Religion
Related: About this forumwhat is the most important aspect of the interaction between belivers and non believers
| 9 votes, 6 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| convincing the other side they are mistaken | |
1 (11%) |
|
| finding areas of common ground in the cause of equality and social justice. | |
8 (89%) |
|
| 6 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)There are times I can personally be more respectful. Others as well.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)telling the other they are sinners or silly superstitious believers in sky beings. Who suffers are the marginalized who the two groups should be working to help. Our Church Maundy projects are often coordinated with secular groups with many non believers.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)divisiveness and a wish to best the other, it is the most marginalized who suffer.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)In the end think atheists go to heaven just like believers do anyway.
I do have to admit that being told I believe in pie in the sky things is tiresome.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I have never had an atheist insult my faith either - at least not in the real world.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)And it was explained to you, numerous times, why what you said was taken as it was. And rather than deal with that and change your approach, you are just doubleing down. And tripling. And quadrupling.
rug
(82,333 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"god bless you", "thank god for you", "you're doing the lords work" stuff, that's what it sure sounds like, official embossed invitation to join or not.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I have also been told I am going to burn in hell because I am gay and Episcopalian.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Watch me do a trick, I'll turn into a pie!
phil89
(1,043 posts)Please understand that.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I believe there is no god/creator. I believe that there is no such thing as creation. I believe that time and space are infinite. I believe we are responsible for how we conduct our lives and not part of some holy plan.
If atheism had no beliefs then it wouldn't exist. Denial of a belief is, in itself, belief.
I see very little difference between atheists and religionists. The differences are more pronounced in terms of how extreme they are. Nominal Christians and Jews tend to be as uninterested in religion as the average atheist or agnostic, maybe even less. Most folk don't take their religion or lack thereof very seriously.
The extremists, on either side of the argument, are very similar to each other. They tend to be strident, bigoted bullies. They seem obsessed with bible quotes, which they both cherry pick to put down their enemies. The irony is that they are two sides of the same coin, vying for approval from the rest of us, with their "holier than thou", or "more atheist than thou" self-righteousness. The extremists are the enemy, not the atheist DUer who occasionally attends church with his wife, not the believer who stumbles into A&A with a message of unity.
'Tis indeed strange world we live in.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)If it makes you feel more religiousy. But some of us have convictions, and have to be convinced of things in order to accept them as true. For some of us, "belief" is a poor reason for anything.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)There is no absolute proof of anything.
You can call it "convictions" if it makes you feel more of a true atheist.
You are no different from the Christian who is "convinced". You both believe what makes you feel comfortable.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)When a Christian says something like "I know this doesn't make sense, but I believe it anyway" or "I don't care about evidence, I have faith", they are very different from me.
And no, I don't "believe" what makes me feel comfortable. I don't "believe" that there is an invisible sky daddy watching over me and that he has a "plan" for me. I don't "believe" in an afterlife, no matter how comforting Xstians claim that is. I don't "believe that when people I know die, they go to a "better place" or "they're with Jesus now" or any of the things that religionistas invent out of thin air to comfort themselves. I don't delude myself that way just because reality is harsh and uncaring.
So please, don't tell me what I "believe". The strength of my convictions is directly related to the strength of the evidence supporting them, to the very best extent possible. As it should be with any rational person.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)What I don't share with you is the belief that our shared beliefs give us the right to mock others, whose convictions are based on faith. Our difference in belief does not make us any better or any worse. How we deal with that belief and how we treat others is what defines us.
You believe that anti-theists like yourself should not have to tolerate those of us who do not judge others because of their beliefs. You believe that fellow atheists should not support those who are bullied by religion hating extremists. You believe that showing tolerance and compassion toward believers is apologizing for the sins committed over the ages by religious institutions and members of those institutions. You believe that bigotry toward believers is OK.
And when you get called out and challenged by fellow atheists, in your safe haven, you call for their expulsion. So where does that leave you? Marginalized.
In trying to marginalize others, you only succeed in marginalizing yourself more.
Life is not about beliefs, my friend, it's about attitude. It's about how you treat your fellow travelers.
I wish you well.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You sound like S.E. Cupp, an 'atheist' that 'aspires' to faith.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I am an atheist who judges others by their actions, not by their beliefs, or lack thereof.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I actually met a white man once. Really. Nice guy, Irish, we nicknamed him Aspro (UK brand of aspirin). I don't think he'd ever been out in the sun before and one day we took him to the beach. It was blindingly scary.
Regarding faith, I'm not familiar with your man Cupp, but I think we all aspire to faith, in one sense or another. All part of the human condition, hoping that we might actually have a grasp on life and having faith in our ability to deal with it all. Not always easy, especially when you consider that life is a bit of a crap shoot.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)In case you just aren't familiar, the other was a reference to the show; The Lone Ranger. Is a joke.
Again, you use the royal 'we' I guess, because no, 'we' do NOT all 'aspire to faith'.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Not religious faith, but faith in ourselves. Faith that we make the right decisions, like voting for the best candidate. Faith in the choices we make regarding our kids. Faith in all kinds of things that we are not sure of. Everything beyond ourselves falls into the realm of hope.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Ok, dropping sarcasm/annoyance for a second, because this seems worthwhile.
I don't do any of those things. I doubt myself most of all. My perceptions, my choices, my plans, my assumptions. For all the negativity you might perceive here, from me, I tear myself down the most, to find out what is true and right and in some cases, just, about myself.
It's how I keep myself out of trouble. For all the criticism I sling here, I'm a thousand times more self-critical. And that is comfortable to me. I've heard others describe such self-critical introspection to be limiting or confining. Even depressing. But it doesn't seem to inhibit me in any way.
Anyway, that's why I rejected your suggestion that we all aspire to faith. Sometimes I hope, but I don't see that as the same thing. Faith is hope plus confidence, if I had to quantify it in some way, yes? I don't seem to possess that. Not in the sense that you just described.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I wish we could all be so open about ourselves. This conversation is definitely worthwhile.
First, let me say that I identify with everything you say, and my respect for you just increased a thousand percent. We may disagree on many things but we both share an interest in questioning our opinions.
When I say we all aspire to have faith, I mean exactly that. It is an aspiration, a goal, a hope, an aim to arrive at some sort of truth about ourselves. We should doubt, especially when we feel so sure about something. The moment we stop questioning our certainty is when we begin to stagnate into complacency and arrogance. We may doubt our abilities, but we aspire to have faith in them.
There should always be an element of doubt. How else can we grow and improve our self awareness.
Faith in ourselves is built on self awareness. I'm not talking about blind faith, or faith in some deity, but faith in our convictions, which is never absolute. But we should aspire to it. That's part of our journey in life.
I hope this makes some sense. It is late and I must sleep now. Good talking to you 
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Which is just as much an act of faith as saying "I believe there is a God". You want to call it a "conviction", but that is a quibble over vocabulary. IN FACT, your claim is based on faith.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)You've done it with Dawkins many times, and been caught out every time. And in this case, it's just more of the same tired crap.
So keep your "other words" to yourself. They aren't mine. I have said no such thing, and I don't "believe" any such thing. You're constantly complaining about being accused of lying. Well, that's what happens when you make shit up about what other people say and think, knowing that it isn't so.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)And I proved that I had quoted Dawkins accurately -- but you just laughed it off, instead of being a Mensch and admitting that you falsely accused me of lying by your slander that I had misquoted Dawkins. But I know that I cannot expect either grace or honesty from you -- and when you go whining that I have insulted you, I would remind you of your falsely calling me a liar proves my point, as does your equally false slander that I "make up shit".
You do not have a "conviction" that God does not exist, you have a BELIEF. It is, as I said, an act of faith.
enki23
(7,787 posts)It is only "an act of faith," in the usual religious meaning, if the available evidence fails to go above 50%. Practically, it has to be much lower. And sure enough, in the case of every known religion, the unambiguous, quality evidence in favor is nonexistent. Like the unicorn, lots of people have written and talked about it. Including in the bible. And yet, it almost certainly isn't real. Like the rest of the bible. Even the parts that are talking about ultra-powerful ghosts and blood and sacrifices and sea monsters. And satyrs. And dragons. And angels. And demons. And gods. And unicorns.
Christians don't get to have it both ways. (Well, obviously they do. But only because they're represented by confused people and bullshitters.) If it is "an act of faith" to believe, then the obvious default, the norm, is to not believe. You can't have "act of faith" go both ways, unless you are willing to turn the idea of an "act of faith" into silly trivia.
Otherwise, well, everything is an act of faith. Like every time I open my front door naively trusting that there are no demons in there waiting to eat me.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Saying "God does not exist" is every bit as much an act of faith as saying "God does exist".
Oh, and AtheistCrusader? Are you going to denounce the statement that Christians are "confused people and bullshitters"? Or are you going to let that piece of atheistic bigotry slide, because, well, you don't disapprove of it.
enki23
(7,787 posts).
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)As I keep saying, you atheists refuse to admit the truth, that your beliefs are just as much faith-driven as a fundamentalist's are.
enki23
(7,787 posts)1. <Christian|Other religious person> makes unsupported statement of "obvious fact."
2. Non-religious person demonstrates why she thinks it is silly and unsupported.
3. Christian repeats the statement, adding nothing. Whines something about "truth".
4. Non-religious person notes that the religious person didn't respond to the criticism. He just repeated the same thing.
5. Christian repeats the same thing again. Maybe quotes scripture. Says something else about truth; maybe the same thing.
...
99. Non-religious person is reduced to tears, mockery, booze, swearing, possibly crying.
100. Christian declares technical victory under a presumed martyrdom stipulation. Repeats himself for good measure.
101. Christian goes to church. Repeats the pastor. Repeats the bible. Repeats the creed. Repeats the hymnal. Repeats himself.
102. Christian goes into a holding cycle waiting for someone to send him back to stage 1.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and gets post hidden.
104. Christian goes whining to the admins about the horrible double standard on DU.
105. Christian get so put in his place by the admins, then returns to 1, learning nothing.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)It goes more like this:
I say that atheism is just as much based on faith as belief is. As John Stuart Mill said in another context, I believe that is so obvious a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. makes statement of obvious fact.
One or more atheists will say, "Of course I don't believe anything. Lalala, I can't hear you!"
So on ad infinitem
The one exception is that the atheist will say nasty things about religion, and when called on it, will whine about being persecuted.
phil89
(1,043 posts)It is a rejection of a claim. It has nothing to do with evolution, the big bang, etc, though I concede most atheists probably align themselves with scientific explanations of the world. Atheism itself is not in any way a belief, atheists' position is that theists have not met their burden of proof that a god/gods exist. It would be like someone drawing a random card from a deck and trying to convince a person the card is the ace of spades. It could be, but there is not enough evidence to justify that belief. Not a great example but that's the principle. Atheism makes no assertions.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Proving something is entirely different. Knowing is different again. We can play with words and concepts all day, but saying you do not believe something is the same as saying you believe something different. Lack of belief depends on the lack of the proposition, in the first place. The term "atheism" is dependent on the proposition that a deity exists.
Only a newborn, or someone who has never heard of a belief in a god can claim no belief. Your rejection of the claim demonstrates that you have, at least, pondered the possibility and then arrived at a conclusion based on a lack of evidence, which has formed your belief that gods do not exist.
I know, it's a bit of a mind fuck, but that's how I see it. And, apparently, we have both arrived at the same conclusion.
phil89
(1,043 posts)I simply do not find there is evidence to support the claim. 2 different things.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)And have concluded that they both exist and do not exist. If you had never heard of such things then you would have no thoughts on the subject. As it is, you do have thoughts on it, which form your belief.
Seriously, though, lack of belief is the default position e all come into this world with. Then we are subjected to ideas nd beliefs, which we either accept or reject or just ponder. After a certain amout of pondering the idea that a deity might exist, we each arrive at a conclusion based on the evidence received personally. That conclusion forms our belief.
phil89
(1,043 posts)I don't think there is enough evidence to support the claim. I don't know if god/s exist (or leprechauns, etc.) so far there is no evidence to support the claim.
Respectfully: If someone flips a coin and it's heads or tails - and someone is saying it's definitely heads...I wouldn't accept that it was heads until it was revealed. I don't believe it's not heads. Could be heads or tails, but there's no reason to believe it is heads. Not a good example, but that's where I'm coming from.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)It's a conceptual thing. Important thing to realize is that some folk think atheism involves belief and others don't. Doesn't really change anything.
From my point of view, it only becomes a belief after exposure to theism. Before that point I agree with you entirely, because the question has not been posited.
But I enjoy intellectual discussions like this.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)It most certainly does incorporate that belief.
phil89
(1,043 posts)Can we please get the basics right? It is a position that there is not enough evidence to support the claim. There could be a god, it just hasn't been shown to be true yet.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)a-theism. WITHOUT theism. (Without belief.)
Just like a-Gnosticism. WITHOUT Gnosticism. (Without knowledge)
It LITERALLY means without belief.
"If atheism had no beliefs then it wouldn't exist."
That's twaddle. Pure, unadulterated nonsense.
"I believe there is no god/creator."
That's a positive claim that carries burden of proof. I'd be careful where I go with that. Someone might call you on it. And then you'll have to fall back on belief, and special pleading, which atheism lends no support to.
"I believe that there is no such thing as creation."
Squishy, still flirting with burden of proof.
"I believe that time and space are infinite."
Not a tenet of, or in any way related to atheism.
"I believe we are responsible for how we conduct our lives and not part of some holy plan."
Fair enough, but not intrinsically or exclusively relevant to Atheism.
"Denial of a belief is, in itself, belief."
That's complete and utter fucking bullshit. You're making a common religious argument attempting to equivocate religion to non-belief. It's bullshit. It's the 'not collecting stamps is a form of stamp collecting' logical fallacy.
Secular humanism has beliefs. Secular paganism has beliefs. Etc.
Atheism is a LACK of religious belief. Nothing more.
TM99
(8,352 posts)The proposition being considered is this - is there a god or gods.
The theist accepts the proposition as valid and answers 'yes'. Their 'belief' then may rely on personal or subjective experiences and/or emotional faith.
The agnostic accepts the proposition as valid and answer 'maybe'. Their 'belief' then may rely on the same things as an atheist (lack of empirical evidence), however, they remain open to experiences for a variety of personal or subjective emotion and or rational reasons.
The atheist also accepts the proposition as valid and answers 'no'. Their 'belief' relies on the sole question of whether there is empirical evidence and a falsifiable theory. Of course the later is the by-product of scientism and the new 21st century New Atheism.
So yes, all three accept the proposition as valid. As a atheist, you may say that you lack 'belief' in a deity or the religious dogma, theology, etc. that supports such an expression, but you do accept the proposition in order to answer it in the negative. Generally speaking, an atheists 'ideas' of god or gods is based on what religious culture they were exposed to as they psychologically developed.
Everyone has a personal set of beliefs - a philosophy of life. Generally speaking it starts from this proposition and expands from there. Even my ignosticism supports a 'belief system', it simply doesn't start from the above proposition which I firmly reject. As an atheist, you certainly have beliefs. They may be negative ones such as accepting the proposition and then rejecting religious dogma, deities, etc. They may be positive ones such as blending secular humanistic components. But to attempt to say that 'atheism' as individuals actually use the word is completely without 'beliefs' is bullshit. I could clearly show from posts you have made that your 'atheism' definitely has 'beliefs'. Are they the same as all atheist's? Some yes and others definitely not. But the same is true for those who call themselves religious.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)It is also the ones who say "maybe" and "Whatever, I don't care" and "what do you mean by god(s)?"
Lack of belief is just that. No belief either way. You are redefining atheism in your example to give it a solid belief. It would be like me going up to someone who lived on a deserted island all their life with no exposure to the outside world (and lets just assume I know their language for argument sake) and asking them do you believe that Robin Hood was an actual person?
They would neither believe or disbelieve in Robin Hood as they have never heard of him.
So your basic premise is flawed as just being an atheist does not assure that they will answer in the negative. Explicit or Positive atheists will answer in the the negative, but Implicit or negative atheists would be saying:
or
or
or my favorite
In fact they could reject the proposition altogether. So actually AC is correct in his assertion.
Links on the subject on the meaning of atheism:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Definition provided by major atheists organizations (who would know better?) confirming this:
http://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?
http://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/18391-what-is-a-freethinker
A detailed examination of the issue of the definition of atheism:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist14.htm
Note that I am not defining/labeling any other group/groups just my own. Just an demonstrating the meaning of atheism.
Sorry philosophy is not my suite, but it is my understanding it is impossible to get an "ought" statement out of a "is" statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
Believing there is or isn't a god is an "is" statement. Saying that one "ought" to reject dogma is an "ought" statement, no? This goes directly against Hume's Guillotine.
If this is so, your entire argument here is mistaken.
TM99
(8,352 posts)The agnostic accepts the proposition and says 'maybe'. The apathetic atheist accepts the proposition and rejects it because they are not concerned.
And when the individual begins to ask what is meant by god or gods then they are rejecting the proposition itself. That is in part what it means to be an ignostic.
The AA is playing word games. "Denial", "Disbelief" and "lack of belief" are all negatives that answer the proposition - Is there a god or gods? They want to change the definition now to suit their purposes. That is all.
You quoted me and went off on an intellectual tangent that had nothing to do with my quote. If an atheist answers the proposition in the negative, then the other 'is' statement follows - they have rejected the byproducts of answering it to the affirmative. Those are religion, dogma, ritual, etc. There is no 'ought' involved. If they accept those and practice them then there is a psychological incongruity.
If we accept even the most basic definition of 'belief' as presented on Wikipedia - "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a conjecture or premise to be true" - then absolutely atheists, like everyone else, definitely have beliefs. They may or may not overlap with theists and religious followers. They may or may not be the same as other atheists or agnostics. I did not say that atheism is a religion or a belief system. But to claim that atheists have no belief is bullshit. I will add that New Atheism is definitely developing into a belief system with tenets, organizations, 'prophets', etc. That is a fascinating new phenomena to me particularly since it was not in existence when I was a younger man.
In that regards, Starboard Tack is dead on and AtheistCrusader is wrong. Belief is a word like love. It has a variety of meanings and context is important. I love my mother. I love my girlfriend. Both use the word 'love' and if I loved my mother like I do my girlfriend, well......
Atheists are 'non-believers' and theists are 'believers' and what they 'believe' and don't 'believe' in is the same. Yet each individual member of each group also has a set of beliefs and knowledge that unite them in their definable term. And beyond that further, each individual also has beliefs and knowledge influenced by a variety of experiences, knowledge, and cultural influences. So to say with absolute certainty that atheists have no beliefs is just bullshit. Sorry, it is. 
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)It it two binary questions:
1. do you believe?
2. do you claim proof exists?
This Venn diagram shows it pretty well:
You may want the words to mean something different, but they don't.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)There are a lot out there, but I'm a sucker for a good, solid Venn Diagram.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Good tool to combat the clearly willful corruption of the meaning of these words for the purpose of equivocation between two positions that are clearly not equal at all.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You've assigned it some convenient bullshit definition to support your argument, but it isn't real. An Agnostic can be a Theist or a Non-theist/Atheist.
Try again.
""Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a conjecture or premise to be true" - then absolutely atheists, like everyone else, definitely have beliefs."
Nice assertion. Prove it.
"I have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage"
"Bullshit"
Respondent just rejected the former claim. Is that a BELIEF that no invisible pink unicorn exists in the garage, or a simple rejection of some nonsense spouted by an idiot?
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)Your definition of atheist goes against all the several sources that I provided as well as my own experiences as an atheist. Not just the AA, but the FFRF, the oxford online dictionary, wikipedia, and religious tolerance.org agree with the definition both AC and I provided. The last one went into great detail about the definition and the history of the word.
I specifically made sure to say that I was only talking about atheists and not agnostics. I identify as an implicit atheist and I would reply "maybe." If someone who identifies as an agnostic would also say "maybe" thats cool. It does not make me any less of an atheist.
I am a living counter example to your claim and I suspect so is Atheist Crusader and just about every regular in the A/A forum. If you want to create a poll there be my guest and we can see.
Further, not all of those sources were from AA. I also gave you one from the oxford dictionary (considered the premier English language dictionary) and wikipedia for example.. Here are some more.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/denial
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/deny?q=deny
In particular:
No where does it say false. Not true and false are different things. Much like not-guilty and innocent are different things.
Lack of belief in god(s) is a lack of belief in gods. There is no god does not lead to "one should/could/ought/etc to oppose dogma." There is no second is statement in there. There IS no god. One opposes dogma. How does one derive the latter from the forumer? Saying there is no god say nothing on dogma. Maybe there is another reason to oppose/support dogma? Lets say its because one should not be forced to follow rules based on a false belief. Again that is not derived off the "is" statement. It is derived from a goal. Not to be forced to forced to obey false beliefs.
Not holding any position is not holding a position to be true. This only backs up what I was saying about lack of belief not being either an affirmation or negation of your proposition.
Everyone holds some beliefs, but they are not atheist beliefs or based on atheism. That was the argument AC made:
Atheism is a LACK of religious belief. Nothing more.
To say he claimed atheist have NO beliefs at all is misrepresenting what he actually said.
They can be based on humanism or objectivism or liberalism or whatever. But they are not based on atheism. Atheism is atheism. Its simply a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more. Some religions are theistic, some are atheistic (some forms of Buddhism). That does not mean that religion is a part of atheism itself. There is no big book of atheism.
I think you and Starboard Track are confusing the word atheist/atheism with the word secular. A belief is an abstract concept. It is not a person, and it is not sentient. It can not think or believe or disbelieve anything. It can not be an atheist. It can, however, be secular.
I don't know about or care what "New Atheism" is doing, but atheism is the same as it has always been. "New Atheism" does not change that.
In that regards, Starboard Tack is dead on and AtheistCrusader is wrong. Belief is a word like love. It has a variety of meanings and context is important. I love my mother. I love my girlfriend. Both use the word 'love' and if I loved my mother like I do my girlfriend, well...... Atheists are 'non-believers' and theists are 'believers' and what they 'believe' and don't 'believe' in is the same.
Maybe belief has a variety of meaning but that is beside the point. That is because lack of belief has only one meaning: Not having a belief.
Atheist are non-believers.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/non-?q=non
All of us lack believe that there is a god, and some of us don't believe that there is not a god either. We are atheist, not intheist after all.
Atheists don't have a set of beliefs and knowledge that unite us. We are united in our LACK of belief. Specifically our lack of belief in god/gods. Nothing more. And again, neither I nor AC said we had NO beliefs. That is a misrepresentation of what was said.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Too bad that it is going to do nothing to help this person who has declared how educated they are understand the meaning of simple words.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Particularly since it validates their beliefs.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)I would think that the fact that we have several posters claiming to be atheists explaining that atheism is a lack of belief would be enough.
But just in case, would it be okay for me to use our safe haven to post a poll on what atheist actually means? With the intent of using it here? I know that goes against the purpose of a safe haven a bit, so I thought I should ask you first.
I respect our safe haven but I would like to show everyone how actual atheist define ourselves.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)The problem is the quote-mining assholes who run over here to talk about how horrible we are and then link to what they think is bad and usually like out of context or refer to it out of context. None of which applies to what you are talking about.
I realize I'm still bitter from the last couple days so my tone (not aimed at you) in that last couple sentences is not the best. Though I'm also still bitter enough that I don't want to change the tone.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)And honestly share your sentiments exactly.
You and the other AA hosts have been super and have gotten nothing but nastiness in return. Its infuriating how these individuals are treating our group.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)They don't really care about truth, just making themselves feel superiour to the rest of us
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not getting any mileage out of us, so they'll give up soon.
TM99
(8,352 posts)to read well beyond what you have at this point.
Take the time to study Ayer and Drange to understand what I am saying as an Ignostic. Language, Truth, and Logic by Ayer is pivotal in what I am presenting here and yes, it does challenge the 'internet' memes of what 'atheism' is or isn't.
You already said you are not a philosophy major. Fine, you don't have to be, but you do need to know more about epistemology especially what is actually meant with regards to 'belief' & 'knowledge'. Even the 'justified true belief' that you and AtheistCrusader are attempting in a rather round about fashion to discuss has been questioned and extended upon since 1960's with input from psychology, AI, cognitive neuroscience, etc.
Everything else you wrote is gobbledygook. I suspect you think that is insulting, and it is no more so than suggesting to someone who was studying academically these topics before you were born or when you were but a wee child that they are confusing secularism with atheism.
Please stop with the internet links and self-referential factoids. I need you to read at least some summaries of Ayer before we can progress with this topic preferably in another thread so as not to side-track the current one.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Everytime you get into a discussion about darn near anything, you have studied for a long time.
What I find most entertaining is that you claim epistemology as the basis for this. Understanding the etymology of the words would go a long way in helping your understanding of the words.
And I'm also wondering if all of your fine friends here know, when you refer to Ayer, that your view of ignosticsm (at least should) approachs the concept of god as nonsensical. They might not like that take. I mean, claiming you are ignostic puts you in the same vein as Sam Harris and we all know how much the theists here LOVE Sam Harris.
I'm interested on your take of Ayer's near death experience.
And Drange just changes the meaning of what theism and gnosticism are to fit his false linearity of atheist---agnostic---believer while completely ignoring the etymology of the words. Much like you. But you are so very well educated I'm sure your research into those words go beyond just Drange.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)Just an honest critique. My writing style and prose are not.....particularly good. Sorry about that. I blame my dyslexia and tendency to be long winded and wordy >.<
And I hope you did not take anything I said as insulting to you either. I just strongly disagree with your point of view here.
Sorry if I over did it with links, but I like to support my arguments and show sources.
I am afraid we will not be reaching a conclusion on this today. So would it be okay to say we agree to disagree for now? As always it was nice to have a polite discussion and I hope we can have more in the future.
Peace.
PS: Mind if I ask you about your User ID name? Is it a reference to an item in a certain hand held videogame? Or something else?
Sorry, I was curious.
I always enjoy a robust debate and conversation with you. And yes, for today, we can agree to disagree.
I love someone with excellent observation and geek skills. Yes, I am and have been an avid gamer since I first got an Apple II in middle school decades ago. Yes, I have played Pokemon for a long, long time. I signed up for these forums just a few days after the release of Pokemon X & Y. It is very hard to resist the power of a Fairy type. 
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)I love RPGs!
When it comes to Pokemon (though I still havent gotten the new games yet), I like collecting dragon and dark type pokemon. Your fairy pokemon would decimate my dragons!
FEAR DA JIGGLYPUFF!!!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)are answering the question of Robin Hood's existence with "I don't know." It's a perfectly reasonable answer, and doesn't situate the responder in either the "yes" or "no" camp.
Where is the problem with people defining their atheism in the terms on which they lack belief? Why is it necessary for another person to accept your definition as the only accurate one?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that answering "no" to the question "Are you convinced that Robin Hood really existed?" is not the same thing as saying that you're sure he didn't exist.
Lots of people on this board have trouble making that simple distinction.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)Last edited Sat May 10, 2014, 05:33 AM - Edit history (1)
was to give an unambiguous model of neither believing something exists nor believing that something existing is false.
So people who are familiar with the culture and history answering "I don't know" would also illustrate this point. And I agree it doesn't situates the responder with either the yes or no camp.
There is no problem there. That is in fact what I am arguing. Sorry if that was not clear.
Its not. That is why I gave links to the world's premiere English language dictionary, as well as Wikipedia, as well as two of the largest atheists groups today, as well as the religious tolerance site.
Further, seeing as Goblinmonger, AtheistCrusader, and myself all identify as atheists I think we should be given some deference on knowing what the word means.
Now I know that we can not claim to speak for all atheists so one need not take our testimony as (please excuse me for using this phrase but I just can't help myself) "the word of god," but I definitely think our opinion should be given extra consideration.
Similarly, it is my understanding that TM99 also identifies as both an atheist and an ignostic. If he/she does not identify as an atheist, then my apologies to him/her. But assuming that she/he is one, I also think that same deference should given to him/her. The thing is, neither I, nor AC, nor GM are claiming that TM99 is not an atheist and our definition includes her/him as well.
However, speaking on my own behalf, his/her definition directly denies me as an atheist. I believe I have the prerogative to disagree.
Going back to my point. If our testimonies alone is not sufficient to make the definition worthy of being accepted I would also like to point out that one of the links I supplied (tolerance.org) makes the claim that most atheists also identify this way. Given that the two biggest atheist organizations (representing thousands of atheists) also agree with that definition I believe there is evidence to support that claim.
Further we are conducting a open poll in the AA forum as we speak and if one wishes to see how other atheists define this term they can check here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/123022814
Ultimately, the way our language and culture works, there will never be 100% consensus. The problem with defining atheism with what the average person thinks, what the average scholar/philosopher thinks, what different dictionaries say, what different people say, what different atheists (ourselves) say and how language changes means a person can choose to ignore everything and supply their own of definition of "atheists are a type of horse" if they want...though this pretty much defeats the entire point of language and allows one to make whatever point they want no matter how nonsensical.
Really, the only thing I can do to overcome this problem is that I can present a case for why I think my definition should be accepted and leave it for others to decide. I think I have presented a strong case in this posts and others for accepting my definition.
PS: If there are any grammar/spelling error or horrible nonsensical sentences I apologize I am being hurried here to get something done this post is a bit rushed. I will fix any errors shortly.
Edit: I think I made enough changes to not be too confusing.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Is he an atheist? Why isn't his self-identification enough?
It seems to me that you're teetering on the edge of No True Sotsman here. Or worse, essentially declaring that you and those who agree with you are orthodox atheists, and ST is a heretic.
Is that really where you want to go?
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)Last edited Sat May 10, 2014, 05:44 AM - Edit history (1)
I disagree with him on whether there is such a thing as an atheist belief but not once in this thread did I say he is not an atheist.
How does my definition exclude him? Where have I said, anywhere, that anyone was not a true atheist in this thread? So far I have only seen one person making any type of claim that discounts anyone (me at the very least) and that claim was not done directly or personally.
What has occurred is someone made a claim saying that atheism includes beliefs and many of us have chimed in to disagree providing ourselves, our experience, and objective evidence as counter-examples and then debating the matter.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Theist: Belief
Atheist: Non-Belief.
Gnostic: Knowledge.
Agnostic: Unknowable.
You can be an agnostic or a gnostic Atheist. An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in god, but accepts we can't know there is no god. A gnostic atheist does not believe in, and knows or professes to know that god cannot exist. You can be a agnostic or gnostic theist too.
THESE WORDS HAVE MEANING. The meaning isn't 'whatever feels good, man'.
Now, back to your logical fallacy.
"The atheist also accepts the proposition as valid and answers 'no'. Their 'belief' relies on the sole question of whether there is empirical evidence and a falsifiable theory. Of course the later is the by-product of scientism and the new 21st century New Atheism. "
What complete and utter horseshit.
"Everyone has a personal set of beliefs"
Not related to spirituality/metaphysical/supernatural shit 'everyone' does not.
One either believes or does not believe. Belief is a positive act, an 'extension' of faith in the sense of reaching or lifting. I make no such extension, I make no such positive act. NOT doing so, isn't morally or logically equivalent to doing so.
That's like saying a rocket, sitting on the Launchpad, that failed to launch, is still a Rocket Launch. Someone fueled it. Someone put it there. But no fire, no launch.
I suspect I know why people like you insist on pretending the two states are morally equivalent, but it's not going to fly with me.
Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #249)
Post removed
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Also, I forgot to address one error you made. (Error or unsupported assertion)
"The atheist also accepts the proposition as valid and answers 'no'."
No. I don't. I don't accept the proposition as valid at all. Hell, that's my first response when people ask me 'why are we here'. I immediately object. That's begging the question that there must be a 'why' AT ALL.
If it seems that I am being an ass, please keep in mind, I've been wrangling with people on this for years. Most of those people, clearly trolls. It gets tiring and it wears away at the veneer of civility to keep getting the same bullshit arguments thrown in my face over and over.
So if you meant that proposition in earnest, well, then I apologize for my tone. It didn't strike me as being earnest.
TM99
(8,352 posts)though in a good way. You really can be a pitbull about this.
I would ask you to read some on Ignosticism. Please read A.J. Ayer as well.
I have wrangled with atheists, agnostics, theists, polytheists, etc. for decades. Why? Because I am looking at the psychological ramifications of 'belief'. What we choose to think, belief (or disbelief', feel, etc. does create our subjective realities. It impacts how we relate, our morality, and our politics.
When I challenge your supposition that 'atheism' does not imply a 'belief system' that is why. That is the perspective I come from.
Further, on this level, your idea that you presented as a retort that "It's the 'not collecting stamps is a form of stamp collecting' logical fallacy" is simply inaccurate. Oh, sure, it seems like common sense. But when it comes to the mind and psychology, yes, 'not believing' is a form of 'belief'.
The simplest psychological way that I can demonstrate this is as follows: I want you to not think of an red elephant. It is impossible. The moment you think about 'not thinking' about a red elephant, you have to think about a red elephant. This 'reality' is provable daily in cognitive studies, AI, and psychology.
What is happening today with 'atheism' is part of that reality. Groups are forming. Beliefs beyond the rejection of deity are being asked to be defined and codified. Theists are going to ask what are the psychological, political, emotional, and moral ramifications of atheism as a movement. To pretend as so many do here (in a group safe-haven I might ironically add) that atheism is not a movement is just not reality any longer. The New Atheism is already being discussed, analyzed, dissected, promoted, etc. To say that religious people have 'privilege' and 'atheists' do not is just one more example of atheism as an actual 'thing' beyond fucking dictionary definitions of 'non-belief'.
So yes, StarboardTack is an identified atheist, and he stated some of his beliefs influenced by that core identity statement. LostOne4Ever is an identified atheist. What are her belief's influenced by that core identity statement. And what are yours? Finally to bring it full circle to the actual topic at hand, as an atheist with epistemilogical and psychological beliefs influenced not only by your rejection of the proposition of a god or gods existence but numerous other cultural influences, can you ally with those who accept that proposition as true but who also agree with you on political viewpoints and policies despite a fundamental 'belief' difference?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That's a wonderfully convenient assertion you have not lifted one finger to support.
"The simplest psychological way that I can demonstrate this is as follows: I want you to not think of an red elephant. It is impossible. The moment you think about 'not thinking' about a red elephant, you have to think about a red elephant. This 'reality' is provable daily in cognitive studies, AI, and psychology. "
Mis-framed argument. Better:
"There is a real, living elephant in my pocket".
*I look at you*
"I don't believe that there is a real, living elephant in your pocket.
That I might momentarily consider what sort of piston would be required to fully jam an elephant into your pocket, and the resulting bulge in your pocket, and whether the elephant might survive, implies no belief on my part whatsoever.
Visualizing your red elephant is part and parcel of evaluating the claim of a red elephant existing. Asking me not to visualize one, and then my mind happily visualizing it anyway, has nothing WHATSOEVER TO DO with advancing positive belief.
It's really a terrible and completely inapplicable argument on your part.
TM99
(8,352 posts)I did not make this up to conveniently 'win' this argument with an anonymous poster on DU. 
Perhaps before we go any further, we need to discuss Mary's room. I can't quite decide whether you are an eliminative materialist or not. You talk like one, and you self-refute yourself like one. But I don't want to presume. I would have to label myself, if I must, as a quasi-revisionary materialist. I lean more towards Ayers, Kuhn, Fodor, etc.
If you understand what I am talking about here then we can continue this conversation - probably elsewhere as the side thread is veering dangerously off-topic. Otherwise, you are just making shit up as you go along.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)along the lines of Mary's Room in a thread about whether the universe is in fact, discoverable to humans. Color perception was a specific that was raised repeatedly.
Unimportant.
I understand the concepts you are referring to, but they are not necessary to continue. You have asserted something that can be analyzed without delving into ANY of the subjects you just raised.
Person 1 makes Claim X.
Person 2 hears Claim X.
Person 2 considers Claim X.
Person 2 discards Claim X.
When I say 'discard' I fully mean it. Every single time someone raises the prospect of a supernatural god, I go through that process. Every thread. Every conversation. Every time. That's how, when evidence changes about some substitute subject in the place of X, I am able to immediately adapt to the new realities of that evidence. X could be a supernatural god, or any subject at all.
I don't need to delve into any of the subjects you just touched on to state unequivocally, that I hold no positive belief that god(s) do(es) not exist. It would be unnecessary, wasted data storage, and it would impede me if the evidence that I am aware of ever shifted in favor of such a being.
(And I have offered in multiple past threads criteria by which I would revise my position immediately.)
Discarding a positive claim does not substitute a positive belief against the claim. It COULD I suppose, but it is not required to do so in all cases.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I am a simple person, who is a realist, and who demands some kind of evidence before I believe in anything. I have seen more evidence in my research of the history of religion (that religion is merely mythology and story telling passed along and changed as needed by each new society) than I have seen evidence that there is an all powerful GOD in the sky that is watching over us and created us.
I usually side with the one who has the most evidence. Since I have yet to see any evidence that God (as interpreted in the Bible) exists, I cannot believe in it.
I think it's like Santa Clause. There is more evidence today to "prove" to me that Santa Clause does not exist, than there is to prove he does. So I don't just "believe" he doesn't exist. I collect enough information (historical, scientific, culturally) to "know" without a doubt that he does not exist. That is not a "belief". It is a knowledge.
Until there is some kind of evidence that God does exist, my "knowledge" that he does not exist is based on my understanding of a compilationg of history, mythology and how religion has changed to suite society's purposes, from the beginning of time.
And the one book that really solidified my convictions was "The History of God" by Karen Armstrong.
So I side with you. I don't believe that my conviction that there is no God is a "belief"...it's simply a weighing of the available facts to support either side of the argument. One side has a lot of information backing it up. The other has none.
wavesofeuphoria
(525 posts)I like how you've presented/stated your view.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)post #288, which you have conveniently ignored.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)go on ignoring it. But I suspect that hide is again being blamed on other people "pushing his buttons".
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)An atheist says "I don't find that sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate that a god or gods exist" That position exists at a particular moment in time, and implicit in that statement by any rational person is that, at some point in the future, such evidence may come to light, in which case the question of the existence of "god" can be re-evaluated.
Either that subtlety escaped you because you hadn't thought sufficiently about the issue to get beyond your own point of view, or you had and decided not to mention it for reasons of your own. But given your playing of the "scientism" card (which is intellectually bankrupt, if anything is), I'm not holding out too much hope for high principles here.
stone space
(6,498 posts)That's a positive claim that carries burden of proof. I'd be careful where I go with that. Someone might call you on it. And then you'll have to fall back on belief, and special pleading, which atheism lends no support to.
Since when does a simple belief require proof?
I'm an atheist, and I don't believe in a God or Gods.
I most certainly do not claim to be in possession of any proof for my atheist beliefs, so if somebody "calls me on it", so what? I'll just swat it away like a mosquito.
There is no "burden of proof" required for a stated belief.
The only time in which a "burden of proof" arises is when one claims to actually be in possession of a proof.
Any "burden of proof" is self imposed, not something to be imposed from the outside.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)You BELIEVE there is no God or gods. You do so as an act of faith.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Dawkins addressed this crock of bullshit explicitly. He doesn't find it terribly likely. That is NOT the same as stating explicitly that a god or gods do not exist as a tenet of faith.
This is a religious apologist talking point that has been carried a bit too far.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Well, what other authority could you want? I would just point out -- as others have before me -- that for a man who claims to reject dogmatism, he is remarkably dogmatic in his pronouncements.
No, saying "there is no God" is just as much an act of faith as saying "there is a God". The two statements are equivalent in that aspect.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)EVEN Dawkins.
A personality commonly identified as an anti-theist DOES NOT profess to know for certain that god does not exist.
This is not a difficult statement to grok.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, is less than compelling argument.
My point stands unchallenged: Saying "there is no God" is every bit as much an act of faith as saying "there is a God". You atheists just don't want to admit it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I say I don't believe god exists. Inclusive of all human proposed 'gods' ever.
I have repeatedly qualified that in the past, that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent supernatural being that does not wish to be directly perceived by me, cannot, by definition be perceived by me. Otherwise, it wouldn't be omnipotent, would it?
Probabilistically I can rate the possibility of such a being unlikely in my estimate, but I cannot and do not claim that GOD DOES NOT EXIST. Because I can't prove it. Nor is it my claim to prove/disprove. It's for the believers that assert the position to prove it.
Quit misconstruing what I said about Dawkins. I offered him as a worst case scenario, being a member of the 'four horsemen of the counter-apocalypse' and a prominent talking head within the atheist community. He does not assert that god or gods do not exist for a certainty.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Issuing infallable edicts drom The Chair
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I defy you to point to this "many" who regard Dawkins as infallible.
Atheists don't need a pope to bow down to and kiss his ring. Never have. Never will.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Bad analogy on my part.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"I do not believe god exists"
"I believe god does not exist"
Those two statements are not equivalent. NOT believing your claim of a god (Not YOUR claim, but people) is not morally equivalent to actively believing god does not exist.
To illustrate, expand the statements.
I do not believe your claim that XYZ god is real/exists.
I have full faith that your god does not exist.
One is a rejection of the other parties claim, the latter is a belief all on it's own, not predicted on rejection of the other parties claim.
When you make a CLAIM (X god exists/X God certainly does not exist) that claim carries burden of proof for the person that professes it. (Or it may be fairly dismissed without evidence, and the person who held that belief should not feign insult or persecution for that rejection.)
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)If anyone here didn't know what a false equivalency was, this is what one looks like. In just the last week or two there was a horrible act of religious extremism, a hundred girls were kidnapped in Africa. This is known, solid fact, and not intended to represent anyone here, as they are extremists. in the last 50 years, I challenge anyone to find atheist acts (that is, acts carried out in the name of Atheism, not acts done by someone who happens to be atheist.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)And for giving us a perfect example of "false equivalency".
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)You also try to equivocate not liking sports with bigotry, which is a huge insult to actual victims of bigotry. Of course you also equivocated homosexual relations with relations with bicycles, so I really don't expect much from you.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I know you like to use big words and catchy phrases, but you really should invest in a dictionary, or maybe some ESL classes.
Hint: Not all words with a Q in them have the same meaning.
Of course, our last president had similar comprehension problems.
Thanks for the Sunday morning chuckle.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Last edited Sun May 11, 2014, 08:47 PM - Edit history (1)
You compared religious extremists (you know, the ones that are usually quoted as having blown up an abortion clinic, or kidnapping 300ish girls) with Atheist extremists (You know, the ones who say religion is poison and hang out on the internet making fun of theists) if that's not a false equivalency than I don't know what is.
And thanks for pointing out that I spell checked it to the wrong word there, pointing out grammar mistakes are usually the last resort of an indefensible position.
Edit: I just realized you had to google search equivocate and went with the first definition you saw, I didn't make a mistake,I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. And you do equivocate often, like comparing gay marriage to marrying a bicycle, or saying you're bigoted against sports.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Did you use the wrong word or was it your spell checker. You don't seem too sure, except where it suits your purpose, then either answer will do, right?
That's what equivocating means.
The false equivalency is all yours. Those are your words, not mine. Extreme acts come from extreme beliefs. When you and other anti-theists mock all people of faith and point fingers at individuals who post here, blaming them for the sins of religious extremists, you become extremists yourselves. You embrace the same kind of bigotry, smug in your self-righteousness. You all think you have the high ground.
You pose as liberals, yet you are rigid in your closed mindedness toward believers, not toward their beliefs, but toward the individuals who dare to believe in something you find silly.
I never compared you to kidnappers of 300 girls. That analogy is yours.
As is your reference to an abortion clinic. How extreme do you think you are?
griloco
(832 posts)it's as if they feel foolish for believing something for which they have no proof so
their answer is to substitute nonsensical arguments for rational thought.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)my interpretation (and my priest's) are that Christ died for all of us. So were all redeemed 2000 years ago. As a Christian I try to live (as best I can) and follow his one commandment to love one another. I don't do this in expectation of any reward other than peace of mind and to make the world a little better. As far as heel. we create that here on earth.
You may have a different take. But hey that's what makesnus Episcopalians.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)blows the fundies away.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Some get pissed off and I love it.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)As you say, your church worked with secular groups. I have worked with church groups to support the less fortunate. Heck, I'll help decorate your Xmas tree and enjoy your carols, but don't start preach to non-believers. It is really off-putting.
If you really want to work together and build bridges with non-believers, leave references to god and Jesus out of the conversation. Do unto others etc...!
Accept the fact that some non-believers have been hurt by religion, at some time in their lives, and some of those have consequently become virulent anti-theists. Provoking them will not build bridges. In fact, if you really want to engage in bridge building, it's best not to invite bridge burners to the party.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)As well as a DU group. Live and learn.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Late 1980s early 90s rural Texas. I look quite different now.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Those were the days. Easy Rider comes to mind, as well.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)"Nick, nick, nick..." as I remember...
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)There is a scene where Jack Nicholson, just our of jail, is having a little nip of Jim Beam. After the fire water goes down he does this thing where he flaps his arm up and down while saying .'nik, nik, nik...'
maybe my favorite jack scene of all time...
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
pangaia
(24,324 posts) arely staircase
(12,482 posts)great movie I haven't seen in years. thanks for the explanation
pangaia
(24,324 posts)You question just encouraged me to spend some time watching Jack clips and interviews, ER interviews, etc.
And now, back to the thread..
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)ly.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I remember shouts of 'get out faggot' and despite your hostility toward me you don't strike me as the type to say such things.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"As well as a DU group. Live and learn."
Though, in fairness, I suppose you could be referring to escapades in a forum that is not the Atheists & Agnostics safe haven.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Common ground can be found but not if the seeker insists on proselytising their specific faith by use of that common ground.
Incidentally, your pain at being rejected does not for poor judgment and a divisive and insulting post does not justify your continued attempts to highlight your - well, for lack of a better term - butt hurt.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Exactly why should I have respect for someone or something that condemns me to eternal torture?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It is hard to respect someone if they tell you that hell awaits you.
I don't think the believers here said that for the most part.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Well the Hindus probably didn't.
But with Abrahamic religions it's like, y'know, pretty much a given. I mean, what with all that Last Judgement/ died for your sins/ intercession/ redemption/ use the prophet's name in vain/ good vs evil gobbledygook.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Not even once.
You must be thinking of some other sites you have visited. You know, the ones populated by right wing republican religious people. Because people just don't say it here.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Recent discussions here confirmed that gays have to be tortured after they die, perhaps not eternally, but tortured. At least they get to die first. I'm pretty sure that "tortured after you are dead" is not painful.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Might wanna ask him about that.
cbayer
(146,218 posts) Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)You are on top of things when an atheist says something you feel is out of line, why are you blind when a theist sayssomething that is actually offensive to progressives?
I'm not calling names because I don't want to get alerted on.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If you want to know what I really do, read my posts. Don't just repeat what you are being told.
There is no rule on this site about calling people out. If you are going to make an accusation, at least have the guts to back it up. I don't think you can.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)by fostering civility on this board, cbayer? You constantly preach about that, but when it comes down to a choice between being civil and being snarky and hostile, you always seem to make the choice you made here.
A preacher should first lead by example, and BE the change they advocate.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)And if someone tells you that you aren't being respectful, that you actually engage in a dialogue with them instead of running to your clique and talking about how much that group is a bunch of meanies.
rug
(82,333 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)And I can guarentee you he/she had at least one DUmail thanking her/him.
Then she/he ran here poured gasoline on her bridge and set it and those of us who were foolish enough to think she was sincere on fire.
If this is how she/he builds bridges, I would advise them not to take a career in bridge building.
rug
(82,333 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)could possibly come across as offensive to which they replied to but did not make changes to their post.
Then a post thanking them again.
After that was the critical post telling the poster that their post was offensive and criticizing him/her for making it. A post he/she proved to be completely accurate by making the locked thread here.
That was followed by a reply politely explaining why his/her post would not be well received there and the final two posts from the host.
The first host reply said he was locking it and politely saying they were going to discuss it but would probably keep the lock. The second confirming the first.
rug
(82,333 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)I would hate to see what 2 would be then. Three would have to be a berating apocalypse.
Time to get these out!
rug
(82,333 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)Making an insincere and inflammatory posting (one that another poster told you was inflammatory) just to run off to another forum and cry foul while making everyone who thought you were genuine into fools deserves a berating.
rug
(82,333 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)The thread was locked at post 8 at Wed May 7, 2014, 06:31 PM. As seen from the photo I posted I received an email back from arely at 7:34PM (my sent mail just says Wednesday currently), Arely posted at 9:54 PM and the post announcing the permalock was at 10:23PM and the ban came at 10:30pm
This is according to my time stamps.
Edit:
I have arely on ignore and had to open a different browser where I was logged out to see those posts. I noticed that changes the time stamps. Copying and pasting puts them into my time zone (central). All of the above are from my logged in time stamp...ie central time zone.
Maybe you are doing something similar and its giving you the default time zone of ET on one post and CT (or whatever time zone your computer is set at) on another?
rug
(82,333 posts)But this issue has devolved enough.
But thanks for the info.
Dorian Gray
(13,493 posts)Not serious. Thanking God in an atheist forum?
That's trolling if I've ever seen it.
Then linking the closed thread? For what possible purpose?
Outrage a little too light that day?
I thank God every day for things. But that was unnecessarily provocative.
stone space
(6,498 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)...talking about Christian fundamentalists or atheist fundamentalists.
This has been my experience, anyway.
Fundamentalists rarely acknowledge their disrespect.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Such a wise decision.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Nicely played.
OR, if you are that obtuse, you may want to have someone help you with your posting. Kind of like a job coach or something.
stone space
(6,498 posts)...we disagree on something and that "it has already been explained to me" why your view is the correct view and my view is the incorrect view, and that you are upset that we still disagree even after "it has already been explained to me".
This is a pattern that I have observed from some here.
And I don't expect it to end anytime soon.
Oh, well...
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)As a mathematician, you probably shouldn't be talking about patterns when you've only been here since April 15th. Stop acting like you understand all the history. And stop acting like your shtick is somehow new and clever.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)phil89
(1,043 posts)Sorry, there's no such thing.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cheyanne
(733 posts)One way to deal with that is to define respect: the acceptance of another's beliefs and that they truly believe what they are saying. That means not trying to change another's opinion or proselytizing.
If someone accepts those parameters, you should be able to discuss theology: what do you believe, is that different than what I believe, how does that work in the natural world, etc.
To reach common ground for discussion about behavior, it is necessary to go a step further: what do we both believe? Usually it is "love thy neighbor". Once you establish that, then you can talk about how to love your neighbor: the homeless, the mentally ill, those different than I am.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Working at recognizing that we have more in common that we have difference and building coalitions that support the goals of this site should be the guiding principle of this group.
But it's religion, and that's not always going to happen. I am as guilty of engaging in no-win debates here as others.
Perhaps the hosts of the group need to re-think the SOP so that it more accurately reflects what the members want and moves away from the endless, divisive, destructive wars between "us" and "them".
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)command from the word of god, to do X when X runs counter to a democratic party plank, or progressive ideal?
Fuck common ground. (under those circumstances.)
cbayer
(146,218 posts) AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)prevent you from finding common ground with them?
While there may be some support for specific institutions that hold some values that run counter to democratic and progressive policies, I don't see anyone here supporting those policies.
So, you can't find common ground with those people?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)When someone pipes up that racism might not be 'real' racism if the subject racists just don't 'know any better', no I have no common ground with that person.
That person or persons has categorized themselves as a problem.
Shit, in GD, AGW denial can get you banned. I have NO IDEA why apologists in this realm are allowed to continue posting.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The question is this - does that position on which you do not share common ground prohibit your from finding others areas where you do?
Must someone really agree with you on every issue in order to have any common ground at all?
If so, then I think your answer to this poll is very clear and the options not too simplistic at all.
I think that the owners of the site are quite interested in people finding common ground, as Skinner so eloquently described in his Easter thread.
Those that do not have this as a goal are the ones that are a problem, imo.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)'not one of us! not one of us!' thing on most issues. You might notice I happen to post in the gungeon as well. I sometimes hold contrarian or devil's avocate positions in GD on some issues, such as nuclear power, or war.
But this subject seems like such foundational bedrock, I'm not actually sure how to work around it, in all honesty. It would require just pretending the other person doesn't hold that position, and dance around it.
I am not prone to that sort of behavior. When I find a problem, or a point of disagreement, I drive forward to resolution. Always forward.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It takes courage to publicly say what you have just said.
Sometimes it is best to set aside certain points of disagreement. I don't know about you, but there are certain things my husband and I just can not discuss because we disagree so completely on it. Setting it aside and agreeing not to discuss it allows us to find common ground in other areas. Is that not the case in your own marriage?
I am not familiar with you gungeon postings, as I would never go anywhere near that place. I see virtually no opportunity for common ground there. I don't go to the I/P forum for the same reason.
But when it comes to religion, I think there is tremendous opportunity.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)this forum entirely to accomplish that.
Consider it a character flaw on my part.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)So, what would you say is your goal(s) in posting here? Finding common ground or being right? Or something else entirely?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)the 'religion' factor played no part in politics whatsoever. For instance, getting it out of the picture on the abortion debate would be a huge boon. Any attempt to ban or constrain abortion would then have to be sourced to some actual rational/scientific basis. Rather than worrying about the 'religious conscience' of people who aren't even the ones who would be having the abortion.
I'm ok with it if say, the RCC instructs its adherents not to have abortions. Fine. Membership is inclusive. Keep it there, and do not attempt to extend it to non-members by force of law, and ta-da. I have no problem with it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But we can work together to push back against the religious groups that push bigotry, infringe on others civil rights or prevent social justice/economic equality. And by we, I mean progressives/liberals whose ideas are driven by their religion and whose ideas are not.
I don't think you will find anyone on this site who disagrees with what you are basically saying here. But since you are not going to eliminate religion from politics, it seems to be even more important to identify those with whom you share common ground and work with them.
There were a lot of religious people and groups involved in OWS, btw. Moral Mondays is a religiously driven movement. Bill Moyers uses his religious beliefs to work vigorously for causes I support.
I, for one, do not want to see any of that eliminated.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I don't consider it impossible to get religion out of politics. I don't see it happening soon, but I find demographic trends encouraging as time marches on. So I don't think you can just automatically assume 'that won't happen'.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)in the US over the last 30 - 40 years.
So, if we are looking at trends, the demographics may or may not make a difference.
At any rate, there will always be religion, imo, and there will always be religious people in politics.
So while waiting for it to go away, I think we need to look closely at the ways religion can intersect with politics as a positive force.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Does that mean that we will never be able to separate laws based on religious belief from affecting all other religious or non-religious people? In other words, these people, in spite of the constitution, will still try to pass laws that affect everyone, whether they are of the same faith or not? And that is OK?
Do you not see a problem with that? What if the laws being passed do not conform to "your" religion?
No one is saying people of any faith can't live the way they believe it is right to live (within the laws of society), but how can anyone in a country that supposedly accepts all and no religion, force others to live the way they believe? Including something as controversial as abortion.
Why can't religious people just accept their religion for themselves, and let the rest be?
There should not be any laws based on any one religion in this country. They should be based on good morals, and science and what is good for society. And you don't have to be religious to have good morals or want to do the best thing for promotion of a sound and safe society that benefits not just that society, but this planet.
Many things in many religions run counter to what is best for this planet. Like overpopulation and using too many resources and poisoning the planet with waste; and especially leaving too many people to suffer in poverty.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I am a strong separation advocate. I do not believe that there should be state sponsored religion and I do believe that religious beliefs should be protected.
People bring their beliefs with them when they enter the legislative arena, whether those be religious or not. You certainly bring yours, which I assume are liberal/progressive.
It is the imposition of those beliefs on others which trample on their civil liberties or lead to social injustices that are the problem. That's where we begin to see issues around the 1st amendment and I will adamantly object to that.
We agree in principal, of that I am sure, but asking someone to check their religion at the door is not feasible or even desirable.
In a society that discriminates against people with certain religious beliefs and those with none, I think it's particularly important to make sure they are represented when decisions are being made.
Most people do just practice their own religion. Other try to legislate. And many are just guided by it. You sound like you want them to be in the closet and that's wrongheaded, imo.
I agree that there are many religious ideas that are bad for this planet. There are also many religious ideas that are good for this planet.
It's up to us to choose who to support.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Only to understand that just because they strongly believe something to be a moral imperative, that trumps all in the arena of politics, and laws should be passed to support those beliefs, even if they go against what is best for society and the planet, and many other's beliefs. The religous majority should not get to win in a country that honors all beliefs. If a country's laws are based on the relgious majority, then it is a theocracy.
I know religion will most likely always influence legislation, unfortunately, but it really should not. People need to understand that they cannot, nor should they, try to enforce their religious beliefs on others through legislation. That is where the distinction needs to be made. Morals do not come from religion. Religions have often contained rules that we, as society, have overturned as immoral. Religions tend to push the idea that "their" morals are the only morals that are correct. But they are often wrong.
I hold with the idea that the constitution is a living document and needs to be changed now and then as we evolve as a human species. Not as a "religious" species, but as a "human" species, that takes care of itself and the planet we live on...and treats all people with the same dignity and respect, regardless of their individual beliefs.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)were you in the position of making legislative decisions. In fact, i would be very skeptical of what drives if you did not have them, because I wouldn't know where you stood ideologically.
If those ideologies are consistent with or further my own, I frankly do not care where they come from. It they come from someone's religious beliefs, fine. If they come from someone's experiences having worked in Kenya, fine.
What you are describing is crusaders or fundamentalists that have rigid beliefs that they wish to impose on others. That is an entirely different thing, imo.
Had MLK not been led by his religiously based visions about how things should be, would we have achieved the same goals at the same time. I don't think so.
And there are a million other examples just like that. Currently Moral Mondays is led by those with religious beliefs. bill Moyers, an extremely progressive voice, is absolutely driven by his religious beliefs.
You are preaching to the choir about people trying to legislate their morals in a way that restricts the rights of others. I also fully understand that morality and ethics do not need religion as their source, but I also understand that that is where they come from for some people. And I'm totally fine with that.
I think we have much in common.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Or we wouldn't both be posting here on DU.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I hope you will continue to post in the religion group. It can be a rough and tumble place, but it's got some great regulars.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)posting on a regular basis. I only got dragged in here by my toenails 
because of a thread in the A&A group that made it to the front page. I don't post in the A&A group either. Discussing religion is a hard topic to not get emotional in.
It's really better for everyone if I just stay out of religious discussions. But we can talk about other things in other forums.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You are as welcome here as anyone else.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)but for my own personal reasons, I'll probably rarely post here. 
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Differences of opinion are welcome and you are a civil and thoughtful poster.
Anyway, I hope to run into you again.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Well, I've seen it said that they won't post their try feelings because it might get them banned.
There have been some threads here that should have resulted in a mass banning for anti-progressive comments but because of their religious privilege we're the bad guys for pointing out that they support monstrous viewpoints.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Yeah, I'm sure admin is up for that. If that were to happen, the place would be a ghost town.
FWIW, there is no religious privilege on this site. Believers and non-believers are both "protected" according to the TOS.
There is no bias in juries against non-believers nor is there special protection of believers.
That's a meme that has gone on for a long time and part of the "Help, we're being persecuted" complex which has no basis in fact.
Some believers and non-believers alike will claim that, but I'd bet the house that the data wouldn't back it up.
And while there are some members who frequent this group that are treated with scorn and disrespect, it is generally a result of their own behavior towards others and has nothing to do with whether they are believers or non-believers.
Thankfully, it's a small number and not at all representative of the bulk of members on DU.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Like when your husband (Starboard Tack) compared same-sex marriage to marrying one's bicycle, or grandmother.
There are people you hate, and whom you think are destroying the Democratic Party, and whom you ignore on here, but none of them have ever said anything so bigoted and hateful.
And yes, I'm thankful your husband is just one person and not representative of the bulk of members on DU.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)such a "tolerant" atheist?? Tolerant Atheists are the most highly elevated of all beings. Just ask them.
rug
(82,333 posts)You're ranting at phantoms.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)We shall see in a couple months.
Share with us your stance on Abortion and Women as priests.
rug
(82,333 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)to dodge the question.
rug
(82,333 posts)I presume when you say "us", that there is an "us".
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)and, not to be childish, I asked you first.
rug
(82,333 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Circular discussions are even less interesting.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)The only one going in circles is you.
rug
(82,333 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)cheyanne
(733 posts)1. First of all, of course, is mutual respect. This can be incredibly hard to achieve. It means that you accept that they truly belief what they say and that you respect their right to believe it. If you can't do that, deal-braker!
2.If once mutual respect has been agreed upon, then the difference between proselytizing and discussion needs to be made clear. Neither side should be trying to change the other's opinion.
3. Then we can talk about what is common ground. In theological matters, that can be unlikely, other than the basics: there is a god, he is good, love thy neighbor. All religions have at least those beliefs in common. For non-believers love thy neighbor is usually a belief, too.
So where is the common ground? It is found in the real world application of the religion. How to love thy neighbor. How to protect the needy/helpless? How to insure that religious differences are not used to denigrate others.
By agreeing to these guidelines it should become apparent if the participants really want to find common ground. It should prevent discussions devolving into theological matters that cannot be resolved.
Remember you can't debate beliefs and you can't change someone's beliefs. You can, however, work with them for the common good.
Our democratic system is built on the idea that people with different belief systems can find common ground to build a nation.
The sticking point is agreeing when someone's beliefs impinge on someone else's freedom.
Tough job.
cheyanne
(733 posts)1. First of all, of course, is mutual respect. This can be incredibly hard to achieve. It means that you accept that they truly belief what they say and that you respect their right to believe it. If you can't do that, deal-braker!
2.If once mutual respect has been agreed upon, then the difference between proselytizing and discussion needs to be made clear. Neither side should be trying to change the other's opinion.
3. Then we can talk about what is common ground. In theological matters, that can be unlikely, other than the basics: there is a god, he is good, love thy neighbor. All religions have at least those beliefs in common. For non-believers love thy neighbor is usually a belief, too.
So where is the common ground? It is found in the real world application of the religion. How to love thy neighbor. How to protect the needy/helpless? How to insure that religious differences are not used to denigrate others.
By agreeing to these guidelines it should become apparent if the participants really want to find common ground. It should prevent discussions devolving into theological matters that cannot be resolved.
Remember you can't debate beliefs and you can't change someone's beliefs. You can, however, work with them for the common good.
Our democratic system is built on the idea that people with different belief systems can find common ground to build a nation.
The sticking point is agreeing when someone's beliefs impinge on someone else's freedom.
Tough job.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)As a result, there shouldn't be as much direction in here. It's just about making sure the OPs are about religion. If you want more controlled discussions, stay in your safe havens.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)with the clinical DSM-V meaning, despite clearly defining my usage, to come in here and take you to task for that post.
Any moment now. I'm sure they're on their way.
Aaaaaany second now.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)here, and in this other thread over here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1222&pid=1317
Fascinating.
rug
(82,333 posts)Fascinating.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I seem to recall that being an issue with them as well.
Their absence in this subthread continues to be noted.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)probably runs afoul of the site rules. I seem to recall some bans of that nature over in the gungeon.
I just find it interesting given I can see at least one of the posters that freaked out about, from here, without resizing or scrolling the thread at all...
And in fairness, I am well aware you never made that argument with me, and possibly not with anyone.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Many fundamentalist Christians and level seven atheists will not even attempt to work with people in the middle for many reasons, ranging from thinking that others are delusional to thinking that they are dammed. I like to think that we all can find some common ground. I believe that anything religion does that leads to abuse, exclusion, fear, intimidation or the violation of civil (human) rights is unacceptable and must be fought. However, as a humanist I realize that some people find value in faith. The emotional element involved in religion is deep and unquestionable, but most Christians would tell you that there’s more to it than that, ask them and see. I believe that there are many among the faithful that, if not religious humanists, are certainly allies in the fight against the problems listed above.Over the past fifteen months, I have been working on a project called “Be Secular” with my wife, Shanon (the president of Be Secular), and our co-founder and vice president, AJ Johnson. We believe that the more progressive members of faith communities that support LGBT rights, woman’s reproductive rights, and the separation of church and state are not only allies but important parts of this movement.-
See more at: http://besecular.com/tenthings/#sthash.fzr1xy69.dpuf
http://besecular.com/tenthings/
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I have made the case before that one can be both religious and secular. I think it's a mistake to use the word secular only to describe the non-religious. It's just another wedge.
He puts this extremely well and I very much agree with him.
I grew up in a radically activist family. My father is a minister. Members of the church and other organizations he was affiliated with seemed to have no problem working with those whose views on religion were markedly different.
Common ground was what it was all about and I remain a strong proponent, even though I am not personally religious.
Dorian Gray
(13,493 posts)post and I wish that you had come out and wrote this instead of the original poll. (Or even the original post in the atheists forum.) I followed the links, and it truly read like you were intentionally being provocative. Why else would you "Thank God" for atheists? While some responded nicely, others were, understandably, put off.
Even if it wasn't your intention to rankle and you were completely sincere in your thoughts, then the subsequent threads read like a call out.
I am NOT an atheist. I am a practicing Roman Catholic in a very liberal parish in Brooklyn. I get where you are coming from and I get frustrated when I think people are dismissive of my faith or of me because I have faith. But, at this point, I think you should listen to why that was provocative to some. Because this post... this post is actually a great start to dialog.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Some people can't/won't take a compliment.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Even if you intended well, your steadfast refusal to even consider why what you said was considered insulting has really soured this whole incident.
Many atheists, and even some believers have now weighed in to ask you to stop continuing to attack those who felt insulted by your intrusion. That you continue to just blow them off and blame those who were offended is sad.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)and you should apologize for sating I have. Either I forgive you.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But people took it that way. Your continued behavior to blame everyone else and play the martyr is pathetic.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)That should clear it up.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)and your follow up "look at my lovely turd in the punchbowl" op was alerted on and locked as a violation of the SOP of this forum.
And this third opus is .....
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Is that not sufficient?
Are you compelled to read and post in this forum?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)For instance, on a political issue, like same sex marriage, when one side is latched onto a prohibition of it due to religious objection, we have a problem, and now the non-existence of said faith is an issue on the table.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Iggo
(47,550 posts) cbayer
(146,218 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)I did not realize that the post I was responding to was a thinly veiled jab at the OP.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But that is how I interpreted it.
When one gets banned from a safe haven, then a thread complaining about it in a unrelated forum locked, and then continues to feign wounded animal... maybe I start reading meaning into other people's objections that aren't there. Not for me to say, for certain.
cheyanne
(733 posts)First of all, of course, is mutual respect. This can be incredibly hard to achieve. It includes respect for the other's religion. No saying that the other is disingenuous in her/his beliefs or that a belief is wrong.
If once mutual respect has been agreed upon, then the difference between proselytizing and discussion need to be made clear. Neither side should be trying to change the other's opinion.
Then we can talk about what is common ground. In theological matters, that can be unlikely, other than the basics: there is a god, he is good, love thy neighbor. All religions have at least those beliefs in common.
So where is the common ground? It is found in the real world application of the religion. How to love thy neighbor. How to protect the needy/helpless? How to insure that religious differences are not used to denigrate others.
By agreeing to these guidelines it should become apparent if the participants really want to find common ground. It should prevent discussions devolving into theological matters that cannot be resolved.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)on issues related to homelessness, domestic abuse and drug addiction.
cheyanne
(733 posts)The beliefs behind this cannot be debated. The question that really applies to the differences in religious beliefs is: when do my beliefs infringe on your way of life?
Tough one.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)If were to marry another man in my church the State of Texas would not recognize it. The mayor of Houston had to fly the local priest out to California to get hitched to her gf.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)To suggest that the common ground is in the real world application of religion is dismissive of their lack of beliefs.
The goals of loving ones neighbor, protecting the needy/helpless and religious tolerance can be areas of common ground. I can think of a dozen more.
Does it matter whether one's ideas about these things come from religion or not? I don't think so.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I appreciate it.
cheyanne
(733 posts)of which I am one.
I think that non-believers agree to the real world application of love thy neighbor. The other religious beliefs, such as supernatural beings and their attributes, are not pertinent to the discussion of real world applications of love thy neighbor.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Thanks for the further explanation.
djean111
(14,255 posts)to do good things? When I am working with other people in order to do anything, I am totally not interested in whether they are fellow atheists or religious. Who cares.
I do know that once someone feels the need to tell me that they are religious, I am almost always in for some proselytizing, with an undercurrent of well, you must be a bit religious in order to do good things. That used to irritate me, now it just sounds sort of needy.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)That is why I answered 2
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Otherwise, there would be no need to bring religion into it at all. And yet you did. Again.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)real world progressive stuff, hardly at all.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And the people here likely won't be working together in the real world anyway.
Which leaves again the question of what your real purpose is in posting this poll.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I thought I was replying to someone else.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)What's your point?
rug
(82,333 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)You can get up off the floor now.
cheyanne
(733 posts)discussion. You can't find common ground with someone if you think that they don't believe what they say. This is particularly important in religious discussions where each participant has different religious beliefs.
Mutual respect means accepting what someone says about themselves, i.e. their beliefs. This should not be part of the discussion.
Acceptance of other's beliefs does not mean proselytizing or rejecting beliefs.
Basically, you can't argue about beliefs, only the real world consequences of those beliefs.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that two people or two groups can have is agreement on what is real and what is not, and what is true and what is not. Religionists are fundamentally at odds with non-religionists in those respects.
stone space
(6,498 posts)....nonexistence of a God or Gods.
Saying that this is the most important issue for people hoping to come together to work for social justice issues is absolute nonsense.
There are a lot of differences that people have that are actually important.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I'm referring to much more than that. You do realize that, right?
And yes, I know a lot of atheists are happy to let religionists slide on the issue of whether their "god" actually exists (which, despite your dismissal is critically important to many of them, in this room and elsewhere). But it's an intellectual failure.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Neither do we consider it an "intellectual failure". Their beliefs have no bearing on our lives, unless they are translated into negative actions like book burnings or killing abortionists.
We don't judge them by their intellect. We know that not all are as smart as you. We judge them by their actions.
When I look at a person, I don't wonder about his intellectual capacity, nor his spiritual beliefs, I ask myself "Is this someone I'd climb a mountain with, or cross an ocean?"
cheyanne
(733 posts)You're right that they are fundamentally at odds, but only in the theological realm. There can be common ground in the real world.
Many people have a belief of love thy neighbor. It may be religious or it may be humanistic but that is common ground.
With that common assumption the question is how to love my neighbor: the homeless, the needy, those different than I am.
The point you are raising, seems to me, to be that of applications of beliefs in the real (not supernatural world): when does someone's belief impinge on my freedom.
It's a hard point to establish in each case, but, luckily our form of government is built on belief that all of us share in a democracy: there is common ground to build a nation where everyone can belief what they want and not impose on others.
Dorian Gray
(13,493 posts)it's obvious that you could never work with a religious person on a common goal because you disagree on what is real or not.
In non-DU real life, I rarely talk about religion, so I wouldn't know what any individual's beliefs were most of the time.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Sheesh. People CAN still work towards common goals, even though they don't have common ground everywhere.
Have I ever said anything contrary to that?
Dorian Gray
(13,493 posts)I'm very excited to start our new life working toward common goals. We're going to have so much fun.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)And then when that gets locked, proudly point it out to everyone here in this forum, and then when that gets locked start a poll that is just a wee bit disingenuous about what you just did.
stone space
(6,498 posts)That's supposed to be a safe haven for atheists, not a platform in which to denigrate our families with insults based on nothing but ignorance and stereotypes.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)as ignorant, insulting and stereotyping, you might not want to do it in there. You're free to toss whatever insults make you feel better out here, though.
stone space
(6,498 posts)I know her.
You don't.
rug
(82,333 posts)He's referring to specific posters and their abusive posts. They can't hide their vileness by trying to blend in and hide behind in a group.
Nice try.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Sleeping with the enemy is sinful. 
stone space
(6,498 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)If you have problems with that, take it up with Skinner. I'll be interested to see his response to your insight into how to run this website after a whopping 23 days here.
rug
(82,333 posts)Take that up with Skinner: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1259
I think it is bad form to allow a thread that goes after a member by name when said member is banned from the room.
I am talking about the one that went after you.
rug
(82,333 posts)I especially liked the cartoon of a bare ass.
Ah, reason!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)If they don't like you that is their choice but naming publicaly who you are ignoring seems tacky.
And the responses was just plain mean.
I also don't think they really ignore you.
rug
(82,333 posts)I would be flattered if it weren't so creepy - and stupid.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I did it and it was very helpful.
rug
(82,333 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
onager
(9,356 posts)77 replies in that thread, and you picked out my little cartoon of Bart Simpson to mention! I'm so flattered!
rug
(82,333 posts)onager (7,682 posts) Response to mr blur (Reply #67)
76. Do we have to wave? Wed May 7, 2014, 09:54 PM
I can see why you need a safe haven where you can engage in frank discussions about the effects of religion on politics, free of debate about the existence of a deity or deities.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)How dare the rascal come here saying such things after only 23 days, and a Christian wife to boot? He can't possibly be a real atheist. Another bloody infiltrator. I'm sure you'll handle it all in a fair and just manner.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I have tried on numerous occasions to try help him understand the norms in A/A. I don't care if he agrees with me. Just letting him know what is going to set people off. He has disregarded that on numerous occasions including an extensive PM exchange. He doesn't have to take my advice but he has to deal with violating the social norms. Don't pretend you know what I've tried to do. I was very patient with him precisely because he was new.
Give me the link to where anybody made disparaging comments about his wife. That is being tossed around here and it is utter bullshit. Either provide the link or shut up about it. It was never done.
I think I have been very fair. He hasn't been banned from A/A. Though it is likely coming since he has dragged the safe haven discussion into Religion. You remember that. The reason you were banned. I have already voted to ban because of it. Just waiting for the other hosts. Because we are fair and work on votes.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Who are these people that you don't want to upset? You told me the same kind of stuff 2 years ago. Why has A&A become such an unwelcome place for atheists who don't have an axe to grind with liberal progressive people of faith. Why do you succumb to the stridency of the extremists who want only "pure atheists" in their midst?
You are a host, not a hatchet man for the anti-theists. You say you don't care if he agrees with you. You say you've been very patient with him. You say he violated social norms. What social norms?
Now you've tossed him out. You caved man. Again. What are you keeping your "haven" safe from, exactly?
I know I have been ex-communicated, but I feel a tinge of embarrassment when I see the name of the group. Like a catholic who has been ex-communicated for challenging the Vatican's position on gays and women.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)I have never been made to feel unwelcome in A/A either. I have politely disagreed with the other posters on issues there and have never been attacked.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1230&pid=17337
Not one person made me feel uncomfortable or attacked me for posts like this. Not one.
The poster you are talking about made numerous comments using a term that he was told by not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 different posters that it was inappropriate and then proceed to necro a 2 year old thread and do it again with another offensive term. That was just one of the several social norms he broke...repeatedly.
I know of a group where one person made a single joke using a term that he/she was told was offensive to believers and was immediately blocked.
Further, the poster you are talking about was allowed to do it time and time again in our forum and was given numerous warnings. Why is it only an issue in the A/A safe haven? Why is it okay for that poster to link to and then bash participants in a safe haven in both here and GD? Thus opening them up to attack and completely undermining the safe haven concept?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)atheists are not a well received minority in this country.
Would you have any problem with a host of the feminism forum having a discussion with a new member about the use of the word "hysterical"? And, after having that conversation, if the new member not only continued to use the word but also ran over to GD to talk about how thin skinned the feminists were would you think it would be out of line for the hosts of that group to do the only thing they can do to protect their safe haven? And would that be out of line even if the person who used the offensive word kept saying it was ok because they were a feminist?
I am keeping my haven safe from the bullshit that we have to be confronted with all the time. A/A is the one place on this discussion board where we shouldn't have to deal with all the ridiculous bullshit that we have to face in every day life. We shouldn't have to have people coming in there telling us that they are thanking god for us and that we are doing the work of Jesus. If I want to be preached to, I would let the Mormons in that come to my door rather than offering them a beverage and telling them I don't wish to talk. We shouldn't have to deal with people--even atheists--coming in there talking about how militant isn't a bad word when it is used fucking constantly on a progressive site to try and demean us and marginalize us even more and to make us as bad as all those other RW meanies. Fuck that. I have to deal with that all the time in my personal life and I have to deal with it here and it's nice to have a place where I know I won't have to deal with that shit. And if you don't like that, or if you and others can't play by those really simple fucking rules, then stay the fuck away. That does not make us anti-theists (though some in A/A are). That makes us sick of the privileged shit we get every day.
And you are awfully protective of this new guy. Some might say that him living in Latin America and having a very similar approach, attitude, tact, and intelligence level as you might be more than just a coincidence. If it is a coincidence, then fine. If it isn't, I have you have a wonderful time the next time you get together for drinks and talking down pedestrian American sports while enjoying a rousing game of cricket.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)1. "Atheists are not a well received minority in this country" - Really? Everyone is born an atheist/agnostic. Hardly a minority. It is the default position in life. Many are then indoctrinated into a belief system. Many who leave the "club" may well suffer a degree of ostracism. I came to your country as a relatively young man, well established in my atheism. I married into a family that was, for the most part, fundamentalist Christian. I was asked about my beliefs the first day I met my wife's family. I answered honestly and the subject never came up again. That was 33 years ago. I am still welcome in that family, though we have been divorced for 20+ years.
My current wife, as you know, is the daughter of a progressive/liberal/activist Christian minister. I am proud to call him a close friend and have never felt more welcome in a family. I have never hidden my atheism from anyone, never felt the need to keep it a secret. Nor have I ever felt the need to challenge the faith of believers.
2. I have a problem with the word "hysterical" wherever used. What bad word did Stone Face use?
3. You should not have to deal with people thanking god and praising the lord, I agree. That's why you have the power to lock a thread.
4. Your haven is not safe for atheists who disagree with the hardcore anti-theists who effectively control the group. And I doubt there are any agnostics at all. A few of us have tried to engage with fellow atheists in A&A, but found the toxic atmosphere a little overwhelming. The only place to have a decent discussion is here in Religion, where the rabid anti-theists do not run the ship. The irony is, that Religion has become the most comfortable place for many atheists and agnostics, rather than the one that bears the label. I do not consider you an anti-theist, btw, but you let them bully you and it's quite sickening to watch. I know you have principles and struggle with these issues, but there comes a time when you have to stand up to the bullying. The celebration party held in your honor for keeping your haven safe is beyond the pale. You lock one threat, because you don't want any "grave dancing" and then allow something like that. Do you really buy into that shit?
5. I'm gonna let you slide on the thinly veiled accusations you make in your last paragraph. Sounds like you listen to a lot of woo in the basement. You might want to keep it down there.
Rob H.
(5,351 posts)IIRC, that's the reason cbayer was banned. ST was banned for numerous reasons, all of them worse than that.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I was trying to simply things for the argument. That was one of the reasons he was banned.
ETA: If you are a star member you can search for the post detailing the banning in A/A. There were a lot of things much worse than taking the safe haven to Religion, but that was one of them. I will freely admit I am still holding some old hurt for the way people treated and reacted to the DU banning of laconicsax so I didn't go into those reasons.
[FONT COLOR=FFFFFF]I am quite sure Starboard Tack will take this declaration of me still being hurt to bring it up though.[/FONT]
rug
(82,333 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)He was blocked for numerous reasons including using a term that many of us told him was offensive and then necroing a thread to promote an equally offensive term in a thread discussing exactly why that term was offensive in the first place.
Further, he was undermining the safe haven by using comments made in the safe haven to bash the group with.
I know that at least in regard to the first offense how much you dislike that and have done your best to protected your own safe haven from similar disruptors.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I knew what was coming.
rug
(82,333 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)seriously? I did that? When?
Try reading what I wrote about intellectual dishonesty and what I meant, instead of looking for reasons to have an upset. And if you want to parse sentences looking for ways to get upset, you should have also noted that I allowed for exceptions, there might exist an intellectually honest modernist believer, so just for you, your wife is that exception. 'kay?
p.s. I liked your goats.
PumpkinAle
(1,210 posts)is a start. But I have to admit I do get riled by the fundies (whether Christian or Muslism or any other religion) and their personal "God" - who I don't believe exists. If God exists She would be the complete opposite of what the fundies say.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Do you get riled when fellow atheists call you a religion apologist for showing tolerance?
I don't get riled by any believers ecause I don't share their beliefs. I get riled by intolerant fundamentalist anti-theists who claim to speak for all non-believers.
PumpkinAle
(1,210 posts)'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'
I will listen to anyone's beliefs/philosophies/non-beliefs (and can find things to discuss and agree on and even agree to disagree) but when the fundies shove their "beliefs", which are usually very intolerant of anyone's beliefs other than their own, then yes I get riled.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)You want to find common ground with atheists? Fine. Here's how:
1) Look to the left of your screen.
2) Select any one of the 22 topics that is not called "Religion & Spirituality"
3) Select any group or safe haven you so choose.
4) Talk about something that is not religion and/or spirituality.
Blam. Instant common ground with atheists.
For the most part, the atheists and believers here don't see eye to eye. Big fucking deal. We probably agree on a bunch of other shit, so can we please stop acting as if the little quibbles we get into here are somehow tearing liberalism apart?
That shit's fucking ridiculous.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And I think that is exactly what happens all over this site. Religious and non-religious people find common ground and never mention religion.
That happens IRL as well.
But, a counterpoint, if I might.
When wedge issues within the democratic party or liberal/progressive people is identified, could there not be some benefit in discussing that wedge issue and working to reduce it's impact or prevent others from driving it even deeper.
In certain parts of the OWS movement, religious and non-religious people worked closely together. There were sometimes conflicts that arose out of the issue of whether religion belonged there at all.
At least in the situations I am aware of, there was benefit in putting those issues on the table, hammering them out, recognizing the common ground and working together.
I'd be concerned that ignoring a large wedge issue is not a productive way to proceed, but I do see your point.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)If religion was kept at a personal level, and left in the family and church, instead of constantly put into policy, it would not be an issue at all. All atheists want is to be allowed to not believe, and not be subjected to religion at every step of their journey. If the people of faith would not see us as an enemy, or someone who is trying to insert a wedge into the party, there would be no problem on either side.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Their beliefs about GLBT rights? Social justice? Economic inequality?
If the driving force for fighting for those things is religious, why should they be asked to keep that to themselves.
If someone's atheism drives them to fight for church/state separation issues or decreasing prejudice against atheists, should they also keep their atheism to themselves.
It's being used as a wedge issue right here on DU, and it doesn't have to be that way.
People of faith on DU don't see atheists as the enemy, but some definitely see anti-theism as the enemy.
It's those kinds of prejudices that present the wedge and we can do something about it.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)Other social issues can be overcome with more information and learning more about the truth----GLBT is not a choice, the poor are not the stereotypes that are portrayed by some, the hard data on economic inequality.
But religion is based on faith, not something that can be proven. People believe or they don't. Neither side knows for a fact that their thinking on it right. But they feel strongly about it. I don't think that it can be worked through. I think that it just has to be an issue that we agree to disagree on, and keep it out of our government. Democrats should be championing separation of church and state. There really is no reason to have religion in all that we do, and especially a specific religion. As I said, it is a private issue.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Could you choose to be a believer? I doubt it. Perhaps it is part of a person's core identity in the same way sexuality and other characteristics are. Would that make a difference.
I see no problem with the "agree to disagree" model… except when we don't disagree.
If person A is religious and person B is not, but they share other areas of strong commonality, they can decide for themselves whether to take religion off the table or whether it is fine right there.
If person A's strong religious beliefs is what drives them to work for issues that you support and it is a part of who they are, how can you ask them to just keep that out of things? Like what? Their decision making?
I would bet you have some strong core beliefs that provide the framework for what is important to you. Does it really matter if those beliefs are derived from religion or not?
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)I do not believe that faith and religiosity are genetic, but I do believe that they are learned. Nurture, not nature. But that doesn't mean that it is not just as ingrained. I have to say that it is a choice though, being raised going to Sunday school every week, Bible camp every summer, and even going overboard with the evangelical movement in my early teens. Many atheists were believers at one time but lost faith for whatever reason---often it has come from studying the Bible and finding too many things that made no sense to us.
You are right, though, I could no longer choose to believe again.
And of course I have strong core beliefs. It does not matter where these beliefs come from, and if a believer just acts on the things that are important to them without pushing their religion on others, I say that is great. If it takes trying to emulate Jesus or following his example for how to live, I have no problem....whatever gets you through the day. But I don't see why there is a need to profess this belief to everyone at every turn, or to try to get others to follow whatever belief system that person happens to follow.
Why is it asking too much to be left alone? Live and let live....however we do it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There are many who say they recognized at a very young age that they just didn't believe and others who came to believe at equally young ages, and some of these people were raised in cultures where those positions were not acceptable.
Certainly there are cultural influences, and they are strong, but there are also those who find deep faith after having been raised in communities without it.
I absolutely agree that it doesn't matter where your core beliefs come from. I feel the same way that you do about having beliefs pushed on me, but I will include atheism as one of those things I don't like pushed either.
Live and let live. Believe or don't believe.
Just be kind towards and tolerant of those who see it differently.
It's a two way street and everyone wants to drive on it. They are just going different directions.
Rainforestgoddess
(436 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)That. Was. Awesome.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)That would be good. Instead of the Calvinist idea that those who are rich are more holy than those who are not.
The Calvinist idea is equating worldly wealth (money and goods) with spiritual wealth (whatever that is, I'm not sure).
They don't seem to get the point of "Whatsoever profiteth a man who gains the world but loses his soul?" I'm quoting from memory here.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I agree those ideas about the elect and how they can be recognized by their economic prosperity is counterproductI've and stigmatising of the very people christ told us to serve.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)You Win The Internets.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)that the internets are yours to award to anyone.
Do you have any response to the questions I presented to him in my responding post?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Well, you only asked a single question..... and then didn't use a question mark.
Besides, it's a sophomoric rhetorical question who's answer is obvious, and it doesn't advance the discussion at all.
"...could there not be some benefit in discussing that wedge issue...." Duh!
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't think it's rhetorical at all and I asked it sincerely.
But don't feel any obligation to respond if you feel it is below your level.
TygrBright
(20,758 posts)
Fix The Stupid
(948 posts)I do get what you are saying, but I think that word "respect" get's thrown around a little too often...
Do you respect an adult who literally believes in the Santa Clause story?
Do you respect an adult who literally believes that Jack bought some magic beans and climbed a beanstalk to the sky?
Do you respect an adult who literally believes that Zeus is/was the god of thunder?
etc, etc..
Now if you answered "no", to any of those questions, ask yourself "why?" - VOILA, same reasons some people cannot respect someone who literally believes in Jesus, the trinity, the resurrection, the miracles, mohammed, paradise, moses, jonah & the whale, the bible, the torah, the koran, etc, etc, etc.
I don't believe we should be respecting ABSURD beliefs just because someone holds them to be 'divine'. Ridicule and mocking is really the only avenue people have left to communicate when some believers hold these beliefs as inerrant.
Now, how would you feel if you lived in a place where 90% of the people around you (most people of authority, your gov't, your neighbours, your family) literally believed the Santa Clause myth was reality...think about that for a minute and that is how a lot of non-believers live their lives everyday - surrounded by Santa believers...
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I have a great deal of difficulty respecting people that compare religious beliefs held by the bulk of the world's population to a belief in Santa Claus or Jack and the Beanstalk.
If one is going to disrespect the majority of people on this planet because they share some religious beliefs that you don't, I wouldn't expect much in return. If one believes that ridicule and mocking is really the only tools that one has to interact with people who hold beliefs that they don't, I wouldn't expect much in return.
If 90% of the people around me held a belief, I would seriously question whether I might be the one who was wrong. At any rate, I would not be so arrogant as to suppose that I held the truth and they were all wrong.
you said:
"I have a great deal of difficulty respecting people that compare religious beliefs held by the bulk of the world's population to a belief in Santa Claus or Jack and the Beanstalk"
Why? Why do you have difficulty with this?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I find it juvenile and without merit to just ridicule and mock and have little respect for those that use it to challenge ideas they don't agree with.
Fix The Stupid
(948 posts)You just can't claim it is juvenile without backing up your reasons why...
hint - same reasons non-believers do not believe in religious mythology...
I do not believe in ANY religious mythology PRECISELY for the same reasons you do not believe in Santa Clause.
1) No way Santa can fly around the world in one night - not possible.
2) No way Santa can get all those gifts on his sleigh - not possible.
3) No way Santa hears/reads the lists of all the kids in the world - not enough time, too many kids etc.
See how absurd the Santa myth is? How can any adult believe that tripe?
Now substitute Santa with any religion/mythology and maybe you can grasp the point being made...
It is a great analogy and it perfectly sums up how disingenuous some believers are when they ridicule or denounce the Santa myth and it's believers, but upbraid people for criticizing religion/religious beliefs.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If you really consider mocking and ridicule to be acceptable and legitimate debating tools, I do not respect that.
If you think comparing religious beliefs to things universally held to be made up, I do not respect that.
It's a terrible analogy used only by those who feel they must be right.
You don't have to believe in ANY religious mythology, and I will not mock or ridicule you for it.
You do not have the answer. Your position is no more or no less valid than anyone else's.
And the use of "i'm superior" is also a really lame debating technique. Of course I will not be able to grasp the point being made seeing as how I am so intellectually inferior to you.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)why is it "lame" to suggest that Jehovah be held to the same standard? The two have no fundamental difference in how they originated within their own culture, only in the traction one got and the other didn't.
rug
(82,333 posts) AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Yes.... all gods come from the same place..... your imagination.
What does the Christian god have that makes it more believable than, say Vishnu? Nothing. Same as Santa or the Easter Bunny..... made up special friends!
But don't ridicule anyone who thinks so Rug.... that would be disrespectful!
rug
(82,333 posts)Rather than ridicule anyone who believes in different god(s), I'll just stick with you.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Baloney! It is not.
And you still haven't explained what the difference between the Christian god and Vishnu or Thor is. Not the religion..the idea of some human-like being with magical powers who lives in the sky....or some otherworldly place... and somehow involves itself and effects things on the planet Earth.
It's not complicated and it's not ignorant. I am HIGHLY INSULTED that you are dismissing my very valid point as the MOST ignorant statement and going after me PERSONALLY!! (not really) Especially since you cannot refute it. I mean, what if Jesus was just an avatar of Vishnu? He fits the definition.
Is this less ignorant?...
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” --- Stephen Roberts
rug
(82,333 posts)It's your uninformed claim that they're the same. Go on, prove it, Albert. Try it this time without mentioning the Easter Bunny.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Why? These god fantasies all come from the same place.... some ignorant prehistoric imagination.... as tangible as the Easter Bunny. Since then mankind (some anyway) has grown out of magical thinking and Mythopoeic thought. Of course Mythopoeic thought is supposed to have started breaking down with monotheism, but still natural events are "divine". It's really the Greeks who realize an impersonal world of nature.
You have yet to make any argument to the contrary. Instead you just declare something is so and talk about punctuation. But go ahead, play your usual "I'll have the last witty word" game if it makes you feel better.
rug
(82,333 posts)It's like talking to a creationist.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)is nothing like belief in a god, and that belief in a god has to be judged by totally different standards. The trouble is, you haven't even the glimmerings of an argument to support that position. You simply keep declaring it as if it's self-evident, simply because your whole agenda is undermined otherwise.
So here's your chance to make your case... Have at it.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Religion. QED.
TygrBright
(20,758 posts)...their qualities as individuals, and their importance to the world I live in, without having to respect every belief they hold.
I hope people can respect me, even if they think some of my beliefs are ridiculous or wrong, too.
I am not my beliefs.
My beliefs change from time to time, as new experiences accumulate, and I'm exposed to new ideas, new information, new wisdom.
If someone wants to believe in the literal existence of Santa, it won't bother me. In fact, if 90% of the people around me held that belief, I might actually enjoy October, November, and December a bit more!
peaceably,
Bright
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Not surprised.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Another insult to atheists from yourself.
cbayer
(146,218 posts) intaglio
(8,170 posts)and who had the temerity to challenge arely staircase.
Arely is attempting to find some way of justifying their actions.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I would prefer to take this at face value and do think it has generated some good discussion.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)and drum up the good? This poll is not innocent. it follows on the tails of a large disruption in a safe haven. It is designed by an anti-atheist to make non believers look like the villains. there is no "face value" here, it's incitement. This is the kind of thing that is driving a wedge in this group, so if you really wanted to have less of it, maybe you should be calling it out too.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I try to avoid meta bullshit, though I am not always entirely successful.
I take this OP at face value. If there are alternative motives, I neither know nor care about them. It's all junior high school garbage, imo, and I really don't want to participate in it.
It's the meta crap that drives a wedge in this group.
At any rate, I think the thread generated some good discussion. If the motive of the OP was different than what I perceived, then I am sorry that I participated.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)as you never avoid the "meta bullshit" when a DU atheist posts something.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You have developed notions about me that are not true. I particularly avoid the meta bullshit when a DU atheist posts something.
Take off your blinders and get to know me, Lordquinton. You are working off of false premises.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)I've heard it in various forms for over half a century and I'm absolutely sick of it. I'm sick of the Abrahamic religions for quite a few reasons.
I run my life on facts and reason and causation.
If their faith is so strong, why do they have to talk about it constantly?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)to talk about it so frequently?
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)To them, an offensive atheist is one who will defend their values rather than agreeing with the Christian.
Compared to the way I am surrounded by Christians who think I'm a Satan worshiper because they never see me at church, I'm objecting a lot? You surely must be kidding.
They wear cross jewelry, cross t-shirts, bible verse t-shirts, cross purses, cross cowboy hats, have 6 foot tall lighted crosses in their front yards, some of them, signs in their yards saying that prayer is the only answer to help America (I am assuming only Christian prayer counts).
Example: The freakout over the new COSMOS series. The politicians who talk about how the Founding Fathers were all Christian and so forth, how our Constitution was based on the ten commandments, therefore we should have ten commandments monuments in courtrooms and on state capitol grounds, blah de blah.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I believe in science. including biological evolution. I am a liberal Episcopalian. My Church believes in evolution. Our presiding bishop is a marine biologist. We bless/perform same sex marriages. The Christians you mention above have less respect for me and my church than they do atheists.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Has anyone called you a satan worshipper here or told you to shut up?
Sounds like it happens in your community and I can understand your desire to push back.
But you push your philosophical beliefs here a lot and talk about them frequently and often insist that you are right.
So I ask again, if your beliefs are strong, why do you have to push them so hard and talk about them so much in an environment that is markedly different than what you describe? How are you any different than the ones that you are telling to shut up?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)context the OP does not share. I consider this to be less than honest. I would note that Christian texts urge a very active and total honesty in communications and avoidance of all hidden agenda. I would note that a faith not practiced is not worth discussing at all.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)And just so long as they don't think they can say to me "God Bless You" to me or me saying it to them over a sneeze. Take your bless you and shut your mouth.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)It's awesome. 
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I'm really bad at air hockey.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I can't say I am surprised.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)This group could be used to promote unity instead of discord if the community supported that.
Ok, you say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Some here openly admit they don't want unity and at least they are being honest.
The fact is there is no point for me to engage some because all they want is a fight. I am not the one that could give them the fight they want.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And "civil", "respectful" discussion, and yet they do everything they can to poison that or to support others who do.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)You had every opportunity you wanted to "promote unity", and yet you didn't.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)this forum is exactly what it is supposed to be.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It may not get as much traffic as AA but we enjoy our room.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)in which you get together to bash what goes on elsewhere. Other than that, it's mainly you posting and getting minimal response, amounting to no discussion at all. Certainly not the kind of "deep", "meaningful", "civil", "respectful", "intellectual" "spirited" discussions of faith, religion and the universe that the religionists here say they want.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Ours is a diverse group with people of various backgrounds and upbringings. It is unrealistic to expect us to agree on everything, much less like each other. We're going to disagree. We're going to have personality clashes. It is inevitable.
But I don't think that's a problem, at least not a detrimental one. Third-way Democrats and Marxist Democrats don't agree on economic policy. Pro-gun Democrats and anti-gun Democrats don't agree on gun ownership. Realist Democrats disagree with pacifist Democrats. Scientist Democrats disagree with anti-GMO and anti-vaccine Democrats. Are these diverse groups promoting discord by virtue of their disagreements?
I don't think so. Despite what is said in this forum, I feel in no way compelled to start voting Republican. Anyone else?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I am advocating for an SOP that more clearly reflects the wishes of the members.
If there is a desire for this room to be used primarily to find areas of commonality as opposed to a battle cage where the only point is to prove you are right, why couldn't the SOP more accurately reflect that?
That doesn't mean there aren't going to be personality clashes and I am not suggesting that that could ever be eliminated.
But there could definitely be a reduction in hostilities and in pure flame bait posting.
This is distinctly different than the areas you highlight. In those areas, it would behoove democrats to come to some kind of policy compromises that both sides can live with. Not saying that is going to happen, but it seems that would be the coal.
In the case of religion, it is more about setting religious differences aside and agreeing to respect the differences so we can proceed in working together towards mutual goals. There is no policy, per se, to be determined. We all agree on church/state separation issues, that the religious right is a mutual enemy and that the religious influence in politics is a very slippery slope that should be closely watched. At least, I think we do.
It is the constant attacks on the "other" that is divisive and is constantly used to drive a wedge between otherwise likeminded individuals.
It's not about feeling compelled to vote republican. It's about missing the opportunity to form coalitions that further our goals, a problem found in many areas of the democratic party and not to our benefit.
I'm not so naive as to think it's going to happen, but I propose that it should be considered.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)What is so hard to understand about that. The rules can't be the same.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)She was just thinking out loud.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I have made the same reply each time. I realize I may be on ignore, but somebody could inform her that even though she wants it to be, this isn't a safe haven and shouldn't be hosted like one.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)So are you. That's kind of the point of a discussion forum.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Personally I think the sop is fine. If I can't handle the room I step away and use ignore like I am now.
We all have our moments.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)shut people up that you don't like. Everything you're "advocating" for, you already have. In the Interfaith Group. You and others voiced these SAME complaints years ago, and that's why that room was created (even though there was a room like that already in existence). You said you wanted a room like that, but you don't use it. It's a ghost town, with one resident and a few occasional tourists. So why the hell would we want to turn this room into yet another version of that one?
Just be honest. You and your fellow religionists love a good dust-up. You love to fight, you love to argue, you love snark, you love to try to get in the harshest insults you can without getting hidden. Fine and dandy. Just admit it, and stop preaching for the establishment of yet another Shangri-La, when you won't even take advantage of the one you already have.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)have? There is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
Note:
I am quoting Douglas Adams and Richard Dawkins because they are far more eloquent than I am, not as an argument to authority.
"A widespread assumption, which nearly everybody in our society accepts---the non religious included---is that religious faith is especially vulnerable to offense and and should be protected by an abnormally thick wall of respect, in a different class of respect that any human should pay to any other.
"I have previously drawn attention to the privileging of religion in public discussions of ethics in the media and in government.
"Whenever a controversy arises over sexual or reproductive morals, you can bet that religious leaders from several different faith groups will be prominently represented on influential committees, or on panel discussions on radio or television. I'm not suggesting that we should go out of our way to censor these people. But why does society beat a path to their door, as though they had some expertise comparable to that of, say, a moral philosopher, a family doctor or lawyer?"
--The God Delusion, (2008) Richard Dawkins, p. 42
"Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour Party or the Conservative Party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics, Macintosh instead of Windows--but to have an opinion about how the universe began, about who created the universe...no, that's holy?
...We are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it!
Everybody gets absolutely frantic when he does it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that there shouldn't be.
---Douglas Adams, quoted in The God Delusion, pp.42-43.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)As do most historians and scholarsn of antiquity. And no I won't give you any links. Just use rhe googles.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)RD: I suspect He probably did. I suspect there are lots of itinerant preachers, and one of them was probably called Yehoshua, or various other versions of Jesus’ name, but I don’t think that a miracle worker existed.
HH: How do you rate the evidence for Christ’s existence, manuscript evidence, eyewitness evidence, things like that?
RD: As I said, it wouldn’t be at all surprising if a man called Jesus or Yehoshua existed. I would say the evidence that He worked miracles, He rose from the dead, He was born of a virgin, is zero.
- See more at: http://salvomag.com/blog/2009/10/dawkins-and-hewitt-on-the-historical-jesus/#sthash.4K7YiKJB.dpuf
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)"meh. There were a lot of preachers at that time and it's pretty likely one of them was named some iteration of the name Jesus."
That does not mean he believes that the historical Jesus portrayed in the Bible is true.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)What?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)No records of him at all outside the bible.
Dawkins does not say he thinks the historical Jesus portrayed in the Bible is accurate. Just that there was likely a preacher with some variation of that name.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)For one to have a brother one must exist to hegin with.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)and even the reference to James is not thought to be original nor a clear reference to the Jesus of the bible. Using Josephus as proof of Jesus is not seen as valid by most historians.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Virtually none think the mentions of Jesus were invented, but that the church changed simenof the wording to n ack up their claims of miracles. I have star ted a seperate op of the hostoricity of jesus since thos thread is getting pretty unweildy. Feel free to join in.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)enki23
(7,787 posts)Also, let us seek common ground with the millions of believing Christians who are sincerely convinced that it is necessary to fight any government aid going to people who might spend some of it on birth control. We know that we cannot possibly convince them that they are wrong, so we should seek common ground by suggesting that, okay, we will allow them to forbid all American women from using birth control, slash Medicaid spending, cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans by half and get rid of the minimum wage in order to get them to agree to save half of Social Security so long as most of it goes to well-to-do white Christians.
Sure, many people's religious beliefs, if true, lead to rational decisions based on irrational bullshit that often leads to really shitty outcomes. But we should just respect that, just like we respect people whose religious beliefs include child sex slavery and suicide bombing. We cannot criticize the contents of anyone's beliefs. Or... maybe we should only criticize the content that a minority of less-awful Christians allow us to criticize. Mildly. We should instead put all our effort into seeking common ground.
Even if that ground amounts to a fucking mole hill at the leading edge of a landslide. It's entirely rational to kill everyone in your path, if you're a landslide. And it would be fucking impolite to tell it to stop.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts) Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)No, we don't have to accept certain practices as "cultural sensitivity" when they are evil and barbaric like both male and female circumcision.
Tikki
(14,557 posts)Tikki
chillfactor
(7,574 posts)nonbelievers put down or make fun of believers..I never put down nonbelievers but they do not seem to have a problem with making fun of my beliefs....
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)That is, respect my right to worship and I'll respect your right not to. Also, a minor peeve of mine as a believer, stop telling me things I already know. I know my faith is unscientific, that's why it's faith.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts) well said.enki23
(7,787 posts)Why do you assume everyone must automatically assume your religious position when it is not the only, or even the most common one? I've been in a circle "argument" up above with someone saying something that is very much at odds with what you're saying about "faith." Right here in this same goddamned thread.
As soon as you convince all the other Christians to accept your definition, you can have this one. Not until.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)A) I'm not a Christian. I'm a Luciferian Satanist.
B) OK, you make a fair point. I tend to think this insistence that faith is a rational, even scientific, thing is relatively recent and possibly a reaction to fundementalism insistence on literalism. I could be wrong (knowing my mind these days, I likely am) but I would imagine those of the past had more sense that faith is inherently mystical and hence, beyond rational understanding.
C) That said, while it could possibly be argued that faith is rational (albeit, unconvincingly in my view), it cannot possibly be argued that it is scientific. Science rests on observable, repeatable evidence. Faith is incapable of producing any observable evidence. Thus, faith is inherently unscientific. In fact, considering the lack evidence that would mean anything to the observer, the purely scientific poisition would seem to be either agnosticism or "soft" atheism.