Who do you think hates the "world" more?

[bloom]

[Ringo84]

1. Re:

Fundamentalists. No question. They are a very hateful group of people.
Ringo

[nemo137]

4. They take askesis all the way to wishing the world would end

ergo, definitely world-haters. Why is this even a question?

[mark11727]

2. Atheists never conducted witch trials and inquistitions...

...so there.

[mongo]

3. Not to mention

trying ever so hard to control what other people read or view in the privacy of their own homes, or control the private sexual lives of others.

[varkam]

8. Well, I have...

but it's only met with limited success :)

[Igel]

41. No, they conducted purges of believers

and sacked churches and synagogues for being obscurantist or 'internationalist'. Ruined many lives, but hey, they weren't formally called 'inquisitions' or 'witch trials.'


People are people.

[mongo]

5. Wow. Two votes against atheists

How did bloom get to vote twice?

[trotsky]

7. *SNORT*

:rofl:

[Strong Atheist]

26. ROFLMAO!

:rofl:

:yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock:

[godhatesrepublicans]

6. I've got to go with Fundies at the planet haters on this one.

[trotsky]

9. An atheist realizes this "world" is all we get.

Why would we hate it?

[bloom]

13. I have read atheists who say they hate the world.

It certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility.

[trotsky]

18. I know there are many atheists that hate ignorance.

And irrationality. And yes, religion. Perhaps you are misinterpreting their hatred of the ills of the world with hatred of the world itself?

[bloom]

19. It could be

that they just weren't specific - but in the instances that come to mind - it sounded pretty generalized.

I think just about anyone could find things that they hate about the world (genocide, Bush*, etc.) - but for some people through the lens of their religion - and for others through the lens of realism (? or something) - it can become the over-riding POV.

A lot of atheists reject any kind of sugar-coating that religion can seem to soften the world with (that might be the more liberal religions that don't focus on people's evil) - and the world can look pretty grim when a person focuses on the what's wrong.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

42. I don't think "hate" is a function

of religious point of view. It is a personality problem. Or a mood disorder.

[InaneAnanity]

10. Depends

Does the world include everyone else?? In which case, it's not a fair comparison. Us atheists have to deal with hateful crazy fundamentalists all the time, while the fundamentalists live in a world where they can assume eveyone else is christian.

[godhatesrepublicans]

15. Theres a flaw there.

"while the fundamentalists live in a world where they can assume everyone else is christian."

Never actually talked to a Fundie, have you? They assume that NO ONE ELSE is going to heaven but them. And by that I mean "the people that go to their particular church." Fundies certainly don't assume everybody else is a Christian. They DO assume they have the right to force everyone on the planet to be THEIR sort of Christian, but that's a whole different assumption.

So I'd say Atheists are at the very least "world-neutral", while Fundies of any religion wish the rest of the planet to be cast into hell while they giggle murderously from somewhere else, making them "world-hostile."

BTW, in my denomination an Atheist who likes the world is considered a "good person" while a Fundie who hates it is pretty much doomed. "We're not all Baptists around here," as a Louisiana man once said in my favorite Mickey Roarke movie.

[Bill McBlueState]

11. fundamentalists have it as part of their philosophy

I should know; I went to enough college ministry events to hear plenty about how you're supposed to "hate the world."

Atheists have no uniting philosophy other than lacking belief in gods, so of course we have a diversity of opinions about the natural world and the people who occupy it.

[DeadManInc]

12. Why post a poll that will irritate people that

share in our common goals?

[bloom]

14. I think it's a valid question

and something worth considering.

It wouldn't hurt everyone to think about where they are in relation to the concept.

[godhatesrepublicans]

16. another good one: Humans, basically good or basically evil?

Repubs and Fundies say we're basically evil and need to be punished into being good, while political and religious liberals usually say we're basically good and just need to have that behavior rewarded.

[xchrom]

17. fundies -- and i'm a believer.

even the most badly dressed atheist isn't the canker on the world that fundies are.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

20. Last I checked, the fundies were the ones attempting mind control...

:shrug:

[carl_pwccaman]

21. OTHER... because...

It seems to me that the religious right LOVES this world, in all the WRONG ways.

They LOVE tithing thinking it will give them financial rewards, and their preachers LOVE collecting tithes.

They LOVE using/abusing political power.

They LOVE survival games of torture and human/civil rights abuses enough to vote Bush in twice and to ignore accountability issues on these things.

They LOVE worldly power enough to want a constitutional amendment to prevent consenting gay sex leading to marriage.

They love this world, they are very worldly. Every time they are arrogant, rude, lacking in compassion, causing needless strife, that's their flesh acting up, it's worldly fruit, not spiritual fruit.

Politics of Christian Domination
http://againstarchons.blogspot.com/2006/05/politics-of-christian-domination.html

[bloom]

22. I don't see them as spiritual either.

But it seems like they like to hate everyone else - some go so far as to say that "God" is in on it.

[patrice]

32. Yes they are often worldly, Very worldly. But not Earthly.

Many fear Earth or find her inconvenient, dirty.

[Random_Australian]

23. This poll seems strange. Given free will, you could get fundies that

are of the notion that God made the world beautiful such that even heathens cannot dim the beauty, and if you managed to find someone who was an atheist and also hated all religion, they could think in parallel, that the universe is so bright and beautiful that even if religion is a 'pain in the ass', then it would affect so little that it doesn't really matter.

The group of people who hate the world most, are, by definition not a group drawn from similarity in appearance, spirituality or any other virtue than hatred of the world itself.

Neither of these groups have any reliable hatred of the '"world"'.

However, to darker matters now, I should like to take objection to the OP. (Not, of course, the person, but the subject matter)

This is a time when tensions are somewhat high, and I fear R/T will break into 'groups' of atheist & {group who opposes atheists}, with the few in the middle with no-where to go.

While this may, at some time when such things can be discussed, be an interesting philosophical debate, at this time I believe that it will only inflame tensions and no valid discussion will take place.

If I am in error, of course, feel free to correct and explain.

If the explanation involves getting some opposing 'side' to realise something, forget it, and just ask for the reasons why I think that innappropriate. Not that I am implying that you are doing this for any reasons of the sort.

[beam me up scottie]

24. No, dear RA, you are not in error.

The op does indeed seek to inflame tensions, and valid discussion rarely takes place in any of threads she starts with straw man polls.

Excuse me while I cast my vote...

[beam me up scottie]

25. "Other"

I think shit starters who love to sow dissent amongst already divided liberals hate the world more than either atheists or theists, especially those who do so while claiming to be a member of one or the other group.


While it's painfully obvious who the opportunists are, one has to wonder at the motivation.



Just like Log Cabin Republicans, whatever drives athIEsts and thIEsts to sabotage efforts to unite others for the benefit of all will probably remain a mystery.

[bloom]

27. I see the religious divisions as:

A. Fundamentalists (Are against those in groups B., C. & D. - are generally not represented anyway - not a part of the conversation).

B. Religious People (who are not Fundamentalists - could be any other sort of theists, Pagans, Buddhists and atheist religious people).

C. People who are tolerant of those is group B (but are non-religious themselves).

D. Anti-religious people who are against those in group A. B. & C.


---------

I see the Fundamentalists and the Anti-religious (ie. Sam Harris followers) as setting themselves apart from all others - in a self-righteous kind of way.

I think the DU board is a reasonable place for discussions among people who are in groups B & C.

I don't think the Anti-Religious (like Evangelicals) expect to engage in anything other than conflict. Conflict is the nature of their debate.

And why should people in who are in groups B or C think that people who are insistent about insulting them (from groups A & D) want to have meaningful conversations with anyone other than those in their own group?

People who are Anti-religious should not be surprised to see people from groups B or C take issue with them (or A - if there were any around).

[beam me up scottie]

28. Reading the ignorant and stereotypical comments about the people

you vilify in your polls is like watching some sick twisted 5 year old pitting her dolls against each other and mutilating them in mock battles.

Kind of like the female version of the neighbor kid in Toy Story.


Only simpletons and bigots feel compelled to categorize people into neat stereotypes because understanding the complexities of human nature is beyond their comprehension.


Have a nice day.

[bloom]

38. P.S.

I also see it as a contrived conflict that the Anti-religious people make against the liberally religious and those who support them.

They are mostly at odds against the Fundamentalists but they (usually quoting Sam Harris) throw their generalized scorn at people of liberal faith (and those who tolerate them) by association.


"Sam Harris argues that progressive tolerance of faith-based unreason is as great a menace as religion itself."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=51467

[beam me up scottie]

39. blah blah blah Sam Harris! blah blah blah Stalin! blah blah blah ACLU!

Oh how fun!

It's just like reading the stunningly intelligent commentaries about atheism on free republic!

We're so lucky to have our own resident athIest!

[Random_Australian]

45. (1) "Or A - if there were any around" I implies the presence of D,

coupled with "Conflict is the nature of their debate." for D equals assigning some DU'ers to an arbitrary group based soley upon you preconception of group D, therefore implying characteristics not in those posters. (stigma)

(2) No persons like stigma, preconceptions or similar even when implied.


(1) + (2)} Therefore this post is inflammatory to persons believed assigned to D in (1).
QED.

Please post a correction.
Unless, of course, I am in error, in which case feel free to correct me.

[bloom]

46. I have

conceptions - they are not preconceptions. They are based on reality - not on something imaginary.


I've seen many anti-religionists express their hate not only of religion in general - but often of people who profess to be religious. If various people didn't intend to come across that way - I think it's great to have them clarify that.

Some express more hate and antagonism than others. Some are more anti-religion and anti-religious people than others.

If anti-religionists don't see a problem with attacking or hating others for their beliefs - how is there a stigma?

And since they seem to be a majority on THIS forum - I have a hard time seeing them as the victims.

[Random_Australian]

47. Sorry to quibble, but the point was that you have created groups,

(I should argue groups are either heuristic and thus entail information loss or reification or both, but this is beside the point)

The groups were created by you, based upon your conception of the world - no problem. The problems arise from the following: Taking properties eg "Conflict is the nature of their debate." as a categorical imperative, which would only be allowable IF you created the created the group as some arbitrary example; (1)

Then, the implication that they are real is incongrous with (1), (reality implied because presence was implied).

My point is subtle and my words clumsy, so feel free to ask for further clarification.

Or point out any errors in my logic.
Or to tell me the language I am using is too arcane.

However until such time as this is shown to be flawed, I shall continue to believe that the implication that there are militant anti-religious atheists on this board (see #45) - which I shall choose to believe was entirely unintentional - could do with a little clarification of its own.

[Proud_Democratt]

29. I chose "other"

The poll lacks any type of other religions or any moderate beliefs.

[Proud_Democratt]

30. Not all religions are a " pain in the ass ". It's a combination of

politics and religion, that I find to be the big problem.

[patrice]

31. Athiests often love the World deeply.

Since you are free to define (to some degree) reality as you really wish (since there is no one to tell you how/what/why reality is/should/shouldn't be anything) and live the effect(s)/value of that "definition" honestly. Life becomes more meaningful.

[beam me up scottie]

35. Thanks, patrice.

:hug:

[patrice]

44. Don't mention it.

I've often wondered why people think nothing would have value or purpose or meaning unless there is a "God". It seems the opposite to me. Everything, absolutely, every little thing *could* be meaningful.

[varkam]

33. Since I'm not just an athiest...

but a dirty materialist as well, I fail to see how I could even possibly hate this world. It's not as though I'm holding out for something better - this is all there is for me! I guess I could "hate" it, but only in the sense that my girlfriend hates how her butt looks or how I hate country music. I'm just resigned to accept my girlfriend doesn't like her butt and that country music exists.

[charlie]

34. Weird poll

But I'll say I've yet to meet the misanthropic atheist who giddily awaited the planet's end in hellfire like rapture-sotted fundies do.

[NMMNG]

36. I find the world to be quite beautiful

And humans inherently decent and capable of great good despite their shortcomings.

[Random_Australian]

37. Same. Sometimes it's nice to sit and marvel at it.

[NMMNG]

40. Indeed

One of the benefits of working nights is that I get to enjoy the nocturnal animals and the sunrises. While I'm doing rounds for my weekday job I sometimes encounter rabbits that scamper from yard to yard in search of edibles. As morning approaches the birds begin to twitter and sing from their hiding places in the trees, and later they come down to the grass to search for food. Lately a group of ducks has been visiting and I'll throw bread to them and watch them eat it. At my weekend job we have a huge backyard that is playground to birds, squirrels, rabbits and even a few groundhogs. It's amusing to watch them chase each other around the yard or up and down the seven trees we have back there.

A few years ago I even got to see some newborn rabbits, disturbed by the sound of the lawnmower, come squirming out of their underground burrow. They were a few inches long and didn't yet have their eyes open. It was breathtaking to see.

[ozone_man]

43. It's possible to love the world more than the people

who live in it. I love the natural world and much of human nature. But there is much of human nature that is not so lovable.

Religious fundamentalists look toward heaven as the final reward, Earth seems to be more of a temporary place for them. The fundamentalist may be less concerned with the future of the Earth generations from now. The fundamentalist is also less tolerant toward people that do not believe in their faith. Overall, the fundamentalist is less happy with both the natural world and human nature.

Nonreligious people, pantheists, deists, pagans, generally see humans as being part of nature, still in the garden so to speak. That humans are meant to coexist with nature, not conquer it. That a life well lived on Earth is reward enough. They are much happier with the world.

[Moderator]

48. Locking

Flamebait poll