Coexist?

[NMMNG]

I'm sure everyone has seen this bumper sticker:





This explains why it's essentially impossible. (I am not affiliated in any way with the website indicated on the graphic.)

[MADem]

1. Very bad headache! I tried....I gave up. NT

[bananas]

15. It's like the new serial killer on Dexter, or the real-life Zodiac killer.

Some weird encrypted message that wouldn't make sense even if it was decrypted.

[ZombieHorde]

2. I don't think the creator of the sign knows many Pagans or Taoists,

or understands what they are about.

[laconicsax]

3. Correction:

I don't think the creators of the sign know anything.

Really.

[beam me up scottie]

4. Thank you.

I've always hated that stupid sign, so cute, so naive, so annoying. Gag me.

[qb]

5. And we get after believers for literal readings of their texts.

I think believers are misguided, but I also know many of them are capable of ignoring the parts of their holy books that prevent them from coexisting.

[darkstar3]

6. Until they find someone they need to coexist with who offends their sensibilities.

I know many Christians who are capable of coexisting with members of nearly every faith tradition under the sun, but who at the same time cannot abide atheists and gays.

[NMMNG]

7. Funny

But there's a thread going on right now claiming that religious persecution is on the increase (and the people in this forum certainly would attest that it is). How could that be if most believers are ignoring the parts of their holy books and dogma that tell them not to coexist with others?

[trotsky]

14. That's one of the points to be made.

Liberal believers have to ignore parts of their religious texts to coexist in peace. Funny thing is, moderate and conservative believers do the exact same thing, just ignoring different bits.

[humblebum]

8. There is a reason for the absence of an Atheist symbol.

Is it because of the lack of desire to coexist? If history is any indicator, the desire of organized atheism is to dominate, not to coexist. Perfect coexistence between and among any human social groupings has never existed, but the attempt to fulfill such an ideal should never be abandoned.

[NMMNG]

9. Only in your dystopic fantasies

Timothy LaHaye has nothing on you. :rofl:

[humblebum]

10. I realize the truth is hard to handle, but somethings are simply

too obvious. For instance, Atheists dominate the R/T forum, and yet, atheism isn't even a religion (cough! cough! ahum). Nonetheless, there they are pushing and complaining whenever someone criticizes them.

[NMMNG]

11. Your version of the truth

Atheists dominate the R/T forum, and yet, atheism isn't even a religion

And humans dominate the pets forum though they're neither pets nor animals. They also dominate the animal rights discussions. :wow: Why, I think you're onto something big and important. Perhaps you should tell somebody about it.

[humblebum]

12. It's pretty obvious that humans dominate all of the forums, but

atheists do not dominate the pet forums. They dominate the R/T forum, therefore, they must be a religion after all. Silly me. But, history definitely reveals organized atheism's predisposition to dominate, not to coexist.

[NMMNG]

13. So whenever Christians aren't dominating something

That naturally means they're being persecuted by mean, dominating atheists. :eyes:



Sorry, Mr. Bum, but this is a forum for the discussion of Religion and Theology. It's not just for people who are religious and/or theologians. You have plenty of protected groups for that. Considering how little traffic they get it appears you prefer your persecution fantasies over the religious Kumbaya-fest you claim to want.

[humblebum]

17. I never said you couldn't discuss here, I was just curious as to why.

But I think I already have an answer. And BTW, your appeal to numbers is a logical fallacy. Organized Atheism purposely sets itself apart from all religions, and has no desire to coexist. That is an historical fact - past and present. It ain't purdy.

[NMMNG]

55. Your appeal to politcal regimes is disingenous

But it's all you have so you're compelled to keep repeating it ad nauseum.

[MADem]

22. Hmmm, if "this is a forum for the discussion of Religion and Theology" then you are essentially

saying that Atheism is a Religion?

[Goblinmonger]

36. So atheists can never discussion religion?

Ever? That makes absolutely no sense. Do you talk about issues of race that isn't your race? Gender that isn't your gender? I'm a male; should I be forbidden from discussion women's rights?

[MADem]

39. Well, they don't "believe" in it, now do they?

How many ways can they say that?

And they have a forum of their own to make fun of it to their heart's content: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=263

That's probably a more appropriate place to vent their views, which are insulting and denigrating to most of the people here.

Would you go into someone's home and make fun of them? That's in essence what's happening here.

[Goblinmonger]

48. You clearly don't understand the forum/group distinction.

This is a forum. This isn't YOUR home. That is the groups. And atheist can't come in there and "insult and denigrate." Or as we would call it "debate and question."

You don't own this forum. It's in the description.

[MADem]

62. So, if this forum is for atheist issues, as well as ones of religion, why aren't the atheists

included in the forum title?

Unless "atheism" is viewed as a religion, that is....

Pssst--I never suggested I "owned" the forum and I would never claim to do/say such a silly thing. Don't know where you found that gem!

[Goblinmonger]

136. You made it pretty clear you thought the theist owned it.

Remember typing this? "Would you go into someone's home and make fun of them?" That would mean that you feel this is the home of the theists, i.e. theirs, i.e. they own it.

You haven't answered my major question yet. Do you really feel that religion does not impact atheists in our society?

[NMMNG]

50. Atheists believe in religion

We just don't believe in gods.

Religion exists, and it influences our lives significantly. Religious people work to push their dogma into our government, our laws, the schools and everywhere else they can. They work to strip LGBT people, women, the non-religious, minority religions and countless others of rights. They spread their opinions everywhere via the public square, television, the Intenet and other media. Why do people like you think that atheists should remain silent in all of this?

[MADem]

60. That's the most interesting thing anyone has said to me today.

It's not necessary to believe in gods to believe in, or have, a religion. However, most atheists insist that religions are not worthy of belief, yet you tell me that you believe in religion.

I think the "lumping" you are doing is dangerous, though. Many, in fact most, religious people don't do as you aver. Some do, but not all. As always, the Big Mouths get all the attention, the people who go about their business and don't bother anyone take the heat for the Big Mouths' missteps and pontifications.

There are religious people marrying LGBT people every day of the week, so not all of 'em are trying to strip them of rights. MLK was a civil rights activist, working for--not against--rights for minorities. Ghandi didn't sit on his hands on the "rights" score, and neither does the Dalai Lama, or Desmond Tutu, or a host of others. Gotta watch that broad brush!

I don't think you should remain silent--I simply think that the title of this forum is misleading, and should include the atheists in it since they enjoy battling the religious people so vociferously, or the atheists should acknowledge that their POV is a religion, albeit without a 'big or small g' god. There is so much science does not know, so they have to take a lot of their assertions on, if you will, faith of a sort.

[NMMNG]

71. Believing that religion exists (and it obviously does)

is not the same thing as considering it valid or worthy of being adhered to.

As always, the Big Mouths get all the attention, the people who go about their business and don't bother anyone take the heat for the Big Mouths' missteps and pontifications.

Then when people being harmed by the Big Mouths have the spine to say/do something about the Big Mouths, those who were content to sit idly by turn on the people with spines, whining about how they don't like being associated with the Big Mouths. Funny how they say nothing to the Big Mouths who choose to use the religion as a battering ram against others, and to commit so many atrocities in the name of God/Jesus/the Bible. No, it's the people fighting back against the assaults who are somehow the assholes.



There is so much science does not know, so they have to take a lot of their assertions on, if you will, faith of a sort.


Good grief, not that claptrap again. :eyes: If science doesn't have an answer for something an atheist won't make up bullshit. S/he will simply say "we don't know yet". Scientists never rely on "faith" for anything, they rely on facts.

[MADem]

74. I don't know any Democrats who "use religion as a battering ram against others."

You might find them at right wing sites, but not here. So why be mean to people who share the same values, simply because they take comfort in a belief system that is different from yours?

I'm not religious--as I have said--but I can take it on faith that I simply do not know, and not get upset about it.

[NMMNG]

84. I take it you weren't a victim of Prop8?

Millions of Democrats voted along with Republicans to strip marriage rights away from people, because their "deeply held religious beliefs" said it was the right thing to do.

And you weren't told that "None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith."?

Then there are the constant claims in this forum that atheists are as bad as the Nazis and the KKK, references to Communist regimes as "atheist agendas", etc.



I don't care what people use to get them through the day. But if they try to claim it's rational when it isn't, propose it has qualities it doesn't, or think that it has any place in our government, I have every right to say my piece.

[MADem]

92. How many of them post here? I'd wager very few if any.

I've never seen any person here say things of that nature, that atheists are like Nazis or the KKK. I think that would qualify as hate speech and be taken down.

I don't think anyone is trying to prevent you from speaking your mind.

[NMMNG]

94. Those statements were made right here

If you'd spend less time ragging on atheists and more time observing the believers you'd see them.

[MADem]

100. And you didn't alert on hate speech? Really?

Can you link to any of it?

[NMMNG]

103. Some of them were actually deleted

after numerous alerts. Others are still up and you know "calling out" is prohibited so I can't link. There are countless instances of people conflating Communist regimes with "atheist agendas" and claiming "organized atheism" was responsible for millions of deaths. Go look them up yourself.

[MADem]

110. That's good, then. I can't imagine hate speech being permitted to stand on this site. NT

[laconicsax]

112. Check your PM

[MADem]

114. I don't see anything? nt

[laconicsax]

117. I just sent it.

I'm posting from my mobile--I can only work so fast with two thumbs.

[MADem]

124. Merci-d'accord. nt

[cleanhippie]

54. This is not YOUR home, its OUR discussion forum.

YOUR protected group can be found here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=291



Enjoy.

[MADem]

58. Well, you certainly haven't been reading for comprehension, have you?

I'm not religious, I've said so.

I don't insult people who are, though, or denigrate their POV.

I can only conclude that those who do this sort of thing regard atheism as a religion--otherwise, why would they participate in this forum?

[beam me up scottie]

63. There it is."I can only conclude that those who do this sort of thing regard atheism as a religion"

Nicely done.

And you wonder why we speak up.

edit for clarity

[MADem]

66. And there "what" is? You post repeatedly in a religion forum, if you're

not just a noodge or a spoilsport, trying to trip up a theological discussion for amusement, you surely must be a defender of your Atheist faith.

Why do you think there's something inherently wrong with that? As I've said elsewhere, not every faith group worships deities. Yours would fit into that category.

If you assert that POV, more power to you--simply call it what it is.

[beam me up scottie]

69. I must be a "defender of (my) Atheist faith"?

Keep it up, that's the kind of intolerance we feed on.

Tell me what else I believe.

[MADem]

73. What's intolerant about it? You're the only one ascribing negative connotations to my words. NT

[beam me up scottie]

76. This coming from someone who repeatedly insists he's not one of "us".

Fail.

[MADem]

77. Not sure where you're going with that comment--but it's characteristic of

the "cut 'em outta the herd" conduct I frequently see here.

[beam me up scottie]

80. You're the one telling other people how to define their beliefs.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse.

[MADem]

85. I'm not 'telling' you how to define your beliefs. You have your beliefs, and

the religious people here have theirs. Even the "Who Knows" crowd likely has a belief or three that guide their daily existences.

You're entirely free to define your belief/faith/assertion 'system' as you please. You always have been. No one can "make" you believe things you don't want to believe or direct you to define your beliefs in ways that cause you discomfort. I simply don't understand your perpetual irritation at people who don't see the world the way you do--it's an awful lot of energy, wasted. What ever happened to 'Live and let live?'

[beam me up scottie]

88. You have no idea what we believe yet you told us that we must belong to a religion.

That's enough to make anyone perpetually irritated.

[MADem]

91. You have beliefs. Beliefs infer religion. I never suggested you worship a deity, but

religions don't need to have deities to exist, or be organized in any fashion, either.

All they require is belief--or its antithesis.

[beam me up scottie]

97. Define my beliefs.

Seriously.

I want you to get this, I have enough respect for you to want you to understand it.

[MADem]

102. How can I? You keep telling me (look upthread) that I have no idea what you believe!

You said it. Not me.

It's not for me to define your beliefs--it's up to you.

All I know--because YOU SAID IT--is that you do, indeed, have beliefs.

[beam me up scottie]

106. I never told you I believed anything, so no, you have no idea. And yet you still posted this:

I can only conclude that those who do this sort of thing regard atheism as a religion

you surely must be a defender of your Atheist faith.

You have beliefs. Beliefs infer religion.

Your beliefs are based on the rejection of beliefs of others

I am pretty certain you believe there are no deities, else you wouldn't be calling yourself an atheist

atheists should acknowledge that their POV is a religion

they have to take a lot of their assertions on, if you will, faith of a sort

Explain.

[MADem]

109. You, yourself, said that I have no idea what you believe. You did NOT say you believed nothing.

And you certainly could have so done.

Look at your own darn post! If I have no idea, then elucidate. Stop being coy. If you refuse to elucidate, then I have no other option but to make assumptions based on what little you do say.

If I have no idea what you believe, I can logically divine from that statement that you do, indeed, have beliefs. If you don't share them, though, we find ourselves at an impasse.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=311442&mesg_id=311810

[beam me up scottie]

113. This is a very complex subject, I don't expect everyone to know that or even to care.

If you hadn't charged in here like the calvary accusing us of attacking believers and telling us that we didn't belong, I wouldn't have engaged you.

[MADem]

115. Your characterization of me is inaccurate.

I did not "charge in like the cavalry" or make accusations. I simply noted what I had observed. I also suggested (which is very different from, oh, demanding or insisting) that your participation here be memorialized in the forum title IF you don't regard your beliefs as a religion.

[beam me up scottie]

119. We've heard your kind of "suggestions" before.

We shouldn't have to use your terminology to define ourselves.

And we should not have to repeatedly defend our right to post in this forum.

[MADem]

126. No need for that sort of commentary.

You're doing your best to paint me in dire fashion with that snide "suggestions" remark--as though I'm suggesting you roast a baby, or something. I am not out to "get" you, but you certainly don't help yourself with your aggrieved retorts.

You're free to use your own terminology, but you haven't said anything in terms of defining yourself at all--in fact, you've done little save snark and be angry.

[beam me up scottie]

129. Sorry but you came after us, not the other way around.

And it would have been gallant had you actually been witnessing intolerance.

But there was no intolerance of beliefs in this thread, there were no attacks on believers.

Everyone who posts in this forum gives as good as they get.

This is just one thread, there is so much more to this forum.

And we're all here by choice.

[MADem]

130. Well, I don't "live" here, but that does not mean I have not been here.

You're new to me, too.

[beam me up scottie]

132. You're not new to me.

I've actually admired your posts in the big forums. I can't remember disagreeing with you about anything.

Except this forum.

I think you have to have a masochistic streak to play in here, it's not for everyone.

[MADem]

133. You might be right. nt

[NMMNG]

49. Um, no

Since when does one have to be religious to discuss religion? (After all, we don't have to be animals to discuss animals) Atheism isn't a religion but religion has a significant impact on our lives.

[MADem]

64. There's very little discussion of religion here, though, that doesn't get

tromped on by an insistence that there's "no" religion. How many times does one need to go down that road?

Of course, if atheism is, in fact, a religion without any deities, then we proceed from a different perspective.

Since the atheists do like to chime in whenever anyone discusses a religious issue, I simply think, in the interests of fair play and truth in advertising, they should, at the very least, be a part of the forum title.

[beam me up scottie]

65. So you're just looking out for us?

How sweet.

I don't think Skinner will go for it but good luck with that.

[MADem]

67. No, not that. I am a fan of fair play, though. NT

[beam me up scottie]

70. Like telling people what they believe or don't?

Even when you've been told otherwise?

How fair and balanced of you.

[MADem]

75. Well, you define your beliefs by what you do not believe --but it's simply the

opposite side of the same coin. Your beliefs are based on the rejection of beliefs of others, in essence.

I don't "tell" you--you tell me, and everyone else, with your commentary.

[beam me up scottie]

78. What do I believe and what beliefs do I reject?

Do go on.

[MADem]

79. You'll have to tell me, I suppose. I am pretty certain you believe there are

no deities, else you wouldn't be calling yourself an atheist.

[beam me up scottie]

82. See, that's the point, I DIDN'T tell you anything.

You just assumed you knew all about me because I used the only definition available to me.

I loathe using religious terms to define my philosophy.

[MADem]

90. Which was why I said "You'll have to tell me." You've yet to.

I never assumed anything, save what can be logically assumed by anyone who can break down the greek root of the word ATHEIST. It doesn't mean "flower worshipper" or "chocolate enthusiast," now, does it?


athe·ism
noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Definition of ATHEISM
1 archaic: ungodliness, wickedness
2
a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
See atheism defined for kids »
Origin of ATHEISM
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

[beam me up scottie]

95. Right on time, here come the dictionary definitions.

Do you kind of get the feeling that NMNMG, cleanhippie, Goblinmonger and the rest of us have done this before?

Because we have, over and over again, to the very people in this forum that you paint as our victims.

And we still get the "atheism is a religion" and "atheism is a faith" and atheism is this and atheism is that, blah blah blah.

You're out of your depth and you're too stubborn to admit it.

[MADem]

104. Someone had to come up with a definition since you refused to provide one.

You get angry with me and demand that I somehow have powers of divination to "define" your beliefs, when all I can divine--as a consequence of your own comments-- is that you do, indeed, have them.

You use snark and popcorn and "clueless" and other rude commentary, yet you expect to be taken seriously. You paint yourself as aggrieved, yet your behavior is impolite.

And now, "You're out of your depth."

No, I don't think so. That's what people say when they haven't a proper argument.

[beam me up scottie]

107. Gee, I wonder who wrote those dictionary definitions...

I can't define NMMNG's atheism any more than she could define mine.

If you were at all knowledgeable about the subject you'd realize that there are different kinds of atheism.

[MADem]

111. Please--do better. I urge you most vehemently! What definition suits you?

You rather smugly tell me I don't know your beliefs, yet you refuse to share them, and then you pick apart my baseline definition. How dare I offer a starting point to try to tease a tiny bit of a-theological perspective from you!

Then, if that's not enough, you continue on with the "clueless" theme with "If you were at all knowledgeable about the subject..." which is a bit of braggadocio, and you know it.

Surely, you can give us a wee primer on your "brand," can you not? A soupçon of enlightenment? Or will you deflect with still more of the "You're stupid, you don't get it" nonsense? I'm not buying that, you know.

[beam me up scottie]

118. Ha! Now you're asking me to pontificate at length about my atheism in the Religion forum?

Maybe you should have stopped taunting me when you were told that your assumptions were insulting.

There are many kinds of atheism, unfortunately we are forced to use religious language when defining our own philosophies.

Do you think every christian believes (or disbelieves) the exact same thing?

[MADem]

123. Your perspective is inaccurate and curious as well.

Dare I say you appear to suffer from a bit of a persecution complex?

No one is "taunting" you--that's in your head.

You're the one refusing to offer a straightforward response and cutting up with the "clueless" popcorn, "I'm smarter than you" themes. You go out of your way to avoid getting down to brass tacks.

I didn't ask about "everyone," I asked about you. If you don't care to respond, simply say so and we'll be done with this.

[beam me up scottie]

127. I copied the statements in question in my post 106.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=311442&mesg_id=311829

I'll leave it to others to decide if "taunting" is an applicable term.

And why would I discuss my atheism in this thread?

Seriously.

I've been there and done that and I'd rather slam a windowsill down on my fingers and/or let my horse throw me into a locust thorn.

I showed by example that stereotyping atheists is as intolerant as any other group.

If you really wanted to talk to us you would post in our group. Everyone is welcome.

[MADem]

128. Why would you discuss your atheism?

Because it's a valid question to answer, given your assertions, that's why.

This is a discussion forum, yet you apparently don't want to discuss. You prefer, apparently, to characterize others who may not share your beliefs (of course, since you won't divulge those, how's anyone to know, really?).

If you want to keep your beliefs secret, fine with me. Why wait so long to say so, though?

Curious.

[beam me up scottie]

131. How about you name and define the deities and I'll tell you if I believe in them :)

To put it simply, atheism is both implicit and explicit.

I cannot reject what I have no knowledge of so I cannot say with absolute certainty that there are no gods.

[MADem]

134. I think we'd use up all the bandwidth if I did that...Athena, Allah....Zeus, etc! nt

[cleanhippie]

53. No, YOU are saying that.

But nice try.

[MADem]

68. I haven't seen an adequate refutation of my thesis to this point. NT

[cleanhippie]

137. YEs you have, you just refuse to see it. Refutations ABOUND on this thread in response to you.

[MADem]

21. Is there even a symbol for Atheism?

I don't understand why they are all over the R/T forum, either. I really think the forum needs to be renamed to include them, or they should be given their own forum. Of course, a separate forum probably would not be as much "fun," because the whole idea is to beat down people who don't share the same views, near as I can tell.

I'm not religious, I am a live-and-let-liver, and I don't bother people who don't bother me. Believe what you'd like, just don't tell me what to believe (or NOT believe). I don't mind the occasional theological debate from an intellectual angle, though, as I studied the topic a lifetime ago.

I agree that the "thread crapping" on the R/T forum is probably not helpful. If the atheists had their own forum, they could denigrate the religious people all they'd like. I do think the way it is set up now, it's an invitation to flame wars.

[NMMNG]

51. There are a number of atheist symbols

Including these two:




Why are atheists here? We're here to discuss religion and theology, same as others are. Why are humans in the pets forum? Maybe to discuss pets. :shrug:


There is a group specifically for atheists and agnostics. There are also several groups specially for religious folk. Considering how little traffic those groups get it's obvious the religious folk aren't as traumatized by the presence of atheists as their pearl-clutching suggests.

[MADem]

72. Well, my argument continues to have merit, then.

If atheists want to discuss religion and theology, things they claim they don't "believe" in, or care for, they probably should be part of the forum title.

Humans who post in the pet forum (and does anyone BESIDES humans post there?) generally like pets. Is the pet forum overrun with "Cats SUCK!" or "Let's Euthanize All Housepets" threads?

The atheists seem to harbor a bit of resentment, bile, even anger (e.g. your "pearl clutching" term) towards the religious people, here, I've noticed. I simply think, if you want to play, you should either acknowledge that you fit in the "religion" category, or be named as a separate entity in the forum title.

[NMMNG]

87. No it doesn't

One doesn't have to have a religion to be affected by it. If one is affected by something, particularly against his/her will, they have every right to say and/or do something about it. If you can't figure that out I can't help you.

[MADem]

93. Certainly.

And as regular participants in the forum, if you don't care to be acknowledged as a religion with a belief system that involves a rejection of a deity or deities, you should be otherwise annotated in the forum title.

This isn't about you being censored, you know. Or maybe you don't? You're free to pontificate until the cows come home.

[NMMNG]

96. BMUS was right

You are trying to tell people what they believe. Typical.

[MADem]

99. What, precisely, would that be that you think I am averring? Do elucidate. nt

[beam me up scottie]

18. Maybe because we don't have one?

Because atheists can't even organize long enough to agree on one.

Fail.

[humblebum]

20. For not being able to organize, there sure are many atheist organizations

and symbols. If there are organizations devoted to atheistism, I can only assume that atheists do organize. your denial makes absolutely no sense.

[beam me up scottie]

23. Again: There is no officially authorized symbol for atheism. It's not that difficult to understand.

Nice try.

Fail.

[humblebum]

25. where did I say that there was an "official" symbol, though American Atheists

uses the atomic logo. Both it and the large red "A" are recognized, even if not officially, as atheist symbols.

The argument though concerns organized atheism, which has existed for a very long time. That doesn't mean that all atheists belong. Nonetheless the orgs. do exist.

[beam me up scottie]

27. Atheism has no symbol, it is not an organization, it is simply the lack of faith.

No matter what you choose to believe.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[humblebum]

31. Um? When the proof is right before my eyes, I can believe nothing else.

I realize that you are not a believer, but this is carrying it to extremes.

[beam me up scottie]

33. Really? Proof of what?

Are you saying that *I* am the exception to the rule?

[laconicsax]

120. "even if not officially..."

That's because there's no such thing as organized atheism.

[humblebum]

125. In that case there is no such thing as atheism. nt

[laconicsax]

135. It must be a fascinating world in which you live. n/t

[cleanhippie]

138. There is no such thing as non-belief?

Deep end, meet humblebum.

[humblebum]

139. Well, when I am being told that organized atheism does not exist,

inspite of massive eveidence to the contrary, then I can only assume that those non-existent organizations are staffed,and membership roles filled by nonexistent atheists.

[MADem]

24. A circuit court in Wisconsin ruled that Atheism was a religion!

Six years ago! They're certainly able to organize in prison--if they don't do it outside of prison, that's on them:

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that inmates' religious liberties include allowing atheists to conduct study groups. So long as the atheists consider it a matter of religion and religious liberty, prison officials must respect their wishes as much as the wishes of Christians.

http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/08/23/wisconsin-equal-rights-for-atheists-in-prison.htm

[beam me up scottie]

28. LMAO!

Welcome newbie!

:rofl:

[MADem]

29. Newbie? I've been here longer than you have, Sport!

:rofl: right back atcha....

[beam me up scottie]

32. In this forum? Then you must have read Skinners posts about atheists in the R/T forum.

Sport.

[MADem]

34. I don't LIVE here, if that's what you mean. Apparently, you, with no religion, do.

Interesting, that.

Why hang around a club when you've nothing in common with the membership, except to get your fight on?

[beam me up scottie]

35. I've been gone for MONTHS and yesterday I was welcomed with the same old insults

and dog whistle weaselology.

You don't need to live here to understand R/T (some call it the Arena), but you do have to be here long enough to know the players.

[MADem]

37. Well, head over this way, then

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=263

I mean, really--if you aren't welcomed, and your views are unappreciated, go somewhere where you'll get a cuppa cheer. It can't be psychically satisfying to spend hours crapping in someone else's punch bowl to try to make a point that will be disregarded.

You're not going to change anyone's minds--so why carp, gripe or insult? It's a waste of time, unless it's solely the Thrill of the Fight that motivates.

People who want to believe in "whatever" don't bother me. They don't scare me, either. People who believe in "nothing" are equally unconcerning.

Shit, live and let live. Why is that so hard?

[beam me up scottie]

40. That is a GROUP. This is a FORUM. There is a difference. You know that, right?

And I don't mind sharpening my claws on DU in general.

It helps keep me sane and sometimes makes me forget I live in a snake pit.

I don't think I'm the exception at all.


If you really want to dig through my sandbox, you'll find I defend religious freedom for everybody.

And that I love many believers, both on DU and in rl.

[MADem]

41. Maybe you need to put in for a promotion--would that solve your problem?

Would a profound difference arise if the Atheism "group" became a "forum?"

Come off it--a place to put posts is a place to put posts. Who gives a shit what it is called? When you pull up a post from a group, as opposed to a forum, does it look different on your computer screen? Does it glow with an unearthly light or something?

Now we're getting to the core of it--a bit of honesty. You like "sharpening your claws" on religious people? You're apparently in good company here with your fellow atheist-believers.

I just don't see the need for some of the gratuitous denigration. It is suggestive of an insecurity in one's beliefs, I suppose.

[beam me up scottie]

42. Every member who debates on DU is sharpening their claws.

And if I didn't have dial up I would send you to the page that describes the difference between groups and forums.

Nah, that's not really true, fact is I'd rather just sit here and watch you flail around cluelessly until you figure it out on your own.

:popcorn:

[MADem]

43. You're doing a great job of making my point.

Snark, popcorn, "clueless" assertions...the whole schmear.

You're a shit-stirrer, and you like it. That's why you're here.

You've well and truly outed yourself!

[beam me up scottie]

44. LOL!

What drama!

You're fun, I sure hope you stick around.

[MADem]

46. You've done a fine job of illustrating the points I have been making with your responses.

I suppose I should thank you for that.

[beam me up scottie]

47. Your point seems to be one of intolerance.

You think atheists should only be allowed to discuss religion in their group.

It's hardly original.

[MADem]

57. Not at all.

I think that people who don't cook, who don't like cooking, who think cooking is silly, meaningless, what-have-you, shouldn't spend their time seeking out cooks to insult them, is all.

[beam me up scottie]

59. Why aren't you the happy little hypocrite?

Show me where I insulted anyone.

[MADem]

81. You're doing a great job with me!

Good thing I have thick skin!

[beam me up scottie]

83. How have I insulted you?

I don't know jack about your religious beliefs but I would never presume to define them for you.

[MADem]

86. You don't know jack about my religious beliefs, yet you call me a happy little hypocrite?

I rest my case.

[beam me up scottie]

89. I was referring to your accusations.

You repeatedly claim that I am insulting believers yet you cannot back it up with any evidence.

Am I to take it on faith that these alleged insults exist?

[MADem]

98. Well, that's not accurate. I've said nothing about you, personally, insulting believers.

I have indicated that this is the dynamic I see here, routinely, on many threads.

You're doing a good job throwing the odd "clueless," "hypocrite" etc. snark at me, though. No need to take that on faith, though--it's right upthread.

[beam me up scottie]

101. Now you're the victim?

Nice try.

[MADem]

105. No, I'm not-not at all. But you certainly aren't, either. NT

[beam me up scottie]

108. I never claimed to be, nor have I alerted on any post.

I'm used to being told what I think and believe, see?

It doesn't make me a victim, it just pisses me off.

[MADem]

116. I am not religious, so I am hardly one to tell anyone what to think or believe.

However, it's impossible to know what one thinks or believes if they don't elucidate.

[laconicsax]

121. Yet you've tried to force your definition of what other people believe in this very thread.

Let me guess, you're a faithiest.

[MADem]

122. No, but that's an amusing word.

I am not forcing anyone to accept any of my definitions--but trying to get definitions out of anyone here is like pulling a hen's tooth. Everyone knows what they are, but they don't want to commit to telling anyone, it would appear.

[cleanhippie]

52. *yawn*

:boring:

[Deep13]

142. Will I become a one-note song by repeatedly pointing out that you are a one-note song? nt

[rug]

16. And the alternative?

[Humanist_Activist]

19. Increased secularism and decreased religious influence on culture...

Its the best way to keep religions and the people who follow them in line. They get the freedom and civil rights that everyone else has, but not domination or being able to dictate how others shall live based on their own limited and flawed beliefs.

[humblebum]

26. "keep religions and the people who follow them in line." - that's why

it is important to challenge organized atheism. For government(s)to attempt to keep religion in line is a clear violation of the Separation Clause.

[Humanist_Activist]

38. Simply preventing them from having undue influence is enough...

We have seen enough of the excesses of religion in politics to know its a bad idea.

[Thats my opinion]

45. You may want to look into The Parliament of Religions

and you will find a very different perspective.

www.theparliamentofreligions.org/inde

You may also be interesred in the former Methodist Seminary in Claremont, Ca, that is now an interfaith University with Christians, Jews, Muslims and Sikhs all together. Other groups are on the way.

[Silent3]

56. All you have to do to make this "coexist" thing work...

...is to be so broad in your interpretations of each religion that their mutual contradictions are not significantly greater than their individual internal contradictions. The key is relegating religion to being little more than a very loosely interpreted mystical fashion accessory to a shared, essentially secular morality.

The end result is shaky philosophy and shoddy epistemology, but hey, I guess it beats holy wars.

[beam me up scottie]

61. Sounds like someone needs to have their chakras realigned.

:D

[Deep13]

143. Yup, gimme that part time religion! nt

[PassingFair]

140. Love this!

Click - "Saved"!

[Deep13]

141. Agree. Fortunately, most people in secular societies don't always believe...

...what their priests and holy books tell them.