The Atheist Visibility Movement: Should Atheists Slam Religion or Show Respect?

[cbayer]

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/6340



Valerie Tarico
Awaypoint

Posted: Aug 18, 2012

A Midwestern atheist tells of sitting in her lunchroom at work and listening as conversation opened up about religious differences. Her co-workers included several kinds of Protestants, a Catholic, a Jew. “At least there aren’t any atheists around here,” one woman said in a warm inclusive tone.

What’s a girl to do in a situation like that? Should she out herself or just keep quiet? In his seminal book, Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, sociologist Erving Goffman posed the perennial quandary of stigmatized persons: “To display or not display; to tell or not to tell; to let on or not to let on; to lie or not to lie; and in each case, to whom, how, when, and where.” (p. 42)

Disclosure feels risky because it is. In 2008, Atheist Nexus gathered “coming out” stories from over 8000 visitors who described themselves as atheist, humanist, freethinker, agnostic, skeptic, and so forth. Some of the tales are painful to read. One woman said, “I’ve had people literally, physically BACK away from me upon hearing I am atheist. My children were told to run away from our evil home.” A man’s confession of lost faith almost cost his marriage: “My wife told me that I’m caught in Satan’s grip, and confessed that after I deconverted she considered leaving me. I believe the only reason she didn’t is because she’s financially dependent on me.” Elsewhere a young woman tells of losing thirty-four Facebook friends when she announced her lack of belief.

The consequences of anti-atheist stigma are public as well as private. Most self-described atheists are acutely aware of survey results showing that U.S. atheists are less electable than reviled minorities including Muslims and gays. Seven states still have laws on the books that ban nonbelievers from holding public office. A Florida minister whose de-conversion recently made national news said that job interviews were cancelled when prospective employers found out.

more at link

[TheMastersNemesis]

1. We Should Slam Fundy Nutzie Religion.

Fundy Nutzie religion is like being on meth. It makes you crazy and sadistic.

[cbayer]

4. Agree that distinctions need to be made and those that are using their religion

to discriminate against or harm others need to be slammed.

[cleanhippie]

2. Slamming religion is not the same as slamming religious people.

Pointing out the absurdities, the hypocrisy, and the inaccuracies of religious claims is not an insult to people.

[humblebum]

12. So, if someone points to the "absurdities, the hypocrisy, and the inaccuracies" of certain atheists

or atheist groups, it's not an insult?

[cleanhippie]

62. .

Ahh, nevermind, you're just not worth it anymore.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

131. well said.

[humblebum]

149. Everyone has worth hippie.nt

[cleanhippie]

160. .

You have a really nice day.

[AlbertCat]

174. "absurdities, the hypocrisy, and the inaccuracies" of certain atheists

CERTAIN atheists.... is not slamming "atheism".

You really are disingenuous to the max.

[humblebum]

175. Yes, "certain" atheists, or do you recognize an alternative definition of

"certain" like you do "nothing?"

[AlbertCat]

178. Gee.... you REALLY aren't worth it!

cross post ad hominem attacks have got to be the hugest sign of "I got nuttin'"

[humblebum]

182. "cross post ad hominem attacks have got to be the hugest sign of "I got nuttin'""

Gee.... then you REALLY do got nuttin'

[cleanhippie]

177. "You really are disingenuous to the max". Sums it up nicely. Well done.

[pnwmom]

78. Right, and slamming the pretension, the self-centeredness, and the

self-righteousness of atheists wouldn't be an insult to them, either.

[cleanhippie]

81. You are talking about personal qualities and behaviors, not beliefs.

Two very different things.

[pnwmom]

93. Oh, right. "Hypocrisy" has nothing to do with behavior.

[eqfan592]

100. Somebody missed the train...

[Karmasue]

189. Yes it is...

It is like telling them that their children have been proven to be dumb and ugly. And atheists don't like to have their atheism slammed either. There are ways to have a rational discussion without slamming. I'm not saying that most people can do that, but it can be done.

[cleanhippie]

192. No it's not. And feel free to slam atheism all you want.

But to do so, without making it a personal slam, you will need to bring clear and concise evidence to support whatever it is you are slamming. I find it easy to debunk (slam) religious beliefs and claims, because there are immeasurable mountains of contrary evidence I support my position, and very little, if any at all, to support the claims of religious beliefs.

So, that being said, slam away. Let's see what you've got.


And welcome to DU.

[Karmasue]

197. I don't slam...

and I am being baited.

And thank you for the welcome.

Perhaps we will both end up understanding each other better someday. I have already learned that you believe in something. Without any evidence at all, you have decided I am religious, and you believe you can easily best me in an atheist/religion contest.

What is most interesting about that is that you don't even know if I am an atheist, a believer, or anything in between or outside those boundaries.

[cleanhippie]

198. If you have gleaned that I believe anything from a single post

Then you are not looking to understand anything.

And I'm not baiting you, I'm challenging you to support your assertion.

If you are not able to do that, well...


So tell us more about you. You jumped right in, dont stop now.

[Karmasue]

217. Challenging me?

You did not support your assertion. You simply said “slamming religion is not the same as slamming religious people” and “Pointing out the absurdities, the hypocrisy, and the inaccuracies of religious claims is not an insult to people.”

That is an opinion.

Why then do you require that I support mine?

Does "jumping right in" also require more information about me?

[cleanhippie]

221. Sigh.

Perhaps another time and another thread.

I don't think we are speaking the same language today.

[humblebum]

3. IMO, Atheists slamming of religion is hardly helping their cause. Many, and probably most, were

quite indifferent to a person's belief or lack of it until the rise of the new atheist movement, which is considered by many as being extremist and bigoted.

As it is now, any atheist is generally associated with that movement, as unfair as that may be, and it is downhill from there.

[cbayer]

5. As the article points out, movements often need the more vocal, radical, in your

face members to push the cause forward.

Remember Act Up? As obnoxious as they could be, I think they were critical to getting much needed attention to GLBT issues and to HIV related issues in particular.

Most atheists are pretty unassuming, as are most religious people, imo.

[AlbertCat]

179. Most atheists are pretty unassuming,

But apparently, ANY criticism of religion is an attack. They're so fragile.

[cbayer]

180. Oh, please. Your statements fly in the face of what one sees in this very group.

[whathehell]

246. Precisely.

[eqfan592]

248. What exactly does one see in this very group?

And since when is this group directly representative of the majority of atheists or theists in the world?

[cbayer]

251. Again, it's these broad brush platitudes without substance is what I object to.

"Most atheists are unassuming." - I made that statement.
ANY criticism of religion is an attack. They're so fragile. - Member countered with this.

None of those statements are valid, unless someone wants to provide some evidence to back it up. And if we relied only on the data provided in this forum, they would be laughably untrue.

I'm not saying this group is a good representative of the majority of any group, but the post I am responding to is just a broad brush attack of religionists without any substance.

[amuse bouche]

8. Oh please

There are no bigger bigots than so called believers. Religions preach hate and the sheep go baaaah

Nice try though

[cbayer]

10. While there are certainly bigots among the religious and certainly

those that use their religion to promote hate and bigotry, your statement is much too broad and inclusive.

There are religions that treat tolerance, respect and social justice.

[Act_of_Reparation]

223. That may be true, but...

... teaching tolerance, respect, and social justice as mandates of a divine power still give credibility to those who teach hatred, injustice, and bigotry. Because it is an unverifiable premise, anyone can justify absolutely anything as "God's will", and none is more "correct" than the other.

Also, you can't use unverifiable belief to justify "good" policy and then criticize the religious right for doing the same. Again, because belief is unverifiable, I think it safe to say the premise is dichotomous: you should either inform public policy with belief or you should not.

I think you should not, no matter how noble your conclusions may be.

[humblebum]

11. It is what it is. nt

[rug]

15. Hmmm, is this a slam on belief or on believers . . . .

[cpwm17]

20. There's lots of evil in this world and most of it it driven by greed, selfishness, and bigotry

This seems to be the driving force of much of religion (though most of this evil isn't religious.)

Many believers act so persecuted when atheists slam their religion, but they then claim these same atheists deserve to fry in hell for not believing their ridiculous religion. In fact, many Christians enjoy the thought of non-believers frying in hell - that's evil. This is the form of Christianity I grew up with.

Religion deserves to be called out, and if believers are uncomfortable with having their religious beliefs called into question, they probably don't really believe in the first place.

[cbayer]

21. I am sorry for what you were exposed to and it clearly has colored your ideas about

religion.

However, I think you need to be aware that their are many flavors of christians, and many do not delight in the thought of anyone, including atheists, frying in hell.

[whathehell]

155. Thank you...n/t

[whathehell]

154. "Oh please" yourself

You undermine your own credibility with such a broad brush smear,

and saying "religions preach hate" is know squat about the breadth

and diversity of the world's religions.

[whathehell]

26. Thank you...Catching more flies with honey than vinegar and all that.

Duh. .

[Grey]

6. I see no point in doing either....

[on point]

7. Laugh derisively at their primitive, childlike magical thinking

[cbayer]

9. Way to win friends and influence people.

And so advanced and adult.

[skepticscott]

13. Yes, atheists did much better for millennia

by meekly and subserviently deferring to religious nonsense in all of its manifestations, by keeping their little atheist mouths shut and never offending anyone. I'm sure you and your ilk would love to see that continue, but it ain't happening.

[Shadowflash]

38. Exactly.

As long as atheists are 'tolerant' by laying down and being steamrolled by Christians, be it through legislation or active bigotry everything is cool, but as soon as we start to speak out about being trampled on then we are 'haters' and 'troublemakers'.

I'm a live and let live kinda person but as soon as you try to cram your illiterate bronze-age sheepherder fairy tales down my throat, I'm gonna speak up.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. I'm still waiting for the specific ilk of that person to be admitted.

[trotsky]

50. What about this person?

"There is hostility out there and it's well deserved. When you try to deny basic human rights to other people, you deserve derision."

What do you think about someone who said that? Is derision OK under some circumstances?

[pscot]

213. OhNoes! Not derision!

Some folks just don't see the humor.

[trotsky]

215. I completely agree.

I was pointing out hypocritical behavior.

[whathehell]

247. LOL..n/t

[rug]

17. I find it amusing when people attempt condescension and believe they're making an original point.

Here, try ths on. I'm done with it.

[skepticscott]

42. The irony of that title

is richer than Mitt Rmoney.

[rug]

44. Send me your size, I'll send you a shirt.

[AlbertCat]

181. SEE!

It's OK to condescend.... as long as you're as "clever" as rug! The cleverness is SO clever, it's beyond an insult.

Let us bask in its intellectual glow! Mmmmmmmm

[rug]

191. Hey, I only have two shirts.

[amuse bouche]

30. I would

but they are extremely dangerous to the health and well being of the rest of us, thin skin notwithstanding

[whathehell]

156. I laugh derisively at your limited, positivist thinking.

Now go look up "positivist".

[mysuzuki2]

14. I am an athiest and I am not shy about admitting it.

I can honestly say that while many people have disagreed with me I have never been demonized by the religious either. I am willing to return the favor. I do not hesitate to disagree with religious people, and there are of course many really crazy ones, but I will not disrespect them as humans either. I will give as much respect as I am given by them.

[cbayer]

16. Good philosophy. I think progressive/liberal believers and non-believers have more in common

than they have differences.

For those on either side who see a chasm so deep that they can not bridge it, I wish them good luck in furthering their causes.

[whathehell]

224. Thank you.

There are many on both sides who use their belief and "non-belief" to

excercise their own issues of hostility and beligerance.

[Thats my opinion]

117. You make a lot of sense! nt

[Starboard Tack]

236. +100! I think most of us atheists are like you.

There is no benefit in alienating others for their beliefs. Unfortunately, as you can see in this thread, we have a handful of extremely bitter people who claim to be atheists. I doubt the sincerity of a few of them. They have already co-opted the A&A group and exclude members who support the kind of tolerance you espouse.

In effect, they demonstrate that extremism tends to breed extremism.

[eqfan592]

240. Alienating them from what, ST?

You always talk about "alienating" people, but what exactly are we alienating them from? Is their belief in the separation of church and state so flimsy that any questioning of their religious beliefs causes them to abandon it entirely? If so, then were they ever truly somebody that we actually had on our side to begin with?

I'm tired of the sense of christian privilege in this nation, and I'll be damned if I'm going to just sit in the corner and be silent about it. And if that makes me insincere in your eyes, well that's just too bad.

[SheilaT]

18. Atheists should show exactly the same respect back to

religion or a religious person that is shown to the atheist in the first place.

If they mock and insult me, I'm not going to treat them respectfully. Why should I? It only rewards their bad behavior.

[cbayer]

19. And vice versa, imo.

[Leontius]

23. If a believer mocks or insults you they're just mocking or insulting

your non belief not you. We keep getting told that here all the time.

[skepticscott]

24. That may or may not be true

in a particular case. Some beliefs deserve to be mocked, as do some believers and the actions they take in furtherance of, and motivated by those beliefs.

You'll just have to use your wits to figure out which. Best of luck.

[whathehell]

31. Try this: It's deeds not creeds, that are important, as your noting of "actions" indicates.

If someone's beliefs or lack of such, don't affect you, I'd say

it's none of your damned business WHAT they believe.

[skepticscott]

43. I'd say that too

And if no religious person ever tried to impose their beliefs or the dictates of their religion on anyone who didn't welcome them, and if the religiously motivated actions of believers never affected anyone but themselves, wouldn't that be peachy? But I don't live in that world, and neither do you (and if you think you do, you're deeply deluded)

Do you really think I have nothing better to do than give a fuck what people believe in private?

Try again.

[whathehell]

58. That's good.

"And if no religious person ever tried to impose their beliefs or the dictates of their religion on anyone who didn't welcome them, and if the religiously motivated actions of believers never affected anyone but themselves, wouldn't that be peachy"?

Yes, and I would say the same thing about atheists trying to impose their non-belief on others as well.

As for "the religiously motivated actions of believers" affecting other people, I get it, but you see,

in America, we have this thing called "Separation of Church and State", so those "actions" aren't

likely to be more bothersome than a Jehovah's Witness at your door IF, and it is a big "if", given the

current climate, we stand strong and INSIST on that separation as the law of the land.

As to your later sentence, I submit that, with all the religion bashing going on here,

I'd have no reason to imagine you don't "give a fuck" about "what people believe in private"

since many people here do seem to care deeply.

[cleanhippie]

64. " I would say the same thing about atheists trying to impose their non-belief on others as well."

Yeah, when you see that happening, you let me know and I will support you.


In the meantime, perhaps you can focus your efforts on where the REAL problem is. There was a believer in Missourri the other day who made yet another claim based on his belief and wants to make law. Something about "legitimate rape" and a womans body.

What? What was that?

[whathehell]

67. I've already seen it, and have heard others on this site report on it.

and thanks for the offer, but based on past experience, I'm confident

of neither needing or wanting your "support".

"There was a believer in Missouri the other day who made yet another claim based on his belief and wants to make law"

No shit, sherlock..There was probably a "believer" in Missouri brushing his teeth too.

Point: His comments reflect "Religion" about as well as those of Stalin or Pinochet reflect "Government".

Distinctions are needed.

[cleanhippie]

68. Certainly you can easily point to these exapmles, right?

And the guy in Missouri is an ELECTED LAWMAKER, one of THOUSANDS just like him, attempting to do the exact same thing.

THAT is the only distinction that is needed. what the hell, indeed?

[whathehell]

72. I can point to "examples", but perhaps not as "easily" as you can point to the "Thousands"

of elected lawmakers "just like" Akin, LOL.

Of course "That is the only distinction that is needed", for YOU

and other non-discerning, black and white thinkers like you.

"Critical distinctions", bro...It's what's for dinner.

[cleanhippie]

73. IOW, you made it up and cannot show examples from right here, like you claimed?

Got it, thanks.

[whathehell]

74. We know you're not the sharpest tack in the shed, but I thought you could read

the word "easilY'...Duh.

[cleanhippie]

75. Ahh, the old ad hominem. The last resort for one that has nothing of substance left to say.

[whathehell]

77. Ignoring the fact, of course that you started the "old ad hominem" first.

Anything of "substance" would be lost on you...As the old saying goes:

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent"

[cleanhippie]

79. Quoting you is an ad hominem?

Who knew?

I'll wait for those examples you claimed existed. How long do think you will be?

We both know that you will never, never, never, never, never provide any at all.

[whathehell]

83. Did you fail reading comprehension?

It seems you did, as your "quote" of me is innacurate.

[cleanhippie]

86. "I would say the same thing about atheists trying to impose their non-belief on others as well."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=41560

Did you fail cut-and-paste?


Hot tip of the day: Don't eat the paste.



Still waiting in those examples. But you're not gonna show them, are you?

[whathehell]

89. BWHAHAHAHAHA!

showing that "true wit" again.?

Hot tip of the day: Be in possession of at least average intelligence

before trying to appear as something more.

[cleanhippie]

94. So no example of your claim will ever be given. Got it.

[whathehell]

92. Nope.

Just not "rushing" to prove anything to you..Sorry.

[cleanhippie]

95. So no example of your claim will ever be given. Got it.

[whathehell]

99. Got one right here..duh.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=293848&mesg_id=293848

and another:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=770866&mesg_id=791968


And of course, there's plenty more...All you have to do is google this site for "atheism proselytizing" and you'll

find plenty.

Buh bye.

[Goblinmonger]

101. That's not about conversion

That's about letting other people who may feel alone know that they aren't alone.

[whathehell]

107. Yeah, well, I just provided another link to clean hippie that

features another DUer bemoaning the attempts to "convert" them to atheism

As I said to him, do a site search for "atheist" or "atheism" proselytizing and you'll find them

right on this board....I saw another, just recently, although I don't think it was

on another site I can't remember.

Their line was something like "Be an atheist. You can still be happy".

I'm probably somewhat mistaken about the first part (it does sound like

andarmy recruiter telling someone to "be all you can be", doesn't it?)

on the exact wording of the first part, but I do remember

the would be converter assuring me that I "could still be happy".

You might want to do a general search for it.

[eqfan592]

111. People "bemoaning" something doesn't mean that "something" actually exists.

But hey, nice try again.

[cleanhippie]

103. Bwahahahahahahaha!

Much like your ignorance on what theism and gnosticism mean, you display it yet again with this.


Run along, you're dismissed.

[whathehell]

108. LOL, nice try, but it doesn't quite work after you've been "welcomed" to someone's Ignore List!

Now be a good boy and read a dictionary to learn the meaning of "gnosticism".

[cleanhippie]

138. Wait, you have me on ignore yet still respond to me?

My 3year old has better comprehension than you.

You're dismissed, I'm done with you.

[Starboard Tack]

237. "My 3year old has better comprehension than you. " Thanks! Explains so much.

[eqfan592]

238. ....huh?? (nt)

[cleanhippie]

252. Glad to help.

Now did you have something of substance to add, or was this just another passive-aggressive attempt at attention. Again.

[eqfan592]

104. THAT's your example?

If it is, then you seriously need to take care in calling into question anybody else's intelligence in the future. Haha, but I kid....or do I? Hmmm...


In all seriousness tho, if trying to show people without faith that they are not alone and trying to provide them with a more welcoming environment counts as them "imposing" their beliefs on everybody else, then I guess you think similar campaigns on the part of the LGBT community are also them trying to impose their beliefs on us all as well, right?

[whathehell]

109. Sorry, Ignore.

I can't read your post, but I imagine that's no big loss, lol.

[eqfan592]

110. Ummm, what?

The old DU let you see when people on your Ignore list posted, but the current one does not, unless there is some setting I have missed....

[cleanhippie]

139. He talking to himself, much like he has been doing all along.

He embodies the phrase "ignorance is bliss."

[Goblinmonger]

120. That second example is awesome

Are you going to start a campaign against those evil Unitarian Universalists that post warns us about?

[whathehell]

225. Yours is better

since it indicates you didn't even bother to read the posts which preceeded the post with those links

and see that they were an answer to a challenge by another poster who told me I had "made up"

previous threads holding some posts in which other DUers are either espousing or complaining

about atheistic proslytizing.

Campaigning against "evil Universalists", sounds more like something atheists here would do,

considering that they attack even agnostics like myself here for not adhering to the party line of.

"All religion is evil" .

[madrchsod]

220. just for the record critters2 is a minister

[whathehell]

226. That's nice

Next?

[skepticscott]

152. Well, you might be able to say that

if atheists WERE going around "imposing" their non-belief on others. But they're not...unless you call seek to enforce the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state "imposing" non-belief. Simply "insisting" that it be so has never worked and never will, since so many people don't even recognize that principle and would be just as happy to see the United States be a theocracy...as they are convinced it is meant to be.

And if religious people were content to keep their beliefs private (here and in the larger world), you'd see nobody here, including me, giving a fuck about what they believe, or "bashing" what we're never exposed to...but they're not...hence the criticism of imposing foolishness on others and attempting to sway others to foolish ways of thinking, instead of keeping it a personal matter to individuals and between believers.

[Starboard Tack]

239. Do you not see mockery and derision of beliefs as a form of proselytizing?

When you address believers as delusional and irrational for their beliefs, are you not trying to "convert" them to your version of reality?

[humblebum]

242. Anyone who doesn't agree with skeptic's narrow POV is automatically

considered "delusional and irrational" if they harbor any religious beliefs.

[whathehell]

272. Absolutely true...Thank you for pointing it out!

I love it when they whine about the "poor picked upon atheists" -- What a load of bs,

especailly on THIS board

[Starboard Tack]

280. Yeah, I figured that. Very sad to be so closed minded.

[whathehell]

244. Excellent point.. "Mockery and derision of beliefs IS a form of proselytizing, and,

in my opinion, bullying, as well.

[eqfan592]

245. And you're completely wrong.

And you disagreeing with anything I say is "bullying" as well.

See, I can play the "attach bullying to unrelated things" game as well.

[skepticscott]

257. Still waiting for your examples

of atheists imposing their non-belief on others. Guess you couldn't find those with a Google search.

And making fun of someone's belief that the earth is less than 10,000 years old or that Xenu tossed all those people into volcanos isn't telling them what they SHOULD believe instead, now is it? There are lots of ways to look at the world...some make less sense than others...some a LOT less. Proselytizing Catholics and Baptists tell people exactly what they should believe, last time I checked. Not just in god, but in THEIR god, THEIR way.

Is that difference truly a concept you didn't grasp? Honestly?

[whathehell]

259. Still "waiting" for own personal response, perhaps?

The links were posted days ago in # 99. .

[Starboard Tack]

283. You're right and this is a very sad phenomenon.

Bullying is a vicious cycle, where those who were bullied often become bullies themselves. This is exemplified in the A&A group, where I encountered some of the most intolerant individuals. As an atheist, I was naive enough to think I would be welcome in a group where I share similar beliefs about religion. I didn't realize that joining in the mockery and derision was a requirement and tolerance of those who expressed religious beliefs was not to be tolerated. The baiting and bullying was extreme, but I think I know now how it must feel to live in a religiously intolerant society like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

[eqfan592]

288. Are you serious?!?!?!

Did you seriously just compare your negative experience in the A&A group (a negative experience you brought on yourself mind you) to the sort of religious intolerance people experience in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia?

Your behavior in the A&A group is what got you blocked, and it had absolutely NOTHING to do with not "joining in the mockery and derision" as you put it.

You have officially gone way beyond the pale, Starboard Tack.

[Starboard Tack]

292. Right, my behavior of not toeing the line of intolerance. Defending others who were bullied.

Actually, I think the attitude of the members of your little "protected" club are the most intolerant people I've ever encountered. That's a sad thing to say about people one agrees with on many issues, but it is the truth. I don't really remember you, but from your post I guess you were part of the group of intolerants who supported the smear campaign against me, my wife and other members of our family. Calling fellow atheists, who embrace tolerance of believers, apologists for all crimes committed in the name of religion, is beyond the pale of what DU is about.
I don't know who you report to "officially", but I wish you and they would try to open your minds to others who do not share your ill feelings toward fellow DUers who hold religious beliefs you disagree with.

[eqfan592]

293. Who I report to?

What the hell are you even talking about? As for "smear" campaigns, ask your wife about what she thinks of me yourself. I think I've done a fairly good job of keeping a generally amiable tone with her, in spite of us having some very strong disagreements.

Your behavior had nothing to do with failing to toe some imaginary line of intolerance, and your apologetics go far beyond embracing tolerance of believers. You've never been able to figure out the difference between the belief and the believer, and that one can reject one while embracing the other as a fellow human.

In fact, you know exactly why you were kicked out, because a message was posted to the A&A forum. If I recall, the straw that broke the camels back was your grave dancing over another members PPR. A member that was well liked by many.

Here's a link to the thread in case you have forgotten: http://upload.democraticunderground.com/12308879

But even if all of that were false, the fact that you would even think to compare your experiences on an internet forum with the real life experiences and terrors of people living in intolerant nations speaks absolute volumes about you.

[Starboard Tack]

305. Thanks for posting that link, which illustrates my point precisely.

Intolerance is intolerance, wherever it is practiced. I'm sorry to see you subscribe to it.

[Goblinmonger]

309. As one who voted to block you, I call major BS.

We did not block you for a good deal of time even though we strongly disagreed with you. We did not block you for a good deal of time even though we got NUMEROUS requests and pleadings from forum members to do so. We did not block you because we wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt even though we felt you were crossing the line of the safe haven group.

Here are the highlights of why I made the vote to block you:
1. You made several transphobic and homophobic comments which we felt didn't belong on DU. We don't have control over that but we could make sure that they didn't occur in A/A.
2. Your grave dancing of laconicsax's PPR was WAY over the line and not acceptable in a safe haven forum. There are other places you could have gone any number of other places for that but you chose to do it in the most inappropriate spot on DU.

You makes your choices, you lives with the consequences. But please stop playing the martyr/victim in all this. It's unbecoming.

[Starboard Tack]

310. So that's how you roll. Still doing the smear thing.

I made no "transphobic and homophobic comments" and you know it. That was one of your smear campaigns. "If they are tolerant of believers, trash them and discredit them".

I did not "grave dance" over your friend's PPR. Laconicsax was a disruptor who stalked members (s)he did not agree with. An intolerant baiter and hater and someone you continue to side with. I guess you made your choices. Your little "safe haven" group, btw, is not a forum. If it were, things would be very different and actual discussion would be permitted.

[Goblinmonger]

311. Glad to see nothing has changed with you

No indication of being at all sorry for what you did and said. Thanks for confirming my vote.

[Starboard Tack]

313. No problem. No apologies from me. None needed.

Standing up for those unable to defend themselves against bigotry is nothing to be apologize for. Being voted out of your group is a badge of honor to those of us who espouse tolerance.

[cleanhippie]

301. Yep, he did just that. It more of his passive-aggressive bullshit.

[whathehell]

291. Indeed it is.

Starboard, I'm sending you a pm.

[skepticscott]

256. No, and no

If you need to have that explained, don't be afraid to ask.

[Starboard Tack]

281. Feel free to offer one by all means.

It usually helps the discussion when one explains one's position.

[AlbertCat]

184. aren't likely to be more bothersome than a Jehovah's Witness at your door

Or stopping Stem Cell Research

Or denying gays the right to marry

Or denying women the right to choose

Or thinking the uterus will stop a pregnancy in case of Legitimate rape

Magical thinking, that religions support as real, is harmful to everyone. Supernatural solutions are not helpful and can hinder progress.

[whathehell]

201. Blaming "religion" for acts like that reported in the OP, is like blaming "government" for Stalin

Distinctions are important and the attitudes and actions you mention come out of a particular

brand of Right Wing Christianity that is NOT emblematic of all, or even most, present day

world religions. Rinse and repeat.

[AlbertCat]

231. Rinse and repeat.

OK...I will.... in big letters...


MAGICAL THINKING, THAT RELIGIONS SUPPORT AS REAL, IS HARMFUL TO EVERYONE.

SUPERNATURAL SOLUTIONS ARE NOT HELPFUL AND CAN HINDER PROGRESS.


Maybe you'll "get it" this time

[whathehell]

241. Rinse and repeat this:

MAGICAL THINKING = Anything not yet "proven" through empirical means.


Talk to a few of the MILLIONS who have experienced Extra Sensory Perception and try and shove


that strict empiricist bullshit down their throats...Maybe YOU will "get it" then.

[cleanhippie]

254. ESP? bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

And you wonder why no one takes a things you say seriously.


ESP? Really?

[AlbertCat]

258. the MILLIONS who have experienced Extra Sensory Perception

ESP?

Seriously?

This just proves what I was talking about.

I am no scientist. I'm a costume designer. But I like to read about science and if you look at all the legit sciences, step back and try to encompass the whole thing you notice that REAL science tends to advance. Things are discovered and then those discoveries lead to other new aspects which can change the whole direction of a discipline. Then that new direction will discover new relationships and so on and so forth and the field tend to advance with new ideas and knowledge coming in all the time.

ESP and the paranormal have been studied for a couple of centuries now and it just doesn't advance. It stays put, basically in the same place it was in the 18th and 19th centuries. New devices, usually developed for real science, are employed, but nothing new is ever learned about ghosts or spirits or remote viewing or precognition....or any of it. This is a sure sign it's just not real.

If one's general ability to judge such situations is not contaminated with the possibility that "magical thinking" is even worth worrying about, one could see the dead end ESP is..... regardless of how many people think they've experienced it. "Millions" of people may have thought they experienced ESP, but billions of people.... every single one in fact, have experienced science and physics.

[whathehell]

263. Science is not an "experience", except for the faithful.

"ESP and the paranormal have been studied for a couple of centuries now and it just doesn't advance. It stays put, basically in the same place it was in the 18th and 19th centuries. New devices, usually developed for real science, are employed, but nothing new is ever learned about ghosts or spirits or remote viewing or precognition....or any of it". This is a sure sign it's just not real".

The fact that ESP and the paranormal have been studied for a couple of centuries without advancement proves nothing. Science doesn't advance along a predictable time line. Scientific discovery can plateau for an indefinite period of time. After all, for at least fifteen hundred years, scientific minds believed that the universe was made up of earth, air, fire, and water. Then there were theories of spontaneous generation and phlogiston.


Physics is still struggling to come up with a Unified Field Theory. But if you absolutely believe that science will someday explain all of the fundamental forces of nature, how is that different from a religion? And how do you know it won't someday explain ESP?

Have a good evening.

[Goblinmonger]

260. I think there's a million bucks out there

for any one of the MILLIONS you speak of that can prove ESP works beyond random chance.

[whathehell]

261. People who have experienced it, don't need any further "proof".

and the anecdotal evidence is STAGGERING...You'd be better off giving that million to someone who can prove it does NOT exist

and/or that the majority of those who've experience it are "nuts" or lying.

Sometimes science is slow to catch up to experience.

[Goblinmonger]

262. "Sometimes science is slow to catch up to experience"

How many centuries do you think it needs? Seems to me that as science progresses the "reality" of ESP becomes more clear that it doesn't exist. Of course that doesn't fit your world view so you dismiss it.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean dick. Anytime they have done any sort of double blind test on ESP, it doesn't rise above random chance. How about the chickens that play tic-tac-toe? Or the horse that can do math? You think those are real, too?

[whathehell]

264. Yes and if you knew anything about science you'd know that scientific discovery doesn't advance

along a predictable time line, it can plateau for centuries...For at least 1500 years scientific minds

were happy to believe that all matter consisted of earth, air, water, and fire.

As to "anecdotal evidence and "dick", When such "anecdotal evidence" reaches multitudes, it's no longer "anecdotal" it's statistical

and the fact that the double blind tests that have been done on ESP, to date, haven't turned up anything beyond

random chance does not mean it won't in the future...Do you have ANY idea how many "tests" were applied

to given theories before some could be established as scientific facts?...No, you clearly do not.

Have a nice evening.

[eqfan592]

265. The plural of anecdote is not now, nor will it ever be, data.

I have no reason to believe in the existence of something until I see some evidence for its existence, and "because a bunch of people say so" isn't even close to solid enough evidence to warrant belief in a phenomena such as ESP.

Your lack of understanding on this topic is clear. That you can't seem to recognize it is, well, sad.

[Goblinmonger]

266. So statistics don't develop along a predictable time line, either?

Clearly you don't understand double blind tests nor statistics. The fact that a whole hell of a lot of double blind tests have been done and never done better than random chance pretty much does indicate that the null hypothesis (that ESP doesn't exist) is true. Anecdotal "evidence" doesn't change anything about the statistics.

But, hey, keep believing what you want. No skin off my back.

[whathehell]

271. Is that the best you've got?

I guess so.

[Goblinmonger]

275. Yes, overwhelming statistical evidence

collected over centuries that ESP does not exist beyond random chance is "the best I've got." You are probably still holding on to the magic bullet theory about television despite decades of research to prove the opposite.

[whathehell]

290. Have you considered a remedial reading course?

You already GAVE the "statistics" a two century time line.

My point, which should have been obvious, was that it's the METHODS which

could be questionable, not statistical result of tests already done.

I'm done with you, as I believe you're being deliberately obtuse.

Welcome to the big "I" list.

[eqfan592]

294. LOL! you're calling somebody ELSE deliberately obtuse???

[Goblinmonger]

308. Do explain how the methods of these studies would be flawed.

They take someone who claims to have ESP, give shapes/drawings that the ESP claimer has not seen before to someone else, and has the ESP claimer "read the mind" of the other person who is in a different room and say which shape they are looking at. Nobody has done significantly better than random chance. What particular method is going to improve on that?

And I relish being on your Ignore list if I actually am.

[cleanhippie]

269. Poe. Gotta be a Poe.

There is no other explanation for such nonsense.


A Poe for sure.

[eqfan592]

274. lol, you and I reach the same conclusion at about the same time I think, cleanhippie. (nt)

[eqfan592]

243. But AlbertCat, you forgot about ESP!!!!

ESP is the perfect counter to everything you're saying! DUH!!!!!!!

[cleanhippie]

63. Thats true, but until believers learn to keep their beliefs to themselves...

It is my damn business, especially when they try and make laws that I have to follow based on those rediculous beliefs.

[humblebum]

267. "until believers learn to keep their beliefs to themselves"

What we need is another good atheist dictator to make sure that happens. You tell 'em hippie.

I guess free speech doesn't include religious speech.

[cleanhippie]

268. Do you think that because its a different day...

that I give two shits about what you think, or that anything you have to say is even remotely relevant?

Do us both a favor and stop responding to me. Better yet, put me on your ignore list. If you have something to say, start an OP. See how much interest you get.

[humblebum]

270. Let's put it like this. Until you learn to keep your anti-religious ranting to yourself, I

will continue to respond. However, you are certainly entitled to use the ignore function.

[cleanhippie]

273. Oh no, your posts are comedy gold!

I also find it humorous to watch you attempt to be relevant.


You have a nice day.

[whathehell]

27. Yeah, and if an atheist mocks or insults non-atheist, they're just mocking and insulting

your belief, not you...We keep getting told that here all the time.

[cleanhippie]

65. What is a "non-atheist"?

Oh, yeah, thats called a theist. You know, one that believes in a supernatural deity. The one that makes positive claims about the existence of said deity.



Ignorance. It's whats for dinner.

[whathehell]

69. I think we can all be happy that you didn't go for "clever hippie"

Because "theist" is only one alternative. I'm Agnostic, which is neither.

Stupidity. It's what's for lunch.

[cleanhippie]

71. Well then, you are showing both

ignorance and stupidity (your word, not mine). Take a minute a learn what these terms actually mean, not what you, ahem, think they mean.

theism and gnosticism deal with two totally different topics. (hint: one is about belief, the other is about knowledge)

Education, its whats for breakfast. Have several bowlfuls. Then have some more.

You have a really nice day.

[whathehell]

76. As are you in claiming "gnosticisn and "agnosticism" to be the same thing!

READ THE POST, or are you actually too stupid

to know the difference between "gnosticm", which is a form of Christianity,

and "agnosticm" which takes "I don't know" stance in relation to the

existence of God?


Sorry, honey, most of the atheists here are at least fairly knowledgeable,

you require too much "remedial education".

Welcome (again) to My ignore list.

[cleanhippie]

159. "the difference between "gnosticm", which is a form of Christianity, " - BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Are you fucking serious? Here, so you can stop embarrasing yourself, I will help you out.

Theism = belief in a deity.

Theism is about belief.


Gnosticism = knowledge about the existence of a deity.

Gnosticism is about knowledge.

The two terms, while inter-related, define two very different ideas, one about belief and the other about knowledge.

This gives you (when referring back to the topic at hand) four types of people..

1. Gnostic Theist = One that believes in a god and knows that said god exists.

2. Agnostic Theist = One that believes in a god but does not know that said god exists.

3. Gnostic Atheist = One that does not believe in a god and knows that said god does not exist.

4. Agnostic Atheist = One that does not believe in a god but does not know that said god does not exist.


Most self identified Theists tend to fall under #2, and most self identified Atheists fall under #4.

Here are some charts to assist in your understanding.



but you go ahead and pretend to have me on ignore. Thats what the ignorant do best, hide from that which will prevent their ignorance.

[humblebum]

161. "Thats what the ignorant do best, hide from that which will prevent their ignorance."

Um. hippie? Don't look now but you do that all the time.

[cleanhippie]

162. I'm sorry, were you saying something?

Or did you think that I gave two shits about your opinion?

You have a nice day.

[humblebum]

163. Voila!

You have a nice day, too.

[cleanhippie]

164. You can help stop wasted bandwidth by not responding to me.

In fact, you should just put me on ignore, as I find your posts to be about as worthwhile as a turd in a punchbowl.

Continue to have a nice day.

[humblebum]

165. And I find your posts so intellectually stimulating -

NOT. But I would never put you on ignore. It's far too important for there not to be a contrast to your constant anti-religious rants..

[cleanhippie]

166. .

[MADem]

151. Errrrr.....I think you made a mistake, there, whilst snarking.

A non-atheist can be a theist....or it can be an "I have no fucking idea" agnostic. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

An agnostic, by definition, is neither fish nor fowl, neither atheist nor theist.

You owe the poster you derided an apology for being so rude and unkind to them--particularly since you were wrong.

You really acquitted yourself poorly, there--and the little rolling laughing man, topping it off? Tsk, tsk.

You can disagree without being disagreeable. Or being an ass.

[cleanhippie]

158. Kindly allow me to show you the difference...

Theism = belief in a deity.

Theism is about belief.


Gnosticism = knowledge about the existence of a deity.

Gnosticism is about knowledge.

The two terms, while inter-related, define two very different ideas, one about belief and the other about knowledge.

This gives you (when referring back to the topic at hand) four types of people..

1. Gnostic Theist = One that believes in a god and knows that said god exists.

2. Agnostic Theist = One that believes in a god but does not know that said god exists.

3. Gnostic Atheist = One that does not believe in a god and knows that said god does not exist.

4. Agnostic Atheist = One that does not believe in a god but does not know that said god does not exist.


Most self identified Theists tend to fall under #2, and most self identified Atheists fall under #4.

Here are some charts to assist in your understanding.



The point of this is to show that when one is asked whether they believe in a god, and they answer with "I'm agnostic", then they have failed to answer the question, because the question was about belief, not about knowledge.


I took issue with whatthehell's use of his fabricated term "non-atheist", which is a double negative that he made-up for some reason. And when called on it, responds with "But I'm an agnostic", which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever about what he said in the first place. It was a dodge to try and wiggle out of his own mud puddle.

Then you feel the need to jump in and admonish me when you too, failed to understand what you were talking about. Are we on the same page now?

MADem, I really tried to give you this info without snark, as I have no beef with you at all, even though you called me an ass. I feel that an apology is in order. Where we go from here is up to you.

[MADem]

282. I do not agree with your definition of agnostic, and neither do many others.

Atheists have a "belief" as well--they BELIEVE there is no God. They don't have any certain KNOWLEDGE, either.

The religious people have a "belief" that there is a God. And though they claim knowledge through "faith," they don't have any certain KNOWLEDGE any more than the atheists do.

You can put people into any category you'd like-- the fact of the matter is that no one KNOWS jack-shit, no matter how much everyone tries to bullshit one another about how smart they pretend they are.

If anyone actually KNEW, to absolute positivity, the answer to this question that vexes so many, there'd be no debate.

There is no 100 percent certainty, and anyone with a scientific bent knows that. The people leaning on faith may pretend they know it, but they're lying, too.

You've been plenty rude throughout this thread, unnecessarily, too. Don't blame me for noticing. I'd say your conduct, even if you're not directing it at me, is questionable at best.

[cleanhippie]

287. Its not MY definition. Its THE definition. Feel fre to check the etymology on your own.

Last edited Thu Aug 23, 2012, 09:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Gnostic (n.)
1580s, "believer in a mystical religious doctrine of spiritual knowledge," from L.L. Gnosticus, from Late Gk. Gnostikos, noun use of adj. gnostikos "knowing, able to discern," from gnostos "knowable," from gignoskein "to learn, to come to know" (see know). Applied to various early Christian sects that claimed direct personal knowledge beyond the Gospel or the Church hierarchy. The adj. meaning "relating to knowledge" (with lower-case g-) is from 1650s.
gnostic (adj.) Look up gnostic at Dictionary.com
"relating to knowledge," 1650s, from Gk. gnostikos "knowing, able to discern," from gnostos "known, perceived, understood," from gignoskein "to learn, to come to know" (see know).
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gnostic

agnostic (n.)
1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" [Klein]; coined by T.H. Huxley (1825-1895), supposedly in September 1869, from Gk. agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos &quot to be) known" (see gnostic). Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God," but according to Huxley it was coined with reference to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic).

I ... invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic,' ... antithetic to the 'Gnostic' of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. [T.H. Huxley, "Science and Christian Tradition," 1889]

The adjective is first recorded 1870.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=agnostic

And as far as your opinion on what atheists believe, again, the etymology of the word is there for you to check, which is quite wrong.

atheist Look up atheist at Dictionary.com
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea).

The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell. [Armand Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

This isn't rocket science, its word meanings and their origins.

Atheism only exist in response to theism. Its a rejection of the belief in a god. Without theists, there would be no atheists.

Do you believe that Thor is not a real god or do you not believe that Thor is a real god?

As for the rest of your post, you seem to have totally skipped over everything provided for you, or chosen to ignore the facts in order to perpetuate your own personal version of what you want words to mean, so they fit your agenda.

[MADem]

296. It's not "the" definition--it's one you cherry-picked. Merriam Webster has a different view.

As do others.

You have one of those nice evenings. You're looking hard, and everywhere, for a fight, over anything and everything, but you will just have to look elsewhere; I made my point WRT this thread in post eighty five.

[cleanhippie]

300. *sigh*

[MADem]

302. Ho-hum...nt

[MineralMan]

22. I think each atheist should decide what to do.

Some will want to be more in your face. Others will keep their silence. Some will act differently in different situations.

It's just like anything else. I've been an atheist for close to 50 years now. I adjust my activities to suit the situation. If asked, I tell. If approached by some evangelistic person, I inform that person that he or she is wasting her time. If attacked for my atheism, I defend myself. If left alone, I leave alone.

There is no simple answer. There are only the individual decisions of individual atheists.

It's a poorly stated question, to be quite frank, and far to binary to make any sense.

[JoePhilly]

29. I become more "in your face" as an Athiest, when a Religious person tells me I'm going to Hell.

Too many Religious people want to tell you how YOU can get closer to God, just like them. I find it pretty arrogant for anyone to claim that they are closer to God than anyone else, even if both believe in God.

Then they demand prayer in school. Really? Which prayer? Who gets to write it?

My Atheism becomes more pronounced based on the situation, just like you seem to be describing.

And that's the rub. Many of the Religious folks have been told that a key part of their Religion is to "spread the word", to "attract new followers".

[amuse bouche]

33. Well said

[MineralMan]

37. Well, yes..

I keep my silence as long as the religious keep theirs. If they don't, I don't.

[Karmasue]

190. It is wrong for religious zealots to tell you

that you are going to hell because you are an atheist

or to demand religious prayer in public schools.

But then, it is also wrong to insist on the removal of US historical references to God from State Courthouse steps.


Because zealotry has become divisive and dangerous in this country.

Zealotry. Intolerance. Extremism.


Those are the real dangers.

[eqfan592]

200. There's a pretty massive difference between the two situations.

And there is nothing wrong with insisting that state courthouses respect church/state separation, no matter how "historical" the artifact may be.

Sorry, but saying that it is wrong to have that expectation of a taxpayer funded institution simply drips of religious privilege.

[Karmasue]

219. Well I respectfully disagree...

There are references to God in many of our national and state historic documents and statues and other artifacts. Freedom of expression, and from religious oppression was one of the reasons we are here today. Would you redact a part of our history, or rewrite the story to erase part of that history - and to what purpose? Would it not be better to preserve the veracity of our history, and let the lessons of learning, growing and advancement of expansive principle speak for itself?

[eqfan592]

227. No one says the artificts need be destroyed.

But to have them prominently displayed at public buildings goes counter to that ideal of separation of church and state. If you believe such an artifact is of historical value (and I can't say I would argue with that) then a museum showcase is a more appropriate place for it. This isn't about "Freedom of expression." Nobody is trying to tell somebody what they can and can't do with their own money and property. This is about taxpayer money being used to promote a religious belief not shared by all those taxpayers, which is wrong.

As for documents, most of those documents already are treated as museum pieces, and those states which still have religious laws on the books (such as a requirement for all elected officials to believe in god) should have those laws repealed for obvious reasons.

[Karmasue]

228. Why must they be hidden?

If the artifacts are not evangelistic or proselytizing in nature then they are simply documents or statues that have historical significance.

[eqfan592]

229. Depends entirely on the artifact.

And I wouldn't say placing them in a museum is the equivalent of "hiding" them. Simply because something is of historic significance doesn't mean it belongs on the steps of the courthouse.

[cbayer]

230. What do you think about the large steel cross that has been placed outside the 9/11 museum

in NYC?

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/121840813

[eqfan592]

232. It's an artifact of signifigance (tho one of what I'm sure where thousands of crusiform pieces of...

...debris that were located at the site) due to the importance people have placed on it, but it isn't deserving of any special placement. The cross as a symbol is very exclusive to christians, and a memorial to all the thousands of people that died on 9/11 should really be as inclusive as possible.

[cbayer]

233. Agree. I wonder if there were other artifacts that took on religious significance that

were not included.

Certainly, the bulk of the exhibit has no religious connection at all.

[cleanhippie]

255. It's not a cross, it's a piece of wreckage that resembles a xtian cross.

Because pareiodolia runs rampant in the Christian community is no need to enshrine a piece of wreckage.

[Karmasue]

277. But then -

isn't that - not allowing those artifacts out in the open - relegating those artifacts to a less significant status than the ones without reference to God or religion?

And isn't that exactly what Atheists themselves are trying to change - being relegated to a less significant status in the nation?

[eqfan592]

278. If it is treated the same way in the museum as artifacts of non-religious status, how is that...

...relegating it to a less significant status?

[Karmasue]

289. Well...let me pose a hypothetical

You and I are both granted an historical prize for our work on some important discovery. Over time we are both venerated as historical figures because of our contribution to society and statues are erected. My statue stands on the front grounds. Everyone can see it even from a distance. My part of the contribution to history is etched at the base of my statue in order to preserve it through weather.

Your statue is inside the museum, not out where it cannot be seen without going inside. The contribution is also etched on the bottom of your statue. But the museum is closed today. For many, your contribution will never be seen.

You have been relegated to a less significant status.

[eqfan592]

295. You mean my statue is inside, kept clean and lacking in a coating of bird crap?

I guess it all depends on ones idea of status.

But ultimately, this entire discussion is pointless because a statue of overtly religious nature (such as crucifixes and displays of the ten commandments) is not appropriate on public property.

[Karmasue]

298. Actually status is not the test...

Context and historical relevance has been the litmus for court rulings. And that is as it should be.

[eqfan592]

299. No, status is indeed not the test.

I believe I said as much, tho not in those exact words.

And I think the Lemon test is actually the litmus for court rulings, not historical relevance. And that is as it should be.

[dimbear]

25. It was just about a hundred years ago women got the right to vote. Those women

made some noise. Those women made some enemies. Those women got results, in spite of the church fighting them as hard as it could.

Go and do likewise.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

183. "in spite of the church fighting them"? Which church? Many suffragettes were Quakers.

The Society of Friends, or Quakers, are followers of Englishman George Fox. During the 1600s Quakers fled England in large numbers to escape religious persecution in part because the leaders publicly challenged the English class system. Followers of Fox, Quakers, believed that all men and women were equal in the eyes of God and should listen to their "inner light" or conscience to guide their spiritual connection with God and the Bible.
...
The women's rights movement was rooted in the fertile ground of central New York. This area was known for sweeping reform, which burned across the landscape through village, town, and city like a prairie on fire. Much of this reform was due to the numerous members of the Society of Friends, Quakers, who made their homes here. A progressive branch of Quakers lived in and around Waterloo, New York. At a time in America when women had virtually no rights, these Quakers provided model relationships where men and women worked and lived in equality.
http://www.nps.gov/wori/historyculture/quaker-influence.htm

The suffragettes were victims of the church? Or churches? How many suffragettes were atheists?

[Rob H.]

185. ""in spite of the church fighting them"? Which church?"

In addition to being on the wrong side of history wrt to slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow laws, the Southern Baptists fought against giving women the right to vote.

"How many suffragettes were atheists?"

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, for one:

Soon Susan B. Anthony and hundreds of other women and men who had their fill of bigotry joined her. Ms. Anthony was a great organizer while Ms. Stanton was a fine writer. Together they were a team until they had a falling out of sorts. The two argued about the threshold question - should women get the vote first and then change the mores of the day, or should they change the mores of the day, and then suffrage would naturally follow? Ms. Stanton held that suffrage for women would be wasted if the Church still controlled their sex in the home and in society. She wrote, "When women understand that governments and religions are human inventions; that bibles, prayer-books, catechisms, and encyclical letters are all emanations from the brains of man, they will no longer be oppressed by the injunctions that come to them with the divine authority of 'Thus sayeth the Lord.'"

She fought for 50 years, which was too short to overcome the ponderous inertia of chauvinism. For half a century she attacked the pulpits and the irrational dogma that came from them. She found the Bible revolting and largely uncivilized. Preachers tried to comfort her by claiming the New Testament was better than the Old, only to hear her say, "All the men of the Old Testament were polygamists, and Christ and Paul, the central figures of the New Testament, were celibates, and condemned marriage by both precept and example." For years she and a score of women combed the Bible to highlight its perverse vilification of their sex. When the project was completed it took two volumes to contain it all. It was called The Woman's Bible and it started an uproar, which caused it to be published time and time again. It remains in print today.

In 1896, the 81-year-old Ms. Stanton suffered the sting of having the organization she founded, the National American Woman Suffrage Association, condemn The Woman's Bible. Before the vote Susan B. Anthony left the chair she held as President, in order to speak against the resolution. She pleaded with the delegates, "What you should do is to say to outsiders that a Christian has neither more nor less rights in our Association than an atheist. When our platform becomes too narrow for people of all creeds and of no creeds, I myself shall not stand upon it ... " In spite of the plea the resolution passed 53 to 41.

And some quotes from the lady herself:

"I can say that the happiest period of my life has been since I emerged from the shadows and superstitions of the old theologies, relieved from all gloomy apprehensions of the future, satisfied that as my labors and capacities were limited to this sphere of action, I was responsible for nothing beyond my horizon, as I could neither understand nor change the condition of the unknown world. Giving ourselves, then, no trouble about the future, let us make the most of the present, and fill up our lives with earnest work here."

"The memory of my own suffering has prevented me from ever shadowing one young soul with the superstition of the Christian religion."

"The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women's emancipation."

"Among the clergy we find our most violent enemies, those most opposed to any change in woman's position."

"The clergy of all sects are universally opposed to free thought and free speech, and if they had the power even in our republic to day would crush any man who dared to question the popular religion."

"The happiest people I have known have been those who gave themselves no concern about their own souls, but did their uttermost to mitigate the miseries of others."

"I have been into many of the ancient cathedrals -- grand, wonderful, mysterious. But I always leave them with a feeling of indignation because of the generations of human beings who have struggled in poverty to build these altars to an unknown god."

[AnotherMcIntosh]

186. You're right. In contrast to Lucretia Mott, Jane Hunt, Martha Wright, and Mary Ann McClintock,

she was not a Quaker.

[Rob H.]

187. So because she was outnumbered, her contributions mean less?

She also outlived all of them and published The Woman's Bible after most of them had long since passed.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

188. Excuse me, but that is a nutty conclusion.

That's not supported by my post at all. Not even remotely.

If you don't recognize the names, they were friends of hers. She chose to have Quaker friends. Neither she nor anyone else in the suffragette movement ever felt harassed by the Quakers.

[Rob H.]

193. My apologies

I looked the names up and know they all worked closely together. It seems as if, a lot of the time, people want to minimize nonbelievers' contributions to things like women's suffrage, the Civil Rights Movement, and abolitionism because they weren't in the majority. I should have asked for clarification rather than going with my initial gut reaction.

Sorry for my misunderstanding--I'll know better next time. Have a good one!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

194. .

No problem.

[dimbear]

210. The main opponents of the Suffrage movement were Catholics. The history of the

movement is well recorded. It was known, not too surprisingly, as the anti-suffrage movement. Check out their records. See how many of their inspiring speakers were Catholic clergymen.

A proud era in the church. Protecting women from the burden of voting.

Lots more if you google "antisuffrage"

[orpupilofnature57]

28. I married an atheist and I believe ,and for 37 yrs

we disagree respectfully .

[whathehell]

206. Wow...That's good to hear! Perhaps you could give some much needed advice to this place!

On the other hand, it may not work here...Too many angry people, I'd say.

People in a marriage are motivated to get along. People on DU? -- not so much.

[orpupilofnature57]

216. I agree 100%

I've been chided by few and accepted by many ,most who disagree with me on my views of religion ,but agree most of the time with my views on Democracy ,thats the beauty of DU .

[whathehell]

249. Thank you, orpupilof nature57.

Myself as well, at times, but a others, this place seems more like "Atheist Underground" than Democratic Underground.

I'm glad your experiences have been better.

[eqfan592]

250. Yep, we dirty atheists just don't know that we need to sit in the corner and remain silent.

Sorry, but you're growing more offensive by the second.

[orpupilofnature57]

253. A little thin skinned ,no ?

Or have you been persecuted ?

[avebury]

32. To some degree there is religion in my workplace.

I handle it by doing my best to put a distance between myself and the holy rollers. I have even skipped out on Department holiday lunches at times.

[Warpy]

34. Neither, actually

It's just a mass movement we have no particular interest in and should be treated that way.

I find I'm quite neutral on the subject unless someone is trying to tell me what I think or what my proclivities are based on the rumor that I'm an atheist. I'll set them straight.

Or if someone is trying to get elected to push his religious dogma into civil law, I'll work to defeat him. I'll educate everybody on what his dogma would do to them. I'll fight him every step of the way and if he gets his way, I'll double my usual contribution to the ACLU to get it overturned. Unconstitutional laws against atheists running for office are only one of many examples.

But religion in general? Nah. It's just something that doesn't interest me in any way, like scrapbooking or pro football. Other people might be fanatically devoted to any of them but it's just not me. Leave me alone and I'll leave them alone.

[Speck Tater]

36. There is nothing to be gained by insulting others.

You don't win converts to atheism by being obnoxious and alienating the people you should be trying to convince.

(BTW: I am an atheist who believes in respecting other people's right to religious freedom. It's not my place to pass judgement on my fellow man, since that implies that I'm placing myself above them, and I haven't earned that right.)

[MineralMan]

39. That's true.

I'm offended when people tell me that I'm going to Hell because I'm an atheist. What is gained by that?

If they mind their own business, I mind mine. If they intrude on my business, then I give them the business. Simple, huh?

[Speck Tater]

47. "tit for tat" - the scientifically proven strategy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

1. Be nice until provoked.
2. When provoked, ALWAYS retaliate immediately.
3. Always be quick to forgive and go back to being nice.

[Karmasue]

297. I think, Speck Tater

you are representative of the atheists I know. I don't know any who are in-your-face obnoxious. Most have told me they don't feel the need to judge or put down people of faith.

Most of the older people I know are still searching for an answer and that respect allows for more objective discussions, and learning opportunities whether you are an atheist or a religious person.

[KansDem]

40. Why?

George H W Bush believes atheists are not patriotic American citizens--

President Bush made the comments during a campaign stop on August 27, 1988
at O'Hare airport. He spoke with Robert Sherman, chief spokesman for
American Atheists:

RS: "Mr. President, what will you do to win the votes of Americans
who are Atheists?"
GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in
God is pretty important to me."
RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of
Americans who are atheists?"
GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under
God."

Snopes

Or...

Pat Robertson Blames Atheists for Sikh Temple Shooting

Or...

Listen to FOX News bash atheists--

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1589575735001/air-force-caves-to-atheists/
I love how the former chaplain says the government should provide the funds to disperse Bibles ala The Gideons! (@ 2'00&quot



And don't forget how Catholic priests raped boys using their cloak of religion...

These are only a quick smattering of the kinds of mindsets of hate and intolerance (and gross hypocrisy) directed toward atheists, but yet, atheists should "show respect" toward religions?

I despise it when the religiously insane, who constantly bad-mouth atheists, react when an atheist questions their beliefs by whining and moaning about "persecution" and "unfairness" and on and on.

Look in a mirror, oh, ye men and women of faith, and you will see the true perpetrators of hate, intolerance, and disrespect.

And remind me again what Jesus said about casting the first stone?

[longship]

45. I despise religion, as a whole.

But if somebody believes in a god, or a hundred gods, that doesn't bother me too much. Their rights and mine as a non-believer are congruent in this respect.

Just as I respect their beliefs, I demand that they respect mine. Demand is a strong word here, but it is no less than how the believers would characterize it themselves from their perspective. That, it seems to me an opportunity for mutual understanding. And I am not afraid to say these things to both believers and non-believers.

I am a militant atheist, but my militancy is not thrust against religious people, but against intolerance. Most of it is aimed at religion itself, for that seems to be a source of much intolerance, especially from the most strict sects.

I have seen the Republican party become increasingly subsumed by a religious cabal, and today the fact is that those trends have become evident to anybody who has open eyes. Apparently, the eyes of the press are not yet fully open. That has to change in order for us to make any substantive difference.

[Jennicut]

46. I am a Lutheran. But I really don't understand the fear of religious people toward atheists.

Everyone should be able to believe what they want to believe in. It is a very personal issue.
I like my church, my husband is the organist there. It's an open and relaxed type of church. Our pastor believes in equal rights for all and it is an Evangelical Lutheran church so gay clergy are allowed.

My sister in law is a total atheist. That is totally cool with me, it is her right and beliefs. I never even think about it but that might be growing up in a liberal state. New Englanders generally don't care what religion you are (or if you are an atheist or not). It really is none of our business. Some of my daughter's friends are Jehovah Witnesses and one is a Muslim. It just shows me that lots of people have lots of different views that should be respected.

[trotsky]

48. Why do religious beliefs deserve more respect than any other personal opinion?

No one has been able to answer that yet.

What is healthy criticism and debate on any other stance suddenly becomes "bashing" when it comes to religion. Why the different set of standards?

[Warren Stupidity]

49. You cannot even ask about specific beliefs without it being perceived as an insult.

"How does Santa Claus get to every house of every believer on Christmas eve?"
"how dare you insult my religion?"

[octothorpe]

51. I don't think Christians believe Santa Claus is really visiting every home on Christmas Eve..

But yeah, I find that some of the preachy ones get angry/annoyed if you question what they say. I won't go straight out and give someone a hard time just because they are religious, but I will if they get all preachy with me and tell me how I'm going to hell.

[Warren Stupidity]

70. The example was chosen to not

Offend our very thin skinned Christians. The believers in the example are santaclausians, and the typical santaclausian is a five year old.

[HereSince1628]

53. Mostly because religious based conflict is way too common and destructive. Tolerance and respect

are more likely to minimize that conflict than confrontation.

There are settings where religious criticism and debate is welcome, and there are settings where it is not. In most mixed social settings evangelizing or demeaning religions/philosophies is seen as fishing for trouble--a form of rabble rousing that is basically social hooliganism.

Many people identify strongly, perhaps tribally, to the religious/areligious, political, and ethnic culture they claim. The very existence of 'other tribes' becomes a painful psycho-social challenge to their committed beliefs that their ways are THE most right and best way. Some people handle this well, others don't. History suggests that humans are capable of "taking care of us"--members of our intellectual/spiritual tribe--at the expense or disregard of others. Rightly or wrongly, religions have historically become correlated with opposing sides in conflicts based on bigotry, economic and political injustice.

In such circumstance it's all too common for the valid rejection of injustice to be projected as religious intolerance. Religious intolerance is a flint which rubs upon the hard steel of personal/group/tribal identity. The result is showers of sparks that start 'us vs them' conflicts.

[trotsky]

54. So what happens at the intersection of religion and politics, then?

It's obvious, because we see it today: one group has the religious opinion that abortion is murder, period. Their hardline religious stance on this issue ruins any dialog or compromise because it's seen as an attack on their religion.

Your answer, tolerance and respect, means we have to give up. We can't attack or criticize their religious opinion - it's off limits.

I think the only way forward is to get rid of the idea that religious beliefs have special privilege in society. People were offended when others were saying the races were equal. They had to get the fuck over it. Today's holdouts on that idea are marginalized and not tolerated.

[HereSince1628]

57. IMO you're going too far with what I said. You asked generally why religious opinion deserved

more respect than other opinions. I answered generally--to reduce social conflict.

Reducing conflict isn't the same as eliminating conflict, or as you suggest surrendering to injustices.

Tolerance and respect for others' religious belief is a personal strength which helps individuals to get beyond impulsive reactivity to the various baitings of bigotry, chauvinism, xenophobia, etc that lead to ill-timed and ill-formed responses.

Those who have tolerance and respect for others can be formidable opponents. If the accumulated lessons of war suggest anything, they suggest that freedom from making impulsive mistakes as well as respect and understanding of an opponents' abilities and motivation contribute significantly to desirable outcomes from conflict.

[trotsky]

59. You gave a general, vague answer.

I then followed up with specifics, and you object.

The world is about specifics. We can sit back and say how wonderful it would be if everything were sunshine and rainbows and we respected and tolerated each other's beliefs, but that's just pretending.

[HereSince1628]

60. LOL Yes, I did give a very general answer

I accept it, my bad.

I failed to meet the high standards of a specific response you expect from those who respond to your general questions.

[trotsky]

61. Which I followed up with specifics.

Did you miss that part?

[HereSince1628]

66. Well if you want me to spell it out...

I didn't object, I cautioned that your interpretation of what I wrote went beyond what I wrote.

I never suggested conflict could be or should be eliminated.

Nor did I state or imply that surrender to religious opinion was the only alternative.

You brought that surrender monkey argument in all by yourself.

[trotsky]

98. You just didn't have a response, is all.

Keep your surrender monkey. You can put it on your shelf next to the straw man.

[HereSince1628]

112. I dislike doing this, but I want to be clear about this.

You can HAVE the last word.

Go ahead and post IT.

[whathehell]

113. The rules on this site, at least, mandate "respecting the beliefs" of others

unless they are anti-democratic or anti-progressive.

I think the bigger point is, why does anyone give a shit what ANYONE believes

if those beliefs don't run counter to progressive principles. .

[trotsky]

114. No they don't. You're wrong.

We are to respect people, not beliefs.

You can call an idea stupid. You can't call a person stupid.

[whathehell]

118. Okay.

But how about this?

"Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic".

Quite a few posts here, particularly the intentionally misleading ones that mockingly characterize any

and all religions as "fairy tales" and reflective of belief in a "sky daddy" could certainly be construed as bigotry.

[trotsky]

123. Attacking beliefs is not bigotry. Attacking people is.

Calling beliefs or religions stupid or crazy, that's not against the rules.

Calling believers or members of religions stupid or crazy, that's against the rules.

See the difference yet?

[whathehell]

127. Uh huh

Except situations are not always that black and white and

there's a very fine line between calling someone's belief "stupid" or "crazy"

and calling the person or persons HOLDING that belief "stupid" or "crazy"

so, no, I don't think the "difference" is always clear.

[trotsky]

130. Actually, that line is pretty bright and clear.

Are you referring to the opinion, or the person? Former, OK. Latter, not OK.

"I think believing in ghosts is silly." - OK.

"I think people who believe in ghosts are mentally ill." - Not OK. Particularly in a thread where people have specifically mentioned believing in ghosts.

Otherwise you are asking religious beliefs be granted a special, privileged status. If that's the case, you're arguing for blasphemy laws.

[whathehell]

144. Actually, I don't think it is,

and if I believed in ghosts, I'd probably feel the same way were someone to tell me that believing

in them was "silly" because simply calling something "silly" is not an "argument", it's a value judgement.

and I believe it certainly does infer something about the person who "believes".

None of this has ANYTHING to do with "laws", as I think we're confining this discussion to DU,

are we not?....I hope so, because I certainly do NOT think there should be "blasphemy laws" anymore

than I believe there should be "insult laws"...One can even be "bigoted" in speech without infracting

the law...That being said, there are "rules" on DU and most people don't care to be

"insulted" or have their beliefs insulted which, I maintain, is almost the same thing. Another way of saying it would be that most

people don't care to have negative value judgements thrust on them or their personal beliefs. If one can actuallly ARGUE

those beliefs, on empirical grounds, that person should not need to go to insult or value judgements.

Given that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a higher power, this is a dificult thing

to achieve, so insults and value judgements are all that's left.

[trotsky]

157. Feeling insulted because someone doesn't like your ideas...

is a great way to shut down all discussion and silence those who disagree with you.

Your throwaway trite expression about science is a lame red herring, a sign you must realize you've failed defending your idea that religious beliefs are special and DO deserve special treatment.

[whathehell]

167. And acting snide and superior as you are doing, is a great way to do the same!

As for my supposedly "throwaway trite expression about science", the fact that you can't

refute it, or respond with anything but insults, tells me they're not quite the "lame red herring"

you'd like them to be.
But keep turning on the charm, bro. Attractive personalities like yours are sure to swell the ranks of non-believers.

[trotsky]

168. Science can't prove or disprove unicorns, leprechauns, or the invisible dragon in my garage, either.

So there!

But you keep you your good behavior too - it's certainly meek and humble and tolerant, making Jesus quite proud of you, I'm sure.

[whathehell]

196. Awww....Don't pout!

and by the way, Trots, since I'm agnostic, I doubt I'm "making Jesus proud" of me!

[eqfan592]

199. Agnostic or not, you still were wrong. (nt)

[whathehell]

202. Hey ignore. how does it feel to keep "talking to the hand" as it were, LOL?

[eqfan592]

204. Lol, pretty awesome.

Especially since only a particularly sad type of individual brags about his own state of self-inflicted ignorance.

[whathehell]

207. Oh that's right...You imagine you're "illuminating" the rest of the thread!

[eqfan592]

208. Ya know, I have to question the purpose of placing somebody on ignore...

...only to respond to their every post anyway.

And like I said, I was unaware you could even see an ignored persons post on the new DU. Is this a star member perk?

[cleanhippie]

171. "But keep turning on the charm, bro. Attractive personalities like yours" How can you be such a

hypocrite? You are the one that turned this conversation with trotsky personal. How can you say one thing about respect, and in the same breath, completely contradict yourself?

[cleanhippie]

170. "That being said, there are "rules" on DU..." Hey pot, meet kettle.

"are you actually too stupid "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=41665

Or do the rules not apply to you?

[ElboRuum]

124. That's fair game.

They criticize assertions. They question the belief structures. Now if one were to attack the individual, that would be a different matter.

However, and this should be made quite clear, if you conflate someone calling a belief 'stupid' in interpretation to meaning that the adherent is 'stupid', then you make it impossible to critique the belief without offending the person. If this is the case, one could legitimately argue that religion itself is not fodder for discussion and therefore should not be discussed in any way within the confines of DU.

Are we prepared to go there?

[whathehell]

136. You make excellent points.

I believe one can "critique" a notion without calling it "stupid", BUT

If we can't, than I would agree that religion should not be fodder for discussion on DU

if that "discussion" is actually "argument" and involves insults in either direction.

If one's personal beliefs don't contradict progressive principles, and they are inclusive

of the principle of Separation of Church and State, then of what concern is it?

It's an entirely personal matter in my view and is unrelated to politics.

[ElboRuum]

140. To your first point...

...I'd agree, however, I've seen it that any critique of belief, depending on the person, has the potential to offend.

As to your second statement, if religion is fodder for discussion, does it then follow that people, if they are going to treat religion in an expository manner meant for discussion, that the "slings and barbs" MUST be tolerated as endemic to the idea of discussion in the first place?

I find the discussion of religion to be, itself, completely neutral in terms of progressivity, it seems to be a different beast entirely. However, this is of course excepted when discussing issues concerning the progressive view that church and state should be separate entities.

[cleanhippie]

169. Apparently, you can, and he does.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=41665


He entices me to listen to Tool's "The Pot".

[trotsky]

172. Wow.

Missed that one. Making Jesus proud for sure. I guess someone just lost any semblance of moral authority on which to lecture others!

[cleanhippie]

173. Look at both yours and my sub-thread with him. He makes it personal with ad homs right away.

All the while preaching about respect...

[Karmasue]

195. Well it happens...

and right here on this site.

I am not going to call out any member of this site, but it is apparent that you have not read all the threads on Religion here. I didn't have to read that far to find many instances. Those posts are still there.

So don't say "No they don't. You are wrong."

Yes they do. And He/She is not wrong.

It may be against the rules - but yes they do.

[trotsky]

212. You have misread my post.

"No they don't." - refers to the rules. The rules do NOT say we can't belittle ideas or opinions. whatthehell is wrong about what the rules say.

I believe you misinterpreted my post to believe that I said people aren't attacked here. I don't deny that - I've been personally attacked many times, and continue to be so. I don't usually alert, because I'd rather that person's behavior be on full display for others to see.

I repeat: bashing ideas and opinions is allowed. Bashing people is not.

[Karmasue]

222. I am so sorry...

I did misinterpret your post. I thought you were saying that people on this site do not attack other people.

Attacking people may not be "allowed", but in the short time I have been here I have seen a level of vitriol that I didn't expect. It makes it hard to have a civil conversation, unfortunately.

Thank you for correcting that misinterpretation so civilly.

[Bluenorthwest]

52. And those are the only two choices as you see it, expressing contempt or respect?

I have to wonder about any religion that teaches people to make use of language in such ways.

[trotsky]

55. Kind of explains a lot about the pontificating in this group, eh?

Hmmm...

[cbayer]

56. I am assuming you are posing this question to the author of the article and not me, right?

[ElboRuum]

126. There is a school of thought...

...which postulates the only purpose for the discussion of religion between wildly disparate belief structures (or lack thereof) is conversion. If this is true, then I suppose it would take the form of that binary.

I disagree that this is the presumptive case, because I can certainly see how one could have a level of positive respectful argumentation amongst believers, however, it becomes a possibility when religion is discussed between believers and non-believers. I suspect that may be where this binary occurs.

[cbayer]

132. I disagree. Both can share common ground, particularly when it comes to progressive/liberal

issues. Separation of church and state and protection of the civil rights of both believers and non-believers come immediately to mind.

[ElboRuum]

134. You are right that common ground can be shared...

...however, you must admit that religion isn't one of those things.

We aren't talking about differences in belief structures, we are talking about the very underpinnings of belief.

[cbayer]

137. Good point. The discussion of whether god exists or not is pretty futile,

as it can neither be proven nor disproven.

But we can still get along when we agree on the premise that it doesn't really matter either way, as long as we respect each others position and work together wherever we can.

[brewens]

80. if you oppose in any way their forcing religious beliefs on everyone, they are being persecuted.

You should be respectful but it doesn't make any difference to fundies. They LOVE to be persecuted!

[cbayer]

82. What about non-fundie religionists?

[MADem]

85. I think people should be free to discuss their beliefs without getting slammed.

If they believe in an atheist perspective, they should not be mocked or derided or told that they are "bad" or will be punished in a future iteration for not bowing down to an invisible man/higher power/spritual force or what-have-you. They should not, in return, tease or bully people who aren't being mean to them, but simply have another view.

If people believe in some sort of supreme entity/entities model, let them go for that, too, and apply the lessons (which usually involve tolerance/forgiveness/charity, that kind of stuff) of their organized faith and not bully people who don't think the way they do.

I've always been a champion of "Live and let live." You go on and live your life, and let others live theirs. Don't look for trouble, and don't be mean to people who aren't bothering you.

I don't know anyone who would deride a person for their view on this issue, either for or against. Perhaps I hang around with a better class of people?

If everyone lived and let live, there would be no issue.

[whathehell]

119. Thank you. I believe you've said it all.

[cbayer]

121. Agree. While there are many ideological issues on which I think it's worth trying

to convince someone to see it my way, religious beliefs are not one of them.

Religious tolerance is, however.

[ElboRuum]

87. Not really much of a question.

The Religion Visibility Movement: Should Believers Slam Atheism or Show Respect?

When I get an answer to this, the question you posted might deserve similar attention.

[cbayer]

90. The answer to your question is no.

Believers should not slam atheism and should show respect for differing life perspectives, imo.

[ElboRuum]

96. Then the answer to the question above is...

When "slamming" religion becomes something other than any suggestion to the contrary of belief, then no, otherwise yes.

[cbayer]

97. Deal.

[whathehell]

115. You can get an answer from me and I imagine it would echo many others on this board.

I do NOT slam atheism or theism, because for one thing,

I believe opinions about religion or the lack of such are personal.

For another, I fail to see why, if my "belief" or lack of such doesn't ontradict progressive principles,

it would be anyone's business.

[ElboRuum]

122. It isn't the echo of many others...

...that bugs me.

It's the belief of some that the mere concept of atheism IS the offense.

[whathehell]

146. I understand..

but do you see that expressed on DU much?

[ElboRuum]

148. Not often...

...however, when I do, it is doubly disturbing considering that I hold DU company in higher standard. Rightly so, I think.

[whathehell]

153. No, I wouldn't think so.

I've never run into anyone like that, myself.

[oldsarge54]

88. Respect for all:

From where I stand, in a country with the 1st Amendment, respect should be given to all religions or lack thereof. I'm somewhat of the school of you do you thing, I do my thing, and that is cool. With the advent of the moral majority (more like Bolsheviks) I added to that, if you stick your thing in my face I may cut is off. I really have a problem with militants of all stripes.

[cbayer]

91. Welcome to DU and to the Religion group, oldsarge!

I agree with you and I think you will find most members here do as well.

[truebrit71]

102. Neither.

People are entitled to believe in whatever they want. However the SECOND their belief system encroaches upon my rights to NOT believe the same as them, THEN we have a problem...

[patrice]

105. Authentic rationalists do not speak in absolutes. To do so is non-rational, like religion.

As I have said elsewhere, to conceptualize something that meets a definition of what a "God" would be and, then, declare that it does not exist, makes whatever "does not exist" dependent upon how it is conceptualized (which rationalists aren't supposed to be doing in the first place, because rational processes are empirical, so they shouldn't be conceptualizing anything for which they have no support).

The MOST that rationalists CAN say about "God" is that they have no support for that hypothesis.

[whathehell]

116. Thank you...n/t

[patrice]

125. I don't mind talking with rationalists about this topic if they just admit this fact up front.

On a related matter:

I took a Christian Science Monitor test about science recently and there was nary a mention of the logical foundations of empirical rationalism.

We NEEEEEEED to do a better job of teaching science in terms of what makes "science" science and not something else.

[whathehell]

129. Exactly.

Strict empiricism is heavily dependent on technology, like microscopes, for instance,

as not long ago, "rational" thought would have scoffed at the

notion of microscopic organisms being the cause of disease.

Since science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God or a higher power

of any kind, I fail to see what legitimates an "argument" on the matter.

At this point, it's all just "opinion", one way or another.

[ElboRuum]

135. There are many more tools in a logicians bag...

...than purely deductive logical empiricism.

Therein lies the more interesting philosophical realizations.

[patrice]

145. Indeed!! & one of my purposes in beginning with that point. That's where the discussion gets

even more interesting than just rational empiricism by itself already is.

[patrice]

106. If rationalism says, TTE, "Inferences are not logically NECESSARY" then that goes for them as much

as it does for religion too.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

128. S L A M and hard.

[cbayer]

133. And what to you hope to accomplish by doing that?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

141. I am on a local committee to start up an FFRF chapter in our area

In order to serve on the committee we have to agree to put our names in the public eye. We have to agree that we don't and won't hide behind anonymous postings, and we have to agree to stand up whenever we see church and state walls tumbling down.

I agree to all that, and am doing it. The problem is that a number of people are too fearful to stand up and be noticed. Afraid of the expected reactions from loved ones, family, friends, work.

Until and unless we stand up, we lose. Hiding only making things worse. That is why we have to be almost militant about it, standing up and remain standing regardless of the crap we have tossed our way. religious bias and bigotry against those who have no faith, or a different faith is a very dangerous thing in our country. It harms innocents, it causes pain and suffering, and it damages our whole nation. Unless you stand up, and in their face, the attacks, bias, and danger to us will continue to grow.

[cbayer]

142. Kudos to you and please understand that I am truly supportive of your efforts

and your bravery in taking a public position.

But standing up for what you believe in does not necessarily entail *slamming* others with a different perspective, does it?

While I agree with slamming bigotry, intolerance, gross violations of state/church separation, I don't agree that that necessitates slamming religionists just because they are.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

143. thank you.

Slamming can be directed to many different targets. I have no problems targeting the professorial moron for whom Michelle Bachmann worked and helped with his book. If the constitution, according to him, does not apply the Old Testament word for word, it must be changed. By force if necessary.

Those assholes are the enemy. They are dangerous. You bet I will slam them personally.

If there are people of faith, ones who believe in the good works contained in many religious texts, including that two part fairy tale that stole so much from the Torah, then I wish they would make their voices heard more often and louder. Instead, we have Bill Donahue being the official analpiece of the American Bishops, excusing their sex crimes, attacking well-meaning nuns, and demanding absolute obedience to some old fart in Rome.

[cbayer]

147. I would like to hear the progressive people of faith speak more loudly, too.

There have been many problems with that.

The religious right stole the megaphone and are loathe to give it back.

The media consistently ignores them (not sexy enough).

There are instances when people even on our side (and by our, I mean liberal/progressive) that shut them down because they have no tolerance for religion of any kind.

I think the differentiation is now more important than ever.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

150. very hard to disagree. thanks for the well thought out words.

[Karmasue]

209. "some old fart in Rome"?

Really?


That is just the type of incendiary remark that sparks vitriol.

Was that your purpose? I think I don't understand what you are chairman of - and it's' mission.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

234. Yes, a sex abuse protecting old fart who spent a decade covering up crimes

around the globe. Who ordered destruction of documents, hiding and transfering of child abusing priests. Who ordered his people to lie under oath. That old fart.

But he does have a taste for designer shoes, I understand.

[Karmasue]

276. I think that is probably true...

although it seems I remember it was intimated that there was no proof he personally officiated over anything regarding the abuses, or their resulting transfers or coverups - as those things were officiated at the cardinal level. Regardless, we know where the buck stops. I don't disagree with the culpability.

I was more wondering how calling the Pope an "old fart" resonates with the millions of people - including people here on this forum no doubt - who truly believe him to be the physical embodiment of Christ on this earth.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

279. Here in Illinois, we had a blue ribbon commission assigned to investigate and prevent

further crimes by the church.

The first chairman was so angered by the Vatican (especially the office in control of the litigation, run by the Rat), that he had to step aside. In his final volley, he wrote a blistering statement, accusing them of not just knowing about the thousands of crimes, but of a deliberate, illegal cover-up.

He was replaced by Ann Burke, then on the Illinois court of appeals, now a Supreme Court Justice. She also was a member of several Catholic women's groups, which provide honors and blessings if you rise high enough. Her resume includes membership in the rarified catholic groups that are by invitation only.

HER report was almost as scathing as the first chair's. Again, all fingers pointed to Rome, which actively controlled all litigation globally, and determined all answers to discovery in advance. The Rat became Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1981, one of key parts of the entire Roman Curia. Its provenance goes back to the Inquisition., from it came from. (there were at least two other iterations of the Inquisition, being renamed in the late 1800s and I think, 1955)

If he is the physical embodiment of christ on earth, the christ is a child abusing criminal.

[dimbear]

284. Pope Benedict is an 85 year old man, reportedly inclined to fits of rage and crying jags.

Is it reasonable to entrust your soul to a man you would certainly not let drive you to the liquor store?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

303. what do they call them, jesus pouts?

I have to admit (in case anyone may have missed my militant atheism) i have absolutely no use for the catholic church. I was raised as one, got dunked, had my left hand repeatedly smashed by metal ruler carrying penguins (How DARE I write with the devil's hand)?) and was severely punished by a high ranking white collar asshole for pointing out that he was wrong and that I was right in public.

They created and extended the Dark Ages, which almost destroyed society. They inflicted torture and war on those with whom they disagreed, even slightly. They stole, raped, maimed, and destroyed anyone they perceived as being in their way. They exterminated natives in the Americas, and now inflict their crazy ideas on unsuspecting Africans. They stood in the way of science and rational thinking

- and THIS is the group that people want to control their beliefs and lives?

[rug]

304. You didn't pay attention.

It doesn't require "absolute obedience" and doesn't "want to control their beliefs and lives".

Your description sounds more like night sweats and nightmares than reality.

Now, Chairman, since you mock anonymity, post a link to your group and its fierce work.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

306. Freedom from Religion Foundation

http://ffrf.org

[rug]

307. Yes, but don't you have a local website?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

312. Not yet

We are setting up a local chapter

[Karmasue]

285. I am not trying to be argumentative

as I know very little about the actual hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and even less about prefect, Rat or Roman Curia. But does "all fingers pointed to Rome" mean that there was actual evidence that the Pope was personally involved in these activities?

Most everything I read on that subject tended to say

that he 1)conducted investigations 2) impeded investigations;
that he 1)fought to remove abusive priests 2)covered up abuses;
that he was 1) tenacious in his attempt to clean up the church 2) protected an elitist culture;
that he issued guideline to follow civil law 2) undermined laws that directly conflicted with church tenets

but more to the point, I was really not arguing his guilt. Hell, I don't even remember what you called him now, just that it seemed it might spark some bad feelings from the people who continue to revere the man, and wondering if that was your initial purpose for calling him that.

I think I need another glass of wine before I can begin to grasp this group.

[cbayer]

286. In general on DU, attacks on institutions are permitted while attack on members who

may be affiliated with the institution are not.

So it's ok to say whatever one wants about the Pope and the Catholic Church, although it might be insensitive towards members to do so.

[qb]

176. I am in favor of factual statements made respectfully.

The truth can be far more devastating than a barrage of insults.

[geckosfeet]

203. Slam as required. Respect when it's earned.

[idwiyo]

205. The only religion that deserves my respect is pastafarianism! Everything else is fairy tails.

Behold, I say! He boiled for our sins!

[Bradical79]

218. And he was delicious ;-)

[dimbear]

211. If you don't believe, you are insulted every time you handle a US coin or a US bill.

Do not under any circumstances put up an atheist billboard in some cornfield. That is bigotry.

[trotsky]

214. And militant proselytizing!

Same as when Stalin sent millions to the gulag! Don't forget that part!

[cbayer]

235. I don't believe in the monarchy. In fact, I strongly object to it, but

all those bills with pictures of the queen don't really bother me.

However, I do think religious language has no place on our currency.