Religion

cbayer

(146,218 posts)

44. I have never said that people's religious beliefs should not be questioned, but

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 11:44 AM

Jan 2014

I have stood up against unfounded attacks on those beliefs and the people that hold them.

This is a site for progressive and liberals. That group includes both religious and non-religious people. It does not include conservatives or libertarians (though it might include socialists).

I also hold the position that holding specific political beliefs is distinctly different that holding religious beliefs, though some disagree with me on this.

Contrary to your experience, I have met atheists who feel no need to explain their lack of beliefs. They say it's the default position and that's that. I've got no problem with that. I don't think believers nor non-believers have any obligations to explain their position, as long as it isn't imposing on anyone else.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

198 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Richard Dawkins Hate Mail............. [View all] dimbear Jan 2014 OP

religion is a multi-billion $$ business. it doesn't like criticism that cuts into the take nt msongs Jan 2014 #1

Love Dawkins. longship Jan 2014 #2

"People really, really hate their religion being criticized." TexasProgresive Jan 2014 #3

So when people hate Richard Dawkins skepticscott Jan 2014 #4

That's a good rhetorical choice - pair up Dawkins least controversial points el_bryanto Jan 2014 #6

Well then let's compare Dawkins' worst to the pope's worst. trotsky Jan 2014 #18

Dawkins probably wins that comparison el_bryanto Jan 2014 #48

The person I was replying to skepticscott Jan 2014 #58

It depends on what you mean by hate el_bryanto Jan 2014 #63

I was quoting and replying to someone else saying "hate is hate" skepticscott Jan 2014 #76

I can't answer the question without defining the terms. el_bryanto Jan 2014 #79

I agree. Dawkins reaction when he feels criticized is the same as the cbayer Jan 2014 #7

You would have to point to Dawkins edhopper Jan 2014 #8

I would point to his reaction to the criticism of what many cbayer Jan 2014 #11

I'd rather let him defend himself edhopper Jan 2014 #15

But it's not in opposition to the religious who rigorously question their cbayer Jan 2014 #20

Other side of the same coin? trotsky Jan 2014 #24

Sam Harris is trying his best. rug Jan 2014 #42

I get you do not like his position edhopper Jan 2014 #26

There are many variations of "fatwas". cbayer Jan 2014 #32

Or in other words, "close enough" for you. trotsky Jan 2014 #39

Hmmm... Equivocation, how unusual. Warren Stupidity Jan 2014 #168

Could you elaborate? cbayer Jan 2014 #169

Sorry you don't understand what you're doing. trotsky Jan 2014 #178

LOL trotsky Jan 2014 #21

"...he calls his critics illiterate and refers to their writings as "hate mail"." Rob H. Jan 2014 #40

It is hard not to laugh at the people who hate him so much, trotsky Jan 2014 #41

"It is hard not to laugh at the people who hate him so much, rug Jan 2014 #47

So you're cool Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #52

No, nor Islamophobia. rug Jan 2014 #56

Dawkins isn't my pope Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #60

Francis isn't my politician. rug Jan 2014 #69

His/your organziation Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #71

Politicians deal with rights. rug Jan 2014 #72

And the Church or any religion edhopper Jan 2014 #74

Maybe you need a primer on the difference between church and state. rug Jan 2014 #80

Maybe the pope does. n/t Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #83

Well, now that's two of you. rug Jan 2014 #84

Maybe you need a history lesson. edhopper Jan 2014 #85

I know history. Apparently you don't know the present. rug Jan 2014 #87

I'm so glad you think the RC edhopper Jan 2014 #88

Dawkins, fortunately, does have little influence outside a circle of adulators. rug Jan 2014 #89

So what was your point in making the comparison. edhopper Jan 2014 #90

Ask goblin. He's the one that brought the Pope into it. rug Jan 2014 #91

You did it. #47 Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #92

Oh, was I talking to you there? rug Jan 2014 #94

Who made you god of DU? Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #97

See 98. rug Jan 2014 #99

Nice dodge. edhopper Jan 2014 #93

There's no dodge but I do find it comical how the last resort of what you consider "everyone" is rug Jan 2014 #95

You mean edhopper Jan 2014 #96

What and who on earth are you talking about? rug Jan 2014 #98

Nice obfuscation ploy Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #100

Uh, you do realize I was talking to ed? Have you straightened everything out? rug Jan 2014 #101

I don't care who you're talking to. Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #102

I do. Despite appearances, I do value my time. rug Jan 2014 #104

And all my post referred to edhopper Jan 2014 #106

This, hope that refreshes your memory. edhopper Jan 2014 #105

Precisely. rug Jan 2014 #107

Time to claim victory and go home. edhopper Jan 2014 #108

Who is everyone? cbayer Jan 2014 #125

rhetorical flourish edhopper Jan 2014 #128

Oh, ok. cbayer Jan 2014 #131

Head of church, head of state - the Pope is both muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #109

He rules those 109 acres with an iron fist. rug Jan 2014 #110

No - in the 20th and 21st century, the Vatican gets Permanent Observer status in the UN too (nt) muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #112

My God! I bet the Observers come with Swiss Guards. rug Jan 2014 #115

Well, there is always the UK monarchy, where the Queen is also head of the church. cbayer Jan 2014 #126

................ Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #77

. . . . . rug Jan 2014 #82

I don't think it is a matter of "hate"... rexcat Jan 2014 #129

I use anti-theist in the same way Dawkins uses it. cbayer Jan 2014 #133

Personally... rexcat Jan 2014 #134

Go overboard by identifying a group that is a distinct subset? cbayer Jan 2014 #135

The word hate was in the quote. Whatever he meant, it's a two-way street. rug Jan 2014 #141

It does not necessarily have to be a two-way street... rexcat Jan 2014 #166

No, it doesn't. It's quite unproductive. rug Jan 2014 #167

Cannot go there with you. longship Jan 2014 #152

Did not for a moment think you would go there with me. cbayer Jan 2014 #155

I am fine with that and I still call you my friend. longship Jan 2014 #157

I don't question or have any problem with his scientifically based work. cbayer Jan 2014 #158

Cost me $130. (SOB!!!) longship Jan 2014 #160

Yikes! That's one expensive battery. cbayer Jan 2014 #163

Make sure you take in some whales. longship Jan 2014 #164

We are not likely to miss the whales, we just hope they miss us, lol! cbayer Jan 2014 #165

Show us where he has couched his anti-theism as "science" skepticscott Jan 2014 #162

Sorry, more utter crap skepticscott Jan 2014 #159

Nailed it. trotsky Jan 2014 #179

Dogmatic? Horseshit. skepticscott Jan 2014 #153

But liberals, atheist, etc.. edhopper Jan 2014 #9

Do you exclude religious people from the group you define as "liberals"? cbayer Jan 2014 #23

I was quoting the list in Texas' post. edhopper Jan 2014 #29

No, I don't find all religious fold open to debate. cbayer Jan 2014 #34

I don't think I have ever found a liberal say edhopper Jan 2014 #37

I have never said that people's religious beliefs should not be questioned, but cbayer Jan 2014 #44

Why do you think holding political beliefs is different than holding religious beliefs? trotsky Jan 2014 #67

The only thing I hate is some religious twit Warpy Jan 2014 #176

This quote explains so much in this group: trotsky Jan 2014 #5

Surely you have a link that illustrates that. rug Jan 2014 #10

You could start Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #13

Made me grin. edhopper Jan 2014 #16

And having found nothing, I may end up rug Jan 2014 #19

Wow Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #22

Sure, impugn an entire group. What's the word for that? rug Jan 2014 #30

I didn't alert Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #51

And then, there's this nonsense. rug Jan 2014 #12

Have you read his book Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #14

Does he also go into the evolutionary reasons for atheism? rug Jan 2014 #27

It's in Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #53

Thanks, I'll see if the library has it. rug Jan 2014 #55

I think my son has my copy but I'll check and see Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #62

You can find The God Delusion online... DreamGypsy Jan 2014 #111

Excellent! Thanks, let me take a look at iit. rug Jan 2014 #113

Ok, here is his premise: rug Jan 2014 #118

Because people edhopper Jan 2014 #144

Nice appeal to authority there, ed. rug Jan 2014 #145

of course edhopper Jan 2014 #146

Rephrasing doesn't save your argument. rug Jan 2014 #147

I could see how the idea that edhopper Jan 2014 #154

I tend to have that reaction to claptrap. rug Jan 2014 #156

And he wonders why he gets hate mail? cbayer Jan 2014 #127

Why would anything in the post you reply to indicate hate mail should be expected? muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #143

I didn't say it was justified, just that it's not surprising. cbayer Jan 2014 #148

What's 'vicious' or 'rabid'? muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #150

Gee, I don't know. cbayer Jan 2014 #151

Actually he isn't alone in this edhopper Jan 2014 #17

"most geneticists". That's convincing. rug Jan 2014 #28

Yes edhopper Jan 2014 #33

Have you an opinion on sociobiolgy? rug Jan 2014 #38

I think it is part of the picture edhopper Jan 2014 #45

Based on this, one might conclude that there is an adaptational advantage to cbayer Jan 2014 #25

A prejudged mind tends to see things in a blurry way. rug Jan 2014 #31

Not at all edhopper Jan 2014 #35

No, but specific traits that do not lend an adaptational advantage will most cbayer Jan 2014 #36

I'll explain again edhopper Jan 2014 #43

No need to explain again. I understand what he is saying perfectly well. cbayer Jan 2014 #46

And it takes a long time edhopper Jan 2014 #49

Yes it can take a long time, but it can also happen cbayer Jan 2014 #50

That might be true edhopper Jan 2014 #57

It doesn't negate it, I agree. cbayer Jan 2014 #59

His argument edhopper Jan 2014 #64

I understand that that is his position and it doesn't surprise, cbayer Jan 2014 #66

I think looking at religion as an adaptive trait edhopper Jan 2014 #73

One of the points here is that if and when it outlives any cbayer Jan 2014 #75

First edhopper Jan 2014 #78

Yes, we do disagree on that. cbayer Jan 2014 #81

Well we do have the understanding edhopper Jan 2014 #86

It can certainly be discussed without any theological input cbayer Jan 2014 #117

Really? edhopper Jan 2014 #123

I'm a little tired of being told that I am saying that people shouldn't discuss things here. cbayer Jan 2014 #124

I don't find that argument offensive edhopper Jan 2014 #130

In looking back at the subthread, I think I misread what you were saying cbayer Jan 2014 #132

Thanks for that edhopper Jan 2014 #137

I'm not a believer, so that is what may confuse you. cbayer Jan 2014 #138

I know edhopper Jan 2014 #139

You may or may not be one. The definition is pretty clear. cbayer Jan 2014 #140

Would i like there to be no religion? edhopper Jan 2014 #142

Didn't say you would like that. I said that what an anti-atheist wants. cbayer Jan 2014 #149

Maybe it has persisted because in the recent past, you could get your head cut off for calling out.. PassingFair Jan 2014 #184

There was an adaptational advantage Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #54

Well, that would come along with any advantages. longship Jan 2014 #61

I like the type I/type II explanation cbayer Jan 2014 #65

Well, my examples were just to give people an idea of how it might work. longship Jan 2014 #68

It certainly is not a settled field. cbayer Jan 2014 #70

k/r Dawson Leery Jan 2014 #103

There is a third possibilty. idendoit Jan 2014 #114

Based on what? nt el_bryanto Jan 2014 #116

Probably his rant on elevatorgate. rug Jan 2014 #119

It is very healthy to question religion. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #120

Healthy in the sense that it's good for a person's breadth and vista, not necessarily healthy dimbear Jan 2014 #121

I can't wait till we get one. rug Jan 2014 #122

In the middle ages, there was a friendly custom called trial by ordeal. Questions were settled dimbear Jan 2014 #136

It's very healthy to be able to accept the truth about religion skepticscott Jan 2014 #161

Can you please elaborate more on your statement? hrmjustin Jan 2014 #170

Is this the new tactic skepticscott Jan 2014 #171

My friend all I ask is for you to expand on your thoughts. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #172

Ah, so the similarity of your post 170 skepticscott Jan 2014 #173

ok scott! The iorny was I really was asking an honest question. so sorry to bother you. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #174

Yes, people tend to type badly skepticscott Jan 2014 #175

Scott I give you my word I was just asking you to expand on your answer. If I didnot explain it hrmjustin Jan 2014 #177

Obsequiousness neither becomes you nor convinces me skepticscott Jan 2014 #180

What did you mean by this? hrmjustin Jan 2014 #181

I'll try to explain in a less confrontational way. edhopper Jan 2014 #185

Thanks! Faith and doubt are always present in me. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #186

I know you are a believer. edhopper Jan 2014 #187

My faith has evolved over time. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #188

Thanks. edhopper Jan 2014 #189

Give us some examples�3 or 4 will do. skepticscott Jan 2014 #190

huh? hrmjustin Jan 2014 #191

Give us some examples skepticscott Jan 2014 #192

Well I used to believe praying to saints worked, and now I really don't believe it anymore. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #193

Well, I asked twice and still only got half an answer skepticscott Jan 2014 #194

I guess I came to the realization that God does not decide things. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #195

I offer you this quote from Epicurus, Greece 300 BC edhopper Jan 2014 #196

And why would "faith" not let you believe skepticscott Jan 2014 #197

Well those of us with fait are capable of critical thinking. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #198

Code red, code red. cbayer Jan 2014 #182

Lol! I really do value his opinion. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #183