Religion
Related: About this forumWhat do DU Atheists want of DU believers?
Last edited Mon Mar 24, 2014, 03:59 PM - Edit history (1)
There are a few political issues of disagreement (mainly Tax Exempt Status for Churches), but other than that what issues do Atheists care about that we could support them in?
Bryant
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)We'd just like you to leave the rest of us out of it. In other words, don't push your bull on the rest of us. Believe and do as you wish and leave us to do the same.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I can understand not wanting to be bothered at home, but isn't the point of a religion forum for people to discuss religion?
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)In a religious forum, you can discuss your religion as much as you want. Just in our law making and our lives in general, we are not with you and don't want to be.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)If I said that I feel that I believe that God will hold us responsible as a society and there for we need to have strong civil rights laws in order to ensure that everybody, black and white, straight and gay, male and female, is treated fairly, you'd probably disagree with my rationale, but probably would agree with the end goal.
Are there issues where you feel that DU Believers are not in harmony with what you think?
Bryant
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)I think the "New Christians" of hate and bigotry have really made many of us go sour on religion when we may have just been borderline before. I used to appreciate the religion and felt that it was at least good for people even if I didn't believe in it myself. Now what I see of people claiming God is some kind of perversion that would drive me so far from that concept of a God, that I could not run fast enough to get away.
It sounds like you are more of the Christians of my childhood where Jesus loved, rather than hated. I hope you guys win back the good name of Christianity, cause the republicans have made it a perverse joke.
take back your God! 
Heddi
(18,312 posts)with you and who believe that God holds us responsible as a society and therefore we need to have strong laws against same-sex marriage and women wearing pants and men having long hair and women having jobs and taking birth control and having the right to abortion.
That's the problem with having religious-based laws. You and many others think that equal rights and access to birth control and abortion are well within the confines of the bible. Other christians don't. Who's right? There's no way to tell other than the great "well I agree with that part of the bible so it's right" or "I disagree with that part of the bible so it's wrong"
If you think that God wants you to be a good person and do good things and treat others with kindness and empathy and to hold up the social contract where all people get the best out of life...then super. Do it. I think I need to be a good person and do good things and treat others with kindness and empathy and hold up the social contract where all people get the best out of life because it's the right thing to do. Are my motivations better or worse than yours because I'm not doing these things for religious reasons?
Keep religion at home. Keep religion in church. Keep religion in private school. Keep it out of the government, out of public schools, out of my workplace, and out of my face.
And when Atheists/Agnostics/Other Non-Believers say these things, that doesn't mean we're anti-theists (the great slur of the DU Religion room). It means we don't want religious beliefs codified into law. We don't want religious beliefs taught as fact in school. We don't want to face religious harrassment at our places of employment.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)
Alittleliberal
(528 posts)I hope everyone reads this.
ellenfl
(8,660 posts)
demwing
(16,916 posts)And yet, here you are, in the Religion group. Why is that?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You totally schooled her, eh?
Well, maybe not. You do understand the difference between freely choosing to engage in discussion and confront bigotr on an Internet message board, and being involuntarily subjected to the abuses of religion in real life, right?
goldent
(1,582 posts)I think it is just the old "there is someone on the Internet who is wrong and I've got to correct them" thing. The explains a lot of what is in Internet forums.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)religious institutions have demonstrated over and over again that they intend to codify their bigotry into law, and to dictate acceptable behavior. We have an extreme rightwing political movement in this country, a movement that has captured control of one of the two major political parties, and it is a movement that is allied with extreme fundamentalist Christian organizations. Religion needs to be opposed until it is no longer a threat.
AleksS
(1,665 posts)Your post made me think a lot.
So first of all: Thanks!
But I think it actually highlights the trouble I have as an atheist even with democratic religion-minded folks.
At first I thought, yeah, you're right. We both want the same end result, so that's awesome!
But as I scrolled through more responses, I kept having the nagging feeling I was missing something, and it took a while for me to pinpoint it:
While it is definitely awesome that we both want the same end result, I would like religion minded folks of all stripes, to stop basing their support of policy on their religion. Yes, I want the same policy as you when it comes to civil rights, and equal protections, but I think it is essential and vital that those policies are based not on religion or faith, but on strong rational, scientific, human-rights based foundations.
Here's why: If two folks are advocating for opposing positions on a policy, and each one's justification is their faith, then there's no way to evaluate which position should be pursued. The data points are Faith(A) vs Faith(B). And if we start legislating based on Faith(A), then there's not a lot to distinguish from when other folks want to base policy on Faith(B). It turns into a "He said Jesus said/She said Jesus said" situation.
Now, of course I appreciate having religious allies on issues. There are amazing and dedicated and powerful progressive leaders whose motivation comes from their faith. But the OP asked what an atheist would want, and I guess in an ideal world, I'd want everyone to support policy based on data about what actually works best for the common good and the best interests of the people of the country, and not base policy on their personal religious feelings and beliefs. I don't see that world happening any time soon though, so no worries. I will work hand-in-hand gratefully and thankfully with you each and every day to make a progressive USA happen.
That was long, and not particularly clearly stated. But if I had to shorten it up, I guess I'd go with:
I wouldn't want you to change your beliefs, or lose your beliefs, or change your work one iota. I would hope you could add secular, non religious motivations and justifications to the list of reasons you support progressive civil rights and human rights policies.
Does that make sense at all?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)the reasons people give for why they do something - a religious rationale should never be sufficient to move a policy forward. I might be motivated or encouraged by my religious beliefs but governing or law making based on those beliefs is problematic at best (and theocracy at worst).
Bryant
qazplm
(3,626 posts)and so if a "religious" reason gets enough folks there to change things positively, then why would I care?
the goal is x, so long as the means of getting to x don't harm anyone (and someone's personal motivations to do objective good rarely do) then so what?
Just because someone's motivations are non-religious doesn't make their own personal motivations any more logical or reasonable, but if it gets us there, awesome.
I don't think anyone here is talking about governing or making law based on religious beliefs, but religious beliefs informing someone's views is fine so long as it results in better equality for all.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)is that religious beliefs themselves are involved in defining what is meant by "harm" or "equality." Consider the conservative Christian who truly believes that abortion is murder. They believe that women who get an abortion are killing their unborn children. They naturally then want to stop that harm. They are perfectly justified, in your scenario, for trying to make abortion illegal solely for religious reasons. After all, they are simply trying to prevent harm from occurring. Harm that would come from the religious beliefs of others who think abortion is acceptable. Why should you care?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)that tie back to the religious or philosophical opinions of a person, but they shouldn't be an argument in favor of doing that political action or a justification for it.
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)but legitimizing beliefs as a reason for that political action, we create more problems. We empower the religious right.
"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible." - Barack Obama
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)If you say "I want to pass this law because God says I should" that's a religious justification for the law, and that should beyond the pale.
On the other hand if I want to be an honest public servant because I believe that's what God wants of me, than that's fine. In my opinion.
That's the difference between justifying a law with an appeal to religion and trying to be a good person because that's what you believe God wants of you. Of course people can be perfectly good without believing in God.
Bryant
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)with some of the religionists here. They ask what they can do to compromise with atheists, so we'll stop being such meanies, but when you tell them, they say that what you suggest is impossible for them. They are not interested in any kind of compromise that matters, any more than their fundy brethren.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to treat an illness, and both were equally effective in curing what you were taking them for, but one had far more negative side effects, which one would you choose?
Would it be "logical" or "reasonable" to take the one with much worse side effects? Or would you not care, as long as it "got you there"?
demwing
(16,916 posts)2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)but of course someone had to nit pick on something. lol
demwing
(16,916 posts)that's we as in you and I, not as in you, and me and a "lot of others." In general.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)lol doesn't seem important to the issue.
demwing
(16,916 posts)You were asked if you were speaking specifically about this group, or just in general. You said you were speaking in generalities.
Yet you present your point, not as a personal opinion, but as the consensus opinion of some group you refer to as "we."
So I asked who, in general, is the "we" that you speak for?
If you had said "people in general" I'd challenge that assumption. People in general, don't share your religious views.
Instead, you said that the"we" referred to other people in this group, and so we are back again to the question of whether you were speaking in specifics, or in generalities.
If you're speaking for others in this group, don't. They can speak for themselves, and while thy may agree with some of what you have said, they may not agree on everything. Try to avoid assumptions about who believes as you do.
That's why this is important
...
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)on bullshit. I did not say we referred to others in the group only that it appeared others agreed from the posts. You are really really trying hard. You seem to be of the grammar police group that hangs around DU.
Really, we is what you have a problem with. That is NOT pertinent to the post but typical of the crap you see here. I posted because I saw the post as I see all post. If this is a special group then I will try to not post. Oops, I mean WE will try not to post in your group so that you can only deal with those who you agree with.
Not going to check spelling. That will probably piss you off. LOL
on edit: OMG I did not include a question mark. Will you still be able to figure it out?
No, I have changed OUR mind, lol. WE will post where, when and how we want. I suggest that you put me on ignore so you don't have to work so hard to figure anything out.
matt819
(10,749 posts)That's just what I think about believers.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)I am not a believer.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)But please leave religion out of government, or give up your tax exempt status.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)And if so, how do we do that?
I generally agree with the theory that if a church takes a political stand (i.e. tells members how to vote) that it should lose Tax Exempt Status.
Bryant
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... to accounts of this happening, and it happens a lot.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Someone will post it here, and DU Believers will defend the actions of the people jamming religion into politics. I can see that happening on occasion, depending on how the OP is structured. Sometimes they are structured as broad-brush attacks on religion rather than specific instances; I'm pretty sure I've responded to posts like that.
Something to consider; I gather I should be more careful to be more clear in my reactions to those types of stories. Thank you.
Bryant
longship
(40,416 posts)And as an atheist, I agree with your stand on politics and religion.
I also think people have a right to believe as they want as long as they do not attempt to impose those beliefs on others, which is precisely what the GOP is attempting to do.
But, other than that, I have no desire to eliminate religion, as if that were even possible.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)A big part of 2008 and 2012 wins were the pastors in churches telling the folks to get out and vote and vote for Obama. I was very pleased by this. We cannot have it both ways though and allow some churches the freedom to preach politics and not all of them. A big majority of churches are Democratic at least with regards to congregation.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I have to way my personal observation runs counter to that.
Bryant
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)It is about 1/2 way down the page. It says the end of the White Christian Republican (or something similar)...could have said conservative actually. I remember seeing many pastors talking to their congregations especially in inner city churches talking about voting and especially President Obama. I also remember the Republicans complaining about it. Typical. I just like the idea myself. It is a great way to get people to vote and we need inner city churches to talk as much as possible in 2014 about November than ever before. They could be the key to winning in November. I would not count them out.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)As long as I'm not expected to adhere to its rules, have at it!
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)There aren't many uses for them 
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)In their own little minds, anyway.
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)but they always leave the hindquarters (rat's ass).
arcane1
(38,613 posts)TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)well maybe a brain fart, Maybe cats hear humans say, "I don't give a rat's ass about....." and the cats think that humans value rat's asses and that's why they leave them around for me to find.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
edhopper
(33,582 posts)and the habit of not leaving unanswered questions alone, with wanting you to do anything.
While there are political and practical issues that crop up here, there is an ongoing conversation about the logic and reason of religious belief. Probing for answers or asking believers to question their fundamental beliefs is a major part of that debate. If you want to be left alone with your beliefs and not have them challenged, no one is forcing you to take part of those threads. Once you do, there shouldn't be any civil question that is out of bounds.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)That said 1) I always care about the implications of a belief - a belief that has no effect on behavior isn't worth talking about.
2) I think that when it comes to actions DU Believers and Theists are actually pretty close together,
3) There's a concerted effort by some to paint Believers in general and DU Believers specifically in a very harsh light.
Bryant
edhopper
(33,582 posts)but I assumed you wondered why the Atheist here continue to challenge believers. I answered that as best I could.
I don't think that DU believers support political ideas out of the Dem mainstream, or that "we want" believers to do something in particular. Perhaps the exception would be a DUers support of the homophobic, anti-woman, pro-pedophile, criminal organization that is the Catholic Church.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)
sinkingfeeling
(51,457 posts)religion doesn't determine the kind of person you are anymore than the color of one's skin does, and banning the use of taxpayer monies to support 'private' education for starters? And of course, we want to live our lives without being hounded about being non-believers.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Get rid of that, and I'll discuss it with you. If I were to just discuss it with you, many would take that as me agreeing with the underlying assumption you make in the subject of this OP.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Here's what I think. Not all inclusive but a start.
Some level of support that we aren't the enemy. Some level of understanding that wanting religion out of the public sphere doesn't mean we want all theists to die a horrible death in the fire. My Walker tweet OP as an example. Liberal progressives should support a group that is trying to stop the Gov of a state from making religious tweets on his official account. Instead, there was misdirection, obfuscation, and dismissal of the group and action as silly.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)by R. Moore and Isaac Kramnick - thought it was great. There are minor incidents of religion in public life that don't bother me (ceremonial stuff), but in general feel that the Bible has little to no place in the public sphere.
edited to add; in fairness - even though they don't bother me, there's a good argument to be made for discontinuing them, because they do bother other people. Certainly a community who starts their town council meeting 51 weeks a year with a christian prayer and 1 week a year with a Jewish prayer isn't very welcoming to other faiths and atheists.
Bryant
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I couldn't care less about a lot of the stuff, too, but there is a lot of pressure in this country to be a Christian and those that indicate they aren't are not always received well.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Public vs private. Surely you've heard that phrase before.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)the bathrooms at the mall are public the ones in my house are private, again not the government. And given some of your previous posts I really wasn't sure what your dogmatic view of the 'public sphere' was so I asked the question.
Mariana
(14,857 posts)owned by individuals or corporations, and run for their profit. The school and the courthouse are public, owned by the people, and run for their benefit, administered by the government.
I believe you understand the difference.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)That if you read down and look at Warren Demontegues, Mellowdems and particularly Skepticscotts contribution to the discussion, all three made it clear that what they want is for believers to stop their practice of religion. Skepticscott went so far as to accuse me of being disingenuous for asking what I could do and then not being willing to give up my religion.
So you know, maybe you owe me an apology on this particular point.
Bryant
procon
(15,805 posts)As an atheist, religion is probably be the farthest thing from my mind and the least likely go-to option.
I fully support the concept that everyone is allowed to believe -- or not -- as they choose in the sanctity of their person, home and places of worship...PERIOD!
To the adherents of any organized religion, I'd simply ask them to please stop using the tools of government as a weapon to force everyone to submit to their peculiar religious mores and taboos of the moment.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Atheists in the United States are a minority and arguably a persecuted minority (it's very hard for them to get elected as openly atheist for example, which is terrible). It's worthwhile to look at ways that DU Believers can support them, in my opinion. Better to look for ways to be positive rather than be constantly negative.
Bryant
edhopper
(33,582 posts)I would say keeping this a secular nation with God and religion out of government. Thoroughly opposing the idea that it is a Christian nation and that Christianity or the Bible has any formal place in our government. Individuals are free to believe whatever the want, and those beliefs will obviously inform their opinions. But religion should not be the basis for anything the government does. And it would be good for all DUers to support this.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Iggo
(47,558 posts)Take it easy! Take it easy! I was just kidding.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Where did I say that?
Read my post again. Especially the body of the post.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)
Warpy
(111,267 posts)Upholding the wall of separation between church and state would be nice.
Other than that, just letting us be who we are while acknowledging that we don't dine on kittens for breakfast. Mostly, we're like garden variety believers, we just don't believe a word of it.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)is the latest in a series of posts about how believers kill people around them in order to exorcise the demons in them. But I take your meaning.
Bryant
Warpy
(111,267 posts)even if they do turn into knee jerk jerks when a post insulting atheist DU members is alerted on.
There does seem to be that level of religious insanity elsewhere, though.
edhopper
(33,582 posts)I don't know if atheists want anything from you. But if you post something that talks about the likelihood of "evil spirits' I don't think you should be surprised if atheist take you to task and point out the ridiculous nature of the concept.
You are free to continue to believe in such farfetched things, just not go unchallenged. I suppose atheist would like it if people understood how ludicrous these ideas are in this day and age, but we are not holding our collective breath.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)leads believers to kill people around them in an effort to exorcise demons.
I am curious though - is believing in God more or less ludicrous than believing in spirits? Is a Shintoist or Hindu more ludicrous than a Christian because of that? Or once you believe in the unseeable, does it really matter what specific ludicrous thing you believe?
Bryant
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)but not in any "god", is probably the sign of a deeply confused and conflicted individual, trying to be an intellectual pretzel just to please everyone and appear "tolerant".
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)He seems more interested in debate and discussion.
Bryant
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)"is believing in God more or less ludicrous than believing in spirits?" I responded that someone who believes in one, but not the other is probably intellectually confused. I thought it was fairly clear from that that I find those beliefs about equally unsupported by evidence, so believing in one, but not the other (or saying that you do) doesn't make much sense.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)That's an interesting theory.
Bryant
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Too bad it wasn't.
Do you and the other religionists here thrive on putting words in other people's mouths, and making things up about what they said? Because you sure seem to do a lot of it.
phil89
(1,043 posts)You pointed out what I was thinking as well.
phil89
(1,043 posts)outdated institution. The less power religion has the better. Speaking for myself only.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)All of these religions, at least within some of their versions and associated sets of believers, believe in "spirits" of various sorts, where a spirit is some less than all powerful supernatural being.
Hinduism is actually a form of monotheism, all the "lesser" deities are just expressions of the one god Brahma.
Christianity, particularly Catholicism, has a whole pantheon of lesser deities, including of course Satan and the rest of the angels, plus as we know, assorted demons.
It is hard to take any of this mumbo jumbo seriously, but offhand, I'd say Shinto spirits at least model the natural world, like other shamanistic religions, and are to me less ludicrous than the authoritarian all powerful sky beings of traditional monotheistic patriarchal religions.
edhopper
(33,582 posts)Yes and no, Some beliefs are more ridiculous than others, especially if they fly in the face of known scientific knowledge.
But in general the larger question of belief in the supernatural does cover most religions.
rug
(82,333 posts)This is a political discussion board not a Festivus site.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)But reading some of the posts and getting riled up started me to thinking what can I do positively rather than just unload as I have done in the past.
Bryant
rug
(82,333 posts)Good luck.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I have my problems with some of the posters here -but I hope that most of them are decent enough.
Bryant
rug
(82,333 posts)Hope is a virtue but misplaced hope is folly.
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)Pre- the jury system I had 2 posts locked, one in this forum the other Israel/Palestine. I commend certain theists who have managed to post on this forum and keep their heads. I have never seen an atheist get a post locked here - I wonder why that is?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)probably warranted.
Bryant
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Can't argue with that iron-clad logic.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Your data is incomplete. Despite all the invective, hardly anyone is having a post locked in this forum anymore. Most of us have learned how to play within the rules.
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)If one posts on religious subjects be ready for a FLAME war. I just gave up for the most part. There is little real discussions and certainly no meeting of minds.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)I think everyone has a right to believe what they choose; but I do not like the type of people who go around trying to justify right-wing legislation in terms of religion, or who attempt to defeat candidates for being insufficiently 'pro-life' or otherwise not conforming to hardline religious rules. Mind you, I also don't like such people when their religion is the Holy Free Market!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)mr blur
(7,753 posts)Never mind, gives you a chance to feel persecuted.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)persecuted in this country.
And to be frank I think I have gotten a good deal of respect from the people of this site except for a handful of posters.
rug
(82,333 posts)mr blur
(7,753 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Heddi
(18,312 posts)Too bad you've not noted them.
There's an old saying...when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail." When you expect to see the worst in people, that's exactly what you see. As evidenced by your post.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)A reminder: the OP is titled "What do DU Atheists want of DU Believers," so what you want or wish really isn't relevant to this post or topic. Unless you identify as an Atheist.
You could always start your own thread asking the reverse question (what do DU believers want of du atheists) and answer it there. THat would probably be a much more appropriate place for your comment. Since you're, you know, not an Atheist.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But thanks for your concern
Heddi
(18,312 posts)I mean, it *was* okay for *you* to tell *US* what was and wasn't appropriate to post in the A/A forum, right? I was just following your lead. Sauce for the goose, etc, etc.
at any rate, why not pose the reverse question for believers? I'm sure there would be very interesting responses. I'd do it, but I'm not a believer, and I try to stay out of conversations that are directed at people who are members of groups I'm not a part of.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Oh and I loved your wonderful comments to me in that room.
The Gomer Pyle comment was priceless.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)Hopefully you savoured them like a fine wine. And they're there for you to look back on fondly whenever the desire comes to you. Unlike your posts which were self-deleted. So no one can be reminded of your nanny-like finger-wagging. Or the "oh! really! This isn't welcome?? Why, how could that be? How is this possible? I was just trying to be friendly!!!!" shock and dismay when you weren't welcomed with roses and puppy-dog kisses. Just precious, that. But you really had no idea that you'd get that reaction. No idea t'all. Precious. Just precious. I'd say "bless your heart" but I don't believe in blessings.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But yes they were hilarious but alas I don't feel the need to reread them.
As much as I can't myself away from your charming company I doubt we will get anywhere here so unless you have more insults to hurl at me.
BTW iwas asked to self delete my posts in there.
Hugs from Gomer Pyle.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)How in the world is my response to you *any* different from the sardonic, sarcastic responses that A/A's get in this group on a regular basis? I don't really ever see you chastising your friends or such behaviour when they do it, so I thought this was the kind of dialogue you prefer. I wasn't rude, I didn't call you names. I just pointed out the facts as I see them. 
Beam in the eye and all that, my friend.
But really, this derailing of the OP has gone on far enough. Please, do have the last word.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)That was what I was talking about.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)Yes yes like you were asked. But that just makes you come off smelling like a rose, doesn't it? Those mean ol' anti-theists, being such meanie poopoo heads to hmrjustin for no dog-gone reason. Hmph!!! the nerve of us!!! Why, you just came to that group with hugs and flowers and unicorns and glitter bombs and we just shoved you away and were mean mean mean.
Yeah.
okay.
again, how awesome for you. No evidence of your nastiness. How absolutely awesome.
And I stand by what I said.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)All I said was I thought the op was a callout and against the rules of the room.my mistake. I never personally insulted you or anyone there.
But you know if you can't stand me you can place me on ignore you know. There are days I wish I could use it.
rug
(82,333 posts)
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)to give up religious (false) beliefs both for their own sakes and for society's.
I'm an anti-theist because I think false beliefs, no matter how seemingly benign, are always harmful. Theism provides nothing good that secularism can't as well. It has no good value for society.
I'm encouraged that more and more people in the US are giving up on religion, but we haven't reached a tipping point yet, and religion is still socially normative to the point that many false ideas remain widely believed and even given undue deference, where questioning them is considered offensive. As I and others question what religion has taken for granted more and more, it becomes less offensive and more people are willing to look at the substance of their own beliefs.
That's why I question fundamental beliefs of religion and point out the terrible nature of many of the beliefs.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I initially posted this with a line about "short of giving up religion" but it was felt that that was a strawman argument as most DU Athiests aren't asking DU believers to give up their religious beliefs. Assuming that DU Believers don't want to give up their religious beliefs (which I think is a pretty fair assumption), what short of that do you want?
Bryant
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)On the rest of DU I look for community and discussion of current events from a progressive viewpoint.
Because I find religion harmful, I find progressive religion to be harmful to progressive ideology, even though it's much preferable to the alternative. This forum is the perfect place to discuss why and to attempt to refine progressive ideology going forward so that it is stronger, and I think dropping religion from it helps.
I'm rarely going to discuss this anywhere IRL, there are few opportunities and it's not a priority compared to bigger fish, but here is a perfect place to discuss my ideas about religion and progressive ideology.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)If your main goal here is to convince Progressive Believers to stop being believers, and I have no intention of giving up my belief . . . doesn't seem like there's much to discuss.
Bryant
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)with the intent to never change their mind no matter what, then I don't know why they're there. They won't get anything out of it, that's for sure.
But, that's religion for you, and another reason I find it maladaptive.
Course, I used to think the same thing when I was a believer. But sometimes evidence and logic and reason overcome closed minds, eventually.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)And my view of atheism and the distinction between it and belief has certainly evolved through discussion. I do want to understand other ways people look at the world, as I find that beneficial, even if I don't necessarily intend to put into practice everything they might say.
So in that sense it would be beneficial to continue to discuss, even if I don't come to be an atheist.
That said, the disdain that some have for believers is wearying.
Bryant
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)You just said you would change your mind on other issues, but not this one. That's the definition of a closed mind.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Spillover from another discussion, and I'm sorry.
OK - rather than saying I wouldn't change my mind, let me say it would require something quite telling to get me to change my mind - as my experiences in life have led me to believe there is a God because I've felt his presence.
Bryant
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)are a form of confirmation bias. For example, if a person experiences hallucinations because of head trauma, or dehydration, or anything really, and they have no concept of a particular god, but have a concept of some other type of god, then they'll ascribe their experiences to what they are familiar with or believe in, unsurprisingly. How many Buddhists have a religious experience and then attribute it to the Christian god?
I, and many other believers I was with when I still was going to worship events, thought we were experiencing god's presence when we were in worship groups singing and chanting, but looking back I realize that I can still have those same experiences today, and they are natural phenomena, nothing supernatural about feelings of awe or wonder or ecstasy or excitement etc. etc.
So what seems more likely. That your personal experiences are the result of natural phenomena or of a personal, invisible, unprovable being that created the universe?
Could discussion convince you, or just more experiences? What types of experiences would make you not believe in a god?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I don't know what type of experiences could convince me there is no God, but I don't think I went to experience them. I suppose my reaction to this sort of discussion is perhaps similar to the one you have when a Christian says "But have you ever really tried praying?"
I don't believe there is a set of circumstances that would cause me to stop believing in a God, but there's no way to know for sure I suppose.
Bryant
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)It was such that it's more likely to be explained by a very specific deity that created the universe than the many, many different experiences all humans can go through based on all type of natural causes. Considering how powerful our brains are, that doesn't seem more likely to you? Even knowing that we don't fully understand the brain yet, we have evidence of the many different seemingly real experiences it can create for people.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Isn't it just as possible that our powerful brains are possible of picking up signals and transmission that science hasn't codified yet? I mean yes, it's possible that my religious experience was all a complicated and believable hallucination. But is it also possible that my brain received signals on a wavelength that science hasn't discovered yet?
But then again I don't expect or require you to change your position on the existence of God.
Bryant
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)What would be just as likely as your explanation is transmissions from aliens. Actually, that would be more likely since there is a very good chance aliens are real from the evidence we have.
What makes you think the transmission wasn't from another god or goddess, or something else entirely? How did you get to the specific god?
We have evidence that our brain can change our perceptions in powerful ways, we have no evidence of divine transmissions, which is why I think it far less likely of an explanation. Of the evidence we have, it's far more likely to be a natural than supernatural cause. We have no evidence for anything supernatural, and plenty for natural causes.
There are an infinite number of supernatural concepts that can be imagined, which makes picking one of them always less likely than natural causes, besides there being no evidence vs. some evidence.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)It wasn't something that happened out of the blue; my experiences with divinity happened in the context of me praying to God for guidance or for comfort under very specific circumstances.
Bryant
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Other people with other religions that have experiences almost always attribute it to their god or goddess, which seems to imply that these experiences are entirely subjective and a product of confirmation bias.
If Muslims and Hindus were having religious experiences and were confused because the god appearing to them identified himself as Thor, I think that would make a lot more sense if there was a god. But people always identifying with concepts they are familiar with is exactly what would be expected by confirmation bias.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)him/her/it, which we interpret based on our own experiences and beliefs.
Bryant
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)But it lines up exactly with what we would expect if there was no god. We have evidence for people engaging in confirmation bias. We have no evidence for a god that only appears to people based on concepts and beliefs they already have. Wouldn't that strike you as a little too convenient?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)My experience could be nonsense or it could be real - I suppose I prefer to believe the latter. But I've never been one to believe that you could argue someone into believing in God; either they have an experience with the divine or they don't.
Bryant
rug
(82,333 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I'll change my mind. If someone can convince me that good evidence isn't needed to believe in god, then maybe I'll change my mind on bad evidence. If god comes down from heaven and appears to everyone, I'd be likely to change my mind.
rug
(82,333 posts)You routinely characterize religious institutions as inherently destructive and beliefs, and thereby, believers, as deluded. I don't think you look at evidence with an open mind at all.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I can characterize delusions and the institutions that promote them as harmful while also keeping an open mind to explanations for why they aren't. I haven't heard any good explanations yet.
Opinions alone don't make you closed minded.
You essentially just said that because I have an opinion (that you don't like I assume) I'm closed minded. That makes absolutely no sense. I see a pattern with your posts of making no sense and avoiding the subject matter and failing to provide reasoning for any of your claims. Unless you think that is a good reason?
If someone says they'll never consider another position no matter what, that's closed minded, and many religious dogmas fit that definition very well. Maybe you should read up on them so you understand what the definitions of words are.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Does progressive religion do more harm than atheists who vote for and support conservative candidates, including actual theocrats?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)but they give those atheist conservatives ammunition and they give conservative theists legitimacy. And progressive ideas based on a religious foundation are easily picked apart.
The Pope promotes progressive economic policies, but he also believes the devil is behind gay marriage. The idea that progressive economic policies are good because god said so isn't convincing, and he legitimizes other belief systems that are terrible. Even the most progressive minded believers legitimize conservative religious belief systems, because their ideas on god are just as valid as anyone else's.
It's a terrible way to reason progressive policies and values when there are much better evidence and logic based reasons out there.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)persuade conservative atheists to give up their conservatism? Since the secular perspective is so much more persuasive than a religion-based one?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)it's what I and many others hope to try to use on anyone to change their mind.
I think the reason atheists are mostly progressive is because a secular perspective is much more convincing for progressive ideas.
Given most out atheists trend white and male, given that they also are relatively progressive, against what their other demographics suggest, shows to me that perhaps it is indeed that it is easier to persuade people to progressive ideas who are more inclined to logic and reason.
Conservatism is dominated by religious people, and for good reason I think.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)other than it's traditional, ie 'case law' or 'precedent'?
Seems like, these days, churches on both the 'right' and 'left' end of things are getting political, in which case I think such exemptions should disappear. For example, the church in Albany that raffled off an 'assault rifle' (how the news labeled it, I don't know what model it was.) and the pastor (guest pastor?) was on the news spouting off about the second amendment. That's politics, not religion. Said church should not be tax exempt.
Other than that? Hold whatever beliefs you want to hold, but keep them off of thy neighbour. Let them hold their own beliefs, and don't impose your religiously-based ideas onto others. You (and this is the general you, not the personal you) believe abortion is sinful? Fine, don't have an abortion. But also don't make it harder for other people who don't agree with you to get them. You believe homosexuality is a sin? Fine, don't engage in it. But also don't block others who don't agree with you from doing so, or otherwise behaving like any other couple in love.
Etc, etc, ad nauseum. Believe what you want, but don't try and impose political solutions that back up your beliefs onto others who don't believe them. Not quite the golden rule - Don't do unto others what you want done unto you.
That's my main beef with religion as it intrudes into politics and the lives of the non-religious.
LostOne4Ever
(9,289 posts)I would like strong and consistent support for the separation of church and state. For the majority of DU believers I think I already got that.
There are others, however, who are not so consistent or very caring for that principle. The WTC cross thread in GD (as opposed to the one here) the OP refused to ever admit that all AA really wanted was a plaque that they were willing to pay for, despite many posters replying to him/her telling him/her exactly that.
That same poster consistently tried to frame the debate as mean non-believers trying to take away other peoples symbol of hope. Similarly, there was another thread (can't remember the forum) where they were talking about another memorial cross somewhere else where another poster showed a complete disdain for this principle.
I was not here for the entire Michael Newdow episode, but I have a feeling that there were some here who were less than supportive. I see things like "one nation under god" and "in god we trust" as dangerous violations of that principle that are used REPEATEDLY by the rightwing to try and justify further incursions of their religion into our government.
Let us not forget that a fairly Modern US president said the following:
[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]George H. W. Bush[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
There is an effort by the RW to associate patriotism with faith in god in this country. And not just any god, but a conservative evangelical protestant god who hates women, gays, and liberals. This effort has to be rigorously opposed. But instead when Newdow took his case to court 77% of LIBERALS were opposed to him. Seventy seven percent. Liberals. Defenders of the separation of church and state.
That number should never have been that high. Ever.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to belief in things for which there is no good evidence, and to behavior based on that belief. Stop elevating "faith" (belief in something in the absence of evidence, or in the face of contradictory evidence) as a virtue.
Are you willing to do those things? Are you even willing to discuss those things? Or was your OP just disingenuous pot-stirring?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I'd basically have to hide it? Or what?
Bryant
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Some of them want that.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)or dishonest? Or am I reading too much into your response?
Bryant
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)As I have known many religious people who were neither thoughtless or dishonest - but I appreciate your willingness to state honestly what you think of religious people.
Bryant
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)conclusions as you.
Is this the only issue on which you feel that everybody who disagrees with you is thoughtless and/or dishonest? Or is that sort of how you look at things in general?
Bryant
qazplm
(3,626 posts)and I'm not religious.
EVERYONE has something in their head that's "thoughtless." A belief, a conceit, a prejudice, what have you.
Let's assume for the moment that there is no God, and every religious person believes something that isn't true.
How is that different from every other human who's ever lived and ever will lived?
Why does that make them "thoughtless" and you not "thoughtless?"
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)"Unexamined". My guess is that 90% of religious people have never seriously examined their religious beliefs. Instead they just do as their parents did, as they were taught to do. They haven't made a conscious choice to be religious.
That leaves the remainder. That would be the people who have consciously made a choice to be religious after real consideration of what that means. I agree that my assertion that this group makes the choice to be religious dishonestly, within which I include self deception, is contentious, not the other claim regarding the vast majority of rote believers.
qazplm
(3,626 posts)Sure, a lot of folks do as their parents did, of course, if you think your parents haven't greatly impacted your life in some way (or if not your parents then some other surrogate parental figure you did take after) then you are likely wrong.
and by impact I mean that there is some area of your life that you believe in or follow because of those influences, not because of a deep examination of the truth of it.
Then you add in cultural influences that make you different then you would be if you had grown up in India, or Russia, or the middle of the Amazon.
I'm sure I'm missing some.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Because I didn't say that. Most people's entire conceptual framework, from religion to politics to 'lifestyle' is unexamined, is thoughtless. Religious beliefs are no way special in this regard.
qazplm
(3,626 posts)so singling out folks who believe something religious as thoughtless is pretty useless/silly in that context. Religious beliefs ARENT special in that regard, and you aren't special in that regard the other way (neither am I).
So the proper, logical approach then returns, as it usual does, to an individual examination of actions and effects by a person, not broad denunciations of a wide swath.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Again, you keep restating exactly what I said and then claiming that there is some disagreement. For most people their religion is about as profoundly held a belief as their favorite sports team.
And again, that is the non contentious part. Why you are stuck on it escapes me.
qazplm
(3,626 posts)Question: "Is it fair to infer from that that you believe that religious people are either thoughtless
or dishonest? Or am I reading too much into your response?"
Your Answer: "no that is exactly what I said."
I said that was silly.
You then "restated" that you meant unexamined and then made up a percentage on the spot that could have only come from your nether regions.
I then pointed out both that fact, and the fact that everyone has parts of their lives that come from someplace other than a deep, meaningful thought process so singling out religion was pretty silly.
You ignored my criticism of your made-up statistic, restated it as "unique" (which is even higher than 90%), and then apparently unwittingly made my point, which you still don't appear to get.
Nowhere in there did I "restate" exactly what was said by you. In fact, you are the one that's restated from the original comment that "religious people are either thoughtless or dishonest."
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 25, 2014, 05:33 PM - Edit history (1)
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)or in the face of contradictory evidence in order to be a religious person? If your answer is no, then you've answered your own question. If your answer is yes, then you've demonstrated why science and religion are fundamentally not compatible, and also shown that you understand the real harm that religion does, and that you're unwilling to do anything about it, despite asking.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)There are religions which are non-spiritual, but my particular faith requires me to believe in the supernatural. So to answer your question, while one can practice a religion without believing in a spiritual world, most faiths (certainly the bulk in America) do.
A spiritual world is not provable by science; while many believers would state that they have felt a connection to the spiritual world, which they take as personal evidence.
So for me the answer is yes, for most Americans I believe the answer is yes, but some religions could answer no.
I acknowledge that there are some problems religion causes, but I believe the benefits to outweigh those problems.
Bryant
stopbush
(24,396 posts)Do you believe in angels? If so, why?
Do you believe in fairies? If not, why not?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Well I do believe in Angels; they are mentioned in the Bible, and my own faith teaches some pretty specific things about them (I'm Mormon).
Fairies are trickier, because the key term is not clearly defined. Are fairies simply nature spirits, watching over the natural world? Or are they some sort of complicated type of angel that split off from God but not far enough to actually become demonic? I've never seen or felt any connection to fairies so I'd generally say no, but I'm not certain.
Bryant
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)are not remotely the same. You really need to get a grasp on the terms you use.
And you've answered your own question...you CAN be a religious person under the terms laid out. You and a lot of other people have chosen to adhere to religions that require belief in things at odds with reason and evidence, however. Which is why you're called out here for believing in myths, fairy tales and other ridiculous things.
You asked what DU believers could do (quite disingenuously, it's now clear), but you've rejected every reasonable suggestion.
And can you name one good thing done by religion that could not, in principle, have been done without it?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I think the tone of this post has been largely positive, and yet you claim that I've rejected every reasonable suggestion - the reasonable suggestion you put forward is that I abandon my particular faith. That's not in fact a reasonable suggestion.
As for that last question, with in the narrow confines of a strictly materialistic existence there is not one good thing done by religion that couldn't be done without it.
Bryant
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Is that all you can do? I didn't tell you to abandon your faith, and you know that. Why would you be so dishonest to say that I did?
Here's what I actually said, in response to your question "What do DU Atheists want of DU believers?"
Stop lending legitimacy to belief in things for which there is no good evidence, and to behavior based on that belief. Stop elevating "faith" (belief in something in the absence of evidence, or in the face of contradictory evidence) as a virtue.
Tell us, please, what is "unreasonable" about those suggestions? Tell us what is good and necessary about the things I suggested not be done.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)You and a lot of other people have chosen to adhere to religions that require belief in things at odds with reason and evidence, however. Which is why you're called out here for believing in myths, fairy tales and other ridiculous things.My Faith teaches the existence of a supernatural God - a God who actually exists (in my belief system). There are religions which don't require a belief in God, my particular faith does require that.
You asked what DU believers could do (quite disingenuously, it's now clear), but you've rejected every reasonable suggestion.
That's what I meant when I suggested I would have to abandon my particular faith to follwo your counsel.
You should calm down.
Bryant
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The other thing that DU believers could do is stop dodging direct questions, and show some intellectual honesty instead. I'll repeat:
Tell us, please, what is "unreasonable" about those suggestions? Tell us what is good and necessary about the things I suggested not be done.
Do you have an answer? And if so, why didn't you provide it the first time around.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)And that's your request, than I don't know how I can convince you otherwise. And I'm not that interested in trying.
Your hostility really must take a toll. Have you considered taking a break from DU? I mean really it can't be healthy.
Bryant
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Well, you got me there, dude.
And do you even realize that everyone reading this knows I didn't say "you need to stop believing in a literal god"? So why would you tell a deliberate falsehood about that, especially when I actually repeated what I DID say? Does being made to look foolish make you turn off part of your brain, dude? Are you so afraid of answering direct questions (a plague among the religionistas here, so you're in good company) that you'll do anything to deflect from them?
Pathetic.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Even if you didn't use exactly those words. I think think that everyone reading your posts will quickly realize that no matter what a religionista says you will take offense and get upset. And no matter how patiently they repeat your words you will then prtend they mean something different when you say them.
Bryant
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Another religionista who says, well, you didn't use those EXACT words, but I know that's what you MEANT, so I'm going to quote you as having said it, anyway. If you can't be intellectually honest and cope with what people actually say, instead of what you'd like to invent and attack them for, you're better off gone.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Life's too short to put up with someone like you.
Bryant
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)If you're not willing to truly engage on an issue that YOU opened up, don't be surprised when your "polls" aren't taken seriously. Or you.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)But you can't please everyone. Such is life.
Bryant
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Did you really care to discuss what you asked in any depth?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)Straight, honest answers and a willingness to question strongly held belief. Exactly the same as I expect from atheists and everyone else.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)They say they are Christians, but when I ask for specifics I get dodges and non-answers.
Then they say they recite creeds in church they don't believe in, without giving me any specifics.
I don't say things I don't believe in religiously, but they do.
They also explain away the passages in the bible where Jesus was mean and cruel. "Oh, he was speaking in metaphors."
I'd like some respect too.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)If you have any now or in the future.
goldent
(1,582 posts)Regarding getting answers, very few Christians are experts on the subject. The problem is that when people don't know the answer, not many say "I don't know" and so they guess, or give a response with little thought.
And of course they are not compelled to give answers that satisfy you. My work is very non-religious, and I often get answers I am not satisfied with, and I've learned that sometimes that is all I'm going to get.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)views on health and treatments; pro-Israelis and pro-Palestinians; etc.:
Basically, that they should not quote right-wingers in defence of their views!
ETA: I mentioned the latter examples because in fact most of my arguments with people about using right-wing sources have occurred in either the Health or I/P forums!
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)However, often the interests of both believers and "nones" seem to coincide to some degree. Most would agree that religion that physically kills people is not good?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I don't know that anybody has defended murdering people in the name of religion, have they? I think it's more about trying to link these terrible cases to a general indictment of religion that have lead to disagreement.
Bryant
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)If they really liked cooperation and congenial discussion, The Interfaith Group would be buzzing with activity. It ain't. Except when they take a break from here to bash atheists and anti-theists in a safe haven.
rug
(82,333 posts)
Peacetrain
(22,877 posts)I am a Christian.. very committed to my faith. I try hard. Most people who claim to be Christians aren't.. simple as that.. they use and have always used religion as a hammer to diminish others. As soon as you see something like that.. you know that is not a Christian in the sense of a follower of Jesus.
I can TOTALLY understand how someone, anyone can look at what is done in the name of religions (yes plural) and be so disgusted that they run 180 degrees from it.
Some want to smear everyone with the same trowel. If you point out, nope, that is not how I view my belief system.. it can cause more than a little disturbance in the force shall we say.
Some (see the word "some"
want anyone who claims a religious feeling to wear the hair shirt of those who abuse religion to hurt others. They have no interest in how you practice or view religious beliefs.. they just want to beat you down with the stick of their own disgust.. its very complicated.. Sometimes atheists can give the crazy pastors a run for their money in the " my way or the highway attitude"..
cbayer
(146,218 posts)They want others to treat them civilly and be respectful of their beliefs or lack of beliefs.
They don't want to proselytize or convert, nor do they want others to do that to them.
They really don't want to be called names, judged, discriminated against or see outright bigotry pointed at them just because they believe or don't believe.
They want to get along and build coalitions that benefit everyone.
They have no interest in destroying each other.
Most of these people are not posting in this thread and I would not expect to see them here.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that people shouldn't presume to speak for others, or broadbrush other groups.
You seem to think it's ok for YOU to do it, though.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)1) Honesty when discussing Churches and their role in Religious thought. For example: Not every church is a bastion of liberal thought. Those are the MINORITY of churches. Go to a church in RURAL AMERICA and you will not find love towards Gays or Muslims or Atheists. Mainstream protestant churches, especially Southern Baptist churches, specifically those associated with the Southern Baptist Convention (16 million members per Wikipedia), the Mormon Church (15 million members), Evangelicals (90 million).
These are large religious groups with many churches in many communities. To pretend that they are not the majority of Christian denominations, and that their conservative values do not dominate the religious/political landscape is naive at best, dishonest at worst.
Rural America, especially in the Southern and Mid-Western US, is not littered with progressive or liberal religious thoughts. These places are isolated and controlled part and parcel by Conservative Religious Fundamentalists who not only run the churches, but run roughshod in county and state government from dog catcher to governor and every position in between.
No one is saying that Liberal Christianity does not exist. When an argument is made that Liberal Christians are part of the sweeping title of "Christianity," the point being made is that 1) Liberal Christian Sects are not a majority. They are barely a blip on the screen and 2) Liberal Christian Sects have little to no political sway in local and state government the way that Conservative Christian Groups do.
When you add up Southern Baptist Convention, Mormons, Evangelicals, you get 121 Million members. That's not counting conservative Catholics, Espiscopals, Methodists, Lutherans, Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, etc.
There is no Liberal Christian sect that comes *close* to 121 Million. And none with the political and religious pull and "framing the argument"-ability that baptists, catholics, and evangelicals do. None.
So there is dishonesty when this point is raised by Liberal Christians. Yes, we know that there *are* Liberal Christians. The point that we are trying to make is that they're not the majority, they do not have loud voices, and they have very little national political pull.
2) Honesty when discussion Churches and their role in Charity: Not every church is connected with a Food Bank or other poverty outreach. When discussing the importance of churches paying taxes, the argument is made about the great deal of poverty outreach that Churches (in general) do. That is not the case. In my zipcode, there are over 30 churches and only 7 of those churches have any association with a food bank, clothing bank, soup kitchen, low-or-no-cost housing, low-or-no-cost child care, or homeless/womens' shelter. The rest have no association with public charity
So when we bemoan previously public hospitals, say, in WA, being bought up by Catholic Hospital Groups, we are accused of "advocating genocide" because apparently if the Catholics don't buy these hospitals then no none will and people will be dying in the street from lack of Healthcare.
When we bemoan the lack of taxes paid on churches, we are told that people will be denied shelter and food by the Church-based charities which will now be decreased or discontinued because of taxation.
But not all churches are associated with Charity. Not all churches have a soup kitchen, or a free clothes closet, or a homeless shelter attached to the back. Most churches don't. They may provide some aid to members of the church who are in need, but they do not give charitably to non-church members of the community.
There are also the strawmen that are brought up repeatedly that 1) churches tend to be small, not a lot of donations, land not worth much and 2) parsonages are small and humble, housing and land isn't worth much so no point in taxing.
So now, it seems, that every church is a small, rural church (when, in previous arguments, small rural churches are ignored). Churches take up quite a bit of land, especially in a large city. I live in Philadelphia. Churches have some of the most prime real estate in very high property-tax areas. When many home-owners struggle to keep their homes because of out of control taxes (which leads to loss of housing and neighborhood gentrification by folks who can afford to pay increasing property taxes), it is criminal that churches sit on plots of land much larger than the average home/yard, and yet are able to get away without any taxation on their property.
There's a Catholic Seminary in town that sits in 75 acres and with over 630,000 square feet. In a very posh and high-tax part of town. All of that land is tax free. Meanwhile, less than a mile away, poor black residents are unable to keep up with the rising cost of property taxes because of the encroachment of Gentrification.
3) Acknowledgement that Religion can really be the source of bad things. Bad things individually and collectively. Atheists are often put down in this forum and in real life because of our inability to only see "the good" in religion. We're accused of "being angry at God" without realizing where our "anger" comes from and how little of it is actually aimed at "god" (since we tend not to believe in god).
4) Acknowledgement that one need not have religion to 1) have a moral compass and 2) to do good deeds. There is no prerequisite that one must be led by God to do good works. Some people do good things because it's the right thing to do. Acknowledgment that, often in history, Atheists/Agnostics are not listed as being "movers and shakers" in the Abolishment movement, for example, is because (like being gay), Abolishinists lived in a time where being openly gay, or being openly Atheist was not socially acceptable. So just as many actually really gay people lived a "straight" life by being married and having children, there were also Atheists/Agnostics who, by virtue of their culture and time, had to "pass" as Religionists in order to keep their jobs, etc.
Just as we don't "hold it against" women, or black people, for not being predominant figures in Renaissance art or science matters (because they were denied the education and opportunities to excel in these areas), we shouldn't "hold it against" Atheists for not being predominant figures in early American anti-slavery and equal rights movements (because we were denied the opportunity to be open with our lack of faith and still be considered contributive members of society).
trotsky
(49,533 posts)#3 in particular is such a problem for some individuals, I have gotten almost physically ill at their attempts to deflect and blame anything else. But some have a problem seeing the world in anything but black and white, it seems. Religion, for them, is ALWAYS good and noble and pure, and when it is associated with a bad event, it's only because the person responsible isn't religious at all and are only using religion as a cover story to excuse their behavior. This to me is raw and naked bigotry, perpetuating the vile slander against atheists, that they are the only immoral ones who are capable of bad deeds.
Make that multiple strawmen.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)1. I agree that there are a lot of large churches with very conservative agendas (my own faith is predominately Conservative and members have advocated some things I really disagree with). And I was baffled at an arguement made recently that most churches are liberal. That said some of those statements are made in response to arguments that religion is wholly negative or wholly conservative.
2. The Tax-Exempt Status of Church's is an issue of contention, no two ways about it. I admit to being concerned about what losing tax-exempt status would mean to small congregations and charities, and I don't think there's anything dishonest in that. Some church's are doing very well, and some church's are doing very poorly. I tend to come down on "If they advocate from the pulpit for political action, they should lose their Tax exempt Status," but I can understand how if you don't see value to religion in general, or, more to the point, see it as largely negative, that's not far enough.
3. I think that religious belief can be a source of negative things. That said, some of this is in response to threads and arguments that argue that religion is wholly negative. Or that religion kills children (a running theme these days).
4. I agree with this; obviously you can be an atheist and a good person who does good things. I agree that it's not logical to ask where all the atheists were in the abolitionist movement. That said, I've seen abolitionism brought up more in response to the argument that religion is largely or wholly negative, as to say that "While yes, religion can inspire some terrible things (like the crusades or blowing up abortion clinics) it can also inspire some great things (like abolitionism)."
Bryant
peacebird
(14,195 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)defending Jesus from the abuses of the liberals, right? Both groups are equally convinced (and have equal evidence) that they are on god's side.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)and with some of the major criticisms and polemics written about their own faith.
The problem with most DU religious debates is that the atheists know a lot more about Xianity than do the Xians. That's probably because most atheists have thought long and hard about their own religious upbringing before finally dumping the same, while most Xians are quite passive about their beliefs and have a fairly shallow knowledge set about their own religion.
Hard to have a fair and interesting debate when the Xians bring a Nerf ball to a gun fight.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You have educated yourself in the hardcore criticisms of the bible and religion and have your pat arguments, but that doesn't mean you or atheists in general know a lot more about specific religions than the people embracing those religions.
What I think you are really saying is that if everyone just read it the same say you did and had the same major criticisms your did, they would leave their faiths and you would win!
Yes, your weapons are so superior if you want to kill others. But if you just want to have interesting and civil fun, I'll take the nerf ball. You can keep your guns.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/28/nation/la-na-religion-survey-20100928
But thanks again for your over-the-top hyperbole in your attacks. Someone thinks it's not good the Catholic Church is taking over hospitals and dictating treatment, you accuse them of genocide. Someone uses an old analogy about a mismatch, you accuse them of wanting to murder others.
You are not helping.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)So much for getting one's hopes up.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't blame you for wanting me to be done with you for good.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)But I don't recall ever having done so.
My bad, I guess.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Apology accepted.
rug
(82,333 posts)goldent
(1,582 posts)A number of Atheists in this thread say things like "I don't care about your beliefs - just keep them out of the government and out of my face, etc" And that might be true for some. But it is clear that some Atheists in this forum very much care what we believe in.
In your case it sounds like you are concerned that our beliefs are not consistent with the Bible. I've read a fair bit of the Bible (mainly NT) but probably wouldn't meet your expectations of what a Christian should know. And of course I wouldn't be interested in debating it anyhow. But it is good to know that this bothers some Atheists.
I'm a Catholic, and I know it seems to really bother some Atheists that Catholics do not accept all of the Catholic theology - like we are sort of cheating by picking and choosing. Fortunately, none of the people I know, who are probably Atheist, ever ask me about this.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Especially from people who claim to be progressives, but who proudly belong to and support one of the most anti-progressive organizations in the world.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)It's not about beliefs. It's about knowledge.
It's hard to have a debate about religion when so many believers haven't a clue as to what the Bible or their religious denomination attests. I would think that people would want to know more about their chosen religion, but most people don't seem interested.
What I hear from many Xians of all denominations is "I believe in a god of love" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." One need have no knowledge of the Bible or Xianity to hold such views. Why even say you're Catholic if you don't know or follow the dogma?
I'd like to have a discussion. It's hard to do so when the religious side knows almost nothing about their supposed cherished beliefs.
Uh-oh...big earthquake just now here in SoCal as I'm writing this.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and you don't like that one bit.
Perhaps it is not that people don't seem interested in knowing more about their religion, but that they are turned off by those that try to push their own interpretation down their throats.
You know, sort of like you might be turned off by fundamentalists.
And in the end, I'm not sure one needs to have a thorough knowledge of the bible to hold the two views you name. They are really good views and if that's the creed one lives by and it works for them, what's the beef?
Maybe the big earthquake is a big sign that you are going down the wrong road and need to change direction, lol!
Hope you and yours are safe.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)
