Some people misinterpreted a locked thread of mine

[MineralMan]

in GD. I won't link to it. I will say however that, as an atheist for over 50 years, I know that atheism has no necessary connection to any other aspect of a person's world view or ethical compass. It has only to do with non-belief in deities and other similar supernatural entities. I have known atheists who were consummately wonderful kind and loving people and others who were evil, destructive individuals. Atheism is only descriptive of a lack of belief in deities, and of nothing else.

That is all.

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. I thought it was a good post and a worthwhile discussion. Mystifying decision...

[MineralMan]

4. Thanks.

[Wellstone ruled]

2. Thank you,feel the same.

[MineralMan]

5. Thanks again.

[guillaumeb]

3. It was an interesting and thought provoking post.

Obviously some here disagreed.

[MineralMan]

6. So it was intended to be.

[marylandblue]

7. I didn't have a problem with it

I think some people overinterpreted it.

[CozyMystery]

8. I didn't have a problem with it. I quite liked your post.

[LostOne4Ever]

9. But, based upon your thread you obviously think Believers and X-tians can't be bad people

Last edited Thu Jun 29, 2017, 03:11 PM - Edit history (1)

To quote you:

"So, they work against the very tenets of the religion they pretend to follow, but have no fear of consequences. So, I take it that they are neither believers nor followers of Christianity. And, since Christianity claims to have the one true deity or triad of all-in-one deities, it follows that they do not believe such deities exist.

People who do not believe that deities exist are atheists. Thus, most republicans, by their actions and hypocrisy, are, therefore atheists.

Or, so the logic follows for me, anyhow."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029264322

So "true christians™ and true believers™" can never be selfish or bigoted. Only us atheists. Or so the logic flows by you.

[Lordquinton]

11. Well said!

Like the Pope saying it's better to be an atheist than a bad Christian. Well meaning aside, the message is clear.

[MineralMan]

15. No. I questioned whether someone who was a bad person

is really a believer or follower of the religion he or she professes. Since the religion in question calls for behaving in a certain way, I have to wonder whether some people who profess to be of that religion really believe it or not.

Atheists, including myself, have no belief in deities or other entities that set up rules for their followers. We don't profess to follow such rules. So, whether an atheist is a wonderful, kind human being or a murderous sort of person, there is no hypocrisy with some set of "devinely-inspired" rules. Atheism has nothing to do with behavior of a person. That simply is not a factor.

If a person who professes Christianity does not follow the teachings of that faith reasonably well, I have to wonder whether that person really believes that stuff in the first place. If they deliberately flout their failure to follow those teachings, I conclude that they have no fear of consequences, so they must not actually believe in the foundational entity worshipped by that faith.

My original post was not about how atheists behave or act at all. It was about only elected Republicans who call themselves Christians. I hold that such people do not believe what their scriptures teach, so they are very likely to actually be atheists.

Atheists come in all forms of people, who may have any sort of behavioral habits and ethical compasses. Atheism has nothing to do with those things.

[trotsky]

18. "the teachings of that faith"

What are they?

There are more opinions about what the teachings of Christianity are, than there are sects of the religion itself. When you understand this, you'll understand why your insistence that someone who doesn't follow "the" teachings must not belong to the religion, is bogus.

[LostOne4Ever]

19. Thus, it is exactly as I said

If a person is a bad person then they can't be a "true" Beleiver, and as a result are an atheist.

So, the logic flows as you say that all "True Christians" and "True Believers" are all 100% good people.

Further, according to this thread you are saying that being an atheist is solely about disbelief and has nothing to do with being a good person or not. There are good atheists and bad atheists.

The PROBLEM here is that TRUE BELIEVERS are always good and true atheists are not. Therefore it is better to be a believer than an atheist.

To make matters even worse, by your reasoning any bad believer is set into the atheist camp as you did to Republicans. Thus pushing the ratio of bad to good atheists more toward the negative. You are literally saying that not all atheists are bad people; but all bad people are atheists.

This is Theist Supremacy.


I get it, you didn't really think this through and were trying to ingratiate yourself to liberal and moderate theists/Christians, but in so doing you unwittingly are pushing theist privilege and theist supremacy. No matter how you try to reframe your words, this is what your threads are doing.

If you really meant no offense just admit you were mistaken, and apologize to your fellow atheists. We know what it is like to be immersed in a culture of theist supremacy and anti-atheist bigotry. Further many of us know what it is like to accidentally assimilating such a belief.

But if you continue to insist nothing was wrong, and double down on supporting that thread, don't be surprised that your fellow atheists rightly flame you for it.

[trotsky]

20. This post should be framed.

Thank you. So very well stated.

[Lordquinton]

21. If I could rec a post

This would be it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

22. I don't care what Heddi says.

I'm gonna give you the one internet I bought off Mr. Blur at his summer yard sale and give it to you for winning so much.

[Heddi]

23. Oh Mr, uh, act of repiration

The internet is not yours to give, I am afraid. It belongs to all of us.

[Freethinker65]

26. +1000

Thank you

[beam me up scottie]

42. That post deserves some sort of award.

Oh, wait, I see AoR has already awarded you one internet so we're good.

Seriously, that was all kinds of awesome.

[Doodley]

30. It is all in the interpretation. I have a lot of Repubs among my in-laws.

I have heard that the turning of the tables mean that Jesus thought you should pay as little tax as possible. An eye for an eye, I am told means if somebody hurts you, you can hurt them back. As for selfishness and bigotry, that is also explained. People of other faith can just be labeled bad. People of other lifestyles can just be labeled as against the preachings of Jesus. Atheists are heathens. People who don't have health insurance can go to ER. America does more than any other nation to help others. Some people won't help themselves.

By the way, I am an atheist, but I take the stories of Jesus as a good example of how we should strive to live.

[Bretton Garcia]

10. This is a good question for this forum

Here? What if we take Republicans at their word, and agree that they are following religion. But their current opposition to helping the poor with healing, health care, clearly is not following specifically Jesus.

So if they are religious, then who, what specific figure in religion, ARE they following? They must be following, say, the "anti christ"?

The anti Christ note, is a figure in the Bible. And he is "worship"ed. He is therefore a religious leader.

So let's be generous to Republican evangelicals. And agree that 1) they are indeed following religion. But they are not following the religion of specifically Jesus or God. They are following 2) the religion of specifically, the Anti Christ.

[Lordquinton]

12. Your points don't connect

You say they aren't following the teachings of Christ, therefore they don't believe in God. They may, in your opinion, not be properly following the teaching properly, but that does not mean they don't believe.

Second you say

"I have known atheists who were consummately wonderful kind and loving people and others who were evil, destructive individuals."

Have you not known theists who were evil, destructive individuals? Do you believe that being Christian means you can't be evil? That's a whole discussion there, and there is a right answer to it.

[Voltaire2]

13. "they can't be christians because they are evil therefore they are atheists" - giant wtf.

You really ought to think your position out a little bit before posting.

"I have an atheist friend who isn't evil"

Oh thanks.

[Bretton Garcia]

14. Good point: Christianity itself might be evil?

It might be just another false religion.

So even if you are a "good," "real" Christian, you are still bad.

Christians do start wars and things, after all.

[MineralMan]

17. Thomas Jefferson issued his own version of the Bible,

with all references to deities pretty much removed. It's worth reading:

http://uuhouston.org/files/The_Jefferson_Bible.pdf

[Bretton Garcia]

25. Yes. But?

We've just had a yearlong argument with Guil.
Who defended the common idea that there is a pure, nonviolent, liberal, open, "real" Christianity; one that is good. and blameless. That doesn't promise physical miracles. That is spiritual and selfless. And, it is implied, more purely good.

But I argued at length, that even that kind of well known and popular Christianity, still did some very seriously bad things.

[MineralMan]

27. Most religions' ethical teachings are very similar, really.

People, however, often have trouble following them, regardless of the religion. Some people, however, do not even try, and simply ignore such teachings altogether.

Atheists typically follow an ethical standard that is quite similar to what is common to most religions. That's because those ethical standards are societal in nature and developed on a purely secular foundation. However, atheists are not all alike, any more than are religious adherents, so there is a complete range of ethical compasses in both cases.

I came to atheism after a long study of multiple religions. That was over 50 years ago. What I discovered was that it was easy to find an ethical compass that would fit into any of those religions. Ethics are a social phenomenon, based on the common good, really. So, it's no surprise that most cultures have developed a general ethical foundation that is similar to other cultures. There are variations, of course, but the similarities outnumber the dissimilarities.

Humans create religions, not the inverse. That's why they're all so similar on many levels. Humans, as far as I can determine, also create deities that are compatible with their knowledge base and cultural norms. In the beginning, humans created their own deities. Many cultures; many deities.

[Bretton Garcia]

34. We sometimes hear defenses of humanism here.

Last edited Sat Jul 1, 2017, 04:52 AM - Edit history (1)

Subordinating religion to human origins is one approach to religion.

However? humans are flawed. And things from human origins eventually fail. Including not only our religions. But also any and all ethics.

Still? I do personally favor the franker acknowledgement of fallibility that humanism and ethics often have, to the pretended infallibility of religion.

So some visitors here favor humanism. But the humanistic defense of religion, even as subordinate to humanism, has problems. Religion's pretensions of infallibility are rather offensive for example. Just as a president's pretensions of infallibility are. Even a more modest, humble spirituality, I argued, by championing invisible spirit, neglected visible physical necessities.

Could atheists still "use" religion as a subordinate tool? They could, and possibly have, historically. But that would be dishonest.

[trotsky]

16. No one misinterpreted anything.

Your post asserted that bad people can't possibly be Christians. That all "true" Christians are good people, and bad people must be atheists.

That is religious bigotry.

[MineralMan]

29. Your first logical mistake is that you seem to think there are only Christians and Atheists.

You build on that in your argument against my position. I deny the initial premise, frankly.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. Hold everything - that was *your* premise

Your thread was titled "I Have Come to the Conclusion That Most Elected Republicans are Atheists". And your argument was:

"So, I take it that they are neither believers nor followers of Christianity. And, since Christianity claims to have the one true deity or triad of all-in-one deities, it follows that they do not believe such deities exist.

People who do not believe that deities exist are atheists. Thus, most republicans, by their actions and hypocrisy, are, therefore atheists."

That was *your* logical mistake. If you are denying it, then it's you who were wrong. You didn't consider there might be other categories such as "Christians who look for ways to be greedy or uncaring", or "people holding 2 contrary beliefs at once", or "nominal Christians who nevertheless prefer the early Old Testament vengeful God". You even excluded a specific category - 'deist' - that should be obvious with your talk of deities.

[uriel1972]

36. not to mention deities other than certain

Abrahamic Gods

[trotsky]

38. Glad you already responded.

LOL, couldn't believe what I was reading.

[guillaumeb]

24. And apparently continue to misinterpret it.

And build subsidiary posts upon that misinterpretation.

[MineralMan]

28. Apparently. I don't work on the individual level.

Nor do I expect to be understood by everyone. That helps keep me relatively sane.

[trotsky]

39. It is unfortunate so many people are unable to understand you.

I wonder why that is?

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Super sorry we read what you actually wrote.

[MFM008]

31. alot of super sensitivities in DU

cant handle discussions or dissent.

[uriel1972]

33. DId someone put their 'Privilege Pants' on this morning...

Responding to a broad brush smear is being super-sensitive? Geez some people are a true piece of work.

[hrmjustin]

32. I don't think you meant harm but I do understand why offence was taken.

[uriel1972]

37. Let's take the premise...

These people are bad people so they can't be Christian... that in itself is a flawed premise.
Taking it further... the conclusion.
Therefore they must be atheists... that is not only illogical but extremely offensive for reasons which have been pointed out and must by now be obvious even to the obtuse. Therefore I can only conclude you are either disingenuous, willfully blind or even more obtuse than I thought possible.

So I will lay it out plain by using the 'Jewish Standard' that is by replacing the word with 'Jew' or 'Jewish' and see if it looks derogatory and inflammatory.

Thus, most republicans, by their actions and hypocrisy, are, therefore Jewish.

Hmmm it does look kinda derogatory and Inflammatory me... Sorta a bit NSDAPpy to me even.

Or so the logic follows for me anyway.

on edit under no circumstances would I say that Jewish people are by definition anything other than Jewish. Like all people they have their heroes, villains and ordinary people.

[HAB911]

40. I agree with you

however the problem arises in that Christians can't even agree on what is up and what is down. This makes the concept you attack so diffuse as to be nonexistent. I once made a broad stroke statement on this board that guillaumeb rightly set out to disprove and did so admirably.

I certainly did not take away anything critical of atheism as it seems some here did, perhaps because I understand the concept you were conveying. What I have recently begun to do is address things from another perspective to keep from having my posts locked or even removed. I'm calling it my "The company you keep" series that puts the burden on those of differing opinions to think about their positions in a genial way, to wit:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172203296
https://www.democraticunderground.com/12103320



Carry on!

[Bretton Garcia]

41. More discussion on this religion issue

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218251864