This site doesn't feel safe to discuss my atheism anymore

[Goblinmonger]

I'm ready for the snide remarks from the usual suspects. Let me just say this as a disclaimer: I know I can be an asshole at times; I know some of you don't like me very much. I can live with that. In some instances the feelings are mutual. But I have always felt that this was a good place to come and have a good debate about issues.

One more thing. Most atheists that I have talked to on here do not feel comfortable "coming out" about our lack of belief. It is often quite dangerous on the level that it can kill relationships. Want to know how many of my immediate family know that I am an atheist? 1. My wife. My two kids (10 and 13) don't know. I don't tell them primarily because I want them to find their own path. My son (10) very firmly believes in a god, though he is admittedly not Christian. My daughter is on the path to being an atheist like her daddy. I have not told my parents nor my siblings. Most of them are right-wing fucks, so I am not overly concerned with dealing with their reaction because I get it all the time for my political beliefs. But I know the reaction would be bad, and I want my kids to have aunts and uncles and grandparents. So I say nothing. I don't say anything at work because I don't think it would be safe. I teach high school and hear kids asking other kids if they are "some kind of atheist" when they do something bad. Some kids don't know what they mean, and, when explained, they don't believe such people exist. That pretty safely leads me to believe that their parents would not appreciate their kids being taught by a godless heathen. So how many people have I told? Less than 10. It is safer that way.

On to my main point. I liked DU because I did feel safe to talk about my lack of beliefs and enjoyed the resulting debates. People would complain about atheists, but I have thick skin and I can take the heat. After the RawStory article and the subsequent fallout here on DU, it seems like way too many people feel like they have been given the OK to start open season on atheists. Far too many people are hopping on this "purge the party" kind of mentality and I have had a lot of reactions to post that basically say I should shut up and stop dividing the party. In short, like my subject line, it doesn't feel "safe" here anymore.

So I'm torn. A very significant part of me wants to just say fuck it to DU and leave. I can get harassment elsewhere. Another part of me wants to say fuck it to DU and just keep putting my lack of faith out there and make people deal with it. A final part of me realizes there are a lot of cool people on here, and I want to stay here for them because I enjoy talking to them.

So what's the point of this OP? Really, it isn't a pity party. I don't expect/need any affirmations. I think I just needed to air this out, see if others have been feeling the same way (I KNOW some have because of discussions in PMs), and see what other reactions are from non-atheists. Like I said above, I am ready for the snide remarks. They don't bother me.

Discuss.

[cpousnret]

1. you believe what you want to believe in

hell,ain`t this america,peace to you bro.

[NNadir]

2. You've pretty much described my own situation in life in the 2nd paragraph

I feel very "closeted" with my atheism.

I don't feel too much antipathy at DU though.

[Goblinmonger]

20. Normally

I find the reactions that are negative at DU to be very easy to deal with and usually result in a good debate. It has just been different since the editorial. I am hoping it blows over in a week or so.

I think a lot of atheists have lives like my second paragraph. I think that is why be become so vocal here on DU because we are so UNvocal about it in real life.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

23. You have given me insight

When I talk with atheists on this board, I assumed they were as open and vocal about their belief systems out in the world. I didn't know that it was something you were quiet about. In that way, it is sort of like my religious faith-Islam. Where I live, I don't trumpet it about. But I live the way I feel it is right to live, and don't ask questions of others as to their religious viewpoint.

[Goblinmonger]

32. From talking to other atheists

here on DU, a lot of our experiences and real life personas are pretty similar. And I can, admittedly, be a gigantic ass here on DU sometimes, but you won't find me talking like that in the real world.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

36. I guess I find it interesting because

one of my coworkers is apparently an atheist. Every once in a while we talk about God, and he says he doesn't believe in it. I don't press the situation, and I respect his views. But he didn't feel any qualms about telling them to me. I guess I figured atheists were like him.

Now don't get me wrong-I don't go around talking about God all day to people, and I personally get mighty uncomfortable when someone comes up and starts talking "Jesus" or "born again" to me. Always have felt that way-I guess because I think God is something that should never be foisted upon anyone.

[noamnety]

66. definitely don't assume we talk about it in our private lives

I've been married for a decade now. The in-laws are local. I've gone to church with them, I've gone to religious retreats with the extended family, I bow my head when they pray before meals.

I vaguely assume my husband told them before we got married that I'm an atheist, but I'm not sure about that. For all I know, for the last ten years, they've assumed I'm a Lutheran. I'm not sure why, but it's part of being polite to allow people to assume you are a Christian.

[hunter]

91. That's what we do -- assume you are a Lutheran...

That's how it works in our family anyways.

If you are not Catholic, or an atheist, or a Quaker, or any number of things, then you must be a Lutheran. Lutherans are the quiet ones. The atheists in my family are pretty noisy, actually.

[tuvor]

3. I don't think I've seen any beliefs NOT get knocked down on DU.

[Goblinmonger]

7. That's a good point

I've have done it myself several (many? a hella lotta?) times. Just feels different in the past week.

[lostexpectation]

4. stay around

stop dividing the party from those who claim to value dissent?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

5. Please choose the second option, Goblin

But you might want to take a few days off. I do that a lot.

I never realized how difficult it was to "come out" as an atheist. You've really raised my consciousness. I now wonder how many people are and just never say anything. I know my mom was, but she never used that word. Or perhaps she was an agnostic.

[Goblinmonger]

14. Please trust me when I say

that you are clearly one of the good reasons for sticking around here (must be the "union brothers" thing--teachers gotta stick together).

I really don't feel comfortable telling people outside of DU that I am atheist. Way too many problems.

[vickitulsa]

79. I've never quite understood the need to provide others a LABEL

for their convenience in categorizing me.

If we let them know we don't agree with their assessment of spiritual matters, many people who "believe" in a named, specified god seem to find it impossible to refrain from preaching to those they consider to be "lost." That alone is reason enough to avoid labelling onesself an atheist (or even agnostic), since evangelizers show absolutely NO respect for someone who states his non-belief openly. In fact, they seem to consider it a challenge and react accordingly.

I couldn't figure out why some folks are so eager to call me names ("heathen," "infidel," "child of Satan") and try to convert me until I had to come to grips with the dilemma in my own family.

My mother, now 83 and a Christian since she was 20, was so concerned for my soul when I used to talk to her about what I really believed (even non-belief is a belief in a sense, IMO) that I finally decided not to distress her so much by bringing up these matters. But it was thinking about her and why she gets so upset if I talk about my views that eventually led me to the conclusion that it is for the believers' sake that they try to sell others on their version of "reality"!

At one point long ago when I tried to help Mom see the flaws and irrationality in her Christian beliefs, I realized that she simply could not begin to doubt what she had believed for so long -- or else her entire LIFE would be cast into doubt and set adrift. Her unquestioning faith was that central to her, that important, that "fundamental."

Ever since then, I have refrained from arguing with believers who obviously depend on their faith to be an anchor in their lives. My friend B.F. Skinner once told me that humans have a very difficult time accepting the idea of their own END when they die ... that this fright drives them to find a way to continue on. For many, this fear drives them to religion -- and confidence in an afterlife.

Whatever the nature of the motivation, it became clear to me that talking about my non-belief disturbed and threatened many believers to the point that they would attack me and do almost anything to shut me up. Mostly they preferred to preach to me, to "save my soul." But if I rejected their efforts, insisting I had a right to my own views and tried to share my reasons with them, they tended to grow angrier by the minute if a discussion continued beyond that point.

So I finally decided to live a more-or-less "closeted" life much like Goblin described in the OP. By this time in my life (I'm 56), if someone ASKS me about my spiritual beliefs, I honestly cannot find a word or term that is adequate to explain what I believe ... and there is really no need for such a label, IMO.

What concerns me most about the trend in current world events is that religious beliefs seem to be taking everyone on the planet toward a "choosing" and a violent clash on a grand scale. The most intense and destructive wars in history have often been for the sake of "God" -- and often both sides in a battle pray fiercely beforehand to what is essentially the same god! Baffles me that many don't seem to see how ridiculous that is.

Oops, shouldn't have said "ridiculous" -- I don't mean to set off anyone who sincerely believes. But isn't that a good example of why we who disagree about a god do keep quiet most of the time? Sure gives us a good handle on how many other "persecuted minorities" must feel, though....

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Goblinmonger]

10. Not a lot

and the kid was pretty intelligent (though kind of a republican dick head), but that was a real conversation. I swear on a stack of, um, well, er, Darwin writings?

[Mythsaje]

8. I think certainty is troubling...

I'm not willing to say either way that God (any God) does or does not exist. But I believe "revealed religion" is a crock, a less-than-subtle means of manipulating the masses. I don't want ANYONE telling me they know "the truth" when it should be obvious that NONE of us do...theist OR atheist.

I wrote a piece in GD about a week ago that was nearly instantly transported to this forum...though it's still my belief that it doesn't belong here. I post in GD almost exclusively...those are the people to whom I was addressing my commentary on the nature of "God."

Believe or disbelieve...I don't care. As I said in my rant...I don't care what people profess to believe, I only care how they ACT.

[trotsky]

9. I'm "out" to about the same number of people.

If you don't count the folks in our local atheist group. And I feel just like you do.

Let the usual suspects continue their ignorant bashing - we'll be here to counter their bullshit, and let them know we pull that lever for Democrats, too.

[Goblinmonger]

19. I think most people on DU

would be surprised to know the reality of our coming out. My guess is a lot of them expect that we wear "I hate your god" t-shirts and tell everyone we know that we don't believe in their god.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

24. I don't

I picture you atheists as academians at some university, sitting around with a glass of wine, perhaps, in a book lined study or scientific lab, debating and discussing things. I see you more wearing tweeds and suits rather than any kind of t-shirt, frankly. But then I figure you don't think I wear a burkah to work, either. :)

[Imperialism Inc.]

28. I am always surprised at home many atheists are former

theists or even fundies. Maybe that kind of atheist is more apt to speak out about their beliefs and I am only the exception to the rule ;-) . Before DU the only atheists I have ever met (most of whom are family) were not raised with strong (or any) religious beliefs in the household. That is why I agree with your not pressuring your kids. I used to think that the primary way to "make" an atheist was to just not indoctrinate them as a child. Now I wonder if there are more former theists than those like me with no religious upbringing.

I didn't speak about religion to my son until he was going on 14. He brought it up for some reason or another. Something his grandma had said I think. I answered his question and then casually mentioned that I didn't believe in any of that stuff. He was obviously shocked at first. I don't think it had occurred to him that it was an option to not believe in the Bible. In fact he basically said as much about a year (and several talks) later. That he was glad I had told him that because he never thought it made any sense but thought it was just something everyone as supposed to believe.

[Ezlivin]

11. Post your address so we can come over and visit you after the gun show

Atheists have been persecuted, tortured and killed for centuries by the church. That is not news to you, I'm sure.

We live in a pretty goddamned special time and place: 2006 in America. We have the unbelievable freedom to say that god does not exist and that the bible is nothing more than a piece of fiction. Relish it, savor it and most of all, use it.

I don't miss an opportunity to share my lack of belief with anyone: former church friends, former pastors (I'm an ex-pastor), friends and family. My mother and father drink the Koolaid™ at a local church and think the world of their pastor. But they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that their son is an atheist. I sat them down and told them in very firm terms what I believed. It was hard for them, particularly since they were so thrilled when I graduated seminary and entered the ministry. Unfortunately for them, I know their bible far better than they ever can. They'll never understand the joy of transliterating Greek and Hebrew into English and seeing all the shortcomings.

Yeah, you may be disliked or even hated on this board by some. Fuck 'em. People will choose to dislike us for a myriad of reasons.

And here at DU you'll find a lot of people who don't hate you and will endure the slings and arrows of outrageous belief along with you.

[Goblinmonger]

12. Yeah

the discussion with my mom is coming in the next couple weeks. I was raised firmly Catholic (went to seminary, too) and my kids were baptized and had first communion in the Catholic church. We have recently moved to a UU church so the kids can explore and have a community. My mom lives 700 miles away so it has not been a problem. Gotta not have the kids lie to Grandma, though. My mom is the queen of passive aggressive (kind of like Everyone Loves Raymond's mom) and she probably won't talk to me for a year. I hesitate to tell her because I don't want her to die during her "not talking to you" phase.

And I LOVE you sig line. I teach Mockingbird to 10th graders. The only book that has remained on my "favorites" lise since high school. Great American novel second only to Gatsby.

[Ezlivin]

30. Atticus Finch was the best father I never had

He showed me another way of viewing your fellow man. A view, unfortunately, that my real father lacked.

[Goblinmonger]

33. Have you seen the movie Vanilla Sky?

They explore the father figure of Atticus a bit in that film.

[Champion Jack]

13. No snide remarks here

religion was invented to control ignorant people. Anyone who still believes in an imaginary friend in the sky or worships a piece of dead meat on a stick is stupid.
Who cares what they think?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

27. I hope this gives the OP some comfort

Personally, I find your remarks interesting. Please forgive me if this thread was meant to be open to atheists only, for one who believes in the Unity that lives within would like to add a comment. Just know that your remarks would be considered snide by people who have a belief system different than your own. Personally, I am willing to let atheists be atheists, and I will not say anything against the path in life they have chosen, as it obviously makes the most sense to them. If people who believe in something beyond themselves don't try to foist their belief system upon you, shouldn't you let them live and let live? I am interested in your reply to this, as I wish to better understand your thinking. This was written with respect for your views, so please don't take it as flame bait.

[AbbyR]

89. Hmmmm

Sort of an interesting comment - if it's not ok to bash atheists, why is it ok to call those who believe stupid, ignorant, etc.? No flame intended. Just wondering.

[Inland]

109. Entirely different.

It's all right because believers are stupid. Different as night and day. Stop making him feel unwelcome on DU or he'll just take his liberal beliefs and go home.

[Dorian Gray]

116. This is primarily what irks the theists

on the board, and it is why there are so many arguments between the religious and the Athiests.

I don't think it promotes the discussion, at all. Rather, it is the "reverse" problem of what the Goblinmonger was discussing in his OP.

Personally, I am not going to get upset about it, but it strikes me as someone just trying to stir the pot in what had seemed, up until this post, to be a relatively productive discussion. And this is exactly why I stay out of these arguments at times. Because "religion was invented to control ignorant people. Anyone who still believes in an imaginary friend in the sky or worships a piece of dead meat on a stick is stupid.
Who cares what they think?" seems to be a pretty careless statement.... at best. I suspect that it was intended to provoke a hornet's nest.

[Champion Jack]

135. No ,you are wrong

It is my personal opinion. If you don't like it, ask your imaginary friend for guidance.
I really don't care what you or any of the "persecuted" xtians think

[Dorian Gray]

196. I never claimed ot be persecuted...

I think my life is pretty darn good, and I've freely been able to enjoy my faith with full openness.

And, I will state again that your "rudeness" is the crux of the problem that athesits (is that better Eileen?) and Christians have with one another. It works on BOTH sides, and I won't speak of your atheism in the same terms that you feel comfortable dismissing my beliefs in, as I generally believe that all people arrive at their places in life through full introspection. Treating me or my fellow religious with such disdain isn't going to make people embrace you with open arms and work in solidarity for our shared political goals.

[Eileen]

191. the word is atheist ...

NOT Atheist. But your subtle attempt to turn it intoi a superstition is duly noted.


Eileen

[Dorian Gray]

195. My goodness...

I was just capitalizing it out of respect. I'll be sure not to make that mistake again.

:eyes:

[Odin2005]

140. And it's atheists like you that gives atheists like me a bad name.

Religion was never invented, some caveman never created religion to control his fellow humans. Religion is the result of basic psycological needs. Religion can be ABUSED in order to control people, but the idea that religion was CREATED to control people and that it will eventually become obsolete, etc., etc., is Marxist garbage.

[muriel_volestrangler]

155. While I don't like the 'ignorant' or 'stupid' labels

I'd dispute the "Marxist garbage" phrase too. Organised religion was intimately bound up with the formation of states. The need to legitimise the authority of law-givers and judges in societies that grew too large for personal relations, or reputations, to be enough for everyone to accept it, came from claims of links to the divine - either by priests of royal families who claimed they had been specially chosen. Supernatural beliefs may be a common (but not universal) psychological need, but religions where people accept the claims of others to have special information are the first form of politics.

[Zenlitened]

183. Well, the idea does pre-date Marx.

For example:

The ancient Poets animated all sensible objects with Gods or
Geniuses calling them by the names and adorning them with the
properties of woods, rivers, mountains, lakes, cities, nations,
and whatever their enlarged & numerous senses could percieve.

And particularly they studied the genius of each city &
country. placing it under its mental deity.
Till a system was formed, which some took advantage of &
enslav'd the vulgar by attempting to realize or abstract the
mental deities from their objects: thus began Priesthood.
Choosing forms of worship from poetic tales.

And at length they pronounced that the Gods had order'd such things.
Thus men forgot that All deities reside in the human breast.

-- William Blake, Poet (1757-1827)

[rzemanfl]

15. Is the Raw Story article to the effect that people would rather

their daughter marry a recent immigrant genetically defective moron with genital herpes, bad teeth, male pattern baldness and a clubfoot than an atheist? That's just because they want a big Church wedding. I think about twenty percent of the people who say they believe in God are really saying "leave me the hell alone." I certainly don't want anything to do with Bush's version of "God."

[Random_Australian]

45. No, that was a different thing. RawStory said the atheists should get the

fuck out of the Democratic party, pretty much.

Of course, according to some posters it was merely an intelligent objection to the swarms of mentally deluded atheists in the high offices of the Democratic Party. *cough*.

[johnnypneumatic]

16. I like you, so stay

I'm atheist too btw
as for the RawStory editorial, I was really surprised that it appeared there. I like rawstory a lot, and that thing sure seemed out of place there, more like something that would have come from some repub blog. Rejecting atheists and free thinkers and pandering to the religious is like those of the democratic party trying to be like repubs(but we can do it better), the republicans-lite party, and we know how well that works

[Goblinmonger]

17. I haven't been to RawStory

before the editorial. I have nothing against them. Just seems that attitudes here have changed since.

[Proud_Democratt]

18. As an Atheist, I'll tell you...

Don't give up the fight for our equality in this country. Gays are making some "headway" now in their struggle. We, Atheists are next at bat.

[Imperialism Inc.]

21. I haven't really noticed but then I confine

myself to having theology discussion here and not in GD. I frankly couldn't care less whether or not some want to purge us from the party. Heck, I'm only in the party as a default most of the time anyway, and since the screwed up voting system makes voting for a green a vote for republicans. (although since 2004 many Dems have stepped up) But, still, I'm not going anywhere nor am I going in the closet about my non-theism.

Atheism doesn't really have a place in the party platform but neither does theism. The only thing that belongs is a commitment to allow everyone to be treated the same (separation of church and state). So I don't see how my non-theism matters unless I try to make it a part of the party's platform.

Besides, it is idiotic to purge anyone from a party who is in power of exactly zero branches of government at the moment. And the author of that Raw Story is the biggest idiot of all. The atheist that she describes in her article does not exist, so there is no one to purge. Do you think any statement about a positive action of a religious organization is a threat to your way of life? I didn't think so. In fact, do you know anyone that meets the authors description?

So I wouldn't worry about it. RawStory has always been a joke anyway. A useless rag that let an idiot post a story that was in poor taste.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

22. I find it interesting that you feel DU isn't a safe place for atheists

It seems that there are a lot of atheists that post at Religion/Theology; I often go to that forum to find stuff about different faiths and usually find a lot more posts about atheism than any religion or creed. I have often read the posts by atheists and have even put in my two cents if I felt it appropriate (as I do here). Realize I have no clue as to what Raw Story said that you felt started people condemning atheists. Perhaps you could cite threads where you felt your atheism was threatened by people who believe in God. From what I have personally viewed, the atheists here can hold their own. And though there have sometimes been posts wanting to know about atheism and their belief systems, I don't recall any of them condemning atheists. As far as I can tell, no one here at DU is trying to "convert" atheists to any religion, and I don't think the atheists are changing many minds of those who believe in God.

If you feel that someone is making you feel bad here, I would suggest you put them on ignore. Does wonders for your blood pressure, I've found. But keep posting here!

I think how you are handling this with your family is good. I do believe strongly in freedom of religion and freedom from religion; who am I to say what path you should take in life? I do think it is good that you are allowing a free exploration of the topic so your children can make up their own minds.

[zeemike]

25. I seldom come here to discuss religion

Because there are more important things happening in the world. I only wish Religion or the lack of it was the most important one.
but I have been both a believer and an atheist so I think I have a different perspective than most. I was an atheist until I was in my late 20s and I had no problem coming out to whoever wanted to talk about it, and I was good at it too.I argued my point from a purely scientific point of view but I NEVER did what post 13 on this thread does, insult anyone that disagrees with me.
And in the few I have participated in here there was at least one that wanted to tell me how stupid it was to believe in such nonsense, and that is a poison pill when it comes to good conversation and any intellectual discourse.
Actually though I love to discuss the topic, but most of the time it is not worth my effort because I do not want to change any atheist at all because I know somting that most people don't and that is that Atheism is just another path to enlightenment and cannot be sidetracked, nor should it be.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

29. I believe you have wisdom, zeemike

I have never been an atheist, but have always been a mystic. It has been my experience that it is not my place to denegrate another's path in life, for it is not my path, and who am I to say that it is right or wrong? May Enlightenment be yours today, right now.

[otohara]

26. Can You Post Some Examples

that always helps...

[Goblinmonger]

34. Doing that always helps...

to get my threads locked :P

[OregonBlue]

31. Admitting you're anti-illegal immigrant draws the same kind of

reaction. Hope you just shine on any criticism, continue to voice your opinion and keep the rest of us tuned in to how atheists see the issues! Many of us here really appreciate the perspective and if you leave, where does that leave us?

p.s. I'm agnostic (although I was raised in a religious family) so I really do want to hear all sides.

[Goblinmonger]

35. Well that's just fucking stupid

:P Seriously, I think we have had exchanges about illegals. Nothing specific I can remember, but I think it was mostly civil. I like having debates like that.

[OregonBlue]

102. I am anti-illegal immigration and I have been called both a bigot and

a racist here at DU. I have very good reasons for opposing illegal immigration and it has affected me and my community very heavily but, apparently there are those here at DU that believe than a liberal cause ANY LIBERAL CAUSE is right.

[OregonBlue]

176. Read any of the DU immigration posts today? Still think the

discussions are thoughtful and civil?

[smirkymonkey]

37. Don't go Goblinmonger...

I will miss your intelligent posts and your little red stapler! Seriously, thought - I enjoy what you contribute to this board and even thought I don't post much (because people like you pretty much say everything I would have said and I see no need to repeat it) I feel validated and supported by the views you have expressed here.

Even though I don't even label myself an athiest or agnostic (I don't like labels for myself for some reason) I don't believe in religion, sky gods, or that all humans need to worship something. I am especially offended by the Abrahamic religions. I believe there is some higher reality, but I have no idea what it is and I am convinced that no other human being knows either. I suppose I am an athiest/agnostic in the truest sense - meaning without a god and without knowledge of god.

[applegrove]

38. I don't think I've seen atheists get knocked down either? At the DU.

As long as you live and let live - nobody gets knocked down. Could you give us a link so we can see what the discussion was about?

[Goblinmonger]

41. Giving links will get me in trouble

and I have been in trouble enough the last few days. I am generally talking about some of the threads in General Discussion dealing with the Raw Story editorial. I am not trying to continue that debate about the editorial (note to moderators, I really am not trying to continue those flamewars). But, some of the attitudes in those discussions seemed to be more in the vein of atheists being "purged" from the party because they just give the right wing ammo.

Now, that is not a new concept that started with the editorial. Just do a search for the Utah cross memorials and you will find a lot of examples of people telling atheists on DU that their concerns are too minor to deal with because it just gives O'Liely and Co. something to bitch about. I could handle those.

What seems different now is that there are more people saying those things (because of the editorial giving credence to that attitude? I don't know) and being more vocal about it. I don't see a lot of that spilling into R/T to be honest, but it has still increased. I just seems less safe, in GD specifically, to say you are an atheist and that the editorial upset you.

Maybe it has just been a really long week. I'm not sure. But from the PMs I'm getting, I'm not the only one that feels this.

[Silent3]

39. I don't doubt that many others have had trouble...

...but I've never really had any problems (at least that I've been aware of) letting anyone know about my lack of religious belief. Perhaps because I've usually said "agnostic" rather than "atheist" that has softened the blow, but either way I really haven't seen it cause any problems. It's probably easier for me to be open about these things, living in the northeast US and working in a field like software engineering, than it might be for many other people.

My atheism bugs my liberal Catholic father a bit, and he keeps trying to get me to read religious books or watch religious videos, but it's not like he's angry or he's dispossessed me. I'm sure my one born-again sister is unhappy, but we still get along when we avoid certain topics, and it's probably me more than she who keeps our sibling relationship a bit on the cool side, and that's because of how I feel about her rabid right-wing politics.

By the way, I've learned a lot here lately about the fact that different people take both words, "atheist" and "agnostic", in different ways, and for myself I'd always though of "atheist" as not merely a lack of belief in God, but an outright denial that such a being does exist or could exist. I realize now that I can be both an atheist and an agnostic at the same time, and that description fits me well.

I'll still probably call myself an agnostic for the most part, simply because I might not always want to have to spend an hour discussing semantics and dictionary definitions and belief vs. knowledge, etc., just to get my point across.

[Goblinmonger]

40. You will find several people here

that use the label agnostic atheist. BMUS for one. I think most people are confused on that one.

Isn't getting along with immediate family ALL ABOUT avoiding certain topics :P

[Quantess]

182. What's wrong with "agnostic/atheist"?

...it's what I call myself. Chiefly, it means that although I might have spiritual feelings, I do not believe in any religion currently offered, not in any culture, anywhere in the world.

It means I'm not religious! Standing up for the rights of the non-religious is all that truly matters.

(edited for clarity)

[arwalden]

42. It Seems To Me That Some Theists Feel Entitled To A Little More...

... a little more deference, a little more tolerance, a little more patience, a little more understanding, a little more TLC. By virtue of no other reason except for the fact that they ARE theists. They're special, chosen, blessed, forgiven. Often times that same logic is applied to those theists who misbehave, insult and bait. They expect a little more leniency and understanding... and more often than not it's given. === Hey! I guess they really *are* blessed!

[Goblinmonger]

43. You have

been absent from what I have seen about "the editorial." Did I just not look in the right place or did you stay out for sanity purposes? Either way, nice to see you again. I always enjoy your posts. That duck is hilarious.

And I have NO idea about whom you are speaking :sarcasm:

[arwalden]

64. I Was Speechless

Yes, I saw it... but it was just beyond my ability to comment.

[catbert836]

44. Please, don't leave.

You're one of the most intelligent DUers there are, and I almost always learn something from your posts. I always look forward to reading your opinion on just about any issue, but especially on those concerning religion and/or atheism.

That being said, I totally agree with you the response to the RawStory article has been totally inappropriate. To some extent, it is indeed open season on atheists. But consider this: to a great extent, people say certain things on message boards such as DU before they say them in real life. So, I think it is better to nip them in the bud (or at least give them something to think about) before they start with actually bigoted behavior in their real lives. Flame wars on a message board are a small price to pay to kill prejudices before they grow into intolerance.

I really hope you don't leave. :grouphug:

[Goblinmonger]

49. Thanks

I always appreciate your posts and have to remind myself how young you actually are. I wish I had a classroom full of you. Would be my best literature class ever.

I realize a lot of people outside DU reacted quite badly to the editorial. Death threats are never a good thing. But 95% of DU atheists would have been just fine if a simple "Hey, we're sorry. It won't happen again" were issued right away.

I think my make a good point about things said here before the real world and that point is exemplified by my, and others, expressing their atheism here before we ever would in the real world.

[catbert836]

99. Aw....

Thanks. Not much more I can say. :toast:

[Orrex]

46. Maybe you' d feel better if you filled that God-shaped hole in your heart

nyuk nyuk nyuk
:rofl:

I've mentioned previously (and I'm sure that everyone here reads all of my posts religiously) that every person of faith who has found out that I'm atheist has responded with a pitying "oh, that's too bad" kind of a vibe, with a dash of suspicion that I might be mentally unbalanced, as well. It used to bother me a lot more than it does now, because everyone of importance to me knows my views on the subject, so even if we don't agree, I no longer have to worry about what would happen if they found me out.

But that's a luxury that I realize not everyone shares.

I've become somewhat philosophical about it, to be honest. I find it fascinating that some people regard my non-belief as the ultimate crime, or at least the ultimate indicator of non-trustworthiness. That says a lot more to me about their character than it does about mine.

Incidentally, in my experience some well-meaning but benighted theist will invariably crank out that insipid "do you love your mother/then prove it" stumper. The first answer to that question should always be, "Go fuck yourself and mind your own business."

The second answer should be, "what are your criteria for proof?" To date, though I've been presented with this challenge several dozen times, no theist has ever listed these criteria. At best, they say "You know, prove it to me." At which point you may conclude that they are mindlessly parroting a favorite theist's riddle, and you can consider their argument forfeited.

Okay, now I'm just ranting.

But consider this: chances are very good that the theists who mock you for the "God-shaped hole in your heart" are actually trying to use you to fill theirs.

[Evoman]

47. Atheism is something I keep to myself generally

Well, I have a slight advantage in Canada...but even here, I get some weird looks when I admit I'm atheist. Not that THAT happens very often. Basically just my family know about my atheism. My girlfriends parents are christian...they go to church every weekend. I don't think they know I'm atheist (because I'm latin, they may assume I'm catholic). I'm kinda scared of them finding out..I don't want to be treated differently :(

To be completely honest, however, I don't feel unsafe on DU. Its a website...I find certain things distasteful, bigotted and idiotic. But I don't feel unsafe..there is always the atheist group anyhow. Do I notice a change in opinion lately? OH HELL YEAH. The bigots are coming out of the woodworks. They are disgusting little people...a lot of them, I thought I liked but have found out differently. But you know what? They can pile on me all they want. This might get on a certain DUers nerves but, frankly, I think I'm the smartest, strongest, best-lookin' muddafucka on this website lol.

I eat Jesus freaks for breakfast.

[Goblinmonger]

53. Perhaps "unsafe" was not the best word choice

Do I fear for my life? No, of course not. But you say what I was getting at quite well, "The bigots are coming out of the woodworks." That what surprised me. It was like the editorial gave the the right to be slimey little bastards and they hit the ground running. It went from "oh, another atheist complaining" to "get the fuck out of the party you disruptive whackjob atheist." But you know what? Fuck em. And you are the 2nd smartest on this website. You're probably better looking than I and I hit 40 this summer so I lose strength every year.

BTW, if you were in central Wisconsin and your girlfriend's parents were fine with you being latin, the atheist bit would be a breeze! I love Canada. Lived 90 miles from Winnipeg growing up and went there a lot. My daughter is in love with Toronto. If teaching and the law (my wife's career) would not require additional schooling for us to work in Canada, I think we might move to Toronto.

[salvorhardin]

48. Just putting this forward

You know my opinion on the Raw Story and Melinda Barton article replete with the atrocious behavior of Raw Story editors.

However, consider this... What struck me at the time, and remains first in my mind still when I think about it, has to be the amazing response by atheists all over to the article and Raw Story. It was swift and in force and I'm not sure I've ever seen anything quite like it before. Atheists are harder to herd than cats. As I quipped earlier, it's like the old saw about economists. If you put 5 atheists in the room and ask them a question you're likely to get 5 different answers. So to see so many atheists (and theists too!) acting boldly, acting vocally against hate speech and Raw Story's defense of same was very much reassuring. Thin gruel that may be, but I think it speaks to both atheists and liberal theists having had enough of this phony baloney culture war being waged by the right and, unfortunately, some on the left. Sure, there's always going to be more than a handful of nimrods who buy into it, but if we stand together we're more than a match for them.

Anyway, I hope you don't let them chase you off DU. That's what they want -- for you and I and our friends to sit down and shut up. I don't see any reason to cave to the bigots. Do you?

[Goblinmonger]

50. I think you are absolutely right

about what they want. And I don't think I will leave. I've changed my signature line to reflect my choice to stay and the attitude I will take (which seems to be eerily in line with your post).

And you are right about the reaction by atheists. I would venture to guess if you asked 5 atheists you would get 15-20 different answers--and a play or two :P, but I digress. The reaction by atheists was great and I guess I need to focus more on that than the other reactions.

Maybe I'll take a short break and actually use that membership I started at Neural Gourmet?

[salvorhardin]

57. Neural Gourmet memberships are always useful

It's headquarters for the Evil Atheist (Secularist too!) Conspiracy: Destroy the Democratic Party Division. Hope to see you around.

[WhollyHeretic]

59. That's a great site. Though I am a little upset that

the May talking points for the destruction of the democratic party aren't up yet.

[salvorhardin]

60. You must not have gotten the new steganographic filter in e-mail

They're embedded in the images.

[SidDithers]

51. You've got friends and fellow-thinkers here, Goblinmonger...

Retreat to A&A for a bit if the other forums start getting you down.

Sid

[Goblinmonger]

54. Thanks Sid

I LOVE A&A. And you have the avatar most likely to make me laugh. He is such a funny bastard, I can't help but smile when I look at it.

[beam me up scottie]

52. I wish I could disagree with you, Gobby.

But this week has been as frustrating and discouraging as any on DU that I can remember.

The people who couldn't wait to use this issue to accuse and malign atheists and to justify their bias against us, are the same type of people who repeatedly use the illegal immigration issue to accuse and malign racial minorities and to justify their bias against them.

They're called bigots.

And I find their behaviour repulsive, unethical and contrary to liberal principles no matter who they are targeting.



I want to thank all of the believers on DU who spoke up for us.

I know from personal experience it's not exactly easy to take a stand when you're not the one who's being held responsible for driving away moderates and costing us elections.

It's always easier, especially during an election year, to look away and pretend you didn't notice that minorities with unpopular causes were being purged by the self-appointed ringmasters in the big tent.



As for the rest of the people who think we are overreacting to business as usual, fuck you.

I hope when you're being told to sit down and shut up, there's nobody left to stand up for you.



I'm out of here.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[beam me up scottie]

58. I'm seriously out of here.

At least for a while, I'm not sure how long.

For those of us who are subjected to intolerance on a daily basis, DU is a refuge.

Or was.

[Imperialism Inc.]

70. Wow. So it really was that bad?

I guess I missed all the action.

Are there any links to particularly bad threads. I'd be curious to see what people were saying. Was it complaints about the fact that atheists discuss religion here in the R/T forum or something else. I can't really think of anything atheists do to the party to earn any contempt. Unlike the fundies on the right, there is no one pushing for atheism to be included in the party platform or to pass specific laws with respect to atheism.

So what is the beef? The only thing I could think of would maybe be the law suits to get "under God" or "in God we trust" removed from the pledge and the money. But is that Democrats doing that? I doubt it, I have never seen a Dem politician encourage such a thing. In fact, after the pledge was ruled unconstitutional Dems were right there on the steps saying the pledge.

[WhollyHeretic]

55. You can't leave. You've got one of my favorite screen names on DU

I've been pretty frustrated with a lot of the goings on lately even though I haven't posted a ton for the most part (I've been extremely busy, coming down the home stretch in school, getting my certs, and there is that pesky kid of mine who insists on being fed and talked to every day :) kids are so needy nowadays). I'm going to stick around (at least for now) since this is still a great place to find links to all sorts of news stories and there are still parts I enjoy posting in. I think you add a lot to DU and should continue posting here, though maybe a few days off would help.

I've spent some time in the midwest and imagine it must be very tough to be an atheist living there. I'm lucky enough to live in the northeast and the majority of my friends are atheists, agnostics, or deists. Though I've had some problems at jobs or schools I'm sure it's nothing compared to out there.

Plus, if you left then when the hell would I be able to use this picture again:

[NMMNG]

61. This week has been unreal

And like you, I'll freely admit I can be quite snarky at times. However I am amazed at some of the callousness and even vitriol I've experienced at times here.



Most atheists that I have talked to on here do not feel comfortable "coming out" about our lack of belief. It is often quite dangerous on the level that it can kill relationships.

Don't I know it. I lost my faith roughly 8 years ago. I immediately told my friend Mike who didn't care at all because though he's a theist, he has no affinity for organized religion. My family (including my mother and one sister who are devout but liberal Christians) took it pretty well also.

Then there's my roomie and best friend of nearly 30 years. She just found out a few months ago. According to her "atheist f*cks" are responsible for all of the moral decay in America over the past several decades (and she said this after she found out I was an atheist). Once finding out I was an atheist she determined that atheism was the source of all of my shortcomings, where before it was my friendship with Mike that caused them. She also declared, among other things, that "America is a Christian nation, and anybody who doesn't like it can get the f*ck out!".

Sometimes I just want to :banghead:

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. DU would seem safer than most places to discuss it

While there are the usual arguments of whether atheists should be posting in 'Religion and Theology', I haven't seen people argue that atheists shouldn't be posting at DU at all.

However, some of the reactions to the Raw Story column are a bit worrying. The column fits into the pattern of "this minority has a belief or lifestyle different from the American majority - they should shut up or go away in case they scare 'mainstream' voters from the Democrats". The gay community suffers from it, especially when asking for equality in marriage; when the Republican propaganda drive was at its height, anti-war people suffered from it; and even pro-choice people almost suffer from it - their numbers are too large for that, but some think the support in the marginal voters isn't there, so some politicians try to sideline them.

Seeing this intolerance, held either for cynical electoral gain or through genuine prejudice, some DUers have, however, decided to say the columnist had a right to speak her mind, and Raw Story to publish it. And this is the classical liberal dilemma - how much do you tolerate intolerance? Everyone has their own line where a prejudice becomes unacceptable, and the effect of the prejudice has to be considered as well - is it an action, a call for action that nevertheless allows people to make up their own mind (as is the case with Raw Story), or just an opinion (eg "you're going to hell").

While the 'free speech' argument above has a bit of validity, the most disappointing thing has been seeing DUers excuse Barton with "her argument is wrong, but it's only a small minority she wants shunned, so it doesn't matter". If she falsely painted just one person as an enemy of liberals, then she'd still be wrong. We, as liberals, shouldn't base our arguments solely on "small minorities don't count".

As far as your problems in the wider world go, Goblinmonger, you have my sympathy. I'm in the UK, and in many ways am in the majority here. While most Britons still claim to be Christian in some sense, the number who actually take part in any organised religious activity is quite small. Saying you're atheist is about as controversial as saying you don't like walks in the countryside. I'd suggest calling yourself 'agnostic', because in Britain that would indicate you're not really interested in religious matters, so it would be a sign to talk about something else - but I suppose with some evangelical types, that would mark you as someone who could be 'won over' with some concentrated work. But DU moderators and admin seem good at giving atheists equal rights, so I'd hope you stay here and speak your mind whenever you want to.

[YankeyMCC]

63. Consider this

At least on DU you've been able to open up. Even though it has resulted in some pain and harassment - and unfortunately I can't 100% disagree with you're feelings since it is clear that many on DU don't accept atheists to one degree or another - at least there is some support and you're still able to venture out even if not as easily as others.

It's been my experience, and it seems consistent with the other atheists I know personally, that it is extremely difficult to 'come out' in the real world and many don't so even to have a place where we can come out is quiet good.

I don't feel atheists are harassed or discriminated against here on DU to the point that I'm willing to give up participating. It bothers me on occasion, as in the Raw Story issue, but usually the benefits outweigh the down points.


Some people will never learn but some may and those that do might bring that into the real world and make life a bit easier for some other atheist struggling with the world of unacceptance around him or her.


On edit: I did stop - or at least severely curtail - posting in the R/T forum. I still lurk once in a while but rarely post because I no longer felt comfortable here, meaning I didn't feel I was able to participate in reasonable and therefore interesting discussions and debates. There never seemed to be any movement in thought and sometimes shocking attitudes toward atheists which I felt were distracting me from the larger more important need for me to participate in a place like DU.

[rd_kent]

65. Here's what I do.

I never bring up the subject. I always allow others to raise the topic. If I am asked "Do you believe in god? or "Are you a xtian?" I casually reply "no, I'm an atheist!" I don't discuss it unless they ask. But when they ask....boy, do I let 'em have it. I quickly explain how as a reasonable person I cannot believe in fairly tales without proof, etc, etc... This usually gets me into a deeper discussion and unless the person starts to get angry, I continue.
When I'm out at a function I am not hosting or at someones house and they say "Lets pray" before a meal or something, I simply keep my head up, eyes open and respect them by being quiet. If I'm at a function I hosted or in my own home and this happens, I say "no, thank you. Lets just continue." This response usually gets a funny look, but most folks are smart enough not ask why. If they do, it starts up like I described in the beginning.
Never had a problem.

[LaurenG]

67. No, don't leave

There are people here who would love to make a flame fest out of anything. There are tons more who wouldn't think twice about the fact that you are atheist and don't think enough of it to comment.

The bottom line is when people are saying hateful things it really only tells you how they feel about themselves. They are scared to death to die and go "nowhere" so they have to make you wrong and bad.

Stick around, the more the merrier.

[mopinko]

68. religion is an evolutionary vestige,

a built in longing for the big silverback ape that lead the troop.
yeah, i get some shit from my family. but i am pretty sick of my extended family anyway, so it is just one more reason not to be around them.
my kid's are all atheists, cuz i raised them that way. they are all basically anarchists, like me. they understand that they are naked apes, and some things about being naked apes still work today, and some don't. living with your brothers and sisters, good; picking fleas off them, not really necessary anymore. sleeping with a newborn, nearly naked baby on your naked chest, good; looking for an absent troop leader, not good, not necessary. or at least, not something that you have to listen to, a vague inner longing that you have to follow. examine it, feed it if you must, but do it in the real world. follow someone working for change and justice in the real world, don't look for some uber-parent cloud being. it evolved to help us follow a leader in the real world, one that we questioned and chose, and one that had to listen to us, or lose their "throne".

[progressoid]

69. I have to take little vacations from here from time to time

But I always come back. One of the main reasons I first donated was to read and post on A&A. Seemed like fairly sensible people in there! :)

[IndyOp]

71. We *must* get religion OUT of politics and dissociate religion & morality.

I do believe in a Great Spirit, but am not comfortable with "God". I do enjoy an open-minded exchange of ideas about spirituality and religion and occasionally will make a statement on DU that has spiritual overtones.

I am JUST FINE having people around who are atheist!! I sound like an atheist to most of the people around me, because my beliefs don't fit neatly into their categories. Also, I don't "pledge" any religion because as soon as I do, I believe that it automatically 'lowers' the others in terms of validity and importance.

I am far, far more concerned about a person's morality than their religion and we do *not* discuss & act often enough on core moral principles -> do not lie, cheat, steal, or abuse others for our own profit or pleasure. Right now, our nation just pretends that religion is morality and we KNOW that is not the truth.

I do appreciate people who are working to 'take their religion back' from people who are USING it to manipulate the masses -- like in Neil Young's "Impeach the President" -> "Let's impeach the president for hijacking our religion and using it to get elected."

Mitasukye Oyasin. (For ALL my relations).

Namaste. (I see the divine in you).

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

72. Look for the similiarities instead of the differences

That is guaranteed to make DU seem more friendly. I'm not a cookie-cutter liberal. Fiscally, I'm pretty conservative and believe markets can solve a lot of problems.

However, my belief if free-markets is empirical, not dogmatic. Markets can also be manipulated to hell and back, as we saw in the California "market" for electricity. I also believe that there are some things too vital allow markets to drive them, like our current situation with gas prices.

If there is a real gas shortage, then let's have ration cards and controlled prices. Rich or poor, everyone needs to get to work and the grocery store.

I believe all welfare programs should involve some required labor, unless the person is diabled to the point they cannot work. Otherwise, there is an incentive not to work. However, if this is the case, we also need free child care, so that poor single parents don't spend all their income on a sitter or daycare.

I could go on forever with my personal beliefs that offend some people here at DU, but that's enough for now. Suffice it to say, I agree with more than I disagree with and choose to hang around.

[IndyOp]

73. I understand more now...

I had not read the Raw Story editorial and, now, after having read more of the posts in this thread I note that the big issue is about 'moderate Dems' accusing other Dems of loosing elections because they don't talk about 'faith'.

I STRONGLY OPPOSE using religious rhetoric to manipulate emotion whether it is Rethugs or moderate Dems who are talking about their faith and their God.

I was recently treated to a disgusting recap of local Dem fundraiser. My friend, who is running as a Progressive got 4 big rounds of applause when she said we need to get out of Iraq, leave Iran alone, never conduct a pre-emptive war again, and start rebuilding our economy by moving our jobs back into the states. Her opponent, a DLC Dem, got tepid applause once as he talked about how he loved his wife, how he gets down on his knees and prays every night, and how lies had been told about him in the last election by his Rethug opponent and how he had a team of lawyers and would fight back this time (this drew the tepid applause). At the end of the event, the entrenched Dem host, thanked both candidates and announced that the only way Dems would win the election in November is if we elected Mr. Entrenched Dem who gets down on his knees to pray every night. :puke:

Didn't we freaking learn any lessons from history? Hitler used religious rhetoric to stir the Nazi's into actions that, of course, we now curse.

WE MUST SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE.

I don't want to hear *anything* about any candidates' religion.

Live a moral life, publicly, and I will judge candidates based on moral action.

That is all.

[smoogatz]

74. What's with this pathetic victim shit?

The rational few have always been despised by the superstitious majority. Your failure to participate in their magical groupthink undercuts their alleged "faith," after all. Admit it--you knew that when you bragged about your non-belief here on DU; and yet you expect to be welcomed with open arms? Nobody likes a vocal minority, my friend. Why should DU be any different than the real world? If you can't stand the heat...

[Goblinmonger]

77. I can stand the heat

I think I stand it pretty well. It is just that the amount of absolute bigotry has increased since the editorial. Like it some how gave the high sign for people to voice their heinous stereotypes and anger toward atheists. And, really, what was the most depressing (and I think that is really what I am posting about rather than whining victim) was that the mods and otherwise rational people just went along with it.

[smoogatz]

85. Fuck. Them.

Seriously. If you cared about their approval, you'd join the freaking mooing herd, am I right? But you're right to stick their bigotry in their smug, sanctimonious faces.

[Zhade]

119. Indeed.

Starting with anyone who'd sell our rights out in a heartbeat!

[wryter2000]

75. I feel perfectly comfortable being an athiest here

(Actually, I'm more of an agnostic.) But then, I don't waste my time posting "your God is an imaginary friend" and "religion is the scourge of the world" screeds. Frankly, I find those embarrassing. There is such a thing as freedom of religion. For me, that includes freedom from religion, but I have to respect others' rights to practice a relgion, too.

[Festivito]

76. I'd say it does not feel safe to discuss my theism on this site.

It leads to a constant barrage of degrading comments and blame for Bush being in office.

Also, snide remarks from the usual suspects.
I also know I can be an asshole at times; I also know some of you don't like me very much.
I can live with that too.
In some instances the feelings are mutual.
But I have also felt that this was a good place to come and have a good debate about issues.

Many theists here do not feel comfortable coming out.
And this also can kill relationships and jobs. (Oh, you're a holy roller. --Well, no. But they don't hear any more.)
I have devout atheists in my family and among my friends and friends of my friends.
We talk about it sometimes. But, they do not use such talks as a platform to vent all their anger upon anyone who happens to be there during a discussion, as happens here.

I don't wear my religion on my sleeve, but I'm accused of it if I speak here.
I also have thick skin, and I've ignored many articles that arrogantly assume the ignorance and implied asininity of a religious view.
It does feel like it is open season on theists.

But, talk is cheap. Imagine if we did not have freedom to speak, choice and practice as we individuals wish. That would be far worse.

Dividing the party. Leaving DU. Shutting up. HERE'S YOUR SNIDE REMARK: That's stupid!

It may take time. It may hurt. It may cost more than we imagined. Let's find a new path. Let's show the way. Not resort to illogic and whining in order to win small battles. Beyond corrupt Republicans we have life itself to explore.

There's enough room in that to utilize people who hold rigidly, and those who hold loosely, to ideas of every vain.

Better to do so over tea and cookies, face to face, because I love to further explore more tea and cookies.

Finally, we may have these heated discussions again and again. Fine. But, let us NOT FORGET TO FRY OUR BIGGEST FISHES, i.e. the Bush admin, in the mean time.

Love ya anyway.
-Fes

EDIT: Spelingh

[Goblinmonger]

78. But that is part of the problem

Bigger fish to fry. When atheists here pointed out bigotry (and I am not whining about people just not liking/believing/whatever atheism, I am talking about straight out bigotry), the response we got was that it was not a big deal. We have to defeat the Republicans. Someone more famous than I said, "The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend." If someone is going to be bigoted toward me, I don't have to like them just because we both hate Republicans.

You may feel like you theism is under attack (which I would disagree with but that is for another thread), but YOU are in the majority. You have places to go where your theism isn't under attack (pretty much everywhere). Atheists don't. We don't have a church or whatever. And that's fine, but don't be shocked when we get a little pissed when the one place where it seemed like we could be open about our atheism turns out to be as bigotted as the rest of the world.

And I do enjoy the discussions/debates you and I have. Keep 'em coming.

[Festivito]

83. The big problem I had was the illogic displayed

by persons with an agenda that would not respond to what was said in the name of being a oppressed minority.

To some it was a big thing, to others it was not. We are divided on that. Perhaps the reason our Constitution allows individuals free speech, choice and practice is because WE WILL NEVER RESOLVE THIS ISSUE.

The illogic, however, means progress will be much too hard.

[toymachines]

80. www.godhatesamputees.com

check out that site. If you tire of debating religion on this board, that site is always full of it. I live in Southern California and am a vocal athiest. I don't have any real trouble espousing my beliefs. That's a real bummer that you have to hide it. Gotta love a good debate. PEACE

[hippywife]

81. I'm in and out of DU

I don't hang here alot, hence the length of time as a member and the low post count, so I really am not familiar with you, Goblinmonger. But I am a Christian and I can say that there are alot of us who have no disprespect for what you choose to believe or not believe. It's a choice we all make for ourselves.

I've said this before here on DU on these kinds of threads but I work in the peace and justice movement with atheists and people of belief systems of all kinds. It just isn't an issue for any of us. We have goals to achieve and alot of work to do to achieve them. That's where our focus is, not on people's beleifs.

There are alot of us Christians who don't subscribe to the type of hatred peddled by the fundies of certain churches. We understand it's everyone's free choice.

As I did to Solon the other day, I apologize to you for anyone who made you feel this way. We are not all alike and there are those of us who truly subscribe to the the teachings of Christ and believe we are to treat all with love and respect regardless. It's not our place to condemn anyone.

Peace. :hi:

[TechBear_Seattle]

82. Go with option 2

Being an atheist is a lot like being a gay person (and I speak as both.) If you remain in the closet, people will just continue to make assumptions and express opinions based on their ignorance. The only way to change minds is to challenge those assumptions and provide an opportunity to change that ignorance.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[arwalden]

87. Oh For Pete's Sake, Tomreedtoon

:eyes:

It's not like we really needed any more examples of what insulting and dismissive posts sound like. But thank you for contributing to the overall climate of intolerance and hostility towards atheists. Nice work :thumbsup:

[Goblinmonger]

90. Yet you care enough to post a response

telling me that noone really cares :crazy:

I talked about myself a lot in this thread because the thread was about me. I tried to do this as a personal narrative to let people understand where I was coming from. The more satirical threads I started got locked, so I thought I would try a more personal approach.

Do you think I go into Stephen Colbert threads and say "Well, I'm an atheist and I think that Colbert"? Give me a break.

Please, don't think too hard about what my situation is like. I can handle that myself.

(Currently play the song by The Ramones: "Beat on the Brat")

[smoogatz]

95. Atheism is not a "religion" or a "belief system."

It is the suspension of belief in the supernatural, pending evidence to support such belief. Just so we're all on the same page.

[KaptBunnyPants]

96. There seem to be a lot of people here who care,

And it's about a lot more than him. Republicans already have the white rich fundamentalist Christian party; our Party is a coalition of all those people left out or persecuted by them, the poor, the non-fundamentalists, people of color, GLBT, scientists, enviromentalists, ect... The posts decrying all the damage done to the Party by having athiests as members are damaging to our coalition and insulting. There is no alienation worse than knowing that even your friends would rather not have you around...

[WhollyHeretic]

97. Well said and welcome to DU!

:hi:

[robinlynne]

86. I'm an atheist and I love DU.

Wait a minute. I'm an atheist and I come from a long line of atheists. at least 4 generations full of them. I don't feel ever like hiding it. It is who I am. I have never hidden it in any way. Du is a wonderful place. If some people want to believe in a god, that is ok, as long as they don't get superior about it. But there are so many other more important issues that we all have in common. There is bound to be a bad moment in every group, part of what happens when you're democratic. Don't give up because of one thread, or one message. Let's fight the good fight. And if someone is giving you hell for not believing in a man in the sky, . let me know and I'll give them hell right back. (And pity them. It is harder to stand up on your own two legs; sometimes we need the extra god or alcohol, or whatever. cigarets in my case.)

[autorank]

88. Stick around. I loved your "founders post" and you write a nice OP!

Plus, you can join the new DU Group I'm starting:

O8)"PAGAN" - People Against Goodness And Niceness (see Dragnet) O8)

[smoogatz]

92. The only trouble I've had here in regards to my atheism

is that some theists insist on defining atheism in pseudo-religious terms (a misguided and purposefully wrong-headed belief that there is no god, rather than a rational, evidence-based suspension of belief in god(s), magic, elves, werewolves, the Easter Bunny, and all things supernatural), so they can have a straw-man to argue with that makes a kind of sense to them. For many theists, non-belief is a very difficult concept. I will occasionally try to correct this basic misapprehension when I see it on display here, but in general I refuse to engage in arguments with magical thinkers. Far be it from me to try to convert anyone.

[ArbustoBuster]

93. I think many Christians don't realize that atheists have to keep quiet...

...or feel that they risk losing their jobs or their friends.

I used to work in a company where there was a regular prayer meeting, every week, in the corporate president's office. I was told in no uncertain terms it would be good for my career to attend. I bowed out, saying that I was too busy on the mornings of the meetings to go. Telling him I was an unbeliever would quite possible have ended my job there. He had a habit of hiring and promoting other born-agains for positions; this, plus the prayer meetings, made it clear to me what he considered important.

Most unbelievers stay very quiet. I read a few years ago that the fastest growing religious group in America is "atheist/agnostic/none." We're between seven and fifteen percent of the country. Think about how rarely you see unbelievers on TV or in politics, and then remember that we make up as much as fifteen percent of the population. If we all decided to march on the Capitol, it would make the current immigrant marches - which are huge - look miniscule.

Now add to this the fact that the country is in the grip of religious maniacs like Bush and the Religious Right, and that the people who attacked America in 2001 were religious maniacs, too. If you're a believer, I ask you to think about how that makes unbelievers feel. There's a lot of anger out here in that seven-to-fifteen percent, and we often can't show it because we're not confident that coming out as unbelievers won't get us fired, or won't make our friends leave us. That rage will spill out when something like the Raw Story article is published. It's human nature.

[Zenlitened]

94. Meh. Don't let the bastards get you down.

There are a couple of well-established thickheads around here, sure. And there's always a few timid tillies willing to tell (insert disenfranchised group here) to "take one for the team" and keep their mouths shut, for fear of disapproval from republicans -- who will always find a new excuse to disapprove, anyway.

Not surprisingly, these tut-tutters never seem to acknowledge that, out on the campaign trail, in the real world, many of the disenfranchised do exactly that. Take the GLBT community and its supporters. In this god-besotted nation of ours, even Democrats walk around declaring they're opposed to marriage fairness. Yet, as voters, many do indeed choose to play it cool, not make waves, and hope for better times if and when the Democrats actually manage a win. Though patience is wearing thin, for some.

But that's not enough for the handful of Conversation Police around here. The particularly weak-minded among the religionists can tolerate no discussion of any sort that upsets their Jesus'-footprints-in-the-sand view of the world. They can't even bear it on a discussion board, it upsets them so. And, when the opportunity to pile-on presents itself, like good little targets of GOP bullying, they join right in the chance to do the bullying themselves for a while.

But... you can't let the bastards get you down. They are by far the minority (ironically) though they're more of the right-wing sort: playing the persecution card themselves, even as they attempt to victimize, denigrate or marginalize others. As if they have the power -- or the credibility -- to decide who is a Progressive and who is not.

Meh. Shrug it off. You're stronger than they are, and a lot more valuable as an ally, in my view, than those who'd lock me down in the basement while they have tea and crumpets and court some imaginary members of Bush's base who might be convinced to vote Dem if only the (insert disenfranchised group here) would stop speaking their point of view.

At least you're genuine about who you are and what you stand for. That handful of others, the "shut up shut shut UP!" brigade... ignore 'em when you can. Skewer them, when the mood strikes. And watch them recede in your rear-view mirror as this party finally rediscovers its identity and starts rolling down the road again.

:hi:

[Eileen]

98. Nolite Illegitimae etc!

Don't let them get to you Goblinmonger.

Keep in mind that the non-theist has, and will always have the high ground. When have you ever heard of somebody being killed in the name of "no dog". Yielding to theists is like putting the lunatics in charge of the asylum.

Remember:

Those who believe absurdities invariably commit atrocities!


Eileen

[Dorian Gray]

121. Again...

"Those who believe absurdities invariably commit atrocities!"

This type of condescension is what angers the theists. Absurdities? Invariably? Atrocities?

Hyperbole!!!!!!!

[Eileen]

189. Hyperbole LOL

Hardly hyperbole. It's actually a logical deduction and has been shown as valid again and again in the history of theism.

It's too bad you don't react rationally when your absurdities are challenged but prefer emotionalism (anger). It is good that you recognize theism as an absurdity but I would guess you have a long way to go before you will reach rationalism.


Eileen

[Quantess]

194. Hello.

I'm sort of new here too, but, for what it's worth, welcome to DU.
D.U. is a place for smart people (which I can tell you are) of Democratic and (usually) liberal leaning, to write intelligent comments. It's a good idea to be polite, just in case some other nice person of any religion/non-religion might be offended, and it's also a good idea to just be nice to other D.U.ers, no matter what their religion. After all, we all hate B*sh.

So, what is your point, again?

[Dorian Gray]

197. What are you talking about?

I reacted quite rationally. I pointed out words that I thought were over the top and said that's what angers Theists. atheists (no capital there, either!) have been good friends to many on this board, and there has been topic after topic in trying to find a place where we could all get along and try to understand one another's points of view. Then the use of hyperbole (YES, HYPERBOLE!) can tear down those bridges. I was just pointing out the language that divides. Myself? Not angry! It takes a little more than some rudeness on DU to get to me, Eileen. :)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

218. Hmmm

I'm thinking. I definitely believe what some consider absurdities.

But I haven't committed atrocities.


Yet.

[ozone_man]

100. We're all atheists when we're young.

It's interesting to hear how a 10 year old comes about believing in God, particularly when his parents don't. Kind of osmosis I guess, since it's everywhere in our society. My kids had some curiosity about what the inside of churches/synagogues were like that seemed to initiate their curiosity about God. But, just like learning that Santa doesn't exist, they eventually realized that God is just pretend for grown ups. ;) At the right age (15-16) I gave them some Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, and/or Sam Harris to read to counter some of the influences of our religious culture.

It sounds like you've done a great job of letting them come up with their own opinions. Personally, I don't think kids should be exposed to religion before they are old enough to process it. It's prosyletization.

[Goblinmonger]

101. Well, to be honest

we did the Catholic church thing mostly as a means to appease my mom. When we could no longer take the anti-women, anti-gay, anti-everything I stand for bit, we left. I would probably put him at something like a Deist. He clearly doesn't believe the Jesus myth. Just thinks there is something out there. Probably thinks it is a little more active than most diests, but, hey, he's 10. My daughter is in line for some Bertrand Russell in a couple years.

[ozone_man]

127. The inside the church perspective

is valuable. But they usually get some of that by attending family functions, weddings, funerals, a friend's Bar Mitzavah, etc. It's just difficult for a child to process what they're seeing when a few hundred people are enthralled by a minister preaching about God as if it were a reality. Rather than wait for a child to reach maturity for exposure of this kind, maturity is when they are tested to see if the religious programming was succesful (e.g., confirmation, Bar Mitzvah ceremonies). We have to stop bringing up our children to be Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, if we want to break the cycle of hate and religious violence. Teaching morals and ethics does not require religion, and it's much better if they're not coupled to what God wants, but what is the right thing to do from a humanistic perspective.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

217. It's interesting you mention 10 years old

because for me, that was probably the year I started really believing. I went to church all my life, but an Episcopal Church in NJ and I never heard anyone say "I'll pray for you" under I was 25. Too showy, ya know! Mostly we went to church to show off our hats and sing nice music. Anyway, my beloved grandmother died when I was 10 and I was greatly comforted by the thought that she was in heaven. From there I started looking inward a lot more and the result has been my faith.

I am a teacher and have heard kids discuss God and once in a while one of them will say "I'm an Atheist" and it doesn't get much comment. Mostly these are middle schoolers.

[Inland]

103. Maybe you should go argue with this guy about what's proper.

This forum is called Relgion/Theology. It is here for people to discuss religion. It is not called "Christianity is Groovy." It is not called "Don't Say Anything Bad About Anyone." It is "Religion/Theology." If you want to only hear good things about your religion and get warm fuzzies from like-minded people, then go to that specific religion's forum. I'm not mocking that process; I like to do it myself. Atheists/Agnostics is a cool place for me to hang out. I'm sure Christians like their forum. If you can't take the heat then don't come here. Go there and you will get all the warm fuzzies you need. I am sick and tired of people bitching about "Christian Bashing" anytime something is said that is negative about the religion. Suck it up for Christ's sake (pun intended). There are plenty of people in the world that were/are atheists and were pricks. Pol Pot was a complete bastard. Should I talk about how you are atheist bashing if you even mention his name. Grow up. This is a place for discussion about religion. It is not a back-slapping "atta boy" place. And that is as it should be. And I'll walk the walk, too. You don't like what I have said, have at it. I enjoy the discussion. I have no problem with people calling me out for my bullshit. I can be a prick at times. I know this. And more importantly I'm ready to defend what I think whereas too many people in here seem unwilling, unable, or inept at doing the same thing and would instead like to just bitch about "Christian Bashing" or hit the alert button or both. It's time to put on your big girl panties and face the real world. And if you can't handle that, then there are forums for that, too. Go there. I do when I need to get away from here.

[Goblinmonger]

104. I don't want to argue with him

he is WAY too fucking good for anybody to take down.

I have no problem with people telling me my atheism is a problem and not the correct view of the world. I haven't put you on ignore yet, have I? I welcome the debates. Even with you--when you actually choose to debate.

But it is different this week. Have you been in GD and read some of the RawStory threads? It isn't the normal stuff that goes on in R/T that I have no problems with. It is more hostile, it is more bigoted, it is more over the top. People have attacked me for no apparent reason. I have said nothing to them. I have one guy stalking me around claiming that I am acutally a freeper that is posing as an atheist just to cause division in the Democratic party. And I CAN'T GET HIS POSTS DELETED FOR SAYING THAT. That is what I am talking about. I am wearing my big girl panties (and they look sexy on me!) and I have no problem with the everyday debates we see here. It is different this week. Trust me. Really, I'm not whining here, it is different. Some of the regulars that go toe-to-toe with you on a daily basis, Inland, are taking time off because the bigotry is way over the top. I'm not trying to be an ass here.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[Goblinmonger]

105. Let me try this a different way

Can we put down the boxing gloves just for a minute? I know I can be an ass. You know you can be an ass. We are both pretty good at it. In the end, we both really like going after each other. I get that. I kind of even like it as much as I bitch about it. That is all good and well. But it is different now, my friend, it is really different. The attitudes are not one of theism good, atheism bad. It is "get the fuck out of the party you divisive pricks." You can see the difference, can't you.

OK, we can put the gloves back on, you theist loser :P

[Inland]

107. dupe

[Inland]

108. Well, you know,

you only get asked so many times to play nice. After that, it's numbers. If the democratic party is going to decide that religion is a valid fault line, and be forced to choose, I'm going to personally vote for the side that gets eighty percent, because while calling me a theist is an insult to all of them, I won't get called a loser. Not for another eight years.

What else did you think would happen? There's a reason why small minorities push for tolerance, instead of division and intolerance. Majorities have to be talked into it, but jeez, first minority to ever insist that they just can't live with the majority and express surprise that the majority doesn't leave.

[Goblinmonger]

111. Have you not been reading on here this week

You guys fucking won. The progressives of the Dem party are ready to cut the atheists loose because we scare the moderates. If that is true at DU, the mainline party must already be getting the fires ready for the next Inquisition. You won. Theists have control of the party. Have fun at your theocracy planning party. I hope your particular theist bent (whatever they fuck that is since you won't tell) is the one that gets picked, though I would really enjoy the irony of the new theocracy not accepting your brand of theism.

Oh, you'll probably get called a loser, regardless.

Yeah, tolerance, that's the ticket. That's what this site is all about, right? Except for atheists. And don't talk to me about theist haters. In the words of David Cross, "You are the fucking cowboys, not the Indians."

[Dorian Gray]

122. Is that really true?

That one Raw Story editorial was just a small time work in a small time online website. I mean, I don't believe that the democratic party truly wants to shut up and shut out athiests. Do you really think that's the direction that the party is going? Sure, some people with big mouths might have stated that Atheists should just shut up, but I'm SURE they're the few.

We all stand for similar things. My religion is that, and it has little to do with my politics. (Though it has shaped my desire to do well by my fellow human being, which led me to the Democratic Party.) But, that's about as far as they are related. We don't need religious discussion to be involved in politics. The War, Oil Prices, Healthcare, Education, Immigration, Security... these are all important issues that people of all backgrounds should have a voice in. I truly don't see how you can be pushed out. Your voice counts as much as mine, and one little editorial isn't going to change that.

[Inland]

124. It's not, but the tactic is to be outraged and to demand validation.

It's pretty standard liberal dysfunction, I'm afraid. "I am offended, it's against my group, now say a bunch of nice things about me and agree with all my positions to prove to me you aren't similarly bigoted." Simply saying that there's nothing to be outraged about only gets more of it.

So it's gone from an editorial on rawstory about some atheists, to being called an editorial against all atheists, to being about expelling them all from the demcoratic party, to being about DU being against atheists to the extent anyone argues with the mischaracterziations of the original piece. If you don't agree that every expansive step is true in fact, and don't join in condemning what supposedly happened and everyone who doesn't join in, well, you're a bigot. When a liberal feels they have a claim to outrage, anyone who doesn't just cave on *everything* is a bad guy. It's sad, but true.

[Goblinmonger]

129. It was an editiorial about all atheists

and you, above, express the same feelings. Don't backpedal so hard, Inland.

She might have tried to explain away her comments, but there were there. Remember this gem "an extremist is an extremist is an extremist." She was talking about all atheists. Then she went on to put forth 5 of the biggest strawmen about atheists that are out there, was UNABLE to provide proof of ANYONE existing with any of those attitudes, and said "those people" should be purged from the party (clearly meaning all atheists).

Don't call it bigotry if you want. I know where you stand. Everyone reading you knows where you stand. I honestly tried here to cut past the crap between us and you continued that. Just remember that as the days go by.

So you aren't liberal. You sure talk about us in the third person which would lead many of us to believe you don't consider yourself one.

And how was the "original piece" mischaracterized. You surely don't mean the minor changes that RawStory made without telling anyone and then criticizing the blogs that referenced the original (with the changes making NO difference in content/message)?

[Inland]

145. No, it wasn't against all atheists.

But the outrage machine insist it was against all atheists, and anyone who dares raise a comment that doesn't validate the outrage, well, they are also against all atheists, and before you know it, you're buying your own hype and not feeling "safe".

[Goblinmonger]

149. Well

she may have SAID it wasn't about all atheists, but she did make these two different claims (I am paraphrasing, but pretty close):

1. All secular extremists are atheists.
2. An extremist is an extremist is an extremist.

I know you don't like two-part arguments, but that seems pretty convincing.

Plus, her "redefinition" of secular pretty much meant the whole article was about all atheists. Now, she had a bunch of strawmen that were basically untrue characatures of atheists, but that doesn't deny what the point of the essay was.

Please don't talk to me about my feelings. You have proven yourself to be an uncaring individual who responded to my openness to you specifically with callous disregard for personal emotions. I have no need nor desire to discuss my feelings with you.

[Inland]

152. If she said it wasn't about all atheists,

then it takes more than paraphrasing, doesn't it.

And no, your feelings aren't tops to me, to the extent they are based on misreading and misperception and not my fault. You don't need to have them, and I encourage you to drop them, but it's a liberal dysfunction to believe that strong feelings require other people to validate opinions. It's not true for fundamentalist christians and it's not true for you.

[Goblinmonger]

160. You have never talked to someone

who said "I don't hate blacks, but..." Do you defend them by saying "Well, they said they don't hate blacks, so they must not." That is what she did in her editorial.

[JerseygirlCT]

228. But even if you were to accept the first premise

(And I don't, btw), that still doesn't lead to "all atheists are secular extremists" does it?

Are some atheists extremists? I'd bet yes. Some of every group one could name would probably fall into that category, right?

I don't see where it follows then that by virtue of one's atheism, one is now an extremist.

Most of the atheists I know IRL are anything but. It's not something they spend a great deal of time thinking about at all, TBH. Most are pretty live and let live.

[arwalden]

130. RW Talking Points

<<It's pretty standard liberal dysfunction, I'm afraid. >>

<< Simply saying that there's nothing to be outraged about only gets more of it.>>

<< When a liberal feels they have a claim to outrage, anyone who doesn't just cave on *everything* is a bad guy. >>

[Inland]

144. Yep. Wish people would stop giving right wingers ammunition.

The very fact of liberals doing stupid, dysfunctional things provides rightwingers with effective talking points. Of course, I would be against stupid and dysfunctional even if the righties never noticed.

[arwalden]

151. What's "Stupid" and "Dysfunctional" About Opposing Bigotry?

:shrug:

What kind of person would find fault with anyone who stands in opposition to anti-atheist hostility, anti-atheist rhetoric, and anti-atheist bigotry?

Why does this trouble you so much that you label and ridicule it? Hmmm.


(Odd to see you responding directly to me again. You made such a big deal in your public announcement that welcomed me to your ignore list... I kinda got the impression that you actually MEANT it.)

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

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

[arwalden]

157. That Bar You're Lowering Is Already On The Ground.

I don't think the threshold for what you consider to be bigotry can go any lower than that. But you're welcome to keep trying.

So if you're just going to take someone on-and-off your ignore list, then why bother to make such a big public announcement about it? :shrug: Why use it at all?


edit: double-word/missing word typo

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

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

[arwalden]

168. Temper, Temper!

<< I won't let anyone make blanket statements against all atheists. >>

:rofl:

<< We both have standards. Yours is just self serving and not particularly liberal, and I don't care for it. >>

:cry: :cry: :cry: Boo hoo... I'm self-serving and you don't care for me.

<< I make the announcement about the ignore because I can. >>

I suppose that when one is lacking any substantive or believable arguments it does give one the "upper hand". At least it gives some people a sense of superiority and being above-it-all. Clearly it provides many folks with the perception of having the almighty "last-word".

Oh dear! Let's all race to see who can get in the (gasp) LAST WORD before the other person puts us on ignore.

OOP! Look at that! You put me on ignore first... YOU WIN! :rofl:

<< Seeya in ignoreville. >>

:cry: :cry: :cry:

But... for some reason, I have to wonder if you really mean it. See ya in a few weeks. :hi:

[arwalden]

128. You're SURE? You're POSITIVE? So Atheists Should Just Wait...

... until the vocal opposition to our existence reaches what percentage? When do you think the appropriate time would be for atheists to speak out against the voices of bigotry and intolerance that oppose us?

<< Sure, some people with big mouths might have stated that Atheists should just shut up, but I'm SURE they're the few. >>

And you're willing to tolerate that? I don't think that atheists can afford such a luxury.

[Dorian Gray]

132. Not at all...

I just think that the article was idiotic and you guys called it out for that.

Geez, one of the biggest blockbuster books and movies of all time (Da Vinci Code) tackles Catholicism, and I don't think it's a big deal. We're in a country where people have the right to state their beliefs, and in the scheme of things, it was a small time thing that very few people in our country saw, read or noticed.

As I've stated elsewhere in this thread, I'm a New Yorker. I have many friends who are Athiests, and they're pretty open about that in their everyday life. I don't know anybody who has been attacked for their non-belief, treated differently at work, or been treated badly by their parents. Perhaps it's a New York thing or a Northeast thing. I haven't lived in small mid-West towns or Southern towns in the Bible Belt. Life might be very different there. But here, being an Athiest really is no big deal. I'm quite religious (Catholic) myself, but I don't care if my friends choose not to believe in my faith. I have friends of all religious and non religious stripes. Many don't classify themselves as anything, and many are pretty strictly adherent to their religions. It's a non-issue where I come from, so it might be difficult for me to understand how difficult a struggle it would be for people in other areas of the country.

[arwalden]

134. Well...

<< I just think that the article was idiotic and you guys called it out for that. >>

So we should just all get over it and move on... is that about right? Never mind that it's symptomatic of a continuing problem and a growing one.


<< Geez, one of the biggest blockbuster books and movies of all time (Da Vinci Code) tackles Catholicism, and I don't think it's a big deal. >>

Huh? I'm not seeing the same similarities that you see. What is it about that movie/book that's similar to how many folks would prefer to shut-out atheists from of the party?


<< We're in a country where people have the right to state their beliefs, >>

Yes, yes. Everyone has equal rights and we're all treated equally.


<< and in the scheme of things, it was a small time thing that very few people in our country saw, read or noticed. >>

I think it's symptomatic of a larger problem. The microcosms of RawStory readers and DU members reflect only a portion of folks who are politically active... but I think it's very likely to be true that the opinions that we observe here will also be found throughout. I think it's also safe to assume that the "few" repetitive and aggressive cast of characters on DU who are shamelessly vocal with their anti-atheist posts, do represent a measurable number of folks who share the same views but choose not to say anything about it (except in the privacy of the ballot box).


<< I don't know anybody who has been attacked for their non-belief, treated differently at work, or been treated badly by their parents. >>

I think you need to get out more, talk to more folks, read the experiences of others.

<< it might be difficult for me to understand how difficult a struggle it would be for people in other areas of the country. >>

I think so.

[Dorian Gray]

141. Whatever...

I don't agree with the article, and I'm not arguing with you.

Look, people say shit about Catholicism all the time. I've heard everything from how evil the Church is to how bigoted I must be if I am a member. I've seen movies, read books, and heard music that maligns my faith. I DON'T care what anybody else thinks about me and my faith. I've grown indifferent to the criticism. I may speak up sometimes, but I don't feel like I'm not wanted because some people may disagree with my faith or the structure of the Church.

I also don't think that the majority of people believe that Atheists are bad and should be purged from the Democratic Party.

If you have a problem with that statement and want to argue with me some more about that, then it's going to be a one sided argument. I don't think you should shut up and take the abuse. Stand up and call the article out and the posters out who act like you should be purged from the Party. I just don't think the article is indicative of the general feeling in today's population, particularly those in DU or the Democratic Party.

I don't know how I can say that any clearer.

[arwalden]

143. Thank You For Your Reply.

<< I don't agree with the article, and I'm not arguing with you. >>

That was pretty clear from the start. I never assumed otherwise. It's clear to me that you DO NOT agree with the article.

<< Look, people say shit about Catholicism all the time. I've heard everything from how evil the Church is to how bigoted I must be if I am a member. I've seen movies, read books, and heard music that maligns my faith. I DON'T care what anybody else thinks about me and my faith. I've grown indifferent to the criticism. I may speak up sometimes, but I don't feel like I'm not wanted because some people may disagree with my faith or the structure of the Church. >>

Yes, I understand and can sympathize. But "talking-shit" and being disparaging about a particular group is one thing (and that's bad enough) but to advocate excluding them entirely is even worse.

<< I also don't think that the majority of people believe that Atheists are bad and should be purged from the Democratic Party. >>

Neither do I... I don't think that the majority feel that way either. But should atheists just sit on their thumbs until an actual MAJORITY feel that way? Or should atheists speak up now and fight against those who would sow such feelings of resentment and hostility towards atheists? --- What do you think would be the best course of action?

<< If you have a problem with that statement and want to argue with me some more about that, then it's going to be a one sided argument. >>

I do not have a problem with the statement itself, because I feel that it is factual.

However, you seem to be hinting that you feel atheists have nothing to squawk at... and that we should just sit down and shut-up until we're confident that an actual MAJORITY of Democrats feel that way.

The fact that an actual "majority" of Democrats don't feel hostile towards atheists does NOT invalidate our concerns over those who ARE hostile towards atheists.

Obviously, you don't actually SAY those exact words, and you don't express it as bluntly as I have... but I do take notice of your hesitancy to acknowledge our concerns, and the suggestions that atheists shouldn't be so "uppity" (so to speak).

<< I don't think you should shut up and take the abuse. >>

That wasn't very clear in your other message. Thanks for clarifying that! :-)

<< Stand up and call the article out and the posters out who act like you should be purged from the Party. I just don't think the article is indicative of the general feeling in today's population, particularly those in DU or the Democratic Party. >>

Yes, I understood that point the first time you made it. Indeed, it's NOT the prevailing attitude among DUers or Democrats.

But you say that as though atheists should be consoled by the fact that "only" 25% of the party faithful actually hate atheists and consider us to be dead-weight and a political liability. (Yes, I made up that number.)

How else would a rational person interpret your statements? You start off by pointing out how Catholics are frequently maligned and how you (in comparison) just learn to live with it and let it roll off your back. --- What's the purpose in making such a statement UNLESS you were trying to suggest that you think atheists should do the same thing.

<< I don't know how I can say that any clearer. >>

Actually, you were very clear. I don't think there's a communication problem. I think it's a difference of opinion and a difference on priorities.

[Dorian Gray]

199. Arwalden...

I guess I'm a different personality type and coming from a different place than you. I've been brought up pretty openly, where all ideas and all types of people have been embraced, so it's difficult for me to actually picture groups of people actually being shunned for their beliefs. I've said that the article was a small time article that doesn't really represent the points of view within the Democratic Party, and I'm glad that you, at least, recognize that I, personally, in no way want to push aside atheists out of the limelight of our Party and that I, in no way, uphold the editorial's premise.

That's a good start for us. It's actually a positive place.

Also, reading the various stories in this topic about families and friends who have disowned their friends who have "come out" as atheists have really made me sad. It's such a foreign thing to me. I can't imagine one person in my life who would behave that way. Even my good friend, who's a relatively conservative (socially, not politically) Catholic Priest has befriended our wonderful college friend who is an atheist. They have meals together, they debate, and they have come to really love their friendship. It's fun, and the priest has actually accepted that our friend is an atheist and doesn't try to convert him. Well, perhaps in his heart he thinks it may happen, but he doesn't pressure our friend to attend church or to become Catholic.

So, I was raised in such a way as to ignore the closed minded while treating everyone with respect. But, I was raised in a very open environment where the majority were quite open.

So, I will concede to you right now. I realize that not everyone is so lucky, and I now realize that many have faced much more adversity in thought and belief than I've been faced with. I will accept that, while I hope that you accept that the majority in the DP will try to uphold your rights.

That doesn't mean that we may never butt heads in the future, but I want you to know that I, in NO WAY, mean you or your fellow atheists any harm. I may be snarky at times, but I'm not somebody who wants to keep anybody feeling like a second class citizen or unwanted in this Party.

:)

[arwalden]

202. Of course I understand that...

Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate the extra effort you're taking to make sure your message and your feelings are understood.

<< I hope that you accept that the majority in the DP will try to uphold your rights. >>

Yes I think that this is true. For now. I'm very suspicious of malcontents who are looking to scapegoat, vilify, and isolate atheists and homosexuals in order justify or compensate for the other shortcomings that the Democratic party has.

I'm not willing to risk the possibility that the smoldering resentment of the malcontents on the fringe of the Democratic party could spread into a conflagration throughout the party.

Also...if we tolerate such behavior from within our OWN party, then what right do we have to scorn, criticize (and ridicule it) when it comes from the other party?

I think it's safe to say that the people who have good reason to be distrustful and suspicious of such things are always alert to any signs of "danger"... and they often have a low threshold of tolerance for anything that even appears to come across in that way.

<<That doesn't mean that we may never butt heads in the future, but I want you to know that I, in NO WAY, mean you or your fellow atheists any harm. I may be snarky at times, but I'm not somebody who wants to keep anybody feeling like a second class citizen or unwanted in this Party.>>

Thanks again.

[Dorian Gray]

204. Thank YOU

for allowing me to explain what I was thinking and accepting that! And actually allowing me to open my mind a little bit more to the problems that you guys do face.

Now, enough sappiness!

:)

[Proud_Democratt]

186. You stated...

<< I don't know anybody who has been attacked for their non-belief, treated differently at work, or been treated badly by their parents. >>

I could tell you a story about how I've been disowned by some "delightful" Christian relatives, one of them being a friendly Fundamental(fun to be mental) sister. I am no longer invited to ANY family functions, outside the immediate family.

Christians are so accustomed and comfortable in their Christian majority country.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

219. Anytime I've ever done any precinct work

for the Dems many of the other volunteers were agnostic or I assume Atheists. One nice thing about that is that folks active in church, mosque, temples, etc. already are using up a lot of their spare time there. So just from a logistical point of view, the Democratic party needs Atheists! For some reason I usually think of them as taking leadership roles. Maybe that's a mischaracterization, but that's the way it seemed to me back in the day.

[Inland]

123. "Except for atheists".

Clue: it's not the atheism. It's the insistance on division and getting in people's faces with aggressive made up shit. If you insist on the division, don't be all THAT fucking shocked if SOMEONE takes you up on it, causing a division between liberals (and discouraging any religious moderates) on shit that really doesn't matter politically. That's pretty much been the tenor of my posts all along.

All but about ten atheists don't insist on a division. The only ones declaring an intention to take about powder or discrimination are the same atheists who did insist on a division, because the insistance on a division didn't result in the general endorsement of their positions, and that's just intolerable TO YOU. Oh, well. What do you want ME to do about THAT?

[Goblinmonger]

131. Are you so naive as to think

that religion and politics aren't related. You might want to google "theocracy" and do a little reading. You may want to take a look at where the current administration is heading us in that regard. You may want to take JUST A SECOND to think what this move toward theocracy feels like for those that are not of the same religion as the theocracy. You are christian, right? It's not so funny or easy to take when your reliigon or lack thereof isn't supported by the theocracy.

[Dorian Gray]

133. Sigh...

Okay, I feel the fear towards the Christianity the Republican Party seems to be embracing. Trust me, as a Catholic it is disheartening. (They don't like Catholics all that much, particularly liberal Catholics.) I can imagine it is worse for an Athiest.

I was talking, however, about politics and religion in my life. As I stated, perhaps unclearly, they are not tied together in MY life. That doesn't mean that I don't believe that politicians, particularly right wingers, use religion for their purposes. That is, indeed, a dangerous precedent.

And, as I stated above, I don't agree with the Raw Story article. I think that it was poorly written and poorly argued. At the same time, I don't think it was all that big a deal. I don't know any DEMOCRAT in my real life (other than these boards) who think Athiests should be "purged" from the party. I also don't know any DEMOCRAT who read that article or knows of Raw Story, in the first place. As I've stated, maybe that's because I live in a big city, so people here are pretty laid back about religion in general. Nobody really cares about the personal business of religion here.

None of my statements had to do with the Right Wing and their MISuse of Christianity to gain power. It had to do with my own beliefs and the Raw Story editorial. That's all.

[Goblinmonger]

136. Please

don't think that my "tone" was aimed at you. It was clearly toward Inland, his claims, and the history we have between us. I know where you are coming from and have no problem with it.

[Dorian Gray]

142. Thanks Goblinmonger...

I thought it was towards me. I don't want to argue, and I don't want you to feel unwelcome here, either. I guess it's just so foreign to me that someone could or would be treated so badly for their religious (for lack of a better word) choices. But, I've been lucky in that I've met people of all stripes who are truly warm, loving, and GOOD people, regardless of their beliefs. :)

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

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

[Goblinmonger]

154. Did I say that all religion led to a theocracy

or did I SPECIFICALLY point out the current administration? I believe it was the latter. If you are going to rant incoherently at me, at least understand what I am saying before you do so.

And, um, isn't there a 100% correlation between religion and theocracy? Can you have theocracy without religion? Again, not ALL religions lead to theocracy, but all theocracies involve religion. You might want to think about what you say in response to me because that one sounded pretty damn stupid.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

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

[Goblinmonger]

126. Please do enlighten

When have I every lied about you behind your back?

[Goblinmonger]

137. Inland

even though your message got deleted, I'm still waiting for you to show me when I lied about you behind your back. Which is probably pretty hard to do since you have a star and these are all open forums, so definitionally it hasn't been behind your back, but you are the one that made the claim so please let me know when I did that.

[Goblinmonger]

146. Inland, I know you are out there

It is quite rude of you to make claims that I am lying about you behind your back and not back those claims up. I'm still waiting for your proof. And don't forget, that even IF I said something about you on DU, the truth is an absolute defense to libel/slander.

[Zhade]

179. He was probably lying about ME "lying" behind his back.

Some posters have asked for the cause of the animosity between him and some of us, and I've responded by simply directing those inquisitive DUers to the posts wherein he advocated against GLBTers' rights and made a racist comment about blacks (long since deleted, but I'm not the sole person who has it saved).

Of course, merely repeating his words ISN'T lying, and virtually all who've checked out those posts and his increasingly invective-filled posts against atheists, filled with lies like "they say they're better people" (which you and I know isn't true), see the real picture, and I'm not misquoting a single word of his.

Some people don't like being called on their bigotry. Fuck 'em. Racists and bigots don't have my respect, and I don't give a fuck what they think of me.

[Inland]

148. That post must have gone to the wrong person.

It's not you.

[Goblinmonger]

158. OK, I'll drop it n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

112. I see over 30 threads on the first page of R/T started by...

atheists. Doesn't seem too threatening to me, but I'm not playing the aggrieved party here, so what do I know...

I don't doubt that there are some bigots out there who have come out of the woodwork lately, but so what? Why should a few religious bigots chase you or anyone else out? The occasional anti-religious bigot doesn't bother me a bit. Well, some of it does annoy me, but I let most of it go since this seems a good place for venting. I'll admit there aren't many places for atheists to vent in "public."

I suppose that I might be considered bigoted by some because I didn't take offense at the Rawstory article and defended it to some extent. But, that's not bigotry, that's debate. I found the story silly because it talked about the "danger" of a very tiny number of jerks who are all but invisible in the grand scheme of things. I didn't read it as an attack on atheism, but only on those few atheists who make idiots of themselves. Since atheists are but a small percentage of the population, it simply stands to reason that we have far more to fear from miltant religionists than from the miniscule number of idiot militant atheists, but the reaction to the story seemed to me to be much overreaction.

So, I guess I'm a bigot. That I have no quarrel with atheism or atheists doesn't matter if I don't jump on the bandwagon of the day.

At any rate, it seems to me that most of the discussion here accepts the various degrees of nonbelief that atheists and agnostics have. I haven't seen any massive attacks on nonbelief, but have seen a fair amount of defense of belief when it is questioned. And belief here seems to be more questioned than nonbelief.

But, so it goes... It's always more satisfying to get into a good fight or leave in a huff than find common ground. Every one of us is guilty of that at times.

[Inland]

125. There you go.

My post 124 was also on the tactic of outrage. It's all to common a liberal dysfunction.

[arwalden]

138. Oh My Goodness, Inland!

<< My post 124 was also on the tactic of outrage. It's all to common a liberal dysfunction. >>

Expressing anger at bigotry is a "tactic" of "liberal dysfunction"?? :rofl:

Oh dear! Isn't that tragic? I imagine that it must make some people awfully uncomfortable when the targets of hostility and intolerance start to speak up and fight back.

It reminds me a lot of that editorial cartoon with the preacher who was using a stick to hit a homosexual on the head.

"Whap, whap, whap!"
"??!!"
"Whap, whap, WHAP!"
"Will you please stop that?"
"Why, that's anti-Christian bigotry!"

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

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

[arwalden]

156. I Think You Have Exceedingly Low Standards...

... when it comes to determining what is, or what isn't bigotry.

Someone's insistence that black is white doesn't make it so. These are nothing more than vanity demands and an attempt to distract. (That's far easier and less obvious that actually defending the indefensible, I suppose.)

Efforts to mislead by offering twisted definitions of bigotry, or lowering the bar for what constitutes bigotry, or by distracting people into defending their own rational definitions of bigotry are, or have the effect of, defending the bigotry itself.

[Inland]

159. I think you have extremely convenient and self serving standards.

And the black and white part...exactly true. That's why some posters insisted on "paraphrasing" or going the route of "she said that, but that's not what she meant."

Of course, the thing about the Outrage against a party not on DU is that she can't defend herself, so the rest of us are just reading the words. Aggressive, not well written, opinionated, and clearly as the day is long it was not bigotry against all atheists.

But at least you aren't calling me a bigot for not agreeing with your perception. Oh, wait, you are saying I'm defending it and twisting and making an effort to mislead. Yep, it's the Outrage Machine, barely disguised but still there running on all pistons. Thanks for the illustration.

And you are on ignore. Meeting the one criteria, I know what you are going to say better than you do, and I'm never going to validate your Outrage, so you will just keep thumbing your thesaurus looking for new words to demonize me.

[Goblinmonger]

161. She has a DU account

she isn't being very vocal right now, but she's here.

[arwalden]

166. Well, Inland.

<< I think you have extremely convenient and self serving standards. >>

That would be better than having no standards at all.

<< And the black and white part...exactly true. >>

I know... that's why I said it. The efforts to add distance, disown, and to pretend that it wasn't understood, only serves to convince me that my point was on target, that it was received and understood.

<< That's why some posters insisted on "paraphrasing" or going the route of "she said that, but that's not what she meant." >>

Heh-heh... as if subtle things like innuendo, inference, and code-words do not exist. How amusing.

<< Of course, the thing about the Outrage against a party not on DU is that she can't defend herself, so the rest of us are just reading the words. Aggressive, not well written, opinionated, and clearly as the day is long it was not bigotry against all atheists. >>

Defend away!

<< But at least you aren't calling me a bigot for not agreeing with your perception. Oh, wait, you are saying I'm defending it and twisting and making an effort to mislead. Yep, it's the Outrage Machine, barely disguised but still there running on all pistons. Thanks for the illustration.

<< And you are on ignore. >>

Oh brother! Again??!! :eyes: I wonder how long it will last THIS time. :shrug:

<<... so you will just keep thumbing your thesaurus looking for new words to demonize me. >>

Oh, you're far too modest. I really can't take credit for that.

[Zhade]

180. Damn, AW, you've been holding your own today!

Clearly, you pissed someone off enough for them to show their true colors.

Kudos.

[Goblinmonger]

162. I'm sorry arwalden,

I think Inland just put you on his ignore list. How are you ever going to live?

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

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

[arwalden]

172. Please, Inland... Let's Not Get Personal.

By my typing this reply, I'm assuming of course that you'll take me off ignore just long enough to read it, then reply, then put me back on "ignore" again. :rofl:

[arwalden]

171. It Really Hurts. I'm Deeply Wounded.

:cry: :cry: :cry:


Ha! Kidding! :rofl:

I don't know what's funnier. The fact that I get put ON ignore... or the fact that I'm put on and off and on and off and on and off ignore.

Strobe-light ignore. It's dizzying.
:rofl:

[Goblinmonger]

173. Maybe he has a crush on you

and hasn't matured past the middle school stage so thinks this is the best way to let you know.

[arwalden]

174. Oh Dear! It Won't Be The First Time...

... that someone has become, uh, "fascinated" with me. So far I've only reached the :eyes: and :shrug: stage. It seems to be limited to just this particular forum and this particular topic. Thank goodness it hasn't reached the :scared: and creepy stalker stage where someone follows another around from forum to forum, topic to topic.

You know, I actually don't care if/when someone puts me on ignore. But I think that one's compulsion to publicly announce it (as though they THINK that I might care) is what puzzles me the most.

It sounds like someone has a case of lastword-itis. Rather than winning on the merits of their argument, rather than suffering the humiliation of having their motives questioned... it's far easier to declare "victory" by getting in the last word and being the first to use ignore. :eyes:

[Proud_Democratt]

187. You know what they say about homophobes!!!!!!

They're hibernating homosexuals.

[arwalden]

190. I Don't Know If That's True For Everyone...

... but speaking from my own personal experiences, I frequently found that the easiest and most effective way to deny, suppress, and hide my own homosexual feelings was to attack, tease, and ridicule others who were known to be gay, or who were merely perceived to be gay.

I know I'm getting a little off-topic here, but one of my most heartfelt regrets is how I dreadfully I behaved in high school towards a few classmates who were gay, or who were suspected of being gay.

[Proud_Democratt]

192. I'm not a homosexual..but I do know how it feels to "come out"

being an Atheist.

[LibertyorDeath]

113. Hey don't worry you'll get the last laugh.

There is No God.

Some people have to find thing out the hard way.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

216. But it's a paradox

because you won't find out until you're dead and you can't laugh anymore. And if you find yourself laughing after you're dead.... then you don't have the last laugh!

[bluesbassman]

114. Thanks for sharing your feelings and experience.

Sometimes we go along on our little path and, with blinders firmly attached, and really don't appreciate the issues that others deal with. To be totally honest, I never perceived atheists as being subjected to some of the injustices that you and others have described, and I'm grateful that you've illuminated some of these issues. You know, believe it or not, as a Christian who is also a secular musician, there are times when I've felt uncomfortable to mention my faith. But it's a part of who I am, and it's my loss for not being transparent enough to express that. So I guess we all can feel some reluctance to "come clean" about certain aspects of our life at times, and that's what is so great about this forum. Many of us disagree about a lot of things, even within our own "sides", but we still put it out there, and I believe we gain ground each time we do.

So for what it's worth, I hope you continue to engage in these discussions. Our community would be diminished by your absence.

[Dorian Gray]

115. Hey Goblinmonger...

Can I ask a question? Where are you from? It's so weird to me because I have friends who are VERY open about their athiesm, and they've never felt much of a fall out. Of course, we're from NYC, so it's not like we're from a small, primarily Christian town. And, though my friends who are athiests mostly work in industries where it doesn't matter (business and entertainment!), one actually is a Catholic School Teacher. He regularly holds debates with the principal, who happens to be a nun.

I think that it often depends on "where" you are in how you are received as an Athiest. It's just so strange to me, being from the Northeast, for it to matter to people around you. I'm in the Non-profit industry, myself, and I've met people of all religious and non-religious persuasions. Nobody ever feels the need to question it.

I do have to say that the Athiest v. Believer, I get annoyed at times when I read that some athiests state that we believe in a "fairytale in the sky!" But, that annoyance dissipates in about two seconds. I have read a lot of these "divisive" topics (I call them the "Great Atheistic Debates!"), and I don't see where anybody wants to shut you up. Perhaps some bristle when they feel we are being condescended to. Perhaps others take the arguments more to heart than I do, and they do truly believe that Athiests should shut up. Personally, I hate being rude to anybody, and I hate when someone is rude to me. I respect your beliefs, and I expect respect in return. So, maybe it's the rudeness and the lack of respect on everyone's part that is actually the problem MORESO than any person's desire to "shut" Athiests up. Is it possible?

[Zhade]

117. I hear ya on that.

I'd say the same number know about my atheism. My wonderfully liberal, loving Mom knows ("but, don't you believe in SOMETHING bigger than us?"), brother knows but he's one too, Dad doesn't know (nor does he know I'm queer), but my two best friends (both of whom accept it, and are atheists and/or agnostic themselves).

At work, since this is the Los Angeles broadcasting industry we're talking about, a few know (responses ranged from "me too!" to "well, you'll believe at some point"). Bosses don't know, AFAIK.

It's here, on DU really, that I get the most shit (although no one ever tried to run my car off the road here), and it's mostly aimed at atheists in general, especially since the Newsweek/Raw Story twin debacle.

And I agree with you: it feels like open season here. But, since polls show atheists are the single most distrusted minority in the United States, I'm not really surprised. In a way, I'm glad this happened, because those 'liberal believers' who really deep down don't like atheists have been exposed (a couple were exposed long ago, but they came out of the woodwork on this).

Even more importantly, though, I saw a few liberal Christians step up and defend us and our rights, and I am soooo thrilled to have witnessed that. Not as many people as I would have expected, but I'd walk through fire for some of these guys now (T-Grannie and Catbert are two I immediately think of).

I'd say, fuck the haters, they'll only win if we give up, and this is MY country and MY website too, so they can rot for all I care. I'll keep correcting them and knocking down their flawed arguments if they insist on attacking.

Besides, in the industrialized world outside of the United States, religion is waning, and the fastest-growing group religion-wise here is "no religion", so these are Darth Cheney's famous "last throes" (except these really ARE the last throes).

I appreciate you, GM, and hope you stick around for the good fight.

[Odin2005]

139. Some of my fellow atheists can be as bigoted towards theists...

...as fundie Christians are not non-fundie Chrisitans. It's pathetic.

[Inland]

165. So how come when YOU say it, you don't get a million

posts on being a bigot and/or having low standards?

[Goblinmonger]

167. Because it isn't the same content

as the editorial which WAS bigotted. That's the difference, silly. He said "some." And it was clear from the post that he meant that. Plus there wasn't the insufferable strawmen. Plus there wasn't the "whackjob" language. Nor the "I can't find any real proof of this, but trust me there are people out there like this." Hell, there are a lot of reasons.

[Inland]

169. Both I and the editorial say "some".

But that's not good enough. Gee, could it be because he prefaced by declaring himself an atheist first and therefore, ironically, even while criticizing you, ruled out the possibility that's he's a whackjob or on the other team? eeehhhhhh, could be.

[Goblinmonger]

170. Or it could be that unlike the editorial

it isn't bigoted and broadsweeping. eeeehhhhhhh, could be.

As for you, I just don't like you and I believe you are bigoted against atheists.

[Odin2005]

201. Exactly, the article was BS and seemed INTENED to inflame.

Basically it's the same thing the Right did with Feminists and Enviromentalists, create strawmen by treating feminists and enviromentalists as if everyone in those movements accepts the ideas of the most radical submovements.

I have no qualms about criticizing by fellow atheists. I think the "Angery Atheist" meme came from people using Richard Dawkins as the Archtypal Atheist, and the people saying the world would be better if there were no religion (an opinion I consider BS) just confirms the sterotype.

[bloom]

175. "I can get harassment elsewhere."

That's pretty funny since you've been one of the harassing people.

Some of us atheists who try to see things from the side of religious people end up with organized "whackjob" mobs harassing us - on DU.

Has that happened to you?


I think it's the atheist "whackjobs" are the instigators of the discord. They just aren't used to being called on it.

So what Do you expect, really? A free pass?

[Goblinmonger]

177. I think the appropriate response would be

:boring:

Who exactly have I harassed? When did that happen? When have I ever harassed you without you starting in on me first? Am I harassing you now?

I knew you would be one of the first to latch on to the "whackjob" label and use it against atheists. Thanks for proving me right. I hope that wasn't harassing.

[Zhade]

181. Organized mobs?

Let me guess, do Bigfoot and Elvis lead the team?

Let go thy paranoia, it doth not serveth you.

[NMMNG]

193. This is choice

The so-called atheist who gets her rocks off starting threads impugning DU atheists accuses another atheist of harassment.

Pardon me while I scoff.

[Inland]

198. But nobody is going to answer your question, are they?

Is a free pass expected? According to the quote in post 103, not for christians, who are invited to their own groups if they don't like what they hear. But it's not enough for posts to simply meet DU rules: a person who's not a christian has to feel "safe". Go figure.

[Goblinmonger]

200. OK, I'll answer it

No. A free pass isn't expected.

Happy now.

Bigotry, though, is another issue. I don't believe I have ever been bigoted toward theists. I feel the same should be done in return. That was not the case with the editorial nor with A LOT of reactions in GD about the Raw Story fallout.

[Inland]

203. Bigotry IS another issue.

I make the distinction between bigotry and just saying something some member of the group doesn't like. Try it, and you won't be making either of the contradictory OPs anymore.

[Goblinmonger]

205. Those OPs are not contradictory

I specifically say in the older one that this is a forum for discussion. If you don't like people telling you that your ideas (in this case your religion or lack thereof) are wrong, then this is the place for you.

Certainly even you can see the difference between "Atheism isn't true because there is a god" and "Atheists should shut the hell up and get our of the party because you are costing us elections by doing these following strawmen that I can find NO PROOF for." I can handle the first one. The second one is bigotry and I can't handle it.

[Inland]

207. Wow, talk about strawmen.

It needs a run-on sentence for all the straw. But certainly you can see the difference between "religion isn't true because there is no god", which bothers precisely noone (from this thread, we see a lot of projection of one's family's opinion onto DU members) and every other post in R/T that characterizes all religion and all religious negatively, can't you?

Probably not. It's pretty clear that perceptions are ruled by your own particular set of beliefs, or different rules apply, or both.

[Goblinmonger]

210. Every other post, Inland?

That is a pretty big claim to be making. You do know that by making that claim, all I have to do is find ONE example that doesn't do that. Shouldn't be too hard to do, you think. Any chance you want to tone down the hyperbole and try give a little closer estimate?

And a little advice from an English teacher: you may want to look up the definition as to what a run-on sentence really is. It is two independant clauses connected without proper punctuation or conjunctions. Please let me know where I did that in my post. A run-on IS NOT a really long sentence that is too hard for you to understand.

[Inland]

211. Can you tell the difference?

It doesn't matter if it's one post in a thousand if you can't tell the difference between an anti religion post and one that merely denies the existence of a god, because if you can't, then you are going to be the one making that post.

To assert that DU is or has been offended by the mere fact of atheism or denial of god simply shows that perceptions are faulty or there are different rules for believers, or both.

[Goblinmonger]

212. But you said that they all did that

not that it was 1 in a 1000. I'm just trying to work with what you give me. If you are going to change what you say every other post, it is going to be pretty hard to have a discussion.

DU is not a being. It is a website. I doubt that it has been offended by anything (except maybe a virus). But I do know that after the hate-filled editorial, the bigots came out of the woodwork to express their displeasure with atheists and their desire to purge the party of us based on the strawmen that were presented in the editorial. Make sure you keep track of what I am saying.

[Inland]

213. None of that matters, if you can't tell or acknowledge the difference.

There's no sense discussing any post if you don't: It's like discussing the difference between violet and lavender with a colorblind person. Same problem with your strawmen about bigots, wordwork and purges.


It's pretty clear that perceptions are ruled by your own particular set of beliefs, or different rules apply, or both.

[Goblinmonger]

214. I have acknowledged the difference

You are just choosing to ignore what I point out as bigotry. You are choosing to place the bar for bigtory in a ditch so that anything can step over it. I tend to hold it a little higher.

How are my comments about bigots strawmen? Re-read the Raw Story threads in GD and you will see the call for those who disagreed with the support for Raw Story to get off DU. Those same people accused us of being republican trolls. It seems odd that you rail against atheists in R/T but will accept that garbage from people elsewhere. Perhaps you have an ax to grind with atheists.

And as to perception. Of course our perceptions are ruled by our beliefs. As well as our experience, our communication choices, and many other things. Please explain how I have been a part of bigotry.

[Inland]

215. But you can't TELL the difference.

You know the words, and the definitions, and the semantic difference. And you can acknowledge the difference in definition. Just not in real life. It simply doesn't get applied by you correctly, either because different rules apply or because your perceptions are warped. That's why you have two contradictory OPs, one telling a group to leave to a protected group if they don't like rough stuff, the other one claiming a right to feel safe in the same group, and both pretty much missing the mark.

I stand by the strawmen comment, and the rawstory threads back me up.

[Goblinmonger]

220. If I know

the words, definitions, and semantic difference, then I pretty much know it is real life.

So, when Rush Limbaugh started referring to the Feminazis and the Environmentalist Whackos, that wasn't bigotry and a rhetocial tactic to demonize all feminists and environmentalists? He wasn't relying on the fact that the audience would not distinguish between people that are crazy and the average feminist/environmentalist? It worked out pretty well for him. The Raw Story editorial was the same damn thing.

See, here's the definition of "bigot" from dictionary.com, "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." The Limbaughesque tactics fit right in there.

Are you proud of defending right wing tactics? Do YOU not realize the difference between the two?

[Inland]

222. Uhhhh. Rush posts on DU now?

No, but you call it "limbauesque", which is so much more convincing that calling it "bigoted".

I guess it's a right wing tactic to deny being bigoted....but then again, it's also the tactic of people being falsely accused of the same. I don't know why anyone who isn't a bigot wouldn't deny it if they weren't bigoted, and that's what happened in the RS thread. Someone who considers denial of bigotry to be proof of bigotry is not only infuriating, but exactly the kind of person who doesn't recognize what bigotry is, or just trying to pull chains. Just as the poster who announced his atheism before bashing some atheists gets a pass, some people don't. You either have a problem with perception or two different sets of rules.

[Goblinmonger]

223. A little hint about discussion boards

When you hit the reply button, you are usually supposed to REPLY to what was said in that post.

Where exactly did you explain how the editorial's use of "whackjob" was any different than the Limbaugh technique of referring to "feminazis" and "environmental whackos"? That is the tactic you are defending here. So AGAIN, how is it different. We are all pretty much in agreement here on DU that Limbaugh is a bigot when he does that (though, please, feel free to argue that he isn't). Yet when Raw Story prints an article that does THE SAME THING about atheists, all of a sudden it is OK.

Keep up with the RW talking points. I bet you are making a big impact on people here at DU.

[Inland]

229. I did reply. Just without accepting your premises.

Which now puts us right back to where we were before.

"We are all in agreement here on DU that Limbaugh is a bigot when he does that." Well, I don't know, but I AM sure that nobody thinks it bigoted to refer to neocons as whackjobs, fundies as whackjobs.

Once again, you are confusing "mean" with "bigotry", or "wrong" with "bigoted". I actually don't think a single person on the board would consider "environmental wackos" a BIGOTED statement. It's wrong, particularly when you hear why he thinks they are "wacko", and mean, the way he says it.

But even then, it's up to some environmentalist to show why it's not so crazy to want, for example, Kyoto. A Greenpeace member who claimed that Rush should just shut up about environmentalists because he's "bigoted against me" would get laughed at, as a neocon would who asked us to stop making "crazy" allegations about war for oil because they were mean and nasty. They would be expected to prove their case, not just censor someone making mean and being wrong.

Now, to the small minority of atheists who took issue with the raw story, if you don't think there exists an atheist whackjob, then make the case. But don't call everyone a bigot because you fail to convince, or somehow think the place is not "safe" for atheism because not everyone agrees with you on everything. And for the love of pete, stop saying that disagreeing with you is adopting "right wing talking points". "Gee, a right winger would think I'm off base about something, you think I'm off base about something, ergo, you are a right winger!" Who invented that particular canard, anyway? Everytime a person gets cornered and wants to send the big FU ending all debate, he plays the "talking points" card. I guess because it's "talking points", it sounds hep and knowing. Beh.

Discern. that's the word I was looking for. You can't discern bigotry, or refuse to. It's there, or not there, based on your peculiar perception. You've got a perception problem, or two sets of rules, or both.

[arwalden]

224. Oh... That's No Less Infuriating...

<< Someone who considers denial of bigotry to be proof of bigotry is not only infuriating, >>

... than when someone continually lowers the bar and tries to trivialize and redefine what bigotry actually is. I don't think the denial itself is necessarily what raises red flags. Instead, it's the twisting and turning of logic, the lowering of standards, the double-standards, the mis-labeling, and the redefining of that which rises to the level of bigotry.

[arwalden]

221. I Think I Should Tell You That When People Play Word-Games...

... (as you're doing) they really don't do much to help their position, or to enhance their credibility. In fact, when someone does nothing more than engage in evasive replies, refuses to answer direct questions, changes the subject, misrepresents facts, lowers standards, redefines words, twists logic, spews RW talking points, and makes other patently absurd strawman arguments... it only serves to convince me (and others) that they know the weakness of their position. How can anyone take someone like that seriously?




edit: Yes, yes... I know I'm supposed to be on your ignore list and that you probably "won't" ever see this. So by virtue of the fact that I get the last word... I WIN! --- And if you give in to temptation and peek at this message... well... I WIN again! (Even if I don't have personal independent confirmation that you peeked, at least YOU yourself will know what you did, and that's good enough for me.) And if you don't look, then you're probably sitting there fighting temptation and wondering what I'm saying "behind your back" (and we all know how much you hate that) so... I still win. (What fun!)

[arwalden]

208. I Think Many People Try To Disguise Bigotry...

... by mislabeling and trivializing it as being little more than "something some member of the group doesn't like"... or by any number of other clever means that have the effect of lowering the threshold for what actually counts as bigotry.

[arwalden]

206. I Disagree.

Ha! Made ya look! :rofl:

[Goblinmonger]

178. I should work for the Psychic Hotline

it took two days, but my the first line of my OP can true:

"I'm ready for the snide remarks from the usual suspects."

[Zenlitened]

184. And the raft of deleted posts from the usual suspect(s)

But but but... it's atheists' incivility that's hurting the party. Them darn ho-mo-sexurals, too!

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

:D

[arwalden]

185. Why You're Just Part Of That No-Good "Outrage Machine"!!

:rofl:

[Zenlitened]

188. Outrage? Nah. The machine is set to SPIN CYCLE, baby!

           




:D :hi:

[Name removed]

209. Deleted message

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

[JerseygirlCT]

225. Honest to goodness? I just don't see that here

I really don't.

I've seen a fair bit of nastiness toward believers. And the occasional troll proselytizing (they don't last long). But I've not seen much from believers castigating atheists.

Personally, I've gotten to the point where I just try to avoid the usual threads on the topic. I'm a little tired of the condescension toward believers.

I don't know about in real life for you -- I sort of doubt that would happen in my circles. But I don't doubt that it happens. I'm rather a private person about the whole topic IRL, and often wish more people were.

[Goblinmonger]

226. Look up thread

just a little bit. There is a small dose of it there. Though the worst has been deleted. (In all honesty, some of my rather nasty responses to the bigotry got deleted along with the bigotry.)

[JerseygirlCT]

227. Well, there's a lot of thread, and I'll confess I'm not up to

reading it all. Maybe this would help me: what do you consider bigotry WRT your atheism?

I'm just really not getting this.

I've seen militant believers, and I've seen militant atheists. I don't much like either extreme, to be honest. So where does the line get drawn for you?