There has been a lot of "strife" concerning atheists lately

[Goblinmonger]

and their lack of perceived "compassion" surrounding the thread in GD about the miners (among other threads in R/T).

This cartoon, in my estimation, gives a good perspective on how we see the issue of respecting beliefs:


Far too often it seem to me (I won't even attempt to speak for all atheists because, contrary to the belief of some, we are not a unified group and have no dogma or document which dictates what we should believe) that it comes down to what "respect" means. Why is it disrespectful for an atheist to say what they think? If someone says something that relates to their religion (which very few people come out on DU and say is a bad thing) and then an atheist responds with their view of that matter, then the atheist is told they aren't showing respect. To me (and I think a lot of other atheists on DU), that is the equivalent of saying: I can say whatever I want, but you just need to shut up about it. As one wiser than I on DU said it, it is the classic example of "believer privilege." The problem is that the believers don't even understand they have that privilege in many instances. They are so used to being able to speak of their religion whenever they want, they don't understand that many of us can't do that so freely (especially when being told to not do so on DU).

Please realize that the tone (and hopefully the mood) of this is one of respectful discourse. I know it's likely that this will get ugly. I just hope not.

[Taverner]

1. Agree 100%

[darkstar3]

2. Right there with you, GM.

That's why I have linked so often to my "On Respect" OP. I'm starting to wonder if anyone in the circle of faith will ever understand what we're trying to say...

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Thank you. It is, at times, difficult to show 'respect' for those who

show us no respect.

[catbyte]

4. Me too

[flakey_foont]

5. well put

I don't advertise being an atheist,, but if asked my religious beliefs, will answer honestly that I am an atheist...IMHO, the Universe can exist just fine without a supreme being
at that point, I am subjected to a plethora of questions and arguments ,,'how can you not believe in God? yadda yadda yadda trees blah blah Bible says blah blah going to hell blah blah Hitler/Mao/Stalin blah blah"
I have never tried to persuade anyone else to believe what I believe (or don't believe) but the believers certainly try and convert me to their way of thinking....and should I dare answer (respectfully)with an intelligent response which is not in any way attacking the person trying to convert me, then I am horrible, and bad and mean and going to HELL (fine! then I can finally jam with Jimi Hendrix)

[jobycom]

6. I agree with that and have said pretty much the same thing often, but that doesn't excuse

some of the comments I see around here. Saying "I don't believe in God" is a statement of belief, saying "Religion is superstitious nonsense" is an attack on people who have sincere religious beliefs. Saying "The rescue of the miners was an act of man, accomplished through science and technology and human perserverance" is a statement of belief and a fine point to make, saying "Religious wackos should not be allowed to call it a miracle" (hypothetical quote approximating a tone around here, not an exact quote) is an attack and an attempt (whether intentional or not) to label anyone calling the rescue a miracle a "religious wacko." There is a difference between stating one's belief, even denying someone else's, and insulting someone else over theirs.

Respectful discourse is a beautiful thing, but how can a comment be called respectful when it labels the other person superstitious or wacko as an opening salvo?

Or take your initial point in reverse. How would you feel if a believer started a post saying "The rescue of the miners was a miracle, and any godless atheist who claims otherwise needs to be stopped from their hatred of the Glory of God," or whatever. Obviously we see attacks like that all the time, and it always makes us angry, rightfully. Alerting will usually get such attacks pulled from DU. Why can't we, in the spirit of respectful discourse, refrain from the same type of attacks.

I've used the phrase "religious wacko" often enough around here, when refering to a specific group of believers with a particularly hateful or controling belief, as in "religious wackos use the Bible to justify homophobia, or oppose evolution," or whatever. I've viciously defended myself when attacked by believers for whatever they are in the mood to attack me for. Half my friends on Facebook block their religious comments from me because they know I'll respond in a point by point rebuttal, and because I've posted that they wouldn't like it if I constantly praised atheism the way they constantly praise their beliefs. In short, I'm not trying to say we shouldn't state our beliefs or defend ourselves from attacks, generalized or specific, and I'm not saying some believers don't deserve to be called wackos for extremist, arrogant, hateful opinions.

I am saying that I see fellow atheists who do the same thing to believers that they hate for believers to do to them around here. I don't have to believe Jesus was a god who rose from the dead to believe his version of the Golden Rule was a pretty good standard to use in a case like that.

[BurtWorm]

8. Is there a nicer way to say superstitious?

[jobycom]

14. There is a less confrontational way to view religious conviction.

Respecting others who have different beliefs than you is not the same as believing they are right. That's what I want from believers, so that's how I respond to them.

[BurtWorm]

16. One of the reasons I am an atheist is that I find belief in the supernatural to be insupportable.

I find statements like "It's a miracle!" to be meaningless at best. Mostly I look the other way when people reflexively say such things (though the older I get, the more vomitous I find even casual religiousisms).

It is, therefore, asking a lot to expect me to respect a point of view that I believe is absurd to the core. I do it mostly, as I say. I don't get into a lot of fights with people who say, "God bless" or "Praise Jesus." I think that's mostly a waste of time. But I do readily join debates here on DU and elsewhere where there are liberal Christians who either take offense on behalf of the ignoramuses in their faith on their right (as in the miner threads) or, worse, in my opinion, when they claim the right-wingers aren't really Christians.

[jobycom]

30. Me too, but why does it bother you that others believe it?

I personally find a like for the rock band Rush to be insupportable, but aside from occasional silly arguments in the Lounge, I don't care that other people disagree with me. And I'm a lot more concerned about music than religion, except when religion is used to justify hatred, war, or some other evil. Even then, my argument is against the war, not the religion. If it means something to someone else, what do I care? I can even rationalize that what they really are worshiping is a metaphor for the same things I believe in--love, charity, forgiveness, a sense of right and wrong. There are people who use religions for evil, but it's the evil I hate, not the excuse they use to justify it. Or I can use an epistemological argument that what they are really describing as god isn't as different from my beliefs in a rational physical universe, but that limitations of language and of our own philosophical approaches to the discussion make it seem radically different. Or I can fall back on the old standard that there's no absolute proof possible, that I have no more evidence than they do, that any of my scientific-based principles assume there is no god just as their religious beliefs assume there is, and therefore I can't scientifically prove that a god didn't create the world and use mechanisms like evolution to create life, or even if I'm being intellectually honest that I can't prove that the world wasn't created 6000 years ago in seven days and that all the fossils, relics, carbon atoms, and everything else we use to prove our points aren't really remnants of the process of creating a world. Since I've never created a world, I can't be absolutely sure that there wasn't some necessity for the laryngal nerve of a giraffe to be so long and twisted, or for fossils to be created in bedrock that appears to be millions of years old, or that carbon atoms in rocks weren't created mostly decomposed. For all I know, it's like priming a water pump.

No, I don't believe any of that, but I can at least accept that some rational people might long enough for me to respect their views. Some of the smartest people to have ever lived believed in gods. Some of the people in recent years that I most admire--Jimmy Carter, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa--believed in gods. I don't, but if I can't respect those who do, I feel like that's my shortcoming, not theirs.

Religion's not going away. I can spend the rest of my days hating that or just ignoring it and making the most out of life.

Anyway, that's my opinion. Either way, I still say it's just as wrong for someone to start a thread attacking "religious wackos" for calling the mine rescue a miracle as it would be for someone to start at thread attacking "evil atheists" for not praising God's compassion and mercy in the mine rescue. If you can't respect them, they can't respect you.

[BurtWorm]

34. Because truth matters to me.

I don't believe I have a pipeline to it, but I'm reasonably certain you can't get to it if you're putting all your searching eggs in the Bible basket. (Let me pause a second to admire the amazing mixture of metaphors in that sentence... :smoke: )

Ok, so I presume we're probably closer to agreement on the question of religion's authority to approach truth on questions of physical reality than you let on, right? I mean it's for the sake of argument that you're entertaining the vanishingly slim possibility that the creationists may be right about the origins of the cosmos, correct? But let's be real: those dufuses and their feelings are not the issue here, are they? We're really talking about the liberal Christians whose feelings get hurt when atheists on DU challenge more mushy subjects like the historicity of Jesus or the question of whether or not a right-winger can be a Christian. Why do these in particular matter to me?

They matter, as I say, because we share a world that we're all trying to understand, and we understand it primarily through language. If I say "cup," I want to trust that you will hear and understand the word as I intend it. As with "cup" so with "Christian" or "Christ." I'm sure a liberal Christian would respond that each of us has a unique perspective that shades the language with our own personal meanings that can't be translated. So why insist on my unique shadings of meaning on words a Christian can't help but hear differently? Because that way lies chaos. That way lies a world in which words become more and more like sounds signifying nothing.

It's one thing to disagree on the quality of a musical performance. It's another entirely to not be sure that the person you're speaking with even mean the same thing by "music" as you mean. (And in the case of Rush fans, they probably don't...)

[jobycom]

42. No, that's not really what I'm talking about.

First, I am in awe of the metaphor blender. :)

Second, I'm not talking about whether religion or science is true. Since you asked, I don't even think there's a slim chance the creationists are right, I just realize that no matter how certain I am of anything, even something backed by scientific evidence, if I can imagine a scenario that justifies the opposite, then it's a choice of mine to believe whichever I believe. I have faith that science, logic, and reason are the right approaches--and it's an unquestioned faith--but from an absolute, philosophical standpoint, I know it's still faith. Einstein's much-misquoted phrase about religion being lame without science, and science being blind without religion, came after a speech saying something similar. He defined religion basically as the faith that reason and logic would provide the answers to the questions science was asking, and said no scientist could function without that faith. He also specifically rejected any belief in what he called "personal gods," saying they were primitive hangovers from ancient religions. He was acknowledging that the belief that science is right is faith. That's all I'm saying. I don't think creationists have even a sliver of a chance to be right, but I do acknowledge that it's my faith in science that concludes that, not some outside certainty that any objective rational mind would have to accept as the only conclusion.

But I'm not talking about which is true, I'm talking about the way we treat other people, and I'm just offering up ways that one can respect them even when one disagrees with them. Any way it goes, if you can't respect people with different views enough to keep from calling them names, then that's a failing. Debate the historicity of Jesus all you want (and as an atheist history student, I can promise you he existed, even if the Gospels are as much myth as fact), but don't insult someone for believing what they do. Ultimately, your certainty is just a belief, too. It's the same one, mostly, that I'm certain of, so it's really tempting to call it Truth. But I've studied too much history, science, philosophy, and theology to go that far.

[TZ]

74. Good grief. Even here you can't leave poor Geddy Lee alone?

:rofl:

[cleanhippie]

32. I find it offensive and disrepectful when I hear someone say "its a miracle"

or "god had a hand in it". To me, it is disrespectful of reason and rational thought, and saying so is a DEFENSE to that attack on reason, not an insult. I see what you are getting at. I agree with your general point, but disagree with your specifics.

[jobycom]

36. They aren't talking about you, you know.

If someone says something is a miracle, that's just a comment. It's not directed at you. Unless they say more, you don't even know if they mean it in a religious sense--I doubt Al Michaels believed that God actually won the gold medal for the US hockey team when he called that a miracle. Even if they believe some god had a hand in it, that doesn't mean they don't believe in science or rational thought. The philosopher Abelard, for instance, argued that any aspect of religion could be understood through logic and reason, and that if a believer couldn't find the logic, it was a failing of the individual, not of reason or religion. That's very similar to Einstein's thoughts on religion, for that matter. You can disagree with them, it's a free country, mostly, but you can't say they are disrespectful of reason and rational thought.

So attacking someone who calls something a miracle is an unprovoked attack, no matter how you rationalize it. Now, if they say "It's a miracle and all you stupid atheists are proven wrong," or some such nonsense, go at it. But if you attack them directly for making a general statement, you're the bad guy, not them.

[cleanhippie]

37. SO why does that not go both ways?

Seems like a double standard.

[humblebum]

45. You probably spend a lot of time being offended then.

When you claim that religious belief is "disrespectful of reason and rational thought", what you fail to realize is that there are other ways of reasoning that exist - other epistemologies. And whether you recognize them, agree with them, or scoff at them, they do exist and are followed and recognized by many, including myself. Your way is anything but "free thought" and I consider any attack on free thought, even by religious folk, to be offensive.

[cleanhippie]

52. Militant atheists! Militant atheists!

[humblebum]

68. Always so articulate and able to conduct an intelligent exchange. nt

[cleanhippie]

71. Why thank you.

:toast:

[humblebum]

72. You're welcome.

[Angry Dragon]

7. I take a broader view

Definition of RELIGION from Merriam-Webster
1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I prefer the #4 definition. So according to this, religion is just a set of beliefs, and it can or not include a belief
in a higher power. If one does not have ardor and faith in their beliefs, they have no business having those beliefs and should then question them.

Atheists do have a religion, it is a religion of non-belief in a god. It is just as legitimate as a religion that carries
a belief in a god.

[jdlh8894]

9. Still remaining Agnostic.

#1 Prove there is NO God
#2 Prove there IS a God

When someone can do either of those,then come talk to me.

[BurtWorm]

10. In the meantime, do you worship?

[jdlh8894]

18. I watch the sun come up allmost every morning!

[BurtWorm]

19. So you think the sun might be a god?

:think:

[jdlh8894]

20. Re ?

[darkstar3]

11. #1 is superfluous. Only #2 matters, because only positive claims can be proven.

[jdlh8894]

24. only positive claims can be proven

And negatives still remain? As what? A void? Black Hole? Please explain!

[darkstar3]

26. Negative is the default position. That's why we have "innocent until proven guilty".

Did he beat his wife? We don't know, but we must presume the negative until we have proof for the positive.

When a hypothesis is given, we must pursue its proof from the presumption that it is false, lest we fall prey to confirmation bias and a whole host of other problems.

[Goblinmonger]

27. There is no negative claim. That is the point.

There is this entity out there that some people believe exists--for this argument it's a god (for other arguments it might be unicorns or Santa or leprechauns, it matters not). Atheists have no belief in the existence of that god. Just as they have no belief that there is a nanotech teapot orbiting your anus that controls your actions. It's not on the radar. We don't have to prove that it doesn't exist.

[darkstar3]

28. Better stated than mine for this discussion. Thank you.

[Goblinmonger]

29. Thanks. The nanotech teapot

might have been a little over the top, but I thought I was funny so I indulged myself.

[darkstar3]

12. You're saying that atheists have faith?

I'm so astonished by that claim that I forgot how to laugh for a moment...

[Angry Dragon]

22. Do they not believe what they believe is true??

Is faith nothing more than the belief that what they believe is true??

I am sorry that I took laughter from you :D

[darkstar3]

25. Faith is belief in things for which you have no evidence.

The very antithesis of skepticism and the atheism it breeds.

[jdp349]

57. I can't be on the actual truth of any claim really

rather it's what I treat as true because well reasoned epistemological systems that are the most honest means we have to discern evaluate the truth of claims compel me to.

If you truly believe something to be true beyond a doubt than yes, some degree of faith will be involved. But that's a foolish and dishonest habit.

[BurtWorm]

13. Most people mean definitions 1a and b and 2.

But even if they meant 4, the word "faith" rules out atheists.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. Problem with that is, the #4 dictionary definition is not talking about religion,

but about beliefs held as strongly AS religion - 'Baseball was his religion'. It is nothing but metaphor, and the comparison embedded in the metaphor is of religion as defined in the primary definition.

I don't care WHAT you think - I have no religion. I have a philosophy, a set of moral standards based on that philosophy. It is NOT a religion. Your definition - a religion of non-belief in god - still puts 'god' at the center of the belief, and ties it to the primary definition. And it is wrong.

[Goblinmonger]

17. Why do I have to be defined by the gods others dream up?

My position is not that I disbelieve in a god (which kind of puts the null hypothesis as there is a god, btw) but that I have no belief in any god. That isn't faith. That's lack of faith.

Plus the whole #4 is a metaphoric definition thing.

[jobycom]

21. That's pretty much what Einstein was saying with many of his comments.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm

Using his definition, science is basically a religious pursuit. I've been attacked for saying much the same thing, but in all fairness, Einstein had better creds. :)

I don't completely agree that atheism is a religion, though. For some people it is, by the definition you cite. For others, it's just a label used out of convenience. I don't really hold a system of beliefs about gods or the lack of them. I used to, I guess. Now it's just that I don't see anything to make me even question the existence of gods. I don't have faith that there is no god, I just don't even have an impulse that makes me think about it. I'm perfectly happy giving believers the benefit of the doubt--maybe they're right. I don't believe they are, I don't see anything that makes me wonder if they are or have to assert that they are not. Their belief in gods is just a personality issue, not a question of faith. It's like not believing in Santa Claus--it's just such a basic thing that when I meet someone who does, usually a very young someone, I don't even care that they believe, and wouldn't even think of it unless they brought it up. It's not that I have faith that Santa Claus doesn't exist, it's that I have no concept that he could, so I don't even have to decide on the possibility. Someone else's belief that he does is just something unique about them that has no connection to me. I doubt that made sense, since I can't explain it better. My ex, for instance, was raised never believing in any god. Her parents never told her there was no god, never discussed gods, and never cared if she was dragged to church events by friends. She never describes herself as an atheist, because the whole concept of theism is completely foreign to her. I've gotten to that stage. The only time it matters to me is when someone is trying to make me inferior for not believing as they do.

[beam me up scottie]

41. Your "view" is arrogant, presumptuous and intolerant.

Personally, I prefer religioustolerance.org's definition of intolerance:

Intolerance: Spreading misinformation about a group's beliefs or practices even though the inaccuracy of that information could have been easily checked and corrected.

I don't give a crap what you prefer, stop telling me what I believe, you know nothing about me.

Your misinformation has now been "checked and corrected" by one more atheist.

[Angry Dragon]

43. Where was I intolerant??

Where did I tell you what you believed??

[beam me up scottie]

44. The post I responded to, #7:

Atheists do have a religion, it is a religion of non-belief in a god. It is just as legitimate as a religion that carries a belief in a god.

Perhaps you can tell me what tenets I follow, it seems one of us is appallingly ignorant about the Religion of Atheism.

[Angry Dragon]

46. I should have used different words than

"it is a religion of non-belief" .... it would have been better I had said their religion includes
a non-belief in a god. It is my belief that no two people believe in god the same way, it being a very personal
journey. It is the same way for atheists. Each person has to live the life that works for them without forcing
their views on others. I was just stating that I took a broader view of religion than religion was just a belief or non-belief
in a force in the universe larger than man. I look at religion as the total of beliefs that each one of us try to live by.
How we treat people, how we approach our work, all the different beliefs that we carry inside of ourselves that make us unique
from everyone else.

I have no idea what tenets you follow and it is not my concern unless you try to force me to believe as you do.
I assume you have beliefs that you use to get through life. To me this is your religion, nothing more, nothing less.
I never mentioned the religion of Atheism. As far as I know it does not exist.

I hope this better explains one of my beliefs.

[beam me up scottie]

47. You are assuming again. Atheism has no tenets, that's the point.

All you can assume about individual atheists is that they lack belief in gods. To define a lack of beliefs as a religion broadens the definition of 'religion' so far that it renders the word practically meaningless.

Telling me that my lack of beliefs is a religion after I've explained why it isn't is insulting. If you still wish to believe that I am incapable of defining my own atheism, I obviously can't change your mind, but I will call you on it.

This is a really touchy subject in this forum, if I come off as an uppity atheist it's because this debate has been done to death over the years.

[salvorhardin]

53. Actually BMUS, we can't even assume atheists lack belief in gods

The 2008 Pew Religious Landscape survey found that 21% of atheists believe in God. 6% of those believe in a personal god, 12% in an "impersonal force" and 3% answered "Other/Don't Know".

See third page of this PDF: http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Freligions.pewforum.org%2Fpdf%2Freport2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf

So I've had to change my usual line to "When someone tells you they're an atheist, all they've really told you is that they probably don't believe in God."

What does this mean? I think Steve Waldman at Beliefnet hit the nail on the head when he said that atheism has "become a cultural designation rather than a theological statement" for many people.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/06/juiciest-religious-factoids.html

[BurtWorm]

56. Is it only in America where you find atheists who believe in a personal god?

:wtf:

what should we call this type? Weaker than water atheists?

[salvorhardin]

59. What should we call them?

How about hopelessly confused? Tragically ignorant? Theologically dyslexic?

It's a terribly small number though.

As a percentage of total atheists that's just 1.3% so a little over 1 out of every 100 atheists believe in a personal god. As a percentage of the total population though, with atheists representing 1.6%, that comes out to a minuscule 0.2%. For every 1,000 people you meet, you're only going to find 2 who both call themselves atheists and believe in a personal god. If you want to sound frightening though, just say it's as many people as live in El Paso, Texas (pop. 620,000).

[beam me up scottie]

61. I'll take Tragically Ignorant for $100, Alex.

It's kinder than what I really think which is that they're stupid beyond belief.

[salvorhardin]

63. It is hard to imagine

I do think Steve Waldman is on to something with his explanation about atheism becoming a cultural designation. In other words, they think, "Hey, I'm opposed to organized religion. I must be an atheist!"

I'm wondering if that might not be a side effect of resurgence of vocal atheism in the last few years. Atheism as a word is more out there in the culture because Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and PZ all get mainstream press but either people are only hearing them saying bad things about organized religion and not the criticism of belief in gods or they're just hearing the word a lot and they're ignoring the message altogether.

Also, and this is a disturbing thought, I wonder if the small uptick in the number of atheists in the past few years might be explained by this odd 21% who somehow manage to reconcile atheism and theism.

[beam me up scottie]

65. Angry and petulant theists often rant about how they don't believe in their god anymore.

And how much they hate him. :eyes:

And then there's the satanists who label themselves as atheists, how can you believe in one without the other?

Wankers make us all look stupid...



Personally, I would love to go back to being an apathist but after living in the buy-bull belt I can't be that willfully ignorant.

[skepticscott]

70. I guess the same thing

that you'd call a self-identified vegan who eats meat every day.

[beam me up scottie]

62. WTF? That's like me eating hamburgers and still claiming to be a vegetarian.

Otoh, I had a guy tell me that Obama wasn't a christian because he never goes to church. :crazy:

[salvorhardin]

64. Maybe...

Maybe it's a case of "the spirit is willing but the mind is weak"? :D

[beam me up scottie]

66. Lol! Or the mind was willing but the stomach overruled it.

Being a vegetarian is much easier these days, praise the Boca Burgers! :D

[damntexdem]

23. There's been even more concerning RW religion -- and rightly so.

Time for some thicker skin all around. Except for RW religious nuts -- I'd like them to be tender and suffering from the criticism. ;-)

[rug]

31. Tell me, when was this said on DU?

"But you attack me all the time, and claim that my lack of belief makes me immoral."

It reminds me of somebody who was smacked around at school and comes back to kick the family dog. The first step in fighting is to identify the enemy.

[Goblinmonger]

33. You have a star

do your own search. Do you really mean to claim that there has never been a post on DU that says that you have to have religion to have morals? I wish I lived in your world.

[rug]

35. Yes. that's exactly what I mean to say.

It's your cartoon. Now produce the post.

In the meantime, you've missed the point. Do you really intend that this is the place that's oppressive to atheists?

[Meshuga]

38. I find this thread to be evil and immoral

I expect to write what I want to write at all times but I expect not to read what I don't want to read. So, please, take your evil immoral stuff elsewhere so I cannot see it. My privilege of writing what I wish to write is a privilege you must respect but for some reason you never respect it. What is wrong with you?

Well, what should I expect from you anyway? You're an atheist so your lack of morals is part of who you are. It is a god given trait given to you so he can test my own faith. God loves me so much that he makes personal atheists just for me. So keep up the good work!

[BurtWorm]

39. You really are meshuga!

;-)

:hi:

[Meshuga]

40. And getting worse by the minute!

:-)

[DeSwiss]

48. K&R

- And yet when it comes right down to it, oil and water still won't mix. But it was a nice try.....

[Evoman]

49. Meh...people are wuss bags. Being respectful doesn't matter worth a damn.

Oh, oh, you hurt my wittle feelings on the internets. Sorry if it goes against the grain of your post, Gob, but I'm rather tired of all this weepy respect bullshit.


If you're polite, people ignore you and you don't change their minds.

If you're rude, people cry and complain and don't change their minds.

Here is how I see it:

1)Religion is stupid.
3)Religious people are not stupid, but they believe in stupid things.
3)There is no polite way of saying religion is stupid without watering down the message.
4)If I'm polite, religious people may misunderstand me, and think I don't think their brand of religion is stupid.
5)EVEN when I was polite (past tense), they still thought I was rude
6)You literally can't say anything to religious people without their feelings getting hurt. So fuck it.

Seriously. Fuck it. No matter what little inconsequential thing you disagree with them about, and no matter how you put it, they will be offended. So why do we worry about offending them? Even if you tell them why they shouldn't be offended, they have their heads to far up their..religion..to even understand that your not trying to be offensive. And with their religious oppression complex, they will take the five of us who are offensive, and amplify it to "All of DU hates christians. Or muslims." or whatever the fucking bullshit religious of the day is. Doesn't even matter if you direct them directly to anti-atheist or anti-any-other-religion-other-than-their-own post, they will justify that post, then continue their stupid bleating about offensiveness.

[trotsky]

50. Marry me, Evoman.

It's legal in Canada, right?

[Evoman]

73. Sorry, I'm engaged.

But if you want, we can play a game of "just the tip" when my gal is at school.

[skepticscott]

54. What many of the people whining about respect don't get

Is that I have no real hope of changing THEIR minds or getting them to see reason. Their delusions are too deeply rooted for that, and I lack the infinite time and patience to wait for them to come to their senses. I'm much more concerned that people who have not made up their minds about things see their bullshit for what it is...bullshit, and that lies and nonsense don't go unchallenged because people are concerned about bruising the delicate feelings of belivers, woo-wooers and their apologists. If you say silly, ridiculous, illogical, demonstrably false things about your religious beliefs, expect the same respect that you would show towards a teabagger who claims that Barack Obama is a foreign-born Muslim.

[Dorian Gray]

55. Now you're broad-brushing all religious people

as being easily offended. Not all of us are, and I think that your generalization about religious people is stupid. So fuck it.

[Evoman]

60. Ha! Awesome.

Fair enough. I never have any problems with people calling me on my bullshit...and broadbrushing you IS stupid. Mea culpa. I apologize to all the religious people I broadbushed who aren't offended by my calling your religion stupid. But your religion is still stupid.

Dorian Gray, you make me tingle in my man parts.

[Dorian Gray]

67. LOL

I'm glad you accepted that in the spirit it was meant.

[Dorian Gray]

51. But I think that a lot of the religious

at this site (liberal religious, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Wicca, or any other of the world religions) wouldn't say that you are Godless or evil or any of the things you say.

I personally don't mind debates regarding religion. I think it's fine. But I get so tired of the same old discussions here in RT. Repeated ad infinitum. And yes, when people post about "sky daddy" or "faeries" in regard to Christian beliefs, I do believe it's meant to diminish the belief in God. (I am NOT saying that you do this at all, though. Usually that's done in a one off post by someone who is not a regular in the ongoing debates.)

[felix_numinous]

58. If people would only say 'In my opinion,"

or 'I believe this...', "I wonder...', --humility is lacking in our culture. Using respectful language would solve a lot of strife, but it is not taught. People speak in absolutes, which create walls and reduce potential stimulating and interesting discussions into debates and arguments.

We live in a very diverse society, so I think it is important to use respectful and inclusive language, it is a very good habit to get into. Many cultures have 'polite talk' built into them, the unfamiliar language and customs have evolved in order to put strangers at ease and create an opening where differences can be worked out in the most comfortable way.


The destructive predominance of rudeness and cruelty seen in the media is an unfortunate influence on many people's behavior. Adults arguing, interrupting each other, unable to control their anger is becoming the norm. People have forgotten how to be respectful and civil.

I can take just about anything someone says if they are cognizant of others' sentience.

edit to add: People make the decision to believe certain things, they are not their beliefs. People over-identify with their beliefs, labeling themselves as their belief instead of saying, "My name is ___and I believe_____. My name is ___and I am dealing with this_____challenge. They say "I am" a christian, agnostic, conservative, instead of saying "I believe'. These are more examples of speaking in absolutes.

This reduces a multidimensional human being into a word, reductionist thinking has done damage to the process of learning and culture.

These are my opinions and observations :)

[skepticscott]

69. Sorry, but I will not say

"In my opinion, the world is not 6000 years old" or, "in my opinion, gays don't deserve to be killed just for being gay". This is religious bigotry and fuckwadderie at its absolute worst, and I will not give the impression to anyone that these are matters of opinion and open for reasonable debate.