Shouldn't this forum be re-labeled "Science versus any and all faiths"?

[MarkCharles]

I mean, really, most of us are here in order to share views of Democrats, versus Republicans, the poor workers versus the rich owners.

I religious terms, this boils down to people who promulgate a faith in some people rightfully above others, just as it does in terms of American politics.

I know, heavy thoughts, the religious folks have an agenda to push, just as the Republicans have a mythology to push, namely that going to church once a week, and belief in some phantom, while working 5 days a week for a few hundred dollars, makes you worthwhile, and that your bosses are more deserving than you, just like believers in Christ and all the rest of the bullshit makes religious believers more worthy here the promulgate their bullshit over any other bullshit.

Thought? Opinions?

[LeftishBrit]

1. Not really...

I think the debates tend to turn more on the influence of religion on politics; whether church and state should be absolutely separate; and whether atheists are, or should be, treated as politically suspect.

[MarkCharles]

4. But state and politics SHOULD be "atheistic"....so how does

allowing people to post articles about their own faith, or the actions of faith groups actually HELP advance to topic of Religion or of theology?

Isn't this is really a bow down to people who believe to give them a chance to inject their religion into American politics?

[Angry Dragon]

5. How do separate people from their beliefs??

[MarkCharles]

7. You teach people epistemology!

THAT'S how!

[Angry Dragon]

11. Well when you know everything come back and post again

until that time everyone is free to believe anything they want
AS LONG AS they do not force their beliefs on others

I have no problem whatsoever of people believing in a god.
Do you have a problem with that??

[MarkCharles]

12. I have a lot of problems with people not thinking logically, and laying themselves out there...

as potential victims of religious leaders who cajole and threaten them into believing what the leader wants them to believe.

I find that so abhorrent to democratic free thought, and I am surprised that others are willing to let people be subjected to such bullshit, and still delude us into thinking that religion has nothing whatsoever to do with democracy, nor anything to do with rational thinking about how we educate children, and pass on the values of our Constitution to the next generation.

If we are so willing to lay down and simply let people of religious beliefs, no matter how illogical, have as much of a voice in our politics as people who have actually done some study and achieved some level of education, and have actually advanced the goals of a peaceful world, if we are willing to give the less fortunate, the uneducated, the "faithful" as much weight as the people who have actually worked and studie and achieved, I'm wondering what value we all place on the roulette wheels of who gets enough education to be a good ruler, and which mobs of religious zealots and mindless liars we are willing to submt our next generation to, given that we never have the courage to punish liars if they are talking about their "religious" beliefs.

Either we stand for some sort of standards of educated, rational folks on this planet, or we just roll the dice, and hope the next religious zealot is a benevolent dictator as he/she indoctrinates the minds of our offspring.

Separation of church and state goes a little deeper for me than simply giving religious people the right to stand outside of the Supreme Court and not come in the door during deliberations: it involves not enabling them to consider themselves competent educators of our children, without having proved their competency in science.

[beam me up scottie]

15. I think your beef is with fundamentalists.

Most DU believers stand with us and we can only win elections if we agree to work together.

[LeftishBrit]

48. Agreed

[Angry Dragon]

16. I think you have a huge problem with separating religious beliefs

and religious actions.

I asked a question that you never answered: Do you have a problem with people believing in a god??

What I believe and what I do are completely different things.
It seems that you can not separate those two things.

The catholic leaders believe that god does not believe in birth control
and they teach their followers thusly.
I myself thinks this is a very stupid position.
If a catholic wants to follow that course that is up to them.
If they force this belief onto me, then that is the problem.

To me that is where beliefs and actions are two different things.

[Adsos Letter]

18. !

I think your post reflects the attitude of those founders whose views won out in the debates over the Constitution (I mean that in a positive way). One of the primary purposes of that document is to keep the religious beliefs of some from being foisted upon others via law.

Combining Church/State isn't something any of my religious friends want, as far as I know; in fact, just the opposite.

EDIT: ...grammar.. :dunce:

[Angry Dragon]

19. Thank you

[LARED]

20. My, my, how intolerant and condescending of you.

You're advocating free thought? Really?

[humblebum]

23. Ya just keep makin' my case. nt

[deacon_sephiroth]

44. and that is unforgivable

NOBODY around here makes Humblebum's case, especially not Humblebum, so don't you start Mark.

In all seriousness though Mark, your posts were getting scary and well outside of what even I advocate, and I'm admittedly "militant" about my Atheism.

I eman did you SERUIOUSLY just advocate taking away people's voice.... in a Democracy..... ON DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND?!?! Do you know where you are? You're in the jungle baby.... yer gonna die.

[humblebum]

51. Sorry. Too late. nt

[deacon_sephiroth]

60. (golf clap) you finally found one, good for you.

Someone who ACTUALLY advocates what you've been claiming all along that we all do. As they say, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. This must be a big day for you, I'll not ruin it.

[LARED]

26. I've read this a few times and it is so vile it bears re-posting

If we are so willing to lay down and simply let people of religious beliefs, no matter how illogical, have as much of a voice in our politics as people who have actually done some study and achieved some level of education, and have actually advanced the goals of a peaceful world, if we are willing to give the less fortunate, the uneducated, the "faithful" as much weight as the people who have actually worked and studie and achieved, I'm wondering what value we all place on the roulette wheels of who gets enough education to be a good ruler, and which mobs of religious zealots and mindless liars we are willing to submt our next generation to, given that we never have the courage to punish liars if they are talking about their "religious" beliefs.


Were you drunk when posting this and let your true beliefs out in the public? You rail about the various bigots and zealot idiots that associated themselves with Christianity, yet you apparently hold views that are equally vile to any wacky "Christian" beleif.

[bananas]

49. Thanks for re-posting that

I don't have time to read all the threads,
it really does show insight into his thinking,
and it is extremely vile.

[Thats my opinion]

64. Bigotry is bigotry

no matter where it comes from.

[GliderGuider]

27. That is utterly horrifying.

Arrogant, elitist, paternalistic, condescending, inhuman spew. Vile doesn't begin to cover it. Get help.

[Leontius]

29. So not only do you hate religion you hate democracy, do the

words elitist bigot ring a bell?

[okasha]

36. Oh, snap.

n/t

[Swede]

42. Maybe we ought to put them in ghettos

We wouldn't want to sully our pristine political thoughts.

[Leontius]

47. Odd and deafening silence from the enlightened free-thinkers

to this anti-democracy rant must mean they agree with it or are just enablers . Where have I heard this before?

[darkstar3]

52. Or maybe they're just refusing to feed bridge-dwellers.

[Leontius]

55. Okay that's one in support of the anti-democracy rant.

[darkstar3]

56. Um, no. Read it again.

[LeftishBrit]

50. I think you're classifying all people with religious beliefs together

Most people with religious beliefs are not 'mobs of religious zealots and mindless liars'. You are probably thinking of the Tea Party and similar groups, but I think that it is playing into their hands to equate religion with right-wing fundamentalism.

'if we are willing to give the less fortunate, the uneducated, the "faithful" as much weight as the people who have actually worked and studie and achieved, I'm wondering what value we all place on the roulette wheels of who gets enough education to be a good ruler'

To be honest (and this is coming from someone who watched in horror as religious-right pro-lifers influenced the result of the election in my constituency in 2010, and as right-wing journalists endorsed and gloated over this), *how* can we *not* do this, if we are to keep the basic principles of democracy? In 19th-century England, many people argued that democracy would result in unfit and uneducated people becoming our rulers. Sometimes it does. But lack of democracy almost *always* results in unfit and disastrous people becoming our rulers. As Winston Churchill said, democracy is the worst possible system - except for all the others.

What is needed is to improve education; not to restrict the vote to the educated, or either to the religious or nonreligious.

[LeftishBrit]

9. Odd question

'how does allowing people to post articles about their own faith, or the actions of faith groups actually HELP advance to topic of Religion or of theology?'

Well, just lack of faith can be a topic for such a forum, so can faith.

Those who wish only to discuss atheism can go to the Atheists/Agnostics forum (as I sometimes do), just as those who wish only to discuss faith from a religious perspective can go one of the various faith forums.

'state and politics should be atheistic..'

State and politics should be *secular* and religion-neutral. The state should not be in the business of promoting or enforcing atheism, any more than it should be in the business of promoting a faith.

[Sal316]

31. +1

[laconicsax]

2. No. n/t

[Angry Dragon]

3. NO!!

[ZombieHorde]

6. No. The forum name is fine. nt

[beam me up scottie]

8. No.

Most liberal believers are pro-science and want a completely secular government.

The others just inspire us to continue the fight.

[LeftishBrit]

10. +1

[Adsos Letter]

14. Agreed.

[NMMNG]

13. Haven't we had this discussion before?

:boring:

[rrneck]

17. Um,

The vast overwhelming majority of people (voters) in this country practice some sort of religion or at least claim some sort of faith.

Coalition building: UR doing it wrong.

[Thats my opinion]

21. you don't have the foggiest motion

about what progressive Christians want. All you have is an ingrained prejudice, and like most bigotries is 80% wrong. If I want to know what someone with whom I have a dialogue really believes, I will ask him and listen to what he says. Give it a try. Is there anybody on r/t with a religious perspective that ever says what you put in their mouths? It is the only way serious conversationalists and intelligent listeners act.

[beam me up scottie]

22. "If I want to know what someone...really believes, I will ask him and listen to what he says"

That's really rich coming from you.

How many people are on your ignore list now?

[laconicsax]

24. Bye. nt

:rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

25. Finally!

I've been trying to make the list for weeks...:evilgrin:

So who do I see about getting my bonus rubber chicken and secret decoder ring?

[Thats my opinion]

32. There is a big difference

between posters who really want to deal seriously with ideas, including those offered in the original posts, and posters who just want to make sarcastic remarks or who are only interested in putting down people of faith--or on the other hand, of no faith. I am always ready to struggle with those in the first group--and I do all the time. Especially those who have serious disagreements with me. They are always welcome to the conversation.. But after months of trying to generate some rational discussion about ideas with the second group, I gave up. The only reason they lure me into responding is to give them something else to slam--not the ideas but the poster. It gets nobody anywhere and there is never any thoughtful discussion of any serious matters.

[beam me up scottie]

33. You also wanted to change this forum to suit your agenda.

I find it unbelievably hypocritical of you to take umbrage with the op.

And let the record show that it was the atheists in this forum who voted to be inclusive.

[Jim__]

34. "... there is never any thoughtful discussion of any serious matters" - I agree 100%. - n/t

[skepticscott]

37. And exactly what are

those "serious matters", and what would that "thoughtful discussion" consist of? Give us a few examples. And while you're at it, tell us why such discussions NEVER occur in the Liberal Christians Group, where no dissenting voices are permitted.

[skepticscott]

57. See, there's the problem

It seems neither you, nor TMO, nor anyone else here can describe what these weighty matters of faith even ARE, let alone what it is that you want to discuss about them. Yet another reason why your whining about mean ol' atheists ruining the board isn't taken at all seriously.

[skepticscott]

28. You've been challenged over and over

to defend and justify DIRECT QUOTES from YOUR smug, sanctimonious posts and you avoid doing so. NO ONE puts words in your mouth. That's simply another one of your lies.

[moobu2]

30. What's a progressive Christian?

I live in Coastal Alabama where we have none of those types or maybe they're just very rare or something. I've never seen one around here anyway.

[deacon_sephiroth]

45. Same thing as "real christians" elusive and secretive,

we mostly have blurry photos and some plaster casts of footprints as evidence of their existence, but many still believe they are out there.

[Deep13]

35. No, not really.

It's not a contest.

[LARED]

38. Opinion?

I know, heavy thoughts, the religious folks have an agenda to push


And atheists are agenda free, free thinkers? Riiight!!

[darkstar3]

39. Everyone has an agenda.

Mine revolves around the freedom to be me, without being marginalized by the majority of the country simply because I'm different.

I'd ask what yours is, but I've already seen it in your defense of Christian encroachment into governance.

[skepticscott]

40. No only without being marginalized

But without having your rights and freedoms restricted by the imposition of morals based on the sacred texts of a bunch of Middle Eastern tribesmen from a few thousand years ago.

[darkstar3]

41. Well, I kinda rolled it all into one word (perhaps unfairly) for brevity,

but yes, exactly.

[LARED]

58. I keep hearing this from atheists but I don't seem to find it true.

In what ways are your rights and freedoms restricted?

[LeftishBrit]

59. For example, in many places...

by restrictions on stem cell research that interfere with the development of medical advances that could save lives

by restrictions on birth control

by sometimes draconian restrictions on abortion (In Nicaragua, for instance, women cannot even have abortions if their life is in danger - a restriction imposed not even by a right-wing government, but by a government led by a left-wing president who was able courageously to resist internal terrorism and Reaganite imperialism, but could not or would not resist the restrictions demanded by the Catholic Church.)

by restrictions on gay rights - and indeed until 45 years ago, British gays could be sent to prison. In many places, they still can.

in the USA, by megachurches that basically order their flock to vote Republican. If not for such, probably Kerry would have won in 2004, and the whole world would have been better off. It's much less common in the UK - but e.g. in 2009, the leader of Christian Concern spoke in a church in my town explicitly advising that our MP should be 'replaced by a pro-life candidate'. (Sadly, he was.)

it may be used to support the entrenchment in society of existing powerful groups as 'God-ordained'. ('Bless the squire and his relations/ And keep us in our proper stations!')

It is NOT all religious people who demand such restrictions; and non-religious ideologies can do the same thing - e.g. one of the worst restrictors of women's reproductive rights was Ceaucescu, an atheist who did this for nationalistic rather than religious reasons. But certain forms of religious intrusion into politics can have such effects; and many of the strongest anti-secularists oppose secularism *for that reason* - that it inhibits social and often economic conservativism; encourages rebellions against authority and the rejection of 'traditional values'; and leads to 'permissiveness' about abortion and homosexuality.

[LARED]

63. I was referring to restricted rights and freedoms

because someone is an atheist.

Although you do raise some good points where people in general may have freedoms restricted.

[tinrobot]

43. It should be relabeled "atheism"

Since the most vocal majority here are atheists.

[LeftishBrit]

46. There's already an atheists/agnostics forum

And I'd say both atheists and Christians are pretty vocal on this forum.

[AsahinaKimi]

53. Some of us are not Christian

And we also have something to say..I hope many non-Christians will write more, especially those who consider themselves Hindu, Buddhist, ect. It would be nice to hear more from those who fall into those catagories.

[LeftishBrit]

54. I agree. This is something I've noticed here.

Most people seem to be either Christian or atheist, with the exception of a very few, like yourself, and there are one or two who are Jewish. Surprisingly few, really. I wish more people from a variety of faiths would post!

[Thats my opinion]

62. Right!!

Come on in and join the rational aspects of the conversation.

[Thats my opinion]

61. that is less true every month nt

[MarkCharles]

65. Moderators, as the originator of this most popular thread on this forum, Let's LOCK this thread!!

It has proved, beyond my wildest imagining, that my somewhat provocative statements, my somewhat foolish statements, provoke more emotional responses than actual logical thought. Comparing true religious believers to Republican believers in the mythology of tax-less American good fortune was a silly and pointless (albeit reasonable) comparison.

Far be it from me to encourage lack of logical thought, but I seem to have stepped into a hornet's nest here. A nest where the emotions are aimed to sting at fellow DU members, who, for whatever reasons, or lack thereof, believe one way or another.

Fine with me if you moderators lock this thread away.

I'd rather discuss religion from a "rational" perspective, or simply allow believers their own opportunity to invent accusations against people who don't believe as they do. Religions versus atheism, a bad idea, I admit.

[cleanhippie]

66. If you want a mod to lock it, alert on the OP and ask them to lock it that way.

Its your OP so they should do that on request, I think.

[MarkCharles]

67. Thanks! I really was just trying to bring some logical thought to this thread

I don't really believe we should stop fools from expressing their foolishness. Not yet, anyway.

When people make foolish statements, (like I did), equating religious believers to Republicans (who also believe on faith and no facts), I have to wonder why religious believers get upset at ONE kind of belief and not the other.

No, I'm very happy if this thread is kept open, or if it is shut down. I know moderators act with their own sense of propriety about threads on the DU, following the DU guidelines.

I simply want to go on record here as stating that I, personally, do NOT equate religious believers with Republicans, as some might have gathered from the original posts, I just equate that type of thinking and conclusion-drawing without evidence to the same thought process, (or lack thereof), among Republicans.

[LARED]

68. What do you have t say about this statement?

If we are so willing to lay down and simply let people of religious beliefs, no matter how illogical, have as much of a voice in our politics as people who have actually done some study and achieved some level of education, and have actually advanced the goals of a peaceful world, if we are willing to give the less fortunate, the uneducated, the "faithful" as much weight as the people who have actually worked and studie and achieved, I'm wondering what value we all place on the roulette wheels of who gets enough education to be a good ruler, and which mobs of religious zealots and mindless liars we are willing to submt our next generation to, given that we never have the courage to punish liars if they are talking about their "religious" beliefs.

post 12.

[okasha]

69. He's a wannabe aristorcrat.

n/t

[westerebus]

71. I wouldn't give him that much credit.

This post reminds me it's time to clean the litter box.

[Leontius]

70. What have any of the enlightened free-thinkers had to say

about this? Amazingly those same zealots who scream that anyone of faith must continually confront those who make outrageous and/or bigoted statements and are believers or they must be in complicity or agreement with them when they don't are completely silent on this occasion. I wonder why, is it agreement with the post or hypocrisy.

[LARED]

72. It's not simply complicity, it's that you are a

Theocrat advocating a Christian government. Perhaps an appropriate term for those desiring a atheist philosopher king would be Atheocrat.

[Leontius]

79. Wow that's quite a leap you've had me take from defending

democracy to advocating a theocracy I do hope you didn't have me hurting myself on the landing.

[darkstar3]

73. Yes, because preaching hate from the pulpit,

diddling kids in the rectory, and firebombing Planned Parenthoods across the country (all of which I have seen Christians defending) is just the same as trolling on the R/T board.

You already have your answer above on this ridiculous question. The only reason I have to repeat it here is because you're desperate to make an ad hom tu quoque stick.

[beam me up scottie]

74. Not to mention the fact that every atheist in this thread disagreed with the op.

:eyes:

[darkstar3]

75. Well, there's that as well.

How the fuck, btw, has this topic managed to get disucussed more than once on this board?

[beam me up scottie]

76. Sock puppets?

They really exist, I've seen them. :evilgrin:

[darkstar3]

77. Let's hope they're using different socks from those involved in their other, related habits.

[beam me up scottie]

78. !

:spray:

[Leontius]

80. This isn't about the op it's about #12

care to step up or will you just stay with the herd and maintain your silent support for his statement against democracy.

[bananas]

81. This thread should stay kicked

so that everyone can see the type of thinking we have to put up with.

[darkstar3]

82. Well, you could always educate yourselves.

;)

[Leontius]

83. The rank hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty that they

continually show needs to be highlighted. The constant whining and crying while constantly pulling the crap they do to, I guess "win" their point, in their eyes at least, is becoming quite boring and tedious. Honesty, fair and consistent methods of arguing points for both sides is a joke to them or at any rate seems to scare the hell out of them hence the silence or personal attacks against posters who don't share their point of view.