General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAttention Atheist, can you please do me a favor and listen to me.......
I'm going to be straight up honest with you all. I love you all. Most of you if not all I am going to assume are liberal and democratic just like i am, but lately I am noticing a trend that is bothering me. In the last two weeks I have had numerous Atheist just flat out insult me over my belief in god. Some of them have been down right snarky in their characterization of what I personally believe.
I'm about to reveal some personal things to you guys again so you can understand where I am coming from. I had always grown up in the church. In my family my grandmother made us go to Church every Sunday. That just simply wasn't an option in my family. In my early 20s I strayed away from church but came back when I started losing vision in both of my eyes in my early 30s. I mean understand this from my viewpoint. I am in my early 30s, facing an uncertain future, going blind in both of my eyes. Then the unthinkable happens, I lose my job, my insurance and struggling to find insurance that would cover me for the cataract surgery I needed. I did the only thing I knew how to do when i got in trouble, I turned to the bible and I turned back to god. I started praying every day for him to find some way for me to save my eye sight. For weeks I prayed for a solution and one day it worked, I found an insurance provider that gave me the coverage I needed. But it was too late, I lost my left eye to a cataract but thankfully they were able to save my right eye.
I returned to the church at that point and recommitted my life to god. Going to church gave me the confidence I really needed to get back into the swing of things. You have to understand I was facing depression at that time. I was very conscious about what people thought of me. I mean in my mind, you have a grown man holding another man's arm in public. The way people thought of me was always in the back of my mind. So after talking to momma, a few others I was close with, I turned to God again and I started praying for clarification and direction and he sent my good buddy over who forced me to come out of my shell and start trusting people again. God once again answered my prayer and gave me the strength I needed.
In 2010 which I would arguably say was the worst year of my life. I say that because hat year, routine blood work detected some leukemic cells in my blood. Thus for 30 days, I was in pure fear. I went to my church and asked them all to pray for me. Cancer has already taken both my grandfathers my other grandmother, and my uncle so naturally I felt like it was going to come for me as well. My faith and my prayer life got me the results I wanted, I dodged a bullet. But that year, my health got worse, In August I had two falls. One at home, one at church and in November when we had family and friends day, I had a very public fall at my church. After paying on it, I made the painful decision to come home after 14 wonderful years in Louisville, Kentucky,
Now I bet you are wondering why am I telling you this. It's simple. I know a lot of you don't believe in god and I respect that but at the same time, it does you no good to come to people like me who depend on that faith and who always pray for others when they ask for it even when they don't believe. I know a lot of you are laughing at me and I get that, but at the same time you will never have me come and insult you because you don't believe. All I'm asking you as liberals is that you respect my right to believe after all, aren't we all supposed to be open minded?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Deadshot
(384 posts)
Throd
(7,208 posts)Atheist is not a synonym for asshole.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 6, 2015, 03:38 PM - Edit history (1)
Logical
(22,457 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)He favors any one over the others. He accepts and loves them all. Have I any way of proving
the above? Not to your satisfaction, I don't think, regardless of what I say. Your mind is made
up. It's probably right for you at this time. I was an agnostic for 40 years.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)Einstein couldn't believe that there could be such order throughout the entire universe,
without there being also some Supreme Intelligence present to sustain it. He followed
no particular religion.
Maybe I could tell you something about near-death experiences: Some 50, 60 years
ago, when someone was clinically dead, few ever came back to life again. Today,
because of improved resuscitation methods, it has become a common thing. In this
country alone, there are over a million people who have been brought back to life after
their breathing and heart-beats had stopped, their irises dilated, and their electro-
encephalograms (EEGs) flat-lined (signifying brain-death).
Among the survivors some 8% have such stories to tell of what they had seen and
experienced when they were clinically dead. Now it's becoming more accepted, but
half a century ago, few of them said anything to anyone. In the first place, they,
themselves, could hardly believe what they had experienced. Many thought they
were going crazy, and they certainly were not going to tell others,, because these
were surely going to think them crazy, too. But a few did tell, and of course, they
were thought to be hallucinating....etc..... Today, few experienced surgeons haven't
come across such cases. Most of them remain non-believers, but they can't find any
rational explanations for the astounding things their surviving patients could and did
tell them either.
And this has been happening all over the world. Beginning 30 to 40 years ago, some
people, including scientists, became curious and interested enough to start studying
these cases seriously and systematically. Foundations sprang up -- some of them
became not only large, but also international. I will leave a couple of links below.
But first, I'll briefly give you an example of what a near-death experiencer had told,
and which I found highly impressive:
A born-blind female patient was on the operating table undergoing abdominal
surgery. Suddenly her heart stopped, as did her breathing. The doctors and
nurses worked quickly to resuscitate her. Then her EEG flat-lined. They kept
working feverishly on her. The resuscitation efforts lasted several minutes.
Then the patient revived.
From what the patient told the medical personnel later: She felt herself pop out
of and rise from her body. She saw her own body on the operating table, and the
doctors and nurses working on it, and heard what they were saying to each other.
Oddly enough she was feeling peaceful and calm, and there was no pain. She
remained floating at the ceiling watching all that was going on below. Then she
suddenly felt herself being drawn down towards and into her body again, and knew
nothing more until she awoke in the Intensive Care Unit. She was still blind.
The doctors and nurses she spoke to later were incredulous. How could she have
seen and heard all the things she did when she was unconscious and under general
anesthesia, in addition to having been born blind, and was still blind? Yet there was
no denying that what she had reported about what the medical personnel were
saying to each other was quite accurate. They could find no scientific explanation.
Those who believe in the existence of God, of course, believe that the patient was
seeing and hearing what her soul was seeing and hearing.
The above case had only a brief experience. Those souls who had deeper experiences
had more information to give of what they had experienced while on "the other side."
Here are the links of the International Association for Near-Death Studies and the
Near-Death Experience Research Foundation:
http://www.iands.org
http://www.nderf.org
Logical
(22,457 posts)But I think it is mostly wishful thinking or want to make money off a book or movie.
Read about the AWARE studies.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)on NDERF, and also something of the Scientific discussions. There are both pros and cons.
Believe me, it's not all one-sided.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)tricks on itself.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)an oxygen-starved brain give sight to someone who was born blind? And she
remained blind when she recovered consciousness in the ICU.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)Is it really outside of the bounds of her imagination?
Cal33
(7,018 posts)to each other during the time when she was clinically dead were incredulous that what
she had seen them do and what they were saying to each other was true and accurate.
They were astounded and could give no scientific explanation for it.
Were all of them imagining things too?
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)or heaven, or even the supernatural.
Silent3
(15,178 posts)...not in the sense of a deity who created that order. It's a very abstract, poetic use of the word, having nothing to do with some imagined entity who answers prayers, has a "plan" for either you or the universe, etc.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 9, 2015, 12:36 PM - Edit history (1)
each his own. But Einstein was quite clear about what he had meant when he spoke of a
Supreme Intelligence sustaining such order throughout the entire universe.
Silent3
(15,178 posts)...since "intelligence" would imply personality, will, and/or intention. His idea of God is an abstraction, an impersonal force, not something self-aware.
On 24 April 1929, Einstein cabled Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in German: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein#Personal_god_and_the_afterlife
Cal33
(7,018 posts)they eat is being digested, the chemical and other laws involved, or how they grow physically
when they are young. Yet it is happening in and to them. Call it Universal Intelligence operating
in them without their knowing anything about it at all. All they have to do is to eat, and the rest
will happen automatically, whether they think about it or not.
Here's a link that is similar to yours. I've only read the portion on Einstein. I will read about
Hawking and Darwin later.
Einstein was a Deist, a believer in God. He did not follow any of the other dogmas and doctrines
made by man and contained in all religions. He cannot and does not describe the attributes of God.
Some religions do.
http://evoillusion.org/einsteins-thoughts/
Silent3
(15,178 posts)As far as I can tell, Einstein only rejected the term "atheist" because he, perhaps suffering from the same prejudices about the word many others do, associated the word with having no sense of wonder and awe about the mysteries of the universe, with absolute denial of the existence of a deity of any sort (as opposed to mere lack of belief in one), and with uncharitable attitudes toward religion (which, while common among atheists, aren't part of the definition of atheism).
The latter is somewhat ironic, since Einstein used words like "naive" and "childlike" to describe very common (perhaps the most common) views of God.
If we're going to call Einstein's views "Deism", it's a form of Deism that consists mostly of a love for the poetic flare of the word "God" and a desire not to be associated with negative perceptions of atheism. I'll give you that you have shown me a use of the word "intelligence" by Einstein in association with the concept of God of which I had been unaware, but even there, especially in context of all else Einstein has said on the subject, it seems again a poetic use of a word, meant to convey Einstein's appreciation for a deep beauty and complexity that he felt he only dimly grasp and understand.
For all but the most abstracted "believers", looking to Einstein for some sense of validation for their own beliefs, or putting Einstein forward as an example to show that this really smart man was a believer "just like" they are believers too, is either a terrible misunderstanding of what Einstein has said about God, or just desperation.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)the contrary, it may imply that we know only very little of God, and descriptions of Him
might only help to place limitations on what He is really like.
One thing that those who have had deep near-death experiences and have met the Light
all say, is that they have never felt such incredible love from the Light anywhere on earth,
and that it was impossible to describe. Some, who have gone even deeper, say that this
love was "unconditional." Human love wants love in return. God's love for us is just there.
Whether an individual loves Him back or not, or even acknowledges His existence, doesn't
change it in the least.
bvf
(6,604 posts)After all, there are lots of people (and I mean lots) who would disagree with you.
Are they fools, or what?
Cal33
(7,018 posts)bother me in the least if there were more than one God.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)what good does it do for you?
Cal33
(7,018 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Yes.
The one made up in your mind based on ancient superstitions.
And that is why...
"there are hundreds of ways of believing in Him. "
Cal33
(7,018 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 9, 2015, 07:37 AM - Edit history (1)
happened to me, and I became an agnostic for 40 years.
Then I began to gradually change. Having a physical body that is
able to think, feel, reason, love, make choices ..... and become
nothing again after a few decades made me feel that there was no
meaning to life, to having existed -- none at all.
Today I follow no particular religion, but I do have a philosophy of life
which might be described as a type of spirituality.
There are no dogmas and no doctrines. We only accept what resonates
within ourselves. The reason is this: What resonates within us is what
we are ready to accept at that particular time. We each are at some
level of spiritual development. At age 20 I thought differently from the
time I was 10. At 40 I thought differently from the time I was 20, etc...
The same thing applies spiritually. We are all growing and continue
changing at our own pace -- hopefully for the better. We come across
new ideas every now and then. What we might not accept today, we
could very well accept another time. Unlike fear-based religious sects,
there are no threats of any kind -- ever. Love is the important thing.
This appeals to me, even though I fail at it frequently. It sure beats hate.
The above attitude has given me more peace of mind than I have known
in the past. I'm satisfied with it.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)But there are no gods because there is no supernatural anything. Have never believed in any of it, even as a kid. The very idea of a "spiritual" aspect to ones life comes from the wrong ancient guess that you have a soul that functions separately from your body. You don't.
And all the mental gymnastics doesn't change that.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)of ours is change.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Well, I've been going thru it since I was 8. I'll be 59 in Nov.
It's not a "stage". 
So condescending!
Cal33
(7,018 posts)Silent3
(15,178 posts)...where you fancy yourself some sort of authority on "stages", and which way through those stages constitutes "progression" or "growth".
I guess progress is defined, purely coincidentally of course, by the sequence you've followed.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)sort of authority on "stages", and which way through those stages constitutes "progression"
or "growth".
C: Perhaps I used the wrong word. I hope this will explain more clearly what I meant by
"stage": I was born into a religious family and had gone to parochial school all the way.
As a child I was quite religious myself. In my teens I began to have serious doubts about
some of the doctrines and dogmas that we were taught, as did quite a few of my classmates,
and we started having discussions among ourselves.
In my case, by about age 17 I had more or less become an agnostic, along with some of
my classmates. But as long as I lived at home I continued going to church. When I began
living on my own a few years later, I simply left the church. Let's call this "Stage 1." I
described the above very briefly, of course, but it took a long time before the guilt, anxiety and
fear came to rest. I've since then heard of the following: "Grab them when they're young.
When you've got them convinced, you've got them for life."
I remained an agnostic for nearly 40 years when I began to think differently again. It occurred
to me that I could have been throwing out the baby together with the bath-water. Why not
keep the baby and throw out just the water? And this was what I did. Let's call it "Stage 2."
I used the word "stage" to indicate each time that I had made a very serious change in my
life. These changes were made based on the experiences I had in my life. And each one of us,
as individuals, have had experiences that differ from person to person.
You make it sound as though I believed that we all go through the same experiences, and
consequently the same "stages" through life. I do nothing of the kind. I believe different
problems require different solutions. And even one and the same problem can usually be
resolved in more than one way only.
As for "growth" and "progression", one can grow better or worse, or not at all. The same thing
applies to progression. All of these three ways have been and are still happening with me.
Do you think I am being authoritative in what I have written here so far? If so, that's
your problem. I am merely telling you something about myself, and here and there also
giving you my opinion. You can take it or leave it.
S: I guess progress is defined, purely coincidentally of course, by the sequence you've followed
C: The sequence I have followed is particular to my life alone. The same thing applies to
everyone else's.
Silent3
(15,178 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 19, 2015, 10:38 PM - Edit history (1)
...I was saying that you make it sound a whole lot like you consider some "stages" to be more advanced than others -- and that an advancing order is the order you followed. First you wisely threw away all that silly dogma, then you wisely realized that you threw away too much, implying that you've now gained something you think atheists and agnostics are missing.
Frankly, I'd rather deal with someone saying it flat out that they think they've learned something others are missing than get this condescending talk about "stages". (Please note another poster thought you sounded condescending too, so it's not just me.)
A common response I'd expect at this point, from previous conversations of this nature with others, is that you'll be tempted to play up the "particular to my life" bit, but that only leads to very loose and sloppy epistemology -- something I won't get into unless I have to.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Believing in reality over ancient superstitions is NOT A STAGE.
Got it.
Stop lecturing me like you're some magical know-it-all guru!
Jesus!
Cal33
(7,018 posts)that you haven't changed. You haven't gone through it. So you're still in it. I meant
it to be funny. Did you see the "Smiley" at the end of the sentence?
It didn't turn out to be funny, after all. Sorry about that. (Please also read post #369,
which is 2 lines above this one. It explains what I meant by "stage."
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)
BigDemVoter
(4,149 posts)We don't want to drive everybody who disagrees with us out. We don't want to become like the Ass Clown Repig Party. A liberal is a liberal, regardless of religion.
I admit that I don't want religion forced down my throat, but that isn't the case here. People have the right to their religious opinions.
On edit: Typically the creationist/deniers of evolution are repigs anyway.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)or are you just going to mock me because I believe?
Deadshot
(384 posts)Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)You don't want to listen to us. It's your way or the highway.
Deadshot
(384 posts)I have a problem with people forcing their religion onto others
I have a problem with religion being used to legislate how science is taught in classrooms.
I have a problem with how religion is used in politics.
I have a problem with people who may otherwise be rational, choose to believe in a magic sky fairy.
Above all, I have a problem with people telling me how I should/shouldn't think on a particular subject.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)vast majority are decent and don't do such things. Why have your opinion
of a whole group based on the behavior of a minority of them? Of course,
there are cults that are extremist in their views, but you'll find fanatics
not only in religion, politics is another field where they can be found.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Are they?
Maybe so.... but the "others" do enough harm for all of the supporters of ancient superstitions.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)Smarter than everyone who has a religious faith?
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)Maybe you are the problem.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)If you don't want your beliefs discussed, don't discuss your beliefs.
Response to Deadshot (Reply #56)
d_r This message was self-deleted by its author.
MADem
(135,425 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)
phylny
(8,375 posts)and here at DU and elsewhere I basically disregard people who ridicule me because of my faith. What they think doesn't define me at all. I don't try to force my beliefs on anyone else, I don't need to defend my beliefs, and wouldn't dream of discriminating against anyone due to my faith.
In addition, I would never belittle someone for their thoughts on religion, be they an Atheist, Agnostic, Jew, Muslim, Pastafarian (hope I spelled that right!) or whatever.
People show their true character when they ridicule others.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)
st17011864200074656
(190 posts)The fundamental teaching of Christianity is that all people are sinners because, in the beginning, a talking snake convinced the first woman to eat a magical piece of fruit, that she was commanded not to eat, and she in turn convinced the first man to eat it, y'know original sin?
Because of that act, every human being is cursed and bound for Hell and we deserve it merely because we exist and are cursed; that curse making us not only do evil things, but only wanting to do evil things.
The only way to avoid the consequence of Hell is to accept Jesus as our savior, which does not make us better people, but only allows us to escape the punishment we deserve.
It is so frustrating to see that compassionate liberal people believe that I am going to Hell because I do not subscribe to their religous predilections, and that they believe I deserve it.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Or, God's Top 10 Life Hacks 
sarisataka
(18,539 posts)consider yourself mocked.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)and I say this as an agnostic.
I see no benefit in mocking anyone's beliefs - short of making yourself feel superior.
The position of an Atheist is to not ascribe magical explanations for things until sufficient evidence is produced to prove it.
It is provable that there is not enough evidence to prove the existence of God.
rug
(82,333 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Without being able to define the evidence, the test, you find no evidence. Therefore there is no God.
It's an argument that falls right out of the gate.
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)And none of the tests anyone has come up with point to God's existence.
It's simply not true that tests haven't been defined.
rug
(82,333 posts)WestCoastLib
(442 posts)Tell god to strike you down and see if he does.
There have been tons of people throuout the ages that have tried to test for god's existence in a multitude of ways, from trying to invoke his direct action, to logical proofs, to searching for physical evidence in the cosmos.
None have ever produced anything that points to his existence.
rug
(82,333 posts)WestCoastLib
(442 posts)It's just not a test that would produce the results you want.
rug
(82,333 posts)I can't even imagine a rational hypothesis for that test.
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)That's the point of a test. I don't assume that he would. The outcome of that test leads to 2 possible conclusions.
1. There is no god
2. If there is a god, he cant or won't strike people down on command
And that's the point that I made above. There have been thousands of different tests done and none have come back with "there is a god"
rug
(82,333 posts)That is the third of several possibilities.
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)If I were struck by lightning. We would try again with multiple subjects and see what the percentage of people that were struck by light ing was and if were seeing a higher percentage than would be expected in normal conditions.
rug
(82,333 posts)Good luck on getting volunteers to be struck by lightning.
sarisataka
(18,539 posts)and I simply walk away, I don't exist?
Then again maybe I don't exist...
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)just produce any evidence for the existence of your gods.
sarisataka
(18,539 posts)Not that I can produce a miracle any more than I can produce a supernova on demand.
For me, looking at the universe, watching children plau and eating a grape is proof. I choose to believe and that is enough.
Why are we here, why is life often difficult, why are so many bad things and people allowed to be- I don't know. I intend to ask when I get the chance.
I have the proof I need. You may accept or reject it as you wish.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)If they are testable, lets test them. People have tried. They've found nothing. Look if you think that the grand mystery of it all is "god" that's fine. I think that reality is awe inspiring too. But that is not generally what people, most people, the vast majority of believers mean when they talk about god. They mean an active entity with strict moral codes who demands obedience, rewards those who do as *HE* says, and punishes miscreants in horrible ways. That is the sort of god I want proof for.
sarisataka
(18,539 posts)Omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. To test that is as futile as determining the exact number of infinity or the final digit of pi.
We have a wonderful reality that follows the rule of science so we can study, understand and enjoy it. As I look at the description of Creation in Genesis as allegory I find virtually bo conflict between science and religion.
I believe there is reward and punishment in the afterlife. I don't think they are limited to Christians. I don't know the exact criteria for either. Is Hitler burning in hell, is Mother Theresa sipping iced tea at the foot of God's throne? I cannot say. (and I find the concept of iced tea in heaven more plausible than a bearded guy who always has his butt planted on a golden chair)
Does God intervene in our daily lives? I think so but far more subtly than most think.
Maybe God put that dollar on the sidewalk next to the soda machine when you were thirsty; maybe He miraculously removed the cancer from the child in Guatemala that you read about.
Or maybe someone across the street dropped the dollar and the wind blew it there. Maybe the diagnosis was wrong and the child didn't have cancer.
So if you choose you can thank God for the dollar and pray he cures your cancer. Just drink the soda on the way to your chemotherapy and don't forget to buckle up. Faith should not be the same as complacent stupidity and sometimes the answer to a prayer is "No".
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)So if The Deity has the power to remove cancer, why did The Deity allow/cause cancer in the first place, and cause/allow other children to die horrible cancer deaths and other deaths?
Your god is a sociopath. Good thing there is zero evidence that it actually exists.
sarisataka
(18,539 posts)Bigots to exist? Same answer- I don't know.
Why do you take a butterfly from your house and release it but smash a spider and flush it down the toilet? Are you a sociopath?
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Funny how people who disagree with beliefs in mythology are called "bigots" and "haters." Would you call a religious person who knocks on my door to tell me I'm wrong for and going to burn in hell a "hater" or a "bigot"? Is it only okay to express "deeply held beliefs" if those beliefs are based on supernatural mythology?
sarisataka
(18,539 posts)For believing in the wrong sky fairy and what I believe is sociopathic... Damn right I'd call them a bigot. The same way I describe the idiots from Westboro and others there are intolerant of non-believers as bigots.
If a person cannot express their "deeply held (non?) belief" without ridiculing all others of their "deeply held (non?) belief" they may wish to consult Webster
big·ot
\ˈbi-gət\
noun
:a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)the misery in the world -- dead children, people suffering horrible diseases, earthquakes and tsunamis taking out entire populations, etc. -- how can you conclude anything other than this creature that you revere is a murderous sociopath? If you start form the premise that this supernatural being pulls strings, what else would you call something that causes/allows such suffering on this planet?
sarisataka
(18,539 posts)and it is very poor is an ant farm. You set it up and let it go; the ants live their lives with minimal intervention from you.
We are the ants in this case, pretty much on our own. As to why is it that way? I'm sure the ants have the same question but the ants are far more likely to understand us. We at least are in the same frame of reference.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Now it just sets things going and steps back. Up thread it was disappearing baby cancer. When confronted by the problems with an active interventionist omnipotent creator god, you've redefined its attributes.
sarisataka
(18,539 posts)I have given analogies and hypotheticals for illustrative purposes. It seems some are unable to grasp that and can only take everything literally. The inability to think in the abstract will seriously compromise understanding of complex ideas.
I have encountered hateful bible-thumpers who cannot grasp that they could be wrong about the smallest detail of their understanding. They are absolutely intolerant of anyone who dares to question them or the temerity to have a different belief.
The OP asked "All I'm asking you as liberals is that you respect my right to believe after all, aren't we all supposed to be open minded?" That answer is clear.
I will reiterate another comment by the OP that I believe- "I know a lot of you are laughing at me and I get that, but at the same time you will never have me come and insult you because you don't believe."
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)Apparently god only fixes after the fact, he doesn't deal in prevention. How strange is that?
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)And that person invariably thanks God and believes s/he was "chosen" because the supreme ruler of the universe has a "special reason" for this person to keep on living, otherwise, why send/allow a tornado or a flood or what have you?...Those other dead un-special schmucks? Well, sucks to be them. Or it did suck, until they got wiped out at God's discretion.
Utter nonsense.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I've personally never seen somebody that devastated. Your omniscient omnipotent God forgot to save that baby. Maybe not so omniscient? Or instead not omnipotent? If neither, if in fact all knowing and all powerful, allows awful things to happen to innocents. That would make your omni God evil. Or, more simply- nonexistent.
Bettie
(16,083 posts)It is devastating and what makes it even more devastating is when people say "it's all part of God's plan".
So, the religious folk, by way of trying to be comforting, are saying "yeah, God hates you so much that he chose to inflict this pain that will never fully heal on you". I'm still not sure how that is supposed to comfort anyone. Then, they follow up with "your child is with God now".
So, the child who was taken from me by this god of yours is now with him...and this is supposed to be comforting?
So sorry about your friends' loss. There is nothing worse than losing a child.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)whenever it suits them. it is a dishonest line of argument.
Marr
(20,317 posts)The evidence around us pretty much dismisses the existence of the Christian god. For instance, how do you reconcile the torture/murder of children in a world created and inhabited by a god that is all knowing, all powerful and all good? He cannot be all three of those things and allow the sorts of things we see every week.
This is generally where people of faith say you 'can't know the mind of god', but that's just bullshit. Faith is all about claiming to know the mind of god; what he wants of you, how he feels about you, etc., etc. Christians claim to know god's mind on everything from sexual positions to tax policy, so he can't be that damned inscrutable.
rug
(82,333 posts)Epicurus framed it 2400 years ago. No one has said it better since then.
The strongest argument against the concept of God is philosophical, not scientific. There is no experiment designed to test the hypothesis of God. I'd love to see the parameters from one who claims there is a valid experiment.
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)There is no experiment designed to test the hypothesis of God. I'd love to see the parameters from one who claims there is a valid experiment.
We need you to define all of the parameters of the God you wish to "test" for. We can certainly test and/or observe that certain gods do not exist as defined.
We can see that the God Helios does not drive the Sun around the Sky in a Chariot, for example, and we know that Atlas does not hold up the Earth (nor is it stationary with gravity pulling it "down" requiring it to be held in place).
We have tested and observed many times over that the various gods of the world do not exist in the terms of the parameters as have been defined by those that describe them. However, as our collective knowledge increases, believers simply push the goalposts back to put their god(s) into those spaces that are still unknown to us.
rug
(82,333 posts)The conventional description:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
Have at it. Describe the experiment to test for omniscience.
I'll give you Xenu but the rebuttal to this concept of God can only be philosophical.
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.
That definition fails direct observation...The argument that it's philosophical argument at this point doesn't hold water.
omniscience, omnipotence & omnibenevolence are directly countered by what we see.
The "test" is simple.
Hypothesis: God is omniscient, omnipotent & omnibenevolent
Test: Find "badness" in the world?
Result: Hypothesis fails.
rug
(82,333 posts)That is a philosophical argument, not an evidentiary or scientific one.
To hold something can not be because it is not something we see is neither philosophy nor science.
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)Just because it's one piece from an old philosopher doesn't make it philosophy.
This is based in direct observation.
The only way to twist it otherwise is to completely deny the meaning of the words. In actuality, many religious peoples do not claim their God to be omnibenevolent. There are plenty, even today, that claim a vengeful god, so really I don't even think it should be used as "the definition" as it probably doesn't encompass the majority's take on their god.
And, admittidly, it would be difficult to think of a test that could test for a God that was omniscient & omnipotent, but not omnibenevolent, however, if you are using a definition that includes omnibenevolent along with omniscient & omnipotent, then that does fail direct observation...It's not just philosophy.
rug
(82,333 posts)He said:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
You said:
"Hypothesis: God is omniscient, omnipotent & omnibenevolent
Test: Find "badness" in the world?
Result: Hypothesis fails. "
The original is much better.
So, what does omniscience look like?
I understand you don't like the concept at all. But that is not a license to claim it is subject to scientific proof.
Alas, it is indeed philosophy.
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)As you are trying to do here.
rug
(82,333 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)I am not a believer btw
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)Nowhere did I say anything about belief or anything that requires belief
DrDan
(20,411 posts)Was the earth flat until it was proven not to be flat?
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)Please read my quote again. Here it is:
"The position of an Atheist is to not ascribe magical explanations for things until sufficient evidence is produced to prove it. "
You seem to have a lack of understanding on what Atheism is. Nowhere did I claim that god doesnt exist because there is no evidence of proof. I said that I would not accept a magical explaination for something without sufficient evidence.
To answer your posed question, it wouldn't change the fact that the earth is a sphere, however, it would have been a relatively reasonable assumption to make that it was flat until sufficient evidence was presented that pointed to it's spherical nature.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)WestCoastLib
(442 posts)Like many people, you are confusing belief with lack of belief. They are wholly different.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
btw - I did not make up that definition of an atheist.
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)and it wasn't lost on me that you edited it before posting.
"In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists."
You chose to edit out "in a narrower sense" and only use the second half of the first sentence of the definition.
But that particular definition is simply wrong. Lack of belief is not belief.
Imagine if you will somebody born alone on an island. That person was never told about a god and has no concept of what the idea even means.
This person lacks a belief in god. It doesn't require him to believe anything at all. There's just nothing there. He doesn't believe "there is no god". He doesn't even think about it.
The absence of belief in god from an Atheist is the same. The only difference is that we have a concept of what god is, because we've been told. However, we haven't been told anything that is realistic enough to warrant putting any more stock in than the lone islander.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)An atheist, on the one hand, believes that there is no God. Etymologically, the word means "not, or no God." In the atheist camp you can have a wide variety of reasons for their denial as well as differing levels of certainty. Some will deny emphatically that there is a God and claim to have "proof" of God's non-existence. Other's will simply say they do not believe there is a God though they could not prove God does not exist. The common denominator is that they do not believe in God.
Agnosticism is not a belief system as atheism is; rather, it is a theory of knowledge. Etymologically, it means, "not, or no knowledge." An agnostic is someone who believes human beings simply cannot know anything metaphysical or beyond the physical realm; therefore, they cannot know whether things like spirit, angels or God exist at all.
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)So, as an agnostic, do you believe that it's possible that our universe is actually just the tip of the penis of a very large Pirate?
Now that you have heard this theory, does it require you to actively "believe" that it is not true? Or can you just not accept this theory due to the fact that there is no worthy evidence presented about it other than my word?
Why should the belief in God be treated any differently Simply because more people believe it?
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)Neither theory has tested particularly well, scientifically speaking-- yet life exists. It is not rare on earth. It is ubiquitous. The very origin of life is no where near being proven scientifically either. I see the existence of a God who somehow breathed life into existence and then manipulated it through evolution as no less a plausible theory than the primordial soup theory.
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)While it's true that we have not been able to create life itself out of inorganic materials, there have been plenty of tests that have shown we could create the building blocks of life, in the form of amino acids that when combined in sufficient fashion are the very same materials that make up organic life.
Now the primordeal soup theory vey well might not be how life was created on this planet, but The idea that that isn't more plausible than "tada..magic" is simply ludicrous.
With that said, it's also a non-sequiter, because the absence of believe in a magic god doesn't require one to believe in any particular scientific theory on the creation of life, the universe and everything.
What we know is that for tens of thousands of years people have been ascribing the unexplained to the work of their gods. That's where the term "the god of the unknown" comes from. And for just as long human discovery has managed to learn more about these mysteries and one by one proven to find the natural cause of these mysteries to be explainable and NOT the work of a magic god.
So, while it's true that there are still many mysteries out there that we don't know, it's a very poor bet, to think that any of these are more likley to be the work of the gods, when we eventually uncover the underlying nature of them, than any of the mysteries of the past.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)We can barely create a nitrogenous base in the laboratory via the primordial soup or its derivative theories, let alone a complete protein. To have a living organism, we would need to be able to create multiple proteins, then fine a way for them to join, and finally develop a synergy that results in metabolism as an active metabolism is a general requirement to be considered alive. It is why viruses are not considered living things.
The conundrum deepens when you look at the ubiquitousness of life here on earth. It literally covers everything. The deepest ocean to the highest mountain peak. We even have life living on life in the form of mites, and yet again via bacteria. Bottom line - with the sheer volume of life on earth, it should be easy to re-create in a laboratory. In fact, it should be easier since we can control the conditions. It also begs the question why is not still occurring on earth today? Please give me an example of a biochemical reaction that stops? Why is new life (not evolution, but new life creation from primal ingredients) not occurring today? It makes no sense. This only happens when the raw ingredients are used up - but they are very abundant on earth.
The bottom line is that something incredible happened at one point in time that no longer occurs. The scientific explanation is not very good so quit pretending that we understand it all. We don't.
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)Again, as I said, we haven't created life. We've created many of the compounds that life is made out of.
And again, the idea that it's just as likely that magic is the answer, rather than there being an explainable solution that is based in a physical understanding of the universe that is possible to learn is beyond ludicrous. That statement in itself shows a complete lack of understanding of what the term "just as likely is"
Here's your choices.
1. A theory based for which experiments based on it have created a tiny fraction of the ingredients that make up life.
2. Magic, for which there is not a single documented, observable case, of occurring anywhere in the universe.
Your statement that both are equally likely is utter horseshi!t.
In fact, the ability to recreate the conditions in of the primordial soup theory, doesn't do anything to change that it is more likely than magic. And for that matter any single other theory that is based on what we have learned and have observed of the universe is also more likely than magic.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)You better stick to philosophy because your biochemistry is hopeless. We cannot make anything more than a simple peptide let alone a polypeptide. We cannot create enzymes or even simple membranes.
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)You are wrong, but it really doesn't matter, because it's still just a non-sequitur and it's the problem with the whole idea of creationism in the first place. They spend their time attacking hypotheses that are most certainly not meant to be "settled science", trying to state that the idea of magic should be placed into the spaces that are the current unknown areas of our knowledge.
The idea of "well, you can't tell me how ______ happened with science, so magic is just as likely" is complete horsesh!t". At best you are being intellectually dishonest. If you really believe it, then that's even more problematic and it's not even worthy of discussion.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)I am very familiar with the Miller Urey experiment. He was able to produce amino acids, about 20 individual amino acids NOT peptides.
The simplest protein of life, rybonuclease consists of 124 linked together.
You don't understand the chemistry yet you argue with chemist. Sigh....
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)Whatever your chemistry background is, you clearly don't understand the argument, or what has been said.
You claimed we couldn't produce amino acids...now you say we did...
If your claim is that we don't know how you could or would get to "life" from the ingredients that were created, that is true. If your claim is that scientists have serious doubts that the primordial soup theory is how life got here, that would be true as well. And I never argued anything other than that.
What isn't true is that magic is a more likely possibility.
Say, we have experiments that can get .00000000000000000000000008% of the way there.
or
We have magic with a 0% existence in our universe.
It doesn't matter how minuscule the possibility of the primordial soup theory is, it's greater than zero, based on what we know.
Based on what we know, that magic is the answer is not greater than zero.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)I said we can barely produce a base, let alone a complete peptide, which is a pretty true statement. You keep on keeping on though Hoss.
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)Here's my quote.
"there have been plenty of tests that have shown we could create the building blocks of life, in the form of amino acids"
Here's your response
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7149160
"No, we cannot replicate anything close to that in any laboratory test."
So, how about you go find anywhere in which I argued we could create anything other than amino acids.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)Your argument was that there were MANY laboratory tests that produced amino acids that were combined to form the building blocks of life. I that is not true. No experiment has produced peptides let alone poly peptides.
That is a complete crap statement and you offer up as truth ONE experiment that really shows nothing. Not MANY, one
Furthermore, in that experiment only about two percent of the raw compounds formed ANYTHING. It translates poorly into real world scenarios.
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)Classic creationist tactic of wasting time trying to poke hole in theories that some basis in observable & measurable processes, in an attempt to prop up an idea that has none.
The problem with your argument isn't one of being unable to make the biochemistry of that theory problematic...it is. The problem is that any theory that is based on observable and measurable reality is more likely than one that is not.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)20 amino acids out of over 500 possible and you claim he made the building blocks of life. Classic non scientist taking a little experiment and trying to extrapolate it in ways it should not be.
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)Yes, exactly. He created 20 out of a possible 500 with an experiment. It's crazy that you think that a theory that has shown with an experiment on earth that could create 4% of the amino acids that make up life is less likely than magic.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Deadshot
(384 posts)Are Bernie supporters supposed to tolerate religion?
I must have missed that somewhere. I don't remember reading that in Bernie's political platform.
I have empathy for the poor, the sick, and the downtrodden, not for people's stupid beliefs.
H2O Man
(73,524 posts)100%.
cali
(114,904 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)that are different than yours, just like a fundie! Atheism *isn't* a religion, has no organization and doesn't try to impose it's (lask of) beliefs on anyone else. Live and let live!
Peace,
Ghost
Deadshot
(384 posts)I'm sure Kim Davis shares the same sentiments.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)Now she thinks she's playing the role of "persecuted christian" when the reality is that she is playing the role of "jailed Government Official who refused to uphold the oath of office she was sworn it to, so she is in Contempt of Court Orders".
Peace within, Peace between, Peace among... may *everyone* experience that one day...
Ghost
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)Latino supporters, who -- among the various groups of the Democratic party -- have the strongest affiliations with religion.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Also a very good way to win people to your way of thinking. Mockery is a great way to win people over.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)Others no. It depends what you hope to accomplish with the mockery. Generally, mockery is not the best way to change people's minds though and a lot of people just deserve some simple respect if they are not harming anybody with their belief.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Without religion, magic-thinking would be difficult to propagate.
Throd
(7,208 posts)TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)
mackerel
(4,412 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)I think that Live And Let Live is a good philosophy.
I can't understand why more people don't practice it.
If you're not bothering me, or being mean to anyone, and your particular way of getting through life works for you, more power to you.
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)and I think that's what's frustrating me over this whole debate. People want us to support them in their goals and their beliefs but when it comes to those of us who aren't using religion to profit we're mocked and ridiculed and treated like dirt.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's why the safe haven INTERFAITH group was created here at DU--it's for positive and polite interactions, only. People who get all shitty and mean aren't welcome in that group.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1264
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)So long as you do not hurt people or things, it doesn't matter what you believe or don't believe. People find all sorts of ways to being.
Insults aren't necessary.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)That's exactly what I think.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)disagree, argue, debate . . . ok - but to mock is juvenile
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Well, ~some~ Republican beliefs anyway.
At this point if you still believe in Voodoo economics or abstinence only sex education you should be thoroughly mocked.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)If you say that it's because political beliefs have real world consequences -- well, so do religious beliefs. Ask your gay friends. Ask women around the world who can't get contraception or have a needed abortion. Ask scientists who can't get funding for important projects deemed contrary to a primitive mythology from a goatherding culture of 2,000 years ago.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)So long as you do not hurt people or things, it doesn't matter what you believe or don't believe.
Your examples hurt people and things and of course should be spoken up about and worked against.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)I hope nobody here challenges your right to believe in a deity, follow a religion, attend a church, etc. Yes, some will call you foolish for believing, and that's an unwarranted personal attack. The only objection we (atheists) might have, is if you advocate using the authority of the state to impose religious beliefs on your fellow citizens. You don't sound like the sort of person who would do that, so I think it's safe to say we (atheists) have no beef with you, and we wish you well.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I have no problem with the religious if it helps them get by. As long as they don't try to make everyone else live by their rules. It's those who feel the need to impose their religious dictates upon society as a whole that I have a problem with. I know plenty of kind, loving religious people who embrace the live and let live philosophy and I respect them.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)anything even tangentially critical of religion is locked in GD immediately, but this patronizing amateur glurge with the lack of evidence typical of cheap tent revival testimony gets to stand? It's not only entirely religious with no news content but it's also meta and with suspiciously deficient grammar only when atheists (it's a regular plural so hardly a challenge, and not capitalized) are mentioned.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)with a few insults thrown in, just for fun?
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Threads about current events related to religion, and threads about church-state issues are permitted under normal circumstances.
Threads about the existence/non-existence of God, threads discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of religion in general, and threads discussing the truth/untruth of religious dogma are not permitted under normal circumstances and should be posted under Religion.
Open discussion of religion is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Threads about the existence/non-existence of God, threads discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of religion in general, and threads discussing the truth/untruth of religious dogma are not permitted under normal circumstances and should be posted under Religion.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Open discussion of religion is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.
bvf
(6,604 posts)uppityperson
(115,677 posts)I am curious
bvf
(6,604 posts)say-so in this.
Re: the SOP snippet you cited, I don't see how the OP even tangentially relates to anything in the news (including the current Kim Davis foofaraw).
It's purely personal opinion, seems to me. I might go so far as to call it witnessing, but I don't want to get started.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)And I am only 1 of 20.
bvf
(6,604 posts)And, to be honest, I have enough shitstorms to deal with in real life at the moment.
Maybe when life settles down a bit.
And I should add, thanks for your contribution as a host (even if I disagree with the decision that led to the misplaced shitstorm that is this thread).
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)
Avalux
(35,015 posts)That's the thing...to each his own. I don't give a rat's ass what you believe or what your god is called - as long as you're not trying to force me to live by it. I believe in my own truth, I know what works for me; I don't expect it to be the same for you though.
Peace.
how I feel.
I have no way of knowing if there is or is not a god. The only thing I'm personally pretty sure about is that it isn't an old white guy in a robe directing horrible things to happen to individuals.
Don't make laws to inflict your holy book's laws on society at large and we're fine.
Warpy
(111,222 posts)is that nothing looks nuttier than somebody else's religion.
Once you "get" that on a gut level, you start to be a little more tolerant of everybody else.
Newly minted atheists haven't got that yet, along with newly minted religious converts. Each will complain bitterly about the other and both sides are right about the ill feelings and snark.
So cut them a little slack. If there is something in a post that you find offensive, comment on it.
And if you're religious, it's the height of ill manners to troll the atheist group. If you're an atheist, it's just as ill mannered to troll the protected believer groups.
That is all.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I don't claim to get everything, but I don't believe in being an asshole to religious progressives if they give me space too.
Logical
(22,457 posts)believe in the dozens of other Gods, I don't believe in any.
Also, if you believe 100% in your faith, no one making fun of that should impact that.
I 100% believe in evolution, if a creationist made fun of me it would not impact my belief. You need to feel the same.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,365 posts)who had brothers and a sister who, like you, had parents that "made us go to Church every Sunday".....
Like you, I firmly believed for decades. I thought prayer actually worked and had evidence I convinced myself of.......
Here's my position:
If your faith makes you a better person, if it makes you more charitable, kinder, more giving and forgiving, if it makes or provides you a broader understanding of your fellow man and the human condition, if it brings you comfort and provides solace, .....
Then I am all for it. Goodonya and your faith and beliefs. My own mother, who passed away just over a year ago, was such a person. Her faith made her a better person.
However....
It is my long considered opinion, that for entirely too many of their adherents, the 3 faiths of the god of Abraham and Isaac do little more than teach their followers new and improved ways to HATE their fellow man.
One of the many things that made me realize I was following a path unworthy of my intellect was that, when boiled all the way down, Christianity is basically the idea that "God loves you, but if you don't love him back, he'll hurt you forever".
I don't need the baggage the religion I grew up in saddled me with to be a decent person. I don't need it to have moments of great introspection and revelation. I don't need it to come to personal epiphanies. All I need is the knowledge that love exists, that I have a rational mind and that mythical gods are just that.
Myths. And mankind has been making myths since they first noticed the stars.
truegrit44
(332 posts)said it better than I could, thank you!
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Discuss politics, issues, and current events. Posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports are restricted in this forum.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1002
This is why.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)It gets stickier when you ask DUers to stop insulting beliefs.
This is a discussion board. People's beliefs, ideas, thoughts and positions are discussed, critiqued and yes sometimes even insulted. It's par for the course at DU and I'd advise you to get tougher since the discussions can sometimes get very heated here.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 5, 2015, 04:21 PM - Edit history (1)
I'm sorry that you have gone through all your health problems. I sincerely do wish you well.
However, I don't understand why many religious people think that religious beliefs deserve special protection.
In my opinion, no beliefs do, particularly beliefs for which there is no supporting evidence.
For decades, automatic belief in an (almost always Christian) god was the presumed default belief of everybody in the country. Atheists were assumed to be a tiny, evil, and deviant part of the population. The Internet has blown that out of the water, and now there are many more openly atheist/agnostics and "nones" and so on. Just as atheist beliefs were routinely scorned and derided, so now are religious beliefs, because the Internet provides a forum for this. And I believe that is as it should be. No beliefs should be sheltered from scrutiny, IMO.
All I can say is, welcome to our world.
On edit: Are not the very familiar pro-religious propaganda tools that we have been subjected to all our lives -- such as church signs basically saying "believe or burn," billboards proclaiming that Jesus died for our sins, money that says "in God we trust," the post-Cold War Pledge of Allegiance, even people wearing crosses -- cannot those be seen as a form of mockery of atheist beliefs? We are used to putting up with these pro-religious messages. Religious people are not used to putting up with anti-religious messages. That is the difference, I think.
Response to Coolest Ranger (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
rug
(82,333 posts)
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)I am having some trouble finding it. Thanks!!
rug
(82,333 posts)You're welcome!!
bvf
(6,604 posts)I was expecting some religious "scholarship."
rug
(82,333 posts)I enjoy lectures in cultural anthropology, especially when they deal with control of the masses, and the aggrandizement of those in power.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Uh oh...
rug
(82,333 posts)Simple question. Yes or no will suffice.
Yes they are.
rug
(82,333 posts)Deadshot
(384 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Talk about a fool's errand.
Deadshot
(384 posts)There is no evidence to support that claim.
rug
(82,333 posts)"I'm not the one who believes in supernatural beings with no evidence to support their existence."
Perhaps you meant supernatural evidence.
I meant what I said.
What part is unclear to you?
rug
(82,333 posts)Doesn't make it the least bit rational - or logical.
bvf
(6,604 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Do you have a clue as to what belief you do not have? Is it a novel concept to you?
bvf
(6,604 posts)and then name one. Surely you're capable of an honest answer.
Now you can read it.
What's your answer to my question? Are you unable to define the theos you lack belief in?
when you've outgrown playground rhetoric.
You'll come to realize when that's happened.
Let me know when you can describe the supernatural concepts you reject.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Matthew 5:22 ESV / 122 helpful votes
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
Deadshot
(384 posts)LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)But we knew that already. It's a disturbing thought.
DerekG
(2,935 posts)Do you have an aversion to wisdom literature?
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 5, 2015, 06:34 PM - Edit history (1)
Yes they were in regards to religion.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 5, 2015, 06:33 PM - Edit history (1)
Anyone who has a spiritual or religious belief is a fool.
Deadshot
(384 posts) uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Deadshot
(384 posts) uppityperson
(115,677 posts) In the vast majority of cases, they were raised as such.
Some grow up, others don't. Nobody is saying it's easy to shake indoctrination that dates from the earliest days of linguistic comprehension.
Show me your god and I'll show you my unicorn.
rug
(82,333 posts)Let's be crystal clear, bvf.
bvf
(6,604 posts)I gave you an unqualified "yes."
Sound it out. Try not to move your lips.
rug
(82,333 posts)Now prove it, bvf.
Produce the evidence.
Want to look at my unicorn while you try to remember where you were in this thread?
rug
(82,333 posts)That is your claim.
You can distract with all the unicorns you want - after you prove your claim.
I think that anyone who believes in a thing which is both fantastical, and which has no evidential support whatsoever, is a bit delusional. I do try to refrain from using words like "fool" because it just isn't necessary to be hurtful towards people who, usually at least, mean well. However the difference is largely one of tone rather than content.
I am sorry to have to be blunt about this. Normally I don't care what people wish to tell themselves, but when you try to bring these beliefs into the public sphere I find it imperative to confront them. Superstition has ALWAYS manifested itself as an obstacle to human progress, and it makes little difference whether the belief is that the Earth is flat, Poseidon is angry, or that Jesus died for your sins. Beliefs without basis are harmful, even murderous things, and are antithetical to a modern civilized society.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 5, 2015, 06:33 PM - Edit history (1)
"Superstition has ALWAYS manifested itself as an obstacle to human progress". Again, MLKjr, Mandela's religion manifested as obstacles to human progress? They were "armful, even murderous things, and are antithetical to a modern civilized society"?
cali
(114,904 posts)So did many other great men and women. Who's the fool?
Response to rug (Reply #42)
Name removed Message auto-removed
rug
(82,333 posts)Do not even attempt to feign a "thoughtful exchange of ideas."
Response to rug (Reply #68)
Name removed Message auto-removed
rug
(82,333 posts)That broad brush is plain and simple raw bigotry against all believers.
Cpmpletely borne out by the balance of your post before simpering into self-pitying faux persecution.
Response to rug (Reply #111)
Name removed Message auto-removed
rug
(82,333 posts)Here's another "u" for you. You, dieter, are the one who called all believers fools. Go on, prove the truth of that bigotry or admit your trolling.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)
sarisataka
(18,539 posts)There is no omnipotent being, which could by virtue of omnipotence, conceal its existence from observation. I bet you are not.
Not to be disrespectful.
I could go on and say any one who does not believe in a God is a fool, but that is not how I think of others beliefs. It would also make the statement of not being disrespectful a lie.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)Which god, specifically, must I not believe in to be a fool?
Am I fool for not believing Zeus?
Do I need to not believe in Athena as well to be considered a fool?
If I don't believe in all the gods except one, which one do I need to choose to believe in so that I will not be considered a fool? Would a belief in Shiva work? He is, after all the "Mahadeva" or "greatest god".
Or do I need to believe in Amon Ra? Amon Ra, is, after all, "the king of the gods", so surely it must be not believing in Aman Ra that you mean when you say I would be a fool to not believe in him.
rug
(82,333 posts)Do you agree with that?
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)I guess that depends on which god that person believes in.
Is anyone who believes in the flying spaghetti monster a fool? What's your take on that?
Is anyone who believes in Amon Ra a fool? What's your take on that?
Is anyone who believes in Shiva a fool? What's your take on that? (Careful. You don't want to be calling Modern Hindus fools, do you?)
Is anyone who believes in Ganesh the elephant god, or Hanuman the monkey god a fool? What's your take on those?
So let me say that I believe in Sannō, the Japanese Shinto mountain god, and that I do not believe in the Hebrew god of the Bible. Am I a fool according to your standards?
Yes, If I believe in Sannō the Shinto mountain god, then I am a fool. If I believe in Ganesh, or Shiva, or Amon Ra, or the flying spaghetti monster, or the biblical god of Abraham, then I am a fool. I don't know how to make it any more clear. Where you would say some one is foolish for believing in any of several thousand gods, but not foolish for believing in some particular god, I take the bold step of saying that it is foolish to believe in any god. Your only problem is that after rejecting thousands of gods, you stop short of finishing the job. But you only stopped short by one god, so why not open your eyes and complete the job of becoming rational.
rug
(82,333 posts)Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)but that does not alter the fact that their religious beliefs are foolish.
If Mahatma Gandhi had believed in Hanuman, the monkey god, then as wise, and wonderful, and caring, and compassionate, and generous, and humane as he was, he still would have held foolish religious beliefs.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It cannot abide the fact that the obvious can be said here: that belief in gods is foolish, and will endlessly attempt to provoke something that he can alert on as a personal insult. It will have the last word as well.
sarisataka
(18,539 posts)who after the statement "Not to be disrespectful" goes on to say "Any one who believes in a God is a fool"
IMO you are free to believe in Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Thor, Amon-ra, Brahma, Buddha, Amaterasu, Papa Ghede or none of the above. I will not call the person a fool because everyone can present exactly the same amount of evidence that their view is correct. In the end, it all comes down to belief.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)foolish.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I, however, don't feel the need to belittle and insult others for their beliefs.
I won't be seeing any more of your posts.
/bye.
Response to Maedhros (Reply #116)
Name removed Message auto-removed
independentpiney
(1,510 posts)I haven't read any of the discussions where you feel your beliefs have been insulted by atheists. But unless you're first interjecting your beliefs into the discussions I don't see what they would have to insult. I've known many religious people, primarily christians, who aren't aware when they're starting to proselytize or assume others share their worldview. This op makes me think you may have that propensity.
And I have to ask, why would non-believers ask you to pray for them? That just really doesn't makes sense or ring true. Without going into a long story I have had several life threatening health crises in my life going back to infancy. Right now I'm waiting for cardiac test results that if they aren't good will mean another surgery. I would never ask for prayers, and were someone to tell me they were praying for me, they would probably consider my response insulting.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)"All I'm asking you as liberals is that you respect my right to believe after all, aren't we all supposed to be open minded?"
independentpiney
(1,510 posts)whether it be in abrahamic prophets, the dao, or garden fairies, as long as it does no harm. You can love the ritual and understand the mythology as mythology like Joseph Campbell did. But, I don't respect a right to interject those ideas into non-religious discussions on a secular discussion board, take it to a protected group.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)It is evident in this thread and many other places on DU. This seems a reasonable request, with a bunch of personal info/story to explain why they feel so. "All I'm asking you as liberals is that you respect my right to believe after all, aren't we all supposed to be open minded?"
Throd
(7,208 posts)uppityperson
(115,677 posts)It is too bad that some think as you say, isn't it.
independentpiney
(1,510 posts)and context of the op. I've only been on for a couple quick perusals of the latest page over the past couple days, and I've learned to pass by a lot of the nastiness, especially now that we're in the primaries again. Any thread involving religion or the pope is going bring out a lot of blanket anti-religious sentiments that are going to be insulting to many believers and in some cases stupid and juvenile. If I was a believer I'd stay out of the thread if I was bothered by the inevitable snark and insult. They're a lot like south-bashing threads imo, they can bring out the worst in some duers.
How open minded should we be to ideas and opinions we have investigated and rejected, whether in politics or religion or any other interest? I don't give glenn becks opinion on current events any consideration or respect, does that make me close-minded?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)for those beliefs. If you do not want your beliefs ridiculed, keep them to yourself.
NCjack
(10,279 posts)push back. If you do a prayer for me in my presence or tell me that you have, I will do a science experiment for you (or sponsor a kid to do one), and tell you all about it. Or I will give you a tutorial on evolution. You invite me to church, and I will respond by inviting you to a human secularist meeting, where we can meet a lot of atheists. Eventually, you will decide that we will or not have a friendship based on detente. I am never going to push atheism at you, I am never going to passively let you push your religion at me. When you eventually get frustrated and stop, I will stop, and we can be fishing buddies. In my mind but never uttered to you, I will always think that you could increase your financial condition by cutting out donations to your religion. But that's your money and you can waste it as it pleases you. Note: I buy an occasional lotto ticket when the prize is over $350 million. Why that value? I don't want to win less and have my friends laugh at me. It's my money and I will waste it as it pleases me. In summary, give detente a chance. I'm always full of joy knowing that our visit will not be another round of arguing.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 5, 2015, 04:50 PM - Edit history (1)
And surely now that you are convinced that God has answered your prayer, I hold very little hope of ever changing your mind. I can't comment on your testimony, because when I say it back it sounds foolish. I don't mean to mock. I don't mean to hurt. I just wish for the ability to speak of my disbelief out loud without triggering the terrible discomfort it seems to provoke in those who don't share my views.
I do know that some atheists are openly disdainful of what we regard as unreasoned and unreasonable beliefs. That's a fact. It's not my place to tone control, so I won't. That being said, I try to address ideas, not persons, when I comment on these matters.
I wish you good health, Coolest.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 5, 2015, 04:50 PM - Edit history (1)
You make me sad. And yes I read the entire thing, you should really humble yourself. Blaming one group of people is exactly what you are doing and then you expect them to turn around and NOT do what you are doing with your post.
Seriously, you seem like a nice guy but I cannot agree with you since you lump all the people that have been snarky to you into one group - making you no better than they are.
Open mind? Try it sometimes.
EDIT - and before someone posts something stupid to me, I am NOT an atheist. Carry on.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)I was a fucking moron for being a Christian. I cannot believe I justified that cesspool of "moral" teachings that is the Bible. I cannot believe that I was trying to have fellowship with people who need an invisible supreme being to tell them to be good to me. Would they be mean otherwise? That's a scary thought! I deserved to be mocked for being a Christian.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Atheism is the most reviled "belief system". That creates an enormous privilege for all other belief systems. Resulting in religion shoving its way into every atheist's life over and over again.
Like this post. It's a clear violation of GD's rules, but here it is.
You argue that only turning to god ended your depression. So, suicide the only result for atheists?
You also argue that an atheist would die in your shoes, because they don't have prayers and would not "get me the results I wanted" with that blood test.
No, you'll just tell me how not believing would kill me if I was in your shoes. And remember, "kill me" has different implications for an atheist.
You have enormous privilege. Before complaining about the attitude of people who do not share that privilege, you should reflect on why they may feel that way. And take a second to read over your post and make sure you aren't saying "you would die without my god".
If you can't see your privilege, think of it as a post on sexual orientation. Like LGBT people, atheists can "pass" if need be. Doesn't mean we enjoy it, or enjoy you trumpeting your privilege.
That doesn't mean any anger directed at you in a specific situation was warranted, but with no concrete example we're left discussing the broader environment.
Throd
(7,208 posts)I have been one for 48 years and have yet to experience it.
Yes, I have gotten some frowns at times from disapproving fundies, and I worried about it for 0 seconds.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)But hey, I'm sure I wasn't spat upon. Must've been a very localized rainstorm. And the repeated attempts to "save" me must not have happened. With the subsequent abuse when they were rebuffed.
And "atheist" being the only "religion" where >50% of the public would refuse to vote for them for president.
Nah, reality must be only what Throd personally experienced when he was not giving a shit about anyone other than himself.
Throd
(7,208 posts)However, my experience has been that many atheists seem to really like the martyrdom aspect that comes with some religions.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts) hack89
(39,171 posts)Never once had to hide it, never once was discriminated against.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Does that mean anti-LGBT bigotry doesn't exist?
hack89
(39,171 posts)People don't seem to have the same viseral reaction towards atheists as they do towards LGBT people. I have lived in every part of America and never had a problem.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The bigots just assume you're Christian unless you make a point of letting them know.
Just like the bigots assume everyone is straight unless told otherwise.
As for "not of the same magnitude", polling shows otherwise. 68% would vote for a "gay or lesbian" for president. Only 54% would vote for an atheist. And atheist has gone up a bit recently.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Billy Graham's spiritual home centered around Wheaton College.
Also home to more churches per capita than anywhere else in the US.
I spent 25 years there and first question upon introductions is "what church to you attend?"
My children were shunned by their peers because we were atheists. Disinvited to bday parties, graduations etc.
I went to a local car repair place to pick up my car (Voegtles in Warrenville). Prominently placed is "Mechanics for Jesus" brochures. I add the reference for anyone who feels like they doubt my story . Chuck and Joe Voegtle are excellent mechanics - a small town shop with very high standards fyi...they've done work on every car and truck and horse trailer we've ever owned. But they are devout Christians as are most in heavily Rethug Dupage County.
Sitting in a chair is a lovely young 20-something woman reading Richard Dawkins. When I commented on how I love that book, she literally cried. Gave my husband and I a hug. Said we were the first open atheists she'd met in 5 years of living in Wheaton.
You have NOT lived all over if you've never experienced atheist bigotry. Go give Dupage County a shot.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I have lived in the Bible Belt. No issues.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)via statistics.
I happened to live in fundie-land - ground zero for Billy Graham and his ilk For 25 years. I know what I know.
That doesn't mean the official stats @ the treatment and civil rights of atheists aren't valid even if you've never personally experienced it.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)People always do that when they vomit out this tent-revival bullshit. Pluralize!
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)that religious people don't hesitate to give credit to god for random good events, but I never hear them blaming god for random bad events.
You hear :"I thank god for turning that tornado away from my house at the last minute."
But you never hear: "I blame god for turning that tornado towards my neighbor's house and killing his whole family."
It's as if I pray to the flying spaghetti monster (bless his noodly goodness) to make a coin toss come up heads, and then give thanks to his most al dente benevolence when the coin chances to come up heads. It's nonsense. I lost the vision in both my eyes due to cataracts. I saw an eye doctor and he did the surgery on my eyes, restoring my vision. Do I thank the flying spaghetti monster, or do I thank the surgeon?
Last Thanksgiving I cooked a big feast for my whole extended family. They all came to my house and enjoyed an extravagant meal. But before digging in, they bowed their heads and thanked god for providing the food. I think next Thanksgiving I'll let god do the cooking, and see how well they enjoy THAT meal.
As an atheist, what makes me most cranky is when theists play the victim card when in truth they have enormous privilege. I can't drive three blocks without passing yet another Christian indoctrination center, so when they complain about atheism "intruding" on their lives, I just snort in disgust. Fully grown adults going to fairy tale outings every Sunday morning! Stories about men living inside whales, and gathering up all the animals in a boat, including those from Australia, South America, the Antarctic penguins, the Galapagos Tortoises, etc, etc. They preach such utter nonsense it boggles the mind, and yet people don't have the good sense to know they're being hoodwinked. Just sad.
phylny
(8,375 posts)I do not think God decides, "You know what, I'm going to knock down 203 Oak Street with this tornado, but the nice family at 201 right next store have been praying and are pretty great people, so I'll spare them!" Some people do, but not all religious people do at all.
I also do not believe God "gave" me cancer. I do know that the prayers said for me by people I know and people I don't at my church, other churches in my area, and outside of church lifted my soul and my spirits before and after surgery and radiation.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Having your spirits lifted because people are thinking of you and supporting you is one thing. But I'd wager that most of the people who prayed for you really thought that their pleas to an invisible being could/would help persuade it to cure you. Which, again, raises the question: Why do so many religious people thank their deity for intervening for the good but never blame it for any bad? The OP did this very thing. In his mind, this god stepped in to help him -- but doesn't seem to wonder why this powerful asshole of a god would afflict him in the first place. Having power works both ways, but, somehow, usually not in the minds of religious people.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)flock to the Republican candidate for President -- someone like Rubio or Carson -- because whatever flaws they have as candidates they, at least, don't insult people with religious beliefs.
P.S. Surveys show that African Americans and Latinos are the Democrats who are most highly religious and therefore most likely to be insulted by the mockery.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)pnwmom
(108,973 posts)Why should African Americans and Latinos be the exception?
Democrats are crazy to take their votes for granted.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)I love this argument ... "Non-believers must shut up at all times lest someone, somewhere be offended ... Also, their expression of their opinions will have DIRE consequences for all that is liberal and progressive!"
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)Saying something bad about sky daddy will bring down his wrath at the polling places in 2016.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)Politically, that is. 
Logical
(22,457 posts)pnwmom
(108,973 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)pnwmom
(108,973 posts)including African Americans, Latinos, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, and Protestants -- they can forget about winning any more national elections.
And I say "they" deliberately because I won't be part of such a party, either.
Logical
(22,457 posts)And I'm sure you noticed we won the last two elections
But keep trying!
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)we can win without an umbrella that includes African Americans, Latinos, and other people of faith.
lindysalsagal
(20,638 posts)Just stop being victims when some of us don't.
It's not whether you believe in god or not, it's whether you believe in anything you can't see.
So, go ahead and decide that you're right, against all evidence. Have a good time.
I just wish humans would stop killing each other over these imaginary beings.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)Bradical79
(4,490 posts)when talking in generalities about a God. Can't have evidence against a concept that is completely arbitrary and amorphous. I think that's one way the belief in a Christian God has been so resilient is the idea of the god having a personal relationship with the believer. It makes it easier to fit imagined intervention and support from this being since the explaining away of hard claims, history, contradictions, bad luck, and so on is only limited by the human imagination.
It's a useful tool for a lot of people to combat loneliness and depression, though it can feel insulting to those of us whose lives have been damaged by proponents of the same flexible religious beliefs. When I saw the damage religion had done to my life and those around me, I really struggled to not let the crushing depression and loneliness overcome me that I had previously held at bay with my strong belief in God.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)If you throw your faith into a public forum, you cannot fault anyone for responding.
If you are unable to handle challenges to your beliefs, then keep it to yourself rather than whine about it here.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)Hard to sustain reason when the topic continually slides into the pre- rational sphere of beliefs/spirituality. The engine of our psyche is propelled by an existential drive for personal meaning in the face of personal death. the search for meaning begets values, begets identity, begets community. Begets democracy as one expression. Religion co-opts the mystery behind the search. It provides answers based on revelation, whether fasting in the desert, or looking into a hat for answers...all the same. You cannot argue faith. Nor should you. At least not here. You can argue about the thief, the pederast, the charlatan who uses the illusion of faith to victimise others. You can argue against the congregation when community expression of faith provides cover for a political act. I believe this OP, as well meaning as it is, strays into this camp. The proverbial camel's nose under the tent. Don't be to offended when someone gives it a swat.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)not an invisible sky being? It was prayer that removed the cataract, but a human being, doing something scientific.
I am always gobsmacked by those who attribute to and invisible sky being that which is actually done by people, generally using science. Or, as someone else already pointed out, giving this same sky being credit for something good, but not for the bad. You maybe should tell God to fuck off since he's the one who made you lose your vision in the first place, right? But no, you prefer to think that your prayers magically fixed everything. Or that the prayers moved God to magically fix everything.
I honestly think that if you must always look outside yourself for anything worthwhile, then you will never develop the inner core needed to deal with the trials and tribulations of everyday life.
In reality, we non-believers do respect your belief system. We just get very tired of having it shoved at us, and being told we are somehow lesser because we don't buy into some particular mythology.
REP
(21,691 posts)I have an almost unbelievable list of stuff wrong with me, most of it fairly serious. My primary care doctor sent me to a specialist to see if there was a specific diagnosis that would explain most of it. If that wasn't the case, she said, get the IC9 code for "god hates you."
I have a lot of markers of that dx, but not enough to be confidently given that label, so that doctor told me they'd switched to IC10 and the code was 666.
(Both doctors know me well, and were joking appropriately with me - and treat me with medicine )
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Searching weeks for insurance, find some, must be because of prayer. You are depressed, and a friend helped you get out of it (which friends should do), and credit god for it. Get leukemia, get medical help and pray, but only god gets credit. It kind of rubs me wrong when people help other people and only god gets credit for it.
RussBLib
(9,005 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)But I admit I don't really respect magical thinking. But that doesn't mean I can't respect you as an individual. I know many believers, and some are close friends. Religion isn't an issue most of the time, though I am not shy of expressing my opinions.
I personally think magical thinking is destructive, but if you get comfort from it, that's okay with me.
REP
(21,691 posts)Will I ever try to convince you, personally, of the logical fallacies of your personal belief system? Of course not; it's none of my business. Believe what you want; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my arm as someone of note once said.
I will not, however, fawn over the pope, or refrain from pointing out hypocrisy when the religious wishes to impose their beliefs upon me or others. Freedom from religion is as important as freedom of religion.
Ilsa
(61,690 posts)People go to church and worship for a variety of reasons including yours: faith, community, emotional support, etc. Others feel called to the good works many churches do.
None of these reasons, including faith, deserve ridicule, especially by liberals. Liberals shouldn't attempt to deprive others of their community and consolation.
I agree.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)invisible sky daddy you wish. It's when you start shoving that sky daddy into public policy that I have a problem. And you guys just can't seem to help yourself there, regardless of how "open minded" or "liberal" you consider yourselves to be. It's the athiests who have to keep their beliefs, or lack thereof, to themselves. It's the athiests who have to sit there quietly when we are told to have a "blessed" day or when we hear "Merry Christmas" or when we're all asked to pray for someone or something. We are the ones who are supposed to keep quiet. This thread is just more of the same bullshit.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."
Nothing about kvetching about how no one should insult your beliefs. Sermon on the Mount. Fairly famous material.
Iggo
(47,545 posts)
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)Like I said, I don't want to force my beliefs on anyone but it irks and annoy me when people and I have seen it online especially since this whole Kim Davis crap started mocking folks like me who believe. If the hosts want to you may lock this thread. I just wanted it to get out there that there are good people who believe we just don't want you mocking us that's all. Thanks
JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts) I'm not a Christian - but I get it.
Your beliefs harm no one.
Now - can I go back to making fun of her for the baby daddies?
Because her conduct was stupid and idiotic and it was a proactive choice. She's not a victim. If folks can drag believers - then I ought to be able to drag a woman who is inherently dishonest and sneaky.
femmocrat
(28,394 posts)People of faith are entitled to their beliefs without being made fun of and belittled. We are all intelligent adults here. No one needs be condescending to other DUers who hold different beliefs.
LynneSin's post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7139367
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Everyone's beliefs are subject to criticism, ridicule, debate, and discussion.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)No one else is.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I also was a go-to-church-every-Sunday kid, but it never really "took" with me, even after 20 years, and since my mom died in 1999, I haven't been to church at all. But if it works for you, that's great. The only time I have an issue with people of faith is when they try to impose their beliefs on me or try to convert me. It's not going to work, so don't even try it.
But if religion brings you comfort, more power to you.
DerekG
(2,935 posts)Frankly, there are days when I wish the religious fundamentalists and the die-hard atheists would take themselves and their squabbles to an island somewhere and leave the rest of us (i.e., 95%) alone so we can discuss important things.
840high
(17,196 posts)in God and his goodness.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)with him getting sick in the first place? How convenient for that god. All the praise, none of the blame.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)Other people of equal faith as the OP pray for healing, financial relief, jobs, etc., all the time. But not all of them have the same happy, faith-enforcing outcome as the OP's. So...what does that mean? The OP's faith is stronger? The others just didn't pray long or hard enough? God doesn't value them equally? Sorry, but this is the logical conclusion I jump to whenever I hear/read stuff like this. And it rankles.
I know the trite saying: God answers prayer -- and sometimes that answer is "No."
As you said...how convenient.
840high
(17,196 posts)with cancer twice. I'm not telling you to believe.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)would cause it or at least not stop it in the first place? Why is this powerful supernatural creature almost always credited with good things but not blamed for the bad (e.g. when a tornado wipes out a town of many people and the lone survivor says "God saved me!" -- translation: "I'm special"!)?. Why the always-give-the-deity-a-pass attitude? Is there any explanation for why so many people do this, other than "God works in mysterious ways," "Ours is not to question," "There is a plan but we're not privy to it?" and similar sentiments?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)That way lies tyranny.
Sid
TBF
(32,029 posts)in front of our Constitution. If you insist on doing that, as Kim did, then we'll have a problem.
Response to Coolest Ranger (Original post)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)No that wasn't sarcasm. Just pointing out the irony.
Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #223)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #241)
Motown_Johnny This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #244)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)My personal experience is that the levels of assholishness (<== making up words) is more extreme on the Christian side (not that it's a competition). Where are all the good Christian people when it comes to the likes of the Syrian refugees? Why isn't Mike Huckabee holding a rally for them instead of one in support of Kim Davis?
As far as expecting all liberals to be of one mind-set (not all liberals are open-minded), why not work on the Christians that give Christianity a bad name instead of appealing to people prone to be assholes to stop being assholes?
Response to Coolest Ranger (Original post)
itsrobert This message was self-deleted by its author.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)for those beliefs. If your beliefs are ridiculous, (not you personally, but in general) and especially if your ridiculous beliefs motivate you to do awful or foolish or hateful things, you should be mocked, your beliefs should be ridiculed, and if that bothers you, don't behave in ways that are going to bring a shit ton of well deserved mockery and ridicule onto you.
Religious beliefs are no more special than any other belief. For example: if you believe that an invisible giant pink bunny is telling you to hate the gays, that is a ridiculous belief that should be ridiculed. If you believe that an invisible sky deity is telling you to hate the gays, that does not become 'special' because you substitute one invisible being for another.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)If you were trying to argue that some policy should be changed because of something your religion tells you then your beliefs are fair game.
You have a right to your beliefs, but everyone else has an equal right to theirs. Maybe something you stated offended the people who responded unkindly towards you.
Atheists, and everyone else, have a right to respond to a religious statement with their own beliefs. If you don't want to have your beliefs addressed then don't bring them up.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)but don't force the creation of a theocracy in the name of your religion. The public arena should allow for discussions of the common good. I also would like to add that, if you require the totality of the laws of the nation in order to shore up your faith, you e pect too much of a pluralistic society.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)things that occur in this world.
I reserve the right to mock that.
Logical
(22,457 posts)AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)But don't push your personal experiences or beliefs on to me or anyone else who has true skepticism about religion, or expect me to follow the rules of any particular religion as it concerns issues in the public square.
YabaDabaNoDinoNo
(460 posts)Religion should be a private matter that should be left in the home or at place of worship.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Atheists have felt strong enough only recently to be public.
They still aren't knocking on doors, though.
ladyVet
(1,587 posts)It has no bearing on my life whatsoever, so long as you don't try to make me follow your beliefs. You can think prayer worked for you, but it's not going to convince me of anything.
The reason there is logic in the universe is because it was all created in the same micro-second, from the same materials and under the same conditions. No supreme being responsible, nor necessary.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Your church works day and night to attack women and rights we all take for granted. Lobbying. Exhorting members with threats of hell. You name it.
The RCC and elements of it were number 2 behind the Mormon church in raising funds to pass Prop8 in California.
It was the top and only opposition to I-1000, the physician assisted suicide law in Washington.
It was the successful challenger to the ACA bill for the contraception mandate.
It fought Boston for the right to discriminate against same-sex adoptive parents.
Not getting traction on banning abortion and family planning outright, they are simply acquiring all our hospitals. 'I'm sorry we don't offer that service'.
http://crosscut.com/2014/01/washingtons-looming-catholic-hospital-takeover/
It's not about you. I could be snarky and observe that it's a good thing the RCC permits the fixing of cataracts, but why bother. You're not specifically my opponent. But the church you attend, the church you give money to? It is.
It is an enemy of democratic and proegessive principles across the board. Boggles my mind you'd attempt to defend it here as if you are completely unaware of what it is up to. To say nothing of the horrors it does worldwide, in nations with majority catholic populations.
Ponder on that. Ponder on the physicians that saved your sight, unimpeded by catholic moral doctrine, and then consider those people unable to access the medical care they need because of the same moral doctrine from the same church.
If I were you, I'd be ashamed.
rug
(82,333 posts)How long have you been saving that up? Too bad you vented on the wrong target.
And if I were you, I wouldn't go around trying to "shame" other DUers.
"Ponder on that."
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Feel free to consider that post directed at you, then. Since you do identify as part of that church.
Edit: in my experience, when people say 'the church' over and over, they tend to be referring to the RCC, but I think it was the interfaith post that led me here that spcifically made me think that poster was catholic.
rug
(82,333 posts)Look up my many, many replies.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Iggo
(47,545 posts)
annabanana
(52,791 posts)how they manage to get through it.
Peace.
jcboon
(296 posts)Everyone believes something that can't be proven empirically so all information is subject to belief.
It cant be poven that God doesn't exist anymore than it can be proven He does.
It's all faith so if you ridicule my beliefs, I reserve the right to question your lack if them.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)This is a false equivalency: "It cant be proven that God doesn't exist anymore than it can be proven He does." That is exactly like saying: "It can't be proven that pink sparkle unicorns ridden by leprechauns don't exist anymore than it can be proven they do exist."
Why start with this presumption? Start with the assumption of nothing, as you would with anything else that you don't see, and then, if evidence presents itself, you can start to draw conclusions. For example, we've never actually seen the tiniest matter particles, but there is sufficient evidence for their existence and behavior to make some conclusions. If no evidence exists to prove the existence of something, then the default position is it doesn't exist. If evidence presents itself, you can change your hypothesis. So far no one has provided any proof that there is a separate, supernatural realm that doesn't obey the laws of science.
jcboon
(296 posts)There's just an agreement that they are meaningful.
Many of the world's great thinkers believed in a deity.
I like to think like Desmond Tutu, Martin Luther King and and Jonathan Daniels.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)That is, unless you have groundbreaking rigorously peer-reviewed research to refute the mountains of evidence supporting evolution, gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, inflationary theory, laws of motion, and so on?
Also, because some smart people in the past were religious doesn't mean much. It's been common with many homo sapien cultures in the last several thousand years to express belief in the supernatural, the mystic, and in magical phenomenon. That is understandable, given the lack of knowledge of the working of the entire planet, the solar system, and galaxies that existed until relatively recently. That doesn't prove that a magical realm exists, though.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)First, to "prove" something is meaningless, much better to see if something is testable and/or observable and then test it, experiment with it, and learn from it.
The laws of science are NOT just an agreement, they are a baseline, subject to revision, of some observations about the universe. They are also tentative, subject to being proven inaccurate at any time. Hell, just recently, there have been some observations challenging the standard model of the universe, very exciting stuff.
Logical
(22,457 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Totally ludicrous statement.
The device you used to post exists because of the laws of science.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
wordpix
(18,652 posts)Obviously, I did not turn to god but to nature. This works for me. 100% organic food, reducing stress, plenty of exercise and sleep, enjoying the outdoors. Everyone has their own thing. Whatever works for you. I have what works for me and right now there is no cancer recurrence since my surgery almost 2 yrs. ago. I respect your right to believe as you do.
Logical
(22,457 posts)wordpix
(18,652 posts)TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)There's no right to not be offended anywhere.
Skittles
(153,138 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 7, 2015, 09:56 PM - Edit history (1)
you're entitled to your beliefs and SO ARE THEY
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I suppose life would be easier if everyone agreed with each other all the time, but it sure would be dull.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)for said belief/assertion.
Interesting, that.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Fyi, there is no god, but if there is one he's a real prick. Get back to me when he explains why he couldn't stop my wife's breast cancer but somehow doesn't want gay people to get married.... and he really loves us, but if we don't love him back he'll make us burn forever...
marlakay
(11,443 posts)My government, people can believe anything they want.
Everyone just needs to have respect. I use to believe and go to church and questioned my ideas and came to not believe many years ago.
I respect someone who needs a belief in God during bad times, we all have our ways of finding support and a lot of people choose that.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)If I have done so inadvertently, I apologize.
Since you brought it up, I do think it's delusional, but as long as you don't foist it on me or the government I'm OK. And I hope it helps you out.
jcboon
(296 posts)I just get irritated that people somehow think that believers are stupid or uninformed. Religion isn't just ignorant Bible thumpers and fanatics.
You gonna call Jimmy Carter misinformed?
It's just as intellectually valid to give importance to moral truths and something bigger than ourselves.
Belief in objective truth is what gives us a constitution and a governent of laws.
Without God or objective truth your only moral reference points are practicality and everyone's opinion.
st17011864200074656
(190 posts)which say that I deserve to burn in Hell because I'm intrinsically and inherently evil and wicked, and that I'm intrinsically and inherently evil and wicked merely because I am cursed due to the misdeeds of somebody else. And that the only way to avoid burning in Hell does not require me to be a better moral person, or to be less evil and wicked (which is impossible), but to depend on the perfection of someone else (Jesus), which lets me off the hook for being evil and wicked scott-free. Christianity represents the ultimate eschewing of personal or moral responsibility through the use of Jesus as the ultimate scapegoat.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)If so, was it moral when this deity drowned almost the entire population of the Earth?
The Bible is only a couple thousand years old -- where did "morality" come from before that? The universe is 14 billion years old.
The universe contains about 100 billion+ galaxies. The likelihood is that there are multi-billions of planets that support life, and a certain percentage of those will support highly evolved life. Do you think that your god is is monitoring all the behaviors of all the life forms on all the planets?
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)"Without God or objective truth your only moral reference points are practicality and everyone's opinion."
artislife
(9,497 posts)But I do believe in being civil.
Mocking someone asking for prayers is totally uncool. When someone says they are praying for me, I thank them. I am grateful that they are thinking good thoughts for me and sending it out across the universe. Where it lands is not important to me, the fact that they send it, is.
I hate it when I see people jump all over people who are expressing their beliefs and not trying to use it against those who don't. I have started to post that it is uncool, and even though I am not a _________ believer, I do believe in freedom to worship or not worship and I ask the offender to not be an asshole that will have the rest of the atheist painted with a broad brush. Live and let live!
KG
(28,751 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)others because your deity tells you to, then your religion is totally fucked up, and dangerous.
As a natural born LGBT, I have completely justifiable concerns about self-deceived religious people, who are so convinced of the absolute truth in their holy books that they consciously and/or unconsciously, and directly and/or indirectly, commit crimes against innocent human beings because they believe it is their god's will.
Tens, maybe even hundreds, of millions of innocent people throughout history have been harmed by self-deceived religious people who knew that the absolute, unquestionable truth contained in their god book and/or taught to them by their holy leader dude was telling them to hurt others.
Kim Davis is one current illustration of the self-deceived, self-righteous religious person of which I am speaking in the paragraphs above.
http://www.revelandriot.com/resources/religion/
Most people believe that the persecution of “witches” reached its height in the early 1690s with the trials in Salem, Mass., but it is a grim paradox of 21st-century life that violence against people accused of sorcery is very much still with us. Far from fading away, thanks to digital interconnectedness and economic development, witch hunting has become a growing, global problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/05/opinion/the-persecution-of-witches-21st-century-style.html
By all means, feel free to believe whatever you like, and if it works for you, and you are not hurting anyone, wonderful.
Just please don't consciously or unconsciously hurt anyone because you are convinced that you are supposed to hurt them because your god desires it.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)That doesn't mean I have to respect the belief itself.
I don't respect three year olds for believing in Santa. I think it's cute, silly, and fun.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)However, when you try and deny other people their rights based on your religion...yes, Kim Davis...then that particular religion is fair game.