Is there some Atheist group that pays its members to convert the religious

[Frogtutor]

to their point of view?

Some of the posts around here sure make me wonder...

I believe EVERYONE is entitled to their own beliefs; Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, AND even Atheists, etc.

I believe in the DEMOCRATIC ideal of freedom of religion; to me that means freedom to practice or NOT PRACTICE any religion.

I believe (purely my opinion) that this forum should be used to debate and discuss various points ABOUT religion and theology; NOT debate AGAINST the existence of religion and theology in general.

I believe that attacking (by this I mean trying to discredit, belittling, etc.) a person's belief system is EXTREMELY rude, antisocial, counterproductive, and UNDEMOCRATIC.

I also DO believe in the freedom of speech, however, I also believe in being friendly, polite and conscientious. I am not going to walk up to a stranger on the street and offer my unsolicited opinion about her clothes, as in, "That dress you're wearing is hideous. I cannot believe you would actually have paid money for that, let alone wear it in public." Even if she initiated the conversation by saying, "I LOVE this dress! It is my favorite item of clothing, and worth every penny I paid!" Now, if she actually asked me, "What do you think about this dress?" I would probably have to respond honestly, but as tactfully and graciously as possible saying, "Well, honestly, I don't think it flatters you as much as something else might. You have such a cute figure/pretty face/whatever, and I think that dress kind of detracts from it."

What purpose does trying to convince the religious that they are wrong serve, especially when they have not solicited your opinion about the validity of their beliefs? Why do you care what a religious person, especially a liberal one who frequents DU, believes?

To me, posting anti-religious sentiments in response to religious people is akin to me, or some other Christian, trying to convert Atheists by saying "you're all wrong, and you're going to burn in Hell for all eternity because of it". By the way, I DON'T believe that, but if I did, what purpose would it serve for me to tell you that? None, but to piss you off and cause trouble.

I respect your right to NOT believe, therefore, I will NOT try to convince you otherwise. Why do you feel you have to convince me I'm wrong to believe?

Now, where the hell did I leave my flame retardant suit...:grr:

[flamin lib]

1. I'm with you . . .

Added disclaimer . . .

The only thing I know for sure is that I can't know for sure. I've got my cosmic construct and you can have yours. Anything you believe is okay with me as long as it doesn't harm you or anyone around you.

However, if your religion makes if possible to lob missiles into your neighbor's country or to hate people who are different from you perhaps you should re-evaluate your concept of God.

That's the editorial "you", not Frogtutor personally.

[Az]

2. Its the same plan the GLBT community has

We get a free toaster for everyone we convert.

Its not a question of convicing someone they are wrong. Its a question of dialog, community, and exploration.

An atheist is not concerned that you are going to go to hell for believing. Its actually a bit inverted from that. They are a little concerned that belief is going to make hell on earth a reality. We are constantly belittled in society as the trouble makers and the evil ones. Banners and signs are placed in front of churches decrying our heinous ways. Weekly sermons on how to defeat the ravenous hordes of heathens fire up the imaginations of believers as to the horrors that are being caused by us nasty little atheists.

So what to do about it. In public if we raise our head up too far we get it chopped off. On the net its a bit more difficult to chop a person's head off so we tend to be a bit more vocal here. This is the result of an oppressed social group finding an outlet that allows them to express their anger without retaliation of the physical variety. Its quite liberating.

You will find that while most atheists may disagree with your belief they are willing to defend your right to it (even while they are arguing with you about it). Do not confuse intellectual discourse for denying you your right. Freedom of speech is another cherished right and sometimes we like to use it.

Why convince you your belief is wrong? Not exactly something we can do. Only you can convince yourself you are wrong. We can give you things to think about. But why do that? We make the world we live in. I personally would love to live in a world where reason and science govern alongside compassion and a desire to understand. I would love to see what the world would have been like is the Library of Alexander had not been destroyed starting our descent into the dark ages and setting us back intellectually 1500 years. I would like to see what medical technology can come up with unhampered by those that decry tampering with God's work to be a blasphemy. There are active forces arrayed against my hopes and dreams. I have only my own two hands to actively do anything to change the world with. And so I act.

[flamin lib]

9. I've lived next door to a Born again Christian

for 25 years. One day he sees me doing some yard work and comes over to chat. In the process he tells me that the atheists are ruining the United States, that they are trying to take our guns away and want to ban the ownership of bibles.

I take on a look of mock horror and apologize to him saying that I didn't know I was doing that and that I would stop immediately. Poor fellow, it took him two days to work up the courage to talk to me again.

So you see, if atheists come across as a bit Pentecostal at times it's because of experiences like that. It's the old hit me and I'll hit you back sort of thing only.

Many who first come to realize they don't believe are a bit evangelistic. I've become comfortable in my little cosmic construct and can let those around me have their own. But if someone pushes, I can push back and do. I just don't have a preemptive philosophy anymore.

[trotsky]

3. Perhaps you are in the wrong forum.

Try the Christian Liberals/Progressive People of Faith Group (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=291).

Theology is the study of religious faith, practice, and experience. Atheism, while not a faith in and of itself, is on the spectrum of faith and certainly an aspect of theology. And atheists certainly have opinions on theological ideas and arguments.

Sorry, but sometimes things are said in here that warrant an opposing point of view being heard. Does it go overboard occasionally? Sure, this is a heated issue, especially with the Christian religion playing such an intricate role in Republican politics right now. You'll either have to live with it, or go to that group I mentioned above.

[Frogtutor]

10. I'm in that group; I've quit spending much time in here because

of the hostility.

Yes, I've said already that Atheists are entitled to their opinions, but it seems to me that many times they are flung out there without relevance. As if the posters are only doing it because someone expressed a religious sentiment. Yes, people seem to go overboard a LOT; it's these people I have a problem with.

By the way, I personally define Atheism as an absence of faith, so in my opinion, it doesn't fit into the realm of religion and theology. But, having said that, I believe Atheists have every right to participate in this forum. It's just attacking other people's belief systems without provocation that bothers me.

[Az]

11. So stick around and teach us how best to address our issues

Your name suggests you teach. If you percieve we have a problem expressing ourselves then the single best way to deal with it would seem to be to try to increase the communication skills. Help us figure out how to talk to you. In our society such conversations are not encouraged. Thus are ability to discuss things across the lines atrophies. So when we do meet it becomes more battle than conversation. So teach us how to talk to you. Maybe we can learn from each other.

[Frogtutor]

22. Sure, I'd enjoy taking part in such a discourse

Kind of like, "How to talk to a religious LIBERAL 101" (because we are vastly different than the religious right) for Atheists, and of course, Atheists could respond in kind.

I'm thinking the best way for me to participate in something like this is to use very specific examples of posts (when they occur, and not waiting for an accumulation) and critique (brainstorm, as a group) good and bad examples of communication.

I know; it's very elementary, but I am an elementary teacher...

;)

[trotsky]

14. "attacking other people's belief systems"

That's where it gets tricky. How far can one go before it's considered an attack? Every believer has a different level of tolerance, and a whole range is exhibited right here on DU.

What do you consider an attack? Can you point to some specific posts?

[Frogtutor]

16. You'll have to give me some time to find examples;

I posted in an emotional, "straw that broke the camel's back" kind of response. In other words, my post came as a reaction to various posts over a long period of time, but I will gladly search for examples.

[Selwynn]

31. I don't think the purpose of this forum is entirely clear

For instance, I think it is just as reasonable to define the scope and parameters of this discussion board very differently.

When I first found this forum, I didn't even think to interpret its intent as you have. I thought that a religion and theology discussion forum would not be an atheist vs. theist discussion forum. I didn't see anything in the title that led me to believe this was a forum for atheists and theists to come together and hear atheist critiques of religion in general, or philosophical arguments against god, or science vs. faith debates, etc.

I assumed that this forum would be a place for actual theological discussion from multiple and diverse perspectives of religious faith. What is God, the problem of evil, comparative religion topics, how to change religious institutions from within, liberation theology, process theology, discussions of key religious thinkers - Thich Nhat Hahn, Paul Tillich, etc. -- this is what I assumed would be the topics of a Religion and Theology forum.

Frankly, I don't see the Christian Liberals/Progressive People's of Faith forum as filling that role, because much of the discussion I would be interested in would have little or nothing to do with Christianity in any form. I'm glad liberal and progressive Christians have a forum, but I was more interested in a Religion and Theology forum the way I thought it would be.

What has happened instead is that this forum should be renamed Atheism vs. Theism. These are the topics that dominate the board. These are the directions that posts totally unrelated to such a debate inevitably lead. Whether the debate starts because of the overdefensiveness of a theist or because of the overagressiveness of an atheist, the effect is still the same. This leads to the degeneration of the boards into what I personally feel falls well outside the scope of what these boards should be about. Obviously that's an opinion, and since there's been not clarification from administrators, my opinion is really no more valid than anyone else's...

But I do know that a lot of people I have spoken to privately say they are either being driven away from these forums or not wanting to come to them at all, because it seems to be little more than atheist vs. theist smack-down. What would really be most needed is a clarification from the administrators of exactly the scope of discussion this forum is designed for. If it is really designed for atheist vs. theist debates, then that settles that, and anyone unhappy about it would have to adjust or move on. But I don't think its entirely clear that this is the intent of this forum.

Sel

[trotsky]

32. That's kind of why I thought they set up this forum.

It was to divert any theist vs. atheist discussions from taking up space in GD or elsewhere.

Maybe instead of "Atheism vs. Theism" it could be renamed "Theistic Debate" or something.

[Selwynn]

34. Aye, I think there should at least be an administrative clarification

[Az]

33. Have your cake and eat it too

Its just a question of framing a thread correctly. If you want to have a discussion with certain parameters spell it out at the top. You will notice that there are a few threads like that already. Questions directed towards believers or nonbelievers. Christians or Catholics.

Here are my 2 cents on the nature of this forum. Discussions of religion can cloud the main areas quite quickly. Whether for the divisive nature of the discussion or the nonpolitical aspect of it(note political interaction with religion still exists in GD). As this forum was created by the Admins and not a group request I suspect it was their intent that all discussions of religion get placed in here unless specified for a specific group or suitable for GD discussion.

Now within that context yes, we can have knockdown drag out fights away from the limelite of GD. Atheist vs Theist. Eastern vs Western. Whatever. There can also be threads pertaining to the specific ideas you would like to discuss as well. You will find that most atheists will stay far away from internal machination discussions of various sects. We are more concerned with big picture ideas like whether God exists or not rather than issues of whether works of faith are enough.

In short. If you have a topic you want to discuss, start a thread and let us know that you are not looking to debate certain aspects of it. We can respect your wishes and be part of the community together. It just takes communication to make it happen.

[BurtWorm]

4. Which threads do you think try to convince you it's wrong to believe.

Or which posts?

[Frogtutor]

17. See my reply above # 16 n/t

[Caution]

5. So disagreeing with the tenets of religion is now anti-religious?

I'm an atheist and not only do i disagree with some of the things posted by the religious I have every right to disagree with them and to say so.

I'll tell you what. When your denomination stops interfering in politics, when they stop sending out missionaries (who are paid by the way) to convert the unbelievers, I'll stop posting my thoughts on why I believe that the concept of god is an absurdity. Sound good?

Most theologians would tell you that you absolutely should question your faith regularly. Why do you perceive my or any other atheists questioning of your faith as an attack?

I find it particularly amusing that theists in the US think that they are persecuted. It's totally laughable. This country is headed in the direction of theocracy a helluva lot more than it is headed towards human secularism.

Atheists don't have any need to convince you that you are wrong, but when you post about an all-powerful sky being why do you become so defensive when an atheist post asking for some proof that this being exists? Are you so insecure in your beliefs that my questions about them frighten you enough that you actually feel that an atheist is personally attacking you?

[Frogtutor]

13. The religious posters at DU are not the enemy

I don't have a denomination, and my personal Christian beliefs support my liberal political beliefs. I had hoped that we DUers were united in a political cause that transcends our minor differences. And, yes, I consider the fact that I'm religious and some people are not a MINOR difference, or at least, it should be.

I don't feel persecuted at all, usually, except here occasionally, hence my post this morning.

I'm not insecure in my belief at all; are some others so insecure in their Atheism that they feel they have to push their non-belief on religious folks? Why would anyone ask me to prove God exists? Why should I have to? Why does it matter to them if I believe that He does? I'm not going to ask an Atheist to prove to me that God doesn't exist; I DON'T CARE if he or she believes this! It affects me in no way whatsoever! What DOES affect me is the condescending tone many posters take that imply religious people are blind/stupid/sheep, etc. because we believe in something that may or may not be proved to exist.

I define faith as "belief in something that may or may not be provable." For example, I have faith in my husband's fidelity. I certainly can't prove that he's never cheated on me, or that he never will, but I truly believe that he hasn't, and that he never will.

[Caution]

26. Where is the attack?

This is such a red herring that has been used over and over again to force those of us who wish to live in a rational society to shut the hell up over our beliefs. Well to hell with that, a healthy debate over issues of religion is not an attack. If you feel it is that's your problem, not mine.

So basically stop telling me to shut up. If you don't like what I have to say on the subject of religion than ignore me. It's simple. I think that all of the conspiracy theorists are nuts. I ignore them and it makes my stay at DU a LOT more pleasant. If you think that the isolated atheist is a rotten person who lends nothing to the debate than ignore him/her but don't lump us all together in some lame attempt to claim that we are trying to destroy your faith because guess what...we don't give a rat's ass about your faith until you bring it up. This forum is here to discuss religion and theology. Discussion requires disagreement otherwise it is nothing more than exposition.

Once again we have an example of someone taking the isolated example as the rule. Because of Columbine teenagers can't wear black trenchcoats, because of 19 whackjobs in airplanes we had a war, a 2nd term, and our civil liberties trashed, because of some guy who said you are a fool for being a theist you attack all atheists and you weren't even bright enough to make the connection between the crack about missionaries being propped up as an example of what all christians are like. use the ignore feature. it is your friend. But don't try to stifle my side of the debate with some ill-conceived appeal to atheists to stop being "mean"

[Frogtutor]

28. Why don't you chill out? First of all, I did NOT lump all Atheists

together.

I'm not trying to stifle anyone; I'm simply asking that people be respectful of each other. You are obviously not capable of that.

Second of all, I DID get your crack about missionaries, and as I tried to explain to you, I don't believe in that kind of thing anyway. My reference to Atheists trying to convert religious people was TONGUE-IN-CHEEK. GET A SENSE OF HUMOR.

Now who's lumping people together?

Who's not very bright? I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehension, and well, I guess there's not much hope of you learning to understand humor or sarcasm this late in life.

YOU are obviously the kind of Atheist I have a problem with, because you can't even carry on a civil conversation.

Thanks for the tip on the ignore feature; I'm using it for the first time, today.

Get some fucking Prozac.

[Hollowkatt]

6. I believe

That you have the right to your opinion. I also believe that 90% of all conflict between nations, states and cultures is religious in nature, thus I believe that religion is responsable for war, genocide, hatred and most of the things we rail against here every day. I attempt to get people to understand the nature of religion, that it is a drug that keeps you from becoming self-aware and it keeps you docile, untill the leaders, who probably don't buy into the system anyways want you to attack.

[Frogtutor]

7. I agree with many of the things you've all said...

I can understand why you might want to lash out sometimes; I completely agree that religion has been misused and abused throughout history. However, I'm not one of those abusers. Neither are any of the religious people posting on DU.

What I don't understand is that it seems as Democrats we all have more in common with each other than not. The religious folks posting here at DU are NOT your enemy. I feel that it's counterproductive to our "cause" (meaning Democrats, left wing, etc.) to be so divisive among ourselves.

What I'm wondering is why we can't "live and let live"?

[Az]

8. There are some of us

That discuss religion in part to erase the walls between us. Lack of familiarity with anothers position creates distrust and fear. Discussing such matters gets them out in the open (sometimes with a bit of a struggle) and enables us to learn about each other. We can in this way dismiss fears we have born of ignorance.

[beam me up scottie]

12. Indeed, I also would like to see said posts.

As an atheist I never give unsolicited opinions about another's faith nor would I ever attack anyone because they believe something I don't.
I have never met an atheist who does that, it's not worth our time and effort to try to convert you. We don't work on a bonus system and we have no ulterior motive (neither do the homosexuals despite what members of the religious right try to tell you). However, if I read a post that has our name on the door, I'm going to assume we're invited to the party .
I believe making blanket statements about ANY group of people whether it's christians, gays and yes, even evil atheists is ignorant.

[Frogtutor]

15. I certainly did not mean to imply that ALL Atheists do this;

I apologize if it appeared that way. I absolutely do not believe in making blanket statements about any group of people, and I realize now that I did not make myself clear. Of course I meant for Atheists to respond to my post; it's your thoughts on this issue I want to hear. I really DO want to reach some kind of an understanding at least in my own mind about this.

[flamin lib]

18. From reading all the replies

it appears to me that the consensus is that some few believers insult non believers and some few non believers insult believers.

Can't we all just get along? Well, yeah, 99% of us are already getting along. Sorry neither group can control the actions of the few among us who would do otherwise.

Okay, group hug everybody!

[Frogtutor]

19. lol

:grouphug:

[beam me up scottie]

23. Sorry, no offense taken. Little thin-skinned myself

this week after being told repeatedly by a theist in another forum exactly how to practice my atheism.
I really do want to see how our views are perceived by theists.

:D

[Stunster]

20. I hear you

There are nasty, irrational folk on both sides of the issue. And very few people are completely devoid of all nastiness and all irrationality.

The atheists tend to get upset about religion because they are worried about Christians trying to impose their values on the rest of society, in particular in the areas of sexuality.

On the other hand, they seem oblivious, to the point of systematic blindness, to the fact that secularism has no more right to be promulgated in publicly-funded schools and institutions than does the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or New Age ethos . In effect, what they are saying is that their preferred secular ethos should be the official state-funded and mandatory form of public or civic ethos, and woe betide anyone who tries to 'impose' religion, or even introduce any expression of a religious ethos into the public forum, by praying, or campaigning against gay marriage, or whatever. And then they have the temerity to denounce others for trying to impose their mores on society!

Secularists tend to be systematically blind to their own cultural and political imperialism that it takes my breath away at times, and then they make the obviously hypocritical denunciation of anyone whose value-system differs from theirs even getting a look-in in the public debate.

True liberalism must accomodate public religious expression and the right not to participate in it, as well as public expressions of secularist, atheist, and other non-religious belief systems. Banning religious expression from the public forum is no more liberal than banning anti-religious expression.

[Az]

21. To clarify: Secularism and Atheism are not the same thing

Secularism is religiously neutral. A world of difference from atheism. A secularist takes no position on whether a particular religion is right or wrong. A secularist treats an atheist, theist, buddhist, shintoist, or any other ist you happen to have the same.

As to how to deal with a pluralistic nation where people of varying beliefs hold common title to public land, that is a difficult issue. We The People are the government. All the people. All the beliefs. Equal under the law. No preference. No favoritism. So how do we deal with belief in such a system?

There seem to be two paths possible. Total inclusion or total neutrality. Total inclusion means allowing all beliefs to have equal access to the public square. Crucifixes and Humanist symbols side by side. Equal access. Of course this also means allowing the Satanists and the Scienitologists, and every other ist to have access to the public square. Suddenly the notion starts to become a bit clouded. Some beliefs are dyametrically opposed to other beliefs. Some have been at war with each other for centuries. Conflict in the public square becomes inevitable.

Thus we favor a wall of seperation in this nation. Not to promote atheism. But to promote peace and harmony.

[Stunster]

24. Liberalism is not secularism

There seem to be two paths possible. Total inclusion or total neutrality.

I think you mean total inclusion or total exclusion. Total inclusion would be neutral in a way that total exclusion is not.

The difficulties are practical, but there are advanced civilized democratic societies where religious schools are part and parcel of the public education system. In the United Kingdom, for example, there are public schools that cater for Anglicans, Catholics, Methodists, Jews, Muslims, Eastern Orthodox and even Seventh Day Adventists. These form a significant part of the public school system.

Schooling of course is just one area of public life. But I find it hard to accept that banning, say, a Nativity scene from a public building is necessary to prevent civil war. I'd have no problem with a public building being rented out for a meeting of the local Atheist society either.

The question should be really about respecting diverse expressions of belief, without being biased towards any one of them or establishing a state religion. But if America were 98% Mormon, and I was one of the other 2%, I wouldn't get my knickers in a twist because there was a picture of Brigham Young hanging up in most public buildings.

On the other hand, expressions which are likely to cause criminal behavior, such as disturbing the peace or violent conduct should be outlawed, just as much as rowdy behavior at a hockey game is outlawed.

Being able to cope with expressions of belief that you don't share just is tolerance. If America can't cope with a Nativity scene or atheists meeting in a town hall, then God help us... ;-)

Where I would agree with you is that integrity of science should be respected, as well as the integrity of history, or geography, or any other subject. If some people decide that Washington was not the first president or that the Earth is flat, those ideas should not be introduced in publicly funded schools. So if science teaches evolution, then that's what should be taught in science classes. Theories about God should be taught in comparative religion, philosophy, and theology classes, where there is a demand for such classes (as there is in many public colleges, even now).

[Az]

27. Recent events suggest a different picture

The following is not an uncommon story in the US. A small town in Florida during the recent elections had an atheist running for city council. He was allowed to present a 30 second invocation which sparked a rather nasty blow out. http://www.nbc-2.com/articles/readarticle.asp?articleid=2299&z=3&p= Complete with video.

Yes some are quite capable of keeping the peace in a multicultural society. But bringing emotionally charged subjects like religion into the arena creates a potential for fireworks. And not the good kind.

The irony seems to be that most often the Fundimentalist Christians are the ones that object whenever any one else gets some access. It would be perfectly fine to have a nativity scene as long as any other group were allowed to place their representation in the public square as well. Its when this occurrs that the entire matter suddenly collapses.

Another example of this. Here in Michigan there was a school that had a bible study class meeting. There was some concern of seperation issues but as it was not sponsored by a teacher and was student lead it was fine. But then a group of atheist students conviened a bible study group of their own and suddenly the roof was on fire. Eventually the uproar lead to a banning of all afterschool activities.

We only want what is fair. Equal treatment under the law. If Christians have access to the public square everyone should have access to the public square. If some do not have access to the public square then none shall have access to the public square for the purposes of displaying items of belief.

[Stunster]

30. I'll buy that

We only want what is fair. Equal treatment under the law. If Christians have access to the public square everyone should have access to the public square. If some do not have access to the public square then none shall have access to the public square for the purposes of displaying items of belief.

One thing I will say, though, is that for some reason, America has worse problems in this area than most other advanced countries do, and I have come to the conclusion that it's due to Protestant fundamentalism being so common here, as compared to other countries.

I hate Protestant fundamentalism, not least because it gives Christianity a bad name. But what are you gonna do---call in the Spanish Inquisition? ;-)

[flamin lib]

25. Well said Az

For what it is worth prayer is not prohibited in public places. You can pray anytime and anywhere you want within the constraints of noise ordinances. The objections arise when a person or institution in the public sector espouses a religious outlook.

If a student wants to pray silently in class that's okay by me. But if that student is allowed to pray aloud then I demand the right to worship as my parents did--hopping from one foot to the other making loud screeching noises (they belonged to a small sect of fire walkers, but never quite got the hang of it).

[Frogtutor]

29. I want to sincerely thank all of you who have participated in this

conversation so civilly. That includes all the posters here except for one, who is now the sole member of my ignore list.

Atheist or not, this guy is simply an asshole.

But, I guess he makes me appreciate all you nice people that much more.

:)

[beam me up scottie]

35. You're welcome.

I'm glad you can tell the difference.
:hi: