religion must include the nonrational elements of awe, wonder and worship. Religion must be something worth dying for. Some atheists would say that this is precisely why we should not have religion. Suicide bombers have something worth dying for. That is the problem.

--snip--

I admit that I do not yet foresee this new way of life that replaces religion in a way that is humanly satisfying. But, liberal religion is not it and currently siphons off energy and intelligence that should be devoted to helping us find a way into the future. That is what is wrong with liberal religion.

http://www.hallowedsecularism.org/2010/04/so-what-is-wrong-with-liberal-religion.html

I think the last paragraph sums up "the problem" quite nicely. Do you agree that liberal religion is not sustainable and is nothing more than a roadblock hindering the way into the future?

[Skittles]

1. I thought that was an Onion piece

I was HOPING it was

[cleanhippie]

2. Why?

Do you disagree with the writers opinion?

[cbayer]

3. It should also be noted that this writer objects to atheism on similar grounds

and considers himself a "hallowed secularist".

The labels become more divisive, harder to understand and more useless every day.

Anyway, his argument here is that liberal religion is too tepid and devoid of passion. He actually argues for religion, but wants more fire in the belly.

[skepticscott]

5. No, he doesn't

Not with any rational basis, anyway.

He says:

I think what bothers me about liberal religion—that is, people who don’t really believe in the supernatural claims of a religious tradition but who go on attending and practicing more or less as if nothing had changed—is that are blocking the future.....Religion must be a full, passionate commitment, including the viscera..

Atheism does not have the alternate "passionate" version that he advocates for religion. It is a lack of belief in gods, period.

I admit that I do not yet foresee this new way of life that replaces religion in a way that is humanly satisfying. But, liberal religion is not it and currently siphons off energy and intelligence that should be devoted to helping us find a way into the future. That is what is wrong with liberal religion.

A lack of belief can't "siphon off energy", now can it? Not going to church can't either. It simply lets us put myth and superstition in their proper place and perspective, so that we can get on with more important things (exactly as he suggests)

Even if the author actually did "object to atheism on similar grounds", he'd be drawing a silly and transparently false equivalency.

[cleanhippie]

8. +1

[get the red out]

4. What's wrong with everyone's opinions

is that everyone seems to think they need to make sure others agree with their opinions. The biggest problem I see with both religion and opinions opposed to religion is the bullying that comes about when people try to force what they think on others. We are a long way from being evolved enough to leave each other alone.

[skepticscott]

6. Oh, please..

You don't want to go there.

[get the red out]

13. I'm not going anywhere

Just stating what makes sense to me, leaving one another alone on private issues would go a long way in our society. I'm sorry if that is an offensive opinion.

[Adsos Letter]

21. I agree.

It's the coercive aspect of these things which poses the greatest danger.

[skepticscott]

25. Not offensive, just laughably uninformed

Last edited Thu Jul 5, 2012, 08:06 PM - Edit history (1)

The biggest problem I see with both religion and opinions opposed to religion is the bullying that comes about when people try to force what they think on others. We are a long way from being evolved enough to leave each other alone.

Tell us, please, about all the times that atheists have gone into houses of worship to try to force their opinions, practices, beliefs, convictions or worldview on people who don't share them. Then tell us about all of the times that religious believers have used the law and the institutions of what is supposed to be a secular government (the legislature, the courts, the military, the schools) to try to force everyone to conform to, profess, support or participate in their beliefs and practices, and to exclude those who refuse.

If you can do that honestly, THEN tell us who's leaving who alone and who isn't. And who has a right to be less than happy about it.

[kwassa]

27. In this forum, in this time, in this space ...

some atheists are trying rather relentlessly to force their opinions, practices, beliefs, convictions or worldview on people who don't share them.

And those people are fellow liberals, Democrats, progressives.

[skepticscott]

30. If the person I was responding to

had been talking just about this forum, you might have an argument.

Well, no...actually you wouldn't, because nobody has to be here,nobody has to read anything they don't want to, and there is nothing remotely akin to force being used. So your whole point is just a steaming pile of horseshit.

And since you can't even begin to meet the request I made, you pretty much crash and burn completely. Have a nice night.

[get the red out]

33. Everybody pushes their opinions

I'm sorry you can't see it. People get angry, hurt, and rude on both sides. The bitter tone you used toward my opinion is evidence, I'm not your enemy, I haven't attacked atheists. I'm a liberal who believes in complete separation of Church and State. But I'm attacked as "laughably uninformed". If I were that I would be posting on Free Republic or Red State.

[skepticscott]

45. Except that this isn't about being "angry, hurt and rude"

Here's your quote again, since you seem to be dodging its import:

The biggest problem I see with both religion and opinions opposed to religion is the bullying that comes about when people try to force what they think on others. We are a long way from being evolved enough to leave each other alone.

As I pointed out clearly (and which you avoided addressing), the use of "force" or coercion to get others to conform to, profess, support or participate in their beliefs and practices is, if not entirely, almost entirely on the side of the religionists. For you to imply that such things are anything close to equally distributed between "religion and opinions opposed to religion" IS laughably uninformed, and someone who is as big a champion of church-state separation as you claim to be would know that very well.

And yes, everyone tries to convince other people of their opinions. Christians may try to convince you that atheists are hideous people and that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus as their savior will burn in hell for all eternity, and atheists may try to convince you that there is no good reason to believe in a god at all. That's just good old-fashioned free speech. And simply being exposed to opinions you disagree with or find offensive is part of the price we all pay for living in a society where we're all (fairly) free to speak our minds. But again, none of that is what this is about. It's about forced prayer in schools, the posting of religious edicts in secular courtrooms, laws imposing "Christian" values on everyone, and government promotion of Christianity at every opportunity (among other things too numerous to list).

[get the red out]

129. Bullying is coercion

And it is taken to a fantastic level BY BOTH SIDES.

I'm on neither "side", often disgusted by the hatefulness of both atheists and true believers. We are certainly free to be as big of assholes as we like, you get no argument from me there. I don't think I ever even hinted that people were not free to speak their minds. I just used my freedom of speech to say what I thought about it. Somehow that seemed to translate to my being anti-freedom of speech. My not agreeing with you doesn't mean I oppose free speech.

[skepticscott]

131. And I used my freedom of speech

to give my opinion about what you said, and to tell you WHY I thought that.

You have yet to answer what I posed in #25. Why do you keep dodging it? All you've done here is repeat the same nonsense that atheists in this country are forcing or coercing others to conform to their worldview just as much and just as egregiously as religionists. Well, repeating it over and over doesn't make it any truer. If you want your opinion to be taken seriously, back it up. If you can't, then live with the fact that it will be regarded dismissively.

[get the red out]

132. Both groups tell everyone else to shut up

It is their right to do so, I point that out. You're disgust with me for saying this "over and over" doesn't shut me up and you are PISSED, LOL.

I keep repeating myself because it is what I believe and see. Of course there are no "statistics", but the intense desire to find ways to create conformity in our society seems to be a common thread among both Christians and Atheists. That is my opinion.

The truth is, no one is "supposed" to post in the Religion Forum unless they are an atheist willing to make fun of and belittle anyone else. That appears to be an unwritten expectation that is enforced by nasty attitudes. So what if I don't shut up because I'm told to? What of it?

[skepticscott]

133. I didn't ask you for "statistics"

I asked you for examples. If you see atheists forcing and coercing others to conform to or profess their worldview at a "FANTASTIC level" then it should be very easy to provide them, but you can't, despite being asked three times now.

If you can't provide the justification I asked for in #25, then just admit it, and stop wasting my time. Continuing to say nothing more than "well, I believe it!" means nothing in terms of evidence.

[Silent3]

48. Persuasion is not "force". Criticism, even ridicule, are not "force"...

Stating an opposing viewpoint, even "relentlessly", does not force anything on anyone.

I wish this oft-repeated utterly stupid but oddly popular meme would die.

If someone thinks they need a safe, insular bubble where their precious and apparently rather fragile beliefs won't be challenged, then it's up to them to retreat from the world, not for the world retreat away from them.

[patrice]

58. Just curious here: How was it necessary to the point you make to use the word "laughably"?

[skepticscott]

63. Part of the point was

that no one should take what was claimed even remotely seriously. Something so far removed from reality is, frankly, laughable, hence my use of the radical and totally inapplicable term "laughably".

Next time you want to coach me on rhetoric, have something a little more useful, ok?

[patrice]

67. What's not useful about the fact that you didn't need that word & ONLY turned the person OFF to

your point in using it?

What's more important to you ridicule or persuasion? It appears that ridicule is more important because you destroy the persuasive point of your post in order to get your jollies in with ridicule.

[patrice]

69. "need" as in the rational content of the post is the SAME without it. So WHAT is it for? Hurt.

[patrice]

70. Hurt. or padding for the old ego-strap.

[Warren Stupidity]

80. Self replies are really odd.

You do know you can edit your posts, right?

[patrice]

83. Is "odd" not permitted? I like Subject lines, so I don't edit. People can scan the whole thread

[patrice]

84. ... to get a sense of the whole thing, though I do edit most of the time.

[patrice]

88. You assume that I care about being "odd". nt

[skepticscott]

71. You assume, falsely

that my response was intended entirely or even primarily to persuade the person I'm responding to, and that a purely factual and rational presentation is always the most persuasive one possible in any case (don't ever try to make it as a trial lawyer, btw). Many people here read the exchanges without ever taking part in them, and when foolish ideas and claims are treated with deference, some of them may get the idea that there's some merit to them, when in fact there is none. I happen to think that calling nonsense nonsense and bullshit bullshit has its place in the process of getting at the truth. And if people who spout the nonsense have their precious feelings hurt by having their ideas challenged and shot down, I balance that against keeping the information stream as free of lies, misinformation and crap as possible. Anyone who has that thin a skin doesn't belong on an internet discussion board about religion.

You've really never thought about any of this, have you?

[patrice]

72. And you assume falsely that I am advocating for deference. There are more effective ways to

accomplish what you say your aims are that don't require one bit of insult nor deference for that which does not deserve it.

And we'll leave what does and doesn't deserve deference, an interesting point to explore in light of your profession, for another day.

Trial attorney: Like I said . . . "laughable" is some kind of ego accessory and please don't insult me by expecting me to think that trial attorneys are shrinking violets when it comes to USING EGO to accomplish their goals, logically and/or otherwise, others be damned.

[skepticscott]

73. And you've gauged the effectiveness of

my posts as compared to the way you might have phrased things...how, exactly? By presenting your way and my way to everyone who read my posts and asking which they found more persuasive? Yes, of course that's what you did.

And if you think that no attorney has ever used the tactic of making fun of or getting the jury to laugh at the other side's arguments or an opposing witness's testimony as an effective weapon, with no EGO involved at all, you know less than I thought. But you have no idea what my profession is, or how deference applies to it, so your presumption should go back where it came from.

[patrice]

75. Based on experience and common sense. And of course there is more than deductive "proof" for any

phenomenon, so presenting and collecting data does nothing more than what it does in that context.

And, of course, attorneys have done so without ego, but this is not a court. This is, to some of us, a community of people who have as much right to post without being ridiculed here as you do, to others it's simply a virtual aggregate and, in either case, where we are in this particular exchange amounts to as much of a probability that it is ego on your part as that it isn't.

Pardon my error on whatever your profession is. Inductive reasoning isn't that reliable and that includes jumping from idiosyncratic deductive particularities to "people's feelings have no significant effect upon the issue".

[skepticscott]

78. No, this isn't a court of law. How is that remotely relevant?

It is a forum where opposing points of view are debated, using arguments and evidence with an aim toward persuading people of one thing or another, and, hopefully, getting closer to the truth. Gee..just LIKE a court.

And what is your experience and common sense about how the people in this group respond to arguments that evoke no emotion at all, as opposed to arguments which have an emotional appeal?

Just out of curiosity, do you have any point to make about the substance of what's being debated here, or is this just pure tone trolling? If the former, by all means make it. If the latter, it's getting tiresome.

[patrice]

85. It's relevant; you're treating a poster here as if it were, with you = judge, jury, & punisher nt

[skepticscott]

92. Hogwash, not to mention a silly use of the analogy.

Where have I ever said or implied that I was the final word on anything else here? I posted my response to what I thought and still think was an egregiously wrong statement. The other person was completely free to respond in any way they chose to, as many times as they chose to, with facts, arguments or anything else they felt was appropriate. Neither I nor anyone else has done anything to close off debate on the substantive issues raised. If they CHOSE not to respond because their feathers were a little ruffled about having their claim shot down, that's entirely their business and not my problem.

It really is amazing how many people come into discussion boards and expect to never have their opinions, views and claims challenged, or who think that having the ideas that they threw out for public review attacked or insulted for being foolish and uninformed is the same thing as being attacked or insulted personally. Anyone trying to influence the thinking of others has no right to expect their claims to be treated with kid gloves.

[patrice]

95. You claimed a right to insult others for "truth". AUTHENTIC challenge is fine, insult bastardizes

the challenge.

[skepticscott]

97. Please show me where I directed a personal insult

at anyone. You're also apparently incapable of making the distinction between a person and an argument.

And yes, I claim the right to use satire, irony, sarcasm and ridicule as means of persuasion and of attempting to ensure that foolish ideas are not taken seriously. Are you really, honestly, saying that none of those are legitimate? That's going to put a lot of political cartoonists out of business.

[patrice]

99. "laughably uninformed" in #25 insults the poster & squelches other "lesser beings" who might

otherwise risk their own level of knowledge, or lack thereof, in this discussion and thus experience a chance to become better informed, ahemmm . . . since being informed IS your criteria after-all.

[skepticscott]

101. Here was the exchange

I'm sorry if that is an offensive opinion.

Not offensive, just laughably uninformed

My comment was directed at one single OPINION, expressed by them at one moment in time, not at them as a person. If you can't make that distinction, then this discussion is a waste of time. And "lesser beings" is your invented term, not mine. I haven't referred to anyone that way, though you seem to need to. And if people become more inclined to think carefully before expressing opinions that may mislead others, I'd call that a damn good thing.

[patrice]

86. We have different understandings of persuasion. I consider mine more complete & that is

germane to the question of why whatever Liberal Religion is has not established how it is different from whatever it isn't.

I haven't gone any further with that question, though I do have some ideas in mind, because I need a definition of Liberal Religion.

Regarding no emotion:emotion, I consider that a false dichotomy at least on the principle that there's probably very little about the biology, which we are referring to, that is zero-sum like you imply with that assumption. A spectrum would be a better model of what is going on with the sensory & perceptual apparatuses.

[skepticscott]

94. Well, gee, since we have different understandings of persuasion

why not just try to persuade people in your own way, rather than being a scold about how other people go about it? Maybe, just maybe, your way is not always the most effective.

And the statement (for the third time) that I was responding to was: "The biggest problem I see with both religion and opinions opposed to religion is the bullying that comes about when people try to force what they think on others." I made a very clear argument about why that's silly and a gross misrepresentation of what goes on in this country. Do you have anything of substance to contribute on that issue, or are you just going to continue to parse words about my tone? If the latter, I think we're done here.

[patrice]

96. Pardon me if I think hurting people is bad, besides being counter-productive to one's purpose.

[skepticscott]

98. How exactly was anyone "hurt" here?

Did someone get punched in the face? Shot? Betrayed by their spouse of 25 years? Did someone get told they were a useless piece of crap who would be better off dead?

Oh, someone was told that their precious idea was silly? Perish forbid that should ever happen.

And pardon me for thinking that keeping nonsense from polluting the information stream is a bit more important than a few ruffled feathers in those doing the polluting.

[patrice]

100. "keeping nonsense from ..." Did WE give you authority to exclude or admit participants????

Make your frakking legitimate point. You de-legitimize yourself by trying to exclude other perspectives. You CAN say whatever is right or wrong with them without insulting the persons. Whether those perspectives are right or wrong will not be served best by hurting people and scaring others away by displaying ridicule.

***IF*** the TRUTH REALLY MATTERS, those who ridicule and belittle and discount others are poor servants to how people discover the truth.

[skepticscott]

104. No one has been "excluded" except by their own choice.

And no one has been "hurt".

I've tolerated your rather lengthy rant over one single word I used that you didn't like, because it was worth saying things about how tone doesn't trump substance and attitude doesn't trump fact. But if you have nothing left but to accuse me of saying things I haven't said and doing things I haven't done, while refusing to address anything of real substance, then you really are becoming a waste of time.

Have a nice night.

[Dorian Gray]

110. Your idea that

words like "Well, then you're laughably uninformed" isn't off-putitng is, well, laughably uninformed.

Seriously, if you said that to me, then I'd pretty much stop whatever conversation point blank.

Why bother continue when you think that what I might have to say is laughably uninformed.


Seriously, though, we're all informed by our own experience. Some of us may not have knowledge that others have, but life is a constant learning experience. If you diminish people's views by calling them uninformed, then they probably will shut down and not actually want to learn more.

At least that's how I work. I like to be challenged. I don't like to be insulted.

[eqfan592]

111. Off putting is one thing.

Saying it is a direct, personal insult is something different. Honestly, if that strikes you as a direct, personal insult, then your skin is far too thin to have a conversation with anyway.

[skepticscott]

113. Well, if the point you were making

wasn't important enough to defend against what you perceived as a jibe, then I would have to wonder why it was important enough to try to make in the first place. Do you have nothing that you believe in strongly enough to stand up for in the face of a less than obsequiously polite response? Taking your ball and going home at the first ruffled feather may make you feel better, but it advances the general understanding not one whit.

And btw, if you're going to try to quote me, you might at least make it an accurate reflection of the exchange in question. The fact that you're the second person on this thread who has tried to distort the nature of what I said makes me wonder why.

[dmallind]

121. Yeah if only those atheist bastards would stop passing laws

forcing people who disagree with them to follow the tenets of atheism about who can get married, about family planning, about access to medicine, about teaching kids fairy stories not science and about restrictions on individual speech and actions that speak against atheism.

They are just the same!

[cbayer]

7. Agree. It's the team sport notion of believing or not believing that cause the most problems.

Either with us or against us, as opposed to identifying where we meet, is a common theme from both extremes.

[cleanhippie]

10. Identifying where we meet IS important, but so is identifying where we depart.

And this writer is speaking to all of that. There ARE places where our common interests intersect, and we SHOULD come closer together based on those common interests.

But one thing that often gets overlooked (if not willfully ignored) by the liberal religious, is where we do not come together. The author is saying that liberal religion had good intentions of bridging that gap, yet it fails miserably because it perpetuates the the most divisive things that keeps us apart.

While I only speak for myself, I AM trying to find that common ground. Perhaps if the religious among us could recognize just what it is that is dividing us, and do something about it, we can then move on to that common ground.

Allow me to close with the authors last paragraph again, with emphasis on the important part, as food for thought on my point...

I admit that I do not yet foresee this new way of life that replaces religion in a way that is humanly satisfying. But, liberal religion is not it and currently siphons off energy and intelligence that should be devoted to helping us find a way into the future. That is what is wrong with liberal religion.

You feeling me?

[cbayer]

12. He says the same thing about atheists.

I think it is not clear at all what the boundary is between the secular and the religious. In America we think it is clear because Christianity and Judaism have developed beliefs about a supernatural realm—still of course a claim about reality, about what is real—that cannot be true from a certain scientific perspective. Fair enough. But not all religions share those kinds of beliefs and some Christians and Jews struggle to make sense of them.

Conversely, some secularists are materialists, even reductionists. But this worldview cannot even account for consciousness. Not all secularists look at reality in that way.

The irony of all this is that secularists like Christopher Hitchens and Mark Lilla have argued for years that religion in politics leads to violence and the only way to have peace in political life is to strictly limit the role of religion in the public square. Lougher reminds us that When God is not in your life you may turn to violence and that when God is in your life, you may also turn to violence.

So we really should step back and not criticize the “other side” for now doing what “our side” has been doing all along. No one has a monopoly on violence. No one has yet figured out how to build a just and peaceful world.

A group of self-announced atheists, such as Christopher Hitchens, is currently trying to push secularism toward atheism and away from religion. But secularism need not be atheism. The secularist rejects many things the religious person holds dear: a traditional God, life after death, miracles and so forth. But the secularist can still have a conception of God or Godhead. The secularist may see a deep pattern in history and may feel a profound connection to all that is. Secularism can be holy. You and I will live that possibility.

http://www.hallowedsecularism.org/search/label/Atheists%20and%20Hallowed%20Secularists

And to quote you with relevant changes:

But one thing that often gets overlooked (if not willfully ignored) by the non-religious and religious, is where we do not come together. The author is saying that liberal religion and atheism have good intentions of bridging that gap, yet they fail miserably because they perpetuate the the most divisive things that keeps us apart.

Perhaps if the atheists and theists, among us could recognize just what it is that is dividing us, and do something about it, we can then move on to that common ground.

[cleanhippie]

15. The only problem I have is this continued use of the term "atheism" to mean something it is not.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. That's it, nothing more. Incorrectly conflating a lack of belief with materialism and the many other -isms that are frequently used IS the place for us to acknowledge together that "atheism" is not anything other than a lack of belief, then we can move on.
The continued use of this word to convey that a lack of belief has the same qualities as a religious belief IS the problem. Yes, many others do it, both religious and not, but we, you and I, can start right here, right now, and bridge this one single gap, together, and then move forward.

You picking up what I am putting down?

[cbayer]

18. This is a complete diversion, but to satisfy your need to be semantically correct,

I will just call them anti-theists. You know the ones - those that have a need to win, to paint all believers in a negative light and wish to engage others in a discussion about religion for the sole purpose of besting them or somehow proving they are fools.

Your definition is your definition and many will define it differently. I will continue to use the terms that make sense to me, but am glad to clarify and use a different word with those, like yourself, who may have a stricter definition. Some of the self-identified *atheist* leaders feel that the term covers much more territory than you do. If they did not, they would not have made careers out of their lack of belief.

At any rate, I don't think liberal christians are a problem. I don't think atheists are a problem. I don't think any other flavor of belief of non-belief is a problem either, unless they take the position that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

[cleanhippie]

35. What we have here is a failure to validate legitimate concerns and problems.

Coming together means that you recognize and validate the very real and legitimate concerns raised by non-theists. I am willing to do the same, and in fact, feel that I have been attempting to do that. I can do better if you were to better verbalize just what they are from your perspective. I have done that, and in return, you vomit "anti-theist" back at me as if that is some kind of middle ground. it's not. Not even close.

For all of the preaching (no pun intended) you do about coming together and finding common ground, it is an interesting observation to see your actions play out in direct contradiction to your words.

[cbayer]

37. Your new path has led you to the same place, ch. I am done with you.

[cleanhippie]

38. While you may think I'm moving in circles, at least I'm trying to find a way forward.

Last edited Fri Jul 6, 2012, 03:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Maybe you should concern yourself about the stagnant mud you seem to be stuck in before condemning me for attempting to find a way out of this quagmire. Just what is it that YOU are doing differently to try and find a way forward? From where I am, it seem a to be a whole lot of the same thing, over and over.


If anything can be learned from our latest exchange, it is that it is you who are unable or unwilling, or both, to find common ground. From your POV, the only common ground is where you stand, and any refusal to agree to that is met with the incessant diatribe you continually regurgitate.

Perhaps as we all reflect on why DU continues to devolve, we can see just where each of us plays the role of the anchor pulling the ship down to the bottom. Until you are able and willing to recognize YOUR part in that, common ground will be as elusive to find as the higgs-bosun has proven to be.

Common ground is not where your feet are, cbayer, and its not the mathematical in-between us either. It exists only where we mutually recognize the positive aspects of our worldviews, all the while acknowledging the negative ones, and working to eliminate them.

Done with me? I don't believe you. You will continue to read my posts, both here and in A&A. You know it, I know it, we all know it. But thank you for saving me from the continued doses of your intolerance dripping from your responses.

Have a nice day, cbayer.

[Evoman]

52. Wow, you are so full of crap.

He honestly tries to do what you always say you want, and not only do you continue the fight by bringing up "anti theists", you then completely shoot him down.

Join me, Cbayer. Join me in bringing honesty into this forum. Admit that you don't really give a shit about this bridging gaps bullshit, and you are just here to argue and shoot down atheists. I can at least respect you if you are honest.

It's time to stop pretending. At least rug and humblebum don't pretend to be nice to us. Honesty is refreshing.

[cbayer]

54. Who is the "we" you refer to?

Do you consider yourself a member of the small gang that has stalked, harassed, and goaded me? Are you part of the small group that goes out of there way to call me out in protected groups and generally treat me like shit every chance they get? If you are, I wasn't aware of it, but am glad to know.

You bet your ass I don't like them and I said as much to one in the post I responded to. I don't know how much more honest I can get than that. This isn't about atheists. They could be atheists, warlocks, scientologists or anything else for that matter. It is them as individuals that I object to. And when I have had it with them, as I had in this case, I just shut them off. That's a far cry from shouting down and argue.

Frankly, I haven't seen you around here much, and I don't think you know much about what I do and don't do. I have lots of atheist friends, agnostic friends, religious friends and others who keep their beliefs to themselves here.

Is that honest enough for you?

[Evoman]

56. We?

I looked at my post and couldn't find any we's.

Eh, anyhow,

I love this post. It's the first time I really felt you were responding to any atheist honestly. I feel lucky that it's me!

Ive been around a long time. Lately, because of my illness, i couldn't do much more than lurk. And I do that a lot because, frankly, I don't have much else to. Chemo brain really is a horrible thing...I didn't really want to put myself out there, because I wasn't in a good position to defend myself. So I haven't been posting much.

But I'm done now. My faculties are returning, if not quite as fast as I wish. But enough. So I guess "I'm back", so to speak.

As to your post, no I am not part of any group that wants to goad you. I just don't think your frequent statements about bridging gaps mesh with your behaviour. It's easy to dislike individuals who challenge you, and to like people who don't. I'm sure that if this forum did not exist, the people who you accuse of harassing you would probably be your friends. But honestly, I wouldn't be so hard on you if I didn't see frequent examples of you contradicting your supposed goals of "productive conversation. But your only human...so maybe it's less bullshit, than plain old frustration that makes you really bad at productive conversation. I could be wrong about you.

I certainly don't condone harassing nor stalking behaviour. I haven't seen it, but if it happens again, just call your pal evoman, and much ass will be kicked. I don't like bullies...I fucking hate em. At the same time, some of the very people you dislike have been very good to me, and have supported me when I was at my lowest. Hell, I've cried at some of the messages I've received. So when you tell me they goad you or bully you, I'm more inclined to believe that you are simply mad that youve been challenged and see it as bullying because religious people can't stand challenges to religious bs. Mind you, if I see evidence to the contrary, I would of course defend you. I could do nothing less.

Still. It's been fun. Thanks for your response.

[cbayer]

57. Sorry, it was the "us" you referred to, not we. Same difference.

Now I recall who you are. Sorry for your illness and glad you are recovering. Serious, life challenging events can certainly have a profound effect on how we approach the world.

I stick by my mission of bridging gaps and if you honestly looked at my posting here, I think you would see it. However, there are particular members here who have repeatedly burned bridges, and I am not going to be bothered with them. It's not about being challenged. It's about being bullied. Been there and not going back there.

[Evoman]

62. Cancer is a real bitch.

But here's the thing.... No matter how bad things got (for me personally, the worst was getting my resection and having to get an ileostomy.....I puked bile for two fucking weeks in the hospital) I never turned to god. When I was sick and at my weakest, I had at least a couple of people who tried to convert me. But I never stopped believing religion was fucking bullshit. In fact, it made me even more solidly atheist, because no god worth worshiping would let me suffer that much.

Now that it's established I basically hate religion, how would you go about bridging gaps with me? I hope I'm not one of the people who you dislike for bullying you. If I am, then the conversation is obviously over.

But if I'm not, what would be the goal in your conversations with me? What do you want from me? I can be your friend, but not if you try to convert me or want me to respect religion. It's not in me to think anything other than all religion is complete crap. I have no respect for your religious beliefs... I can't even pretend because it wouldn't be the honest truth. Am I a lost cause? Will you only have your bridge building conversations with people who already agree with you? How long before you give up?

[cbayer]

64. Your personal journey is your personal journey.

Whether that includes belief in a deity makes absolutely no difference to me. I have seen people turn to a god and others turn away from a belief in god during times such as you describe. My opinion is that people should do whatever helps them through the hell such as you describe, and, as long as it harms no one else, I will support where they are.

One thing that is interesting here, and has happened over and over again, is your assumption that I am religious. My lack of clarity on this issue is complex and is mostly due to my own nebulous position. So I am not sure that there are any gaps to bridge with you. I would be quite interested, though, in why you have made the determination about me that you have.

Unlike you, I don't hate religion. I see a lot of good and have defended religion against those who wish to destroy it. I also do not hate atheists and see the good in that POV as well. I recognize the challenges to both positions and the discrimination and bigotry that flows in both directions, and I object to that. What I hate is fundamentalism on either side. What I hate are those that wish to destroy others because of what they believe or don't believe.

My goal with you would be to understand you better and for you to understand me better, and that appears to be what is happening here. I have nothing to convert you to, and as long as you don't try to convert me or bully me or personally attack me, I think we are cool.

[skepticscott]

66. So who on this board

has expressed a desire to simply "destroy" all religion? As opposed to keeping it from imposing its will and its values on EVERYONE, whether they agree with them or not?

[Evoman]

77. I hate religion, in the way I hate lies and bullshit. But who the hell ever talks about destroying?

Sure, we might wish religion fades and "dies", but I doubt there is one person here wants to "destroy" it. That would necessarily need violence to be done, and no one here has ever advocated that position. If they had, believe me I would have noticed.

And that's the funny thing about that bs equivocating about "fundamentalists on both sides". I'd bet you there are not even a handful of atheists on the entire planet that have the violence, passion, and power that fundamentalist religious people have.

That fundamentalist atheist bullshit is exactly that....a lie that liberal religious people tell themselves so the can feel like they sit in a middle, "reasonable" position. I can't take anyone who brings that shit up seriously (just look at my response to humblebum). A good start in bridging the gap with me in throwing that both sides bullshit in the trash, because it's not an honest position.

If you can provide proper names for at least 20 atheists alive who prosetylyze religious people, have committed acts of violence against religious people, or even just admitted to wanting to destroy religion, I might take it seriously. I myself don't even barely KNOW 20 atheists...and don't live in a particularly religious country. Hell, every atheist I know barely even acknowledges they are atheist unless pressed or asked directly.

[skepticscott]

87. Sorry, that's a "gotcha" question

You can expect no substantial answer to back up her hysterical claim about all these people wanting to "destroy" religion.

[cbayer]

102. You seem to want to take the position that one side is "more better" than the other,

and I have absolutely no interest in doing that.

There are good people and bad people in all camps, religious and not. I don't like bullies and I don't like people who feel that they hold the absolute correct position, particularly when it comes to theism and atheism. I will avoid these people and seek common ground with people who exercise tolerance and respect when it comes to different points of view. We can call it whatever you like, but there are those whose hostility towards religion and religious believers is so strong that they can be neither civil nor exercise tolerance.

This has nothing to do with violence and I never meant to imply that it did. It has to do with some kind of feeling that this is a team sport (I note again that you refer to *we*) with winners and losers in a battle to be right. Again, I'm not interested.

In terms of this site, I am interested in electing Democrats to office. I see the value and power of both religious and non-religious groups/individuals in achieving this goal and by supporting each other, the power becomes synergistic.

I am still not sure where you stand in terms of what I am talking about, but it may be that your self-professed hatred of religion puts you in a place where we do not have anything to work with. If that's the case, then maybe we will meet elsewhere on the board where things can be more congenial.

Because, as much as I like heated discussion, I won't tolerate being bullied or personally attacked. When that happens, I concede. Game over. Other side wins.

[skepticscott]

105. You seem to want to take the position

that every point of view is equally valid and legitimate. Points of view have to EARN respect, and not all of them deserve it. Do you "respect" the point of view that slavery was the rightful lot of black people, or do you find that opinion beneath contempt? I wonder if you would even have the courage to say so if you did, if it meant ruffling anyone's feathers. I wonder if you think it's a good thing that the opposing point of view "won". As far as "tolerance", you seem to regard any questioning or challenging of religious points of view as "intolerance" or bigotry" or "bullying", but they can be posted here as freely as any others.

And no, you don't like "heated discussion". You've never shown the slightest inclination to do anything but avoid any discussion that wasn't all warm and fuzzy. You seem to regard critical thinking of any kind as anathema. Not only do you go out of your way to seem not to be judging any ideas or claims as more or less legitimate than others, but you seen to find the notion that anyone would care to do so totally alien.

[Evoman]

109. Religion is a lie.

And I love to see it exposed as such.

This is where I come to see arguments for religion whither and die. It's where I come to see religious people hem and haw, and laugh as they offer nothing up but diversions, lies and obfuscation. This is where I come for fun.

The rest of DU is a much more serious place for me. I have very strong opinions on feminism and police brutality, and you an imagine I have a very strong anti-authority personality, so those discussions "matter" to me a lot more. This forum is fluff. Not that religious hijacking of the government isn't an important issue to me, but the discussions here rarely tread on that issue. People who support religion in government are automatically my enemy and I don't care to listen to their crap.

So, basically, your wider goals on DU are very compatible with mine, except when you are on this forum. I don't see any compelling reason to "bridge gaps" here, since we already have similar goals politically. As long as people vote left wing, respect women and minorities, acknowledge their privilege, and denounce police and jail violence, then we are already allies.

That said, one side IS better. Individual atheists may be bad people....fuck, there is nothing I hate more than Randroid atheist assholes. But pretending that "fundamentalist atheists" exist as a group, and that they are anything like fundamentalist religious people in behavior, power or scope, is nothing but bullshit. Atheism is nothing. Atheism is null. Atheism has no fundamentals. Atheism is simply better because it makes nothing up. There are no lies in it.

I have never met one "fundamentalist" atheist in my life. Not a single one. I have met, and almost been a victim of, religious fundamentalists. What about you? Have you ever been victimized by an atheist fundamentalist in your real life? Have you ever been victimized by religious people?

[cbayer]

114. I don't think we have anywhere to go from here, evoman.

If you come here to laugh at people who embrace religion and take the position that what others believe is a lie, then I don't really have anything to say to you. I have strong opinions about tolerance and inclusion when it comes to believers and non-believers. I have strong feelings about the damage the religious right has done to our country and our need to take it back.

We are allies on other issues, but not this one, so I will leave you in peace here.

[skepticscott]

115. So when Christian fundamentalists

say that they believe "God hates faggots" or words to that effect, and that they believe homosexuality is an abomination, you're not prepared to say that's a lie?

Do you have the courage to take a stand on ANYTHING? Or do you just "tolerate" and "include" everything in one big happy grouphug?

[Evoman]

120. I don't laugh at people who embrace religion. I laugh when they try to defend beliefs and utterly

fail.

There is a difference.

Liberal christians ALWAYS say they have strong feelings about the religious right, but as soon as atheists come into the picture, they jump to defend their brethren. What happens as soon as any of us protest religious involvement in government? "Oh atheists, thats not a big deal. Why do you guys always make such a stink about it."

Doesn't matter if its giant crosses, ten commandments, religion in school, or what have you.

People believe and spout lies all the time. You are saying that you won't ever call people out? Thats just not right.

On edit: I don't want to be left alone by you. Where is the fun in that?

second edit: I'm eating McDonalds fries and drinking their coffee. Fucking fantastic. I hate that I love their food so much.

[cbayer]

122. I've not seen liberal believers here defend the actions of the religious right.

There is sometimes disagreement, but people come down on all sides. The issue of this 10% with a church bulletin had as many atheists saying meh as saying it was wrong. I've seen believers come down against religious symbols on public lands and religion being taught in public schools. The lines may vary, but it's not absolute. Maybe you need to give some of the more progressive believers here a chance, as many are seriously opposed to the positions that the religious right have taken and many are on the forefront of causes we share.



I also love McDonalds way too much. I love that I can get a double cheeseburger and a sweet tea for $1.98. Fortunately, I can only get to one about every 2 - 3 months, but I hit it 3 - 4 times when I am in the area. The only thing that beats it is Popeye's, which I can only get about twice a year.

Enjoy your lunch. I am envious.

[Evoman]

127. Ha. We can bridge gaps with our mutual love of cheeseburgers.

[skepticscott]

138. And you express that "tolerance"

by calling creationists "a bunch of dumbasses"

Nice.

[skepticscott]

65. You've pretty much hit the nail on the head

To this poster and few other related ones, ANY post that challenges or contradicts what they have decided is the truth (except in the most obsequiously polite way) is characterized as "a personal attack", "harassment", "goading" "bullying", "persecution" or anything else rather than a part of honest and productive discussion with an aim of getting closer to the truth (as opposed to raising the warm-fuzzy quotient of the room). If all someone has been subject to here is having their claims and arguments demolished and their way of presenting them called into question, they've suffered none of those things.

[JNelson6563]

130. Christians who think there's

not enough religious influence in our secular government are a BIG part of the problem.

And I don't care how much verbosity you throw at that, there it is.

Julie

[cbayer]

134. I agree with you but fail to see how this responds to what I have written.

I think my last line covers it.

What that too verbose for you?

[JNelson6563]

136. You claim to dislike division

But in your effort to push your agenda forward you bring lots more divisions to the table.

It seems to me in your efforts to get non-believers to agree that the right kind of Christians are ok, not so bad, in fact would make the world a better place if they were allowed to influence government, you have no choice but to add more divisions.

Divisions are part of the problem and you bring lots and lots of them.

Julie

[cbayer]

137. You know absolutely nothing about me or my agenda.

See you around the campfire.

[skepticscott]

139. You parade your agenda all over this group

every day. Do you really think that people don't know it?

[Leontius]

17. "What it is that is dividing us,"

I would guess that would be I believe in God and you don't, exactly what should I do about that?

[cleanhippie]

43. Then you need to stop guessing and pay attention to what people are saying instead.

Or is that asking too much of you.

[Leontius]

50. I asked a question and your was response

was to come back as a smartass maybe that's the problem. You spent an entire thread crying about the tone of this board an asked for a change and this is how you respond to my question makes me think you weren't telling the truth in your previous thread. I'll give you another chance to prove your change of attitude and approach on this board, the thing that divides atheism from believers is a belief in God, what exactly do I , since it was you that placed the onus for action on believers, do about this? This is a chance to really say something constructive instead of being confrontational use it or we'll all know what the truth is behind your previous words in the thread on splitting this group.

[eqfan592]

51. I think you need to go back and look at the statement you made, along with its associated question.

You seem to think it was something worthy of a serious response. It was not.

[Leontius]

55. Thanks for your input I'll give it the

consideration it deserves. I made no statement, the poster to whom I was responding to made it, the question still remains what does divide atheism from belief and why should the onus for addressing it not be on the side of atheists instead of believers? If someone is serious about resolving this then the simple question I asked is a perfect opportunity to start that process about solving this 'divide' anew or you can just say that's a stupid question and feel good about your superior ability to frame the question and move on, one is helpful to the discussion and one isn't , your choice.

[eqfan592]

60. Your post:

I would guess that would be I believe in God and you don't

Statement (in response to the question posited by the OP)

exactly what should I do about that?

Question. And note that it is not the same question you are speaking about here.

Your entire first post screams a total lack of interest in serious discussion on the topic.

Had you started off with some of the questions you ask here, perhaps a more amiable discussion would have taken place.

[Leontius]

74. I see the point you are making

about a my answer and being a statement. But the question still is, according to the original poster, what divides atheists from believers and what should believers do about it? It is constantly stated that atheism is the lack of belief in God, that's the only thing it means. I have no problem with someone making that as their base position. However if that is the case then theism is only the belief in God nothing more as a base position is just as valid . Whatever social, political, moral or ethical views we may hold are not dependent exclusively on either point of view even if they may coincide from time to time with them. If the original poster is truly asking about the core issue of division he should provide some answer or show his direction of thought about a solution instead of just saying as he does believers have to do something about it, my hands are clean.

[Leontius]

125. I see our esteemed friend is still afraid to comment on the question of 'what divides us'

perhaps you will take this opportunity to say what your view is on the question since he won't. I think you do realize that my first post was a sincere effort to start discussion from my other two posts here even if my original post was badly phrased and as you say seemed less than a serious response. Here's an opportunity to start the conservation without rancor, insult or childish one upsmanship on the issue of division and the search for common ground which both can work from.

[DonCoquixote]

26. where people depart and come together.

I think that if either side wished to prove their worth, they would focus a hell of a lot less on trying to debate where they were right, and actually focus on showing it.

An example:

The golden rule" do onto others as you would have others do unto you."

The Christian, if they were serious, would apply that rule, which would wind up choking off a lot of the negative aspects of religion (such as the very persecution that causes issues.)

The Athiest might point out that this Golden rule, existed thousands of years before Christ, as it was attributed to Confucius and many others. However, rather than debate whether or not he or she needed a God to be moral, they would actually show it by following that rule as good or better than any religious type. That would also improve conduct, as empathy is forced into the equation.

So, when the Religious and the Atheist actually try to SHOW virtue through their ACTUAL, OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOR, they wind up avoiding the tangles of rhetoric, and giving a good, objective example anyone can judge for themselves.

But, when people go about not caring about each others feelings and thought (or even mocking them as some do) then they should not be surprised if people tend to not care what they think or feel, that goes for folks with clergy collars, or with labcoats.

PS: I brought up that "golden rule" as I think it might offer a hint of "common ground", as it is another way of stressing manners and empathy, something all human societies try to come up with. Let those who wish to prove their points do so in action, not a bunch of words on a message board.

[kwassa]

28. Good post.

[cleanhippie]

9. Isn't that the whole point?

I have my opinion, you have yours. We discuss our opinions, make rational arguments and present evidence to support our opinions, and hope to get the other person to see the issue from our POV. If the argument is convincing and the evidence is sound, only cognitive dissonance keeps those holding contrary opinions from accepting the other.

Your strawman argument, that

The biggest problem I see with both religion and opinions opposed to religion is the bullying that comes about when people try to force what they think on others

is just plain false. Coming to a discussion board and being exposed to opinions that differ from yours is NOT having what one thinks FORCED on you.

FORCING an opinion or POV on someone comes in the form of legislation, discrimination, and bigotry. And this is not it.

[get the red out]

14. In society there is a lot of bullying

from one side to another. I did not attempt to attack DU in any way, this is only a message board.

[cleanhippie]

36. It seems that my point was lost on you.

Because your response makes no sense to me.

[trotsky]

32. No, clearly it isn't.

When atheists speak their opinions, we are "persecuting" others and "forcing" our beliefs on them - NO DIFFERENT THAN radical fundies who are using the US Govt to institute religious laws. NO DIFFERENT, I tell ya!

When Christians post prayers, videos, screeds that claim no one would want to live in a society without a religious basis for ethics, or that the civil rights movement would not have happened without Christianity, well... they are just sharing their faith and personal beliefs.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking in its grandeur.

[cleanhippie]

39. Clearly. I guess to some, "common ground" only means moving to where they stand.

Anything less is unacceptable.

[trotsky]

42. I see no other conclusion one can draw from the observations in this group.

And that is sad.

[Starboard Tack]

16. +100 Couldn't agree more.

What better place to see that bullying in action, than right here. Ironically, the most intolerant claim to be atheists. (See reply #6). Classic example of the victim evolving into the persecutor. We get so obsessed with individual concepts of "belief" and "faith" that we completely dismiss our evolution on a spiritual level, which has nothing to do with religion.

[get the red out]

19. I very much like your post

"we completely dismiss our evolution on a spiritual level, which has nothing to do with religion"

It's getting tiring to feel that what you just said is unspeakable for a liberal. I know it is unspeakable in my home state because of Christian extremists. The I go to various places online and it is unspeakable for the opposite reason.

[skepticscott]

20. Persecutor?? Give me a break

If you had ever experienced real persecution, you'd be deeply ashamed to apply that term to ANYTHING that happens on this board. Having your delicate feelings bruised or your precious beliefs challenged doesn't even come close.

[Starboard Tack]

23. You have no idea what I have experienced during my time on this planet.

Thanks once again for proving my point.

[skepticscott]

24. Where did I ever say I did?

Nowhere. Thanks for making my point that religionists here are largely incapable of debating honestly, and that it's you who play the victim...constantly.

But please...tell us where you've seen REAL religious persecution up close and personal in the world (if you even have), and then compare that to my posts on this thread or anywhere else. Oh, please.

[kwassa]

29. Show me where in this country there is real atheist persecution ...

This is the greatest fallacy perpetuated on this board.

How have you been tortured in life for being an atheist?

[skepticscott]

31. Show me where I ever said there was..oh, right..you can't

I'm not the one who ridiculously claimed that there was persecution going on in this group, now am I?

Sorry, but that's about the lamest attempt at deflection that I've seen all year.

Just not your night, is it?

[dmallind]

123. Larry Hooper. Fred Whitehead. CSF tests, child custody data. "not real citizens"...

...death threats for standing up for the 1st Amendmen from Newdow to Ahlquist. The Smalkowskis. Darrell Lambert. Damon Fowler.

Since Christians outnumber atheists 10 to one, it shouldn't be difficult for you to give me ten Larry Hooper analogs from memory like I did for a start. Then you can move on to the others.

[kwassa]

126. and who are these people?

you speak in code.

[cbayer]

124. I think there is discrimination, even now.

Polls show that atheists are pretty much unelectable, for example.

And there has been some true persecution in the past, though I hope that is a thing of the past.

The activist groups are doing some good work in challenging cases of discrimination.

[Evoman]

46. How the fuck does anyone "force" what they think on others?

Is it some sort of telepathy I'm not aware of?

The only thing I can think of is when you use violence or threats of violence or propaganda to control what others think, and as far as I've seen, none of that occurs here.

Here. In a discussion forum. In a religion discussion forum. You know...a place where people come to give their opinions.

See, I agree with you somewhat. I'm a big fan of leaving people the fuck alone. Big fan. Huge fan. Except...well...when we come on a discussion forum. Then it becomes kinda whiney and stupid complaining about being left alone. In fact, complaining about others sharing their opinions IS an opinion.

[patrice]

68. Also by forming little power cliques that ridicule non-members, so that society gets the message,

"Be/think this way, or else."

[patrice]

76. a.k.a. Fascism.

[Deep13]

89. Yes, as a nonbeliever, I experience that all the time.

I do not accept the basic narrative and, therefore, am always viewed with suspicion. Your claim is similar to the claim of reverse discrimination in that the dominant group is claiming to be oppressed by the subjugated group. It's bullshit.

You leave something else out of your analysis too. The truth matters. These are not competing, equally plausible points of view. If I am right then all believers everywhere are wrong. Period. If Christians are right, then every other kind of believer is wrong. And since belief informs actions, which point of view prevails will have a profound influence on the future of humanity (assuming we have a future).

[patrice]

93. Oh! Hell, yeah! Both sides ARE doing it. Sorry, not my fault. I respect both.

Though I don't have much respect at all for what calls itself "Christianity" has become, I do have respect grounded in experience for individual believers who constantly live what they believe, no matter what.

I have respect for Science, because I know and live honestly with its intrinsic limitations. I refuse to make a god out of rationalism.
I have respect for authentic spirituality, because I know what its intrinsic limitations are. I refuse to make a god out of belief.
I like the dynamic tension between the two. This isn't a perfect position, but I don't require perfection.

Religion, Liberal or otherwise, I'm not so sure about . . .

[Deep13]

119. I fully agree that science has linitations...

...but that does not mean debunking religion is outside of those limits. The failure of science to find an answer does not make religious claims valid by default. It is hard to comment on personal experiences without knowing the details. Likewise, spirituality is so vaguely defined that it is hard to comment on that. I do know that many of the subjective reasons people give for belief are the products of the peculiarities of human perception.

And both sides are not doing it. Oppressing a minority view is not the same as efforts to push back.

[Deep13]

82. It is not about opinion at all...

It is about realizing that beliefs have no bearing on reality. Reality does not conform to the reassuring narratives we have internalized. This is about finding the truth, which means discarding those narratives and allowing verifiable fact to inform our views instead. Anything else is intellectual cowardice. No one has a right to espouse a belief on the one had and insist that it be free from criticism on the other.

[LiberalEsto]

11. Unitarian-Universalists think what we DO (supporting gay rights, social justice, water for all)

is more important than what we believe.

That's point No. 1.

Point No. 2: It is your right to not participate in a liberal religion.

[Adsos Letter]

22. It is your right to not participate in a liberal religion.

Indeed; and to remain equal under the law.

[cleanhippie]

40. UU's are on the cutting edge of "common ground."

IMO, UU's represent the BEST of what religion has to offer. We have a lot to learn from them. Too bad so many other "liberal religionists" are unable to see just how far ahead on the "getting it" scale UU's really are, and are unable to "get it" themselves.

[E_Pluribus_Unitarian]

34. A similar point was made in a book by a UU minister...

Duncan Howlett. The title of the book was "The Fatal Flaw (at the Heart of Liberal Religion). [Prometheus Books, 1994] The "flaw" that he saw was in the fence-straddling, "thus far but no further" tendency in much of religious liberalism...preferring a sort of "modifying" version of existing religion(s) over a full-blown, critically thinking and openly questioning, broadly inclusive and richly diverse version. He saw that as the "Achilles Heel" that would keep liberal religion from ever having much relevance, when something far more evolutionary and authentic was/is needed.

In my various Unitarian Universalist online projects I have stressed that "thorough-going liberal" philosophy that Dr. Howlett described, pretty successfully I think, but not without some occasional pushback from the "old schoolers". I agree with his (very humanistic) contention that the heart of religion is about the common and ongoing pursuit of "ultimate things" -- about giving the best that you have to the best that you can know and imagine -- which need not include supernaturalism or the continuous modifying of old worn-out traditions. There is plenty of that "ultimacy" served fresh to us every day, in and around us naturally and in our shared humanity, for a freedom-empowered, liberal-religious community to regularly gather around, and plenty of wonder and mystery to contemplate and celebrate together, without the need for any of the woo-woo or that "thus far but no further" mindset, seems to me.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Fatal-Flaw-Religious-Liberalism/dp/0879759232

[cleanhippie]

44. See my post #40 above ,please.

[humblebum]

41. I would rephrase the question, asking instead:

So what is wrong with radical atheism?

[Evoman]

47. I think the problem with radical atheists is the gay bashing.

Radical atheists love to beat up gay people.

Also, they like to go to churches and shoot religious people.

Also, they like going the churches to convert religious people.

Also, they like taking over local govermnents, and then force other people to pray to nothingness, force kids in schools to read atheist propoganda, and ostracize small groups of vulnerable Christians.

Also, they like to stop random people on the street and bug them to read atheist pamphlets and unholy books.

Also, they like giving 10 percent off to people who burn a church bulletin when they come into atheist restaurants.

Also, they like building 50 feet high A's made of solid gold (they have way too much money, seeing as how they like to take money from their atheist flocks and then spend it on gaudy shit).

Also, they write books. Motherfucking books. Full of atheist thinkin'.

Radical atheist make me so uncomfortable.. I'm glad I'm a liberal atheist, because it makes me better than all those other atheists, with their radical agendas and hatred.

[humblebum]

53. You may be more right than you realize. nt

[Evoman]

59. Of course I am. Look at the news (well, the few that aren't owned by radical atheist organizations)

Every day a new story about radical atheists and the violence they commit. Every day, another newspaper article showing how they are attempting to hijack the government to spread their messages of hate.

I don't know how often they have come knocking at your door with their screwed up literature (I would love to hear your stories about radical atheists and what you do when they come knocking on your door), but it happens to me ALL THE TIME.

I was watching one of the many radical atheist channels they seem to have and I really got upset by one show in paticular. It had that guy..you know...that really radical atheist guy. Anyways, he was talking to his flock of supporters about how we need to bring Stalinism to the America. I cant remember that shows name.....do you? You know..that show that's really popular among radical atheists....help me out here Humblebum. I don't know....maybe if you just give me some names of 6 or 7 prominent radical atheists It will trigger the guys name.

[humblebum]

103. Do you really want to go down this path?

Has there ever been an atheist exhorting hatred? Yep. Atheist shootings. Yep. Atheist church burnings? Yep. Atheists publicly condemning religion? Yep. Atheists publicly and intentionally destroying something held sacred or important to religious people? Yep.

[eqfan592]

106. And is this a common practice now among any even remotely significant portion...

...of the atheist population today in this nation (or even the world)? Nope.

And can the same be said about religion? Nope.

[humblebum]

107. Actually becoming more common over the past few years in this nation. Like I said,

do you really want to go down this path? Radical atheism has a history, whether you acknowledge same or not.
And not all is in the distant past.

[eqfan592]

112. humblebum, I'm well aware of what you feel is the "history" of "radical atheism."

Your desperate attempts to link it to all atheists today are well documented here.

[humblebum]

116. "Your desperate attempts to link it to all atheists today?"

I have never attempted to link it to all atheists today. However, there are strong historic parallels between atheistic movements that are undeniable.

[eqfan592]

117. No, of course not, humblebum.

You would never do such a thing at all.

Good day.

[humblebum]

118. That is the distinction emphasized by "radical" atheists. Unless you assume

"all" atheists to be radical, which of course they are not.

[Evoman]

108. Seriously...what was that guy's name and the name of that show?

I can't remember, because there are just so many examples of that. Especially lately...it's like a radical atheist renaissance.

[LeftishBrit]

49. From a personal perspective...

the only problem with liberal or any religion is that I don't think it's true. I don't believe it. It doesn't convince me. Simple as that.

Just as I cannot become religious, just because religion might have certain advantages to me or (some might argue) to society, people who do believe in a God cannot be convinced to disbelieve because their belief may 'hinder the way into the future'.

I think that there are two issues which are best kept separate. One is: what do you believe - what convinces you, whether through scientific evidence or other evidence or through faith? The other is: what are the influences of religion, or lack of it, on society. You cannot believe something to be true because you think its good for society if you do so. You can only believe it, because you do think or feel that it's true. Therefore, rather than telling people to believe or otherwise for society's sake, it is better to set ground rules that prevent people from imposing their own ideologies dogmatically on the rest of society. Which liberal religion by definition does not. So I don't have a problem with liberal religion.

And it's not only religion that may be seen as 'worth dying for'. Nationalism is often seen as worth dying for. As Wilfred Owen put it, 'The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est/ Pro patria mori' ('It is sweet and proper to die for your country'. Which Owen sadly did, in 1918). I myself wouldn't choose to die in the cause nationalism or religion, but I just might die for the principle of a social safety net for all.

[patrice]

61. I need a definition of "Liberal Religion". Organized belief that "translates . . . .

what is being said (i.e. translates the utterances of other organized beliefs) into some sort of acceptable alternative" that, being "some sort", has no cardinal traits, other than that it is a translation, by some unidentified criteria, of something else?

And/Or - Liberal Religion is organized belief that regards itself and all other organized beliefs, whether it agrees with them or not, as examples of an over-whelming "mystery'?

[Deep13]

79. It requires belief in a lie. nt

[patrice]

90. Or in what might be an anomaly & of course we all know that anomalies are meaningless . . .

sarcasm thingee

[Deep13]

91. An anomaly? What are you talking about? nt

[bluerum]

81. Oh. My. Goddette.

What kind of trollbait tripe trash is this?

Religion is liberal.

Jesus was a liberal.

[ButterflyBlood]

128. I agree with the third line but not the second

But it should come as no surprise that Jesus was quite anti-religion. And that's why I follow Jesus, not religion.

[cbayer]

135. And I agree with the first line.