These are the problems I have with religion--NOT a rant

[Goblinmonger]

There is a lot of general talk about why religion is bad. I promise not to bring up the crusades, the inquisitions, witch trials, etc. I am looking at current events, and, in my opinion, religion is at the root of a lot of problems. Here is a brief visual tour of what I see as being the problem with religion RIGHT now. Current events.



No, I am not saying that religion causes rapists. But the current law banning abortion in SD is the fault of religion and the power they have over legislation. I don't know how it can be seen any other way.



Yep, I blame him being elected on religion. People voted for him (I have talked to WAY too many) because he was a good Christian man who stood for family values. Is that a load of crap? Of course it is. But something about the religion of these people made them believe this. Hell, even the RCC told Catholics to not vote for Kerry or they were committing a sin.



I know, other religions have pedophiles in their ministries. But this sick fucker knew that priests were molesting children, covered up the crime, and moved those pedophile priests to new parishes where nobody knew them and were there was "fresh meat" for the priest. And, after all of this was discovered, he got a fucking promotion and is working in the vatican.



Yep, I blame religion for this, too. Again it is the catholic church, but their policy of not allowing any form of birth control in third world countries is god damn crazy.



Why can't GLBT get married. Because it is against god. What a crock of shit.

Now, let me say two things.

1. Are most people on DU the reason for this problem? No. I fully admit that. But religion is.
2. Are there atheists that are pricks? Yep. I welcome a discussion here about why atheism is bad, but I want this to be a current events discussion (this means no Stalin and no Pol Pot--you know who you are--because I won't talk about non-current events either).

[chaumont58]

1. For what its worth, I agree with you

I'm an atheist. I am not attempting to ban all religion, but if the fundies had the power they would love to have, they would ban my existance.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. right. for them it's "us or them". our very tolerance allows these freaks

to make such gains across the country.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. You have very valid points

and all the horrors you point to were in some part proprogated by people in the name of their religion.

And if you talk to a very religious person with a narrow minded view of the world, you'd probably get the same list but hear the opposite. You'd hear how people of faith have saved the world from that particular horror.

I won't get into a discussion about why atheism is bad. Because I don't think it is. It is, really, a non-issue. One thing I have noticed about most atheists I have met here, is that they are searchers and thinkers. I like that. But again, a non-issue. Literally.

I believe in evangelism through good works and behavior. If someone looks at my life and admires something I say or do and then asks me, I will tell them the source of my beliefs...but I don't lead with that. Ever.

Perhaps the problem with religion is that the word is one of the broadest in our language, encompassing everything, the whole continuum. Just like with individuals and families, some are functional, some are dysfunctional. Some are in between. I personally think my religion is functional both in my life and in the world, but that's my opinion and when it comes to picking my religion, that's the only opinion that matters.

We work so hard to comprehend the yet-incomprehendible. (Is that a word?) And we all go off in different directions. Personally, I wouldn't have it any other way. Lockstep in one direction makes me uncomfortable.

[Dorian Gray]

85. Beautiful, TallahasseeGrannie....

I love how you think! :)

[ThomCat]

3. No arguments from me.

Well said.

[Lerkfish]

5. I think your arguments would be better if you stuck to actual things.

I"m flat out against what happened in SD, I support choice, but I think its bizarre hyperbole to claim that benefits rapists. It DOES revictimize the victim, which is worse, frankly, but nothing about that law has any effect on rapists being prosecuted or punished, that I can determine.

Better just to say that people likely (although you have no proof all the voters did so for religious reasons) used religious ideology to vote against choice. That's a valid charge. Even so, I know nonreligious people against choice, too. I don't know why.

-- I blame a LOT of things for bush being elected. Manipulation of fundie churches is certainly up there, but don't stop there, there's also direct manipulation of the supreme court and even having Bolton and other cronies muck up the recount. Those were political machinations apart from religion. And I credit Diebold and the DLC strategists for 2004 as much as anything else. I WILL give you that homophobia was a HUGE voter draw, unfortunately. But not all homophobes are religious, and not all religious people are homophobes.

-- I agree the catholic church got involved in the election in a very bad way. I'm not catholic so I don't understand why that would be so, so I agree with you on that. As far as pedophiles in the catholic church, there are pedophiles who gravitate towards ANY position that gives them unmonitored time with children -- track coaches, den masters, you name it. There are unfortunately pedophiles everywhere. The DIFFERENCE would be that the catholic church in the past and present has ensconced and protected pedophiles for reasons that escape me. However, the catholic church is not all religions.

-- as far as not allowing birth control in third world countries, I'm not sure the catholic church has that much say in policy. In fact, I've read that local customs and myths play as large a part in rejection of birth control as anything else. Oddly enough, the catholic church probably has blame in first world countries for lack of birth control. And birth rates are not the biggest problem in some countries: take sudan or rwanda. rampant genocide would seem to be a worse problem.

-- I agree with you that gay marriage should be accepted. My denomination is very supportive of gay issues: United Church of Christ.

I think your rant is fine, but I think placing the "blame" of all the world's ills on religion is not going far enough. The problem, damn it, is PEOPLE. Without pesky people, there'd be no problems at all.

Keep in mind, also, that fundies do not represent the entire spectrum of religion., There are progressive christians, there are jews, there are buddhists, shintoists, taoists, wiccans, druids, etc.

the bigger question is why you need to blame religion? what is it about YOU that requires such a determination?

[Goblinmonger]

7. Good points.

I am not saying that religion is the intrinsic cause of every problem in the world. But it is a big, or the only, factor in the problems I listed above. I just included the cartoon because it was on topic (abortion ban) and came in my comic subscription today.


Why do I need to blame religion? Why don't you? Isn't that just as valid a question? I can play these psychology/philosophy games, too. But I'll give you the reason why I posted this: because too often people give religion a free pass. It is taboo to talk about it. Mention anything and I am a "religion basher." So I thought I would give a current events tour of the problems I have.

[IsItJustMe]

11. I'll agree with you that it has been used for horrible purposes. But your

points could just as well be made about patriotism or nationalism. This simply is the human condition.

To blame religion simply misses the point. You will find people in religious denominations with exactly the opposite view points. Religion, just like patriotism and nationalism, can and is used by corrupt people, as can be seen now.

It's the people that you must concentrate on and the ideal that you should trust in anything without critical thinking and reasoning.

[Goblinmonger]

14. Couple thoughts

1. Religion seems much easier to corrupt, hence my discussion that it is the cause of the problems. Why is that, do you suppose? And, again, more importantly, what do you do to stop it?

2. I think that, and I know this will get me in trouble, critical thinking and reasoning are contrary to religion. Religion asks that you accept the basic tenets on faith. Faith does not equal critical thinking. Sorry. It just doesn't.

[IsItJustMe]

19. Once again, you must concentrate on the person and not the religion

It's the person in the religion that is either tolerant and open minded or not.

The fundies are simply people who are very intolerant and close minded and find a group of like minded people to share their bigotry with, and call it a church or religion.

But we all have a free will to believe what we want to and no religion can replace that. The religion may try, but people end up believing what they want to believe.

Look at Catholics for example: The church says birth control is sin and yet 85% of the followers practice it anyway. As individuals, we all pick and choose.

Many religions teach that it is only their group that is going to heaven. But if you ask the people in that religion if that is true, the majority of them will tell you that there are many paths to heaven. Why? Because it just doesn't jive with reality.

I will give you this point however, to the extent that a religion teaches hate and then turns around and indoctrinates their children with that hate, this is bad. But even then, the child will grow up and be exposed to a variety of experiences, and they will have a free will to get past their indoctrination.

I think it's also a natural human instinct to think for oneself.

[Goblinmonger]

22. I know the counter arguments to this

but is seems to me that you are saying that there is really no inherent worth to religion. It doesn't make someone act "morally" or "virtuously" or anything. If you are a prick, you are a prick. If you are a good person, you are a good person. Religion plays no role. So what's the point.

And fascism isn't bad, it is the people that use it.

[IsItJustMe]

27. My bottom line is this.

It seems to me that human nature seeks a belief system, whatever it is.
This provides us with a sense of security in a world that is constantly changing, is it is a natural consequence of being human and living in an uncontrolable environment.

Now, whether a person bases a belief system around religion or not makes no difference on whether-or-not that person will be moral.

I am not a religious person, but I would compare my morals against anyone. But while I am not religious, I don't see how being religious
(in-and-of-itself) can cause you to be much of anything.

Religion is a by product of who we are. It is not who we are.

[Goblinmonger]

29. But religion

gives the evil people a construct and power within which to be evil that doesn't seem to exist in many other institutions.

[IsItJustMe]

32. Religion wasn't involved in cambodia or Stalin and yet millions and

millins of people were murdered. The reason this happened was because of perverted belief systems that these people had. Absolutly nothing to do with religion.

[Goblinmonger]

34. I said I would only talk about current events.

And the purpose of my OP was to talk about why religion is not good. Just because other things are bad doesn't mean that religion isn't bad.

I am struggling very hard with not breaking my promise and talking about non-current event religious atrocities.

[More Than A Feeling]

39. So does gender, and race, and nationality, and every other variable

that defines us as people. There is no rule that says evil has to refrain from using a certain area. If there were, evil would just ignore it.

[Goblinmonger]

42. Don't you think this is one of the stronger areas?

Without religion, where would pricks like Robertson be?

[More Than A Feeling]

47. Actually, no, I think race, gender and class are the most powerful

There are way more men and women in the cult of hyper-masculinity than there are fundamentalists whose sole motivation is religion, because many of the fundamentalists are so because they are in the cult.

Race is more powerful, because it affects everyone, even those who ought to know better. The good liberals of Hyde Park, Illinois were not immune from fear during the second great migration, when the African-American population broke loose from the overcrowded ghettos of Chicago. How many areas are "liberal" and also are integrated, or even have public or affordable housing? Very few.

Poor people scare the crap out of many, because they are living breathing symbols that the system that benefits them, hands other people their heads. People are desperately afraid of being held morally accountable for the plight of the poor, and that the poor will rise up and take what they do not have. People make up myths of the self-made person, and blame the victim for all they are worth.

In the face of that, how can religion, standing on its own, compete? It can be a cover for those things, but it is not even close to being the fundamental factor, not anymore. Maybe once, during the crusades, when people left everything, many bankrupting themselves and even giving their lives for a religious symbol, but not today.

[Goblinmonger]

48. We strongly disagree

Nice avatar by the way. I daydream of Russ being my president instead of just my senator.

First of all, just because there are other things that are bad doesn't really deny the premise of my OP that religion is bad.

Religion is causing those things I listed. Sure there are racists and classists in the world.

The crusades is the latest thing you can come up with. What about my montage in the OP?

[More Than A Feeling]

52. I am not denying that "religion" has been involved in things I consider

to be wrong.

Even religion wouldn't deny that religion can be and has been bad. Take the idea of "original sin", for example. If humans are sinners, and humans are involved in religion, then naturally religion will be sinful at times. Its just as easy to say religion is good because it has been involved in the good things humans have done.

My point is that the other things I mentioned are the underlying factors that are usually present when religion goes bad, and they are the reasons why it does. To stop at religion, and emphasize that in particular, as you have here, is an incomplete analysis that doesn't strike at the root of the problem.

[Goblinmonger]

54. Even original sin bothers me

Don't you have a problem with a group that tells its people that they must believe that we are all inherently bad and the only way we can avoid eternal punishment is to follow the rules of that group, give lots of money to that group, and to worship someone, unconditionally, who you cannot see, cannot prove exists, and has never manifest themselves to anyone. That sounds like a formula for trouble. Hence my OP.

[More Than A Feeling]

67. If you want me to explain original sin, I will

but will you at least concede this point:

My point is that the other things I mentioned are the underlying factors that are usually present when religion goes bad, and they are the reasons why it does. To stop at religion, and emphasize that in particular, as you have here, is an incomplete analysis that doesn't strike at the root of the problem.

since your "original sin" post did not address it at all?

[Goblinmonger]

71. I am fine with the concept of original sin, thank you.

Covered it quite completely at the seminary.

So the standard you want to set for posting on DU is that someone must address every single concept presented in a post? You made a response which included something about original sin. That caught my eye and seemed to be related to my OP so I responded. Sorry I didn't address everything.

Of your factors, I will agree that race may be ON PAR with religion. I do not agree that class is even equal. But my point, which you did not address BTW, is that just because those two things are bad does not mean that religion isn't. How can you possibly tell me that religion just uses the bad things you listed and nothing more. What about hatred of gays? That has nothing to do with race or class. What about the protection of pedophiles? That has nothing to do with race of class. What about the use of contraceptives? That has nothing to do with race or class. What about voting for Bush because your fundie preacher tells you to? That has nothing to do with race or class.

So, you see, your post really does nothing to respond to my OP. Yet I still engaged in a dialogue with you. Didn't know that was against your rules.

[More Than A Feeling]

74. Homophobia and anti-contraception

are gender-based (anger at men and women not acting out their "traditional roles"). I believe that was another of the factors I mentioned.

I can't speak to "voting for Bush because your fundy preacher tells you to" because my preacher is not a fundy, in fact she's uber-liberal, and so is most of my church (American Baptist). I don't know anyone who voted for Bush because of that. Not saying that the phenomenon does not exist, just that I don't know who did it, and whether it was really for that reason. Again, voting for Bush is complex, and hard to reduce to one factor.

The Catholic Church child molestation scandal is the only one you have picked which could be solely because of religion, IMHO. Even then, its not as though Catholicism as an ideology condones child molestation.

My point is that certainly religion has participated in evil, but it is not inherently evil, and there are other factors which explain why it is used for evil by certain people. Else we would find no religious people on the side of angels (which would certainly be ironic:-)).

There are no rules for debate, I was just curious if you had a response to my point or not. If you didn't, I wanted to have that settled before moving on to another topic (which original sin appeared to be).

[Goblinmonger]

75. So you think that without religion,

the treatment of gays and women would be the same in our society. No bible to turn to as "proof" that god hates gays and people would act the same wa. I don't believe that. Religion gives the people a tool and a large group of people that are told that they need to do/believe X of they will be punished/not be like/not be able to spend eternity with god. I really don't feel it would be the same.

[raccoon]

98. WELL SAID, this paragraph:

"Poor people scare the crap out of many, because they are living breathing symbols that the system that benefits them, hands other people their heads. People are desperately afraid of being held morally accountable for the plight of the poor, and that the poor will rise up and take what they do not have. People make up myths of the self-made person, and blame the victim for all they are worth."

[Lerkfish]

33. If you'd read MORE CAREFULLY, you'd see I DIDN"T give religion a pass.

I'm religious AND I agree religion can be abused and make people do bad things. Reread my post and you'll see I"m actually agreeing with you on many points. I wasn't playing a game, but it appears you are. DU is a place that absolutely does not give religion a pass. weekly I find threads like this one blaming religion for every one of man's faults.
And, I think that's great, you should be allowed to post threads like this. But don't be disingenuous and imply that people here give religion a pass. If you'll pay attention, you'll find progressive christians on this board that are as fed with fundies as you are.


I must disagree with you, though, when you claim it is the ONLY factor in that which you listed. Obviously, its not, because people involved in those problems are not all religious.

[Goblinmonger]

41. A couple points

1. With the term "game" I was talking about your "why do you want to blame religion" statement which just seemed like a philosophy class prof trying to get me to question my world view. If that was not your intent, my apologies.

2. The problem I have with people here is that many of them want to just distance themselves from the problem by saying "they aren't real christians" which, to me, seems kind of like a pass because they aren't facing the problem and trying to change it with the power they have as "fellow" christians. Possibly if the voice from the progressive christians was loud enough, clear enough, and "logical" enough, the moderate christians would lean to the left instead of leaning to the right (fight, fight, fight). Right now the strongest voice is from the right so they go there.

[Lerkfish]

51. yadda yadda yadda

yeah, every week some atheist starts a thread JUST LIKE THIS ONE, blaming religion because of fundies. Then when someone points out not all christians are fundies, then you blame progressive christians for not doing enough to wipe fundies off the face of the earth.

been there, done that, endlessly. You cannot change the mind of a fundie anymore than you can the right wing nutjob who supports Bush. Good luck with that. I've explained over and over again why that is true.

Its clear instead, you just want to lash out at religion or anyone religious. You just want to blame them for everything that is wrong. Good for you, but consider that is just a mental trick to let YOURSELF off the hook. As long as you can blame someone "not like me", then it can never be YOUR fault. Be my guest. But OUR conversation is over. I thought you might have some valid points or thoughtful discourse, but I was wrong.

[Goblinmonger]

53. blah blah blah

Sorry that the uppity atheists bother you. Should we just go to the back of the bus and keep our mouths shut? Would that be better for you?

You think your religion is free from anything bad? You think your religion doesn't have a history of doing heinous shit in the name of god? I would venture to guess that isn't true. It's not just the catholics that have a history of shit. Martin Luther was a racist prick. It's all over the place and pretty much in every sect.

I am talking about the problems of religion in a religion forum. How shocking of me. I would certainly have a discussion with you as to why atheism might be a problem. By all means, go ahead. Every week multiple theists talk about how their religion is perfect and is being bashed.

As to it not being my fault, it isn't. Not in the context of what I am discussing. I do not contribute to the religious problems of the world as I am not religious. Again, if you wish to talk about the problems that atheism is causing, I am open to that discussion in this thread as well. Or hey, you can talk about the problems that reasoning and critical thinking are causing because that is what is in the place of faith for atheists. Go ahead.

I think you delude yourself to say that the things that are done in the name of religion that are shitty aren't really done in the name of religion but by bad, bad people instead. Just close your eyes really tightly, hum a little song, and it will all go away.

[squarepants]

8. i said some of this in another

post somewhere, but I'll say it again. Religion isn't the problem. People are the problem. I believe in the same God as "those" people do (heck no, i'm not a conservative. I'm quite liberal), and I have wondered for a long time why certain people act opposite of the way their bible (new testament) clearly teaches. Jesus didn't promote taking over a country/government, war, and hate. He promoted love and taught that we should all love each other. He didn't say to only love someone if they believe the way you do. He spent time with people as people, EVEN IF they were "sinners" in his eyes. If someone chooses to go against what they are taught, that's them. How is that religion's fault? It no more different than some conservative christians who say that athiesim is the cause of "moral decay", or someone saying "the devil made me do it". Any thinking person would know that isn't true, but likewise, it's also not true that a person's religion caused them to do something that person CHOSE to do. If I tell you not to go out and kill anyone, and you CHOOSE to do that anyway, do you really think it's logical to blame ME, when I TOLD YOU NOT TO KILL anyone?

[Goblinmonger]

10. People are pricks

I get that. But religion is used as a tool for bad in society as much as (or more likely more than) a tool for good. That is religion's fault. Even in your post you just dismiss the old testament. How do you get to do that? The OT is part of the Christian religion. You can't just leave it out when you are trying to say that your religion isn't founded on hateful things.

And more importantly, how do you get people to stop it? Why aren't progressive Christians calling bullshit more loudly, more often, and more effectly on the fundies? Shaking your head and saying that they aren't really acting like good Christians while these people "use religion" (in your terminology) for heinous ends really does nothing. I have very little voice to stop these people because I am easily dismissed as a godless atheist.

[Redbear]

15. Great point.

Progessive christians have not done a good job at all of being a counterweight to fundies.


The idea that christian equals republican is a vicious lie, but it is almost accepted as fact now.

[Goblinmonger]

18. I don't think that it does.

And I have been careful to not say anything that even implies that because I know people that want me to say that so they can jump on me.

The point I am trying to make, I guess, is that on the whole, religion has been a bigger negative in society than a positive.

[IsItJustMe]

6. I don't think religion is intrinsically bad, it's the people who use to fit

their own twisted purposes.

i.e. AKA The chimp

[Goblinmonger]

9. But how do you seperate those two out,

and, more importantly, how do you stop the bastards from doing what they do. There are a lot of problems that would not exist absent religion. Organized religion is just really a social construct so to say that it isn't bad it is just the people that use it that are bad is really a tautology.

[squarepants]

12. hmmmm, interesting you say that

but ALL beliefs are social constructs. Yes, even athiesm. Your beliefs aren't just random things you pulled out of the sky. They were thought out and they were made personal to you. You deal with people according to how YOU believe, whether others think it's wrong or right (You know now that I think about it, life itself is a social construct). Anyhoo, as far as how to stop people from doing what they're doing, I haven't the slightest idea. My point to YOU, was that ALL people who follow religion (doesn't matter WHAT it is) aren't responsible for life's ills, no more than some christians think "sinners" are responsible for life's ills. I just have a big problem with people always blaming everyone else, when people NEED to take responsibility for their own actions. "Oh that person raped someone. It's the bible's fault" (god forbid the rapist should take responsibilty for his own actions)"oh, little johnny went out and murdered 18 people after playing a violent video game, it's the video game manufacturer's fault (even though mommy and daddy bought the game for little johnny, and didn't monitor the game) "oh, there's too much sex on tv, we have to go on a letter writing campaign to get it off the air (because people would rather blame others than simply turning off the television). Now we've got loons like pat robertson running around, and suddenly it's the bible's fault.

[Goblinmonger]

16. I beg to differ

Atheism is the natural state. We are all atheists at birth. It is only through social constructs and through environmental forces that we gain religion.

[squarepants]

21. i disagree

for the simple reason that all throughout the ages, since the beginning of time, people have always had the desire to worship something. It could've been gods they made up, the sun, moon, a tree, a rock, science, other people, etc. Doesn't matter. I DO believe that environmental forces can cause a person to switch/change their beliefs, perhaps from worshipping a rock to worshipping the moon, or perhaps, that person may decide to worship science, instead. Every single person on this planet looks to something bigger than they are to explain life. Whether you call yourself athiest or not. I cannot speak for you, but I can speak for the ones I know who are athiest, and they happen to look to science to explain life. Do you seriously want me to believe that atheism isn't a "construct?" You really expect me to believe that "atheists" don't believe in anything at all? I'm afraid that simply isn't a possibility in humans.

[Goblinmonger]

24. That would possibly be human nature

it doesn't dispute the fact that we are all born atheist. Just because we look for something to worship doesn't mean the null hypothesis is atheism. It also doesn't mean that it is good. People have been killing in the name of that they have worshipped since the beginning of time, too. Doesn't make it right or me happy.

If you define science as "something bigger," then I guess so. But why is science something bigger? It just is. It isn't a force out to protect, kill, smite, punish me.

I think we misuse the term believe. Do I believe in anything the way a theist does? Absolutely not. Believe has become, through common usage, the same as having faith in. And so I don't believe. I don't believe the sun will come up in the east. I know it will. Unless it, or the earth, is no longer around which has nothing to do with faith but with existance.

[kwassa]

56. Babies are NOT BORN ATHEISTS!

This is a central BELIEF of atheists on this board, and it is WRONG.

BABIES CAN'T FORM BELIEFS! It is developmentally impossible.

I am so tired of this ridiculous argument, whose agenda is purely political; to prove that atheism is a natural state, and religion is an imposed social construct.

[Goblinmonger]

59. In the words of the immortal Bullwinkle Moose,

"What are the sides again?"

First you said this:

Babies are NOT BORN ATHEISTS!

and then you said this:

BABIES CAN'T FORM BELIEFS! It is developmentally impossible.

You kind of look like a dog chasing its tail. Atheism is the absense in belief of god. You say that babies can't form beliefs, i.e. they would not have a belief in god. Therefore they are atheists. Logic 101, you might want to take it sometime.

So if babies aren't born atheist and religion is not imposed, how come Muslims don't give birth to Buddhists? How come Hindus don't give birth to Mormans? How come Deists don't give birth to Muslims? Does god just make sure that the right babies are born to the right parents? Why would god make so many people born with a predisposition to so many different religions?

Yikes, sometimes you scare me. You are so frightened by atheists that you say such illogical things.

[kwassa]

61. Rocks are atheists, cement is atheist, sludge is atheist, bricks are

atheist. They all lack a belief in gods.

What do they have in common with babies? They are not capable of forming beliefs.

This giant red herring, this amazing canard "Babies are born atheists" is nothing but an atheist belief, a piece of political agenda.

You might ask a much better question:

"Why do those human societies all over the world who are CAPABLE of forming beliefs form religious beliefs? Why, historically, is this a UNIVERSAL HUMAN IMPULSE?"

[Zebedeo]

70. Wonderful post

Babies are atheist in the same way that a piece of gum is atheist. LOL

[Goblinmonger]

73. Thank you

You do realize that you have admitted, in your effort to backslap your buddy, that Christianity is no different than worshipping Tinkerbell. It is just a human impulse to worship something that is perceived to be "greater/better" in an effort to make sense of the world. Probably not what you wanted to do, but it is what you did none-the-less. Better take more care when high-fiving next time.

[Zebedeo]

104. What you talkin bout Willis?

I said nothing of the kind. You are now making things up.

kwassa sure seems to have sliced and diced your "babies are atheist" argument. lol

BTW, how does the fact that babies are no more atheist than a rock is atheist in any way imply that "Christianity is no different than (sic) worshipping Tinkerbell"? It doesn't. You are just changing the subject because you got waxed by kwassa. :rofl:

[Goblinmonger]

107. I got waxed?

Time to get off the crack pipe, Zebedeo.

kwassa's "babies aren't atheist" argument is just foolish and fails at a definitional level. She admits that babies do not have the ability to form beliefs. Therefore they are without beliefs. They are NOT theists. They are a-theists just like someone without morals would be a-moral (which babies are also, by the way). The fact that you think someone smoked someone else with an argument that looks silly on face and is logically a stinking pile of crap just makes you look silly.

My other point was that kwassa indicated that humans are hard-wired (my word not hers) to look for something to believe in. This inidicates that Jesus is no different than Zeus or Santa Claus. It is just another in what seems to be, according to kwassa, a long string of fanciful mythologies that will continue on forever. Please answer that argument rather than just taking the time to point out a typo and claim I got waxed with no data or warrant to support you (I am assuming that you are familiar with Toulmin logic since you are such a debating expert).

[Zebedeo]

116. No crackpipe here

You are again trying to change the subject. You accused me of "admitting" something, which I certainly did not admit.

I said:

“Babies are atheist in the same way that a piece of gum is atheist. LOL”

You replied:

“you have admitted, in your effort to backslap your buddy, that Christianity is no different than worshipping Tinkerbell. It is just a human impulse to worship something that is perceived to be "greater/better" in an effort to make sense of the world. Probably not what you wanted to do, but it is what you did none-the-less.”

As you can see, I did not admit any such thing.

Neither did kwassa, for that matter. kwassa simply disproved your assertion that the "natural state" of humans is atheism. Virtually all humans are theistic, and have been throughout thousands of years of recorded history -- all recorded history, as a matter of fact. That in no way implies that Christianity is equivalent to worshipping Tinkerbell. See the leap of logic you made?

[Goblinmonger]

121. Are you really that obtuse?

There has been religion for most of recorded history. Granted. What does that have to do with the status of babies when they are born? They are born without beliefs. They are not theists. THey are a-theist. Why do you not address the definitional component of the argument? Why do you just keep saying it is not valid with no support for your claim?

I know you didn't mean to admit it, but when you combine everything together, including your telling kwassa she did a good job, you in effect admitted it. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn. Jesus is just another myth in a long line of mythologies. That which we search for.

Just because there have been religions for all of recorde history does NOT mean that
1. babies aren't atheists
2. Jesus is any different than any other religion.

[Zebedeo]

151. Your definition of atheist is laughable

You define atheist as "having no belief in God." By that definition, inanimate objects, animals, plants, etc. are atheist. If you define "atheist" in that absurd manner, sure you are going to conclude that babies are atheistic.

However, your definition is ridiculous, as kwassa proved in a most devastating manner.

Any proper definition of "atheist" must include some qualifier such as "capable of having beliefs."

For example, you could define an "atheist" as "having the capability to believe in God, but choosing not to believe in God." That would describe you, but would exclude babies, rocks, trees, gum wrappers, etc. That definition is at least useful in classifying atheists and theists. Your preposterous definition is not useful for anything, because it includes inanimate objects.

As for your assertion that "Jesus is just another myth in a long line of mythologies," I note that your assertion is a statement of faith that finds no support in the evidence. Carry on with that belief if you will. As a human with free will, you have every right to hold whatever beliefs you desire to hold. Sometime, however, you might want to address the issue seriously in an effort to find out the truth. As long as you draw breath, it's never too late.

[Goblinmonger]

156. That is an absurd definition?

Go ahead, find me a definition of atheist that has the phrase "capable of having beliefs" in it. That phrase. Your definition is so damn one-sided it is laughable. "Having the capability to believe in God." What a crock of shit. That definition assumes that there is a god, but there is a group of whack jobs out there that don't believe in it. Look at the roots of the word. "Theist" means to believe in a god. "A" is a prefix meaning "without." An "a-theist" is someone without a belief in god. Do babies have a belief in god? No. Then they are atheist. Inanimate objects would be athiest. Would you classify them as being theist? Just because they will never be theists seems to be a little silly to point out their atheism, but they are none the less.

And there you go with the "faith" thing again. How do you keep getting away with that? How do you not realize it is rude? You didn't even use the word belief this time, you used faith. Piss off. You are rude and a boorish. Prove to me there is a Jesus and that he was the son of god. And don't use the book by his followers cause that ain't cutting it just like Ann Coulter's book doesn't prove Bush is a good president. Go ahead prove it. Show me the truth. Of course you need to use hard evidence since you toss around words like "truth." That is what your next response needs to be. PROOF that Jesus is the son of god. (and btw, I think four years at a Catholic seminary should count as addressing the issue "seriously" enough).

[Zebedeo]

160. Define atheist however you want

But your definition is not useful if it classifies inanimate objects as atheists.

You could use the same type of definition to classify rocks as developmentally disabled, because they can't learn mathematics very easily.

Babies are incapable of having a belief - they can't either believe in God or disbelieve in God. Since they can't have a belief one way or the other, it makes no sense to call them "atheists" just as it makes no sense to call rocks developmentally disabled.

You made a categorical statement that Jesus is a myth. I pointed out that your assertion was a statement of faith. Now you try to put it on ME to disprove your statement. Since you are the one making the assertion that Jesus is a myth, the burden is on YOU to back up your assertion. I will look forward to reading your proof.

Since you spent 4 years at a Catholic seminary, you are no doubt aware of the many miracles performed by Jesus and his own claims of divinity. When you are giving your proof, you might want to include a refutation of the miracles. I'll be waiting.

[Goblinmonger]

161. Nice try, but no takers

There is no Jesus. I can't prove a negative. If you want to prove that there is, go ahead. My stance is the null hypothesis which need not be proven. Take a stats class. I stated that the divinity of Jesus is a myth. I also raised the fact that there are some serious questions about whether he even lived at all. That is from historians. Go read their work; that is why they get paid big money.

Oh, and the miracles, well, hell, if it is in a book written a hundred years after a guy died, written by people who are starting a religion around that guy, then, by all means, it must be true. So L. Ron Hubbard is right? He got a book published in a time when there are at least editing standards.

[Goblinmonger]

72. Hate to point out the obvious,

but those things all have one major thing NOT in common with babies. They aren't people. They are inanimate.

Humans try to explain the world. Sometimes we try to explain it with crazy fucking ideas.

The interesting thing I think you don't get here is that you are admitting that Christianity (or whatever religion you are--I am assuming Christian) is absolutely no different from Greek Mythology, Native American spirituality, or any other belief system. It is just a human impulse to worship something in an attempt to provide order in their life. Instead of Jesus, it might just as well be pink unicorns. According to you, those are no different.

Nice job. Thanks for doing my work for me.

[kwassa]

78. Sorry

Goblinmonger:
"Hate to point out the obvious, but those things all have one major thing NOT in common with babies. They aren't people. They are inanimate."

So? By your defintion of atheism, they are atheists. You have posted no rebuttal here. Babies are not capable of forming beliefs, so the point is moot.

The notion that "babies are atheists" is completely without merit.

goblinmonger:

"The interesting thing I think you don't get here is that you are admitting that Christianity (or whatever religion you are--I am assuming Christian) is absolutely no different from Greek Mythology, Native American spirituality, or any other belief system."

I said nothing of the kind. This is your personal projection into my remarks. I do think that they are all explorations of the infinite nature of man's relationship to universe. To quote Joseph Campbell, all religions are metaphorically true and literally false. Not all beliefs are equal, of course, some have more accuracy, perception and universality than others.

[Goblinmonger]

83. How intimidated you are by atheists

that you have to say yours is the default position. I know, your response is going to be that I am doing the same thing but I am not. I am not saying that babies are born with the cognitive ability to deny the existence of god. They are not strong atheists like I am. But they are without beliefs. They are not theists. Hence, they are a-theists. The fact that you deny that makes you look pretty damn silly. But not as silly as when you act so obtuse as not to know the difference between babies and rocks. The things you mentioned are not sentient. Hence they would be neither atheist nor theist. Human beings are sentient. Hence they would be theist or atheist. Since babies do not have beliefs (admittedly because they are not cognitively able), they are atheist (though, admittedly weak atheist--having no thoughts at all about the concept of god). But hey, if you want to go around trying to convert carrots, knock yourself out--you couldn't look much sillier than you do now.

The notion that "babies are atheist" is definitionaly sound. Stop making yourself look silly.

I know you didn't MEAN to say that Christianity was no different than any other mythology, but you did. You said that humans had a tendency to create belief systems. So whether that belief system is Zeus, Wotan, Pink Unicorns, Santa Claus, or Jesus, they are just different vehicles to meet what you say humans are hard wired to do. The religions are no different. They are just fanciful inventions to help explain our scary, scary world.

And you never did answer my question as to why Muslims don't give birth to Catholics if religion isn't a social construct. I really want an answer to that. You ignored it down below, too.

And of course your beliefs are the ones that Joseph Campbell was talking about as having more accuracy, perception and universality. How nice for you.

[Dorian Gray]

86. One,

Muslims CAN give birth to Catholics. I know four Catholics in my church who were born from Muslim parents. They converted.

[Goblinmonger]

88. I want to mock you

I really, really do, but I won't.

What exactly did these Catholics born to Muslims convert from? Mormanism? Hinduism? No, wait, I bet it was Muslim.

How exactly does your anecdote prove that religion isn't a social construct. These people were born to Muslim and were Muslim. They LATER thought about it and changed their mind.

[kwassa]

91. The word "sentient" is nowhere in the definition of athiest, it it?

goblinmonger
"I am not saying that babies are born with the cognitive ability to deny the existence of god. They are not strong atheists like I am. But they are without beliefs. They are not theists. Hence, they are a-theists."

As are rocks, trees, and bulldozers.

"But not as silly as when you act so obtuse as not to know the difference between babies and rocks. The things you mentioned are not sentient. Hence they would be neither atheist nor theist."

Sorry, false argument. There is no requirement of being sentient if one only has a lack of something. Rocks lack a belief in God, therefore they are atheists.

And for some sentient atheists, dogs, cats, sparrows, fish, and snakes make great atheists, too. Why don't you atheists start talking about your athiest pets? How about those darn athiest cockroaches? Can you do something about them?

"The notion that "babies are atheist" is definitionaly sound."

But completely meaningless in terms of CONTENT. They can't form beliefs,
so the idea that babies are athiests means nothing about anything at all.
They can't choose, just like a rock can't choose, or a dog, or cat.

[Goblinmonger]

97. Wow

I really don't know what point you are trying to make. But sure, goldfish are atheist. Does that somehow make you feel better? Does that somehow deny the fact that atheism is the natural state? No, actually, it seems to prove it. And yes, my chinchillas are atheists, too, I guess. Still don't know what that gets you.

I never said that babies being atheists proved jack. I never said that it proved atheism was anything other than the natural state at birth. You are the one getting all defensive about it.

[kwassa]

153. Finally, the point of this entire conversation

"I never said that babies being atheists proved jack."

Thank you very much.

Now this next bit:
"I never said that it proved atheism was anything other than the natural state at birth."

And what does that imply to you? That religion is unnatural?

Just asking.

[Goblinmonger]

157. Yes

Religion is a social construct. Even your assertion that all cultures move toward a religion doesn't deny that. That is why each society has it's own religion in our history. That's why native americans weren't Hindus. It is a construct of the society.

[kwassa]

162. but it is a universal social construct

and that is my point. External social constructs come from internal human impulses.

It is the search for God that is important, and not finding the absolute truth about him, because that is essentially unknowable.

[Goblinmonger]

167. But that still makes it a social construct

Just because we have a need/desire to try and explain the world doesn't mean that atheism is not the natural state. It just means that a lot of people, left to themselves, are really shitty at explaining the world and are more comfortable with some "guy in the sky" than they are just saying "its a big scary world."

The entire point of my OP is that the search for god leads to some heinous shit. Why not channel the "impulse" into really trying to explain the world around us rather than developing a mythology that only serves to pacify us?

[arwalden]

63. You're On To Something...But Such Behavior Suggests More Than Just Fear...

I'm inclined to think that it's more along the lines of being an unhealthy obsession. A compulsion. An irrational hatred.

[arwalden]

62. Of Course Atheism Is A Natural State.

To deny such an obvious fact just looks silly. Do you enjoy looking silly?

<< BABIES CAN'T FORM BELIEFS! It is developmentally impossible. >>

Ergo, they are without belief in the existence of deities. You could even say that babies are without theism... without-theism. They are "a" (without) + "theism" (belief in the existence of deities) = atheism.

These concepts are so simple that anyone without an agenda can grasp it. Babies *are* atheists. Religion is an imposed social construct. Other than being taught to them, how else are these religious beliefs acquired?

Surely you're not suggesting that people are have some gene that carries the religious beliefs of the parents, are you?

[kwassa]

64. Religion is a universal human impulse that appears in all cultures

something that atheists don't acknowledge.

This would suggest that religious belief is, in fact, the state most natural to humans.

[arwalden]

65. I Think That CURIOSITY Is The Universal Human Impulse...

... and wanting to understand more about the world around us. The other "universal-human-impulse" would be that when faced with an inability to satisfactorily explain everything, the mind turns to magical beliefs and fantasy.

And by turning to fantasy and magic, the human is able to replace their fears and consternation with an imagined "comfort" that some greater omnipotent magical force is in charge.

I absolutely disagree with your assertion that religious belief is some sort of "natural" state. On the other hand, it does make sense that the origins of religious belief are a natural *by-product*. It is a natural psychological response (not "state") to the the things that puzzle, confound, delight, and frighten human beings.

Religion fills in the blanks and provides temporary answers that human beings need to cope with the world that they live in.

[kwassa]

66. I disagree completely

Curiousity is ANOTHER human impulse, and not the same thing at all.

The need to feel reverance for something greater than oneself and one's circumstances is the universal and unremitting impulse that I'm talking about. It happens everywhere in all cultures.

"The other "universal-human-impulse" would be that when faced with an inability to satisfactorily explain everything, the mind turns to magical beliefs and fantasy."

Or intelligent guesses based on the best possible information at the time about the ultimate nature of reality. The universal human need itself is to feel affinity with that larger purpose, and to put oneself in a state where one can best sense that purpose, which is the practice of prayer and meditation. This is the point of spiritual practice in the first place. It is found everywhere in human culture. It is the recognition of that purpose that brings about religion, where people can seek in community, and not alone.

[arwalden]

68. "Or intelligent guesses..."

:rofl:

<< The universal human need itself is to feel affinity with that larger purpose, >>

Apparently it's not as "universal" as you believe.

<< and to put oneself in a state where one can best sense that purpose, which is the practice of prayer and meditation. >>

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Nice try.

I agree that when one is in that "state" you allude to, that one can come up with all sorts of fanciful explanations for even the most mundane things. You know... like little fairies holding water-drops up in the sky until they get so tuckered-out that the have to let go.

<< Curiousity is ANOTHER human impulse, and not the same thing at all. >>

Actually, I never said that it was the "same thing". Curiosity is the starting point, the catalyst. Seeking answers and understanding is the logical progression. Absent the answers to all things that confound human beings, they fill in the blanks with magic and deities and planetary influences.

Curiosity is "found everywhere in human culture"... even BABIES are curious about their world. That's how it all starts, with being curious. For you to deny such a basic truth is just silly.

[trotsky]

69. Great points, Allen.

Have a slap on the back! :thumbsup:

[kwassa]

80. I don't see an argument here.

<< The universal human need itself is to feel affinity with that larger purpose, >>

"Apparently it's not as "universal" as you believe."

What does this statement mean? That you don't believe, therefore it isn't universal? Care to be more clear?

<< and to put oneself in a state where one can best sense that purpose, which is the practice of prayer and meditation. >>

"I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Nice try."

This is not an argument, either. What are you referring to? What is your alternative explanation?

"I agree that when one is in that "state" you allude to, that one can come up with all sorts of fanciful explanations for even the most mundane things. You know... like little fairies holding water-drops up in the sky until they get so tuckered-out that the have to let go."

From what I have seen in your writings to date, I don't think that you have had the spiritual state experience that would allow you to make this statement. You haven't been there and done that, so to speak.

<< Curiousity is ANOTHER human impulse, and not the same thing at all. >>

"Curiosity is "found everywhere in human culture"... even BABIES are curious about their world. That's how it all starts, with being curious. For you to deny such a basic truth is just silly."

Um, I never denied anything about curiousity.

And the idea the babies are athiests, when they are cognitively incapable of forming beliefs, is a completely worthless concept. It is, however, a cornerstone of athiest belief, as seen in this forum.

[arwalden]

84. A "Cornerstone Of Atheist Belief" ??

Oh brother... are you still on that? :rofl: Time for you to move on to something new.

Sorry, I'm not here to entertain you by providing additional explanations and clarifications to things that most intelligent people can figure out. I believe that you're a lot smarter than you pretend to be.

I also think that it's only fair to let you in on the fact that most folks around here are on to your game.

[kwassa]

94. I think you have lost the argument when

you start making it personal, and imply that I do certain things, in your roundabout manner, rather than come up with a debatable point. We have been here before, several times.

Yes, atheists have beliefs, and evangelize them, right here in this forum. The "babies are atheists" is one of those beliefs, and it's purpose, as previously stated, is to imply that the natural state of humans is atheistic.

I have no game. I debate, if you can't answer, well, it shows your lack of ability to do so, or general unwillingness, not mine.

[arwalden]

100. I Think You Flatter Yourself.

<< We have been here before, several times. >>

And still you persist. Most folks would have grown tired of playing the same game by now... but apparently you still find it quite amusing and entertaining.

<<...or general unwillingness, not mine. >>

Yes, indeed... a general unwillingness to play your game or to indulge your vanity demands, and jump through hoops to entertain you. You know... when you pretend not to understand, and when you ignore the most obvious facts, then demand further clarification. It's all so very silly.

<< and imply that I do certain things, in your roundabout manner, >>

There we are... case in point. I'm not certain what you think I'm "implying" in a "roundabout manner". Was I not direct ENOUGH for you? How much more direct can I be when I tell you that I'm on to your games? You are playing games: Word games, games of pretending to not understand, turning-logic-upside-down games.

[Goblinmonger]

102. None of those games sound like any fun

Can we play something else?

[kwassa]

120. Provide examples of my games, please. Specifics.

arwalden:
"You are playing games: Word games, games of pretending to not understand, turning-logic-upside-down games."

I am completely direct and clear in my writing. There are no games. I know you can't and won't specify otherwise, but I challenge you to do it anyways.

[arwalden]

133. Sorry, Your Vanity "Challenges" Will Not Be Endulged.

[kwassa]

135. No vanity, I ask for simple facts, which you can't or won't supply.

You just have no evidence for your argument. In my opinion, you are just ducking.

[arwalden]

137. The Sky Is Still Blue.

You'll just have to take my word for it.

[kwassa]

139. Why in the world would I take your word?

This is a debate. You won't.

Such is life.

[arwalden]

142. Oh... That's Easy!

<< Why in the world would I take your word? >>

Because of your vanity.

<< This is a debate. >>

:rofl: If that's true, then why do you only engage in petty contradiction? Insults? Name-calling? Why do you insist (despite repeated correcting and explanations of how insulting it is) on calling atheists liars? Why?

<< You won't. >>

I won't play your game.

<< Such is life. >>

Wow. Deep... profound.

[kwassa]

146. I've never called atheists liars, ever.

Find that in any of my posts.

Come on, you can use that seach function.

[arwalden]

149. Your Insistence That Atheists Have A "Belief System" Or A "Belief"...

... that deities do not exist (or whatever your clever wording-of-the-week might be)... and when you've been told by the atheist that this is not true... and yet you persist... it is the equivalent of calling the atheist a liar.

You don't have to say the word "liar" to get the message across and to be as arrogantly insulting as you are.

Frankly, I'm not falling for this cowardly "but-I-never-actually-used-the-word-liar" excuse. It's pretty damned transparent and disgusting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=55112&mesg_id=55304

[kwassa]

152. I disagree

arwalden:
"Your Insistence That Atheists Have A "Belief System" Or A "Belief"... that deities do not exist (or whatever your clever wording-of-the-week might be)... and when you've been told by the atheist that this is not true... and yet you persist... it is the equivalent of calling the atheist a liar."

I don't think you understand what I have said.

It is MY BELIEF that atheists have a belief system. I have explained why several times, and I have explained what definition of the word "belief" I use, which is the commonly-used dictionary definition of the word "belief", not the narrower definition some atheists here seem to use. I speak for absolutely no one but myself in this regard, though I have noted similar ideas from other noters.

I have not now or have ever called any atheist a liar.

My disagreement with you is a disagreement of perception, and it is at the core of the disagreement between theists and atheists here, and why it causes so much friction.

As I understand it, the atheists here see themselves not as either "believers" or people of "faith", but of people of reason and fact. Most of us "believers" also see ourselves as people of reason and fact, and maybe a little more, and perceive the claimed atheist "lack of belief" as simply a different belief. Atheists see this as highly offensive, I think, because they use the words "faith" and "belief" , in that narrow way, to define who they are separate from, and this seems to underlie their own definition of self. To label them as either believers or as having faith in various things brings the conversation to a halt, but we believers are using "belief" and "faith" in a much broader sense, referring to things that are not necessarily religious at all.

I don't mean to offend, but I also don't see a need to stop using commonly-used words in the way the wider public does. There are still atheists out there who use the word "atheist" in the older sense of the word, for instance. When there is not a basic agreement on the meaning of common words, it makes conversation on the topic very difficult.

[arwalden]

154. You Know What You're Doing, Kwassa. I'm Not Buying Your Innocent Act.

That big sad doe-eyed "who-me" act isn't working on me.

<< I don't think you understand what I have said. >>

Sadly, I really DO fully understand you, and what you have said. More than you know.

<< It is MY BELIEF that atheists have a belief system. >>

Thanks for clearing up THAT big MYSTERY! :silly: (As if adding the words "my belief" or "my opinion" help to disguise your bigotry and hatred of atheists. I'm not allowed to say "I-believe" that Christians are mentally ill. Nor am I allowed to say that it is "my opinion" that Christians are psychotic.

Why should you be afforded special treatment and be given Carte Blanche to insult atheists? What makes you special?

<< I have explained why several times, and I have explained what definition of the word "belief" I use, which is the commonly-used dictionary definition of the word "belief", not the narrower definition some atheists here seem to use. >>

Yes, we get it... you think you're special.

You think you get a free pass just by giving a perfunctory acknowledgment of how you "understand" how offensive you're being... and that you "understand" that in the context of the discussions that take place in this forum. Still, you want to be free to insult people.

I'm glad I don't have your nerve in my tooth.

<< I speak for absolutely no one but myself in this regard, though I have noted similar ideas from other noters. >>

Ooooo... That's mighty big of you. :hug: What a guy!

<< I have not now or have ever called any atheist a liar. >>

The care you're taking at splitting hairs is duly noted. I think I should tell you that such efforts only serve to convince me that you know exactly what you're doing.

<< I don't mean to offend, ... >>

Yeah, right. Sure you don't. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Dogs bark. Bees buzz. You offend. I think you can't help it. But you really ought to try.

<< but I also don't see a need to stop using commonly-used words in the way the wider public does. >>

Of course you don't. What fun would it be to actually treat atheists with respect? How silly for anyone to think that an unselfish thought would EVER enter your beautiful mind.

<< When there is not a basic agreement on the meaning of common words, it makes conversation on the topic very difficult. >>

I think the bigger difficulty lies in the fact that a certain element around here (and you know who I mean) insists on continuing to insult atheists, and (effectively) calling atheists liars.

But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you? :eyes: (Poor old misunderstood, innocent you.)

You're just using the "dictionary" definition of a word. The place and context is meaningless to you. Protests and requests for you to cease are unheard.

Selfish much?

<< To label them as either believers or as having faith in various things brings the conversation to a halt, >>

One might think you'd figure out WHY and HOW to avoid this... but you don't care.

<< but we believers are using "belief" and "faith" in a much broader sense, referring to things that are not necessarily religious at all. >>

Then use those words when talking about YOURSELVES, not when talking about atheists.

I hate to tell you, but you're really not doing a very good job at pleading your case. You'll have to do better than that if you expect me to believe you.

You know... I could easily imagine you 50 years ago, and I can hear you trying to justify your use of the word "nigger". You would acknowledge that you 'understood' how some black folks 'might' be offended by the word... but that in YOUR special case, you weren't intentionally trying to be offensive. Therefore, it should be allowed. After all... it's just a misunderstanding. You don't mean it in any 'negative' way and that folks are just being too sensitive. You'd keep a straigh face as you tried to argue that everyone else uses the word, so why should you accept it when a black person tells you that the word is offensive. You'd continue to try and convince everyone that is not really offensive, it's just the word "nigger", and there's really no reason to get so worked up about it all.


PS: Did you see that "Deleted Message" in this thread. I wonder what that was all about?

[kwassa]

163. oh well

arwalden:
"I'm not allowed to say "I-believe" that Christians are mentally ill. Nor am I allowed to say that it is "my opinion" that Christians are psychotic."

Have I called atheists mentally ill or psychotic? Of course not. I don't call them liars, either.

arwalden:
"Still, you want to be free to insult people."

I have no intention of insulting anyone. If you are insulted by my using words the way that most people use them, then you must be prepared to be insulted a lot in life.

me:
<< but I also don't see a need to stop using commonly-used words in the way the wider public does. >>

arwalden:
"Of course you don't. What fun would it be to actually treat atheists with respect?"

I do treat atheists, and all people with respect, until they prove beyond all doubt that they don't deserve it. Even then, I try, but it is tough when people pose opinions they can't back up with facts.

arwalden:
"You're just using the "dictionary" definition of a word. The place and context is meaningless to you. Protests and requests for you to cease are unheard."

Place and context don't alter word meaning. Meaning is meaning. What is the point of creating a false microcosm where word meanings change? It only divorces the conversation from the larger reality around us. It is creating a new political correctness, of sorts.

me:
<< but we believers are using "belief" and "faith" in a much broader sense, referring to things that are not necessarily religious at all. >>

arwalden:
"Then use those words when talking about YOURSELVES, not when talking about atheists."

Sorry, but words good enough for some are good enough for all. There is nothing perjorative about believer. We all believe in something.

arwaldn:
"You know... I could easily imagine you 50 years ago, and I can hear you trying to justify your use of the word "nigger". "

Okiedokey. One false, terrible analogy on your part. The falseness? Trying to compare your situation to hundreds of years of racial oppression and abuse and murder in this country. The word "athiest" to the word "nigger". Tell me how much abuse you suffer as an atheist in liberal Democratic Maryland. Or even as a gay person.

Did you know my wife is African-American? The first to integrate a previously all-white school on the Eastern Shore. That is a backwards place, where you might have some problems, but probably not, because many years have passed. Don't even try.

"PS: Did you see that "Deleted Message" in this thread. I wonder what that was all about?"

Not particularly. Someone has a friend who is a moderator, possibly. I haven't alerted anybody, yet, because I like to let everyone see your argument.

[arwalden]

165. Another Reply For You, Kwassa

<< Have I called atheists mentally ill or psychotic? Of course not. I don't call them liars, either. >>

Whoosh! That's the sound something makes when it goes over your head. (Even though I know you're just pretending to miss-the-point. You're not as dense as you pretend to be. You're only dense when it serves your purpose. And in this instance, your purpose is to be as insulting to atheists as you can possibly be.)

<< I have no intention of insulting anyone. >>

Funny... I don't believe you. Not many people do. Your pattern of bad behavior tells an entirely different story. It's really not pretty at all.

But no matter... actually it makes no difference what your "intentions" are, what matters are the results. And time and time again the results are the same. Namely, you insult people.

Your bad behavior shows that you have very little regard for anyone other than yourself.

<< If you are insulted by my using words the way that most people use them, then you must be prepared to be insulted a lot in life. >>

When someone is as clever as you are in finding ways to twist words, turn logic on its head, and invent new ways to insult people... I can say with a great degree of confidence and certainty that you DO know what you're doing, and that you're doing it on purpose.

<< I do treat atheists, and all people with respect, >>

(he said, hoping that it sounded sincere) :rofl:

<< until they prove beyond all doubt that they don't deserve it. >>

(he said, not realizing how idiotic it sounded until it was too late) :rofl:

<< Even then, I try, but it is tough when people pose opinions they can't back up with facts. >>

(he said, hoping that nobody would notice that he was being evasive and dodging and trying to change the subject)

<< Place and context don't alter word meaning. Meaning is meaning.>>

How naive. How ARROGANT! (You really do think you're something special, don't you?)

<< What is the point of creating a false microcosm where word meanings change? It only divorces the conversation from the larger reality around us. It is creating a new political correctness, of sorts. >>

As I said before, if you can come up with a pile-of-shit like that, then you should have absolutely no difficulty in understanding why the things you say are so insulting.

<< Sorry, but words good enough for some are good enough for all. There is nothing perjorative about believer. We all believe in something. >>

You're still trying to justify your bigotry and hatred.

<< Okiedokey. One false, terrible analogy on your part. >>

No, I think it works quite well. But, I do note how you eagerly use your beautiful mind to over-analyze the analogy and find its flaws... yet you still pretend not to understand why the things you say about atheists are so insulting.

<< Did you know my wife is African-American? >>

Do you think I care? -- Frankly, I'm shocked! I had no idea that you were actually old enough to be legally married? Wow.

<< The first to integrate a previously all-white school on the Eastern Shore. That is a backwards place, where you might have some problems, but probably not, because many years have passed. Don't even try. >>

And you think I should care about this because...? This is relevant to why it is that you're rude and bigoted... because...?

<< Not particularly. Someone has a friend who is a moderator, possibly. >>

So now you're publicly accusing the moderators of favoritism and bias? Is that what you're doing? Do the moderators have it out for you?

I see it as yet another example of your inability and unwillingness to accept the plain truth... it's right there for everyone to see... the bright and shining "Deleted Message" monument to your bigotry and hatred of atheists.

<< I haven't alerted anybody, yet, because I like to let everyone see your argument. >>

(he said, seething in anger, trying to hold back the tears, because none of his "alerts" had been acted on) :rofl:

[Goblinmonger]

87. Atheists have beliefs

I'm tired of this.

[kwassa]

96. Athiests have lots of little beliefs

[Goblinmonger]

99. Do you know how tiring that meme is?

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[Goblinmonger]

108. Listen, I'm sick of this

I, and MANY other atheists, have told you that we do not have belief systems about god. You, and several others, continue to tell us that we do. Do you not realize how fucking rude that is? Do you not realize that you are calling us liars? Do you not realize that you come across as a gigantic asshole when you do that? Or do you just not care about that?

Can you imagine the stink hole I would be in if I followed you around and told you that you didn't believe in Jesus as god you actually were a Hindu? Do you think you would just brush that off for a hundred times? A thousand? I doubt it. You would probably hit the alert button after the second time.

IT IS FUCKING RUDE AND I WISH YOU WOULD STOP DOING IT. I have told you that I do not have a belief system in god. Why do you continue to tell me that I do? FUCK!

[arwalden]

111. People Who Do Such Things Are Bigots.

I'm certain that someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I had always thought that such blatant, overt, aggressive bigotry was against DU rules.

Now, I can understand how someone might easily slip-up and make a rude or bigoted anti-atheists comments in the heat of a fast-n-furious flame-fest message battle... and perhaps something like that could be forgiven.

But THIS... oh dear... this is such a blatant and repeated disregard for the rules. It's not accidental at all. It's not a matter of someone having a lapse in judgment during the heat-of-battle.

No... this is intentional. It's transparent bigotry at its worst. Why it's allowed to continue is beyond my ability to comprehend.


edit: clarity

[Goblinmonger]

112. I have very little doubt

that I could ever say that about a theist and get away with it.

[kwassa]

115. There is no bigotry at all. I would like you to specificially point it out

[kwassa]

117. I am saying that you have beliefs, not belief systems about God

Pay attention to what I actually write.

Everyone has beliefs. Everyone. They may not be spiritual or religious beliefs, but they have beliefs about the nature of the world. You have beliefs, I have beliefs, we all have beliefs.

You believe that babies are born atheists. I don't have that belief.

In a sense, you have a belief in your lack of belief

dictionary:
be·lief ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lf)
n.
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

[Goblinmonger]

123. No, I don't have beliefs as you are saying it

We as a society use belief and faith interchangeably.

I don't have a belief that babies are atheists. I know they are through definitional analysis and logic.

Also, you are one of the people who has constantly said atheists have beliefs in other threads. You can't claim ignorance in the face of the history of that phrase. It seems pretty clear to me that you were using that term as a dig. I'm tired of it.

[kwassa]

127. To me, quite honestly, atheists have beliefs

But atheists here use the words "belief" and "faith" differently than the broader meanings used in the world, and as what we see in the dictionary definitions.

I don't use it as a dig at all, merely an observation.

It is like the old joke "Everyone believes in something, I believe I will have another beer."

I understand that the word "belief" has an extraordinarily negative connotation to atheists, but they have a specific, from what I can see, definition that is not more widely used in the world. To atheists belief connotes only believers in specific religious ideas, not believers in the scientific method, or in winner of the next Superbowl, or in the value of a certain political candidate. These are all beliefs, though, as the word is defined.

[arwalden]

138. An Astounding Admission, Kwassa...

<< I understand that the word "belief" has an extraordinarily negative connotation to atheists >>

What an extraordinary thing to say. Yet still you continue to use it in the way that you do. Still you persist in asserting that atheists have "beliefs".

[kwassa]

145. You do have beliefs, as I defined them before.

I use the word "belief" as it is used in the wider world, not in the narrow perjorative sense that some athiests seem to use it.

Am I supposed to give up the generally recognized use of the word "belief" to satisfy the sensitivity of athiests here who see it as perjorative, when it is not generally used that way in wider world?

I personally don't see why I need to bow to those changes in word definitions, as it seems to be demanded here.

[arwalden]

148. Nice Try. -- But I'm Not Buying What You're Selling.

[Evoman]

150. Ill tell you why we can't agree with your definition

You know what my problem is (and I have had this exact argument with my christian friend). Once you agree with the definition, they change it on you.

He says that I have beliefs about god. I say I do not. He tells me that I do have beliefs. Again, I disagree.

Then he tells me, "You do have beliefs. For example you believe that your going to eat a toffee donut, but you don't know it. You've based it on the assumption (i.e you believe) that they have that type of donut in stock. You believe something."

So I agree with him. By that definition, everybody has beliefs. But then what does he do? He does what almost every christian I have argued witht does. Once you accept their definition, they change back the definition to what it used to be (i.e belief=faith).

Now again my friend says, "You have a belief that god doesn't exist". And I just have to shake my head. Sigh.

[arwalden]

109. Heh-heh-heh... Oh Dear! --- NOW Look Who's "Making It Personal"

Someone once said: "I think you have lost the argument when you start making it personal..."

:rofl:

Do you know how tiring the denial is?
Posted by kwassa
should maybe be a 12-step program for it.

kwassa (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-15-06 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #84
94. I think you have lost the argument when
you start making it personal, and imply (...) certain things, in your roundabout manner, rather than come up with a debatable point. We have been here before, several times.

:rofl:

[Goblinmonger]

110. I should have gone your route

instead of the explosion I had. I do feel better, though.

[arwalden]

114. I Would Have Enjoyed Taking Your Route Too...

... it does get to be damned insulting to be told not only THAT we "believe" something but indeed, they go so far as to tell us WHAT we "believe" as well.

You know... this type of "mistake" might be understandable if it had happened only one or two times. An error is made, and the atheist corrects the mistake and explains the reality... and explains how insulting it is.

You'd think that would be the end of it, wouldn't you? Unfortunately, that's not the case. Sadly, for many bigots around here, they aren't content to just accept it and move on.

Instead they prefer to break the rules and engage in their passive-aggressive bigotry by continuing to ignore what many atheists are saying (and exhaling) about themselves.

In the face of all the evidence that clearly supports a contrary position, these bigots continue to insult atheists at every opportunity... essentially calling them liars.

What makes these bigots special? Why should they be permitted to skirt the rules and continually, intentionally and deliberately engage in such blatant insults and lies?

When you stop to consider ALL THIS, it's LITTLE WONDER that you might go the route that you did. Taking a look at the WHOLE PICTURE and the HISTORY and PATTERN of behavior that some individuals engage in... I can completely understand why you would feel better after a mild explosion like that one.

[kwassa]

118. I challenge you to specify my bigotry

Otherwise you are slandering me.

[Goblinmonger]

126. Oh, that's rich

HE'S slandering YOU. That's good. You tell me multiple times, on multiple threads, that I actually do, contrary to what I and others have taken the time to explain to you ad nauseum, have a belief system in multiple things, and HE is slandering YOU. It is bigotry to assume that you know better than another group of people, that they are wrong, and that they inherently lie.

Slander. :rofl: The only way this irony gets any more rich is if you hit the alert button on him when I didn't on you.

[kwassa]

130. Look at the definition of "beliefs" in the other thread

I don't use alerts, as I have particpated in unmoderated online forums for about 12 years.

I simply think that if Arwalden has a case, he had better be prepared to back it up.

here is a copy of the beliefs definition:

be·lief ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lf)
n.
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

[arwalden]

129. You What? You Challenge Me? --- Oh, Good Grief!

:eyes:

I'm not here to entertain you, Kwassa. I'm not some circus poodle that will follow your commands and jump through your hoops simply because you desire it.

Your constant demands to "re-explain" that which can be easily understood by reasonably intelligent individuals are tiresome. Your repeated "challenges" to point out (or link to, or quote verbatim) that which is common-knowledge are equally banal, trite, and... dare I say... predictable.

[kwassa]

131. I ask you for evidence, you won't back up your charges, and claim

that I am asking you to jump through hoops, which to me is your "get-out-of-jail free" card.

I think you have no case. You can't back up your charges, because there is no evidence for it. You avoid defending your position. Nothing I can do about that, but it hardly makes your argument credible.

[arwalden]

136. Kwassa... here's your reply.

<< I ask you for evidence, you won't back up your charges, and claim that I am asking you to jump through hoops, which to me is your "get-out-of-jail free" card. >>

Poor you.

<< I think you have no case. >>

I'm not sure what fantasy world you're living in, but it's clear to me that you definitely vivid imagination.

<< You can't back up your charges, because there is no evidence for it. >>

Awww... you're just mad because I won't jump through your hoops and scurry around "proving" the things that are clear to reasonable people.

<< You avoid defending your position. Nothing I can do about that, but it hardly makes your argument credible. >>

If I told you the sky was blue... you'd say it wasn't. Then you'd demand that I prove it to you. And I would refuse. --- That doesn't make the sky any LESS blue.

[kwassa]

140. No, I simply ask you to back up your charges of bigotry towards me.

If you won't, you are engaging in slander.

No more, no less.

[arwalden]

141. My Refusal To Comply With Your Demands...

... is not your "get-out-of-jail-free-card". You know what you've done, what you've said. And so does everyone else. When I refuse to comply with your vanity demands, it does not change what has happened before.

I'm not your poodle... look it up yourself. You'll have to do better than that if you want to be a ringmaster.

[kwassa]

143. I know precisely what I have done and said

and you don't speak for anyone but yourself, as I don't speak for anyone but myself. There is a wide range of opinions expressed in this group, and your attempt to speak for them rings quite false.

You are not much of a debater, are you? You make a strong assertion, and can't back it up with the slightest bit of factual support. In my personal opinion, arwalden, this makes you one of the weaker debaters in this forum

Should I alert the mod to the bigotry slander you have cast against me? I'm sure it doesn't fall within DU rules.

[arwalden]

147. I'm Not Playing Your Games.

<< and you don't speak for anyone but yourself, as I don't speak for anyone but myself.>>

Uh... okay? Whatever. :shrug:

<< There is a wide range of opinions expressed in this group, and your attempt to speak for them rings quite false. >>

I haven't the foggiest idea what you're babbling on about. Did you mean to type that as a response to someone else?

<< In my personal opinion, arwalden, this makes you one of the weaker debaters in this forum >>

LOL... interesting that this personal jab comes from someone whose claim to fame is limited to doing little more than repeating tired old memes about atheists having "beliefs" or "belief systems".

<< Should I alert the mod to the bigotry slander you have cast against me? >>

Knock yourself out, pal. Feel free to do whatever it takes to convince yourself that you're right. Even if it means feigning being the "victim" of a mean-old-atheist's "slander"... go right ahead.

I guess when you've run out if original ideas, the ALERT button is always there for you, eh?

Alert until your heart's content, big guy. Have at it. Enjoy!

[Silent3]

81. We're hierarchical social animals

The need to feel reverance for something greater than oneself and one's circumstances is the universal and unremitting impulse that I'm talking about. It happens everywhere in all cultures.

The fact that such an impulse is very common hardly constitutes evidence that the best explanation is mystical.

A social animal might have an impulse to climb the social ladder, but since very few can make it to the top, there's also a need to be able to calmly accept one's lower status, and an opportunity to improve one's lot by ingratiating one's self with the top dog.

How is the religious impulse much different that this? It doesn't seem at all surprising to me that our higher mental functions, trying to come to grips with more basic hierarchical instincts, might fashion their own conveniently invisible, physically absent Top Dog to which we can submit, and from whom we can seek favor by rules of our own design.

[NMMNG]

76. Yes they are

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. Until a child is indoctrinated into a religion, they are atheistic. This is why children born to Christians become little Christians, those born to Muslims become little Muslims and those born to Jews become little Jews. If the parents are of different faiths and decide to indoctrinate the child into one or the other, the child will believe in the faith they indoctrinate him/her into. If they decide to indoctrinate him/her into both s/he will grow up believing both.

Have you never wondered why little Chinese babies adopted by American Christians amazingly grow up Christian instead of Buddhist or Taoist? And what religion is Angelina Jolie's baby going to be? I doubt it's going to be a native African religion. This is because babies do not have some inherent religion that is inborn. They are a religious tabula rasa--an atheist--at birth. It's only by indoctrination that they become of a particular religious faith.

[kwassa]

79. Babies are not capable of forming beliefs, so

your point is quite absurd.

The idea that religion only exists because of indoctrination is also completely absurd. All cultures have developed religious practices. This is the strongest possible historic indicator of an inherent human tendency.

I never said, by the way, that anyone has an inborn religion, only an inborn tendency toward religion. Many in the modern world change religions, drop religions, take other religions up. They find value in the practice, even if you do not.

[Goblinmonger]

90. Babies are not capable of forming beliefs, so

they are not theists. Didn't the greeks have a prefix for "not"? What was it again? "U"? No. "O"? No. "A"? Yep, that's it. So babies being "not theists" would make them a-theists. Hey, wait, isn't that a word in our language? I think it is. Babies are atheists.

Would you please stop this argument? It makes you look more and more silly every time you say it.

And, if there is no inborn religion, just a tendency to want to have faith in something, then, AGAIN, you have admitted that Jesus is no different, no better, nothing from Zeus, pink unicorns, or any other god. He is just a different fairy tale that people came up with to fulfill their need for religion.

[kwassa]

92. again

"And, if there is no inborn religion, just a tendency to want to have faith in something, then, AGAIN, you have admitted that Jesus is no different, no better, nothing from Zeus, pink unicorns, or any other god. He is just a different fairy tale that people came up with to fulfill their need for religion."

No, I've already answered this point. I'm sorry you didn't understand it.

[Goblinmonger]

93. You already answered it?

Where exactly? Where do you explain why Jesus is somehow different from any other mythology?

[kwassa]

95. I never made that point. Read again.

[Goblinmonger]

101. I made that point

I know you think you didn't, but I explained why you did and you never answered it. Those are some wicked mad debating skills you have there :sarcasm:

You say that the quest for religion is inate. I said that proves that Jesus is no different than any other mythology; he is just another creation to fulfill that need.

You said "I never said that" What a wicked retort. Why don't you actually explain why your position doesn't prove that instead of just repeating the big lie a la Bushco?

[kwassa]

122. We are talking about different things.

goblinmonger:
"You say that the quest for religion is inate. I said that proves that Jesus is no different than any other mythology; he is just another creation to fulfill that need."

And I said that you are incorrect, that all takes on the supernatural are not equal. You ignored my point, and repeated your own.

Jesus and Pink Unicorns are not equal, unless there is some really substantial theology behind the Pink Unicorn that I don't know about, but I truly doubt it. Some theologies have enormously developed systems of thought, and some don't, which means that they aren't all equal.

[Goblinmonger]

124. I asked you

why Jesus was a better mythology than a lot of things. You only picked the unicorn to respond to. Why is it better than Greek Mythology? Islam? Hinduism?

Oh, yeah, you have a book to back you up. Why is it better than scientology, then?

How nice that it is YOUR mythology that is the superior one. Remember me saying that earlier?

[kwassa]

134. When did I ever say that Jesus was a better mythology?

Or that I subscribed to any particular mythology or religious belief?

By the way, Joseph Campbell was one of the most highly regarded comparitive religion scholars in the world. He has multipart series with Bill Moyers on PBS years ago that continually gets re-played.

[Goblinmonger]

158. Post 78

You let this little ditty fly.

I said nothing of the kind. This is your personal projection into my remarks. I do think that they are all explorations of the infinite nature of man's relationship to universe. To quote Joseph Campbell, all religions are metaphorically true and literally false. Not all beliefs are equal, of course, some have more accuracy, perception and universality than others.

OK, you didn't say Christianity in that last sentence, so, please, I beg you, tell me what you meant by that last sentence if not Christianity. I would love to hear this explanation. At least it would be a change from the "belief" manure you are spreading elsewhere.

[kwassa]

164. Take a comparative religion course

or read Huston Smith's "Religions of the World"

or "The History of God" by Karen Armstrong.

Both good reads. You would probably enjoy them.

[Goblinmonger]

168. So it is Chrisitanity or isn't it?

Funny how you avoid that question? Which religion exactly were you talking about?

Mythology is mythology is mythology. Some are more developed than others, but all are mythologies. The Tinkerbell mythology only has one book and not a lot of followers. The Jesus mythology has a lot of books and a lot of followers. Still doesn't make it anything more than a mythology. And it is not even a very tight one, given the contraditions and varied accounts.

[kwassa]

169. We'll never agree, so there is no point in continuing this line

[squarepants]

103. goblinmonger

First of all, I saw your message about getting the message numbers mixed up, and it's not a prob, as I have done that, too. Also, yes, you did say something along the lines of "one doesn't need religion to have morals", but that still didn't answer my question of WHERE YOU got YOUR morals from. Bear in mind, I didn't ask you that to disprove your beliefs. See, I'm not one to have a problem whether someone believes in science, a tree, unicorns or santa claus. I just wanted your point of view on morals according to YOUR beliefs. I wonder though, why some (not all) atheist have such a problem with people believing in a god. What is so horrible about believing in a god? If it makes people feel better, then what is the harm? I'm not talking about people who go around hurting others due to religion. Some atheists even have a problem with someone believing in a god even when that person DOESN'T do anything to harm anyone because of their religion. Your being atheist obviously makes you feel better. You say you are happy that you are an atheist. You have a complete viewpoint and a perception of things based on atheism. That's wonderful if that is what makes you happy, but others have a complete viewpoint and perception based on THEIR beliefs, but some atheists have a problem with it. Why is that?

[Goblinmonger]

105. I'll try to answer it all

1. I get my "morals" from thinking about things and trying to act in a way I would like other people to act in a similar situation.
2. I don't have a problem at all with out people believe and only discuss it in the situations discussed in 3 & 4 below.
3. This is a forum to discuss religion and theology. I think that my discussion of the way I see the world is just as valid as any other, so I discuss my atheism and why I think religion is flawed.]
4. I have a HUGE problem when religion get shoved down my throat (see my other new post in this forum about the angel). That sucks and shouldn't happen. I feel pretty strongly about that.

[squarepants]

144. okies goblinmonger

Thank you for answering my question about how you get your morals. Can I be honest with you on something? Now, first of all, I don't know you as a person. Never met you personally. So what I am about to type here is based on your postings and something you mentioned when you responded to my "morals" question......First of all, you bet this is a place to discuss theology/atheism. It is wonderful when people can get together and discuss the way the see the world. One of your responses to me was the fact that you feel that your view of the world is just as valid as any other. I agree with you 100%. You feel strongly about your stance and will defend your position. You also expect others to respect that. You feel atheism is ultimate truth (so the speak) Nothing wrong with that. However, the same way that you feel the way you feel, others feel that way about their own beliefs. You actually compared people's religion (their deep felt and held beliefs) to unicorns and tinkerbell! What is irking me is not that you disagree. After all, I have disagreed with you. Fair is fair. But do you think that you have such a monopoly on truth that your belief is law and anything else is foolishness? Did you not say that you can't stand that about "religious" people? You're doing the very thing you hate. I'm not saying you should believe anything you don't want to believe, but when you get so sure (honestly, who is really sure about much of anything??) of yourself that you start to belittle others beliefs, that makes you just as bad as the religious ones you hate so much. I am not an atheist and never will be, and that is fine, but I also know that there are people who are atheist, and while it is ok to disagree with their belief, that doesn't give me license to belittle the whole belief system.

[Goblinmonger]

159. You are new here

but I think you can agree from what you have seen of me that I do not let the pink unicorns fly until someone has pissed me off first by indicating either that I am dumb or that their belief system is somehow better.

Now, do I believe that the Christian god is any different from pink unicorns? No. They are both made up creatures. Sure there has been more written about God than pink unicorns, but that doesn't mean much about the reality of them. Sue Grafton has written a lot of novels, that doesn't mean she is a great literary figure.

And more importantly do I get into these discussion outside of DU? Hell no. I am a teacher and very few people know that I am an atheist because, sadly, it would suck if that were the case. No I pretty much just keep to myself when the god talk starts up (which happened just this morning in our English Department meeting). I'm thinking pink unicorns :P but I don't say anything/

[NMMNG]

166. Atheism is not a belief

It is the lack of belief. Therefore babies are quite capable of being atheists (and they are). What they are not capable of being is religious, because religion requires the ability to form beliefs.

And you yourself said "Babies are not capable of forming beliefs".




I was an atheist until I was 8 years old. While I'd heard the name "God" I had no idea who or what he was, or what his purpose was. I'd never been in a church and had no conception of what worship or prayer were. Then all of the sudden my mother got bitten by the religion bug and started taking me and my sisters to church every week. Next thing you know, through Sunday School and church services I came to find out that God was this big being in the sky who I was supposed to love, pray to, fear, etc, etc. My Christianity lasted about 20 years until I realized it was all bunk, and that I'd been lied to all that time.

Babies are atheists, and remain that way until religion is taught to them.

[IsItJustMe]

13. Intellectually, for every scripture a fundie could give me, I can quote two

that disputes their belief system.

They can say to me on the death penalty, An eye for an eye.
I would return with: 'Turn thy other cheek' or 'Thou shalt not kill'.

On war they can say to me, pay ceasers things to ceaser.
I would return with: 'Blessed are peace makers for they shall inherit the earth'.

The bottom line is that it is not religion that causes these problems. People have their belief systems and then, and only then, look for the facts thet they want to back it up.

[Goblinmonger]

17. Don't you think that is an argument against you.

I mean you basically admit that your religion is open to so many different interpretations that there is no clue as to what is "right." How do you know you are right and they are wrong? Religion offers nothing in your example other than confusion.

[IsItJustMe]

23. It's like anything else in life. We have heard many things about American

patriotism.

It's the best country in the world.
We have the best judicial system in the world.
We were the first Democracy in the world.
We fight for freedom and liberation all over the world.
America is a special nation picked by god to lead the world.

Do you believe all of this? You probably believe some more than others.

Religion is exactly the same. According to your belief system, you will concentrate on certain scriptures more than others and then proceed to develop a system of thought behind that belief.

For example:
An eye for an eye was written in the old testimate and JC replaced the old testimate when he came. The new rule, love thy brother; therefore turn thy other cheek is now operative.

My point being that every human endeavor of thought follows the same process no matter what. Be it religion, patriotism, tribalism, whatever.

Religion in-and-of-itself is neither good or bad. It's both.

[Goblinmonger]

25. This is absolutely nothing against you personally

but it just seems like more and more confusing circle talk. You can believe x, he can believe y, and I can believe z all from the same text. No wonder people are able to use it to their end. No wonder I don't like it.

I dislike patriotism, too. For the same reason.

[IsItJustMe]

28. That's the exact point I am trying to make. But anything you believe in

is going to involve the same damn process. Read some of the philosphy of people like Descart. These were some tortured people.

This guy writes a whole book and after thousands of words he comes to the conclusing, I think, therefore I am. Do tell?

[Goblinmonger]

30. But if that is the case

aren't we better off with a system basic on reason and critical thinking rather than one based on faith? There is much less room for the x, y, and z scenario I mentioned above.

[IsItJustMe]

35. Be it religious or not, we all have to take some leap of faith in whatever

we believe in.

Take evelution for instance. Do you beleive in it. If so, why? Were you their?

It's a theory and yet we believe in it because the facts seem to support it. Can it be proved beyond all doubt, no, but we believe it anyway because it makes the most sense.

My point is this, there is no perfect human beleif system, period.

Five hundred years ago the world was flat. Now we know.
The entire beliefs about atoms, electrons, protons is now completly being dismissed by science and new constructs are under development.

Human thought is an ever evolving process and will always be dynamic.

[Goblinmonger]

36. We knew the world wasn't flat long before that

people were persecuted by religion for saying it, but we knew (though I am still trying to talk about current events only).

Again, I think there is a difference between belief and faith but most people don't make that distinction.

If you are saying that faith in the existence of god is the same as the belief in the theory of evolution, you are WAY missing the boat and actually helping me. Saying that you need to apply teh scientific method would be my argument about god. If you want to prove there is one, fine. Absent proof to the contrary, there is no god. That is not a belief in god. Period. There is data, evidence, fossils to support evolution. That is NOTHING LIKE faith in the existence of god.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

119. Bingo

We all have the right to believe/disbelieve whatever we choose. And certainly these beliefs can be used for either good or ill. Humans are complex and individual.


(you didn't really think I'd stay out of this one, did you?)

[Goblinmonger]

128. I agree with you

Doesn't mean I have to like it. Doesn't mean I have to think religion is grand. But, yes, you and everyone else has the right to believe and/or think what they want.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

132. Yep

I mean, I don't like Scientology, for example. But, hey. Whatever.

And I think you have a lot of solid complaints about "religion" in general and I think anyone who considers themselves part of organized religion would be well-served to take notice and participate in some self-examination, which is a precept of my personal faith.

Kind of like a needs-assessment initiatve. (can you tell I'm a teacher?)

Both sides of the coin can get very heated. The atheists make statements, the Christians get riled. Who is wrong? Neither. The atheists are thinking and putting things together, the Christians get hurt because they feel painted with the broad brush.

And that's why we have wars and stupid stuff like that.

[squarepants]

45. good question goblinmonger

Speaking for me, the answer to that is kind of obvious. How do you know what's right and wrong, you asked. I like to learn about all kinds of religions, but I know more about christianity, so I'll use that. The bible has written in it what is right and wrong, i.e. don't kill, don't commit adultery, etc. It's there in black and white. It's obvious for me and other people who try and follow that. But the kicker is, if you really really want to do something bad enough, you can take anything and twist it to justify your actions. We all do it, no matter what belief system you have. Sure there are confusing aspects to religion. Same could be said about science. If that wasn't true, ALL scientist would agree on everything. They don't, though. There is nothing wrong with people having different opinions. The problem happens when one group goes out of their way to harm another group because they think they are right and nobody else is. Can I ask you something? You ask christians how they know what is right and wrong, so in all sincerity, from your point of view, how do YOU know what is right and wrong?

[Goblinmonger]

49. I try to be the kind of person

I want other people to be when they are around me. I realize that is similar to the "Golden Rule" but that is by no means christian in origin. There are studies out now that we are hard-wired for altruism. That is how I know what is "right."

[Evoman]

20. My thoughts

Heres a post I made in another thread. I believe that people can be bad or good, but that sometimes religion makes good people act like shits. Here is the post I made:

The thing that really bothers me as an atheist, however, is that a lot of people are way too defensive about their religion. If I say something bad about right wing christians, there are immediatly people chewing me out. Even if you stipulate that it is just the right wing christians that your attacking, you get progressive christians attacking you and telling you that they aren't "real christians" and that I have to be careful not to "attack christianity". They tell you that it's not the religion thats making them that way, its that their bad people. And I completely disagree...I think religion has a big influence on who they are. If the right wing were not christians, would they necessarily be so anti-choice, so anti-gay, so ant-science, so anti-birth control, and so anti-atheist. No, they wouldn't, because without the bible or religion telling you these things are wrong, its not logical to be so hateful. At worst they would be ambivalent. They may still be pricks, but they wouldn't be pricks with an agenda, which is what really sucks.

[Goblinmonger]

26. I agree

I know that comes as a shock.

Well-stated given the discussion I am having above.

[NMMNG]

77. You might enjoy this quote

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Steven Weinberg

[TreasonousBastard]

31. A lot of good points made in this thread, and I...

come down on the side of religion not being the problem, but human perversion of it being the problem. Every evil ascribed to religion has been done for other reasons, simply because we are capable of doing it.

I don't know if we're "born atheist" any more than we're born without a nationality, language, or anything we might learn that will eventually describe us, but we are born with the ability to learn and eventually to think in the abstract. We are very likely the only creatures on the planet who have the ability to ask "Why?" or to decide yes or no.

I don't know if a soul exists or it's simply an ancient myth to describe this difference between us and the rest of the fauna, but the concept of the soul easily relates to our unique abstract thinking and free will. The gods may or may not exist as we think of them, but religion is a uniquely human means of relating to the gods, and suffers from the same faults as every other human endeavor.

To blame the gods, or to blame our understanding of the gods, is not the right course. When wrong is done, or mistakes made, we can only blame ourselves.

Personally, I have my own leadings on what I think God wants and I try to live my own life that way. But, to impose my own beliefs on others without a secular rationale is simply wrong. I think most people feel that way, but we are overwhelmed with gasbag preachers, publicity seekers, and con artists who are using faith for gain.

[Goblinmonger]

37. Absent religion

would these gas bags have the tools to do the evil that they do. I say no.

[TreasonousBastard]

44. They'd find another way...

in my lifetime, religion has never been the driving force behind war, racism, general criminality or any other misery. It wasn't fundies who planned for war in Iraq. Or Iran. Religion might have come into play, but never the intial force.

While right now we are looking at foes of abortion or gay rights using religious arguments, that's simply a chicken/egg situation. Homophobes are homophobes and most people who think a fetus is a person didn't need God to tell them that.

OK, I'll meet you halfway and go with the creationist nonsense being religiously driven. But, just as Spiritualism caused all sorts of silliness years ago, this is mainly some people just being stupid or deluded. They're no different than the alien abductees and other tinfoil types.

[Goblinmonger]

46. I think you are sadly mistaken.

Do you think Israel/Palestine isn't about religion?

Do you think the fundamentalist muslims are doing what they are doing for secular reasons?

The abortion laws are clearly defined from religion. As are the anti-gay laws. Without the force of religion, those would not be problems.

[squarepants]

50. goblinmonger

Of course Israel/Palestine is about religion. I have no opinion about what the muslims are doing because I don't know much about their religion. You are 100% right about the abortion laws stemming from religion. Yep, the anti-gay laws stemmed from that, too. Tell me though, let's say there was no such thing as religion. Where would one get their "morals" from? Their belief of "right" and "wrong". Who would decide what is right and wrong? How would people interact with each other? What would you do if your society was 90% athiest, and the other 10% wanted to worship a deity. Would you honestly be ok with that?

[Goblinmonger]

55. I think I would have an orgasm if that society existed.

Seriously.

And where do you get your morals? How do you deal with the inherent contradictions in the bible? Should I sell my daughter to slavery? Should women be subservient and shut up in church? Should I NEVER kill or is it OK in self defense? How about the stuff the bible doesn't address because it was written so long ago? What do you do then?

Do you think that there would just be anarchy if our society was atheist? Do you think that I can't be moral because I am atheist? Over half our founding fathers had no religion and they did OK. Most Christian morality comes from the bible, which was written by regular old people, and actually contains some pretty crappy stuff.

[squarepants]

82. goblinmonger (question of where I get morals, etc)

First of all, I am NOT one of those people (which is obviously what you are looking for. don't think that i don't see that) who says the bible is absolute truth and everyone else's beliefs are crap. I'm NOT one of those people who claims to know all the mysteries of the universe (no more than scientist do) and I certainly don't know all there is to know about christianity. With that said, as far as WHERE I get my morals from, I got them the same way everyone else did. Just living. We get told "right" and "wrongs" our whole entire lives. Our parents have done it, the preacher has done it, the school system has done it, society has done it, our friends have done it, our religions have done it, and on and on. Yep, some of my morals have come from the bible. So what? YOU, my friend, still didn't answer MY question of where you get YOUR morals from. I didn't ask you that to disprove your beliefs. Honestly, I could care less what your beliefs are because you have every right to believe what you want. I simply asked that because I wanted to know. Did I say that atiests couldn't have morals? IF you find that, please point it out to me. As far as the contradictions in the bible, lol, like I said above, I'm sorry to disppoint you (see above) but I'm not going to sit here and say the bible is inerrant because I don't believe it is. I DO believe there is a God. Why? Because I can!!! Do I believe a bunch of dudes wrote down every word God said, untainted? No, I don't. Humans make mistakes, and I happen to think that the bible has been changed quite a bit from the times it was written until now. Do I understand every single thing in the bible? Nope. But I happen to think there are good things in there, such as trying to get along with people and loving people and not trying to hurt anyone.

[Goblinmonger]

89. OK, two things

1. I did answer the morals question and would discuss it with you gladly.
2. I made a mistake I often make. I didn't look at your post numbers when I responded. I have been around and around with people about these same issues. Sorry if that got projected on you.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

38. I'm so sick of religion.

I'm so sick of pompous religious asses. I'm so sick of the persecution complexes. I'm so sick of having religion forced down my throat. I'm so sick of people letting the religious walk all over them.

:grr:

[Goblinmonger]

43. Which leads me to a couple things I left out of the OP

It isn't enough for people to just have their religion, hang out with people that think like them, and live their life how they want to live it. No, they have to shove it down my throat.

on edit: fixed a link

[arwalden]

58. I Absolutely LOATHE Those Two Things.

[Goblinmonger]

60. Drives me nuts, too

Though the funny thing is that I heard your post in my head in a daffy duck voice because of your sig line. It was hilarious that way.

[LaurenG]

40. Fanatic's cause big trouble

They all need to be identified and medicated... OK not really but emotional instability seems to coarse through the veins of fanatics. Reason means nothing and so they become DANGEROUS people when given any power. Apparently there is no love in them; just a whole lot of power mongering. It's mental illness and it's being inflicted on every one of us.

:cry:

[kwassa]

57. The problem isn't religion, but absolutist belief systems.

Any group that believe that they are the sole owner of the absolute truth is capable of the most unbelievable atrocities. It does not matter whether that belief is religious or political or nationalistic or ethnic.

The behavior and the result is the same.

[arwalden]

113. Heh-heh-heh! You Said "Belief System"...

... again. :rofl:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

125. I like this response

people can be fanatical about anything. I've met fanatical Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, vegetarians, smokers, Communists, swingers...


And when they either get too MUCH power or not ENOUGH power, things get lopsided and it all goes to hell.

[manic expression]

155. Quite general,

too general, to be accurate. Yes, many religious people are misusing religion for wrong. However, many religious people are not, and many others are doing the opposite. I can come up with many examples of people of faith fighting for gay rights and the right to choose, among other worthy causes. There are also religious groups that are completely anti-RW fundamentalist (interfaith alliance, IIRC).

The issues with religion are different if you ask me. First of all, most of the injustice and insanity you are talking about is brought about by the MISuse of religion. It is like people MISusing science to incinerate innocent people more effectively (nuclear weapons); the act is disgusting and terrible, but that does NOTHING to make science guilty in ANY WAY.

Secondly, I personally cannot tolerate intolerance, and so I see some religions and their mindsets as somewhat myopic. While I completely disagree with such a religion's tenets, I think those who follow the religion can be JUST as tolerant and enlightened and respectable as anyone else, and that is what largely matters.

I don't think we need to extend the discussion to atheism, but atheism is really no different on the level you brought up. Atheists can be pricks, just as a person of any religion can be a prick. Same stripes, different colors is all it is.