What sorts of offense do you take in reference to your faith/lack of faith?

[BurtWorm]

In GD, there's a thread asserting that DU tolerates offensiveness against Christianity and, more and more, against religion in general. As an atheist, I'm willing to consider that I don't see it because, by definition, I don't have the sort of belief that makes me take offense when my faith is attacked. Do I take offense when faithlessness is attacked? Not that I'm aware of, but I do bristle when religious/faithful posters here claim that atheists post offensive attacks on their beliefs.

What about you? Do you feel offended by certain posts about your belief/nonbelief on DU? Can you help us understand what is so offensive about these posts? Specifically?

[MNDemNY]

1. If people are offended because I think they are ignorant for believing in fairy tales, too bad.

Who would argue that people who believe the earth is flat are ignorant?

[duhneece]

11. Sometimes I see atheists as being similar to those color-blind

Some atheists seem to think that because they can't sense a Higher Power that none exists; it's like someone who is color-blind insisting that the color pink does not exist because they can't see it.

[MineralMan]

13. Hmm...so that means that those who hold religious beliefs

don't have a defect, but atheists do? Can you demonstrate that defect in some way?

The existence of supernatural entities of any kind cannot be demonstrated. That causes some people to understand that they do not exist, since what exists can be demonstrated.

You're trying to say that such people have a defect and cannot recognize things that don't exist. How does that work, exactly? Can you elaborate on how that sense you have that is missing in atheists works?

[BurtWorm]

22. How many color-blind people do you know who tell you there's no such color as pink?

[MNDemNY]

24. wank. that is nothing but another fairy tale.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[MikeH]

95. Your picture from toledo-bend.com is prompting for a username and password

:eyes:

[Why Syzygy]

78. Well, most of them DO

ascribe to a Higher Power. The Big Bang. Prior to 1965, *scientists* claimed the universe had no beginning. In 1965, their HP was named, Big Bang.

Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the phrase "Big Bang" during a 1949 radio broadcast, as a derisive reference to a theory he did not subscribe to.<4> Hoyle later helped considerably in the effort to figure out the nuclear pathway for building certain heavier elements from lighter ones. After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its collective frequencies sketched out a blackbody curve, most scientists were fairly convinced by the evidence that some Big Bang scenario must have occurred.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

So, "in the beginning", is now a common between religion and science.

[laconicsax]

82. .

[Silent3]

80. You managed to provide a great example...

...of one of the things that I, as an atheist and general skeptic, find offensive -- the notion that non-believers are lacking in some kind of ability to sense the supernatural, or that they are ignoring or failing to develop that sense.

Those that have full color vision can easily and consistently demonstrate the ability to detect colors that the color blind cannot see, in ways the color blind can fully appreciate and understand. The principles of color vision are well understood, and the reasons why some people can see colors that others can't are clear.

Now, how exactly is atheism analogous to color blindness again? What is it that believers can do that represents a DEMONSTRABLE special ability?

[trotsky]

88. Some believers just have to create a reason why there are atheists.

So they assign us a defect. Gosh, that makes me feel really special.

[ZombieHorde]

81. I worked in a group home for the mentally ill and challanged.

One of my clients had the ability to sense great fires consuming the building while the rest of us lacked such ability.

[laconicsax]

83. Show me evidence that your 'Higher Power' exists.

[Random_Australian]

110. Well, except no-one else can see this pink either. But they love to claim to.

Well, if we're in offensive-metaphor land, I might as well stop and smell the roses. :)

[rd_kent]

114. That a very poor analogy

someone who is color blind may not be able to tell the color they are seeing, but can agree that there IS color of some kind in front of them. As an Atheist, I say that until you prove that there is a color at all, we cannot debate what color it is.

[atreides1]

2. Personally

My faith is mine!

I don't take offense because I freely admit that Christianity in its many forms has been responsible for both good and evil deeds done by men.

And other religions have also been used for evil as well as good.

[MineralMan]

3. Some Christians take atheism, itself, as an affront

to their belief. It's too bad. I'm an atheist. That means that I think all religions are superstition and nothing more. That is what I think.

I don't care if people believe in religions, but I cannot believe in all-powerful supernatural entities. There's just no evidence for such things.

Just as the religions make it clear that they believe in one or more supernatural entities, I make it clear that I don't. That leads some Christians and other religious folk to take umbrage from my lack of belief.

No skin off my nose.

[cosmik debris]

4. Some atheists take theism, itself, as an affront

It is sort of insulting to see the god business everywhere and realize that my country is overwhelmed by nincompoops.

[MineralMan]

8. Yes, some do. I don't, since I don't care what others believe.

I only take offense at being forced to go through motions that suggest I believe in some religion. Things like the Pledge of Allegiance, money with a deity's name on it, assumptions that I should put my hand on a Bible to take an oath. That sort of thing.

So, I say the Pledge of Allegiance as I learned it in 1955, before the "under God" nonsense was added. I ignore the money thing altogether. I know that I'm not required to swear any oath, and always insist on a simple affirmation in court or wherever.

I was one of the first to have "Atheist" listed as my religious preference on my dogtags in the USAF, way back in 1965. It was a fun process to get it done, but I did get it done.

Everyone is free to believe whatever the heck they are able to believe. I just insist on being left out of their superstitions.

[MNDemNY]

26. More emphasis on "BUSINESS".

That is what it's all about. Gimme Money!

[stray cat]

5. I think some people don't like being called idiots and responsible for all the worlds' woes

[BurtWorm]

6. Someone has called you an idiot and blamed you for the world's woes?

Or you know someone else on DU who was called and idiot and blamed for the world's woes?

[MNDemNY]

27. Then they should cease to be idiots, and stop being responsible for all the world's woes.

[HamdenRice]

7. Some atheists are insulting to atheists who don't hate religion or the religious

I take offense at that. I find it juvenile. If they hate religion and the religious, that's their business. But insulting other atheists because we have a live and let live attitude toward religion is offensive.

[MineralMan]

10. I agree with you. What any person other than myself believes

with regard to this is irrelevant. Only if there is an attempt to force me, or others, into a religious mold is there any offence to be taken. Sadly, that occurs far too often.

[MNDemNY]

28. I don't "hate " religion, but it is just a fairy tale, and those who disagree are ignorant.

[Strong Atheist]

52. Do you happen to know

bloom?

:rofl:

[Fresh_Start]

9. Personally I take offense when

someone says that you can't be a moral or ethical person if you are an atheist

[MineralMan]

12. For me, that is simply a sign of ignorance, either wilful

or not. It's a stupid thing to say, of course. A little reflection will demonstrate that it is an untrue statement.

[Fresh_Start]

14. Many of those who say things like this

are unable to perform that reflection

[MineralMan]

15. Yes. That's clearly the case.

I don't waste any time making the case to such folks. There's no point. As long as they leave me, and other non-believers out of their fantasy, they're welcome to it.

[JerseygirlCT]

105. I'd say that's pretty ignorant, and easily disproven

Plenty of ethical and moral people I've known who are not believers.

And of course, plenty of believers who are quite intelligent and rational. It works both ways, and broadbrush statements that start with those generalizations are pointless and annoying!

[frebrd]

16. Actually, I take offense when the absence of (or my freedom from) "faith"......

is characterized as a "lack", as though something valuable were missing.

That annoys the hell out of me!

:(

[MineralMan]

18. It's the old deal, like the drunk saying to you:

"What's the matter with you? You're too good to have a drink with me?"

Like many things, beliefs are reinforced by getting others to share them. It's religion's strength and its weakness at the same time.

Sadly, as with the drunk, it often escalates to:

"Asshole! You won't have a drink with me, I'll kick your ass."

And there it is, in a nutshell.

[BurtWorm]

20. No offense intended.

I am also free from faith, if you will.

[Silent3]

86. Even as an atheist myself I've used the word "lack"...

...to describe atheism as "lacking faith in deities", but obviously I don't mean "lack" as a deficit of something that I think should be present.

I can see what it is that bothers you, but when I'm trying to make the point that atheism isn't necessarily a positive assertion that deities don't exist, "lack" is just a word that expresses, well, "lack of belief" that deities exist succinctly. I suppose "freedom from belief" works too, but all words can carry unintended shades of meaning, and talking about "freedom from belief" can sound like, "Hah, hah! I'm free and you aren't! You let yourself get trapped by belief!"

Hmmm... maybe I do sometimes feel something like that, but I don't have to be completely lacking/free from diplomacy when I express how I feel. :)

[Marrah_G]

17. I'm Wiccan- I've had to grow a thick skin not to be offended.

Just look at popular culture....tv, movies, etc.

The video game Everquest even had a "monster" called a "Samhain" on the "Plane of Fear" to kill. For those who do not know, it is the name we use for Halloween. It is a particualarly special holy day for us. So you might think that the game developers just didn't know it stood for or holy day right? Except the monster had a Jack-O--Lantern Head...... They knew.

The Craft had word for word lines from a specific ritual used in a bastardized way. Rituals that in our faith, are considered sacred and secret.

Anyway- If I were ofended everytime I saw things like this, or heard someone using "witch" as a replacement for "bitch" I would be offended almost all the time.

I just let it go. Water flows around a rock right?

Everytime I see a Christian complain about being picked on it makes me want to literally slap them in the face to wake them the hell up.

They do not have a clue.

Note: One other thing.....Please stop lumping my faith in with the Abrahamic faiths. Not only do we believe in different Dieties, we view dieties in a COMPLETELY different manner then they do.

[MineralMan]

23. You're part of a minority religion, and that always

leads the majority religion to pick on you. They want to insist that you believe the wrong thing and that you MUST believe as they do. It's very sad, but that seems to be the way it all works. In Muslim countries, Christians are the minority religion, and most Muslim countries don't even bother with the pretense of freedom of religion.

Join with atheists and other minority religions to help keep yourself free from being forced into believing as the majority religion believes.

[Marrah_G]

32. The majority of my friends are pagans, athiests, or buddhists

We all seem to get along fine and no one questions anothers beliefs.

The only crap I have ever taken for my religion has been fropm Christians.

[MineralMan]

37. Not surprising, really.

There does seem to be something about Christianity that causes many Christians to have an abject fear and loathing for all things pagan. Bad cess to them, I say.

[Marrah_G]

47. Christians I can deal with easily

I do get thrown when I get called names on here by Athiests. In the real world Pagans and Athiests are allies.

I've never been spoken to by any athiest in the real world in the rude manner I have been on here.

I just took a big step back a minute ago, took a deep breath and reminded myself that the annonymity of the internet brings out the nasty in some people and that I am responsible for my own response to them.

[BurtWorm]

48. It's difficult not to be suspicious about persons who seem to go out of their way

to say offensive things to people they don't know. It's best not to view people like that as representative of the group they strongly assert they belong to and on whose behalf they claim to be offensive.

[Marrah_G]

75. Yes exactly.

You are absolutely correct

[MineralMan]

49. I guess there are bigots of all faiths and of no faith at all.

Lots of angry, frustrated people out there, it seems.

I admit that I cannot see any reason to be ticked of at someone simply because they believe something I do not. It is not beliefs, but actions, that make the person.

[Marrah_G]

76. That is exactly how I feel

[SidneyCarton]

29. I would argue that Wiccans are doubly-disadvantaged in this culture

Not only are they a minority religion, but the cultural baggage surrounding the idea of "Witches" in the Judeo-Christian tradition leaves many with stereotypical misconceptions of what Wiccans believe.

[Sandrine for you]

99. I want to know how and why someone could become a Wiccan,

Is it by family ? Friend affiliation ? Who want to be a Wiccan ?

[CreekDog]

19. The only thing that really offends me is when people claim to know what I think

or misrepresent what I think or say.

that becomes an issue with respect to faith when they assume that i believe in God the way a scientist believes in science (i don't).

it becomes an issue when they assume i think certain things because i belong to a religion.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[CreekDog]

31. no it's not a fact

until you prove it so.

[MNDemNY]

33. No, the burden of proof is on you, I have NOTHING to prove.

My burden is complete, your turn.

[CreekDog]

35. you can't prove a negative

:crazy: :dunce:

shows how smart you are. :eyes:

[MNDemNY]

38. As I said, I have nothing to prove. I have done that.

You, on the other hand, must prove something. Shows what an idiot you are.

[CreekDog]

40. you have issues with me

i don't have them with you.

[MNDemNY]

42. My issues are with those who would insert their irrational beliefs into any part of my life.

If the affects of their "religion" go beyond their own body, it is too intrusive.

[CreekDog]

44. you have issues with me

even though i am not trying to insert beliefs into your life.

in case you didn't notice, you engaged me on this, not the other way around.

[Marrah_G]

34. That was incredibly rude- I think that YOU are the one showing ignorance in this.

[MNDemNY]

36. Rude, maybe, but such is the facts.

[MineralMan]

39. Well, that's what you believe, anyhow...

No facts were presented by you, though, in support of your blanket statement.

You can solve this problem by prefacing your comments with one of the following qualifiers, and I recommend the practice highly:

"In my opinion,"
"I believe that..."
"For me,"
"Others may disagree, but I think..."

You see how that works?

[MNDemNY]

41. Sorry, the "believers" are the ones who have something to prove, until they can,

I have nothing I need to prove.

[CreekDog]

43. i don't have faith that is based on "proof"

that's not what faith means.

not everything in my life needs proof and not everything in yours has proof either.

[MNDemNY]

54. That is my point. Faith is empty of fact.

[CreekDog]

58. So is love

but i believe in that too, yet i can't prove it.

[MNDemNY]

60. Some bio-chemists would beg to differ.

[CreekDog]

68. not fact though

[Sandrine for you]

98. What we call love in Occident do not exist in some culture...

they like, but they do not love, in the way we thing of it.

Love too is a cultural construction.

[Marrah_G]

46. I didn't say you had to prove anything. I just told you that you are being rude, and you are

The fact that You think you can behave like this towards others and not get called on it is where the real ignorance lies.

[MNDemNY]

55. call me on it, I don't care. Doesn't change the facts.

[Meshuga]

50. Ignorant about what?

How could anyone know a person's level of ignorance when the only data available is the label the person chooses for him/herself?

[BurtWorm]

51. How could anyone know another person's level of ignorance without relevant data? No one could!

On the other hand, sometimes we *do* have enough data to determine the ignorance of an assertion... ;)


How are you doing, Meshuga? :hi:

[Meshuga]

53. I agree. And in that case...

...pointing out the ignorance is only fair to the person making such assertion.

I am doing good, just too busy to keep up with DU. How are you doing? Nice to see you here! :hi:

[BurtWorm]

57. I'm doing well, all things considered.

Glad to hear your busy-ness is the good kind. Nice new nickname, by the way. I'm glad you're keeping our friend Baruch as an avatar.

:toast:

[Meshuga]

63. Thanks!

The busy-ness is definitely the good kind. And yes, Baruch is staying. :-)

Take care!

[MNDemNY]

56. One who believes in fairy tales is, in fact, ignorant.

[BurtWorm]

59. I just want to posit that a person can be religious without believing in fairy tales.

Without believing in anything at all irrational, in fact. Meshuga, as far as I know, is such a person. You can tell from conversing with him, but even just looking at his avatar should give you a hint that he is not a believer in bullshit.

[MNDemNY]

61. You are confusing "spirituality" with "religion". Not the same thing.

[BurtWorm]

62. What are you talking about? Meshuga is religious.

I can't speak for his spirituality. You're calling religious people ignorant. Meshuga is an example of a religious person who is not ignorant, who does not believe in fairy tales and who is a confirmed rationalist.

[MNDemNY]

65. I do not know Meshuga, however if one believes in a "supreme" being, or beings,

they believe in fairy tales, and are then ignorant.(This includes the belief in saints, angels, prophets, resurrection, miracles etc.,etc.

[BurtWorm]

67. What if one believes, as Einstein said he did, in Spinoza's god.

Do you know Spinoza? Are you familiar with the phrase, "God, or nature?"

[MNDemNY]

69. I am not familiar with "spinoza", but "nature" is not a supreme being.

[BurtWorm]

70. I'll grant you that,

In which case, you'll grant me that a person can be religious or might even believe in "god" and not be ignorant or a believer in fairy tales?

[MNDemNY]

71. Sorry, I can not..

The mere belief in "god" is such a fairy tale. I see no way around that.

[BurtWorm]

72. But you just conceded that "god, or nature" is not a fairy tale.

I believe Spinoza, who was excommunicated from his temple in Amsterdam on grounds of being an atheist partly because he conflated god and nature, came as close as anyone could hope to come to the pure essence of the religious, completely disrobing it of any human vestiture--or fairy tales, as you put it--and what he was left with was pure, undistilled nature. No creator. No father. No sky pixie. Richard Dawkins, even, says (in The God Delusion of all places) that he can appreciate this awesome, oceanic feeling Spinoza, Einstein, Carl Sagan, Steven Hawking and other pure rationalists and anti-supernaturalists describe when contemplating nature. He chides his fellow rationalists for calling this wondrous thing "god." But he knows they're not talking about the old man in the clouds.

[Sandrine for you]

96. Spinoza do not believe in God or nature ...He know God by the the third kind(genre),

Nothing to do with religion.

[Sandrine for you]

97. To believe make the proof of ignorance.

[MedleyMisty]

143. If they weren't talking about an old man in the clouds

they shouldn't have used a word that is associated with an old man in the clouds for 99.9% of the people in their culture. Religion is belief in supernatural beings and the word god denotes the ultimate supreme being.

I feel that awesome oceanic feeling quite a bit. It has shit to do with religion, which is belief in a sky god and enforcing the rules said to come from that sky god on other people. Religion is the exact antithesis of love and beauty and truth.

It's like the world is this beautiful joyful awesome place and then there's this rip in the fabric, an ugly hole where human empathy is supposed to be. There's the warmth of the sun and the beauty of grass and trees and the sky and the love of all the other species and then there's a cold dark place, a place of apathy and greed and selfishness and cruelty and hate. And religion comes from and stinks of that cold dark place.

It'd be like, I don't know - if I expected everyone to just know that when I called someone a soulless psychopath I really meant that they were the most compassionate and empathic human I'd ever met.

But I have learned this week that the internal reality of the great majority of humans differs quite a bit from my internal reality. Like I know that I tend to think of religious people as ignorant and perhaps not all there mentally because I always assumed that humans experienced life somewhat similarly, and so I thought that people came by religious beliefs the same way I came by my beliefs - that they researched all the religions they could along with scientific theories and compared all that to their own sense of reality and chose the construct that best filled their need for a logical and internally consistent explanation of reality. So when people believe that the planet is 6000 years old and that fossils are tricks played by the devil and that some invisible being who created the universe really cares about them and wants their sports team to win but doesn't give a damn about the other team and its fans and you imagine that they seriously considered all the possibilities and then chose that one, well - you are going to question their mental abilities.

I somehow kept that belief while being raised in the town that Mayberry was based on. But the rural South, at least the part of it where I grew up, is not the dark hole of fundamentalism that people here say it is and religion hardly ever came up in conversation and when it did it was mostly making fun of Christians. I never ran into the phrases "what we were taught" or "we were raised to believe" until I started hanging out on the internet. And it's taken me a few good years and lots of reading about religious belief and psychology and various other subjects and observing people's posts about religion to realize that for the majority of people, it's a social thing and they just randomly say they believe in whatever the people around them say they believe in to fit in and feel like part of a group. And I haven't really internalized it yet that there are humans who aren't bothered by inconsistency and who just accept what others tell them and who like external structure more than generating their own internal structure, but I think that when I do I might have more understanding and empathy for religious people.

One major clue - when people do talk about choosing a religion, they talk about finding a group where they feel comfortable rather than finding the explanation that makes the most logical sense. Like I would say "Yeah, I read this religion's holy book but it's full of impossibilities and contradictions and prejudice and silly rules and things that applied 2000 years ago but not now." but they would say "I went to this church but I didn't really connect with the people there."

If you're into MBTI - sometimes I think the arguments on this forum are more about ESFJ versus INTP than actual beliefs. I'm INFP personally, although the more I learn about other people's emotions the less I think they need to be taken into consideration and the more I inch towards INTP.

I like tangents and following my thoughts wherever they go, lol.

[BurtWorm]

149. I don't think "god" necessarily means "supreme being."

Originally, gods were thought to be manifold. There wasn't just one. They were all over the place, each with a different realm to command--the sky, the sea, that volcano, fire. What gods seem to have been orginally is a posited intention-agent for an inanimate something. They seem to be rooted in the human tendency to ascribe intentionality and cause to everything that has an effect in their world.

I think Spinoza's "god, or nature" is his way of solving the intentionality-causation problem the earliest worshipers thought they had solved by positing supernatural beings behind every natural phenomenon.

[MineralMan]

79. Spinoza is not a thing.

If you're going to argue about religion vs. what you think are facts, you're currenly ill-prepared, since you don't recognize Spinoza.

I think you may be out of your league here. Philosophical discussions are difficult, at best, but they're impossible when concepts are presented with no understanding of how those concepts came to be.

You have some reading to do, in my opinion.

[Meshuga]

64. But your claim is:

"If you 'belong' to a religion, you are ignorant. Whether that offends you or not, it is a fact."

[MNDemNY]

66. I concede your point.

If you "belong" to a religion, that you do not "believe" in, you are not necessarily ignorant, a hypocrite, yes, but maybe not ignorant.

[Meshuga]

73. Who would belong to a religion they don't believe in?

Not all religions are based on certain belief but based on their folkways, tradition, ethics, etc. Spirituality is also a component but it is not the most important one and you don't have to follow this component if you are not a spiritual person.

Christianity, for example, is based on faith so I would think it would be hard for a person to follow Christianity without belief. But Christianity does not represent all religions.

Although I claim Christianity requires faith, I do this without certainty because of my own ignorance about Christianity. Perhaps there are those who consider themselves Christians who don't believe in the so called "fairy tales" but follow Jesus' teachings. The bottom line is that you seem to be digging for reasons to attack those who claim to be religious. I don't find that offensive but just ironic since you seem to use the word "ignorance" as a pejorative when you yourself also show your own ignorance with your implicit assumptions.

[JerseygirlCT]

106. Wisely said, as always

And the answer is easy - they cannot.

[TZ]

102. I'm an atheist and I find your post offensive

Seriously-you sound and act like a bigot. I don't like bigots be they religously based or bigoted agaisnt those with personal religious beliefs. As long as someone doesn't push their faith on me, I have no right to criticize what one person chooses to believe or not. You attacking one of the least pushy believers on this board helps give rise to the meme of atheists being intolerant assholes.

[JerseygirlCT]

104. Thanks

I do appreciate that. Stereotyping and ugly generalizations, masquerading as fact are just pointless. And offensive.

[Meshuga]

108. I totally agree with you

Thanks for the post, TZ! You are always proving to be a true mensch. :-)

[rd_kent]

111. While I agree with you that personal attacks are wrong

I think that you fail to see why Atheists are looked as intolerant assholes. Its because they(we) are the only ones speaking out about the ACTUAL forcing of religion on everyone else. When nearly half of the elected government consider themselves religious and push their religious agenda (that includes evangelicals, mormons, catholics, just to name a few) in order to make their belief(in something that cannot be proven) a law, then yes, I'm gonna be an asshole about it.
Never once have I approached someone, uninvited, on the street, in their car, over their radio/TV or most importantly, at their home with the purpose to share MY views with them. Next time someone rings your doorbell and asks if you have been saved, tell me who the asshole is.

[Why Syzygy]

115. You can blame the Romans.

They did it first. I think it's a huge mistake to mix religion and politics. It's actually an illusion (delusion) because it can't be done. Participation in either is a choice. IOW, if I don't like one religion, there are others or none. If I don't want this government, there are others. But, with a government of, by and for the People, well, people are going to screw it up to some degree. And with corrupt government, the control freaks will use religion as a weapon.

The thing is, you will never notice the folks who don't live to push their beliefs on others. They won't come knocking. As long as they are guaranteed the same rights to life and safety, that's all they expect from government.

[Meshuga]

117. TZ is not saying Atheists are assholes

For confronting beliefs or dismissing the religious person who knocks on your door to proselytize or advocate policies that impose beliefs in your life. She is just saying that the poster is contributing to the case of those who look for reasons to smear atheists in this board.

It is one thing to question beliefs and dismiss the people who knock on your door and try to tell you how to live your life. It is another when you attack a person just because of a label the person might carry. The people who smear atheist in this board will gladly use the latter when making their case.

[TZ]

124. Ugh. I'm not saying that at all.

I'm just as disgusted by the people (many who frequent here) who talk about the danger of "fundamentalist atheists". And that all atheists are out to destroy religion. Or that atheists don't have rights as citizens...There are plenty of religous bigots. Probably many more than atheist bigots but it doesn't make either behavior or attitude right.
Calling someone stupid or ignorant because they have religious belief is every bit as bad those who call athiests evil and immoral.

[rd_kent]

125. Stupid no, ignorant yes

When one chooses to believe something they know is false, or that cannot be supported in anyway, that is ignorance. Calling someone ignorant is not always an insult, but an accurate description. When discussing rocket science, I'm as ignorant as they come, and telling me that is not offensive.

[TZ]

138. Here's where your statement is wrong

one choosed to believe something they know is false...I'm well aquainted with believers and I can assure you, they don't believe its false. You and I might think that, but to say that they do is..well a bit presumptious.

[Marrah_G]

146. Posts like yours shut down any sort of conversation

I just remind myself that the Atheists I know offline are NOTHING like you.

Ignorance indeed.

[beam me up scottie]

148. Before you insult anyone else you might want to look in a mirror.

Ignorance = religious people believing "something they know is false".

[Marrah_G]

145. I can tell you the person at the door won't be one of mine.

In fact the person at the door hates and fears me far more then they do you.

I am not ignorant. I am not stupid.

Yet time after time I get told I am, but only online.

The athiests I know offline are my allies and are never rude or offensive to me.

[JerseygirlCT]

103. That's pure opinion. Enjoy your opinion, but that's not a fact nt

[Meshuga]

107. Hey,

Why should this person interact with other people to learn more about their true nature when he/she already knows the facts about them? :-)

[JerseygirlCT]

142. LOL...

I'm afraid you're right. Learning is so much trouble, anyway.

[Davis_X_Machina]

21. Posts like this...

...aren't helpful.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5082301

[SidneyCarton]

25. I take more offense than I ought to.

It's all par for the course, and the simplest thing to do is hide the thread.

[Deep13]

45. I state what I consider to be facts.

If a religious person takes offense, that is not my fault. Frankly anytime anyone asserts a religious belief, that person is implicitely saying those who disagree are wrong. No one has a right to the kind of deference that some believers demand. No one has a right to be shielded from the possibility of being wrong.

I do take offense when someone judges me by his or her religious standards.

[Why Syzygy]

77. I'm offended by those

who share the name of my *religion*, but spew hate, bigotry, greed and all things that are 100% contrary to what the faith proclaims.

[rd_kent]

112. How do you reconcile the fact

that the same ones "who share the name of my *religion*, but spew hate, bigotry, greed and all things that are 100% contrary to what the faith proclaims" also say that YOU are wrong?

[Why Syzygy]

113. Do they?

:shrug: When it comes to Christianity, it very may well be that each of us have a piece of the broader truths, and no one has the entire piece. I'm also very aware that there are innumerable "social Christians" who claim to be so for no other reason than they were born in this country or belong to a denomination.

edit: I'm confused by your suggestion that I "reconcile" their alleged opinions.

[rd_kent]

116. Your use of the word "truth" is dubious at best

since the "truth" you refer to is unprovable.
As for reconcile, I just means to ask how do you deal with the fact that the person siting next to you in the pew may be one of the people you refer to.

[Why Syzygy]

118. I'm allowed to use

the term "truth" when discussing my beliefs. You are free to disregard it, but may not prohibit my usage of the word.

No one is sitting next to me. I have a lot of problems with organized religion. I'm more of a renegade. In the public arena, it concerns me. Which was my original answer to the OP. Is the circle complete?

[rd_kent]

119. No one is prohibiting your using the word "truth"

I simply stated that its use by you when referring to religion is dubious, since its not the truth at all.

From Dictionary.com

Truth-
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.


where religion (any one of them, including yours) feels its gets to use the word "truth" when describing their BELIEFS is beyond me. I'm not telling you to not to use it, just pointing out that your use of it in this context is wrong and misleading.

[Why Syzygy]

120. No. It isn't.

You asked about disparate *beliefs* among those who profess a certain *faith*, which wears a particular label. I really hate it when people post the dictionary. I've read lots of dictionaries for entertainment. Love language.

It may well "beyond" you. What it means is that in our FAITH, people may disagree about certain meanings. There is one core belief REQUIRED. All the rest of it (truths in our FAITH) are open to further study. And that would be study by those of us who Believe. Obviously someone who does NOT believe is in no position to judge what we perceive as truths. IOW, your definition is meaningless when used in this context. Maybe that's where you are having difficulty. You can't impose your belief system when analyzing ours.

[rd_kent]

121. But I dont have a BELIEF system,

and the only thing Im asking you to do (not imposing on you, by the way) is to use the correct word for the meaning your implying. The intentional use of the word "truth" when referring to ones beliefs is misleading and irresponsible. If calling an idea, thought or belief that is completely unsubstantiated, completely unprovable and completely not based in reality "the truth" makes one feel better, then so be it. Just dont get mad when someone calls BS on it.

[Why Syzygy]

122. I'm not mad at all.

And, you're still wrong.

They are obviously "truths" to us, or we wouldn't believe them or try to discover more. You're really in the wrong conversation. When folks like you push SO HARD to prove something does not exist, you are in reality proving its existence. Opposite reactions being what they are.

edit: Your belief system revolves around trying to prove something is wrong.

[rd_kent]

123. Youre kidding, right?

"They are obviously "truths" to us, or we wouldn't believe them or try to discover more."

In the last 2000 years, what "truths" have you discovered?

"When folks like you push SO HARD to prove something does not exist, you are in reality proving its existence. Opposite reactions being what they are."

Im not trying to prove anything, that burden is yours my friend. The only thing Im trying to do is point out that your are misusing the word "truth."

[Why Syzygy]

126. I have no such burden.

AFAIAC you have the freedom to believe or not as you choose. The God I know is quite capable of making His presence known when He chooses to do so. I am not evangelical and have not been tasked with convincing anyone.

I'm not sure how Atheists arrive at the conclusion that all humanity should be free and equal. At least, that's what I've read. But, again, that's all I ask of government. So, on that we can move forward because such is not the case.

[rd_kent]

127. Actuallly, you do have that burden

if you are to be taken seriously. I am not commenting on your IQ, your smarts, your level of brain function, etc, etc, because I dont know you, but if you choose to associate the word "truth" with your belief, then there IS a burden of proof. Otherwise, its just a belief, nothing more.

[Why Syzygy]

128. I'm okay with that.

Assume it is so. Otherwise, its just a belief, nothing more.

When I speak with others who share Belief, we speak of "truths". And, you should really stop the language cop routine. That's impossible to take seriously because you are refusing to see the difference in Believer's truth and your's.

[rd_kent]

129. I am certainly not a language cop

but there is only one definition of the word "truth". There is no such thing as "believers truth", just "believers beliefs" because if its not "true" then its just a belief. If it is "true", then it can be proven.

[Why Syzygy]

130. You posted 10.

Let's go with this one:

8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.

[rd_kent]

131. Maybe you just proved my point

Your perceived experience is your belief and your idea that "god makes his presence known when he wants to". The truth transcends that perceived experience.

[Why Syzygy]

132. You must have missed the "and"

"apart from and transcending"

[rd_kent]

133. okay, but how does that change what I wrote?

I guess I dont get what your point is here.

[Why Syzygy]

134. This way.

Ex. A.
8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.

Truth as a reality separate from and going beyond the limits of observable knowledge.


Ex. B.
Your perceived experience is your belief and your idea that "god makes his presence known when he wants to". The truth transcends that perceived experience.

The truth is beyond that observable knowledge.


hmm. Maybe it's the same. If you want the point, it's yours.

[rd_kent]

135. Lets split the point instead!

1/2 for you and 1/2 for me. Thanks for the discussion. It was fun.

[Why Syzygy]

136. Wow. That's very nice of you!

Deal! YQW and same to you. I enjoy people who make me think.

[Why Syzygy]

139. Hey....... :hi:

This morning, I thought of something else. I got so entwined in our back and forth, I failed to really clarify what it means when Believers discuss Truth. You can see it in this forum. Within the Faith, we have disagreements on how to relate to Gays. Some of us don't believe in an eternal "Hell". Some do. Some worship on the first day. Others on the seventh. Some require baptism, and even the method varies. Obviously, there is either a Hell or not. So, one group has it right, possesses the truth of the matter. Etc. variants. Within the confines of the Faith, I'm pretty sure none of us have every single instance of differences all figured out to the Right, True and Correct answer.

Make sense? Doesn't change the point! :D .. In all honesty, I'm not very interested in scoring. I play for the enjoyment without regard to outcome.

Then, someone sent me this, which can be considered as well:

truth
O.E. triewð (W.Saxon), treowð (Mercian) "faithfulness, quality of being true," from triewe, treowe "faithful" (see true). Meaning "accuracy, correctness" is from 1570. Unlike lie (v.), there is no primary verb in Eng. for "speak the truth." Noun sense of "something that is true" is first recorded c.1362.


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=true

true
O.E. triewe (W.Saxon), treowe (Mercian) "faithful, trustworthy," from P.Gmc. *trewwjaz "having or characterized by good faith" (cf. O.Fris. triuwi, Du. getrouw, O.H.G. gatriuwu, Ger. treu, O.N. tryggr, Goth. triggws "faithful, trusty"), perhaps ultimately from PIE *dru- "tree," on the notion of "steadfast as an oak." Cf., from same root, Lith. drutas "firm," Welsh drud, O.Ir. dron "strong," Welsh derw "true," O.Ir. derb "sure." Sense of "consistent with fact" first recorded c.1205; that of "real, genuine, not counterfeit" is from 1398; that of "agreeing with a certain standard" (as true north) is from c.1550. Of artifacts, "accurately fitted or shaped" it is recorded from 1474; the verb in this sense is from 1841. Truism "self-evident truth" is from 1708, first attested in writings of Swift. True-love (adj.) is recorded from 1495; true-born first attested 1591. True-false as a type of test question is recorded from 1923.

[EvilAL]

84. The only time I'll take offense

is if someone insults me about not believing in bullshit. I don't insult religious people because of their beliefs, I'll point out the silliness of it all sometimes and they tend to get offended.
I learned that denouncing Jesus in front of old people(60+) offends them and I don't care..
I rarely bring it up in conversation, but when it comes up I let people know my thoughts and feelings on the whole fucking thing.

[jody]

85. Some/many/most people who live long enough whether religious or irreligious find ways to live

peacefully with the other group.

It is youthful exuberance that leads people to aggressively defend their personal beliefs and arrogantly try to convert the opposition.

The possibility of eternity and infinity compared to the handful of molecules that make up each individual for a few decades to me suggests that a few billion years from now present day conflict between religious and irreligious groups won't matter.

[trotsky]

89. So how does Fred Phelps fit into that theory?

Or for that matter, Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or Dick Cheney or Poppy Bush or any of the various aged radical Muslim clerics around the world? I think it's ridiculously simplistic and terribly ageist to essentially claim that young people are the problem.

[jody]

90. I did not say 100% of people fit my supposition. So we disagree re youthful exuberance, I hope you

can live with that because I can.

[trotsky]

91. Some people (old and young) fought like hell to end slavery.

Or give women the vote, when really, in a few billion years neither of those will probably matter either. Humans will probably be long forgotten. You portray passion in one's position as a negative trait, and I think that is unfortunate.

[jody]

93. And you can't stick to the OP issue. Have a good day and goodbye. n/t

[trotsky]

94. Well, that's why I replied to you.

I think your statement:

It is youthful exuberance that leads people to aggressively defend their personal beliefs and arrogantly try to convert the opposition.

is overly simplistic and ageist. After explaining why, and giving counter-examples, you decline to respond. That's fine.

[EvilAL]

137. I don't immediately jump down someones throat

for mentioning religion or saying something religious though. Sometimes it will come up and if it's something I read about or have doubts about I'll express my views to them. I generally try not to throw anything doubtful in around older people because through my experiences they simply aren't used to hearing negative things about their religion and/or will defend it more. I've gotten strange looks from people and friends wincing when I'd say something against God or the bible in front of their parents or grandparents. Out of respect for the person's beliefs, I won't say anything they consider bad around them once I know how they feel, unless it is called for by their continuing to either insult me or threaten me with hell.

[kwassa]

87. It is not what you say, it is how you say it. ...... mostly.

There are those who choose to be as offensive as possible in order to instigate an argument. Mostly, I ignore them, unless I am in the mood for such an argument. If someone wants a civil and respectful discussion, then that is something I will engage in, if I have the time and interest.

I do think that DU tolerates intolerance toward religion, but I notice other forms of questionable behavior on these forums as well in regards to other issues.

I used to be offended by willful ignorance, but I no longer am. I just go on to the next thing. I no longer expect all Democrats to be liberal in any other way but their votes. The definition of liberal is someone is open-minded, and there are many aggressively shut minds around DU on certain topics.

[Silent3]

100. The meaning of "open-minded" is itself often in dispute.

I was going to respond here, but I decided to turn the subject into a thread of its own.

[trotsky]

92. I think this is particularly a problem for certain individuals:

People who belong to a majority religion in their culture. They are so accustomed to the special treatment their beliefs get, the unearned, unspoken respect that is conferred in the "real world," that reading even a negative comment on an anonymous message board to them feels like a direct attack not only on their religion but on them personally.

[Silent3]

101. "You just haven't reached the right 'level' of awareness."

This is an annoyance much like the colorblind analogy (so generously provided by some actually promoting that annoying analogy), but with the added insult of suggesting a hierarchy along which the Wise One has progressed further than you, which is why he/she understands what poor, unadvanced you can't possibly be expected to understand yet.

The irony is that many people pushing this "level of awareness" meme will bend over backwards to try to assure you that they don't mean it in any condescending way at all. No, not that! They were where you are once, after all. We all have to go through these stages, and there are higher stages that *even I* haven't yet reached. :puke:

[Meshuga]

109. I'm sorry you haven't learned the ways of the Force and became a Jedi like me

And I don't mean it in any condescending way at all. All I am saying is that you must go first to the Degobah System to learn the ways of the Force. And then you will see what I am talking about.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted sub-thread

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

[beam me up scottie]

141. People who happen to "think that most atheists have problem with religion

not because of disbelief but because of some trauma suffered in the past

they didn't get pony they prayed for so there's not God!"

are full of themselves and try desperately to be offensive.



They're usually hypocrites and can be relied on to babble like this:

"I have yet to come across an atheist on this board that isn't rude to people of faith-it's all fairy tales or superstition blah blah blah

the majority of them do NOT follow the DU guidelines for treating others with respect

but what can do you but keep on alerting on them and praying for them of course".


Of course rank amateurs like these only amuse atheists.

[MedleyMisty]

144. I would have to say the atheist equals not moral thing

I personally don't need an external structure of morality forced on me, and if you need to believe in retribution by an imaginary dude in the sky to keep from murdering and raping people that's cool but I can manage just fine on my own. I have to admit that I have never desired to engage in such activities in the first place but if I did I think that my empathy with other living beings and understanding that they are real with their own feelings and are of infinite value and deserve the utmost respect and that they are not just inanimate unfeeling objects for me to use however I want would stop me.

That is an argument against messing with people's religion, though. If it really is the only thing that keeps them from going on rampages of death and destruction, then maybe I shouldn't be poking holes in it.

I guess it's offensive because it's like they're not respecting other people and think that if they need to be in a cage then everyone else needs to be in there with them. And I will fight to the death before I let anyone put me in a cage. I value my freedom above all else.

But hey, I am just now learning that some people need and want cages. So maybe, just as I didn't realize that people might like cages, maybe they don't realize that some people need and want freedom.

[Marrah_G]

147. I don't need a cage- you don't need a cage

I will judge you based on your individual actions and I hope you will afford me the same.

[SarahJohn]

150. No, not really.

Nothing new in this area, really. Just a lot of people searching in different ways.

[jeepnstein]

151. I'm not easily offended.

I find that if someone want to discuss their faith, or lack of it, they are still wanting to explore possibilities.

If you ask me questions, I will do my best to explain what my Bible teaches. If that exchange turns into a confrontation, I simply move on. Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that believers are meant to force our ways on anyone. It's up to each and every individual to decide for themselves.

I know some atheists and agnostics who I consider friends. We disagree on the topic of religion but that doesn't mean I love them any less. It is interesting to find out why they choose the path they are on. Hey, I like listening to people and their stories.

[Why Syzygy]

152. You're right.

In fact, we are instructed to "shake the dust from our sandals" and move on if there is no interest in the message. Boogie on down the road. I would have a hard time with instructions to force feed or put on a big sales pitch. Not my cuppa.