So what's with all the atheist bashing here in GD?

[Modem Butterfly]

Seriously, are people so threatened by those who are free of religion? What's up with that?

:shrug:

[CO Liberal]

1. Seems So

There's a guy who phones in to local talk radio in Colorado Springs all the time - he's a minister, and the head of the local chapter of the American Family Association (AFA). He's constantly bashing what he refers to as "free thinkers".. I phoned in one right after him and said that it was better to be a free thinker than a non-thinker like him.

[Pacifist Patriot]

6. I hope "like him" is the key to your comment...

;-)

That's one generality that sets my teeth on edge. Atheist does not always equal free thinker and theist does not always equal non-thinker.

No, I do not think that's what you were saying. I just wanted to get that out there.

Peace.

[CO Liberal]

10. There Are People...

...mostly those in this area who align themselves with James Dobson, who are incapable of thinking for themselves. They simply parrot whatever Dobson says. Or misquote the Bible to justify their homophobic hatred.

And being a theist does not automatically make someone a better person. Far too much hatred and killing has been done over the centuries in Jesus' name.

[renaissanceguy]

18. I wonder if these neocon "christians"

would crucify Jesus today, for being too liberal.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14741250

[CO Liberal]

28. I'm Sure They Would

And do it in the lobby of Focus On The Family.

[Pacifist Patriot]

33. That's the great irony.

If someone were to achieve the modern equivalent of Jesus' ministry than he would probably evoke the wrath of conservative Christians.

[IrateCitizen]

43. Ummm... Jesus was NOT a liberal.

He was not a conservative, either -- at least by the modern definitions of those terms. If anything, Jesus and his disciples were communitarians.

The terms liberal and conservative, as they apply today, are partially based in a material dialectic. Jesus did not concern himself with materialism, as literally the only things he and the 12 apostles owned were the clothes on their backs and the shoes on their feet. His vision for mankind was not one in which material goods would be divided up more equally among the people -- rather, it was one in which everything would be shared communally among the people, with no one person owning anything of their own, really.

Jesus was not liberal nor conservative. His philosophy existed completely outside that paradigm, and to portray it as otherwise is misguided and/or disingenuous.

[Pacifist Patriot]

49. Using modern connotations probably not...

using the classical definitions Jesus exhibited both liberal and conservative positions. Overwhelmingly liberal however. He was turning the religious status quo on its head.

If you don't like the term liberal used with Jesus, than you might consider progressive.

[aaronnyc]

108. thank you

I am truly sick of people trying to apply Jesus' philosophy to issues of contemporary partisan politics. Understandably, people here are upset with so many on the Christian Right saying that Bush is in line with the teachings of Christ, yet, the fact that some people on the Left would counter this by arguing that Jesus would obviously be a liberal is equally as absurd IMO. Please, can people (of both sides) leave Jesus out of politics.

[Pacifist Patriot]

34. Keep in mind...

Theist also does not equal Christian.

[CO Liberal]

50. And Also Keep in Mind....

...the following wise words from the late Ann Landers:

"Going to church doesn't make a man a Christian any more than going into a garage makes him an automobile."

[Pacifist Patriot]

55. Um, okay.

Did I say it did? Sorry, but you lost me.

[CO Liberal]

71. Simple

Many people who think they are Christians because they go to church are not, because they do not live their lives following Christ's teachings. That's why I first left the Catholic church, and then left Christianity altogether.

Today, I don't follow any organized religion. I believe that there IS something out there that created and controls the Universe, but it's beyond human understanding to fully comprehend it. I'm more comfortable with the New Age concept of referring to it as "Source" or "Spirit".

[Pacifist Patriot]

72. Are you under the mistaken impression that I am a Christian?

I understood what your comment meant, I didn't understand why it was in response to what I said.

[CO Liberal]

83. No

You had said that not all theists are Christians. I was merely saying that not all Christians are Christians, either.

I understand your position completely.

[Pacifist Patriot]

90. Oh okay, gotcha.

But can we say that all atheists are not atheists? ;)

[CO Liberal]

103. Probably

There's a wide spectrum of thought out there, and the lines get blurred between being an athiest and an agnostic, for example.

I also like the pagan rule - do as you will, providing it harms no one else.

[Pacifist Patriot]

114. Definitely a blurred line considering I'm frequently "accused"

of being both theist and atheist. Sometimes in the same day. LOL!

[donsu]

the lines are not blurry

agnostics believe there is some higher power but they are not sure what it is and athiest do not believe in any gods or higher power whatsoever.

what's blurry about that?

[IrateCitizen]

124. Your definition of agnostic is completely false.

From www.m-w.com:

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

So, agnosticism is NOT a belief in a higher power, it's simply an acknowledgement that the existence of God is unknown and probably unprovable.

[MollyStark]

208. What does that have to do with DU?

I thought the topic was the non existant atheist bashing at DU?

[Zhade]

227. That's intellectually dishonest.

I'd be lying if I said Christians have never been bashed on DU.

Likewise, your claim is false.

[Pacifist Patriot]

2. From what I can tell...

"bashing" is a matter of opinion and it seems to go in waves. Next week I can guarantee I'll see a post with the headline, "So what's with all the Christian bashing here in GD?"

As I'm consider atheist by most Christians and theist by most Atheists I find the repartee pretty stale and repetitive. Sorry, but that's just my opinion.

[shrike]

4. Me, too

And I'm a semi-practicing Catholic. Religion threads on DU usually end up quite dull, and repetitive.

[GiovanniC]

5. No, That Was Last Week

Next week we're bashing Hindus. Didn't you get your schedule?

[Pacifist Patriot]

9. Darnit, when did it get revised?

I had Zoroastrian bashing down. I thought it was going to be a light week.

[Discord]

14. Agnostic?

:P

[Pacifist Patriot]

25. Nope

I am absolutely convinced without a doubt that "God" exists. Because "God" is not an entity but a symbol. The fact that the human mind can create a word, image, concept to express the ineffable mystery of the universal energy that operates within and around us is fascinating. <And see, because it's ineffable and I'm having to use words I'm still failing to express it properly. Therein lies the rub.>

In my opinion, atheists have shut themselves off from the symbol and popular religions are worshiping a concretized and/or personified concept of the symbol. Wide gap there.

So because I accept the symbol as pointing to something extremely relevant I am not considered an atheist. But because I believe what is conceptualized as "God" by most theists is too literal I'm considered an atheist.

Am I making any sense? LOL!

[riverwalker]

42. yeah, what he said.

so eloquently (Pacifist Patriot) fits me too. Am not into labels which is a good thing because there is no name for what many of us believe. Labels are like intellectual fast food. Trying to use them to define "God" is like trying to put Post-It notes on a wet dog.

[Pacifist Patriot]

53. Pssst...

I'm a "she." ;)

Thanks for the smelly visual. LOL! May I use it in my next sermon? Which coincidentally enough is about UUism struggling to make a home for atheists, agnostics and theists in one faith family.

[donsu]

121. atheists don't belong in a 'faith family'

we have no 'faith'

[Pacifist Patriot]

132. Try telling that to the...

atheists in my UU congregation.

[Arkana]

125. Not me

I'm a complete atheist--I don't believe in ANY supreme being. I learned a lot from Sartre, Nietzsche, and Heidegger (guess that college Western Civ class was good for something). I believe that man is not guided by any kind of higher power--that he is responsible for his own choices and determines his own nature.

I don't dislike others just because they're religious, but their rights stop where mine begin. You want to go to church? Fine. But do not tell me I'm going to Hell because I don't.

[Pacifist Patriot]

136. But see, you are taking the symbol and assuming it...

means "higher power." What if it means something different?

[Zhade]

224. "In my opinion, atheists have shut themselves off from the symbol"

Gotta respectfully disagree. I'm an atheist, because I have seen no convincing evidence of any god(s).

Yet I do know, from personal (entheogenic and non) experiences that there is more out there than we know. I'm of the opinion that we simply lack the means to measure that something.

So with all due respect, your view on atheists is not applicable to all.

[Pacifist Patriot]

234. With all due respect, that view came from an atheist.

"God" is a symbol. Some atheists approach their atheism from the point of view of not needing, wanting or recognizing the symbol. Basically saying that they know there is more out there than we know, but they don't want or like the symbol of "God" to represent the unknown. Therefore, they have shut themselves off from the symbol.

[Zhade]

238. You did not say "some atheists" in the other post.

You said "atheists", thus asserting that all of us share the same approach. This is not the case, and is as wrong as saying all believers, or even all Christians, have the same approach to their worldview.

It's the assumption that we're a monolithic bloc that troubles me.

[Pacifist Patriot]

245. Agreed

[Zhade]

247. Take that, all who think atheists and theists can't get along!

:)

[lukasahero]

23. You are SOOOO not alone

I am, like you, considered theist but the nons and non to the theists. Thanks for voicing my thoughts regarding "stale and repetitive". I've seen plenty of "bashing" from both sides. It's old.

Isn't it time we stopped fighting amongst ourselves and started fighting the "bad guys"?

[American Tragedy]

190. That's essentially where I am.

Atheists consider me superstitious and deluded, theists think I'm an amoral heathen. I'm so uncommitted that I've inadvertantly managed to offend everybody, especially when they try to convert me to their worldview.

[Zhade]

226. See, AT, there's a problem. Atheists are not monolithic.

Nor are believers of any kind.

I don't consider you "superstitious and deluded". I think of you as different from me. That does not lessen my opinion of you one bit, because I think you're a cool person.

So why make it seem that all atheists feel exactly the same toward all believers? It's just as wrong as an atheist making the assumption that all Christians believe the exact same thing - heck, there are Christians who don't even believe in Jesus' resurrection or the virgin birth.

I'm not attacking you, but gently reminding you: like believers, we're all different. We just share the trait of lacking a belief in gods.

[Guckert]

They must feel bad about you going to hell. they are trying to save you??

Or they are not sure that what they believe is true and they are wasting all those Sunday mornings for nothing.

they are just jealous of you sleeping in.

[demnan]

11. Usually they rejoice in the thought of me going to hell

which is the main reason I don't admit I'm an atheist. Besides if I admitted I was an atheist, I wouldn't have the fun of pointedly using Bible quotes when it suits me, and that's a hell of a lot of fun!

[Thtwudbeme]

3. I try to confine my atheist bashing to

JanMichael.

[MollyStark]

207. Which version of the bible do you hit him with?

Just curious. I find the King James is the heaviest.

[bryant69]

7. Could you point me to some examples?

I've seen a certain amount of the opposite - Christian or Religion bashing - and Believers responding to that.

Thank you

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

[Discord]

15. of course you do...

there there... everything will be ok....

[bryant69]

19. THank you for that response

But that response did not in fact contain any examples.

[Discord]

20. because if you can't see it...

you never will.

[bryant69]

22. Just out of curiousity

Do you see any Christian Bashing on DU?

[Discord]

24. Some. I also think that what some Christians find offensive

is out of line. If I say that. Your God is a fairy tale. Many find that statement offensive.

So my question is... since the fundamental principle ALL Athiests believe, is that there are no god/gods, that religion is a man made myth/fairy tale/ghost story. Than you being offended by someone stating the central point of our belief, means you find our beliefs offensive to you, and therefore find ME offensive. Without reguard to my values, character, deeds, and morals. You have found ME offensive, BECAUSE of my beliefs. That my friend, is offensive.


Shall we go around this circle again?

[bryant69]

27. No I suppose it's better we don't

But let me say that my principle problem with you is not your beliefs but your manners. You, and a few others, pick deliberately provacative and insulting ways to state your beliefs. You might consider why saying "Your God is a fairy tale" is superior to saying "I don't believe in God."

I don't know, on the other hand, that I've ever said that your atheism makes you inferior mentally or morally to a believer. If I have I apologize, I certainly don't believe that. We have enough examples of believers and non-believers running the whole gamut of morality and immorality, that such a belief would be foolish.

[Discord]

35. the problem is that my belief and your belief are

dyametricly opposed. fundmentally different at its core.

As with most religious discussion between a believer and non, they are set in opposition. Its silly to discuss religion on this base at all.

The difference, is that religion is an institution. Atheism is not.

This is where the majority of the ire from Atheists is directed. They are the "source of the problem", as one of us might suggest.

They are the MEN who decide religious dogma, persue political agendas, barrage the public with radio ads, commercials, and rhetoric.

These are the MEN who line their pockets by exploiting the need of people for acceptance and understanding of concepts beyond explination.

Theirs is a billion dollar a year, tax free corporation, with less than Christain agendas, siphoned from the most needy people and communities from the conveinient notion of "tithing". Which is NOT implied in the Bible anywhere. Completely MAN made dogma.

As much as it comes across as a personal attack, most of it is not.
At least on my part, it is not unless someone displays the knee jerk reaction of defending their personal faith, when one openly critisizes the principles of religion as a whole.

[IrateCitizen]

38. Atheism is most certainly an institution -- and a belief

Sure, it may be a rather disorganized institution, but it is still one nonetheless, IMHO.

And despite what all those of you who use your broad brush to dismiss all religion as "fairy tales" may say to the contrary, atheism is a belief system, not a "freedom of thought". How? Because atheism depends on the belief of an absence of God, much in the same way that most organized religions depend on the belief of a presence of God.

Actually, the only ones who have it straight with regards to scientific principles are the agnostics. You cannot prove scientifically that God does or does not exist. The agnostics acknowledge this reality, as center to their belief system, and therefore do not trouble themselves with it.

[Modem Butterfly]

41. ROFLMAO!

Where are the atheist churches? What is atheist dogma? Which traditions do atheists have? What do atheists belief? Where is the factional in-fighting? What do atheists have in common beyond skepticism?

[IrateCitizen]

46. Athiests BELIEVE in the absence of God.

Like I said, agnosticism is the only system that really has it right, according to the principles of scientific inquiry. Atheism is not about simple skepticism regarding the presence of God, it is based on a BELIEF that God does not exist.

It is in this sense (and this alone) that atheism is an institution. I did not mean to imply that there were somehow atheist churches or the like -- although my former UU fellowship would come close ;-). Rather, the institution is a simple one of BELIEF -- if you do not BELIEVE that God does not exist, then you are not an atheist.

[Marnieworld]

69. we also believe in the absence of omnipotent sheep

in the sky who control everything. A beautiful holy cabbage of virtue blesses us each spring with miracles is a possible belief. No? Well then you have an anti-cabbage belief system. Or your whole reality is founded with your denial of the great sheep. There now you have an institution of sheepless people.

I'm being silly not to be insulting but to disprove your logic. A belief system is affirmative. It is not defined by what isn't believed because the number of those things is infinite.

Do you define yourself by not believing in Maya gods? Zeus? Do you define yourself as not believing in hinduism? No. You define your belief by what you believe in.

I believe in what is known. As human beings we have learned a lot and we keep learning. Reality as can be determined is beautiful enough without poetic interpretation.

[Done]

79. Do you believe the world was...

created by god, or do you believe that life evolved without the existence of a god? If you believe the world evolved without the existence of a god, then this is what you believe, correct?

Tolerance is not a question of what you believe, but how firmly or how fanatically you believe it.

[Marnieworld]

82. define "god"

seriously

[Done]

84. There are different concepts of god. (beliefs)

[Marnieworld]

91. well, what you wrote

"created by god, or do you believe that life evolved without the existence of a god? If you believe the world evolved without the existence of a god, then this is what you believe, correct? "

If you want me personally to answer this question how can I without a definition of God to say what I believe?

[Done]

104. I respect whatever you believe.

The points is that even atheists do believe in something.

[Marnieworld]

109. I believe in love

I believe that's all there is and that's all we have and that's all that matters and can be known. So there's a belief that has no connection to deity or not deity.

[Fifth of Five]

102. Define god...

and give two examples. :7

[Done]

107. bush and asscroft.

...no, wait a minute, they would be satan.

[IrateCitizen]

86. And that, friend, is a PERSONAL BELIEF!

Reality as can be determined is beautiful enough without poetic interpretation.

In short, what you are doing is taking your own personal experiences in life and projecting it on to others, saying that their beliefs are not as viable as your beliefs. The problem is, those others may have had experiences in life that are radically different from yours, and therefore it is folly to expect them to adopt the same belief system as the one you hold. Yet, that seems to be exactly what you are proposing in saying that your system is the only NATURAL one, and that all others are the result of institutions borne out of artificial constructs.

Actually, if anything, religion of some sort is the natural state of human existence. I mean, religion was used by mankind for millenia, whereas atheism is a relatively recent advent that came out of the Enlightenment's challenging of Church teachings. The problem is that the challenges brought forth by the Enlightenment against the Church (much needed, IMHO), have been seized upon by those who have adopted atheism and misconstrued to the idea that non-religion is the only way of free thought, and that anything else is simply believing in "fairy tales" and "myths".

[Zenlitened]

93. But it's a belief ABOUT... not a belief IN.

There's a difference. One is a general understanding of the world, the other is an insistence that something -- the reality of a god, for example, is specifically a fact.

[Pacifist Patriot]

111. In my opinion...

Both the atheist and the theist position are a general understanding of the world. One simply includes the proposition of a divine substance and the other does not.

Proclaiming 'the absence of' is insisting on a fact as much as is insisting on 'the presence of.'

[Zenlitened]

131. But what's being proclaimed, in most cases...

... is an absence of evidence, not an absence of a god or gods. Some will take it a bit further, and argue that there is a strong case to be made that there is no god, at least not the sort of interventionist god that the fundies describe.

While on the opposite side of the aisle, we often hear it proclaimed that "god is real" or "jesus is my personal savior," that sort of thing. Not a general understanding at all, but a very specific claim.

That's a clear distinction, in my view.

[Pacifist Patriot]

144. Here is the precise problem.

The word "God." A clumsy attempt to express something with countless meanings the truth of which is impossible to express at all.

Regardless, both atheist and theist are world view positions that profess a belief that cannot be proven one way or the other.

"God does not exist" is as specific a claim as "God is real." As specific as anyone can get that is.

[Zenlitened]

155. Please re-read my statement.

... what's being proclaimed, in most cases is an absence of evidence, not an absence of a god or gods.

[Pacifist Patriot]

188. Sorry about that.

[Zhade]

232. I'm an atheist who does not profess a belief in the absence of gods.

Again, as Zenlightened pointed out, many atheists argue against a believer's non-evidenced insistence that their professed beliefs are facts.

Not all atheists are the same, just as not all believers are the same. I fail to see why this is so hard to understand.

[Pacifist Patriot]

235. It's not hard to understand and I've said as much elsewhere.

It is extremely difficult to have a discussion when some people are talking in generalities and others are trying to respond to specific people's stated beliefs. I know I've gotten lost in it. I suspect this conversation would be much easier in person.

[Zhade]

239. Likely so. You don't strike me as the type to foist definitions on others.

NT!

[Marnieworld]

105. Reality is reality

that is not a belief. It is not an opinion. It is what is true based on what is known and determined. Atheism is as old as humans. Saying it is new is absurd. Religion exists to explain reality when there is no other understanding. It's a tool, a tactic, but not truth.

"In short, what you are doing is taking your own personal experiences in life and projecting it on to others, saying that their beliefs are not as viable as your beliefs"

If I believe the sky is blue and the grass is green and you say it's reversed there is an actual truth. Ignore the whole color is a perception thing and realize there is actual provable truth. It is not an opinion. So I guess that incorrect belief isn't as viable as the correct one.

This mentality that we all have to just respect each other's differences is just a way to stop someone from speaking their mind.

[IrateCitizen]

116. I have no problem with anyone speaking their mind.

What I do have a problem with is when people fall back on their personal belief system in a reactionary manner anytime that belief system is challenged. As for those who portray religious beliefs as "fairy tales" or who, conversely, portray atheists as "Godless heathens", that's more a question of basic politeness and decency.

If you will review my posts on this subject, you will note that at no time have I ever once asserted that God exists. I have founded my argument completely in the principles of scientific inquiry. And yet, several atheists STILL perceive this line as attacking them in some way, or being completely misguided. This only cements my assertion, my hypothesis, as it were, that atheism is a belief system.

If I believe the sky is blue and the grass is green and you say it's reversed there is an actual truth. Ignore the whole color is a perception thing and realize there is actual provable truth. It is not an opinion. So I guess that incorrect belief isn't as viable as the correct one.

Once again, a poor argument. The fact that grass is green and the sky is blue is based on the wavelengths of light rays/particles, something that has been proven through the study of physics. Therefore, the proposition that grass is green and the sky is blue is NOT a belief, it is a simple statement of fact. And the opposite is a foolish assertion in the opposition to a proven fact. The difference between this and the whole God argument is that the former has been proven one way through scientific inquiry to the point of being accepted as a LAW, while the latter has not. Therefore, any discussions on the latter, outside of, "We don't know yet either way," are simply statements of BELIEF.

[Marnieworld]

175. Really?

"The fact that grass is green and the sky is blue is based on the wavelengths of light rays/particles, something that has been proven through the study of physics"

My point is truth is truth even before it is proven. The grass is green and the sky is blue and this was true BEFORE the study of physics proved that it is the results of wavelengths of light rays/particles. The study did not produce the reality it just understood it better.

[IrateCitizen]

182. I don't know if that's the argument you want to be making there...

My point is truth is truth even before it is proven.

I've met many a fundie who use a similar line to justify their beliefs (which, for the record, I do NOT agree with). When you start making pronouncements like truth is simply truth, it's a slippery slope.

Note -- in no way am I attempting to compare you to a Fundie, I'm just pointing out the danger in adopting arguments like that.

I've seen through this thread that I've pissed off a lot of self-described atheists. I'm not going to apologize, because my whole shitstorm started in response to one poster specifically, and a lot of others seem to have joined in a little later in the conversation and inferred that I was attempting to label them or denigrate them in some way -- and I can't say I helped to de-fuse the situation, either.

You said earlier that you believe in love. Well, guess what -- as a "theist", that's what I believe in as well. The best description of "God" I can come up with is a kind of unifying consciousness that encompasses everyone and everything, that makes all live interconnected, and is the closest thing to a manifestation of pure and infinite love. But, since I also believe (and believe being the key word in all of this) that this consciousness exists primarily outside of our physical senses, it is not something that can be proven nor disproven, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to do so one way or the other. Also, I identify myself as a Christian not because I believe in the divinity of Christ, but because I believe in the message he taught, as outlined in the Gospels. I also think that the Gospels, as decided upon by the Council of Nicea, were woefully incomplete, as they did not include the gnostic gospel of St. Thomas (one I very much identify with) nor the gospel of Mary Magdaline (seen as the most insightful one by many theological scholars).

What is my point in all of this? For those of us who are self-professed "people of faith", or definitions of "God" and "faith" are widely varying things. And our beliefs also come out of the experiences we have in life, and little else. Therefore, the last thing I want to do is to invalidate someone else's beliefs, because in doing so I am, in effect, invalidating their entire life experience to this point. By the same token, when someone with a differing view says that their way is "the only logical way" or dismisses my beliefs as a "fairy tale" (and yes, I've seen those descriptions many times, including on this thread by the poster I initially responded to), then they are effectively invalidating my entire life experience in the process, which can be perceived in no other way than insulting and sanctimonious.

For the vast, vast majority of us here, regardless of what we believe, that kind of division is completely unnecessary. Is that something that we can at least agree upon?

[Zhade]

236. "I'm not going to apologize"

There was no inference - you specifically said "atheists" instead of "some atheists", and "atheism" instead of "some who are atheists".

Replace 'atheist' with 'believer' and tell me that's not broad-brushing.


"Also, I identify myself as a Christian not because I believe in the divinity of Christ, but because I believe in the message he taught, as outlined in the Gospels."

There are Christians who would insist this means you are not Christian, yet you had the audacity to proclaim who was and wasn't atheist upthread. Can you see the irony in that?


"For the vast, vast majority of us here, regardless of what we believe, that kind of division is completely unnecessary. Is that something that we can at least agree upon?"

Yes! So can you please work on that on your end, as we do it on our own?

[Zhade]

233. "This only cements my assertion...that atheism is a belief system."

If you're interested in intellectual honesty, it would be more correct to say that it cements your assertion that atheism is a belief system FOR SOME ATHEISTS.

I simply do not believe as you continue to insist all atheists believe.

[Zhade]

231. "religion of some sort is the natural state of human existence."

This does not prove that religion is logical, or illogical - it just proves that humans believe in things.


"I mean, religion was used by mankind for millenia, whereas atheism is a relatively recent advent that came out of the Enlightenment's challenging of Church teachings."

So it's your position that there was no such thing as a non-believer before the Enlightenment?


"The problem is that the challenges brought forth by the Enlightenment against the Church (much needed, IMHO), have been seized upon by those who have adopted atheism and misconstrued to the idea that non-religion is the only way of free thought, and that anything else is simply believing in "fairy tales" and "myths"."

Again with the broad brush - I'm an atheist, and I do not believe as you are insisting all atheists believe.

[Imperialism Inc.]

274. Ding Ding Sing. We have a winner.

That is one of my few pet peeves about DU theists. This absurd notion that not believing in God is a belief system. Not believing in things that cannot be seen or experienced is the normal mode for everything from dragons to unicorns to one-eyed-one-horned-flying-purple-people-eaters. No one would suggest that the non-belief in those things is a faith based belief system. Why is God a special case? A case of something with no proof and no good reason to hypothesize its real existence that everyone must base their belief system around.

It is arrogance of the worst kind. Look guys, just because your belief system revolves around this concept does not require that of the rest of us.

[Modem Butterfly]

123. That is the funniest shit I've read in a long time!

ROFLMAOPIMP!

:spray:

[Zenlitened]

142. Wrong. Atheists have concluded that there is no evidence of gods...

... not by an emotional leap of faith, but by looking at available evidence.

Some go further, and make the argument that Zeus, Yahweh, etc. don't exist in the way they've been depicted. (For example, a quick read of the newspapers shows a planetary scale of suffering and misfortune that defies the notion of a loving, personal savior.)

That said, let Zeus come down from Olympus and make his presence known in a verifiable way, and I think most atheists will re-evaluate their previous conclusions. :D

[Misunderestimator]

180. I also believe that there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny

Believing IN something that cannot be proven is a "belief system"... not the inverse.

[toddaa]

223. Not all atheists

Compare these two sentences:

I don't believe in God.
I believe there is no God.

Both are atheist positions, but they are not the same thing. A common mistake is to claim the first statement as an agnostic position. It is not. The agnostic believes that knowledge of god is unknowable. That's not what the first statement says.

[Zhade]

240. Thank you, toddaa. You understand.

NT!

[Zhade]

230. I'm an atheist, and I don't believe as you're defining.

So right there, your broad brush is proven wrong.

[Marnieworld]

57. Please point the way to the atheist institutions!

Just a pot luck dinner every now and then ya know? What holidays are there? What rituals? Atheism is the natural human state. It's not an institution! Institutions interfere with the natural human state and change it to something else. No institutions = we are all atheists.

[spunky]

44. that's why I called myself a doubtful agnostic for a long time

But in the end, I just see no evidence of any sort of God, and I felt silly clinging to the label "agnostic" just because technically professing atheism is the same as professing a belief in God: you claim to know something that is unknowable. The fact is I don't believe, and I just decided to give up on explaining doubtful agnostic and started calling myself an atheist.

[Discord]

45. disagee.

If I don't believe theres a 500ft gorilla on my roof, does that mean that there isn't one? Does it mean that there is but I just dont see it? Does it mean that would change they way in which I act because I don't think its there? Will I not go on the roof to adjust the stellite dish because someone else stated there was one... just in case? Or simply, when I am told there is a 500ft gorilla on my roof, and I don't see it, I ask the claimant for proof. Unable to show any evidence that there indeed IS a gorilla there other than insisting that it is because they believe it is, I make a determination, based on the evidence presented, and move on. Confident there indeed is NO 500ft gorilla on my roof, and was merely the figment of someone elses imagination.


edited for grammar

[IrateCitizen]

52. Apples and oranges, my friend.

See the problem with your example is that there is an easy experiment you can do to prove whether or not there is a 500 lb gorilla on your roof -- you can simply look for yourself. Based on direct observation, you can prove or disprove whether or not there is a 500 lb. gorilla on your roof.

But what do you do when it comes to proving or disproving the presence of God? What experiments can you conduct based on either direct or indirect observation? According to the scientific method, you CANNOT prove or disprove the presence of God. Therefore, whether or not God exists comes down to a personal BELIEF.

I say all of this as a Protestant Christian who tends toward gnosticism. I fully acknowledge that my belief in a higher and/or collective power is just that -- a belief. It cannot be proven nor disproven. My gripe with certain people of faith AND atheists is that they try to present their beliefs as TRUTH, as something undeniable. Frankly, I think that both of them tend more toward the realm of non-thinkers, because they disavow Enlightenment principles of scientific inquiry in favor of simple belief.

[trotsky]

61. But what if the gorilla is invisible?

How exactly can I disprove the gorilla's existence, and more importantly, how does my non-belief in a non-provable gorilla constitute a faith in and of itself?

Without proof of god(s), the default position is non-belief. When evidence is offered FOR the existence of something, then belief in it becomes warranted.

[Marnieworld]

73. you could try throwing rocks at it.

:-D

[IrateCitizen]

74. More evidence of tending toward non-thought on both ends...

The concepts of quantum physics, which provide much of the foundation of modern science, were not even reached until the early 20th century. And I don't know of any device that can actually zoom down to the level of viewing a singular atom and all its particles -- yet that does not mean that there are not scientific methods to deduce their existence.

With an invisible gorilla, you could use sound waves to see if they bounced off, as in radar. You could douse your roof with water or some powder, looking for the outline of the gorilla.

Without proof of god(s), the default position is non-belief. When evidence is offered FOR the existence of something, then belief in it becomes warranted.

Once again, you're confusing BELIEF with something more substantial, such as a quantifiable truth. Based on the way that you, as an individual, perceive the world, you have chosen to BELIEVE that God does not exist. This is not a truth, it is a belief. Likewise, based on my personal experiences and the way I perceive the world, I have chosen to BELIEVE that there is some sort of higher power/force that we cannot comprehend in the material world. Likewise, that is not a quantifiable truth, it is a belief.

The only correct stance, once again, based on SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES OF INQUIRY, is simply throwing up your hands and saying that you cannot quantifiably prove whether or not there is a God through rigorous experimentation, observation and analysis. Anything else disguised as "truth", whether from the perspective of Christianity or Atheism, is wholly disingenuous according to the basic scientific principles of inquiry.

[trotsky]

130. The gorilla is a "stealth" gorilla.

Radar & sound waves do not bounce off of it.

It moves really fast, so there is no way you could douse it with water or powder.

(Or, alternatively, it is a magical 500 lb. gorilla, and is so tiny, you can't see it. And you certainly wouldn't see it wet or powdered up either.)

Tell me again how I disprove the existence of this gorilla.

[IrateCitizen]

135. I'm not a physicist by trade, but I am sure...

... that there are instruments and experiments that could be used to prove or disprove its existence beyond any kind of reasonable doubt.

[trotsky]

140. I doubt it.

Because you see, my gorilla is exempt from the laws of physics.

Nyah, nyah, can't disprove my gorilla. Therefore your non-belief in him is a belief!

[Discord]

156. ROFL!!!

:rofl:

[Zhade]

241. Nicely done.

NT!

[Imperialism Inc.]

275. But what about the

omnipotent sheep and magical cabbages alluded to above? Where is you experiment for those? The other infinite , undetectable possibilities?

You are, unsuccessfully, dancing around the issue. Admit it, it is based in pure arrogance. Because you believe in something, everyone else must automatically have a belief system that has your belief at the center. Even if it is a disbelief in it.

[Discord]

76. The problem with your evaluation is simple...

Atheists only base their beliefs on the known. Scientific theory, is based off of what is known. What can be observed and repeated. Any theory... such as the theory of the existance of God, alone stands the burden of proof. I don't believe there is no God, I know there is not one. Until which time someone, anyone, is able to prove otherwise, I will not consider it to be anything more than an abstract theory.

[IrateCitizen]

78. Wrong. Both are unprovable hypotheses.

I'm throwing up my hands on this one in amazement at the utter ignorance with regard to scientific principles and complete rigidity exhibited by both fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist atheists.

[Discord]

94. Science already proved to me long ago...

There is no god... period, the end. until any further evidence is presented, case closed in my book.

[IrateCitizen]

101. Would you care to disclose the experimentation in that process?

What were the nature of your experiments, or the ones you have read up on, and what were the results? Where is your quantifiable data? I'd really like to see it, because apparently I'm missing something that would be completely revolutionary in the field of science.

[trotsky]

148. Here's the experiment:

(Said out loud:)

"God, please provide me with a sign that will be recognizable and undeniable proof of your existence!"

Experiment failed. No god.

[Modem Butterfly]

195. Maybe you called on the wrong god...

You should have called out for Isis, Thor, Kali, Wemoyet, Quetzelcoatl, Zeus, Hern, etc., etc., ad naseum until you found one that answered. But you shouldn't have given up even if no one did answer, because maybe s/he/it/they has a name we don't know. The only rational way to carry out your experiment would be to keep calling names and combinations of letters 'til someone answers, because there is a god. Why just look at the sunset and tell me there isn't! Or funnel spiders. Anyone who's ever been bitten on the funnel by one of these things can tell you there's a god.

[trotsky]

206. Or I asked for the wrong sign.

Dear Lord, the gods have been good to me and I am thankful. For the first time in my life everything is absolutely perfect the way it is. So here's the deal: you freeze everything as it is and I won't ask for anything more. If that is OK, please give me absolutely no sign. (pause) OK, deal. In gratitude, I present you this offering of cookies and milk. If you want me to eat them for you, please give me no sign. (pause) Thy will be done. (eats food).

[donsu]

139. 'fundamentalist atheists' oh that's a good one

LOL

[beam me up scottie]

150. I know!!! What a crock!

Almost as good as being called an "Evangelical Atheist"!!!
:rofl:

Must be a fundie dictionary around here someplace...

[Discord]

158. Can I start up my own televangelism chain?

And claim its for non-profit because its my BELIEF system?!?

[Zenlitened]

157. It's always just a matter of time before that phrase shows up...

... in one of these threads! :D

[Marnieworld]

Clearly you are defined as a non-gorilla-ist

You exist only as a negative to the unproven positive.

[Discord]

77. Nooooo.

I exist in the PROVEN POSITIVE. Not the unproven negative.

[Marnieworld]

87. Precisely my point

Pointing to the physical reality and say "there! that is what I believe in" is affirming the proven positive. Maybe we need a new name. Realists?

[Discord]

99. no matter what we call ourselves... either they will free

their own minds or not. I dont really care either way. I am more concerned about the institutions of religion than the religious themselves. Its nothing but frustration to try to explain a foreign concept to someone who doesn't want to try to understand. we need like a new 12 step program. lol

[Marnieworld]

112. Have you ever been to a 12 step group?

not a secular humanist haven BELIEVE ME!

But then again that brings up the point of we need secular 12 step groups. Don't get me started on that!

[Discord]

164. LOL.

or a 12 step religion rehab program.

that would be one wierd meeting.. lol

[Malva Zebrina]

48. I am an atheist--no belief, in fact impossible to believe in gods

I have no belief in gods--why on earth should I try to PROVE something that I believe does NOT exist, when I have no belief that gods exist? There is nothing sillier than engaging in such a useless pursuit. Further, IMO, the burden of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims. I have no interest at all in trying to prove something does not exist, when I don't have a belief in it in the first place.

[IrateCitizen]

60. Ever hear of the scientific method? You should check it out.

That's how things are either proven or disproven -- through hypothesis, experiment, observation, analysis and repeating the cycle over and over and over again under varying conditions.

I never said there was some kind of onus on atheists to prove that God does not exist, just as I do not feel there is an onus on people of faith to prove God does exist. What IS required, however, is intellectual honesty from people on both sides of this debate to acknowledge that what they hold is not a TRUTH, but a BELIEF according to basic Enlightenment principles. Since there is not an experiment out there that can either prove or disprove the presence of God, then both sides ultimately are based on BELIEF.

Got it?

[Discord]

81. Yes, I got that you have NO CLUE, as to how a true

Atheist exists. You yourself have acknowledged that the limits of your thinking cannot get past Agnostic.

Which you describe. Not Atheists. If I BELEIEVED that there was no god would indicate doubt in my position. That would make me Agnostic, NOT Atheist. I am an Atheist and not an Agnostic. Try to understand the differance if you are going to post as if you were an authority on the subject.

[IrateCitizen]

96. When you're in a hole, stop digging.

You just proved my point, discord.

If I BELEIEVED that there was no god would indicate doubt in my position. That would make me Agnostic, NOT Atheist. I am an Atheist and not an Agnostic.

So, what exactly would you call your supposition that there is no such thing as God? Would it be a fact? Would it be a provable hypothesis? No -- it is a BELIEF that you have somehow convinced yourself to be a FACT. The reason you do not indicate doubt in spite of there being no evidence to this question is what makes it a BELIEF. Therefore, your atheism is a BELIEF, not a fact nor truth.

My thinking can get past agnostic just fine. I understand that atheists do not believe that God exists, while agnostics just don't claim to know one way nor the other. If anything, it is you, my friend, exhibiting rigidity of thought on this, and behaving in a reactionary fashion because your BELIEFS have been challenged.

If I were to make this argument to a fundamentalist Christian, I am rather confident I would receive a similar response. That in itself lets me know I'm on the right track.

[Discord]

113. you assumption is that I arbitrarrily came to my conclusions.

Sorry, but you are dead wrong. I have been on the other side of the table, I was raised Methodist, and explored many aspects of Theology, but I am a critical thinker, and none could stand the burden of proof. So when examining over 500 know dieties that have been worshiped by mankind, none, have ever shown a shread of credible evidence... I'd say thats a pretty bad track record. I came to my conclusions through understanding and through what I have observed here in reality. Can you prove to me there is no Santa Claus? I would not be able to prove that he does exist, as it is impossible to define what cannot even BE defined by its own theorists. So, because you cannot prove that he does not exist mean that we all just BELIEVE that he doesn't exist?

[IrateCitizen]

119. Once again, Santa Claus would be easy...

At least the Santa Claus per the legend. All it would take would be a long-term study of parents at Christmas, as to whether they got the presents marked from "Santa" for their children, or whether they just "appeared". Handwriting analysis could be performed on the gift tags. Affirmative responses could be subjected to a polygraph. Also, we have the evidence that there has never been a sleigh driven by reindeer flying through the sky picked up on radar on Christmas Eve.

However, since when you are talking about God you are talking about realms of Physics that we currently do not understand nor comprehend (and in some instances our limited senses probably do not enable us to do so), it remains an open hypothesis, neither provable nor disprovable.

[Discord]

145. ok... here we go... lets break it down...

Santa Claus... as per legend... ok... well, we have the Bible. Thats a legend in the literary sense of the word. lets move on...

Long term study... hmm... ok... well, 2000 years should do it, dontcha think? Or think we need a bit longer for Santa for an accurate result? lets move on...

parents got presents marked from Santa... ok... well, religion is most commonly passed down from generation to generation in this case, in a package marked God... seems to fit the bill.. lets move on shall we? ...

or wheteher they just appeared... hmmm... well, we all know that would be silly now don't we? *wink* lets continue...

Handwriting analyses... ok... well, last I heard, the Bible was written by... *gasp* MEN... actual human beings... ok... well I guess the many chapters... might have been... interpeted... lets move on...

Affirmative responses given a polygraph... well now your talking... I wouldn't mind getting some religious leaders hooked up to a polygraph for a while... could be very interesting... ok... next

No evidence that a sleigh driven by reindeer has been picked up on rader... nope... haven't found the Ark, or geological evidence to support the parting of the Red Sea... no photos of God... never seen heaven in space, or hell within the earths crusts... hmmm... well I guess no evidence at all...

Ya know what. your right... THERE IS NO SANTA CLAUS!

[July]

172. You assume without evidence that these "realms of Physics"

that might justify the existence of god exist? Atheists don't posit that there may be an explanation beyond our comprehension. The atheist's explanation depends on the evidence before us.

[Malva Zebrina]

115. of course I have

you miss the point. It is silly to apply the scientific method to prove I simply cannot believe in gods!

Why on earth would I try to prove something, using scienfific method, about something I cannot believe exists?

You use the scientific method if you have a belief in gods, for as far as I am concerned the onus is upon you, with your theory of god, to prove that what you believe exists is truth. Is it verifiable? Is it disprovable? it is all up to you.

I don't have that belief so the exercise for me would be nonsensical.

[IrateCitizen]

133. You said it yourself -- your BELIEF is non-existence of God

And as such, it is improper for you to present your BELIEF as the one true way to perceive the world around you, because it is a BELIEF rather than a verifiable FACT.

The question being debated is whether or not atheism is somehow on a higher level of enlightenment than belief in a higher power. Some apparently think that it is, but in so doing are claiming that their BELIEF somehow has more validity than others. My argument all along has been that, based upon the scientific method, the only perspective that is arrived at through fact and analysis is agnosticism, because it simply states that we do not know whether or not God exists and it is probably unknowable.

[Malva Zebrina]

167. NO--I said I cannot believe

You see five stars, I see only four. Get it?

I have NO need to use scientific methods to prove something I cannot believe exists. It is silly to try to prove something either exists or does not exist, if one cannot believe it exists in the first place. To do so, would in fact, be a tacit admittance that the object does exist, which is a ridiculous stance to assume for one who cannot believe.

The onus is upon the believer, or the agnostic who loves titillating the intellect and endless speculation on a question that has been debated for centuries and has never been fully completed.

[Zhade]

242. Except, of course, that many atheists do not disbelieve in any gods.

They simply have seen no compelling evidence to believe in any.

Got it?

[beam me up scottie]

92. " Because atheism depends on the belief of an absence of God"

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

I think atheism "depends" on believing anything.
I don't believe in santa claus, is that a belief?

[Zenlitened]

117. Don't you love the pretzel-logic there?

If you don't see evidence of something, you therefore are a believer in a sort of "not-something." Yeesh. :eyes:

[Discord]

128. it fucking rediculous. its scary how otherwise intelligent

people have been poisoned but circular thought.

Funny how 95% of PhD level scientists are pronounced Atheists, but yet, they try to use metaphysics as a scientific loophole to try to shift the provability onto the non-religious to disprove such an absurd concept. They can't even define what God supposedly IS!?!?

So... what again are we supposed to be looking for?

Hmmmm... sorry, I don't see anything that isn't already definable.

Look out into the stars and into mircoscopes...

oh... wait a minute... I see some... I don't know what that is... oh.. wait, nevermind, a piece of hair fell in front of the microscope... false alarm... no Godlike substance today...

[beam me up scottie]

143. I have never ever tried to define what someone else is.

EVER.
How dare someone tell me what I am based on what they think they are.

"Am I to believe in every absurdity?
If not, why this one in particular?"

-Sigmund Freud

[IrateCitizen]

183. I assure you, that was not my intention in this thread.

However, I am not going to apologize for it, because it was initially a response to one poster in particular with whom I can see little chance at ever finding common ground, and it happened to be taken to heart by many others who joined in subsequently. But I will readily admit that I did not do much, if anything to help defuse the situation.

Religion or spirituality, for me, is an intensely personal experience. And I can assure you that my beliefs are far from "mainstream Christianity", and they are certainly not fundamentalist in any way, shape or form. They are, however, based upon my sum life experience to this point. Therefore, if someone says that their belief is "the only logical one", or the only "true one", or if they characterize my beliefs as "fairy tales" -- then they are effectively denouncing my entire life experience to this point, because that is where my belief system comes from. I realize it is the same when I do it to others, which is why I try to avoid it. And for those on this thread who feel that I did invalidate their belief system, that was the last thing I wanted to do.

[beam me up scottie]

198. I agree, certain words and phrases are extremely volatile.

That's one of the reasons I never discussed religion up until a couple of years ago when I felt threatened by all of the growing religious dogma. Religion was never discussed where I grew up, it wasn't polite.

I am also over sensitive when I hear atheism characterized as a religion, not necessarily because some on du just misunderstand (that invites dialog) but because of the insulting way some theists dismiss us. I don't believe that was your intention.
I would never call your beliefs fairy tales because I consider that to be an insult. I honestly think most atheists would normally refrain from saying that to you (at least I hope they would) but because of the religious flame wars lately, some feel provoked and are acting out.
I cannot apologize for them but I am sorry if I over reacted as well.
I at least hope that all of this ends up helping us better understand each other.

[Zhade]

243. There you go AGAIN.

"And for those on this thread who feel that I did invalidate their belief system, that was the last thing I wanted to do."

I don't have a belief system relating to gods. I just do not currently believe in any.

Exactly what gives you the authority to decide others' worldview for them? Above, you tried to define who is and isn't an atheist.

Well, you're not a Christian, because you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus.

See how wrong it is? I have no standing to say you're not a Christian because you lack a belief in the divinity of Jesus, just as you have no standing to insist that the lack of a belief is a belief system.

I hope you understand that, someday.

[donsu]

129. you speaketh garble

nt

[Zhade]

229. In your opinion, not in reality.

I don't believe in the abscence of a god, I just haven't been convinced there is one.

Mighty arrogant of you to define another's worldview, don't you think?

[bryant69]

39. I suppoe the problem is that people, including myself, take

their beliefs personally. I sense that you take your beliefs seriously as well, and would probably be quick to attack someone making a statement like "Well, Atheists should just keep quiet for now. We have bigger fish to fry, and them speaking out makes it harder for us to win elections. So they should just shut up."

Somehow I have no doubt that you would take that sort of statement personally (and, to be clear, I think you'd be right to do so).

What also plays into this is that I do belong to a religious community that is at least partially conservative (and I suspect I am not the only believer who has this situation). There are liberals and there are good well meaning conservatives as well (misguided of course). And there are members of my faith who seem to believe that being a liberal is a betrayal of my faith.

The argument might be expressed this way. You cannot be a good Liberal and a good Christian. Trying to be both will lead to betraying your religion or betraying your political beliefs or betraying both. This is a statement that some hardcore fundamentalsts and some atheists might well agree on, although coming from different angles.

[Discord]

66. There is an important distinction to make.

When a religious person (majority), attacks an atheist (minority), its called oppression. When an Atheist (minority), attacks religion (majority), its called dissent. So when talking about the topic of religion itself, it is the minority that can rightfully dissent against the majority. To surpress that dissent is oppression, to dismiss the validity of the minority is oppression. Can a minority be at times faulted for bad manners or undue prejudice, most certainly. But we have every right to dissent against the majority. And rarely does the majority like it.

[bryant69]

70. I don't buy that construction

But you wouldn't expect me too. Basically, and correct me if I'm wrong, that basically means that you can say pretty much whatever you like under the cover of dissent, but I had better watch myself very carefully or else I will be oppressing you.

Why would anybody accept such terms?

[Pacifist Patriot]

106. I agree.

There is a way for a majority and a minority to disagree without either oppression or insults.

[IrateCitizen]

141. I am seriously wondering if there is a way to do that...

After engaging on this thread, and never once approaching my argument from the position that God does indeed exist, and receiving the arguments in response that I have, I sincerely wonder if it is possible for people to engage this question without insults and from a position of intellectual honesty.

[Pacifist Patriot]

152. I engage in it quite frequently.

My UU congregation consists of atheists, agnostics and theists. Additionally, I conduct an adult Religious Eductation program on alternate Wednesday evenings which is regularly attended by people of all three belief structures. The Wednesday program draws from beyond the UU congregation. We have Christians, Jews, Theosophists, Humanists, you name it. Our conversations are intellectually and spiritually honest. I have yet to have anyone get upset and stalk out. If someone says something hurtful we work through it until all parties understand why something was said. But that happens once in a blue moon.

[bryant69]

153. There may not be

One sticking point seems to be the word belief. If I say Atheists believe there is no God, that puts their opinion on the same level as a belief that there is a God. Just another opinion about God. Which seems to be offensive.

On the other hand, argueing from the standpoint that Atheism is a fact and Religion is a belief is not something most Believers would want either, since it puts them on weak ground to start with.

I don't know how you finesse that language disparity.

[Zhade]

246. "I don't know how you finesse that language disparity."

It's quite easy, really: don't insist that the lack of a belief constitutes a belief system.

I lack a belief in unicorns. That does not mean I actively disbelieve in unicorns. They don't concern me. I don't think about them. It's the same with gods - I only discuss the issue when someone brings it up. I don't sit around at home saying, "man, I'm so glad there's no god, all believers are fools!"

I don't posit that there is no god. I will argue that there is no evidence that has convinced me, personally, to believe in any gods. That's a huge difference.

It's offensive for my lack of belief in any gods to be labelled a belief system only because it's inaccurate, it's misleading, and it's arrogant of others to think they can define who I am. I would never say IrateCitizen is not a Christian because s/he does not believe in the divinity of Jesus. I merely ask for the same in return - that I be allowed to define myself as I see fit.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect this courtesy.

[Zhade]

244. While I agree that those are unacceptable terms to agree to...

...please note the difference in Discord's example: the majority citizen attacking a minority citizen, and a minority citizen attacking a majority belief, rather than a majority person.

To put it another way: a German citizen attacking a Jewish citizen in the 1930s is completely different from a Jewish citizen attacking the majority belief in Naziism at that time.

(I am not, not, NOT! equating religious beliefs to Naziism. This was simply the clearest example I could think of.)

My point is that one is attacking a person, and the other is attacking a belief. The first is bigotry, the second is not. Attacking a Jew is anti-Semetic, while attacking Zionism is not.

Hope that doesn't add gasoline to the fire...

[JerseygirlCT]

168. I'm unclear about why your belief that no diety exists

makes you feel the need to dissent against those who do believe in a diety? Why does that further your chosen belief? Why is it necessary to you to, in essence, proselytize for your point of view?

What happened to simple respect for differing beliefs? Is that impossible?

I don't buy this minority oppression and dissent stuff around here. You are perfectly free to hold and speak about whatever beliefs you have. There is no need to disparage others when doing so, however. If your belief is simply a negation of someone else's belief, then I would wonder if you realize that you're depending on that other belief?

Most athiests I know don't feel any need to put down believers -- why would they? Why does that affect them in the least?

I just don't understand your whole argument here.

[Marnieworld]

177. You really don't understand?

The powers that be want to turn this country into a Christian Theocracy. Both President Bushes have on record called atheists less patriotic and not citizens. Those without a belief in God or any religion are in direct line of fire for these people. It is oppressive when the religious consider it superior to the non-religious. This is the message with every public and state codified expression of belief in a deity. It is not a belief dependent on another belief. It is a reality indpendent of those beliefs and it is only in response to the implication that everyone believes and all Americans believe that there is resistance. Look up the word Dominionist on google and see the agenda. It's the forcing beliefs on others that is offensive and at the hands of the state oppressive.

[JerseygirlCT]

178. That I get. That's not happening here, though

so why the cries of oppression on DU?

And you're showing some of the same intolerance you rail against. Not all believers are of the dominionist/theocratic bent. Many of the most liberal, hardest workers for rights and freedom have been people of faith. There's no need to insult them, or others.

My beliefs are my own. They ought to be exhibited in my behavior (think treating others well), but I have no need to press them on anyone else. I also have no need to be told they're silly or illogical.

I firmly believe in the separation of religion and government. I sincerely doubt there are many here who feel differently. So once again -- where's the problem here?

[Discord]

189. The problem here. is that when Atheists point out the

faults of the institution and the rampant violations of seperation and bigotry, their goal for US and world Domination by USING religion to oppress the masses, people take it personally, and jump to the defense of their religion. Protecting the very institutions that are violating the constitution at every turn. What usually starts out as a critisism of the religious institution is inevitably taken as offensive to someone, who lashes out at the poster, and of course, they, return fire. Only takes one or two people to post and whine and cry that we're persecuting Christians to start up the flame wars. Most threads start out being very good discussions, but usually ends when someone takes offense to something.

So, 100 people reading the thread before one person didn't find it offensive, but it only takes that one person who does to start the fighting.

[JerseygirlCT]

225. What I think you're missing

is that there absolutely ISN'T an institution. Religious belief takes myriad forms, from strictly hierarchical and traditional institutions to loosely grouped people with similar beliefs to individuals who are religious w/o belonging to any institution. You cannot paint the religious -- even Christian religious people with one brush -- not if you wish to avoid blatant stereotyping, which I'll assume you do want to avoid.

Not all religions or even all religious institutions are the purview of bigots or are interested in restricting your rights or those of others. Not all are instruments of evil. Many have been the instruments of great good, and continue to be that. What they DO have in common is being made up of people -- fallible people. So, yes, no institution or organization or group of 3 people is perfect. People, as well as organizations, are both good and bad, and can do good and bad things. You have to judge each situation individually. Broad strokes just won't do it.

[Zhade]

248. When some believers here accept this as true of atheism...

...there will be less atheists, like me, who have to waste time pointing out that we lack a belief system of any kind relating to gods.

I think you get it, and I agree with you. For some reason, however, some believers think it's okay for them to define atheism for atheists.

[JerseygirlCT]

255. I couldn't do that...

and wouldn't try.

[Zhade]

256. Well, of course not, you're not an arrogant asshole!

:)

[smirkymonkey]

127. Great post!

I have never understood why "religious" people can't seem to separate their personal faith and beliefs in a god of their understanding from the INSTITUTION of the church (or temple, mosque, etc.)

I think it's more of a fear based need to belong to something rather than a geniune faith in god. You couldn't be more correct in saying "Theirs is a billion dollar a year, tax free corporation." Why can't people see through the dogma, bullshit and lies of the institution?

[Discord]

163. Thats all we are fighting about and fighting for.

I respect peoples right to believe in whatever they want. If they want to assert their right to believe, I dont see why I cant assert that I oppose that, but only if they want to talk religion with me. BUT, if they want to talk about religious dogma, institution and immoral acts and agendas being done by the instatutions, they need to put their PERSONAL faith aside, and try to look at the actions of the church to which they are acongregate to. I just hope someday they realize that we are not fighting against them, and that in fact we fight FOR them. We cherish their rights as staunchly as we defend our own.

[JerseygirlCT]

165. I completely concur

Stick to stating your own beliefs, instead of disparaging others', and we'll all get along dandy.

I wouldn't disparage someone's atheism, either.

[Discord]

209. Ok. I'll state again my own opinion.

Your God doesn't exist and is nothing but a long standing mythology. The institutions of religion have been used to oppress mankind and to exploit the faith of their followers for their own greedy, and power hungry, black cold hearts.

I'm sorry if you find me stating my "beliefs" offensive.

[JerseygirlCT]

272. I don't find your beliefs offensive

they're yours, not mine, and you're welcome to them.

I find your way of stating them confrontational and not a little rude. I'm not sure why you seem to be unwilling to extend to me the same courtesy that I'm willing to extend you. I won't belittle or negate your beliefs -- why should I?

[Zhade]

228. Discord, this shows even atheists are not of the same mind.

I do not believe "that there are no god/gods" - I simply haven't seen convincing evidence (or any, really) otherwise.

I'm open to the possibility, but in my humble opinion, no one has found the answer to the universe yet.

[Pacifist Patriot]

237. A long-time atheist friend of mine says he...

places his fellow atheists in three general camps.

1. Dogmatists who insist there is no God with the same fervor expressed by fundamentalist theists who insist their God is the only God.

2. Moderates who doubt there is a God because they see no compelling evidence for it.

3. Disinterested individuals who don't think about God because they don't feel any reason to give the subject any attention.

He was being cheeky, but he makes a very good point. Atheists run a spectrum just as theists do. Heck, I'll say there is even a spectrum within agnosticism.

[Zhade]

249. I guess that makes me 2.5?

I mean, there's no compelling evidence that convinces me, personally, to accept that gods exist. So I don't believe in any, and I rarely think about the question, except here.

That's a far cry from actively disbelieving in any god...yet some feel it's okay to assume they know my own thinking before I even explain it to them.

It's broad-brushing, just like an atheist who says all Christians are idiots. I'd NEVER say that, not in a million years.

[Pacifist Patriot]

265. H. pretty much places himself around 2.5 too....

and because of my interaction with him and others like him I confess to a bit of a bias in considering that my assumptive perspective on atheism until a specific atheist tells me otherwise.

[patcox2]

62. Come on, just one quote, one link, show me the money!

please, you complain that its rampant, but you won't do onle little teeny cut and paste?

[patcox2]

64. You never are going to quote one example, are you?

Because there is none. Perhaps your just a mite tetchy, a little sensitive about the topic, and as a result your definition of "bashing" is somewhat more expansive than it ought to be.

[MollyStark]

204. no link? N/t

[Modem Butterfly]

21. Give it five minutes

Okay, that was cynical and sarcastic.

In all seriousness, there were a number of bashing posts last night. I don't have time to dig them up before I have to head out to a Dr.'s appointment. But I'll make a note to get some for you this afternoon/evening.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

199. Your wish is my command

http://www.democraticunderground.com//discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3463850

[Zhade]

250. Was that the Sagan thread?

Man, I've rarely read such arrogance from a DUer as I did from papau. Stunning.

[Walt Starr]

8. I noticed there's a lot of atheist bashing on DU

It's practically epidemic.

[JerseygirlCT]

166. Honestly, I've never once seen it -- can someone point an

instance out?

[seabeyond]

12. i said nice things. is there bashing going on?????? n/t

[Klapaucius]

13. Well,

Depends... I'm an atheist. Some of us have been rather disparaging of other folks faith. It goes both ways. But, it is one of the last few remaining prejudices that people are allowed to have these days.

I don't particularly want to deal with religion, but I suspect that religious folk will be with the human race until we've run our course. I think that the level of religious fervor associated with the current administration is a dangerous thing, I don't feel that decisions are being made in a rational and logical manner.

As someone said, the Book of Revelations is not a foreign policy manual. It seems to me like the current admin is doing everything they can to provoke every other country in the world. Maybe the millennialists think they can bring about the end times. That well and truly scares me.


K.

[Pacifist Patriot]

30. This is my problem with the term "religious fervor"

Religion encompasses an incredibly wide range of beliefs and practices. Someone can be deeply religious without having an ounce of agreement with the ultra-conservative Christian agenda associated with the current administration.

"She's a religious person." has come to be synonymous with fundamentalist movements in major world religions and it's not at all. Ah, the limitations of a dynamic language.

I consider myself to be both a free thinker and deeply religious. My spiritual beliefs continue to evolve the more I explore and learn. My rationalism and my religious beliefs are what help me make logical and compassionate decisions. I don't think the two are incompatible. It's when people see reason and religion as being mutually exclusive that we run into problems with decision making and/or communication.

I'm not picking on you. I just wish everyone in general was more precise with their language. The ultra-conservative Christian movement in this country has put a bad taste in many people's mouths whenever the word "religion" is invoked.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

16. There are some athiests here who are

absolutely arrogant and insulting in their disbelief, and they insist on announcing their disdain in their posts.

They apparently think it's a one way street. It is not. Respect needs to be shown to be given.

[donsu]

149. why should respect be given?

what kind of respect are you talking about? posters on this thread have been respectfully discussing.

I don't feel respect for the religiously insane, I feel sad for them. and angry at the ones who want to change america to suit their purposes

[KittyWampus]

17. What's With All The Bashing Of Those Who Hold Spiritual Believes....

you know, those of us who think that there's more than just the Physical Plane to reality.

[Pacifist Patriot]

26. Check out my response in #25 above...

I left myself wide open to be flamed by both sides. Oh well, I haven't had a good roasting today yet. ;-)

[KittyWampus]

31. Perfect Phrasing! Eloquently Put. And When You Get Flamed By Both

sides... you know you are very close to the truth.

That's why I keep trying to explain what Intelligent Design REALLY is about.

Religous Fundies freak out when I try and say that "Intelligence" doesn't NEED a Personhood/God. They start shrieking "Panthiesm".

:D

[Zhade]

252. I think the fact that ID is currently pushed by creationists...

...is a large part of why you get bashed in any thread on ID.

That, and your snotty attitude about it. If you could drop the attitude, I for one would be interested in what you have to say. The way you express your thoughts on the issue, though, tend to read as arrogant and insulting to those who don't immediately share your opinion.

[Imperialism Inc.]

276. The reason you get bashed is because

your ideas are no better than theirs in the realm of science. Not only do you, like them, have absolutely no evidence for your claims (which is fine as a religious belief but not as science), but you also attempt to redefine what they are pushing to be something you have made up on your own. What you say about ID is NOT what the people pushing ID believe at all. When you wander in to a thread about an area of science and start pushing ideas with no evidence. Give credence to a group who have added absolutely nothing to our knowledge of the subject by saying things like "I just wish the few things they have proven would be added to science education." You are going to get flamed. And rightly so.

[Bouncy Ball]

98. Is there room in there?

I tend to get flamed by both sides, as well.

I think it's too easy for me to SEE both sides.

Anyway, it is an interesting position to be in.

[Zhade]

251. Is it bashing of beliefs...

...or the insistence that such beliefs are factually true?

There is a difference.

[Thtwudbeme]

29. It has always hurt my feelings that no one...absolutely nobody

thinks I am funny on these threads.

I wish I had the wit of Dorothy Parker.

Oh well. Don't let the bashing get you down--and just be pleased that you haven't been dealing with the fundies in school like I have.

Stephanie

[Zhade]

254. Hey, I grinned at your comment upthread.

And you're one of my fave people in this forum!

[Cuban_Liberal]

32. WHAT 'atheist bashing'???

:shrug:

[Discord]

37. start at post #7 and follow that chain.

saves answering the same question.

[Cuban_Liberal]

51. I don't see any examples.

Nice try.

[Swede]

65. There was no atheist bashing going on in these threads.

He asked for some examples and you never answered. He was polite,he argued his point,you did not.

[patcox2]

80. Disagreement is not bashing.

Seriously, your a bit too sensitive. Saying "atheism is a belief" is bashing? Is that it? You have your concpetion of what it is and any opinion that in any way varies from your is bashing?

I suppose I am bashing atheists in writing this, huh?

[Zenlitened]

85. Bear in mind the context of recent weeks. I think the term "bashing"...

... was tossed about a bit to freely by a few religion-oriented posters here, to the point where -- just as you say -- even the mildest criticism was regarded as "bashing." So I'm guessing the OP's use of the word in this thread was meant to be sardonic. :)

[Modem Butterfly]

151. Oh my heavens, yes

I had no idea what a shit-storm this would stir up. Just like the thread I started asking people to wear a shirt proclaiming them to be an atheist for a few hours one weekend as they ran errands. I even offered to buy the shirt. No takers.

[UdoKier]

186. I'm an atheist, but I wouldn't wear such a shirt.

If someone asks me, I'll tell them without hesitation that I'm an atheist and uninterested in any sort of religious mumbo-jumbo. But that being said, I have no interest in spreading atheism. People need to find what makes them happy in life. If it's Buddhism, Xianity or whatever, I don't begrudge them that. I only have a problem when religious people start insisting that *I* live by *their* religion/superstition's rules. Then I have a HUGE problem.

[Modem Butterfly]

187. It wasn't to promote anything other than tolerance

The idea was to allow theists to experience a little of what atheists experience, and hopefully, to explore their own prejudices and discomfort.

[Zhade]

253. "Disagreement is not bashing."

This is true. I will be quoting you in the future on this.

[Modem Butterfly]

118. Well, I don't want to stalk anyone or call anyone out...

But here's a nice little example.

How can anyone be an atheist?

http://www.democraticunderground.com//discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3463850

[Zhade]

257. Interesting that the best recent example of atheist-bashing gets deleted.

Not that I think it's to prevent us from giving examples - I think the acrimony spawned in that thread from the OP's rank arrogance was what got it yanked.

Well, that, and the plagiarism.

(I'm assuming that was papau's Sagan thread, wherein s/he basically said atheists were children.)

[UdoKier]

36. Atheism is the only logical choice.

It doesn't claim that there is no supreme being. But it doesn't claim that there is one either. No single religion has a more credible story than any other. None are based on more tangible evidence than others, so it makes no sense to commit yourself to one.

Any just deity would necessarily understanding of the choice to be atheist, since He/She/It put us here on a world with hundreds of religions, none of which are really any more compelling than the others. When atheists die, we would surely be forgiven if there were a deity, and in the more likely scenario that there is not, we will not have squandered countless precious hours of life sitting in church/temple/synagogue/mosque/shrine listening to boring sermons and kowtowing/praying to some being that for all we know is not the "right" one.

I'm glad to be an atheist. I find great wonder and hope in the natural world around us. I don't need an ancient text to help my find joy and hope in this life.

[spunky]

40. Actually atheism does claim there is not supreme being.

I think you are thinking of agnosticism.

a·the·ist - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
ag·nos·tic -1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.


I see atheist bashing all the time. But I don't care anymore. I've become so fed up with Christians shoving their religion down my throat, I no longer feel the need to be respectful of their beliefs. If they can't respect mine, they don't deserve it.

Sorry if that's harsh, but I live in Mississippi and we're getting a new law allowing for hte posting of the Ten Commandments, excerpts from the Sermon on the Mount and In God We Trust on public buildings, and schools. Between that and the whole Schaivo hoopla, I'm done with respect for them.

[Discord]

169. Its this constant pushing us and framing us as agnostics.

They just cant accept how anyone could not believe in God. So they constantly try to frame us as Agnostics as a way to discredit our dissention. By framing the argument that " we can't prove God DOESN't exist" means that there is speculation and the possability, and if we don't engage is disproving God, which any scientist would laugh in your face even at the proposition of defining something the christians themselves cant define, means that we are somehow illogical in our thinking. Its a very direct attack and propaganda aimed at further discrediting Atheists.

But they don't see how trying to define us on THEIR terms is offensive...

:shrug:

[UdoKier]

181. But atheists/agnostics CAN'T disprove God, but who cares?

They can't prove it, we can't disprove it. Big deal. I can't disprove that our galaxy is actually floating inside of a snow-globe on the mantlepiece of some giant alien's house, but just because somebody says it doesn't mean I have to believe it. Now THAT's what's illogical.

The notion that the primitives of 2000 years ago were somehow more insightful about the matters of spirituality than we are today is as ludicrous as buying into the notion that people back then lived 3~900 years, or that the dinosaur fossils we find are only 5000 years old.

[UdoKier]

179. It has come to mean that today, but it is literally "without God"

Any atheist who claims to KNOW that there is no God is full of it. It is impossible to know such a thing. We only have a tiny glimpse of the universe from our perspective.

I dislike the term "agnostic" because it sounds uncommitted and weak. It leaves the impression that one may be still open to the "right" religion, or is just having doubts.

I am an atheist and will always be one. Life is too short to be spent in church.

There may or may not be a God, we just have chosen not to worship one of the ones that humans have invented (for all anyone on earth knows, some aliens out in space might have discovered the "real" God, and we've all got it wrong.)

[spunky]

219. Certainly its insane to claim to KNOW there is no God, but

IMO, atheists still BELIEVE there is no God. And for myself, nothing short of God him/herself coming down to earth and revealing that he/she exists will ever make me believe. So while I of course cannot disprove God's existence, I refuse to acknowledge any significant likelihood of his existence.

I go to sleep every night secure in my belief that if I should die before I wake, I will simply cease to exist. I will not go to heaven, I will not go to hell, I will not reincarnate. I will not pass go, I will not collect $200. I will cease, I will become what I was before I was born: nothing.

And while I am certainly not telling you what you should call yourself based on your beliefs, in my lexicon anyone who is willing to acknowledge any significant chance of God's existence is an agnostic. :)

[Zhade]

258. You're wrong. I'm an atheist who does not deny or bisbelieve in any gods.

I just don't believe in any.

This is explained, repeatedly, upthread.

[RebelOne]

54. Well said. My feelings exactly. n/t

[Pacifist Patriot]

63. Only logical choice? I don't think so.

Atheism denies divine being/beings but often goes beyond that by refusing to explore what those divine being/beings mean.

Agnosticism grants the possibility of divine existence, not atheism.

Atheism closes itself off to the possiblities that the mysteries of the universe hold by refusing to consider the potential meanings behind the symbol.

Theism can certainly be a logical choice. It just depends upon what one considers "theism." A belief that Shiva is a literal being that has wondered the earth on occasion is illogical. A belief that Shiva is a symbol illustrating a deeper truth that is impossible to express in human terms is not illogical.

[Discord]

171. Thats philosophy, not religion.

Most everyone on DU probably carries the similar values and morals, some need religion for a sense of community, bonding, or understanding, some don't. I have never found myself lacking in anything. I don't follow a religion but that doesn't imply that I require that to care about others. But sorry, ...

"Atheism closes itself off to the possiblities that the mysteries of the universe hold by refusing to consider the potential meanings behind the symbol."

Is offensive and wrong on SO many levels.

[Pacifist Patriot]

196. My statement isn't intended to be offensive in the slightest.

"Atheism closes itself off to the possiblities that the mysteries of the universe hold by refusing to consider the potential meanings behind the symbol."

It is a definition of atheism that holds no value judgment whatsoever. As a matter of fact, these words are exactly how an atheist described himself to me. I can't quote him verbatim because it was a verbal conversation held about three weeks ago, but I'm very certain I got the gist of his statement absolutely correct.

In a discussion about symbolism, and religious symbolism as a corrollary topic, every atheist in the room nodded in agreement. Basically it was saying the symbol wasn't necessary. I would take that as a compliment rather than be offended.

[Discord]

200. Well, either its being quoted out of context or your UU

Athiests are not true Atheists. The statement sounds like someone debating the Agnostic middle ground, and the wordplay being done using words like, faith,symbolism and beliefs to try to define us in RELIGIOUS terms. They are not OUR terms. It could be an attempt to understand using terms you can relate to, but what right does any religious person have to try and define us?

[Pacifist Patriot]

202. The same right you have to try to understand us.

How can we reach an understanding of one another unless we explore definitions?

God is a symbol.

Some people need the symbol.

Some people do not.

Some people recognize it as a symbol.

Some people think the symbol is the thing.

I imagine these atheists would take offense at someone thinking they are not true atheists. I would imagine it's analogous to Baptists not accepting Catholics as Christians. I've never so much as hinted that I consider atheism to be any more cohesive than Christianity. Beyond the dictionary definition of

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

there is a spectrum of atheist beliefs. Some atheists are willing to discuss their beliefs in religious terms because they feel their decision was reached in the context of their religious experiences growing up. It depends upon the person.

[Zhade]

259. You know this by now, but for the record...

...the atheist you speak of does not represent all atheists, just himself.

[UdoKier]

185. I think a lot of people misunderstand atheism/agnosticism

"Atheism denies divine being/beings but often goes beyond that by refusing to explore what those divine being/beings mean."

Wrong. We do refuse to explore what they mean, because they don't mean anything to us. They are just stories. They may or may not be true, and one may study them just as one may study a legend like Beowulf. To us they are no different. But we do not DENY them. There is no logical way to do so. You can't prove something's nonexistence.


"Agnosticism grants the possibility of divine existence, not atheism. "

No, they both do, but agnostics are more open to being proselytized, whereas atheists will have no part of it. An agnostic may want proof of a deity before he believes. An atheist isn't looking for proof. Personally, I'm content to find out what the "truth" is (if there is any) after I'm dead.

"Atheism closes itself off to the possiblities that the mysteries of the universe hold by refusing to consider the potential meanings behind the symbol."

No, we just don't think that there necessarily has to be a universal meaning to anything.


"Theism can certainly be a logical choice."

Of course, it cannot be. It requires a leap of faith that a given theology is the true one, and taking the risk that one might "burn in hell" for choosing the wrong religion. I don't think it is an irrational choice, because a faith that gives someone emotional comfort and stability can be a very positive thing. But it is in no way logical.

"It just depends upon what one considers "theism." A belief that Shiva is a literal being that has wondered the earth on occasion is illogical. A belief that Shiva is a symbol illustrating a deeper truth that is impossible to express in human terms is not illogical."

I don't have a problem with that, and I'm not sure if that really is "theism". It seems to leave open the idea that there is more than one "truth" that may hold for different people. I generally think of most religions as insisting that there is only one truth of the universe and that all others are false.

[Pacifist Patriot]

191. In the first case you are talking about mythology...

as stories rather than as symbols that arise from the collective unconscious. If the meaning beyond the symbols doesn't hold any appeal for you than yes, that would be an atheist position. Please remember that I do not assign a value judgment either positive or negative to the atheist or theist points of view. They just are what they are.


"No, we just don't think that there necessarily has to be a universal meaning to anything."

You are restating exactly what I said. I said possibilities and potentials. The fact that you don't think there necessarily has to be a universal meaning says you may have decided to close yourself off to the possibility. There is no value judgment in that as there is no right or wrong answer.

[UdoKier]

193. But closing oneself off to the possibility is not the same as DENYING.

I'm just not interested. That's not the same as denying something. It is a crucial difference that most people fail to grasp.

[Pacifist Patriot]

201. To deny...

means

To declare untrue; contradict.
To refuse to believe; reject.
To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.

Disinterest is simply the reason for your refusal to recognize or acknowledge.

Please remember that I do not consider this a negative. Some people need the symbol and some people do not. We all still put our pants on one leg at a time. Well unless you're my four year old. He has found some rather entertaining ways to get dressed.

[Zhade]

260. "Disinterest is simply the reason for your refusal to recognize..."

This is incorrect, because (for me at least) there is no evidence that has ever convinced me that there is anything to refuse in the first place.

[Pacifist Patriot]

266. This is where the particular and general mess gets...

confusing. In this case I was responding to specifically what the poster above said about his own atheist beliefs. S/he said that it was due to disinterest.

[Zhade]

270. Ah, gotcha.

NT!

[Pacifist Patriot]

47. Would someone please define "bashing" for me?

I can't figure out whether it means disagreement or roasting over an open pit. Sometimes it seems to be as much a matter of sensitivy on the receiver as it is intent from the writer.

[patcox2]

56. I have never seen atheist bashing here.

Of course, I don't think saying to an atheist "Don't call me an idiot" or "don't be disrespectful of my beliefs" is "bashing."

[Modem Butterfly]

120. Should have been here last night

http://www.democraticunderground.com//discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3463850

[Discord]

174. 169 and 171 in this thread for an example

and other common occurances.

[Pacifist Patriot]

267. I am confused.

I looked at those two posts and you're referencing your own responses to something else. Do you mean that your posts are atheist bashing or are you responding to atheist bashing?

I ask because in the case of 171 you are responding to something I said that was absolutely not intended to be bashing. I clarified my statements further on. If you believe I am bashing atheists than please address me directly rather than use me as an example. I have never bashed anyone of any belief, even those with whom I can see no ground for agreement. I do not consider atheists to be in the latter group.

[Bridget Burke]

58. What specific threads started you off?

People get "bashed" here all the time.

Or they get praised.

Or they get ignored.

You just noticed this?

[Cats Against Frist]

59. I've often wondered why we have these discussions in the first place

at least here, in GD -- letting this issue remain as a potential wedge within our party.

I think that ALL REASONABLE people can agree that religion or no religion, the liberal elite (because that's what they were) who founded this nation, were children of the Enlightenment, which mainly did two things: 1. Strip away the magical thinking of the "divine right of kings," and divested the authority of the church from the authority of the state.

No matter how much Christians, or athiests want to quibble about it, religion is part of our heratige, though I would argue that the authors of both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they wrote "Nature's God," and "we hold these truths to be self-evident," and "Congress shall make no law, etc..."

I think that we, on the left -- whatever the extent we believe or don't believe in a material manifestation of a deity -- recognize the importance of secularism, and the separation of church and state, which was not only penned, originally, by Thomas Jefferson, but has had stare decisis for over half a century.

I, am personally, a liberal libertarian, and worship at the Church of "Gnostic-Buddhist Church of Jesus & Thomas Jefferson," of which I am the founder and the sole parishoner. I don't care what others believe, so long as 1. My tax dollars don't go to funding others' religious crusades and 2. To the extent that there are still public schools (because I actually believe in private schools), that no one tries to teach my son ID or creation-myth hokey pokey. AND, further, that we're ALL allowed to bash each others' religions in good fun, and that people don't take unneccessarily defensive stances.

If you called my religion crazy, I'd tell you to fuck off and that I think all religions that stemmed from the early canonical collections of the Catholic church are pursuing the agenda of the Anti-Christ. And you'd deal with it -- because thank Jefferson, this is still a free country.

[spunky]

67. I disagree that religion is part of our heritage because the founding

fathers were mainly deists, and they believed that there is a God who created the universe and left it to run by natural laws and has no concern what happens here today. He's not listening to our prayers and there are no miracles.

Christians use this deist belief in a Creator and claim it means THEIR creator. Which, IMO, it clearly does not.

[Cats Against Frist]

194. Read my post, again -- specifically:

"No matter how much Christians, or athiests want to quibble about it, religion is part of our heratige, though I would argue that the authors of both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they wrote "Nature's God," and "we hold these truths to be self-evident," and "Congress shall make no law, etc...""

That's what I meant to say -- even though I think that religion is part of our heritage that the architechts of the major documents pertaining to our GOVERNMENT, specifically addressed the fact that an orthodox-type Christian God wasn't the keeper of our laws. By putting "Nature's God," in the D of I, anyone with an oz. of history knows that this refers to the deist god -- and that "self-evident" refers to reason and rationality.

That said, denying that religion is part of our heritage is simply giving fodder to the historical revisionists -- because to claim that religion had no meaning in our early society is revisionist, too. Despite the fact that Jefferson was a child of the Englightenment, wrote repeatedly that he was a materialist, wrote a "cut-up" edition of the Bible, and penned the term "separation of church & state," he still believed, seriously, that all schools should teach "virtue and morality."

It was a different time -- and Mammon Jesus Snakehandling fundamentalism does not apply -- and neither does completely cool apostasy, either.

[Discord]

203. Ok. please explain then?

Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.

- Thomas Jefferson

The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.

- Thomas Jefferson

The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.

- John Adams

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.

-James Madison

What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.

-James Madison

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.

-Thomas Paine

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it (the Apocalypse), and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814



The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter... But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789

They believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.

-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
Patrick Henry has been quoted as saying that, but as to the context, and the source I am not sure.
Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. A Deist according to Webster's is (1) The belief in the existence of a God on purely rational grounds without reliance on revelation or authority; especially in the 17th and 18th centuries. (2) The doctrine that God created the world and its natural laws, but takes no further part in its functioning. Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible (The Jefferson Bible), of which I own a copy. It TOTALLY removes all accounts of the divinity of Christ and all of the miracles - including the virgin birth. Benjamin Franklin was raised Episcopalian, but was also a Deist. John Adams was raised a Congregationalist, but later became a Unitarian. Here are what some of the other founders had to say about it.

John Adams:

"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

John Adams again:

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

Still more John Adams:

“...Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”


Thomas Jefferson:

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

Jefferson again:

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

From Jefferson’s biography:
“...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’”

James Madison:

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

James Madison again:

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Thomas Paine:

"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."

Finally, a word from Abraham Lincoln:


The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
-- Abraham Lincoln

[Cats Against Frist]

222. I've said this, before -- I don't play the "pull quote" game...

...when it comes to this topic, because, as I'm sure you're well aware, a google search will pull up all kinds of pro-Christian web sites with just as many quotes, from the same people, that make it look like we should all have to wear a giant cross on our backs to qualify to be Americans.

You have to look at the context -- though I believe that MANY of the founders were deists and near-atheists or atheists, there were also some plain 'ol god-fearing orthodox/anglican/unitarian "Christians" who did believe -- and may have had beliefs, to some degree, that Christianity should play a bigger role in society.

And, just as now, one has to remember that while Jefferson was out carousing with French intellectuals and reading "Tristam Shandy," the puritains were busy playing "Hester Prynn" in some of the colonies, and trying to claim certain states/colonies as religious states.

The truth is that the origin and compromise of the Constitution, and the religious subtext, of the time, is rather complex, and does not boil down, in terms of HERITAGE or CULTURE to a yes-no answer on religion. HOWEVER, as I've repeated already -- twice -- the foundations of governance were quite consciously crafted under the influence of Rousseau, the Enlightenment, Deism, Intellectualism, Egalitarianism (to some extent) etc. -- and though the way Mr. Jefferson or Mr. Paine might have felt didn't necessarily apply to all of early American society, that the impetus behind the religious references in our most important documents points to secularism - but a very different secuarism, where some of what we would now call "religious tradition," was seen, to some extent, as simply cultural -- such as "moral education," and public prayer.

Remember -- these ideas are the mother/father of modern liberalism -- until Marx's most totalitarian and flawed interpreters came along and changed egalitarianism to "all under the control of the socialist state," these were our ideals.

I hate seeing our claim (meaning -- the left) to governance be distorted, not only by ignorant freepers, but by our own side's zeal to "one-up" the freeps. This doesn't just hold true in the "Christian nation" v. "Secularism" debate, but also the Federalism debate and the social safety net.

[spunky]

221. I think we have a difference of semantics here.

I'd call deism a philosophy more than a religion, in that there is no worship involved, not unlike Buddhism. To me there is a difference between acknowledging a Creator, and worshiping a God.

As to teaching "virtue and morality" in all schools, I believe that neither morality nor virtue must derive from religion. I consider myself to have a well-defined system of morality, but it does not derive from any religious source. It comes from a belief that all people have dignity and are thus entitled to freedom and respect.

My problem is that many people use the term Creator in our founding documents as proof that this nation was founded by Christians, and that this Christian origin makes the incorporation of Christian morality into our present laws acceptable to the founders and therefore right. Deism is not Christianity therefore to claim this nation was founded by Christians (which I'm not accusing you of) is misleading and is, in itself, historical revisionism.

[Zhade]

261. Aren't you making the assumption...

...that virtue and morality comes from religion? Or am I misreading you?

[Cats Against Frist]

269. I don't care where it comes from

To talk about teaching it, in schools, invokes the idea of an authoritative origin -- and I doubt Jefferson, himself, was prepared to go around and make sure the schools weren't teaching Christian virtue -- but an amalgam of Deism, the philosophical Jesus, and Rousseau's "just society." Further, I suspect that many of Jefferson's ideas of virtue dovetailed nicely with those of the orthodox Christians of the time.


I'm not one to defend Christians, since I believe that everyone who follows most standard canonical teachings is a tool of the anti-Christ. I'm just suggesting that we be historically accurate.

If you blanketly deny Christianity's role in the heritage of our nation, you just give the loonies fodder -- because they CAN and WILL prove you wrong. You give them "heritage," and then you kick their ass with "governance."

[Pacifist Patriot]

68. One of my best friends calls herself a ...

"spiritual eclectic." I love that descriptor!

Heck, I'm thinking of deifying Joe Campbell and starting a religion based on his teachings. Why not? ;)

I agree with you. I really couldn't care less what people's religious beliefs are as long as they keep them out of our constitution and my face.

[Telly Savalas]

210. I thought the whole point of GD was to place wedges in the party.

[Zenlitened]

75. Don't think of it as bashing. Think of it as...

... unwitting satire, or parody. Some of it's pretty darned funny!

:D

[patcox2]

88. Still, not one single quote, not one example

If you cannot simply cut and paste and show the world one single little example, it kinda undercuts your credibility.

Saying "oh, its everywhere, if you can't see it, you must be a basher yourself" is not going to cut it. They taught me that fairytale, "the emporer's new clothes" in grade school, and I learned my lesson about "seeing" invisible things that are supposedly only visible to people who are special.

[Zenlitened]

110. Actually, you just made the case for atheism quite nicely!

:)

Seriously, though, here's an example of what some might consider bashing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com//discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3463850

Another thread, using plagiarized materials to claim Carl Sagan was no atheist but a worshiper of "scientism" seems to have been deleted entirely. That got a bit heated, and revolved around the "atheism is a religion" nonsense to some degree, too.

In any event, I think "baiting" might be a better term than "bashing." From my point of view at least, simple criticism is too often misconstrued as some sort of bashing assault. Certainly that's been the case with some of the religionists on DU in recent weeks. And I think the OP was just kind of wryly alluding to that fact by using the word herself.

[beam me up scottie]

159. Bwa hahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahaha

"I learned my lesson about "seeing" invisible things that are supposedly only visible to people who are special."

So did I. That's why I'm an atheist.

[Bouncy Ball]

89. I'm not threatened by atheists at all.

Some of my closest friends are atheists, and I treasure our discussions together.

I don't try to convince them of anything, they don't try to convince me of anything, and because of that, we can really talk and LISTEN to each other.

It's nice. No, I have nothing in the world against atheists or agnostics.

[Pacifist Patriot]

97. Me neither.

Everyone else is wrong and I'm right. No problem. ;)

I actually believe that, but with the insertion of a couple of words.

Everyone else's beliefs are wrong for me. My beliefs are right for me. So basically if I do get flamed for what I said in another post above, no skin off my nose. I don't expect or demand anyone else to agree.

[beam me up scottie]

138. Thanks Bouncy.

I appreciate it when people refrain from telling me what an atheist is.
I don't do it to deists and if they want to know what I am, all they have to do is ask.
I've never seen so many ridiculous explanations of what an atheist is-by deists no less.

[Pacifist Patriot]

147. Maybe I'm getting too literal...

which is precisely what I try to not do. But when I get into these types of discussions I simply go by the denotation of the words, not the connotations. No God / God. Pretty easy. Yeah right. LOL! The problem isn't in defining Atheist or Theist. The problem is in defining "God."

[beam me up scottie]

162. I'm sorry, I didn't mean you.

You seem to have no problem listening and learning about people who are different from you. This is the way to constructive dialog.

OTHERS can't even get past their own straw men and wonder why we get offended.

[Zhade]

262. That's because you don't arrogantly assert that your truth is THE TRUTH.

Which is yet another reason why you rock.

[TWiley]

95. The purpose of Religion and the Deviance it creates

is to assure the truly miserable folks that they are indeed on the right path.

It is also a way to build friendships and a society. Just find people afraid of becoming the one that is hated by the group, and PRESTO ! You have a church.

The only requirement for membership is a desire to hate all those whom we hate.

[beam me up scottie]

173. Wow.

That was pretty good. It got lost in all the flames.

[The Gigmeister]

100. What?? Are you SERIOUS??

It's the other way around. By a MILE!!

[arwalden]

271. Heh-heh...

... you're joking, right?

[WilliamPitt]

122. I'd say the atheists are in the clear majority here

[Cleita]

126. Tit for tat.

When atheists bash Christians, they will bash back. I have noticed, and I am guilty of this myself, that non-believers don't realize when they are bashing because they think they are being rational.

I am learning to tread much more softly.

[SmokingJacket]

134. I don't feel particularly bashed.

Now, when I lived in the Bible belt, I felt totally bashed.

On DU? Hardly.

There are rude people everywhere, but fewer on DU than in the general population.

[Ron Green]

137. These damn Atheists!! Bash them!! Bash bash bashedy bash...

There. I feel so much better. AND, here's your evidence!

[Zenlitened]

146. Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

:D

[Ron Green]

154. As well you should, you godless atheistic communist radical...

by the way, what are you wearing?

:9

[Zenlitened]

161. Oh, nothing fancy...

;)

[Zhade]

263. "Come see the violence inherent in the system!"

NT!

[cry baby]

160. It doesn't seem very LIBERAL or PROGRESSIVE to bash each other...

now, does it?

Aren't liberals supposed to be tolerant of each others' religion or lack thereof, skin color, etc.

I am always surprised to see that people bash one another in this forum about these things. Makes me sad. :(

[SemiCharmedQuark]

170. If you're talking about the scientist-atheist thread...

that was shut down quickly, and nobody agreed with the original poster. Everyone defended Atheists.

[beam me up scottie]

176. There were more but

you are right, most religious folks aren't letting it slide anymore.

[Bridget Burke]

184. "Bashing" used to have a serious meaning.

I first heard it as part of "Gay Bashing"--young suburban guys coming into the Montrose (Houston's partly-gay neighborhood) to beat up gays. These were serious, physical attacks. Some people died.

Nowadays, it just means criticism. Whine, whine....

[Pacifist Patriot]

268. Yes, the term used to characterize...

internet conversations is troubling to me. I would prefer to see someone complain about "rudeness" or "disrespect." Bashing implies something far more serious. I asked above if someone would define it for me as it is being used here and no one has yet to respond.

[American Tragedy]

192. What atheist bashing, exactly?

Do you have examples?

I'm neither on one side or the other, but I find Christian/theist bashing and general contempt for religion far outweighs attacks on atheists. Just my opinion.

[RevCheesehead]

197. ROFLMAO!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: *whew* That was funny!

[MollyStark]

205. Not a single example on this thread

I am not surprized.

[YankeyMCC]

211. Not in GD but

Would a xian be offended if they had to swear a solem oath to the Tao or the Valar in order to run for elected office?

And if a xian protested such a requirement and someone said "Oh stop whining?"

Would you call that bashing?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=158&topic_id=3953&mesg_id=3960

[Discord]

212. Why oh why did the Mods have to move it into the

twilight zone...


well, this thread is now useless.

[Zenlitened]

213. Yeah, I think I'm outta here, too. I try to avoid posting in R&T.

I'm happy to stay out of any forum marked "religion."

[beam me up scottie]

214. Between that and the "Yup, if I cain't see it, it don't exist"

crowd, it's pretty much over.

[Modem Butterfly]

215. You haven't read the thread I see.

I posted at least two examples myself.

[YankeyMCC]

216. Oh good

Sorry I came late to the "party" and just wanted to respond to that last post.

[beam me up scottie]

217. Are you glad you missed it?

Someone was very very bad...

[YankeyMCC]

218. I don't know

I've never really gotten caught up in a flame war at DU. Seems like I'm missing a rite of initiation or something. ;)

I need to dedicate more time to wasting time on the Internet. lol

[beam me up scottie]

220. More like a rite of irritation...

I usually come back to apologize if I went nuts without sufficient provocation. I live in south fundieville and would be killed on sight if I brought up such delicate topics in the virtual world.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

264. I'm not threatened

But I do think that religion threads should be put into one of the religion/spirituality fora. I think that atheists and non-atheists can have a rational polite discussion and agree to disagree.

One thing that I think everyone here at DU can agree on is that religious extremism is hurtful for society in general, and ideas to counteract their influence should be welcomed as a basis for discussion.

[MadisonProgressive]

273. I'm an agnostic

Some people refer to us as 'anaylsts'. We watch, we wonder, and we are the unbelievers. Athiest's beleive there is no God. Others believe there is a God.

I'm still analyzing the data...

[catbert836]

277. My explanation.

FYI: I used to take part in what would be called "bashing atheists" here on this forum, but I've found it's more trouble than it's worth.

I think that, since most people on DU seem to be atheists, or the most vocal members of DU are atheists, or whatever, they are the majority here, while they are openly insulted and berrated for their freedom of religion by Christians in real life. So, to balance things out, they try to do the same to Christians on DU. I've found there's no point in arguing the atheism/theism line, because it just gets really nasty.

[beam me up scottie]

278. Atheists are the majority here on DU?

Honey, we're not in the majority anywhere, except of course, at our monthly EAC meetings. But that is, after all, a private club.;)

And we do not "bash" christians on DU, we criticize religion, the negative influence it has on society and the manner in which it is being forced on the public and into our private lives.
Don't you agree that there is a difference?

If we "bash" anyone it is the reichwing fundies and I do believe more liberal christians than atheists engage in that sport.

[kwassa]

279. Oh, atheists do bash christians and religion here at DU

I've certainly seen it in just the few months I've been here.

And I would agree there are many more atheists than christians here at DU.

[beam me up scottie]

280. Wow, could you find a broader brush

or is "supersize" the only kind walmart had in stock?

And what is the basis for your belief that atheists outnumber christians on DU?

[onager]

281. Man, this thread has more lives than Dracula...

It's kind of nice to see it rise from the dead again.

I think atheists and rationalists both are outnumbered on DU. At least if you throw in the astrologers, palm-readers, talking-to-the-dead ghouls, alien abductees, ghost-watchers and conspiracy nuts along with all the garden-variety religious superstitionists.

[beam me up scottie]

282. Sigh...

I'm so maligned. In one thread I'm a feminist using my sex for a crutch, in another I am pro-illegal alien (one date with a green guy and you never hear the end of it) and now I have to read about how I use my evil atheistic powers to abuse christians.
What's a girl to do?