What is with all the atheist intolerance at DU?

[drdigi420]

Why do so many people get bent out of shape when us atheists express OUR beliefs?

Why does pointing out that religion is a con get spun as an attack on someone's beliefs?

Why do holy rollers feel the need to inject 'god' into political discussions?

Why would someone state their superstitions and expect not to be called on it?

Why are people with such supposedly strong 'faith' seem so easily rattled by those of us that don't buy into their myths?

[Sirius_on]

1. Probably because of the daily Christian bashing

9 out of 10 threads involving beliefs usually turns into Christian bashing.

edit: This very thread is religious bashing in itself.

[sigmaphinothing]

2. The Probelem with being an atheist is

You cant tell anybody your beliefs without them thinking you are attacking their beliefs. I dont believe in any gods. I dont care if you believe in any or not. Hell you can pray to to the penis of the thunder god Thor every tuesday and it does not matter a bit to me. But please, If I say I dont believe, dont take it as i am slamming your religion.

[helleborient]

3. A response...

1. I don't get bent out of shape if you are expressing your beliefs...I get bent out of shape when you express certainty about my beliefs when I have yet to state them.

2. Because neither you nor I has proof to indicate that religion (including all forms of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, etc) as a whole is a con.

3. I haven't seen any holy rollers on DU...and I inject religion into the discussion because it is there in politics...ignoring its presence doesn't make it go away.

4. This is an assumption that relgion equates with superstition...my dictionary says superstitions are beliefs that result from ignorance. If you believe I am ignorant and my religious faith comes from that...I believe you are arrogant and deserve to have that arrogance challenged.

5. My faith is not rattled in the least by these discussions...I become personally rattled when those I have so much else in common with seem to be saying..."Oh, you say Christian, I know EXACTLY what you believe, and it's nonsense...case closed, now get out of my face."



Please, share with us some more of your belief and tradition in Atheism...I completely admit I don't know much other than the name Madeline Murray O'Hare


I do know of the horrific death caused by Stalin in the name of crushing religion...and I believe it would be absolutely insane to pin that on atheists as a whole.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. If I point out athiesm is a con

will the athiests will just say I'm expressing my opinion, or would they say I'm being intolerant of atheism?

Why do some athiests get so easily rattled when someone injects "god" or their superstitions into a discussion? Are atheist's doubts so easily shaken?

[drdigi420]

14. Ok, so satire isnt your strong point

This was simply a satire of the holy-roller whining thread.

Sorry if the humor went over your head.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

24. heh, I understood your attempt at satire

athiests are well represented on DU, and pretending that they are somehow discriminated against or treated intolerantly is just nonsense. I don't think the same can be said for Christians, at least.

[Trajan]

101. As an atheist .... I can say this ....

This is a baiting thread ..... Pure and simple ....

It should have been locked ....

[RobinA]

116. This Atheist

will say you are just expressing your opinion.

It's not that atheists are rattled by the injection of god, it's that god is considered by so many who are religious as being an irrefutable argument. The god argument is such a dead end.

Example:
Atheist: "I'm in favor of gay marriage."
Theist: "I'm not, god says homosexual sex is a sin."
Atheist: "......"

There's no answer except to start an argument about the existence of god. And no, I'm not saying that all god-believers are against gay marriage, I'm just using this as an example of how involving god stops the debate in its tracks.

[dsc]

198. Sure there is

Just start listing all the sinful this that aren't legally proscribed. This like greed, glottony, and adultery to name a few.

[LEFTofLEFT]

5. For me, it their complete inability to think.

Atheist are far more wed to their dogma than any other religious crackpots.

[Rich Hunt]

7. It's funny

I've never seen dogmatic, hypersensitive atheists until I came here.

They're giving atheism a bad name, IMO.

[RobinA]

121. I Never Saw

dogmatic, intolerant liberals until I came here. (Not necessarily referring to non-atheists.) Dogmatic and intolerant seem to be in the wind on many forums.

[Brian Sweat]

8. Can you please provide an example of "Atheistic Dogma?"

[LEFTofLEFT]

28. That question shows how little you are able to think.

What is the ONE tenent of atheist?

The belief that there is not a god.

What can we know?

This is not a trivial question. I will not review the limits of our abilities to think about reality. Any thinking person understands that we have no good understanding the physical world and even less ability to grasp the structure of our own mind. It has been shown clearly that the structure of reason is at best incomplete. Thinking is not going to give an answer to the question of the existence of a god. So the question is answered by a belief. An atheist hold his beliefs as a truth. A dogma. I say we have not been able to answer the question on the existence of god. Freezing your thought patterns around a dogma changes your existence. Both extremes - God believers and those who say with conviction no god both look the same to me.

[Brian Sweat]

29. Atheist do not believe that this is no god

We just don't believe that there is a god.

So before you go around claiming that other people are unable to think, maybe you should take the time to learn what you are talking about.

[LEFTofLEFT]

32. Are you confusing agnostics with atheist????

I don't understand your point.

[Brian Sweat]

35. No,

you just don't know what you are talking about.

[LEFTofLEFT]

41. Sweatie - You seam very confused to me.

Websters - Atheist - One who denies the existence of god

Other definitions are more to my point. Thinking will not answer the question. All you have is a belief. Your belief is just as laughable as any other religious crackpot.

What do you know of the existence of God?
What do you believe about the existence of god?

If you are unable to understand the importence of these differences you can not think. You clouded views are not due a responce.

[Walt Starr]

46. There is one absolute where the existence of god(s) is concerned

There is not a single shred of evidence to support the assertion that god(s) exists.

[flyingfish]

50. yeah, just like there is not one shred of evidence to suggest

flying dragons exist.

[Walt Starr]

53. Ayup

Or unicrons, fairies, angels, elves, devils, demons, pixies, and other mythological beasts.

[flyingfish]

58. Yeah, but Jesus, Muhammad, Siddartha Gautama(Buddha)

all did live. It is verified. Are you saying those people did not exist?

[Walt Starr]

60. As described in allegedly "holy books"

not one of them lived.

There's no difference, IMO, between the Jesus of the NT or Heracles of Greek mythology. While both have their basis in actual people, mythology has arisen to describe their deeds.

[flyingfish]

65. Go back to you dungeons and dragons world

talk about someone living in a fantasy camp

[StopTheMorans]

68. nice reply

:eyes: "There's no difference, IMO, between the Jesus of the NT or Heracles of Greek mythology. While both have their basis in actual people, mythology has arisen to describe their deeds." you still haven't provided Walt with the "one shred of proof" he is looking for, you just poked fun at him. That's a great way to prove your point :eyes:

[flyingfish]

74. There is enough evidence and there is arrogance of opinion here

Just sitting at your computer saying, "I do not see any evidence" is a lazy man's way out."
Maybe doing some serious research, i.e. homework, might prove the point instead of opinions with no basis in fact.

I have done enough research and been taught and talked to enough scholars to know what I profess.

"arrogance of opinion" the belief that because one has an opinion, whether it is based on fact or not, that opinion is true.

[Walt Starr]

75. If you have evidence to support the assertion that god(s) exist(s)...

TROT IT OUT!

[LEFTofLEFT]

If you are so fucking smart to answer all the questions in the world......

The question can not be answered.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT THERE IS NO GOD??????

[Walt Starr]

83. In logical discourse, the claimant with the intial positive assertion

is under the burden of proof.

I'm not the one claiming that god(s) exist in an open forum.

[helleborient]

123. You assert this positive...

Logic is THE way in which the world works...proof please?

[Walt Starr]

128. I asserted nothing of the sort

The assertion on the table is, god(s) exist(s).

[helleborient]

134. Then why....

are we under the burden of logical discourse?

[Walt Starr]

136. Logical discourse is debate

For a listing of fallacious arguments in debate, try this site:

http://education.gsu.edu/spehar/FOCUS/EdPsy/misc/Fallacies.htm

[helleborient]

144. Which is....

Why I usually choose not to debate religion...I am much more interested in the sharing of ideas about religion, than trying to prove something about religion right or wrong....although I do believe nastiness, arrogance, and intolerance in the name of religion or non-belief in religion is wrong and destructive.

[Walt Starr]

149. Which is also why I take the atheist stance in religios debate

since it is the only stance that can be supported logically.

I have faith in The Goddess and The God.

I believe wholeheartedly in Summerland and Reincarnation.

I cannot support any of this with independently verifiable evidence, nor can anybody with any religious belief.

I keep my beliefs to myself, most of the time. I make a few exceptions like this thread.

[Brian Sweat]

151. Then why are you butting into a debate about the

existence of god.

[helleborient]

160. Because debating God doesn't make much sense...

For most people who believe in God, it is a matter of faith not logic. Faith and logic are two different things.

[Brian Sweat]

163. Then why are you butting into a debate about the

existence of god.

[helleborient]

169. Um....I thought it was a public forum?

I thought the purpose of the forums was to express opinion...and I was an expressing an opinion about the debate.

If my opinion wasn't worthwhile to you, that's fine.

[Brian Sweat]

183. Your opinion is as worthwhile as anyone else's,

but you keep asserting that debating the existence of "God." This is a debate about the existence of "God".

[Walt Starr]

172. THANK YOU!

Precisely the point I've been making.

[LEFTofLEFT]

157. WALT STAR - Are you dumb as a rock?

The assertian on the table is "Why the athiest bashing" - then "because they can't think."

You can not even follow the argument.

You strawman "god exist" shows how weak you are.

If you want to get back in the game - pay attention!!!!!!

[Walt Starr]

182. You are simply wrong

This turned into a debate about the existance of god(s) several posts ago.

[LEFTofLEFT]

133. I MADE NO SUCH CLAIM - YOU ARE KING STRAWMAN

take your crap home

[helleborient]

141. Actually...

In my opinion, God exists because I have faith (that is, in my understanding of God, which is a different topic).

If you don't believe God exists...that is fine as well, and quite possibly God doesn't exist for you. It's a great topic for calm, respectful discussion.

I don't believe that discussion of religion is necessarily constrained to logic...logic can quite often narrow the scope of discourse in unhelpful ways.

[StopTheMorans]

84. that's what I'm saying, and I'm waiting

for the quintessential circular argument to be trotted out:

Jesus exists because his existence is told within the bible.
The bible is the word of god, so it has to be true.
Therefore, Jesus exists :eyes:

[LEFTofLEFT]

91. another stupid strawman being held up

What the fuck does JESUS have to do with GOD???

What little world are you talking about?

[StopTheMorans]

105. fine,

"what does Jesus have to do with God". Uh, I'm no Christian (actually a reformed one), but isn't he the "son of God". And fine, then call the New Testament the "word of jesus" if you want, but it is still a circular argument.

[wuushew]

93. Yes and you are one of them FlyingFish!

For everybody who missed it here is yesterday's Anti-Catholic thread in which I suggest that FlyingFish use the Alert button. He rejected the idea then but now seems delighted at the prospect. If people are getting sick of all these religion threads its because people are intentionally starting them, many with blanket acqusitions of religion blank being bashed. This thread is no different but started out as dark satire not a rant.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=128&topic_id=8164&mesg_id=8164

[flyingfish]

126. yeah, this thread violated temp rule #2

Check out the new rules

[Walt Starr]

70. WTF does Dungeons and Dragons have to do with this?

Seriously, look at mythology and historical fact.

Troy existed. It is historical fact. Does this make the deeds described in The Iliad true, or the people who are described in that work precisely as described? That means Athena must exist under your logic.

Do you seriously believe that the Buddha was born from his mother's side thus making her a virgin for her entire life?

All religion is based upon mythology.

Dungeons and Dragons has no bearing on this. Dungeons and Dragons is a game meant to entertain. There is no connection between that game and religion.

Now how is unable to seperate fantasy from reality?

[flyingfish]

77. I have looked at the info and listened to people wiser, more knowledgable

When someone has flying dragons on their screen, it is pretty hard to take them seriously.
Think about it.
Maybe you should try something else.

[Walt Starr]

86. WTF does a sig nline have to do with anything?

People have pictures of Apes, what does that have to do with anything?

[Brian Sweat]

89. So, because he has a flying dragon on his screen

he must believe that flying dragons exist?

[Walt Starr]

92. They don't even realize they are arguing with a priest :)

This is a hoot. When debating religion I always take the side of the atheist even though I am not an atheist because atheism is the only logical stance.

Religion requires faith, which is belief in that for which there is no proof. Religion cannot be supported in logical discourse (aka debate).

[flyingfish]

99. Rene Descartes proved it mathematically

Or did you fail to study Descartes in your extensive study of religion?

[Walt Starr]

106. Trot it out

Descartes did nothing of the sort.

[flyingfish]

112. Well then Mr. Priest of no religion, what did he prove?

[flyingfish]

115. What kind of priest are you?!

Where is YOUR proof?

I do not see any proof, so you are no priest.

[Brian Sweat]

110. Show me the math

[helleborient]

173. Is it "fuzzy math"?

Sorry, I couldn't resist...

[StopTheMorans]

94. yes,

and that automatically proves that he's ignorant :eyes: FlyingFish, in an argument, you can't just make unfounded suppositions and expect people to let them go ("I have spoken with much more intelligent people", "the evidence is there, why are you just sitting at your computer being lazy", etc...). You can't make statements such as these and expect people to buy them, there are no suppositions or arguments supporting them, you automatically assume that you are right and list something completely unrelated. Try using a couple of facts, people will listen to you more often;)

[flyingfish]

102. And why should i buy your arguments?

Seems like you did exactly what you accused me of doing.

[StopTheMorans]

114. Walt already explained this to you my good friend,

but again: you made the unfounded statements, it is up to you to prove them. and look at my post on Descartes, it is a poor justification for the belief of god, unless you want to assume that all meaningful philosophy with Descartes' death. Descartes "disproved" his own existence, and the reliability of his senses. So why are you even wasting your time trusting your senses that your computer screen does in fact exist, and that you are actually discussing religion with someone? your senses could be deceiving you...

[flyingfish]

119. Yeah and Walt is proving one of his points

He says he is a priest, but where is the proof.
I see no proof, so he is no priest.
that is his logic and seems to be yours.

[Walt Starr]

103. You have a red white and blue donkey in your post

I guess that calls your credibility into question as well. :eyes:

And to be more specific, there is no flying dragon in my signature. There is an animated gif representing a dragon flapping its wings that is presented with the HTML tag of <marquee> in my signature.

:evilgrin:

[flyingfish]

117. Not on a democratic site

makes sense, red white blue donkey
Very patriotic

Now, if this was a site about Dungeons and Dragons you flying mythological beast would be fine.

[LEFTofLEFT]

76. The simularities in the two stories are striking - arn't they?

Why not let goooooo?

[Walt Starr]

82. Actually, there are unicultural elements to both mythologies

Although I would say there is far more in common between the Norse myths surrounding Odin and the Yeshua ben Yusef character. There are even more similarities between the Osiris/Horus myths of ancient Egypt and the mythology of the New Testament.

The fact of the matter is, a self scrificing god that dies and is resurrected is fairly unicultural.

Krsna did it.
Odin did it.
Osiris did it, resurrecting as Horus.
In fact, I would claim that Buddha did it by achieving Nirvana yet returning via reincarnation.

This myth replays throughout mythologies. It's most striking in cultures existing in places where the seasons change dramatically, but can exist in subtle forms in more equatorial regions, such as in the Buddha myths.

[Brian Sweat]

61. These is no conclusive evidence that Jesus ever really existed

The existance of Muhammad and Buddha is well documented.

Even if Jesus did exist, what does it prove?

[flyingfish]

63. Yeah, there is proof

Where did you get that message title info from?

[Walt Starr]

78. If there is ecvidence

Trot it out.

[flyingfish]

80. You say he did not exist-Where is your evidence?

There is more than enough evidence. For one, ancient Roman records.

[Walt Starr]

90. You are asking me to prove a negative

That's a logical fallacy. In logical discourse the claimant with the intial positive assertion is under the burden of proof.

The asserion on the table is, god(s) exist(s).

Without independently verifiable evidence to support the assertion, it is safe to disregard it.

[flyingfish]

95. Now that is a logical fallacy

You can prove a negative

-100 + 10 = -90

-90 exists

How can you have less than zero?
I just proved it.

I proved a negative exists, mathematically.

If you have studied religion, you have to know Descartes
He proved God existed.
Sorry, you are no Descartes.

[StopTheMorans]

100. I know Descartes

so you can't prove your own existence huh? If you're going to go with Descartes, your senses are all meaningless too, so I would like to invite you to let me throw a rock at you, and I'll see if you really believe Descartes by whether you duck or not;) bad argument

[flyingfish]

111. Obviously, you do not know what Descartes proved

He already proved my existence and the existence of God.


"I think, therefore I am" did not just apply to Descartes.

What stupid argument was that with the rock?

[StopTheMorans]

120. see my most recent post

he disproved the reliability of his own senses, and then from that inference (and let me tell you, that is a great one to start with:eyes: he inferred that god had to exist for anything to make sense. sorry, that is greatly oversimplifying his argument, but that is the jist of it, and if you want to completely discount your senses, then you can use it as justification (hence my rock argument, apparently, you have only chosen to read the parts of descartes with which you agree

[StopTheMorans]

139. flying fish, I'm waiting:)

if you want to use Descartes, the starting point is admitting that your senses are completely unreliable (i.e. that you do not believe that you can use them to prove anything, such as the existence of the computer screen in front of your face, or that you ate something yesterday) then you can use Descartes to "prove" the existence of God. Selectively discounting someone's arguments to prove your point when you know (or if you don't know, you should) that they mean something else is not a good way to try and make a point.

[Brian Sweat]

146. If we except the notion that Rene himself was god,

then it can be assumed that Rene proved the existance of god, but if that is the case, then we are all just figments of Rene's imagination.

[StopTheMorans]

156. see how they run...

I can't believe that anyone who believes in god today would try to use descartes to prove his existence. taking things out of context never helps an argument. if you're trying to prove god's existence, as far as i'm concerned, it comes down to "you just have to have faith" at some point. using ridiculous assumptions like the descartes one do noone any good in an argument. sorry, that just steamed me, the whole "do you know descartes" thing, when in fact, the pot was calling the kettle black

[Brian Sweat]

174. Actually, I think you are all figments of MY imagination

Which is really disturbing, because I keep arguing with myself. :)

[Walt Starr]

129. You have proven nothing

Please, take a course in logic and get back to me. I'll continue the discussion then.

[flyingfish]

155. I think a "priest" could show some more respect

You are a representative of you faith, a role model, correct?
Then stop bashing other's beliefs.
It makes your faith look bad.

[StopTheMorans]

158. oh no...

now that you can't prove your descartes thing where you called my supposition "stupid", it's coming down to "respect other faiths". why don't you respect other people's beliefs first, and not try to fleece them into accepting yours by trotting out false information (i.e. selectively quoting Descartes)? Start out by respecting others, remove the plank from your own eye before you remove the splinter from your neighbors. Judge not lest ye be judged. turn the other cheek. etc...

[Walt Starr]

185. I have not bashed any religion

Please provide a citation to support your assertion that I have bashed religions.

I have done nothing of the sort. I have made well reasoned arguments in support of the atheist stance, nothing more.

[sangha]

229. You've haven't bashed any religion

You've bashed ALL religions:

Besides, Atheists speak the logical truth and the truth hurts most people, especially when they fell for the oldest con in human history

[Walt Starr]

240. Straw man

You';re being intellectually dishonest and attributing something to that quote that is simply not there. I never claimed religion was the oldest con in history. I claimed that the truth hurts most people and especially hurts them when they fell for the oldest con in human history.

You made the inference, not me.

[Brian Sweat]

124. Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam has alway been the last refuge of the theist.

[Brian Sweat]

81. Are you saying that because I have heard the name Jesus

he must have existed?

I have heard of Bilbo Baggins, but he never existed.

[flyingfish]

Actually "Jesus" never existed-That was his Greek name, not Aramaic Jew

You are really getting ridiculous.

Honestly what are you an ordained priest of?

[Walt Starr]

98. All mythology has some basis in fact

There was a person or persons that the mythological character of Jesus found within the New Testament is based upon.

There was a person or persons that the mythological character of Heracles was based upon.

There was a person or persons that the mythological character of Moses was based upon.

All religion is based upon myth.

[flyingfish]

131. Walt, awfully quiet about what type of priest you are!!!

No proof, no priest.
That is your logic.

[Walt Starr]

137. See post #125 n/t

[flyingfish]

145. Not very respectful for a priest

Very poor model for your faith, Walt.
Disrespecting other religions.

Could I say something negative about Wiccans? yes
Am I? no Because I believe in the idea of respect for others, whether I agree with them or not.

The whole respect factor, central theme of all religions.

Do Wiccans believe in respect for others, Walt?
based on your posts, I would say no

[Walt Starr]

152. Where did I disrespect any religion?

Quote me.

I engaged in debate about religion. I took the only logical stance because debate is logical discourse. I showed no disrespect, only presented well reasoned arguments with a basis in logic.

[flyingfish]

159. Walt, don't rationalize

You know you bashed other religions.
taking the whole intellectual, logical argument path is a sorry excuse.

Like I said, I don't bash other faiths, so neither should you.
Whatever form it may be in.

[StopTheMorans]

162. oh my god am I really seeing this?

"i dont bash other faiths"? here is the text of my post you haven't responded to yet, after you selectively ignored all of my descartes posts that called you on taking his beliefs out of context:

now that you can't prove your descartes thing where you called my supposition "stupid", it's coming down to "respect other faiths". why don't you respect other people's beliefs first, and not try to fleece them into accepting yours by trotting out false information (i.e. selectively quoting Descartes)? Start out by respecting others, remove the plank from your own eye before you remove the splinter from your neighbors. Judge not lest ye be judged. turn the other cheek. etc...

you don't bash other people's beliefs? please :eyes:

[flyingfish]

167. What faith have I bashed?

None.
I have never bashed a faith on here nor will I.
Give me one example.
You cannot, because I have not.
And remove the plank from your own eye first.

[StopTheMorans]

177. turn the other cheek my friend;)

here goes: i didn't call you on bashing a "faith", I called you on bashing others beliefs. and by stating (falsely, descartes did NOT prove the existence of god) that god exists beyond all doubt, you bashed the beliefs of people who believe otherwise. if you had chosen to say "i believe that god exists" or "it is a matter of faith", i would agree, but you didnt. and are you ever going to reply to your ignorant or willfully deceitful use of descartes?

[flyingfish]

170. Adn you should be jumping all over Walt about bashing faiths

if you want to criticize people.
A "priest" being so disrespectful of other faiths.
It's like an accountant who cannot add or subtract, a President who cannot speak(well, amybe bad anaolgy there)
I have no problem criticizing people nor do I have a problem criticizing me if it is asked for
But if I do not ask for the criticism, I will not take it lying down

[StopTheMorans]

i'm just saying that you're switching the subject

now b/c we had you running scared from your descartes supposition. you made a willfully deceitful statement, and now you're trying to turn the tables on walt by saying he bashed your religion. please. you haven't answered any of the previous issues i raised to your miscategorization rene descartes beliefs; you just keep going, kind of like our "friends across the aisle" who like to use bait and switch, if the first line of deceit doesn't stick, just drop em another one or see if you can change the subject.

[Walt Starr]

187. Again, cite where I bashed any religion

All I have done is made well reasoned arguments in support of the atheist stance. Not once have I bashed any religion on this thread.

[flyingfish]

179. Faith is different than opinion

Get a dictionary if you did not know what I meant.

[StopTheMorans]

188. keep switching the subject

let's get back to your willfully deceitful use of descartes: did you use his beliefs out of context intentionally, or are you simply ignorant of his beliefs? either way, you disrespect the intelligence and beliefs of those with whom you were arguing by assuming that you can "slip one past" them.

[flyingfish]

193. I'm sorry, but you do not tell me what to do

or what to post.

Or do you think your God, thus proving the existence of God?

[StopTheMorans]

197. i'm just saying

that you either lied to try and convert people to your side, or else you are ignorant of descartes, in which case you shouldn't have tried to use him to justify your positions. if you're not going to be held accountable to "the truth", which is a crazy supposition, I know, then please let me know right now, so I can put you on my "ignore" list. thank you.

[flyingfish]

165. Post #46 Walt Another example

explain fatima
Three young peasant children are told by the Virgin Mary to look towards Russia. Very prophetic.
Another secret of Fatima-Pope attacked by a Turk
Explain those

[Walt Starr]

194. Post #46 was a statement of irrefutable fact, not religion bashing

There is a way for you to make post #46 semi-close to being religion bashing. Provide a shred of evidence to support the existance of god(s).

[Walt Starr]

180. No, I bashed no religions whatsoever

Your false accusations notwithstanding.

[flyingfish]

191. yeah, you bashed religions

Jesus never existed-bash of Christianity
Buddhism-birth of Buddha
"holy books" we know what you meant by that

Don't act naive. It's obvious what you were doing. Making other thoughts and faith look bad so yours looks good.
Oldest trick in the book, Walt.

Instead, try to emphasize the positives of your and not the negatives of others or pointing out how they are negative.

You have shown me no positives about the Wiccan faith in this thread, so to me, it's all about bashing other's faiths.

I cannot believe I am telling a "priest"(that is a cut on you but not your faith) how to spread his faith and not insult others..

[StopTheMorans]

195. still waiting

the bait and switch is not going to work, are you going to reply to the 5 or so posts that I have made to you specifically addressing your Descartes argument?

on edit: misspelled descartes

[Walt Starr]

201. Not one of your citations is religion bashing

I stand by my assertion that then Jesus of the Bible never existed. The Jesus of the Bible was based upon a real person or persons, but as with all mythological characters, what is presented in the mythology bears little resemblance to reality (c.f. Heracles, Horus, Odin, Thor, Loki, Cuchulain, Zeus, Hera, etc. et.c etc.).

The birth of the Buddha is described that way. All religions have their holy books. What is described as "holy" by one religion is recognizewd as mythology by another.

There was not a whit of religion bashing in any of my posts, however, your reaction to these arguments demonstrated the point of the original poster in this thread quite adequately.

[flyingfish]

161. Post #60 Walt

"holy books" come on, one example at the first thread I took a look at

Come on, Walt.
Admit it. You were bashing and trying not to get called on it.

[Walt Starr]

190. That is not religion bashing

Post #60 was a well reasoned argument in support of the atheist position. There was not one whit of religion bashing in that post.

[flyingfish]

196. I have no idea where post sixty is anymore-

Anyhow, I have wasted enough time on here.

I have learned from this thread that some people on this board do not respect religion. that is not good for Democrats.
If we want to get rid of Bush, atheists and others must realize that bashing religion does nothing to help our cause.

SO STOP DOING IT!!!
Unless you like Bush!

[StopTheMorans]

199. I'm wrong, so I'll stick my fingers in my ears,

refuse to address why I lied/deceived people, and then call the Republicans, that will prove my point:eyes:

[StopTheMorans]

200. so just stick your fingers in your ears

refuse to address why you lied to/deceived people on descartes, and then when they call you on it, refuse to answer and call them Republicans, that will prove your point:eyes:

[Walt Starr]

207. Is this really your stance?

Simply arguing in the affirmative of the atheist position is now religion bashing?

This is unacceptable, IMO. Atheists are the last bastion of allowable prejudice. Even Pagans do not suffer this sort of bigotry.

[Brian Sweat]

216. He has wasted enough time here

Besides, he has to go clean up under his bridge.

[Walt Starr]

218. As I see it

too many theists (me being one of them) consider any argument in the affirmative of the atheist position to be "religion bashing".

As far as I'm concerned, that is 100% where the problem lies (well, maybe 95%).

[Brian Sweat]

221. I agree

Tell a Christain you don't believe in God and they look like you punched them in the stomach.

[Walt Starr]

223. Precisely, and this thread made every point the original poster made

simply by the actions of many theists.

FOLKS, JUST BECAUSE AN ATHEIST MAKES WELL REASONED ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR POSITION DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE BASHING YOUR RELIGION.

If you ask me, it's a sign they are questioning their own faith. That's just my opinion, though.

Those of strong faith never have a problem with the arguments in support of atheism.

[LEFTofLEFT]

66. There is not one shread of evidence that life exist in space.

I believe that there is no life outside our solarsystem.

Anyone who believes that there is life outside our solar system is delusional.



Let us try it this way.

What is evidence? Do you see no mystery in existence? What is time? What is matter? What is consciousness?

I BELIEVE that we are not close to forming answers to these questions. I am not even sure that the structure of our cognition gives us the ability to ask the right questions. Any surity that you have is just a belief. No different from the other religious crakpots.


Believe what you what - believing does not make it true. But, you know that - look in the mirrow!

[Brian Sweat]

56. Atheism is a lack of theism

Atheism mean explicitly - without religion.

It is not the denial of the existance of God. This is a Christian centric definition of atheism. It is not just the Christian god in which we do not believe. We do not believe in any of the gods.

We do not believe that any gods do not exists, we simply do not believe that they do.

I am a member of several atheists groups. I know what atheism is.

It is your thinking that is unclear.

[Walt Starr]

62. Atheists only believe in one less god than Christians do

Of course, their is a dualistic effect to Christianity where they recognize a god of good and a god of evil, so it really can't be called monotheism because they claim two deities, Yahweh and Satan.

Add to that a triune god of three aspects and you end up with four deities.

Then there are two distinct pantheons of subgods and demigods (arch-angels, angelic hosts, cherubim, demons, devils, etc. etc. etc.).

It's all very Pagan in it's organization, but a bit more hierachal than say, Greek mythology.

[flyingfish]

67. Start researching religion

Because you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Walt Starr]

72. I have made a study of religion for more than 2.5 decades

I am also an ordained priest.

I know what I am talking about.

[flyingfish]

79. Ordained priest of what?

Some religion that you found in the back of Rolling Stone magazine.

[flyingfish]

97. If you will not reply to a PM, reply to this public forum

You say you are a priest, what kind are you?

[Walt Starr]

125. I am an ordained Wiccan Priest

I served for three years as a volunteer minister to the Wyoming State Penetentiary, donating my time and effort towards helping inmates who found a Pagan path to not offend again once released. I also served as a resource for the official chaplain to this penententiary for questions involving Pagan religions.

I've performed multiple handfasting (i.e. wedding) ceremonies.

I've officiated at multiple Pagan funerary ceremonies.

I've officiated at multiple Wiccanings (Wiccan equivalent of Christening).

I served as the assistant to the Wiccan liaison to the Chaplain's office of Francis E. Warren Air Force Base.

[flyingfish]

140. Like that was a big surprise and a true "priest" should...

I did not see that coming.
You had Wiccan written all over you.

...respect all other religions even if he disagrees with their teachings, no matter what the religion.

Very disrespectful towards other religions, Walt.
One of the tenants of a true religion, the whole respect factor.

[Walt Starr]

154. Where did I disrespect religion

This was a debate and I took the logical stance.

Quote where I disrespected any religion.

[sangha]

208. You're kidding, right?

.

[Walt Starr]

212. No, I'm not. I did not post a single thing that bashed religion

I made well reasoned arguments in support of the atheist postion. Not one of them was "religion bashing".

[sangha]

231. How about this?

Besides, Atheists speak the logical truth and the truth hurts most people, especially when they fell for the oldest con in human history

[Walt Starr]

233. Not bashing of religions at all

The oldest con in human history is the selling of something that does not exist. The first time this was perpetrated was when some person claimed to have direct access to some unknown divine power and sold a bunch of people a bill of goods where they gave him/her things that s/he needed in return for access to that divine power through him/her.

Religion itself is not the oldest con in human history. The selling of religion is.

edited to add:

Religion itself, from all indications, is far older than the selling of religion. I point to the apparent funerary rights of Homo Neanderthalis as evidence in support of this assertion.

[LEFTofLEFT]

88. When you say "WE" you group yourself as a cult.

When you change the definition you twist the facts.


GO TO THE DICTIONARY

Do not spout your cult beliefs to me.

Atheist activly deny the existenace of diety.

[Brian Sweat]

108. No, when I say we, a group atheists as a group.

Here is the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary.

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

[LEFTofLEFT]

147. Horse Shit

If you are going to Quote the best - DO NOT PARAPHRASE IT so suite your cause.

NO MORE PLAYING WITH YOU - CHEATER

[RobinA]

142. See,

you assume that the existence of god is the default position, and that therefore atheists deny that existence. To an atheist this is not the default position. I don't question the existence of god any more than I question the existence of the tooth fairy. I don't deny his existence, I simply do not proclaim it. God is something some people made up. It helps some people to believe in a god or gods. Fine for those people that need the belief, but I don't, so his/their existence is not a question in my world.

[flyingfish]

186. Yeah but your "world" includes people who do believe in God

"No man is an island." John Donne

Unless you are an island, then that is your world.

[joshcryer]

64. Atheism is the belief that there is no physical evidence for God.

Physical, scientific, reproducable, evidence.

[LEFTofLEFT]

69. WRONG AGAIN

Go to the dictionary.

Agnostics leave the question open.

Atheist activly deny the existence.

[Brian Sweat]

85. No, you and Websters are wrong as always

Atheism is a lack of theism. It does not mean the belief that God does not exist.

[acropolis]

143. Semantics suck

don't they?

Common usage for 'atheism' as well as dictionaries (including theological (and philosophical up until the mid 90s)) define it to be the specific, positive belief that there is no god.

The vast majority of atheists follow this definition as well.

However, circa 1990 major atheist thinkers decided to work a new attack on that overused theist attack: "Atheism is as scientifically unsupported as theism"; they decided to change the definition of atheism. Pretty original to me.

Anyway, today if you check out atheist web sites they'll say that "everyone knows that atheism is defined as the simple lack of belief in god" and so on. They'll also say that only a small minority of atheists (they call them 'hard atheists') believe that god doesn't exist. Which is patently untrue.

In the broader scheme, the derivation of 'atheism' would make it seem to be a simple lack of belief in god, and there is also the argument that atheists should get to define what 'atheist' means.

Anyway.

Words mean whatever people think they mean. Arguing over it is stupid.

[Brian Sweat]

192. Etymology sucks too, huh?

Atheism - Without Theism


However, circa 1990 major atheist thinkers decided to work a new attack on that overused theist attack: "Atheism is as scientifically unsupported as theism"; they decided to change the definition of atheism. Pretty original to me.

Anyway, today if you check out atheist web sites they'll say that "everyone knows that atheism is defined as the simple lack of belief in god" and so on. They'll also say that only a small minority of atheists (they call them 'hard atheists') believe that god doesn't exist. Which is patently untrue.

In the broader scheme, the derivation of 'atheism' would make it seem to be a simple lack of belief in god, and there is also the argument that atheists should get to define what 'atheist' means.

This is all a bunch of unsubstantiated drivel.

[acropolis]

203. I specifically noted the etymology argument

in my post.

"In the broader scheme, the derivation of 'atheism' would make it seem to be a simple lack of belief in god"

i.e., the etymology leads to atheism meaning simply without theism.

In response to your claim that the rest of the post was unsubstantiated,

I have links to prove every point I made.

The question is which point do you claim is unsubstantiated?

I said the dictionary says atheism is the specific denial.
Other posts in this thread already confirmed it.

I said atheist web sites claim atheism is the simple lack of a belief in God.
I can link to about 10.

I said that by etymology atheism would mean 'without theism'
you countered by saying that by etymology atheism would mean 'without theism'.

I said that circa 1990 atheist thinkers acted to change the definition of atheism.

"Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts there is no such being as God,' I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral,' 'atypical,' and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist.

Antony G.N. Flew"

I'm not sure what you are claiming is unsubstantiated.

[helleborient]

153. As far as atheistic dogma...

Since I was here in the library I decided to look it up...

and was presented with the fact that atheism has a history backing at least to the ancient Greeks with philosophers who attempted to spread an atheistic belief system.

Atheism has been official dogma for Marx and Lenin.

Also, Nietzsche, Sartre and Camus contributed to what can be seen as atheistic dogma.

[Runcible Spoon]

10. wed to atheist dogma?

Yes, you must be right. Soooo many atheists are so "wed to their dogma" that they're bombing buildings and waging wars for their ancestral non-holy lands. :eyes:

[Rich Hunt]

6. straw people

I think it's because too many atheists see straw gods where there are none. Simply stating your religious affiliation is not the same thing as "pushing your beliefs" on people.

I haven't seen anyone try to convert an atheist here. Perhaps you could point to some specific examples?

[StopTheMorans]

9. you have got to be kidding...

I know we're not supposed to "follow" people from threads, but I posted this on the last thread. I have had a 20+ post attempt made SPECIFICALLY with the attempt to convert me. I can PM you the person's name if you would like, but I would rather not. This person somehow assumed that I had not seen all that christianity had to offer (when I was a christian for 20 years), and that somehow I had made an error or else I was just stupid. So yes, it does happen FYI.

[Maeve]

12. That person was absolutely wrong

And I hope you hit alert and reported it at the time.

It's believers who do dumb s#*! like that who give us all a bad name and I apologize.

(on edit: not that it was me or that I would ever approve of such--I'd hit alert if I saw someone pulling such a stunt on someone else--but I'm sorry you were subjected to that)

[StopTheMorans]

20. didn't hit alert

it was a long-time DU poster too who posts often, so I felt that it would hurt my experience here (i.e. posts enough threads that I would miss important non-religious discussions). was just very offended, and none of the "holy-rollers" on that thread (which was over 100 posts) stepped in to say anything at the time or to chastise the person doing it. not that I needed the help, just saying:)

[Maeve]

22. Well, it shouldn't have happened

And someone should have stepped in--DU is not the place for such behavior.

[drdigi420]

double standard alert!

if stating one's beliefs isnt pushing them, then

my stating my belief that religion is a con is NOT pusshing it.

and yet, the holy-rollers get their prayer cloths in a bunch over it.

thank you for making my point

[helleborient]

23. Not really the same thing

Saying "I believe that religion is a con" and saying "I am pointing out that religion is a con" are not the same thing.

I just love your continued efforts to bait by name-calling and how the Christians here don't take it and call you names back.

[JVS]

249. That's splitting hairs

Announcing one's opinions as statements of fact is common. Have you ever said "It is my opinion that Bush is a bad president" or do you just say "Bush is a bad president" Any listener can recognize opinion when he/she hears it.

[Brian Sweat]

253. And about as finely split as you can get

[Cheswick2.0]

11. yeahsureright

please post one example of some calling an atheist a derogatory name or saying they were stupid for what they don't believe.

[Runcible Spoon]

13. uhhh, try post #5

apparently atheists are too stupid to think
edited to put in sarcastic eyes :eyes:

[StopTheMorans]

15. good argument!

n/t :eyes:

[Runcible Spoon]

16. nice rebuttal

:eyes:
on edit, I'v read your posts in the other thread and I agree with you. Sorry if my sarcasm in my other posts was not clear.

[StopTheMorans]

18. how the hell can I rebut

"apparently atheists are too stupid to think"? would you like me to provide an example of "thinking"? please explain

[Runcible Spoon]

19. like I said before

I was merely pointing out that post #5 was an attack on atheism. However, sarcasm sometimes does not come across well here.

[StopTheMorans]

21. no, not without the eyes it doesn't

thanks for clarifying, that completely changes the nature of your statement:)

[helleborient]

27. It apparently was an equal opportunity attack...

Since it referred to other religious "crackpots" as well.

My guess is it didn't come from the "holy rollers".

[StopTheMorans]

17. cheswick,

see my post #9, the person kept at me b/c he/she felt that either there must have been "something that I had missed" in christianity, i was "rebelling against god", or i just needed "to take the leap of faith". sorry, it does happen.

[salin]

48. Had one of those conversations

coming from the other direction. Was really, really annoying. For the same reasons that you state. I spent a lot of years not as an atheist but as an agnostic. In my own time, own way, own path found my own spiritual direction. But this person wanted to have a long discussion pulling points out to "prove" my beliefs wrong. Didn't want to accept - "hey I think my thing, you think yours - we can all be cool with it". Nope wanted a long discussion.

But - at least it was on the board rather than in PMs which, imo, would be even more intrusive.

Sorry you had this experience. I would agree with the suggestion of an alert.

But, for whatever reason, on this topic - both insults (very common) and attempts to conversion (rare) happen in both directions.

*sigh*

Never really got the point of needing to push my personal beliefs on others, of insulting other personal beliefs to make a point, nor any of the other silliness that from time to time gets going around here.

*second sigh*

[curse10]

107. well, let's see

"atheists tend to be judgemental and intolerant"

"Jun-04-03, 10:01 PM (ET) Reply to post #115
129. you all are fabulously fun, I have to admit
you keep proving my point that in general the atheists at DU are intolerant and judgmental. But that is the point of a thread like this is it not? So you can all parade your imagined superior thought processes"

"Mass murder in the last 100 years has been on Atheist hands."

"May-30-03, 02:41 PM (ET) Reply to post #1
3. I thought you were an atheist
Seems to me you just don't want anyone talking about God at all. Have I got you mixed up with someone else?"

"problem is that he is a militant atheist" "he" is referring to another poster on this board.

"she is reffering to those on DU. Within this group atheists have the intolerant market cornered."

"Athiests don't want to be labeled a faith so that they can openly force it on people in schools with out fear of that pesky constitution which you use to keep everyone else faith away."

"As opposed to the nice Atheists that mass murder the religious whenever they have gotten the chance."

"56. I never met
LAST EDITED ON May-10-03 AT 01:27 PM (ET)
fundamentalist atheists until I came to DU. The rigid mindset, the mindless recitation of rules. It's all there."

"Debate between a christian and a diehard atheist is like between a democrat and a stereotypical nra republican."

"(945 posts)
May-04-03, 10:14 PM (ET)
Reply to post #112
117. **** (du poster who is atheist) **** (another du poster who is atheist), you're just plain STUPID."

"ALL Nazis were atheists."

And, just for fun, a quote from someone who wrote many of the critical posts about atheists above...

"While I have not seen a single critcism leveled here about atheists or agnostics being wrong in their beliefs, the people who post stupidity like that of the first post on this thread seem to feel exempt from respecting others freedom of religion."

[Az]

25. Phrasing

One of the mistakes common in the loose atheist fold is the practice of making flat authoritative statements. We may lack a belief in god. We may even believe we can present convincing arguments to demonstrate our lack of belief. But when we present them in the form of outright stating that believers are deluded as a matter of fact we run afoul of insulting the people instead of challenging the belief.

If we in fact favor reason over dogma then perhaps we need to examine exactly how belief systems come about and apply reason to how to circumvent this. In my exploration of belief I have found that telling someone they are deluded or calling them stupid usually gets their defences up and they will not listen to anything I have to say afterwards.

If you want to represent atheism in the best way possible then you have to do so in a way that believers are not offended by your words. You have to learn how to build a persons confidence in reason and evidence. You have to learn how to become trustworthy to believers instead of the enemy. You have to realise how people come to believe things and that it takes time and patience to change beliefs.

Here is some advice. Refering to religious people as Holy Rollers will immediately cause them to tune you out. Telling them they are being conned will get you nowhere. Telling them they are deluded will only make them see atheists as a bunch of hate filled children. Instead work to find out who the person is. Let them get to know you.

[Rich Hunt]

135. WOW - GREAT post.

Thank you so much - it needed to be said!

:toast:

[Blue_Chill]

26. Oh please!

Why do so many people get bent out of shape when us atheists express OUR beliefs?

Because of the insulting way in which you present it.

If you tell someone you don't belive in God, or that you think religion should play no role in goverment, odds are people will not be offended and enter into a respectful debate. If you however do as you just did state that we have all fallen for a con that is nothing more then superstition, you are being insulting.

[drdigi420]

31. Look who is talking about insulting people

I believe that a belief in gods is a sign of ignorance.

You feel the need to attack me for that belief.

Pot. Kettle.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. Ignorance

Every time you make a post about this, you do your best to offend. Why is that?

[DrGonzoLives]

49. Like you attack others for their beliefs?

Hypocrite.

What do you expect when posting flamebait like this? A chorus of applause? A cacophany of "right on!"'s?

[drdigi420]

210. no silly, it was a satire of the other thread about

catholicism

then it devolved into a god exists-no he dont argument.

I personally believe religion is harmful to both the victim of the con and the society that has to deal with their delusions.

The world would be a much much much better place without religion.

[Walt Starr]

30. Atheism is the last allowed bigotry in the nation

And I've noticed a tendency in most religions to paint themselves as the oh-so downtrodden victims in a modern world (especially my own religion of Wicca).

When you have Senators stating emphatically that Atheists cannot be moral and presidents stating emphatically that Atheists should not even be considered citizens, that's like saying, "Okay folks, it's open season on them godless atheists."

And the moralizing proseletyzing sheep of the world go along with it.

Besides, Atheists speak the logical truth and the truth hurts most people, especially when they fell for the oldest con in human history.

[sangha]

33. A question

Aside from this thread, can you point to any threads where intolerance towards athiests is expressed?

[drdigi420]

36. yes

every thread in which it is brought up

[sangha]

37. Can you point to one of them?

I don't need your assertions w/o evidence.

[sangha]

55. I didn't think you could......nt

.

[rexcat]

148. One of the more recent

threads dealt with atheists was "Would you vote for an atheist for president...."There were some heated exchanges on that thread and a lot of bigotry by some of the members of DU. Unfortunately I do not have the link.

I have come to the conclusion (many years ago) that being an atheist in this country or for that matter in most places on this spaceship we call earth, declaring one as an atheist causes the "religious" among us to go ballistic. There are some enlighten religious people out there who really can discuss the issues but for the most part emotions run wild and the discussions turn into heated flamefests.

In conclusion, if is always ok to have a bigoted opinion about atheist but it is never ok to have a negative opinion about religion. Such hypocrisy!

[sangha]

176. Thank you

I was not aware of that thread. Are there more, or is this idea of anti-atheist bigotry based on one thread?

BTW, I don't deny that atheists experience intolerance. However, I see little of that on DU. Also, I am religious and I don't go "ballistic" just because you are an atheist.

[DemBones DemBones]

34. Why does anyone need to express their beliefs at DU? I'd never

bring up my faith here except for the need to defend it against attack.

I have no interest in convincing other DUers to believe as I do.

I'd never call an atheist or agnostic "stupid" because they don't believe what I believe.

I'm opposed to efforts to require prayer in schools, have the government support "faith-based" charities, and so on.

I wish people wouldn't bring up religion at DU except when it is directly related to politics and, in those cases, would argue the merits of the case rather than getting into discussing religion per se.

It's not necessary to attack religion to make the case that prayer should not be required in public schools.

It's not necessary to support religion to make the case that a Moslem woman should be allowed to wear her veil at work, an Orthodox Jewish man not be prohibited from wearing a yarmulke, etc.

It's not necessary to trash the pope, Catholicism, or Catholics when the pope makes a statement you don't agree with. Make your case against what he says, not against him, Catholicism, or Christianity in general.

Will anyone listen to my call for reason and tolerance?

[Maeve]

38. "Will anyone listen to my call for reason and tolerance?"

:shrug:

Mostly those who already agree, tho.......lots of raw feelings today, it seems.

[BonjourUSA]

44. Why !! ???

If you want to be sure of getting success, throw a discussion talking about religion ! This one will exceed 100 messages.

[salin]

51. Me, but thats easy

because I already feel the same way. Actually I think this is more the majority view and approach. You know the squeaky wheel syndrom and all of that.

[Dem2dend]

40. the way I see it

when someone believes strongly about something, they are going to try to defend it.
What you see here are people defending their beliefs.
Nobody agrees completely on everything (But nobody doesn't like Sara Lee)
That's the beauty of DU, we can agree to disagree without taking it personal... unless we take it personal.

Hope that helps. (I'm now totally confused)

[flyingfish]

47. I don't like Sara Lee

She turned me down to go to the prom.

[Dem2dend]

87. I stand corrected!

...and i walk funny too!

[flyingfish]

42. This title is misleading-It is actually an anti-religious thread

Read the new rules.
The thread was started by someone who is proud to say they are anti-religios.
This thread has nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with bashing religion.

[LEFTofLEFT]

52. THIS IS VERY TRUE

The person who started this thread has failed to engage in a meaningful debate about the topic.

[flyingfish]

57. I sent an alert, see what happens

It's still up.

Hey, I am just pointing out a new rule.

It's obvious this thread's title is misleading.

[Runcible Spoon]

73. only if you believe atheism is NOT a religion

and this is certainly a debatable position. As an anthropologist, I would argue that atheism functions much like any other belief system.

[Birthmark]

164. Curious

I would be interested in your anthropolical view of atheism as religion. For instance, other than a disbelief in gods, what other beliefs are shared by atheists. I'm unaware of any.

[drdigi420]

215. Its SATIRE people, geez

[Snellius]

43. Why has religion become so political?

Why bring religion into politics? Because religion today IS politics. A basically political ideology given a religious justification. I belong to no religious organization or believe in any one metaphysical system but why do I often feel more spiritual than many of the people who profess to be so devout? Many religious groups, assuming they're not just out right cons (Benny Hinn) or power moguls (Pat Robertson, the Vatican), seem more focused on cultural and moral defensiveness than with spiritual enlightenment.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

54. I have no problem with athiests who are not downright NASTY

and inflammatory towards people who believe. I have a problem with people who start threads framing themselves as a victim when all they do is run around antagonizing anyone who believes.

AZ is an example of an athiest who treats those who disagree with deep respect. I don't see him getting bashed.

I hate to wax biblically on you but you reap what you sow.

[Snellius]

118. A lot of atheists were former believers who feel betrayed

and deceived by their religion. Especially those from a strict orthodox upbringing. I think that's why so many atheists are sometimes so impassioned about their revulsion to religion. Most people who don't believe in a god are not atheists. Atheism is defined only in terms of those who believe nonbelievers are heretical.

[flyingfish]

150. Don't ALL religions teach respect for other faiths, even if they disagree

Individual members do not respect other faiths, but the religion's teachings fo.

There seems to be a priest on here who violates that central theme of respect for other faiths.

I am not saying the religion because I do not believe in disrespecting faiths, only disrespectful followers of the faith.

[Brian Sweat]

220. Yeah, this is why the Baptist make such a point

of telling the Catholics, Muslims, Hundus etc that they are going to hell.

[sangha]

59. Another question

Can the atheists point to a thread with as much intolerance towards atheists as the following thread (url below) lists in post #1?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=128&topic_id=12851&mesg_id=12851

[ronnykmarshall]

71. Because HE told us too!

[BigMcLargehuge]

96. Enough of this... please everyone... Criminy...

I am weighing in on this reluctantly...

Okay, I'm atheist. For a while I participated in some of the religious threads here but I too grew tired of the "Crom vs God of the Four Winds" tone that they inevitably drifted towards, through, and back again.

It sets off my atheist radar when someone brings their spiritual belief system into a political discussion, but I am smart/mature enough to realize that both politics and religion are intertwined so deeply that to separate them is nearly impossible.

Everyone has justifications for being here at DU. Everyone has a goal here at DU too. That goal is to make the Democratic Party stronger, and I am proud to have atheists, buddhists, hindu, shinto, christian, muslim, agnostic, wiccan, and any other spiritually aware/unaware person standing beside me as we struggle to define our party, our platform, and take America back from the current administration.

If you think a god or gods told you to be here and help. Welcome.
If you think being a democrat is the best way to live in the shoes of your chosen spiritual figurehead, I say, glad to have you aboard.
If you think that breaking the religious hold on American politics requires membership in the democratic party, well, glad you came.

The important thing is that we stop this insane bickering about the spiritual/non-spiritual justification for joining the cause and focus on what needs to be done.

Believe what you want. If it gets you through the day, hey, more power to you. I have faith in myself, and for me, that's all I need. Others need more, less, or the same.

As for the dogma on both sides (though I am not sure what is mean by dogma when applied to atheism) I may not be the first to ask that we all just agree to disagree and move on.

There are plenty of boards where theological discussions are encouraged on the Web, and I participate in them there.

I think we've reached the point where everyone is taking this waaaaay to personally, so let's just all be adults.

For we atheists, if we see a post that extols the Christian virtues as applied to a candidate or policy, then let it go, especially if you agree with the policy, platform, or candidate.

For the theists, if you see a post extolling the virtues of humanism or atheism as applied to a candidate or policy, let it go, especially if you agree with the policy, platform, or candidate.

Eyes on the prize people, eyes on the prize.

[stickdog]

104. We Militant Agnostics Are Just Like That.

We don't know and neither do you, ? dammit.

[LEFTofLEFT]

171. STICKDOG WINS!!!!!!!

SIMPLE and to the point....

Nothing else need be said.

[drdigi420]

211. Finally, someone gets that its SATIRE!!!

Thank you!

[sangha]

109. There is little "atheist" intolerance on DU

That's why no one here can point to many instances of it.

On the other hand, I can point to numerous anti-religious posts.

[Fixated]

113. ...

Why did you put atheist in quotes? Even that is a sign of disrespect.

[sangha]

122. So you can't point to "Atheist intolerance"?

I thought not.

[StopTheMorans]

130. Sangha,

i'm sure you've already seen this today, but I just wanted to make sure: I have had a very exasperating attempt made to convert me (20+posts) by a long-time DUer, and noone attempted to tell he/she that what they were doing was wrong in the least on a 100+post thread. I knew all of the facts that this person was stating, and they continued to assume that I was ignorant. That is atheist intolerance if you ask me:)

[Blue_Chill]

138. prove it

post it. I see many claims of such behavior but I have yet to see it.

[StopTheMorans]

202. it is funny, blue chill, you are the very person

to whom I was referring, and I didn't want to say this, but now I will. You know the thread I'm talking about, b/c you are the person who was trying to convert me. I don't know which thread it was, it was over a month ago, does DU archive things that are that old? and if so, how do I go about finding it? if anyone can get me this info (and BC, you know which thread this was), I will gladly prove my point.

[Blue_Chill]

205. Bullshit!

I have never tried to convert anyone. Prove it Post it.

[Walt Starr]

224. I'd like to see the original thread

I simply don't believe you on this one, Blue_Chill, based solely on some of your previous posts.

[Blue_Chill]

228. I'd like to see it too

Believe me or not Walt, but I don't attempt to convert people. And until someone provides proof to back up accusations I will assume they are being knowingly dishonest.

[Walt Starr]

232. I'm not saying I believe you did what you are accused of

I can see how some things could be perceived as you attempting to convert.

Just like how the arguments in the affirmative for the atheist POV can be perceived as religion bashing.

Two sides to a coin and all that, don'tcha know.

[salin]

178. did you note my response to you above

when you commented about this to Cheswick? I have had a similar experience. But in the other direction. I have seen the insults (common) and attempts to convert (very rare) go in both directions.

[sangha]

181. I hadn't seen that

Do you have link? I'll take a look.

[StopTheMorans]

204. I don't have a link to that thread, it was roughly a month ago

how would I go about getting to it? Since I have already outed the person b/c I felt that their post left me no other course, I would like to find the thread to prove my point as I do not appreciate this person inferring that I am a liar:) this info would be much appreciated, I have no clue about whether things this old are archived, where they may be found, etc... thanks in advance:)

[sangha]

213. Is that it?

One thread, a month ago?

I can provide links to scores of threads, and over 100 posts where intolerance is expressed towards the religious.

You don't *have to* provide a link. I believe the thread happened. I asked for a link because I wanted to get a more specific understanding of what you (and some of the other atheists) are complaining about. As far as I can tell so far, there's not much "there" there.

And I'm not trying to dismiss or discount what happened to you in that thread. I'm merely trying to point out that the intolerance, at least in my experience, seems to flow mainly from the atheists. Being religious, I realize that my perception may be the result of bias, and not fact, so I asked about the intolerance atheists have experienced. So far, I hear that there's a lot in general, but when it comes down to specifics, you're the only one with anything specific, and it amounts to one thread.

IOW, there is some intolerance towards atheists here on DU, but not much. If you think I'm wrong about that, I'd appreciate hearing about any additional info that you think is relevant to this issue.

[Birthmark]

127. Part of the problem, IMO...

...is when you make statements like these:

***
"Why does pointing out that religion is a con get spun as an attack on someone's beliefs?"

"Why do holy rollers feel the need to inject 'god' into political discussions?"

"Why would someone state their superstitions and expect not to be called on it?"
***

Calling someone's belief a 'con' is an insult to that person.

Calling someone a 'holy roller' is meant as an insult to that person.

Calling someone's belief a 'superstition' is an insult to that person.

When you insult people, you may be sure that you will be treated in a similar fashion. At best, you'll be ignored and marginalized.

For the record: I have been an atheist for 30 years.

[Muddleoftheroad]

132. Thank you

For showing respect and being a voice of tolerance.

[helleborient]

166. Yes...

Thank you.

[sangha]

184. Thank you.

.

[drdigi420]

214. thank you for missing the point

of the satire

[Birthmark]

230. You're welcome

Satire isn't very effective in this medium. This is especially true when the reader is unfamiliar with the writer and the writer doesn't go out of his/her way to make it clear that their writing is satire.

I have seen far more silly things on the net that were meant completely seriously.

[ScreamingMeemie]

168. I don't see it as anything but intolerance (on all sides of debates

entered into). I.E. If you don't think exactly as I than you are intolerant of me. On the whole there is way to much everything bashing on this board. Gay,Christian,Atheist,Blue collar,Soccer Mom, Trailer people etc...

Gone are the days of being able to fashion an opinion while being respectful of others.

That and we can't "see" each other, which makes it all the more easier to fight with each other.

Plus most of us think we know more than each other...am I right????

[flyingfish]

175. True, but mixing religion and politics is like mixing

gas and fire.

[SyracuseDemocrat]

189. Because

it is disrespectful to say that religion is a con. I have no problem with you being an atheist, but it is incredibly rude for you to insult the 53% of DUers who do believe in a god by calling religion a con. Give respect to get respect.

[Brian Sweat]

254. You are too easily offended.

He believes that religion is a con. He simply stated that opinion. If you choose to be offended by this, it is your problem. If he said you were an idiot for believing that junk, then you would have a valid reason to be offended.



Someone might really like Van Halen. If someone else said that rock and roll is a unimaginative and repetitive music form, the Van Halen fan should not be offended. If the second person said that people who listen to Van Halen are idiots with no musical taste, that would be reason to be offended.


I believe that some people go out of their way to be offended.

[noiretextatique]

206. because their beliefs are considered sacred

and as such, worthy of especial consideration, imho. in the past year, i have been told that i am a sinner, and that i need to repent before it is too late. the people who told me these things thought nothing at all of how i would feel...because they are so convinced of the rightness of their religious beliefs. these folks are NOT rw religious fanatics either...both hold are otherwise liberal in their political outlook. my own sister, upon finding out her son is gay, asked him if he thought that was what god wanted...she isn't a fanatic either.
on the other hand, i don't consider myself an athiest...i just think there are some who hide their personal bigotry behind religious beliefs, to put a prettier face on it.
and of course, their are people of all faiths who embrace love and acceptance of themselves, and therefore others, as the ulimate and true expression of faith.

[sangha]

217. If I'm not mistaken

that's not DU.

I don't think any of the religious would deny that there are fundies out there who hate atheists. However, I don't see much of that going on here on DU.

But then again, I'm religious, so maybe my perceptions have been affected by bias. If you know of any atheist bashing here on DU, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know. You can PM me anytime, noiretblu.

[noiretextatique]

222. i think there should a general moratorium on the use of the word "bashing"

:D
the person who told me i am a sinner is a DU member. so i don't automatically believe anyone who is member here and claims to be religious is necessarily more accepting than, say jerry falwell, of homosexuality, for example. nor do i believe that all atheists are as accepting or more accepting than people who claim to be religious.

my sister is a member of the AME church, who is otherwise a very liberal person.
the person who told me i need to repent, is my politically radical cousin, who happens to have some decidedly fundamentalist xtian views.

and i do believe there have been other instances of using religion to justify bigotry right here.

however, as i mentioned, this is certainly not the case with every religious person. for example, i find YOU to be one of the most accepting people on DU...truly.

i suppose my point is: unexamined dogma is just unexamined dogma, even if it is religious in nature.

i am not a religous person, but i am do have a spiritual practice. the primary tenet of which is that love is the truest expression of good, which is the truest expression of mother/father/god/self. to me, that means i don't have license to call anyone a sinner...not even those who believe the have license to call me one.

as to those who think all religious/spiritual beliefs/knowledge are bs...who cares what they think?

peace.

[sangha]

234. Thanks for the explanation

and the compliment.

And I didn't mean to deny that there are intolerant DUers who are religious. My point was that it's not as common as the other way around. But as I said, I could be biased about this.

as to those who think all religious/spiritual beliefs/knowledge are bs...who cares what they think?

I tend to agree with this, but then I remember that there are a lot of people who think liberals are "anti-Christian", and IMO, it costs us votes. That's the only reason I care about it on DU.

[JanMichael]

209. I think it's a 50/50 problem.

It seems that there are a core group of Non-Theists, and a core group of Christians, that feel a need to bash the other side.

From my perspective as an Atheist I think we can point out the twisted religionists without bashing all Theists.

We need to focus on the specific fools like Ashcroft, DeLay, Bush, Falwell, Robertson and Religious Right groups that think "A Handmaid's Tale" is a Love Story, but try to not stick it to our Theistic allies in the process.

It's a tough proposition but we need to do it.

[Rainydaze]

226. I too am an athiest:

Arguing a religeon is a zero-sum proposition. Without the rules of debate firmly in place and an agreed upon ending point it will quickly descend into nyah-nyah kindegarten style name calling. Both sides will disregard what the other has to say, and it will eventually make everyone angry. Lock this thread and let it die.


If you want to see excellent rebuttals to the Descarts arguement, and from the arguement from evil. www.atheists.org

[Walt Starr]

227. Precisely why I, a Theist, argue from the atheist POV

Religion cannot be logically debated. Religion is personal and can only draw upon personal experience to arrive at conclusions. By its very requirement of faith, religion cannot be logical, ergo, it cannot be defended logically.

By arguing the Atheist POV in such debates, I demonstrate how the reasoned arguments of the atheist end up being perceived as "religion bashing" by many theists.

[Name removed]

219. Deleted message

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

[Brian Sweat]

225. Please provide a specific example of Christian bashing?

[sangha]

235. Calling religion a "con" is bashing

It's not specifically Christian bashing, but it is bashing.

[Walt Starr]

236. REligion itself is not a con

Selling religion is.

Pat Robem$ome, Benny Hinn, and Jerry Fartwell are conmen. I doubt many here would deny that.

Most priests/preachers/reverends etc. are not con men and do not sell religion.

It's been my experience that those who have a more visceral reaction to the arguments in the affirmative of the atheist stance have generally fallen victim to con men such as those listed above.

[sangha]

237. That's not what you said

Maybe it was just carelessness, but what you said was that religious people had fallen for a con. As someone who is religious, but is not a member of any organized religion, I don't understand why you would say such a thing.

And as far as your last sentence goes, I don't anyone here on DU who would seem to have fallen for those fakers con.

[Walt Starr]

238. Straw man

You are misrepresenting what I said to fall under a meaning you have attributed to it.

Break down the precise quote:

Besides, Atheists speak the logical truth and the truth hurts most people, especially when they fell for the oldest con in human history.

Atheists do speak the logical truth, i.e. there is no evidence to support the assertion that god(s) exists(s).

The truth does hurt most people.

You have determined from the above quote that I intended a meaning of the oldest con in human history is religion itself.

Of course, I've never accused you of honesty in a debate.

[sangha]

247. Now, I see

In a thread where the attitudes of the religious is being discussed, you describe *some* religious people without actually saying that it applies to only some, and in all innocence you never thought about how the statement might be perceived? And now, you're going to defend it by pointing out how it can be parsed so that each of it's phrases can be shown to be true?

Yep, that's honest.

[Walt Starr]

248. Another Straw Man

But again, I have rarely found occasion to agree with anything you say.

[Brian Sweat]

239. I don't agree

but it probably depends on what your definition of "bashing" is.

My definition of "bashing" does not include the slightest negative comment about the subject.

Stating an opinion that religion is a con is not bashing. Stating an opinion that Christians are all a bunch of idiots who believe in sky pixies is bashing.

[Walt Starr]

241. And my quote never claimed that religion is the con

Sangha is making the inference, ergo, sangha is the one doing the "bashing".

[Muddleoftheroad]

245. I disagree

Sangha and I have had our various disagreements but I think your original statement is clear. You can try to parse it all you want, but it was clearly referring to religion as a con. If you wish to retract that, fine, but that is what you wrote.

[Walt Starr]

246. Straw Man

You are inferring what you want to infer. You are not reading what was written but reading into it what you want to read into it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

250. Opinion

Clearly a matter of opinion since multiple people are reacting the same way here.

[Walt Starr]

252. Nope, straight shooting

I wrote it the way I worte it specifically to show where bashing is perceived rather than actual.

[noiretextatique]

242. i agree...the word "bashing" is abused here a lot

when it's construed to mean, essentially, "you disagree with my opinion or belief."

[Walt Starr]

243. That's precisely when it's used here

"bashing" and "disagreeing" are apparently synonyms on DU.

[helleborient]

244. Drdigi...this is why we missed the "satire"

I, for one, missed that it was satire because you posted messages like this one on the discussion about attacks on Christians.

One DU'er posted they thought it was sad that some seem to expect us to wear huge honkin crosses and be spouting sanctimonious speech...

and you said...

"Usually you do and the constant ways you guys 'slip' 'god' into conversations

it gets old, thats why we athiests get tired of the intolerance of our views from the religious people."

You had already taken on a victimized view before you posted your satire. Please don't dismiss all of us when your satire was completely consistent with previous serious posts.

[AllYorBaseRBlong2USA]

251. You know why some athiests are so adament about talking

about religion??

As an athiest I sometimes have a fantasy that one day everyone will wake up and forget god/gods.

Think about the pro's.

no more religous wars

less religous selfrightous bigoting

more money to spend building shelters for the homeless

more cheap wine

more money to spend on food for the hungery

more sex

more sex

people have to justify thier decisions. you cant say you spoke to god about the war and its ok

policy based on intellectual realities and not theological 'fantasy'

etc.etc.

somehow i think this desire makes some of us a little "overactive" in our defence.