How to Be an Atheist Without Being a Dick About It

[rug]

Lindy West
Yesterday 5:15pm

I'm an atheist and I'm embarrassed. Not because I'm self-conscious about my convictions (lol, no), but because so many people insist on being such condescending dicks in the name of atheism. I didn't settle on my belief system because it's a great opportunity for me to dunk on church ladies—it's my belief system because I believe in it. Or, don't believe in it. Whatever. And I don't appreciate people turning my worldview into some weird, weaponized intellectual superiority complex. Religion is awful in a lot of ways, yes. But that doesn't mean you have to be awful too.

So, okay, in my heart, I am certain: that shit's not real. Even "certain" isn't quite accurate, because it implies the possibility of choice, of something outside this conviction. I'm not "certain" of this conviction—I am this conviction. At this point, the idea that god would enter my world in any sort of non-academic capacity is as laughable as the notion that I might hire Jenny McCarthy to be my child's pediatrician. Or, I don't know, that I might spend a weekend driving a microscopic school bus around inside the sinuses of a know-it-all child. Only it's even less plausible than that, because at least doing donuts in Arnold's colon is conceivable to the human mind.

God, on the other hand, is completely foreign to me. No, actually, more than foreign. Alien? What's the word for something that's so alien that we don't even have a word for it because it might as well be an 8-dimensional conceptual fog from space that eats villages and speaks in smells? Whatever that non-word word is, my relationship with god is like that. I grew up with godless parents in a godless home at godless schools with godless friends, so it's not even like god is something I knew and then rejected—we don't even have that level of bitter, resentful closeness. All we have is distance, strangeness, bafflement. But here's the thing: just because something is foreign to me doesn't mean I have to be a xenophobe.

God's not happening over here. Established. You can knock on my door and smile and give me a pamphlet about Kenny Loggins Jesus and allow me to gently brush you off, but there are more straightforward ways to recycle. Beyond that basic boundary, how do I comport myself as a human being when dealing with people who are super duper pumped about god? Atheism—especially in its incarnation as a movement—can so easily transform into smug hostility and dog-whistle classism. How do you avoid that? How do you find common ground? If you think you know better, how do you keep from feeling like you are better? And why does such a historically destructive force as religion deserve to be treated with kid-glove cordiality? People kill for religion. And I have to be nice?

http://jezebel.com/how-to-be-an-atheist-without-being-a-dick-about-it-823225375

[RedstDem]

1. always best to be respectful of others beliefs

I've always said religion is like a hammer, it can be used to build, as well as tear down.
that's the opinion i share with the religious, if asked..

[mr blur]

3. Why, exactly? Even when you think those beliefs are laughable nonsense?

Besides, theists love it when you're a dick - helps them to feel persecuted, which always make them feel even better about themselves.

[rug]

5. QED

[cbayer]

9. Really? Theists love it when you are a dick?

Got any evidence of that?

Or is that just some "belief" you have developed?

[hrmjustin]

30. I don't feel persecuted by anyone thank you!

And I don't love it when anyone is a D^&K!

[kestrel91316]

52. It's pretty clear that you especially hate that part of several religions' tenets that

command people to treat others as they wish themselves to be treated. You know: THE GOLDEN RULE?

And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. - Luke 6:31

I rank folks like you right up there with christofascists and muslim fundies: cocksure of yourself and unable to treat people with simple respect and acknowledgement that they have freedom of conscience.

Disclaimer: I'm an agnostic bordering on atheist myself.

[Goblinmonger]

14. Creationism?

Beliefs that gays don't deserve rights?

It's always best to be respectful of beliefs?

[Old Union Guy]

76. Even when you think their beliefs are *evil* nonsense? n/t

[gcomeau]

131. Define "respectful".

Many many many people who use it in the context of religious discussion seem to define it as "don't point out that's wrong/ignorant/ridiculous... it's mean".

If that's how you're defining it... no, it's not best any more than just allowing kids in school to believe 2+2=5 or that America was founded by time travelers from the future cause wouldn't that be cool is best because it's "respectful". It's far from best, for hopefully obvious reasons.


On the other hand if all you're saying is something like "don't call someone a moron when just saying they're wrong will do", well sure...

[russspeakeasy]

2. So well written...

[Evoman]

4. I'm not sure which came first for me.... being a dick or being an atheist.

Whatever the case, probably neither is gonna change before I bite the dust. Respecting religion is just to freaking hard.

[rug]

6. Respecting dicks is just too freaking hard.

You're not a dick.

[Evoman]

7. Screw you buddy...who are you to deny my self appointed label, lol.

You have no evidence that I'm not a dick. Just because I haven't been as active in my persecution of religious people as I used to be, doesn't mean I lose my status as King Dick, Master of all Chodes.

[cbayer]

11. Hello, Evoman!

I bet you are not a dick. I think you just play one on the internet.

Anyway, she's not asking for others to respect religion. She is asking that others respect individuals.

[cbayer]

8. Wow! She's is really pissed

and an excellent writer.

I know this OP won't go over well here, but I am very glad you posted this.

[LostOne4Ever]

10. Im not the type who cares what others think

So I usually have a live and let live philosophy when it comes to religion. If someone wants to talk to me about my beliefs im more than happy to tell them, but so long as they aren't forcing their beliefs on others I could not care less what they believe.

That said, I have always thought that if you are trying to convince someone of something, the worst thing you can do is insult them. It only makes people cling all the tighter to ones beliefs.

But in all fairness, those who come across as rude only represent a small minority of atheists. It is just that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

[cbayer]

12. And you are a great example of someone who feels strongly about

their POV, but is not at all a dick - at least in my experience with you.

I agree that it is a small minority. Like Fred Phelps crew is a small minority.

Can't blame others who may ostensibly share a label with these folks for wanting to distance themselves, though.

[LostOne4Ever]

21. Thank you

And you are right about not blaming those who want to distance themselves. I don't blame anyone for wanting to distance themselves from people who have no respect for others.

That is one of the things I liked about this article. It did not generalize any one group but instead argued for a return of civility and respect for everyone. It attempts to show an understanding for those who feel more negatively about religion than the author, but at the same time argues against being a "dick."

I think that is a good message. No matter how you feel about religion itself, you can still have a respectful conversation with someone who disagrees with you. Not only does it promote more good will toward one and another, it is a far better way to communicate thoughts and ideas (in my opinion).

But then again, as a humanist im a big proponent of the principle of reciprocity, and being polite is a part of that.

[cbayer]

22. Agree with what you say here.

I don't always achieve it, but I try. Some conversations I just have to terminate because I can feel that I am coming close to a place I don't want to personally go. And sometimes I cross the line without even realizing. I was called down badly by a friend recently for the way he felt I was talking to him. Whether I meant it that way or not was really not the point and I had to listen to what he was saying.

I agree that what she is saying can, and should, be extended to lots of areas. Particularly when groups have more in common that they do differences, like political objectives.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Just substitute "catholic" for "atheist". Nt.

[rug]

15. "Atheism—especially in its incarnation as a movement—can so easily transform into smug hostility and

dog-whistle classism."

Did you mean that?

[cbayer]

17. You can substitute anything for it.

I don't think anyone would argue with that.

[hrmjustin]

31. The truth is a lot of people can be rather mean and holyier than thou about their beliefs.

[niyad]

16. in my personal experience, it isn't the atheists who are the dicks, but the believers. atheists

don't knock on my door at 8 a.m. on a saturday morning, despite being told numerous times to leave me the **** alone. atheists don't cram pamphlets into my door, atheists don't accost me on the street with their manic messages. I have yet to meet an atheist picketing at planned parenthood, and, no atheist has bombed a clinic, or murdered doctors and clinic workers.

[cbayer]

18. So, you have never met an atheist that is a dick?

Of course there are believers who are dicks. She makes no bones about that.

That's not really the point.

[niyad]

19. no, I haven't.

[cbayer]

20. Have you checked out the Reddit atheist forum?

Full of dicks.

To be honest with you, I've never met one in real life, but I sure have on the internet.

Not sure what to make of that, but there are most definitely those like she describes.

[backscatter712]

27. I'd say a lot of what's on /r/atheism is venting.

Maybe not in the most diplomatic ways, but I'm guilty of that myself.

When you look at people like Fred Phelps, Bryan Fischer or Pat Robertson, and you observe their animus specifically towards atheists, you can see a bit of the shit atheists have to put up with all the time.

[cbayer]

39. I understand that, though I think that the overt hostility is diminishing and

will be eliminated over time.

Screw Fred Phelps, Bryan Fischer and Pat Robertson. As the author says, and say so well imo, she doesn't feel any need to be nice to them.

[kestrel91316]

55. Those guys don't reserve their hatred for atheists, lol.

They are equally hateful toward anyone who doesn't share their narrow-minded christofascist worldview.

[niyad]

28. please note that I specifically said, IN MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. I don't give a toot about

anything on reddit, (considering some of the disgusting stuff posted there, based on what is reported back here).

and, since it IS the intertubes, for all you know, those people could be nothing more than the xian dicks trying to stir things up against atheists.

but, again, please note that I specifically said, in my personal experience. by the way, how many atheists are amoung those sponsoring and voting in favour of all these draconian, woman-hating bills in the states and in DC.

[cbayer]

38. Again, I openly and fully acknowledge the damage that the christian right does

both on a small and large scale.

I am only supporting the author's premise that being nice, and not being a dick, holds a lot more promise for righting those wrongs. She didn't try to defend the positions to which you refer at all. Quite the contrary, she said she would fight against them anytime.

She just objects to the damage that the dickish do, and so do I.

[skepticscott]

47. So you don't think that the things she says

about the Catholic Church are dickish at all? That they are perfectly civil and acceptable by your standards?

[arely staircase]

160. totally my experience

every atheist I know in real life is a great person. on the internet not so much.

[cbayer]

161. It's curious, isn't it.

I don't know if I am just fortunate, whether I can sense and then avoid the jerks or whether behave very differently on the internet than they do IRL.

Or perhaps some people are just "Poes" - people being extremists in order to make a whole group look bad.

[arely staircase]

162. I think the general anonimity of the internet allows all sorts of people to

act like bigger jerks than they ever would in real life. Though I can't imagine any of my atheist friends dressing down people of faith even anonymously. I learned pretty much not to even engage the ones here on DU. There are some polite ones but for the most part they have the passionate judgmentalism of a fundamentalist. I can go to any number of right wing churches around here and be told how wrong I am. I don't think they get the irony. I also am convinced that many of the ones that act like jerks actually came from a fundamentalist background of some sort, which would explain 1). their lack of understanding of liberal mainstream Christians 2). their general judgementalism and closed mindedness, even though they think it is in the service of enlightenment or science. In other words they kept their parents methods if not specific beliefs..

[cbayer]

163. I have one atheist friend who does the following.

There is a roadside memorial made of stones in the shape of a cross in a very isolated area out here. He has, on occasion, rearranged the stones into a peace sign. While I think this is disrespectful to the individuals who apparently lost someone they love, it's the most extreme thing I have seen, and I don't think it's extreme at all.

I try to talk to everyone here on DU, but there comes a point when there is no point. I have gotten to know a lot of non-believers better and the vast majority are great people who, even if passionate about their lack of beliefs, are tolerant and civil and not looking for a victory.

I think the reasons people are nice or behave like dicks around any subject are as numerous as their are individuals. And every movement needs it's abrasive and extreme people up front, at least initially.

But treating your allies badly? That's a mistake.

[kestrel91316]

53. I've met plenty of atheists who are dicks right here on DU. You must not be paying attention.

[niyad]

67. as I said, in my personal experience. I don't read every thread or every forum on DU

[raccoon]

128. Can I say "Amen" to that? nt

[skepticscott]

23. Another hack who can't distinguish

between atheism and anti-theism. Or can, but pretends she can't, because otherwise she wouldn't be able to get on her high "I'm an atheist, but.." horse and tone-troll for attention from the usual cast, here and elsewhere. Who never seem to get tired of bowing down to the same old piffle.

[backscatter712]

24. I think part of what needs to happen is to acknowledge the anger.

Everyone's heard the stereotype of the angry atheist, the kind of atheist who is pissed off enough to extend a middle finger like in the OP.

Is that stereotype true? To at least some extent, YES.

Not every atheist is an angry atheist, but a lot of them are, and have every right to be angry.

Maybe I don't believe in him literally, but I think Jesus, for the most part, was a decent guy. I like teaching like "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you", "Love your neighbor", and "Heal the sick and feed the poor."

But for all of the nice lessons in the Bible for being a decent human being, as an atheist, I can say that I've been on the receiving end of a lot of nasty, mean-spirited crap, from those purporting to follow the teachings of Jesus. And yes, I'm pissed.

I'm pissed off to have been raised to believe what I later concluded was nonsense.

I'm pissed off that when I venture to express the idea that the religious beliefs I was raised to believe aren't actually true, I get attacked, at least verbally. A lot of people get much worse.

I'm pissed off that religious people have managed to force their beliefs into our government's laws and policies, thus inflicting their crap on me.

I'm pissed off that religious beliefs are in many cases taught in schools, be it Young-Earth Creationism, or the sneakier "Intelligent Design", or crap like Good News Clubs that are teaching toxic, hateful, psychologically damaging flavors of religion to children.

I'm pissed off that atheists in many parts of the world are persecuted. They're thrown in jail, tortured, threatened with execution, are executed, all for the horrible crime of saying "I don't believe in your god."

Yes. I'm angry. All you have to do to share my anger is watch what the Republicans are doing in places like Texas - they're pandering to the religious right when they pass all that misogynistic anti-abortion trash. And this shit is happening all over the country.

And I think that part of the dialogue that needs to happen means acknowledging this anger, acknowledging that we atheists are angry for very good reasons.

From there, I think religious and atheistic people can then set down some boundaries, so we can live together in peace and sanity, starting with the ones the Founding Fathers put in the Constitution, like separation of church and state.

[cbayer]

25. Excellent points and worth keeping in mind.

But one can be angry, very very angry, and not be a dick.

Some of the most effective political leaders for civil rights and social justice have been very angry, but much of their effectiveness sprung from their civility.

I think movements needs a share of dicks, particularly early on. They are the most likely to be heard because they are going to yell the loudest.

But there is a limit to their effectiveness and they may miss opportunities or not recognize allies.

Anyway, excellent post. It made me think, which is generally a good thing.

[okasha]

26. I'm just guessing here

because none of the real life atheists I know are dicks. But I suspect that atheists who are dicks were dicks before they were atheists and would remain dicks if they turned religious tomorrow. The operative word is "dick" not "atheist."

[cbayer]

40. I think you are correct to a significant degree.

People soaking in hostility are like that for a reason. How, why and at whom they choose to express it is often secondary.

[raccoon]

127. great post. Consider starting a thread with this. nt

[MellowDem]

29. Another terrible strawman article...

And a great response that rebuts it beautifully, point by point.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2013/07/18/dont-be-a-dick-new-from-jezebel/

There is nothing about being an atheist that makes you a dick. There is plenty about all sorts of religions that make believers dicks, namely, the bigoted hateful beliefs they subscribe to. Criticizing those beliefs, even harshly, ain't dickish. Unless criticizing tax cuts for the wealthy is suddenly dickish. There's a boatload of conservatives that will whine your ear off that it is.

[dimbear]

32. That's a fine piece. The key is that the author was once a fundamentalist Christian,

not, like the OP author, unacquainted with the ways of the religionists.

[skepticscott]

33. Thanks for posting that

Though I doubt that you'll get a Good Read! Award from any of those here who presume to hand them out, or that you'll get any acknowledgement of what a dickish thing it is to keep posting the same vacuous, shit-stirring articles over and over and over. None of the people here who lavish fawning, uncritical praise on the authors of pieces like the OP ever, EVER, respond in any substantial way to this kind of dissection. They just turn off their brains and pretend it doesn't exist.

[rug]

35. Another article that disregards evidence.

We begin with the standard unsupported claim…

“so many people insist on being such condescending dicks in the name of atheism. “

Who? Where? Examples please. Don’t get me wrong, I know there are atheists dicks – but “so many”? I think you need to define terms and cite some actual examples.

Maybe he should ask one of the administrators of FtB.

[skepticscott]

42. They didn't make the claim

The author of the article you linked to did. It's up to her to justify her claim of "so many", as opposed to just saying that they exist.

So what evidence is being disregarded here? Exactly?

And really, was that all you had in rebuttal? One would almost think that you were more interested in being a dick yourself than in a real, fact-based exchange and discussion. I hope you'll be able to dissuade everyone from that notion.

[rug]

69. For starters, your post.

[AlbertCat]

74. One would almost think that you were more interested in being a dick yourself

One would.... since he obviously spends his entire waking hours looking for stupid, limp "gocha" crap to post here... and then uses them to hurl what he thinks are clever witticisms while pretending he just wants some kind of discussion.

Has anyone else ever posted so much dreck????

[edhopper]

34. I was more or less accused of being a dick here

on the very long thread I started, because I kept asking people to answer a question they didn't want to answer.

[rug]

36. You are not at all.

[edhopper]

37. Thanks

I think sometimes argumentative is mistaken for dickishness.

[skepticscott]

41. Fuck the Pope

Is it being a dick for an atheist to say "Fuck the Pope"? Well this very same author wrote an article with that title:

http://jezebel.com/5990493/fuck-the-pope

And also including a few other choice quotes:

Picking a new pope is like the world's biggest D&D game that also happens to be a massive global child-molestation cover-up racket.

It's like electing a glamorous Prom Queen who ran on a platform of denying life-saving prophylactics to HIV-riddled continents that she previously personally colonized and plundered!

The Catholic Church is a multibillion-dollar international corporation, a groaning dinosaur with its claws in almost every backwards socially conservative plank out there.

We're so easily delighted by some magic smoke farting out of a castle (to be fair, it's hilarious)—but why are we not more universally bothered by the fact that the man designated, via that smoke, to lead 1.2 billion people has publicly stated that allowing gay couples to adopt is "a form of discrimination against children"? Nothing like being lectured on sexual morality by the head of an institution that systematically shelters and protects pedophiles. Gay rights are human rights and, honestly, I do not have any more patience for these ancient Archie Bunker stylings in the highest echelons of global human leadership. GROW UP, BABIES.

So we have two possibilities...either A) none of these statements about the RCC reach the level of dickishness; or B) The people who tout this author as having any credibility with regard to the subject of this OP, any intellectual honesty, any agenda other than getting page clicks, are full of shit.

Votes?

[EvilAL]

43. What a dick! nt

[skepticscott]

44. I'm sure she'd object to that characterization

After all, her worldview is SO superior... How could SHE possibly be a dick?

[EvilAL]

45. Total '(un?)holier that thou' atheist.

It's ok for her to rant about it, but the other atheists are being dicks when they say the same shit.

[cbayer]

46. Not to be rude, but did you even read the article?

She very articulately talks about punching up as opposed to punching down. She makes it very clear that being a dick about the pope and religious institutions that threaten the rights of others is not what she is referring to.

Some of the irony in this thread is astounding, particularly from people that have quite clearly not even read it.

[EvilAL]

48. I don't see it, she gets to decide what being a dick is.

Some might say that calling someone a 'right-wing religious assbag spewing bigotry' to be dickish. Others might not, she seems to think it's fine. She is confused on the topic I think.

[cbayer]

50. I don't think she is confused at all.

Of course, she doesn't get to "decide", but she can express her opinion - an opinion that many, including non-believers, resonate with.

[skepticscott]

54. And there is more than sufficient reason to question

Whether that opinion is valid or even honestly expressed. But I doubt you'll be addressing that, since it doesn't fit your preconceived, never-budge-from agenda.

[EvilAL]

57. It's up to the person whether or not they think someone is being a dick to them.

I only commented because skepticscott pointed out some hypocrisy that I agreed with.
If I posted something like 'How to talk to Jehovah's Witnesses without being a dick", then in other posts I am calling them down for what they do, I'd get jumped on too.

[cbayer]

58. A supposed hypocrisy which she clearly addressed in her article, but

was overlooked for some reason.

I think there is a place for "How to talk to Jehovah's Witnesses without being a dick". In fact, I think most people do just that, or hide and don't answer the door (my preferred response when I lived in a place they could get to).

The author argues for treating individuals kindly, not for never leveling any criticism, even very harsh criticism, against religious institutions.

Truly, if you have not read it, I suggest you do. She makes some good points that are not exclusive in any way to atheists. Something many can learn from, including myself.

[EvilAL]

60. I read it earlier, didn't agree with it and usually

I don't comment afterwards. skepticscott said what I was kinda thinking. She covers her bases pretty good, but ultimately fails as far as I am concerned. It is well written and it led me to read some other stuff as well. In the end no matter what someone is gonna think you are being a dick when talking against religion, no matter how respectful you are. To some just saying that you don't believe it is being a dick. Sparked some conversation anyway.

[cbayer]

62. I'm glad you read it and truly appreciate this exchange.

I think it's hard not be appear hypocritical when trying to draw some boundaries. The lines I may draw are not the same ones that she might or that you might.

But I think there is extremism in some cases, where most everyone can agree a line can be drawn.

You are right, someone is probably going to take offense anytime you criticize religion and they represent extremists on the other side, imo. You are also right that for some just saying that you are an atheist might be perceived as being a dick, and that's the other side of the extremism as well.

But there is no doubt in my mind that she is talking to a select group who do, in fact, behave like dicks.

The problem is that no one wants to be called a dick, and those she is addressing are the least likely to hear it.

But isn't that always the way.

[skepticscott]

63. No, the hypocrisy was not addressed

Only doubled down on, as has been pointed out several times in this thread. But you can't really respond honestly to that and still fawn over her and promote your agenda, now can you?

[skepticscott]

49. The irony has gone right over your head, cbayer

I'll ask again...do you think that the things she says about the Catholic Church in this article and the others she's posted on the same site amount to her being a dick? Yes or no? Are you going on record as agreeing with her claim that it's ONLY things said to individual human beings that make someone a dick? That broad-brush condemnations of an entire faith don't count?

And as far as "punching up" and "punching down", I seem to remember you and a few other apologists here going to great pains to point out that it's the individual members of the RCC that really make up the church and that have the real power ("ignore them at your peril" sound familiar?). So why shouldn't blame and criticism for what even you acknowledge are despicable actions and policies of the RCC not be directed accordingly?

[AlbertCat]

75. religious institutions that threaten the rights of others

Are there any other kinds of religious institutions?

[cbayer]

77. Well, yes, Albert. There are lot of them.

You might want to get out more.

Did you get past the headline of this article or did it make you squirm too much?

[AlbertCat]

79. No squirming at all....

Just acknowledging enablers and indoctrination (especially of children) too.

[cbayer]

81. No, you are doing quite a bit more than that.

You are making a broad brush and unsupportable statement that is not based either in reality or fact.

It is merely a belief on your part.

So, did you read the article?

[AlbertCat]

87. You are making a broad brush and unsupportable statement

I didn't make a statement. I asked a question.

Did you read the post?

[cbayer]

88. Oh, gosh. That was a question!

An entirely sincere question in which you were honestly seeking an answer.

My bad.

[AlbertCat]

89. An entirely sincere question in which you were honestly seeking an answer.

So answer it. Sects don't count.

Christianity....no
Islam..... no
Judaism..... no
Hinduism..... no
Buddism.... no

That's the 5 major ones

Wiccan is more of a fad than a religion.
Scientology....please!

Shinto? Maybe? I doubt it since the aristocracy had different rites and temples than those poor people.

Besides, when you indoctrinate a child before they are able to make their own decisions....

But there's really no need to go on with this because you cannot prove your statement any more than I can. Neither of us knows everything about every religion. And if you're just gonna go with a generalization, I can make one as well as you. But I admit, my notions seem statistically more sound.

[cbayer]

90. I did answer it but you had already formulated the answer,

as can be seen in this post.

The "question" was in no way sincere. It was rhetorical and you know that.

Prove what statement? That you made a broadbrush and unsupported statement (presented as a "question&quot ?

There are lots of religious institutions that not only don't threaten the rights of others, but spend their time and resources fighting for the rights of others. And they can be found within each of the groups that you list. They are reported on regularly in this very group.

Just because they don't all do that, that doesn't mean that there aren't any. And that is what you said.

I'm not the one making the generalizations. You are.

That doesn't surprise me. The article is spot on.

[AlbertCat]

91. The article is spot on.

If you like bunk.

Pointing out the absurdities and crimes of religion is not being a "dick".

[cbayer]

92. And the author would completely agree with you.

Have you really read it?

[rug]

70. Ah, this is the same person you called "another hack" upstream, isn't it?

Which is it?

[skepticscott]

71. For someone who writes so incoherently and hypocritically

"Hack" seems a good start. I'm not the one who lent such a hypocritical point of view any credibility..you were. I simply pointed out the hypocrisy.

So which is it...is she being a dick for the things she said about the Catholic Church or not?

[rug]

72. No, she makes valid points.

The difference is it's the result of thought, not bigoted reflex.

[skepticscott]

73. Nice that you think you can tell the difference

Guess you've been working on your mind reading.

But I'll be sure to bookmark you as confirming that you think all her comments about the Catholic Church that I quoted are thoughtful and acceptable.

[rug]

84. Reading context and knowing one's history is hardly mindreading.

Bookmark away.

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. How can you tell that her points are the result of thought

as opposed to whatever bigot you once came across, for whom you can somehow say it was reflex?

Will you name this bigot? Should we care that you once found a bigot, if you won't name him or her?

I do tend to think she has thought about the Catholic church, but then I think that about pretty much all the diatribes against it, perhaps with the exception of some from Northern Ireland, where there is an obvious culture of bigotry that really can produce reflexive hatred of Catholics, due to people's upbringing.

[rug]

85. If you read her article you read her thoughts.

And it's not "this', it's "these'. I'm sure you've run into them, muriel. They're really quite easy to recognize if you've a mind to.

[muriel_volestrangler]

86. As I said, only what I've heard or read from a new Northern Irelanders

The idea that people are bigoted against Catholics is almost entirely a case of trying to play the victim on the part of a few Catholics who love to whine. Normally, people are only too willing to go into their reasons for their feelings about the Catholic church - paedophilia coverups, Magdelene Laundries, political interference in abortion and LGBT law, etc.

[Apophis]

51. There should be an article titled "How to be a Christian without being a dick about it."

[cbayer]

56. I agree and I think that she makes that case quite well.

[Humanist_Activist]

59. I'm sorry, but this part in particular is incorrect...

"Whatever your views on Christianity, you have to acknowledge that at least the Bible tells people to be nice."

This is just a ridiculous assertion, that she then contradicts in the next section, by saying many Christians only focus on the "nice" parts. Well, if the whole Bible tells you to be nice, why the need to focus on the "nice" parts.

The Bible doesn't tell you to be nice, well ok, it actually does, it also tells you to kill people, steal from certain people, or lie to them, advocates murder, infanticide, human sacrifice, mutilation, and pretty much any and all atrocities we can think of, the only overarching theme of the Bible is that you must do all this in God's glory.

[cbayer]

61. She didn't say the whole bible told people to be nice.

She said that parts of the bible say that and that many choose to follow those parts while disregarding some of the others. That is true.

For many, the overreaching lesson of the bible is the golden rule.

Are you saying that for someone to consider themselves a christian, they have to believe and follow everything in the bible? Because if that is the case, it would be an extreme fundamentalist POV that the christian fundamentalists don't even follow.

[skepticscott]

64. The point is that it's hypocritical

(Yet another hypocrisy in this article) to claim the Bible as guide and authority for goodness only.

Are you saying that for someone to consider themselves a Christian, they MUST follow the golden rule, and can't adhere to any of the fundamentalist dictates that you claim are much more prevalent? If people can figure out for themselves which parts of the Bible should be followed and which should be ignored, why use it at all? Why not just use simple human reason and consideration?

[Humanist_Activist]

65. To be honest, Christians can't follow the precepts of the Bible, they are too contradictory...

even within the Books and Chapters, consistency isn't a strong suite of the Bible, and the Golden Rule, if so important, shouldn't be contradicted in the same book, nor should it only manifest in a major way at the end.

Christians, all of them, from fundamentalists to liberals, pick and choose what they like in the Bible to follow, based mostly on their extra-biblical notions of morality, fairness, etc. They then try to say the Bible was the source for these notions, when it obviously wasn't, creating a circular argument, and for some, hypocrisy.

[cbayer]

66. I agree. The contradictions make it impossible to take the position that the

bible should be taken literally and that every word should be followed.

That's why most christians don't.

Of course they pick and choose. And that's a problem how? If anything, it should be celebrated. If some people get their good lessons from the "good book", well, good for them. If parts of the bible reinforce the innate goodness in some people and helps them suppress the bad behavior that we all have the capacity to sink to, then that works for me.

OTOH, if they use their religion to harm others, infringe on their civil rights or promote social injustice, I think they should be confronted.

While not religious, some of the most fundamental tenets of my personally morality and philosophy come from biblical stories and teachings. So what?

You seem intent on seeing all christians, and perhaps all believers, in a negative light. If that is your intent, then that is probably what you will see.

[skepticscott]

68. The point is that the WAY they pick and choose

makes the Bible itself irrelevant. Decent People would still be able to decide for themselves what's right and what's wrong without the Bible, but people wouldn't be able to justify bigotry and evil by saying that it was the word of "god" they were following.

If you could achieve the same cure with two drugs, one of which had serious negative side effects and one of which didn't, which would you choose? Duh.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

93. They could find a moral guide without any contradictions in it.

Instead of ascribing superior moral judgment to a bunch of nomadic illiterate goat herders who thought that illness was caused by demons, and the earth is flat, and the moon shines by its own light.

Really a crappy book to get your morality from.


Secular humanism has consistent morality with no need for a supernatural cause for existence.

And lots of Xtians have been extremely rude to me, but I haven't been rude to them. They get really bent out of shape if you don't believe EXACTLY the same superstitious bullshit they do. And tell you you're going to hell. And then wonder why I have no interest in their violent, irrational, ridiculous, cannibalistic death cult.

[cbayer]

94. Do you know of any moral guides without contradictions?

Do you know of any moral guides that you would follow absolutely and not question certain parts?

If not, then I would say you are like most christians.

While there are parts that are crappy, there are also parts that are good moral guides. Not being able to discern one from the other is the problem with literalism and fundamentalism. Surely you don't support a literal reading of the bible as a criteria for being a christian.

Secular humanism, imo, is expressed in very different ways by different people. Some embrace certain aspects and others do not. The fact that it doesn't include a god or gods is really neither here nor there. Some secular humanists are dicks. Is that part of consistent morality of which you speak.

If you are not rude to religious people irl, why do you think it's ok to be any different on the internet? FWIW, I think calling christians members of a "violent, irrational, ridiculous, cannibalistic death cult" would probably be considered rude by most people.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

95. Truth is an absolute defense to slander.

Yes, I have a law degree, but I don't play a lawyer on TV.

Violent - God kills a couple of million people for no good reason in the bible. People mess up and he kills them because he's angry. Jesus is down with this. He has no problem with the irrationality of the OT.

Irrational - plenty of examples of irrationality, bad behavior being rewarded. It's just fine to own slaves. It's fine to have lots of wives and concubines. Abraham is willing to kill his only son Isaac, and this is GOOD behavior, due to loyalty to God? Not that it's a horrible thought, and that Abraham would have to be extremely mentally ill to even consider killing his child?? Nowadays he would be adjudged psychotic by a psychiatrist probably.

Ridiculous - talking snakes, an ark not big enough to hold all the species on earth, blaming all of humanity for the sins of a couple of fruit-munching simpletons in a fairy tale? Jesus cussing out a fig tree for not fruiting out of season? Predestination? Why try to be a good person if God has already decided you're gonna fry in hell? And how can you suffer in hell? You can't, because you don't have a body with nerve endings that can feel pain and a brain to register them.

Cannibalistic -- "Take, eat, this is my body; this is my blood" referring to Jesus. This is sympathetic magic and extremely primitive thinking. If I eat the body and blood of Jesus, I will be like Jesus. That's on the same level as "If I eat tiger meat, I will be strong and an efficient predator like a tiger."

Death cult -- constantly raving about sin and the suffering of Jesus on the ancient Roman torture device that is the symbol of Christianity. A guy dying on an ancient Roman torture device is life-affirming??? Bullshit. Washed in the blood of the lamb? Again, extremely primitive animal sacrifice thinking. Thinking that suffering is GOOD and redemptive? More bullshit.

They could just as well have picked an electric chair, a Catherine wheel, an iron maiden, or any other torture device as their symbol.

Original sin is a cruel lie. Substitutionary atonement is an unneeded solution to a nonexistent problem. God is a crooked prosecutor and he and preachers and parents have to crush a child's spirit and make them obedient. This crushing of a child's curiosity is evil in my opinion.
Christianity is all about unearned guilt and shame. Really abusive & messes people up psychologically.

For more information check this out by John Bradshaw, Philosopher, Counselor, Theologian and Teacher (his description, not mine):

http://www.johnbradshaw.com/Healingtheshameprint.aspx

[cbayer]

96. For every point you make, counterpoints can be made that

will use other parts of the bible to support a different position.

You picking out the ones that support your position is exactly the same as those that do the opposite.

That's why so many religious people do not take their books literally. They realize that some of it is contradictory, some of it is parable, some of it reflects the culture of the times it was written and some of it is bunk.

They also see the messages of peace, rationality, profundity, allegory, and a guide for the living.

Those that can't see the nuances are fundamentalists, whether they are believers or not.

Some of what you refer to is unique to certain kinds of christianity (original sin, substitutionary atonement, etc.). So why would you apply those beliefs or concepts to all christians?

There is no data to support your contention that religion "messes people up psychologically". In fact, there is data to the contrary. So that must just be your unsubstantiated belief.

I get it. You hate religion. You think religion is an evil force. You have developed a belief system around these things. You present it as dogma and absolute. Almost like some religion.

John Bradshaw has written about toxic shame. Toxic shame can come from many sources. Religion may be one for some people, but it can come from distinctly non-religious sources. If I remember correctly, and it's been a long time since I read his book, he blames his own on family dysfunction and doesn't invoke religion at all. While he has spoken about religious addiction, he puts in the category with other addictions. I am unsure why you linked to him here.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

98. Bradshaw is a former priest.

Ex-Jesuit. He specifically talks about laying heavy guilt and shame on kids as part of religion. Yes, there are many different people who lay guilt and shame on children, but ministers are one source. People become perfectionists, have obsessive-compulsive addictions and feel completely inadequate because they are imperfect. And who is held up as the only perfect person in history?

I think you can answer that one.

I do not think all religion is bad. People can do good for others without all the fear-of-God crap, guilt, shame, being told you're a worthless POS b/c of original sin, and assorted nonsensical theology.

I have studied Buddhism for many years as well as Hinduism and Taoism. I do not think all religions are bad.

Are not original sin and substitutionary atonement the two starting premises upon which Christianity is based?

If you are a Christian you accept Jesus as your lord and savior. The savior part is necessary because you believe in original sin. Therefore, because you are a sinner due to the sin of Adam and Eve of disobedience, you need the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ to redeem yourself before god.

I've been over this before on DU.

And yet Christians refuse to admit this foundational creed which is the definition of Christian, for some reason. I really don't know why they do this.

[cbayer]

100. Bradshaw is a theist who sees that religion can be a negative thing.

He sees the black, white and shades of gray. He does not support your position.

I don't see anyone held up as the only perfect person in history. Many have tried, all have failed, though some have certainly come closer than others. Modeling oneself or taking lessons from those that have done pretty well is not negative thing.

Of course people can be good without religion. They can also be good with religion. Does it really make a difference?

We have had this discussion before about some things associated with catholicism not being shared by other christian faiths. You continue to maintain that they are basic tenets. For many non-catholics, they aren't tenets at all. You may have studied some other religions, but you may need to study christianity a bit more before making these kinds of assumptions. I was raised christian. I never heard of them until I was an adult.

Why are you telling christians what they are and what they believe? Why don't you ask instead of telling? Who gave you the authority to define what is christian?

You may have been over this before, but I'm not sure you listened to others. Original sin is not a concept that is held by all. One way is not a concept held by all. Being born again is not a concept held by all.

Maybe you really don't know why they do this because your premise and presupposition is erroneous.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

115. Christians don't believe they need to be saved?

Every Christian church I've known about insists that a)we are all evil because of original sin; b)we must be baptized and accept Jesus Christ as our savior through substitutionary atonement; c)Christianity is the ONLY way to salvation because Jesus said "I am the way, the
and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me."

I have attended many Christian churches & Sunday schools. I have sung in many church choirs, and even directed a couple of them and played the piano and sung solos for Sunday morning services.

I was raised Presbyterian, and graduated from a Presbyterian college where I took several religion courses from a prof who was a brilliant linguist. I know a lot about Christianity. I've read most of the bible.

So you never heard about original sin and substitutionary atonement until you were an adult, so that means nobody else knows about them?
I was familiar with the concepts long before high school, learned the terms in college religion courses.

So how is my premise erroneous? Every Christian creed I've seen has the above 3 beliefs in it.

Bradshaw says that people who can't live up to the unrealistic standards given to them by adults makes them feel completely inadequate and they have addictions and problems to escape the feelings of unearned shame and guilt.

I've heard several rants in mainstream churches re: "Why can't you be more like Jesus? Jesus was sinless and without stain. One single, solitary life influenced history more than any other."
On and on......

Hymn: "I have one supreme desire, that I may be like Jesus, to this I fervently aspire, that I may be like Jesus" etc.

Religious war against infidels in extremely common hymns: "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before". "A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing." etc.

Many more examples of Jesus being perfect on this page:
http://www.openbible.info/topics/jesus_did_not_have_a_sin_nature
Matthew 5:48, Ephesians 5:2.

And if you are not perfect like Jesus, you're NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
Completely impossible standards for a human to meet.

I don't think you are familiar with what John Bradshaw says about the horrendous damage these unrealistic
standards do to the human psyche.

[cbayer]

116. Like I said before, you might need to get out more.

If every church you have been to has repeated the same dogma that you continue to repeat here, then I would suggest that your experience has been limited.

You may need to check out more progressive/liberal congregations if you truly want to expand your perspective. You might look around for some that focus on social justice and not on dogma.

They are out there. Just because you haven't experienced them does not mean they don't exist.

And they get posted about here on a regular basis.

If you are not perfect like Jesus, you are not good enough? Is that what you were raised with?

Well that makes it a whole lot easier to understand why you might be so hostile towards religion.

I only want you to understand that not everyone was given that message and that I personally think it is a terrible thing to say to a person.

Of course, you are good enough. Flaws and all.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

117. So tell me.

So which Xtian churches do NOT believe you have to be baptized to be saved from original sin by substitutionary atonement by Jesus?

I've been to LOTS of liberal churches--I am quite familiar with the Presbyterians (As I said before, I graduated from an excellent Presbyterian college and have a lot of respect for them) and the United Church of Christ (Congregationalists).

[cbayer]

118. I can tell you about my own experience.

Baptism was a ritual performed generally in early adolescence. It was a rite of passage that basically said that one was now an adult member of the congregation and no longer one of the children. It had nothing to do with original sin or substitutionary atonement by Jesus, at least not for me. It was symbolic and optional. As in other denominations, we were taught that all people are basically born good and that Jesus was good and that trying to emulate him was a good thing.

What I have found is that christians, and protestants in particular, can be all over the place with these concepts. To dogmatically categorize them as just one thing misses the complexity and the nuances.

According to what I have read, there are about 33,00 different protestant denominations and 800 million people who call themselves protestant. It is ridiculous to state that they all embrace the same dogma. The only thing they have in common, imo, is that they follow the teachings of christ.

So, bottom line for me is this - support those who are doing what I consider good (working for social justice and civil liberties) whether they are believers or not. If their religious or areligious institution has some bizarre underlying beliefs that I don't share, why should I care if they are doing good works.

I find it hard to understand why those on the same progressive/liberal side would want to attack them.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

119. Definition of baptism.

From the free online dictionary:
bap·tism (bptzm)
n.
1. A religious sacrament marked by the symbolic application of water to the head or immersion of the body into water and resulting in admission of the recipient into the community of Christians.


Definition of confirmation:

con·fir·ma·tion

/ˌkänfərˈmāSHən/

Noun
1.The action of confirming something or the state of being confirmed.
2.(in the Christian Church) The rite at which a baptized person affirms Christian belief and is admitted as a full member of the church.


I think you're confusing baptism and confirmation.

[cbayer]

120. That's a single definition and not applicable to all.

Some don't see it as a sacrament but do see it as an admission into a community, as I described above.

So the argument may be purely semantic. Baptism can and is also used in an entirely secular manner, e.g. baptism by fire.

Since you got this from the free online dictionary, certainly you saw the second definition as well:

2. A ceremony, trial, or experience by which one is initiated, purified, or given a name.

By choosing only the first, I think you have reinforced that your approach to this may be rather dogmatic.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

121. so?

Religions can be quite dogmatic. They often demand fear and blind obedience.

What xtian sect does NOT believe the basic beliefs I stated, as part of their creed? And what xtian sect does not act out those beliefs in their rituals? I am very familiar with liberal Protestantism. They work for social justice in addition to the foundational beliefs I mentioned.

So what church told you when you were baptized that that meant that you were an adult, not that you were a xtian? I would like to know.

[cbayer]

122. Agree. Religions can be very dogmatic.

That's a big problem with some of them, imo.

So, why would those opposing them take the same stance?

Let's say the basic beliefs are true for many, if not most, christian denominations. So what?

If those creeds, foundational beliefs and rituals do not negatively interfere with your life or the lives of others, why would you care? Who is anyone to say that they are wrong or shouldn't hold those beliefs?

I was raised in a Disciples of Christ church. My father is a minister. I'm fairly sure there was religious dogma included in the baptism, but it was "lite" and not the important part. The important part was that being a member of this church meant that you would endorse certain values and act upon those, like working for civil liberties, fighting for social justice, caring for the most marginalized and needy, treating others well, tolerance of other kinds of people and their beliefs.

I don't consider myself a christian or any other kind of believer. But I do think that my exposure to the church as a child had a profoundly positive impact on me. And while acknowledging that there have been some very bad things done, I also believe that religion has had a profoundly positive impact on the world in general.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

123. Why are the basic beliefs bad?

They foster an us against them mentality. We're saved and you're going to hell. Millions of people going to hell. Millions have died in religious wars because of this. Millions of xtians in this country would love to have a xtian theocracy and expel non-xtians and atheists.

To quote President George Herbert Walker Bush:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."

Christians are afraid of god. We follow the rules of this psychotic sky daddy because we were told to. We disobey our elders, we're going to hell. We believe everything they tell us unquestioningly. And we'll never live up to that perfect ideal of Jesus. Which makes people crazy. Read Bradshaw.

Read over my past responses to why xtianity is very often bad for people. Some people have to leave xtianity because they found out things did not change for the better when they believed and had faith and prayed.

A close friend of mine got suicidal because of the realization that praying and believing didn't make her crises any better. The preachers insulted the whole congregation with sermons about how horrible and sinful all of us were, and then they congratulated each other after the service for their fine sermons, when they were mentally abusing people. The only answer for this woman was for her to leave and to despise the misleading & harmful doctrines these people believed. She attempted to slash her wrists.

And of course, when she asked questions, they told her that she was bad because she didn't have enough faith like it was HER fault that things didn't get better. That's extremely insulting to anyone, especially a depressed person trying to find some answers in her life.

This was in a mainstream Protestant denomination.

If you can do good for others without believing in harmful fairy tales and wishful thinking, why not do good without all the religious doctrine as baggage? Or without justifying it because you say god told you to?

Why isn't it enough to do good because it's the right thing to do?

And is there a single good non-religious moral thing a Christian can do that a non-Christian cannot do? I do not think there is.

[cbayer]

124. I'm seeing a whole lot more us vs. them mentality between

non-believers and believers these days. We right and you are wrong. We hold the rational truth and you are delusional. We are free from dogma and you are ruled by it (hilarious). In fact, I see more atheists on this site use the first person plural than any of the believers. Tribal lines are tribal lines and hard to fight.

While there are clearly theocrats in this country, their numbers and power are diminishing and the secular nature of our government will rule in the end.

You continue to make blanket statements about christians, even though you are not one. You do not speak for christians and much of what you say has absolutely no data to back it up. It is, therefore, simply your belief system and as "irrational" as any other.

You do know that you sound like a proselytizer, don't you? Telling people what are the correct things to believe and how their personal beliefs are not only wrong, but harmful to them. Calling their beliefs fairy tales. Telling them they need to drop their "religious baggage". This is the kind of thing religious proselytizers do. They insist they have the one way and others need to join them.

If your friend became suicidal because of her religion, her problems were clearly more serious than just her religious beliefs. Sounds like she made an excellent choice in leaving that church. I hope she was able to find the help she clearly needed.

FWIW, religious institutions in this country supply a great deal of the services desperately needed by the mentally ill. Services that are not supplied by the government or other secular organizations.

Your overt hostility towards religion is palpable and I am sure you have good, personal reasons for it. Your attempts to convert others into your camp are misguided, imo. Not everyone has had the experiences that you have.

No, I don't think there is a single moral thing a christian can do that a non-believer can't do.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

132. I was a Christian for quite a few years.

I've explained some of my church going and religion courses in college. If I wrote it all out, it would be many years of music study, academic study and church activity.

I know exactly what they told me to believe as standard doctrine.

It was just like advertising "Buy this car and you'll be happy, successful and attractive!"

"Accept Buddy Jesus into your heart, and your life will get much better. You'll be happy, successful and attractive! And you'll go to Heaven unlike those filthy misguided heathens."

It's a big con game. God has never talked to me, helped me make any choices in my life, or made anything in my life better. I saw no evidence that prayer or worship or singing in the choir made my life better through God's actions. My enjoyment of music was the work of humans.

When I wondered why my life still sucked badly after my prayers and bible study, I thought there was something wrong with me, before I saw that this faith in Jesus was an artificial high that people talked themselves into. They obsess about what God thinks and what God wants.

It's like believing in the Tooth Fairy. I saw no evidence and decided other people were seeing correlation and causation where there was none, and using confirmation bias. Also if you are a Christian, you can take NO responsibility for your life. Anything that happens is "God's will". If you do something wrong, the Devil tempted you. You can ask God for forgiveness and do it again and again.

Mark Twain said everything necessary about Christianity in "Letters From the Earth" and "The Mysterious Stranger".

[cbayer]

133. That was just your experience.

While it is certainly not unique, it is also not universal.

Others do feel god communicates with them, helps them make important choices and made their lives better. Others do feel that prayer, worship and singing in the choir makes their lives better.

You are an atheist and that's cool.

But you can not make that decision for others any more than those that tried to make it for you had the right to do.

If you got the message that christians have no free will or responsibility, that's your personal experience. Others get exactly the opposite message from their religions.

Why would one want to rob marginalized individuals of perhaps the one thing that gives them peace, meaning and solace in their lives?

What you are is right for you, but not necessarily for others.

You seem to be on a crusade to convince others that your way is the one way.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

164. Logic lesson:

A) You have free will to love or not love the Christian God.
B)But if you don't love him, he will send you to hell for everlasting torment! Because he is the ONE TRUE GOD.

In legal circles, that is called duress. That is NOT free will in any way.

What Christians do not believe in A AND B?

People who get comfort from church I don't have a problem with. I have a problem with those who insist their way is the only way, and that's what most Christians I've met believe.

Millions of other people have come to the same conclusion I have: Christianity is a farce, a sham, a con job, and those beliefs do not deserve any respect just because they are culturally acceptable or true. Millions of people believing something has nothing to do with whether or not those beliefs are true.

[rug]

165. Your theology is as misinformed as what you think you have gleaned from legal circles.

If you knew what free will is, you'd know that one has a choice to accept God's love or not. It has more to do with that than giving love to God. It's not a question of damning but of leaving.

If you knew what duress is, you'd know it's the application of an external threat. Rejecting an offer is not duress.

I don't know what you're trying to demonstrate with an argumentum ad populum, but if you are, there are tens of millions who disagree with you. So what.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

167. Duress in this case is an imaginary threat.

It's an imaginary threat, but people who believe that if you don't accept Jesus you're going to hell, treat it as a real threat. Or being abandoned by God, whatever. The whole system of Christian belief is convoluted and illogical.

What they think is real and what I think is real are two different things.

Thanks a whole lot for insulting my law degree.

And neither of you have shown me any indication that Christians don't believe the principles I've talked about. You've said "Not all Christians believe". Well, where are the actual official creeds that people recite that don't accept those foundations? Are these Christians hypocritically reciting creeds and doctrines they don't believe in but their church does?

[cbayer]

168. There aren't any "official creeds" that all christians recite and accept.

It varies among different groups.

It is you that wants to pigeonhole all christians into a narrow and dogmatic definition. Some believers are like that, too. They are fundamentalists that think there is just one way.

And yes, some christians do recite things where there are parts they don't believe in. Most Catholics use birth control at some point.

I've never been part of a group where I blindly embraced everything they put in their "creeds" (or mission statements, or vision statements, etc.). Have you?

[rug]

169. If it's imaginary, it's no threat.

But you do have it backwards. No one is damned by God.

This teaching is certainly true for 1.2 billion Christians.

From the Catholic Catechism:

God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”.

And it's not a matter of insulting your law degree; it's a matter of respecting accuracy.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

170. You just said turning away from God is a mortal sin.

And separation from God is a punishment.

[rug]

171. The separation is the consequence.

[cbayer]

166. Please don't school me.

You have no idea what my background and level of education are.

I also have problems with people that insist that their way is the only way. Some, but not all, christians I have met are like that. Some, but not all, atheists I have met are like that.

You don't like dogmatic fundamentalists and neither do I. The problem between us, I think, is that you can only see one side of it.

I agree with you that millions of people believing something does not make it true. That includes millions of people thinking christianity is a farce, a sham and a con job. Whether you respect the beliefs or not is of no matter to anyone. Whether you respect individuals who hold those beliefs and do you and others no harm is entirely up to you, but does impact on others.

[skepticscott]

97. Uh, no...the problem with literalism and fundamentalism

is that people believe that there's an actual god that dictates this stuff, and that his word must be obeyed to the best of their ability, now and forever, because it comes from "god" and therefore cannot be wrong, no matter how foolish and no matter what reason or evidence is brought to light. Humanist and other rational moral and ethical codes are not dictated by any unquestionable authority and are open to change based on the additional application of reason and new evidence. It is that unquestioning obedience by the religious to an authority with no authority that makes the difference.

And have you ever called a creationist a "dumbass" in real life? Would you? Then why do you think it's OK to do it on the internet (as you have)? Answer your own question.

[raccoon]

129. And they think they're superior to you--they come across like "I'm perfect, and you're an idiot."

"They get really bent out of shape if you don't believe EXACTLY the same superstitious bullshit they do. And tell you you're going to hell."

My experience too.

[TlalocW]

80. I don't know who said it

But it goes something like this. Take it with humor.

The only thing more annoying than a new fundamentalist Christian who wants to tell you about their beliefs is a new Atheist who wants to tell you about their non-belief. And the only thing more annoying than them is a 14-year-old who has discovered Led Zeppelin and wants to talk to you about how deep Stairway to Heaven is.

TlalocW

[cbayer]

82. Lol, great point.

We spent the evening with a couple last night who are newly in love. I probably don't have to tell you what that was like.

But some humor and direct communication made it all good.

However, there are limits. Sharing the occasional kiss is fine, but if they had started stripping down with no regard at all to how they were effecting other people, that would have been quite another story.

Catch my drift?

[skepticscott]

99. Next time you have a "New Atheist"

knock on your door to try to convert you, let us know, won't you?

[TlalocW]

112. Hopefully...

He or she will have a sense of humor.

TlalocW

[raccoon]

130. +1000. nt

[carolinayellowdog]

83. I've been treated very well by unbelievers, and very badly by believers BUT

find the behavior and tone of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins more reminiscent of crusading believers than rational analysts

[LonePirate]

101. Where's the thread for "How to Be an Evangelical Without Being a Dick About It"

[cbayer]

102. There have been those and she definitely makes the case that she is speaking

to atheists in particular in this article, but that it applies to religious people as well.

Good article. Worth the read.

[Politicalboi]

103. Maybe when the bible isn't looked at

As some manual for our government to follow to make laws for the 21st century. Take In God We Trust off our money. They apparently feel it's fine to have that shit plastered on our money. You sneeze, and someone says God Bless You, even though you DON'T want to hear it. And if you don't thank them, you get the "look".

[cbayer]

105. I don't think being a dick is going to further any of those objectives.

But forming coalitions with religious groups that agree with you (secularists) and alliances with individuals who don't want to intrude on your lack of beliefs at all might.

[bravenak]

104. I'm an atheist and not a dick.

I don't knock on doors early in the morning bothering people, or try to force my belief system onto others. I live and let live.
I will not be the one to start a religious convo. But if you start one with me of your own free will, prepare yourself. Ill give you something to think about.
I've never tried to deconvert anyone, but I've had many people try to help me find Jesus. Won't take no for an answer, and so smug about it. I've been threatened with hell more times than I can count.
Never had an atheist threaten me with hellfire for being a Christian when I did go to church once upon a time.

[cbayer]

106. The vast majority of atheists aren't dicks.

I think the vast majority of religious believers aren't dicks either.

She's not talking about you.

She is talking to the dicks (on both sides).

[bravenak]

107. I try to love dicks in spite of themselves.

I just wanted some attention I guess.
"Look at me!" I'm nice!

[cbayer]

108. I try as well, but I am not always successful.

And you got some attention. Nothing wrong with being nice.

[bravenak]

109. I've thought about being Super AtheistTM but i have no motivation.

Just not angry enough about it or something. Maybe because I get together with my Christian friends and make fun of Scientology. So I feel like we have a fun bond that can't be severed.

[cbayer]

110. That's funny. It's great to find bonds.

It's also great to just let people be who they are without judging or mocking them.

Basically, most atheists are dems and progressive/liberal dems at that. They have a lot more in common with liberal/progressive believers than they do differences.

Welcome to the religion group. I don't recall seeing you around before.

[bravenak]

111. Thank you.

I try to get in where I fit in. We should always remember that we agree more than we disagree.

[defacto7]

113. "It's also great to just let people be who they are without judging or mocking them."

Is that actually YOU saying that? Interesting and contradictory.

[cbayer]

114. Yes, it is me saying that.

Not always possible to do though. Some people, say bigots, I find very hard not to judge or mock.

[skepticscott]

126. It's also very difficult

not to judge or mock blatant hypocrites who prance around the room scolding everyone else for things they do themselves at least as often.

[MrModerate]

125. I think the article goes too far . . .

In turning the other cheek to the retail misbehavior of religionists (by which I mean you don't have to be engaged in wholesale genocide to be oppressive).

But the author's (presumed) practices make a lot of sense to me: in the context of simple human interaction, where the stakes of life and death are not on the table, I follow the Brass Rule: if you can't say something nice, say nothing at all.

However, I have no beef with the Dawkinses and Harrises of the world, because I don't consider them at all dickish when they engage in public debate upholding the proposition that religion is foolish, evil, destructive, etc., etc.

This is because audiences are completely free to ignore them at will. Activist atheists are no threat to the peace and tranquility of believers unless those believers choose to engage the atheists. Dawkins on your TV? Change the channel. Old videos of Hitchens tearing some poor clergyman a new one on YouTube? Search on 'LOLcats' instead. 'Jesus is a Fraud' billboard on your way to work? Drive by.

Nor do I think it out of line in discussion boards (like this) to be absolutely honest: to meet sanctimony with snark, holiness with hyperbole, and faith with fart jokes. People — believers and nonbelievers alike — come to discussion boards specifically to duke it out. Saying it's dickish to do as the Romans do strikes me as small-minded in the extreme.

So, while I have no intention of walking up to your maiden aunt on her way into the church of her choice and shouting 'fool' in her face, if you come here and begin to ladle on the 'inevitability of god seen in the world around us,' well then I'm going to consider you a fool and call you one too.

And yes, my lack of a personal savior and related baggage *does* make me superior to the godsmacked . . . but I'm not going to bring that up at your kid's birthday party (heck, I'll even stand respectfully if you call for a prayer).

[AtheistCrusader]

134. Bullshit.

I have a right to be PISSED when people try to legislate religious morality upon MY BODY.

I will ALWAYS stand up for my rights, I will ALWAYS man the barricade between Religion and State, and if you confuse that with 'being a dick', tough cookies.

[rug]

135. Can you kindly point out the barricades?

[AtheistCrusader]

137. US vs. Windsor a recent example.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203
Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421, 82S. Ct. 1261, 8 L. Ed. 2d 601 [1962]
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S. Ct. 2479, 86 L. Ed. 2d 29 (1985)

etc.

These sorts of lawsuits and debates are often cast as 'persecution' of religious faith. It's really just a wedge between the state and religion. I will rabidly support and promote such understanding, and I will not feel bad about it.

[rug]

138. Feel free to be rabid.

Far be it from me to persecute you.

[AtheistCrusader]

141. How about the Kitzmiller trial?

That was a pretty big barricade. Should we be calm and polite about it, or stand up for ourselves when the religious try to ram their religion into public schools, and cry 'persecution' when they discover we have a backbone after all?

[rug]

145. That had a very good outcome.

I saw Judge Jones give a talk on it at a CLE class.

His opinion was devastating and set back creationist attempts decisively.

And he did it calmly, factually and without being a dick about it.

Here's the entire text of his decision if you haven't read the whole thing before.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html

[AtheistCrusader]

146. He did.

And it was cast as Christian persecution. Same thing happened in the Prop8 Trial. In fact, the trial followed the same template as Dover. Most witnesses didn't show, those that did were devastating to their own case, as Behe was to the creationists in Dover.

Do I really have to be respectful of bronze age ideas in internet age society, to not be considered a 'dick' about it?

[rug]

147. If I have to be respectful of internet memes and sterotypical descriptions of religion in place of

thought, then, yes, so do you.

[AtheistCrusader]

149. I disagree.

There are religious individuals that have killed their own children by way of religion-inspired neglect.

http://soletstalkabout.com/post/48779874003/child-dies-after-parents-try-to-pray-the-sickness-away

Am I being a dick if I point out these people are behaving like pre-germ-theory bronze age savages and that their children are dead because of it?

Must I limit myself to 'Golly gee Mr. Wilson, what you did is defined as a crime under statute XYZ'. No, I'm going to call them savages, because that's what they are and their children are DEAD because of their savagery.

[rug]

151. Hmmm, not much of a gap between murdering parents and religion, is there?

You convinced me. Abolish religion immediately!

[AtheistCrusader]

153. Zero gap between those parents and the tenets of their particular religion.

And that's the problem. How to dance politely around one and not another, when all of them boil down to the same thing.

Religious tenets intersecting with politics/morals/society.

Must I be silent when I see such things? The author of the OP suggest being calm and polite in the face of BIGOTRY. Why?

"When right-wing religious assbags come at me spewing bigoted garbage (a.k.a. TUESDAY #isthisthingon), it is extremely difficult for me not to fire something back about their "magic book" or their "special sky friend" or some dismissive, infantilizing shit like that. Sometimes I don't manage to restrain myself, and I feel bad about it because it's a cheap shot about a thing that means a lot to a lot of people. It's not my nice neighbor's fault that some Twitter troll called me a baby-murderer."

Since when is being polite to a bigot effective? Some ideas are flat out worthy of ridicule. Ripe for dismissal. Unworthy of common courtesy.

People are worth being courteous to. Bigoted ideas are not.

[rug]

154. Bigotry is blaming a group for the actions of individuals within that group.

It's also lazy, dishonest and repellent.

Reconsider the conclusions you draw from these parents.

[AtheistCrusader]

156. I identified only their religious peers.

I am perfectly happy restricting my venom to ideas shared only within a certain group. I don't lump Catholics in when I riff on Jehovah's Witnesses for eschewing blood transfusions, etc.

[cbayer]

140. And so will many religious people who are also secularists.

That's not at all what she is talking about here.

[AtheistCrusader]

143. They are inseparable.

There is a social policy war going on right now. Over contraception. Abortion. Evolution/science in schools. Sex education. All of it informed by and inseparable from religious thought.

On the one hand, you have public policy formed of philosophical reason, or science (most effective form of sex ed, for example, informed by teen births, etc) and on the other, you have public policy formed of what some fucking book authored by fevered desert goat herders decided was a good idea.

They are inseparable ideas. The Christianity specified in by the author of the OP (Just one problem of many) isn't just what someone thinks about their invisible friend, it informs their worldview, and makes political demands of them. Not all religious people listen, but you have only to see what is going on around the country in tearing down access to abortion to see the real world effect of an ENORMOUS percentage of religious people working in concert to control public policy, predicated on their religious morality.

Faith doesn't just happen in a vaccum bottle somewhere.

[cbayer]

136. Of course you do, and she is not talking about that at all.

You might read the article. It's really pretty good.

[AtheistCrusader]

139. That's the problem.

"Whatever your views on Christianity, you have to acknowledge that at least the Bible tells people to be nice. There are a lot of people who really love that book, and they only follow the "nice" parts. Those are the people I'm talking about here. I'm not interested in being part of a movement that actively excises "nice.""

And then

"Tell me—ME—I'm a degenerate who deserves to spend eternity getting poked a red goatboy with a trident because I think consenting adults should be able to lovingly caress each other's bodays? Now we have an issue.

I have no interest in being nice when it comes to actual issues."


By all means, try to separate religion from the public policy crusade by the pro-lifers. I'll wait.

[cbayer]

142. See, the thing is that the ones that are reading and embracing the nice parts

aren't going to tell you that you are a degenerate.

Please take a moment to read the article. I think you might see that she is not telling you to be nice when it comes to actual issues. She is telling you to be nice to individuals that have no interest in infringing on your rights, and, in fact, may share many of your values.

[AtheistCrusader]

144. But do they VOTE?

And if they vote, what do they vote when something like same sex marriage, abortion, physician assisted suicide, etc, come up on the ballot?

How do those issues fare in the states that identify the strongest with religious belief?

You can't deal with these separately. As long as that faith exists, the public policy will follow.

[cbayer]

148. Of course they vote.

Have you seen the recent threads about how many religious people are currently also progressive?

While there is no doubt that the religious right has used their religion very effectively to infringe on the rights of others, there is also no doubt that progressive/liberal religious groups have been instrumental in the recent gains in GLBT rights.

And take a look at what is happening at Moral Mondays in North Carolina.

The religious right dominates some states, but not all of them.

There is significant push back from the religious left and secular groups. IMHO, the religious right is losing it's stranglehold.

That's why it might be important to be nice to those who are actually on your side.

[AtheistCrusader]

150. RELIGION dominates some states.

The link between religion and political religious affiliation are inseparable. The correlation is staggering.

?w=1200&h=1000

[cbayer]

152. I don't disagree with that and that is where the religious left

and non-believers can have the most impact.

If they work together towards common goals, they will be much more powerful.

All she is saying is don't be a dick to allies or those whose beliefs don't impact on your rights or the rights of others.

No one here is saying that religion is not a problem. It clearly is.

[AtheistCrusader]

155. I don't see the bright line dividing the two.

I can't see the OP's point then.

"When right-wing religious assbags come at me spewing bigoted garbage (a.k.a. TUESDAY #isthisthingon), it is extremely difficult for me not to fire something back about their "magic book" or their "special sky friend" or some dismissive, infantilizing shit like that. Sometimes I don't manage to restrain myself, and I feel bad about it because it's a cheap shot about a thing that means a lot to a lot of people. It's not my nice neighbor's fault that some Twitter troll called me a baby-murderer."

So, I'm supposed to be nice in the face of bigotry? For why? Do we really think that will help?
What of observers that see my milk toast response to blatant bigotry in that context? Will they see me as a fervent ally, or just a ho-hum bystander?

When I attack religion on political grounds, my goal is not always the conversion of the person I am arguing with. I may be after the silent victim who thinks he or she doesn't have a friend in the world. That thinks no one will stand up for them. That they have no allies. That no one sees a Boolean good/bad moral/immoral proposition, that everything is soft fuzzy debateable equivalence.

I think there is a place and a time for respectful silence, but the places the author of the OP drew lines, I cannot agree upon.

[cbayer]

157. If the line were bright, it would be easy.

But it's also easy, and lazy, to just lump everyone together because you can't see the line.

She argues for using a different tactic than the religious fundamentalists who push their religion and their dogma not only in your face but in your government.

You don't have to be nice in the face of bigotry. You don't have to be nice at all. But it's quite possible to be adamant, clear and not at all milquetoast when responding to bigotry. The most powerful responses I have ever seen to bigotry have not been dickish at all.

This is not about silence, it's about style. Being civil towards others is a much more effective technique than being a dick.

You can draw your line wherever you like, but I would encourage you to draw it somewhere besides lumping all people of faith together.

[AtheistCrusader]

158. I will re-read the OP and see if maybe I am missing something.

But currently I don't see how to go about it, when the whole concept flows forth from the foundation (religion) of their worldview.

I'll look again.

[cbayer]

159. Ok, I hope you do.

BTW, I think there are times and places to be a dick. But there are other times when it is not only ineffective in furthering your goals, but may actually set you back.

You don't seem like a dick at all, and I share your outrage at the intrusions the religious right has made into our government. I want to see them shut down.