Why Do Atheists Feel the Need to Talk About Religion?

[LAGC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1ImMtHrrKo

[pscot]

1. We don't

n/t

[Critters2]

110. That would be a lot less funny if it weren't posted in a religion/theology forum.

:rofl:

[rrneck]

2. Because it's like

the weather. No matter where you go, there it is.

And everybody complains about it but nobody does anything about it.

[robinlynne]

3. We don't.

[Confusious]

4. Um, because you feel the need to bring it up? n/t

[Kali]

5. because it disrupts and interferes with our lives?

[achtung_circus]

9. Hey,

:toast:

[Kali]

11. hey!

:toast: howz things?

[achtung_circus]

14. Weird...

I've applied for a job with the city, a nice job. I've passed several hurdles when the city employees, including HR, went on strike. 17 days now and I'm on hold.

[Mojambo]

6. That is one good looking atheist. n/t

[StevieM]

108. She is so beauitful. I've been in love with her for quite some time now (eom)

[achtung_circus]

7. I'll weigh in...

in addition to running into religion all over hell's half-acre, the term "atheist" has problems.

See Thunderf00t's Rejecting Atheism

[Mojambo]

16. That is a BRILLIANT video. n/t

I may start calling myself a PEARList.

[kwassa]

8. this entire forum is about atheists needing to talk about religion.

It has no other reason to exist. Apparently the "we don't" function isn't working here.

[ZombieHorde]

63. There are theist on this board and they post often. nt

[whathehell]

87. I hope the "alert" function still does...Their bile runneth over and the name calling has started.

[katandmoon]

10. Frankly, I love to bash religion. I think it's responsible for so many of the world's ills.

[whathehell]

13. Then you should also enjoy bashing Greed...I'd say that's responsible for at least as many.

Religion is not alone in it's responsibility for the worlds ills...And it's also responsible for considerable good.

[katandmoon]

25. It's the bad that has all the influence, though. What does that tell you?

[whathehell]

26. I don't agree that it's the "bad that has all the influence"....

I think it's the bad that gets all the PUBLICITY.

[JerseygirlCT]

90. I'm sure Martin Luther King and Gandhi might have had just

a wee bit of influence. As do all the regular people who as part of their everyday lives are urged by their religion to help others. You might not know them, and they're rarely in the public eye, but they live their faith on a daily basis, making this a better world for all of us.

[Dumak]

12. Maybe because the context in which someone identifies themselves to you

as atheist is usually one of a discussion on religion. So it's really a matter of your perception. Usually atheists don't talk about religion, in which case you have no idea that they are an atheist.

[whathehell]

15. And that's fine...I really don't care what anyone "is" with regard to

religion, unless they try to push their beliefs (and that includes atheism) on me.

[Goblinmonger]

18. Atheism isn't a belief.

Sorry.

[whathehell]

28. Atheism IS a belief...Sorry.

It's a belief in strict empiricims..e.g. Reality is limited to what we can perceive with our five senses at this moment in time.

It's kind of stupid because if you had, in previous centuries, subscribed to it you would NOT have believed in: a Round Earth b. The existence of germs...or anything else that the development of Technology NOW tells us is real.

[Goblinmonger]

29. Congratulations

That is one of the most convoluted attacks on atheism I have ever heard. Round Earth? Wow. You do know that the church was the major retardant for scientific advancement, don't you. Of course you do. But to then say that the atheists were at the core of this is just beyond the pale. At one point MOST PEOPLE believed in some form of flat earth. It was those that followed the scientific method (that which you describe in your first sentence somewhat poorly) that caused the advance. So, thank you for an unintended compliment. I really hope you are not saying that round earth and non-heliocentric universe were not divined by ESP from the religious.

But to the main point. Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods. That's it. Nothing more. It is not a belief system. Do you have a belief system about the tooth fairy? Santa? Unicorns? Leprechauns? No, you just don't believe in them (at least I hope so). And before the noobs to this forum get their underwear in a bunch, I am not comparing god to unicorns. One of my favorites: Atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[whathehell]

30. Thanks...Wow...You know the meaning of the word "convoluted"?

Um..I think not.

Atheism isn't all about "the church" honey, and yes I do know history.

As for science, you do know that Science has stated it cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, right?...And you do know that Albert Einstein was not an atheist, right?

Agnosticism, which I embrace by the way, is much more intellectually honest. It says "I don't know" and doesn't try to prove a negative.

Atheism takes an absolute "stand" -- that's a "belief" - on the non-existence of God..It's just as dumb as the "absolute stand" doctors took regarding the causes of disease when they didn't know enough.

Frankly, you sound like a twenty something know it all...Go try and impress some post adolescent...You've failed on this front.

[Silent3]

32. All you're doing is stomping your feet and demanding a specific definition...

...which a lot of people, many of them the atheists to whom the label "atheist" is attached, don't agree with.

Just as you had a problem with the definition of empiricism, you seem to have a hard time grasping the basic and important distinction between "I do not believe in X" and "I believe in Not-X". That's an important difference, even if you don't understand it or want to dismiss the distinction.

There are so-called "strong atheists" who do make the positive assertion "there is no god". For all practical intents and purposes, I function as if that were true. However, all I say is that "I do not believe there is a god", which is a statement about my lack of belief, not of any particular deity's lack of existence.

I call my stance atheism, no agnosticism, because a better, more technical definition of "agnostic", beyond the now-popular "I don't say either way" meaning, is that an agnostic claims that the nature and existence of deities is unknowable -- not unknown, unknowable.

I suspect that such things are unknowable in any absolute sense, but I'm not certain that they are unknowable, therefore I am not an agnostic.

Further, Einstein's "god" is not a personal god, not even necessarily an intelligence or a creator, it's more a poetic appreciation for the grandness and order of the universe. With respect to a Jewish god or a Christian god or the gods of many other religions, Einstein was just as much an atheist as I am.

You should also look up the word "ignostic", since that helps cover the fact that before you can even talk about the existence of God there's a great deal of difficulty in even agreeing on what it is we're talking about existing or not. (And no, having a slippery definition isn't a good reason to believe in something just because somewhere amid a mess of slippery definitions on of those definitions might vaguely have something to do with reality.)

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Strong Atheist]

43. !

[Odin2005]

80. Most Agnostics ARE Atheists. And Agnoticism does NOT just mean "I don't know".

Atheism is not a belief in the non-existance of a "god", it is the LACK of belief in "god", it's the key logical distinction between a positive and negative statement. The belief that there is no god is a subset of Atheism, called Strong Atheism, that only a minority of Atheists subscribe to

Agnosticism is the belief that knowledge of "god" is impossible, it's not some mushy middle ground the term has been bastardized to mean.

And thus we are both Agnostic Atheists, and you are attacking a strawman created by the Religionists.

[whathehell]

83. That is one definition...It is not the ONLY one and of course, you know that.

My definition stands.

Take your "mushy" "bastardized" bullshit elsewhere...and remember: Ignore is your Friend :hi:

[Odin2005]

95. That is the true academic definition used in arguments by philosophers and theologians.

[JerseygirlCT]

34. You got a problem with Santa?

;)

[Goblinmonger]

41. Santa's my homeboy, Jerseygirl!

[Silent3]

31. You've defined empiricism poorly.

It's a belief in strict empiricims..e.g. Reality is limited to what we can perceive with our five senses at this moment in time.

Empiricism has nothing to do with the limits of reality. It's about the limits of valid claims about reality. A good empiricist knows that there are plenty of real things waiting to be discovered beyond what we currently can perceive. It's just that a good empiricist doesn't put any trust to alleged "other ways of knowing" which supposedly take one beyond the limits of evidence and conventional perception.

Further, saying "with our five senses at the moment" is a bit misleading. First of all, memory is hardly completely discounted by empiricism, or else you'd have to have every experiment you rely on for conclusions going on all at once within view at the same time, so I'm not sure where your "at the moment" clause comes from. Further, although eventually everything we know about the outside world has to funnel down through our basic senses, indirect observations through instrumentation and logical deduction applied to physical evidence of past phenomena plays a huge role in assembling an empirical world view.

It's kind of stupid because if you had, in previous centuries, subscribed to it you would NOT have believed in: a Round Earth b. The existence of germs...or anything else that the development of Technology NOW tells us is real.

The only thing which is stupid here is your absurd (deliberate) confusion between the concept of reality and known reality. Would you like to claim that a huge number of people had figured out germs and the round earth before an empirical approach did? Via what, spiritual revelation?

A general, poorly-understood idea of "contagion" has existed for a long time. The evidence was there for a careful observer to notice how diseases could be spread by touch, through contaminated water, etc. Specifically believing in "germs" (meaning microbial life forms and viruses) well before the advent of the microscope wouldn't have made any sense, however. This means is anyone talking about germs in, say, the year 1100 should have been greeted with skepticism even if he or she were accidentally right.

[whathehell]

37. I'm unimpressed.

You write:
"Empiricism has nothing to do with the limits of reality. It's about the limits of valid claims about reality. A good empiricist knows that there are plenty of real things waiting to be discovered beyond what we currently can perceive. It's just that a good empiricist doesn't put any trust to alleged "other ways of knowing" which supposedly take one beyond the limits of evidence and conventional perception".

Valid by whose criteria?...And a "good empiricist"?..I'm not sure there ARE any "good" strict empiricists..They don't "put any trust to 'alleged' "other ways of knowing" which supposedly take one beyond the limits of evidence and 'conventional' perception".

In other words they're dull, conventional thinkers who lack the personal confidence to believe their own perceptions if someone else has told them they're not "real"

I've personally experienced mental telepathy and the sight of a ghost..So has my spouse. You may think we're crazy, lying, etc. and that's fine except for one fact:...Everyone involved in these experiences are successful, well-functioning professionals.....So much for your very limited "empiricism".

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whathehell]

86. Actually, I never said that -- You're the first here to stoop to Name Calling..

[whathehell]

88. Is this still Democratic Underground, the site forbidding "personal attacks"?

or has it, in reality, become Atheist Underground, a site which allows name calling and personal attacks on non-atheists questioning the Paradigm?

I guess we'll see, won't we?

[whathehell]

89. Any other names you want to call me?..Are the proslytizing atheists here so sure of Mod sympathy

that they feel they can break the DU Rules with impunity?

[Name removed]

79. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rd_kent]

20. Um, atheists don't have a "belief".

Only those who follow religions have a "belief". Get your shit together if you're gonna talk religion with an atheist, cause you will lose every time. Atheists have FACTS on their side.

[whathehell]

27. Um...Yes they do..They "believe" in empiricism only.

Get YOUR shit together and look up the thread for some FACTS on strict empiricims..Check a dictionary if you're at a loss for a definition.

[rd_kent]

33. Bullshit

ask any atheist if they believe a god does not exist. I use that word in the context of those who BELIEVE a god exists. Don't try to get all MENSA on me, I have enough smarts to make sense and I feel you have enough to know what I am trying to convey.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rd_kent]

48. When you can get just the beleivers in your town

to all agree that their version is the one true version, you will have made your point. Instead you have demonstrated mine, by pointing out that a majority believe in a fairy tale, yet cant agree on which fairy tale is the real fairy tale. That's twice a wingnutty as just believing in the fairy tale in the first place. Is that enough school boy taunts or does the truth just plain hurt?

And heres what I'm trying to convey...please listen very closely.... I do give a shit......because you and your wingnut, psychopathic cult are trying to drown my freedoms, allegedly given to me by YOUR stupid god, because you think I'm all fucked up. When you really stop caring about what I do, I will no longer care about you. How's that for a deal? You go first, and I'm right behind you. I tried going first, but that didnt work out now, did it?

[whathehell]

50. Here's where you need to become calm enough to think.

You start off by pointing out the fact of numerous religions..Then, you talk about some imaginary "psychopathic cult" -- that would be ONE, wouldn't it? -- to which you think I belong.

You can't even decide whether there are MANY religions, or one supposed "psychopathic 'cult'".to which I supposedly belong, even though, addressing the latter, I've said REPEATEDLY that I'm Agnostic.

Do you even know what that is?...For starters, it's hardly a "psychopathic cult" -- it's lumped right IN with your Atheists forum!..Hello!

When and if you educate yourself to the point of understanding the word "agnostic", not to mention the differences between the religions (Starter: Right Wing Evangelism is not even mainstream Christianity, let alone a visible presence on THIS board), then we'll talk, because right now you're just displaying gross ignorance.

I don't have the time for remedial education, so at this point I'll just give you a LONG-LASTING, if not permanent, bye bye.:hi:

[rd_kent]

55. As expected, you skirt the real issue

Your juvenile attempts to get me to go all Pat Robertson crazy on you have failed. Instead of addressing my original point, you try to pick apart my statement in an effort to not address the bigger issue. Real nice. I guess it goes to show that you wingnuts will NEVER be able to understand that those of us who rely on science, FACTS and evidence to make our conclusions will always be on the correct side of the argument, and you, mr agnostic (isnt that a cop out?)will always live your life in fear of retribution from an imaginary god that supposedly loves you yet is the root of all evil in this world. I can only hope that you really mean it when you bid me a LONG-LASTING, if not permanent, bye bye. But I have a feeling you'll be back, like a bad rash.

[Goblinmonger]

51. I believe I was the one to make the tooth fairy analogy

which you didn't really address. If you are going to be intellectually honest, how can you dismiss the tooth fairy and not leave open the possibility it exits?

And you do know you "most people believe in god" thing is a fallacy, right? Argumentum ad Populum. Nice try, though. Might work on your buddies in your mom's basement, but I've actually taken a logic class.

[whathehell]

56. You must have slept through that logic class.

I didn't sleep through mine...What you're talking about relates to Positivism and Relativism...Yes, hypothetically, the Tooth fairy, and Santa Claus MIGHT exist...It's just that most people don't think so..that's not the case with God and though neither example "proves" anything, for societal purposes, at least, what's "real" is what most people agree on.

BTW, I left the "buddies" in mom's basement a long time ago...Like, oh, I don't know..Thirty years or so?

P.S. I have nothing further to say to you on this, genius, so please..Acquaint yourself with my ignore list.

[Goblinmonger]

64. Under the odd chance that you aren't really ignoring me

"What's 'real' is what most people agree on." So blacks were inferior to whites pre-Civil War? The earth WAS flat at one point?

[Odin2005]

82. LOL, what is real is completely independent of what people beleive.

Something is true if it corresponds to the facts, whether people know or believe said truth is irrelevant. Maybe it's the "anti-subjective bias" in my thinking caused by the fact that I has Asperger's Syndrome, but I have always thought relativistic consensus-based conceptions of truth and pragmatic utilitarian conceptions of truth were BS that missed the point, obsessing over epistemological questions of truth than ontological-semantic questions of what truth is.

[whathehell]

84. Your argument doesn't hold

even though your attempt to impress or intimidate with the semantic onslaught is obvious.

I'm glad you've at least prefaced it with "What I have always "thought"..

Hint; What one "thinks" is not always "fact"..Try "opinion".:eyes:

[Odin2005]

94. Oh wow, belittling my argument because you don't understand it.

For one thing I was using "what I have always thought..." as a polite way of saying "I understand the facts to be..."

And I'm just using the typical jargon of such discussions, if you are "intimidated" by it that is your fault, not mine. If you want to present lame arguments don't be surprised when you are crushed under proper reasoning.

[rd_kent]

59. Hey goblinmonger

Dont you just love how this guy operates? I really hope I am on his ignore list too, as you now seem to be. I guess we cant get through to all of them.

[Goblinmonger]

65. Yep

I could name a couple handfuls of people in the past 5 years that had this same line of attack. This guy seems to think he brings something original.

And I view being on the ignore list of people like this as a moral victory. Oh, wait, I don't have morals.

[whathehell]

85. Wish granted!

[rd_kent]

97. Hahahahaha!

See, you DID come back! Even if it was just to let me know I'm on your ignore list. It's unfortunate that you choose the easy road. Having a debate about this is how we learn to understand where each of us sees the world and in the long run, helps us to get a long a bit better. I guess you're just too childish to realize it. As you mature, you will see and understand what I'm talking about.

You are NOT on MY ignore list, friend. Anytime you want back in the conversation, jump on in, I welcome you. Seriously.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goblinmonger]

54. When did I shit on you or anyone else?

And you don't read enough threads if you don't see believers shitting on non-believers.

[immoderate]

45. I was an atheist long before I ever heard of empiricism.

I was just clear to me what "make believe" was. And god fit the pattern of those things that are make believe. My atheism is (originally) intuitive. I'll gloss over the periods of searching for an appropriate "ism" except to say that all fell to the weight of their contradictions. For me, atheism is more deductive than empirical.

Isn't it a bit arrogant for you to declare that atheists are all empiricists? Even empirically, you don't know enough atheists to make that generalization. I don't think you could show a line of reasoning that would support your claim.

--imm

[whathehell]

69. A moment of silence...

We're having another "pot meet kettle" moment..

"Isn't it a bit arrogant for you to declare that atheists are all empiricists? Even empirically, you don't know enough atheists to make that generalization".

Isn't it a bit "arrogant" of YOU to tell me how many people I know -- of any group?...Hello? -- We don't even KNOW each other!

"I don't think you could show a line of reasoning that would support your claim"...

Really. Well, thanks for sharing but I'm sure you'll forgive me if I don't, on the basis of the above example, put a lot of stock in your thinking.:eyes:

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. We know there are millions of atheists in the world, speaking many languages

There is no-one in the world who can possibly have communicated with all of them, or even with a significant proportion of them. Or even a representative sample of them, since they come from so many countries.

Therefore, no-one knows enough atheists to make a generalization about them, beyond the definition of the term 'atheist'. And that includes you.

[whathehell]

72. Yes..and it also includes YOU and the poster who made the initial assertion...

He claimed I didn't know "enough" atheists..I don't believe he meant I didn't know "all the atheists in the world":eyes:

If that is, however, the yardstick we're using, one could say the same about the millions of Christians...or at this point..believers of ANY sort.

That hasn't stopped many here from making scores of negative, blanket assertions about them, some almost laughably off-base.


Have a nice day.;-)

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. Which is why I said you couldn't know a representative sample either

The poster you replied to made a reasonable point; you said making such a reasonable point was arrogant. Yet it was you had made a still-unsupported claim about what atheists believe; the other poster had just said you couldn't know that. This despite your agnosticism which you claim means you personally don't rush to conclusions.

[whathehell]

75. Muriel...

In my many discussions with atheists here and elsewhere, the reasoning I've encountered most often (It's true, I have NOT done a statistical analysis, nor, I suspect, have you) is that since they can't experience a deity through their five senses they don't believe in one...or two..or..well, you get the idea.

In any case, if your "sampling" point is germane, mine would be even more so regarding "believers"...If this agnostic doesn't know "enough" atheists to make a valid claim, than that argument goes ten fold for atheists making "valid claims" regarding non-atheists. As pointed out, but avoided by you, that hasn't stopped them from making all sorts of negative generalities about them on this board.

So you see, Muriel, it doesn't work. Maybe you could return to strangling voles or torturing some other argument because I'm no longer interested in this one. The last couple of posts, yours and his, have that desperate, "clinging to straws" feel and that's de-motivating.

You and your co-non-religionists may feel the need to fight this to the death, but I do not. No one has convinced me of anything, not that I expected that having entered this fray for one reason only, to defend myself and other "non-atheists" from childish taunts. Having recognized that as the predictable "bait" it is, I'll be leaving.

I wish I could say "It's been real" or something, but since I've never liked rude, aggressive folks, I'm afraid I can't.

Remember: Ignore is your friend. It's mine as well :hi:

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. "rude, aggressive"?

You started this sub-thread by calling atheism "kind of stupid", and likening it to denial of a round earth, or the existence of germs. That was in reply to someone who said 'sorry'. You proceeded to call someone 'honey', claim your own position was "much more intellectually honest", called atheism "just as dumb" as ignorant doctors sure that they knew best, and call someone a "twenty something know it all". When someone replied you were "stomping your feet", you called atheists "annoying as hell", said "the rudest, most oppressive people here are atheists", told atheists to "(Get) the Fuck OVER yourselves" ,said you don't give a shit what atheists believe, that atheists "crave so much fucking attention", and are "obnoxious and openly demeaning of every one else", and are "fucking BULLIES, for fuck's sake".

I think we can see who is "rude and aggressive" here.

[whathehell]

91. If that's all you "see" your view seems quite clouded -- Check this for "rude and aggressive"

"because you and your wingnut, psychopathic cult are trying to drown my freedoms, allegedly given to me by YOUR stupid god?

"That's twice a wingnutty as just believing in the fairy tale in the first place"

"I'm not so sure at the moment that your hyperventilating self..."

"Do you have a belief system about the tooth fairy? Santa? Unicorns? Leprechauns?"

Get your shit together if you're gonna talk religion with an atheist, cause you will lose every time. Atheists have FACTS on their side."

"The only thing which is stupid here is your absurd (deliberate) confusion between the concept of reality and known reality

"Frankly, I love to bash religion. I think it's responsible for so many of the world's ills."

"a majority believe in a fairy tale, yet cant agree on which fairy tale is the real fairy tale.

"And here we go, the credulous sucker calling the skeptic close-minded."

"before the noobs to this forum get their underwear in a bunch"

And my personal favorite: "..the credulous sucker calling the skeptic close-minded"

Yes..I'm sure we can all "see" who has been "rude and aggressive":eyes:

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. Which turned up in reply to your posts with the insults I listed

with the exception of 'get your shit together'. You kicked off the insults, such as 'dumb'. Yes, you are rude and aggressive. Just go back through the thread, and be objective about who is starting the insults, and escalating them. The majority of it is by you.

[whathehell]

93. No, I'm sorry.

The thread started by someone asking "Why do atheists have to talk about religion"...I didn't enter it until someone gave the flippant answer: "Um..because you have the need to bring it up"?....Beyond that I was sick and tired of the insults and intolerance I see regularly displayed on other threads..I don't see non-atheists doing it to atheists and, disliking unfairness, I decided to speak out.

Beyond that, I'm sorry, but I don't think you are the one to tell me to be "objective"...In your own response you twice refused to address my end of what YOU claimed was a valid point: If my sample of atheists was too small to make valid claims about them, then atheists claims here would be all the more so, given that there is at least as many, if not many, many more non-atheists in the world, yet they continue to do so, mainly in negative terms.

As for my first post, the one you claim kicked off all the insult? It was in response to someone who exclaimed "I love bashing religion, feeling that it's responsible for so many of the ills of the world".

Given that this board is hardly all atheist, I'd call that aggressive and provocative.
My response?...I suggested that the poster "should love bashing greed then, as that's responsible for many of the world's ills as well."

Where is the insult in that?

You seem to want to carry this thing on endlessly or at very least, have the "last word" grasping at any straw to do so.

I'm sorry, but I'm not biting. I'm am, however, remembering that Ignore is my friend. ;)

[rd_kent]

98. You sure do like to threaten just about EVERYONE with your ignore button

I guess getting your ass handed to you repeatedly has made you unable to think clearly and you see "ignore" as your only option. I told you that you need to have your shit together before taking on atheists here on this board.
Take a few days, breathe deep, collect your thoughts, and jump back in. Ignoring the argument will not make it go away, but it will make you more ignorant in the long run.
I speak only for myself, but I welcome you back into this or any other thread, anytime.

[whathehell]

103. Actually you've already told a poster up the thread

that you WANTED me to put you on ignore -- So which is it?

As far as having my "ass handed to me" as you so nicely put it, were that the case, you wouldn't be chomping at the bit for a do over...I handed YOUR ass to you and you know it.


Now, goodnight and good luck:hi:

[rd_kent]

104. See, you ARE back.

Or am I on ignore, AGAIN!

[edhopper]

17. Why do democratic people

talk about dictatorships?
Why do honest people talk about liars?
Why do law abiding people talk about criminals?
Why do vegans talk about meat eaters?
Why do people talk about others who affect their lives?

[rd_kent]

60. Huh?

Whats your point?

[Deep13]

19. It's important. What people believe determines how they will act.

And those who act on irrational ideas can only cause harm.

I didn't watch the video because I can't watch videos where I am right now.

[SidneyCarton]

21. Very true.

Understanding beliefs of others, even when one does not agree with them, allows one to understand why people do what they do. That said, I would wager that we all have irrational beliefs, if not about God, then perhaps about weather, traffic, the Yankees, or any number of other impersonal forces that we face in everyday life.

[Deep13]

22. How many of those things influence public policy?

I'm not going to be harassed or ostracized because of what I think about the weather. There are not secret cults of govt. officials devoted to the Yankees or traffic. And none of those things are spread as a matter of right with tax free income and property or child-hood indocrination. Telling your kid that the Yankees suck is not in the same ballpark as saying the Red Sox blew it every year until '04 to atone for your sins and if you don't believe that you will burn in hell for all time.

[SidneyCarton]

23. Good question.

As to religion having a disproportionate influence in the creation of policy, I cannot argue. That said if you can firmly state that every major decision you have come to during your life was the result of careful deliberation and rational observation and deduction, more power to you, you're a better man than I.

As to secret cults of gov't officials devoted to traffic, you're not a Californian, if CalTrans isn't devoted to traffic, then it's not devoted to anything.

[Deep13]

24. I'm not claiming to be completely rational.

I am saying that no religious indoctrination actively steers me toward dogmatic thinking at the expense of the rights of others.

[whathehell]

57. None steers me or millions of OTHER non-atheists towards that either...

Like so many here, you seem to be confusing ALL belief in ANY sort of Higher Power with Right Wing Christians.

They ain't here, Bro..You must be thinking of Free Republic!

[JerseygirlCT]

35. Not an atheist, but I'd guess

because it's interesting.

[biggles1]

39. What a very strange question....

Given that, to label a person 'atheist' is to already invite comment about religious beliefs, why would you be so surprised/affronted when they do......??

[whathehell]

68. What a very strange assertion..

No one is "labeling" atheists as anything other than they label themselves.

[TZ]

44. Why do religious people feel the need to talk about religion TO atheists?

Seriously. If I say I'm an atheist, you don't need to try to save me...:eyes:

[whathehell]

53. I've never seen a " religious" person on this board try to DO that to an atheist here..

but if you have some examples, be my guest.

..The closest thing I've seen to that is some attempts to DEFEND themselves against the blatant insults thrown at them and their beliefs on this board...Something that wouldn't NEED to be done, btw, if some of the mods here were even-handed about enforcing that "mutual respect" the DU Rules mandate. :eyes:

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whathehell]

66. Most of the "regulars" on this board IGNORE you!

:rofl:

and I'm taking a page from their playbook!

[rd_kent]

99. There you go again!

with the ignore button.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TZ]

61. Its been done in the ATHEISTS forum actually.

And since thats considered trolling, I can't give you the links obviously. But I can tell you that for every insult to a believer here there are just as many posts insulting atheists. Like this one..a polite version of STFU atheist.
Tell me something if someone told you the Earth was only 6000 years old (and I'm assuming here that you are not a YEC) does that mean you shouldn't say anything because you don't beleive it. NO. and its kind of hard for atheists to avoid the topic of religion. Its kind of everywhere no?

[whathehell]

67. Than why don't you simply argue with THOSE folks in the atheists forum?.

I'm not one of them!

As far as it being hard for atheists to avoid the topic of religion..I don't know..I'm an agnostic and I rarely discuss religion. Outside of HERE, that is, where for some reason I seem to get confused with RW Christians -- One goof here even called me "part of a psychopathic cult" (!)...The guy didn't even know that Atheists and Agnostics share a forum.

Like I said, I don't know about "can't avoid it..It's everywhere"...Ilive in an urban, blue state environment and it just doesn't come up much.

If it needs to be said (and it shouldn't)..I am FIRMLY in favor of separation of church and state and I DO understand a lot of the anger of the LGBT community with the Prop 8 vote and the backwards, RW condemnation....I get the the anger and frustration at RW Christians, period -- Hell, I share it! ..But freaking A, know your friends..An agnostic on a left wing board is HARDLY one of those!

P.S. Yours is the first reasonable, non-antagonistic response I've received...I would appreciate it if all other responses, from you or anyone else, were in the same vein. I'm just ignoring anything else.

[rd_kent]

100. Ahhh, another use of the ignore button

At this rate, you will have no one but yourself to talk to.

[Iggo]

49. Well, since you brought it up...

Oops. There's your answer!

(I spel gud)

[Taverner]

62. Gogirl18 rocks!!!!!

She hits the nail on the head

[StevieM]

107. It's Gogreen18. I'm a huge fan of hers....OK, I'm in love with her (eom)

[Occam Bandage]

70. Why do well people feel the need to talk about illness?

[whathehell]

73. Oh..I see where this one's going..

Sorry, Occam, it's not a good analogy.

[Occam Bandage]

76. Do you? Why isn't it?

The subject is interesting from an academic perspective, it affects each of us indirectly even if we are not personally subjected to it, and some are interested in combating its negative effects.

[rd_kent]

101. You are wasting your time. He has IGNORED you because you dont agree

Read throgh his posts. At the end of every sub-thread, he threatens to IGNORE.

[Odin2005]

78. Because the Religionists are always trying to impose their beliefs on us.

[ZombieHorde]

96. Awesome video.

I imagine the unrecs came from those who read the OP title and did not watch the video.

[DeadEyeDyck]

105. I have often wondered the same thing.

I think it is the same as a homophobe who is obsessed with everyone else's sexuality.

[Goblinmonger]

109. I wonder if whathehell is still reading this discussion

because a comparison of atheists to homophobes certainly seems like an attack. I'm sure he'll let it go, though.

As for me, kiss my ass.

[Silent3]

112. As soon our currency says "In Gay We Trust"...

...and being gay is specifically protected in the constitution, and people come knocking on our doors to beseech us to consider the benefits of being gay, and people recommend gay sex as a way to cope with tragedy or to keep us safe during hurricanes, as soon as public high schools reserve special ceremonial tasks specifically for gay people, as soon as a majority of Americans wouldn't vote for a presidential candidate unless he or she was gay...

When all of that and more happens, perhaps then I'll consider your analogy something other than completely ridiculous.

[hyphenate]

106. The only religious discussion I like

is to make fun of fundies and their utter lack of comprehension. Everyone else is fine, and their choices their own. But making fun of someone who tries to tell me the universe is only 10,000 years old, and that the bible is to be taken literally, is my idea of a good time.

I wouldn't even make fun of THEM if they would stay the hell away from our schools, our bedrooms, our entertainment, and anything else that they might find abhorrent. But when someone tries to control the choices I make, they deserve to be mocked, and mocked well.

[Evoman]

111. I don't know...it's sort of a fun topic.

Sometimes just because it's fascinating talking to people whose minds are so different than mine.

Sometimes just because it's a topic that has a relevance in my life (intrusion in politics).

Sometimes just because it's fun poking at a wasps nest.

I mean, if you were reading random stuff on a website, and all of a sudden you came across a group of people who were, for example, realy really into unicorns and believed they exist. Sometimes you just get a kick telling them that you don't believe in unicorns, and that they don't exist, just to see what reactions you get.

Religion is fascinating. Complete bullshit, mostly evil, and often annoying.....but fascinating nonetheless.

[trumanh59639]

113. Because religious wackos shove their beliefs

Down our throats.