Religion
Related: About this forumSo, all theists are either adherents of evil cults, or they're moving the goal posts?
More than once, I've seen exchanges in this forum to this effect:
Non-theist: "Believers in religion X/all religions are adherents of an evil cult because the worst possible interpretation of whatever fundamental documents are related to their religion involves immoral and disgusting beliefs and practices, and/or believers in religion X/all religions do horrible things to people and claim it's justified by their belief in their religion."
Theist: "But not all believers in religion X/all religions interpret those documents that way or act that way."
Non-theist: "You're just moving the goal posts. REAL believers in religion X/all religions all believe in tyrannical irrational Sky Daddies who demand that they oppress people and ignore science and rationality."
I'm well aware that many atheists and even some anti-theists don't go to this extreme, but I wonder if they're aware of the extent to which the ones who do go there influence theists' perceptions of non-theists?
Many theists very much want to take sides WITH non-theists, finding common ground WITH them on beliefs we do share, such as separation of Church and State, freedom from oppression connected to belief or non-belief, and the eradication of systemic bias and/or privilege based on religious belief.
Many theists are aware of how much hurt and damage has been done in the name of religion and how much trauma and pain that has left behind among non-theists, and would like to engage respectfully in ways that support non-theism politically and socially.
Maybe it's a fair turn-about and sauce for the gander and all that, for theists to have to defend themselves against ignorant and/or fearful attacks and assumptions about what we believe, considering how much and how often this is part of the non-theist experience.
But I do think it serves to delay progress based on shared goals. Is there anything we can do about it, both theists and non-theists?
curiously,
Bright
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
TygrBright
(21,362 posts)I could have made the post both needlessly tedious and (I thought) much more confrontational-seeming by including a list of links to posts I've noticed recently, providing examples of what I summarized, but I was trying to avoid both of those things.
Here's one from today, which I didn't use as I don't really want to call out this particular poster.
It's a generalization, and thus it may in fact be unfair and inaccurate. But perhaps discussion with participation from multiple viewpoints can establish that.
I have no problem with being wrong, I'm just not certain that I am.
Unfortunately, in this forum, attempts to evoke intellectual discussion of emotional issues often push such painful, swollen buttons that they fail before even getting started, and I'm prepared for that to be the case, too.
equably,
Bright
muriel_volestrangler
(106,212 posts)It accuses the DUer of being 'lukewarm' in his Christianity because he also has a "modern, secular morality", and says they used to to the same thing.
If that's what you've been taking as "believers in religion X/all religions are adherents of an evil cult because the worst possible interpretation of whatever fundamental documents are related to their religion involves immoral and disgusting beliefs and practices, and/or believers in religion X/all religions do horrible things to people and claim it's justified by their belief in their religion", then I think you really have produced a strawman.
stone space
(6,498 posts)They appear to want to argue with right wing fundamentalists, and end up being disappointed when they come to DU and are only able to find ordinary religious folks.
They express their disappointment at the available pool of religious folks at DU by lashing out at liberals and progressives and declaring the right wing fundamentalists as "true Christianity".
It's a big internet out there, folks.
There are plenty of right wing fundamentalists to argue with. One just has to find a website where they hang out.
Or they could just come here to Iowa, and I'll point them in the proper direction. I have some idea where they hang out in real life.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Granted, TPB have banished them to the religion folder, because that shit don't fly in GD.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)See for example New Pope Hysteria.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That pop up and rip into the church (and bring concerns to the table I had even thought of) that have no interest in venturing here, into the religion folder.
On the flipside, most of the apologists are familiar faces, that are already ensconced in here.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)That's a more difficult argument than with Fundies. And you lose much of your audience when you do that.
However, briefly: 1) the metaphoricalization/spiritualization of the old promises of physical miracles, was dishonest; and indeed changed the goal posts. It twisted the old Biblical promises in a dishonest way.
2) Aside from that? There are countless problems in any case with spiritual Christianit,y in itself. James 2.14-26 begins to describe them. When he says that a religion that gives us only kind words, sentiments, spirits, but not the physical material things we need to live, literally leaves us physically starving to death.
stone space
(6,498 posts)...folks what they believe (or what they should believe) in place of asking them.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)of bad ideas?
Oh, and yes its a call out.
Actually I'll do one better, the Bible isn't only full of bad ideas, but outright evil ones as well, including examples of evil done by God, his disciples, the society they lived in, etc. Also note that these evils weren't condemned by God.
The fact is that most Christians are better than their religion, if they weren't, they would happily execute people such as myself, as called for by their holy book. I'm grateful they are lukewarm, its the fire in the belly types I'm more concerned about, but I will not be dishonest in my assessment of the religion itself.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Not surprising, of course. People would much rather attack those who ask difficult questions than actually attempt to answer them. Old habits die hard, I suppose. We can be thankful the punishment today is just a snarky post on a message board and not what their theological predecessors doled out.
edhopper
(37,370 posts)Let's make up other arguments that aren't really made.
'Atheist want to end religion by force"
Fun, fun, fun
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)By the force of law. Post #9 here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025855594#post9
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Maybe you should worry about the theist side, which is actually passing laws based on their god, instead of some guy on the internet sharing his opinion.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)A poster made a claim, I provided a link that disproved it, you drag in something completely unrelated to the conversation. That's shifting the goalposts.
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)that most people who post here are posting opinions.
The only power most of us have is the power to vote. And I also assume most of us are voting the same way.
(Of course there may be exceptions, whether they be independent/third candidates or trolls who are here just to stir up shit.)
But, someone can express an opinion that anti-theists are big meanies, or vice versa... theists are big delusional jerkwads.... but in the end, it's all pretty much sound and fury.
stone space
(6,498 posts)...pointing to a DU theist who want to ban atheism.
Actually, I don' see too much of that particular extreme on either side, but the post in question does seem to qualify.
Maybe you should worry about the theist side, which is actually passing laws based on their god, instead of some guy on the internet sharing his opinion.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)that restrict reproductive choice, end-of-life decisions, and LGBTQ equality for everyone. By force, one would assume as well.
The pope has many adoring fans here, yet someone saying that it shouldn't be possible to peddle false ideas like Scientology, is the same thing? (Or worse?)
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)and they should be opposed in any lawful way possible. Again, this is not a zero-sum game. One group being bad doesn't make the other group right. Also, I don't have to defend all theists any more than you have to defend all atheists.
The pope has many adoring fans here
Yes, he does. I'm neither Catholic nor Christian though so it's not my job to defend this Pope. I find that he has some ideas I agree with (such as economic and social justice) and some views I massively disagree with (sexism and homophobia).
someone saying that it shouldn't be possible to peddle false ideas like Scientology, is the same thing?
That's not what the post I linked to said, you're trying to soften it. It said that all religions/churches should be banned by force of law. And yes, that is the same thing and, historically, has been part of very bad things.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You are correct, one poster on a message board versus the leader of a church with a billion member worldwide - that is FAR from a zero-sum game.
I bet that poster has lots of ideas you agree with as well, so why trivialize and dismiss the pope being against key aspects of the Democratic agenda?
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)When the Pope makes a statement that violates the principles of progressiveness (is that a word?), I point it out. But beyond that, I don't have many options. I'm not Catholic so I don't have much leverage to get them to change their views. Whereas, I can, by pointing out anti-religion bigotry here, hopefully contribute to changing the anti-theist atmosphere on DU.
I could also point out that all I said on this thread was that some atheists were dicks and a few of them wanted to ban religion. Everything thereafter is people trying to "trivialize and dismiss" those facts.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)The "anti-theist atmosphere on DU" evidently consists of people saying negative things about religion, or - *GASP* - saying it's baloney.
The pope says that gay marriage is from Satan, that children need to be raised with a mother and a father, and people right here on DU praise him as a wonderful progressive. How about addressing the large number of people (MUCH, MUCH larger than the number who are bashing religion) that support the pope?
I'm sorry you feel the need to name-call. That's unfortunate and really undermines your argument.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)The anti-theist atmosphere here consists of frequent threads started that treat theists with smug condescension, call us delusional, compare our faith with Santa/fairies and generally act like self-superior assholes.
Again, I am not claiming there is any kind of equivalence, that's just willful misreading on your part. I said that I am able to affect one but not the other.
The comment about name-calling is just tone trolling.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You apparently think anonymous people saying things on the Internet is much worse than the leader of the world's largest Christian church being praised despite being a homophobic misogynist.
"The comment about name-calling is just tone trolling."
Isn't that what your entire gripe is about? You're tone trolling the atheists that you think "act like self-superior assholes," aren't you?
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)You apparently think anonymous people saying things on the Internet is much worse than the leader of the world's largest Christian church being praised despite being a homophobic misogynist.
No. For the third time of saying it now, and at this point I have to assume you're just ignoring what I say and substituting what you think I will have said, I can affect one but not the other.
Isn't that what your entire gripe is about? You're tone trolling the atheists that you think "act like self-superior assholes," aren't you?
OK, that's a fair point that I hadn't considered.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Are they the same, or is one worse than the other?
You are getting angry with me when I point out the faults of thinking them equal, and you get angry when I point out how one is much worse than the other.
Tone-trolling is ridiculous - I'd rather address what people are saying than how they are saying it. Pope Frank seems to have the opposite problem vocal atheists do. They say things rudely, and get slammed for their rudeness. The pope says horrible things about women and LGBTQers and has a loyal fan club because he acts nice.
Are they the same, or is one worse than the other?
The Pope's bigotry is worse, clearly. Rude internet atheists just irritate me while his views actually affect things in the real world.
Tone-trolling is ridiculous - I'd rather address what people are saying than how they are saying it.
But you criticized me for insulting someone.
The pope says horrible things about women and LGBTQers and has a loyal fan club because he acts nice.
I think that's an oversimplification. Of the people who support this Pope, I think they can be broken down into three groups. Group A are the Catholics. They're pretty much obliged to support him by the Catholic "rules" (which I don't pretend to understand). Group B are those who agree with him on some issues (as I do) but think his views on other issues are reprehensible (also, as I do). Group C are those who actually agree with his anti-LGBT views. How many of them there are here, I have no idea. And Group D are "blinded" for lack of a better term, because the sunny countenance and speeches about economic and social justice are such a change from Ratzinger.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Yeah, which was to illustrate a point - that you were attacking people for the same thing you were doing. If it's OK for you to do it, why can't they?
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)...being shot by a God of Metal?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I'd like to address what that guy said, and the implications of it, rather than get caught up in a discussion of how he was saying it, as you wanted to do.
stone space
(6,498 posts)And then attribute your own sentiments to him.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Taking an incident and manipulating it to be part of your anti-gun crusade.
I'm not here to discuss guns. There's a separate group for that where you can discuss guns all you want. I want to discuss the implications of the man's religious statement.
stone space
(6,498 posts)...but you aren't talking about guns.
Sorry, not buying this. You aren't that stupid.
You can't take a statement totally out of context and then claim that the context of the statement is unimportant.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)The same sentiment is expressed by many god-believers - being thankful god saved them while others perished or got hurt. That was just the most recent example connected with a prominent news story. You're the one desperately trying to make it about guns. This isn't your gun forum. It's the religion forum.
stone space
(6,498 posts)...had everything to do with guns, and it is disingenuous for you to pretend that it does not.
But, of course, if one abstracts away from reality and pretends that they guy didn't just get shot, that does make his sense of relief look pretty silly, I suppose.
Perhaps that is the goal of you pretending that he didn't just get shot?
Why do you want to keep that fact under wraps and out of the conversation?
That strikes me as dishonest.
Christians live in the real world.
When you criticize Christians for their responses to life in that real world, you don't get to move them to your own little fantasy world while discussing their words and their lives.
You chose to insult gun victims for thanking God to be alive. Just be honest about what you are doing.
Don't sugarcoat it.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I don't want to join your screaming match about guns.
I want to analyze the moral and logical consequences of believing that an all-powerful god saved one person, but not another.
This is the religion group, an appropriate forum for that kind of discussion. It's not where we talk about guns, as you want to do.
stone space
(6,498 posts)But, of course, you consider your own words as mere "interpretation", and put them in his mouth.
While at the same time, telling everybody to just ignore why he said what he said in the first place, because you find the facts inconvenient.
If you want to pick on comments about earthquakes and tornadoes and stuff, Pat Robertson has plenty to say about that.
And he goes on in enough detail that you don't have to put words and "interpretations" in his mouth.
You can criticize him with his own words.
Instead, you choose to respond to the latest school shooting with an attack on a gun victim, altering his words and insisting that the context of his actual words be ignored during the discussion.
I can't imagine anything more dishonest.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Or any other of the numerous examples that have provided an opportunity to discuss it in this group.
You can keep trying to make this about your gun obsession, but you will not succeed in turning this group into RKBA2.
stone space
(6,498 posts)What was said and why?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)If you have anything further to add about that subject, please do it in that thread. Don't derail this discussion which has nothing to do with your desire to talk about guns.
stone space
(6,498 posts)edhopper
(37,370 posts)to be exact. Not "a few"
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)that where one says something, there will be at least a few more who think the same thing. It's an extension of the rule that, for every customer who complains, four more just don't come back. Likewise, while there are only a few (relatively) theists who would say "burn all homosexuals", there's probably a few more who think it and while only a few people will still say outright racist things, some more will think it.
That said, I'm not pretending that the percentage is very large. Just that there's a few who think this way.
edhopper
(37,370 posts)My post has a history from this forum. When an atheist says how bad religion is and that they think mankind would be better off without it, they are often accused of wanting to eradicate it by force. Which is completely different.
My post was also meant tongue in cheek.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)edhopper
(37,370 posts)I have to remember to use the 
or 
icons.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Other than the one post linked above in GD, where have you seen this accusation of wanting to eradicate it by force?
People who say that mankind would be better off without religion, are often challenged, but I must have miss this accusation.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Most laughably of all, you yourself accused edhopper of trying to eliminate religion. Right here.
For anyone interested, here are more instances of you claiming or insinuating someone wants to eliminate religion or the religious:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=103314
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=105739
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=108435
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=108445
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=112890
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=112968
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=126004
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=129199
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=132533
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=135865
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=143782
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=152383
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=161221
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=161357
It is truly breathtaking that you can complain about "revisionist telling of history" when you have this history of your own.
edhopper
(37,370 posts)I wasn't going to bother.
rug
(82,333 posts)edhopper
(37,370 posts)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)by force?
My ears are fine, thanks.
edhopper
(37,370 posts)but you have.
When some have said the world would be better off without religion, I have seen you answer along the lines of "What would you do, force people to abandon religion?"
Which is not what they mean.
Also, the post I put here was meant to be over the top and tongue in cheek in response to the OP, which I felt was absurd.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Without one, I think you might just be working off a fantasy.
I certainly challenge people when they talk about abolishing all religion and ask them how they might do that, but accusing them of wanting to do it by force? I don't think so.
I very much like the author of this OP. She is both provocative and thoughtful. I have taken issue with here in the past because I thought she was really off base, but I don't think her positions are absurd.
edhopper
(37,370 posts)when no one is saying that at all.
Just as her characterization of an atheist is wildly inaccurate and over the top, my tongue in cheek reply was also so.
Perhaps if you look at all the many links provided by trosky, you could see why it looks like you have done just that.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't mind being challenged on things I have done, but I do object strongly to stories without any evidence.
I don't see anything by trotsky and he would be one of the last people I would ever accept evidence from.
But feel free to repost anything here that would substantiate your accusation.
As to the OP, I think she is describing a particular type of "atheist" who is actually either a Poe or an anti-theist. She isn't describing atheists in general and makes that clear.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I simply linked to your own posts. Just like I always do. No wonder you hate me.
edhopper
(37,370 posts)you can look or not.
But there have been a few times when i have talked about the harm and irrationality of religion that you have asked me my agenda to eliminate it. And you have used the phrase "by force" even if it was couched in a question.
quote:
"You have done it multiple times.
Most laughably of all, you yourself accused edhopper of trying to eliminate religion. Right here.
"Your mission to eliminate religion is a losing battle. So, I would suggest that you might recognize the good and work with it, challenge that which clearly causes harm and leave everyone else alone."
For anyone interested, here are more instances of you claiming or insinuating someone wants to eliminate religion or the religious:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=103314
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=105739
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=108435
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=108445
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=112890
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=112968
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=126004
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=129199
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=132533
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=135865
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=143782
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=152383
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=161221
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=161357
It is truly breathtaking that you can complain about "revisionist telling of history" when you have this history of your own.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)which is not surprising considering the source you are using. I am assuming that this is a cut and past of another post, as I doubt you would refer to yourself in the third person.
Indeed, I have talked about those that want to eliminate religion and these posts verify that. It is a topic that I challenge frequently because I think it is a ludicrous idea that will never, ever happen and generally placed on the table by anti-theists.
So all of these posts address to one degree or another the subject of eliminating religion.
But this is not what you accused me of. You said I made frequent accusations that others here wanted to eliminate religion by force. My post to you says nothing like that.
There is only one single link in your list in which I use the word force and it is about forcing treatment on people and in response to a post so hideous it was hidden by a jury.
Did you even look at them?
What is truly breathtaking is that you would take a list apparently put together by someone who is so obsessed with me that he would go to all that trouble even though I won't see his post. Do a search for that user and my name and you will see something very interesting. Hint- over the past year year you will get over 225 hits despite the fact that he has been on ignore for years.
If you are going to use trotsky as your point of reference in building your case against me, we are probably going to have to part ways.
I stand by my history. I challenge those that want to eliminate religion. I don't accuse them of wanting to use force. That's a fairy tale.
BTW, because I can do my own homework instead of relying on those that have a vendetta against someone, I did a search for my posts containing the word "force". There is not a single shred of evidence to support your contention. Nada.
Do your own homework next time.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I can't help it if I want to correct you. And as you have quite angrily told others, whether they have you on ignore or not won't affect how you respond to them. So why judge or slam me for simply doing what you say you have no problems doing?
That's a bit hypocritical, isn't it?
BTW - using the word "force" is a distinction without a difference. Anyone is free to go read those posts and determine what you meant with your accusations. I stand by the links.
edhopper
(37,370 posts)apropos to the OP
Second, I did not say it was about you, you decided I was talking about you, and I gave a snarky reply.
Third, it has come up in our discussions when I talk about the problems I see with religion, and that I would like to see it vanish that you infer that I want to actively eliminate it (and you have used to word force on occasion) when I am talking about a desire that religion would go away, I suppose like Christians desire for Jesus to return. I am aware we both have the same chances of it actgually happening.
But you can take my post as a personal attack on you, or an over the top statement made in the spirit of the OP.
Either way this probably will degenerate and best leave it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)a straight face say it wasn't about me?
I believe that you meant it tongue in cheek, but I truly do tire of these false, unsubstantiated memes that become some kind of accepted truth despite there being absolutely no evidence to support them.
If I missed your attempt at humor, it is most likely because what you said would not be something unexpected.
So you agree that you say you would like to see religion vanish, but you don't want to actively eliminate it? Are you hoping for a magic wand? Divine intervention? 
I don't think this is going to degenerate. In fact, I think it's going pretty well. It's civil and direct.
FWIW, it's not so much a personal attack as an unsubstantiated accusation that I objected to. But I think you have backed up and essentially withdraw it.
edhopper
(37,370 posts)it appeared you were defending yourself.
Since i wasn't talking about any one specific poster.
I chided you a little.
It escalated from there.
And yes i would, I would like to see the GOP go as well, that doesn't mean I want concentration camps for right wingers.
I haven't withdrawn it, I overstated it for humorous effect. And this reply about religion vanishing means you still are misinterprting what I am saying. Aren't there things in this world you wished disappeared, even though you know they won't?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I wasn't talking about any specific member either.
Well, as far as the GOP goes, I will actively work against the bad in it, but I would reject any legislation that would forcibly eliminate it.
There are things that I wish would disappear, but very few things I would wish to force to disappear. Those that I would want to force are generally so bad that there is no good from them at all. Childhood cancers, AIDs, homophobia and extreme religious intolerance would all fall into that category. The first two might actually go away, but I'm not optimistic about the second two.
But things that have unquestionable good parts, I would not wish to go away. I would work to eliminate or modify the bad things about them, but if religion went away, a lot of good, even necessary, things would go away with it.
Anti-theism is based on prejudice, period. Those that want to eliminate religion or, like !!!!111DAWKINS!!!!111, see it as a disease that needs to be cured or as a mental illness that requires treatment are close-minded and intolerant.
edhopper
(37,370 posts)and would work to counter it's influence.
I would say that is anti-theist.
But that is in the theater of ideas, counter superstition with logic and reason.
And that is where Dawkins fights. He writes books, debates and tweets. Can you give an example of one of these anti-theist you hate doing anything comparable to the laws and legislation the religious right tries to push through?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But that's not the case. Religion also does good things.
The problem with anti-theists if that generally their hatred or religion is so intense that they are unable or unwilling to see anything good at all.
This becomes dangerous, because in their quest to make religion "vanish", they don't ever propose what exactly will take the place of the good things religion does.
If it really is that important that this be accomplished, then I would hope to see these same people spearheading, or at least participating in, the very honorable goal of replacing religious programs that are good.
Instead, most of what I see are some prominent anti-theists making a shitload of money and noterity off their books and speaking tours. They almost look like they are selling a religion to me.
Then I see the peanut gallery, mindlessly spouting the dogma of the prominent anti-theists. It doesn't matter what horrible things they may do or say, all is forgiven. The peanut gallery seems to be confined to the internet, where they can advance the cause of eliminating religion without ever getting up or getting out of their underwear. These are the true heroes.
I think Dawkins is a misogynistic, religophobic, uber privileged media star whose time has past. He served a really important role, but now he just hurts the atheist civil right movement. He found a gig and he has played it out.
That he is not as bad as some on the religious right in terms of actually treading on the rights of others is completely irrelevant. A dick is a dick. Just because someone is a bigger dick doesn't mean that the other guy still isn't a dick.
I hate that argument.
Oh, well you raped a child? Well there is a guy down the street that raped 10 children, so you are a-ok!
Stupid argument.
edhopper
(37,370 posts)disgust of Dawkins is noted.
Your opinion that the good that religion does outweighs the bad is just an opinion.
I would guess you think it has to do with community and charitable work and nothing to do with the very premiss of beliefs of theses relgions. (is that right)
There are a few minimally religious countries, especially in northern Europe, that function quite well without all these "good" things religion does.
I would replace the fantasies, myth's and superstitions with reason and reality.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Is that a problem?
I did not say that the good outweighed the bad. I said there was both good and bad. What is it with you and my posts?
And why do you guess what I think again? If you want to know what I think, just ask me. I can't even make sense out of your guess.
Those minimally religious countries are generally wealthy and homogenous. There is actually an established correlation between economics and religion. And, to be honest, their governments do much, much more than ours and others do in terms of providing a safety net. so the example is really not a good one.
I would replace so called reason and reality with compassion, altruism and justice if I had to make a decision between those two.
So, again, when you get all those systems in order that will replace the essential things that religious people and groups supply to the most marginalized people, we will talk about eliminating religion.
In the meantime, I suspect you need absolutely nothing from these groups and wouldn't blink an eye is they disappeared. Too bad no everyone has your privileged status.
edhopper
(37,370 posts)things are getting to busy for me to properly respond.
So I will give you the last word.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Claiming that they are engaged in fraud. It is a fair point, I happen to disagree as there are plenty of other bullshit peddlers out there. However what Niko is not suggesting is a prohibition on religion, as the poster made clear here:
Does the First Amendment cover outright fraud?
Look, people are free to believe what they want, say what they want, etc. What's sickening, though, is how this gets extended to outright lying to make a profit. Now, the exercise of religion in general IS in fact detrimental, as it encourages ignorance and leads to all the bullshit that has to be dealt with in America these days, but that's a whole other discussion, I guess.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5856038
Perhaps when "proving" your point you neglected to read down thread? Or did you think we would just not bother checking?
stone space
(6,498 posts)...what that one person said is pretty unambiguous.
Selling an invisible product. On every other occasion, that's called fraud and people are prosecuted for it.
Nothing said further down (including what you posted) contradicts this basic bigoted viewpoint.
We as atheists need to call out this sort of bullshit, not try to justify or excuse it.
Religious bigotry has no place in atheism.
None.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Anti-theism is a position independent of atheism. The only religious bigots I know are all theists, but perhaps you meant something else by the term "religious bigotry".
I do like how you think you get to define atheism as something other than a-theism.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Selling an invisible product. On every other occasion, that's called fraud and people are prosecuted for it.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The poster made it quite clear that what the poster thought ought to be banned was "churches selling bullshit" - commercial transactions which the poster claimed were tantamount to fraud. As Niko made explicitly clear, that did not include "banning religion". There are plenty of other practices that religious institutions are banned from doing, for example they are allegedly banned from explicit political endorsements. Do you consider that ban a "ban on religion"?
stone space
(6,498 posts)...who claim to be atheists.
I'm perfectly happy to go all "No true Atheist" on their asses, despite the sophomoric whining that will bring from some. I see no need to associate with religious bigots.
But that's what they claim.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Any person who professes a belief, for example, that homosexuals must be punished in hell for their sins, is a religious bigot.
But please do link to an example of religious bigotry expressed by atheists. Since there are so many it should be easy.
I'll make it easy for you:
I believe the world would be a better place if religion disappeared. I've expressed this opinion many times. I also believe that religious beliefs are delusions, another opinion I've expressed many times. And finally I think that believers are either naïve or intellectually dishonest when it comes to discussing their beliefs. I've also expressed this opinion many times here.
Go for it.
phil89
(1,043 posts)nt
stone space
(6,498 posts)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You could inform this person in no uncertain terms just how you feel about this statement.
Oh wait, it seems you've already done that. Never mind.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)This is how you set an example of the sort of civility that you think we should aspire to?
stone space
(6,498 posts)...one possible response is to tell them to go to hell.
It has the advantage of not giving the false impression that religious bigotry is a reasonable position for debate.
It is not.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Bigotry is in the eye of the beholder.
Just because you don't like a statement, that makes it bigoted?
Calling people "bigots" is simple name calling. Unless you can justify your statement.
So? Justify it.
stone space
(6,498 posts)I can't see all of the posts right now, but I assume that we are talking about wanting to make religion (or churches) illegal.
If not, I'll have to come back and edit this if I am in the wrong thread.
If you feel that shutting down churches by force of law is not a bigoted position, then there is likely nothing that I can say to change your mind.
You may change your mind were it to come to pass, however, once you see all of the human suffering caused by outlawing religion.
Shutting down churches by force of law would be an inappropriate use of state violence against Christians simply because of who they are.
Here's a story about a Parish Priest who was challenged by a local military unit. Is this something that you'd like to see become normalized in our society?
procon
(15,805 posts)to say that "some anti-theists don't go to this extreme" while tarring the majority of us is as extremists. What a great foundation for open discussions, and who doesn't want to be stuffed into the narrow pigeonholes built upon your own prejudices?
If there is a common ground centered on the concept of a separation of Church and State as a founding principle of our country, it will not be prefaced on whether someone has a religious belief, or not. While there may be opportunities for general purpose "shared goals", why would they have any correlation with religion? This is especially disconcerting when you don't seem to have overcome your own biased attitude towards those who do not share your belief system.
Sorry, but I think I'll give this one a pass.
TygrBright
(21,362 posts)That was not my intention, but I'm not always very good at sensing what will and won't hurt others.
So, please accept my apology, even if the topic and post are offensive to you.
amiably,
Bright
Promethean
(468 posts)Take your example of "the worst interpretation of X scripture." Is everybody going to follow X in that way? Obviously not.
Do people follow X that way? Most definitely yes and they are common enough and have enough political power that most of us are subject to laws that they influenced. I find this situation unacceptable and fight it every way I can, this includes going after the source of the bad ideas being inflicted on us.
Where did the "worst of X" people come from? Are they holding on to traditions from a long time ago? More than likely at least some are. However I'd be willing to bet most come from moderate traditions of X and latched on to some part of the "worst of X" that appealed to them and expanded from there. This is something that will always be a possibility, likely an inevitability, as long as X is respected at all in society.
The solution? Point out the "worst of X" show how people do follow it and inflict it on the rest of us as much as they can. Show how the "worst of X" poisons the rest of X.
So yes. We do point out the atrocities in X. We do show how X's protagonists do good on one page then evil on the next. We are compassionate enough to not want the positive aspects of your person to be poisoned by the "worst of X." You can live, love, give and feel without the baggage and torments of X. You are better than X.
TygrBright
(21,362 posts)And when you have "atrocious Xers" taking credit for anything positive accomplished through X, it is easy to forget the many Xers who are not only not atrocious, but who do whatever they can to mitigate the atrocities perpetrated under the excuse of X. Everything connected with X becomes, by default, atrocious.
And those for whom X is an inspiration and set of instructions to be a more loving, more mindful, more positive member of the human race must simply accept the consequences of having X co-opted by the atrocious. And continue working for justice, equity, love, and evolution according to the inspiration of X as they experience it. Such Xers cannot expect their work to potentiate based on the community of Xers, even others like themselves, since the atrocious Xers have succeeded so magnificently in rendering X itself synonymous with atrocity. Further facilitated and assisted by everyone who emphatically conflates atrocity with X.
It won't be the first time, and we can only hope that this, too, shall pass.
regretfully,
Bright
cbayer
(146,218 posts)perception of non-theists?"
There are Poe's among us. They know full well what effect they have.
TygrBright
(21,362 posts)All I can think of is Edgar Allen, but I don't get the connection.
curiously,
Bright
cbayer
(146,218 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
It often makes it's appearance in the context of religion. While it often is non-believers parodying believers (Landover Christian Church - http://www.landoverbaptist.org ), it can also be a believer parodying atheists. There is a guy who's videos get posted here form time to time, but I can't remember his name. I believe the writer of this letter is a Poe: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218163913
And I know for a fact that there are repeating trolls who come to this site and pretend to be atheists for the sole purpose of discrediting atheists.
So, as I said, there are Poe's among us. The vast majority of atheists on this site bear no resemblance to what you describe and many are appalled by it. And while there may be a few that are really like this, some are poseurs.
They either blow it and get MIRT'ed or they play it pretty well and disrupt for a long time.
TygrBright
(21,362 posts)And I'm sure you are correct, a good many of the more dogmatic non-theists fall into that category.
It's a bit mystifying to me, what they expect to accomplish with such shit-stirring, except the monkeywrench instinct in general.
quizzically,
Bright
cbayer
(146,218 posts)total assholes.
There is one in particular who comes here over and over again. He generally gets a lot of support initially, because people fall for the schtick. They overlook his extreme position because they think he is one of them.
Then he kicks it up and kicks it up until he implodes.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)
stone space
(6,498 posts)What you are describing is something that I've usually heard called an "Agent Provocateur", although in somewhat different circumstances.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Poe has been rather frequently used to describe those parodying theism. Since we don't seem to get much of that around here, the term hasn't come up much.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)First of all, your categorizing the atheists you are at war with here as "repeating trolls who come to this site and pretend to be atheists for the sole purpose of discrediting atheists" is vile. Really? This is your idea of civility?
But I digress. Poe's law is not about trolling or false flags or anything similar. It is, as stated, about how "it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism".
You've now created a new category of callout: "Poe's" but what could it possibly mean? Within the context of Poe's Law it would be somebody who creates a parody of fundamentalism or extremism and neglects to provide any clue that it is a parody. Typically on DU that results in an unfortunate jury result, proving Nathan Poe's point.
Poe's Law HAS FUCK ALL TO DO WITH TROLLING.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Name names and provide links.
stone space
(6,498 posts)...from sincere, but misguided folks in any group.
While the latter may be more open to persuasion, in general my policy is to treat agents provocateurs and those who are sincere but who nonetheless behave as agents provocateurs pretty much the same by dissociating with them.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)...who are seeking to give atheism a bad name.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Got any proof? Or are you just using secret mind-reading powers?
stone space
(6,498 posts)In fact, it would be quite extraordinary if it were not the case, given how easy it is to do over the internet, and given how many people there are who have the motivation to do such a thing.
And you know what they say about extraordinary claims...
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Making an accusation like that is intended to marginalize and dismiss a point of view.
Kind of like accusing someone of being a sock puppet.
stone space
(6,498 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)Not that the two couldn't coincide in the same individual.
The only similarity that I can see between agents provocateurs and sock puppets is that assuming the nonexistence of either one is an extraordinary claim.
So they do have that in common.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 24, 2014, 07:28 AM - Edit history (1)
I've certainly seen many conversations here that amount to these exchanges (those accusing you of using a strawman are simply trying to deny fair criticism). But I'm afraid I don't know what we can do to further understanding.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You bring a very unique perspective which I think challenges the ideas that many have about theism and religious belief systems.
Your change of avatar has really thrown me off, though, lol.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)It's from an old Sinfest comic and says "Devil Approved", appropriate for a Satanist.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I bet you won't miss those ads at all.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I have AdBlock so I never saw the ads anyway.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)mr blur
(7,753 posts)
PatrickforO
(15,426 posts)you must in the end admit that it is not that creator's fault that we've made our world into a shithole when if we actually cared about each other, it could be a paradise. We, loathsome species that we are, are directly responsible for our systematic destruction of each other, other life and the planet itself.
Maybe it is because we tend to take an individualistic rather than socio-centric view of right and wrong. Most societies through history have set up their morality around the society as a whole. We Americans worship the individual - we even have myths about bootstraps. If you think that through, it's a pretty flawed way to go, because our planet is going with it.
Circling the drain.
phil89
(1,043 posts)"it's" responsibility.
Yeah, but don't you remember what Joe Walsh, who surely has a direct line to God, said a few years ago when someone pointed that out? He said, "God is...busy!"
Let me continue by playing devil's advocate with you. Regardless of who created us or life or the world, all living creatures must learn to take care of themselves. If you've raised any kids, you know that sometimes you have to let them suffer some consequences for their actions so they can understand the basic idea of cause and effect - if I do this, then that happens.
This is part of learning self control, and all of us have to do it. Some do it the easy way and others take a harder path, but we all have to learn the lesson. The people who do not learn this lesson generally end up in some kind of institution.
But what about our species as a whole? When or how will we learn self-control in a species-centric way. Right now we have nation states overlain by a few global oligarchs. As these few rape our treasuries in the name of 'profit,' the rest of us are contending for ever smaller pieces of the pie. Our propensity to be good 'consumers' has led us to the highest greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere in about 40 million years. We drill, baby, drill; we genetically modify food, we package and make affordable fast food that is disgustingly unhealthy - we are guilty of all kinds of crimes against us as a whole, and the planet on which we live.
Why is it some creator's responsibility to 'save' us when we ourselves are responsible for the current condition? How can we come to a higher species-wide solution? Maybe, depending on how you believe, God is helping in some way. But the real truth: it's us who need to do the heavy work because we're the ones who created this mess.
Somehow, Phil, we've got to get into a Spaceship Earth mentality or else we're screwed, God or not.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)And why must they "learn to take care of themselves"? Because that's how they were created.
And in any civilized society a parent who would knowingly and deliberately abandon their children to fend for themselves against a capricious universe for the sake of teaching them a lesson, however valuable, would be hauled before social services.
So much woo, so easily laid to rest.
Everything you listed there--and I mean everything--has arisen from the need to maximize survival in a hostile environment. We need government; we get oligarchs. We need rapid transportation and durable materials for building and engineering; we get fossil fuels and the associated risks. We face famine; we breed better crops and we prioritize quantity over quality.
God saw fit to cause these problems, yet is blameless? Nonsense.
Because if we are indeed created, our current problems are, ipso facto, properties emergent from a flawed design. If men are greedy, it is because they were created with the capacity for greed. If they are violent, it is because they were created with a capacity for violence. No one here would hesitate for a second to hold GM accountable for the faulty ignition switches in their automobiles, but an abject failure of a creator God for some reason gets a free pass.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)adopting the position that they are stewards of the earth and responsible for caring for it. We need to encourage them every chance we get.
The climate change deniers are the most dangerous. Some are religiously driven and for others it's primarily political ideology.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that religious belief can be a motivator for some really bad and stupid shit.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Because as we all know, there are certainly no goalposts bolted to mobile contraptions around here.
TygrBright
(21,362 posts)Although reading this thread has made me remember why I don't normally do OPs in this forum.
The boxes many people think in seem to be pretty sturdy.
regretfully,
Bright
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I use fuzzy/OOB to fill in the gaps when knowledge leaves a gap.
I'm not trying to be an ass, we've had good conversations in the past, IIRC, but the OP was pretty aggressively and one-sidedly worded, IMO.
TygrBright
(21,362 posts)I do forget that "provocative for the sake of discussion" doesn't work at all, here.
Neither clarity nor brevity is served by the extensive caveats and qualifiers required in this forum to reassure so many different passionately focused people from so many various points on the spectrum that I'm not actually trying to offend anyone.
It's so tantalizing for me to observe this forum, because there are SO many intelligent, interesting people of all POVs who I think would enjoy what I think of as a 'good argument' where differing viewpoints are exchanged and discussed without acrimony and assumptions of hidden agendas. (Yeah, that includes you, AC!)
But that ain't gonna happen.
So for now, just apologies to all whom I've unintentionally offended, and carry on.
wistfully,
Bright
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Honestly, I doubt you are capable of it. Takes a special kind of someone to accomplish it.
But it was a provocative post, and predictably, people have enthusiastically engaged on it. As has been said before, over there on the left side of the DU interface, you'll find a huge list of other folders in which I will agree, for the most part, with any poster in this subforum, theist or non-theist.
but in here... we disagree.
Please try to understand, when I say something nasty about, for instance, the Catholic Church, it is likely I am carrying some baggage from a previous encounter with said church. Specifically in this case, on contraception access, and more enthusiastically, in my state, on the passage of I-1000, of which the principle opposition, was catholic. Money and votes. It was a brutal fight.
Why did I have to fight? Because they deign to force their religious morality on everyone. I wouldn't say a word if they simple admonished members not to use that option. But no, they seek to make it illegal for ME to access it, if I choose. That's a problem, considering I don't recognize 'sin' or the existence of a 'soul' to jeopardize by committing suicide at all.
And I look around, and I see defense and praise here, for a church that continues to interfere or block a host of progressive ideals, hell, they've filed suit against the ACA.
So yeah, I say some not nice things about the catholic church. All the while, I maintain the allowance that any individual member may not hold all those things to be true. (But their tithing either offsets or directly funds such efforts, by the by)
And from there, grows an 'argument(TM)'. Sure. I never promised anything I'd say would be pretty. But I do think you've falsely framed this as an atheists attacking religious people sort of thing, as if they are on the defensive. Hell, we're just STARTING to gain traction on some of these issues. Physician assisted suicide is only legal in 3 states in the US. Hang on to your ass, we got some fighting left to do. Ditto for access to contraceptives, emergency contraceptives, abortion, family planning of all types, comprehensive sex ed, same sex marriage, and the list goes on.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Theist: "But not all believers in religion X/all religions interpret those documents that way or act that way."
Non-theist: "You're just moving the goal posts. REAL believers in religion X/all religions all believe in tyrannical irrational Sky Daddies who demand that they oppress people and ignore science and rationality."
Can you link to a representative example of such a discourse? You're basically asking people to evaluate and comment upon your report and interpretation of an incident rather than the incident itself. This isn't exactly fertile ground for a productive exchange.
Iggo
(49,928 posts)*sniff*sniff*
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
stone space
(6,498 posts)Are we less worthy?
It's a moral outrage!
cbayer
(146,218 posts) stone space
(6,498 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)I don't feel so outraged any more.